Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Have the standards changed?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Have the standards changed?

    Although I've seen impressive pictures taken with some of those old MF vintage lenses, I've also seen some very poor results, images that if taken with a regular P&S would be considered unacceptable, the photographer would be considered mediocre and the camera would most likely receive real poor reviews. However, those images seem to be totally acceptable here and in other m4/3 forums. So, what gives? Are these pictures with very poor IQ considered OK (or even a piece of art) because people understand and realize the challenges involved in shooting with old glass and consequently end up giving more credit than they deserve or have people's photographic tastes changed as a result of this new world that opened up with this great m4/3 format or perhaps a combination of the two? Just wondering!
    Tullio

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Not sure which images you consider "impressive" and which ones "poor". It all depends on your outlook.

    Have you seen images taken with collimating lenses such as the Rodenstock Heligon 50/0.75 or pinholes on CaNikons?

    Is there a set of rules that documents the said "standards"?

  3. #3
    Kewk
    Guest

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Could be a couple of things.

    Firstly, old lens are worse in a lot of ways when compared to modern glass, but they do offer some unique qualities. For example prefer the "look" of the old Summitar common to the modern, super sharp, Summicron 50mm. I wouldn't call the IQ poor but you might depending on what you want out of a lens.

    Secondly, I generally don't comment on lousy pictures unless the photographer directly asks for criticism. I think a lot of people feel the same way so positive feedback is more common than negative. Nobody likes to have their new lens dumped on.

  4. #4
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Tullio,
    There are lots of issues that you raise, but lets just pick on glass for a moment.

    Frankly, the film emulsions of old were not very demanding of lenses. Film has problems of its own, emulsion thickness (causing diffusion), granulation, haliation and so forth.
    Lens coatings used not to be that good either. Many of the older lenses with several elements used to need to print on a grade harder paper to compensate for the veiling flare.

    Digital is much more demanding, every nuance of lens performance subject to nyquist sampling limitations are now visible, and as for curvature of field, well film's three dimensional structure was more forgiving, digital's almost completely planar sensitive surface converts what used to be gradual sharpness fall-off into something much more exaggerated.

    New lenses are a lot better technically. Some has to do with glass, but more due to superior coatings and better lens design software and cheap processing horsepower to run it with.

    OTOH, much of the charm of the older glass was precisely in how it renders its aberrations. The (ahem, flame throwers down gentlemen) "Mandler glow" was not due to "high technical quality" it is due to well balanced aberrations. Our lenses today are much sharper, have flatter fields, and lower aberrations which sometimes we trade-off for the convenience of zooms.

    So, in short, old glass makes images on digital sensors without crisp and pure clinical rendition, but can give us instead some of the "character" called for in certain images.
    -bob

  5. #5
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Not sure which images you consider "impressive" and which ones "poor". ...
    After I wrote my post, I realized that this question would be asked. In the end, it's all a matter of personal taste and I certainly realize that. So, when a camera is reviewed, there are a number of things the reviewers take into consideration in terms of IQ and certain standards they have put in place based on people's expectations in order to rate them. Otherwise, there would be no need for anyone to review anything since in the end it would all be up to personal preference, which can vary considerably from person to person. With that in mind, what I mean by impressive can be translated to good sharpness, color rendition, great resolution with lots of details, nice bokeh, things like that. When I look at a particular picture (and this is just me), I try to take many things into account before I say to myself "this is real good" or "this is good" or " what a piece of j***" or anything else in between. Sometimes the image may not look very sharp but I think one can tell (or suspect) that the photographer meant it to be like that. Other times, it seems obvious that the IQ is not good because the lens is poor. I believe we all make that determination in our heads before we give thumbs up/down.
    Tullio

  6. #6
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    I think another aspect is the smaller cameras have allowed or encouraged more new, less experienced shooters to participate. In the end, this is a very good thing, but then we have a more diverse selection of images to view...

    You have me thinking that in addition to the PaD (Picture a Day) series that have become so popular, some of us should consider a BoW (Best of Week) series to post...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  7. #7
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kewk View Post
    ...
    Secondly, I generally don't comment on lousy pictures unless the photographer directly asks for criticism. I think a lot of people feel the same way so positive feedback is more common than negative. Nobody likes to have their new lens dumped on.
    I agree and in a way I do the same. I don't necessarily think that when people don't comment is because the image is mediocre but perhaps it's simply because it's nothing out of the ordinary, which is perfectly fine. Some people like to post anything and everything, some others are more selective while others are in the middle. I think we (photography lovers) to a certain extent have to adjust (or tweak for lack of a better word) our photographic taste as time goes by because standards change. Centuries ago, artists portrait women as being voluptuous. Today, slim is it. I'm trying to understand how the world of photography is changing so I can fine tune my points of view.
    Tullio

  8. #8
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    ...
    You have me thinking that in addition to the PaD (Picture a Day) series that have become so popular, some of us should consider a BoW (Best of Week) series to post...
    These exercises certainly encourage creativity. Many days I have no chance to step outside the house as I'm buried with work. As a result, going around the neighborhood to look for interesting subjects to photograph is not an option. I find that there are plenty of stuff in my house (inside and out) I can take pictures of. The trick is to make them look interesting.
    Tullio

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Yes, changing of times.

    For a long time, Imogen Cunnigham was the standard (in most circles, I should add)for some types of photography.

    While may be unprecedented and captivating (depending on the time and perspective), some did not even get the recognition they might have deserved.

    Snow flakes?

    For e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8473771.stm

  10. #10
    Senior Member kevinparis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    From my own personal viewpoint, as someone who takes photos for a personal artistic pleasure, is that quality of image is more important than image quality.

    By this I mean that the content of the picture - its subject matter, its composition, the story it tells or conveys supercedes any technical aspects of the picture.

    If people are looking at photos and only judging terms in terms of sharpness/CA/bokeh or indeed what camera they were taken on, then the photo has fundementally failed.

    I accept that there are situations where these technically aspects become important - but these are more in the realm of scientific/technical type photography - not in artistic photography.

    go back and look at some of the photos from the past that have lasted and remain powerful, from people like cartier Bresson, Tim Page, willy ronis or whatever... I am sure many of them wouldn't pass the stringent standards of image quality that seems to be todays gold standards

    just my thoughts

    K

  11. #11
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    ...
    OTOH, much of the charm of the older glass was precisely in how it renders its aberrations. The (ahem, flame throwers down gentlemen) "Mandler glow" was not due to "high technical quality" it is due to well balanced aberrations. Our lenses today are much sharper, have flatter fields, and lower aberrations which sometimes we trade-off for the convenience of zooms.

    So, in short, old glass makes images on digital sensors without crisp and pure clinical rendition, but can give us instead some of the "character" called for in certain images.
    -bob
    Bob, another question in my mind is, are we now experimenting with all those old glasses because comparatively speaking they are "cheap"? I've spent a good chunk of money on reasonably cheap old lenses (macro and 135mm particularly) only to be disgusted with the results. Some lenses I come across on eBay I have never ever heard of (not that I'm an expert on old lenses or anything but when I do a Google search on them, a lot of times I get no results, so I have a hard time believing they were that popular to begin with). Their low prices are certainly an incentive for one to try them out. But, when you spend $30 here, $70 there, another $95 elsewhere, and the results you get from those lenses are somewhat on the poor side, then it starts to bother me.
    Tullio

  12. #12
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
    Bob, another question in my mind is, are we now experimenting with all those old glasses because comparatively speaking they are "cheap"? I've spent a good chunk of money on reasonably cheap old lenses (macro and 135mm particularly) only to be disgusted with the results. Some lenses I come across on eBay I have never ever heard of (not that I'm an expert on old lenses or anything but when I do a Google search on them, a lot of times I get no results, so I have a hard time believing they were that popular to begin with). Their low prices are certainly an incentive for one to try them out. But, when you spend $30 here, $70 there, another $95 elsewhere, and the results you get from those lenses are somewhat on the poor side, then it starts to bother me.
    There might be a reason they are so cheap.
    The lenses with great character that have been "discovered" often demand higher prices.
    -bob

  13. #13
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by kevinparis View Post
    ...
    By this I mean that the content of the picture - its subject matter, its composition, the story it tells or conveys supercedes any technical aspects of the picture.

    If people are looking at photos and only judging terms in terms of sharpness/CA/bokeh or indeed what camera they were taken on, then the photo has fundementally failed....
    I agree to a certain extent. Art photography is one thing and it has its place and time. However, it's not for everyone. It's art and as such, it's subject to interpretation and personal taste. I can see a photographer setting the camera to ISO 6400 just to obtain the grain and lack of definition produced by the camera (assuming the camera does not handle ISO 6400 that well, of course), or using a particular lens that is known for its softness in order to obtain a gentle look. The thing is, in general, people like their family photos, landscape/architecture photos taken while on vacation to be sharp, colorful, well exposed and all that and for that, the camera/lens being used will play a bigger role than the photographer's techniques and skills.
    Tullio

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    I agree with Kevin.

    The quality of a photograph has zero to do with the technical abilities of the camera that took it.

    Great photographs can be taken with obsolete, outdated equipment, and poor photographs can be taken with the latest state of the art camera.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    There might be a reason they are so cheap.
    The lenses with great character that have been "discovered" often demand higher prices.
    -bob
    Yes, they do but still, comparatively speaking (and I'm referring to some of the new good digital lenses), they are "cheap". Of course there are some old lenses out there going for thousands of dollars but those are not for everyone and not the ones I'm referring to.
    Tullio

  16. #16
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    ...
    The quality of a photograph has zero to do with the technical abilities of the camera that took it.
    That is very subjective. Not everybody is a skilled photographer and for those people, the camera is it. And let's face it, that includes a huge percentage of the population. I've met many people who bought DSLRs thinking that they were much better and the IQ they produced would surpass any P&S, only to find themselves frustrated and disappointed with the results because the learning curve was much steeper than they first anticipated. In the end, they sold their gear and switch to a good P&S. Now they are happy. Does that count for anything? I certainly think so.
    Tullio

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Well of course, not everyone is a skilled painter, or musician, either. No amount of changing brushes or oils or guitar brand is going to make a difference...

    What's subjective is what an individual prefers. One person's admirable photograph may be another person's reject...this is independent of the equipment.

  18. #18
    Senior Member kevinparis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Think almost every cameras out there today is capable of taking clear sharp colourful well exposed pictures - probably better than the majority of cameras available 10 years ago and certainly 15 years ago - if you have any go look back at the snap shots taken with 110, disc cameras, APS, or even consumer 35mm film cameras. Think you might find that anything with more than a couple of megapixels blows them away.

    The fact that you are even trying other lenses indicates that you are trying to add something to your pictures - you have progressed from snapshooter to photographer. Being artistic/creative doesn't mean you are producing "Art" per se, but just going the step beyond blindly capturing whats in front of you

    A different camera doesn't make you a better photographer... just gives you a different palette to play with - cameras don't take photographs, people do

    all just my opinions - no offence intended

    K

    Quote Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
    I agree to a certain extent. Art photography is one thing and it has its place and time. However, it's not for everyone. It's art and as such, it's subject to interpretation and personal taste. I can see a photographer setting the camera to ISO 6400 just to obtain the grain and lack of definition produced by the camera (assuming the camera does not handle ISO 6400 that well, of course), or using a particular lens that is known for its softness in order to obtain a gentle look. The thing is, in general, people like their family photos, landscape/architecture photos taken while on vacation to be sharp, colorful, well exposed and all that and for that, the camera/lens being used will play a bigger role than the photographer's techniques and skills.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Y.B.Hudson III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    314
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    tools are used to frame (shape) aesthetics ... artists are not critics, critics are not artists, and curators are neither...







    Hudson

  20. #20
    Senior Member f6cvalkyrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,643
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    29

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    One person's admirable photograph may be another person's reject...
    I totally agree, Robert, and it is what happened to me when I started a "bokeh" thread in another (general) photography forum.
    I got some reactions in the sense that my pics would have been their "non-keepers" for images that were applauded to in the "bokeh" thread here

    Go understand ...

    But then, apart from the blatantly evident technical errors (and even those can look very nice), photography is a very personal thing.

    C U
    Rafael
    E-M1/GH2/G1 Full Spectrum & lots of lenses
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/f6cvalk...th/9226689839/

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Tullio,
    So, in short, old glass makes images on digital sensors without crisp and pure clinical rendition, but can give us instead some of the "character" called for in certain images.
    -bob
    Well put. And there are even some legacy lenses that render images with character which are also rather sharp and crisp.
    Not all of my dearest photographs are made with those crisp and clinical (kit)zooms, but when you need that they are great.

    I would never be able to get some of the results, I meet with old lenses, with one of the perfect lenses of nowaydays. Furthermore some people like to investigate the charms and quality these older lenses can have. It is just a matter of taste and interest.
    If I look through some pictures in my library with just the simple subject flower I see some nice and perfectly sharp, colourful and with a nicely blurred background shots with the Olympus SWD 12-60 lens but I prefer to look at a picture I took with a € 5 Aus Jena 50/2.8 lens. How can that be?
    May be because perfection is boring and leaves no room for coincidence, which is of main importance for photography. Serendipity one could say; create the best conditions to meet unique coincidence. Besides place and subject, one of those conditions can be an older lens.
    Of course this doesn't work if you run into something in action and you need to react fast. Then you wish you had a fast kitzoom. Solution; 2 cameras.

