The Important Concerns

Camera companies sell cameras. They cannot keep selling the same old camera and stay in business. So just like Detroit used to shuffle the chrome every year the camera companies add tweaks. Yes, a more detailed photo can be nice. But the chisel does not make the sculptor. It may make the sculptor think it makes him better or excite his desire for a new chisel. If his sculptures are not good a new chisel will change nothing. And as much as I dislike the Wetzlar Uebermenschlichkeit I really do like the image I get from my small sensor M9, and even the smaller sensor M8.2. I am not a pro shooting for magazine ads or billboards. So what the sense does 60 megapixels make to me? I do not think I am unique in this.

As others in this thread have said, make it interesting first, count the pixels later.
 
IMO, it's only natural for equipment reviews to concentrate on technical performance, because proper bench-testing in particular can provide a pretty good gauge of capabilities of the hardware without so much emotional bias on the part of the reviewer. And I know firsthand the dangers of emotion-based shopping! Unlike the giddiness associated with the purchase of a new toy, technical parameters such as lens MTF don't diminish over time.

If I were photographing more strangers on the street, I might be tempted to revert to a looser shooting style: Manually focused lens preset at a favorite distance, combined with moderate aperture, providing not-bad sharpness from 3.0 - 5M or thereabouts, using 28, 35 or 40 mm lens. In this instance, I might not particularly benefit from the sensor's maximum resolution, but there's no real penalty to having it either.
 
The best camera is the one you have with you. I shoot only film; sometimes, I have only one camera with me as the light falls at the end of the day, and ISO 64 film is in the camera. I wind up shooting wide open at marginal speeds. Do I try to make the same pictures I would attempt under bright noonday sun? Of course not; making a virtue of necessity, I choose to shoot images that might benefit from shallow depth of field and less than perfect sharpness. This is the important lesson of shooting film. Make the best of what you've got. The "perfection" that is possible with modern digital equipment has often felt to me like a hindrance on my seeing. YMMV, as always.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
The best camera is the one you have with you. I shoot only film; sometimes, I have only one camera with me as the light falls at the end of the day, and ISO 64 film is in the camera. I wind up shooting wide open at marginal speeds. Do I try to make the same pictures I would attempt under bright noonday sun? Of course not; making a virtue of necessity, I choose to shoot images that might benefit from shallow depth of field and less than perfect sharpness. This is the important lesson of shooting film. Make the best of what you've got. The "perfection" that is possible with modern digital equipment has often felt to me like a hindrance on my seeing. YMMV, as always.
Click to expand...

Seems like you could just set the ISO on the digital camera to the ISO film you would be using in those circumstances. That would allow you to use the same wide open aperture and marginal shutter speed that you would be using with your film camera.
 
boojum said:
Indeed, t'is true.
Click to expand...

Indeed, 'twould be true, if I shot digital, which I prefer not to do. Though I do most often carry more than one film body, or a second back. But in my original post, I spoke of being caught with only one body, and slow film. It's a Retro-Grouchy, Luddite thing...
 
Retro-Grouch said:
The best camera is the one you have with you. I shoot only film; sometimes, I have only one camera with me as the light falls at the end of the day, and ISO 64 film is in the camera. I wind up shooting wide open at marginal speeds. Do I try to make the same pictures I would attempt under bright noonday sun? Of course not; making a virtue of necessity, I choose to shoot images that might benefit from shallow depth of field and less than perfect sharpness. This is the important lesson of shooting film. Make the best of what you've got. The "perfection" that is possible with modern digital equipment has often felt to me like a hindrance on my seeing. YMMV, as always.
Click to expand...

Having photographed with film only for many decades I learned the same lesson, like many other of my (our?) generation.
Most of times I apply the same “procedure” when I use a digital camera: I just leave the iso where they are, no need to increase.
But it is nice to have the opportunity just in case…
 
robert blu said:
Having photographed with film only for many decades I learned the same lesson, like many other of my (our?) generation.
Most of times I apply the same “procedure” when I use a digital camera: I just leave the iso where they are, no need to increase.
But it is nice to have the opportunity just in case…
Click to expand...

One plus of digital as you have noted is to be able to change the "film" whenever you wish. In some cases you can switch from color to B&W. And in my auto everything Sony I can have ISO, WB, focus and exposure all done as the on-board computer sees fit, faster than I can and quite often better than I can. This has saved shots for me often that would have been lost because of changed light. And it focuses way faster and better than I.

Digital does makes things easier. And with easier can come better as one has the time to focus on the picture itself rather than the minutiae required to make the camera respond in a manner you choose.
 
boojum said:
One plus of digital as you have noted is to be able to change the "film" whenever you wish. In some cases you can switch from color to B&W. And in my auto everything Sony I can have ISO, WB, focus and exposure all done as the on-board computer sees fit, faster than I can and quite often better than I can. This has saved shots for me often that would have been lost because of changed light. And it focuses way faster and better than I.

Digital does makes things easier. And with easier can come better as one has the time to focus on the picture itself rather than the minutiae required to make the camera respond in a manner you choose.
Click to expand...

To embroider a bit on this using cinematography as an example, an extreme example. The director who is the supreme photographer has a cinema person, focus puller and who knows what all else while the director concentrates on the scene itself, unburdened by the minutiae of the camera details. The director can compose or direct the group gathered to create image rather than sound. As would a conductor he can suggest or direct the first violinist how he would like the music played but he will not play it himself. The director can organize and harmonize the crowd to generate what he wants to see. In a humbler way the auto camera does this, too. For the technically gifted the camera can be tuned to provide special emphasis. The photographer becomes the director able to concentrate on zoom and frame, push the button, done. Thank you very much.
 
If the shots are about people and people doing things, they don't need to be made with contemporary high-performance lenses. I'll never sell my Nikon 17-35/2.8 zoom, for that reason. For the shots that are studies of shapes and textures, the newer high-performance lenses and sensors gear are nice. When we were kids and throughout my life, I never had the budget for 4x5 or 8x10, even though that look was very exciting for me. Now, with 36 or 40 megapixels, I can play in that sandbox using a 24x36 camera.
 
I can't find the source but I remember reading that Larry Towell used a disposable (film) camera to photograph 9/11. He was in the N.Y. Magnum office on that day. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
I'm comparing the Nikon Z-Mount 58/0.95 with the 50/1.0 Nokton and the Z-Mount 50/1.2 with the 50/1.2 Nokton.
If I were buying lenses to use on visible-only camera mounted in a controlled environment, good choice and the Lab budget can easily handle it. I have lenses that spent their entire life mounted on an optics bench. I've pulled lenses from scientific equipment that was being tossed out.

For anything outside of that: The Noktons are a fraction of the weight and cost. There will be no difference when using for real-world applications. Other than Nikon wanting bragging rights about optics, I simply cannot understand why they built these lenses.
Click to expand...

The 50mm 1.2 is AF and on a camera like the Z9, it is a pretty incredible combo. I have both the 50mm 1.8 S and 50mm 1.2 S and when I first got the 1.2 I thought it was impractically large. Then I started using it and I mean *really* using it. Some of the recent portraits I have made with it of very notable people I have made in mere seconds because that is all I had and it finds the catchlight in the eyes breathtakingly fast.

I have no idea what optical bench tests look like because I make photographs and documentary films for a living. So in terms of "real world" applications, it would appear we live different lives in different worlds. I used the Z9 and 50mm 1.2 combo yesterday for a Camera A POV on a documentary interview and set it to full time AF at 1.2. it did simply incredible, perfect focus the entire time and silent.

I guess what I don't understand is why people who don't understand a tool seem to find fault in it or no practical application for it. I never do that...
 
All these high power lenses and cameras are all very well but I wonder who needs them.

I do a lot - too many perhaps - of prints and these days I use a common or garden A4 printer and A4 means 8" high with an ⅛" margin. Use the whole frame and the aspect ration means the printed area is 8" by 10.67" and a couple of simple sums tells me that 8 megapixels would be overkill...

Talking to people I reckon doing prints is the exception for most people; some figures would be useful but the people who know would probably keep quiet.

Regards, David
 
Bill Pierce said:
...More important there are a lot of qualities that make a picture good...
Click to expand...

"The Important Concerns"

There are only three things I need in one of my picture's before I share it with the world.

1. Content - I need something worth looking at. Interesting, compelling, something that makes the picture worth looking at.

2. Composition - if I can get the content then I need to present it in a way that will further enhance its value. The basic rules of composition seem to often be dropped by the wayside. Little things like the placement of the main subject, a level horizon, perpendiculars that are perpendicular. The basic rules of composition are desperately needed to make a photograph a worthy piece of visual art.

3. Clarity - The image needs to have something in focus, preferably the main subject. It is true that there are plenty of abstract and out of focus pictures that are brilliant, but those are the exception to the rule. If my point of view isn’t clear (in focus) the picture is a clunker and should be dumped!

I know that there are some RFF members that are interested in seeing and sharing all the good, the bad, and the POS clunkers with the world. And, I know that beauty is in the eye of the blah blah blah, but, when it comes to the “Important Concerns” I’ll stick with the basics of Content, Composition and Clarity; with a little abstract on the side!

BTW, please feel free to ignore me and my post.

All the best,
Mike
 
Bill Pierce said:
...Look at the film work of Gene Smith, Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson and Gary Winogrand.
There are some great shots sadly lacking in all of those departments. ....

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Hi Bill,

obviously a lot of folks her on RFF like to talk gear and it's a lot of fun but essentially great specs don't make great shots.
If a photograph qualifies for a great shot and people like to look at it still some decades after it was taken or published and it possibly became one of the iconic shots of photographical history, no one really cares about the resolution of the film or sharpness. It is a great shot because of the photographer's eye for the situation and he/she was at the right time at the right place and had a camera and knew how to handle it. Some will ask what camera and what lens the photographer used and go and buy the same ... won't help to the take an iconic image 😉
 
David Hughes said:
All these high power lenses and cameras are all very well but I wonder who needs them.

I do a lot - too many perhaps - of prints and these days I use a common or garden A4 printer and A4 means 8" high with an ⅛" margin. Use the whole frame and the aspect ration means the printed area is 8" by 10.67" and a couple of simple sums tells me that 8 megapixels would be overkill...

Talking to people I reckon doing prints is the exception for most people; some figures would be useful but the people who know would probably keep quiet.

Regards, David
Click to expand...

Ummm, the post right above yours?

Does no one read my posts? Do I annoy people with examples, Bill included who has never responded to a post of mine? What the hell is wrong this community???

If you come to my town where I live and work, you will see my photos all over, many in magazines but several in murals, point of purchase displays, often as large as 10’ x 12’ feet.

I had two tribute shows on large screens this year for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Madeline Albright, the highest quality and highest resolution possible was the requirement.

And of course above all else, the impact of the moment and meaning in the photograph was absolutely paramount in every case mentioned above.

I have always tried my best to weigh in on here with a view that is almost consistently missing, someone actually working in the current arena. But no one seems interested in that and so it comes off *very* old boys club and siloed here…:-(

And I shoot lots of film and print it in a darkroom by the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Pierce
Your choice...
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Michalm
Michalm
Bill Pierce
The Next Step
Replies
10
Views
2K
Dogman
Dogman
Mos6502
Ferrania P33, first roll, and some observations.
2 3
Replies
53
Views
6K
luuca
luuca
Bill Pierce
Zoom--->
Replies
9
Views
929
kshapero
kshapero
Bill Pierce
The Original
Replies
19
Views
2K
willie_901
willie_901
Back
Top Bottom