Fuji Velvia RULES! ;-)
Matt Clara
Fuji Velvia, baby!
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Randy Howard
(in article <t66dnQrLZ6Q...@comcast.com>):
> http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=104977
>
> Fuji Velvia, baby!
The greenery looks unnaturally dark, did it really look that way
when you shot it?
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Matt Clara
news:0001HW.C089284E...@news.verizon.net...
> Matt Clara wrote
> (in article <t66dnQrLZ6Q...@comcast.com>):
>
>> http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=104977
>>
>> Fuji Velvia, baby!
>
> The greenery looks unnaturally dark, did it really look that way
> when you shot it?
>
>
It appears to be a combination effect of the soft focus lens and a slight
under exposure.
Matt Clara
news:6_ydnShZloGHXf7Z...@comcast.com...
Plus trillium foliage _is_ dark green, and I was in the woods on an overcast
day...some of the shots I gave more exposure to are brighter and more
vibrant, but I liked them less and they were less "realistic" if that even
matters given the lens I used (150mm soft focus lens for mamiya rb67).
Peter Chant
> Plus trillium foliage _is_ dark green, and I was in the woods on an
> overcast day...some of the shots I gave more exposure to are brighter and
> more vibrant, but I liked them less and they were less "realistic" if that
> even matters given the lens I used (150mm soft focus lens for mamiya
> rb67).
Isn't that cheating a bit on a 35mm newsgroup. Surely this is MF rules!
400ASA print film seems be a whole different ball game in MF.
Pete
Matt Clara
news:g3ucj3-...@petezilla.co.uk...
Just wanted to put something up to counter Bret's comments earlier today
that film is dead. This was taken on 50 ISO slide film.
D Mac
>> http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=104977
>>
>> Fuji Velvia, baby!
>>
>> --
Your picture Matt, represents the real art of photography. Sorry I don't
agree about Velvia. I commend you on it anyway. These lens effects cannot be
repeated with digital camera because of the toe/shoulder of capture needing
to have a point at which recording stops. I particularly like the way you
have refrained from the unreal brilliant colour thing too. Good work. If
you'd like a canvas print of it, I'll make you one free if I can have one
too!
Many of my portraits are still done with film cameras for these reasons. I
am slowly gaining skill with Photoshop and producing art portraits like the
ones I get from film. Printing on canvas has helped. One here if you care to
look. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Rach-2.htm There will be more as I get
the time to make them suitable for the Internet.
Douglas
www.technoaussie.com
www.photosbydouglas.com
Advocate
> that film is dead. This was taken on 50 ISO slide film.
You should have named the post "Trilliums Love Velvia!"
Nice work by the way. Having cut my teeth on Canon 35mm equipment until they
discontinues the manual FD cameras, I angrily switched my allegiance to
Nikon. Just this spring I "discovered" Olympus and the OM-2 along with their
simple OM flashes and petite lenses. I feel like a kid in a penny candy
store all over again.
Long live film!!!
ColinD
Well, I was going to comment on the sort of halo around the flowers, but
then I saw it was a soft focus lens, so I guess that's why. Second, and
seriously, can you say that the monotonal dark green of the foliage is
accurate color? It looks artificial to me, but then I am used to
looking at digital images, and there is undoubtedly a difference in
color rendering between film and digital images. I guess it's what one
is used to looking at.
Regards,
Colin D.
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Randy Howard
(in article <fUQ8g.2067$S7...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
I like the idea of the canvas portraits. Any chance of having a
close-up showing the texture on a sample on the website? The
images there don't really give you an impression of what they
look like up close.
Mike
Mike
Mike
Peter Chant
>>
>
> Just wanted to put something up to counter Bret's comments earlier today
> that film is dead. This was taken on 50 ISO slide film.
Yes fair comment. I'm quite happily taking fantastic 25 MP images by using
a Mamiya C330 and scanning the negs. Who rules now? Fantastic with
400ASA, still experimenting with slower film.
Bit of a learning curve with MF.
Steve Wolfe
>
> The greenery looks unnaturally dark, did it really look that way
> when you shot it?
Slide film has a lower dynamic range than print film, and even for slide
film, velvia is known for high contrast. By choosing an exposure which
would not blow out the white flowers, having the foliage look a little dark
is to be expected.
(Of course, it's always possible that adjustments were made in the
developing, or that the image was just manipulated after scanning.)
steve
Steve Wolfe
> then I saw it was a soft focus lens, so I guess that's why. Second, and
> seriously, can you say that the monotonal dark green of the foliage is
> accurate color?
Accurate? He's not shooting a Coca-Cola can for the advertising
department.
> It looks artificial to me, but then I am used to
> looking at digital images, and there is undoubtedly a difference in
> color rendering between film and digital images. I guess it's what one
> is used to looking at.
The key is the higher contrast and lower dynamic range that comes with
velvia. As I said in another message, by choosing an exposure that keeps
the white flowers where they need to be, the foliage will appear somewhat
dark - ESPECIALLY in the shadows.
While I haven't been trying to mimic Vevlia exactly, I've done a few
portraits this spring with partially-shaded foliage in the background, and
chosen an exposure to allow me to apply contrast and bring up the shadow
level dramatically, while still keeping the skin tones and highlights where
they need to be. The overall effect is very similar.
steve
D Mac
It's incidentally the look you get when you use low contrast portrait film
properly. Traditional and classic. Those who question the colouration are
conditioned to expect magazine cover style contrast and saturation. If you
try, you can also achieve that saturated look with the exact same film he
used for this shot. Photography like this is rapidly becoming a lost art.
Even Canon's "portrait" setting on their 30D/5D cameras pumps up the
contrast and saturation... Quite the opposite to what a real, traditional
portrait should look like.
DD
says...
Awesome shot, Matt.
--
A Universal Lens Mount?
http://www.nikongear.com/Nikon_Articles.htm
Peter Chant
> (Of course, it's always possible that adjustments were made in the
> developing, or that the image was just manipulated after scanning.)
Or indeed it might just have been dark foliage, it does happen!
mark.t...@gmail.com
area at bottom just unbalances the composition a bit.
Then Douglas chimed in..
>http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Rach-2.htm
Can you say 'trademark blown highlights'? (O: Yes, I know it's an
*attempt* at high-key, but good grief... And as for the overuse of
inappropriate special effects... Each to his own I suppose.
>There will be more as I get the time to make them suitable for the Internet.
Mmmm. Yes please! I can't wait to see more of your masterpieces.
Shots like those make me hunger for more!!!! Eg:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/greg-rach-pier.htm
Superb posing, not forced at all - the missing leg and disembodied hand
add nice touches... Interesting non-use of depth of field, notice any
distracting elements...?
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Rach-1.htm
I love the frame at top right, presumably to balance her shoulder?
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/family.htm
Needs a little work on the dodging/burning... (If you can't see the
problems, checked your gamma lately?). And the effects on the pregnant
lady....? (O:
(remember, these are posed shots, that Douglas had complete control
over, and they are presumably his best work..)
Annika1980
Bret doesn't blur his shots with soft focus lenses.
What's up with that anyway? "Soft focus" is an oxymoron.
Why don't thy just call it "blurry focus?"
I guess I could achieve similar results by rubbing Vaseline on my lens,
but I got better uses for my Vaseline than making my pics look blurry
...... oops, I meant "artistic."
FWIW, I like Velvia as well .... perhaps just not this implementation
of it.
Annika1980
D Mac wrote:
>These lens effects cannot be
> repeated with digital camera because of the toe/shoulder of capture needing
> to have a point at which recording stops.
More gibberish from down under.
I'm not sure what you meant by this so please explain further.
Also, those efects could easily be added in post.
Matt Clara
news:1147443621....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >Bret couldn't dream of making an artistic image like yours. Bravo!
>
> Bret doesn't blur his shots with soft focus lenses.
> What's up with that anyway? "Soft focus" is an oxymoron.
> Why don't thy just call it "blurry focus?"
> I guess I could achieve similar results by rubbing Vaseline on my lens,
> but I got better uses for my Vaseline than making my pics look blurry
> ...... oops, I meant "artistic."
>
No, you couldn't, and you reveal your ignorance through bluster once again.
A true soft focus lens is both sharp and soft, and that cannot be reproduced
through vaseline.
Rob Novak
wrote:
>http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=104977
>
>Fuji Velvia, baby!
OK - that's it. I've gotta place that order for the RB67. I
neeeeeeed that kinda detail.
Very nice shot.
--
Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net
Matt Clara
news:6r8962hfrnrlrbi04...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 18:20:35 -0400, "Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=104977
> >
> >Fuji Velvia, baby!
>
> OK - that's it. I've gotta place that order for the RB67. I
> neeeeeeed that kinda detail.
>
> Very nice shot.
Thanks. RB67 Pro SDs are going on ebay for a song these days. I've seen
complete setups with camera, finder, back, and lens go for $420.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>>Bret couldn't dream of making an artistic image like yours. Bravo!
>
> Bret doesn't blur his shots with soft focus lenses.
> What's up with that anyway? "Soft focus" is an oxymoron.
> Why don't thy just call it "blurry focus?"
> I guess I could achieve similar results by rubbing Vaseline on my lens,
> but I got better uses for my Vaseline than making my pics look blurry
> ...... oops, I meant "artistic."
>
Besides, you should use KY Jelly. It isn't oil based, so it won't harm the
filter (you wouldn't put it on your lens would you?). :-)
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Matt Clara
news:4464a548$0$728$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>Bret couldn't dream of making an artistic image like yours. Bravo!
> >
> > Bret doesn't blur his shots with soft focus lenses.
> > What's up with that anyway? "Soft focus" is an oxymoron.
> > Why don't thy just call it "blurry focus?"
> > I guess I could achieve similar results by rubbing Vaseline on my lens,
> > but I got better uses for my Vaseline than making my pics look blurry
> > ...... oops, I meant "artistic."
> >
>
> Besides, you should use KY Jelly. It isn't oil based, so it won't harm
the
> filter (you wouldn't put it on your lens would you?). :-)
>
>
That won't work either, but it is much sexier!
Annika1980
>Can you say 'trademark blown highlights'? (O: Yes, I know it's an
>*attempt* at high-key, but good grief... And as for the overuse of
>inappropriate special effects... Each to his own I suppose.
Perhaps he went the high-key route AFTER he blew out the highlights?
Better to give the bride some quasi-artistic pic than to admit, "I
fucked up!"
Annika1980
Now just imagine how great that pic woulda looked had you used a
digital back!
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>>
>> Besides, you should use KY Jelly. It isn't oil based, so it won't harm
> the
>> filter (you wouldn't put it on your lens would you?). :-)
>>
>>
>
> That won't work either, but it is much sexier!
>
Believe it or not, it was suggested by a top trainer at the Rocky Mountain
School of photography.
Matt Clara
> Not bad, Matt.
> Now just imagine how great that pic woulda looked had you used a
> digital back!
>
Shucks, Bret, you know I live for your compliments! And I almost got one,
too...
Unfortunately, at the cost of digital backs, it's unlikely I'll be using one
anytime this side of 75 years of age!
Matt Clara
> Matt Clara <no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote:
> >>
> >> Besides, you should use KY Jelly. It isn't oil based, so it won't harm
> > the
> >> filter (you wouldn't put it on your lens would you?). :-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That won't work either, but it is much sexier!
> >
>
> Believe it or not, it was suggested by a top trainer at the Rocky Mountain
> School of photography.
>
Yes, I've heard it before, but it will not function the same as a true soft
focus lens, any more than a hassleblad soft focus filter will, though that's
better than adding jelly of any kind to your lens.
Rob Novak
<no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote:
>Unfortunately, at the cost of digital backs, it's unlikely I'll be using one
>anytime this side of 75 years of age!
Anything I pay that kinda money for better come with a steering wheel
and a full tank o' gas.
Digtal medium-format back, new: $16,000-30,000
Hmmm - RB67 outfit + MF capable scanner = $1300 or so.
35Mpx scans from a 6x7 chrome/neg @ only 2400dpi? Sweet.
And when the day comes in the future when MF digital backs become more
affordable... that RB67 will probably still be perfectly functional
and ready to slap one on.
Rob Novak
<no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote:
>Yes, I've heard it before, but it will not function the same as a true soft
>focus lens, any more than a hassleblad soft focus filter will, though that's
>better than adding jelly of any kind to your lens.
That's mostly because what that Mamiya-Sekor lens is doing is
diffusing the image, not so much blurring it. There's a difference.
Diffusion gives soft fall-away on specular highlights, and decreased
contrast in the diffusion area. Think about how things look through
fog - mostly sharp detail, but a misty glow and lower contrast. "Soft"
focus or blur is just "out of focus" by some small amount.
Adding an optical element that changes the focal point, or a
material/filter that "smears" the light isn't the same thing. However,
the old "shoot through a nylon stocking" trick works in a pinch,
although the effect's pretty uniform across the frame.
William Graham
> >Bret couldn't dream of making an artistic image like yours. Bravo!
>
> Bret doesn't blur his shots with soft focus lenses.
> What's up with that anyway? "Soft focus" is an oxymoron.
> Why don't thy just call it "blurry focus?"
Also an oxymoron.....They should just call it, "out of focus".
Graham Fountain
image that started the thread and compare it to any photo you have taken
that was out of focus. The two effects are completely different.
Matt Clara
news:pan.2006.05.12....@example.com...
> Bret couldn't dream of making an artistic image like yours. Bravo!
>
>
>> Just wanted to put something up to counter Bret's comments earlier today
>> that film is dead. This was taken on 50 ISO slide film.
>
Thanks for the compliment--Bret makes some nice images, I'm more after a
classic art look to mine is all.
Matt Clara
news:fUQ8g.2067$S7...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Matt Clara wrote:
>>> http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=104977
>>>
>>> Fuji Velvia, baby!
>>>
> repeated with digital camera because of the toe/shoulder of capture
> needing
> have refrained from the unreal brilliant colour thing too. Good work. If
> you'd like a canvas print of it, I'll make you one free if I can have one
> too!
>
> Many of my portraits are still done with film cameras for these reasons. I
> am slowly gaining skill with Photoshop and producing art portraits like
> the
> ones I get from film. Printing on canvas has helped. One here if you care
> to
> the time to make them suitable for the Internet.
>
Thanks for the comments, Doug. Sure, I'd like to see it on canvas. Give me
the weekend to post a full res version to my website--what dimensions were
you thinking?
Matt Clara
news:MPG.1ece9ccdc...@news.mweb.co.za...
> In article <t66dnQrLZ6Q...@comcast.com>, hey.w...@buzz.off
> says...
>> http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=104977
>>
>> Fuji Velvia, baby!
>
>
> Awesome shot, Matt.
>
Thanks Dallas!
Joseph Kewfi
> digital back!
Bret as usual, more interested in the tech than the final output.
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147448347.4...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Annika1980
> digital back!
>Bret as usual, more interested in the tech than the final output.
I'm interested in the tech that gets you to the best final output.
