Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on July 21, 2016, 11:12:38 am
-
As the Alpa most vividly, Mamiya and H body design show, Medium Format cameras are basically digital sensors in the back bolted on to conventional film camera designs in front. I would say that even the idea of cards and "developing" the Raw images with an external computer are relics of the film age.
We are seeing the first signs of front-back integration with main-sensor focus -which is a bit like ground glass focus- and tricks like focus stacking and multishot, but we're still a long way from true electronic camera designs in "pro" cameras. 35mm amateur devices have on-sensor stabilisation and video that is in fact feature-film grade, but we still mock them as being toys.
The phones with their ability to stream live video, post to social media, apply filters, edit clips in-camera, retouch, annotate and publish images are very different devices, and one can see how they have eaten the lunch of almost all the cheaper "cameras". I'm not making this up - go and ask Canon or Nikon what happened to their compact and point-and-shoot ranges.
A "Photojournalist" can now be more relevant with an iPhone streaming to Periscope and posting seamlessly from an event than with a pro camera that has at best cumbersome interconnections. It's got to the point where pro equipment gets in the way, rather than help: The citizen journalist cannot be censored, the pro can be.
I do wonder whether we will finally see more invention and integration in the MF and 35mm prosumer cameras, or whether the manufacturers will to the end refuse to incorporate phone-class hardware, displays, and app-programmable communication stacks.
It *is* clear that a Rebel cannot have the image processing abilities or the screen of a $800 iPhone, unfortunately this is presently also true of a $30K MF system.
Edmund
-
An MF camera does not have all the processing capabilities of an iPhone, but neither does the iPhone have the image capturing capabilities of an MF camera.
Are you waiting for an MF camera that can run Prisma and upload to Instagram to make your first Medium Format purchase in more than a decade, Edmund?
-
MF (and LF even more so) is traditionally targeting the advanced photographer who needs to perform different tasks and doesn't need features already offered by smaller formats which are of use only to the "press the button" kind of the (lets call him) "photographer"... Having makers in MF that are trying to justify the cost of it by the same terms as smaller formats (that are traditionally made as to serve the masses) do, is by definition the wrong way to compare things... If I was to use MF only to "improve" on my image analysis or other (completely) irrelevant to larger formats, I would never do so... After all the (usual) parameters compared by reviewers is more a matter of skills than anything else... It's what (extra) I can do with MF that makes it essential to me... nothing more nothing else...
-
Perhaps one has to look at the different digital camera formats anew.
In film days, format use was determined by two factors: the job's requirements; your ability to buy into the required tools. Some cameras were more versatile than others, depending of course on final use of the image. Nobody seemed either surprised or indignant about that.
Why, then, should digital photography be any different in that respect? Horses for courses strikes me as a sensible approach even today. Why not just use the appropriate tool and be happy? All the world has a cellphone; it can handle any info problems you can invent for yourself. I think there's a general mood/world view coming on that merges lazy with convenience.
Rob
-
Just to add to the above (comment of mine)... makers that their "policies" oppose photographers to do the above, are (by definition of MF tradition) opposing photography progress... Their financial status or market penetration, or ability to create funboys of the firm, is both irrelevant to (the few real) photographers, or ..."photography" (as a medium of art creation) it self!
-
Perhaps one has to look at the different digital camera formats anew.
In film days, format use was determined by two factors: the job's requirements; your ability to buy into the required tools. Some cameras were more versatile than others, depending of course on final use of the image. Nobody seemed either surprised or indignant about that.
Why, then, should digital photography be any different in that respect? Horses for courses strikes me as a sensible approach even today. Why not just use the appropriate tool and be happy? All the world has a cellphone; it can handle any info problems you can invent for yourself. I think there's a general mood/world view coming on that merges lazy with convenience.
Rob
In film days (which are still there for anyone that is interested), one could use whatever image area he liked without asking the maker of the camera... This is a major (among others) fundamental behind MF design approach... Fundamentals are set to back up philosophy behind products and ought to be respected... Traditionally with MF, the customers sets the demand to the maker... not vise versa...
-
Manufacturers, generally speaking, try to build what their customers want. Apple and Google know that their average customer wants a portable Facebook terminal, so they build that and they add a camera function because Facebook needs more pictures. Hasselblad or Phase One know that their customers want a studio camera with tethering abilities, so that is what they build.
-
Hasselblad or Phase One know that their customers want a studio camera with tethering abilities, so that is what they build.
So do Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax and everybody else these days... Sinar only makes tethered for years...
PS: Did Erik remove his own post?
-
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/18/article-2424437-1BE4F390000005DC-412_634x515.jpg
300SL I think; James Roberston Justice had one; I think I remember BB sitting in his at one stage. Tantallon Castle...
Beautiful cars, if slightly beyond my pockets - now as ever!
Thanks for posting the shot - brings back happy memories.
Rob
-
300SL I think; James Roberston Justice had one; I think I remember BB sitting in his at one stage. Tantallon Castle...
Beautiful cars, if slightly beyond my pockets - now as ever!
Thanks for posting the shot - brings back happy memories.
Rob
It would be best if one posts his own shots in an argument (or discussion) instead of using somebody else's... Especially if the one that captured the image isn't a member and may never know that his image was used by somebody in an argument...
-
It would be best if one posts his own shots in an argument (or discussion) instead of using somebody else's...
How many of your own images have you posted in this forum till date, Theo?
-
How many of your own images have you posted in this forum till date, Theo?
LOL... I (and all other sensible) never post images in forums buddy for any nameless, troll or fanboy to see... Nor I use other peoples images (with or without permission) as to make a point... Who are you (for example) that one should advance you to a judge of images? After all, skills are above equipment for making an image as to prove anything and this is a gear thread...
EDIT: Nor I ever comment (but once that was too obvious) on other people's "images"...
-
LOL... I (and no other sensible) never post images in forums buddy for any nameless, troll or fanboy to see... Nor I use other peoples images (with or without permission) as to make a point... Who are you (for example) that one should advance you to a judge of images? After all, skills are above equipment for making an image as to prove anything and this is a gear thread...
It's a simple question with a simple answer.
How many images have you posted here? Is it higher than zero?
You claim to be the epitome of repro shooting and most camera gear is apparently beneath you, but no one has ever seen anything you shot. You have no portfolio or web presence and no one has heard of your name outside this forum.
What is your claim to fame? Why should your opinions count higher than that of several esteemed gentlemen here with real portfolios and references?
I am all ears. So how many images have you posted?
-
It would be best if one posts his own shots in an argument (or discussion) instead of using somebody else's... Especially if the one that captured the image isn't a member and may never know that his image was used by somebody in an argument...
Theo, I think you missed the entire point of the photograph.
As I said, for me it brought back very nice moments and mental reruns of Mlle Bardot, for which I thank Keith from the bottom of my professional photography memory bank! Mind you, I don't need a lot of prodding to think about her...
Rob C
-
Theo, I think you missed the entire point of the photograph.
As I said, for me it brought back very nice moments and mental reruns of Mlle Bardot, for which I thank Keith from the bottom of my professional photography memory bank! Mind you, I don't need a lot of prodding to think about her...
Rob C
But it wasn't you that posted the (great IMO) image Rob... My comment never was on you... it was a reply as to make sure that people will understand the irrelevance of the image to whatever meaning the (again irrelevant to the image) poster was thinking of making by using (without license) an image that he never captured...
-
Theo, I think you missed the entire point of the photograph.
As I said, for me it brought back very nice moments and mental reruns of Mlle Bardot, for which I thank Keith from the bottom of my professional photography memory bank! Mind you, I don't need a lot of prodding to think about her...
Rob C
I knew a guy who owned 3 of these, slightly different from the one pictured, and it brings nice memories of riding in them. I'm sure I would prefer memories of moments with Ms Bardot :)
It's strange how one remembers the cars of one's youth - the wonderful back compartment of the roller, the veneer of the jag, the plush of the DS, and in this case the multiple horns of the rough modded versions which this ex-Merc race driver was allowed to keep, by the terms of his contract. For some reason these horns were a necessary race fitting. Don't ask - in those days everybody we knew who owned a car had much more money than we did :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
If that mobile phone is good enough, that is perfectly OK with me. For me the cell phone camera is a bit like the Leica when I started with photography. Often used with a standard lens or a 35 mm, always there where action was. A lot of more or less authentic images were made with the Leica.
If action is right and the message is interesting, no one will ask about DR or megapixels. The photojournalistic value of cell phone pictures may be very high.
On the other hand, all those photographers standing rink-side with those white supertelephoto lenses will not switch to iPhone, I guess.
Personally, I like supertelephoto lenses and ultrawides. When possible shooting from tripod and naturally always using "raw". But my images have no photojournalistic value, let's hope they are time less.
No, I don't think a cell phone camera will be able to match medium format. But certainly it will be good enough for 98% of the images taken, unless you need a telephoto or an ultrawide. But, again, Leica did reform photojournalism without really offering ultrawide or long telephoto. F/8 and be there goes a long way, but with cell phones it may be f/2.8 and be there.
What a large sensor will deliver is image quality, high DR and high SNR (Signal Noise Ratio) paired with good high ISO performance.
Best regards
Erik
As the Alpa most vividly, Mamiya and H body design show, Medium Format cameras are basically digital sensors in the back bolted on to conventional film camera designs in front. I would say that even the idea of cards and "developing" the Raw images with an external computer are relics of the film age.
We are seeing the first signs of front-back integration with main-sensor focus -which is a bit like ground glass focus- and tricks like focus stacking and multishot, but we're still a long way from true electronic camera designs in "pro" cameras. 35mm amateur devices have on-sensor stabilisation and video that is in fact feature-film grade, but we still mock them as being toys.
The phones with their ability to stream live video, post to social media, apply filters, edit clips in-camera, retouch, annotate and publish images are very different devices, and one can see how they have eaten the lunch of almost all the cheaper "cameras". I'm not making this up - go and ask Canon or Nikon what happened to their compact and point-and-shoot ranges.
A "Photojournalist" can now be more relevant with an iPhone streaming to Periscope and posting seamlessly from an event than with a pro camera that has at best cumbersome interconnections. It's got to the point where pro equipment gets in the way, rather than help: The citizen journalist cannot be censored, the pro can be.
I do wonder whether we will finally see more invention and integration in the MF and 35mm prosumer cameras, or whether the manufacturers will to the end refuse to incorporate phone-class hardware, displays, and app-programmable communication stacks.
It *is* clear that a Rebel cannot have the image processing abilities or the screen of a $800 iPhone, unfortunately this is presently also true of a $30K MF system.
Edmund
-
synn,
It's a simple question with a simple answer. How many images have you posted here? Is it higher than zero?
Yes.
-
No, I don't think a cell phone camera will be able to match medium format. But certainly it will be good enough for 98% of the images taken, unless you need a telephoto or an ultrawide.
Actually it is 99.98% (slightly different method of counting than yours :o)) so I suggest you only use a cell phone unless it is an Ultra tele or an UWA... ;D I'll use whatever else than cell phone for two reasons... One is that I oppose the (official) statistics of 98% that you post (as I said it's 99.98% according to my measurements :P ) and the other is because I don't have a phone that can take pictures... (but I do have same MF gear I can use instead) ;D :'(
-
Actually it is 99.98% (slightly different method of counting than yours :o)) so I suggest you only use a cell phone unless it is an Ultra tele or an UWA... ;D I'll use whatever else than cell phone for two reasons... One is that I oppose the (official) statistics of 98% that you post (as I said it's 99.98% according to my measurements :P ) and the other is because I don't have a phone that can take pictures... (but I do have same MF gear I can use instead) ;D :'(
Ah, you were an early adopter of the cellphone and got one that lasts forever :)
Edmund
-
Ah, you were an early adopter of the cellphone and got one that lasts forever :)
Edmund
Actually I had 2 I-phone (4&4s) stolen until 3 years ago, but never shot a picture with them or used them for web, so I decided to give up on the subject! I use a basic NOKIA now, the bugger can even fit in my pocket... Can you believe that? It even takes calls and allows me to call back! ;D
EDIT: Only problem is that it is so small, that you look around your pockets (terrified) to check if it is there or lost... ::)
-
I was mildly interested in this post by the title but unfortunately it withered rapidly.
Does medium format need to dragged into the electronic era? Well I have a Canon 5Ds, sort of latest and greatest, and a Hasselblad H3DII-39 about 8 years old. Nothing wrong with the Canon, it is good for things that a Canon is good for, but the Hasselblad has better colour and better accuracy with 16 bit and still does what I want. If I get to the next model the H4 then it has True Focus, which I don't think any other new camera has. Also the Hasselblad is modular, so I can use the back on other things like a view camera without a huge (in the Canon case 75mm) added flange depth.
