New happy P30'er here

[James R Russell]

India? Old and new is India!

Cheers,
Kumar
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205269\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kumar,

Sorry man, Brazil.

JR

[Mike W]

I guess serious covers a lot of territory.

The Harteblei lenses are not pin point oh my god, Zeiss, Leica sharp but last time I looked in my official world photographe'rs handbook, I don't think that is always a necessary requirement.

If you shoot techical work, or landscape you probably won't like it, but for shooting faces, people, especailly with a classic view camera look it's beautiful.




In fact if my camera kits had not grown past the size of a grip truck I would buy every Kiev lens made with adapters for my Contax and use them for certain styles.

Not to really get off topic, but if you read these and other technically oriented forums you find that all people talk about is sharpness, detail and pixels and just because you can blow an image up to 200 % and stick your nose on the screen doesn't mean it makes the photo better or for that matter makes it anything other than detailed.

It's not that I don't like detail, or even work sometimes oversharpened for effect, but I can promise you I have few clients that look at the detail of a photo the way people on these and other forums do.

We have a series of work, shot a few years ago with an 8mpx Canon 1d-2 that has received a lot of acclaim and play through large books and posters and nobody I know of has walked over to a print and said, "where's the extra eyelash detail".





In fact this series was shot with a dcs 760 at 6mpx and I can promise you for a lot of projects I could still use that camera today and nobody would complain.




We all get caught up in this mostly because we all keep telling ourselves to get caught up in it.  11 to 18, to 21 to 31 to 39 mpx (probably going to 60) and we're told you just gotta have it, but trust me,  you don't just gotta have it, no matter what you shoot.

You may want it, you may even appreciate it, but you don't just gotta have it.

What a lot of photograhers gotta have, or better yet . . . want,  is cameras and lenses that let you get to a unique vision, or that don't keep you from doing what you want to do, that offer options in lenses and speed, software and file compatibiltiy  that allows you to process and deliver to deadline, even if your deadline is self imposed.

Everybody's different and my way works for me, (actually I don't really have one signular way I work), but even if I did, I'm aware that what I do won't work for everyone, but then again, I am also very, very aware what clients and even the genreal public looks at and rarely does anybody look at the megapixel count of an oversharpened pixel and get moved by the image.

Maybe that's why I'm pretty much non concerned about the H series being limited on a hasselblad only digital back.  From the moment I touched that camera I realized it only took one type of glass (well I know there is  a CF adapter) but basically unless it's a leaf shutter lense your limited, so the idea of a tilt shift, or some old pentax 6x7 lens is just not going to work and if you can keep your nose off the monitor and counting pixels, you'll really see some beauty in some of those old lenses.

I think Phase and the Mamiya have a great opportunity if they keep pushing the open format and not on the back end, but the front end.  Kiev, Pentax, Harteblei, Mamiya, Zeiss, and almost anything with an F stop ring should work on that camera.

If I was Phase I would show that camera on the front of the website with 5 different makes of lenses on it, but I guess if they did that somebody would post that they are making excuses for not have more Mamiya lenses. It's a shame a positive becomes such a negative so quick on the internet.

I think it's almost funny how we look at this stuff today.  Prior to digital it was the camera, lenses then the film/processing, usually in that order, but now it seems to be the tail is wagging the dog.

New isn't always better but a combination of old and new can be pretty cool.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

James,

As a starting photographer I always find it a relief to hear a pro say: no client cares about pixel count. It's just too much of an investment to buy a top of the line MFDB for me.
I wonder, do clients care about the aspect ratio? Everyone and their mother knows 3:4 fits a magazine better (full-page of course) than 2:3.

Are there ever any problems? How do you deal with cropping the image in lay-out?
Do you take it into account when shooting?

thanks,

Mike

[James R Russell]

James,

As a starting photographer I always find it a relief to hear a pro say: no client cares about pixel count. It's just too much of an investment to buy a top of the line MFDB for me.
I wonder, do clients care about the aspect ratio? Everyone and their mother knows 3:4 fits a magazine better (full-page of course) than 2:3.

Are there ever any problems? How do you deal with cropping the image in lay-out?
Do you take it into account when shooting?

thanks,

Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's very difficult to answer this on a web based forum, especialy one that is so technically driven.

Any electronic conversation seems to come across as stone cold facts and in  art there really is no hard and fast rules.

Of course we shoot to the highest resolution possible, that is just a given.  Today I'm not going to shoot any major campaign with a 6mpx camera, but today there are few 6mpx cameras anyway.

Previously most photographers had a few formats, from 8x10 to 35mm and used them either for effect, style, or resolution and though those purchases were high they really were 10 year investments.

Digital has changed this and now digital cameras are considered by most very expensive and constantly changing.

I completely believe that 90% of the comparisions people continually make between dslrs and medium format are cost driven.  If a Canon 1ds3 was $44,000 I don't think many people would compare it to a medium format back, or if medium format was $6,000 I think it would all be a non issue.

What keeps people talking is the upping of the pixel count.  You see it today that Hasseblad has announced a 50mpx camera.  I'm sure every maker will follow suit.

Now does that mean that my 18mpx P21 is now worthless?    No, but it does make you wonder if you should go forward or just hold on.

The reason I showed those images was to illustrate that when it gets to the eyes of a client or a potential client they are looking for the photograph, not usually the stitching detail, or the resolution, though once you shoot a campaign, they may be looking very close at "their" photograph.

My suggestion to anyone is to put as much resource and effort in front of the lens as you do in the back of lens.  It's a difficult balance of where you place your investment, regardless of the level your work at.

To be honest, on an open forum, it's much easier (and safer) to talk about technique than how I or anyone personally views or approachs this industry, because one comment taken out of context can be damaging.

As far as the aspect ration, digital or more importantly the computer screen has changed that also.

Obviously a 8 1/2 x 11 (or close to that) print ratio is not going to disappear, but most of us see more layouts in horizontal than ever before.  I assume it's because the AD's and designers are working on a horizontal pallete and it's  just is more impressive to fill the screen.  Or it could be that imagery is now purposed over for so many different forms of media, from outdoor, to computer, to print media, print collateral.

So to answer you question about formats, use what you are comfortable with and will be accepted by your clients.  

Personally I haven't found one camera, one lens that will do everything I'm required to do but that was the same with film.

JR

[Mike W]

Thanks for the response, James.

Just to be clear, I didn't expect a clear-cut hard and fast rules-answer.
Your insights into technical and artistic aspect of photography are always interesting for a novice like myself and many others on this forum, I'm sure.

Of course you are right about the change in importance in aspect ratios (with the web, wide-screen monitors etc) and indeed, no one tool can fill every need.

The reason I asked you this question is because I have noticed you use MF (4:3) and DSLR's (3:2) according to the needs of the shoot. Framing and composition being one of the most important aspects of photography, I hate, hate, hate recropping after framed the scene in my viewfinder.
Thats why I asked you how you deal with this aspect.

regards,

Mike

[juicy]

*
*

To be honest, on an open forum, it's much easier (and safer) to talk about technique than how I or anyone personally views or approachs this industry, because one comment taken out of context can be damaging.
*
*
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's allways interesting to read your views. The problem with forums being so technique oriented has probably also a lot to do with the technique-part being the easy one compared to the art-part, especially when it comes to verbalizing it.

Cheers,
J

[James R Russell]

Thanks for the response, James.

I hate, hate, hate recropping after framed the scene in my viewfinder.
Thats why I asked you how you deal with this aspect.

regards,

Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205744\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yea, that's a problem with 35mm.  I think it's probably old habits are hard to break but I constanly shoot tight with a 35mm.  Maybe it's from the film days where there was a big difference inn resolution (see I'm not even talking about resolution) between 35mm and the larger formats, but regardless I'm always tight in 35mm, looser in medium format and  for large format, well I guess for what I do there is no large format anymore in digital.

Of course all of that applies to verticals.   Horizontal with 35mm is a breeze.

I guess the makers of 35mm like the 2:3 aspect ratio so I assume the people they sell to feel the same way, or else they'd change it.

I remember years ago I had this little APS camera we used for scouting locations.  It had a switch on it for multiple formats.  Obviously it just cropped the viewfinder rather than actually change anything on the film but their was 16x9, 2:3, 4:3, and square (I think, cause it's been a while).

Anyway, when you set the crop it blacked out the viewfinder which made shooting to an exact crop much easier.

I'm curious as to how difficult that would be with the dslrs or medium format?  The real plus would be if the software would read the shoot ratio and translate it to the processed image without setting manual adjustments.

One thing I find interesting, in one of my Canon bodies I put a 4:3 blacked out focusing screen in it and I still shot tight.  So then I put black tape over the lacd to give it a 4:3 ration and then I shoot looser.

This surprised me and made me realize I was judging the composition as much from the lcd as I was the actual viewfinder, in fact maybe more, but when I think about all of the film cameras I used were were always masking polaroid or folding it down to the crop of the page, so maybe a lot of old film habits have transfered over to the digital era.



JR

[James R Russell]

It's allways interesting to read your views. The problem with forums being so technique oriented has probably also a lot to do with the technique-part being the easy one compared to the art-part, especially when it comes to verbalizing it.

Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree and find it's easier to say, hmm fella I think you blew the highlights, rather than to say you don't like somebody's photograph.

That gets personal and usually is taken in the wrong way, even if the intentions are good, which I think they usually are.

I think we all get caught up in it though.

We take a photograph we are proud of and because we love the photo for that moment, we also love the camera, (probably love the sun, the moon and the stars also).

So we say, "hey look at my new photo shot with a P400PlusSuperS and of course somebody with a different camera says "yea, well I have 20% more resolution " and then we're back to talking equipment.

Anything outside of the technical becomes personal and hard to write about without opening up a lot of areas we probably can't go into.  

Truth be told we all have things we like and things we don't and I think if all of these posts could start with the disclaimer, this is my personal opinion, only my personal opinion and doesn't relate to anyone else in the world, the forums would be a lot easier to navigate.

(Though probably not near as interesting).

JR

[Mike W]

I guess the makers of 35mm like the 2:3 aspect ratio so I assume the people they sell to feel the same way, or else they'd change it.

One thing I find interesting, in one of my Canon bodies I put a 4:3 blacked out focusing screen in it and I still shot tight.  So then I put black tape over the lacd to give it a 4:3 ration and then I shoot looser.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I hope a major camera company comes up with an elegant sollution for cropping different aspect ratios, Nikon is on its way with in-camera crops, but this is far from a workable solution.
(to me at least)

You know, I never thought of masking the lcd, mainly because I only use it for looking at the histogram, and showing nervous models some shots to set them at ease.
It's not quite what it needs to be, but it might be a helpfull tool. I'm going to give this a try.

thanks for the input, James.

[cyberean]

...
Anyway, when you set the crop it blacked out the viewfinder which made shooting to an exact crop much easier.

I'm curious as to how difficult that would be with the dslrs or medium format?  The real plus would be if the software would read the shoot ratio and translate it to the processed image without setting manual adjustments.
...

nikon is already doing as such, with their d3
(... if i understood you correctly).
including in-VF masking and in-cam cropped
images for 3:2 and 5:4 ratios.

[Mike W]

Yes, and no 4:3,
4:5 is a great format which fits photopaper, but not magazines.

In camera cropping also doesn't change your viewfinder, so It's still guesswork unless you have the time to do trail and error.

[cyberean]

Yes, and no 4:3,
4:5 is a great format which fits photopaper, but not magazines.

yes, i realize that 5:4 is not 4:3.
the example provided was only to suggest that
effective in-cam cropping for various ratios was
possible.

In camera cropping also doesn't change your viewfinder, so It's still guesswork unless you have the time to do trail and error.

actually, in the case of the d3, an appropriate semi-
transparent mask is applied within the VF, to reflect
the selected crop of 5:4.  
(... so, no guesswork )

[Mike W]

Really? I didn't know that...thank you.
Now I hope they go 4:3 as well, and incorporate the masked viewfinder in the D700.

fingers crossed.

[heinrichvoelkel]

Really? I didn't know that...thank you.
Now I hope they go 4:3 as well, and incorporate the masked viewfinder in the D700.

fingers crossed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206049\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, they didn't, at least thats what the spec sheets say...

big bummer for me...