Started by dwswager, March 27, 2015, 10:04:31 am
Quote from: Jack Koerner on April 09, 2015, 11:44:02 amLol, more words weren't needed At this point, for his wordy "opinions" to carry weight, he needs to post some macro shots to illustrate if he actually knows what he's talking about regarding this discipline.I'll bet not, which brings us full circle to the points of my rebuttal.
Quote from: Jack Koerner on April 09, 2015, 11:44:02 amAt this point, for his wordy "opinions" to carry weight, he needs to post some macro shots to illustrate if he actually knows what he's talking about regarding this discipline.I'll bet not, which brings us full circle to the points of my rebuttal.
Quote from: spidermike on April 09, 2015, 03:19:06 amI am pretty useless at painting and decorating but I sure as hell know the difference between a good job and a bad job when I ask someone to do it for me and am fully capable of explaining precisely why I am not satisfied. His replying 'show me how good you are' would be totally irrelevant. On the other hand I would not be the one to come to to ask how to prepare the wood prior to painting.So many aspects of photography are subjective and in that respect if someone can explain to me why they think it is good or bad, or why it 'doesn't quite work' I will listen and decide myself if it chimes with what I was trying to achieve - but that does not negate their views.
Quote from: synn on April 09, 2015, 09:42:09 amToday I decided to learn swimming. I contacted two instructors.The first one took me to a pool and showed some basics and said that within 12 sessions, I should be able to do all basic strokes.The second one sent me a 7000 word email about buoyancy, viscousity, drag, surface area and some other impressive words.I think I will go with the latter.
Quote from: synn on April 09, 2015, 10:00:10 amIf Only Michael Phelps' competitors spent their time reading 7000 word emails instead of you know... actually swimming and all that.
Quote from: Isaac on April 09, 2015, 01:18:49 pmIn a way it does bring us full circle - you've made more than a dozen comments, none of which show photographs just wordy argument.
Quote from: Isaac on April 09, 2015, 01:18:49 pmIncidentally, I think outdoor macro photography quickly becomes more difficult at slightly higher magnification (> 0.5) than the "macro images" you posted.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 11:59:35 amHow so? You're shooting at apertures so tiny that your resolution is limited by diffraction much of the time. Either that or so little of your subject in focus that the resolution barely matters, since it doesn't matter how many pixels a blur is divided into.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 11:59:35 amHow high are you talking? The limits of usability, with the right camera, now run into the tens of thousands. You can take photos of things you can't even see with the naked eye.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 11:59:35 amBesides, your subjects are tiny. You always have the option of illuminating them with flash.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 11:59:35 amOn the other hand, try lighting up a mountain or making the night sky shine brighter, or producing a fill flash that can light up a landscape so that you don't need as much dynamic range.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 11:59:35 amBesides, where's your 'skill' now if you feel that you're constantly running into technical limitations? Oh, that's right, 'skill' does absolutely nothing when you're up against a technical limitation, since it can't make gear do something that it technically can't handle.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 12:12:56 pmWhat sort of live-subject macro photographer doesn't use flash anyway? All the ones I know carry multiple flashes and miniature softboxes, which they position around the subject to simulate whatever lighting conditions they want.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 12:12:56 pmI don't even own a macro lens and have no intention of ever shooting macros.
Quote from: Isaac on April 09, 2015, 06:00:44 pmAnd if we thought that was important, we should have dismissed you for thinking that close-up was the same as macro :-)
Quote from: Isaac on April 09, 2015, 06:00:44 pmSee how that works, you haven't seen my photographs and yet you can still see that I was correct ;-)
Quote from: Isaac on April 09, 2015, 06:00:44 pmI need to get some of this stuff before attempting any more close-up outdoor photo stacks - the air breathes too much.
Quote from: Jack Koerner on April 09, 2015, 07:08:05 pmMacro has to do with images at 1:1 or higher magnification. Of the images I posted, 2 were at or near 1:1, and therefore qualified as "true" macro images.
Quote from: Jack Koerner on April 09, 2015, 07:08:05 pmAll were taken with a macro lens.
Quote from: Jack Koerner on April 09, 2015, 07:08:05 pmNo one said they had to be recent images ... so nice way to evade any kind of counter-scrutiny.Very honorable of you.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 10:33:56 am...Which goes to show that knowing and doing are not the same thing, and that 'useless' theory is anything but useless.
Quote from: synn on April 10, 2015, 03:48:05 amI had my funa nd now I am bored with this thread.To me, getting photography advice from a desk jockey will alwaybe like getting sex advice from a celibate priest. Oh wait...
Quote from: Jack Koerner on April 09, 2015, 04:55:40 pmYou've obviously never heard of stacks taken at optimal aperture.
QuoteWith my camera, ISO is unusable at over 640.
QuoteWith my same camera, I can take a perfectly usable landscape shot at ISO 640, but with a macro shot, no way.Perhaps, with a better camera, I could go up to 1600 shooting macro.
QuoteI realize this, but ultimately I don't like flash. I like the pastel look of natural light.
QuoteIt is easier to take a long-time-shutter shot of a mountain ... than it is a tiny subject, blown-up 2x lifesize, with moving antennae, in a soft breeze ...
QuoteThis is true. There are certain situations my camera can't handle. There are certain situations no camera can handle.But I have learned what situations my camera can handle, and choose photograph within those parameters.The best way to take good photographs of nature is to be in the position to take them.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amI've done it myself with landscapes at long focal lengths.Which still doesn't address the question - how are you impacted by resolution any more than any other field of photography? How large do you make these macro prints?
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amThere's something wrong with your camera.Even my old 5D2 was usable at well over that ISO.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amHow is ISO 640 usable for landscape but not macro? Either it's too noisy or it's acceptable. And landscapes have minimal tolerance for noise, since it is often highly visible against skies, lakes, etc.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amYou realise you can get the same appearance using flash and a softbox?
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amLight is light - it doesn't matter whether it comes from the sun, is reflected off the moon or comes from a flash. The source doesn't matter - the only things that matter are its direction, intensity, colour and relative size of the source. All of these are completely adjustable with flash.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amThat works for the mountain. Still doesn't work for the night sky (unless you're trying to get trails) or the DR of a landscape.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amThat was never in contention. Obviously the best way to develop skill is to practice.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amBut the questions in contention here are:1) The argument that photographers who produce great shots are more knowledgeable and more qualified than scientists with knowledge of optics, electronics and data processing to talk about technical aspects of cameras and photography, even when all they do is click a button and may know nothing about how light is refracted through a lens and focused onto a sensor, turned into photoelectrons, then read and quantised into a RAW file, which is then interpolated into an image.2) The argument that skill allows you to bypass technical limits of your camera.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amYou've said yourself that you choose to avoid situations your camera can't handle.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amThat's the point of getting a better camera - to be able to handle those situations. Because there are plenty of great scenes out there which simply require a camera that's better in one aspect or another in order to photograph them. No amount of skill will let you photograph live music in extremely dark venues with a 5D2, for instance (at least not without the tartan banding pattern or without clipping all the deep shadows to black in order to avoid it). You can't solve that with skill. You can solve it, however, by buying an A7s.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amNo amount of skill will allow you to photograph a scene with 14 stops of DR and moving elements if your camera can only handle 11 stops. You can solve it by using an IQ280, D810 or A7r.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amAnd no amount of skill will let you take a motion-blurred photo of a waterfall if you don't have a tripod or some other kind of support.
Quote from: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 amThere are many things in photography for which gear is the solution, not skill.
Quote from: Isaac on April 11, 2015, 11:14:43 amPresumably because name-calling amuses you. Oh, it was a rhetorical question :-)
Quote from: Jack Koerner on April 11, 2015, 10:40:01 amI am not going to debate this topic, because you have (self-admitted) zero experience in taking critical macro shots.Resolution and sharpness are everything in macro shooting. If you are taking a photo of land, with trees on it, the leaves of said tree are but tiny flecks in your image; meanwhile if I am taking a photo of only that leaf on the tree, you're seeing every vein, sometimes even the cells, of the leaf (depending on how close the shot is). The difference in need for detail/sharpness is astronomical.
QuoteOr something more forgiving in what 'you' find acceptable ... or both.Usable/acceptable, according to whom?
QuoteAgain, usable/acceptable according to whom?Noise on a landscape image is oftentimes not as noticeable (with mountains, rocks, trees, etc.) as it is in an ultra-close macro shot of a small subject, where bokeh (a smooth, creamy background) is one of the most coveted/desired elements to the shot.Of course, you wouldn't know this with your zero experience shooting macro ...
Quote"The same," according to whom? Whose eyes?
QuoteLight is light? Really?Then why do we have the concepts of optimal light vs. harsh light?
QuoteWhy do sunsets/sunrises make things look so much different than mid-day?
QuoteI do agree that some absolute masters of flash photography can create even, pleasant, very well-controlled results with the use of flash ... but I disagree that they look exactly the same as natural light shots taken in optimal lighting conditions.
QuoteYes.1) Yes. Many of the people who can post all of the technical data imaginable on lenses, etc., still cannot produce an award-winning photograph. Conversely, many of the people who may not be at the forefront of pioneering new photographic technologies can still produce awesome, saleable photographs. The best wildlife photographers I know are constantly out in the field taking photographs, not reading charts, posting links to DXO marks, etc.
Quote2) No one ever made the argument that skill allows you to 'bypass' the technical limits of the camera, so nice attempt at building a strawman to kick later. What was said was, photographic skill allows a man to take great photos even with so-so cameras, so let's try to keep our discussion honest, okay?
QuoteYes, as does everyone, since all cameras have their limitations.How many people bring Hasselblads to sporting events ... or hiking up steep mountains, etc.
QuoteTo some degree this is correct: you have to buy the right tool for the job. In some cases, the right camera back can solve a problem. In other cases, like the one you mention, getting an f/1.8 lens could solve the problem, or maybe a camera back. Some problems can be solved with skill, experience, and (always) good choices ... including, at times, the choice of a different camera.
QuoteRubbish. A camera of 11 stops can still take a perfectly wonderful photograph of the same damned thing. How do you think award-winning photographs have been produced for decades before cameras achieved 14 stops of DR?
QuoteMaybe when viewed side-by-side with a higher DR camera, the difference can be seen, but to say "no amount of skill" could produce a great image with an 11-stop camera is sheer nonsense. If it's a beautiful image, and well-composed, 99% of the people seeing the image would applaud it and never know the difference. It is OCD, pixel-peeping insanity to think otherwise.
QuoteI've already stated a person can get better results through the right lenses, and the right accessories, than by worrying about changing his camera back all the time.
QuoteAgreed. But that still begs the real question, which was who do we listen to? The photographer who can apply his gear correctly, any gear, and produce great results ... or do we listen to the person who "bought the latest gear" ... but who still can't produce a great image with it?
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 16 queries.