Artistico

Artistico

Lives in United Kingdom Inverness, United Kingdom
Works as a Artist
Has a website at http://www.galleryhakon.com
Joined on Nov 1, 2007

Comments

Total: 314, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Artistico: Well, in this day and age when digital processing has removed the need for colour-correcting filters and most others, save for ND, Polarisers and the occasional Grad for the ones without the patience for bracketing and post-process combined exposures, the only way a filter manufacturer can try reducing the fall in income is to hype up new products that no one really needs to try to create a demand.

I know what some will say - getting it right in camera is better than in post, etc. Well, the "right" image in that camera is also a processed image, except you are leaving your processing in the capable(?) hands of camera manufacturers sometimes with quite differing views to yours as to what a final image should look like.

I am as nostalgic as the next person, but using colour shift filters just so I have to move some sliders a tiny bit less in post doesn't appeal to me.

But, then again, what is Tiffen to do? If I were them I'd produce new filters no one needed and hyped them up too.

@Josh Hays Well... it does say that the purpose of the filter is to remove a potential "slight red tint", so if that phrase from the article is correct, and indeed the effect of not having one is that you get a bit of a red colour cast in a photo, than that does put it the same category as other colour corrective filters for the purpose of my argument in that a slight red tint should be easy to correct in post processing.

Also, even though the filter in question is an IR cut off, isn't that in essence the same as any other colour filter in that it adjusts the balance of the wavelengths that make it to the camera sensor?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 19:21 UTC
In reply to:

Artistico: Well, in this day and age when digital processing has removed the need for colour-correcting filters and most others, save for ND, Polarisers and the occasional Grad for the ones without the patience for bracketing and post-process combined exposures, the only way a filter manufacturer can try reducing the fall in income is to hype up new products that no one really needs to try to create a demand.

I know what some will say - getting it right in camera is better than in post, etc. Well, the "right" image in that camera is also a processed image, except you are leaving your processing in the capable(?) hands of camera manufacturers sometimes with quite differing views to yours as to what a final image should look like.

I am as nostalgic as the next person, but using colour shift filters just so I have to move some sliders a tiny bit less in post doesn't appeal to me.

But, then again, what is Tiffen to do? If I were them I'd produce new filters no one needed and hyped them up too.

Well... I gather you can't show me what the same scene would have looked like with a filter, not to mention, as you pointed out, the idea wasn't for it to look realistic, necessarily, so you'll have to do better to convince me of the merit of coloured filters.

The lack of saturation in the yellows and reds, by the way, can be attributed to not shooting with a lens hood on what was a very bright day, and not due to colour balance issues at the time of shooting that could have been corrected for with tinted filters.

In short: not a good example.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 18:24 UTC
In reply to:

Artistico: Well, in this day and age when digital processing has removed the need for colour-correcting filters and most others, save for ND, Polarisers and the occasional Grad for the ones without the patience for bracketing and post-process combined exposures, the only way a filter manufacturer can try reducing the fall in income is to hype up new products that no one really needs to try to create a demand.

I know what some will say - getting it right in camera is better than in post, etc. Well, the "right" image in that camera is also a processed image, except you are leaving your processing in the capable(?) hands of camera manufacturers sometimes with quite differing views to yours as to what a final image should look like.

I am as nostalgic as the next person, but using colour shift filters just so I have to move some sliders a tiny bit less in post doesn't appeal to me.

But, then again, what is Tiffen to do? If I were them I'd produce new filters no one needed and hyped them up too.

After taking a few hundred thousand photos without using any tinted filters, I have yet to see any colours in them that weren't there or which might need complex filtering to remove beyond a simple white balance fix, which doesn't take 20-30 minutes in post and can be done in batches for series taken at the same time.

On the one occasion I had to work a bit more on the colours was when I photographed my 35mm negatives, the film base of which can be a bit more fiddly to compensate for - but once I had that figured out, I just used the same setting for all of them as a starting point before any final tweaks depending on the lighting at the time the picture was taken.

Anyway, that said, I am a scientist, so if anyone can actually show me any good examples of images taken with and without tinted filters where it actually makes a difference, I am willing to change my opinion. I just haven't seen any evidence yet that colour filters make sense.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 17:25 UTC
In reply to:

Artistico: Well, in this day and age when digital processing has removed the need for colour-correcting filters and most others, save for ND, Polarisers and the occasional Grad for the ones without the patience for bracketing and post-process combined exposures, the only way a filter manufacturer can try reducing the fall in income is to hype up new products that no one really needs to try to create a demand.

