"What goes round, comes around" - it must be F8


McGregNi

Link Posted 14/04/2013 - 20:22
Smeggypants wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting how much someone worries about noise is proportional to how serious a photographer they are?

I am saying that anyone serious about their photography needs to consider the effects of noise (and any other IQ challenges) in relation to their intended output and display. Anyone not serious would probably be blissfully unaware of the issues, and their shots are more likely to contain multiple technical flaws.

Smeggypants wrote:
Quote:
... not something that is just 'each to their own'. It imposes very real technical limitations on us and can obviously affect the choice of modes and camera settings we must consider.

You're starting to claim to speak for others. The level of technical limitations is something that's each to their own and something people impose upon themselves. i.e you've rejected my underground photo for printing because of some technical issue, which others might not even worry about.

I see technical limitations as something inherant to each individual model of equipment, and therefore the same for everyone. (Technique limits would obviously depend on the photographer - each to their own). Equipment technical limitations are something for 'serious' photographers to understand and try to limit, and intelligently choose what to prioritise, and where to compromise, for any given shooting environment and intended output.

This is why the questions about modes and other settings are of interest here - I mean, we're all pretty serious photographers, right?
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

McGregNi

Link Posted 14/04/2013 - 20:38
PeterKR wrote:
So finally, after all the discussion above, today I put the K-r back onto 'P' !!!Peter

Yes Peter, f8.0 for everything is a bit limiting! But why not experiement with the MTF Program Line function (on my K7 this is set from the Control Panel). Then, when you are shooting in 'P' you can be assured that your DA lens will be set to the optimum aperture for image quality.

The other options for program line on my camera are Speed and DOF I think, so would prioritise apertures to suit scenes that need those. Personally I am rather sceptical that for standard zooms the differences would be the much really, depending on the focal length - maybe at longest zoom you'd see something, but at the widest end I'm not so sure??
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

Smeggypants

Link Posted 14/04/2013 - 22:47
McGregNi wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting how much someone worries about noise is proportional to how serious a photographer they are?

I am saying that anyone serious about their photography needs to consider the effects of noise (and any other IQ challenges) in relation to their intended output and display. Anyone not serious would probably be blissfully unaware of the issues, and their shots are more likely to contain multiple technical flaws.

Smeggypants wrote:
Quote:
... not something that is just 'each to their own'. It imposes very real technical limitations on us and can obviously affect the choice of modes and camera settings we must consider.

You're starting to claim to speak for others. The level of technical limitations is something that's each to their own and something people impose upon themselves. i.e you've rejected my underground photo for printing because of some technical issue, which others might not even worry about.

I see technical limitations as something inherant to each individual model of equipment, and therefore the same for everyone. (Technique limits would obviously depend on the photographer - each to their own). Equipment technical limitations are something for 'serious' photographers to understand and try to limit, and intelligently choose what to prioritise, and where to compromise, for any given shooting environment and intended output.

This is why the questions about modes and other settings are of interest here - I mean, we're all pretty serious photographers, right?

So are you implying I'm not serious about my photography?
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

cabstar

Link Posted 14/04/2013 - 23:05
Maybe i'm old fashioned, i shoot manual, watch the meter and adjust shutter, aperture & ISO depending on what i'm shooting.

I cant even figure out what P mode actually does....
PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

japers45

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 06:53
FWIW Smeggys image to me conveys movement and is an exciting shot in the spirit of HCB himself. I can see the noise but it doesn't bother me as I can see it was a worthwhile trade-off.

Image quality isn't worth a thing if the image isn't saying anything to me and the two posted images are at opposite ends of the spectrum in that respect (I'm sure the OP has a less humdrum image to demonstrate the point!).

If this has become a debate about image quality over interesting images (no doubt some smartarse will inform me that this is not the case) I stand firmly in the latter camp.

I am never going to print large a perfectly exposed critically sharp across the frame image of a turd. (BTW I am not implying that anyones images are turd like)

johnriley

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 07:17
It depends upon the image. Sometimes a perfectly exposed, totally sharp image is required, such as a record shot of a church interior or an Adams-style landscape. In this case technique and maximum quality are paramount. This does not stop the image from being an exciting one, and indeed a large traditional black and white print could be breathtakingly beautiful in its own right.

The only caveat being that we should beware saying content over technical quality wins if that's a cover for sloppy working, otherwise it's probably quite correct that content will win. We know this because a badly focused, pale family snap of Great Anty Annie with the Eiffel Tower growing out of her head can have more value than our latest wonderful Photoshop Extravaganza. Obviously that's an extreme example.

But it's still down to context and I could see Taschen producing a very nice sellable book called "1000 Terrible Family Snaps" and it actually being quite interesting.
Best regards, John

JAK

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 09:55
japers45 wrote:

I am never going to print large a perfectly exposed critically sharp across the frame image of a turd. (BTW I am not implying that anyones images are turd like)

You might not but your local hospital gastroenterology department might wish to.

John K
John K

McGregNi

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 20:43
Smeggypants wrote:

So are you implying I'm not serious about my photography?

No, of course not. The fact that you're on here with the rest of us involved in all this would be proof enough of your 'seriousness' I think.

By my definition, you are serious, because I am assuming that you have considered the technical limitations of the equipment, weighed up the priorities and compromises involved, and based on your intended use of the photo, accepted these limitations and compromises. All serious stuff
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

McGregNi

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 20:58
CMW wrote:
By focusing so exclusively on selected technical desiderata, there's risk of overlooking or downgrading potentially more important inputs -- composition, DoF, perspective etc -- and ending up with a good record of a scene (with low noise etc) that is none the less aesthetically underwhelming. This thread may even demonstrate that for some readers.

Can't disagree with this, but your subtle point I think may be missing the point ? Smeggie's shot was posted (I believe) to demonstrate a situation where the technical 'ideals' we were talking about were of less importance to the aesthetic aspects, or the 'capturing the moment' element, and where some technical compromise was therefore acceptable (ie the noise, some blurring, lack of sharpness right to the edges etc).

My shot ( which I described as 'just a tree and some houses') was posted to demonstrate a situation where, to produce a very large print with no noticable technical compromises and edge to edge sharpness, you would need to apply the very technical 'ideals' we were discussing. This I contend it has achieved in demonstrating.

Just to add some balance
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

McGregNi

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 21:51
japers45 wrote:
If this has become a debate about image quality over interesting images (no doubt some smartarse will inform me that this is not the case) I stand firmly in the latter camp.

This is not the case.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

japers45

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 21:59
McGregNi wrote:
japers45 wrote:
If this has become a debate about image quality over interesting images (no doubt some smartarse will inform me that this is not the case) I stand firmly in the latter camp.

This is not the case.

okey dokey

DanielH

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 22:09
japers45 wrote:
McGregNi wrote:
Quote:
If this has become a debate about image quality over interesting images (no doubt some smartarse will inform me that this is not the case) I stand firmly in the latter camp.

This is not the case.

okey dokey

now that wasn't fair! you've just called him a smartarse Or He's claimed the title for himself
Last Edited by DanielH on 15/04/2013 - 22:10

Smeggypants

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 22:40
McGregNi wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:

So are you implying I'm not serious about my photography?

No, of course not. The fact that you're on here with the rest of us involved in all this would be proof enough of your 'seriousness' I think.

By my definition, you are serious, because I am assuming that you have considered the technical limitations of the equipment, weighed up the priorities and compromises involved, and based on your intended use of the photo, accepted these limitations and compromises. All serious stuff

I can assure you that when I go out taking photographs I do not in the slightest .. ( deep breath) .... "consider the technical limitations of the equipment, weigh up the priorities and compromises involved, and based on my intended use of the photo, accept these limitations and compromises"

When I go out taking photographs I see subject or situations that I think look cool and photograph them. Any settings I make are for purely artistic reasons.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

McGregNi

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 22:42
You do yourself a disservice. The human mind is an extraordinary thing - there can be an amazing amount of things going on inside there that you're not even aware of.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Last Edited by McGregNi on 15/04/2013 - 22:43

Smeggypants

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 23:01
McGregNi wrote:
CMW wrote:
By focusing so exclusively on selected technical desiderata, there's risk of overlooking or downgrading potentially more important inputs -- composition, DoF, perspective etc -- and ending up with a good record of a scene (with low noise etc) that is none the less aesthetically underwhelming. This thread may even demonstrate that for some readers.

Can't disagree with this, but your subtle point I think may be missing the point ? Smeggie's shot was posted (I believe) to demonstrate a situation where the technical 'ideals' we were talking about were of less importance to the aesthetic aspects, or the 'capturing the moment' element, and where some technical compromise was therefore acceptable (ie the noise, some blurring, lack of sharpness right to the edges etc).

Those attributes in my underground shot weren't technical compromises they were artistic positives.

This is what I'm trying to explain when I say that you can miss out on some cool shots if you always worry about technical IQ issues.

The motion blur and camera shake of that shot at 1/25s, with the good fortune of the woman being in sync with that is what makes the shot.


Go back to this little exchange on page 3 ...

McGregNi wrote:
Blythman wrote:
Nigel, what settings would you have used on the shot Smeggy took, so that you could blow it up to hang on a wall?

I think I'd be well into tripod terrain for that Alan.

As said you simply wouldn't have got the shot using a tripod to lower the ISO enough to cater for your noise free expectations. For one the lady would be half way to Baker Street by the time you got your tripod out and secondly the shutter speed you'd have to apply to lower the ISO enough would be nowhere near in the right ball park.

A bit like when you pan a camera on racing cars with a lower shutter speed to motion blur the background, I was locking the camera on this lady as a target. You can't do that with a tripod on such a subject
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.