johnnygoesdigital
New member
Ilya...your turn
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!
bensonga
Well-known member
Mark -- just wanted to say how much I like your photos of the blown glass flowers.....beautiful.
Just received my RZ Pro II yesterday (with 4 lenses). It's a beast of a camera.....which I like.
I hope to post some images here in the next week or so. Since they will be my first shots with the RZ, I'll be lucky if there are one or two worth sharing.
Re how different lenses look (whether on film or digital), I need to train my eyes to look more carefully, since I can rarely tell the difference between a shot (same subject, film etc) taken with my Canon, Nikon or Leica lenses. With respect to the RZ glass, I think I'll take the same shot with my RZ (110mm f2.8 lens) and my Pentax 67 (105mm f2.4 lens) and see how the images compare. If there's any interest in the results, I could post them here for all to see.
Gary
Just received my RZ Pro II yesterday (with 4 lenses). It's a beast of a camera.....which I like.
I hope to post some images here in the next week or so. Since they will be my first shots with the RZ, I'll be lucky if there are one or two worth sharing.
Re how different lenses look (whether on film or digital), I need to train my eyes to look more carefully, since I can rarely tell the difference between a shot (same subject, film etc) taken with my Canon, Nikon or Leica lenses. With respect to the RZ glass, I think I'll take the same shot with my RZ (110mm f2.8 lens) and my Pentax 67 (105mm f2.4 lens) and see how the images compare. If there's any interest in the results, I could post them here for all to see.
Gary
Thanks!Mark -- just wanted to say how much I like your photos of the blown glass flowers.....beautiful.
Just received my RZ Pro II yesterday (with 4 lenses). It's a beast of a camera.....which I like.
I hope to post some images here in the next week or so. Since they will be my first shots with the RZ, I'll be lucky if there are one or two worth sharing.
Re how different lenses look (whether on film or digital), I need to train my eyes to look more carefully, since I can rarely tell the difference between a shot (same subject, film etc) taken with my Canon, Nikon or Leica lenses. With respect to the RZ glass, I think I'll take the same shot with my RZ (110mm f2.8 lens) and my Pentax 67 (105mm f2.4 lens) and see how the images compare. If there's any interest in the results, I could post them here for all to see.
Gary
You will have fun with the RZ.
itsskin
New member
johnnygoesdigital
New member
ILya,
That is a nice photograph! I love the big heavy, gritty, steel wheels of this classic locomotive, juxtaposed with the softness and innocence of the child - which also gives the locomotive scale. The washed colors blend very nicely.
In your response to the model photograph, I too, am guilty of portrait filters, and have decided to only use them when necessary, and then only very small inputs. It's like HDR, at first it looked interesting, then so many photographers were over cooking them! The secret is to be so subtle, that no one knows what you did...imo.
I have been looking at the RZ, as well as the 503CW, and the Contax 645. I want images that don't look plastic or ultra, but have character and show technique. I appreciate all the images here, thanks.
That is a nice photograph! I love the big heavy, gritty, steel wheels of this classic locomotive, juxtaposed with the softness and innocence of the child - which also gives the locomotive scale. The washed colors blend very nicely.
In your response to the model photograph, I too, am guilty of portrait filters, and have decided to only use them when necessary, and then only very small inputs. It's like HDR, at first it looked interesting, then so many photographers were over cooking them! The secret is to be so subtle, that no one knows what you did...imo.
I have been looking at the RZ, as well as the 503CW, and the Contax 645. I want images that don't look plastic or ultra, but have character and show technique. I appreciate all the images here, thanks.
S
Shelby Lewis
Guest
Hey everyone... please don't let this devolve into a pi$$ing contest. This is a "show your favorites" thread (not a "your shots aren't good RZ67 shots" thread).
I'm enjoying seeing everyone's vision here, regardless of "quality" or whether it meets someone's expectations and self-assigned criticality.
Thanks... keep 'em coming!
Shelby
I'm enjoying seeing everyone's vision here, regardless of "quality" or whether it meets someone's expectations and self-assigned criticality.
Thanks... keep 'em coming!
Shelby
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Hi Shelby,
I agree that ALL the photographs are of interest regardless of technique. I've notice that the RZ lenses do draw nicely. Interestingly enough, a good sample here show lots of over exposed areas that seem to do very well in detail. The size of the camera, I think will be a benefit because of easier hand holding - less shutter vibration.
I agree that ALL the photographs are of interest regardless of technique. I've notice that the RZ lenses do draw nicely. Interestingly enough, a good sample here show lots of over exposed areas that seem to do very well in detail. The size of the camera, I think will be a benefit because of easier hand holding - less shutter vibration.
bensonga
Well-known member
ILya....I love that photo of the little girl and locomotive....outstanding!
Got my first roll of film from the RZ back from the lab this afternoon. 10 exposures on Velvia 100, all with the 110mm lens. Just the usual stuff I shoot....but they were all keepers and now it seems ever more likely that I will be keeping the RZ. I had almost hoped I would be disappointed, so I could save $2k and send it back to KEH. Not likely now. I'm anxious to try the other lenses now (50, 65 and 180). At first glance, the RZ images appear to be every bit as good as transparencies shot with my Pentax 67. Have to say......I really like the rotating back on the RZ.
Anyways....subject wise, these are nothing special....but typical of what I've been shooting lately (ok, for the past 20+ years). I know, I know......mundane doesn't even begin to describe them.
Gary
Got my first roll of film from the RZ back from the lab this afternoon. 10 exposures on Velvia 100, all with the 110mm lens. Just the usual stuff I shoot....but they were all keepers and now it seems ever more likely that I will be keeping the RZ. I had almost hoped I would be disappointed, so I could save $2k and send it back to KEH. Not likely now. I'm anxious to try the other lenses now (50, 65 and 180). At first glance, the RZ images appear to be every bit as good as transparencies shot with my Pentax 67. Have to say......I really like the rotating back on the RZ.
Anyways....subject wise, these are nothing special....but typical of what I've been shooting lately (ok, for the past 20+ years). I know, I know......mundane doesn't even begin to describe them.
Gary
I likeILya....I love that photo of the little girl and locomotive....outstanding!
Got my first roll of film from the RZ back from the lab this afternoon. 10 exposures on Velvia 100, all with the 110mm lens. Just the usual stuff I shoot....but they were all keepers and now it seems ever more likely that I will be keeping the RZ. I had almost hoped I would be disappointed, so I could save $2k and send it back to KEH. Not likely now. I'm anxious to try the other lenses now (50, 65 and 180). At first glance, the RZ images appear to be every bit as good as transparencies shot with my Pentax 67. Have to say......I really like the rotating back on the RZ.
Anyways....subject wise, these are nothing special....but typical of what I've been shooting lately (ok, for the past 20+ years). I know, I know......mundane doesn't even begin to describe them.
Gary
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Gary,
For web images these look nice. Film has so much more character.
For web images these look nice. Film has so much more character.
S
Shelby Lewis
Guest
Nice, Gary. :thumbup:
bensonga
Well-known member
Thanks folks! As always with film, I just feel a bit disappointed by the transfer from film to digital.....the scans never come close to the quality of the original transparency or negative. Wish I had access to a high end scanner.....hard to justify spending $10k for a Flextight (even assuming I had it to spare) for images like these.
Gary
Gary
Gary, I'm always struck by out of whack things can get. I sold my Imacon Flextight 949 and a zillion accessories to a fellow that asked me to hold onto it for a while. Two years later, it is still sitting on the desk behind me ... meanwhile, you don't have access to one. :wtf:
IMO, using a big 6X7 neg and the 949 is the equal of a $20,000. digital rig when the stuff gets printed ... and the 949 scans so fast and has a different diffusion light source that looks more like an enlarger was used compared to most other scanners, including the 848.
Likewise, I still have a cabinet full of RZ glass, Fisheye and SB75 & tube, all the way through SF180 w/Imagon type inserts and 210 APO, metered and non-metered finders, motor, tubes, PW trigger systems, flare buster ... anyway, a cabinet full just sitting there. To lazy to sell it and the prices don't justify selling it anyway. I did sell the T/S and SB180 + SB tube after getting the HC-TS/1.5 for my H4D/60, and I traded the RZ Pro-II body alone (non D) toward the H4D because it was worth over $2K in Hasselblad's promotion.
In a way it is my death grip on film ... where I just can't quite let go even though I haven't used film since I sold my 203FE kit. I figured if I ever do get back to film, the RZ is the camera to do it ...darned neg is so big and the lenses so unique and diversified.
Shelby is right, used RZ ProDs are hard to come by .... so I still don't have a body to replace the one I traded in.
I used the RZ mostly, but not exclusively, in the studio for paying work. Ironically, it made the money to buy all the other stuff that replaced it
Here are few I had to frame grab off another site because the RZ hard drive is stored away and I'm too lazy to retrieve it, so the IQ suffers a bit
The only digital shot is the conceptual portrait done for an vintage jewelry place which I titled "Moon River" using a Kodak Proback if I recall correctly. The wind-blown girl has lots of space to the right to allow for editorial copy ... the profile "strength" portrait was a commission for a personal trainer to use for commercial promotion ... the Greenfield village shot was for me
Point is that the camera and all the stuff you can get for it was a work-horse tool to express a wide array of different intents or ideas from the first day I got it. A truly great and under utilized system these days
Marc
IMO, using a big 6X7 neg and the 949 is the equal of a $20,000. digital rig when the stuff gets printed ... and the 949 scans so fast and has a different diffusion light source that looks more like an enlarger was used compared to most other scanners, including the 848.
Likewise, I still have a cabinet full of RZ glass, Fisheye and SB75 & tube, all the way through SF180 w/Imagon type inserts and 210 APO, metered and non-metered finders, motor, tubes, PW trigger systems, flare buster ... anyway, a cabinet full just sitting there. To lazy to sell it and the prices don't justify selling it anyway. I did sell the T/S and SB180 + SB tube after getting the HC-TS/1.5 for my H4D/60, and I traded the RZ Pro-II body alone (non D) toward the H4D because it was worth over $2K in Hasselblad's promotion.
In a way it is my death grip on film ... where I just can't quite let go even though I haven't used film since I sold my 203FE kit. I figured if I ever do get back to film, the RZ is the camera to do it ...darned neg is so big and the lenses so unique and diversified.
Shelby is right, used RZ ProDs are hard to come by .... so I still don't have a body to replace the one I traded in.
I used the RZ mostly, but not exclusively, in the studio for paying work. Ironically, it made the money to buy all the other stuff that replaced it
Here are few I had to frame grab off another site because the RZ hard drive is stored away and I'm too lazy to retrieve it, so the IQ suffers a bit
The only digital shot is the conceptual portrait done for an vintage jewelry place which I titled "Moon River" using a Kodak Proback if I recall correctly. The wind-blown girl has lots of space to the right to allow for editorial copy ... the profile "strength" portrait was a commission for a personal trainer to use for commercial promotion ... the Greenfield village shot was for me
Point is that the camera and all the stuff you can get for it was a work-horse tool to express a wide array of different intents or ideas from the first day I got it. A truly great and under utilized system these days
Marc
Ilya, do you have a version of this shot that doesn't have the highlights blown ...maybe one that isn't so contrived looking in execution? It's a good initial idea in search of a better photographic expression, so worth the effort. Since the RZ can do almost anything, it should be possible.No problem
But may be you already seen this...
Since you like to know who is doing the critique, I am not doing it with my photographer's hat on ... but instead as a now retired Executive Creative Director (with an art director background) for the international ad agency Young & Rubicam Inc.
Sincerely,
-Marc
johnnygoesdigital
New member
As a Getty image, this is a great photograph with its end use applicable to many outlets. Even the blown highlight is minimal, and could easily be adjusted. The framing and height of the camera all create great scale in relation to the young girl. Any advertising campaign or editorial can be considered contrived, so this image is no different from that. I like the photograph because its message could be one of many, that's why it's so effective as a stock image.
Keep up the good work!
Keep up the good work!
itsskin
New member
Thx! Yes, of course I do. Actually, the first image posted was not finished image for stock. It was just for friends sharing. And with such blown HL it would not be accepted for sale. So, here is original:
Thanks for making my point. It is all opinion and circumstances.
Shooting stock is different from shooting a specific assignment where other specific eyes and opinions are directly involved ... like the image Ilya critiqued in a pretty dismissive and derogatory manner, rather than ask what it was for or why it was shot the way it was.
I didn't say I didn't like the train shot composition or idea ... but as an art director I'd have asked to see more takes on it because I don't like the slightly contorted expression on the kid's face or the fake aspect of her carrying the big case along in the manner it was shot. When shooting stock you do whatever, and leave it up to the buyer to decide.
-Marc
S
Shelby Lewis
Guest
... or the fact that, if the job is going to print, that the blown color channels are going to be a real mess at the printers. Online, maybe not so much... but blown color channels (like portrait smoothing or exposure level!) have little/nothing to do with the RZ and much to do with how well the photographer can control the dynamic range of the scene.
It's entirely possible to get a bright, crisp, "modern" look from a photo without loosing valuable RGB info, RZ or not. That point seems to be lost on one of our more contentious members.
Like you alluded to, Marc, artistic intent seems to have confused/interchanged with technical ability.
(... but wait, this thread is about FAVORITE RZ shots, lol. )
johnnygoesdigital
New member
My point about stock was to show that the image has many purposes, based on an opinion after viewing ILya's Getty portfolio. Now that i've viewed the original, it's even better! Knowing that it was just for fun, makes the image and photographer that more enjoyable. Even though I don't agree with the opinion about loss of valuable RGB, it's a good photograph with varying degrees of interpretation...that doesn't make for a contentious argument.
S
Shelby Lewis
Guest
I agree!