Pictures taken with a...

[wontonny]

It only makes sense to me to post pictures according to gear for everything EXCEPT the film camera body. The camera body has nothing to do with it.

It gives all those gear heads out there something to look at and catch GAS over

 

[raid]

Gear is a very important factor to many RFF members. This is a fact and not fiction or imagination. What I enjoy most in photography is writing a travel essay that is supported by photos. Gear plays a small role in such a write-up. On the other hand, lens comparisons are built on gear. Seeing a large print or inspecting a negative or transparency with a lupe over a light table will always reveal more about a lens's optical performance than a posted image, but it is still possible to identify the better lenses from posted images, so I would not totally downplay what is being done here or at PN.

 

[Peter Klein]

I do like to know what lens and equipment was used. Combined with the image, it sometimes helps me realize: "oh, that's how he or she did that." If I can't quite tell if the picture was taken with a 50 or a 35, knowing that can tell me where you stood and why you stood there.

I think Roger is right in that you can't tell the *fine* points of sharpness or contrast on a Web image. But sometimes you can get a reasonable idea of things. This is particularly true of wide-open available light pictures, an interest of mine.

But as can be seen over at the Canon 50/1.2 "I don't get no respect" thread, sometimes the medium intrudes. I posted a crop of a B&W shot at the beginning of that thread. The site's software resized my crop, and it got softened. I didn't notice. I just reposted it, resizing it better myself so the site didn't mess with it. Several people thought the original crop showed that the lens (or my technique) was bad.

And sometimes the reputation of the optic makes us see what we want to see. If I post a picture taken with the Uberlux, and you "know" that the Uberlux is a magic lens capable of resolving a gnat's eyebrow at 20 furlongs, that may be precisely what you'll see.

If the viewer's monitor is off, or the poster doesn't know how to present on the Web, the image may not tell you what the lens is doing. But I must say that a reasonably full-screen image, plus a crop displayed at 50% magnification (not 100%!) does give me a pretty good idea what an 8x10 - 11x14 print will look like.

--Peter

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Taken with a pre-war Uncoated Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm f2 formerly Contax mount, moved into a J-8 LTM Mount, on the Canon P.

At F4:

and wide-open:

The new RFF software is killing Jpeg resolution with an additional 6:1 compression factor on the uploads.

 

[raid]

Maybe it is better to upload images to PN and to give the links here.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

taken with a Zeiss Opton 50mm F2 before discovering the rear module was mounted backwards:

At F2:

And after re-installing the rear element:

at F2:

 

[wlewisiii]

I personally like having the tech information available - perhaps as an appendix to a book or in footnotes in an article - as I have found over the years that it helps me to pre-visualize what I want to do in a given situation with a given set of camera, lens & film. Aside from that teaching bit, it doesn't mean that much.

This is a bit more of a gearhead place than some; less than others. I do feel that, more often than not I can see the difference in photos taken with asymmetrical designs (Tessars & Sonnars especially) from symmetrical designs (Plannars, etc) so I don't know where to draw the line and so I don't.

Thank you for the interesting topics, Roger. It's nice to have something a bit "chewy" to think on for a bit.

William

 

[Ororaro]

I don't quite understand the OP's rant.

Of course, it's only normal to classify pictures by subject. And since the digital files all have exif data, it's easy to know how the shot was done.

But, but, but! The way I shoot with Leicas is different. Shooting with Leicas is a Hobby while shooting with my Nikon digital rig is for work.
I usually choose a lens-of-the-day, I chose a body-of-the-day and I chose a film-of-the-day and I don't change the combo until I finish the film. I then write the notes on the negative sheet.
This way of working is efficient because I learn more about the lenses I own, about the cameras and about the films I use. This is also how I can discover, with great accuracy, which camera-lens-combo is best with which film because of the given camera's tendency to over or underexpose and even to know how a lens behaves in terms of contrast and character.
I am matching my mood-of-the-day with a gear-combo-of-the-day and this is why I classify some shots by the gear I used.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't quite understand the OP's rant.

Of course, it's only normal to classify pictures by subject. And since the digital files all have exif data, it's easy to know how the shot was done.

Not really a rant. What puzzles me is HOW people can easily sort out pictures according to the lens they used, more than a few weeks after they have taken them.

Also, film doesn't have EXIF data, and with digital, very few of the lenses I'm using are coded for the M8.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"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..."

Roger,
A professional photographer friend told me yesterday that it can be quite different in the CLIENT's mind. After years of using a mixture of 35mm, medium format, and large format my friend has settled on the D2X for almost everything, content that it will provide the high quality needed for all kinds of professional printing. However, the clients tend to equate digital Nikon with 35mm film (i.e. a lesser quality format) and are then reluctant to commission work...
Tom

Dear Tom,

No question about that. In the late 60s I had Hell's own job persuading clients that food photography on 6x7cm was more than adequate they REALLY wanted 4x5 inch (I was using either 'baby' Linhof or roll-film on a Technikardan, so movements weren't an issue). Theoretically, no digital camera comes close to 6x7cm, and indeed, you need 20+ megapixels even to be reasonably good.

I should expand my previous observation to say that the photographers don't care which camera of a given format was used, and neither, normally, do the clients -- though even then, there were those who were surprised at the choice of other MF cameras than Hasselblad.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> Not really a rant. What puzzles me is HOW people can easily sort out pictures according
> to the lens they used, more than a few weeks after they have taken them.

I keep a pen in the camera bag and make notes. The notes stay with the negatives. I'm literate.

 

[raid]

> Not really a rant. What puzzles me is HOW people can easily sort out pictures according
> to the lens they used, more than a few weeks after they have taken them.

I keep a pen in the camera bag and make notes. The notes stay with the negatives. I'm literate.

I write on a small paper slip information on the camera/lens/film and I attach it to each roll of film the moment I remove the film from the camera. If several lenses were usedon one roll, such as in lens testing, I keep a separate log. I am literate [beyond primary school].

 

[Rogrund]

When I go through my negative sheets from 25 years ago, it's kind of fun to read my own notes on films and developers I didn't even remember using back then!

BTW, I'm literate too.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

It's amazing how the memories of the day can come rushing back to mind when looking at a sheet of negatives made 30 years ago. I'm glad that names, dates, and places were recorded on them. I'm also happy to have kept the camera and lens that made the photo's after these 30 or more years.

We recently took a trip to Williamsburg, Virginia where "history comes alive". It's one of my daughter's favorite places for a get-away. They employ cabinet-makers, silversmiths, basket weavers, etc that "do it the old way". They explained a lot of the custom tools used.

Saddleshop, Williamsburg Virginia.

Leica M3 with type 2 Rigid Summicron, wide-open. Fujicolor 200.

Shopkeeper's Daughter,
Leica M3 with Collapsible 9cm F4 Elmar, wide-open.

Basket Weaver, Williamsburg, Virginia

Leica M3, Type 2 Rigid Summicron, wide-open.

 

[splitimageview]

I don't really classify my photos by the gear, rather, by the event. I don't record exposure information when I shoot film, never have.

All my old photography books from when I first started back in the 70s listed the gear and exposure info. I find it useful when browsing through photos on RFF (and other places) to see what lenses and apertures were used in case I want to obtain similar results.

 

[gb hill]

Nonsense? Monitors are getting better and better, so magazine print can't compete with it anymore. Many photo magazines switched from paper to online versions.

Krosya you need to take a trip to your nearest bookseller & check out a copy of this
http://www.bandwmag.com/ Then come back and make that statement. If you do then you need glasses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I keep a pen in the camera bag and make notes. The notes stay with the negatives. I'm literate.

Dear Brian,

Yes, but if you then want to dig out (say) a choice of Canon f/1.2 shots shot over the last 30 years, you have to go through huge stacks of neg sleeves to find them. And if you're shooting trannies, surely you don't write the lens info on each mount?

Besides, I can't see why people do this. It doesn't strike me as having much to do with literacy. I rather pride myself on my literacy; literacy and my camera together have fed me for most of my working life. I tend to reserve my literacy, though, for what I see as more useful ends than notes of this kind.

If I remember/if I can be arsed, I note the equipment used for a roll, either on the sleeve itself or in the lab notebook to which each roll is keyed by accession number. But I regard it as so unimportant that I normally only bother for formal tests.

Again, I stress that there are two separate questions here. One is equipment and allied data: I'm not really debating the worth of these, because I know that many people are interested in such facts (or fictions, as discussed in an earlier post.

The second question, and the one I really meant to ask in this thread, is how people manage to respond to the common request on this forum, "Show us pictures taken with your..." As I say, it would take me ages to track down all my Canon f/1.2 shots, and I can't see much advantage in it anyway.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gb hill]

For all we know, in 10 years all exhibitions may be on HD screens - way easier as you don't have to put them up and take them down for different event - just put a new DVD in and it's ready to go - with option for a real print to buyer/collector.
So, like it or not - most of the imagery will be on screen. it already is - just compare now and 10-15 years ago.

The quality of digital is not an improvement over a silver print. Digital is a form of lazyness IMO. My boss owns a baseball team & had one of these so called professional graphics design companies do a wrap of the mascot sitting on a HD out in the middle of the field. From a distance it looks good but when you walk close to it, the photo is blured & at 3 ft away you can start counting pixils. This is not a improvement in printing. We have gotten lazy. Master printers who took pride in their work 25 years ago worked hard & took pride in satisifying a customer. Today lazy people go out with a cheap camera, snap a photo, go back & sit their fat butt behind a moniter & design a piece of crap to wrap around a trailer or what have you, present it to the customer who looks at it from 15 to 20 feet away & calls it great. People's taste have really gotten sorry I think.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The quality of digital is not an improvement over a silver print. Digital is a form of lazyness IMO. My boss owns a baseball team & had one of these so called professional graphics design companies do a wrap of the mascot sitting on a HD out in the middle of the field. From a distance it looks good but when you walk close to it, the photo is blured & at 3 ft away you can start counting pixils. This is not a improvement in printing. We have gotten lazy. Master printers who took pride in their work 25 years ago worked hard & took pride in satisifying a customer. Today lazy people go out with a cheap camera, snap a photo, go back & sit their fat butt behind a moniter & design a piece of crap to wrap around a trailer or what have you, present it to the customer who looks at it from 15 to 20 feet away & calls it great. People's taste have really gotten sorry I think.

Oh, you cynical fellow!

Not wrong, just cynical.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Funny thing, working in the Optical Sciences Division designing digital electronics and writing embedded software for optical systems had paid my salary for the past 30 years. I found some digital images of mine made in 1983. I used Ektachrome with the Dicomed.