Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Down

Author Topic: canon ?  (Read 45601 times)

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #160 on: December 29, 2014, 04:54:42 pm »

Conditions like strong winds and associated vibration, atmospheric haze, and available light versus speed of subjects vary enormously. So does post-processing software and skill using it. Unless you shoot with two cameras simultaneously, post process their RAW files identically, and print both results at large sizes, it's between very difficult and impossible to determine what camera took a given photograph. There are countless variables and without a reference, which is never available, one can't actually know anything except whether they like the image. In a group of images where technical quality ranges from just "acceptable" to flawless, the most artistically compelling image is always the one people want. Always.
Logged
- Dean

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11296
    • Echophoto
Re: canon ?
« Reply #161 on: December 29, 2014, 04:55:03 pm »

Hi,

A lot of good points…

Erik

Regardless of ability (or camera for that matter), there is the matter of what technique one can or cannot use successfully with a given camera, and how much that matters to one. 

If you have a style that depends upon the ability to lift shadows at base ISO, then you would want a sensor that would facilitate that.  There are lots of artistic reasons why one might want to do this.  One might want to shoot people in open sun without fill flash plus assistants plus modifiers plus stands.  One might want to do an indoor-outdoor shot where one wants to have detail revealed on the inside part.  One might prefer an "illustration" style where the shadows are compressed into the mid-tones.  And you want all of these things to be clean.

All of these things may involve lifting the shadows selectively one or two stops, or even more.  You can do this on a Sony sensor, which is optimized for noise at base ISO, and /mostly/ "ISO-less".  You cannot do this on most Canons without revealing ugly pattern noise.  And this is one reason why Canon is judged to be "behind".

If you do not do any of the things that reveal pattern noise, then the Canon has many things to recommend it, including advanced AF and an excellent lens selection, and a pretty look to its images.

At the APS-c level, I'm keeping a close watch on Samsung with its NX-1.  This should keep us engaged until Fossum's Quanta Image Sensor gets built.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13614
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: canon ?
« Reply #162 on: December 29, 2014, 05:51:11 pm »

Now it's just tech.  Not the technique it requires to produce something worth producing, but just tech for techs sake, mixed with Brand worship.

First, this is a thread about Canon vs alternatives, is it not? Isn't comments about equipment the exact expectation of the OP?

But I do agree with your overall point and this is the very reason why my posts here were mostly about showing images and explaining what shooting techniques were used to capture them. I haven't seen anybody else here sharing any information about shooting techniques in this thread.

If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera,  you'll never be able to produce a compelling image.

Yes, that is true but what does it have to do with a discussion about the progress of camera technology? Are you saying that recent cameras have no additional value relative to 7 years old gear? Does that apply to lenses too?

Besides, have you considered the possibility that other types of photography may benefit more from those than yours?

P.S. Bernhard.  We all know your love of the d800 whatever and have the thousands of mentions to prove it.  That's your choice but word to the wise.

If you want attention for your imagery, talk the imagery not the tech.  Anybody can buy a camera.

Thanks for the advice. I happen to think that my images get the attention they deserve. In fact, considering the little time I am able to spend on photography these days, I would say they get a fair share. ;)

Is it a good think to illustrate a point with images or you'd rather stick to plain text? Does illustrating a point with images necessarily mean that the only purpose of imaging is to discuss technical points?

Is your view that musicians can't love looking at paintings, that body-builders don't read books or that photographers can't discuss the technical merits of cameras and take images they are happy about? Because you keep implying this again and again so I am starting to wonder.

Besides, how about a little introspection James? Many of your own posts are about gear. Yes, you do post great images, but I don't remember you ever providing any shooting advice about how these were captured. At best a one liner about a lighting brand. Such contributions would be highly valuable in my view.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 06:27:47 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: canon ?
« Reply #163 on: December 29, 2014, 05:54:48 pm »

In a group of images where technical quality ranges from just "acceptable" to flawless, the most artistically compelling image is always the one people want. Always.

Other than highlighting that 'artistically compelling' is a trait of the viewer and varies from viewer to viewer, I think this is a true statement.  But comparing two images of the 'same scene' artistically treated identically where one is technically well executed and the other isn't, most viewers usually opt for the better executed photo. I used 'most' and 'usually' because we already had a poster indicated that he prefers blocked up shadows in a high DR image because it looks 'wrong' to him otherwise.  Unfortunately, as an amateur, I make a lot of these side by side comparison because I was too quick to snap the shutter before accounting for...some technical aspect or another.  :-[
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #164 on: December 29, 2014, 05:54:56 pm »

All of these things may involve lifting the shadows selectively one or two stops, or even more.  You can do this on a Sony sensor, which is optimized for noise at base ISO, and /mostly/ "ISO-less".  You cannot do this on most Canons without revealing ugly pattern noise.  And this is one reason why Canon is judged to be "behind".

If you do not do any of the things that reveal pattern noise, then the Canon has many things to recommend it, including advanced AF and an excellent lens selection, and a pretty look to its images.

Nevertheless the examples I have shown during this thread using the Canon 5D mkIII did involve lifting shadows and without pattern noise. But pattern noise does exist and I do prefer the sensor on the D810 I also shoot with, but it does not mean that what you describe is not possible using a Canon like e.g. the 5D mkIII. The 6D is slightly better in that regard. The Canon does need optimal exposure to do what I do. I do this using bracketing and then select the most exposed shot from the bracketing sequence in Lightroom that does not have essential highlights blown out. When this is not enough I will do HDR merge to 32bit TIFF and then edit in Lightroom. In some cases this is not possible though.

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #165 on: December 29, 2014, 06:04:12 pm »

I don't know that brand. Where can I get it?

Hans' pix really amaze me :)

Edmund

Thanks, thanks Edmund :) Getting the shot has a lot to do with knowing and seeing where to be. It's about having a sense for where a great shot will occur and when you are there it is about seeing it. Then after capture do the post processing to reveal what you had in mind when getting the shot.

This is what my workshops are all about.

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #166 on: December 29, 2014, 06:16:07 pm »

Other than highlighting that 'artistically compelling' is a trait of the viewer and varies from viewer to viewer, I think this is a true statement.

I agree completely. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. At the same time I don't think traits of an image visible only with a loupe or at nose length qualify as "artistic traits".

But comparing two images of the 'same scene' artistically treated identically where one is technically well executed and the other isn't, most viewers usually opt for the better executed photo.

I understand your point and agree in theory, but I don't think I've ever seen artistically identical photographs that vary technically, except for online resolution test charts. It's pretty rare for two different people to end up capturing the same scene with different equipment and then processing and printing it the same way.
Logged
- Dean

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: canon ?
« Reply #167 on: December 29, 2014, 08:22:37 pm »

Thanks, thanks Edmund :) Getting the shot has a lot to do with knowing and seeing where to be. It's about having a sense for where a great shot will occur and when you are there it is about seeing it. Then after capture do the post processing to reveal what you had in mind when getting the shot.

This is what my workshops are all about.

Apart from amazing composition, I think these pictures are the best uses of HDR-style tone compression I've ever seen. I always thought HDR was a cute technique, but not that interesting - I was completely wrong.

One good reason for "attending" a forum is that from time to time something completely unexpected is brought to one's attention. This is such a case for me.
 
A 24 stop DR camera might help to add an image of the sun complete with sunspots to these compositions ....

Edmund
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 10:14:28 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

graeme

  • Guest
Re: canon ?
« Reply #168 on: December 29, 2014, 09:27:24 pm »


Nick,

It's always been Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon.

Somewhere in between the talk was medium format vs. 35mm.

Now of course there is some mention of  Sony and Pentax.  

At least sometimes there was an emphasis on the actual photograph.

Now it's just tech.  Not the technique it requires to produce something worth producing, but just tech for techs sake, mixed with Brand worship.

I use to think people naively thought there was that one machine that would make them the next Weston, Avedon, Penn  . . .

Now it seems that that's not the plan.  The plan is that one machine that they can prove is better and win some kind of made up argument on the web.

A contest, but there is no prize.

The bottom line is this:

If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera,  you'll never be able to produce a compelling image.

IMO

BC

P.S. Bernhard.  We all know your love of the d800 whatever and have the thousands of mentions to prove it.  That's your choice but word to the wise.

If you want attention for your imagery, talk the imagery not the tech.  Anybody can buy a camera.

sanity
Logged

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #169 on: December 30, 2014, 02:46:56 am »

The bottom line is this:

If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera,  you'll never be able to produce a compelling image.

+1

Thank you for this.
Logged
~ CB

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3016
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #170 on: December 30, 2014, 05:25:40 am »

because we already had a poster indicated that he prefers blocked up shadows in a high DR image because it looks 'wrong' to him otherwise.
I assume that you're commenting on my reply #149 ? If so please comment on what I actually wrote, not what suits your argument. Just read it again I said;
"I think the shot would look a lot better with LESS DR. The detail in the tree in the foreground just looks totally wrong when the rest of the scene is so strongly backlit. It looks like you've used a flash on it and seems unnatural to me."
That doesn't say I like 'blocked up shadows' it simply says the foreground tree and shadowed grass has too much detail in it to look correct. You could probably darken the areas, by the equivalent of about two stops. The detail would still be there, not 'blocked up', and look far more natural.

Maybe you need to go and look at some really fine work to understand this sort of issue. Go and have a look at a range of Ansel Adams prints and see the differences in his various interpretations of his negatives, then you might understand that subtlety is often a hallmark of great work. You don't need every detail of scene lifted out to obviousness.

Quote
Unfortunately, as an amateur, I make a lot of these side by side comparison because I was too quick to snap the shutter before accounting for...some technical aspect or another.
Maybe you need to work on your own skills before blaming kit then.

It's interesting to note throughout this thread the loudest arguments about one manufacturer being good or bad seem to come from amateurs obsessing about numbers. Those of us that earn a living from our image making are far more pragmatic.


« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 06:19:23 am by Rhossydd »
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #171 on: December 30, 2014, 06:42:08 am »

Yup. One of the lists I contribute to comprises of 150 or so photographers who make their living in the business. I can't remember the last time there was a discussion on the list concerning dynamic range, or resolution, or sensor size, or indeed camera choice.

Sigh, all these generalizations ....

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1888
Re: canon ?
« Reply #172 on: December 30, 2014, 07:42:25 am »

"In a group of images where technical quality ranges from just "acceptable" to flawless, the most artistically compelling image is always the one people want. Always."

Other than highlighting that 'artistically compelling' is a trait of the viewer and varies from viewer to viewer, I think this is a true statement.  

Of course, because it's little more than a tautology.

However, photography is a broad church, and there is room for people who want to make as technically perfect a picture as possible, regardless of whether others consider it 'artistically compelling'. Heck, there's even room for me, whose pictures are far from technically perfect and only rarely artistically compelling to me, let alone anyone else!
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 07:50:02 am by jeremyrh »
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: canon ?
« Reply #173 on: December 30, 2014, 08:02:32 am »

sanity

Zzzz, all this tech-obsession...

My love of photography is partly about the gear and I don't think any excuse is or should be needed for that especially in a section of the forum which appears to be specifically for gear talk.

Since going digital what I've always wanted is a direct replacement for the 35mm SLR's, RF's and compacts I had in the past and I feel that I'm almost there now and I think that only a leap in technology such as some new sensor technology or maybe a global shutter would persuade me to buy a new body so I like to browse the various rumour, review and forum sites to see what's happening and what people think and there's always the opportunity to learn, maybe help sometimes if I can or to be just entertained.

Please don't have too much of a pop at people who may go on a little about gear. Gear may not be the holy grail but in a gear orientated section of the forum maybe there's room for friendly gear chat?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 08:06:59 am by scooby70 »
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #174 on: December 30, 2014, 08:06:18 am »

Zzzz, all this tech-obsession...

This is clearly a technical thread in a gear forum folder, so why jump into a thread here and complain about technical considerations? I don't get it, sorry.

Knowing about the technical stuff does not stop you from making wonderful photos, so don't worry  ;)

Not knowing about technical stuff can make you take less than optimal photos especially if printed large, so do worry about that part (if you care). ;)

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1905
Re: canon ?
« Reply #175 on: December 30, 2014, 08:43:42 am »

Hi,

Having spent some days on a workshop with Hans I would suggest some other factors:

  • Researching the areas where he is shooting
  • Very early mornings and late evening, when there is that magic light
  • Knowledge and experience
  • A consistent style
  • Good understanding of the the tools of the trade

And yes, some talent is involved, too!
Best regards
Erik


All the points you listed above is called talent.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1888
Re: canon ?
« Reply #176 on: December 30, 2014, 08:44:51 am »

I feel for those who fall for the conceit that using the latest and greatest is going to make the difference.

That's caring of you, but as a matter of interest, who are you referring to?
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1888
Re: canon ?
« Reply #177 on: December 30, 2014, 09:03:13 am »


Those who fall for it.

Yes, I think you said that first time around. Still, good to see it confirmed that you aren't wasting valuable energy being compassionate on behalf of those who don't need it.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #178 on: December 30, 2014, 09:06:24 am »

I feel for those who fall for the conceit that using the latest and greatest is going to make the difference. I accept it's in the interests of sites such as this and those who run workshops to promote gear acquisition and take the line that it will change their punter's lives.  

Well, I don't know if you include me in this, but on my workshops we discuss gear only as needed to explain how to get the best technical quality with what each have got of equipment, not to acquire gear. There is much greater emphasis is on how to make compelling pictures. To my knowledge there are only a few vendor sponsored workshops that is geared towards gear acquisition like e.g. the Phase One PODAS workshops. But even these are designed to spend a lot of time on getting good shots. I was an instructor on two of them.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 09:15:21 am by Hans Kruse »
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1888
Re: canon ?
« Reply #179 on: December 30, 2014, 09:17:25 am »

Well, I don't know if you include me in this, but on my workshops we discuss gear only as needed to explain how to get the best technical quality with what each have got of equipment, not to acquire gear. There is much greater emphasis is on how to make compelling pictures. To my knowledge there are only a vendor sponsored workshops that is geared towards gear acquisition like e.g. the Phase One PODAS workshops. But even these are designed to spend a lot of time on getting good shots. I was an instructor on two of them.

Indeed - it would be foolish of you (or any instructor) to persuade people to buy expensive gear, as they a) would be disappointed and blame you for their disappointment, and b) have less money for the next workshop :-)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Up