Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!  (Read 62452 times)

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8848
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #140 on: January 23, 2016, 10:30:02 am »

Not quite. This forum has 153362 threads, "Discussing Photographic Styles" only 6239, which is 24 times less. Moreover, "Discussing Photographic Styles" activity has decreased steadily and the content of the discussions has become -dare I say?- more controversial than interesting.

I am not objecting the technical discussions. It is good that we have them and this particular forum is indeed devoted to technique, so they are at the right places. I am just noticing that there is an apparent lack of interest for other matters.

Hi,

Maybe because it is much harder to discuss subjective things than physics? Also, high quality critique is very hard to do and takes a lot of time. Maybe also not very popular in these 15 second attention time-span times? But that would be a subject for another forum/thread ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #141 on: January 23, 2016, 11:16:28 am »

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



« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 11:38:26 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #142 on: January 23, 2016, 11:18:14 am »

Please do contribute to the art forums, I do that myself from time to time as I am interested in art, think quite much about it and in all my humbleness try to make art photography myself. People aren't necessarily either "tech heads" or "artists", many are a bit of both not at least in photography which is a pretty high tech craft.

There's also the casual, friendly and including thread "Recent format agnostic personal works" in "Digital cameras & shooting techniques" forum if you don't have the right gear or profession to post in "Recent professional works" here.

It's not like the image and art threads gets trashed by tech talk, it's more the other way around and not seldom by people that don't even contribute in those image or art threads. That tech talk is more productive in terms of text and make more threads is pretty natural. The only reasons to upgrade to this new 100MP product are technological so of course we need to in detail investigate how it works. Even if we're not upgrading to it the technology it packs says a lot of what to expect in similar products. I find it pretty far fetched to be offended by tech talk, and if so then why even open these threads? The image threads are right there in the forums.

What I get mildly offended by is "art heads" that use a lot of high tech technology, such as a digital camera, but show a disrespect and even contempt to engineering and engineering interests, despite that their art is dependent on the contributions of "tech heads" that made those cameras. This is not isolated to photography but I see this phenomenon in other genres of art, and I note is often as I'm myself an engineer with an art interest. There's also this strange idea that if someone's great at making art that person is also better at answering technical questions than a technician. There are actually quite many great artists that are pretty clueless about technology and not really good at giving any technology-related advice.

However working photographers have generally very good advice and insights about workflows something that's often missed in the pure technological discussions. For example if you start suggesting elaborate stitching workflows for architecture photography which indeed will produce excellent image quality but is just to messy to work with in production. Medium format gear has much of it's value in having streamlined workflows for certain types of professional photography and cannot therefore be that easily replaced with any other system with corresponding image quality.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 11:27:30 am by torger »
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #143 on: January 23, 2016, 11:24:22 am »

Maybe because it is much harder to discuss subjective things than physics? Also, high quality critique is very hard to do and takes a lot of time. Maybe also not very popular in these 15 second attention time-span times? But that would be a subject for another forum/thread ...

There might be plenty of reasons why the majority of discussions tend to be about technology on Internet forums. I don't think we will find out.

But I would like to correct some impression you have. I am not interested in critique of my images, for the simple reason that they do not fit the modern tastes about how a landscape should look like.
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #144 on: January 23, 2016, 11:45:26 am »

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.

A small comment on this subject: there are forums about lightning. On these forums, you will find discussions about strobes, how the light is spread, maybe drawings or test pictures about diverse light setups. In my opinion, this is also the "scientific" part of lightning a scene.

On these forums, you will not find comments like the one you wrote here: "I wanted to give the look of stylized reality".

That is a subtle, but essential difference. And that is exactly what I miss on Internet forums. People do not discuss the choices they made to express a particular feeling through their images. That part is simply absent.

Maybe the reason is actually because so many people are focussed on technology. If one sees everything through the prism of technical excellence, ultimately there is only one single criteria by which the images will be judged: technical perfection. The message cannot be anything else than "this were the best choice for dynamic range, noise, color fidelity, etc...". The message cannot be "I want to give the viewer the impression of an intimate scene between a cool couple, yet allow some distance by stylizing the scene".

Further: to tell this kind of message, you will necessarily depart from technical perfection. For example, in your image of the cool couple, the colors are wrong. I mean: it is a great image, but for the scientist, it is uncorrected color. And probably the people interested in technical perfection would not have done that. And they can't discuss it, because they aren't doing it.
Logged

Chris Livsey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 807
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #145 on: January 23, 2016, 11:52:16 am »

  I realize this is not a place I need to be.

IMO

BC

But it is a place we need you to be. (IMHO  ;) )

You posted this link: http://www.zacuto.com/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-2012
at another site ISTR, but more there to inspire and educate with the insights and dedication than in pages of tech here.
Your link recently: http://www.vogue.it/tag/alessia%20glaviano
is another providing nurture, good late night watching.

You keep bangin' that damn drum
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #146 on: January 23, 2016, 11:53:16 am »

Please do contribute to the art forums, I do that myself from time to time


Not as much as you believe: your stats.



Quote
People aren't necessarily either "tech heads" or "artists", many are a bit of both not at least in photography which is a pretty high tech craft.

Certainly. Maybe I should say that again: I have nothing against the technical discussions. I believe they are necessary. I just note that there is little else on Internet photo forums.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #147 on: January 23, 2016, 12:30:57 pm »


Not as much as you believe: your stats.



Certainly. Maybe I should say that again: I have nothing against the technical discussions. I believe they are necessary. I just note that there is little else on Internet photo forums.

...and that's due to lack of contributions, as you point out despite my interest I haven't been productive there, but to that I'd like to add all the example pictures from my own work I've posted in this and other forums and many times pointed out non-technical reasons to use the type of gear I use, and art-related things in this forum. But sure the overwhelming mass of text is of technical nature.

It's pretty difficult to discuss art, and you can't really analyze your own work in public as it would break some of the mystery of the art itself. Art is much about emotions and if I'm good at expressing through images it's not as certain I'm good at putting words on them. So it can be a pretty narrow subject, unless you're a gallerist I guess. However one could post work and discuss techniques used for a particular photo, or one could discuss various workflow issues rather than pixel sizes and DR, so sure there are more subjects to be discussed but it requires contributions. Should of course be said that most MF shooters make primarily commercial work rather than art photography, but it's a crossover between the two.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #148 on: January 23, 2016, 01:03:44 pm »

Hi,

If you check those stats you would find that most are regarding DCamProf, an open source camera profiling software that can generate both DCP profiles for Lightroom and ICC profiles for Capture One. Those discussions were involving a lot of people with deep insight in colour and it's management. It has been developed by Anders Torger, for all of us.

DCamProf is a tool that is absolutely free, and it may be worth spending an hour on learning to use it before spending 35k$US on a camera with better colour.

Yes, that is technology and not art. Of course.

Best regards
Erik


Not as much as you believe: your stats.



Certainly. Maybe I should say that again: I have nothing against the technical discussions. I believe they are necessary. I just note that there is little else on Internet photo forums.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ynp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
    • http://
What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #149 on: January 23, 2016, 05:12:18 pm »

But it is a place we need you to be. (IMHO  ;) )

+1

I am following the LuLa fora since the death of the RG forum and Mr. Cooter was one of the reasons to subscribe. I have been using the MFD since the EMotion 22 was introduced and Mr. Cooter's experience with workflow, cataloging and the ways to make the backs workable was shared with us all. I learned here at the LULa from the posters who shared their expertise and knowledge, the artistic vision. 

To answer the initial question, I am satisfied with the output from my Sinar 54H (22 mp CCD) and from my Leica S2. I have several CMOS cameras as well. I am happy with my CCD because I don't shoot sunrises or anything which demand the DR.

I am not an expert, I lack any tech knowledge of the esteemed engineers and scientists who post here, I even struggle with some language of the recent discussions. But I know that Mr. Cooter's posts provoke me to think about the image not only in the terms resolution and sharpness.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13641
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #150 on: January 23, 2016, 05:44:53 pm »

James,

With all due respect and a lot more.

I hope you stay around, but as someone watching this from the sideline:
- A large majority of your posts are to be found in threads focused on technical topics where you typically comment about the exagerated importance of technical topics,
- I understand you are busy, but I don't remember you ever starting threads to discuss the art part of photography either or contributing articles on such topics,
- You keep claiming that you don't care about cameras equipnent, but are probably the photographer around owning the largest camera collection.

I like the images you and your team produce, but what would really make me happy would be you spending time deconstructing a few of your images, explaining what the art director requirements were, what artistic freedome you had, how you selected the venue, the location inside the venue, how you picked a light pattern and your position relative to the light and subject, how that related to the initial art director requirement, what you told your model, what they answered and how that influenced your emotions and the resulting image, how you selected which of the many camera you own for a given assignement, what % of models you sleep with (joke), and - probably most importantly - how you graded the shot, what the timeline was,...

I tend to look at things from the point of view of finding out how I can fix a problem. You may want to consider what I am proposing as a means to fix the perceived overly technical nature of this forum.

You don't make kids shut up by telling them they are noisy, you propose them something else to do that is less noisy... not to mention the fact that there is always the next room that is quieter. Yes, I mean the next thread, not another website.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 01:37:24 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #151 on: January 23, 2016, 05:53:55 pm »

I liked Stephen Eastwood's retouch technique a lot. So when I happened to be in NY, I went and interviewed him for Publish.com, got paid $250 for the article, saw how he worked doing some tryouts with a model. He was really nice, helpful, explanatory about his process. Here's a link. I don't know why the images look so bad today on my MBP.

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/art_Edmund_Ronald_001.php

 Apart from that, I find it is really hard to learn "art" or even process outside maybe the case where you assist, or the case where you pay for a course, because photographers are really guarded about their work. They are guarded about what they see, what they feel, what they want to express. I don't know why this is so, but it really is so. Look at "BC", he tells you what light he used, but not a word about the content of the image. And he is already very generous. Stylists and ADs are more fun because they need to express the mood of the result they need, so one can piggyback more easily on their emotional  sensitivity and their graphic perception.

Most of the little style I myself have picked up over the years as a third-rate photographer comes from looking at paintings and trying to reproduce some of the look at retouch and crop time, then later moving what I understand to trying to create the look at shoot time. I don't claim originality is a big part of my "work". Below is an outtake from a music video, and all I did was set up lights and some direction.

Science in a way is easier to learn, because geeks share a lot, and love to talk. They get  university jobs by publishing books. And they even post courses on the net. So a lot of older stuff is out there in full detail, and you just need the calm of night, a book and a computer to work out how someone else is doing his thing, and you can do your own creative stuff alone.

Edmund
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 06:23:26 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #152 on: January 24, 2016, 03:47:29 am »

They are guarded about what they see, what they feel, what they want to express. I don't know why this is so, but it really is so. Look at "BC", he tells you what light he used, but not a word about the content of the image.

Yes this is true and I think there are various reasons for this. One is the "impostor syndrome" meaning that you're afraid that if you talk too much about your work you'll expose yourself and there's a lack of confidence to do so. If you make art photography there's a real problem to analyze your own work as you then as a side effect tell your audience what to think, there's an advantage to be vague as that opens up for several different interpretations. As the audience can bring much different life experiences to your work alternate interpretations is natural and desired for any great art I think.

And then it's quite difficult to express yourself in art terms, it's talk about feelings. Many are simply not very good at talking about these subjects, but may still be very deeply emotionally connected to their work. I sometimes hear art photographers talk about their work in art terms and some do it well, while some just produce platitudes and they would gain from not talking about their work. It also depends on the genre of your art, if you have a quite clear message there's more intellectual decisions to make about images, if you have a more vague style basically just shooting images that look nice there's not so much to say.

Finally I think there's a market reason to not talk about your work. What you want to happen ideally is that others talk about your work, analyze your work. It makes your work more "mysterious" and raise its value.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Some comparisons on the Leica side
« Reply #153 on: January 24, 2016, 05:48:15 am »

Hi,

Like Phase One, Leica is also shifting from CCD to CMOS and there are some discussions about that.

Dave Farkas, the owner of the Leica Store in Miami posted a series of comparisons:


Best regards
Erik


In the hubbub about the new FF CMOS 100mp backs, I'm wondering what happened to all those arguments that CCD sensors gave a better, cleaner result at base ISO, than CMOS?   Was that marketing hyperbole, or still partly true? The discussion seems to have evaporated!

Reminds me of Apple a decade ago telling us all how much more powerful their PowerPC processors were than Intel's ones, and then... switching to Intel's PC processors, because they were, in fact, faster!
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #154 on: January 24, 2016, 07:01:26 am »

If you check those stats you would find that most are regarding DCamProf, an open source camera profiling software that can generate both DCP profiles for Lightroom and ICC profiles for Capture One. Those discussions were involving a lot of people with deep insight in colour and it's management. It has been developed by Anders Torger, for all of us.

DCamProf is a tool that is absolutely free, and it may be worth spending an hour on learning to use it before spending 35k$US on a camera with better colour.

I am certainly grateful for Anders Torger work and contribution to free software and I would be pleased to help as much as I can. I actually contributed to some free software developments myself. What I wrote was not a criticism.
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #155 on: January 24, 2016, 07:27:44 am »

...and that's due to lack of contributions, as you point out despite my interest I haven't been productive there, but to that I'd like to add all the example pictures from my own work I've posted in this and other forums and many times pointed out non-technical reasons to use the type of gear I use, and art-related things in this forum. But sure the overwhelming mass of text is of technical nature.

It's pretty difficult to discuss art, and you can't really analyze your own work in public as it would break some of the mystery of the art itself. Art is much about emotions and if I'm good at expressing through images it's not as certain I'm good at putting words on them. So it can be a pretty narrow subject, unless you're a gallerist I guess. However one could post work and discuss techniques used for a particular photo, or one could discuss various workflow issues rather than pixel sizes and DR, so sure there are more subjects to be discussed but it requires contributions. Should of course be said that most MF shooters make primarily commercial work rather than art photography, but it's a crossover between the two.

I seems that we are not understanding each other. I did not intend to say that you should contribute more non-technical threads, I am saying that there is little interest for them in Internet photo forums. I am not contributing many non-technical threads myself, actually. I tried that a few years ago on different forums and found out that my contributions were either mocked or simply ignored and I am not the only one. I am not suggesting you do something that can only lead to frustration.

There simply is no interest and you cannot change that by doing more of the thing which does not interest people. OK, there is some interest for a few specific subjects: overprocessed landscapes, female portraits and some aspects of commercial photography, but that does not make it sufficient to entertain a variety of discussions.

Maybe I can give you a feeling about how unrelated photo forums are to the latest photography trends. Apple just has a marketing campaign about photography (they are trying to convince their customers that their devices will allow them to express themselves as artists, whatever...). The pictures are here.

Whether you are an Apple fan or not, there is something everybody agrees about: Apple's marketing knows what is hype and what is not. It is their job and they make literally millions at it. So we should expect that the choice of pictures and subjects for that campaign embodies what is hype in 2016. Apple pays the best people on the planet to find out what is hype and do just that.

The pictures Apple chose look unlike anything you will find on photo forums. Photo forums are completely out of touch with trends and fashions in the creative world.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #156 on: January 24, 2016, 07:54:25 am »

Hi,

One of the reasons the reason we post little on those thread like started by you, or myself, that they are not easy to find. In part because there are so few postings on them.

Now, something else… A great guy called Tim Ashley used to have a very nice blog, than he stopped. He described pretty well why he stopped: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/7/happy-birthday-this-blog-is-changing

Here are some paragraphs:

"Equipment reviews are the web stat winners. An in-depth piece or series of pieces on a high-profile camera or lens can get tens of thousands of readers. Very gratifying and something I am sure I could monetize if I wanted to. But the pieces on guest photographers receive much lower footfall, and if I venture into a subject as recherché as, for example, photo-ethics, the visitor count goes off the proverbial cliff. So after more than eighty articles I have learned that this blog is not going to become a free-thinking, holistic salon where creative types move effortlessly from deep tech to high art in witty and erudite discourse. It just ain't gonna happen and there's no point crying over it."

