Photography.55 - General Photography Discussion

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

Photography.55
General Photography Discussion

{Photography.55.1521}: Frank Vehafric {fvehafric} Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:26:57 EST (3 lines)

Yeah, but I'm still curious about what fks who know more than me think,
plus I'd like to know if there are any giant red flags out there about
this camera. I've read online reviews and they are pretty positive.

{Photography.55.1522}: Paddrick Mackin {paddrick} Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:09:42 EST (6 lines)

I've had a Canon EOS 50D for over a year now.  I still think the
lens is more important than the camera.  I'm still very satisfied
with my Canon EF 24 - 70 mm 1;2.8 USM.  It even has a macro setting
when I want to get up close to somemthing, nose to nose.

Paddy

{Photography.55.1523}: Frank Vehafric {fvehafric} Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:33:23 EST (5 lines)

I use mostly one of the original Minolta 28-85 or the 35-105.  Both
have a macro function. They both get good reviews but are not as fast
as the ones you are using. I've been happy with them. I have a longer
Minolta zoom, a newer one, that,s leaves me less than breathless. My
last lens is the original Minolta 50mm macro, which is a real gem.

{Photography.55.1524}: Coyote {coyote} Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:52:16 EST (14 lines)

I'm still using my 8 megapixel, Canon 30D, which is six years old.
Sure, I'd like a newer model and a full-frame sensor, but I have no
"pro" aspirations, so what the heck. I did, however, invest in quality
lenses, which *are* important.

I went to dpreview.com and checked out both cameras you mentioned.
They're both highly rated by the expert reviewers and the consumers.
Lucky you!

One thing to note is that the increase in megapixels means an increase
in the file size of your photos. I've been shocked more than once when
upgrading to a newer camera, worrying about how quickly my hard drive
was filling up. However, now that you can buy inexpensive terabyte
drives, it's not so much of an issue.

{Photography.55.1525}: David R. Kurtzman {Dave_K} Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:09:16 EST (9 lines)

A pro photographer friend has warned me about the use of zoom lenses
designed for film when attached to cameras with a chip.

According to him, the thickness of film is mostly immaterial
regarding the path of light (even with layered film like Kodachrome).
But the sensor chips in digital devices require that the light arrives
in parallel "rays".  This isn't always the case with film zoom lenses.

FWIW.  I hope someone here knows a lot more than I do about this.

{Photography.55.1526}: David R. Kurtzman {Dave_K} Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:14:05 EST (13 lines)

And OBTW, news arrives in the Yahoo Nikon group that Nikon is
quitting selling parts to independent camera repair shops.  (I don't
know whether they are refusing to sell to individual owners.)

That's very likely to cripple some of the shops that work on Nikon.
It also invites complaints about the shops that Nikon itself farms
work out to, that are accused of shoddy capitalist workmanship.

So, I'm thinking of getting rid of almost all my Nikon gear, which I
love and have gathered over a lot of years.  I'd shift to Canon, I
think.

Any comments?

{Photography.55.1527}: Tom Coleman {tomcoleman} Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:15:25 EST (HTML)

I'm happy with my Canon Rebel XS (my second digital Rebel- my first was the first generation digital Rebel, which I got soon after a film rebel (which wasn't great)). My main lens is a Canon 70-200 L.

{Photography.55.1528}: TJ {tj2} Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:20:07 EDT (HTML)

From {Photography.101.736}

"More simply and speaking broadly, I've been using the term to describe the way something feels if you touch it; in photography, to describe how something looks like it would feel if you touched it. (I realize that a dictionary, or another speaker of English, might not agree with those meanings.) Thus in both the pairs of pictures I've posted, the appearance of the structures looks like it would feel different to the touch, depending on which of the two the observer is looking at, and pretending that touching it via the photo were possible."

This is how I understand texture, but I would be more likely to refer to it as a graphic or compositional element. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I think that how texture appears in an image has to do with things like direction of light, saturation, (in a color image) contrast, and lightness or gamma, which might be seen as the digital equivalent of density in film. I think that the medium has little to do with how texture appears, the difference would rather be in the processing from latent to visible image.

