Pictures taken with a...

Roger Hicks said:
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?

Roger
Click to expand...


Nonsense? Really? Hmmm. While it's true - there are still some publications that are done on paper - most things now days is either online or on TV. Just look how many magazines no longer exist! Many of the are photography magazines. Less books are being printed and sold - again - most things are online now. Monitors are getting better and better, so magazine print can't compete with it anymore. Many photo magazines switched from paper to online versions. But you should know all this. as far as 39 megapixel cameras - they only use them for huge spreads, not for regular magazines, and nowdays - it's digital screens on the side of the buildings that replace regular posters. So, less and less goes to print. Actually, exhibitions probably the only thing left where photo print is in most cases done traditionally, and not digital. But even that is being affected by digital more and more.
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.
 
Krosya said:
Nonsense?
Click to expand...
Yes, nonsense. And you know it. Go into a bookshop. Or anywhere that sells magazines. Then come back and say that no-one is using high-quality pictures.

I don't hold myself out as the fons et origo of all knowledge, but I really can't help suspecting that you don't know very much about the multi-billion dollar publishing industry. Have you any professional experience in photography or publishing?

As for your point about exhibitions in the future consisting of LCD screens: well, anything's possible. But it's drivel at the moment.

R.
 
One of the reasons for the kind of thing you notice, I would suppose, is that we have so few photographers. I often see people putting up shots in their galleries saying "testing out lens X" and that is all they ever do - test out new gear or even largely post photos of their new gear. I try to produce in my small way the best portfolio of my photography that I can, but I see many people who are camera hobbyists first and photography hobbyists second.
 
Last edited:
Whatever.
Reality is - while some still exist and probably will for a while - many bookstores ARE gone, closing, not making money, etc. Same thing is happening in a newspaper and magazine industry. Reason - everything goes online. If you do even a little research you can learn this. It's all about money and internet is very much less expensive than printing/publishing in a traditional way. Plus computer technology allows a high quality output online now.
Here is some info:
http://imhaya.org/2007/12/22/how-e-magazine-kill-conventional-magazine/

and more here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1538652,00.html

I don't need to have any experience in publishing to know how to read the facts. Plus things are changing so fast now - all that experience is really useless anyway as things are done differently. So, you can call what I say - nonesense, but reality is reality and the sooner one accepts it - the better it is for them.
 
Krosya said:
...I don't need to have any experience in publishing ...
Click to expand...

You said it. And it's just as well you don't, because your ignorance in this area is near-terminal.

Look up the numbers.

If you don't want a slice of that pie, because your particular pie is in the sky, fine.

But kindly don't waste the time of those who have a slightly less tenuous grasp on reality.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think it's somewhat understandable. Others have hinted at a reason behind mentioning equipment; there's a stage in one's development as a photographer where coming to grips with the various aspects of equipment performance is important. Hence the labeling of the shots according to lens, camera etc. I suspect there's also sometimes a sense of pride and identification with specific equipment and their tradition; not strictly relevant in matters photographic but certainly very human.

As one progresses and understands the various compromises to be made by using some equipment instead of other, they also become less of a worry. Until one day one completely forgets about them. But even when one does, some others may not, because it may be interesting to them what sort of equipment compromises one made to attain a certain photographic goal.

As for how much you can see through the screen...some things you can see for sure (flare, bokeh, etc.) It is probably best to hear what seasoned users one trusts for their judgment have to say about the various aspects of equipment performance. Photos may illustrate one's points. And they are good to look at 🙂

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?
Click to expand...

I don't know how others go about this...I write information about date, rated speed of film, solution of developer, time and lens used on the sleeve where the negative goes. The lens info is for me to know focal length first and foremost. Not that it's easy to get confused, I 've got two focal lengths all in all. The ordering factor is date.

Best,
 
MikeL said:
I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you show me with pictures or something or define some of your words better?😉
Click to expand...
Dear Mike,

Someone failing to read, for example?

Seriously, Richard has a very good point. Ultra-specialist magazines are flourishing as never before. What were Bill Bryson's examples in the US (in The Lost Continent)? As I recall they were Christian Woodworker and Machine Gun Collector.

Then there's self-publishing. And the revival in antique processes. More and more people are tired of the ephemeral nature of the internet and the throwaway society. The market for things with intrinsic value (a Leica MP, for example, or a work of that is not on a monitor) may be falling in percentage terms but I have no doubt that with rising populations and disposable incomes (barring short-term economic blips) these are still very handsome and lucrative markets for those who have the necessary skills and intelligence to exploit them.

Cheers,

R.
 
telenous said:
As for how much you can see through the screen...some things you can see for sure (flare, bokeh, etc.) It is probably best to hear what seasoned users one trusts for their judgment have to say about the various aspects of equipment performance. Photos may illustrate one's points. And they are good to look at . . .The ordering factor is date.
Click to expand...
We are of one mind on this, including filing data. As I said elsewhere, listen to someone you trust when it comes to things like resolution, contrast, ergonomics, but by all means gain some impression from the Web of flare and bokeh.

But after date (accession number) I note places. Kit may or may not be noted. Then again, the focal lengths I own or have used at length in the last 15-20 years are 12-14-15-16-17-18-20-21-24-25-28-35-47-50-55-58-75-85-90-135-200-280-300-600-800; sometimes, multiple examples of each focal length...

EDIT For me, the accession number on a sleeved film refers to the lab notebook: dev, time, agitation. But the paper you print on can be at least as important as the film you used. How often does anyone tell you that? And how often do they say, 'Incident meter at EI 320' or 'Spot meter at EI 500' or 'Incident meter reading -1/2 stop' (for tranny) or 'Through-lens reading +1/2 stop' (for neg of bright subject).

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread, I'll try to do my best even being a newbie and with a low english level.

I agree with R.Hicks main idea, I think that the main technical data are focal length (so a newbie like me can see the field of vision and how to work with a particular focal length) and exposure data (sub/over exposure). What we see over the web is no more than a deformation/interpretation of reality or photography process results but not the real thing.

I've started using RF after a visit to cameraquest and Nakamura websites, dont't know how and why I've accumulated a lot of gear that I use scarcely, it remains at home while I shot with two cams and two lenses, now I think I'm less gear oriented and trying to do better photos with the media I feel comfortable. I've stopped doing tests that drive nowhere and try to learn how to improve my (awful) technique and "vision".

(My 0.2 cents)
 
Roger Hicks said:
You said it. And it's just as well you don't, because your ignorance in this area is near-terminal.

Look up the numbers.

If you don't want a slice of that pie, because your particular pie is in the sky, fine.

But kindly don't waste the time of those who have a slightly less tenuous grasp on reality.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm so sorry to waste your time. I know it's very valuable. forgive me, simple, stupid american illiterate person. 🙄 After all, how can my opinion compare to yours.
Sorry, but I expected more, like maybe some actual facts, from the "expert".
 
Krosya said:
After all, how can my opinion compare to yours.
Sorry, but I expected more, like maybe some actual facts, from the "expert".
Click to expand...
You're still missing the point.

This isn't opinion.

Look up the size of the publishing market. As I recall, it is $25,000,000,000+ in the US alone -- and there are plenty of other countries who can also read and write. You wanted facts? Look up a few about the size of the market.

On your own admission, you know nothing about publishing. It is therefore less than astonishing that your opinions on publishing really are not worth very much.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Mike,

Someone failing to read, for example?

Seriously, Richard has a very good point. Ultra-specialist magazines are flourishing as never before. What were Bill Bryson's examples in the US (in The Lost Continent)? As I recall they were Christian Woodworker and Machine Gun Collector.

Then there's self-publishing. And the revival in antique processes. More and more people are tired of the ephemeral nature of the internet and the throwaway society. The market for things with intrinsic value (a Leica MP, for example, or a work of that is not on a monitor) may be falling in percentage terms but I have no doubt that with rising populations and disposable incomes (barring short-term economic blips) these are still very handsome and lucrative markets for those who have the necessary skills and intelligence to exploit them.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I don't know the numbers on illiteracy, but after grading grant proposals today, I am disturbed by the obvious lack of knowledge/experience with writing.

I wonder what is driving the success of the markets you and Pitxu describe. Is it driven by the younger generation or the older generation that is familiar with it? I'm still not comfortable reading/evaluating something in electronic form, I have to print it out and have pencil ready. This is not true for those who started reading pdf's from day one.

As for the lens-camera-film-development info., that seemed to be the norm when I started visiting RFF. It's a site focused on a type of camera, and some people like or are curious about the information. I think few would argue the gear makes the photo, but it's why people often visit the site in the first place. Entertainment is where you find it, in my book. I've always found it entertaining the pride some take in not being a 'gearhead' and point it out at every opportunity. But I guess feeling good about oneself by looking down on others seems to be part of human nature. Which is worse, pride in the gear you've acquired or pride in not being like 'those' people?

Yes, I'm procrastinating. Back to grammar from hell.....
 
What it's taken with

What it's taken with

"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, until shown examples of previously commissioned photographs.

Going off on a slight tangent, I was fed up the other day - not for the first time - when someone commented on a picture I had taken: "You must have a good camera". I'd rather she'd said: "Nice work in catching that moment".

I knew I had a good camera: it was the fact I got something good out of it that was more satisfying to me, and that applies whether I use a Leica M for a drama production or my mobile phone for a coastal walk. In other words, even a mediocre camera becomes a good one when the subject matter comes together with interesting lighting and adequately good focus, exposure and composition.

Tom
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
That's the hard bit. I've been doing it for decades. You (= I) get better, but never good enough.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Can we add to that: As you (=I) get better, so -strangely- does the equipment? Whether we measure up to the equipment's potential is another matter.

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom