The images look just fine on my screen. Like others have said, I'm guessing that they will look better in print. I'm also guessing that there are some among those who are critical of the quality of the images, who would be raving about them if they had been told they they had been taken with a
new 1Ds Mark II. Sometimes our eyes see what we want them to see.
The images look fine for color and gamma. Some of them are superbly artistic images. They have been uniformly resized to 545 pixels, and considering that one of the fuzziest of the lot shows this for specs -
Camera: Leica M6
Film Type: Fujichrome Provia 100F
Lens: 35mm
Speed and F-Stop: 1/125 @ f/8
- I would bet that all of these look fine as prints, in the mag or elsewhere. Randy Olson's series using a 10D is impressive. Don't you think that he knows how to choose an effective f/stop for each situation (not to mention every other technical and artistic aspect of photography)?
I'm glad to see NG making use of digital cameras, but not surprised at all. It has always been a beautiful magazine to see, and more and more it is also a great one to read.
Nat Geo does not specify the gear that their photogs use. It's up to them. Most use Nikon, Canon or Leica 35mm gear. Some do use larger formats, especially for portraits where conditions are controlled. Many are moving to digital capture. It's far more important who is behind the camera then what is inside it.
Mr645 wrote:
Nat Geo does not specify the gear that their photogs use. It's up to them. Most use Nikon, Canon or Leica 35mm gear. Some do use larger formats, especially for portraits where conditions are controlled. Many are moving to digital capture. It's far more important who is behind the camera then what is inside it.
Jon
I just purchased a 1DmkII from Randy (the NG photographer) a couple weeks ago, and he said the 10D's where supplied by NG for the assignment. I am not sure if that is the norm or not as he did own some mkII's.
thejesus wrote:
i'm gonna hazard a guess that the low contrast and flat colours are part of the effect. not everybody likes full frontal colour...
Agreed.. I think we digital users may have been rather "spoilt" given our own freedom in the "rendering" and manipulations of our digital images that we expect full pop and contrasty colors for every picture out there. I would rather have NG give us a real representation (ok.. this is subjective) of the colors and scene right there and then, than spice up the colors and contrast when it is not there - at least it gives some "credibility" to their pictures.
tipit008 wrote:
They actually look *very* nice on my monitor... but then again, maybe I'm trying to justify not upgrading my 10D!
Marc P.
I am trying to do the same, not upgrade, but each day that passes that 1D MARK 1 sure looks good I also realize that my 10D is a very nice camera and wouldnt mind being stuck with it.
You won't be able to tell at all what these photos looked like coming out of the camera. These are hugely resized, lossy JPEG images posted to the internet designed to show detail but also be quick-loading.
this is silly. how can you look at an image from a web site on your monitor and decide it is worst than a film image? images printed in normal or smaller magazines, if properly setup at the printer, cannot be distinguished between film or digital sources. mags print around 244 dpi so all your wonderful slide benefits are lost anyway. when my stuff prints--if done in a mag that deals with digital--it looks great.
MF: the mamiya range finder is killer--about same weight as a pro 35 film slr and can shoot up to a 6 X 7 neg. so if you need to shoot film ( which I can't figure out why) this camera will do it. I owned hassy for years, but my trans. from the Mamiya are everybit as good. but hey, I am not going back to film!
It's not the camera that makes the image, it's the photographer.
And a good photographer is perfectly capable of making photos that are up to the technical standards of NG with the 10D. The NG photos look great, nothing wrong with them and as the others say, from a few web-sized images you really can't say anything about the quality of those photos.
Gochugogi wrote:
Honestly, those images fall far short of the NG quality I've seen in the past. No snap and the colors are rather flat. I realize the dim situation is difficult
"Those images" and "dim situation". Did you read the technical details in the first link? Only one of the five images on that page was digital.
Did you bother to continue to the second link, where all of the images were taken with the 10D. If you think those colors aren't vibrant enough, you really need to get your monitor checked.
You think they look crap? When zapped reposted them I am again blown away by what the Nat Geo photographer has achieved. It's still head and shoulders better than what 99% of landscape photographers on FM can do. Just look at the motion, the sense of wonder, and the sheer otherworldliness in the last two photos. This is my country, but I don't think I could take pictures like that!
totally agree. those that think they look like crap--lets see your stuff. can you even get close to these? consider all points of the photographs--composition, story line, technical, etc. good luck. btw, if you can do this type of work, then you should be shooting for NG or someone else big in your spare time so lots of folks can see your work. these guys can do this type of work day in and day out--any subject matter/any equipment set. thats how they got there.
I think it's useful at this point to make distinctions between purely 'technical' quality, 'reproduction' quality and, for lack of a better term, 'artistic' quality. This is another one of those "weakest link in the chain" discussions.
I could make a technically impressive image of a test chart - perfect focus, white balance, exposure, level, etc., but I think we can agree, it wouldn't have any real artistic value. Unless, or course you're one of Those Critics who are a Champion Of The Banal . . .
That image could then be properly prepared and printed on a high end printer and demonstrate excellent reproduction quality - but again, no real artistic value.
Or, it could be size and quality reduced by being printed from a file with high compression which means we'd have no way of knowing about it's original quality.
And, as pointed out, it's difficult to assess technical quality when looking at 30K images designed for Web viewing. My reading of NG's intent is that their Website is designed to serve as a bit of an addition to their primary vehicle - the magazine.
Example? Try the add-on to the 'Snow Fox' article in the current issue:
When I read the article in the magazine last week, I was very impressed with the photographs. I will say that IMO NG's reproduction quality has diminished since they started printing the magazine digitally, but that's another story.
The photos featured on the Web have the same level of artistic quality, but lack the impact because the files at which we're looking are so small, thus raising questions about technical quality.
BTW, Norbert Rosing shot Velvia with a Leica R8 using 400, 500 and 560mm optics. I didn't know Leica offered a 400mm f/2.8 but since I'm not inclined to mortgage my house for a lens, it's not something I'd need to know.
nutek wrote:
Agreed.. I think we digital users may have been rather "spoilt" given our own freedom in the "rendering" and manipulations of our digital images that we expect full pop and contrasty colors for every picture out there. I would rather have NG give us a real representation (ok.. this is subjective) of the colors and scene right there and then, than spice up the colors and contrast when it is not there - at least it gives some "credibility" to their pictures.
If I see color in real life, that's what I'll show you in a photo. No reason to think that flat and lifeless = realistic!
Those pictures look good even at this level of compression. I can only imagine how good they will look in print.
It should surprise no user of a 10D that the camera could produce such excellent results in good hands. There's a tendency to underrate that camera, when it fact, it routinely delivers nothing short of spectacular results.
Isn't it entirely possible the photog used the 10D as a back up to something like a 1D(s) or 1v. I know the 10D is capable of taking good images and making good prints (i think the web images look fine). The last place I would take 10D is a monsoon.
Imagemaster wrote:
mdude85 wrote: "............and usually use the highest quality film equipment"
If that were true, why have they exclusively used 35mm and not medium or large format?
Actually, occasionally you do see MF used for the easier to get to assignments. Jim Zuckerman, for one, is known to use an RZ 67 from time to time. Generally, though, as the previous guys state that portability is an issue, as is lens selection. Superwides are rare; super telephotos are non existant for MF with very, very few exceptions...the $15,000 300 2.8 for manual focus Mamiya 645 being the only example I can think of. Now would you want to drag THAT around in areas of the world where you could be robbed, killed, or imprisoned purely upon the whims of the natives? Granted, you're not much incredibly better off having a $3000 Leica body with a $1500 lens on it around your neck, but at least it doesn't look like it. Personally I think someone putting that much into a film body to be a f*&#ing idiot, but whatever floats their boat I guess. I haven't seen a Leica do anything a Canon can't, but if someone can give me some quantifiable, irrefutable proof in an objective, verifiable, replicable scientifically sound form to the contrary I'd be more than glad to look at it and see for myself. Otherwise, of course, it's just self righteous jaw clacking and snob appeal to justify buying it for the tax writeoff.
Any takers?
Edited by Yellowfin on Oct 19, 2004 at 06:16 AM GMT
I also realize that my 10D is a very nice camera and wouldnt mind being stuck with it.
Now would you want to drag THAT around in areas of the world where you could be robbed, killed, or imprisoned purely upon the whims of the natives? Granted, you're not much incredibly better off having a $3000 Leica body with a $1500 lens on it around your neck, but at least it doesn't look like it. Personally I think someone putting that much into a film body to be a f*&#ing idiot, but whatever floats their boat I guess. I haven't seen a Leica do anything a Canon can't, but if someone can give me some quantifiable, irrefutable proof in an objective, verifiable, replicable scientifically sound form to the contrary I'd be more than glad to look at it and see for myself. Otherwise, of course, it's just self righteous jaw clacking and snob appeal to justify buying it for the tax writeoff.