primeshooter: Nice image but it's underexposed.
If there was only ONE thing for the good to be said this picture was NOT, then it´s being underexposed.
justyntime: What a waste of time...
Ok, sorry , might be that you are a beginner. Doing copies of Rembrandt or Vermeer from 400 years ago then maybe is challenging (just as depicting macro flowers with unsharp background and all this ever same clichee stuff...)Still you COULD have saved the pic if there was anything alive in it, espcecially a credible expression.Technically just advanced beginners level (the greenish grads on the right side of the face are rather expressionistic (unvoluntarily I assume), and artistically it simply lacks freshness, credibility and energy. Don´t mind my rudeness, it could help you grow!
What a waste of time...
mosc: 50 lines per mm from a 36x24mm sensor is 1800x1200 = 2.16 MP. Did somebody miss a zero there? They saying 500 lines per MM? That's 216 MP.
18:40 time in the announcement video.
50 lines is a specific MTF readout. It describes how high the contrast between the lines at this spatial frequency is, not resolution!
Francis Carver: If it is wholly uncompressed, it is obviously "RAW." So, "uncompressed RAW" is sort of redundant.
@ Francis Carver: RAW is not a synonym for uncompressed or lossless (all three categories are independent) but rather for unPROCESSED...I didn´t get the point of your statement at all: " If it is UNcompressed -- why is it RAW? How about just this: "uncompressed."HINT: JPEG is NOT UNcompressed."I guess you´re still confusing things:RAW is ONE thing.Compression is ONE thing.Lossless is ONE thing.
Compressed and lossless is NOT necessarily contradictive!The LZW compression on TIFF-files for example IS lossless...
forpetessake: Every company (modulo Olympus) is going to release FF cameras. The falling prices of the sensors and electronic parts are pushing the market in that direction. We'll eventually see all sorts of FF cameras -- compact and large, cheap and expensive, with fixed and interchangeable mount. Despite what the uneducated people believe, the size-weight characteristics of the lenses aren't significantly affected by the bigger sensor.
@forpetessake I just can´t believe that your statements are anything but a joke...
ealvarez: Is this manual focus lens? $599? I can get 135mm f2L canon for about $600 used and Nikon 180 f2.8D even cheaper used.. I don't share much of the enthusiasm. Maybe I would if I was Sony E-mount shooter.
@e_alain:I guess you maybe confounded which row belongs to which lens?The Canon is always in the same row where the f-number is placed....
@le_alain:What makes you think so? I don´t see any contradictions here?
Another thing is that the Canon 135 L looks so weak at the center at 2.0. I used to own one and it never showed results that bad...Maybe one should ask the cui bono question - who did the test, why and for whom?
@tkbslcYou wrote:" It clearly shows Canon winning across the board, especially at the edges." You might want to see an ophtalmologist before it´s too late?The Samyang clearly won in EVERY respect except light fall-off at infinity!
Here comes the link again:https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ko&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Flcap.tistory.com%2Fentry%2FSamyang-135mm-f2-vs-Canon-EF-135mm-2-L
Nikon goes Hasselblad?
Smeggypants: All the people criticising this fun exercise must be "really fun at parties" - NOT!!
Oh I don´t want to really come to talk at a party with a nerd who for no reason but stupid tinkering modified his camera setup. This isn´t fun - this is wasted time lacking any spirit and esprit - which are the indredients of parties that at least I love to join...
what for?If it had tilt/shift abilities, ok. But in this case: what for??
bawbaw: Also... to follow up my last comment.... is this guy a bit stupid? He used 2 flash units with X and Y etc .. whereas he could have used continuous light sources instead of expensive broncolour heads and packs. Although... it's a crappy article and badly executed.. so it stands to reason it's over engineered for no reason.
1.) At about f18, required for sufficcient DOF, and a suffifient shutter speed, you NEED flash, unless you want to roast your subject using two 6000 Watts movie flooders.
2.) A ring light is bound to be moving with the camera/lens. And since camera/lens DOES move here you will get very weird and inconsistent lighting/shadows with a rig like that!
3.) Epileptic issues at a flash frequency of about 1-2 Hz?? You must be kidding!
Ken Johnes: to all those who `Gets it´ , good for ya,, enjoy the details of human face hair, but to me , i dont get it, cos the results are worth dismissing with terms like crap and junk.and this has nothing to do with history or understandin of photography or anything ,,, it´s just a machine snapping up 600 photos as programmed, and the person who is operating it failed in providing the most important aspects of a good photo,to me The SUBJECT & LIGHTING ,they are.
i do admire the effort though, no question about it.kudos to all who spent their time and energy ,it´s the result ,which as a photographer myself, which lets my enthusiasn down.it´s just that, i dont think you can create something interesting when you are neither talented nor skilled to do it.
that´s all i am saying, i dont give a damn whether couple of elitists get´s it or not.sorry,i dont live in that bubble,i live in a world of reality...where results should speak louder than the effort itself in order to get some recognition.
They did not deliver resolutions THAT high but the difference is only by quantity, not quality, thus no substantial innovation here. Flogging a dead horse - no matter if the creator was aware of Thomas Ruff´s work or not.
BUT:There (if intended) is a remarkable suspense and ambiguity in the notion that a ROBOT acts upon the absurdly exact DEFINITION of a human being. This (to me) feels new and exciting. There is resonance (of what ever).So the message may not be found in the picture as a result but in the PROCESS of it`s formation AND the result as a whole.
IF it WAS intended as such - Which I seriously doubt - considering the profession and core competences of that guy: doing repro business and maybe just working out a marketing gimmick to gain publicity...
Marcel Duchamp´s ready mades are not willingly designed by himself but are still entitled to be considered art because HE, not the pissoir, has something to say. The pissoir is a symbol of a message, loaded by the author´s concept, not the message itself. Beauty here (or illumination, if so) lies in the message created by AN ASSIGNER, not in the pissoir. To close the circle: The "lighting" (pissoir) may not be "beautiful", but the concept may be enlightening.
ad b.) Sustantial art is bound to push the envelope.You are in hard luck if you happen to invent a thing that existed for decades. In this case you nevertheless are not an epigonic but a true inventor. But are you a genius? Maybe not! Because, at least in art, relevant inventions correspond to the TIME they react upon. Coming back to the portraits in discussion: Thomas Ruff et al. have eaten the topic (descriptive approach&lighting, hyperrealism, seriality) up about 20 years ago!
ctd. in Pt. 3
Dedicated to craw, CraigArnold , Ken Johnes: My 50 cents (Do they say so? My English isn´t native either)
Is it art? I might know if at least I had information about the following:a.) Is it INTENDED to be art at all?b.) If intended: is the creator aware of and reflecting contemporary discourses or is he just a silly tech-nerd?
ad a.) My definition is based on the assumption that nothing can be art that is not intended to be art. Let me explain my view:
A necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for art is a converging dialog between the creator`s intention and the recipient´s perception. Even if an artist`s concept is to NOT let you know what is intended ((exactly)), and as a result you then DO NOT know IN THE WAY THE ARTIST WANTED you to NOT know - you may call this a converging dialog.
ctd. in Pt. 2
PeterLHughes: There is a much easier and cheaper way. Shoot transparency film with a 5"x4" bellows camera. Scan that single shot at 4,000 ppi and it will give you a 320 MP image. Your shutter speed of 1/125th sec with studio flash means that your model can have expression rather than having to hold a death like pose for half an hour. Also if you look closely at the samples in the review above you can see stitching errors which are unacceptable for professional work. If 320 MP doesn't impress you, then get hold of a 10"x8" film camera. That will give you 1,280 MP images. In other words a 300 dpi print would be 11ft high. I've just checked on ebay and you can pick up all the camera kit you need for under £1,000.
it`s just that the lenses on a 8x10 won`t deliver 300ppi - by far not.And focus stacking would be necessary anyway (too shallow DOF even at f 45, where diffraction already knocks at the door...)
zsedcft: If he wanted a technical, super high resolution photo - why didn't he focus stack? What good is a 900MP photo if 600MP of it is blurred. It is not like the shallow depth of field has helped much artistically. At least he got some good press from it.
Oh he DID focus stack! At least for the pictures I examined - where nosetips are perfectly in focus too. Maybe a little too few steps though...
sfnikon: Face porn - you get to see every hair follicle, eye vessels up close in geographic detail. My D800E paired with the Zeiss 100/2 makro already does this too well in 1/500th of a second so this 30 min sitting is not practical it's an extreme art form.
who ever maintained that this method was "practical"?