What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!

[landscapephoto]

One photographer stays with their style in several years, sometimes an entire career. One photographer may shoot hundreds of even thousands of images, but only choose a very small set to promote as their art. David Fokos (http://www.davidfokos.net) total production for example is 84 images (so far).

Am I the only one to find out that each of these images looks as if it could have been done by Michael Kenna?

[torger]

Am I the only one to find out that each of these images looks as if it could have been done by Michael Kenna?

...or Håkan Strand: http://www.strand-photo.com/

If you're doing black and white large format long exposures you're certainly not alone in class

[torger]

When possible I'll follow links to contributor's websites. The problem is most here post anonymously.

Another problem is that not all have a website . I don't. Oh well, I have one with some technical stuff on it and some stuff about long distance running which was my key spare time interest until my body said no, and only then I took up photography.

The reason I don't have a website with photos is that I think if you don't have anything to say it's not much of a purpose to show them. Then better share things that are useful to others, like software and technical articles. I started out with photography as an excuse to get out in nature for relaxing recreation when I couldn't run any longer, a little bit like playing golf, and then there's really no need to show the images, it would be like making a website with golf scorecards. However now I think I actually have something meaningful and unique to show and I'm in the process of finalizing my first project, which I hope to be able to present during this year. I need to pass it through some gatekeepers first though...

[voidshatter]

Am I the only one to find out that each of these images looks as if it could have been done by Michael Kenna?

CCD is not good at Michael Kenna's long exposure work. For optimal results you'll need to use the CMOS backs.

[datro]

CCD is not good at Michael Kenna's long exposure work. For optimal results you'll need to use the CMOS backs.

Or film 

[ynp]

Or film 

And a reciprocity chart :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chris Livsey]

And a reciprocity chart :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Or Acros:  There's no correction needed to 2 minutes. After that it's only +1/2 stop correction for 2-8 minutes.

[EricWHiss]

Or film 

+1

[voidshatter]

Or film 

Film is not as good as CMOS. If you shoot with film you would need lots of experimental data to offset deviations of reciprocity. It is also a risky process as if anything goes wrong in the whole process you may lose everything. On the other hand, long exposure with CMOS is no brainer - simply use an intervalometer then stack in post-processing (which is the standard way for astrophotography), and after stacking you could achieve very high SNR.

[JV]

Or film 

+1.  To hell with both CCD and CMOS!!

[eronald]

i think the graphic and politically correct  quote is "a plague on both their houses" !

Edmund

+1.  To hell with both CCD and CMOS!!

[MichaelEzra]

James, thanks for sharing, great work and very instructive. Its nice to get to understand what Ann's involvement is.

[ynp]

Dear BC, thank you for for sharing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[landscapephoto]

I have a hard time believing that photographers don't want to see or talk about photography.

Only on Internet forums.

I agree it seems a bit strange, but a simple read of recent threads will show that subjects about gear are much, much more popular than discussion of picture aesthetics. But maybe what you say is true and the reason only gear subjects are popular is that forum users are not really photographers? Many of them certainly aren't commercial photographers as you are.

[torger]

The subscription site https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/ tries to make more articles on the (landscape) image and less about gear. I subscribed there for a while, but I don't do it any longer.

I found most discussions on photography as art to be disconnected from what I want to achieve myself though as my style is quite different and my way to approach image making is different as well. In the end I found myself skipping over those articles and reading the gear-related stuff instead. Instead I get inspiration from actively searching for photographers whose work I like, looking at their images. (A quite recent find was Swedish photographer Jan Töve: http://www.jantove.com)

I think the problem with "discussions about the image" is that styles and approaches are just too diverse that people easily get alienated or just think "this doesn't concern me". That's at least how I feel.

Another issue with discussing images is that it gets very personal very fast. Your images is your personal creation, and you as a sensitive artist may want to limit the time you need to face criticism, especially from anonymous forum contributers on the internet gear discussions are safe, although they still seem to become personal for some...

[Jeffery Salter]

If you shoot with film you would need lots of experimental data to offset deviations of reciprocity.

No you don't. Get a good tripod, light meter and pick up a copy of the zone system by Ansel Adams.

[Ken R]

I have a hard time believing that photographers don't want to see or talk about photography.

One thing I love about the cinema industry and director's of photography is they share, maybe not every secret but they really go deep and explain their motivation, issues, technique (artistic technique) and well about anything.

Maybe because it's more collaborative than still photography, but honestly I just think they love the medium and are proud of their results.

With all of it's ups and downs, even in the RG days, the medium format section normally drew most of the responses from photographers of all levels, though mostly at the sharp end of the stick.

Yea, they talked some "science tech", but mostly about the final image, what they needed, what worked for different clients or concepts. 

Most those photographers are gone from here, all for different reasons, though I assume because most of the topics regardless of the title have the same posters saying the same thing

_________________

BC I am probably one of the few here who really get what you say in a lot of your posts.

That might have to do with the fact that in the past 13 years I have worked a LOT in commercial motion production sets, Movie Sets (as a unit stills photographers) and as a commercial photographer in the advertising industry so collaborative and supervised work is quite a familiar thing to me. I get the impression that most people who post here (amateurs or pros) are one man shows that work by themselves almost exclusively so their views and priorities are more limited to their situation and their posts get repetitive. They are hammering the same views and opinions over and over again like a broken record. I understand why but it gets tiring nonetheless. Most really do not get other points of view outside their box. They really do not get it.

Thankfully photo gear companies do not limit their products to a single view or way of working. To use use an example, a lot of things that PhaseOne engineers and builds into their hardware and software products serve needs that the one man show photographers generally just do not need and cannot appreciate at all and therefore will not pay a premium for it and think of it as a waste of $. It is understandable but hey hammer PhaseOne constantly due to their pricing and business model and want them buried. Usually most discussions surround the fact that more affordable solutions are available and that at such high prices the phase one products are not good enough. It is insane. I am of the view that photo gear are tools and to pick they right tool or your preferable tool for the job. That is it.

[voidshatter]

No you don't. Get a good tripod, light meter and pick up a copy of the zone system by Ansel Adams.

If you don't then I would be greatly surprised. When Michael Wesely shot his long exposure pictures of months to years, he had to make experiments and collect data before he takes the actual shot, otherwise it would be extremely difficult to predict the correct parameters.

Even for a single long exposure of 12 hours for a day time (i.e. capture the trail of the sun for one day) I would be surprised if you could succeed with the first attempt without any prior experiments of estimation of reciprocity failure. Even if you can really succeed with the first attempt, I don't think your SNR (bound by film grain when you dodge and burn) can match what I can get from stacking a series of images captured by a Nikon D810 or Phase One IQ3 100MP.

[Jeffery Salter]

Okay.  It wasn't clear that you were talking about extremely long exposures of 12 hours for complex astrophotography.

If you get a chance check out this nice series by Stephen Wilkes.

Day to Night.

Thank you,
Jeffery

[torger]

While it may be a surprise to many, but Luminous Landscape is first and foremost about landscape photography, and that's a lot about one man shows, many non-professionals, and an excessive interest in image quality. That's why there's a lot of focus on wide angle tech cams here, despite that it's a tiny genre in the MFD industry as a whole.

I think it depends on what you choose to focus at. It seems some users are focusing on things that make them upset. Why? Just skip over it, meet it with silence. I think I get more irritated by those getting irritated than those that irritate

It's just gear.

I've heard that my Canon sucks, my Hasselblad sucks, my Linhof sucks, my Schneider Digitars suck. I don't care. I haven't heard that I suck yet, but I guess it's just a matter of time. I would probably care about that though.