 
|
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: Guys, guys... posted by jj on January 15, 2002 at 13:38:05:
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
Follow Ups:
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 ]