Irakly Shanidze

Irakly Shanidze

Lives in United States Grosse Pointe, United States
Works as a photographer
Has a website at
Joined on May 21, 2004
About me:

I am a founder of International Academy of Photographic Arts that provides
workshops in the US, Canada and around Europe and full curriculum (Currently
only in Moscow, Russia) studies in fine art photography ith an emphasis on
creative approach and non-standard thinking.


Total: 38, showing: 21 – 38
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

micksh6: Forget $10K Leica. The real question is will it be better than Voigtlander Nokton 50mm F1.1 that costs $1000 and has been available for a while instead of 9 months later.

And why to announce 9 months ahead? They just conceived a baby? They haven't started delivering 12mm F1.6 lens that was promised in November. So, I doubt they know that the conception was successful.

4/3 Rumors mentioned it might cost $2K (5 times cheaper than Leica) so $1K Voigtlander Nokton (not to be confused with NoktoR) should be the competitor. BTW, the Nokton weights 425 gram instead of 975.

you are right, it is voightlander that has to be concerned, not leica.
as to the weight, do not forget that this lens is almost a 1/2 stop faster. maybe it does not sound like much to you, but believe me, makes all the difference.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2012 at 09:02 UTC
In reply to:

Andy Crowe: Interesting they're quoting the T stops rather than f stops (guess that comes with the video focus of the lens). If it's capable of T0.95 then the actual f stop must be even less than 0.95

interesting lens...
bokeh is a bit strange... i wonder what's those concentric circles inside OOF highlights?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 2, 2012 at 00:54 UTC
On article Introduction to Documentary-style People Photography (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

angelhappy: You people are uptight. If we had to ask for permission on every shot we take then you better off taking another line of work.

In fact, it is better to apologize after the fact than to ask for permission before. This effective strategy I cherish since my early childhood.

To Burbclaver: I have even more another line of work than you. It is called advertising photography. Things in the industry have changed a lot lately, and I find myself more and more often doing street candid photography for one of my clients. The brief says clearly: "candid means that subjects are unaware of their participation in a photographed scene". Do you think it is possible to pay someone first and then make him unaware of your activity? Seriously...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 25, 2011 at 00:07 UTC
On article Leica Noctilux: Overkill or Necessity (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan Nikon: Nice lens but, these photos have Canon 85 1.2L for thousands cheaper written all over them. At least you have a feel for the lens. I think it is dubbed the 95 for reasons other than the aperture though, 95% of the photos one sees from this hidden gem are cr@p with a slightly unique twist.

I certainly respect your decision to use this discussion for showcasing your fine sense of humor. However, assuming that you are not blind, your first statement indicates clearly that you most likely have not shot ether of the two lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2011 at 19:03 UTC
On article Buyer's Guide: 10 Home Studio Lighting Kits (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: I totally enjoy the first photo: placing two identical small softboxes almost symmetrically and then lighting the scene with a large octabox -- this is what I call "professional contraception" :)

These kind of things undermine credibility of everything else said. The logic is "Either the chap does not know what he is talking about, or he tells nonsense on purpose. Either way, he is not to be trusted" :)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2011 at 04:27 UTC
On article Leica Noctilux: Overkill or Necessity (25 comments in total)

Jeff, I have yet to see a camera that can match M9 colors at ISO1250. If you know something that I do not, please tell me :)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2011 at 04:21 UTC as 8th comment
On article Buyer's Guide: 10 Home Studio Lighting Kits (95 comments in total)

I totally enjoy the first photo: placing two identical small softboxes almost symmetrically and then lighting the scene with a large octabox -- this is what I call "professional contraception" :)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2011 at 15:16 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
On article Digital lo-fi photography - Part 1 (131 comments in total)

It was certainly nice of you to do this round-up of apps. However, the article sends a wrong message. It reads "with a right choice of software anything will look vintage". Not true. First you have to style the shot, make it look vintage from within, and then apply finishing touches.
Using your own examples, just to be material, let's look at the dog picture. No amount of vignetting and "creative" frames will make it look vintage.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2011 at 21:34 UTC as 38th comment
On article Variation Facts and Fallacies (231 comments in total)

Excellent write-up.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2011 at 05:01 UTC as 12th comment

It's just great. After Philipp Gross's "Tao of Photography" this is the first book on photography that I really enjoyed reading.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2011 at 07:02 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Leica Noctilux: Overkill or Necessity (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

Les Berkley: So I take it that, in order to get 1/2 stop more light, I have to pay ten thousand dollars? And, for that ten grand I will get jagged blur with outlined highlights? Count me in! Can't I just bump up the ISO? Then I can use the Sigma 50 f1.4, which is sharper and has lovely blur to boot.

