Re: Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting
ftllens wrote: airfrogusmc wrote: Fred Miranda wrote: airfrogusmc wrote:
Also wanted to say if folks put as much energy into their actual photographs as they do camera A is bettet than B because it has less shadow noise when viewed at 400% then we would see a much better output of work in the digital world.
Just some food for thought.
It's a good point. But this thread is technical in nature and I feel there is nothing wrong with doing both.
Personally I think it's important to learn about our camera capabilities because it helps us in the pursuit to get better results when taking real pictures.
Fair enough but I rarely see anything taken today that is as visually moving as many of those images made with equipment that is seen as archaic by many today.
It makes me really sad when people let their feedback loop contain their taste to their preferred temporal and spatial limits, and being dismissive of anything outside of it due to a lack of effort of looking.
I would need lifetimes just to explore a condensed curated period of past works of just a single previous epoch, let alone the exponential near-cambrianic levels of creative works being output right now in all direct and derivative mediums related to photography.
Can you honestly say you've explored the contemporary space with a large enough sample size to make a definitive opinion on it?
Also, Weston was one of the most technically-centric photographers of his time. He upgraded his equipment as such.
You can bet he would have weighed the pros and cons of each currently existing system and chose the best system for his needs. That requires knowing detailed technical nuances. Scientific applications go even a step further than what we think is obsessively overkill.
If we don't care about information fidelity, we should all just be using phones right now. How many of us have mastered computational limits of the incredible protocols available on github? The interpolation is insane.
When I look at images from my own personal past, I zoom in and enjoy all the little details I might have missed on that day or any subsequently viewing. I WANT to see that flower petal's color on the side of her shoulder where the sun hit just so, and would have been blown out if I didn't underexpose. I WANT to see my long gone dog in the shade AND the other one jumping in a bright field at the same time.
You can always add increased highlites for artistic effect to add to atmosphere or accent. In audio, yeah you can add distortion for artistic effect the same way but I'd never want peaky messes as a starting point. That's why RAW and 32-bit float is awesome.
I haven't eaten today, I apologize for the long post.
"Simplicity is the prime requisite. The equipment of Alfred Stieglitz or Edward Weston represents less in cost and variety than many an amateur "can barely get along with."Their magnificent photographs were made with intelligence and sympathy-not with merely the machines."-Ansel Adams.
What i was referring to is many get caught on the gadget go round and forget the gadget is only a tool and all of the tools available today can capture what one is seeing. But one has to see. That is the important part. No amount of MPs or DR can help if one can't see or has nothing to say.
Adams and Weston both used equipment that match their visions. They were not ones to chase the latest and so called greatest. They used equipment that worked for them.
Jun 01, 2021 at 03:25 PM
Previous versions of airfrogusmc's message #15612398 « Leica M10 and M10-P: Stay way from ISO 100 in contrasty lighting »
