Roger Hicks
Veteran
Noctilux. M6ttl. TLR. Am I alone in finding it odd that some people seem to classify their pics according to what they were taken with, rather than by subject?
If I'm doing a review, obviously I use the kit under review. But if I'm not, I use either my favourite lenses or what's on the camera at the time: I take much the same sort of pics with a 35 Summilux, 50 Sonnar or 75 Summicron (my three favourites).
Also, by the time a pic has been scanned and post-processed (or shot digitally and post-processed) then reduced to 600x900 pixels (a screen-filling image), what can it tell me about the camera or lens? Let alone a 400x600 vertical shot?
After a few weeks, I can sometimes tell or remember which lens I used for a given shot, but often I can't. Sometimes I can't even tell if I used a 35 or a 50, and I certainly can't tell an M2 from an M4-P from an MP, or even any of those from a Voigtländer (except sometimes with fast lenses close up) or Zeiss Ikon.
What do others think about this?
Cheers,
R.
If I'm doing a review, obviously I use the kit under review. But if I'm not, I use either my favourite lenses or what's on the camera at the time: I take much the same sort of pics with a 35 Summilux, 50 Sonnar or 75 Summicron (my three favourites).
Also, by the time a pic has been scanned and post-processed (or shot digitally and post-processed) then reduced to 600x900 pixels (a screen-filling image), what can it tell me about the camera or lens? Let alone a 400x600 vertical shot?
After a few weeks, I can sometimes tell or remember which lens I used for a given shot, but often I can't. Sometimes I can't even tell if I used a 35 or a 50, and I certainly can't tell an M2 from an M4-P from an MP, or even any of those from a Voigtländer (except sometimes with fast lenses close up) or Zeiss Ikon.
What do others think about this?
Cheers,
R.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
maybe ...
telling what equipment was used is all that is worth while telling about those pictures?
just a weird idea, of course.
telling what equipment was used is all that is worth while telling about those pictures?
just a weird idea, of course.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
I think all my pictures in the gallery are titled by the subjects name. Only the earliest photographs I uploaded have gear information.
I rarely remember what lens I used much less the aperture,
I only know when It's the 75 lux because it's my only coded lens.
I rarely remember what lens I used much less the aperture,
I only know when It's the 75 lux because it's my only coded lens.
Krosya
Konicaze
Once again, Roger, It's just YOUR opinion that pics can't be judged based on web image. Me, for example, - If I like a particular photo online, I do want to know what equipment was used as it gives me an idea how some things work together. Helped me make some lens descisions in a past many times. So for me - web pictures can tell a lot about lens performance. And so far - everything I could see from online photo - did perform in a same way once I got to use the same lens in real life. It's just you have to find a good source of info. Why a camera info you say? - well, the whole thing about Konica/Leica incompatibility for example. If I see a pic that was shot with MP and Hexanon, and it is sharp - I can see that they work well together. Or if something backfocuses, etc.
Now, some info about the shot, as far as what's on the pics is helpful too, - so subject info is a good thing to have.
Now, some info about the shot, as far as what's on the pics is helpful too, - so subject info is a good thing to have.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
speaking for myself only:
i do not doubt the usefulness of testing. i do some testing to see what my equipment is capable of, and i appreciate the availability of reference pictures in the net. though, those are of limited use only, as it is not clear whether my own results will look similar - my own workflow may yield different results even in a similar situation.
but beyond that point, i no longer care.
i do not doubt the usefulness of testing. i do some testing to see what my equipment is capable of, and i appreciate the availability of reference pictures in the net. though, those are of limited use only, as it is not clear whether my own results will look similar - my own workflow may yield different results even in a similar situation.
but beyond that point, i no longer care.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
When I save a digital or scanned photo I name it by subject. But if I post it online I usually identify the equipment used (plus film and whatever I can remember about exposure settings) mostly to save the bother if someone asks. And I've found people often do ask (though not so much on RFF, I'd guess), even if the info is right there in the EXIF for a digital shot. Its a defensive habit that's become, well, a habit.
...Mike
...Mike
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sure: a good picture looks better on the web than a bad picture, and you can get some idea of the overall 'look' of an image. And the question 'how did he do that?' sometimes has a technical answer.
But it's not really a matter of opinion whether you can tell more about sharpness and contrast from a transparency or from a web image. If it were otherwise, why would anyone make cameras that were more than one megapixel? This isn't opinion: it's simple physics.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Mike,
Indeed, identifying the kit can sometimes be useful, but I know that a lot of the stuff that appears in print is a flat lie, made up to please people who expect that sort of thing. I even knew one photographer who attributed all his best 6x7 shots to one manufacturer (who gave him kit) and the so-so shots to another (whose kit he had to buy).
Most professional photographers I know don't really give a toss whether it was shot on a Hasselblad or a Rollei as long as it's a good picture. Indeed, that was the first example I saw of made-up data, over 25 years ago. You could see from the trannie it was Hasselblad (frame edges, not image quality) and when I queried it, the photographer said, "Was it? Who cares? Change it, if you like..."
I write a 'best guess' to accompany many shots, often qualified with 'as far as I remember' or something similar; but it doesn't signify a whole hell of a lot, even when it's accurate, which it usually is (fairly) because I can often remember what I was using.
As for remembering exposure data, I'm most unlikely to do that. The same is true of just about every professional I've ever met, unless there was some special reason to remember.
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think it's a familiarity thing a lot of the time. I can tell you what cameras quite a few of the more active memebers here own and I'm sure a lot of them know what I own. Sometimes I look at a pic and think ... "Oh, he used the Hexar for this pic. My god ... he's still got that Canon f1.2 50mm!" etc etc.
It's no big deal ... if someone wants to let me know what camera and lens combo he used for the shot and how he processed his film even ... that's fine with me!
It's no big deal ... if someone wants to let me know what camera and lens combo he used for the shot and how he processed his film even ... that's fine with me!
Krosya
Konicaze
Ok, I'll bite - so how exactly, if I'm trying to decide to buy or not to buy a Noctilux, I'm supposed to judge this $5000 lens? Based on what you say - I have to buy it, shoot some transparency film with it and only then I'd know what it can do.
Or I could try looking at some pics online - as I do it.
Hmmm....
Moving on. Ok, I agree, that in a "laboratory" enviroment Slide would tell more about a lens than a web picture. However, what about the real world? How many people, including even ones that use Noctilux and such lenses, actually have a good use for that slide? 1%?
In today's world everything IS digital. Physics or not, most people use digital web pics and do just fine. Most people even with high megapixel cameras, like m8 or EOS 5D, dont ever print pictures - all goes online.
Is it the way to get the most out ur lens/camera? Maybe not, but it's where things are now. Plus, I thought (and I may be wrong) that you are an M8 user, right? But if you are - do you think it's a good enough camera to produce a file that sharpness and contrast of the lens can be judged on, or do you still have to use a slide film for that?
Krosya
Konicaze
All I can say here - your workflow is flowed somewhere. My images are very consistant - they either look/print well, or they dont.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
That's nasty - but inapplicable in my circumstance: I imagine my "influence" is roughly less-than-zero. However, if any manufacturers are out there, I will state "I cannot be bought (but have most attractive rates of hire
)"Well, I imagine most professionals shoot a lot more frames than I do! And what I said was "what I can remember" which usually isn't a lot. I generally have a rough idea of the aperture (within a stop or so) but seldom remember shutter speeds. Even when shooting manually. But that rough idea is usually driven by what vague memories I might retain of what I was trying to achieve at the time. Which is possible if (as is the case) I get through a roll a week and, perhaps, four rolls on a "good" weekend.
...Mike
tripod
Well-known
The equipment information satisfies the gear headedness part in us. So, the specific model is nice to know, but really it's the format and type of camera (RF, SLR, TLR, scale focuser, field LF, mono rail LF) that would be more significant.
oftheherd
Veteran
Interesting question Mr. Hicks. I can remember (as I am sure you can), when you never saw a photo in a magazine or book, without not only the camera and lens, but aperture and shutter speed, film, and maybe other information. Everyone knew that professionals and serious amatures kept notes of those things for all photos.
I almost never did. I did often recall the unusual things such as an unusual lens for a particular photo, or unusual shutter/aperture, that is, not what the meter called for. I often thought I should record such things, and did for a while in my first year of college when I didn't have a meter. It helped me be able to zero in on the best settings for a particular lighting situation. I was taught when taking forensic photos to record all. I started trying to do that, but soon found that wasn't really necessary either.
Certainly when I got my first SLR, I didn't, I just followed the light meter's recommendations. I found the Yashica TL Super's meter was excellent. I could follow it and didn't have to record anything to repeat good exposures. I don't know any other reason to keep such records.
If it isn't necessary for that, why bother? I can always tell the film if necessary, and I can guess pretty close if I wasn't using a normal lens. Again, why bother?
I guess I am trying to say I think you are right.
I almost never did. I did often recall the unusual things such as an unusual lens for a particular photo, or unusual shutter/aperture, that is, not what the meter called for. I often thought I should record such things, and did for a while in my first year of college when I didn't have a meter. It helped me be able to zero in on the best settings for a particular lighting situation. I was taught when taking forensic photos to record all. I started trying to do that, but soon found that wasn't really necessary either.
Certainly when I got my first SLR, I didn't, I just followed the light meter's recommendations. I found the Yashica TL Super's meter was excellent. I could follow it and didn't have to record anything to repeat good exposures. I don't know any other reason to keep such records.
If it isn't necessary for that, why bother? I can always tell the film if necessary, and I can guess pretty close if I wasn't using a normal lens. Again, why bother?
I guess I am trying to say I think you are right.
kmack
do your job, then let go
Do you mean odd as in esoteric, or odd as in 'is that guy really wearing a dead skunk?'
Esoteric odd: yes.
Dead Skunk odd: no.
Esoteric odd: yes.
Dead Skunk odd: no.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Sometimes I like to see the gear, film, developer, time, temp, agitation, not for any reason I just like it.
R
rpsawin
Guest
I think you are 100% spot on and have stated your thoughts quite well. I find my approach is less gear-centric and more about the subject as well.
Your point about processing analog-to-digital and then displaying that image on the average computer monitor/screen has been the "elephant in the room" in these discussions and I'm glad to see it acknowledged.
Best regards,
Bob
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Read any magazine, and they will tell you, "Believe what we say, not what we print." This is because ANY reproduction medium is variable -- and magazines are more reliable than uncalibrated monitors. Books are better still.
Buy on a test if you can, or on the advice of someone you trust if you can't. It's fairly clear that you have no faith whatsoever in anything I do or say, but fortunately, there are plenty of others who feel differently. And you must have some reviewers you trust.
As for 'it all goes online', sorry, this is flat nonsense. Where do you think book and magazine illustrations come from? Or advertisements? Or newspaper pics (the least demanding form of illustration until the invention of internet forums)? Why do you think advertising photographers use 39-megapixel Hasselblads? For that matter, have you ever been to a photographic exhibition?
Quite honestly, no, an M8 doesn't deliver the same quality as a first-class slide (as well as the M8 I have an MP, and M4-P and a couple of M2s). A lot depends on whom you believe, but the maximum pixel equivalent I have heard for a 35mm slide -- in his words, 'a portrait of Art Garfunkel, with every hair sharp and no jaggies' -- could exceed 30 megapixels; most estimates place it at 18-20 megapixels before you start getting down to 'empty' information (basically, grain structure).
Hand-held in low-light; well, could be as low as 6 megapixels, but 10 isn't too bad.
If I were shooting only for the web, I'd have no real reason to waste money on high-megapixel cameras, and I'd regard anyone who did so as having more money than sense; or at best, as having enough money to indulge in buying cameras he liked but would never really have much need for.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear William,
There are two different questions here. One is the value of 'technical information'. Personally I believe it to be limited, because I'm very unlikely ever to be shooting in the same place with the same camera and lens under identical conditions, but I know some people like it and that's why I put it alongside most of the pics in my books, magazines and web site. Location is a lot more useful, because I might think, "I'd really like to go there", but when I do, my cameras and lenses are deeply unlikely to be identical to those given in the caption to the picture.
My real question when I started this thread (bold italics in case anyone wants to skip the first para) was more to do with the threads that say "Show your pictures taken with a..."
How are you going to sort them out? Do you categorize your pics by subject, or by lens? If someone says to you, "Show us your pics taken with a Canon f/1.2," for example, are they filed under 'Canon f/1.2' or under 'Mexico' and 'Poitiers' and 'Jazz club dance spectacle' and so forth? In other words, after a few weeks, let alone months or years, isn't it going to be really hard to find the pics taken with a given lens?
The 'you' is of course a general 'you', chosen as less formal than 'one', rather than 'you, William'.
Cheers,
Roger
maddoc
... likes film again.
I don't have the possibility to test equipment without buying it so I am glad to get some technical information (lens, film, camera) here at RFF or a pBase, flickr ... Comparing different images from different photographers taken with the same lens give me more information then theoretical, pseudo-scientific "lens reviews" ...