John Black
Active member
So if all of the successes come down to just 3 or 4 pictures per year, doesn't it seem silly to risk missing the shot(s) due to focus shift?
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!
:ROTFL::clap::clap:So if all of the successes come down to just 3 or 4 pictures per year, doesn't it seem silly to risk missing the shot(s) due to focus shift?
I was not talking about the definition what a keeper is but refering to you saying you get the same number of keepers whith each camer-lens-combination. And if this is the case I wondered why you would spend $2-3k for a Summilux lens if it doesnt make any difference at all for your images.Perhaps you might consider the possibility that my definition of what a 'keeper' is - may be different to yours..??
Not to beat a dead horse :deadhorse: but all of the photographers you've listed have famous iconic images, and a large quantity of them, that are either blurry or seriously technically flawed. For all of them, content was / is the most important element of a photographic image. Just another point of view to even out the technical talk. I know you're not talking about technical issues with regard to this list, but I thought it was an interesting point. Plus I love all of their work!It's interesting to consider the difference between keepers, successes and I suppose marque images. You could argue that even the likes of Ansel Adams, HCB, Elliot Erwitt, William Eggleston etc really only have a relatively small handful of truly memorable images from their careers, although built upon a body of successes and a pretty large pool of hidden away keepers (not to mention a veritable mass of so-so material).
Exactly so...Not to beat a dead horse :deadhorse: but all of the photographers you've listed have famous iconic images, and a large quantity of them, that are either blurry or seriously technically flawed. For all of them, content was / is the most important element of a photographic image. ..... Plus I love all of their work!
\
I think differently of photography:Aren't you muddling up 'keepers' with 'successes'. I have lots of keepers every month, whether it's because it's pretty / interesting / fixes a memory, or just that it's too close to being a success to be able to throw it in the trash.
What I really wish was that I had the strength of character to delete ALL the ones which are not even 'keepers'.
But I'd be most happy to get 3 or 4 'successes' a year.
That's interesting. Personally I prefer to work through my images to produce a gallery of the keepers to show people. However, some of my family members prefer to view the body of shots straight from the camera like you mention for the context and whole movie strip of a trip. (I hate that btw :ROTFL.I think differently of photography:
I see a movie and all the frames that show secondary or blurred images that in themselves are not interesting stills; but in the hole, make for a very good visual experience.
Graham, it is a good exercise to edit a group of photos with a different criteria on mind; I tried to see the pictures that reminded me of the sensation that the movie "Metropolis" gave me (of a family trip to N York) and the results where very surprising.Personally I prefer to work through my images to produce a gallery of the keepers to show people. However, some of my family members prefer to view the body of shots straight from the camera like you mention for the context and whole movie strip of a trip. (I hate that btw).
Couldn't agree more - I loved my 75 'cron with the M8 . . .gradually stopped using it with the M9 as I got fed up with a very small amount of front focus, until I had it calibrated with the body, now it's back to being a firm favorite againWithout a doubt ...my eyes and technique are much greater factors than focus shift. But I do know that when I have a really tight calibrated lens and body ...I don t have to subconsciously adjust . Its not the most important element in creating high levels of IQ but its enough to matter to me.
Well, if you have a lens which suffers from focus shift and is not calibrated correctly tha you have at least one f-stop where it would fine because the focus shift compensates the faulty calibration.....
My last new Leica lens did not so much have focus shift as did not #@**&$#**# well focus at all. Leica can charge a lot of money for incredible designs but lets hope they do not produce the same number of frankly shameful QC lapses with the new lens as has been the case over the last 12 months with well established ones. QC and reliable great performance used to be a reason to pay a premium but not any more it seems.