{Photography.55.1529}: Steve Lacey {masked} Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:59:33 EDT (24 lines)

"I think that the medium has little to do with how texture appears,
the difference would rather be in the processing from latent to
visible image."

But wouldn't that apply to many other aspects of photography as well?
If I take a photo of Half Dome in Yosemite, from exactly the same
angle and in exactly the same lighting conditions (as far as that's
possible!), using a camera with comparable capabilities to that which
Ansel Adams used, the effect of my photo based on contrast, dodging,
burning, and so forth would still be quite different from his,
wouldn't it? Because of the manner in which he manipulated his image
in the darkroom (remember darkrooms?) which I would not presume to be
able to duplicate.

In other words, texture is, like any other element, an element of a
photo that can be manipulated--emphasized, downplayed, deepened,
eliminated, whatever. Thus I gotta disagree to some extent when you
suggest that "the medium has little to do with how texture appears."

And once again, in the photos I posted wherein I pointed out the
differences in texture, it was only something I wanted to point out,
not something I was either bragging or complaining about. What caught
my attention was the fact that the textural difference was noticeable
comparing a film image to a digital image.

{Photography.55.1530}: TJ {tj2} Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:35:46 EDT (HTML)

"What caught my attention was the fact that the textural difference was noticeable comparing a film image to a digital image."

"Because of the manner in which he manipulated his image in the darkroom (remember darkrooms?) which I would not presume to be able to duplicate."

It never occurred to me that you might be bragging Steve, but I did infer that you saw some sort of superiority in the film image, thus my attempt to demonstrate that the difference was more in the way the two were processed than in any inherent advantage that one medium has over the other as regards the rendition of texture.

Your statements quoted above actually help make that point. You noticed a difference in the images, but was the cause of the difference the medium, or the way the image was finalized? I tried to show that the "development" of the images could be changed to make them appear the same or at least very much the same. Adams used his Zone System to manipulate highlight and shadow, but his images would have looked like everyone else's if he had processed them the way most others of the time did.

I do indeed remember my darkroom; I used it for many years, and I worked for several more years in pro labs processing film, printing (with and enlarger) and doing digital imaging. Our first foray into digital was via scanning film which is the equivalent of taking a picture of a picture. A scan is a second generation image, and the resulting print is third generation. Each step loses a little something, so if there really was a difference between the original film image and its digital counterpart, they would have to be compared side by side, analog film to raw digital image, at which point you might not see so much difference.

{Photography.55.1531}: Steve Lacey {masked} Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:38:50 EDT (28 lines)

"It never occurred to me that you might be bragging Steve, but I did
infer that you saw some sort of superiority in the film image, thus my
attempt to demonstrate that the difference was more in the way the two
were processed than in any inherent advantage that one medium has over
the other as regards the rendition of texture."

Okay, I got that about about the processing being at least partly
responsible for the textural difference. I kinda suspected that as
well when I first noticed it. But I didn't intend my remarks to come
across as bragging up one format over the other.

"A scan is a second generation image, and the resulting print is
third generation."

Yep. And the action of posting it onto the Internet could make what
you saw here a fourth generation. So the comparison is difficult to
make in any fair way based only on two images posted in this Cafe.

Still, it's the difference itself, not necessarily the reasons for it
or the correction of it or the superiority of one version over the
other, that interested me enough to make the postings.

About darkrooms: The school wherein I work (I don't teach there any
more, although I still work there) has a teacher giving a "traditional
photography" class, using Pentax K1000 bodies and mostly B/W 35mm film
that the students learn to develop in the darkroom. It's an elective,
classified in the "trades and technical skills" grouping, and there
are always enough interested young people to keep the class going.

{Photography.55.1532}: TJ {tj2} Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:37:20 EDT (HTML)

I would probably still have a darkroom were it not for the expense, the space needed for sinks, enlarger, storage, etc., if only for the bragging rights. There were a lot of things I never did in the darkroom that I would still like to do, such as produce some really nice Cibachrome prints. I dabbled in it, but never got good at it, and Cibas (now called Ilfochrome) are still staples at art shows and galleries.

I think offering a basic black and white class in photography is a great idea, but it should not be taught as though it still has the same relevance that it had even thirty years ago. There will always be artists who will want to work in media that has been passed by, updated, replaced or outmoded for whatever reason, and since photography began as an all b/w medium, there is no reason it should not be available to those interested. However, its relevance is rapidly declining, and there will come a time when the chemistry will no longer be manufactured, the film will no longer be made available, and anyone wishing to do that type of photo will be required to be a chemist as well as craftsman, just as was the case when photography was starting out and there were only a handful of people in the world who could do it.

I have always been interested in new and revolutionary technology, (I wish I wasn't too old to go to Mars) and so I embraced digital imaging wholeheartedly many years ago now. It is still in its infancy and there will be a day that electronic photography will surpass in image quality anything that came before. We are already able to capture, through software, more tones and subtlety than any film could ever do, in much less time and with no mess, stained clothes and polluted sewer systems. We are still waiting for monitors and printers to catch up with what today's cameras can see, and they are improving all the time as well. A raw file today has more color and tonal information than we can reproduce, but I have no doubt that the means to see it all will come about, and we will be astounded at what we see.

{Photography.55.1533}: annie {oceanannie} Sat, 06 Oct 2012 16:41:20 EDT (HTML)

My SO thought this might interest photography folk - pics are different to say the least

"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213809/Daniel-Kukla-Photographer-captures-stunning-mirrored-reflections-American-valley-look-like-paintings.html"

{Photography.55.1534}: Donald Dozier {donaldpd} Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:54:26 EDT (1 line)

Fascinating.

{Photography.55.1535}: Coyote {coyote} Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:32:39 EDT (1 line)

Amazing! What an innovative idea!

{Photography.55.1536}: annie {oceanannie} Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:14:24 EST (3 lines)

those with a Flickr account - check it out and get an extra 3 months
on the Pro.  Apparently this could be seen on twitter but not on
their website.

{Photography.55.1537}: TJ {tj2} Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:53:57 EST (2 lines)

I just got that in an email, I think. Just click and get three months
free...

{Photography.55.1538}: Coyote {coyote} Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:34:46 EST (3 lines)

I saw it at the Flickr website, on my home page. If you're logged in
to Flickr, you should be able to get to the offer by clicking this
link: http://www.flickr.com/holidaygift

{Photography.55.1539}: marlise {marlise} Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:57:56 EST (HTML)

We don´t have a specific topic in here for photos of graveyards, headstones, cemeteries and the like, do we? If there is (and I´m just too dumb to find it), please take me by the hand and show me the way. If not, don´t y´all think we might need one? These places so often offer wonderful photo opportunities, and it´s always interesting to see how gravesites, headstones etc. are designed, ornamented and kept up elsewhere.

I´d start a topic myself, but it seems this option is blocked. Coyote? Can you help, please?

{Photography.55.1540}: Coyote {coyote} Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:43:15 EST (2 lines)

Fine with me. Any ideas for a name for the topic? Everyone put on
their thinking caps.

{Photography.55.1541}: TJ {tj2} Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:32:36 EST (1 line)

The Graveyard shift.

{Photography.55.1542}: marlise {marlise} Thu, 31 Jan 2013 03:22:59 EST (HTML)

I like that!

{Photography.55.1543}: marlise {marlise} Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:20:37 EST (HTML)

And maybe in the first post (where people go for some orientation?) or as a subtitle:

"Cemeteries around the world

Here´s a place to post pictures of headstones, burial sites of all sorts, cemeteries, church yards, graves, and the like".

I´ll leave it to the native speakers around here to turn that into pretty English :-)

{Photography.55.1544}: Donald Dozier {donaldpd} Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:41:31 EST (9 lines)

End of the road?

Peace at last?

Christopher Wren's epitaph in St. Paul's London reads thusly:

"Si Monumentum Rquiris, Circumspice"

Translation:  "If you seek this monument, look around you"

{Photography.55.1545}: Frank Vehafric {fvehafric} Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:08:33 EST (1 line)

Parting shots...

This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café