Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: eronald on October 01, 2016, 12:06:39 pm
-
http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/10/01/mark-toia-shows-just-what-a-red-helium-8k-camera-can-do/
-
http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/10/01/mark-toia-shows-just-what-a-red-helium-8k-camera-can-do/
Hi Edmund,
'Most' still cameras don't have 35 MP sensors, and are a bit cheaper to acquire ...
"He also claims that lenses, and not the camera, are having a bigger effect on the final image than other factors."
Cheers,
Bart
-
I feel for him; so many boxes to tick! Reminds me of the famous Dire Straits song about microwave ovens...
Seriously, though, it would be very nice to have a machine that can do it all in one body, and small at that. Thank goodness I don't have such problems to face every day - or at all. Mine are all far more basic. ;-(
Rob
-
More large pixels are better..... I think I've heard that before.
Nice production though and perhaps RED will use it as a commercial.
-
More large pixels are better..... I think I've heard that before.
Nice production though and perhaps RED will use it as a commercial.
Red is obviously using it as an infomercial.
Thing is, it does make still photography as easy as cutting one frame out of hundred thousands.
Edmund
-
I'm sure it does.
I wonder what that rig he's shooting with costs...
-
Thing is, it does make still photography as easy as cutting one frame out of hundred thousands.
When and how well does such frame-gabbing work in practice, given that the exposure times in motion photography are typically around 1/120s for 60fps, and longer for lower frame rates? Naively this would only seem useful for subjects that are moving slowly or not at all. Is panning with the main subject enough to control the blurring?
By the way, that raises a related question: how often can you get true "8K" sharpness in the video presentation when those exposure times are combined with typical levels of subject motion (or camera panning)? Will the trend towards 8K push us to higher frame rates, so as to control motion blurring? Is the rolling shutter a savior here?
-
Red is obviously using it as an infomercial.
Thing is, it does make still photography as easy as cutting one frame out of hundred thousands.
That is if you have an optimum movie shutter speed comparable with what an optimum still shutter speed would have been for the scene, right?
I gather that in most cases those differ, right?
So yes, you can buy an 80,000 US$ video rig to generate average still frames of lower quality than what a Pentax K1 would have achieved with a dedicated photographic intent.
Color me impressed by the relevance! ;)
The very idea, mostly promoted by Canon who designed some of their recent cameras such as the 1Dx MkII around the concept, is mostly relevant for press usage when photographers only need to target what is pretty much the lowest level of photographic quality there is among pro applications. The potential of images quality of 8K video capture (pretty much IMAX level) is IMHO completely incompatible with the level of compromises the double video/still intend imposes.
I do understand that 8K will go down in price in the next 5 years, but I strongly question the practicality when you see the quality of well produced 2K on a high end flat screen TV. I'd rather remove the compression artifacts of 2K than going to 4K or 8K. In my view we are still far from doing 2K well enough to bother with higher resolutions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That is if you have an optimum movie shutter speed comparable with what an optimum still shutter speed would have been for the scene, right?
I gather that in most cases those differ, right?
So yes, you can buy an 80,000 US$ video rig to generate average still frames of lower quality than what a Pentax K1 would have achieved with a dedicated photographic intent.
Color me impressed by the relevance! ;)
The very idea, mostly promoted by Canon who designed some of their recent cameras such as the 1Dx MkII around the concept, is mostly relevant for press usage when photographers only need to target what is pretty much the lowest level of photographic quality there is among pro applications. The potential of images quality of 8K video capture (pretty much IMAX level) is IMHO completely incompatible with the level of compromises the double video/still intend imposes.
I do understand that 8K will go down in price in the next 5 years, but I strongly question the practicality when you see the quality of well produced 2K on a high end flat screen TV. I'd rather remove the compression artifacts of 2K than going to 4K or 8K. In my view we are still far from doing 2K well enough to bother with higher resolutions.ndscape
Cheers,
Bernard
Actually the 1DxII has no EVF so you wouldn't want to use it for point and shoot news video.
Now if you set the shutter speed high enough, you can do super-resolution landscape by adding frames, notice how video is always perceptually sharp - and also you can choose exactly the right moment for fashion. This is going to be what your random camera can do in 5 or 6 years so get ready for the future.
Edmund
-
... This is going to be what your random camera can do in 5 or 6 years so get ready for the future.
Edmund
The toaster phone market is a tough one:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103462.0
-
A $650 Nikon DL 24-85 with 20.8 MPix does 60 frames per sec… Good enough for me.
-
Now if you set the shutter speed high enough, you can do super-resolution landscape by adding frames . . .
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i believe that if you raise the shutter speed to what works for such high resolution still photography of a moving subject – so that the shutter angle is far less than 180º – the video looks bad except as a special effect ("staccato"?). So I see the potential of high speed high resolution burst still photography and 8K video from the same camera, but not at the same time.
Some comparisons to still cameras: several I know of offer 60fps, but with AF only before the first frame: the 1" format Nikon DL 24-85 and several Nikon One bodies, and the forth-comng Olympus OMD EM1 Mk 2 (all 20MP, just under "6K"). Maybe it is fairer to require AF for each frame: then all those Nikon 1" format models offer 20fps while the Olympus 4/3" model promises 18fps. This is all with the possible defects of electronic shutter (rolling shutter), but the same is true for Red video frame grabs.
Aside: it is interesting but not so surprising that the highest still photography frame rates are now coming from mirrorless cameras in the smaller formats.
. . . notice how video is always perceptually sharp . . .
Frame grabs from video usually look less sharp than the video feed, probably because you get to scrutinize the frame rather than having successive frames blurred together by your visual system. Remember how bad early VGA resolution digital still camera images looked compared to VGA video?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i believe that if you raise the shutter speed to what works for such high resolution still photography of a moving subject – so that the shutter angle is far less than 180º – the video looks bad except as a special effect ("staccato"?). So I see the potential of high speed high resolution burst still photography and 8K video from the same camera, but not at the same time.
Interesting point, BJL. Whilst I've briefly played around with the video capabilities of my DSLRs, and recorded a few traditional songs and dances in remote regions in Nepal on occasions, I haven't really developed much interest in video, perhaps in part because of the perception that the video one sees on TV, often taken with very expensive equipment and involving a number of assistants to arrange the lighting, and so on, is probably so much more professional than I feel I could ever achieve with my basic DSLR.
However, with the advent of 4k video, and now 8k video, and also sometimes the facility to extract an original RAW image from the video, my interest is renewed.
From experience I find there have been so many occasions when one photographs a scene with a still camera, but misses the critical and most interesting moment which sometimes occurs immediately after lowering the camera.
Shooting bursts of 8k video with the facility to extract any single 32mp frame in RAW mode, sounds fantastic.
However, I can appreciate the problem that the video play-back of a bird in flight, shot with a shutter speed of 1,000th of a second, might appear a bit choppy, or less fluid, because the interval between each shot is so much greater at a particular frame rate..
From what I gather, for video motion to appear completely natural, the shutter speed should be no greater than double the frame rate of display. If this is the case, I can see a couple of technological solutions. (1) Create a display that can repeat each individual frame several times so that the total duration of all the intervals in between the display of each frame, is reduced. (2) Create a display with the technological facility to increase the display time of each individual frame to a certain ideal period, regardless of the shutter speed used.
For example, if the display frame rate is 24p, then each frame could be displayed continuously for, say, 1/30th sec, regardless of the shutter speed used.
Have I misunderstood the problem?
-
At 25fps and 8k, you can shoot video with the same camera as stills, but not simultaneously. At this point, there's no functional difference between an action camera and a video camera. Set it to 1/25 for video, or 1/500-1/1000 for stills.
At 250fps and faster, you start to be able to shoot video and stills simultaneously. The faster the action, the faster the frame rate required.
-
Have I misunderstood the problem?
Yes.
The problem with video shot at fast shutter speeds is that the frames have no motion blur and do not blend together on playback. There is no need to repeat frames, in normal television they are already shown 1/30 (NTSC) or 1/25 of a second each*, no matter what the shooting exposure time was.
*) If we forget the interleaving standard television still utilizes for historical reasons. Practically all material is now shot in progressive mode anyway, so it is a moot point.
-
The problem with video shot at fast shutter speeds is that the frames have no motion blur and do not blend together on playback. There is no need to repeat frames, in normal television they are already shown 1/30 (NTSC) or 1/25 of a second each*, no matter what the shooting exposure time was.
*) If we forget the interleaving standard television still utilizes for historical reasons. Practically all material is now shot in progressive mode anyway, so it is a moot point.
If this is true, I'm having difficulty in understanding what the benefits of 4k and 8k video are for moving subjects, and certainly for fast moving subjects like football. Perhaps the benefits are just a sharper background. Is this the case?
-
Some comparisons to still cameras: several I know of offer 60fps, but with AF only before the first frame: the 1" format Nikon DL 24-85 and several Nikon One bodies, and the forth-comng Olympus OMD EM1 Mk 2 (all 20MP, just under "6K"). Maybe it is fairer to require AF for each frame: then all those Nikon 1" format models offer 20fps while the Olympus 4/3" model promises 18fps. This is all with the possible defects of electronic shutter (rolling shutter), but the same is true for Red video frame grabs.
Aside: it is interesting but not so surprising that the highest still photography frame rates are now coming from mirrorless cameras in the smaller formats.
Frame grabs from video usually look less sharp than the video feed, probably because you get to scrutinize the frame rather than having successive frames blurred together by your visual system. Remember how bad early VGA resolution digital still camera images looked compared to VGA video?
Does the new Red 8k camera have continuous autofocus? I guess certainly not, so comparing autofocus frame rates is not correct.
Video sharpness: most people still watch VGA (NTSC or PAL DV standard is about the same) resolution TV quite happily, even with large flat panel TVs. I do. With a moving picture we really do not care about absolute sharpness, there is more to draw your attention to. Even most movie theatres show only 2K digital, and 35mm film projection actually has less resolution than 2K. Still moves look great on the silver screen!
-
If this is true, I'm having difficulty in understanding what the benefits of 4k and 8k video are for moving subjects, and certainly for fast moving subjects like football. Perhaps the benefits are just a sharper background. Is this the case?
More sharpness is more sharpness, even if nobody is really needing it under normal circumstances, especially with home TVs. It is called marketing. What we need more is higher frame rates, and now many movies are already shot with 4K and 48 fps frame rate. Then some movie buffs complain that it is too fluid and "unnatural", meaning it does not look like a stuttering movie should...
Higher shooting resolutions do offer one nice feature: possibility of reframing slightly in post, and post-process camera shake removal.
-
If this is true, I'm having difficulty in understanding what the benefits of 4k and 8k video are for moving subjects, and certainly for fast moving subjects like football. Perhaps the benefits are just a sharper background. Is this the case?
Perhaps because you use the same TV also for subjects that don't move? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi everyone,
if you shoot with a motion camera like that you can do video and stills at the same time. You use "high frame rate", ~120 fps, with short exposure time. In post you can introduce the amount motion blur you want to the video, even locally, by combining the motion information from different frames. These things are still a bit experimental, but it is just computer science.
Thit is the new way: keep all decisions open to the very end. But art is a continuous stream of decisions. So these techniques will produce images bigger than live, but not art. But that is just like my opinion man (http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/opinionated.gif).
Well, I agree about your view that this isn't really photography the way I look at it. One could argue that high speed shooting with a D5 in continuous mode also isn't and that may be true.
Now, on the software post processing, I guess it may be doable, but is the desire to capture average stills strong enough to compromise the main purpose, which is typically to capture video? Different applications will have different answers I guess. In reality, the only applications I would imagine would opt for this are low margin stuff such as event, press and sports.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi everyone,
if you shoot with a motion camera like that you can do video and stills at the same time. You use "high frame rate", ~120 fps, with short exposure time. In post you can introduce the amount motion blur you want to the video, even locally, by combining the motion information from different frames. These things are still a bit experimental, but it is just computer science.
Thit is the new way: keep all decisions open to the very end. But art is a continuous stream of decisions. So these techniques will produce images bigger than live, but not art. But that is just like my opinion man (http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/opinionated.gif).
Best,
Johannes
Who was it said photography was a technical process and could never be art like painting?
Edmund
-
Who was it said photography was a technical process and could never be art like painting?
Certainly not the person you quoted since he, as I understand it, is saying that the utter "technicality" of screen grab (including the non a priori decision of timing and framing at the time of capture I assume) makes it non art.
If you had a device able to capture every aspect of the world in real time and would enable you to replay at will in slow motion from any angle in order to select a posteriori a "picture", would you still consider the initial perfect capture as being of photographic nature?
I for sure wouldn't because the essence of photography is choice.
Capturing screen grabs from a video stream is in essence akin to that, still at a much smaller scale of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You guys get more off topic than I can, which I do a lot.
I don't know about non commerce, but for commerce every client alive would love to have cinema quality footage and high end stills they could select.
We've tried it, we've done it but with our older RED's 4k and 5k, they shoot a very different still image than were use to the still photography world.
I would equate it to an older Canon or Nikon . . . much older.
Just like all electronic imaging, if your shooting faces, eyes, etc. (like Mark's reel does to show detail), even 6mp can look good and sharp with a dedicated still camera. It's when you pull back that it gets more difficult with motion cameras.
For one you're normally shooting a medium size to large motion camera horizontal and the frame from uhd to 2 to 1 is very skinny.
This is from an older project and selected only because I like the pose more than the still camera selections.
(http://russellrutherford.com/julia_spot.jpg)
But it's full length, not that sharp in real life and takes a lot of post.
That doesn't mean the REDs don't shoot a nice file, they have a lot of depth, high bit rate, but even a small shutter angles and/or higher frame rates, the file is never as sharp as a still camera, even at the same shutter speed.*
Now the 8k Helium sensor may solve that, I don't know, but I've been told the main reason for 8k is to kill artifacts in vfx post production.
What I was impressed with on Mark's reel was how well the Helium let bright backlight roll off without clipping. More film like, less digital, because with my RED's shooting into the sun on a backlit subject is very tricky and you have to be precise.
*What's interesting is the little Sony a7sII at 4k shoots a very sharp file from a still grab. They thing about grabbing stills from motion is, 1 out of 3 to 5 is blurred, even at higher frame rates and shutter angle. It's not a camera I'm wild about as I find grading footage difficult, due to low bit rate and 8 bit depth, but it's kind of interesting and when it works it works well.
Today, I don't think there is a less than $40,000 camera you can expect to get quality footage and quality stills. Someday maybe, but we do a lot of parallel productions and essentially shoot it twice.
Though for commerce it really has become a multi media world.
IMO
BC
P.S. In ways the Canon 1dxII is mirror and mirrorless. They're are hard ways to shoot without the mirror and easy ways. If you set it up right just clip on one of those loupes over the lcd and your good to go . . . for motion footage. If you shooting stills, it's still much better to use the optical finder.
-
J,
Maybe the reason there is no really good hybrid is that *no one had a reason to make it*. After all, big budget movies were big budget movies, and only big budget got the big cameras, and they didn't care about stills. If more guys like you need both, it may become a priority "feature" at some point. Although there is no obvious way around the skinny horizontal issue, I'd expect one would still get a really good double-spread from an 8K frame.
My cheap Panasonic $1K GH4 does surprisingly good frames from video. In fact they are much better than any still shot I have been able to make with that camera. As you say, however, the quality still takes one back about 10 years in time, but also there is somehow a different "look" to these images, I think because focus is not so precisely chosen so one get some useful accidents. Also with video the framing one chooses is more generous as the subject is expected to move, and that too changes what one ultimately finds in any one extracted image frame.
I think the trick with the new Canon 1Dx2 might be to mount a third-party EVF viewfinder on it. I was *very* surprised that this was not a launch hotshoe option like on some compacts eg. Leica. After all, once the movie button gets pressed, goodbye mirror, goodbye eyepiece, goodbye SLR view, and hello to trying to hold a heavy rig at arm's length in order to peek at the rear screen.
Edmund
You guys get more off topic than I can, which I do a lot.
I don't know about non commerce, but for commerce every client alive would love to have cinema quality footage and high end stills they could select.
We've tried it, we've done it but with our older RED's 4k and 5k, they shoot a very different still image than were use to the still photography world.
I would equate it to an older Canon or Nikon . . . much older.
Just like all electronic imaging, if your shooting faces, eyes, etc. (like Mark's reel does to show detail), even 6mp can look good and sharp with a dedicated still camera. It's when you pull back that it gets more difficult with motion cameras.
For one you're normally shooting a medium size to large motion camera horizontal and the frame from uhd to 2 to 1 is very skinny.
This is from an older project and selected only because I like the pose more than the still camera selections.
(http://russellrutherford.com/julia_spot.jpg)
But it's full length, not that sharp in real life and takes a lot of post.
That doesn't mean the REDs don't shoot a nice file, they have a lot of depth, high bit rate, but even a small shutter angles and/or higher frame rates, the file is never as sharp as a still camera, even at the same shutter speed.*
Now the 8k Helium sensor may solve that, I don't know, but I've been told the main reason for 8k is to kill artifacts in vfx post production.
What I was impressed with on Mark's reel was how well the Helium let bright backlight roll off without clipping. More film like, less digital, because with my RED's shooting into the sun on a backlit subject is very tricky and you have to be precise.
*What's interesting is the little Sony a7sII at 4k shoots a very sharp file from a still grab. They thing about grabbing stills from motion is, 1 out of 3 to 5 is blurred, even at higher frame rates and shutter angle. It's not a camera I'm wild about as I find grading footage difficult, due to low bit rate and 8 bit depth, but it's kind of interesting and when it works it works well.
Today, I don't think there is a less than $40,000 camera you can expect to get quality footage and quality stills. Someday maybe, but we do a lot of parallel productions and essentially shoot it twice.
Though for commerce it really has become a multi media world.
IMO
BC
P.S. In ways the Canon 1dxII is mirror and mirrorless. They're are hard ways to shoot without the mirror and easy ways. If you set it up right just clip on one of those loupes over the lcd and your good to go . . . for motion footage. If you shooting stills, it's still much better to use the optical finder.
-
Marcel Duchamp. Art. Yes. This discussion is getting interesting, and I guess is permanently off topic :) I liked those pictures you linked to. May I too contribute the apposite sculptural entertainment link? Entirely in line with modern anti-fat-shaming model guidelines, nevertheless suspect from the feministic POV?
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-1010/wwi-dada/dada1/v/marcel-duchamp-fountain-1917
:)
Edmund
Hi,
it starts to get weird. I quote myself. The decision thing is meant in the sense of Marcel Duchamp (and Joseph Beuys and - in a way - Friedrich Hölderlin). In short: The "fine" artist decides which subject he/she is working on, he decides which art form (music, photography, painting, ...), he decides which technique (b&w/color or rock/blues) and so on. The artworker (called artist in the professional world) is given a task: photograph the model in b&w, ask Rob from this forum about these days. But today they say photograph the model in b&w, perhaps we want color too and we might want motion and 360 degree and it would be nice if we could show it in 3D on the oculus rift. You get my point? In my opinion the artist focuses more and more. The artworker should try as good as he can to do the same (Helmut Newton, Paolo Roversi or Dietmar Heneka come to mind). The "artworker" of today should keep everything possible till the end. So in my opinion professional photography goes away from art and art-working, because other people decide what to do.
