 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Go for Canons posted by Romy on December 21, 2001 at 16:38:12:
Canons / Nikons it doesn't matter. They're both really good cameras and one's "advantage" over the other is dubious at best. I use Nikons because I have had Nikons since 1967 - and all of the lenses will still work on my N-90 - which, by the way, is one of the best cameras I've owned. I still have 2 Nikon F's and an F2. They all are still used on different occasions.Hasselblad assembled in the far east?? The only thing that's assembled in the far east is the Fuji-built X-Pan. The 6x6's are still made in Sweden It is true that the Zeiss lenses for the Contax cameras are designed by Zeiss and manufactured in Japan, but the Hasselblad lenses are still made by Zeiss in Germany. Or, in a world of conspiracies, the boxes I get labeled "made in Germany" are really fake.
Kodak VS Fuji? Well, it depends upon what you're looking for. The Fuji materials don't "over perform" Kodak materials. They're certainly different but not necessarily better. Right now, my use is Kodak for negative materials and a mixture of Kodak and Fuji for transparency materials. Fuji Velvia may be one of the worst films ever produced - despite the hype from the screaming colors crowd. It is just plain UGLY. Fine grain yes. Good looking? NO.
Black and white film? Despite the fact that Kodak keeps eliminating products, Fuji has yet to produce a really good black and white film that equals a Kodak product. The venerable Verichrome Pan will kick the crap out of any B&W Fuji product. My choice? Either Verichrome Pan or one of the Ilford Delta films.
Canon has a more powerful digital division? Really? That must be why everyone is always playing catchup to the Nikon 35mm film scanners. Canon makes some good digital cameras but the like can be found in the Nikon line.
Final question, what is "AF constriction"? The AF is getting smaller?
Follow Ups:
I'm just a mom... I like taking portrait snaps of my kids and my other fav. subject is children in historic clothing/settings. My favorite camera (of the two I own) is a Fuji, Endeavor 400ix zoom. It is so old and battered, but I love the results I get... however, I am trying to find the hardware to digitize it to my computer... (please excuse my obvious ignorance, I'm a plain 'ol mom... pics for myself and friends...). How do I find the hookup...hardware... whatever it's called? Thanks...
Shari
If you just want to scan your photo's to email around you could do a lot worse than a tamarack FS2400 (www.tamarack.com). Cheap, with good results, but does not blow up well (runs out of detail and crispness). I suppose the digital equivalent of prouducing 10x8 prints. No Good for getting the '50mm' duck out of the middle of the lake though. A word of warning - does not work with Windows XP
Please be advised that we don’t search the justifications of what cameras we own but are talking about the genetic concepts. In the best possible scenario a person should not own any camera but rent it upon the specific necessity and specific requirements.The owning the amount of the deterrent cameras doesn’t put you in a position to reflect the Reality. The question is: what you do with those cameras. Giving to the fact that you can’t recognize the different between Canon’s and Nikon’s optics (an particularly at 70s-80s) indicates that you do not do a lot. From the different prospective don’t take me overly anal-retentive: for a normal application they both are fine cameras.
Yes, some models of Hasselblad's bodies are assembled by Fuji. A friend of mine who imports Hasselblads made very fascinating research and find the Fuji’s Hasselblads are better assembled then Sweden. Isn’t it ironic?
Regarding the Films and digital: there is a lot of more to it.
I really do not know why decided to argue about it. My intentions were not to bring the “digital quality” in my statement (though I stay behind to what I said) but to colorize the message.
*** Final question, what is "AF constriction"? The AF is getting smaller?
I was referring to the fact that the Canon Ultrasonic Line has fundamentally different constriction with all Nikon lenses. Nikon has a mechanical devise with transmits a moment from a motor within a camera to the lenses to set a focus. Canon Ultrasonic lenses receive an electrical command from a camera and have the engine locally to perform the spin. (Actually the lens' component itself is a rotor, I find it very intelligent!) This lead to the fact that all Ultrasonic Canon lenses are order of magnitude faster then the Nikon’s lenses. Frankly speaking, the only this fact would made me to love them.
Regards,
Romy the CaT
I probably do more in one week with photography than you do in a month. The fact is, I use all of my cameras for different projects. I have the luxury of being able to use and compare multiple formats and multiple brands of 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x12, and 4x5 (using multiple lens brands). This also includes such oddities as an Imagon lens. I would dare you or anyone to look at transparencies on a light box and tell me if they were made with a Canon or Nikon. It's the end result that counts - not the equipment used.As a person who started out using manual cameras well over 40 years ago, the speed of focus of an autofocus camera is a moot point unless you regularly shoot something like sporting events. I have done some sports work where I thought autofocus was an advantage (horse racing and NASCAR) but, I have never thought that I've missed a shot because the Nikon focus system was "too slow." So - frankly you have your opinion, I have my experience, and I don't agree with you.
Personally, I find Canons difficult to use because the controls do not seem to be layed out very well. It all comes down to personal preference, my preference is for Nikons because I like the way they operate and the ED series glass is very, very good. In fact, in many instances, if you do not know what to look for in a picture, you could not tell the difference between the Nikon ED glass and Leica glass. In most cases, Nikon will be sharper if measured in lp/mm (yes! it's true!) but - the Leica picture will have more depth and apparent sharpenss to the eye because the lens contrast is slightly better. Leica designers know that contrast improves the "look" of the photo and will often tradeoff MTF for better contrast (and color balance).
I have been in the photo/imaging business professionally for over 30 years including esoteric areas such as high speed motion pictures and high speed video. I have designed infrared imaging systems for finding buried land mines - including specifying the construction of custom IR lenses, IR mirrors, and IR folded optic systems. I also hold 5 U.S. patents for improvements to video cameras. I speak from a lot of experience with a lot of different equipment over 3 decades of imaging. How about you???
*** I probably do more in one week with photography than you do in a month.Very possible I severely and intentionally am abandoning photography.
*** I have the luxury of being able to use and compare multiple formats and multiple brands of 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x12, and 4x5 (using multiple lens brands).
I can’t not to miss opportunity to boost myself by mentioning that I use to work at regular basis with 20X30 cameras. It dose not make me more qualified but the point “The Size”, this IS important. :-)
*** I have never thought that I've missed a shot because the Nikon focus system was "too slow." So - frankly you have your opinion, I have my experience, and I don't agree with you.
“Miss a shot” is not an issues. The issue is (at least for me) that between an event that YOU consider should be “monumented” and the event when a camera executes your will ....there is a default delay or proxy process that you are not controlling. The longer time this delay the more opportunitys that the Reality will be changed when the camera will be ready. It is NOT so critical for sport, where the events are most of the time are structured and predictable. But if you actively shoot journalistically and candidly Life (I did for "artistic" purpose) then the speed of autofocus is absolutely critical and the most of the time is the major factor of failure.
*** Personally, I find Canons difficult to use because the controls do not seem to be layed out very well.
As a person who used practically all Cameras I assure you this is a mater of couple days of shooting and you’ll get comfortable …unles it is F2 :-). It is like a driving a new car…. 2-3 days and you feel that it was built specially for you.
*** It all comes down to personal preference, my preference is for Nikons because I like the way they operate and the ED series glass is very, very good.
Well, from certain prospective the FM2 was the best camera ever was produced….
*** In fact, in many instances, if you do not know what to look for in a picture, you could not tell the difference between the Nikon ED glass and Leica glass. In most cases, Nikon will be sharper if measured in lp/mm (yes! it's true!) but - the Leica picture will have more depth and apparent sharpenss to the eye because the lens contrast is slightly better. Leica designers know that contrast improves the "look" of the photo and will often tradeoff MTF for better contrast (and color balance).
What bothered me with Nikons lenses was the polygraphics-quality of their images (similar to the quality of Soundstage when you place the full size ported monitors write next to the back wall). The threshold between the densities looked like it was using a screen as a background. It is wonderful for the technical aplications or for SACD lovers but has nothing to do with reality. Unarguably the Leica’s lenses are more interesting but the way Leica’s body designed drive me creasy….
*** How about you???
I am photography for 20 years and worked in many areas of it: commercial photography (still have no idea what it is), advertising photography (serious studio and location works), havy technical photography, heavy processing… Use to be a hard-core photography artist (the Americanism “artist” is totally BS word to me) and had fairly interesting collection of works. Use to supervised and own some studios and labs. Have some researched and invention in photography was well.
***" 'Miss a shot' is not an issues. The issue is (at least for me) that between an event that YOU consider should be “monumented” and the event when a camera executes your will ....there is a default delay or proxy process that you are not controlling. The longer time this delay the more opportunitys that the Reality will be changed when the camera will be ready. It is NOT so critical for sport, where the events are most of the time are structured and predictable. But if you actively shoot journalistically and candidly Life (I did for "artistic" purpose) then the speed of autofocus is absolutely critical and the most of the time is the major factor of failure."****This could be true for journalistic use. In that case, I would probably use my M6 & track focus the event in the viewfinder. Then I'm really not that worried about missing an event through focus lag. If you're worried about that, then you should also worry about shutter lag. Every 1/1000 of a second counts.
From my perspective, after analyzing thousands of hours of high-speed motion picture film, there are so many nuances that the eye misses in any sequence, that claiming you have captured the "decisive moment" is only because you haven't seen the other 1000 that happened between the time you pushed the shutter button, the iris stopped down, and the shutter opened and closed. It's all relative to your frame of reference - reality changes infinitely - so you're still missing something even with your Canon that focuses faster. The best rule of photography is still, "f/8 and be there." The "be there" part being the most important...(smiley face)...
Could a thousand monkeys with a thousand cameras possibly produce "Moonrise Over Hernandez New Mexico"? Of course not, there's a building between the road and the cemetary now and the view isn't the same - that's not the monkey's fault.
Yes, in many instances M-line with 24 mm set to infinity with the stop down and shooting “from belly” is the way to go. From the different prospective life exists between the moments when Henri Cartier Bresson pressed the button…In photography we drag the Reality by its ears into a place and time where we feel comfortable to handle it… and then we call it Real. I find it is very boring and self-restricting in photography. Too much recreation of hypocrisy!
I wish I could paint. I kind of feel that an entire Photography is a dildo of Painting. A painter dealing with pure reality (Real of Imaginary). A photographer is searching for a substitution of reality and, by the way, most of his findings are accidental. (Though I understand, possess great knowledge, and can fluently operate in pure photography language) Still, in painting the “creator/author” drives process but in photography the dead process has too much influence to the artistic result. This is perhaps why the best of my “serious” photographs exist as sketches. (I’m dangers enough to do this)
Regards,
Romy the Cat
Painting exists in a totally self-manufactured world like fiction writing. To me, non-fiction is far stranger than fiction because there are real events that become stranger than fiction.I find the world itself far more interesting and bizarre than anything I've seen painted. Therefore, I love photography because I can find those small moments in space and time where everything comes together, including serendipidous events, to make "reality" unreal. I truly love examining the visual flotsam and jetsam created by humans. Telephone poles, train tracks, jet trails, roads, fences...any and all of the "visual interruptions" so unnaturally placed - can't get enough.
***"...but in photography the dead process has too much influence to the artistic result..."***
Self-limitation by self definition. Photography can be whatever you want it to be. Real, unreal, surreal, abstract,...it's up to you - hell, paint ON the photograph if you like painting. It's certainly NOT the visual medium that's in question, it's the imagination of the artist to exploit the medium. Painting has it's materials/process limitations which influence the final work. Sorry, can't buy into your thesis.
Contrast Ralph Eugene Meatyard with Edward Weston. Meatyard had his own world which he created, while Weston found abstract forms throughout the world he traveled. Elger Esser makes 3 hour exposures where the world changes througout the photo flattening the light and obscuring details. Contrast that to Harold Edgerton who explored the world through small instants in time.
You have to use and control the tools & processes in any art form to create the image you want - that's the challenge. If you feel process-limited, then don't blame the art form, look at yourself. If you still feel you are limited, then change your mode of expression through something you are more in tune with - but, don't blame the medium.
Picasso started as a spectacular realistic painter. After seeing his first photograph he declared that painting was dead - and then went on to expand and explore new methods of expression in painting for the rest of his life - partially spurred on by the photographic challenge to painting's ability to minutely render reality. In the '70's and 80's, photo-realistic painting appeared to challenge photography again...and the circle was complete.
Finally, I really don't think of photography as "art." It's really more of a sport.
*** Painting exists in a totally self-manufactured world like fiction writing. To me, non-fiction is far stranger than fiction because there are real events that become stranger than fiction.You have to take under consideration that you are dealing with a guy who consider Gabriel Garcia Marquez if very non-fictional writer. Go figure….
*** I find the world itself far more interesting and bizarre than anything I've seen painted. Therefore, I love photography because I can find those small moments in space and time where everything comes together, including serendipidous events, to make "reality" unreal. I truly love examining the visual flotsam and jetsam created by humans. Telephone poles, train tracks, jet trails, roads, fences...any and all of the "visual interruptions" so unnaturally placed - can't get enough.
Ones, when I was young and clean, I was in love and did a wonderful collection of very fine works about the girl. I took that collection so seriously that I temporary stopped notice the girl with all ner needs. So, where it the Reality and where is fiction when you're talking about the sick male brain?
*** Self-limitation by self definition. Photography can be whatever you want it to be. Real, unreal, surreal, abstract,...it's up to you - hell, paint ON the photograph if you like painting.
Sounds to me like the Army's propaganda. :-)
*** You have to use and control the tools & processes in any art form to create the image you want - that's the challenge. If you feel process-limited, then don't blame the art form, look at yourself. If you still feel you are limited, then change your mode of expression through something you are more in tune with - but, don't blame the medium.
I always looked at myself and as any normal egotistic Cat I’m not looking for the opportunities or methods but for the benefits. I would like to remind you that the “process-limited status” could be applied to a coordinate system of the demands. Perhaps this is why you never have seen in the bookstores a book with a title “World Creating for Dummies”.
*** Picasso started as a spectacular realistic painter. After seeing his first photograph he declared that painting was dead - and then went on to expand and explore new methods of expression in painting for the rest of his life - partially spurred on by the photographic challenge to painting's ability to minutely render reality. In the '70's and 80's, photo-realistic painting appeared to challenge photography again...and the circle was complete.
…and pay attention that all Picasso’s works are eventually b/w even if he used colors.
*** Finally, I really don't think of photography as "art." It's really more of a sport.
I have detected it. The world divided by pursuing spirit and the billable hours. As a “billable hour’s sport” photography is dead. As a “process for process” photography is as interesting as any other masturbativ actively.
Regards,
Romy the Cat
It might be that both of you (and me to a lesser extent) use a lot of camera equipment.We all know that "film does make a difference", and that you CAN make a world-class shot with a broken SeaGull, it's not the CAMERA, its the wetware running in the camera's user.
Btw, Roman dude, there are some USM Nikon lenses, both from Nikon and from Sigma, now. (No, not all Sigma is horrid any more. You have to look at what you are buying.)
JJ
My point precisely. As I stated, "It's the end result that counts - not the equipment used."I feel it's a bit disingenuous to pass off personal opinion as "facts." When if fact, the fact is not a fact...uhhh...mmm...you get the idea. And it's obvious that the Romy dude, is not quite totally in touch with the current state-of-the-art in film or digital photography. As such, (and as funny as I think he is), he should refrain from passing personal opinion and heresay off as irrefutable "facts." (Comments on Hasselblad being assembled in the Far East, and Leica "boiling glass" in the Far East.)
Each has a small shred of truth. The Fuji X-Pan is a joint venture between Fuji and Hasselblad, and is assembled by Fuji. However, this hardly represents the bulk of Hasselblad's output. Comparing the assembly quality between Fuji and Hasselblad is ridiculous as the cameras assembled by the two companies have nothing in common.
Likewise, stating that Leica makes lenses in Japan again has a shred of truth. Two of the "R" series zooms are made in Japan for Leica. They are Leica designs and manufactured to Leica standards. However, two lenses out of the entire "M" series and "R" series line is hardly significant when compared to the number manufactured in Germany. Yet, when you read Romy's post, you get the idea that Leica is farming out all of their lens production.
Photography is such a process dependent activity, that blanket, one-size-fits-all pronouncements are silly and mostly fall into the personal preference category. That's all I was trying to point out in my first post, which was answered by Romy calling into question my familiarity with photography, which I tried to address in my second post.
For exaample, is Fuji Crystal Archive paper "the best"? Sure, for a Lightjet print - you bet. For a print of a wedding picture photographed on Kodak Portra film. Absolutely the WORST choice. So, there you have it - one product that's the best and worst - process/usage dependent.
As with all activities that involve investing in equipment, I advise looking at function, what you need, what you like - and then making up your own mind. You know, Minolta makes some nice cameras too...
Peace..and may you be blessed with many good exposures...
xenon101
I had a whole flock of SRT101's, 102's, a 200, and an XG something (fixed aperature automation).They were fine, and earned no shame, but they did wear out in several annoying ways, i.e. mirror stops wore, and I found that I could only focus accurately at one edge of the mirror, mind this is after a LOT of exposures.
Ditto some of the lenses were showing decentering.
This is why I bought a new set of cameras. I went with Nikon because, unlike most people, I liked the N70 controls, except for the lack of
DOF view, which is indeed (*&(&*( annoying sometimes.I also use a P67, but of course that's not for snapshots :)
JJ
I can't say that I've had a lot of experience with a wide range of Minolta products. My first "real" camera was a Minolta AL rangefinder (which I still have) that I had saved for over a period of about 6-8 mos. Made my folks drive me to K-Mart (YES, K-Mart!! they used to have a good photo dept circa 1963) so I could buy it.Used that until I saved for my first Nikon which I purchased when I was 17 and I never owned any other manufacturer until I bought my M6 about 12 years ago. However, when I managed a photo store in grad school, I would take out sales samples & try them out so I could see how other brands worked & how different companies lenses performed. At that time, Minolta optics always performed well, seemed better color balanced than the Pentax products which seemed to render colors a bit green & Olympus which seemed a little blue.
The Nikon ED glass is really close to neutral while the M series glass is, of course, slightly warm (which I prefer).
...at that time, Minolta optics always performed well, seemed better color balanced than the Pentax products which seemed to render colors a bit green & Olympus which seemed a little blue. The Nikon ED glass is really close to neutral while the M series glass is, of course, slightly warm...You actually judged the lenses by their colors? This is so funny!!! The chomical aberrations taken out of context are SO irrelevant! (Very similar to the distortions of amplifier) Besides, how were you able to tell about it in the photo-store conditions? Did you have an optical bench along with a spectral analyzer in the store? I hope you did not mage you decisions just by looking at the print? Well you might conclude something even form the prints as well but it would require an analyses of a huge amount of data, superbly calibrated processes (which never happen) and totally different methods or research and interpret to result (that I am sure you did not use because it is VERY expensive) Sorry, xenon, I am not knocking at your door but actually it was unarguably the fannies judgment I even heard.
Regards,
Romy the Cat
Well Romeister, this is what you do. You take the camera(s) out with the same film (in this case Kodachrome 25 - when you could get it processed at the Kodak Palo Alto plant---sigh....), and you shoot 200-300 exposures through each camera of the same subjects. Then you put the transparencies on a light table & start looking at them. Obviously you can't use prints because the printing process "corrects" (actually changes) the outcome so comparing prints is impossible - but you knew that.Not much different than claiming you can hear the difference between amplifiers on the same speakers. What you notice are trends in the way the lenses reproduce the same colors when the same images are compared side-by-side. There are very subtle color shifts that you notice. I can tell the difference between my Rodenstock 4x5 lenses and my Schneider lenses. The multi-coatings are different & the color rendition & contrast is different. Same holds true for 35mm lenses. Shoot lots of film of the same subjects with different lenses on transparency film & look at the differences between the colors, contrast, etc.
A long, long time ago, I made a Cibachrome (now Ilfochrome) print of a subject using a 50mm Schneider Componon enlarging lens. Then I put an Apo-Rodagon 50mm into the enlarger & made the same print at the same f/stop & print timing & processed them. The Schneider lens was manufactured in 1968 (my first enlarging lens), and the Rodagon was manufactured in about 1989 & took advantage of all of the advances in multi-coating - and it was apo corrected. The difference was not in sharpness, but in the rendering of the reds. In the print made with the Apo-Rodagon, there was far more delicacy in the reds with many more shades to be seen.
In fact, the Rodenstock rep for the area ask me to make him a set of prints so that he could show his dealers the kind of difference the Rodenstock lens could make. You can see the same kind of difference in camera lenses also if you do 1:1 comparisons with photos of the same subject.
So, I'm not sure what "fannies judgement" you're talking about, but, if you can HEAR differences in equipment, believe me, I can SEE differences in the results from different equipment. It's all in how you've been trained and the amount of time you've put into a certain discipline. Let's just say, I have "calibrated eyes."
*** Not much different than claiming you can hear the difference between amplifiers on the same speakers.It is it not exactly the same. This is why I reject any listening evaluations based on “compressing by contrast” or state that people have no idea what they listening or doing. Reference to www.audioannex.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=5&Number=1963
I have no problem with what you said. Though if you have a calibrated print process the experiment could be done not only with the transparencies. In many instances it would be even preferable to avoid the transparencies giving some idiosyncrasies and vulnerability of E-6. (Unless you nave VERY expensive and VERY calibrated and VERY personal E-6) Do not forget we are interesting not about the absolute result but about the delta. (Well, sort of…)
You didn’t describe the DEFERENCE BETWEEN OPTICS. (I think that was a topic). In fact an absolute shit of color by lenses is IRELEVENT. (Guilty as charged!) It would be similar to you having a 0.5% color glass all day long of spending time in a room with a different color temperature. Would it bother you (unless some very specific applications)? Do not forget the purpose of photography is to impact a human vision (and whatever after that)…. So the coloration of lenses is important as a photographic method and totally insignificant as the viewers’ benefit.
I am capable as well as you to discriminate the results form the different lenses but, honestly, I would NEVER pay attention to a total tone of the images.
The cat
Actually I never the subject was the difference between optics. I only said that when I was in college I had the opportunity to compare lenses from several manufacturers & commented on the slight color cast associated with the lenses. This had to do with the lens glass (design) & coating.***"...avoid the transparencies giving some idiosyncrasies and vulnerability of E-6..."***
uhhh..Romy...Kodachrome isn't E-6 processed. At the time I made the comparisons, the process was K-15 & ONLY Kodak could run that process. Essentially, Kodachrome is black and white film with no imaging dyes or color couplers as part of the film. The color dyes are added to the transparency when it is processed. So the color film is "made" for you when it is processed. Much more complicated process, but the results (at the time) were the best you could get with any type of color process.
***"So the coloration of lenses is important as a photographic method and totally insignificant as the viewers’ benefit.***"
Yes, important as a photographic method, and I don't give a shit about the viewer's benefit. I'm not making personal photographs for the viewer. I'm making photographs for me. If someone else likes them - that's fine. If not, that's also fine.
In fact, for years, I so subverted the color in many photographs that you can't tell what is real. I had Harrison & Harrison make a custom filter to my specifications. It makes the film see colors like someone wearing brown sunglasses. Neutral colors (whites, blacks, greys, browns) are rendered normally. Greens are rendered slightly muted, reds are enhanced, and blues are rendered anywhere from grey to steel blue. The idea is to give your eyes something to "key" off of that is rendered "normal" and in the correct brightness relationships (the neutral colors).
If white is rendered correctly, then your brain says that all other colors are correct. But, your brain also knows that they can't be, because the color relationships and brightnesses aren't correct for the colors and this unconsiously disturbs you when you look at the print. The working principles behind this were discovered and studied 40 years ago by Dr. Edwin Land. I just took the information he discovered & applied it to my personal work.
If you’d like to see some photos with the distorted colors, go to:
www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=96471.
If you “click” on the images they will enlarge.
The only time I worry about the viewer's benefit is when I do commercial work. At that point, most people can't even tell whether something is color balanced correctly or not. Most of that work is done on neg film for architects, museums, etc. I don't do portraits. After taking close to 90,000 portraits, I decided I never wanted to do that again.
*** Yes, important as a photographic method, and I don't give a shit about the viewer's benefit.Big, the fundamentally biggest possible mistake. This is way the amplifiers which designed to satisfy the demands of (faulty) engineering theories are condemned to sound dead.
*** I'm not making personal photographs for the viewer. I'm making photographs for me. If someone else likes them - that's fine. If not, that's also fine.
It was not what I meant. You are a viewer as well, and your viewing methods share the common with the rest of the viewers principles. No meter how much a composer “composes for himself” but he use the same rudiments of harmony...
*** In fact, for years, I so subverted the color in many photographs that you can't tell what is real…. The idea is to give your eyes something to "key" off of that is rendered "normal" and in the correct brightness relationships.
Yes, this is a very interesting direction (if you can handle it). Frankly speaking I should confess a sin by saying that I personally do not consider color being meaningful enough. Whatever I did “seriously’ for myself was b/w. To me, color as an expressive method, is a destructive force … (though it could be used complementary)
*** If white is rendered correctly, then your brain says that all other colors are correct.
It is correct but only if you disregard the misbalance of the color contracts. If you do take it under consideration that you have to demand the “rendering correctly” an entire gray scale ending with black. Yes, white is most critical but… white dose not exist and usually “perceived” as D-min projected to the film’s fog level.
*** But, your brain also knows that they can't be, because the color relationships and brightnesses aren't correct for the colors and this unconsiously disturbs you when you look at the print.
It is why I never was able to use colors “for myself”. I just never was able to mange it at the desirable level of freedom. (There is more to it then just that) Hey, colors are is just a density!
*** If you’d like to see some photos with the distorted colors, go to…
I looked at those images, thank you. This is only confirmed what whatever photography has interesting has a b/w structure. It is very similar to looking at women naked vs. women wearing underwear. Which case create more “spiritual movement”? :-)
*** The only time I worry about the viewer's benefit is when I do commercial work…. and the rest
Well, a commercial work is totally irrelevant for this discussion (the commercial customers swallow everything) but you misunderstood my phrase of “viewer benefit”. An amplifier could have 0.00001% of distortions. This is a fact. However, how this fact would benefit a listener …this is TOTALLY deferent issue.
Regards,
Romy the Cat
"...he use the same rudiments of harmony..."I've been trying for years to forget what I was taught in several highly regarded art schools. The need for "harmony" is something I hope never directs a composition that I am working on. However, I am sure that at some subconcious level, there is part of may brain that is reacting to this very issue. I am more interested in what the subject needs than what is "harmonious" within the frame.
"Whatever I did “seriously’ for myself was b/w."
I used to do a lot of black and white because I could afford it, and I didn't understand how to use color in a photograph. If you would like to see some of my black and white photos go to:
www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=138425
Then I found out that color was much harder to do than black and white. B&W has all the controls you could ever want. Filters, film development, paper choice (with contrast controls), chemical alterations, toning, etc., etc.
Color on the other hand has very little that you can do to affect the outcome of the photo. It is much like a hiaku poem in that you have a limited set of controls and must play strictly within that set boundary. Success is much more difficult and requires greater concentration and deeper seeing (for me - only) - I find it much more challenging than B&W.
"...what whatever photography has interesting has a b/w structure..."
Yes, that is probably true. Any of the color photos would have worked as black and white - but, I don't think they would be nearly as interesting. For me, B&W is like a skeleton waiting to be "fleshed out" with more information - in this case color.
Maybe it's the difference between an etching and a color lithograph - both have their aesthetics, but, when I was working in print making, I always found lithography far more interesting because there was an entire color world that could be explored.
Unfortunately, the color photos you looked at were composed to be seen big. They just start to work at 16x20 and don't really open up until they're about 36 x 40. Then, all of the little details become apparent (and important), and the spaces work within the photo to give the eye places to explore individually.
*** Not much different than claiming you can hear the difference between amplifiers on the same speakers.It is it not exactly the same. This is why I reject the listening evaluations based on “compressing by contrast”. Reference to www.audioannex.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=5&Number=1963
….
I have no problem with what you said. Though if you have a calibrated print process it could be done not only with the transparencies. In many instances it would be even preferable to avoid the
transparencies giving some idiosyncrasies and vulnerability of E-6. (Unless you nave VERY expensive and VERY calibrated and VERY personal E-6) Do not forget you are interesting not about an absolute result but about the delta. (Sort of)
So, what you said is perfectly valid but what you describe, sorry, dose not describe the deference between optics. (I think that was a topic) In fact an absolute shit of color by lenses is IRELEVENT. (Guilty as charged!) It would be similar to you wear a .5% color glass all day long of sitting in the room with a different color temperature. Would if bother you (unless some very specific applications)? Do not forget the purpose of photography is to impact a human vision (and whatever after that)…. So the coloration of lenses is important as a photographic method and totally insignificant as the viewers’ benefit.
I am capable as well as you to discriminate the results form the different lenses but honestly I would NEVER pay attention to a total tone of the images.
The cat
*** Yet, when you read Romy's post, you get the idea that Leica is farming out all of their lens production.I was not what I said. I said that Now Are the Times when the Mentioned Events become a reality. Hey, 10 years ago there were some high-end models of Japanese cars witch were made in Japan and some that were made in US… Give yourself another 10 years and you will see the Hasselblad's that are assembled in Afghanistan.
*** For a print of a wedding picture photographed on Kodak Portra film. Absolutely the WORST choice.
Just for fun: I used excessively Kodak Portra 400 for the negatives... only because it is the ONLY Kodak film which handle contrast at ~0.6 at 400 ASA with a standard possess. All the rest Kodak film require over-fry it for 1 stop...
*** So, there you have it - one product that's the best and worst - process/usage dependent.
Do not even go there with JJ. I had this argument with him somewhere at the beginning of this forum (it is still there ... severely edited). Be careful with him. He is a personal friend with Rod M and if anything you said would bring a shade/question to the JJ’s reputation/creditability your post will be deleted. So, be gentile with the unfortunate….
*** You know, Minolta makes some nice cameras too...
Actually Minolta GX-7’s old 50/1.8 was a stunningly good.
Regarding all the rest: we have to understand that all BS that we discuss has no practicaly no applied use and has value only for the theoretical interaction among inner-players …
Regards.
Romy the Cat
that I disagree with what the other fellow said.Or with what you said at least in one note above. The camera should do what you expect it to do, so you can conciously decide on that basis.
Your continued insistance on fighting over your previous foolishness will only encourage others to look at your notes below, and realize the unreasonable nature you can sometimes exhibit.
It seems that you must ascribe every defeat you suffer to some kind misbehavior in others, and I am frankly tired of it. If you abandoned this behavior, I'm sure you'd find a lot more people willing to discuss life, the universe, and everything with you.
On another note, you're leaving photography? How come????
JJ
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