"And, slightly disappointingly, the donations to Photovoice that have resulted from my occasional requests have been very, very few and far between. I calculate the revenue at less than 0.004 cents per page view, of which there have been many, many hundreds of thousands."   -- Well, I can take some pride in making a donation --

"It is curious, also, to see the seeming contradictions: on the one hand the stats tell me that writing about the Leica M240 or the Sony RX-1 will bang the visitor rates right up. Here's a list of the top ten articles in terms of footfall:"

"But on the other hand, some of the angriest emails and comments I get are from those who want to tell me, as if it weren't already perfectly clear that I know this, that 'good photography is about more than just the equipment'. I wonder if they might like to know that a thoughtful piece on visual memory garnered only 500 visits? Or that a world-class Guest Photographer can command as few as 1,100 views? That's about 2% of what a juicy piece on a sexy piece of gear can get."

Best regards
Erik
This is an Equipment & Techniques thread, it's inevitable there will be a preponderance of tech talk.

That said I can't help seeing the preponderance of tech talk on a Photography Forum as a distortion. Unfortunately it seems to be the norm, equipment & techniques have precedence over images. Many aren't shy to voice opinion but aren't comfortable when it comes to sharing images.

I've tried encouraging others by starting image threads and posting images but still there is a reluctance by many to share. I've no answer and rather sadly find myself beyond caring.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #157 on: January 24, 2016, 08:43:23 am »

I just wonder how you like the image threads to be? And how many of them there could be?

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). Others work in projects where the art lies in the sum of all images in the project, not single images. In fact some may look quite mediocre out of context. And many photographers are professionals on assignments shooting products, food, architecture, fashion for a strict purpose. Extremely few of pro commercial photographers are at say Mitch Feinberg's (http://mitch.fr) level where you can incorporate a lot of personal art expression in your commercial images.

I think it's actually quite easy to find good images on the internet, but you don't search in photo forums, and you don't search on 500px.com/popular. You go to individual photographer's web sites. Then you get to choose photographers that have a style that match your taste. Although I enjoy say bcooter's images I can't really learn much from them as it's an entirely different type of work than I'm trying to do.

Photography is hugely diverse just like music. One of my favourites in music is Alfred Schnittke, his music is on an entirely different planet compared to popular music or other music that's "in fashion". It can really be the same with photography, imagine if you have a shooting style like Stephen Shore (http://www.stephenshore.net/) and you'd post single images to a forum like this. Noone would understand what your stuff was about.

I like casual laid back image threads where pro photographers and enthusiasts alike can post both great work and not-so-great work and people are giving each-other friendly ego-boosting comments, and even better if the photographer provides some anecdotal story with the image. But it takes a lot of courage if you have a reputation to think about to post your casual images, as you break the illusion that you only make great shots.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 08:58:12 am by torger »
Logged

Gigi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
    • some work
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #158 on: January 24, 2016, 09:17:36 am »

Good points. One addition - imagine a series of shots, perhaps abstract, moody, or just non-specific. Seen alone, they might well have little value, but seen as a whole they clearly represent a vision. That doesn't work so well on these kinds of forums.... like Steiglitz's Equivalents.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 09:44:11 am by Gigi »
Logged
Geoff

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #159 on: January 24, 2016, 10:05:07 am »

Now, something else… A great guy called Tim Ashley used to have a very nice blog, than he stopped. He described pretty well why he stopped: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/7/happy-birthday-this-blog-is-changing

Here are some paragraphs:

"Equipment reviews are the web stat winners. An in-depth piece or series of pieces on a high-profile camera or lens can get tens of thousands of readers. Very gratifying and something I am sure I could monetize if I wanted to. But the pieces on guest photographers receive much lower footfall, and if I venture into a subject as recherché as, for example, photo-ethics, the visitor count goes off the proverbial cliff. So after more than eighty articles I have learned that this blog is not going to become a free-thinking, holistic salon where creative types move effortlessly from deep tech to high art in witty and erudite discourse. It just ain't gonna happen and there's no point crying over it."

Exactly. People may complain about the lack of non-technical articles, but the stats show that only technical articles are popular.

To add insult to irony, after that great blog post where Tim Ashley explained that he quit because readers were only interested about gear, half the comments requested that he reviewed the then new Pentax 645D.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 13   Go Up