p.65 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
philip_pj wrote:
You may agree that your list 'that some would suggest are more intrinsically meaningful' apply equally to those whose priorities are different. You set up a false dichotomy here.
'Shallow' eh? And while I'm at it, I really dislike the weasel words 'leaning into' to point to a person's difference of opinion being somehow unbalanced or less valuable. Stick with the rights and wrongs of the opinion itself please, not the personal that is behind it. In fact, looking at it again, I'll do the Ignore thing right now. No more replies will be good for you as well.
I think you may be misunderstanding. I wasn't suggesting any one of those things was in or of itself more intrinsically meaningful. I was suggesting that there is a lot more to our beloved craft as a combination of a variety of attributes, moreover than any single aspect of it can carry the weight of what makes for "best".
My apologies if you somehow interpreted this as ad hominem ... it wasn't intended as such, to cause an irritation to sensitivity. The shallow part is merely a play on words where a focus on one ONE attribute vs. the plethora of attributes is a difference in depth of consideration for the complexity of our beloved craft.
Life's too short to be casting ad hominem toward respected fellow members. "Clever" banter was never intended to offend. It is meant to make folks grin (note emoticons to denote playfulness), not frown.
p.65 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
It’s been a long time since I read the commentary but I seem to recall HCB holding extremely strong opinions about intention before shutter release. Most of the modern “must haves” are built for burst shooting and heavy cropping. Significant use of the latter he eschewed as a failure iirc. I could be wrong. gdanmitchell wrote:
HCB did “worry” about lighter lenses and cameras, which is why he chose to forego using the larger format systems of his era and instead use a format that was largely considered to be too small and too low quality for “serious” photography. Yes, that’s was how lots of people felt about 35mm film cameras in that era.
But more significantly, he didn’t worry about stabilization and AF (or AE, etc), not did Galen Rowell because…
… those things largely did not exist on the equipment of the time. (I’d have to look closely, but my best hunch is that Rowell was using 35mm gear — I believe Nikon was his choice —— that had things like match-needle exposure and split prism manual focus aids. I suppose one might have challenged him by pointing out that HCB didn’t “need’ those things.)
It is undoubtedly true that one can make photographs with gear that doesn’t have typical modern features like AF, IS, AE, etc. Likewise, it is true that one could drive cross-country in a Model A Ford, travel to Europe by ship, forego the use of cellular phones, carry traveler’s checks instead of credit cards, heat your home with a fireplace, and carry water from the well in a bucket.
You could also use glass plates instead of film. And you could even make some fine photographs that way.
I can tell you with certainty that the majorly of past photographers (though, honestly, HCB might have been at least a bit of an exception) would embrace the improvements to modern photographic gear and technologies had they been available. While some modern folks look backwards and imagine some lovely “purity” or something about that earlier work, the folks in those earlier times did not see it that way. They.
(If you’ve been around photography for a while, you have actually watched this process take place with quite a few photographic luminaries. I personally know folks who were Ansel protégés, and they — with almost no exceptions — have moved from the manual LF film gear that was common back then to the modern digital gear that all of us use today.)
No one questions that fact that we can make good photographs with a camera that has a single 35mm focal length, a maximum f/4 aperture, no IBIS, etc. What some may well question is whether foregoing those useful and easily available photographic technologies for a different technology (the 100MP 33 x 44 sensor) is going to be a plus, a minus, or neutral for photographs… and reasonable photographers may conclude that the theoretical plus of better IQ from that sensor is outweighed by the plus of larger aperture, smaller size, and features like IS on alternative cameras.
As you point out, HCB — who did use and ILC — seemed to do quite well without modern improvements like… 100MP 33x44 formats....Show more →
p.65 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
h00ligan wrote:
It’s been a long time since I read the commentary but I seem to recall HCB holding extremely strong opinions about intention before shutter release. Most of the modern “must haves” are built for burst shooting and heavy cropping. Significant use of the latter he eschewed as a failure iirc. I could be wrong.
Yes and no. He believed that, in contrast to the then-traditional practice of pretty cumbersome photography, that using small 35mm handheld cameras allowed him to instantly record situations that were fleeting. There often is little or no time to ponder one’s intent in this kind of photography — it is frequently quick and intuitive.
BTW, he also eventually decided (or so he claimed) that he was less that enamored with the whole photography thing… ;-)
p.65 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I’ve found the quote in decisive moment, that I was recalling.
“I hope we will never see the day when photo shops sell little schema grills to clamp onto our viewfinder; and that the golden rule will never be found etched into our ground glass”
“ if you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the dark rooms enlarger ; the integrity of vision is no longer there. “
I don’t think he’d be a fan of 10fps and 60 mp to crop into one moment where something happens in the corner of a frame, but who knows. Maybe!
gdanmitchell wrote:
Yes and no. He believed that, in contrast to the then-traditional practice of pretty cumbersome photography, that using small 35mm handheld cameras allowed him to instantly record situations that were fleeting. There often is little or no time to ponder one’s intent in this kind of photography — it is frequently quick and intuitive.
BTW, he also eventually decided (or so he claimed) that he was less that enamored with the whole photography thing… ;-)
p.65 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
The thing people so often overlook about a photographer like HCB when using him to make a case for an older style of photography is that he was anything but an equipment traditionalist.
The small handheld 35mm cameras that he used were the most modern of then-available photographic technologies, and the idea of going into the world to photograph the way he did seemed radical.
It seems weird to me that some (though not all) in the contemporary street photography world insist on conservatively sticking to old ways of seeing and old ways of photographing rather than embracing the HCB radicalism.
h00ligan wrote:
I’ve found the quote in decisive moment, that I was recalling.
“I hope we will never see the day when photo shops sell little schema grills to clamp onto our viewfinder; and that the golden rule will never be found etched into our ground glass”
“ if you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the dark rooms enlarger ; the integrity of vision is no longer there. “
I don’t think he’d be a fan of 10fps and 60 mp to crop into one moment where something happens in the corner of a frame, but who knows. Maybe!
p.65 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Cropping is very traditional photography technique especially when using film MF and LF. If ultimate IQ is not the goal, I see no reason why not to use it also in digital photography.
p.65 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Sorry if I missed this elsewhere - but have people found any real, rigorous reviews of the camera by an actual photographer who bought the camera (not was given it to test by Fuji)? Just wondering if those have started flowing as I'd like to filter out the bias at this point...
p.65 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I recently read an account of HCB and his supposed disdain for cropping. In fact, he did crop but hid the fact to enhance his image as the photographer of the 'decisive moment.' He never let others view his negatives. The proof is that his negatives have been examined and they reveal cropping. His most famous image, the one of the man vaulting the puddle, was cropped. He was very arrogant and his hypocrisy was exposed when some old archival material was examined. I'm not sure but it may have been in connection with the publication of some Magnum material. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with cropping and I don't fault him for doing that. I just think it's disappointing that he was so insecure as to feel the need to hide it.
h00ligan wrote:
I’ve found the quote in decisive moment, that I was recalling.
“I hope we will never see the day when photo shops sell little schema grills to clamp onto our viewfinder; and that the golden rule will never be found etched into our ground glass”
“ if you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the dark rooms enlarger ; the integrity of vision is no longer there. “
I don’t think he’d be a fan of 10fps and 60 mp to crop into one moment where something happens in the corner of a frame, but who knows. Maybe!
p.65 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
degminsec wrote:
Sorry if I missed this elsewhere - but have people found any real, rigorous reviews of the camera by an actual photographer who bought the camera (not was given it to test by Fuji)? Just wondering if those have started flowing as I'd like to filter out the bias at this point...
Jim Kasson does a careful review of the stuff he's interested in, and he has one inbound from LensRentals. Watch his blog and the DPReview Medium Format forum. It won't be touchy-feely
p.65 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
TENOG wrote:
I recently read an account of HCB and his supposed disdain for cropping. In fact, he did crop but hid the fact to enhance his image as the photographer of the 'decisive moment.' He never let others view his negatives. The proof is that his negatives have been examined and they reveal cropping. His most famous image, the one of the man vaulting the puddle, was cropped. He was very arrogant and his hypocrisy was exposed when some old archival material was examined. I'm not sure but it may have been in connection with the publication of some Magnum material. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with cropping and I don't fault him for doing that. I just think it's disappointing that he was so insecure as to feel the need to hide it.
Some folks measure the mark of the photographer by the skillful adeptness of how the work was produced. Other folks couldn't give a rat's backside, but solely rest in the final product. Whether that is PP, Cropping, Long Lenses, Auto XYZ, Manual XYZ, Small Format, Large Format, etc ... pick your debate of choice wrt to measuring the "how".
For the longest time, I felt that Adams "Cheated", because he didn't do it "in camera" the way that was required for my chromes. Eventually, I got over it. Only took about 30 years ... and the quote below is kinda my mantra when it comes to such things. Granted, I do appreciate the skillfulness of getting it right "in camera", and that will certainly be appreciated, but at the end of the day, I think Roy "gets it".
"I don't really think that the technique really determines the veracity of the image. It's what the image does to the viewer that determines whether it's right or wrong."
p.65 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
Some folks measure the mark of the photographer by the skillful adeptness of how the work was produced. Other folks couldn't give a rat's backside, but solely rest in the final product. Whether that is PP, Cropping, Long Lenses, Auto XYZ, Manual XYZ, Small Format, Large Format, etc ... pick your debate of choice wrt to measuring the "how".
For the longest time, I felt that Adams "Cheated", because he didn't do it "in camera" the way that was required for my chromes. Eventually, I got over it. Only took about 30 years ... and the quote below is kinda my mantra when it comes to such things. Granted, I do appreciate the skillfulness of getting it right "in camera", and that will certainly be appreciated, but at the end of the day, I think Roy "gets it".
Totally agree with that quote. If a photo grabs me, I really don’t care how the photographer arrived with the result. As well, if a photo does nothing for me, I really don’t care what hoops the photographer jumped through…the end result does nothing for me.
p.65 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I must be living right. Since I missed the first B&H shipment allocation I wasn't expecting the camera anytime soon with the way tariff negotiations are going between Japan and the US.
But I received noticed tonight from B&H that my order for a black 100RF is on it's way and will be delivered by FedEx Friday. I'm still getting it for the original $4899 pre-order price. Well if the 100RF checks out as I expect I'll soon be putting my trusty Q2 up for sale on the Buy & Sell here.
p.65 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
degminsec wrote:
Sorry if I missed this elsewhere - but have people found any real, rigorous reviews of the camera by an actual photographer who bought the camera (not was given it to test by Fuji)? Just wondering if those have started flowing as I'd like to filter out the bias at this point...
p.65 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
degminsec wrote:
Sorry if I missed this elsewhere - but have people found any real, rigorous reviews of the camera by an actual photographer who bought the camera (not was given it to test by Fuji)? Just wondering if those have started flowing as I'd like to filter out the bias at this point...
Reviews are are fun to watch/read but not very useful in case of GFX100RF. Reason is that this is the only MF fixed lens camera in the market. take it or leave it. There is no true alternative to GFX100RF. In this situation I very well understand that reviews are more about impressions and user experience than technically reviewing the camera.
p.65 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tuomkok wrote:
Reviews are are fun to watch/read but not very useful in case of GFX100RF. Reason is that this is the only MF fixed lens camera in the market. take it or leave it. There is no true alternative to GFX100RF. In this situation I very well understand that reviews are more about impressions and user experience than technically reviewing the camera.
There are two parameters that is important to know from reviews:
1. AF performance
2. Lens performance
We know the sensor, handling, size is a personal preference, you know F4 lens limitations, you know lack of IBIS limitations. But you don't want buy a camera, lens, especially on this price you completely blind about the lens performance. Also AF performance is the other factor that is important. In both case, you need exact results (video about AF and miss rate), not individual opinions, that means almost nothing.
p.65 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
There are two parameters that is important to know from reviews:
1. AF performance
2. Lens performance
We know the sensor, handling, size is a personal preference, you know F4 lens limitations, you know lack of IBIS limitations. But you don't want buy a camera, lens, especially on this price you completely blind about the lens performance. Also AF performance is the other factor that is important. In both case, you need exact results (video about AF and miss rate), not individual opinions, that means almost nothing.
I agree on both 1 and 2. I also greatly value good EVF and the IBIS (that we do get with GFX100RF) are important.
But as long as GFX100RF is the one and only MF fixed lens camera without a competitior, I the details are not really that important. It is the overall package that I accept or decline. I this case I decided to accept, I should get my camera by the end of the week. Frankly I am not sure if I am making a costly mistake, or if GFX100RF is a camera I will love and use for years to come
... and the quote below is kinda my mantra when it comes to such things. Granted, I do appreciate the skillfulness of getting it right "in camera", and that will certainly be appreciated, but at the end of the day, I think Roy "gets it".