Do you buy a mobile phone to make phone calls? Nokia thought that and almost disappeared from the market. Actually making phone calls is a minor part of a mobile phone these days. You are much more likely to do one of many other things that apps allow. I am currently interviewing for a government job and the candidates must have a smart phone with iOS 8 or Android 5 to even apply. An MBA won't help. It's a changing world.
So summarising the half dozen odd posts on similar things lately.
Everyone actually using medium format and many who never will are excited by the X1D. That's why there are half a dozen similar posts.
Ford is never going to make buggy whips.
Hasselblad is never going to make adapters for Contax. I would like to own a Contax. It would look good on the shelf with the other vintage cameras.
I extremely doubt that Hasselblad will continue investing in three different series of medium format cameras. You won't see much new stuff for the V series.
I doubt that Hasselblad will worry too much about new things for H1 compatible cameras either. We are 14 years down the track now. Get integrated and enjoy the benefits.
I just got an email from our Phase One dealer and they are now taking pre-orders for Hasselblad X1D! So I guess everyone can see the future.
-
Hi,
Just to make a small point, 16 bit on the Hasselblad or Phase one is just sales talk. The only MFD that has 16 bits is the IQ3 100. The IQ350 is definitively 14 bit, although it puts it's data in a 16 bit container.
The raw files on Phase One have never been wider than 14 bits, until the IQ3-100 arrived. Hassy actually had 16 bit files but they contain about 13 bit of data and 3 bits of noise on the CCD backs. The CMOS backs are 14 bits.
I am pretty sure Hasselblad will make backs for the V-series. There is a huge market for V-backs as something like 500000 V-series cameras have been sold. Problem is that backs are still expensive.
But, it is very clear. The V-system is dead in the sense that never will a V-series body made again. Adapters for V-series, I wouldn't rule out.
H-series is sort of interesting. It is optimised for P45+ size sensors. The lens programme is on the long side for 44x33 sensors. I think that Phase is selling a lot of full frame 645, not sure about Hasselblad. Focusing on a single size of sensor makes a lot of sense. Just to say, Sony has a roadmap for sensors for sure and all MFD makers are aware of that roadmap.
Best regards
Erik
I was mildly interested in this post by the title but unfortunately it withered rapidly.
Does medium format need to dragged into the electronic era? Well I have a Canon 5Ds, sort of latest and greatest, and a Hasselblad H3DII-39 about 8 years old. Nothing wrong with the Canon, it is good for things that a Canon is good for, but the Hasselblad has better colour and better accuracy with 16 bit and still does what I want. If I get to the next model the H4 then it has True Focus, which I don't think any other new camera has. Also the Hasselblad is modular, so I can use the back on other things like a view camera without a huge (in the Canon case 75mm) added flange depth.
Do you buy a mobile phone to make phone calls? Nokia thought that and almost disappeared from the market. Actually making phone calls is a minor part of a mobile phone these days. You are much more likely to do one of many other things that apps allow. I am currently interviewing for a government job and the candidates must have a smart phone with iOS 8 or Android 5 to even apply. An MBA won't help. It's a changing world.
So summarising the half dozen odd posts on similar things lately.
Everyone actually using medium format and many who never will are excited by the X1D. That's why there are half a dozen similar posts.
Ford is never going to make buggy whips.
Hasselblad is never going to make adapters for Contax. I would like to own a Contax. It would look good on the shelf with the other vintage cameras.
I extremely doubt that Hasselblad will continue investing in three different series of medium format cameras. You won't see much new stuff for the V series.
I doubt that Hasselblad will worry too much about new things for H1 compatible cameras either. We are 14 years down the track now. Get integrated and enjoy the benefits.
I just got an email from our Phase One dealer and they are now taking pre-orders for Hasselblad X1D! So I guess everyone can see the future.
-
With MF there are two completely different approaches by consumers (and therefore users)... One kind is the consumer that looks to it as a larger/better DSLR alternative and another is the traditional user, mainly pros that expect it to function as it traditionally did at the film days...
The first type of consumer is expecting from the system to perform at least as good as DSLRs do in all the areas that DSLRs perform well (low light, AF, ease of use, perhaps video ability ...etc). The second type of consumer wants to supplement his DSLR use and therefore ignores functions that he uses his DSLR system as to perform... He doesn't care for higher Iso performance, or AF speed and accuracy as he would use his DSLR anyway to perform these tasks... He rather cares for compatibility of the MFDB with the lenses he uses on his view camera, the color accuracy, the software calibration accuracy alignment with the sensor and all other functions that supplement the use of his DSLR system...
The modern CMos backs however, brought a function that is of major importance to both the above mentioned types of consumers... That being LV... I believe that if LV was of decent quality on the backs sold a decade ago, the MF market base would have been much wider by now... The thing is that the "b-type" of consumers are pretty disapointed because the modern CMOs backs don't perform well enough when adapted to the same use as their older backs, especially with the lenses they have on their view cameras... One should therefore expect the "gap" that is described on the O/P (which is the same as the "a" and "b" type of MF users described here) to increase... I expect there will be a mass market increase that will be dominated by the "a" type of consumers and then a "high-end" section of users that will stick to their habits of use as they where during the past decades with film and then MFDBs, that will continue to make awesome pictures as they did all the past decades using the same "ancient" equipment that they always did as to make them...
-
I was mildly interested in this post by the title but unfortunately it withered rapidly.
Does medium format need to dragged into the electronic era? Well I have a Canon 5Ds, sort of latest and greatest, and a Hasselblad H3DII-39 about 8 years old. Nothing wrong with the Canon, it is good for things that a Canon is good for, but the Hasselblad has better colour and better accuracy with 16 bit and still does what I want. If I get to the next model the H4 then it has True Focus, which I don't think any other new camera has. Also the Hasselblad is modular, so I can use the back on other things like a view camera without a huge (in the Canon case 75mm) added flange depth.
Do you buy a mobile phone to make phone calls? Nokia thought that and almost disappeared from the market. Actually making phone calls is a minor part of a mobile phone these days. You are much more likely to do one of many other things that apps allow. I am currently interviewing for a government job and the candidates must have a smart phone with iOS 8 or Android 5 to even apply. An MBA won't help. It's a changing world.
So summarising the half dozen odd posts on similar things lately.
Everyone actually using medium format and many who never will are excited by the X1D. That's why there are half a dozen similar posts.
Ford is never going to make buggy whips.
Hasselblad is never going to make adapters for Contax. I would like to own a Contax. It would look good on the shelf with the other vintage cameras.
I extremely doubt that Hasselblad will continue investing in three different series of medium format cameras. You won't see much new stuff for the V series.
I doubt that Hasselblad will worry too much about new things for H1 compatible cameras either. We are 14 years down the track now. Get integrated and enjoy the benefits.
I just got an email from our Phase One dealer and they are now taking pre-orders for Hasselblad X1D! So I guess everyone can see the future.
Nice to see Phase dealers move downstream into a lower price range: That's like seeing Ferrari dealers sell Porsche :)
My before the last cellphone was an iPhone 5, and I could barely understand people's speech or read the screen fonts. My new phone is an S6, it has wonderful sound, nice large fonts and terrible net reception; the battery runs out in the middle of every day. I can't use it on the road as a navigator because it doesn't get a signal. I don't know what the smartphones are really for, apart from taking video, images and playing games.
Edmund
-
As long as the imaging platform consists of a single lens focusing on a single plane than why reinvent the wheel? The backs have been getting more clever, and so are SLRs... I love concepts like lens arrays, and the sheet camera that could make a future large format digital camera.
-
With MF there are two completely different approaches by consumers (and therefore users)... One kind is the consumer that looks to it as a larger/better DSLR alternative and another is the traditional user, mainly pros that expect it to function as it traditionally did at the film days...
I would say that consumers consume consumables. They buy a Canon 550D one year, show their friends, take a thousand shots, possibly in the same day, and put it on the shelf. Next year they buy a Canon 600D, then next year a Canon 650D etc. Each one has infinitely more capability than the single control they ever used. They buy numbers they don't understand. They have never read the manual. These are the people that DSLR camera makers love and exist for.
They don't buy $10,000 plus cameras. The people that buy these MF cameras buy into a system, possibly for life. or at least a commercially viable period.
-
I would say that consumers consume consumables. They buy a Canon 550D one year, show their friends, take a thousand shots, possibly in the same day, and put it on the shelf. Next year they buy a Canon 600D, then next year a Canon 650D etc. Each one has infinitely more capability than the single control they ever used. They buy numbers they don't understand. They have never read the manual. These are the people that DSLR camera makers love and exist for.
They don't buy $10,000 plus cameras. The people that buy these MF cameras buy into a system, possibly for life. or at least a commercially viable period.
+1 on this.
Personally, the additional controls the technical camera gives me, especially for architecture and still life, outweighs everything else. Personally I could give a damn about WiFi connectivity and anything else the iPhone provides.
Additionally, insofar as the images I am creating for them to use, my clients could give a damn about whether or not I have those capabilities either. All they care about is what I email them to review 10 days after the shoot ends, not what I can post the day of.
-
+1 on this.
Personally, the additional controls the technical camera gives me, especially for architecture and still life, outweighs everything else. Personally I could give a damn about WiFi connectivity and anything else the iPhone provides.
Additionally, insofar as the images I am creating for them to use, my clients could give a damn about whether or not I have those capabilities either. All they care about is what I email them to review 10 days after the shoot ends, not what I can post the day of.
Joe,
If I may be allowed to be argumentative for a minute, do you use C1? Or Phocus? Do you use Photoshop?
IMHO better camera integration means better communication, but it also means moving more of the very labor-intensive manual image processing abilities directly into the capture workflow. Eg. being able to see perspective corrections at shoot time. If I want to shoot a picture of my house, I would like to be able to stand anywhere in front of it, mark my zone of interest to the camera, take some images by walking around, and then ask the camera to let me choose my point of view for the "perspective corrected money shot" on which of course all cars , pedestrians, lamp-posts and rubbish bins have been removed. And yes, I would like the camera to show me in the viewfinder what depth map it has created and what it knows it can retouch out, and where it still needs me to set up and take some more images so it has the data it needs. Yes, even if that entails stepping around a parked car and taking a closeup.
Edmund
PS Bernard: Just for a minute :P
-
With MF there are two completely different approaches by consumers (and therefore users)... One kind is the consumer that looks to it as a larger/better DSLR alternative and another is the traditional user, mainly pros that expect it to function as it traditionally did at the film days...
The first type of consumer is expecting from the system to perform at least as good as DSLRs do in all the areas that DSLRs perform well (low light, AF, ease of use, perhaps video ability ...etc). The second type of consumer wants to supplement his DSLR use and therefore ignores functions that he uses his DSLR system as to perform... He doesn't care for higher Iso performance, or AF speed and accuracy as he would use his DSLR anyway to perform these tasks... He rather cares for compatibility of the MFDB with the lenses he uses on his view camera, the color accuracy, the software calibration accuracy alignment with the sensor and all other functions that supplement the use of his DSLR system...
The modern CMos backs however, brought a function that is of major importance to both the above mentioned types of consumers... That being LV... I believe that if LV was of decent quality on the backs sold a decade ago, the MF market base would have been much wider by now... The thing is that the "b-type" of consumers are pretty disapointed because the modern CMOs backs don't perform well enough when adapted to the same use as their older backs, especially with the lenses they have on their view cameras... One should therefore expect the "gap" that is described on the O/P (which is the same as the "a" and "b" type of MF users described here) to increase... I expect there will be a mass market increase that will be dominated by the "a" type of consumers and then a "high-end" section of users that will stick to their habits of use as they where during the past decades with film and then MFDBs, that will continue to make awesome pictures as they did all the past decades using the same "ancient" equipment that they always did as to make them...
+1, well put.
-
Joe,
If I may be allowed to be argumentative for a minute, do you use C1? Or Phocus? Do you use Photoshop?
IMHO better camera integration means better communication, but it also means moving more of the very labor-intensive manual image processing abilities directly into the capture workflow. Eg. being able to see perspective corrections at shoot time. If I want to shoot a picture of my house, I would like to be able to stand anywhere in front of it, mark my zone of interest to the camera, take some images by walking around, and then ask the camera to let me choose my point of view for the "perspective corrected money shot" on which of course all cars , pedestrians, lamp-posts and rubbish bins have been removed. And yes, I would like the camera to show me in the viewfinder what depth map it has created and what it knows it can retouch out, and where it still needs me to set up and take some more images so it has the data it needs. Yes, even if that entails stepping around a parked car and taking a closeup.
Edmund
PS Bernard: Just for a minute :P
I know this is how many amateurs and hobbyists think, but it does not work like that.
You pick one composition and then you pure your heart and soul into that one composition, making it the best you can possibly make it. Doing otherwise is futile at best, and a waste of time.
