Hi BC,
What you describe also fits my definition of technique.
But how many of your postings describe choice of lights for a given situation? You have yourself posted a quite a lot of responses of technical nature.
For instance, you described rendering characteristics of Zeiss lenses and Canon lenses. For a long time you advocated Capture One. You have always been in favour of Phase One backs. Now, you offer an artists view, I have great respect for that.
But, there is another side to it. Folks are paying a lot of money for that stuff. I would suggest that showing full size images and raws has some value. That helps folks to study the images in detail. Raw images from digital backs are pretty rare, for instance. A guy I know develops raw processing and profiling software, and one of the problems he has is to get usable raw images.
The empty hall I have shown happens to be a place I happen to have some affection to, but foremost it is one of the few places I have found that are really demanding in DR. It has been argued by folks far more knowledgeable than me that DR in practice is limited to 11EV, because of lens flare.
If you are on travel and like shooting in places of worship or old building you often get into situations with large luminance ratios. Modern gear allows us to handle that. I was shooting MF film for long very often Velvia, so I know how to live with 5EV of DR. But, I certainly feel that modern technology gives advantages.
Just to say, I am not really a Sony advocate. But, I happen to shoot Sony and a Phase One back, a bit later generation than yours. I can only refer to stuff I am using, exactly as you refer to Red, Panasonic, Leica or Canon. On the other hand, Sony as a sensor maker is hard to ignore, not least now that they deliver all CMOS sensors for Phase One, Leaf, Hasselblad and Pentax.
That said, using a Sony mirrorless camera gives me some interesting options, like using tilt and shift with almost all my lenses. As I am shooting both landscape and macro it is clearly beneficial for me.
The gear I own is Hasselblad V with a bunch of Zeiss lenses, Pentax 67 with a bunch of Pentax lenses, Sony with Minolta, Sony lenses, some of those with Zeiss label and two Canon lenses, so that is the stuff I have experience with.
And, I am an engineer by training and profession, so I know that a diagram is worth more that 2000 words. :-)
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Before all this digital sensor, sony dr, low noise, chart and graph talk, I never thought about technique in the way you do.
Photographers I respected would say, "he/she has a beautiful technique, which usually meant style or art but never mention things like the pentax 6x7 and provia is the only way to go here let me show you a crop of a eyelash.
No offense meant buy I think you see this as an scientific technical forum because that's what you enjoy.
The technique I see is how and why I choose to position and light those two actors in that rock n' roll scene.
I used one small fresnel on the right, with the barn doors squeezed tight, to give the impression of a practical light. I chose tungsten because I wanted the window light to be blue, to give the look of stylized reality.
To me this is technique, but from the oxford dictionary.
___________________________________________________
Definition of technique in English:
noun
1A way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure.
I believe you enjoy the scientific procedure.
___________________________________________________
I see the execution of an artistic work, very rarely notice the scientific procedure.
But I defer. I respect your right to like what you like and but when I see those 100% crops of noise in an empty room, I realize this is not a place I need to be.
IMO
BC
