abqnmusa wrote:
"organic" is when mold and mildew takes over the inside of the lens or camera body sensor
gives it more of an "analog" quality to the images
not "digital"
thanks!
I will lock the lenses I plan to sell in a dank, dark room and then sell them for a premium as "organic lenses"
surf monkey wrote:
I wish someone would show some examples of this phenomenon. There's a lot of people saying the 5D is organic, the 5D2 is digital. I haven't seen the proof yet. Maybe it's just a personal "feeling," like the "3D look" term that a lot of people also use. Or maybe it's just a word people use because there's no other way to articulate what the photographer sees or thinks he/she sees in their results.
perhaps it means less over-harshly jagged pixel to pixel transitions, less chroma noise, less banding; stuff you don't tend to see as much or at all when using film
RDKirk wrote:
So can we show several images displaying bad bokeh and task people to distinguish consistently between the ones with "ugly" bokeh and the ones with "funky" bokeh?
We could.
It is a fine line. Often "funky" bokeh is "ugly" bokeh, done right
RDKirk wrote:
The term "organic" is far older even in common use than 2008--we were certainly using it in the 1960s. And at that website I saw no references to "organic' being used to describe photography, whether digital or film.
Yah, and in the 70's photos were groovy and in the 90's they were wicked.
I don't have a problem with "colorful" terminology, but it's annoying when it's used in an ambiguous way to describe something that should be stated more clearly or plain. "This camera makes more organic images than that camera." What the hell does that mean anyway? More natural, more realistic, more detailed, smoother, less noise, better highlight gradations, or what?
Agreed; just another in the line of overused buzz words. A decade ago; it was 'green'. A large studio I worked for statred using 'going forward' about a decade and a half ago; ad nauseum. What; like we can go backwards?
I have had brides and other potential clients ask if I have an 'organic' style. Well, I am, as long as upright, a carbon based life form; so yeah, I am all about organic!
skibum5 wrote:
perhaps it means less over-harshly jagged pixel to pixel transitions, less chroma noise, less banding; stuff you don't tend to see as much or at all when using film
Do you think these aspects make a big difference in terms of the 5D vs 5D2? I find it hard to believe that these are so much better in the 5D that people would be bashing the 5D2.
Photon wrote:
Fun thread!
I have to admit, the term "organic" annoys me less now in the context of image character than it did when it first began to be used to describe healthful, sustainable farming practices. I mean, come on, organic food? Who the $%&* eats inorganic food (other than traces)? If you do, and you post here, I'm eager to meet the first robot that can pass the Turing test.
Well, I've made that quip myself, but I do see the point of the term in identifying a product that contains fewer synthetic chemicals being "more organic" than one containing more synthetic chemicals.
surf monkey wrote:
Yah, and in the 70's photos were groovy and in the 90's they were wicked.
Don't forget "bitchen" which predates those.
I have a knee jerk reaction to some words too.
I hear "awesome" and 10 nano seconds later I've judged the person as a moron, and when I hear "impacted" when they mean "affected" I think "illiterate slob". I can't help myself.
Harsh? Maybe. but 99.999% of the time it's an accurate predictor...
jamesf99 wrote:
I hear "awesome" and 10 nano seconds later I've judged the person as a moron, and when I hear "impacted" when they mean "affected" I think "illiterate slob". I can't help myself.
What if something really is awesome? I'd tend to judge someone more harshly, if they're standing at Tunnel View in Yosemite and says, "That inspires awe." Awesome works, as does wow, whoa, holy f#@*en shit!, etc. Really, who doesn't use unsophisticated terms on occassion?
But, I do get your point. I do it too.
Have you ever caught yourself judging someone for saying something dumb, then thinking to yourself, "Wow. I must be a pretentious prick for thinking this?" I do.
I guess it's better to be a literate snob than an illiterate slob.
surf monkey wrote:
someone for saying something dumb, then thinking to yourself, "Wow. I must be a pretentious prick for thinking this?" I do.
Funny you should say that - I just did that to myself yesterday. I felt shamed I could be so shallow. Thanks for showing me (and others) we're not alone. I may be flawed but my conscience still functions...
surf monkey wrote:
Do you think these aspects make a big difference in terms of the 5D vs 5D2? I find it hard to believe that these are so much better in the 5D that people would be bashing the 5D2.
To my knowledge nobody is bashing the 5D2 - they're simply saying the output of the 5D is more pleasing to them.
Jayem1 wrote:
See it's popping up more and more. Is this a fad or what?!
Right, when I see "organic food" in stores I am asking myself question - is other than organic food all made from plastic? Same with photos, whatever we see on computer all digital.
surf monkey wrote:
What if something really is awesome? I'd tend to judge someone more harshly, if they're standing at Tunnel View in Yosemite and says, "That inspires awe." Awesome works, as does wow, whoa, holy f#@*en shit!, etc. Really, who doesn't use unsophisticated terms on occassion?
But, I do get your point. I do it too.
Have you ever caught yourself judging someone for saying something dumb, then thinking to yourself, "Wow. I must be a pretentious prick for thinking this?" I do.
I guess it's better to be a literate snob than an illiterate slob.
Yup, I get it. I'm not perfect and as I said, I can't help myself and it's a knee jerk reaction. I just refuse to say "awesome" when I know it is not awe inspiring.
Every time I've heard "awesome" from someone in the last decade, they have clearly demonstrated that they have no clue as to what the word actually means. No, your new [phone/twinkie//whatever] is not "awesome"; it's not even close....
Most of us make grammatical mistakes and words/phrases have a way of becoming colloquialisms or idiomatic (xerox is a well known example). There's no excuse for some of the things I hear though, and when I hear a newscaster say "impacted" when what they mean is affected, I'm pretty sure me assessment is accurate (unless they're reading a teleprompter, then it's the writer that flunked 7th grade English and should be fired before the close of business).
Many of us "verb nouns" today for fun, but at least most of us know what we're doing. On the other hand, there was one local Boston news woman that said "we're efforting to bring you...". After staring at TV screen in stunned silence, I put her squarely in the ignoramus camp and she has proved on numerous occasions, and beyond any doubt, that she belongs there. Pretty face, but not a brain in the head....
As to whether I feel like a pretentious prick. I kick myself regularly for other transgressions, but mercifully speaking English is not one of them; nor is finding fault with my illiterate countrymen's inability to do so. I mean if I can do it (manage to speak and write), anybody can.
What astonishes me is that the characterization of the 5d2 being synthetic may stick. If anything, to my eye 5d2 images have a crispness that is "3d", like zeiss glass is supposed to have.
