Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Is good good enough?  (Read 22475 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2015, 02:24:28 pm »

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2015, 02:50:28 pm »

More silly naive nonsense.
The medium is irrelevant, the person taking the photo, wielding the brush, chiseling the stone etc is what makes the end result what it is.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2015, 04:16:34 pm »

More silly naive nonsense.
The medium is irrelevant, the person taking the photo, wielding the brush, chiseling the stone etc is what makes the end result what it is.


:-)

Rob C

HansKoot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
    • HKPHOTO
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2015, 06:26:26 pm »

More silly naive nonsense.
The medium is irrelevant, the person taking the photo, wielding the brush, chiseling the stone etc is what makes the end result what it is.

I like. :) The question that emerges is: What quality do YOU need to create what you want, or is your aim. Somewhere there must be the answer if good is good enough..
Logged
"Its better to create something that others criticize than to create nothing and criticize others" (Ricky Gervais)

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1345
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2015, 07:12:17 pm »

Nonsense.
Grain can be also found in digital imagery, just as it can with film. It's called noise instead, which is what grain is too.
The fact that those who claim film is somehow intrinsically superior can be fooled by digital images undermines that whole argument.

Not really. Grain and noise are not the same. It's not a question of one medium being superior to the other, it's just that they are different.
Grain has over 100 years of history behind it that shapes our expectations and shapes the way we read an image. That shaping can't be avoided any more than we can avoid being influenced by the choice of instuments for a piece of music. It's become part of our culture, for want of a better expression.
Sure, I can make a digital image look like film, and vice versa. Doing so is a bit bizarre though.
I use film for some projects and digital for others. I'd rather have the effect I want done at the point of capture than show off my Photoshop skills (or lack of them).

Cats and Pigeons

http://leicaphilia.com/film-photography-and-the-revival-of-the-imperfect/

Interesting link. He's correct about serendipity. Many photographers today don't want that as part of their work, but allowing for that at every stage of a workflow opens doors artistically that the crowd miss. It's part of film's dna. But I don't go along with him with his comment on perfection and what we all "should do". Each to his own.
D
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2015, 10:31:36 pm »

More silly naive nonsense -> The medium is irrelevant.
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1345
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2015, 10:59:50 pm »

Well, are you saying that it doesn't matter whether an artist's work is carved in stone or written on a score? There may be an element of truth in that but for many of us the medium does matter. Our emotional and intellectual response changes. If your experience is different, fine. But don't expect others to agree.
D
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #67 on: November 08, 2015, 04:00:13 am »

Well, are you saying that it doesn't matter whether an artist's work is carved in stone or written on a score? There may be an element of truth in that but for many of us the medium does matter. Our emotional and intellectual response changes. If your experience is different, fine. But don't expect others to agree.
D

David, I think that's a response to the jjj post (below) that's being quoted, not an agreement with it:

"More silly naive nonsense.
The medium is irrelevant, the person taking the photo, wielding the brush, chiseling the stone etc is what makes the end result what it is."

Of course, I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I don't think so.

Rob

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1345
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #68 on: November 08, 2015, 05:15:18 am »

David, I think that's a response to the jjj post (below) that's being quoted, not an agreement with it:

"More silly naive nonsense.
The medium is irrelevant, the person taking the photo, wielding the brush, chiseling the stone etc is what makes the end result what it is."

Of course, I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I don't think so.

Rob
Oh. Okay. Thank heavens I wasn't wearing steel caps today.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #69 on: November 08, 2015, 08:25:21 am »

More silly naive nonsense -> The medium is irrelevant.
Yes it is -  to the point being made.
Not in and of itself. Do try and keep up dear boy.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2015, 09:02:30 am »

Not really. Grain and noise are not the same.
And neither are Tri-X and Kodachrome. The differences as such do not matter to the Rob's point.

Quote
It's not a question of one medium being superior to the other, it's just that they are different.
Which is my point.

Quote
Grain has over 100 years of history behind it that shapes our expectations and shapes the way we read an image. That shaping can't be avoided any more than we can avoid being influenced by the choice of instuments for a piece of music. It's become part of our culture, for want of a better expression.
Sure, I can make a digital image look like film, and vice versa. Doing so is a bit bizarre though.
Not really, I used to choose specific film and developer used in unusual ways to get the grainy look I wanted from film. If I can do the same thing with digital and it's easier to do, how is that bizarre? More efficient I'd say. My old Ricoh compact is technically rubbish quality, but it produced nicely grainy imagery with little effort on my part. People have thought images captured by it were taken using film.

Quote
I use film for some projects and digital for others. I'd rather have the effect I want done at the point of capture than show off my Photoshop skills (or lack of them).
No-one else cares how you did something, the only thing that matters is the end result. PS skills are also not needed to make digital look filmic. Though it is telling that you allude to a lack of PS skills. People who spurn things done via PS usually cannot use it and that is the real cause of their objection to the method/process.

Quote
Interesting link. He's correct about serendipity. Many photographers today don't want that as part of their work, but allowing for that at every stage of a workflow opens doors artistically that the crowd miss. It's part of film's dna. But I don't go along with him with his comment on perfection and what we all "should do". Each to his own.
. There's this enormous myth about doing things digitally and perfection. If people think mistakes are not made and the results are always as expected with digital they've deluded. You just get kinds of mistakes which open different doors. Plus ša change.
Also many artists want things to come out exactly as they intended at some point regardless of mistakes being made along the way. Which is why they practice their technique to be able to do just that.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Dave Millier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
    • Whispering Cat Photography
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2015, 09:02:42 am »

Ray

It's all relative. Maybe it depends on the size of your house. Here in the UK there are, of course, houses and flats of all sizes and proportions but the housing stock is largely dominated by the mass of ubiquitous pre and post war suburban estate semi-detached house builds.  And the largest room typically in those houses (if unaltered) is often something between 12 feet by 12 feet to about 15 feet by 13 feet. My 1950s house has a living room that is 18' x 13' so is slightly above average. 21st century houses are often tiny. 

We have a 27" LCD TV in our living room and I happen to think it dominates the room far too much. I look out of the window here and can watch TV on my neighbour's TV across the road as their TV appears to span half their living room hanging on the wall like a huge mirror. They seem to have turned their living room into a private cinema. Why? Surely there are better things in life than working all day just so you can watch TV. My TV gets switched on maybe 4 times a year, so I'd prefer it to be invisible most of the time. Frankly, a 65" TV would probably require me to knock down a wall... ;-)

What's the best print size? Who can say.  I find I'm most happy with prints that are around 9" or 10" wide matted in nice big mats. Typically I'd use an A3 mat for a 9" print.  Framed on the wall it is big enough to have substance while the print is small enough to reward close up viewing. And of course prints of that size are small enough to allow several to be hung at the same time - and for me a series of good pictures is superior to one huge hero shot. 

I could have advised you, Dave, that a 42 inch TV screen would be unsatisfyingly small for 4K.

My standard HDTV plasma screen is 65", and I've tested the required viewing distance for discerning the maximum detail in my downsized photographic images of 5-6mp. It's around 2 to 2.5 metres.

However, when viewing prints on a wall, they are usually viewed from a variety of distances. Those who are interested will often get closer to appreciate the finer detail, as one does with any object of interest, such as a wooden carving, decorative plate or vase sitting on a shelf.

Of course, if an image doesn't contain any fine detail, texture or small objects of interest, there's less motive to view from a closer distance.
The attraction of a large print, or a large viewing screen, is basically the opportunity to appreciate the image from a variety of perspectives and distances, and to be able to view subsets of the scene, as one does in the real world.

Another issue is this concept of the TV dominating the room. I hear this objection often and I assume it is a hangover from the days when TVs were big boxes that took up floor space. A modern OLED screen can be just a few millimetres thick and fixed to the wall. One does need wall space, of course, as one does to hang up any print. However, if you think the presence of a large screen on the wall is too dominating or obtrusive, try being a bit creative. Paint the wall a similar shade or color to the screen.  ;)
Logged
My website and photo galleries: http://w

Tripodasaurus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2015, 09:14:36 am »

I'm pleased that Michael's and Kevin's discussion included, "it's the experience that counts". I was very happy with my Nikormat camera and Agfa ISO 80 colour slide film, waiting a week for the results and showing them to friends and family on a slide projector; all very sociable. Then digital came along.
The upside for digital is I delete most, retaining only a few keepers. I post them on Flickr to share with my photo friends. The downside is we don't sit around a projector any more enjoying our photo-time together.
On the odd occasion I need a print, I send it to a lab as the trial and error of home printing became too expensive of time and money.

For me the good experience is getting out, looking carefully at subjects, checking the light direction, composition etc., imagining the result, making the camera settings and hopefully achieving the result I hoped for. My experience has been greatly improved by selling all my Nikon DX gear, replacing it with a manual setting friendly Fuji XT-1 and Fuji wide angle primes.  I don't like taking grab shots. I don't think I like zooms really, I'd prefer to change the lens. I want to slow down, use a tripod, take my time and revel in the process.
My latest desire to improve the experience is to 'see' from an artist's perspective and create better pictures. I don't need pixel peeper's detail any higher than that of a master's oil painting. I want to evoke emotion for the viewer. Each to their own.
Thank you Michael and Kevin for your honest and open discussion. :-))
« Last Edit: November 08, 2015, 09:21:00 am by Tripodasaurus »
Logged

HansKoot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
    • HKPHOTO
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2015, 09:15:01 am »

Best or cutting edge cameras only represent a current state of technique. At moment of presentation the bar is already raised for next model, people bash even minor shortcomings. Base quality cameras are also constantly improved. A cutting edge camera of a decade ago is probably not a much desired one among the readers here anymore, and probably even outperformed by current base cameras, but are the shots (you) made with it irrelevant now?
Logged
"Its better to create something that others criticize than to create nothing and criticize others" (Ricky Gervais)

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2015, 11:38:40 am »

I'm pleased that Michael's and Kevin's discussion included, "it's the experience that counts". I was very happy with my Nikormat camera and Agfa ISO 80 colour slide film, waiting a week for the results and showing them to friends and family on a slide projector; all very sociable. Then digital came along.
The upside for digital is I delete most, retaining only a few keepers. I post them on Flickr to share with my photo friends. The downside is we don't sit around a projector any more enjoying our photo-time together.
On the odd occasion I need a print, I send it to a lab as the trial and error of home printing became too expensive of time and money.

For me the good experience is getting out, looking carefully at subjects, checking the light direction, composition etc., imagining the result, making the camera settings and hopefully achieving the result I hoped for. My experience has been greatly improved by selling all my Nikon DX gear, replacing it with a manual setting friendly Fuji XT-1 and Fuji wide angle primes.  I don't like taking grab shots. I don't think I like zooms really, I'd prefer to change the lens. I want to slow down, use a tripod, take my time and revel in the process.
My latest desire to improve the experience is to 'see' from an artist's perspective and create better pictures. I don't need pixel peeper's detail any higher than that of a master's oil painting. I want to evoke emotion for the viewer. Each to their own.
Thank you Michael and Kevin for your honest and open discussion. :-))
Indeed, if you enjoy doing what you are doing it's more than good enough.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Locking the thread
« Reply #75 on: November 08, 2015, 11:53:10 am »

Hi,

This thread has degenerated and has no relevance to the original posting whatsoever. Being the OP I exercise the option I have to lock it.

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10353
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #76 on: November 08, 2015, 12:18:00 pm »

Spoilsport, Erik!  ;)
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10353
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #77 on: November 08, 2015, 12:42:29 pm »

We have a 27" LCD TV in our living room and I happen to think it dominates the room far too much. I look out of the window here and can watch TV on my neighbour's TV across the road as their TV appears to span half their living room hanging on the wall like a huge mirror. They seem to have turned their living room into a private cinema. Why? Surely there are better things in life than working all day just so you can watch TV. My TV gets switched on maybe 4 times a year, so I'd prefer it to be invisible most of the time. Frankly, a 65" TV would probably require me to knock down a wall... ;-)

Dave,
Prints have a rather low contrast ratio. If you want your images to sparkle and show the full quality of the DR and color gamut that your modern DSLR actually captured, you need a modern 4k OLED display.

Standard LCD TVs are generally second rate. It's why I insisted on a plasma TV when I bought my 65" Panasonic. They behave more like the old Cathode Ray Tube TVs, with good contrast ratio, viewable from any angle.

I only watch TV when there's something interesting on, such as a display of my photos, or one of the many educational programs that are broadcast in Australia. Whatever I'm watching, a technically good picture quality at an impressive size increases my enjoyment.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18013
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #78 on: November 08, 2015, 01:03:45 pm »

... The upside for digital is I delete most, retaining only a few keepers...

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Is good good enough?
« Reply #79 on: November 08, 2015, 02:27:20 pm »

Thing is, we can all elect to give up shooting for 'fun'.

I'm sure it must be good for the planet if we do... think of all the electricity we'd save, not to mention all the waste from manufacture, obsolete toys, dead trees etc. etc. Photography, when not an essential service, is a self-indugence that may be one too many, in the wider perspective of causes and effects. I remember even in the film days of the late seventies, that it had become a requirment for pro darkrooms to make 'proper' arrangements for silver waste disposal.

Rob C
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up