From m9 to xp1 - u judge

God, the blown highlights on those pictures are awful. I lasted 15 seconds looking at them at most. It's like mace or something.
 
jippiejee said:
Never read a blog so full of hatred for fellow photo bloggers. Not sure if the basis for that is envy or if he is just mean spirited like that. Of course people like Steve Huff, Thorsten Overgaard and Eric Kim are not the pinnacle of contemporary photojournalism, but they don't pretend to be. They all run an amazon front or organize workshops that readers apparently enjoy attending. No need to bash them for that.
Click to expand...

I don't know about all those chaps but Overgaard is a really great portrait photographer. At his level criticism is either based on taste or envy.
At some point your pictures say what you want to say and might not speak to a majority of people.
I am only amateur, but I took a picture once of a jagged path leading to the the edge of the sea, with a castle on an island in the distance. The castle had some fog around it. I made the path tack sharp and used medium DOF with a 50mm to make the castle out of focus. It was B&W.
To me it was a metaphor for life with a confusing path leading to a dream castle in the distance which was out of reach.
This guy in another forum laid into me. He said because the castle wasn't as sharp as the path it was a rubbish picture - he recognised the castle as a tourist site.
What can you do with some people ?
 
While I agree with some of Weeks' points, I really dislike his attacks on Steve Huff and Thorsten Overgaard. There's no need to bash those people, they are passionate, well informed, and write pleasantly.

I don't believe, however, that digital cameras must have autofocus. I accept manual focus as both bane and boon of the M8/9; I'm not so keen on the need to bring the camera to your eye in order to focus, though. The cameras with focus peaking like the GXR-M and NEXs, and the new M, are/will be much better in this regard. I must admit that I use AF cameras more than manual these days as it is just more convenient, but there are times when manual focus is desirable.

I have yet to see a X-Pro 1 image with the same incredible colour and detail of a M9 at base ISO, and that is one reason why I just love my M9 - the base ISO image quality and look.

The X-Pro 1 is lighter, much less expensive, has AF and can use M lenses. Those points are in its favour. But it also produces files that are hard to process optimally in Lightroom, has a 1.5x crop factor, lacks focus peaking for manual lenses and doesn't produce the same level of image quality as the M9. I was all set to buy a X-Pro 1 until I tried the blazingly fast OM-D, and I realized that if I was going to get another camera, it might as well be smaller, faster, weathersealed and cheaper to boot!
 
colonel said:
I am only amateur, but I took a picture once of a jagged path leading to the the edge of the sea, with a castle on an island in the distance. The castle had some fog around it. I made the path tack sharp and used medium DOF with a 50mm to make the castle out of focus. It was B&W.
To me it was a metaphor for life with a confusing path leading to a dream castle in the distance which was out of reach.
This guy in another forum laid into me. He said because the castle wasn't as sharp as the path it was a rubbish picture - he recognised the castle as a tourist site.
What can you do with some people ?
Click to expand...

Ignore them. He was obviously a brainless tool.
 
mrrobleyleica said:
If you can't use the focusing or don't like it, fair enough, get another camera, but don't go on about it!
I spoke to the Fuji dealer here, about the X-E1 (she still didn't know when it's out) and she said oh yes, the M9 is difficult to focus. Well, i suppose compared to AF it sort of is, because it's not automatic. But in reality it's not difficult, just different and - very manual. Like a proper gearbox in a car - different.

I was brought up on manual focus and film in the 70s, so it's pretty natural to me and I like slow, manual 'hard work' photography - not point and shoot 10 fps variety.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. People need higher ISO, people need AF, but after a few years I'm still waiting to see any improvement in photography. What sort of a generation of photographers are being bred if they need so many things to accomplish what a street photographer with a manual focus camera and slow film could do better in past generations? It really is total bs the excuse that it is 'this or that' missing from the camera that is stopping people winning a Pulitzer Prize for their photography, it is just lack of skill and work ethic.
 
V-12 said:
Yes exactly. People need higher ISO, people need AF, but after a few years I'm still waiting to see any improvement in photography. What sort of a generation of photographers are being bred if they need so many things to accomplish what a street photographer with a manual focus camera and slow film could do better in past generations? It really is total bs the excuse that it is 'this or that' missing from the camera that is stopping people winning a Pulitzer Prize for their photography, it is just lack of skill and work ethic.
Click to expand...

Sir, did you get out of the bed with the wrong foot this moring? You can either embrace technology and try to make the best out of an ever changing world, or you can..well, give a damn! 😉 The tools we use to make images changes, as do our means to manipulate the result. The children of the digital age have just as much right to make images according to their own preferences with whatever tools they choose as more traditional photogs have using older technology. Everyone is right and none is wrong. You don't have to like an image, that is however not the same as automatically disregarding it simply because it was made using a technology you don't like.

Mac
 
ramosa said:
i remember reading his piece on what street photography is and not being very impressed by it and thinking he had a huge ego. and now, again, i must say that i'm not really impressed with this piece, nor the myriad photos used in it. (i'm obviously just a hobbyist, but his ego seems to outshine his photography.)
Click to expand...
I agree. Pompous arse IMHO. And not much of a photog either. Blowhard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom