Fed up!!


bonnipics

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 21:35
I can't understand the need to reflect on the lense type or quality used, In my mind stuff the lense or the fancy camera, lets see some origional expressionist/impressionist/ modern pictures/ black or colour, in focus or otherwise with some artistic flair. sorry for my rant but thats not what the photography platform is for its... a canvas like any other....Sorry and I'm no expert in anyway but lets have more origionality

Regards Ron

Now I'm done!
Quote:

terje-l

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 21:40
Agree that we could do with some more fantasy, at least I know that I could. The world is not perfect, so why should the pictures be?

By the way, it's lens, not lense
Best regards
Terry

K20D, Optio I10, DA 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 AL II, A 1:1.7/50, D FA 1:2.8/100 Macro, Sigma 70-300 1:4-5.6 APO DG Macro, Pentax AF 360FGZ

Hardgravity

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 21:43
The problem with 'lens type' is that people want the best image possible from their cameras.

I'm not that fussy, although there are lenses I don't use because the IQ is poor.

In a way I'm getting fed up of PP'd images that appear all over the web, if the shot needs so much work then something's wrong. Most of my posted images are straight from the camera, with maybe a little cropping, that's all.

I've posted a few B&Ws lately, but that's because it was B&W film I used. The rush to convert a bland colour to a slightly less bland B&W is starting to get to me.
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K5+Tammy 18-250, a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

I've some gallerieshere CLICKY LINK! and my PPG entries.

Hyram

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 21:50
I guess that it is time to lead the way - Ron
Hyram

Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T

cedricd

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 21:51
Well expressed Ron! I am to art what Macdonalds is to Cordon Bleue, but I hear where you are coming from. Will have a go to see what happens.

Cedric
Enjoy life

dougf8

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 21:56
Ron, I'm with you. I'm trying to get a door put back on a room and get my darkroom functional again. I love the unexpected things that happen with film. making sure every pixel is perfect does restrict the art of some images. My favourite image of the moment is blurred at the edges and has barrel distortion and vignetting. I took some slide film recently with an old Yashica T4 camera and I was pleased, the images had more atmosphere than the digital Leica LX3 on a similar day out.
Lurking is shirking.!

bonnipics

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 21:57
Thanks HG and Terry I couldn't agree more, Oh! my education procedes me! however while I agree with people wanting to have the best quality pics technically, we need to back it up with the best ideas! and results. I do agree with your perspective on the B & W pictures Best Regards Ron
Quote:

flossie

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 22:08
I actually bought some "crap" lenses because I wanted to see what sort of interesting, messy, images they could produce (and because they cost peanuts!)

One of the big attractions of chooseing Pentax instead of Caninkon was the big range of old glass going back 30-40 years - of which very little is *LTD perfection quality and will have distortions and imperfections of different kinds - but that's part of the charm!


I do find myself drawn more and more to B&W (ish) images though, probably because I am very very VERY bored with the fashionable over-saturated HDR images all over Flickr etc. Anyway, in a digital image colour is only 20% of the information...its easily dispensed with (until relatively recently, TV pictures were monitored in black&white as easier to see the brightness & contrast...)
Still shooting in the dark (literally and metaphorically)...
Last Edited by flossie on 20/04/2010 - 22:10

Anvh

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 22:09
Ron you should take a look at a Canon forum or be on flickr, I think you would see the PUF isn't that bad
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

Dangermouse

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 22:21
Hardgravity wrote:
The problem with 'lens type' is that people want the best image possible from their cameras.

I'm not that fussy, although there are lenses I don't use because the IQ is poor.

In a way I'm getting fed up of PP'd images that appear all over the web, if the shot needs so much work then something's wrong. Most of my posted images are straight from the camera, with maybe a little cropping, that's all.

I've posted a few B&Ws lately, but that's because it was B&W film I used. The rush to convert a bland colour to a slightly less bland B&W is starting to get to me.

Exactly my thoughts

I'm really not interested in fiddling about in the GIMP, beyond cropping images or doing things like blanking numberplates in photos of vehicles. I'd rather get fundamentally good images by learning how to get the best from the camera and using the best quality lenses I can afford. Now, there is a trick in knowing which old lenses are worth buying - the Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 is better than the f2.8 version, for example. But the best glass on the planet is only a tool. A top of the range saw won't make you a brilliant joiner, but it will help you to get better results than a 5 cheapy from Tesco.

I'm not sure if this is the universally accepted reason why B&W is so revered as a way to learn photography, but I think the way that it forces you to look for texture and shadow rather than simply finding pretty colours helps a lot. Personally I use it for the chance to use old cameras and the fun of developing film at home, plus it's interesting to photograph some things (such as flowers) with the colour removed.
Matt

Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.

Hardgravity

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 22:23
Anvh wrote:
Ron you should take a look at a Canon forum or be on flickr, I think you would see the PUF isn't that bad

That's true Stefan, almost all images on a canon site I stumbled across had been 'tweaked' in some way.

In fact one guy showed the 'poor' original and 'improved' new image...

...give me Pentax IQ anytime, I can't PP and have no intention of spending hours 'tweaking' just one image.

I'd never get any shots taken if that was the case!
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K5+Tammy 18-250, a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

I've some gallerieshere CLICKY LINK! and my PPG entries.

Anvh

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 22:44
Aren't we going down the wrong route...?
Photoshop has little to do with making sharp photos in my humble opinion, there is only so much you can rescue from a bad photo.

This photo is a heavily photo-shopped photo but does not fit in your description at all. link
Neither does this one with a lens flare link
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Last Edited by Anvh on 20/04/2010 - 22:45

dougf8

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 23:00
Stefan,

Ron is looking for artistic flair, not lens flare or photoshop flare.
Lurking is shirking.!
Last Edited by dougf8 on 20/04/2010 - 23:01

Anvh

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 23:11
Doug, sorry

It was a reaction of the two above that comment HG and Matt, they are talking that you can do a lot with photoshop to save a photo but it's very limited and my humble opinion is that photo-shopping can add flair to your photo and is not something you should ignore.
How many great fine art photographers didn't work on their photos in the darkroom, I think your list will be quite short.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

dougf8

Link Posted 20/04/2010 - 23:23
Stefan, I'm only playing with words.

You're right even with film there's a lot of dark art involved. hence all the darkroom techniques. I suppose photoshop is just the modern equivalent.

As other mentioned I am a bit sick of seeing a certain type of image on flickr and I love seeing more creative images.
Lurking is shirking.!
Last Edited by dougf8 on 20/04/2010 - 23:23
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.