BLKRCAT
75% Film
no replacement for displacement.
you don't need a big sensor
- Thread starter marcr1230
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 113
- Views 9K
uhoh7
Veteran
Barnack was after portability, which is extremely important, but his camera was a very specialized tool: Zeiss took the format, and invented a system, with many lenses. Mandler did not catch up and create the modern Leica reputation till well into the 60s. By then the cheaper SLR systems were off and running strong.
People confuse the ability to take , or realize, a certain image, with the flexibility to realize a great variety of visions, and to conceive of new ones, inspired by novel results.
Sure a harmonic a is pretty when you first hear a tune. Listen all week, you will crave something different. Variety is the spice of life.
I help a bunch of people with their photography. I have run into the myth: I'm not good enough to get a full frame. The reality, on the ground with real people is, their shots improve dramatically moving from APS-C to FF, and they fall in love with photography all over again. I have seen this happen over and over. Which is why I hate this pretentious myth.
If you are a genius you can use a pinhole and support your family. Real people on the other hand benefit from powerful tools. We could all be writing each other letters......no bartender, no RFF, without very advanced tools. Yes Darwin got a great distance through letters, but he was unusual, and very rich. 😉
You don't NEED a computer. So why are you using one?
And every purveyor of the myth, you ask them: do you have experience with other formats? Oh yes, I've shot every thing...etc. That's how I know you need only something simple.
What hypocrisy. Why discourage others from a journey? It's like a math teacher trying to impress his class by just spouting "the answer". Let them experiment with tools and the visions will come.
unixrevolution
Well-known
Good pictures can be taken with almost anything. Certain effects are only achievable with certain gear.
Most good photographers can take good pictures with smartphones and cheap cameras. But sometimes, the pictures we want to make require something that does more. Wether it be DoF Control or low-light performance, reach, perspective, or any number of other things.
I am glad I have all these tools at my disposal, but the acquisition of tools doesn't make me a better photographer.
Most good photographers can take good pictures with smartphones and cheap cameras. But sometimes, the pictures we want to make require something that does more. Wether it be DoF Control or low-light performance, reach, perspective, or any number of other things.
I am glad I have all these tools at my disposal, but the acquisition of tools doesn't make me a better photographer.
nikonhswebmaster
Retired NHS Webmaster
I have had many hundreds of university students, and have never found that concept works for me.
Sharper, bigger, more expensive...
It reminds me of the perennial student who asks me, "if I do extra work can I improve my grade?"
"Oh please not more!" 😱
jsrockit
Moderator
How so ... ?
silverbullet
Well-known
My best shots I made fourty years ago with my NikonF. Why? This camera gave me a lot of emotional input and charged me in a way no other tool did before. By this cam I could leave my 'comfort-zone' and became an intruder to my objects own comfort-zone, will say by using the 28mm wide angle I had to come close, closer than the everage shooter did at those times.
When someone makes a positive shift to be a better photographer by switching from APS-C to FF in my understanding it is not the format in itself, it's the joy to have a new and mostly more expensive tool which induces more mental power and self conciousness. At the end it's like a new weapon or fetish. But it's not the additional sqare millimeter of the sensor or the film.
When someone makes a positive shift to be a better photographer by switching from APS-C to FF in my understanding it is not the format in itself, it's the joy to have a new and mostly more expensive tool which induces more mental power and self conciousness. At the end it's like a new weapon or fetish. But it's not the additional sqare millimeter of the sensor or the film.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
- Local time
- 12:49 AM
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 16,953
- Location
- The Gateway To The Hudson Highlands
My point is the difference can be seen when comparing prints to a screen (same image). No need to measure. No measurement needed. No parameters needed.
It has gotten to the point where the dominant culture is viewing digital images on screens. This is evidenced by your questions.
Have you ever compared the same image print verses screen? Also it is hard to judge a photo's IQ on a cell phone screen because of the small size.
Cal
jsrockit
Moderator
Cal, I would argue that achieving higher "IQ" is easier today than ever. The iPhone's IQ is easily way better than 110/126/35mm P&S camera with one shutter speed and aperture that many, many people used to use in the 70s / 80s. This is a fact.
No, not at all. Any current digital camera can make a "perfect" 8x10" print. This was never the case before. That and content is always more important than IQ. Without good content, IQ means nothing.
cz23
Well-known
I'll bet only serious photographers care about or even notice IQ in prints. The rest of the world is looking at content.
My non-photographer wife and I go to shows all the time, and I know she looks at the photographs completely differently than I do. Maybe subconsciously she is affected by IQ, composition, and such. But John is right that content reigns. Which makes non-FF just fine.
(Don't ask me why I own an MM. I often wonder that myself. 🙂)
John
My non-photographer wife and I go to shows all the time, and I know she looks at the photographs completely differently than I do. Maybe subconsciously she is affected by IQ, composition, and such. But John is right that content reigns. Which makes non-FF just fine.
(Don't ask me why I own an MM. I often wonder that myself. 🙂)
John
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
- Local time
- 12:49 AM
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 16,953
- Location
- The Gateway To The Hudson Highlands
John,
I will say that for content any camera will do. So I agree with you. Content is the primary factor that makes a good photograph.
I am also not saying that the IQ of an Iphone is bad, but when comparing sensor size which is part of this discussion I am taking note of the exception of how IQ seems to be not important or less important than it use to be.
Digital cameras provide a lot more resolution than film. In that regard I am also agreeing with you. My Monochrom can print mucho bigger than 35mm film, likely 645 film would be kinda comparable, and it would likely take 6x6 to better my Monochrom. 8x10 is no challenge today, and even way back in the day printing film a good 8x10 was kinda easy.
I am making comments about how much volume of photos are view via electronic media, in small viewing sizes, and that there is a distinct change in culture where IQ seems much less important. I just want to be clear that I'm looking at the big picture where I'm seeing/observing a historical shift.
Cal
Saganich
Established
Gear can never compensate for the absence of human connection or emotion but it can influence emotional connection via the processing of memory. Similar with abstract painting, an image with low quality or lots of missing information is processed differently than how our brain processes what we see normally in the world. To fill in the missing information or create a normalized orientation memory is evokes, which directly links an image with the limbic system. The more missing information the more memory has to struggle to make sense of the visual stimuli the stronger the response... positive or negative. These processes aren't well understood but may help account for, for example, why DOF is important...grasshopper.
jsrockit
Moderator
Is there a huge shift? Screen vs. print sure is a true change. But Magazines and books were the way most people viewed photos in the past and they weren't necessarily big photos. For the average joe, 3x5" or 4x6" prints were the norm. I think people just take photography for granted in general these days. If anything, composition / framing seems to be a lost art at times.
Bill Clark
Veteran
A photographer using iPhone:
http://www.danburkholder.com/iphone-artistry.html
In the hands of a creative person art is made.
http://www.danburkholder.com/iphone-artistry.html
In the hands of a creative person art is made.
LukeBanks
Established
Sensor size means nothing, a good photographer only needs an eye. I got playing with my old Fuji F11 the other day and couldn't believe how good the images from the old CCD sensor still looked, apart from a prominent dead spot. The pixel count is low at 6.3 but they're big pixels and in the right light I could swear some images almost have a hint of Fuji's film soul about them. Found an F31fd online for pennies so I'm going to try it out for a while as a pocket digi / light meter alongside my R3A.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Anyway ... it's not the size, it's how you use it! 🙂
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I can offer one occasion where getting a full frame camera did improve my photography. I had been shooting with a Sony F828, a really nice camera but a tiny sensor, though not the cause of my poor pictures. Having fallen in love with photography I thought I would get a really, really good camera as a challenge to bring my skills up to the level of the camera. Didn't exactly get that high but having invested in a 5D, I went to work studying and shooting trying to get good enough to have justified that camera and did get a significant improvement in my photograpy. Not just because of the camera but because of the motivation that the camera gave me. It's humorous in that my newest cameras have the slightly smaller APS C sensors.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
- Local time
- 12:49 AM
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 16,953
- Location
- The Gateway To The Hudson Highlands
John,
What you say is true, and I strongly agree that the proliferation of photography has made composition and framing an almost lost art.
As far as history goes, back in the day of magazines and books a photographer like Richard Avedon produced lots of shots/spreads for magazines, but also he produced this show of life sized prints shot with an 8x10 view camera during this time. This body of work was shown at MOMA in the 70's.
I'm not so sure this body of work would be appreciated today. Although digital offers supreme resolution, is IQ like framing and composition becoming a lost art? How many people are truely exploiting the enhanced IQ that digital offers?
If I were back in art school and say back then if I had a Leica Monochrom and a Leica SL like I presently own now, I kinda know that if I did not exploit the enhanced resolution of digital and fully explore the medium to the most that my professors and mentors would call me on it. Basically I would be called "lazy."
If we look back at the debute show at the new ICP on media, was not that show a let down? Perhaps I am trained to respond to mediocrity because I am seeing too much of it today. Is it O.K. to be sloppy or lazy and still call oneself a photographer?
Cal
PostScript: I did happen to love the exhibits at Photoville taken by cell phone cameras BTW. Clearly I saw artistic vision I could recognize. The photography was inspiring.
Last edited:
jsrockit
Moderator
Sure, but there are still ARTISTs making huge photos today too. Unfortunately, I think we are at a point where the photography that many of us enjoy is considered old fashioned in the Art world. The Art world is always looking for a fresh angle and right now, in Photography, it doesn't match the type of photography we enjoy. I've seem absolutely massive digital prints in museums and galleries. I just wasn't interested in the content. The people that are exploiting what digital has to offer or those that make advertisements that cover entire buildings, buses, subways, etc.
I'm not so sure. It costs a lot of $ to do these things and students don't have the money. I think what they look for is artistic vision instead of technical prowess. Technical stuff can be learned easier than true vision (though both are hard to master). I've seen people who were great technically, but could not make a compelling photo.
Well, I'll admit to not being that interested in the show, but I thought Doug Rickard's compiling of found you tube footage to be haunting and compelling. It wasn't a photo though. I think that show tried to show the current ways in which all people use photography and video in the world and was not about overall, look at me, artist prowess. Things move in cycles. Right now, the cycle isn't in our favor.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
- Local time
- 12:49 AM
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 16,953
- Location
- The Gateway To The Hudson Highlands
John,
You hit upon the one highlight of the show that was redeeming. I understand that show at ICP was framed around new media and even within that framework it was lame and boring.
At photoville there happen to be a huge display of great cell phone photographers who truely exploited the medium to tell compelling stories. It just was clearly good photography that stood out to me. I saw artistic vision, the work was interesting, and the photography was great. Likely the best stuff I saw at Photoville.
Cal
daveleo
what?
This raises another view of the OP's opening post .....
How many photographers are (honestly) over-equipped - either for their skill level or for their output format (tablet screen? large print? Christmas cards?).
How many honestly don't "need" the tech level of the cameras, lenses and sensors they are buying.
Unanswerable question ("how many ?") for sure. But I think most people are over-equipped. Though, again, if that's what they "need", okay with me.
Similar threads
