DrPablo wrote:
Curmudgeon -noun- a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas
Yeah, that's what I thought it meant. Glad to know that I'm not losing it completely. But, I don't believe that b@stard begins with a P and has all those other letters in it too.... I never was any good at scrabble, though, so you might be right.
Regardless, while it is very nice to receive recognition for my efforts, flattery and/or terms of endearment will get you nowhere... I'm already married, plus have a girlfriend and boyfriend, so have all those bases covered. You know the old saying, 5 is a crowd.
Another one that needs a sharp edge and corner:
Dunno. Am too tired to pixel peep this one. IIRC, Pavel said something about it needing to be more in the center. That would prolly help your sharpness problem.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Regardless, while it is very nice to receive recognition for my efforts, flattery and/or terms of endearment will get you nowhere... I'm already married, plus have a girlfriend and boyfriend, so have all those bases covered. You know the old saying, 5 is a crowd.
My wife (who is pictured in the first post of mine on the previous page) might object as well.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Dunno. Am too tired to pixel peep this one. IIRC, Pavel said something about it needing to be more in the center. That would prolly help your sharpness problem.
I think you're missing the point. I'm not looking for critical evaluation of my pictures (whether or not they need it). I'm responding to your sentiment that there is no photo that needs both shallow depth of field and corner sharpness. Whether or not I've achieved it in the pictures I've shown, I'd argue that all these pictures are examples of shallow DOF compositions in which there is corner detail intended to be in focus.
DrPablo wrote:
This will remain true in the digital era. Larger formats have physics on their side, so the image quality will remain outstanding; but they do not have versatility on their side. So MF will remain fantastic for the studio, for landscapes, for weddings, for portraits, and for macro shooting; but you can do all of these in small format too. And with small format you can shoot basketball games and hummingbirds and take it on your safari.
The image quality and enlargeability of small format already is beyond what most people need now. I mean what percent of your pictures get printed at all? For web posting a 4 megapixel camera would be more than enough -- and speaking for myself almost none of my digital images get printed -- and the few that do are seldom more than 8x10 or 11x14. I've seen 24x36 shots from the 1Ds Mark II that are really beautiful -- not quite up to 6x7 or large format images enlarged to that size, but good enough. ...Show more →
Yes, you're quite correct. I've printed one at 20x30 out of my 6MP D70s and it looks fantastic to my eyes. I've printed a few 16x20 again out of 6MP cam. No complaints from this corner and people that see go up to it and say "wow, so sharp!" dont see any problems either!
So I guess my point is that small format always has surpassed MF in versatility. It can't surpass MF in image quality, but it's far beyond most people's routine needs to produce the type of image where you'd really need MF versus small format.
And hopefully the market will realize this, so that manufacturers begin to improve other things besides pixel counts. Longevity, for instance!!
How many here used the same film camera for 10 or 20 years? I use a 40 year old Hasselblad with 30 year old lenses, and it works like absolute magic.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could buy a digital camera and know that this camera would last us for 20 years?...Show more →
Sadly, the world of electronics is such that the manufacturers will make the "next big thing" and market it as such. And so people will go on and buy things they don't really need, but think they do.
I myself recently bought an old Nikon FE to play with film. I'm impressed that a camera that was introduced some 29-odd years ago, works so well. I'm confident that it will continue to work very well for the next few years without me doing anything special. And the Vivitar 285HV that I got with it also works just fine, and as a special, can slave off my SB800 when it's on board.
Avi B wrote:
I myself recently bought an old Nikon FE to play with film. I'm impressed that a camera that was introduced some 29-odd years ago, works so well. I'm confident that it will continue to work very well for the next few years without me doing anything special. And the Vivitar 285HV that I got with it also works just fine, and as a special, can slave off my SB800 when it's on board.
Good for you!
Get yourself some Ilford FP4+ for B+W, Fuji Pro S for color prints of people and in high contrast lighting, and some Fuji Velvia for landscapes, sunsets, etc.
Velvia isn't great for high contrast scenes, but if you pick the right lighting your jaw will drop.
DrPablo wrote:
My wife (who is pictured in the first post of mine on the previous page) might object as well.
She's a very lovely young lady. Prolly far too lovely and young to put up with a crusty old curmudgeon.
I think you're missing the point. I'm not looking for critical evaluation of my pictures (whether or not they need it). I'm responding to your sentiment that there is no photo that needs both shallow depth of field and corner sharpness. Whether or not I've achieved it in the pictures I've shown, I'd argue that all these pictures are examples of shallow DOF compositions in which there is corner detail intended to be in focus.
No, I didn't miss your point. Your point is quite clear and is unassailable, because you stated that your intent was to have corner/edge detail in focus. You can't be wrong, because that is your artistic desire. You might consider, however, that a contrary artistic vision may also be valid.
That is why I do not find such shots objectionable, or believe the underlying concept to be a universal truth, even though you've told me that your intent was to present more detail for me to view. I don't care about that detail. I care about how the shot speaks to me, first and last. If it doesn't speak to me, it doesn't matter. If it does speak to me, it still doesn't matter. Well, it does matter if it were done with a canon FF....
I tend to side with this rather convenient quote.
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
-- Ansel Adams
BTW, I saw a billboard today, advertising a limited show of some of his work at the Detroit Institute of Arts, this month. I'm hoping to be able to attend one or more of the shows.
It's $10 a pop though. Youse guys would be wonderful, if you'd take up a collection to send an old curmudgeon, living on a fixed income, to see the work of a rather talented artist. Otherwise, I'll prolly have to eat cat food or something, to save up the money. It's too cold to panhandle on the street corners. Besides, all the good corners are taken.
If that is the same Ansel Adams show that was in Boston about a year and a half ago it's really worth going. They had more than 40 original prints, including some of his most famous. There were some 8x10 contact prints of his that made my jaw drop.
If it doesn't speak to me, it doesn't matter. If it does speak to me, it still doesn't matter. Well, it does matter if it were done with a canon FF....
I agree with you. The result is more important than the concept.
And none of them were taken with a full frame camera. Though if they were, I would have picked my lenses accordingly to get the composition I wanted!
But, I don't believe that b@stard begins with a P and has all those other letters in it too.... I never was any good at scrabble, though, so you might be right. 