I know what some will say - getting it right in camera is better than in post, etc. Well, the "right" image in that camera is also a processed image, except you are leaving your processing in the capable(?) hands of camera manufacturers sometimes with quite differing views to yours as to what a final image should look like.

I am as nostalgic as the next person, but using colour shift filters just so I have to move some sliders a tiny bit less in post doesn't appeal to me.

But, then again, what is Tiffen to do? If I were them I'd produce new filters no one needed and hyped them up too.

@smafdy Are you suggesting that if you don't use filters when you take a picture, all the colour is magically gone from the picture?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

Artistico: Well, in this day and age when digital processing has removed the need for colour-correcting filters and most others, save for ND, Polarisers and the occasional Grad for the ones without the patience for bracketing and post-process combined exposures, the only way a filter manufacturer can try reducing the fall in income is to hype up new products that no one really needs to try to create a demand.

I know what some will say - getting it right in camera is better than in post, etc. Well, the "right" image in that camera is also a processed image, except you are leaving your processing in the capable(?) hands of camera manufacturers sometimes with quite differing views to yours as to what a final image should look like.

I am as nostalgic as the next person, but using colour shift filters just so I have to move some sliders a tiny bit less in post doesn't appeal to me.

But, then again, what is Tiffen to do? If I were them I'd produce new filters no one needed and hyped them up too.

I am an artist, I work with colour every day, so I know something from both a theoretical and practical point of view.

The problem about working with "accurate colour", however, is that there is no such thing, unless an image can only be viewed in a particular pre-defined light by a particular pre-defined person whose unique perception of colour is just right for the processing of it - that is until the person ages and their colour perception alters slightly. Everyone else would see the image differently, most likely slightly so, but sometimes radically differently.

Studies indicate that the colour we see in our mind is not pre-determined based on its wavelength. We might all see a burnt-out channel, of course, but not necessarily as the same colour - and that is before you take into account lighting and neighbouring colours that hugely affect our colour perception and might make something like a colour cast appear completely different when the relativity of colour kicks in.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 15:36 UTC

Well, in this day and age when digital processing has removed the need for colour-correcting filters and most others, save for ND, Polarisers and the occasional Grad for the ones without the patience for bracketing and post-process combined exposures, the only way a filter manufacturer can try reducing the fall in income is to hype up new products that no one really needs to try to create a demand.

I know what some will say - getting it right in camera is better than in post, etc. Well, the "right" image in that camera is also a processed image, except you are leaving your processing in the capable(?) hands of camera manufacturers sometimes with quite differing views to yours as to what a final image should look like.

I am as nostalgic as the next person, but using colour shift filters just so I have to move some sliders a tiny bit less in post doesn't appeal to me.

But, then again, what is Tiffen to do? If I were them I'd produce new filters no one needed and hyped them up too.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 10:09 UTC as 4th comment | 24 replies
In reply to:

Deardorff: We use FILM, not 'analog'. Get it right. You have never in your life gone into a store and bought a sheet of roll of analog for a camera. NEVER.

@Deardorff Just because the word was not used in advertising doesn't mean it's not analogue. It just means that it is what it is and you didn't need any words to easily distinguish between two different ways of capturing light. Things have been analogue long before human beings existed - or indeed everything's been digital, if you take the quantum viewpoint of AstroStan, which I quite agree with.

One could also easily argue that digital photography is analogue - until it's quantised as a readout of the sensor - Or indeed digital at that level too considering the quantum properties of light as well as the photosensitive material of the sensor.

So, when it all comes down to it, it's just two words to distinguish between something that often needs distinguishing, and therein lies the very definition of those words, defined as they are by the way they are used.

Film photography is analogue, digital photography is ... well ... digital. One needs to move on and get over it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 18:00 UTC
In reply to:

ecm: I appreciate the sense of fun and adventure this camera provokes, but like the reviewer here I wonder at the pricing. It's there something about the instant film that requires a lot of fiddly mechanicals? Otherwise it's just a moderately fancy rubber lightproof box.... I feel that I might be missing something.

Well, there are still chemicals that need to be activated, usually by some kind of roller mechanism that spreads them evenly across the film surface. I wouldn't call them fiddly mechanicals, though, so it is easy to make one's own. Not for $5 as the article suggests - that's a different kind of pinhole camera (@Deardorff: it's analogue, not film). But one using the same kind of instant film could be made around a film holder that should be easily obtainable second-hand for less than $20.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Deardorff: We use FILM, not 'analog'. Get it right. You have never in your life gone into a store and bought a sheet of roll of analog for a camera. NEVER.

I think you'll find that film has always been analogue, even long before digital cameras was invented. That said, it would have sounded better to say "film fans" as that's an alliteration. Now, if a camera makes images on glass plates, or straight onto photographic paper as opposed to onto a film negative, however, they're still analogue, but not film cameras. Like the $5 suggested pinhole camera linked to in the article.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 15:58 UTC

Oh no. We'll need to find something else to laugh about now.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 11:00 UTC as 133rd comment
In reply to:

LensBeginner: Wow, if it's authentic then it's a mind-bending discovery!
Scott's story is made of the stuff of legends...

Well, photographing sunsets always takes precedent, of course. =)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2014 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

LensBeginner: Wow, if it's authentic then it's a mind-bending discovery!
Scott's story is made of the stuff of legends...

What do you mean "if"? Of course it's authentic. No one in their right mind would make a fake one only to let it be discovered just outside the hut, to be restored and put back there as part of the museum, would they? A fake one would have showed up at auction for private collectors with deep pockets to have bidding wars over.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2014 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

Lukino: It's like I'm missing something... to remove a little wobble, that only affect big heavy lens strapped to the most compact full frame camera in the market that you supposely bought for its portability; that does not affect image quality in any way; and that never caused breakage or other kind of problems (in my knowledge), you are supposed to:
-spend 40$?
-void your warranty?
-perform a dangerous operation close to the sensor?
-give up water proofing?
Looks like a very good deal...

My thoughts exactly...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 10:14 UTC

Unless this not only performs, but performs really well fully open at f1.2, Olympus 45mm f/1.8 would be a better, more compact, and more reasonable choice. For some reason I have my doubts it will outperform the Olympus.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2014 at 15:56 UTC as 38th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Smeggypants: I wish still photography isn't neglected for the A7S. I have no interest in video but the A7S is teh Still cam I Currently want becuase of it's High ISO performance

I agree with you there. I'd have liked a cheaper non-video A7S, as I won't need the video functionality at all. It has so many things going for it that sets it apart from everything else today: its excellent per-pixel resolution and low ISO shooting capabilities, images that are big enough for 99.9% of my printing requirements. Not to mention they take up so much less space on a hard drive too. I know "storage is cheap" and all that, but photos are still what keeps filling up my drives so I have to cull every now and again just to make space for more.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2014 at 09:30 UTC
On Pentax launches K-S1 Sweets Collection article (231 comments in total)

Why is the pink one photographed with something red? The colours don't match.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2014 at 15:16 UTC as 41st comment | 3 replies
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: Easy to do with digital. But I guess the appeal(?) of lomography must be using terrible cameras with horrible film and get expensive, soft, colour-shifted photos - just so they can call it art because it's not digital. I find the phenomenon fascinating but not for me.

I agree with you, Scott. If they are going to scan it, or get prints in their local one-hour photo (which also scans and prints digitally), it defeats the entire purpose.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 07:50 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (949 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: THe Image Quality is excellent, but to get the sensor from Sony did Canon have to promise not to add a viewfinder? NO viewfinder? NO viewfinder. It has not got a viewfinder. WHY???????

If the screen is still as good as it was on the G10, you won't need a viewfinder. I'm not sure what's happened to the screens of the other G iterations, though, but on my old G10, I could see clearly in sunlight even with sunglasses on - and the image on the screen showed accurate exposure too. My Fuji F30 was good too, but the other digital cameras I've had, including my quite new Panasonic GM1 aren't anywhere close to it for some reason. Apparently, there isn't always progress...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 17:14 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: Easy to do with digital. But I guess the appeal(?) of lomography must be using terrible cameras with horrible film and get expensive, soft, colour-shifted photos - just so they can call it art because it's not digital. I find the phenomenon fascinating but not for me.

Using pencil and paper is a bit different from photography, so not quite a valid comparison, though I see the point you're trying to make. I suppose it's not dissimilar to what happened to painting, which was by many seen as obsolete at the advent of photography. It was considered a craft, not an art, the purpose of which was perceived as providing a documentary record or visualising events of the past. Photography changed all that. Perhaps digital photography has the same effect on film photography as photography once had on painting?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 16:37 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)

Easy to do with digital. But I guess the appeal(?) of lomography must be using terrible cameras with horrible film and get expensive, soft, colour-shifted photos - just so they can call it art because it's not digital. I find the phenomenon fascinating but not for me.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 14:27 UTC as 31st comment | 8 replies
Total: 314, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »