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


Smeggypants

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 23:09
McGregNi wrote:
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.

No I'm telling you how I take photographs. I'm comfortable with my methods, just like you are with yours. No one is right or wrong. Each to their own. My methods may not compute for your obviously different mindset and there's certainly no need to to try and claim I'm unaware of my own thought processes in order to shoehorn them into something you can compute.
[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

K10D

Link Posted 15/04/2013 - 23:49
McGregNi wrote:
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

"Technical limitations of the equipment"...surely serious photographers buy equipment fit for purpose else it's a compromise from the start is it not?

There are many photographers out there that produce great work with basic kit because of the capabilities of the photographer and that kit. Where the making of an image requires different kit, for whatever reason, then a serious photographer would surely buy the kit that is fit for purpose and being brand loyal could also be a compromise if the brand did not offer suitable products.

Best regards
cameradextrous _ Motorcycles etc. link

johnriley

Link Posted 16/04/2013 - 00:09
All equipment has technical limitations. In a photographic sense though that can also mean the limitations of technique. For example, you can't have the fastest shutter speed with the smallest aperture and the lowest ISO if the light is too dim. I think that might be the kind of technical limitation that's being discussed.
Best regards, John

Smeggypants

Link Posted 16/04/2013 - 00:16
johnriley wrote:
All equipment has technical limitations. In a photographic sense though that can also mean the limitations of technique. For example, you can't have the fastest shutter speed with the smallest aperture and the lowest ISO if the light is too dim. I think that might be the kind of technical limitation that's being discussed.

On that contrary from I what get from this thread is that some people are shooting with a priority to maximise technical IQ, for example lowest ISO and selecting the lens' aperture sweet spot for maximum MTF resolution. While others like myself, pay no attention to that and place artistic reasons as the priority.

While you're right that all equipment has technical limitations, people then narrow those limitations even further to match their own boundaries, for eample onyl shooting at the aperture sweet spot oe not using ISOs greater than 200, etc
[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 16/04/2013 - 00:53
Smeggypants wrote:
McGregNi wrote:
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.

No I'm telling you how I take photographs. I'm comfortable with my methods, just like you are with yours. No one is right or wrong. Each to their own. My methods may not compute for your obviously different mindset and there's certainly no need to to try and claim I'm unaware of my own thought processes in order to shoehorn them into something you can compute.

I don't think the 'mindsets' are really that different at all. There is surely a common bank of knowledge to draw on for each of us in order to achieve our desired intentions. We are actually drawing attention to some of that common knowledge and sharing stuff. The fact remains, that if either of us wanted to reproduce a shot that was the equal of the others, in terms of settings we would both have to 'shoehorn' our processes into something else. And for that we are both constrained by the technical limitations of the gear.

Banter aside I was asked if I would not consider someone (say you) a serious photographer for not being concerned about 'noise'. As I said, by my own definition, from what I can gather, you would be serious, for the single reason that you are aware of the ...(here's the deep breath...) technical limitations, priorities, compromises, intended output etc etc - and having weighed it all up and decided it was worth it to shoot away. My point about the mind was to say that when you go out and shoot that all of these considerations are ingrained and probably applied sub-consciously.
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 16/04/2013 - 00:57
Conversely, someone who had no knowledge, didn't ever think about it, but happened to produce an interesting shot that was 'artistic' just by waving the camera at the hip and pushing the button, leaving the camera to cope (hopefully) with the conditions - well, they would not be a serious photographer by my definition.
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 16/04/2013 - 01:16
Smeggypants wrote:


While you're right that all equipment has technical limitations, people then narrow those limitations even further to match their own boundaries, for eample onyl shooting at the aperture sweet spot oe not using ISOs greater than 200, etc

If your're suggesting that those who might like to shoot at the sweet spot, use low iso's etc are somehow limiting their boundaries, then you must be misunderstanding the 'mindset' - certainly mine anyway. I strive to achieve higher 'lifelike' realism through resolution, increased DR, and push the edge to edge sharpness so that it looks like you can just walk into the shot, and achieve a print at 100 / 60 cm with no loss of all that can be seen on the computer screen. With each shot that I might be able to achieve ever higher results along these lines I feel the boundaries as receding.

As technology improves then I would be excited to embrace it to enhance these aims - in the same way as you would embrace it to reduce the compromises inherent in sharp-shooting in low light.
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

johnha

Link Posted 16/04/2013 - 01:31
There are technical limitations everywhere in photography. From formats to camera types through everything else in between. You can stack the deck in your favour (larger formats, superb prime lenses, better sensors etc) everything else is a compromise.

You have to trust your gear. If you don't feel it's good enough, you need to trade it and replace it. Find something better. Don't be held back by its limitations, it'll only frustrate you in the end.

Once you trust your gear, you can use it as you feel necessary to get the shot you want, knowing that your gear won't let you down.
PPG Flickr

Smeggypants

Link Posted 16/04/2013 - 01:41
McGregNi wrote:
Conversely, someone who had no knowledge, didn't ever think about it, but happened to produce an interesting shot that was 'artistic' just by waving the camera at the hip and pushing the button, leaving the camera to cope (hopefully) with the conditions - well, they would not be a serious photographer by my definition.

A not insignificant part of my shooting involves doing just that. not just fromthe actual hip, but from all kinds of angles and positions that don't involve looking through the viewfinder or live view screen. I get results that I like from shooting that way. As said I don't consider any technical issues whatsoever.



McGregNi wrote:
you are aware of the ...(here's the deep breath...) technical limitations, priorities, compromises, intended output etc etc - and having weighed it all up and decided it was worth it to shoot away. My point about the mind was to say that when you go out and shoot that all of these considerations are ingrained and probably applied sub-consciously.

What you don't seem to be getting is that a lot of the time there is no "Worth it to shoot anyway" consideration going on. I just see something and shoot it. I do of course take considered shots as well, but I far more prefer the impulse shooting. It's much more fun for me.

Further up the thread you said:

McGregNi wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:
Quote:


I think that yellow colour noise (and other noises) is something to think
about for all serious digital photographers,

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.

A lot of my shots do indeed contain technical flaws. Often several of them. As long as the artistic content is good, I don't care.

It's quite clear that I more than fit the description of someone who isn't a serious photographer in your eyes. But don't worry, I'm not offended.

We do have completely different mindsets when it comes to photography. Polar opposites I dare say.

So while I respect your choice of approach as being something you're comfortable with it's an approach that would leave me cold. Each to their own. It would be a boring old world if everyone was the same.
[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

johnha

Link Posted 16/04/2013 - 01:56
Have to agree with Smeggy for once. The ability to 'see' (or maybe sense) a great photograph is as important as (maybe more important than) getting the technical bits right. If the shot doesn't work as an image, it doesn't matter how big you print it (strictly speaking print size verses viewing distance...).
PPG Flickr

CMW

Link Posted 16/04/2013 - 09:00
McGregNi wrote:
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.

Well, you did add 'but I love it', which even if intended humourously does suggest some level of attachment.

I find it hard to get past the shot itself to see what point you're trying to establish. I just cannot imagine (except for the purpose of record) wanting to print such a photograph, let alone print it at the size you mention.

And shooting a landscape (or the backs of suburban housing) is very different from candid or street photography. There is usually no reason not to spend time deciding precisely how to configure the camera's variables on the former; the latter is usually snatched at short notice. Many of the world's most iconic photographs have technical limitations, but no one pays them attention (whatever the size of the print) because the photographs are so absorbing and powerful.
Regards, Christopher

ChristopherWheelerPhotography

PeterKR

Link Posted 18/04/2013 - 23:19
I've been away for a few days and as the debate here seems to have subsided I just want to add my parting remarks that I am indeed very grateful for all the contributions that my inocent comment provoked.

To repeat something I hinted at earlier I think that the key is that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" - we all have different concepts of what we consider to be a 'good' photograph since we all have different ideas of what we wish to capture.

That is why it is so much fun and we all continue our quest for the 'Perfect photo' which is - of course - unattainable and undefinable !

But then that's just MY opinion !!!

Peter
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.