Naw. The F64 Group was dedicated to knife edge sharpness in a world of fuzzy photographs. If you want to lay blame for the search for sharp images, you will have to blame the likes of Ansel Adams. Imagine, if he were alive today, the Hasselblad would have a whole new following! There would probably be special order digital view cameras! What we have is very good. It is a lot better than the first crop of digital cameras with small sensors and the current equipment is lots of fun to play with.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Are we getting to picky...
- Thread starter Lifesucks
- Start date
jonnieb
Leading Member
I was trying to take the standard family photo at Christmas, which included my wife and me, 3 kids and spouses, and 5 grandchildren.
The comment I got was, "it doesn't have to be perfect, Dad, just take the picture........"
I always feel like such an amateur when I can't set up and take the perfect pic first time, every time.
The comment I got was, "it doesn't have to be perfect, Dad, just take the picture........"
I always feel like such an amateur when I can't set up and take the perfect pic first time, every time.
chriskeats
Senior Member
And i have the photos to prove it :-D
T
Tommi K1
Guest
Light and subject is composition.....
Photo Pete
Veteran Member
I was trying to take the standard family photo at Christmas, which included my wife and me, 3 kids and spouses, and 5 grandchildren.
The comment I got was, "it doesn't have to be perfect, Dad, just take the picture........"
I always feel like such an amateur when I can't set up and take the perfect pic first time, every time.
Solving two problems at once.
Ken Gosden
Senior Member
A pro would know to put the old folks in the less sharp areas as it softens their wrinkles; pesto perfect photoThere is no reason why we shouldn't be picky. No reason to drop our technical standards.I was trying to take the standard family photo at Christmas, which included my wife and me, 3 kids and spouses, and 5 grandchildren.
The comment I got was, "it doesn't have to be perfect, Dad, just take the picture........"
I always feel like such an amateur when I can't set up and take the perfect pic first time, every time.
--
Jonnieb
I took the same group photos this Christmas. It's one of the few occasions when we can photograph the extended family all together.
Large family gathering, 4 kids, spouses, grandparents. Indoors with natural light and wide aperture lens... so limited depth of field meant I couldn't get everyone perfectly in focus.
Moti
Veteran Member
It is not. Although they can be used as compositional elements and can be part of a composition but light is light, subject is subject and composition is composition and they should not be confused.
Moti
--
http://www.musicalpix.com
Last edited:
Gary from Seattle
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,770
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 11,570
With film, to get a sharp shot I really had to often use a tripod with ISO 50 or 64 film. I wasn't that particular as I viewed most of my slides at a glance or just with a 7X loupe. How many prints can one make? Because I was in an active outdoor community I also viewed the best images on a less than planar screen with a less than planar slide (plastic or cardboard mounts). Certainly my standard back then was not as high even compositionally. Since my images were generally taken in spectacular mountain scenery, I tried to record that scenery (I still do). But looking back I was so taken by beautiful sunset/sunrise colors that images displaying the color dominated my "photography". Much was also about recording events. My photography evolved through a combination of having a friend who had successfully sold many mountain images and likely from visiting the desert SW. After looking at the work of Elliott Porter, I began to see and appreciate a much broader range of nature photography. Though I had always incorporated composition into my mountain scenics, that is now the fundamental aspect of my mountain/desert photography. Because much of what I see is often so stunning, I strive to make my composition (even in a scene that by itself is beautiful but not compelling photographically) to try to maximize that particular scene. The very best scenes and potential compositions attract my attention to a substantial level.
Once I started viewing my slide scans on a computer, I was able to see the limitations of my DSLR equipment and photography skills to a greater degree. And now, more recently with m4/3 quality digital equipment, I see how much better my current images are in IQ compared to film.On first using my EM-1, before using '0' second anti-shock, I felt that the m4/3 images could have been better; since employing that setting they are plenty good enough. What is the point of viewing every image at 100% when that is much greater than I would ever view or would ever print? I haven't printed yet from m4/3 but I have number of candidates that are better than a number of my old displayed film prints. Viewing at normal resolution or perhaps zooming in a little shows that these m4/3 images are more than good enough for a 20 x 30" print. And they look great displayed by a digital projector.
I guess one pet peeve I have is how so many viewers prize the colors of beautiful light above the composition itself. A mediocre composition with a starburst setting sun and highly lifted shadows almost uniformly receives rave reviews. The works of Elliott Porter would be passed over by most (likely) casual viewers. Of course Ansel Adams work succeeds without color at all but strictly on the strength of composition and dramatization through use of contrast.
Once I started viewing my slide scans on a computer, I was able to see the limitations of my DSLR equipment and photography skills to a greater degree. And now, more recently with m4/3 quality digital equipment, I see how much better my current images are in IQ compared to film.On first using my EM-1, before using '0' second anti-shock, I felt that the m4/3 images could have been better; since employing that setting they are plenty good enough. What is the point of viewing every image at 100% when that is much greater than I would ever view or would ever print? I haven't printed yet from m4/3 but I have number of candidates that are better than a number of my old displayed film prints. Viewing at normal resolution or perhaps zooming in a little shows that these m4/3 images are more than good enough for a 20 x 30" print. And they look great displayed by a digital projector.
I guess one pet peeve I have is how so many viewers prize the colors of beautiful light above the composition itself. A mediocre composition with a starburst setting sun and highly lifted shadows almost uniformly receives rave reviews. The works of Elliott Porter would be passed over by most (likely) casual viewers. Of course Ansel Adams work succeeds without color at all but strictly on the strength of composition and dramatization through use of contrast.
It only matters if I like it, but then we also post shots hoping other people like it
The challenge is the perfect shot. That's what personally drives it and I've never seen a perfect shot from anyone. Yep we do get close sometimes, but not that perfect shot. We all see differently and all have different expectations for sure, something wrong if we didn't and we all shoot for different reasons. Its not something you or I can say is right or wrong, its just different.
The perfect shot is what I would love to see, but it will never happen, close, but never close enough. Different shots have a different feel and that's a very personal thing and only you know when you see it. Its a bit like these so called ........ fine art photographers (ah ha), what the difference is between art and fine art I have no idea !!. I decide what art is to me, not anyone else and it also depends on whether we think photography is an art form or not.
Does it have to be perfect to enjoy it, no it doesn't. Very nice if its close though just the same.
All the best and just personal opinions on it.
Danny.
--
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
The challenge is the perfect shot. That's what personally drives it and I've never seen a perfect shot from anyone. Yep we do get close sometimes, but not that perfect shot. We all see differently and all have different expectations for sure, something wrong if we didn't and we all shoot for different reasons. Its not something you or I can say is right or wrong, its just different.
The perfect shot is what I would love to see, but it will never happen, close, but never close enough. Different shots have a different feel and that's a very personal thing and only you know when you see it. Its a bit like these so called ........ fine art photographers (ah ha), what the difference is between art and fine art I have no idea !!. I decide what art is to me, not anyone else and it also depends on whether we think photography is an art form or not.
Does it have to be perfect to enjoy it, no it doesn't. Very nice if its close though just the same.
All the best and just personal opinions on it.
Danny.
--
Flickr albums ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
The need for speed ..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/
Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com
Last edited:
T
Tommi K1
Guest
If you don't have a light, you don't have a composition.
With light you shape the view as you please, with light you change the composition to what you want.
It is one of the simplest and basic fundamentals in art how light is part of composition.
Same is in photography.
And light is as well the subject/object in photography, actually without light you don't have anything
With light you shape the view as you please, with light you change the composition to what you want.
It is one of the simplest and basic fundamentals in art how light is part of composition.
Same is in photography.
And light is as well the subject/object in photography, actually without light you don't have anything
Yes and no.
M43 is a compromise to begin with. However, in absolute terms I find the resulting image quality more than sufficient, so in that sense M43 is "good enough," because for my purposes it's really good.
No, in that technical flaws and limitations of certain equipment (mainly lenses) started bugging me fairly quickly. Very few images were truly ruined for me due to things like soft corners, or technical errors like misjudging DoF.
Sometimes a composition may be off, or I'll make a wrong exposure; it happens. When possible I anticipate those issues, though, by bracketing or making slight variations to the composition.
Can you make a perfect painting?
You can make a photo that is technically exemplary; you can make photos with high degrees of aesthetic value; you can take a photo that records the personality of a person, or a 2D recording of an event. The concept of "perfection" doesn't really apply.
M43 with good lenses meets my technical standards. I don't think much else matters.
That's completely up to you.
I tend to think that unless your friends are experienced art collectors, people who know you are mostly being nice.
If you're selling prints, IMO you owe your audience your best.
Last edited:
addlightness
Senior Member
We don't just talk about cup-holders, we talk about the material, resolution, build quality, size, cost and weight of those cup-holders. Why? we want to know our coffee is captured in the highest Quality. Too cold? Too hot?
That's what I learned from my past year or two hanging out here
That's what I learned from my past year or two hanging out here
Moti
Veteran Member
I think you should read and understand a post. Before replying. That is exactly what I said - light can be part of composition, but lift is not composition as you have said.
Stop being silly. I you really don't understand what I have said, I seriously recommend a good book about photography bcause you are just arguing for the sake of argument and playing with words.
I was talking about subject being photographed and not what is the object of photography. I hope you can nderstand the difference.
Moti
--
http://www.musicalpix.com
Last edited:
Phileas Fogg
Senior Member
I will start of with this though, micro 4/3rds is FULL FRAME. It is a native format that has always been in itself full frame. One may notice that when I talk about full frame in the sense most will accept I will say 35mmFF. 35mm is also a full frame native format. If people want to harp on things then in reality the only true full frame would be 8x10 view camera format. Every other format of photography since the origins of view type WOULD BE CROP FORMATS!
This said yes Tommi is right in day to day use, printing, enlarging and display of images 9/10 people could not tell one digital format over another by just viewing images on line, from a hard drive on a large monitor, from 4x6 to 8x10 small prints to even HUGE prints wall size images, 20x30, 24x36, 30x40, 40x60 etc. Only if the viewers had a DIRECT side by side exact copies, printed to the exact standards, under appropriate lighting could likely more people begin to see any visual difference between the competing formats.
Yes! zooming up at 100% or 200% on a good computer screen showing the exact same images side by side may a pixel peeper be able to show any differences between formats. Yes, I look at the DPR resolution charts and will for curiosity compare my EM-1 and EM-10II to a host of other cameras. Zooming in and moving the box around the chart will show that 16-24MP cameras all have very minimal differences in resolution. Once you get to 36MP-42MP-50MP yes you can see a defined sharper more detailed images under the high magnification and side by side reference that DPR allows us to see.
Nobody argues that a higher rez camera does no give you more apparent detail. But in normal viewing even on large prints or zooming in on screen unless you have TWO or more images side by side you will not really notice any issues in resolution today.
Photographers were making 20x and 30x prints with even 3MP cameras about 15 years ago. Using 6-10MP cameras APS-C, 4/3rds, 35mmFF, about 10 years ago and the images were all judged as great as long as they were exposed properly, PP and printed well. Many a client PAID good money for such now LOW REZ imagery.
Lets move to noise. Yes, using the DPR resolution chart and moving the zoom box around the target area and selecting iso's from say 200 to 25,600 and picking a set of diferent cameras to compare, in most cases at notably higher iso say 1600+ m4/3rds as APS-C have similar noise structure. 35mmFF will all have less noise when viewing the target image zoomed in BIGLY with the moveable target box. Nobody argues this! But zoomed out to normal size or printed even to large prints nobody will notice the noise or even if at high iso see it to bother to CARE, if the image is worthy of viewing.
If I print out a well exposed m4/3rds image at say 20x30 or even 30x40 and even using a higher iso say 800-1600, H*ll 3200 iso and hung it up. No viewer will be able to tell me what format of camera be it m4/3rds, APS-C or 35mmFF made such image. ONLY! if they had a comparison of the same image shot with say a 35mmFF may they be able to tell one from the other. Many viewers still will not as they just lack the care, concentration or vision to see the differences. IN REALITY NOBODY CARES!
Same with dynamic range. Every m4/3rds, APS-C, 35mmFF camera made in the last say 2-5 years have higher dynamic range than ALL cameras made 10-15 years ago. But the images made on those 10-15 year old cameras still look as good today as when shot back then including dynamic range. 9/10+ people will not be able to tell properly exposed images made on a m4/3rds, APS-C and 35mmFF cameras for each's dynamic range be it 1 or 2 stops different. NOR AGAIN WILL THEY CARE! Yes, again in side by side by side direct comparisons may they see the subtle differences in dynamic range, but again nobody will care.
I'm not saying we should be ho hum over technological improvements be they resolution, digital noise and dynamic range! What I'm saying is that probably 95-99% of any viewers and if being a pro your clients none will care about any subtle differences. They only care if the images LOOK GOOD, if you are as a pro selling them what you promised.
So yes I get a general thrill out of new tech. I love the new EM-1II. I know it wont by its tech make my photography better. I control my quality of photography. If /when I buy an EM-1II, it may make some things easier for me, it may help just reinvigorate my shooting wants. I may buy it just BECAUSE I WANT IT! that is good enough if my budget allows.
If you like say Canon 1DXMKII or Nikon D5 and want either bad enough and can budget for $6000+ FINE BUY ONE OR BOTH FOR ALL I CARE! If I had a budget to buy the upcoming Hasselblad 1XD, I would likely buy one, BECAUSE I WANT IT! 90%+ of my photography would not really benefit by it though. But it would likely juice my photography pleasures up and yes its imagery would be better quality by standards even though nobody seeing such images would really care.
If I were to move to Sony 35mmFF mirrorless, it could be cool to have such and even higher rez but none of it will make me a better photographer. Yes, an A7rII with 42MP will make for a higher rez say 20x30, 30x40 print over my EM-1 but again unless the images made were side by side nobody will care.
So have fun with your cameras m4/3rds, APS-C or 35mmFF. ENJOY IT FOR WHAT EACH MAY BRING TO YOU! There is no right or wrong answer. For me shooting Canon DSLR for 11 years before switching to mirrorless was great, the cameras were all very good by my POV reference. But for me going mirrorless and to m4/3rds has taken me to a new place and a new level of photography pleasure. To me I find my EM-1 and EM-10II to be extensions of my photographic mind and style. So as a result I feel my photography may be better.
16MP cameras make to my eyes perfectly good images be they seen digitally or printed out. Zoomed up at 100% or 200% shows more than adequate details. Yes, I know a 42 or 50MP camera will give me MORE detail but to me it's more guilding the lilly. Nice but not needed, maybe I will have a 42-50MP camera one day. But I'm not losing sleep over this now. I loved my 8MP Canon 1DMKII. BRAWNY, good colour, good enough noise and high enough rez a GREAT DSLR!!! But I love, absolutely love my EM-1 in any way I can as a photographer. I also enjoy my EM-10II for its diminutive size.
We all can be picky, fussy, pig headed and full of bias over gear, so be it. IT'S ALL GREAT STUFF, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Pentax, Leica, Sigma and all the rest! Buy what YOU LIKE and enjoy!
--
Socialism, where everyone has equal rights all the time to be equally miserable.
Socialism, doing less with more everyday.
This said yes Tommi is right in day to day use, printing, enlarging and display of images 9/10 people could not tell one digital format over another by just viewing images on line, from a hard drive on a large monitor, from 4x6 to 8x10 small prints to even HUGE prints wall size images, 20x30, 24x36, 30x40, 40x60 etc. Only if the viewers had a DIRECT side by side exact copies, printed to the exact standards, under appropriate lighting could likely more people begin to see any visual difference between the competing formats.
Yes! zooming up at 100% or 200% on a good computer screen showing the exact same images side by side may a pixel peeper be able to show any differences between formats. Yes, I look at the DPR resolution charts and will for curiosity compare my EM-1 and EM-10II to a host of other cameras. Zooming in and moving the box around the chart will show that 16-24MP cameras all have very minimal differences in resolution. Once you get to 36MP-42MP-50MP yes you can see a defined sharper more detailed images under the high magnification and side by side reference that DPR allows us to see.
Nobody argues that a higher rez camera does no give you more apparent detail. But in normal viewing even on large prints or zooming in on screen unless you have TWO or more images side by side you will not really notice any issues in resolution today.
Photographers were making 20x and 30x prints with even 3MP cameras about 15 years ago. Using 6-10MP cameras APS-C, 4/3rds, 35mmFF, about 10 years ago and the images were all judged as great as long as they were exposed properly, PP and printed well. Many a client PAID good money for such now LOW REZ imagery.
Lets move to noise. Yes, using the DPR resolution chart and moving the zoom box around the target area and selecting iso's from say 200 to 25,600 and picking a set of diferent cameras to compare, in most cases at notably higher iso say 1600+ m4/3rds as APS-C have similar noise structure. 35mmFF will all have less noise when viewing the target image zoomed in BIGLY with the moveable target box. Nobody argues this! But zoomed out to normal size or printed even to large prints nobody will notice the noise or even if at high iso see it to bother to CARE, if the image is worthy of viewing.
If I print out a well exposed m4/3rds image at say 20x30 or even 30x40 and even using a higher iso say 800-1600, H*ll 3200 iso and hung it up. No viewer will be able to tell me what format of camera be it m4/3rds, APS-C or 35mmFF made such image. ONLY! if they had a comparison of the same image shot with say a 35mmFF may they be able to tell one from the other. Many viewers still will not as they just lack the care, concentration or vision to see the differences. IN REALITY NOBODY CARES!
Same with dynamic range. Every m4/3rds, APS-C, 35mmFF camera made in the last say 2-5 years have higher dynamic range than ALL cameras made 10-15 years ago. But the images made on those 10-15 year old cameras still look as good today as when shot back then including dynamic range. 9/10+ people will not be able to tell properly exposed images made on a m4/3rds, APS-C and 35mmFF cameras for each's dynamic range be it 1 or 2 stops different. NOR AGAIN WILL THEY CARE! Yes, again in side by side by side direct comparisons may they see the subtle differences in dynamic range, but again nobody will care.
I'm not saying we should be ho hum over technological improvements be they resolution, digital noise and dynamic range! What I'm saying is that probably 95-99% of any viewers and if being a pro your clients none will care about any subtle differences. They only care if the images LOOK GOOD, if you are as a pro selling them what you promised.
So yes I get a general thrill out of new tech. I love the new EM-1II. I know it wont by its tech make my photography better. I control my quality of photography. If /when I buy an EM-1II, it may make some things easier for me, it may help just reinvigorate my shooting wants. I may buy it just BECAUSE I WANT IT! that is good enough if my budget allows.
If you like say Canon 1DXMKII or Nikon D5 and want either bad enough and can budget for $6000+ FINE BUY ONE OR BOTH FOR ALL I CARE! If I had a budget to buy the upcoming Hasselblad 1XD, I would likely buy one, BECAUSE I WANT IT! 90%+ of my photography would not really benefit by it though. But it would likely juice my photography pleasures up and yes its imagery would be better quality by standards even though nobody seeing such images would really care.
If I were to move to Sony 35mmFF mirrorless, it could be cool to have such and even higher rez but none of it will make me a better photographer. Yes, an A7rII with 42MP will make for a higher rez say 20x30, 30x40 print over my EM-1 but again unless the images made were side by side nobody will care.
So have fun with your cameras m4/3rds, APS-C or 35mmFF. ENJOY IT FOR WHAT EACH MAY BRING TO YOU! There is no right or wrong answer. For me shooting Canon DSLR for 11 years before switching to mirrorless was great, the cameras were all very good by my POV reference. But for me going mirrorless and to m4/3rds has taken me to a new place and a new level of photography pleasure. To me I find my EM-1 and EM-10II to be extensions of my photographic mind and style. So as a result I feel my photography may be better.
16MP cameras make to my eyes perfectly good images be they seen digitally or printed out. Zoomed up at 100% or 200% shows more than adequate details. Yes, I know a 42 or 50MP camera will give me MORE detail but to me it's more guilding the lilly. Nice but not needed, maybe I will have a 42-50MP camera one day. But I'm not losing sleep over this now. I loved my 8MP Canon 1DMKII. BRAWNY, good colour, good enough noise and high enough rez a GREAT DSLR!!! But I love, absolutely love my EM-1 in any way I can as a photographer. I also enjoy my EM-10II for its diminutive size.
We all can be picky, fussy, pig headed and full of bias over gear, so be it. IT'S ALL GREAT STUFF, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Pentax, Leica, Sigma and all the rest! Buy what YOU LIKE and enjoy!
--
Socialism, where everyone has equal rights all the time to be equally miserable.
Socialism, doing less with more everyday.
Last edited:
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
I do think light should always be top of any list when talking about photography. If nothing else just to obey the name - Photography = Light Writing.
Indeed if we used English style roots for words then we should all be using Lightwriters and not cameras as a more correct name.
Suggestions for names from other languages welcome.
Have a good 2017 and beyond...... Guy
Indeed if we used English style roots for words then we should all be using Lightwriters and not cameras as a more correct name.
Suggestions for names from other languages welcome.
Have a good 2017 and beyond...... Guy
Photo Pete
Veteran Member
Let's see how many will be happy working with the cameras we have today in 15 years time.
Is it being picky or just having increased expectations and more demanding minimum acceptable standards as technology improves?
Is it being picky or just having increased expectations and more demanding minimum acceptable standards as technology improves?
Moti
Veteran Member
I'm afraid that you are missing my point Guy. I wasn't putting light on any top of a list. I simply answering to Tommi who claims that photography "is about timing and composition. It literally is nothing else" a rather primitive approach I'd say.
And when I have added light and subject matter as examples, I meant scene lighting and the subject being photographed, which can make part of a composition. C'est tout.
It is simply practical photography, and there is really no need to look for some other deep, complicated, virtual, philosophical or linguistic meaning.
Same to you
Moti
--
http://www.musicalpix.com
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum