mh2000 wrote:
Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist for someone else, so calling it BS is just rude. I don't beleive in God, but I don't go around starting arguments about it with those that do... I just step away when the subject comes up... maybe you should do the same...
out-of-body experience....
Hmm.....last time I checked I wasn't involved in any out of topic discussions, nor participate in any argument of any kind like film, painting, and all that jazz.
I won't provide a link here - no sense creating the idea that this is all a dastardly plot to make you visit my site - but if you happen to find my gallery and look through it (keeping in mind that you are viewing small jpgs that I prefer to show as much larger prints) you could have some fun by seeing if you can pick out which are done on a 5D and which on a 5D2 and finding some that were done with a completely different camera or two.
And, seriously, please don't look for or visit the site if you are going to post about the "traffic" business. I guess if it ticks too many people off I'll just delete this post.
If you live in the SF Bay Area we might arrange for you to compare prints and try your luck at identifying the camera...
(The camera info is easy to find directly, and you could obviously make some assumptions based on dates, but don't ruin your fun by taking that route, OK?)
I tried my best to avoid this thread, but I simply have to come to Jeremy's defense. I too notice that 5DII images have a more "digital" look to them. I must say that I notice it mostly at 100%. It seems that the effect of NR tends to become more evident at that magnification. Things start to look "plasticky" to me. I noticed the same thing when comparing 40D files to 20D files. Maybe it has more to do with the vintage of Digic processor than the sensor, I dunno. Maybe it is both.
Either way, they are all excellent cameras. Jeremy and the others who say they see a difference are not crazy, and I don't think anyone is claiming superiority either way, so I don't know why anyone is getting hostile or upset about it. "Organic" is a perfect word for the difference that I see. Call it BS if you want to. It makes no difference.
BTW, mh, there is no need to "believe" in God. Direct knowledge is possible. Simply study a combination of astrophysics, metaphysics (Spinoza, in particular), and throw in some Eastern philosophy/religion for good measure. If you "believe" in the Universe, then you "believe" in God. They are the same thing.
cogitech wrote: Either way, they are all excellent cameras. Jeremy and the others who say they see a difference are not crazy, and I don't think anyone is claiming superiority either way, so I don't know why anyone is getting hostile or upset about it. "Organic" is a perfect word for the difference that I see. Call it BS if you want to. It makes no difference.
I'm with you on the first half of this. There are - by definition - differences. If those who originally described one camera as being more "film-like" or "organic" than the other will confirm that they do not regard "film-like" or "organic" as being in any way better than "non-film-like" or "inorganic" (or "non-organic," or "unorganic," or?) then I'm with you on the rest.
BTW, mh, there is no need to "believe" in God. Direct knowledge is possible. Simply study a combination of astrophysics, metaphysics (Spinoza, in particular), and throw in some Eastern philosophy/religion for good measure. If you "believe" in the Universe, then you "believe" in God. They are the same thing.
jeremy_clay wrote:
I answered his specific question.
You did .. and it's very helpful to any discussion to know where an opinion is coming from. In your case thousands of files taken with the bodies have formed your opinion and it's worth listening to on that basis.
In these type of discussions many opinions are offered with little, if any practical experience .. all hat & no cattle.
If everyone simply stated their experience while offering their opinion these type threads would be much more concise & valuable.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I won't provide a link here - no sense creating the idea that this is all a dastardly plot to make you visit my site - but if you happen to find my gallery and look through it (keeping in mind that you are viewing small jpgs that I prefer to show as much larger prints) you could have some fun by seeing if you can pick out which are done on a 5D and which on a 5D2 and finding some that were done with a completely different camera or two.
And, seriously, please don't look for or visit the site if you are going to post about the "traffic" business. I guess if it ticks too many people off I'll just delete this post.
If you live in the SF Bay Area we might arrange for you to compare prints and try your luck at identifying the camera...
(The camera info is easy to find directly, and you could obviously make some assumptions based on dates, but don't ruin your fun by taking that route, OK?)
Dan, nice gallery, and I have seen some of your work in the past, but honestly I can't tell which one were taken from which camera without checking out the exif(if it's there), that's the reason why I started the thread originally and asked people to show me what and where to look for these organic characteristics. I suppose I can rent a 5D to see for myself, but thought I asked in the forum first, since i know there are a lot more people who have used both of them in the past and they may have something to show, but so far nobody is able to give any direct comparison.
Sorry that I asked for a direct comparison, I guess there isn't any.
It's a continually shifting paradigm... back when Nikon didn't have much else to offer, it was claimed their cameras looked more "film-like" (i.e., more noise) and *all* Canon cameras were demonized as producing images that were too "digital" or "plastic".
mh2000 wrote:
Most professionals don't care about subtle imaging properties, they don't have time to get attached to any of their images, they just have to keep shooting and keep the money rolling in...
Ummmmmmm - mostly true excepting those used for marketing. I personally don't fit in the category but an example would be Hanson Fong who has some of his wedding images in collections and are prominently featured in the groups that sponsor them - in his case Canon. Maybe he could weigh in - I know he's now using the MkII...
Mike Mahoney wrote:
You did .. and it's very helpful to any discussion to know where an opinion is coming from. In your case thousands of files taken with the bodies have formed your opinion and it's worth listening to on that basis..
But what does "more organic" mean?
