Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
True.The art reflects the Photographer the gear is but the brush
-bob
Actually, surely the larger question here is whether it's possible to represent the higher qualities of anything but a point and shoot on an Internet thread?i have been looking at the S2 images thread and it points to this question:
I am seeing that a large portion of the S2 images in that thread do not display any qualities that the S2 and it's lenses should be famous for. Putting aside the particular visions behind the images I am speaking of, and considering the topic of this thread, why use an S2, one of the most expensive DSLR's ever made?
Which points to the larger question: should the art reflect the gear?
not trying to demean ay images, only to move the discussion.
Yes, but when using them, picking out shed hairs is terribly annoying especially in oils.True.
As a painter my brushes are important, but having said that and after 40+ years using them, I still can't differentiate between the results produced by the various artist quality brushes, and if I could I doubt that I'd care.
Good question Jono,Actually, surely the larger question here is whether it's possible to represent the higher qualities of anything but a point and shoot on an Internet thread?
I use sable, synthetics, even bristle; all depends on the task in hand. I'll often scrub paint on which is something I'd never do using the finest and most expensive sable.Yes, but when using them, picking out shed hairs is terribly annoying especially in oils.
With watercolor often I find the new synthetics providing superior feel and flow so price is not the point; usability is.
-bob
Nicely put (and while not a tech camera, it may in part be why the new Fujifilm X100 with it's fixed prime may end up as a travelling P&S for many a pro me thinks. On paper this is shaping up to be a nice companion camera to our bigger systems)When I went to Yosemite this fall I had one lens for my tech camera (35mm). The running joke was it was "the perfect scene for a 35" or "I need to pull out my long 35" or "this calls for a short 35". I came away from that trip happy and have a number of shots that I want to print. Having one lens on that trip was the best thing for me.
Oh thanks for reminding me - kept forgetting to clean up sensor on Leaf for a week!Yes, but when using them, picking out shed hairs is terribly annoying especially in oils.
Actually, surely the larger question here is whether it's possible to represent the higher qualities of anything but a point and shoot on an Internet thread?
Also useable for BBQ fuelThats why i am sticking with charcoal (plus Santa gives me plenty of that.. ).
Because they are gear oriented sub-forums related to the format?Certainly true in so far as trying to show the higher quality of the MF image, for example.
What I was getting at was those images that don't seem to be about that higher quality. In fact, they seem to fly in the face of it, showing intentional pixellation (I suppose from extreme cropping/enlargement), intentional out of focus of the full frame, exaggerated colors, etc. Qualities that could maybe even more effectively have been achieved with a point and shoot.
It may be my prejudice, but I guess I expect to see images in the MF section that tend to display the qualities of MF; otherwise, why subdivide image collections with respect to gear at all?
Well Jim - it would likely show up the compression for the web . .do read the first line of the clip, but if i see an image that could have as well been made by an I-phone in the S2 images thread, i have to wonder, simple as that, and a thread titled gear and our art seems like a good place to discuss it. It doesn't even require a print to see my point. Are you saying a print of those pixellatied imagess would let me understand something that the web is masking?
Yeah, mine too. I use my cameras a lot more than my car though!If I didn't prefer to use my M9! (but my M9 kit is certainly worth more than my car).
Perhaps that the nature of this MFD forum Jono ... being fairly landscape heavy with lots of folks involved in pretty images that capture their personal experiences and relationships to the places they visit, but not necessarily content rich in terms of ideas. Just a different type of photography. Jim Collum is one of my favorites here.Well Jim - it would likely show up the compression for the web . .
Sure - you can get an idea of bokeh and DOF here - but I reckon that's about it, much more is to do with the skill of the poster.
With respect to the original title: just a scan through my brain for the best 'art' I've seen in these forums leads me inexorably towards the 'small sensor camera' forum, and some of the posts taken with Ricoh GRD cameras a couple of years ago - Wouter and many others displayed some splendid images with real quality. Lots of fine images of fine places in the MF threads . . . . but not artistically at the same level (IMVHO of course) (I can say this as I didn't participate in either )
all the best