William Graham
"Graham Fountain" <a...@and.find.out> wrote in message
news:4464fec6$0$15979$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Yes. That's right. My father used to have a soft portrait lens. I asked him
once why he didn't just take his portraits with the lens out of focus. He
told me then that it wouldn't be the same thing. He said that the difference
was that there is no place where the soft focus lens is very sharp, and that
he still focused it as well as he could on the subject.
Joseph Kewfi
'best' according to whom? I make the images, good or bad, I'm the
photographer the buck stops here, I don't blame the tools if the photograph
is no good, and I don't credit the tools when the photographs are good, I
used the tools to make the photographs, but the tools in themselves do not
make me a better photographer, that part is up to me alone, not Canon or
Nikon or anyone else, they can aid me, but if the eye isn't there to begin
with, then no amount of tech will make a bad photographer good. When will
you learn these facts?
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147474121....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Annika1980
Joseph Kewfi wrote:
> > I'm interested in the tech that gets you to the best final output.
>
> 'best' according to whom? I make the images, good or bad, I'm the
> photographer the buck stops here, I don't blame the tools if the photograph
> is no good, and I don't credit the tools when the photographs are good, I
> used the tools to make the photographs, but the tools in themselves do not
> make me a better photographer, that part is up to me alone, not Canon or
> Nikon or anyone else, they can aid me, but if the eye isn't there to begin
> with, then no amount of tech will make a bad photographer good. When will
> you learn these facts?
>
Nobody disputes the fact that you need a good eye, but that's not what
we're discussing.
I'm curious why you dismiss the importance of good equipment,
especially ironic in an equipment-related newsgroup. If equipment
didn't matter, we'd all be shooting with cheap point-and-shoots.
You as a photographer have a certain skill level. Whatever your level,
you should aspire to produce the best work you can, or at least the
best you can afford to produce.
If you saddle yourself with inferior gear, you'll never realize your
potential as a photographer, at least as it relates to the finished
product. And that's how they judge photographer's, isn't it?
As a golfer, I know that I play better with better equipment, but even
the best equipment won't make me Tiger Woods. So like photographic
equipment, the best golf equipment might not make a bad golfer good,
but it can sure make a good photographer better.
I know my argument is falling upon deaf ears. Revel in your
mediocrity.
Bandicoot
news:vcaej3-...@petezilla.co.uk...
> Steve Wolfe wrote:
>
> > (Of course, it's always possible that adjustments were made in
> > the developing, or that the image was just manipulated after
> > scanning.)
>
> Or indeed it might just have been dark foliage, it does happen!
>
They're Trilliums - so the foliage _is_ going to be fairly dark. Some
Trillium species have foliage that is a little glossy, so there could be
reflection to lighten it, if the light was right (usually best removed with
a polariser to make them look 'realistic' however) but most have matt
leaves, and all are mid to dark green, some very dark.
Peter
Bandicoot
Which is why Matt used Velvia....
Peter
Matt Clara
>
> Joseph Kewfi wrote:
>> > I'm interested in the tech that gets you to the best final output.
>>
>> 'best' according to whom? I make the images, good or bad, I'm the
>> photographer the buck stops here, I don't blame the tools if the
>> photograph
>> is no good, and I don't credit the tools when the photographs are good, I
>> used the tools to make the photographs, but the tools in themselves do
>> not
>> make me a better photographer, that part is up to me alone, not Canon or
>> Nikon or anyone else, they can aid me, but if the eye isn't there to
>> begin
>> with, then no amount of tech will make a bad photographer good. When will
>> you learn these facts?
>>
>
> Nobody disputes the fact that you need a good eye, but that's not what
> we're discussing.
> I'm curious why you dismiss the importance of good equipment,
> especially ironic in an equipment-related newsgroup. If equipment
> didn't matter, we'd all be shooting with cheap point-and-shoots.
>
Because a 6x7 velvia frame provides better quality than any 35mm dslr on the
market?
Matt Clara
Really, how much large and medium format have you shot? None? So you're an
expert, how? You bought a really expensive 35mm slr, which was loaded with
capabilities well beyond your abilities, and after 6 months, you bought a
piece of shit digital and have been proclaiming every (canon) digital as the
end all be all ever since.
Did I say earlier you're a chump? a closed minded chump? Please, you know
nothing beyond your front door.
Matt Clara
news:0001HW.C089284E...@news.verizon.net...
> Matt Clara wrote
> (in article <t66dnQrLZ6Q...@comcast.com>):> The greenery looks unnaturally dark, did it really look that way
> when you shot it?
>
> Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
> "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
> who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
>
BTW, is your comment accurate observation, or just ignorance? If only GBS
were around to tell us!
D Mac
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the comments, Doug. Sure, I'd like to see it on canvas.
>> Give me the weekend to post a full res version to my website--what
>> dimensions were you thinking?
>>
>> --
Oh... I dunno. Maybe 20" wide perhaps? I just bought a new Canon W8400
printer which would do justice to the picture, I imagine?
http://www.canon.com.au/images/big_products/w8400_ba_frontweb1%20copy.gif
You name the size mate. 3 megapixel image is good for 16x20, anything with
more pixels will yeild finer results... The choice is yours. Seeing as I'm
recovering from surgery and bored stiff, it'll give me a chance to play
before the thing goes to work and amuse myself until I can get around again.
Don't forget to tell me where to send it!
douglas - at - photosbydouglas - dot - com will do.
Cheers,
Douglas
D Mac
Curious... It scooped the pool in a recent competition. Not about
photography as such but portraiture in particular. I guess Brett, that's why
my business continues to grow in a declining market full of happy snappers
calling themselves "Professional Photographers" and all you continue to do
is make happy snaps - real sharp ones. Technically correct ones. Saturated
colour ones ...and boring as all hell too.
If you even comprehended the concept of adventurous photography, you might
still have time to reach out and be recognized for something other than the
joker from Tennessee who spent so much time with his finger on the button,
being one of the mob doing the same old boring thing day after day, he
forgot what makes really great photographs.
I'll tell you what it is Bret. It's developing an individual style that
makes people (not pedantic happy snappers like you) seek you out and pay big
money to have their photographs done in a similar style. I don't think
you'll find too many humming birds or soldier ants which fit that
description, do you?
Here's a clue, Bret.
Anyone can buy a macro lens.
Anyone can fiddle a RAW file until the cows come home.
Anyone can buy the latest and greatest computer.
All it needs is a fat credit card and very few brains.
Not everyone knows how to create a portrait from a photograph. Not everyone
knows how to transform a photograph into an exclusive work of art worth many
times more than the original. Most of all, very few people are willing to
take the risk and explore their full potential. Afraid of people like you
ridiculing them, maybe.Why don't you try it some time? Your 20D is far from
being the ideal tool to start with but the EOS1 might be OK.
You self confess your rate of keepers is in 1 out of 100 range. Bloody hell
mate, I take 3 pictures (JPEGs at that and have trouble deciding which one
to use for the portrait! I don't know why I bother telling you this.
Probably water off a ducks back. You really are so far behind the times, you
have very little (almost no) chance to catch up.
Douglas
Randy Howard
(in article <gIadnfFGC--M1fjZ...@comcast.com>):
It wasn't a comment, it was a question. Not being a naturalist
I meant it honestly as I didn't know. I did not mean anything
negative about the picture overall, and I wasn't trying to do
something stupid like compare it to digital images as some
others have done.
--
Steve Wolfe
>>> few portraits this spring with partially-shaded foliage in the
>>> background, and chosen an exposure to allow me to apply contrast and
>>> bring up the shadow level dramatically, while still keeping the skin
>>> tones and highlights where they need to be. The overall effect is
>>> very similar.
>>>
>>> steve
>
> It's incidentally the look you get when you use low contrast portrait film
> properly. Traditional and classic. Those who question the colouration are
> conditioned to expect magazine cover style contrast and saturation.
Hmmm... Velvia is a high-contrast, high-saturation film, the kind that you
would expect to give you the "magazine cover style" look. I'm not sure how
you'd get the same look with low-contrast film that you would with Velvia.
With low-contrast stuff, you could either get the shadows to look similar or
the highlights, but you'd have a tough time getting it to look quite like
his. There are some developing tricks you could use that would give you the
contrast, but at that point, you might as well have used high-contrast film
to begin with.
It's entirely possible, though, that you and I are misunderstanding each
other. If that's the case, I'd love to see some examples of what you mean.
steve
D Mac
>>
>> It's entirely possible, though, that you and I are misunderstanding
>> each other. If that's the case, I'd love to see some examples of
>> what you mean.
>>
>> steve
I don't use Velvia or any high contrast film at all myself. In fact I seldom
use any transparency film these days either. If I need some additional
contrast or saturation to what the rest of the film has, I alter the
exposure to produce it. When you manipulate the ISO settings (under or over
expose) you are altering the contrast range and colour saturation of the
film. You change other characteristics too but these are the most prominent.
You can't do this with digital because the sensors are made to handle
"correctly" exposed scenes and respond badly to under and over exposure. The
widespread acceptance of Digital cameras is likely to produce a whole new
breed of Photographers who will never comprehend photography in the way
Rembrandt understood light and shade. They may never discover the rewards of
being different and the value of uniqueness.
You can use 160 or even 400 ISO Portra film at 100 or 200 ISO respectively
and achieve colour and contrast similar to "magazine cover" photos. Likewise
you can use Velvia at higher than recommended ISO and achieve lower
contrast/saturation like Matt's photo. Grain is not such an issue when the
negative is large.
The notion that a film has to be used at it's rated speed and developed at
it's recommended temperature carries with it the presumption a Photographer
will avoid experimenting and not attempt to obtain a "different" image to
what the film makers call "normal". This is also the drawback of digital
sensors and the toe/shoulder cut out when they simply stop recording any
more information. It prevents recording detail in deep shadow and replaces
it with "digital noise" in a hatch pattern. Likewise in the highlights, you
can't find any more detail past the cut off point (blown highlights) where
with film, there is always some detail in almost total white to play with.
No examples from me ever again Steve. You and a few others might understand
what they mean but a thieving liar of a troll is likely to steal them and
then attempt to use them out of context on their own web site at some future
date in an attempt to discredit me.
Douglas
Steve Wolfe
> "correctly" exposed scenes and respond badly to under and over exposure.
Actually, modern digital cameras record significantly more latitude than
Velvia, so you actually have to throw away a good bit of the dynamic range
of a digital image if you're trying to simulate slide film, especially one
like Velvia. The wide-latitude portrait films, though, are a different
matter.
> The notion that a film has to be used at it's rated speed and developed at
> it's recommended temperature carries with it the presumption a
> Photographer
> will avoid experimenting and not attempt to obtain a "different" image to
> what the film makers call "normal".
Yep. It's like metering for an 18% grey scene. =)
> No examples from me ever again Steve. You and a few others might
> understand
> what they mean but a thieving liar of a troll is likely to steal them and
> then attempt to use them out of context on their own web site at some
> future
> date in an attempt to discredit me.
You mean that someone would do that on the INTERNET?
=)
steve
D Mac
>>
>>> No examples from me ever again Steve. You and a few others might
>>> understand
>>> what they mean but a thieving liar of a troll is likely to steal
>>> them and then attempt to use them out of context on their own web
>>> site at some future
>>> date in an attempt to discredit me.
>>
>> You mean that someone would do that on the INTERNET?
>>
>> =)
>>
>> steve
Yeah... The cheek of them! :-
Mart van de Wege
> Steve Wolfe wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It's entirely possible, though, that you and I are misunderstanding
>>> each other. If that's the case, I'd love to see some examples of
>>> what you mean.
>>>
>>> steve
>
> I don't use Velvia or any high contrast film at all myself. In fact I seldom
> use any transparency film these days either. If I need some additional
> contrast or saturation to what the rest of the film has, I alter the
> exposure to produce it. When you manipulate the ISO settings (under or over
> expose) you are altering the contrast range and colour saturation of the
> film. You change other characteristics too but these are the most prominent.
>
> You can't do this with digital because the sensors are made to handle
> "correctly" exposed scenes and respond badly to under and over exposure. The
> widespread acceptance of Digital cameras is likely to produce a whole new
> breed of Photographers who will never comprehend photography in the way
> Rembrandt understood light and shade. They may never discover the rewards of
> being different and the value of uniqueness.
>
I think this is slightly unfair to digital photography. There are
definitely photographers active using digital that *do* understand
light and shade. Don't forget that 'happy snappers' existed during the
heydays of film as well. Sturgeon's Law applies to all fields.
What I think is that a lot of film-based photographers (I *like*
shooting film, and I made the mistake myself) confuse the digital shot
with the final exposure on a film. The digital RAW file is in fact a
pre-exposure, it only reaches its full development in
post-processing. And with a good RAW file and a good feeling for light
a digital photographer could definitely reproduce images like the one
that started this thread. It's just a different workflow.
And true, some digital amateurs don't seem to look beyond the first
exposure, and only seem to use post-processing to correct flaws in the
exposure (noise reduction, blurring of 'ugly' bokeh etc.), and
otherwise treat the exposed RAW file as the final product. But it is
not fair to condemn an entire group on the faults of a few.
But it's the post-processing that's a deal breaker right now for me. I
like the way certain films act in extreme lighting situations, and I'm
only starting to learn how to use this to my advantage. I spend enough
time on the job getting computers to do what I want, when I'm engaging
in my hobby, I want to do something *different*.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Annika1980
That's the Trouble with Trilliums.
Annika1980
D Mac wrote:
>
> Curious... It scooped the pool in a recent competition. Not about
> photography as such but portraiture in particular. I guess Brett, that's why
> my business continues to grow in a declining market full of happy snappers
> calling themselves "Professional Photographers" and all you continue to do
> is make happy snaps - real sharp ones. Technically correct ones. Saturated
> colour ones ...and boring as all hell too.
Here's my latest sharp, technically correct, saturated color shot:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/60096044
True, nobody will probably ever buy it, but that wasn't the point of my
taking it. I'm sure I could make a living taking crap portraits like
you do and selling them to some rich suckers, but I like the challenge
of capturing the beauty around me and the joy of sharng it with others.
> Here's a clue, Bret.
> Anyone can buy a macro lens.
I had the same opinion before I got my macro lens. I figured I'd just
snap that baby on and the great macro shots would flow freely. Man,
was I wrong! Taking macro shots of moving bugs at 5x is probably the
hardest photography I've done. Much harder than shooting sports,
children, and especially portraits. I'd love to see you try it,
especially shooting JPG mode. I'd probably laugh for a week.
> Anyone can fiddle a RAW file until the cows come home.
> Anyone can buy the latest and greatest computer.
> All it needs is a fat credit card and very few brains.
You're implying that anyone can take sharp, technically correct,
saturated color shots.
So why don't you? You've certainly got a lot more cash than I do. You
oughta be Ansel fucking Adams.
> Not everyone knows how to create a portrait from a photograph. Not everyone
> knows how to transform a photograph into an exclusive work of art worth many
> times more than the original. Most of all, very few people are willing to
> take the risk and explore their full potential. Afraid of people like you
> ridiculing them, maybe.Why don't you try it some time?
I can't argue with this at all, but it might carry more weight if it
came from someone who knew how to take a decent pic. I would cerainly
like to be able to do photography full time and make money at it, but
my financial situation (broke) demands that I not quit my day job. If
I miss two paychecks I'll be in the penitentiary.
>
> You self confess your rate of keepers is in 1 out of 100 range. Bloody hell
> mate, I take 3 pictures (JPEGs at that and have trouble deciding which one
> to use for the portrait!
My rate is never that low unless I'm taking some difficult macro shot
like a macro of a firefly in flight. That's a tough one!
Having seen some of your work, I would respectfully suggest that you
take a few more shots. Your level of ability seems to have leveled off
somewhere between casual snapshooter and mall photographer.
>I don't know why I bother telling you this.
> Probably water off a ducks back. You really are so far behind the times, you
> have very little (almost no) chance to catch up.
I appreciate the constructive criticism, D-Mac, but we come at it from
two opposite ends.
You do it to make money, I do it because I love it.
Annika1980
> especially ironic in an equipment-related newsgroup. If equipment
> didn't matter, we'd all be shooting with cheap point-and-shoots.
>Because a 6x7 velvia frame provides better quality than any 35mm dslr on the
>market?
Quality? Kewfi doesn't care about quality.
Kewfi says, "No amount of tech will make a bad photographer good."
Thanks for backing me up.
Annika1980
>expert, how? You bought a really expensive 35mm slr, which was loaded with
>capabilities well beyond your abilities, and after 6 months, you bought a
>piece of shit digital and have been proclaiming every (canon) digital as the
>end all be all ever since.
>Did I say earlier you're a chump? a closed minded chump? Please, you know
>nothing beyond your front door.
What does this have to do with what we're discussing other than
satisfying your persistent need to bash me?
You wanna bring MF and LF into the (35mm) discussion? Fine, I'll bring
in digital scanning backs which no MF or LF can touch for absolute
quality.
Now go argue with Stephen Johnson.
http://www.sjphoto.com/
Annika1980
D Mac wrote:
> Oh... I dunno. Maybe 20" wide perhaps? I just bought a new Canon W8400
> printer which would do justice to the picture, I imagine?
> http://www.canon.com.au/images/big_products/w8400_ba_frontweb1%20copy.gif
>
> You name the size mate. 3 megapixel image is good for 16x20, anything with
> more pixels will yeild finer results... The choice is yours. Seeing as I'm
> recovering from surgery and bored stiff, it'll give me a chance to play
> before the thing goes to work and amuse myself until I can get around again.
Sorry to hear about your health issues, but I'm glad you are
recovering.
So did the proctologist find your head?
How wide will that printer go?
I have some stitched panoramas that might be a perfect workout for that
baby.
These are a bit more than 3 megapixels, however.
Paul Furman
> http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=104977
>
> Fuji Velvia, baby!
Nice shot Matt. I love Trilliums. That's in Michigan?
Aurelius Aristotle Finch
"Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:sKmdnb4PSZkP2_jZ...@comcast.com...
Relax. You're correct, of course, but it isn't really worth your while, as
it falls on deaf ears.
Fantastic photo, by the way.
AAD
Annika1980
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > Here's my latest sharp, technically correct, saturated color shot:
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/60096044
> >
>
> the bird?
That was a "roadkill" shot taken handheld out the car window. I did
turn the motor off first. The bird was probably 25' away.
> BTW> Would you please be so kind as to post an uncropped and unaltered JPG
> of the original as it would be seen straight out of the camera? Thanks.
Since I shoot RAW there is no such thing as an unaltered pic from the
original. Even a straight JPG conversion is altered depending o the
setting you use during conversion.
Joseph Kewfi
your persistent need to bash me?
I never 'bashed' you, not on this thread anyway, and Matt complimented you
earlier on this thread I quote "Bret makes some nice images, I'm more after
a classic art look to mine is all." Is this bashing? I merely pointed out
once again as I have done before, it's not the whizz bang that makes a
photographer success or failure, and in your case I can prove it to anyone
who is bothered to look, on your Pbase accounts you have many images that
you made with the D60, nowadays you're using the 20D but I see little
difference in the photographic level technically or creatively of the output
apart from the macro work, you are shooting mainly the same subjects as with
the D60 and I can't see the extra megapixels so what's the difference to me
whether it's D60, 20D or D whatever, apart from the macro I'm not seeing
much creative evolution here: http://www.pbase.com/annika1980 to
http://www.pbase.com/bretdouglas to http://www.pbase.com/bret and this isn't
even bashing... if you're gonna boast you have to be able to deliver, maybe
others can see the delivery but I'm not see much as yet, but I don't write
you off, you definitely get out enough with the camera, you just need to
focus less on tech and more on looking outside your usual 'box'. This is
just my opinion, it's not intended to be derogatory, you are free to fully
ignore if you perceive it that way.
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147529051.0...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike
None.
Pick a subject and go for it. Create something spectacular, be it sports,
wildlife, landscapes, portraits, whatever.
Go to some art shows and exhibits-- see other people's work for
inspiration.
Quit lusting over equipment. My best images are made with lenses that
average 30 years in age. If I had a lot of disposable cash, sure, I might
buy new stuff. But I don't and try to make the best with what I have.
Bandicoot
> >They're Trilliums - so the foliage _is_ going to be fairly dark.
>
> That's the Trouble with Trilliums.
>
Yeah, especially when Mudd is involved.
Peter
D Mac
>>
>>> Would you please be so kind as to post an uncropped and unaltered
>>> JPG
>> of the original as it would be seen straight out of the camera?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Rita
Bret wouldn't do that Rita. If he did, he'd be showing the world nearly all
his pictures need massive croping and Photoshop manipulation and he doesn't
want that. sort of exposure.
D Mac
>> D Mac wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Here's my latest sharp, technically correct, saturated color shot:
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/60096044
>>
>> like a macro of a firefly in flight. That's a tough one!
>> Having seen some of your work, I would respectfully suggest that you
>> take a few more shots. Your level of ability seems to have leveled
>> off somewhere between casual snapshooter and mall photographer.
>>
>> it.
----------
The interesting thing about you Bret, is your inconsistency in claiming
superiority over me as a Photographer when I've never suggested I'm any
better than you anyone else, just different. You haven't yet claimed
superiority as an artist but it's only time before your ego gets that going
too. When it does, I'll send you a few pictures of paintings of mine.
Cast your faltering memory back to the time you posted glowing remarks about
my (very clearly doctored) Shootin submission of a fake lightning strike
over some wrecks when you were the God in charge of it... You had a
different story to say about my skills as a Photographer then. You really
are a jerk, mate. Everyone else knew the joke instantly but the good ol boy
from the back woods didn't have a clue. Made a right proper fool of yourself
that time, mate.
Ha, ha, ha. The funniest man in the group. Those who haven't kill filed you
are still laughing at you. http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/27848862 to
save you looking.
Who do you think you are fooling when you say you've seen my photography?
You saw a disaster recovery of a wedding shoot gone wrong (by another
photographers, incidentally) in progress and started shooting your mouth off
about my ability. I thought I'd password protected that directory but you or
some other wanker cruising my site found it and though you have some fun at
my expense... Tch, tch Bret, shame on you (snigger). If you were a really
nice bloke (which you are not), I might have let you see the finished
recovery I did. Nice work. Nearly $2k for that job and you say you're broke
but still take the high ground of claiming you're a great photographer.
Pissing competitions only work when there's no wind and you're full of it.
While your romance with technology was going on... I won 5 awards. 1,
Bronze, 3, silver and one Gold for my photography. Bringing my competition
awards since 1968 to 89 and 60 special mentions. From where I stand Bret,
unless you can lay claim to having won more awards for photography than me,
you can't claim to be a better photographer. What's that? You don't bother
to enter competitions? Hmmm... Curious.
Let's see now. You spent up like there's no tomorrow on every piece of pro
gear you could lay your hands on and sent yourself to the edge of
destitution in search of the perfect photograph. You got zilch in that area,
mate. Then you take on a working Pro claiming one his very well accepted and
highly awarded portraits is a "blown out", "fucked up" picture.
Now you decide that you are such a better photographer, your heavily cropped
picture of a bird sitting on a log is some sort of example of your
superiority as Photographer? Gees mate... Do you think you could have taken
the shot before you hit the bugger with freeze spray and glued it on the
branch? My "fucked up" Portrait changed hands for $1000 AUD. Maybe if you
did a few "fucked up" portraits instead of red birds, you wouldn't be
whining so much about being broke?
Douglas
Peter Chant
I'm more worried about the day of the trilliums.
Non-UK might not get that reference.
Pete
Aurelius Aristotle Finch
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
news:126br0u...@news.supernews.com...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
> > Here's my latest sharp, technically correct, saturated color shot:
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/60096044
> >
> > True, nobody will probably ever buy it, but that wasn't the point of
> > my taking it. I'm sure I could make a living taking crap portraits
> > like you do and selling them to some rich suckers, but I like the
> > challenge of capturing the beauty around me and the joy of sharng it
> > with others.
>
was
> are beyond stunning. Your attitude and photography style puts photography
> in its best light. Too bad so many people lose sight of what photography
> really is about. .
Technically good snapshots of birds?....
JimKramer
One of my favorite SF stories, (the 1962 movie - not so good.) John
Wyndham is not unknown in the U.S.
Jim
Annika1980
Joseph Kewfi wrote:
> > What does this have to do with what we're discussing other than satisfying
> your persistent need to bash me?
>
> I never 'bashed' you, not on this thread anyway, and Matt complimented you
> earlier on this thread I quote "Bret makes some nice images, I'm more after
> a classic art look to mine is all." Is this bashing?
Geez, you people need to learn to read. I was responding to Matt's
assertion that I was a chump. And his response was after a post I made
to you about the importance of equipment.
This is kinda fun .... I say something to you and Matt responds. I
respond to Matt and you jump my shit. You guys a tag-team or something?
-----------------
>if you're gonna boast you have to be able to deliver, maybe
>others can see the delivery but I'm not see much as yet, but I don't write
>you off, you definitely get out enough with the camera, you just need to
>focus less on tech and more on looking outside your usual 'box'. This is
>just my opinion, it's not intended to be derogatory, you are free to fully
>ignore if you perceive it that way.
I value all constructive criticism. My pics are pleasing to me, and
that's all that counts.
If others don't like them, fine. If others like them, that's just
gravy.
As for the differences between the D60 and the 20D, you may not see
them on your end.
But the 20D is much more of a joy to use for a number of reasons
(quicker startup, faster speed, etc.). Similar to driving a Lexus SC
Coupe vs. a Chevy Lumina. Both cars will get you there, but one is
much more fun to drive.
Annika1980
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Understand. My bad, I probably should have said just a simple resize for
> web viewing and JPG conversion without any cropping or "tweaking" of the
> original RAW file. I just wanted to see exactly what you saw before
> Photoshopping and/or cropping. Again, spectacular shot! Thanks again.
Here is the same shot, resized without cropping.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/60150277
Annika1980
D Mac wrote:
> The interesting thing about you Bret, is your inconsistency in claiming
> superiority over me as a Photographer when I've never suggested I'm any
> better than you anyone else, just different. You haven't yet claimed
> superiority as an artist but it's only time before your ego gets that going
> too. When it does, I'll send you a few pictures of paintings of mine.
Oh D-Mac, don't be such a Sensitive Sheila!
-----------------------
>
> Cast your faltering memory back to the time you posted glowing remarks about
> my (very clearly doctored) Shootin submission of a fake lightning strike
> over some wrecks when you were the God in charge of it... You had a
> different story to say about my skills as a Photographer then.
IIRC, I said that I thought it was a cool pic. I still do. I don't
remember ever commenting about the skill it took to make it or whether
it looked realistic.
---------------------------------------------
>Who do you think you are fooling when you say you've seen my photography?
Did you not send me a calendar with your photography on it?
I think your pics (that I have seen) are mediocre at best. So what?
I'm just a name on a screen. If you make good money selling them more
power to you.
-----------------------
>You saw a disaster recovery of a wedding shoot gone wrong (by another
>photographers, incidentally) in progress and started shooting your mouth off
>about my ability. I thought I'd password protected that directory but you or
>some other wanker cruising my site found it and though you have some fun at
>my expense...
Oh so now you are posting "your" work taken by somebody else?
>From what I've seen, maybe you should password-protect your entire
portfolio.
And the password is "I SUCK."
-------------------------
> Pissing competitions only work when there's no wind and you're full of it.
Seems like you're the one who is worried about how his work is
perceived.
If I cared that someone wouldn't like my pics, I'd never post any. I
post mine to share and to learn from others' comments. If you don't
like them, I could give a kangaroo's ass.
--------------------------
>
> While your romance with technology was going on... I won 5 awards. 1,
> Bronze, 3, silver and one Gold for my photography. Bringing my competition
> awards since 1968 to 89 and 60 special mentions. From where I stand Bret,
> unless you can lay claim to having won more awards for photography than me,
> you can't claim to be a better photographer. What's that? You don't bother
> to enter competitions? Hmmm... Curious.
I used to be in a photo club with quarterly competitions. I won a few
ribbons myself, and threw them away as as soon as I got home. Ribbons
or medals don't make a picture great. Nor does the selling price or
the number of web hits you might receive on your sites (I have over 1.3
million on my pbase sites, BTW). Each individual viewer determines
whether that photo is great to them. I get mostly favorable reviews
for most of my pics. I haven't seen the same acclaim for yours, but
maybe I've missed it.
Also, I didn't know you'd been taking pics since 1968. I started
seriously about 5 years ago.
-----------------------------------------------
>
> Now you decide that you are such a better photographer, your heavily cropped
> picture of a bird sitting on a log is some sort of example of your
> superiority as Photographer?
No dumbass, I posted that one because that's the one I took that day.
You can view my 2006 gallery ( http://www.pbase.com/bret/2006 ) and see
the pics I've taken so far this year, most of which were taken in the
past month and a half.
If you wanna whip em out, let's see your recent work. I probably get
better pics in a week than you can get in a year. And I have to do it
around my full-time job as a bean counter.
--------------------------------------------
>Gees mate... Do you think you could have taken
> the shot before you hit the bugger with freeze spray and glued it on the
> branch?
I take that as a compliment that it looks like a studio shot when it
was really taken out the car window during my lunch hour.
WHO RULES ???
Joseph Kewfi
> respond to Matt and you jump my shit. You guys a tag-team or something?
I think we're both making the same point to you, but it's still going over
your head unfortunately.
> As for the differences between the D60 and the 20D, you may not see
> them on your end.
> But the 20D is much more of a joy to use for a number of reasons
> (quicker startup, faster speed, etc.). Similar to driving a Lexus SC
> Coupe vs. a Chevy Lumina. Both cars will get you there, but one is
> much more fun to drive.
I see nothing here about how this will improve one's level of photography,
you're just talking about tech and features again.
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147618713....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Annika1980
>average 30 years in age.
Is this because the old stuff was better or because you just haven't
bought the new gear?
>If I had a lot of disposable cash, sure, I might buy new stuff.
Disregard my first question. You just answered it.
Yes, I'm a gear freak. Most of us reading this newsgroup are.
I lust after the new gear, but only when it allows me to do something I
can't do now.
Whether it is taking sharper pics or having a longer lens, I like to
dream. I lust after the 600mm f/4 because I could get pics with it
that I can't get now. I get some decent shots from my 400 f/5.6L, but
I often wonder how much better they'd be if the lens was the 400 f/2.8L
IS. A sharper lens with IS .... that will give you better photos, no
matter your skill level.
If you upgrade to say the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS from a cheapo Sigma,
every single one of your pics will be better. Every one!
Sure, you might get a decent pic with the Sigma, but wouldn't you want
it to be even better?
I remember seeing the tsunami photos, taken by a tourist with the 1Ds
and the 24-70L.
The photos were amazing at full size. I'd never seen anything like it.
And that guy was just a rich snapshooter on vacation.
I'd be dangerous with that combination. Give me a 1DsMKII with 85
f/1.2L II and I could produce pics that would stun you.
Maybe someday ....
Joseph Kewfi
bought the new gear?
I haven't bought any new photo gear since 2004, what does this mean? it
means that I don't feel I've reached the limits of the gear that I have and
can't justify purchasing anything new, until I do, if I do.
> If I had a lot of disposable cash, sure, I might buy new stuff.
> Disregard my first question. You just answered it.
Bret, you're behaving like a immature child. Grow up.
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147622136.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Randy Howard
(in article
<1147621179.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
> IIRC, I said that I thought it was a cool pic. I still do. I don't
> remember ever commenting about the skill it took to make it or whether
> it looked realistic.
Careful, usenet archives have a long history.
> I used to be in a photo club with quarterly competitions. I won a few
> ribbons myself, and threw them away as as soon as I got home.
Sure, we all believe that.
> Also, I didn't know you'd been taking pics since 1968. I started
> seriously about 5 years ago.
And you started telling everyone you could find how you "ruled"
and how great you were about 4.9999999 years ago.
Ever stopped to wonder why you have to keep telling people how
great you and your equipment are? If it was truly the case, you
wouldn't have to say it at all, we would be telling you instead.
> WHO RULES ???
Ansel Adams. John Shaw. Man Ray. Laura Gilpin. Nickolas
Muray. Andra Kertesz. Dorothea Lange. Berenice Abbott.
Lisette Model. Margaret Bourke-White. Andreas Feininger.
Henri Cartier-Bresson. Robert Doisneau. Helmut Newton. Louis
Stettner. Garry Winogrand. Galen Rowell. Moose Peterson.
There is a long list... few are arrogant enough to claim they
belong on it.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Mike
>>Quit lusting over equipment. My best images are made with lenses that
>>average 30 years in age.
>
> Is this because the old stuff was better or because you just haven't
> bought the new gear?
>
Because I do not feel that my gear is limiting my photography. Better
gear would have little impact on improving my photography.
My longest lens is a 200mm, and I rarely use it. Unlike you, I have no
interest in wildlife or sports photography where the latest high-tech
autofocus matters. 99% of my pictures are taken between 24-100mm. Most
the time I concentrate on still-life and landscapes...although sometimes I
do some street photography. I really only use 35mm for the latter.
Large-format has completely changed my photography.
I'm glad my photographic interests do not require the latest in high-tech
gear.
> I'd be dangerous with that combination. Give me a 1DsMKII with 85
> f/1.2L II and I could produce pics that would stun you.
> Maybe someday ....
I doubt it...and if so, it wouldn't be because of the equipment. Stunning
photographs have more to do with their content. Although I was stunned
when I saw some of Ansel Adam's original prints in which both the content
and the technical aspects were amazing...of course his technology is now
50+ years old.
D Mac
>> Yes, I'm a gear freak.
>> every single one of your pics will be better. Every one!
You are so full of yourself Bret, you are totally blind to facts. That
statement is completely incorrect.
The Sigma 70 - 200 F/2.8 is a sharper, clearer lens, producing more vibrant
colour rendition than *ANY* Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 lens ever made. The only
things it is "less" than a Canon in are the noise of the focus motor and
it's auto focus ability in very low light is not as good as the Canon lens.
I am no longer a Sigma reseller now that my camera store is closed but I
have used all the Canon "USM" and "L" series lenses and Sigma and Tamron
lenses. Canon do have a few lenses which are very good - not excellent, just
very good. They do of course lead the field with loaner lenses in the 1200mm
range which is why they attract so many Professional sports photographers.
When they can't afford to buy one, Canon loan or hire them one.
Sigma had a lot of really poor grade lenses in the early days. Then they
started making Professional lenses in the "EX" series. Then they modified
these for digital cameras in the "DG" series. Any Sigma lens with the EX, DG
description can be considered the equal (often superior) to a Canon "L"
series lens. Now Sigma have begun dumping their earlier "consumer" lenses
which were crappy things at their best. The new range of "designed for
digital" APS size sensor lenses are absolutely the equal to the USM range of
Canon lenses. One of them is so good, pictures from it, side by side with a
"L" lens, cannot be picked as better or worse. What can be picked is the
$1000 lower price!
If you want to talk about quality lenses, you really do need to leave Canon
out of the discussion. Even the 50 - 150 "kit" lens which comes with the
twin lens E300 (now E330) Olympus cameras takes pictures as good technically
speaking as the 70 -200 F2.8 or F/4.0 Canon lens. These camera kits, sell
for less than the cost of a Canon 70 -200 F/2.8 IS "L" lens alone. There's a
picture from one in your gallery on my server.
You probably know I'm freshly home from spinal surgery so I have more time
to engage you now, than when I'm working. I created a gallery on one of my
web sites this morning just for you, mate.
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/4bret You'll get a message about
permissions but just log in.
Username = bret
password = hispicssuck
It's not limited to just you, anyone can log in and have a look. Don't whine
about the 640x pic size. All my wedding and portrait galleries are on that
server and they get space preference over happy snaps. Thanks to the likes
of you, those galleries are now only accessable to people whom my client's
give permission.
You can see a dozen pics with the camera/lens description and crop
information. It might surprise some people (you'll probably cry foul) to see
what normal low cost digital cameras can actually produce in the way of
sharp, technically correct images ...you seem to need several grand's worth
of gear to accomplish.
Your comment earlier in this thread about the photocopied calendar I sent
you really shows you for the self centred zelot you really are. You were
whining about not having any money (as you are still doing in this thread)
and wishing you could become a "Pro" photographer but didn't know how to get
started when I sent you a calendar I made $3000 (AUD) from in November/
December that year. I thought you'd see the possibilities for making some
yourself and getting started in the business. The calendars were printed on
a $350 (US) Minolta laser printer and bound on a ($100) Kmart ring binder.
Not really rocket science.
You absolutely floor me to read a couple of years later that you had no
interest whatsoever in making your hobby pay for itself. You were just
flapping your lips to see if any noise came out, were you? My attempt to
help you get started was wasted. Now you say the quality of a laser print is
a valid judgment of someone's photographs. I really don't know why I thought
you were worth helping. Clearly you need a different kind of help to what I
could give.
Annika1980
>to engage you now, than when I'm working. I created a gallery on one of my
>web sites this morning just for you, mate.
>http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/4bret You'll get a message about
>permissions but just log in.
Aw, ain't that sweet!
BTW, it's spelled "uncropped" and "expect."
