dave lackey
Veteran
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Is that so? My reading may be very selective, but I'm not under the impression that there's "so little talk" about images here.
Is it probably a phenomenon mainly in the Leica subforums?
dave lackey
Veteran
Is that so? My reading may be very selective, but I'm not under the impression that there's "so little talk" about images here.
Is it probably a phenomenon mainly in the Leica subforums?
Not hardly a problem in the Leica forums...check the M body and LTM portrait threads not to mention the Noctilux, etc.
I suspect what Rob meant was that there is less talk about images overall involving critique and helpful tips. There is even less talk about the photographers (ourselves), but that is to be expected.
Summarit Bokeh: that reminds me, I need to optimize one of the Summarits for F1.5. Dante is correct: the Summarit is optimized for F2.8.
I did it again... Didn't I...
I did it again... Didn't I...
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Yes, one never knows what the photographer (or artist in general) wanted.
For me, no problem. Either I like the photograph (or work of art in general), or I don't. I don't even care what the artist wanted. Why would I?
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Ah, ok... Explicit critique of an image is just very hard to do, I think, especially if you want to be careful not to hurt the photographers feelings.
I find it very much easier to explain why I like a certain photo than to suggest what could have been made better in a photo I don't (particularly) like.
That's why I like the rating feature in the gallery.
There is even less talk about the photographers (ourselves), but that is to be expected.
I guess so. I don't know any of you.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hard to argue with that!
I suppose that the more you understand about the historical and social context, the more you can enjoy, but I'm not sure it matters. Some painters and writers speak across the decades and even centuries. Others don't. Why knock yourself out over the ones that don't?
For a view from the other side of the counter, from http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps critique.html
Critiques, appraisals, assessments, portfolio viewings, call them what you will: at their best they are invaluable, and at their worst, they are an embarrassing waste of time.
.....
Responsibility for success and failure is equally shared between the critic/appraiser and the photographer. It's true that some critics are inherently better than others, but it's also true that some photographers make the critic's job a lot easier. Here are a few guidelines which should help you get the most out of any critique, based on our own experiences in giving critiques at the Leica stand at Arles and elsewhere.
....
I: know what you want
Are you asking if you have the right material for an exhibition? Or a book? Or for seeking a bursary? Or do you want advice on how to tackle a theme? Or how to present your pictures? Or how to approach a publisher?
Obviously, some critics can give you better advice in some areas than others (see ii below) but unless they have some idea of what you want, they will have considerable difficulty in helping you. Putting your portfolio down and saying "What do you think?" is no help to the critic -- and if he is going to help you, you have to help him.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
farlymac
PF McFarland
I have noticed on the Critque forum, that there are some real characters. Such as the person who will chime in that he dislikes an image, but give no reason. And do this to anyone who posts an image for review. Now that's a character.
As for the character of a particular lens, well, it's all in the mind of the beholder. It either works for you, or it doesn't. It can make a photo better or worse though. I haven't gone thorugh the trouble of shooting the same scene with different lenses, just to see the results, but I can say that I have different lenses that I will or won't use on certain subjects. I was looking at a photo of the Aroura Australis the other day, and the first thing I noticed was the composition. The next thing I noticed was the considerable coma from the lens.
So if my next posting in the Critique section gets flamed for no real reason, so what. I just consider the source as insignificant. But if it gets a concise and to the point teardown as to where I went wrong, I will give it due consideration.
PF
As for the character of a particular lens, well, it's all in the mind of the beholder. It either works for you, or it doesn't. It can make a photo better or worse though. I haven't gone thorugh the trouble of shooting the same scene with different lenses, just to see the results, but I can say that I have different lenses that I will or won't use on certain subjects. I was looking at a photo of the Aroura Australis the other day, and the first thing I noticed was the composition. The next thing I noticed was the considerable coma from the lens.
So if my next posting in the Critique section gets flamed for no real reason, so what. I just consider the source as insignificant. But if it gets a concise and to the point teardown as to where I went wrong, I will give it due consideration.
PF
DNG
Film Friendly
Part 1):
A 35mm I guess, brand ??? Considering the FOV looks like a 50mm.
Part 2):
The framing is more important than the lens used... we all use our feet to stand/stoop at the right place. You chose an "eye-level" viewpoint that adds a bit of intimacy to the photograph.
A 35mm I guess, brand ??? Considering the FOV looks like a 50mm.
Part 2):
The framing is more important than the lens used... we all use our feet to stand/stoop at the right place. You chose an "eye-level" viewpoint that adds a bit of intimacy to the photograph.
And, for those of you who find it hard to abandon your gear-obsession, tell me what lens you think this was. For the rest of you, tell me why this shouldn't matter.
Nokton48
Veteran
W. Eugene Smith once said "There is nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept". I try to keep that in mind while working (when I can remember it)
back alley
IMAGES
neither my lenses nor myself have any personality...or talent, for that matter.
but we have lots of fun, none the less...
but we have lots of fun, none the less...
back alley
IMAGES
on second thought...i posted a few shots today and 3 people made comment...but over 200 hit the thread...so maybe make comment and help me out...is it time to sell my characterless gear and start collecting stamps?
robklurfield
eclipse
robklurfield
eclipse
I took a break from the site for a few days (went computerless actually, something I recommend everyone try once in a while; good for cleaning out the old brain).
Anyway, it's interesting to see how this thread has evolved.
I didn't mean anything pejorative in my question. It was simply a sense that I wanted to test against others' perceptions. Personally, I don't think I'm any good at guessing what lens was used in someone else's shot, but kudos to Roland and Greg for correctly guessing that my image was shot with a Summitar. Shot with it because that was what was handy and already mounted on the camera. Shot while the subject and I were both seated because, well because Jenny and Pam and I were in the middle of a conversation. So, intimate was what I got because we were seated around a small round table. Didn't move my feet at all. Light is what was available.
I've never purchased a lens thinking about its character. I'm not sure if that's because I don't care or simply that I don't feel sophisticated enough to know the difference.
I wonder if HCB hung onto that Summicron because of its character or simply because it was familiar and comfortable and he knew what he could expect it do in any circumstance. I'm certainly no HCB, but I feel that way about my lenses. I don't have many, but I like the sense that they feel good in my hands and that I know more or less what to expect. I think much of their "character" arises from how I use (or misuse) them. But then, in my day job, I'm not a techie, so perhaps that informs my practice and my judgment. Brian's observation about a sizable portion of RFF members being technically-inclined or employed probably makes pretty good sense. I'm not one of those folks so it's quite possible that I'm simply not terribly conversant in some of these issues.
I used to own a 35 Summicron, for example, but couldn't tell you what version it was. That probably seems silly to some folks here. I suspect that some of the character of my images reflects my own character, especially my lack of technical competence and my laziness at doing some of the rigorous things that might improve it. My photos can be quite sloppy, but I they reflect me rather accurately (or at least my perception of the world). And, I've never thought it much mattered what lens I used so long as it gathered sufficient light to make a readable exposure. I suspect that puts me in a minority among folks on RFF. I enjoy using Leicas/RFs because they get out of my way when I'm using them and allow me to concentrate on what I'm seeing. I have to confess to not being able to see a difference in the images I shot with the 35 cron years ago versus the ones I shoot with a 35/2 Canon today in terms of lens character. Of course, perhaps I simply need a better eyeglass prescription.
Anyway, as Joe says, I still have fun at this.
Dave, you will never be irrelevant here.
Anyway, it's interesting to see how this thread has evolved.
I didn't mean anything pejorative in my question. It was simply a sense that I wanted to test against others' perceptions. Personally, I don't think I'm any good at guessing what lens was used in someone else's shot, but kudos to Roland and Greg for correctly guessing that my image was shot with a Summitar. Shot with it because that was what was handy and already mounted on the camera. Shot while the subject and I were both seated because, well because Jenny and Pam and I were in the middle of a conversation. So, intimate was what I got because we were seated around a small round table. Didn't move my feet at all. Light is what was available.
I've never purchased a lens thinking about its character. I'm not sure if that's because I don't care or simply that I don't feel sophisticated enough to know the difference.
I wonder if HCB hung onto that Summicron because of its character or simply because it was familiar and comfortable and he knew what he could expect it do in any circumstance. I'm certainly no HCB, but I feel that way about my lenses. I don't have many, but I like the sense that they feel good in my hands and that I know more or less what to expect. I think much of their "character" arises from how I use (or misuse) them. But then, in my day job, I'm not a techie, so perhaps that informs my practice and my judgment. Brian's observation about a sizable portion of RFF members being technically-inclined or employed probably makes pretty good sense. I'm not one of those folks so it's quite possible that I'm simply not terribly conversant in some of these issues.
I used to own a 35 Summicron, for example, but couldn't tell you what version it was. That probably seems silly to some folks here. I suspect that some of the character of my images reflects my own character, especially my lack of technical competence and my laziness at doing some of the rigorous things that might improve it. My photos can be quite sloppy, but I they reflect me rather accurately (or at least my perception of the world). And, I've never thought it much mattered what lens I used so long as it gathered sufficient light to make a readable exposure. I suspect that puts me in a minority among folks on RFF. I enjoy using Leicas/RFs because they get out of my way when I'm using them and allow me to concentrate on what I'm seeing. I have to confess to not being able to see a difference in the images I shot with the 35 cron years ago versus the ones I shoot with a 35/2 Canon today in terms of lens character. Of course, perhaps I simply need a better eyeglass prescription.
Anyway, as Joe says, I still have fun at this.
Dave, you will never be irrelevant here.
Photography tends to be hard to discuss here...since most seem to focus on the technical and not on the conceptual. It leads to many arguments that aren't that useful for the photographer. Cameras are more easily discussed without hurt feelings.