If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
On 2015-08-07 08:22:20 +0000, Alfred Molon said:
In article , Tony Cooper says... It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault these? http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...t-1965/387493/ The image doesn't look that sharp (probably some focus issue) and there is some camera shake as well. If you submitted this to a stock photo agency, it would fail QC. Irrelevant. Those photographs were moments of history captured on film in an era when there was no digital option. In many cases the conditions were difficult for any photographer, digital or film. It took skilled photographers to recognise and capture the moment without any of the advantages of digital photography. To compare these examples with today's digital stock photos is assinine. The photographic work of combat photographers such as Horst Faas and Tim Page is rough, raw, technically imperfect, and compelling. Before you criticise, think of how well you would do reloading 35mm cassettes while lying in a muddy rice paddy while under fire. Think of how you would do in the confusion of a protest march led by M. L King. All of these images tell a story and document a particular era as only these photographers could. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article 2015080620283712289-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: The photographic work of combat photographers such as Horst Faas and Tim Page is rough, raw, technically imperfect, and compelling. Before you criticise, think of how well you would do reloading 35mm cassettes while lying in a muddy rice paddy while under fire. Think of how you would do in the confusion of a protest march led by M. L King. that's another huge advantage of digital. think of all the shots they *missed* because they were fussing with the camera, having to reload film and also limited to however may rolls they could carry in their pockets. those limitations are now gone. All of these images tell a story and document a particular era as only these photographers could. yep. they did the best they could at the time. today, they can do much better. in the future, it will be even better than it is now. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , Ken Hart wrote:
Ken Hart: Let me know when you are ready to compare enlargements (Let's say 16"x20" or more) of your photos against mine. Alfred Molon: Are you still using film cameras? Ken Hart: With the exception of eBay listings, I've always used film cameras. nospam: why? digital is much better than film ever was. Ken Hart: Again, let me know when you're ready to compare enlargements of your photos against mine. Sandman: What camera/film do you use? Film is usually color negative from a major manufacturer. If I am shooting 35mm, the camera is a Canon FX with one of the Canon FL-mount lenses. Easily matched by digital. If I am shooting medium format, the camera is either a Mamiya M645 or Koni Omega Rapid M. The Koni is a rangefinder, so it's easier to use in dim light and it has a larger neg: 6x7cm; but it is heavy and bulky. The Mamiya is an SLR, considerably smaller and easier to handle, but the viewfinder is not as bright and blacks out at exposure. Medium format analog is higher resolution that any digital camera currently (even digital medium format) so if you were only talking about enlargement from medium format shots, then I agree. -- Sandman |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault these? http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...look-back-at-1 965/387493/ The image doesn't look that sharp (probably some focus issue) and there is some camera shake as well. If you submitted this to a stock photo agency, it would fail QC. 'the' image?? there are 50 images on that page. however, your point is valid, in that they all show the limitations of film. had they been shot on digital, they'd be more compelling. Once again, you demonstrate that you have no idea what constitutes "compelling" in a photograph. It isn't pixels. once again, you demonstrate that you lie and twist what i say. i didn't say it was pixels. I know you feel compelled to reply to every post, but can't you at least try to provide an intelligent response? what for? your post was not intelligent. Yes, in essence, what you said was the difference is in pixels. nope. Those same images, rendered by a modern digital camera, would not be more or less compelling. If anything, they'd be less compelling because it is not the clarity of the image that compels; it is the emotional impact however rendered that compels. nonsense. the emotional impact would be the same or actually stronger due to the advantages of digital. they'd also be able to take photos they otherwise could not have taken with film. imagine if the photographer had a cheap 110 instamatic for all those photos. would the images be as compelling? no, because the quality would be worse. not only that but they probably would not have been able to even get many of the shots. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: The photographic work of combat photographers such as Horst Faas and Tim Page is rough, raw, technically imperfect, and compelling. Before you criticise, think of how well you would do reloading 35mm cassettes while lying in a muddy rice paddy while under fire. Think of how you would do in the confusion of a protest march led by M. L King. that's another huge advantage of digital. think of all the shots they *missed* because they were fussing with the camera, having to reload film and also limited to however may rolls they could carry in their pockets. those limitations are now gone. All of these images tell a story and document a particular era as only these photographers could. yep. they did the best they could at the time. today, they can do much better. in the future, it will be even better than it is now. Your drooling worship of all things new is almost painful to read. then don't read it. It is not quantity that makes things valuable to us. It is that there are just a few representations of the past that makes those few valuable. We look past the technical flaws because these are the few that made it to us. Matthew Brady's photographs of the Civil War camps are valuable to us because they are among the few representations of that period. If all of the soldiers had been taking selfies with modern digital cameras, the results would have no importance to us today. An abundance of photos would not be an improvement. whoosh. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article ,
Sandman wrote: What camera/film do you use? Film is usually color negative from a major manufacturer. If I am shooting 35mm, the camera is a Canon FX with one of the Canon FL-mount lenses. Easily matched by digital. actually, easily exceeded, and by a lot. If I am shooting medium format, the camera is either a Mamiya M645 or Koni Omega Rapid M. The Koni is a rangefinder, so it's easier to use in dim light and it has a larger neg: 6x7cm; but it is heavy and bulky. The Mamiya is an SLR, considerably smaller and easier to handle, but the viewfinder is not as bright and blacks out at exposure. Medium format analog is higher resolution that any digital camera currently (even digital medium format) so if you were only talking about enlargement from medium format shots, then I agree. false. a medium format digital camera greatly outperforms a medium format film camera, just as a full frame dslr greatly outperforms a 35mm slr. not only that, but a nikon d810 can easily match and even outperform medium format film cameras. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , nospam wrote:
Sandman: What camera/film do you use? Ken Hart: Film is usually color negative from a major manufacturer. If I am shooting 35mm, the camera is a Canon FX with one of the Canon FL-mount lenses. Sandman: Easily matched by digital. actually, easily exceeded, and by a lot. As I've mentioned before, a good current film and ideal conditions would match roughly a 30+ megapixel camera, so matched and slightly exceeded by a D800 Ken Hart: If I am shooting medium format, the camera is either a Mamiya M645 or Koni Omega Rapid M. The Koni is a rangefinder, so it's easier to use in dim light and it has a larger neg: 6x7cm; but it is heavy and bulky. The Mamiya is an SLR, considerably smaller and easier to handle, but the viewfinder is not as bright and blacks out at exposure. Sandman: Medium format analog is higher resolution that any digital camera currently (even digital medium format) so if you were only talking about enlargement from medium format shots, then I agree. false. Incorrect. a medium format digital camera greatly outperforms a medium format film camera, just as a full frame dslr greatly outperforms a 35mm slr. Not when it comes to resolution. Not even close. A medium format analog camera, using normal quality would be comparable to about 60 megapixel, which is matched by some very high end digital medium format cameras, but using really good film, which you are more likely to do with medium format, that number easily becomes over 200 megapixel, and that's not even using the most high end professional film back in the hey day. not only that, but a nikon d810 can easily match and even outperform medium format film cameras. This is of course false. -- Sandman |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:
nospam: In article 2015080620283712289-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck: The photographic work of combat photographers such as Horst Faas and Tim Page is rough, raw, technically imperfect, and compelling. Before you criticise, think of how well you would do reloading 35mm cassettes while lying in a muddy rice paddy while under fire. Think of how you would do in the confusion of a protest march led by M. L King. nospam: that's another huge advantage of digital. think of all the shots they *missed* because they were fussing with the camera, having to reload film and also limited to however may rolls they could carry in their pockets. those limitations are now gone. Savageduck: All of these images tell a story and document a particular era as only these photographers could. nospam: yep. they did the best they could at the time. today, they can do much better. in the future, it will be even better than it is now. Your drooling worship of all things new is almost painful to read. It is not quantity that makes things valuable to us. It is that there are just a few representations of the past that makes those few valuable. We look past the technical flaws because these are the few that made it to us. Matthew Brady's photographs of the Civil War camps are valuable to us because they are among the few representations of that period. If all of the soldiers had been taking selfies with modern digital cameras, the results would have no importance to us today. I'm sure there are many "selfies" or amateur photos taken by soliders from the analog era that is of no importance to us because they haven't been seen. Brady's photos are "important" to us because we know about them, not because they are analog. There are many contemporary digital war photos by war photographers that will be remembered as much as old analog war photos. Just because there are more photos taken doesn't mean that there is a lower quality war photographers out there. -- Sandman |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:
digital is much better than film ever was. Ken Hart: Again, let me know when you're ready to compare enlargements of your photos against mine. Sandman: What camera/film do you use? Ken Hart: Film is usually color negative from a major manufacturer. nospam: which one? Ken Hart: If I am shooting 35mm, the camera is a Canon FX with one of the Canon FL-mount lenses. nospam: you must be kidding. a 50 year old camera????? and you think that is going to beat a digital camera of today?? It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault these? http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...-look-back-at- 1965/387493/ A person who thinks as you do would rate a dull and uninteresting photo higher than any of these if the subject is presented in magnicient detail. You're mixing up things. The topic was resolution (enlargements) between analog and digital, and none of the photos you linked to would fare better in terms of resolution than a contemporary digital camera. -- Sandman |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?
In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:
nospam: In article , Ken Hart digital is much better than film ever was. Ken Hart: Again, let me know when you're ready to compare enlargements of your photos against mine. Sandman: What camera/film do you use? Ken Hart: Film is usually color negative from a major manufacturer. nospam: which one? Ken Hart: If I am shooting 35mm, the camera is a Canon FX with one of the Canon FL-mount lenses. nospam: you must be kidding. a 50 year old camera????? and you think that is going to beat a digital camera of today?? It depends on what is to be beaten. How do you fault these? http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/201...-look-back-at- 1965/387493/ A person who thinks as you do would rate a dull and uninteresting photo higher than any of these if the subject is presented in magnicient detail. Case in point: Analog: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/me.../50-years-ago- a-look-back-at-1965/f25_AP650714036_15/main_900.jpg?GE2DENRRG4YDSMRZFYYA==== Digital: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/gallery/press/images/ESP_012435_2015.jpg -- Sandman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What kind of camera? | Matt | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | August 21st 07 07:15 PM |
Looking for a monopod - what kind of head do I choose ? | Philippe Lauwers | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 8 | June 12th 04 08:52 AM |