The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Now, after switching from MF to D800...

Shashin

Well-known member
Daguerre and Niepce were always striving for better quality and faster lenses, less field curvature, etc. The quantitative data standards of MTF, might not have been established, but its steeped in early photographic history.
No argument there, but that does not describe ALL of photographic history. For every photographer that was stressing over every technical quality, I can find one that wasn't.

Now, if a high-level of technical perfection is part of your work, more power to you. But that does not mean that is the only successful approach to photography.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Pixel resolution is not the first thing I look for in a camera. And with the increase in the number of pixels offered today, the less relevant it becomes. It is kind of like house prices, a $500,000 house must be twice as good as a $250,000 one...
 

Paratom

Well-known member
No argument there, but that does not describe ALL of photographic history. For every photographer that was stressing over every technical quality, I can find one that wasn't.

Now, if a high-level of technical perfection is part of your work, more power to you. But that does not mean that is the only successful approach to photography.
Sometimes it sounds that "technical perfection" is making things more difficult.
I do believe however that it can make things more simple as well. Because you know the equipment is not the weak point and you can rely on it.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Sometimes it sounds that "technical perfection" is making things more difficult.
I do believe however that it can make things more simple as well. Because you know the equipment is not the weak point and you can rely on it.
HI Tom
I quite agree - I think it depends whether the quest for technical perfection gets in the way of the quest for a good image - if it doesn't then that's great.

For me that's the best reason for using a good quality lens - you don't need to consider whether it's going to vignette badly wide open or whatever. I've purchased so many mediocre lenses - either because they're cheap, or because they offer a tempting zoom range . . . hoping against hope that they wouldn't be mediocre (and always being disappointed). Added to which there isn't any complication using a decent lens.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Sometimes it sounds that "technical perfection" is making things more difficult.
I do believe however that it can make things more simple as well. Because you know the equipment is not the weak point and you can rely on it.
Not really. Technical perfection, at least those qualities controlled by the photographer, is easy, or it should be. And knowing the equipment is even easier as you don't even need technical perfection for that--how hard is focus and exposure anyway?
 
I've had my d800 for four months and have used it about ten times as much as I expected. My plan was to use it in place of medium format—not because I think it's "as good," but because the technical camera kit I'd like to have is orders of magnitude out of my price range.

I've been pleased with the big camera style work that I've done, although I find working with the dslr to be a bit fussy and clunky compared with working with 4x5 film (where most of my experience is).

The big surprise is how much I've taken to using it as a small camera. I got seduced by its nimbleness and low light abilities immediately, and it suckered me into starting a project that seems almost like (gasp!) street photography. Not my usual thing, but there it is, and inspired by a stupid camera!

I'd be harder pressed to say I've fallen in love with it, though. I'm finding it to be a very trustworthy and capable tool, but there's something about the software and all the little buttons that keeps it from really feeling like an extension of my nervous system. I don't know if this is the cameras fault, or if it's just me being a luddite ... most of my photo experience is with cameras that have big knobs, no batteries, and the basic technology of a wind-up clock.
 

JimCollum

Member
Thanks Marc,

My mind wasn't even in that direction for the post.. but you're right in that regard... commercial photography is another beast... actually, i'd consider it an art form in itself, with much greater technical craftsmanship necessary than most landscape/fine art. (i'm putting studio and architectural both in that arena)

There are probably a dozen photographers on this forum that actually fit into that category (myself, not being one, and Marc.. you definitely in that mix). While there are probably many more here that understand that aspect of photography, and can probably do it from 'recipe'.. few actually produce that work that contains a 'signature'.. someone who's name comes up automatically when a random commercial piece is shown.

I guess one of my points is that, other than those few dozen or so.. the time and money would better be spent in honing those skills, rather than worrying about MTF curves and pixel density of sensors. Other than just the experience of the 'joy of gear' (of which i partake as well) the differences won't be apparent in the actual work as the lack of skill in the other areas.)


I think there is a time and place for all types of emphasis. When shooting products in studio, especially precision oriented subjects, my view camera, 60 meg back and Rodenstock optics render exactly what is needed. In this case "clinical" is highly desirable, even mandatory. At that point these tools have no other purpose what-so-ever because most of my work is about people and the human condition.

I also think that such rapidly advancing technology has swung the photo-focus far to much to the science side and content has suffered for it. I often wonder why we jump from lilly pad to lilly pad before we actually master a tool to the point that the technology disappears into the background, and all our efforts then become dedicated to making a meaningful image with interesting content presented in an emotive manner.

IMO, no matter how technically astute one may be, struggling with each new tool and the challenges they present robs one of the emotional energy and focus need to dig down deep and make images of deeper meaning and engagement.


- Marc
 

JimCollum

Member
from a 'useability' point of view, i've found (and it seems it's a common observation), the D800 to be much 'easier' to use and set up. That is probably a good thing in most cases.. but I wonder how much is lost from the forced introspection that goes on during difficult set-ups. I know you can put yourself in the same frame of mind with any camera... but most don't.. and having those extra minutes to even wonder.. should I even take a shot.. help in developing quality. I know from shooting 4x5, that the resulting images are different than I've taken with 35mm or MF. I think that has a lot less to do with lens quality and film size (sensor size), as the self censoring that goes on when you're wasting time instead of shots/film.

I still take the 4x5 & Betterlight out.. not for better tech quality, but for the frame of mind it puts me in
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Not really. Technical perfection, at least those qualities controlled by the photographer, is easy, or it should be. And knowing the equipment is even easier as you don't even need technical perfection for that--how hard is focus and exposure anyway?
To answer your question, very, very hard indeed.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Thanks Marc,

My mind wasn't even in that direction for the post.. but you're right in that regard... commercial photography is another beast... actually, i'd consider it an art form in itself, with much greater technical craftsmanship necessary than most landscape/fine art. (i'm putting studio and architectural both in that arena)

There are probably a dozen photographers on this forum that actually fit into that category (myself, not being one, and Marc.. you definitely in that mix). While there are probably many more here that understand that aspect of photography, and can probably do it from 'recipe'.. few actually produce that work that contains a 'signature'.. someone who's name comes up automatically when a random commercial piece is shown.

I guess one of my points is that, other than those few dozen or so.. the time and money would better be spent in honing those skills, rather than worrying about MTF curves and pixel density of sensors. Other than just the experience of the 'joy of gear' (of which i partake as well) the differences won't be apparent in the actual work as the lack of skill in the other areas.)
Actually, I was in violent agreement with you.

The Commercial aspect was merely a foot-note ... in fact many commercial photographers I've worked with in past were successful because of their ideas ... their tech people attended to the other stuff.

Commercial studio work makes up maybe 10% of my shooting these days ... the remainder is spent defining some sort of visual voice that speaks to people ... if that's what you mean by signature.

-Marc
 

JimCollum

Member
Commercial studio work makes up maybe 10% of my shooting these days ... the remainder is spent defining some sort of visual voice that speaks to people ... if that's what you mean by signature.

-Marc
yea.. that's the part that's so much harder than the tech, rarer to find.. but I don't see many looking in that direction for improvement in their work. I know it's a harder discussion to have than 'should i get x lens because it's sharper..', but i think that voice is what actually makes a difference in one's work.

this is just one point of view though. My friend was perfectly happy with what I considered aesthetically boring, yet technically perfect images. They did very well in his camera club.. and for him, it was never really about the image as much as the gear and the work getting there.

jim
(personally, i've never considered the 'gee.. your work reminds me of <some famous photographer>' to be complimentary.)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Personally on workshops I'm more teaching folks how to SEE than the technical part. I put more emphasis there as its much harder to learn. It's really hard to describe here on the forums in the written word and much better standing next to someone and helping them. Why I love doing the workshops.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
But this is the "Nikon" forum and not the "composition" forum ;)

And as someone being part of this tech talk I am totally aware that much of the discussion about gear doesnt bring us further regarding photography.
I guess most would admit that this is true. Its fun anyways.



yea.. that's the part that's so much harder than the tech, rarer to find.. but I don't see many looking in that direction for improvement in their work. I know it's a harder discussion to have than 'should i get x lens because it's sharper..', but i think that voice is what actually makes a difference in one's work.

this is just one point of view though. My friend was perfectly happy with what I considered aesthetically boring, yet technically perfect images. They did very well in his camera club.. and for him, it was never really about the image as much as the gear and the work getting there.

jim
(personally, i've never considered the 'gee.. your work reminds me of <some famous photographer>' to be complimentary.)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
But this is the "Nikon" forum and not the "composition" forum ;)

And as someone being part of this tech talk I am totally aware that much of the discussion about gear doesnt bring us further regarding photography.
I guess most would admit that this is true. Its fun anyways.
Well your right reason i did not get into any of the aesthetics either in the front end of this discussion. I was purely talking on the tech side and not the drawing of glass or anything like that. We went sideways a little. LOL
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
The reality is with photography being a singular blend of technical competence and aesthetic proficiency, most people want to discuss and dissect the technical nuances of gear more than than they want to discuss the art -- at least it seems to be the case to me. Our goal when setting up GetDPI was to blend BOTH in a friendly fashion, so that both (either) sides can get the most of what they want from the discussions.

This is a long way of stating that while this is a "Nikon specific" thread, and hence infers a certain bent toward the technical aspect of same, ALL of our fora are really about advancing ones photographic art in total. Which of course encompasses both expanding ones technical proficiency with the specific gear they use as well as expanding their aesthetic vision.

Cheers,
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well said Jack. Honestly its whatever works well in a thread and I'm one of the worst offenders sometimes going slightly sideways in our discussions. Its all good in my opinion. Its hard talking sometimes without talking both left and right side brain traits.
 

JimCollum

Member
Well said Jack. Honestly its whatever works well in a thread and I'm one of the worst offenders sometimes going slightly sideways in our discussions. Its all good in my opinion. Its hard talking sometimes without talking both left and right side brain traits.
hey.. as a number on this thread are very aware.... i'm also into the gear :)

and enjoy all the different directions threads may take... 30 years of software engineering tend to give one a 'geek' perspective on these things as well.... the 'what happens when you attach this to that...'

as far as moving from MFD to D800.. one of the things i've missed in the larger sensor size is the perspective change. One of my favorite combinations with the Leaf was using a Zeiss 110/2 . This gave a specific depth of field when used at, say, portrait distance that changes when attached to the D800. I've found using the 50mm 1.2 comes close to this, but still not exact. It's one of the reasons I'll still shot MF film.. to get that look.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
I love Nikon's AF - I've never had an issue with AF systems, just about anyone's can focus competently, and most high-end DSLRs the last ten years have had good PDAF tracking capabilities. The problem for me has always been the fact that while accurate and fast, it doesn't focus where I want to. AF point selection and point availability has never particularly suited compositional needs. Murphy has too often dictated that when I have a point selected on the left side the subject is best placed to the right. And of course it's moving so needs to be tracked or prefocused.

I just totally, absolutely love 3D AF-C. I pick up say the subject's face with AF-ON, compose and shoot, while the AF system follows the focal point around the frame as the subject moves. I love it not because it's faster or more accurate, or for any particularly technical reason - but because it frees me to pay attention to background juxtaposition which is very timing sensitive, and other compositional factors that matter a whole lot more than the last itty bitty AF speed. A person doesn't move all that fast typically, but they do move. Prefocusing is always possible of course, but that tends to give pretty sh*tty background juxtaposition to be perfectly frank.
 
Top