Kodak's Color is so much better.

No one could argue that the 14n images look cleaner than the 1Ds. But not by much, plus I believe you could not tell in a print. My S2 files don't look very clean but the print great. The 14n Smokes any Kannon when it comes to color. The Kannon files look great all by themselves but when you put it up against any camera you see how silly the colors look. Most people look like the have been embalmed, when photographed by a Kannon. Unfortunately the uninformed only know how to judge sharpness. Thats what Kannon wants, uninformed customers who feel the need to by every new camera. When Kannon has ran out of tricks, everyone will see how much better Nikon family(Kodak, Fuji) is, but until then our images will be superior.

Tom McCann said:

how
silly the colors look. Most people look like the have been
embalmed,>

Click to expand...

I have not used the 14n but had much experience witht he 760 and dcs 645 back and fouind those two cameras the most difficult cameras to produce film like skin tones.

For our use the 1d and S2, though different in look, produce tremendous color.

Canon and Fuji S2 Images.

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/cosmeticsparis

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/canon_12-fuji_s2

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford

As both a Nikon user and person offended by racist comments, I should ignore any post that spells "Canon" as "Kannon"

I will respond.

First, please stop racist comments and spellings. Stick with honest facts and opinions.

Second, anyone getting bad skin color from Canon's DSLR must be making a mistake. They really do print beautifully as I have seen many of them. (This from a Nikon fan.)

Philip

I agree, I have used both Canon and Kodak digital cameras and found that wonce you learn how to white balance properly both give good color.

Bob

Didn't you get banned, and now you're using a false name?

Stop your disparaging use of the word 'Kannon'. It's Canon, and you can actually buy and use one of their cameras today. And you are incorrect on the skin color 'issue' ... it's mostly the 'uninformed' that don't know how to process images. This can and will happen with any brand.

And the 1Ds is MUCH cleaner at ISO's over ... 100. And exposures longer than .25 second.

The image coming out of a camera ... being Sigma, Kodak, Canon, Nikon, Kiev, etc. ... is 90% operator, 10% camera.
KP

Tom McCann said:

No one could argue that the 14n images look cleaner than the 1Ds.
But not by much, plus I believe you could not tell in a print. My
S2 files don't look very clean but the print great. The 14n Smokes
any Kannon when it comes to color. The Kannon files look great all
by themselves but when you put it up against any camera you see how
silly the colors look. Most people look like the have been
embalmed, when photographed by a Kannon. Unfortunately the
uninformed only know how to judge sharpness. Thats what Kannon
wants, uninformed customers who feel the need to by every new
camera. When Kannon has ran out of tricks, everyone will see how
much better Nikon family(Kodak, Fuji) is, but until then our images
will be superior.

Click to expand...

--

29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm f/5.6. Yet.

Tom McCann said:

No one could argue that the 14n images look cleaner than the 1Ds.
But not by much, plus I believe you could not tell in a print. My
S2 files don't look very clean but the print great. The 14n Smokes
any Kannon when it comes to color. The Kannon files look great all
by themselves but when you put it up against any camera you see how
silly the colors look. Most people look like the have been
embalmed, when photographed by a Kannon. Unfortunately the
uninformed only know how to judge sharpness. Thats what Kannon
wants, uninformed customers who feel the need to by every new
camera. When Kannon has ran out of tricks, everyone will see how
much better Nikon family(Kodak, Fuji) is, but until then our images
will be superior.

Click to expand...

I guess everything you say is true when you do not know what you're doing!

http://www.sokolsky.com/
--
jrisc

melvin,

Thanks for your input on the 1d on these forums. If not for you and Mastrianni I probably would not have considered this camera and it has added much to art.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford
http://www.pbase.com/russruth/cosmeticsparis

Oh wow.

We have a master amongst us.

We are so used to things said "tounge-in-cheek" around here that a remark like the one immediately above this might sound like sarcasm... believe me... it is not.

Sokolsky is probably one of the most important photographers in the field of fashion... I rank him right up there as we rank Salgado iin the field of journalism. Expertise at it's best

Listen carefully to what Mr Sokolsky says. Visit his website. Read his other messages. But look at his images, and then you will automatically know that you should follow his advice to the letter.

Edward

melvin sokolsky said:

Tom McCann said:

No one could argue that the 14n images look cleaner than the 1Ds.
But not by much, plus I believe you could not tell in a print. My
S2 files don't look very clean but the print great. The 14n Smokes
any Kannon when it comes to color. The Kannon files look great all
by themselves but when you put it up against any camera you see how
silly the colors look. Most people look like the have been
embalmed, when photographed by a Kannon. Unfortunately the
uninformed only know how to judge sharpness. Thats what Kannon
wants, uninformed customers who feel the need to by every new
camera. When Kannon has ran out of tricks, everyone will see how
much better Nikon family(Kodak, Fuji) is, but until then our images
will be superior.

Click to expand...

I guess everything you say is true when you do not know what you're
doing!

http://www.sokolsky.com/
--
jrisc

Click to expand...

I know what a Canon is & I've seen people spell it Cannon but your spellling takes the cake. Are you really that ignorant or just trying to be cute. It's not cute so...

Tom McCann said:

No one could argue that the 14n images look cleaner than the 1Ds.
But not by much, plus I believe you could not tell in a print. My
S2 files don't look very clean but the print great. The 14n Smokes
any Kannon when it comes to color. The Kannon files look great all
by themselves but when you put it up against any camera you see how
silly the colors look. Most people look like the have been
embalmed, when photographed by a Kannon. Unfortunately the
uninformed only know how to judge sharpness. Thats what Kannon
wants, uninformed customers who feel the need to by every new
camera. When Kannon has ran out of tricks, everyone will see how
much better Nikon family(Kodak, Fuji) is, but until then our images
will be superior.

Click to expand...

Philip K said:

As both a Nikon user and person offended by racist comments, I
should ignore any post that spells "Canon" as "Kannon"

Click to expand...

Racist??? Are you and Chuck Westfall going to march to Washington and fight for you rights? Rosa Parks is still alive, and I am sure she will help you get equal rights for all cameras. I apologize to your camera, I didn't know it would be offended.

As Far a colors go, any camera can produce good colors, but at what effort? Why would someone shoot digital if it did not exceed the benefits of film? It has to save money or reduce effort. It rarely reduces effort, and therefore cameras that can produce accurate color, right out of the camera are much more desirable. I also have the skills to make files look better out of the camera, but I would rather spend my time elsewhere. When you shot film, you never ever worried about color balance(with print film). Color balancing and profiling are not games for the meek. I like taking pictures not fidling on a computer.

By the way my grandmother was Kannon!!!!

Racist??? Are you and Chuck Westfall going to march to Washington and fight for you rights? Rosa Parks is still alive, and I am sure she will help you get equal rights for all cameras. I apologize to your camera, I didn't know it would be offended.

As Far a colors go, any camera can produce good colors, but at what effort? Why would someone shoot digital if it did not exceed the benefits of film? It has to save money or reduce effort. It rarely reduces effort, and therefore cameras that can produce accurate color, right out of the camera are much more desirable. I also have the skills to make files look better out of the camera, but I would rather spend my time elsewhere. When you shot film, you never ever worried about color balance(with print film). Color balancing and profiling are not games for the meek. I like taking pictures not fidling on a computer.

By the way my grandmother was Kannon!!!!

... spent a LOT of time in the darkroom, with copious notes on how to get the best print from a given negative. With NO color.
I've 'revisited' digital shots from a year or more ago and improved them.

Spending time in the 'digital darkroom' only makes you more highly skilled at it. Things that may take hours for a novice to do (and still not result in a usable photograph) many take minutes for an expert.

I want the best results for the type of shooting I do. That's why I have LF, MF, and digital in the 35mm format. The MF isn't getting used much ...
KP

Tom McCann said:

Racist??? Are you and Chuck Westfall going to march to Washington
and fight for you rights? Rosa Parks is still alive, and I am sure
she will help you get equal rights for all cameras. I apologize to
your camera, I didn't know it would be offended.

As Far a colors go, any camera can produce good colors, but at what
effort? Why would someone shoot digital if it did not exceed the
benefits of film? It has to save money or reduce effort. It rarely
reduces effort, and therefore cameras that can produce accurate
color, right out of the camera are much more desirable. I also have
the skills to make files look better out of the camera, but I would
rather spend my time elsewhere. When you shot film, you never ever
worried about color balance(with print film). Color balancing and
profiling are not games for the meek. I like taking pictures not
fidling on a computer.

By the way my grandmother was Kannon!!!!

Click to expand...

--

29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm f/5.6. Yet.

Do you go back and redo wedding albums a year after they are delivered. Do you reprint pictures of newborns and give them to the parents when they are 2 1/2 years old. In the world of art and landscape photography this is possible. But when you have clients that pay money, you have to get it right the first time. You can't say a year later "I like this version better so I am going to take your old one off the wall and replace it" and it is not making you money. And if you could make it better a year later it probably was not that good to begin with, otherwise why would you redo it. No one redoes their masterpiece. They may make a few guide prints but no one waits a year. By the way Ansel Adams took his printing so seriously, that even he admitted his own over critiquing was more detremental to his work than beneficial. You can over work a photo, so sitting in a darkroom or computer for hours and hours is a waste. In the darkroom there were excuses, but not with a computer. It should only take a couple of minutes tops to correct a picture. Longer time needed to touch up faces or remove items. You think like a college art student, Not a man who takes his craft seriously.

it's not necessary to be a college art student to practice the craft of photgraphy to enhance the art of photography. I'd agree that for wedding albums and pictures of newborns, you're probably not going to want to do a lot of manipulation... and that was true for film as well. But photography is not limited to wedding and portraiture. After shooting film for 20 years, mostly 4x5, there were days spent in the darkroom creating both color and contrast masks to reproduce onto Cibachrome what I saw with the camera. This is (or was) not a technique limited to students. Most of the master color photographers who did their own printing (and made/make a living at it) , as well as printers who printed for the ones who didn't print, practiced it daily. I am far from that group, but I can , and have made money with my work.

Color rendition of an image is a personal choice. Most films have very little to do with actual real colors. There are always compromises made, and biases inherit in the different emulsions. I'd say the same thing about digital sensors. What's important is to find the one that fits your vision. It isn't a religion... it's simply a tool. I don't think painters get into these types of arguments about paint brushes. I have used Nikon, Kodak, Canon, Arca Swiss, Mamiya, Zone VI, Wisner, Omega, Leica, Betterlight. They don't define who I am.. thats a result of what i create.

I wouldn't consider the Kannon remark as racist. However, the underlying jab that it's been used for in these forums is definitely at the high school level, and not one I would expect from a professional.

jim

Tom McCann said:

Do you go back and redo wedding albums a year after they are
delivered. Do you reprint pictures of newborns and give them to
the parents when they are 2 1/2 years old. In the world of art and
landscape photography this is possible. But when you have clients
that pay money, you have to get it right the first time. You can't
say a year later "I like this version better so I am going to take
your old one off the wall and replace it" and it is not making you
money. And if you could make it better a year later it probably
was not that good to begin with, otherwise why would you redo it.
No one redoes their masterpiece. They may make a few guide prints
but no one waits a year. By the way Ansel Adams took his printing
so seriously, that even he admitted his own over critiquing was
more detremental to his work than beneficial. You can over work a
photo, so sitting in a darkroom or computer for hours and hours is
a waste. In the darkroom there were excuses, but not with a
computer. It should only take a couple of minutes tops to correct
a picture. Longer time needed to touch up faces or remove items.
You think like a college art student, Not a man who takes his
craft seriously.

Click to expand...

High school humor is very funny and so is bathroom humor. You will see much more humor in a High School than at PMA. But that is a personal preference. As far as spending time with your work, you mention creating darkroom masks. We can go back even further to the Civil War, when Photogs had to mix up emulsion in a hot tent then, expose a plate and develop it while it was still wet. These men were easily recognizable by there silver(black) stained fingers. But let's go further back, when there was no Photography. 400 years ago when Oils and tempera roamed free and portraits would take days, weeks or years. Some took Lifetimes and still weren't finished(the Mona Lisa). The point is that if you go back in time it was increasingly difficult for people to produce representations of things. And inversely, as time progresses, to produce wonderful pictures will become even easier. The other point is that time can not fix a bad picture. No matter how much time is spent on post processing, it is far better to get it right, in the camera.

PS if anyone is going to quote me as saying that spending time won't make a print better and then quote me mentioning the Mona Lisa,
Please try not to compare yourself with Mr. Da Vinci.

High school and bathroom humor can indeed be funny. However, as a professional, you would hardly engage in it with a complete stranger who happened into your studio. Sitting at a computer keyboard does not mean that you are not communicating with people in a social (and perhap business) situation. Those frequenting these forums may someday be customers.

I never compared my self to da Vinci (in fact i specifically said that i was nowhere near that group of "master" photographers or printers)

The fact that a technique has a longer history, does not diminish it's ability to impart an artists vision. Even though oils and tempera are a much older method of representing reality, doesn't mean they are not valid methods today. The same goes for darkroom. Those who choose to use film, oil, whatever, do so for their own reasons.. and that doesn't mean it is inferior. I'd bet that Christopher Burkett (an 8x10 landscape photographer who works extensively with masking to produce his images), produces work of a quality greater than 99% of those using digital cameras today. Moving to digital might even lower the quality of his work.

My point was the tool (camera, film, brush.. whatever) is mostly a personal choice, and has little relevance to anyone else's decision on what to use. The result (image,portfolio, painting, sculpture) is what is important. Engaging in a "my camera is better than your camera" adds nothing to the exchange of information, does nothing to convince others to change their minds of their choices, and does quite a bit to alienate both peers as well as prospective customers.

jim

Tom McCann said:

High school humor is very funny and so is bathroom humor. You will
see much more humor in a High School than at PMA. But that is a
personal preference. As far as spending time with your work, you
mention creating darkroom masks. We can go back even further to
the Civil War, when Photogs had to mix up emulsion in a hot tent
then, expose a plate and develop it while it was still wet. These
men were easily recognizable by there silver(black) stained
fingers. But let's go further back, when there was no Photography.
400 years ago when Oils and tempera roamed free and portraits would
take days, weeks or years. Some took Lifetimes and still weren't
finished(the Mona Lisa). The point is that if you go back in time
it was increasingly difficult for people to produce representations
of things. And inversely, as time progresses, to produce wonderful
pictures will become even easier. The other point is that time can
not fix a bad picture. No matter how much time is spent on post
processing, it is far better to get it right, in the camera.

PS if anyone is going to quote me as saying that spending time
won't make a print better and then quote me mentioning the Mona
Lisa,
Please try not to compare yourself with Mr. Da Vinci.

Click to expand...

Well said. I could not disagree with what you say. Sometimes the topics go astray and no one knows what they are arguing about. As far as the unproffesional humor, the only thing I did was spell Canon editorially. That is far from high school or bathroom humor. I enjoy all levels of comedy and if someone chooses not to hire me because of that, I have no gripes. Personally I only hire or buy from people I like. That doesn't mean they are always proffesional or Politically correct, but life will go on. Nice chatting with everyone, have to shut down because a thunderstorm is coming through the area.

You don't pay me for my work, you pay for the years it took me to learn how to do it.
A rough quote of Pablo Picaso

I'm pretty sure that the only reason that "Kannon" has taken on a negative slant, and perhaps means what it does, is due to the way it's been used by other individuals in this forum. In reading other posts it was even percieved that you were the original person who started using it. From reading this thread (and some others), I don't belive that's the case.. but as in a lot of things, perceptions means a lot

good luck with the thunderstorm!

jim

Tom McCann said:

Well said. I could not disagree with what you say. Sometimes the
topics go astray and no one knows what they are arguing about. As
far as the unproffesional humor, the only thing I did was spell
Canon editorially. That is far from high school or bathroom humor.
I enjoy all levels of comedy and if someone chooses not to hire me
because of that, I have no gripes. Personally I only hire or buy
from people I like. That doesn't mean they are always proffesional
or Politically correct, but life will go on. Nice chatting with
everyone, have to shut down because a thunderstorm is coming
through the area.

You don't pay me for my work, you pay for the years it took me to
learn how to do it.
A rough quote of Pablo Picaso

Click to expand...

White color balance variances are NOT an inherent sensor problem and therefore can easily be adjusted in Photoshop or equivalent software without loss of data. To say that a slightly pink sky is better than a slightly green sky is a silly claim of superiority. I've yet to find an image from any digital device that I do not need to color correct to bring it up to full potential. I do not care if I have to move the green channel slider to the left or to the right to accomplish this. Yes, I am a Canon 1Ds owner... I am more interested in finding out real differences in sensor performance and image quality.

Raul

Tom McCann said:

No one could argue that the 14n images look cleaner than the 1Ds.
But not by much, plus I believe you could not tell in a print. My
S2 files don't look very clean but the print great. The 14n Smokes
any Kannon when it comes to color. The Kannon files look great all
by themselves but when you put it up against any camera you see how
silly the colors look. Most people look like the have been
embalmed, when photographed by a Kannon. Unfortunately the
uninformed only know how to judge sharpness. Thats what Kannon
wants, uninformed customers who feel the need to by every new
camera. When Kannon has ran out of tricks, everyone will see how
much better Nikon family(Kodak, Fuji) is, but until then our images
will be superior.

Click to expand...

Good grief, man, don't you know all the Canon users are pulling for Kodak to come through with a winner? It will just force Canon and Nikon to work that much harder at marketing a better product at a reduced price. They will be better off and so will Kodak and Nikon users. The real money is in the glass, anyway.
--
Wiley D

Pictures can't do the real thing justice, but you gotta' try.