    Art is actually very democratic in the sense that everybody can and has an opinion about it even if one knows nothing about it. And that will remain so, I quess.

    Some people post a lot of pictures and some post a lot of opinions and some do both and that results in a sort of automatic hierarchy of authority in forums which can be irritating but are just natural.
    It all adds to our knowledge, so that's good.

    Michiel

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    284
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    To add to this, I've experimented with a good deal of legacy glass and been overall astonished with the quality. Specifically old Olympus glass (especially the 85mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4) and Contax/Zeiss stuff (the 45/2 has become kind of legendary around here for the sharpness)

    I'm now using Konica glass because it's so incredibly cheap and a few specific lenses (the 50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2) are close to the Zeiss stuff w/r/t sharpness and have lovely OOF rendition and color.

  23. #23
    Kewk
    Guest

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    By the way, this thread reminded me of my grandfathers slide slow. He had very low standards for what made it in the slide show we had to watch every Christmas.

    He'd have 12 pictures in a row of the same fish with only three in focus, then one of his shoes he took by accident, then one of the sky, then back to the fish this time upside down, then one half picture from the end of the slide roll... If Kodak sent him 36 slides, he put all 36 into the carousel.

    So compared to my childhood slide shows, standards are way up, though I really miss them.

  24. #24
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
    Although I've seen impressive pictures taken with some of those old MF vintage lenses,
    sure ... I have a Bessa RF and a Bessa I 6x9 120 roll film camera which I use too. Its impressive just how much advantage you can get from that many acres of film (compared to the 18x13.5mm of 4/3).

    To put that into perspective and remembering that 4/3 is about 1/4 the dimensions of 35mm, this is 35mm overlaid 6x9





    its like bringing an uzzi along to a fight with an artillery piece.


    Are these pictures with very poor IQ considered OK (or even a piece of art) because people understand and realize the challenges involved in shooting with old glass and consequently end up giving more credit than they deserve or have people's photographic tastes changed as a result of this new world that opened up with this great m4/3 format or perhaps a combination of the two? Just wondering!
    or is it because you don't get to see them well handled in the digital domain?

    for instance, some time ago I was doing somelens tests and found that the Bessa seemed to suck I discovered that its only an effect of how we test.

    Taking a boring out the window shot like this with my Bessa



    and with a 10D


    which is actually not as wide as the Bessa lens was, so should have an advantage ... but then getting to the details:
    Bessa 6x9


    10D


    both are 100% segments (and the Bessa was only scaned on a flatbed scanner) the 10D suddenly looks 'lacking'


    try reading this blog post too, might surprise you.

    The Bessa does ok for "portraits" too



    if you're doing enlargements to x10 (that's roughly 90cm on the long axis) the smoothness of tonality in black and white will surprise you.
    Last edited by pellicle; 10th March 2010 at 10:00.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
    Although I've seen impressive pictures taken with some of those old MF vintage lenses, I've also seen some very poor results, images that if taken with a regular P&S would be considered unacceptable, the photographer would be considered mediocre and the camera would most likely receive real poor reviews. However, those images seem to be totally acceptable here and in other m4/3 forums. So, what gives? Are these pictures with very poor IQ considered OK (or even a piece of art) because people understand and realize the challenges involved in shooting with old glass and consequently end up giving more credit than they deserve or have people's photographic tastes changed as a result of this new world that opened up with this great m4/3 format or perhaps a combination of the two? Just wondering!
    I guess I'm not sure what the point of this thread is other than to express a dislike for some photos people have posted on this forum. Here's a couple of points that come to mind:

    1. There is a big difference between a photograph and a picture. You deliberately compose a photograph, whereas you snap a picture (and for the most part hope you get kinda what you wanted). Both have their merits. As long as the photographer who holds the camera gets what they intended to get, it's a valid expression of their art and of their unique point of view.

    2. To that end, lens IQ (I guess as defined here as sharpness, contrast, MTF, etc., etc.) may or may not play a part in the end result. A cheap lens that has a certain character may be exactly the effect the photographer wanted to express. Lenses are tools of the trade, and if one understands the limitations of the lenses they have in their bag, then one can use those limitations as an advantage in getting the right effect.

    3. Sometimes cheap lenses with poor IQ is all that people can afford to purchase, especially in this economy. At least they're out there making an effort to learn the craft, and posting on forums like this is a great way to elicit feedback so you get better. The beauty of the m4/3 format cameras is that it allows that sort of experimentation with non-name brand lenses and gear for cheap, so I'm not sure why it's a surprise that people would go out and buy cheap lenses with 'poor' IQ since that's a major selling point for the system.

    4. I don't think I accepted any terms and conditions when I signed up for this forum and others that I will only post 'good' photos, and I'm certain others who post here regularly haven't either, so what gives? If you think a posted photo deserves some constructive feedback, then offer it. I'm sure most people here would be OK with that if it comes from a place of trying to help and not one where you're simply trying to be mean and condescending.

    So what is this thread really about?

    -Dragos
    -Dragos
    Panasonic GH1/G1, Canon FTb(n)/F-1, Mamiya C330F/RB67 Pro SD, Chamonix 45N-2, Nikon F5 + Assorted Lenses

  26. #26
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by photoSmart42 View Post
    So what is this thread really about?

    -Dragos
    no idea ... but when did that ever stop anyone here before?

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    I also see photos by well regarded photographers that many people (probably the average viewer) would find just totally without merit. They were composed, particular lens chosen, processing technique done extremely well--and some just won't get them at all. That's okay--personally I'm a process person--not caring much about recording something as the person next to me could probably do as well (though I certainly do that kind of photography also) but wanting to inject some of myself into what I shoot--or at least ultimately put into my galleries or print. So I like to see how someone else sees a subject or landscape, etc. and try to be open minded about it (not implying others don't also) and consider what the goal was. Sometimes its just trying different lenses to see how they can be used to express oneself.

    Edit: I did want to add, when traveling, one often does want to record what one sees--but perhaps put their own perspective on it--as using a very wide angle lens or a lens that can selectively isolate the subject--and on and on.

    Diane

  28. #28
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,099
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by kevinparis View Post
    ...
    go back and look at some of the photos from the past that have lasted and remain powerful, from people like cartier Bresson...I am sure many of them wouldn't pass the stringent standards of image quality that seems to be todays gold standards
    Apparently, some of C-B's images are indeed technically poor, while those of Ansel Adams ain't -- but then they were doing very different things...
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  29. #29
    Senior Member apicius9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Interesting dicussion. If you don't mind a comment from a personal perspective:

    While old enough to have more experience, my interest has changed from 'taking pictures' to 'photography' with the appearance of the m4/3 system. For me, it is totally fascinating to use 80 year old movie lenses on a modern digital camera, and I have fun sharing these pictures. But I have to say that of all the forums (and I only look at a few that have a m4/3 section) getdpi is already the most intimidating one with regards to posting pictures because there are so many talented people posting here, including professionalls who have been doing this for a while - and who will have seen many things and used many lenses before which are a new world to me as a beginner. So, I am sure I am contributing to lowering the standard through posting technically questionable pictures with old lenses, taken with a meagre and just developing skill set. Personally, I would love to learn through constructve feedback and I know that there is almost endless room to improve. I would also find it discouraging to expect all pictures posted to conform to a 'standard' - however defined - that is hard to achieve for someone who just gets started with this.

    So, in addition to Jack's suggestion of a best of the week, I think something like a 'beginners' section' where people can explicitly post to get constructive feedback would be a great idea - if that works with the structure of the forum.

    Stefan

  30. #30
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by photoSmart42 View Post
    I guess I'm not sure what the point of this thread is other than to express a dislike for some photos people have posted on this forum. ...
    No, not at all...you totally misinterpreted my post. As I mentioned previously, if I really dislike something, I don't go and bash. I ignore. I find no reason to be rude or obnoxious (specially considering that I'm no expert and am not in the position to tell anyone that his/her work sucks). I'm simply trying to have a feel for what's going on as far as how IQ is being perceived these days. If you search some of the popular photography forums going back 3+ years, you'll see that images that today might get an applause, back then were heavily criticized. Until not too long ago, high ISO noise was a big no-no. One can find thousands of posts discussing camera's abilities to control high ISO noise. Today, Olympus offers an Art filter that produces noisy images (just as noisy or even noisier than some old images produced by old cameras at ISO 800 when that was the highest ISO one could get) and that's considered cool! The same applies to many of the old glass being used on m4/3. So, what I'm really after is to having a feel for how we perceive IQ today. Art evolves just like anything else.
    Tullio

  31. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    I think that getdpi attracts the best folks on the net. You should not feel intimidated, there are all sorts of threads following different topics.
    When you see something interesting then post, I think posting within the context of the thread will be more rewarding/relevant, and of course you can always start your own.


    Quote Originally Posted by apicius9 View Post
    Interesting dicussion. If you don't mind a comment from a personal perspective:

    While old enough to have more experience, my interest has changed from 'taking pictures' to 'photography' with the appearance of the m4/3 system. For me, it is totally fascinating to use 80 year old movie lenses on a modern digital camera, and I have fun sharing these pictures. But I have to say that of all the forums (and I only look at a few that have a m4/3 section) getdpi is already the most intimidating one with regards to posting pictures because there are so many talented people posting here, including professionalls who have been doing this for a while - and who will have seen many things and used many lenses before which are a new world to me as a beginner. So, I am sure I am contributing to lowering the standard through posting technically questionable pictures with old lenses, taken with a meagre and just developing skill set. Personally, I would love to learn through constructve feedback and I know that there is almost endless room to improve. I would also find it discouraging to expect all pictures posted to conform to a 'standard' - however defined - that is hard to achieve for someone who just gets started with this.

    So, in addition to Jack's suggestion of a best of the week, I think something like a 'beginners' section' where people can explicitly post to get constructive feedback would be a great idea - if that works with the structure of the forum.

    Stefan

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
    No, not at all...you totally misinterpreted my post.
    Fair enough. Your post read more negatively than it was intended =).

    If the concept of good IQ is changing, I think it may be a reflection on a trend of going back to the good ole' days that I've noticed not just with photography, but in other areas as well. That's not such a bad thing IMO. There's something to be said about the character of old (I'm going to try my hand at 4x5 view cameras soon for that reason). This new camera format simply allows such a conversation to happen, and as a result folks are re-discovering that old character in a new digital format. If you want uber-sharpness, you can always get an expensive Leica or Zeiss lens. If you want some character that's unusual, you can get it with a $50 CCTV or cine lens (well you used to anyway). The stuff in between becomes a question of judgment and personal preference.
    -Dragos
    Panasonic GH1/G1, Canon FTb(n)/F-1, Mamiya C330F/RB67 Pro SD, Chamonix 45N-2, Nikon F5 + Assorted Lenses

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Y.B.Hudson III View Post
    tools are used to frame (shape) aesthetics ... artists are not critics, critics are not artists, and curators are neither...

    Hudson
    I have no idea who Hudson is and I only know him through his posts with hiccups but there are a lot of similarities in our thinking.

    Tullio started out with a very good opening post which denigrated (IMHO) into yet another discussion about tools (well, Tullio was trying to muddy the waters- so to speak- by going on about $10 lenses vs something else).

    I think it is a personal journey that one has to figure for themselves. Sure you can have friends, mentors, fora, etc that may help you along. But, just as camera and lenses, they also ultimately become tools (no way meant in anything remotely negative).

  34. #34
    Senior Member Tullio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by photoSmart42 View Post
    Fair enough. Your post read more negatively than it was intended =).
    I guess I need to choose my words better. However, the title of my post suggests a possible "change" in the standards and not that the standards are going down due to poor quality images.

    Anyway, I agree with your comments this time. The format has opened up the doors to a new world of experimentation. A great number of old vintage lenses were collecting dust somewhere in someone's attic. Today, they are being revived, sold on eBay (and prices keep going up and up).
    Tullio

  35. #35
    Member sonomichele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    It has certainly become much easier to be technically critical than it was some years ago. You might have had a few prints in your hand to compare, but now with images downloadable on the 'net we can all poke at them at 100 or 200% and see all the flaws. It makes it so much easier to perseverate about the details rather than the art.
    michael

  36. #36
    vlatko
    Guest

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by sonomichele View Post
    It has certainly become much easier to be technically critical than it was some years ago. You might have had a few prints in your hand to compare, but now with images downloadable on the 'net we can all poke at them at 100 or 200% and see all the flaws. It makes it so much easier to perseverate about the details rather than the art.
    Bingo!

    Add to that the fact that it's much easier to market a camera that has clean high ISO than a camera that gives you terrific highlight roll-off and the fact that it's much easier to review the first over the second.

    Add also the fact that forums tend to attract technically inclined nitpickers who really don't know much about photography because it's easier to be critical about the sharpness and the absence/presence of noise than about the photo itself.

    Then you get an atmosphere where it looks like the technical details of the camera and the lens are everything. They are not. Far from it.

  37. #37
    spiderfrank
    Guest

    Re: Have the standards changed?

    Vlatko for president !!! :-)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •