Why 4/3" format is great for portraits

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

It is so very sad some here waste their lives worrying about the theoretical outcome from a mathematical framework, rather then focusing on far more important aspects of photography.

Since the early 1920's photographers and artists have had a very different idea of Equivalence. It is a same a few here have ruined this idea.

http://www.jnevins.com/whitereading.htm

With the theory of Equivalence, photographers everywhere are given a way of learning to use the camera in relation to the mind, heart, viscera and spirit of human beings....

...(just not the "equivalence" so many gearheads waste time thinking about)

Click to expand...

If anything is sad, it is that some people waste their time arguing against the *simple facts* of Equivalence...

Click to expand...

I have never once argued against the math behind equivalence. Those "simple facts" of the math are sound. Sure they are often a complete waste of time for someone trying to achieve his best, but the math is sound. Great in theory, but there is so much more that is far more important.

Click to expand...

To say that "there is so much more that is far more important [than Equivalence]" is the same as saying "there is so much more that is more important than the focal length and aperture of a lens".

Click to expand...

But what you mean is a "specific" focal length and aperture. My point is, if you know what you are doing then varying the focal length and aperture to a degree can still get you a virtually identical image. There is no need to worry about equivalence.

Great Bustard said:

I would argue that it's all worth knowing,

Click to expand...

OK, to varying degrees it all worth knowing. Some more important than others though.

Great Bustard said:

but would argue against saying that it's anything difficult to understand that would require more than a few moments of anyone's time.

Click to expand...

That is quite funny. As you know many have wasted a large amount of time and still don't get math of equivalence and how a 16x9 image can be "equivlalent" to an 1:1 image.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

What I keep saying and you keep getting so upset about (introducing strawmen and making false claims) is there are usually better ways to achieve what you preach about equivalence AND equivalence works better "theoretically" than it does in the real work because of many reasons (focal lengths not matching what is advertised for the lens, focus breathing, varying sensor technology, varying aspect ratios, etc.).

Instead someone who wants to truly understand photography should forget about wasting time with equivalence and instead learn how to get desired results with "un-equivalent" lenses, apertures, focal lengths and distances. Instead learn to use what you have with you and worry about more important things like the affects of lighting.

Click to expand...

So you would say the same to anyone who was thinking about the 40-150 / 2.8 over the 40-150 / 4-5.6, then, right?

Click to expand...

What would I say? What do they want? What is their budget?

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

It actually is pretty easy to get virtually identical composition/images with equipment that is not "equivalent.

Click to expand...

Wow -- someone saying perspective doesn't matter

Click to expand...

There is that lie of yours again. I never said, "perspective doesn't matter".

Sadly you keep lying about that.

Is is that hard for you to understand that SOMETIMES perspective can be similar and the difference not very noticeable?

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

LOL!!! With your logic you clearly prefer this image...

Click to expand...

Um, no, I really don't.

Great Bustard said:

Keep those strawmen coming! Clearly you want to divert the topic.

Click to expand...

You claim that .... but don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos.

Click to expand...

Really? I can't wait for you provide the link to where I said I "don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos."

Good luck with that!

LOL!!!

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Wow -- someone saying perspective doesn't matter and thinking that the above "photos" somehow prove it.

Click to expand...

It is very hard to carry on a conversation with someone who keeps lying.

I never said, "perspective doesn't matter" as you know. But that didn't stop you from pushing the lie.

I did point out it is possible to achieve near identical results even though the perspective vary some. AND factors such as aspect ratio CAN (not always) make a much more noticeable difference than a slightly different perspective.

But if you want to play your game please tell us how the different perspective in this one example makes such a massive difference.

Click to expand...

So, you say you're not saying that perspective doesn't matter, but you keep posting a head and shoulders shot of a person with a blank background as an example of what, exactly? What's that you say about people playing games?

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

LOL!!! With your logic you clearly prefer this image...

Click to expand...

Um, no, I really don't.

Life recorder said:

Keep those strawmen coming! Clearly you want to divert the topic.

Click to expand...

You claim that .... but don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos.

Click to expand...

Really? I can't wait for you provide the link to where I said I "don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos."

Good luck with that!

LOL!!!

Click to expand...

You claim that I want to divert the topic but the topic, as I recall, is you saying that shallow DOF is "Too often it is used by the lazy who are unable to utilized the environment and the background. It is a crutch that a few think makes a photo look 'professional'" but don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos.

I mean, duh, there are bad shallow DOF photos out there -- but to point to bad shallow DOF photos and blame shallow DOF is disingenuous, at best, since the fact that there are bad deep DOF photos doesn't mean that deep DOF is bad.

So you're good with shallow DOF, then, you just don't like bad photos? I mean, why bring up shallow DOF if one can take lame photos at any DOF?

By the way, I presented you with a series of outstanding portraits:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60265210

and noted:

Only the last one was shot wide open (f/1.8). Only the last one had a background with scenery. Are you saying that the photography was being "lazy" and "unable to utilized the environment and the background" for that last photo?

You keep failing to address that.

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Wow -- someone saying perspective doesn't matter and thinking that the above "photos" somehow prove it.

Click to expand...

It is very hard to carry on a conversation with someone who keeps lying.

I never said, "perspective doesn't matter" as you know. But that didn't stop you from pushing the lie.

I did point out it is possible to achieve near identical results even though the perspective vary some. AND factors such as aspect ratio CAN (not always) make a much more noticeable difference than a slightly different perspective.

But if you want to play your game please tell us how the different perspective in this one example makes such a massive difference.

Click to expand...

So, you say you're not saying that perspective doesn't matter, but you keep posting a head and shoulders shot of a person with a blank background as an example of what, exactly? What's that you say about people playing games?

Click to expand...

Seriously, I thought you were smarted than this.

Do you not understand that SOMETIMES perspective can matter and SOMETIMES it matters much less?

I think that is your problem. You are so deep into worshiping Equivalence that you are incapable of understanding that SOMETIMES one can achieve a virtually identical image with different focal lengths, apertures, distances, etc. THAT is the REAL problem with equivalence. It makes people very closed minded and kills creativity.

Can you admit that equivalence can be an answer, but a very restrictive one because there are often other (and sometimes BETTER) solutions for those who are creative?

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

LOL!!! With your logic you clearly prefer this image...

Click to expand...

Um, no, I really don't.

Great Bustard said:

Keep those strawmen coming! Clearly you want to divert the topic.

Click to expand...

You claim that .... but don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos.

Click to expand...

Really? I can't wait for you provide the link to where I said I "don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos."

Good luck with that!

LOL!!!

Click to expand...

You claim.... but don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos.

Click to expand...

Seriously, do you think that lying about what people said helps your argument?

If you can provide a link to where I said I "don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos." you can regain some credibility...but we both know I NEVER said that, and you made it up.

Life recorder said:

It is so very sad some here waste their lives worrying about the theoretical outcome from a mathematical framework, rather then focusing on far more important aspects of photography.

Since the early 1920's photographers and artists have had a very different idea of Equivalence. It is a same a few here have ruined this idea.

http://www.jnevins.com/whitereading.htm

With the theory of Equivalence, photographers everywhere are given a way of learning to use the camera in relation to the mind, heart, viscera and spirit of human beings....

...(just not the "equivalence" so many gearheads waste time thinking about)

Click to expand...

The irony here is that you're linking to an essay by Minor White. He was a great B&W photographer who never quite garnered the recognition of some of his contemporaries and was a founder and longtime editor of Aperture Magazine; but he made his first great contribution to the field of photography by developing the curriculum, administering and teaching at the California School of Fine Arts. Adams and Weston and many of the other great West Coast B&W photographers were associated with the school but it was really Minor White who developed the program and established the value of a photography school. He later taught photography at RIT and MIT. In the curriculum White developed for the CSFA, he incorporated a rigorous scientific/technical component that included Adams' zone system but also the general scientific underpinnings of photography. Specifically, he described it as follows in his initial outline for the program:

The scientific aspect of the medium is introduced to the student thru the use of text books and lectures on theory. It includes: a) optics, b) sensitometry, c) nature of light sources, d) theory of filters, e) chemistry of process.

If you'd like to learn more about Minor White and the CSFA, check out "The Moment of Seeing - Minor White at the California School of Fine Arts." It contains several of his essays (not including the equivalence one you've linked to) and a number of his best known photographs as well as a collection of photos by many of the teachers and strudents at the CSFA. The reproduction quality of the images in the book is outstanding.

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

It is so very sad some here waste their lives worrying about the theoretical outcome from a mathematical framework, rather then focusing on far more important aspects of photography.

Since the early 1920's photographers and artists have had a very different idea of Equivalence. It is a same a few here have ruined this idea.

http://www.jnevins.com/whitereading.htm

With the theory of Equivalence, photographers everywhere are given a way of learning to use the camera in relation to the mind, heart, viscera and spirit of human beings....

...(just not the "equivalence" so many gearheads waste time thinking about)

Click to expand...

If anything is sad, it is that some people waste their time arguing against the *simple facts* of Equivalence...

Click to expand...

I have never once argued against the math behind equivalence. Those "simple facts" of the math are sound. Sure they are often a complete waste of time for someone trying to achieve his best, but the math is sound. Great in theory, but there is so much more that is far more important.

Click to expand...

To say that "there is so much more that is far more important [than Equivalence]" is the same as saying "there is so much more that is more important than the focal length and aperture of a lens".

Click to expand...

But what you mean is a "specific" focal length and aperture. My point is, if you know what you are doing then varying the focal length and aperture to a degree can still get you a virtually identical image. There is no need to worry about equivalence.

Click to expand...

So focal length and aperture don't matter if you know what you're doing, cause you can get a "virtually identical image" regardless. Gotcha.

Life recorder said:

Life recorder said:

I would argue that it's all worth knowing,

Click to expand...

OK, to varying degrees it all worth knowing. Some more important than others though.

Life recorder said:

but would argue against saying that it's anything difficult to understand that would require more than a few moments of anyone's time.

Click to expand...

That is quite funny. As you know many have wasted a large amount of time and still don't get math of equivalence and how a 16x9 image can be "equivlalent" to an 1:1 image.

Click to expand...

It's called "cropping".

Life recorder said:

Life recorder said:

Life recorder said:

What I keep saying and you keep getting so upset about (introducing strawmen and making false claims) is there are usually better ways to achieve what you preach about equivalence AND equivalence works better "theoretically" than it does in the real work because of many reasons (focal lengths not matching what is advertised for the lens, focus breathing, varying sensor technology, varying aspect ratios, etc.).

Instead someone who wants to truly understand photography should forget about wasting time with equivalence and instead learn how to get desired results with "un-equivalent" lenses, apertures, focal lengths and distances. Instead learn to use what you have with you and worry about more important things like the affects of lighting.

Click to expand...

So you would say the same to anyone who was thinking about the 40-150 / 2.8 over the 40-150 / 4-5.6, then, right?

Click to expand...

What would I say? What do they want? What is their budget?

Click to expand...

But since they can get a "virtually identical image" either way, why bother?

Life recorder said:

Life recorder said:

Life recorder said:

It actually is pretty easy to get virtually identical composition/images with equipment that is not "equivalent.

Click to expand...

Wow -- someone saying perspective doesn't matter

Click to expand...

There is that lie of yours again. I never said, "perspective doesn't matter".

Sadly you keep lying about that.

Is is that hard for you to understand that SOMETIMES perspective can be similar and the difference not very noticeable?

Click to expand...

So you're saying that you keep posting that over and over simply to say that, for a head and shoulders shot with no background, the difference in perspective from 100mm to 200mm isn't a big deal. OK -- good to know!

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Wow -- someone saying perspective doesn't matter and thinking that the above "photos" somehow prove it.