I have found repeatably that when I shoot on the fly or allow my focus to be spread out amongst too many subjects or compositions, the work is never anything worth keeping.
"The picture is good, or not, from the moment it was caught in the camera." Henri Cartier-Bresson
PS. Insofar as depth maps and etc., if your energy is spent almost everyday taking pictures, where it is most often the only thing you think about, and you spend countless hours honing your craft, learning your gear and lenses, then you should be able to see those depth maps, and etc, and how your various lenses will render the subject in your head without giving too much thought, even before you look through the view finder. If after all these hours you can't, you may have picked the wring line of business.
-
I know this is how many amateurs and hobbyists think, but it does not work like that.
You pick one composition and then you pure your heart and soul into that one composition, making it the best you can possibly make it. Doing otherwise is futile at best, and a waste of time.
I have found repeatably that when I shoot on the fly or allow my focus to be spread out amongst too many subjects or compositions, the work is never anything worth keeping.
"The picture is good, or not, from the moment it was caught in the camera." Henri Cartier-Bresson
PS. Insofar as depth maps and etc., if your energy is spent almost everyday taking pictures, where it is most often the only thing you think about, and you spend countless hours honing your craft, learning your gear and lenses, then you should be able to see those depth maps, and etc, and how your various lenses will render the subject in your head without giving too much thought, even before you look through the view finder. If after all these hours you can't, you may have picked the wring line of business.
Joe,
Every tech brings its art. I have no particular love for Cartier Bresson, but no photographer can refuse him great respect. Since you cite him, I believe his much of his art was the product of the fast films of the day and the handheld Leica and its wides. I think it is about time that a "really digital" camera emerged, similar to the Leica of its day, and its artists. Or maybe it already has and is called the iPhone, and its millionaire artist is Kim Kardashian.
As for depth maps, I meant that a modern camera can tell you what is where in front of you, and therefore automatically pick out objects like trash-cans that will end up edited out, and can tell you to photograph what is behind them so it can be inserted in the final image.
Edmund
-
Photoshop's content aware tools work greatly to remove unwanted clutter (and works even better with high resolution images). It's always better to actually remove that bin in the first place, especially if you have so much time on your hand to move around and take a bunch of photos.
It would be nice for cameras to recognize clutter and provide means to remove them before getting the photo to a computer, but that kind of image recognition is still quite a few years away and modern cameras have nowhere close the computing power required to do this in real time (or a reasonable time) anyway.
You pick one composition and then you pure your heart and soul into that one composition, making it the best you can possibly make it. Doing otherwise is futile at best, and a waste of time.
I have found repeatably that when I shoot on the fly or allow my focus to be spread out amongst too many subjects or compositions, the work is never anything worth keeping.
I fully agree on this and I wish I knew this sooner, but you live and learn. :)
-
Hi,
One way to see it, there is no good reason for film size formats in the digital world. Obviously a lens programme covers a given image diagonal. It is not very feasible to use larger sensors than what lens diagonal can cover. Even to that may be an exception. We could make a square sensor say 36x36 mm that would allow for 24x36, 36x24, 31x31, 29x36 within the image circle of 43 mm. The full sensor would have a diagonal of 51 mm, and that would fall outside the 43 mm diagonal, but it may still be usable with many lenses.
Best regards
Erik
-
Joe,
If I may be allowed to be argumentative for a minute, do you use C1? Or Phocus? Do you use Photoshop?
IMHO better camera integration means better communication, but it also means moving more of the very labor-intensive manual image processing abilities directly into the capture workflow. Eg. being able to see perspective corrections at shoot time. If I want to shoot a picture of my house, I would like to be able to stand anywhere in front of it, mark my zone of interest to the camera, take some images by walking around, and then ask the camera to let me choose my point of view for the "perspective corrected money shot" on which of course all cars , pedestrians, lamp-posts and rubbish bins have been removed. And yes, I would like the camera to show me in the viewfinder what depth map it has created and what it knows it can retouch out, and where it still needs me to set up and take some more images so it has the data it needs. Yes, even if that entails stepping around a parked car and taking a closeup.
Edmund
PS Bernard: Just for a minute :P
Someone decided that a computer should be the main tool for creating music instead of real people using real instruments and look at the state of today's music.
If you want to only press the button on the camera and expect everything else to be automated, you're not a photographer. You're a button pusher.
For a real photographer, one who is passionate about his images, the process of photography does not end with pressing the button. Everything that happens afterwards is part of the process as well.
It's fine to wish for that sort of automation. That makes you a consumer, not a professional or even an advanced enthusiast. This is why no one who is paying big amounts for high end imaging solutions is asking for such automation. This is also why your posts are, more often than not, so out of place in this forum.
-
Joe,
Every tech brings its art. I have no particular love for Cartier Bresson, but no photographer can refuse him great respect. Since you cite him, I believe his much of his art was the product of the fast films of the day and the handheld Leica and its wides. I think it is about time that a "really digital" camera emerged, similar to the Leica of its day, and its artists. Or maybe it already has and is called the iPhone, and its millionaire artist is Kim Kardashian.
As for depth maps, I meant that a modern camera can tell you what is where in front of you, and therefore automatically pick out objects like trash-cans that will end up edited out, and can tell you to photograph what is behind them so it can be inserted in the final image.
Edmund
The way I see it is much simpler than that, I've seen no better photographs out of digital sensors than they already where from the film days and I've seen no improvement in one's photography with modern sensors than the ones made with the (now considered ancient) 22mp sensors... As far as I can tell, it's rather the opposite happening (photographs are becoming worst with time).
IMO it has to do with people thinking of the tool above skills instead of the opposite... I have of course met some (individual) photographers that have improved their work with time but in no case out of those I know, it was because of upgrading the tool they where using before...
I believe that cinema is a good example to prove the above since the "tech advancement" in imaging converges all the time... One has to wonder why motion pictures improve with time while photography (as a media) seems (at least) stationary...
One has also to wonder as to why the most successful artists in both media prefer to use trusted tools as to work with...
-
You pick one composition and then you pure your heart and soul into that one composition, making it the best you can possibly make it. Doing otherwise is futile at best, and a waste of time.
Joe,
That quote of yours is so good it ought to be sold framed in camera shops :)
I don't live like that, but I have great respect for those that do.
-
Joe,
Every tech brings its art. I have no particular love for Cartier Bresson, but no photographer can refuse him great respect. Since you cite him, I believe his much of his art was the product of the fast films of the day and the handheld Leica and its wides.
Edmund
I am not either, but, as you say, one can not ignore his legacy. However I do know that Cartier-Bresson was known to compose an image and wait and wait and wait until the right person in the right spot happened to walked by.
Of course, much of the time it happens faster then others, especially in a busy and crowded city, but some of his most famous images where the product of just waiting in the same spot for hours.
-
33 minutes later...
-
I am not either, but, as you say, one can not ignore his legacy. However I do know that Cartier-Bresson was known to compose an image and wait and wait and wait until the right person in the right spot happened to walked by.
Of course, much of the time it happens faster then others, especially in a busy and crowded city, but some of his most famous images where the product of just waiting in the same spot for hours.
Yes, I once wrote a humorous column on waiting, for Publish.com, and a copy is still available on the web.
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/art_Edmund_Ronald_002.php
But some guys - and I think Cartier Bresson- also have the ability to just magic a scene into appearing.
Edmund
-
My long suffering wife read the best part of a book before I captured this ;-)
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/hangdog.jpg)
That picture is so nice that I'll skip the obvious jokes ;)
Edmund
-
My long suffering wife read the best part of a book before I captured this ;-)
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/hangdog.jpg)
Nice image, Keith!
I am guilty of the exact same thing here. Fortunately there were enough shopping options around to keep the wife distracted in the meantime!
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7743/28324779761_5b41f22f4a_c.jpg)
p.s. Nice images there too, Erik.
-
Hi Keith,
Thank you and that's in Amber fort, Jaipur, India.
-
Erik, that's an extremely telling screenshot. Patience is key!
Synn, super capture! Location?
Edmund, no, my wife didn't feature in the shot ;-)
Erik - nice illustration!
Synn, I cannot see your image because you are on my ignore list, but if you want to let bygones be, I'll reinstate you ...
K - I never thought your wife was in the shot, but ...
Edmund
-
E - I thought I'd make the obvious joke for you ;-)
You do me injustice ;)
It's just that looking at the size of those slippers and feet, I was wondering if maybe your wife lost patience and told you to to just get on with it and ...
I've been known to find a paid extra from time to time, doing it oneself is an improv acting job worth considering :)
Edmund