-----------------------------
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/4bret/P1010951
Is this your idea of a sharp image? You don't need new lenses, you
need glasses.
I didn't know about your spinal surgery, but I hope you recover fully.
The world is more interesting with you in it, my friend.
D Mac
>>> This is kinda fun .... I say something to you and Matt responds. I
>>> respond to Matt and you jump my shit. You guys a tag-team or
>>> something?
>>
>> I think we're both making the same point to you, but it's still
>> going over your head unfortunately.
>>
>>
>> photography, you're just talking about tech and features again.
>>
You're wasting your time Joseph.
From Bret's hijacking of this thread... It is clear he's a power hungry
joker. He is just trying to gain control over the thread because another
(much better) Photographer has posted a photo which raises emotion in the
viewer.
Mat Clara's photographs come from a photographer. The few times he does post
images, it allows people to see something other than just a picture. These
types of photographs don't need "brash colour", sharpness to the ninth
degree or for that matter, even correct exposure. They are a perfect example
of what a photograph should be. The Photographers interpretation of a scene.
Bret's pictures are from a joker seeking recognition where none is deserved.
They are like the brashness of a harlequin joker. When someone else gets
attention, he behaves like the court jester, making noise so the attention
is diverted to him. He has nothing to offer except distraction.
The concept that a $2000 lens will make you a better photographer if you
have a $10,000 camera to put it on just exemplifies Bret's opinion of
Photography. He'd be the same if were cameras or HiFi gear. No equipment is
good enough unless it is the best you can buy. Funny, but with all his
expensive gear, he still takes the same type and quality photos he did with
his original gear!
Douglas
Joseph Kewfi
Very good, but I think it can be even better this way :
http://www.esatclear.ie/~create-it/trilliums_mattclara_mycrop.jpg
Yes or No anyone ?
"Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:t66dnQrLZ6Q...@comcast.com...
> http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=104977
>
> Fuji Velvia, baby!
>
D Mac
>>
>> http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/4bret/P1010951
>>
>> Is this your idea of a sharp image? You don't need new lenses, you
>> need glasses.
>>
>> I didn't know about your spinal surgery, but I hope you recover
>> fully. The world is more interesting with you in it, my friend.
Let's see now. 12 pics pulled from the storage drive at 4:30AM
One of them you think is not sharp... Pretty good average if you ask me!
no_name
Theatrical release in the US was to drive-in theaters (double billed
with any of the old Vincent Price horror flicks).
Annika1980
Joseph Kewfi wrote:
>
> > As for the differences between the D60 and the 20D, you may not see
> > them on your end.
> > But the 20D is much more of a joy to use for a number of reasons
> > (quicker startup, faster speed, etc.). Similar to driving a Lexus SC
> > Coupe vs. a Chevy Lumina. Both cars will get you there, but one is
> > much more fun to drive.
>
> I see nothing here about how this will improve one's level of photography,
> you're just talking about tech and features again.
The 20D doesn't make you a better photographer, but it does produce
better pictures than the D60 and it allows you to get some shots you
might miss with a slower camera.
So I guess if it gives you better pics and more of them, it makes you
better, huh?
Annika1980
D Mac wrote:
> >> http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/4bret/P1010951
> >>
> >> Is this your idea of a sharp image? You don't need new lenses, you
> >> need glasses.
> >>
> Let's see now. 12 pics pulled from the storage drive at 4:30AM
> One of them you think is not sharp... Pretty good average if you ask me!
It's hard to determine absolute sharpness at web resolutions, but since
you posted those 12 pics as an example of sharp, technically correct
images, one would expect ALL of them to be tack sharp.
Annika1980
Joseph Kewfi wrote:
> I think we're both making the same point to you, but it's still going over
> your head unfortunately.
Maybe it is. So what is the point you guys are making?
That equipment doesn't matter? That's obviously not true or Matt
wouldn't be shooting MF and LF.
Is your point that you can still get decent pics with old equipment?
That's true.
Ben Hogan played pretty good golf in the 50's with old equipment. But
he'd do even better today with the modern stuff. Technology evolves.
Or is your point that having the best equipment won't make a bad
photographer great?
Well no shit! Nice strawman.
Annika1980
>They are like the brashness of a harlequin joker. When someone else gets
>attention, he behaves like the court jester, making noise so the attention
>is diverted to him. He has nothing to offer except distraction.
I see the pain killers have kicked in once again....
So what is your purpose here, D-Mac, other than busting my chops?
You comment on other's work as if you are some sort of expert, while
you're own pics are crap.
You brag that you make money by selling that crap to people who
obviously don't know any better.
You're just P.T. Barnum in drag.
BTW, go re-read this thread and you'll see that I only posted in it
after some joker mentioned my name and said I couldn't dream of ever
getting an artistic pic like Matt's. That's not exactly hijacking the
thread, now is it?
DD
annik...@aol.com says...
Cameras don't produce pictures, humans do. Cameras reproduce what they
are instructed to reproduce by means of an interface comprising several
variables. The symbiosis between camera and photographer is only
partially responsible for what the viewer of the output ultimately sees.
"Better pics" is a hugely subjective phrase. Just because it's sharper
or has more pixels, does not make it better. A poor picture remains a
poor picture regardless of what you use to take it. Ergo, a better
camera does not a better photographer make (as is demonstated with a
high level of frequency in threads containing the letters "20D" on this
group).
--
A Universal Lens Mount?
http://www.nikongear.com/Nikon_Articles.htm
Annika1980
DD wrote:
> Cameras don't produce pictures, humans do.
Philosophical hogwash. So why use a camera? Just make the pic
yourself.
It's like people arguing whether golf is mostly physical or mental.
Obviously, it's both since you can't have one without the other.
> "Better pics" is a hugely subjective phrase. Just because it's sharper
> or has more pixels, does not make it better.
Well it either has to be better, worse, or the same (similar), doesn't
it?
A larger, sharper pic isn't worse and it isn't the same.
So that leaves "better."
Throw in less noise at higher ISOs and you get "lots better."
Your arguments are nonsensical. I have a 2.1MP Kodak and a 20D.
Using your logic, I'd get the same quality pics from both of them since
I'm the human taking the photo and the camera doesn't make any
difference. I can assure you that this is not the case.
I've made over 23,000 posts on Usenet. I challenge you to produce even
one of them where I've claimed that it is ONLY the camera that makes a
great photo or a great photographer. And yet, you guys are claiming
the exact opposite, implying that it doesn't matter what gear you have.
Don't you see how silly that sounds?
The bottom line is this: better gear with better capabilities will help
ANY photographer take better photos than what they've been taking.
Will great gear make a poor photgrapher a great one? Obviously not.
Just as buying better track shoes won't make me as fast as Justin
Gatlin. But they will help me run faster.
John McWilliams
>
> The bottom line is this: better gear with better capabilities will help
> ANY photographer take better photos than what they've been taking.
> Will great gear make a poor photgrapher a great one? Obviously not.
This seems pretty indisputable. Not that it won't be!
--
john mcwilliams
Annika1980
They will if I've been used to wearing boots.
Randy Howard
(in article
<1147707520.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> The bottom line is this: better gear with better capabilities will help
> ANY photographer take better photos than what they've been taking.
You've bought new, supposedly better gear over the years. has
that happened? Is the consensus opinion that it has?
> Will great gear make a poor photgrapher a great one? Obviously not.
Obviously.
<We must hope the irony detector is fully functional>
> Just as buying better track shoes won't make me as fast as Justin
> Gatlin. But they will help me run faster.
Odds are they won't make you run any faster at all. Placebo
effect notwithstanding.