Reading mode: Light Dark

An Observation (LX3)

Go to last post
Where are these pictures taken? They're quite lovely, but they have an almost prehistoric effect; I half expect to see a dinosaur roaming into the scene!
--
Liz
 
Sorry, can somebody tell me?

Is it possible to input data to photo? As for me, sometimes it's very suitable for me to have data of photo in some corner.

Andrey
 
Dear Verve, I just read your original post which refers to my images posted on Flickr. I must tell you that my images are poor examples of straight output from this camera. My images are interpretative and make use of HDR as well as Photoshop editing. Their look is not the camera's output, but rather my editing based upon three original images that came from the camera. I did not intend for my images to be faithfull street photography nor photojournalism. Rather, in these images, as Ansel Adams once did, I see a scene and decide where I want to go with it. Ansel used the zone system, chemical darkroom manipulation of individual large format negatives and extensive dodging and burning to achieve his masterpieces. In short, Ansel Adams used the best technology available to him to achieve his art. Purists today may find fault with his methods, but his images speak for themselves. I, with much less talent, use today's technology to imitate his methods and hopefully achieve a compelling image.

I do have nature images which do not involve extensive editing and are much closer to the output from the camera. Here is an example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lastingimages/2885679948/sizes/o/
 
Thank you all for feedback/participation.

A few (experienced) photographers commented on being able to see my observation as well. But many have not.

I'll suggest, perception is not an ability one obtains easily. Knowing the definition of perception does not make a person perceptive. Perception is applicable to specific area of experience and wisdom.

If a photographer has only known compacts or small sensor DSLRs, working only on a computer screen, they may not have developed the visual perception of a person who has had experience working with larger format cameras, film, printing, etc. These processes are more time intensive. Photographers using this practices have had to sit with their works, examine them, edit them in ways which compact image creators don't.

In examining images with very large capture size compared with those of much smaller capture size, it may help develop perception.

Coming back to the LX3 captures. Most of the time, regardless of the PP work, the lighting, the focal length, or the aperture, this perception of flatness, of less dimension is present. Hard to describe, any better than I have. The images feel very simulated (CGI like), in appearance. Almost as though the entire scene is on a thin flat matrix. There is no volume. I can almost imagine turning the image sideways and seeing nothing but a hair like edge.

In contrast the larger formats are rich voluminous, the simulation of depth and dimension is that of being able to reach through the surface of the pictorial window. In fact it is like having a window onto a scene so vivid it feels as though the scene is right there on the other side of a window frame.

If you'd like to see what I suggest. Go to a gallery or museum where large format photography is displayed. Even a finely printed book (175+ lines). Look at Dye Color Transfer prints, Carbro prints, Platinum prints.





http://www.dannyburk.com/photography_galleries.htm

This site has some nice examples too. The smallest capture being 645, up to 4x5, including the 680GX and several panoramic cameras. All film I believe. (Though I'm sure LF digital would be illustrative too). The display images are a bit small, but many do illustrate a high quality of depth (beyond DOF), and tonal range. If they were larger they would serve even better. I'll admit some are just too small in dimension and jpeg quality. There are other examples online as well, poke around.

Although viewing online does present some problems too as one can't be sure of the scan quality, or the resolution of the jpeg presented.

Here's two large ones on film from 65/66 years ago:



http://www.shorpy.com/node/1605



http://www.shorpy.com/node/4694



From 1900

V
 
Thank you for your response (and images :D Very nice!), Pedro.
Please see my response ("perception") "intrinsic aspects" of the files.

V
pedro lastra said:
Dear Verve, I just read your original post which refers to my images
posted on Flickr. I must tell you that my images are poor examples of
straight output from this camera. My images are interpretative and
make use of HDR as well as Photoshop editing. Their look is not the
camera's output, but rather my editing based upon three original
images that came from the camera. I did not intend for my images to
be faithfull street photography nor photojournalism. Rather, in these
images, as Ansel Adams once did, I see a scene and decide where I
want to go with it. Ansel used the zone system, chemical darkroom
manipulation of individual large format negatives and extensive
dodging and burning to achieve his masterpieces. In short, Ansel
Adams used the best technology available to him to achieve his art.
Purists today may find fault with his methods, but his images speak
for themselves. I, with much less talent, use today's technology to
imitate his methods and hopefully achieve a compelling image.

I do have nature images which do not involve extensive editing and
are much closer to the output from the camera. Here is an example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lastingimages/2885679948/sizes/o/
Click to expand...
 
Didn't finish my thoughts,

"Coming back to the LX3 captures. Most of the time, regardless of the PP work, the lighting, the focal length, or the aperture, this perception of flatness, of less dimension is present".

It seems to be intrinsic to the file.

"Hard to describe, any better than I have. The images feel very simulated (CGI like), in appearance. Almost as though the entire scene is on a thin flat matrix. There is no volume. I can almost imagine turning the image sideways and seeing nothing but a hair like edge".

V
 
Perception and volume, that's it.

Our perception is based on what we saw over 50 years: 1°on pictures blown up and lying on the ground of our room and/or on the wall for comparison, 2°in museums (pictures blown up on many different papers, textures, etc), instead of being just (most of the time) lit from the back on a computer screen. When light comes from behind a picture or is reflected on it, the perception is totally different.

Difficult to explain why so many digital pictures lack volume, deepness. They don't look human. And the worse is with so-called 3 D pictures: they look like Barbie puppets compared to living persons.

Concerning volume, there is still a difference between a small sensor and a big one, in the same way as there has always been a big difference between a Linhof picture and even a Leica one.

Sharp (too sharp sometimes... cut with ciseaux) but flat, saturated but artificial, too clean or too noisy (cleaned by Noiseware or Noise Ninja or whatever) instead of slighty and subtly grainy.

This being said, progress is being made, one cannot deny this. And above all digital is easy and ... clean: no dark room, no liquids, no hundreds of tests and attempts, no baskets full of thrown away pictures.
And digital allows as much creativity as you might have inside you.
Maybe both -digital and film- should coexist instead of digital replacing film.
 
Why should I?

This is a discussion about digital and film, not an attempt to make publicity for my pictures. Personally I made the same type of pictures 40 years ago on film (published by Asahi Camera, Fiction, etc) as I do today on digital. However I must admit that I can apply my "imagination" more easily with digital than with film. With film I needed a real laboratory plus complex systems of duplication and superposition of slides, etc. Digital is (for me) easier but not better.
 
I am following this thread with some interest, well at least the sensible responses.

I have a suspicion that what you are finding hard to describe is the constant high contrast look that most digital photos have. Here is two of my images, do they assist in conveying what you are talking about.





Or am I barking up the wrong tree.

Brian
 
Sorry for the confusion, I was replying to 'Verve'. I should have quoted the the post.
arinel said:
Why should I?
This is a discussion about digital and film, not an attempt to make
publicity for my pictures. Personally I made the same type of
pictures 40 years ago on film (published by Asahi Camera, Fiction,
etc) as I do today on digital. However I must admit that I can apply
my "imagination" more easily with digital than with film. With film I
needed a real laboratory plus complex systems of duplication and
superposition of slides, etc. Digital is (for me) easier but not
better.
Click to expand...
--



Kristian Farren
 
As others have said, the sample images you link to are all HDRI images and not images that comes straight out of the LX3....or any camera actually.

HDRI usually consists of at least 3 different pictures taken with 3 different exposures, then blended together to get the image.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

Of course the images look "flat" and "simulated"....it's because they ARE simulated. HDRI is actually quite fascinating...and can really be a good thing if done with a subtle hand. But often times it goes WAY overboard.
--
-----
http://www.pbase.com/ksgant
 
ks -

Did you read the words in this thread BEFORE posting?

Yes I know what HDR is. I've done it myself since before it had a label.

Doesn't matter. There's still little depth, volume, dimension to these (LX3) images. HDR or not. Even look at the landscapes posted on this thread (Texas). No volume... simulated.

As I said again (and again and again.... :o )
"Don't use just these few images as an example"

On the other hand if people can't see it (nor even read the text, lol) there's not much I can do to change that.... OYO!

V
ksgant said:
As others have said, the sample images you link to are all HDRI
images and not images that comes straight out of the LX3....or any
camera actually.

HDRI usually consists of at least 3 different pictures taken with 3
different exposures, then blended together to get the image.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

Of course the images look "flat" and "simulated"....it's because they
ARE simulated. HDRI is actually quite fascinating...and can really be
a good thing if done with a subtle hand. But often times it goes WAY
overboard.
--
-----
http://www.pbase.com/ksgant
Click to expand...
 
http://www.shorpy.com/node/2592?size=preview
Click on "full size".

October 1942. "Noontime rest for an assembly worker at the Long Beach, Calif., plant of Douglas Aircraft Company. Nacelle parts for a heavy bomber form the background." 4x5 Kodachrome transparency by Alfred Palmer.

This is a WWII era 4x5 Kodachrome.
A great example of a photograph which does not look simulated.
Rich, vibrant, REAL!!!, substantial.

For those who still read, and don't just look at the pictures...
I don't expect a compact to produce this quality.
I post this as an extreme example of vibrancy in a photograph.
No doubt most reading will have never worked with images presenting this
IQ. The contrast is almost shocking, and may not be familiar to some.

btw - Don't let this be your only guiding example. Poke around on this site,
many more examples.

V
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top