Off topic: I hate all the buzzwords of obscure meaning and all nebulous talk that abound in internet communities - ones about music, for example (another hobby of mine). I either like the stuff or I don't. Therefore I wouldn't, for example, diss an album by a well known band only because the lineup that recorded it is not "classic", or because it's a departure from the "classic" sound.
Now, I haven't owned either 5D or 5DII so all I can say: of course 5D II looks digital. It's a bloody digital camera after all.
Tip - if you want your photographs to look more film-like, use film. The captures from my EOS 1V and FM2n look way more film-like than any of my 5D2 captures. Honestly!
Snopchenko wrote:Now, I haven't owned either 5D or 5DII so all I can say: of course 5D II looks digital. It's a bloody digital camera after all.
And you would know this - how? Web sized shots people have posted?
aubsxc wrote:
Tip - if you want your photographs to look more film-like, use film. The captures from my EOS 1V and FM2n look way more film-like than any of my 5D2 captures. Honestly!
Are people making these determinations of images looking "organic" based on looking at them on a screen or are they making prints and examining the prints?
I don't know about others but most of images don't seem to have 'life' to them until they've been printed. Its something that I cannot quantify but is more a feeling I get when viewing a carefully crafted print.
I love my 5D2 so much that I find myself leaving my 1D3 at home especially since I take a lot of portraits and landscapes. AF may not be the best but the images produced combined with the light weight of the camera, makes for an excellent piece. I am happy, digital, organic or whatever.
people who have trouble with soft words used in an attempt to describe subtle qualities should best be concentrating on technical photography... which makes sense here as there is almost zero images posted in this forum that would be considered "art photography."
mh2000 wrote:
people who have trouble with soft words used in an attempt to describe subtle qualities should best be concentrating on technical photography... which makes sense here as there is almost zero images posted in this forum that would be considered "art photography."
Ouch!
A couple thoughts on that notion.
First, this is a forum in which posting of photographs for aesthetic reasons is not encouraged but in which discussion of technical subjects is. Even those of us who regard ourselves as very productive photographers and who feel strongly that the technical stuff is only a means to that more important end come here mostly for the technical stuff. So, failure to post photographs in this technical subject forum is hardly proof of lack of photographic ability.
Second, speaking for myself, I'm very comfortable using "soft words" and describing "subtle qualities" of creative work, be it photography or something else. But even "soft words," in order to be useful, need to have some connection to the concrete. When someone shows me a sculpture and remarks on the "organic form" of the piece, I do have and can articulate what this means in a concrete way. In fact, I can easily imagine using such a word to describe the composition of certain photographs. But when someone tells me that images from camera A have a more "organic look" than images from camera B, I cannot associate that with anything concrete, subtle or otherwise - despite pages of attempts by folks to try to do so.
Actually, most "photographers" I know use the term "art photography" as a derogatory term... certainly nothing many photographers want to strive for, so don't worry... I am an "artist" myself... using a camera for some of my "art."
In order for words to be useful they have to be meaningful to the people using them, that is all. When I tell a girlfriend that she looks "hot" it isn't rooted in anything concrete (I'm not saying she looks like she has a fever!), but she and I know what I mean... I work with an Indian guy... he would be baffled by the word in this context... who's right? To me all that matters is that my girlfriend understands what I mean, I don't care if the Indian guy gets it.
If more than one person shooting both cameras has this feeling and describe it as "organic" and it is meaningful to them, it is meaningful to them... you just don't get it so move on... at least my Indian friend won't argue when I use an English idiom... he just asks what it means... and because of cultural differences he may or may not get it... that's ok too.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Ouch!
A couple thoughts on that notion.
First, this is a forum in which posting of photographs for aesthetic reasons is not encouraged but in which discussion of technical subjects is. Even those of us who regard ourselves as very productive photographers and who feel strongly that the technical stuff is only a means to that more important end come here mostly for the technical stuff. So, failure to post photographs in this technical subject forum is hardly proof of lack of photographic ability.
Second, speaking for myself, I'm very comfortable using "soft words" and describing "subtle qualities" of creative work, be it photography or something else. But even "soft words," in order to be useful, need to have some connection to the concrete. When someone shows me a sculpture and remarks on the "organic form" of the piece, I do have and can articulate what this means in a concrete way. In fact, I can easily imagine using such a word to describe the composition of certain photographs. But when someone tells me that images from camera A have a more "organic look" than images from camera B, I cannot associate that with anything concrete, subtle or otherwise - despite pages of attempts by folks to try to do so.
mh2000 wrote:
When I tell a girlfriend that she looks "hot" it isn't rooted in anything concrete (I'm not saying she looks like she has a fever!)
I doubt that. You say, "You look hot!" and she says, "Really?" and you just say, "Uh, yeah?" If this phrase means anything I'll bet you don't utter it randomly for no reason at all. And if she asked you why you think she is hot, I'll be you have a concrete answer. If not, you'd better work on that! :-)
I think you have some "old school" photographers who don't like the look of digital. That is, they prefer a more noticeable grain structure in their images that I think can produce a more analog/filmic type look, even at low ISO. Personally, I have no issues with digital, and I have not noticed a difference, other than the resolution/micro resolution increase, between my 5D and 5D2 files.
There is nothing concrete in the use of the word "hot" when referring to how a woman looks. Nothing about her is "hot" in a literal sense... The phrase means something because we both understand what it means, not because you can look it up in the dictionary and find a concrete definition (ok, under slang yes)... "slang" according to ask.com is defined as:
An informal nonstandard variety of speech characterized by newly coined and rapidly changing words and phrases.
"Organic" when discussing digital images can easily be considered slang or jargon... all fields are filled with jargon... including art and photography.
Actually, I tell lots of women that they look hot... they never seem to ask why... mostly just give me a hug or a kiss... they never seem to want to get into debates about words and their usage like us loser online photo-geeks.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I doubt that. You say, "You look hot!" and she says, "Really?" and you just say, "Uh, yeah?" If this phrase means anything I'll bet you don't utter it randomly for no reason at all. And if she asked you why you think she is hot, I'll be you have a concrete answer. If not, you'd better work on that! :-)
I guess I have to admit to being somewhat "old school" and I do prefer seeing certain grain structures in my b&w images... but it goes beyond that...
I prefer digital color to *most* film's color and grain...
Maggot wrote:
I think you have some "old school" photographers who don't like the look of digital. That is, they prefer a more noticeable grain structure in their images that I think can produce a more analog/filmic type look, even at low ISO. Personally, I have no issues with digital, and I have not noticed a difference, other than the resolution/micro resolution increase, between my 5D and 5D2 files.
There is nothing concrete in the use of the word "hot" when referring to how a woman looks. Nothing about her is "hot" in a literal sense... The phrase means something because we both understand what it means, not because you can look it up in the dictionary and find a concrete definition (ok, under slang yes)... "slang" according to ask.com is defined as: An informal nonstandard variety of speech characterized by newly coined and rapidly changing words and phrases. "Organic" when discussing digital images can easily be considered slang or jargon... all fields are filled with jargon... including art and photography. Actually, I tell lots of women that they look hot... they never seem to ask why... mostly just give me a hug or a kiss... they never seem to want to get into debates about words and their usage like us loser online photo-geeks....Show more →
"Hot" as a term for a woman who look sexually alluring has been in use for more than a hundred years and crosses cultures--it's probably connected to the phrase "in heat" to describe a female animal during its mating period. "Hot" as a term for a person who is sexually aroused by a woman has been in use since at least Shakespeare.
However the connotation was developed between "hot" and "sex," it's been there for centuries. There is nothing "rapid and changing" about that particular term.
"Organic" is all over the map...it's not going to last in this sense.
Okay, I had the original 5D since the day it came out until it got stolen Feb 09. I replaced it w a 5Dmk2.
I shot thousands of shots w both.... all w lots of skin (you don't need to ask) Although I love my mk2....
absolutely the skin rendition on the mk1 was sweeter.... the mk2 seems lees textured and to block up.
A fellow pro in the same biz noticed the same thing. ymmv
That's not what I said. There is nothing any more concrete about a form or a composition being "organic" either, but you can point to things that affect, to use your analogy, "hotness." This does not mean that there is some objective, universal, standard scale of hotness (the "hotness ruler?") that can be applied in an automatic way to measure this. But the opposite is also not true, namely it is not the case that the perception of "hotness" is an entirely ranndom and unpredictable thing.
"Hotness" (or "organicity," to use my favorite bizarre word from this thread) is a subjective thing, but that doesn't mean that it is based on nothing.
Of course if you think that "hotness" is just random... next time you tell her she looks "hot," and she asks you to elaborate, try the following equivalent of your answer here: "Oh, nothing. It's just a random thing in me. I can't really point to anything about you that anyone else would think is hot."
And then run. Fast. And far. :-)
mh2000 wrote:
There is nothing concrete in the use of the word "hot" when referring to how a woman looks. Nothing about her is "hot" in a literal sense... The phrase means something because we both understand what it means, not because you can look it up in the dictionary and find a concrete definition (ok, under slang yes)... "slang" according to ask.com is defined as:
An informal nonstandard variety of speech characterized by newly coined and rapidly changing words and phrases.
"Organic" when discussing digital images can easily be considered slang or jargon... all fields are filled with jargon... including art and photography.
Actually, I tell lots of women that they look hot... they never seem to ask why... mostly just give me a hug or a kiss... they never seem to want to get into debates about words and their usage like us loser online photo-geeks.
I'm pretty sure we are essentially in agreement at this point.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That's not what I said. There is nothing any more concrete about a form or a composition being "organic" either, but you can point to things that affect, to use your analogy, "hotness." This does not mean that there is some objective, universal, standard scale of hotness (the "hotness ruler?") that can be applied in an automatic way to measure this. But the opposite is also not true, namely it is not the case that the perception of "hotness" is an entirely ranndom and unpredictable thing.
"Hotness" (or "organicity," to use my favorite bizarre word from this thread) is a subjective thing, but that doesn't mean that it is based on nothing.
Of course if you think that "hotness" is just random... next time you tell her she looks "hot," and she asks you to elaborate, try the following equivalent of your answer here: "Oh, nothing. It's just a random thing in me. I can't really point to anything about you that anyone else would think is hot."
