jeremy_clay wrote:
My only income is photography. The 5D/5DII difference exists, and for those of us who work with these files for a living will agree. It many not be something immediately measurable in a brickwall test that I know this forum loves, but you naysayers are flat wrong. Sorry. Check my URL(s) if you're bored, but as someone who has extensively used both of these bodies for hundreds of thousands of clicks, the difference is there.
If it doesn't matter to you (general forum "you"), then great; it's a very capable cam which produces awesome images. Why everyone wants to shout down this conversation and condemn it is beyond me (especially considering the convos some of them have been involed in regarding gear)....Show more →
As I asked before:
So what is the difference? What does "organic" mean in this context?
Mirek Elsner wrote:
I don't know about the "more digital" or "more film like", but the 5D2 has higher resolution and makes better (more natural) looking lager prints compared to 5D.
This is true, especially the ability to avoid that ugly hair moire in more situations.
I feel bad for all the others out there who buy into this misguided attitude and automatically think they cannot take a compelling and beautiful image that reflects their unique aesthetic vision, simply because they don't have the "right" equipment.
That is perhaps the biggest issue I have with how digital photography is considered on these forums. Because things "digital" are so quantifiable, people tend to believe that all they have to do is get the numbers right and their pictures will be good. They believe that artistic choices are reduced to mechanics to be solved by the equipment.
"My composition is bad because my camera does not have a focus point at a rule of thirds intersection."
It is hard for me to understand that anyone with any significant breadth of experience with film materials would make much of an issue of any difference between the "look" of the 5D and the 5D2. Well, geez, ever compare the difference between Kodachrome and Ektachrome or between Kodachrome and Velvia? Anyone remember the original old Fujichrome (according to the Fujichrom ads of the 70s, "The Japanese see color differently"). Ever compare Kodak Tri-X to Ilford XP? Ever compare Ilford XP at EI 100 to Ilford XP at EI 400? Ever compare Tri-X in HC-110 at 32:1 to Tri-X in Rodinal? Or to Panatomic-X in Microdol at 1:1? Or Microdol at full strength?
The difference in "look" between the 5D and the 5D2--aside from the resolution--is insignificant compared to any of those differences.
Peter Figen wrote:
"First of all, define what it means for an image to look "organic." Describe in specific terms what qualities such an image has, and how those qualities distinguish it from an image that purportedly lacks it."
It's kinda like pornography - you know it when you see it.
I feel the same way about mystical camera gear bullshit like "organic".
Peter Figen wrote:
.... There is also the raw converter used, and if you haven't tried RawDeveloper (http://www.iridient.com/products/rawdeveloper.html) specifically for those types of images, you're missing out on what your files are capable of delivering. What RD can do for a sunset, once you've figured out the myriad of options available to you will make you think you had used a different camera. Most of what makes digital images look "digital" is the person doing the post production.....
Peter: I didn't know you used RD. So do I. I've been working with it for several years. I first used it when I owned a Kodak SLR/c and have been using it ever since, upgrading along the way.
I agree 100% with the proposition that the post processing technique is what makes or breaks a digital file. Though I've never seen or read a survey on the subject, I'm going to guess that more than half of all digital photographers use poor technique when post-processing or use post-processing to "make up for" poor technique at the moment of capture ... a very common mistake, I imagine.
Regarding "organic vs. digital:" the first time I ever heard the term "organic" in relation to digital photography was from you when you tried to tell me about the differences between the 1Ds II and 1Ds III. Well, I'm not really sure what that term means, but I do know that my 5D II files are about as close to medium format film as I've ever gotten ... really exceeding the Mk 1 in this respect and easily exceeding the Mk 1 in terms of "looking digital" vs "not looking digital." If that makes the 5D II "more organic" than the Mk I, so be it.
As I recently posted elsewhere, the Mk II is a very different camera than the Mk I. Those who expect(ed) the Mk II to simply be a higher-rez version of the Mk I were misguided in that expectation. It's a very different camera. It responds to light differently and needs to be post-processed differently.
wickerprints wrote:
... but because I feel bad for all the others out there who buy into this misguided attitude and automatically think they cannot take a compelling and beautiful image that reflects their unique aesthetic vision, simply because they don't have the "right" equipment. In the face of this, do things like CA, field curvature, and 1 stop dynamic range even matter? Do you really believe that the great photographic legacy of all who have come before us amounts to taking pictures with the greatest possible fidelity and detail?
Art is not limited by your tools but by your imagination.
+1
I have a photographer friend who consistently "irritates" me by taking much better photographs (photographs, not images, or pictures) with her iPhone than I take with my 5DII.
As wickerprints says...would she use that for her work product? Probably not. But that in no way diminishes those photographs taken with the iPhone...
It's being able to capture that decisive moment. Wait....hasn't someone said something like that before?
charlesk wrote:
I feel the same way about mystical camera gear bullshit like "organic".
wicker: Thanks for saving me a lot of typing.
You know, I went food shopping at Wegman's last weekend, was looking for some dry-aged beef, interesting enough I saw they have one section dedicated for grass-fed beef and all of them packages had "Organic" printed all over. And our local Shopper Food Warehouse also have a dedicated "Organic" section for all kind of stuff. Whenever I saw the word "Organic" usually it reminded me of healthy food or some sort, I found it hard to relate "Organic" to photography...appear to be a fancy term for them natural looking photo i suppose? I'm still trying to find out what so unnatural about the 5D2 file compare to the 5D, but turn up empty handed in google search....
I have never tried 5DII, so I don't have any opinion on that, but want to say something (not just about this discussion, but about all others of the same type):
When someone claims to see something, or not see it, why not just accept it and assume that it is real for him/her? It is actually possible for something to be true for one person and false for someone else. That doesn't mean that either person is wrong.
Obsessing about which technology was used to make a photograph, especially when it leads to wholesale rejection of one technology is silly. It is equivalent to hearing an astonishing performance of a violin solo and then deciding that it really wasn't that good because "a Guarneri can't match a Stradivarius." Even worse would be to decide ahead of time that one performance couldn't possibly be as good, given the instrument used.
A thought experiment. Let's say that photographic technology did not exist. Simultaneously two methods of doing photography appear fully formed - neither has any prior history or tradition. One is represented by the current state of film-based chemical photography, developing, and optical printing processes. The other is represented by the current state of digital capture, digital post, and inkjet printing.
Let's ask two questions:
Without any previous history with either medium and considering all that is involved with each, which would photographers (as they would soon come to describe themselves) choose?
With the same caveat, would observers regularly select images produced by one over images produced by the other? Which would they select and why?
Don't be naive about the range of reasons photographers have for making statements about this or that photographic technology, or about their use of terms like "filmlike" or "natural" or "digital" and so forth. In the context of marketing themselves a number of photographers make such statements ("I only photograph what I see and don't alter the image") that turn out to be just plain obviously not true. Or only true if you accept a very narrow context for the statement. Even some very successful photographers engage in this. (The spectacle of anyone who has used Velvia speaking about unnatural post-processing is always good for a chuckle or two.)
Finally, my position is that it doesn't matter in any intrinsic way what technology you use to create photographs as long as the photographs you create represent your version of what photographs should look like. Why is (supposedly) looking like film a good thing?
Some want to believe that there is some magic technology that makes great photography. The news is that you have to master whatever technology you choose to use to make your photography (pick one!), but what technology that is ultimately matters little. What you create with it does. If you are looking for a technology to make your photography better or to define it, you are perhaps still at a very early stage in your development as a photographer.
jeremy_clay wrote:
My only income is photography. The 5D/5DII difference exists, and for those of us who work with these files for a living will agree. It many not be something immediately measurable in a brickwall test that I know this forum loves, but you naysayers are flat wrong. Sorry.
I'm firmly in this camp with Jeremy too. Not an insecure shooter neither Firstly I freakin *hate* the term organic - wtf does that mean anyway for a piece of metal and plastic that cranks out electronic charges as output? Look at the process an image goes through and it may never be incorporated as a physical object. Second I hate the term "film-like" as a catchall for "looks pretty dang good to me". Peter is absolutely correct when he was describing the difference between a digital capture and a film capture. It is a problem and it exists. The 5D has in my experience superior low ISO performance. I like my MkII and in fact shoot with it 90% of the time. But if I have something that has important shadows and highlights, or important textures then I will drag out the 5D to at least back up the shot. I believe as someone else stated that the differences comes from mid-tone contrast and also the way that shadows and highlights are handled. It seems that a lot of people take the attitude that "it's just a sensor stupid". Well - it was probably useless for me to comment but I like defending my trusty 5D - she's been mighty good to me and I still enjoy her company and "take" on things.
HelenaN wrote:
I have never tried 5DII, so I don't have any opinion on that, but want to say something (not just about this discussion, but about all others of the same type):
When someone claims to see something, or not see it, why not just accept it and assume that it is real for him/her? It is actually possible for something to be true for one person and false for someone else. That doesn't mean that either person is wrong.
Because what Jeremy said was this:
The 5D/5DII difference exists, and for those of us who work with these files for a living will agree. It many not be something immediately measurable in a brickwall test that I know this forum loves, but you naysayers are flat wrong. Sorry. Check my URL(s) if you're bored, but as someone who has extensively used both of these bodies for hundreds of thousands of clicks, the difference is there.
gdanmitchell wrote:
.... my position is that it doesn't matter in any intrinsic way what technology you use to create photographs as long as the photographs you create represent your version of what photographs should look like. Why is (supposedly) looking like film a good thing? Dan
Because film is analog and is the root of all photography. It's the standard of reference for what a technically good or great photograph should look like. There are definitely lingering problems with digital, one of which is a lack of perceived depth or dimension or "roundness" ... or whatever it is you want to call it ... to the subject matter, something that's simply inherent in film capture. Another problem is gradation of tones. And still another problem is lack of utter sharpness and clarity ... which we valiantly try to make up for with Unsharp Mask and other techniques. I recently visited a gallery in New York and found myself staring at an 8-foot by 6-foot aerial view of a village somewhere in Spain. At a distance, it was stunning. And close up ... meaning 5 inches from it ... it was again stunning ... clear, sharp as a tack, with every street, window, person, etc., represented with superb clarity. This cannot yet be accomplished with digital.
Another problem: a certain coldness or lack of warmth to digital, especially noticeable in digitally recorded music, but less noticeable in digital photography. Still, it's there, and I'm not the only one who sees this lack.
All of this will all be resolved in time. Digital is still in its infancy and will improve greatly as time goes by. Look how much has improved in the past few years!
But in the here and now, our reference point is, and should be, film-based photography in much the same way that our reference points for writing, painting, sculpture, movies, etc. are creations of the past, not the present. There is no great writer who didn't study Shakespeare and there is no great stage writer who didn't study Tennessee Williams.
And if you truly want to know why "looking like film" is a good thing, compare any of the best current digitally-infused films (like Avatar) with the no-nonsense, utterly real films of earlier eras. There is no comparison. Current digital is fake and looks it.
Some years ago, a well-established, high-end audio component manufacturer ran an ad depicting a young boy watching a tv broadcast of a symphonic concert. It had the moving and memorable headline: "Is this what your children think an orchestra sounds like?" The ad was not just for the manufacturer's products but also made the suggestion for people to attend live concerts and not be 100% seduced by technology. There's an analogy here ... though maybe not the best one ... to film vs. digital photography.
