Site Sponsors
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 101 to 130 of 130

Thread: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

  1. #101
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Marc,

    So curious minds want to know... After the important wedding shoot, did the S2 get pulled up to the majors, or was it cut from the team?
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

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

  2. #102
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    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.

  3. #103
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    The art reflects the Photographer the gear is but the brush
    -bob

  4. #104
    Senior Member KeithL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    The art reflects the Photographer the gear is but the brush
    -bob
    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.

  5. #105
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    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.
    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?

    Just this guy you know

  6. #106
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithL View Post
    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.
    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

  7. #107
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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?
    Good question Jono,
    In some ways no as for pixel resolution; in others, especially shots of high dynamic range or those with more color sensitivity I think that the better gear wins.
    OTOH, the recent crop of PS cameras are getting really good.
    My gh2 is my new Leica for that reason.
    -bob

  8. #108
    Senior Member KeithL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    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
    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.

    Price has never been an issue.

  9. #109
    Member Jay Emm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    93
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    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.
    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)

    BTW, this has been a great thread - thanks all!

  10. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Dallas/Novosibirsk
    Posts
    632
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Yes, but when using them, picking out shed hairs is terribly annoying especially in oils.
    Oh thanks for reminding me - kept forgetting to clean up sensor on Leaf for a week!

    But yep.. it is in fact best analogy for the photographers - brushes. Those who tried to pain with cow hair ones or with synthetics vs squirrel or higher end ones - will vouch Different strokes, sure, and better brush aint making Michelangelo out of Joe, but it helps to make painting better.

    Thats why i am sticking with charcoal (plus Santa gives me plenty of that.. ).

  11. #111
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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?

    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?

  12. #112
    Senior Member mediumcool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by SergeiR View Post
    Thats why i am sticking with charcoal (plus Santa gives me plenty of that.. ).
    Also useable for BBQ fuel

  13. #113
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    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?
    Because they are gear oriented sub-forums related to the format?

    Aren't there image oriented sub-forum and a Gallery here also?

    What are the qualities of MFD?

    Greater or more subtile tonal gradations and color separation kinda gets lost when crushing down a 200 meg file to 800K @ 1200 pixels wide. I seriously doubt anyone buys a MFD kit to post stuff on the web.

    Ah, but the prints ... that is a whole other matter.

    -Marc

  14. #114
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    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?

  15. #115
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    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?
    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

    Just this guy you know

  16. #116
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    jono:

    i certainly don't mean to imply that the "better" gear will lead to a better image, not at all.

    maybe better technique will, what ever that means.

    and i do think some images posted on the web can show amazing technical quality, some of yours, especially, much more than simply bokeh and dof, though I am also sure a print would be a much better exhibition.

    maybe it simply reduces to: show whatever image you make but put it in the forum for that camera. that particular forum is then not about the gear and what it can do, but simply a collection that happens to be from a certain type of camera.

  17. #117
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Marc,
    Excellent opening thread! Reviewers think they carry a lot of weight, especially the one's with links to vendors. Drama queens tend to garner a lot of attention and certainly, some of these reviewers should be ashamed for not considering soaring prices for MFD a deterrent. I think some gear reviewers are frustrated artists with lots of ego. As an actor, I never read the reviews...unless their good!
    New gear or camera systems must be allowed to evolve no matter how sexy they look and feel. I have to remind myself to wait and not read the dealers take on a particular product. No matter how much I want to love it, (S2/ M9) Due diligence pays off with art you can trust!

  18. #118
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    If I didn't prefer to use my M9! (but my M9 kit is certainly worth more than my car).
    Yeah, mine too. I use my cameras a lot more than my car though!

  19. #119
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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
    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.

    As an Art Director, I see a lot more bigger sensor work from a wide variety of shooters than most do. They continue to send links to their recent web updates ... even though I'm semi-retired from advertising and PR editorial work (I'm not in a hurry to tell them that though } Some pretty creative stuff I must say. Not always my way of thinking, but mind opening to other thinking for sure.

    Just as example ... this stuff is interesting artistically speaking (rather than commercial), and shows in museums and galleries world-wide ...(click >Portfolio and then >Queens)

    http://www.alexandfelix.com

    A wee touch of Irakly's take on things, but not quite as dark.

    Photographers that use heavy manipulation or composites like this often select larger sensor cameras for data rich files to work with.

    Probably not your cup of tea, but most certainly not an ordinary cup of tea either.

    I think Nina Berman also uses a big format camera for some of her work ... and just won the Hasselbald Masters Award 2010 for Editorial. But it doesn't matter what's in her hands ... she's great! Quite different work from the link above. I loved her "Under the Taliban" series, and don't care what camera was used.

    Marco Grob's MF Portraits are interesting.

    Jan Tove's landscapes and wildlife images take it up a notch, and I believe uses Phase One for some of his stuff.

    Etc., etc., etc..

    Horses for courses ... the format has nothing to do with being artistic on any level ... just depends on what the artist is after.

    -Marc

  20. #120
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Also depends on what the viewer likes personally. Jono you like mostly street type work. Not really in the realm of MF shooters but there are some that do and do it well with MF systems. Gear are just tools, I can shoot anything with any format. Limitations are what's between someones ears. Personally I like shooting MF because of the IQ quality I get from those images. But I have no issues grabbing my Sony for work that is maybe better suited for it. I can easily shoot the Phase for whatever I shoot with the Sony just go into sensor plus mode and I'm there with high ISO and still great files. I shoot the Sony more out of a risk factor than anything else. But it has certain things I like which are really fast lenses and the ability to lighten my load. Not by much i have to be honest . The Sony and lenses are still big and heavy. If i did more street than a M9 would be my better choice.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  21. #121
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    143
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Robert Rodriguez shot his first feature film, El Mariachi, on an old borrowed 16mm camera with two borrowed lenses. He lit it with practicals (light bulbs), he recorded the sound on a Marantz tape deck, he cut it and mastered it on Video tape.

    It cost him a total of $7.000. Everythiung included.

    From a technical (theoretical) standpoint it would have been considered total crap, yet it was a major success. He went from a nobody to one of the hottest, highest paid directors in Hollywood because of that $7.000 technically crappy movie.

    Photography is childsplay compared to making a major feature film.
    That industry is cut throat, cold hearted, do or die, put up or shut up business driven, cover your *** or lose it territory...and nobody cared what camera he used, how he made the film or where he learned to do it. The film was brilliant, period; and a hoard of no risk, cut throat, hollywood studios were begging him to take millions of their hands for anything he wanted to shoot.

    Just food for thought.

    Happy new year

  22. #122
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by kipling View Post
    Robert Rodriguez shot his first feature film, El Mariachi, on an old borrowed 16mm camera with two borrowed lenses. He lit it with practicals (light bulbs), he recorded the sound on a Marantz tape deck, he cut it and mastered it on Video tape.

    It cost him a total of $7.000. Everythiung included.

    From a technical (theoretical) standpoint it would have been considered total crap, yet it was a major success. He went from a nobody to one of the hottest, highest paid directors in Hollywood because of that $7.000 technically crappy movie.

    Photography is childsplay compared to making a major feature film.
    That industry is cut throat, cold hearted, do or die, put up or shut up business driven, cover your *** or lose it territory...and nobody cared what camera he used, how he made the film or where he learned to do it. The film was brilliant, period; and a hoard of no risk, cut throat, hollywood studios were begging him to take millions of their hands for anything he wanted to shoot.

    Just food for thought.

    Happy new year
    Did they shoot the sequel with that stuff?

    Brilliant? Maybe ... but a no-brainer, ultra-violent movie will sell in our gum chew, slash and smash society every time ... high quality imagery or not.

    The really brilliant part wasn't making it, it was getting it shown.

    It's America's version of the Colosseum blood baths to entertain the masses ... along with the train-wreak lives of all those vacuous "house wives" that have invaded TV.

    Sort of "Lost in Snooky Land" meets "Halloween XII".

    More like junk-food for thought IMO.

    -Marc

  23. #123
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Actually, shooting stills can sometimes be much more complex, as we try to spot meter and calibrate for filters and gels and various lighting conditions and weather. More often than not, shooting motion picture film with these variables, are incorporated into the scene without much delay. I used to shoot music videos and commercials and once dropped a camera during a huge dance scene with approximately 30 dancers. The camera slid across the floor still rolling, I was slightly mortified, but picked it up and continued shooting. In dailies with the producers I waited for the inevitable scene and when it was displayed, I sheepishly started to explain, but the producers looked at each other and said "brilliant". The point is, that so many pretentious photographers shoot without so much as looking through the viewfinder and call it art. Most are showing in major galleries across the country. The still shooters who compose and expose have my respect and not the overrated, recycled crap in hollywood!

  24. #124
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    I guess there's a difference between "western landscape" and "modern outdoor" photography. It's having a mule to carry your gear a la Ansel vs a pre-dawn trail run up to Machu Picchu with a headlamp to shoot the sunrise a la Galen Rowell. If you know what GR used, and how technically poor his negs are - relatively speaking, but they don't print well at even 16x20 - an M9+WATE is in a completely different league. Or some of the mountaineering and climbing expeditions he shot. Good work really starts with being there with a camera, but of course once that prime requirement can be met we strive to maximize performance.

    If weddings started with a 10mi hike Hasselblad would be making completely different tools.

  25. #125
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Brittenson View Post
    I guess there's a difference between "western landscape" and "modern outdoor" photography. It's having a mule to carry your gear a la Ansel vs a pre-dawn trail run up to Machu Picchu with a headlamp to shoot the sunrise a la Galen Rowell. If you know what GR used, and how technically poor his negs are - relatively speaking, but they don't print well at even 16x20 - an M9+WATE is in a completely different league. Or some of the mountaineering and climbing expeditions he shot. Good work really starts with being there with a camera, but of course once that prime requirement can be met we strive to maximize performance.

    If weddings started with a 10mi hike Hasselblad would be making completely different tools.
    How about a 10 hour hike while shooting just about every step of the way, and no control over the pace you have to move at?

    Weddings aren't as physically easy as one might think.

    I've had to help 20 something assistants out of the car after a grueling 10+ hour day in 95+ temps and suffocating humidity.

    Last season I was returning from one of those where it was 110 in the tent right after it rained, and seriously considered quitting ... felt like a semi had run over me ... 50 times!

    Getting to old for that kind of abuse.

    -Marc

    (P.S., thank God for the Leica M9)

  26. #126
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Weddings aren't as physically easy as one might think.

    I've had to help 20 something assistants out of the car after a grueling 10+ hour day in 95+ temps and suffocating humidity.
    (P.S., thank God for the Leica M9)
    Yeah... I always laugh at how my 20-something assistants can't keep up for the whole day.

    There's a science to pacing during wedding days!!!

  27. #127
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Philly area, PA, US
    Posts
    354
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Brittenson View Post
    ...

    If weddings started with a 10mi hike Hasselblad would be making completely different tools.
    You obviously never shot a wedding

  28. #128
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Between Marc and myself we probably claim more painkillers as business expenses than any other photographer on this board..
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  29. #129
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Between Marc and myself we probably claim more painkillers as business expenses than any other photographer on this board..
    I only shot 20 or so weddings this year before heading back to school this past September... but being in the Southeast US, I would refute the claims above.

    (or just join in with the pain! )

  30. #130
    Member itsskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Beijing
    Posts
    118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gear & Our Art: 2011?

    I am relatively young to be judged as an "expert", or "pro" but still.
    I started with digital and skipped wet dark room. Then it was higher, faster etc. And the reason for "that" bad picture was that I didn't have "THAT" lens with me. So, after I got THAT super lens - nothing changed in my pics . It was some years ago and helped me with general understanding how hardware works and what I can reasonably expect from the gear.
    The revelation was to try BW film with self development and self digitizing. It teaches to think before you press the button. 10 times. Or 100 times. Or more. And the final results are so much better of 10 shoots of 120 6x7, then 500 of thinkless button pushing with digital. And when I came back to digital process - I was so much better. Regardless that old cameras can not come lose to what we have now in digital. So, it's really strange to see, when people with "wet past" are starting to talk about 0.5 stop of advantage with pushing some system over another.
    If you don't have a picture to show - why even bother to develop it? And if you got a PICTURE OF THE YEAR with your iPhone - you should be proud!
    Still, I agree - we don't have to fight with our equipment. Just need to understand, where the fight begins for you

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
  •