Of course you don't have to. It is purely voluntary :)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2011 at 13:57 UTC
On article Leica Noctilux: Overkill or Necessity (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheLastMan: The benefit of this lens was obvious in the days of film when films had a fixed ISO rating and anything higher than 400 asa was seriously grainy.

However with digital, the fall-off in quality by going from ISO 100 to 400 is probably a lot less than the compromises resulting from a lens at f1.0 compared to f2.0. In fact with a 16mp camera with a good f2.8 lens at ISO 800 will have a better "printable" quality than the same camera with an f1.0 lens at ISO 100.

If you want a shallower DOF than you will get with an f2.8 lens, why not go medium format? A Pentax 645D with the "kit" 50mm costs the same as this lens!

You are right. Medium format is a great idea... In the studio.
You cannot discount ergonomics in photography and judge cameras/lenses only on their basic parameters. Pictures always show how tired a photographer was while shooting.
Photographer is not a machine, which performs the same way in every instance. So, getting "better printable quality" at 2.8 does not mean that the picture will be better overall.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2011 at 13:57 UTC

I am not sure about Edward Hopper analogy, as visual aesthetics of this image is 100% photographic, while Hopper's paintings tend to be more of an illustrative poster-like style. On the other hand, Hopper seemed to know a bit more about composition :)

The rhetoric regarding differences between photography and "more traditional art forms" I find somewhat shallow. Are you sure that artists expressing their creative urges in painting always have control over the content of their images?

Art critique statement aside, apparently, square composition didn't cross the Reviews Editor's mind while it should have.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2011 at 16:42 UTC as 6th comment
On article Leica M9 comparison shots added to dpreview database (149 comments in total)

I wonder why 2.5/75 Summarit was chosen for the test? Obviously, it is a professional-grade optics, but to prevent comparing pineapples to grapefruits it would make sense to use lenses that occupy comparable slots in system line-ups for all manufacturers.

Also, using portrait lenses for a test like that is somewhat questionable. If seeing how etching lines are resolved was the goal, why didn't you use macro lenses? Portrait lenses are for faces, not for shooting a newspaper page from ten feet away.

I could understand if someone on one of the forums posted a quick comparison test, but you guys have been doing this for too long to allow this sort of blunders. Honestly :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2011 at 16:22 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Editorial Lighting - The Minimalist Way (89 comments in total)

Thomas, I mean no disrespect, but your examples are not very convincing fashion photos. Portraits maybe, but not fashion. None of these pictures shows the dress well enough. This is important, because taking a photo fulfilling this requirement actually would force you out of the car. I'd like to see how you would handle this glamorous location in that case.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2011 at 22:22 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply

I can't believe that I once contemplated publishing with Amherst Media...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2011 at 06:51 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

franta123: I'm struggling to tie together the first part of the article (upside down = good) and the second (look through a frame). In fact, I do not see much difference between using the frame to isolate the scene and using your camera's LCD or viewfinder to do the same.
Anyone care to explain ?

What the author meant, when looking through a viewfinder, you have to dissociate from the semantics of the scene. The ground glass makes it easier, but, with some practice, you will be able to do it in a viewfinder of your SLR.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2011 at 11:13 UTC
On article Photo Tip: Five for Five (111 comments in total)

The tips are certainly valuable. However, the author's position is somewhat single-sided: elimination is not the only way of dealing with distractions. It is effective, but inevitably leads to "pictures of dead cities". Elements that the author assumes to be offensive for the composition are, in fact, effects of normal life. When one takes them out of the frame, picture becomes barren. Sometimes it can be necessary, most of the time lifelessness is not what you want.

An alternative approach requires more skill, but leads to better results. Instead of taking a trashcan out of the frame, make it work for the image. Do not be afraid of using people (or parts of people) as compositional elements. Try it, and you will be surprised how live your pictures will look.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2011 at 10:56 UTC as 55th comment | 2 replies
Total: 38, showing: 21 – 38
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »