wickerprints wrote:
And you're coming across arrogant because you want to see things that make no difference to me--and by the looks of it, quite a few other people as well--when it comes to answering the question, "what is a meaningful photograph?"
because I am unwilling to open myself to critique only reflects your insulting and combative attitude, and ultimately confirms the truth of what I said.
Maybe because I've dared to call certain people out on their pretentiousness regarding making compelling images and for some strange reason, you think that has something to do with you?
I think it is terribly tragic that in some individuals' eyes, photography is reduced to a technical exercise about which lenses and bodies and systems capture some nebulous effect, as if the ability to catch this "look" is what gives their images value. And not because I feel it must be a miserable existence for the afflicted photographer, 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....Show more →
Wow - I'm pretty sure that you have not been coming across as the voice of reason toting olive branches. Some very pointed remarks with a lot of disdain for seasoning.
You are making an unwarranted jump from aesthetic appreciation of what a tool is capable of to a gear head - aka pixel peeper. Sorry - you're lost. I'm sure that to you, an artist that picks a particular brush with particular type of bristles is equally delusional. Or that the brand and type of pigment they use has nothing to do with the look of their work. Listen - folks have made compelling images with everything down to pinhole cameras. That has absolutely zilch to do with a particular artists' work who chooses his tools and medium in accordance with his vision. Some artists care more than others about their tools. Some folks carve trees with chainsaws - I think you'll agree it's not likely there'll be any debate next to Michelangelo's David. I mean why does one person prefer the output from a particular printer brand or a particular paper? It's all about choosing the tools that will get your vision out there. Maybe details matter to that artist and just because you are uncaring enough to understand does not make them not true. If I say that I prefer Moab Kokopelli luster to Epson Premium Luster for my work and I explain that it holds shadow detail better who are you to say that I'm steering people wrong because you can't tell the difference? Perhaps it would be better served if you were to ask for folks to demonstrate the difference rather than throwing down a proclamation that "all people who believe different from me ar delusional and not real photographers but instead they're gear heads and measurebaters". Jeeez - and you call Peter arrogant
I don't see why discussing perceived differences has to seen as advocacy. The 5D and 5DII are different cameras. The 5D has bigger pixels; the 5DII has more pixels. Some of us think that we can discern a different look or feel in the respective products of the two cameras, not necessarily in terms of superiority, just differences. Both cameras are capable of producing excellent results. Of course, the II yields more detail, good for very large prints, and has more contrast. I think the II's color is more accurate, too. On the other hand, I think that the Classic's big pixels give a more refined tonal response than the II's. We enjoy discussing this stuff.
HelenaN wrote:
When someone claims to see something, or not see it, why not just accept it and assume that it is real for him/her?
The problem is that they don't usually just say it is "real for him/her", they try to generalize it and/or claim there is some objective, measurable difference. This confuses people and leads to decisions based on bad information.
HelenaN wrote:
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.
Always a pleasure to see someone with a live and let attitude. You're correct - folks should not feel obligated to denounce that which they don't see or understand. Thanks!
charlesk wrote:
The problem is that they don't usually just say it is "real for him/her", they try to generalize it and/or claim there is some objective, measurable difference. This confuses people and leads to decisions based on bad information.
There is some merit to that comment. I would be the last to say it's measurable - at least with any tools I possess. Quantifiable? Well, it would seem that a lot of this discussion is based on individual perceptions - basically a lost cause. I would not expect that I would get the same perceptions from a glass of wine as a trained sommelier, as a matter of fact that's not a bad analogy. I heard some folks at a tasting making fun of a sommelier's descriptive language. They couldn't perceive the "plum" and the "leather" and so poo-poohed it as "talking crap". Pity they didn't recognize they were missing out on the nuances of the vintage - they would have been just as happy with a Gallo perhaps...
Tons of comments from the peanut gallery of bird and brick shooters without WWW's under them. If you don't see it, that's fine; I do, as do plenty of other working professionals.
No, every digital looks digital, poorly processed digitial looks poorly processed and excellent digital photos look excellent... and you may not think about the medium, but if you look, they still look digital... and of course, all film images look film... bad or good...
You can transcend your medium, but you cannot escape it.
veroman wrote:
Every poorly processed digital looks digital.
Since the 1Ds III uses the same sensor, does it's images look more digital too?
I was at a local sidewalk art sale yesterday and looked at some photographs from a local phtotographer. There was one photo of waves crashing against the central CA coastline. It had so much depth of color I immediately asked the guy if it was taken with medium format film. He said no, he took it with his 1D III and post processing with Photoshop.
I think there are cirumstances or subjects that are hard for digital to capture (like the sunset), and others are much more film-like.
pjbishop wrote:
I don't see why discussing perceived differences has to seen as advocacy. The 5D and 5DII are different cameras. The 5D has bigger pixels; the 5DII has more pixels. Some of us think that we can discern a different look or feel in the respective products of the two cameras, not necessarily in terms of superiority, just differences. Both cameras are capable of producing excellent results. Of course, the II yields more detail, good for very large prints, and has more contrast. I think the II's color is more accurate, too. On the other hand, I think that the Classic's big pixels give a more refined tonal response than the II's. We enjoy discussing this stuff....Show more →
Actually, they are the same size. The 5D2 has less wasted space. Understand that "pixel pitch" is the distance between pixel centers--which is not the same thing as "pixel size." Canon reduced "pixel pitch" in the 5D2.
veroman wrote:
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.
Reality should be the standard of reference for what a technically good or great photograph should look like. Digital and film approximate reality by different means, and each is both more successful and less successful than the other in different ways and under different circumstances.
This was something Dan alluded to--which would actually be judged better at approximating reality by a completely unbiased viewer?
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.
By the digital that you've seen. I've seen black-world digital technology that far defeats the resolution of the best black-world film technology--and that was the very best film technology. That's all just a matter of how much you spend for the technology.
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.
OTOH, many listeners are more distracted by physically induced noise and pops from a vinyl album. Again: Which would actually be judged better at approximating reality by a completely unbiased viewer?
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 they also learn that they can't sell either Shakespeare or Williams today.
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.
Black and white with two or three outdoor light sources looks like reality? I would guarantee you that a survey of Net generation viewers would vote that Avatar looks more realistic than The Maltese Falcon.
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.
No, it's not a good analogy, because that ad compares reality with one method of reproduction, and not the comparison of reproduction with reproduction without reference to reality that's being discussed in this thread.
If you ask an unbiased viewer to compare reality to modern digital and then compare reality to Tri-X...you might be surprised.
RDKirk wrote: Reality should be the standard of reference for what a technically good or great photograph should look like. Digital and film approximate reality by different means, and each is both more successful and less successful than the other in different ways and under different circumstances.
Reality as a standard of reference for photography?? Without taking sides, just have a look around at all the photographs that people say are good, great, fantastic, etc. and pretty much all of them have no relation to what your eyes see.
The most "realistic" shots are actually just simple P&S images, the kind of shots that people in forums like this scoff at.
Or maybe I am totally misunderstanding what you meant by "reality"?
veroman wrote:
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...
To point #1 I say, "So?"
To point #2 I say, "And there are no 'lingering problems' with film?"
Regarding your musical analogies, I have made a living in the music field for about three and a half decades. I won't go into all of the boring details, but this has included time as a professional musician, the stage manager of a regional orchestra, and about 30 years as a music faculty member, work in recording, and a long background in electronic music. Despite the current fashionable interest in records, as a musician I don't buy the bizarre notion that vinyl recordings are somehow (here it comes) "more natural" or "more organic" than those made and disseminated digitally. A bit of knowledge about how audio recording and reproduction works and about how audio and specifically musically perception works is useful here.
hyst wrote:
Reality as a standard of reference for photography?? Without taking sides, just have a look around at all the photographs that people say are good, great, fantastic, etc. and pretty much all of them have no relation to what your eyes see.
The most "realistic" shots are actually just simple P&S images, the kind of shots that people in forums like this scoff at.
Or maybe I am totally misunderstanding what you meant by "reality"?
Totally agree with this. Reality is a bad standard of reference for photography. Photography is an art and like most great art, the goods ones have little to do with reality.
jeremy_clay wrote:
Tons of comments from the peanut gallery of bird and brick shooters without WWW's under them. If you don't see it, that's fine; I do, as do plenty of other working professionals.
A classic mode of dismissal. "If you don't see it then you clearly lack the genius that I possess. Sniff."