My daughter was visiting a small village in a foreign country in which the eggs at the market were literally only a couple of hours removed from being snatched from under the chicken's butt. She was aghast that the eggs still had feathers stuck to them...this a girl who always insists on "organic" food....
Sorry, it's an interesting link, but doesn't make me believe in God... why should it? The Universe can just exist, and that's all. How do we know? If you cannot leave something wonderous as wonderous, then you can force any explaination you want... and there are as many creation myths as you care to find... doesn't make any of them true...
The universe is too large for us to ever know... look for the beauty in it and feel lucky that you have the leisure to enjoy it...
Photography is a nice way to practice looking at things in a different light.
cogitech wrote:
I tried my best to avoid this thread, but I simply have to come to Jeremy's defense. I too notice that 5DII images have a more "digital" look to them. I must say that I notice it mostly at 100%. It seems that the effect of NR tends to become more evident at that magnification. Things start to look "plasticky" to me. I noticed the same thing when comparing 40D files to 20D files. Maybe it has more to do with the vintage of Digic processor than the sensor, I dunno. Maybe it is both.
Either way, they are all excellent cameras. Jeremy and the others who say they see a difference are not crazy, and I don't think anyone is claiming superiority either way, so I don't know why anyone is getting hostile or upset about it. "Organic" is a perfect word for the difference that I see. Call it BS if you want to. It makes no difference.
BTW, mh, there is no need to "believe" in God. Direct knowledge is possible. Simply study a combination of astrophysics, metaphysics (Spinoza, in particular), and throw in some Eastern philosophy/religion for good measure. If you "believe" in the Universe, then you "believe" in God. They are the same thing.
Organic means "natural." In a film image, the grain clumps etc. follow the laws of nature to some degree in the way they clump etc... depending on enlargement it can provide a different look than an artificial array of perfectly square pixels... but once the square pixels become small enough they start approximating reality...
RDKirk wrote:
But what does "more organic" mean?
My daughter was visiting a small village in a foreign country in which the eggs at the market were literally only a couple of hours removed from being snatched from under the chicken's butt. She was aghast that the eggs still had feathers stuck to them...this a girl who always insists on "organic" food....
mh2000 wrote:
Organic means "natural." In a film image, the grain clumps etc. follow the laws of nature to some degree in the way they clump etc... depending on enlargement it can provide a different look than an artificial array of perfectly square pixels... but once the square pixels become small enough they start approximating reality...
This is a crop from the 500D (said to have a digital look a while ago), interpolated to 500% with genuine fractals. Yes. Five hundred percent. And added grain of various sizes and types.
mh2000 wrote:
Sorry, it's an interesting link, but doesn't make me believe in God... why should it? The Universe can just exist, and that's all. How do we know? If you cannot leave something wonderous as wonderous, then you can force any explaination you want... and there are as many creation myths as you care to find... doesn't make any of them true...
The universe is too large for us to ever know... look for the beauty in it and feel lucky that you have the leisure to enjoy it...
Photography is a nice way to practice looking at things in a different light.
The link is just a fun, slightly related link, and I never tried to convince you to believe in God. There's no need to believe in God because the Universe and God are identical. Creation myths are exactly that; myths. You see, the word "God" is completely misunderstood by the vast majority of people, both Christians and Atheists alike. That's the source of the discord.
wickerprints wrote:
Only on FM can a discussion about digital camera sensors trigger a debate about the provability of God's existence. Gotta love the internet.
Yes. And everyone who knows, knows that God only shoots Nikon. And only full frame. Or maybe not. On the other hand, have you seen his gallery? I want to see side by side comparisons. On my monitor.
mh2000 wrote:
Organic means "natural." In a film image, the grain clumps etc. follow the laws of nature to some degree in the way they clump etc... depending on enlargement it can provide a different look than an artificial array of perfectly square pixels... but once the square pixels become small enough they start approximating reality...
I guess we can debate some other time about whether silver halide is particularly "natural" (if so, why is it not biodegradable?) and whether a digital sensor isn't actually a closer analog to the human retina than silver halide film (thus, actually more "organic"), and whether a grainless image isn't really more "natural" than a grainy image--given nobody actually sees "grain" in one's natural eyes.
But how would a lesser resolving sensor be "more organic" than a greater resolving sensor, since the smaller pixels would start approximating "reality?"
-Just because a quality cannot be quantified, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Particularly on forums like this, a certain cadre likes to reduce photography to objective measures, rules, and discrete qualities. This ignores more subtle areas for judgment and observation.
-Whether or not "organic" is the right word, there is a difference in the way certain cameras render grain, color, tonal properties, and so on. Trying to quantify this, or to break it down into objective comparisons is difficult. Some of these differences only become apparent through extended observation in multiple circumstances.
-These differences are subtle, and particularly in cases where the artist applies extensive processing after capture, may be dwarfed by other factors in a particular application. This is similar to how people discuss the different looks of different film emulsions: yes they may have a particular tendency... but that tendency may be drowned out by the exposure, lighting, development choices, and so on.
-I have owned and used professionally: 5D classic, 5D2, 1DsII, 1DIII, and the 1DsIII. I find that the 5D2 and 1D3 had the most obviously "digital" rendering of images, and the 5Dc and 1DsII have the most "organic" rendering. The Ds3 is closer to the Ds2, but not "quite" as organic looking in my subjective view. I have always found the low ISO images of the Ds2 to have a very special look. None of these more "organic" images look exactly film-like, but they look less conspicuously the result of a digital process TO ME.