You find yourself with this rig on set: http://www.roadtovr.com/nextvr-stereoscopic-360-degree-vr-cam-uses-180000-worth-of-red-6k-cameras/
Don't loose your humour. Times are tough but it is a wonderful world.
So back to the original question. These cameras are made, that the camera operator captures everything and the senior executive vice manager of junk and garbage can decide in the end what will be done with the footage.
Only the best,
Johannes
p.s.: To be even more off-topic: This is advertising I find wonderful, because I have a good laugh when I see it: http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/6199/killsbugsfast.jpg Here I ask myself which idiot parked that car? http://files2.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_2110/21106605/file/audi-a6-allroad-quattro-wing-600-78365.jpg
But this is a whole different story.
-
What do you do with 8K movies? How do you process all that data?
-
Last I checked, "raw" at Red means 3:1 compression. That very lossy for raw. A max quality Adobe ACR-generated JPEG has 4:1 compression. Just something to consider before drinking the 'Red Koolaid'.
-
Hi Bart,
The lens thing is probably quite true, but we are also seeing a lot of good lenses. Canon redesigns a lot of lenses, probably to match higher resolution. Carl Zeiss has some new designs for the Sony FE mount and they have redesigned some of the Milvus lenses, like the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.4.
The Sigma Art series also offer some excellent designs.
The major problem seems to be axial chroma, it seem that it takes a lot of design effort using AD-glass to get rid of that magenta green fringing in OoF areas.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Edmund,
…
"He also claims that lenses, and not the camera, are having a bigger effect on the final image than other factors."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Edmund,
don't listen to the art historians. Listen to the master himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gNqeNNPkOs
Best,
Johannes
Hi Johannes,
I remember flying over the pond to let her do some shopping and get an urban vacation, and waiting for her, standing in the Whitney next to a table parked on a dais on the side of the room between some colored partitions, a tour group came along, the guide said "This table stood in the death row cell of Mr X for 10 years". And then in response to a question "no it's not the same table, just that model", and then "no the artist said he was an artist, not a decorator, so someone was brought in to set up and paint the partitions for the exhibit in appropriate colors". And I looked around at this table, the guide, the group and the Whitney, its building, its staff and realized this "artist" perfectly understood that a modern museum needs "explainable" pieces as an alibi for keeping a basically superfluous institution alive and stocked with nice people with art history degrees, this artist is a world-class prankster.
In the tradition of Duchamp.
Edmund
-
Hi Johannes,
I remember flying over the pond to let her do some shopping and get an urban vacation, and waiting for her, standing in the Whitney next to a table parked on a dais on the side of the room between some colored partitions, a tour group came along, the guide said "This table stood in the death row cell of Mr X for 10 years". And then in response to a question "no it's not the same table, just that model", and then "no the artist said he was an artist, not a decorator, so someone was brought in to set up and paint the partitions for the exhibit in appropriate colors". And I looked around at this table, the guide, the group and the Whitney, its building, its staff and realized this "artist" perfectly understood that a modern museum needs "explainable" pieces as an alibi for keeping a basically superfluous institution alive and stocked with nice people with art history degrees, this artist is a world-class prankster.
In the tradition of Duchamp.
Edmund
What I think you have done here, is paraphrase what I take to be the inner thinking of Jeanloup Sieff, as exposed to us all in his last book from Taschen. He had very little respect for the art guru mafia despite having had innumerable exhibitions of his own across the galleries.
Perhaps it's because of the vacuity of much that now passes as modern, in the sense of contemporary, art that it has such a sad name today, at least outwith the sacred hallways. FWIW I'm sure the urinal was simply intended as a two-finger salute (or possibly a single-fingered one) to those same establishments. I don't believe that artists have no sense of humour.
-
Hi Johannes -
It's a discussion, not a performance - I'm astonished at your links, especially leMonde. PM me for coffee, when you're around, it'll give me an excuse to get out of the house.
Rob, I think the surrealists had plenty of humor and plenty of fun, but they are now taken so seriously ...the angle at which the finger is held is very important as every critic will tell you.
BTW, as you're a famous photographer, want to swap prints? I have a really nice collection of "tech tests". I basically throw away everything I photograph these days, but sometimes one of the files doesn't get erased from my disk. An hour or two retouching every week or so keeps me in practice, but I think I haven't used my printer for several years now.
Here is a tech test of my GH4, some stills from a video clip. Retouched ...
Edmund
-
Strange, isn't it? Women are still the best creatures/things to photograph, yet men are always so boring!
Rob
-
Strange, isn't it? Women are still the best creatures/things to photograph, yet men are always so boring!
Rob
I'm thinking of doing some pictures with this dancer. On reflection I quite like her images now, although in person I didn't feel much appeal. I also think I should have another go at retouching the image and maybe do a print.
Edmund
-
I'm thinking of doing some pictures with this dancer. On reflection I quite like her images now, although in person I didn't feel much appeal. I also think I should have another go at retouching the image and maybe do a print.
Edmund
If I were you, then I think I'd want to take some new pictures. Not because of the ones you have, but because of those you might yet get.
My printing stopped with the death of the HP inks for the HP B9180, but even then, I'd already stopped regular printing for a few months... To tell you the truth, I think I have actually gone through a sort of stage where the Internet is what I see as the new wall. My space is limited and I don't want to change pix becuse of newer ones. The new doesn't devalue the old familiar, which is also how I have come to feel about digital cameras. I say digital, because after the F and the 500C, everything else was pretty much just back-up and replacement for worn out, so I had long lost the desire to swap years before I stopped working. The only late changes I made turned out to be mistakes - going from 6x6 to 6x7, which was driven by another mistake: believing stock agencies.
I have the boxes of Hahne. prints. I never look at them. They are leff for posterity and the family to do with as they please when my voice falls silent.
Wish I lived in Paris. Or Rome, even better!
Rob
-
What do you do with 8K movies? How do you process all that data?
Hopefully you make really good looking 4K from it.
Having owned a 4K TV for the past 9 months or so, I have yet to see much good looking 4K video. Lots of odd CG-looking (though not CG) stuff, though. OTOH properly made, clean 1080p looks great.
-Dave-
-
Rob,
Yes, I think I'll give her a call, and see how much I like working with her.
I wish I saw some sun occasionally. Maybe we should swap lives :)
Dave
I don't know about 8K, but HDR really is a stop forward, and I believe is here to stay. It looks like a 4K HDR TV could even display photo stills acceptably.
Edmund
If I were you, then I think I'd want to take some new pictures. Not because of the ones you have, but because of those you might yet get.
My printing stopped with the death of the HP inks for the HP B9180, but even then, I'd already stopped regular printing for a few months... To tell you the truth, I think I have actually gone through a sort of stage where the Internet is what I see as the new wall. My space is limited and I don't want to change pix becuse of newer ones. The new doesn't devalue the old familiar, which is also how I have come to feel about digital cameras. I say digital, because after the F and the 500C, everything else was pretty much just back-up and replacement for worn out, so I had long lost the desire to swap years before I stopped working. The only late changes I made turned out to be mistakes - going from 6x6 to 6x7, which was driven by another mistake: believing stock agencies.
I have the boxes of Hahne. prints. I never look at them. They are leff for posterity and the family to do with as they please when my voice falls silent.
Wish I lived in Paris. Or Rome, even better!
Rob
-
It looks like a 4K HDR TV could even display photo stills acceptably.
Yep. My TV is now my main "printer." For vertical photos I like displaying in groups of two or three, and have been taking verticals with this in mind too.
-Dave-
-
Yep. My TV is now my main "printer." For vertical photos I like displaying in groups of two or three, and have been taking verticals with this in mind too.
-Dave-
Maybe one could have rentable "galleries" with wall to wall TVs
Edmund
-
It's surprising that one of the points earlier didn't draw more debate: the notion that two equally beautiful images are somehow different if one is a captured as single frame, rather than extracted from a stream of frames (video). I think this is hogwash. The logical implication is that beautiful cinematography is somehow less valuable, less interesting, less beautiful than still photography. It's hogwash because beautiful imagery is about color, about composition, about suggestion, about capturing light and shadows in a pleasing and intellectually stimulating manner.
Well made films and videos are full of such examples.
Of course, the other logical extreme would be the contention that a picture from a pinhole camera is somehow better than a picture from a modern camera.
This is not to say that the "difficulty" of achieving a beautiful shot isn't relevant or valuable. But it doesn't make an image intrinsically better than a less difficult acquisition.
-
It's surprising that one of the points earlier didn't draw more debate: the notion that two equally beautiful images are somehow different if one is a captured as single frame, rather than extracted from a stream of frames (video). I think this is hogwash.
I agree when considering the images strictly as images, as when viewing someone's work with no knowledge of how it came to be. In this case the processes or techniques used to capture/create the still images don't matter. For some folks, though, the process is as important or even more so than the final image.
My modern cameras all have a continuous exposure mode. Press & hold the shutter button and let the frames accumulate. I never use it. This is just personal preference…I'd rather go for "the shot" and either get it or not. My friend Bruce, OTOH, lets 'er rip and then picks his favs later. It's all good.
-Dave-
-
I agree when considering the images strictly as images, as when viewing someone's work with no knowledge of how it came to be. In this case the processes or techniques used to capture/create the still images don't matter. For some folks, though, the process is as important or even more so than the final image.
My modern cameras all have a continuous exposure mode. Press & hold the shutter button and let the frames accumulate. I never use it. This is just personal preference…I'd rather go for "the shot" and either get it or not. My friend Bruce, OTOH, lets 'er rip and then picks his favs later. It's all good.
-Dave-
The newer the camera (for an amateur model) the better it can do bursts, it would seem. These pictures give an idea of what become possible. One can catch micro-expressions. Note that the photographer used an excessively low shutter speed.
http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/10/14/video-rx100-v-shoots-5-5k-video-using-the-high-speed-photo-burst-mode-but-there-are-some-catches/
Edmund
-
It's answered in the earier post: some like to create their images and others have luck do it for them. Whether both are as good as one another is a point I'm not about to debate, because my belief comes sealed with my personal point of view which nothing, in this instance, will shake.
I think that's the common stance, is it not? We are programmed as we are.
Rob
-
It's answered in the earier post: some like to create their images and others have luck do it for them. Whether both are as good as one another is a point I'm not about to debate, because my belief comes sealed with my personal point of view which nothing, in this instance, will shake.
I think that's the common stance, is it not? We are programmed as we are.
Rob
Rob,
I don't see bursts as a way to get the same pix, I see them as opening the door to NEW pix. New tools allow us to escape our programming sometimes, just like new friends ;)
Speaking as both an artist and an engineer, new tech allows one to suddenly realize one could photograph something the mind's eye sees but which one's camera couldn't capture so far - think of bursts as a temporal 500mm telephoto. You may not have had a *need* for such a tele before, if you always shoot wide, but if one is dropped into your hands ... (happened to me kind of). Fast bursts - which we're now going to get- really allow something more, they're new, at least for amateurs.
BTW, somebody made a cheap really high speed camera, the clips at the bottom are worth watching. This is the equivalent, I guess of a 5000mm :)
http://theslowmotioncameracompany.com
Edmund
-
Rob,
I don't see bursts as a way to get the same pix, I see them as opening the door to NEW pix. New tools allow us to escape our programming sometimes, just like new friends ;)
Speaking as both an artist and an engineer, new tech allows one to suddenly realize one could photograph something the mind's eye sees but which one's camera couldn't capture so far - think of bursts as a temporal 500mm telephoto. You may not have had a *need* for such a tele before, if you always shoot wide, but if one is dropped into your hands ... (happened to me kind of). Fast bursts - which we're now going to get- really allow something more, they're new, at least for amateurs.
BTW, somebody made a cheap really high speed camera, the clips at the bottom are worth watching. This is the equivalent, I guess of a 5000mm :)
http://theslowmotioncameracompany.com
Edmund
I'm sure that you do, but as I say, that's not my interest: leaving it to chance, for me, mean the Euromillones, and that's expensive enough - just shot up 25% a pop a week or two ago!
Rob
-
I'm sure that you do, but as I say, that's not my interest: leaving it to chance, for me, mean the Euromillones, and that's expensive enough - just shot up 25% a pop a week or two ago!
Rob
There are syndicates who buy up all the tickets
-
There are syndicates who buy up all the tickets
Not mine, they don't! I have won several cups of coffee!
;-)
Rob
-
Not mine, they don't! I have won several cups of coffee!
;-)
Rob
I used to pick up the garbage tickets in Paris, always found a win which bought me coffee.
After the financial crash, never another trash win.
Edmund
-
>>some like to create their images and others have luck do it for them.
With due respect, that's condescending and a ridiculous contention ::)
Monkeys haven't yet managed to whack out an Othello...but sure, statistically they could.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
You're essentially arguing the same thing. A tool in the hands of an amateur is just that...
-
Some have monkeys do it for them!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/monkey-selfie-case-animal-photo-copyright
Edmund
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-photographers-camera.html
>>some like to create their images and others have luck do it for them.
With due respect, that's condescending and a ridiculous contention ::)
Monkeys haven't yet managed to whack out an Othello...but sure, statistically they could.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
You're essentially arguing the same thing. A tool in the hands of an amateur is just that...
-
A tool in the hands of an amateur is just that...
A tool?
It can be useful to reflect on the meaning of the word "amateur" before using it as an insult ;)
-
>>some like to create their images and others have luck do it for them.
With due respect, that's condescending and a ridiculous contention ::)
Monkeys haven't yet managed to whack out an Othello...but sure, statistically they could.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
You're essentially arguing the same thing. A tool in the hands of an amateur is just that...
Correction: that's experience. I had motor drive with my F2; tried it once and gave up: I'd lost control. I got better, intended results by directing and also letting the model do her thing and being able to spot what was good.
Hosing a machine is hosing a machine. There are bound to be instances where a hosepipe technique is the best - possibly the only way to fly, but it never touched my life: I didn't do high-speed anything.
I prefer considered photography. Just me.
Rob
-
We're seeing different perspectives here. I think Rob sees himself as a descendant of the old-style portrait artist, who built up a relationship with his "sitter", while creating the "pose". The sitter is well aware of the image rendered, the image is not just "caught" by the painter, but uniquely crafted as a collaboration. In a way this is not true of continuous capture where the talent is directed and "throws"a sequence of movements and expressions up in the air and the photographer later "catches" the moment while sitting in front of the cutting room monitor, just as he could choose to catch one card of a pack thrown by a stage magician.
It's late, those pix J posted are interesting. We should all post more pix.
My own pix above are "amateur" pictures, posted and retouched for fun not for hire, but they are extracted from a video job I did, where I did the lighting and directing and some of the cinematography. It's interesting how the labels flip from one side to the other - the outtakes from the pro time-constrained pressure cooker becomes art. Maybe that is why collectors love original movie set and movie marketing pictures.
Edmund
I think people confuse high frame rates as not crafting an image. Spray and pray, no, it's craft the image first then capture it the way you want.
All our work turns into multimedia. Sometimes for effect, sometimes for cut frame video, sometimes because there is that milisecond where the subjects just do something unexpected. How many times have you shot an image with a slow camera and then while rewinding or waiting to buffer, the subject(s) just do something amazing and you push the button and no go?
I'm not saying to shoot a staged portrait that doesn't have much movement at 15 fps, but short bursts can open a world of looks you just wouldn't capture any other way.
I'm also not saying to not aim for the decisive moment, or shoot without a plan or style. I'm just saying don't limit yourself to that single frame when you photograph living breathing subjects.
We do a lot of multimedia work like this that goes for print, web, stills, motion, cut frame motion, sequential stills, mixed with cinema camera motion.
This isn't a final edit, just and overview but it works and it isn't spray and play.
All of the still imagery is with a 1dx, shot in bursts, processed in lightroom and only a few images ever went into photoshop, I just set a preset, a crop and let it go.
But to think it's not crafted is not the plan and I'm not praying we got it. I'm usually pretty sure we got it.
IMO
BC
-
A tool?
It can be useful to reflect on the meaning of the word "amateur" before using it as an insult ;)
A camera is a tool.
An amateur is an "unskilled person" (not an unpaid skilled person in this instance).
There is no implied or explicit insult ;)
Hosing a machine is hosing a machine. There are bound to be instances where a hosepipe technique is the best - possibly the only way to fly, but it never touched my life: I didn't do high-speed anything.
I prefer considered photography. Just me.
High frame-rate cameras (or video cameras for that matter) don't magically imbue their beholders with the skill, artistic vision, or any of the other characteristics required to make beautiful images or...art. "Considered photography" has nothing to do with the technical capabilities of a camera.
-
We're seeing different perspectives here. I think Rob sees himself as a descendant of the old-style portrait artist, who built up a relationship with his "sitter", while creating the "pose". The sitter is well aware of the image rendered, the image is not just "caught" by the painter, but uniquely crafted as a collaboration. In a way this is not true of continuous capture where the talent is directed and "throws"a sequence of movements and expressions up in the air and the photographer later "catches" the moment while sitting in front of the cutting room monitor, just as he could choose to catch one card of a pack thrown by a stage magician.
It's late, those pix J posted are interesting. We should all post more pix.
Edmund
Yes, that's pretty much how I do see it: sitter and snapper both collaborate to produce what the snapper wants, even if snapper pretends to do it to provide what sitter wants.
But that's not entirely the same situation that I think you are describing: directing to make a few seconds of a film take is not the same as using a motor drive in the hope of catching a single good frame. Motion is all about continuity of - well, motion; the intention isn't usually to freeze the thing at one frame, as with motor-driven stills photography.
I know pretty much zero about motion beyond how I perceive and feel movies/videos that I watch. Maybe I'm right, and then maybe I'm not.
Rob
-
It's late, those pix J posted are interesting. We should all post more pix.
Edmund
It's close to going-for-lunch time; this is what I'd like to be doing these days with a human, rather than calendar shots.
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/375228_orig.jpg)
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/2279120_orig.jpg)
And believe it or not, even that's getting hard to do: many window humanoids are now headless or wiggless. It's a plot, I tell you! They are really here!
Rob
-
It's a plot, I tell you! They are really here!
The very first episode of the revived Doctor Who features Autons (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auton). :D
-Dave-
-
The very first episode of the revived Doctor Who features Autons (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auton). :D
-Dave-
My kids used to watch that stuff... I gather that the Daleks were the most scary, which goes to show you that a large shuttlecock is perhaps not a friendly thing. Especially with a drain plunger sticking out of its - well, face? - and also shows that it didn't require immense digital complexity to incite or create the effect the producers wanted; juvenile fear was quite capable of growing up from and around anything that was presented as scary. I think there must a marketing lesson lurking somewhere therein, but I can't find it!
Rob
-
My kids used to watch that stuff... I gather that the Daleks were the most scary, which goes to show you that a large shuttlecock is perhaps not a friendly thing. Especially with a drain plunger sticking out of its - well, face? - and also shows that it didn't require immense digital complexity to incite or create the effect the producers wanted; juvenile fear was quite capable of growing up from and around anything that was presented as scary. I think there must a marketing lesson lurking somewhere therein, but I can't find it!
Rob
Number Six scary?
I kind of enjoy the idea of running into "it" in the dark :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_Six_(Battlestar_Galactica)#/media/File:Number_Six_Tricia_Helfer.jpg
-
Number Six scary?
I kind of enjoy the idea of running into "it" in the dark :)
Be careful about copyright law if you moved it. It's becoming very serious lately and not for you but for this forum.
Permission is king.
Thanks
BC
-
J,
I just saw that you were complaining about the wikipedia image and not my own - you're right, I checked the site, and disembedded the link. People can still click on it, but it now clearly shows where it is linking to.
For a while I thought you were accusing me of not shooting the dance picture myself. I would request that if there is an issue you want to draw my attention to in the future you simply send me a PM if you're feeling nice, or just contact the mods directly if your mood is dark.
Edmund
-
Edmund, That was joke, but since we have no sense of humor anymore, I modified my post, though copyright is really serious.
I wish you had shot it though. That would have made me happy if you were producing images and posting them (your words).
But seriously, I was kidding, though I guess it didn't come across that way.
BC
J,
I just saw that you were complaining about the wikipedia image and not my own - you're right, I checked the site, and disembedded the link. People can still click on it, but it now clearly shows where it is linking to.
For a while I thought you were accusing me of not shooting the dance picture myself. I would request that if there is an issue you want to draw my attention to in the future you simply send me a PM if you're feeling nice, or just contact the mods directly if your mood is dark.
Edmund
-
Edmund, That was joke, but since we have no sense of humor anymore, I modified my post, though copyright is really serious.
I wish you had shot it though. That would have made me happy.
BC
Yes, I agree we seem to be losing our sense of humor.
I did make a mistake by assuming the Wikipedia image had been released; in fact you were perfectly right, it is a copyrighted promotional image, and should not be on Wikipedia, in my opinion - precisely to avoid boobytraps. As you point out, the risk here is not simply one of a lacking attribution, which is an everyday issue with everything wikipedia, in this case it is the immediate generation of a copyright violation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against image copyright, but we have private homes and public streets - and this is a little like having someone set up a stall on the public street and then charge entrance if you happen to wander in. That image does not belong on Wikipedia, because everything on Wikipedia gets copied all over the web. IMO.
I kind of liked this actress, she was very well cast in the Battlestar role..
I'm actually happy with the imagery I shoot these days. Look at this one and you will understand why:
Edmund
-
I'm actually happy with the imagery I shoot these days. Look at this one and you will understand why:
Edmund
And you should be. I just had a conversation with a client, who has begun shooting personal images of his family with a little olympus em-5. He said he's learning, but his image is not to our standards.
I responded that the importance of an image is more than production values, billing, pixels, even style.
In reality your image has more value than ours, because it will last for generations. Our work has a long shelf life (kind of wish it didn't), but it will never be as personal as something you produce for your family.
Photography can touch so many people in so many ways, but nothing means more than something personal.
This video I shot is a true home movie, during a family reunion. I probably only shot 15 minutes (if that) of footage as I wanted to enjoy myself and not become the family film maker.
My family loved it, I guess others will see it differently, but it's not for art, it's for family, but I'm more proud of this than aything with heavy production. Shot with a 70d.
https://vimeo.com/187849710
My only regret is I'm not in it, but that would have been difficult.
IMO
BC
-
Hey, I like our human sides!
My daughter when a little girl:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/8116050_orig.jpg)
When she was seventeen, you couldn't tell who was driving her Mum's car. Identical hair, only the daughter liked loud music on in the car and Mum did not!
Rob
-
Rob,
As I say, I love your work, but this image, though simple is really great. No one is harder to photograph than someone you love.
Great photo Rob, but as I have said, you got the eye.
Hey, I like our human sides!
My daughter when a little girl:
When she was seventeen, you couldn't tell who was driving her Mum's car. Identical hair, only the daughter liked loud music on in the car and Mum did not!
Rob
-
That film is great - spontaneity at its best.
My big regret is that I'm never in these pictures. And recently my son says "take a picture" and I say "of you"? And he says "of both of us". That is the thing tech really needs to bring us, a way to let the photographer creep back into the image without the narcissistic concentration of the selfie.
I really don't believe tech and staff are good for story-telling - as opposed to selling. I bought a box of Rohmer movies some years ago, and IMHO the most intense experience was where the equipment was cheapest and he had no money for film stock and cut to the bone.
Edmund
And you should be. I just had a conversation with a client, who has begun shooting personal images of his family with a little olympus em-5. He said he's learning, but his image is not to our standards.
I responded that the importance of an image is more than production values, billing, pixels, even style.
In reality your image has more value than ours, because it will last for generations. Our work has a long shelf life (kind of wish it didn't), but it will never be as personal as something you produce for your family.
Photography can touch so many people in so many ways, but nothing means more than something personal.
This video I shot is a true home movie, during a family reunion. I probably only shot 15 minutes (if that) of footage as I wanted to enjoy myself and not become the family film maker.
My family loved it, I guess others will see it differently, but it's not for art, it's for family, but I'm more proud of this than aything with heavy production. Shot with a 70d.
My only regret is I'm not in it, but that would have been difficult.
IMO
BC
-
Nice pic! It's interesting how people who stare into the camera suddenly watch ... something else. Of course, getting them to watch something else is your particular talent ...
Edmund
Hey, I like our human sides!
My daughter when a little girl:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/8116050_orig.jpg)
When she was seventeen, you couldn't tell who was driving her Mum's car. Identical hair, only the daughter liked loud music on in the car and Mum did not!
Rob
-
@ Cooter, Edmund and Rob
You don't know how true that is. With each passing year the emotional value of these 'personal' shots grows almost exponentially. Of all the clips Cooter posted this (and one other one) are the ones I remember. Ditto for Edmund's shot of his son, and though Rob's not posted that one before - I can well understand the emotional attachment and importance to him. As they say, time doesn't stand still ...
Over the last year, I've been trying to produce short 30-60 second 'motion' shorts of friends and family , not too long and not too large so many of them can carry the clips on an 'iPhone' or similar. Still, there's nothing like a beautiful print for emotive response!
So, inspired by the 'humanist' side of your posts and not wanting to sideline myself , here are a couple of old time favourites. The first is my daughter, M6 ( single cam that lasted up until the M8), one shot, no motor drive or modern 4K photo, prefocused ( I know there's motion blur, but hey ...) on Tri-X, and the second, some time later - don't recall the details, but probably that 'funny' film that turned sepia if you developed it in C-41.
In reality your image has more value than ours, because it will last for generations. Our work has a long shelf life (kind of wish it didn't), but it will never be as personal as something you produce for your family.
Photography can touch so many people in so many ways, but nothing means more than something personal.... but I'm more proud of this than aything with heavy production. My only regret is I'm not in it, but that would have been difficult.
IMO
BC
Edit:
[/deleted attachments]
-
Manoli - long time no see!
Talk of catching the moment in the first image :) And then the second "some time later" :)
There used to be this concept "mosaic time" floating around, I saw it first in "Einstein's dreams" and in a way I guess it describes what happens when you lay out pictures like that flat on a table in front of you, rather than leafing through an album. Sequence is destroyed, but something else appears? You now have a mosaic of your own emotions and memories laid out in front of you ...
Edmund
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/einsteins-dreams.cfm
@ Cooter, Edmund and Rob
You don't know how true that is. With each passing year the emotional value of these 'personal' shots grows almost exponentially. Of all the clips Cooter posted this (and one other one) are the ones I remember. Ditto for Edmund's shot of his son, and though Rob's not posted that one before - I can well understand the emotional attachment and importance to him. As they say, time doesn't stand still ...
Over the last year, I've been trying to produce short 30-60 second 'motion' shorts of friends and family , not too long and not too large so many of them can carry the clips on an 'iPhone' or similar. Still, there's nothing like a beautiful print for emotive response!
So, inspired by the 'humanist' side of your posts and not wanting to sideline myself , here are a couple of old time favourites. The first is my daughter, M6 ( single cam that lasted up until the M8), one shot, no motor drive or modern 4K photo, prefocused ( I know there's motion blur, but hey ...) on Tri-X, and the second, some time later - don't recall the details, but probably that 'funny' film that turned sepia if you developed it in C-41.
-
@ Cooter, Edmund and Rob
You don't know how true that is. With each passing year the emotional value of these 'personal' shots grows almost exponentially. Of all the clips Cooter posted this (and one other one) are the ones I remember. Ditto for Edmund's shot of his son, and though Rob's not posted that one before - I can well understand the emotional attachment and importance to him. As they say, time doesn't stand still ...
Over the last year, I've been trying to produce short 30-60 second 'motion' shorts of friends and family , not too long and not too large so many of them can carry the clips on an 'iPhone' or similar. Still, there's nothing like a beautiful print for emotive response!
Manoli, thank you for the view into your life. The pool photo is true art.'
Thanks
BC
-
@ Cooter and Edmund
Thank you.
M
-
Thank you for the kind remarks, folks; here's a shot of the kid's Mum doing a stand-in during a locations recce in Cyprus for the Teacher's Whisky Calendar gig (Nikon F or F2, Kodachrome 64 Pro).
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/4048093_orig.jpg)
Rob
-
"There was no random firing as there is today"
-Alfred Steiglitz, 1934
-
"There was no random firing as there is today"
-Alfred Steiglitz, 1934
Even in my time, it cost money! Best reason ever for considered shooting.
Rob
-
Even in my time, it cost money! Best reason ever for considered shooting.
Rob
Even in my time, it cost money! Best reason ever for considered shooting.
Rob
It is true that the marginal cost of an image is now close to zero, with high upfront costs for the camera - makes me wonder why we don't all shoot more. Or maybe we do - with our phones :)
I sometimes do still-life pix of whatever is lying around the room.
Edmund
-
Rob's photo above reminds me of the attached one, of my mom, taken by my dad in July/August 1959.
-Dave-
-
I can see the similarity; in my case, my shot reminds me strongly of many things I might have otherwise forgotten. Having said which, it lives only on the web, but another, tiny and different one torn from an old Intnl. Driving Licence, lives wedged into the corner of a larger photograph of the kids; I see it several times a day and always blow it a kiss. There exists but a single other copy, in my wallet, and the negative did not survive transfer from UK to Spain. How fragile human emotion and life.
It puts a great perspective onto the things one owns. Those pix would be rescued from a disaster before anything else.
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
Great image!
Best regards
Erik
Hey, I like our human sides!
My daughter when a little girl:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/8116050_orig.jpg)
When she was seventeen, you couldn't tell who was driving her Mum's car. Identical hair, only the daughter liked loud music on in the car and Mum did not!
Rob
-
Thank you, kind sir!
How time flies; her own kids are adults now...
Don't want to think about where that places me.
Rob
-
I sometimes enjoy the workflow to pull stills from motion, it´s not meant to replace a still shooting, it just adds another tool and it is just so different. I don´t second the idea it is just "let the camera roll and be lucky to find a good still". It needs the same if not more preparation and attention to get a good result. This example is taken from a 6K Red Monochrome clip we recently shot for Mario Krankl.
-
I sometimes enjoy the workflow to pull stills from motion, it´s not meant to replace a still shooting, it just adds another tool and it is just so different. I don´t second the idea it is just "let the camera roll and be lucky to find a good still". It needs the same if not more preparation and attention to get a good result. This example is taken from a 6K Red Monochrome clip we recently shot for Mario Krankl.
Beautiful on all counts.
Rob C
-
Thank you, Rob. Glad you like it!
One more thing, since I started to work with motion I had to take a look at lenses again. Also bought a set of vintage Nikkors, obviously not for every task. There are so many "perfect" lenses today but at least for my taste they are lacking soul. So we started to work at lot more with our old Mamiya RZ instead of the H we mainly used before.
-
Thank you, Rob. Glad you like it!
One more thing, since I started to work with motion I had to take a look at lenses again. Also bought a set of vintage Nikkors, obviously not for every task. There are so many "perfect" lenses today but at least for my taste they are lacking soul. So we started to work at lot more with our old Mamiya RZ instead of the H we mainly used before.
I'm not really surprised: I have an old manual Nikkor 2/35mm and it gives me something different to the few newer Nikkors I have. It's pictures feel sort of 'malleable', just as did my old Rollei's Tessar 3.5/75 compared with my 'blad's 2.8/80 Sonnar, which made everything sharp and rather hard. It's a difficult concept to verbalise, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/d-2720_orig.jpg)
Shot wide open at f2, hand-held, of course, which with glaucoma is challenge enough! ;-)
Rob C
-
Absolutly, this is a beautiful image and a perfect example which shows the organic look that I like about that vintage glass very well. The fast ones get a strange and very special look wide open- you´ll know of course ;-)
Cheers!
-
Absolutly, this is a beautiful image and a perfect example which shows the organic look that I like about that vintage glass very well. The fast ones get a strange and very special look wide open- you´ll know of course ;-)
Cheers!
Thanks for the compliment - it's nice doing pictures just for fun, now, though I do miss the excitement of the commission.
Rob