Click to expand...

It is very hard to carry on a conversation with someone who keeps lying.

I never said, "perspective doesn't matter" as you know. But that didn't stop you from pushing the lie.

I did point out it is possible to achieve near identical results even though the perspective vary some. AND factors such as aspect ratio CAN (not always) make a much more noticeable difference than a slightly different perspective.

But if you want to play your game please tell us how the different perspective in this one example makes such a massive difference.

Click to expand...

So, you say you're not saying that perspective doesn't matter, but you keep posting a head and shoulders shot of a person with a blank background as an example of what, exactly? What's that you say about people playing games?

Click to expand...

Seriously, I thought you were smarted than this.

Do you not understand that SOMETIMES perspective can matter and SOMETIMES it matters much less?

Click to expand...

So that's why you said that Equivalence is "BS" because it "forces you to buy an expensive 100mm lens" when you could just use a cheaper 50mm lens? Huh.

Life recorder said:

I think that is your problem. You are so deep into worshiping Equivalence that you are incapable of understanding that SOMETIMES one can achieve a virtually identical image with different focal lengths, apertures, distances, etc. THAT is the REAL problem with equivalence. It makes people very closed minded and kills creativity.

Can you admit that equivalence can be an answer, but a very restrictive one because there are often other (and sometimes BETTER) solutions for those who are creative?

Click to expand...

Equivalence isn't an answer to anything anymore than the focal length or aperture of a lens is the answer to anything.

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

Great Bustard said:

Life recorder said:

It is so very sad some here waste their lives worrying about the theoretical outcome from a mathematical framework, rather then focusing on far more important aspects of photography.

Since the early 1920's photographers and artists have had a very different idea of Equivalence. It is a same a few here have ruined this idea.

http://www.jnevins.com/whitereading.htm

With the theory of Equivalence, photographers everywhere are given a way of learning to use the camera in relation to the mind, heart, viscera and spirit of human beings....

...(just not the "equivalence" so many gearheads waste time thinking about)

Click to expand...

If anything is sad, it is that some people waste their time arguing against the *simple facts* of Equivalence...

Click to expand...

I have never once argued against the math behind equivalence. Those "simple facts" of the math are sound. Sure they are often a complete waste of time for someone trying to achieve his best, but the math is sound. Great in theory, but there is so much more that is far more important.

Click to expand...

To say that "there is so much more that is far more important [than Equivalence]" is the same as saying "there is so much more that is more important than the focal length and aperture of a lens".

Click to expand...

But what you mean is a "specific" focal length and aperture. My point is, if you know what you are doing then varying the focal length and aperture to a degree can still get you a virtually identical image. There is no need to worry about equivalence.

Click to expand...

So focal length and aperture don't matter if you know what you're doing, cause you can get a "virtually identical image" regardless.

Click to expand...

I noticed you make up lies a lot. I said "to a degree" and you dishonestly change what I said to "regardless".

WOW is right.

About you even made up a lie that I said "I don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos". We both know I never did, but you still created that fake quote anyway.

In this one thread alone you also claimed I argued against the basic math/facts behind "equivalence" (even though I repeated said the math is sound). That makes for 3 lies/falsehoods about me in this one thread. WOW indeed.

This basically means you know you are wrong and have to make up falsehoods and flat out lies to back your argument.

Wu Jiaqiu said:

i used to work in art materials mate, i have pretty good knowledge on older traditional pigments and their modern alternatives.

Click to expand...

Good, then you can start to tell about all the compounds in atom level for colors you are using and why they make the artwork so special. Or we can simply accept a simple fact that even kids don't need to understand anything about such things to be able draw, paint and anyways to make art.... Same thing is with the many other areas than just art.

Member said:

Have you ever heard of Yves Klein?

Click to expand...

Yes, he is sometimes mentioned when discussions comes up to colors that companies are trying to get for registered trademarks. His name has come up even in medical industry when medical companies are patenting human genes etc.

But have you heard about who invented color system and how white light includes all colors?