Photographers splitting their brains

[dick]

I spent several years at the beginning of exploring photography assuming everything "should" be properly exposed, in perfect focus, and taken with excellent technique. That is often the case. But not always. For instance sometimes the message of the image is best told with an overexposed. Same thing with lens flare, subject movement on a semi-long exposure or even camera "shake".

If the image "works" no one gives a damn about the technicals.

Yes, Doug... but many photographers just get it wrong and then market it... saying that it is "art" or "their style"

That said, for many kinds of images technical perfection can greatly accentuate the things about the image that "work". Anytime you're looking to describe the intention of an image with "massive" "infinite" "sweeping" "wonderful texture" or "detailed" - whether landscape, interiors, product, still life, figure studies, or portraits, then better technical attributes of the image will often accentuate those attributes.

But technical perfection can only amplify the image. If there is no message in the image then all the amplification in the world won't do jack.
More over I have to say I still think the most overlooked area of image quality is "file flexibility". Just how well does the raw file hold up to the abuse of the post-processing you feel will best suite the image. I find myself over a lot of people's shoulders during post processing (because of the elements of my job that include software training and workflow consultation) and I often ask "is that as far as you wanted to push it" and I'm shocked how often the answer is "no, I wanted to push it further but I know it won't hold".

Yes, Doug - when in the studio you have control over the lighting... exposure and contrast ... but for landscape the ability to manipulate the image is paramount, and with software like phocus and good big files we can make transparencies look sick.... and do they ever try to assess this ability in camera reviews?

 

[Mr.Gale]

First of all, thank you guys. It was really nice to read your caring responses.
Evgeny, I fully understand what you mean but there's no practical way to test them. I own a 50mm, an 80mm and a 150mm all CF lenses from back 1988 or so.
I've read in some blogs, about photographers using 39mp backs with similar lenses and they seem to match the back (for this photogs).
I know it is a downhill race after getting into DMF. I can foresee buying more lenses, perhaps a tech camera, etc.
I main concern for the time being is if my current rig "matches" 39mp's of course. This is in part subjective and besides, new sharper glass will always deliver sharper results. So, the question is: Are my current lenses worth the price of a 39 mp digital back?
Perhaps, impossible to answer but I'd love to hear more opinions and personal experiences. Thanks
Eduardo

Hi Eduardo,
Earlier this year I tried what you are now thinking about doing and was very disappointed with my results. I also have a 500C/M and my lens selection is a 50mm Cfi, 100mm CF and a 250mm SA. What I bought was a P1 P30 back.
Here is a list of item I didn't like:
1. There is a mask for the ground glass that shows the sensor size for both horizontal and vertical. I had a hard time getting use to it. I think the P45+ has a larger sensor so this might not be a problem for you.
2. Focus is VERY critical! I have a Acute-Matte focusing screen and use a magnifier and still had a hard time with focus. The LCD screen on the P30 is useless for checking focus but I understand the + backs are better.
3. You need a rock solid tripod for long lenses to prevent camera movement blur. With my 250 I released the mirror and had to wait several seconds then gently press the cable release. Hand holding with any of my lenses was a real crap shoot even at a fast shutter speed.
Adding all these problems together made using the camera a real challenge! The good news is when you do everything right, the images are excellent! I only had the camera for a couple of months so if I would have stuck it out, I'm sure my results would have improved.
YMMV.
Good luck,
Mr.Gale

 

[Mr.Gale]

"I only had the camera for a couple of months so if I would have stuck it out, I'm sure my results would have improved."
I meant to say back, I still have the camera. I bought an adapter to attach my Hasselblad lenses to my D800E, snapshots look good but I haven't tested them seriously yet.

Mr.Gale

 

[Uaiomex]

Medium format lenses on a highly packed 24X36 sensor doesn't sound too provocative to me. Interesting experiment though. If they do good on the D800, they could be good too with the IQ180, at least at the center. Please let us know your results.
Eduardo

"I only had the camera for a couple of months so if I would have stuck it out, I'm sure my results would have improved."
I meant to say back, I still have the camera. I bought an adapter to attach my Hasselblad lenses to my D800E, snapshots look good but I haven't tested them seriously yet.

Mr.Gale

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Eduardo,
I understand that relationship with the mechanical aspect. I always choose a mechanical camera on hikes or remote locations. Nothing beats the wlf either for composing IMO.
The hasselblad v backs are limited in the 6x6 format, but perhaps the p25+ in a RB would give you the extra sensor you need for your style of photography.