Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nerve

not impressed,,

Recommended Posts

You know, this stream-of-consciousness stuff is actually really insightful and entertaining (if you disregard the personal stuff and some of the repetition).

 

vic - let's face it, digital is the only option when it comes to (most) pro work. I've seen some wonderful exceptions (over on theonlinephotographer.com for instance - Mike Johnston featured this photographer, who uses an old Zeiss Ikomat to shoot for the New York Times), but the truth is, any photographer turning-up with film at an ad bureau or magazine... Well I guess some magazines maybe have the luxury of time to deal with that, but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geez, Victor. Thanks for clearing that up in such an articulate manner..

 

Brent, I see on your website that you have only been working professionally for a short time - 25 years or so. Why not give it a little more time before you post your opinions?

;-)

 

(This is sarcasm, vic.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brent, I see on your website that you have only been working professionally for a short time - 25 years or so. Why not give it a little more time before you post your opinions?

;-)

 

(This is sarcasm, vic.)

 

Alan, you are absolutely right. But I did the website 5 years ago so it is now 30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sirvine
inflantile=a baby idler as in infantile+flaneur....

 

I was thinking a conflation of "inflation" and "infantile", given that it was part of vic's rant about the pre-eminence of (and I quote) "NUMBERS" (followed by a 7 and lots of zeros). I had to look up "flaneur", which led me to the Flanifesto: Flâneur

 

Mmmm...flan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"inflantile" is genius, though, if it isn't just a typo.

 

... or inflation + infantile

 

But you know what they say about an infinite number of monkeys

 

Actually, I think it's just hilarious Vic talking about scattershot approaches to photography when that's exactly his approach with language: ) Hey--you press enough keys, sometimes you hit something. Looooooooooooooooook I can hold keys down too. Bully for you.

 

My sympathies are entirely with Brent on this; sorry Vic. How do you know if 700 is too many, or too few, shots for the assignment? I easily shot dozens of rolls of films back in the day on long assignments.

 

And just because no-one wants to physically process film anymore doesn't make this just an argument of digital macho quantity over actual quality... sorry. We're also talking commerce here, not art (though the two are hardly separable in capable hands).

 

Not that Brent needs me to defend his excellent work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lotw
thats interesting, i wonder how you got the idea that it was not taken well in terms of exposure?? what is your measure or criteria for that, please explain??

 

".. and it's a bad image.." oh well, i never claimed that its a great image or whatever.. looks like i am dealing with a real 'artist' who knows exactly what he is talking about(!?)...

.

 

cheers.

 

ok, let alone the artistic value then.

perhaps it's my bad english, but how can you ever compare the first image on noise with the third, given the two completely different light situations and exposure values of the first and the third image? where did you measure the light in the first and in the third then?

Noise typically appears in zones VI-VII and is mostly not visible in zones I-IV and IX-X, as you can very well see in the picture of the Dalai Lama. In this respect the scenes taken in the first and the third image cannot be compared at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My sympathies are entirely with Brent on this; sorry Vic. How do you know if 700 is too many, or too few, shots for the assignment? I easily shot dozens of rolls of films back in the day on long assignments.

 

To be honest, I detest having to go through that many shots at the end of the day. The reason for the high number in this case was that I was shooting a spread plus cover and it involved environmental portraits of 11 people, group shots in five different locations and a slew of candids of dancers ad libbing for the camera like this:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/27862-dancer.html

There was also an art director on the shoot with her assistant, and anyone who has worked with art directors knows their job is to wait until the photographer has shot about 20 or 30 frames, then turn a flower in a vase in the background 10 degrees and have the photographer start again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope nobody minds if I bring the subject back to noise. Note these are just noise samples and are not included to represent my view of a "good" photo. I used a Zenitar 16mm fisheye handheld so there is only so much detail possible.

 

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and two afternoons playing with about 6 different 3200 ISO 1DmkII files (and some 5D 1600 ISO files.) I have to say that I have very rarely used ISO 3200. I shot with that speed a few years ago with my 1DmkII and thought it looked horrible, so even with the 5D never used it above 3200. Maybe my next step should be to test the 5D at 3200 and see if it is better.

 

Here are some old examples I dug up from the only time I shot the 1DmkII at 3200.

 

I have inserted 100% crops showing conversions with C-1 and DxO. (I turned off the noise reduction in DxO.) I think the noise in the C-1 version is about as bad as it could be. But variations in sharpening or other aspects of the software could be a factor. I've had a number of versions of C-1 since 2003 and probably 3 versions of DxO (since October) so it is really hard to know what changes each time. Playing with the noise and sharpening sliders in C-1 changes things quite a bit. I'd say that the image was maybe 2/3 stop under exposed. (Perhaps ISO 5500 equivalent.) I adjusted that much on the exposure slider in C-1 and DxO automatically compensated. So without any exposure adjusting on my part DxO matched the C-1 version in terms of exposure.

 

I've also included a version that was output by DxO to 900 pixels wide. The noise is fairly well suppressed in parts of that photo which makes me wonder about the 900 pixel wide shot of the Dalai Lama by Brent. Shouldn't the M8 noise be more suppressed in such a small file? Could it be that the way it was scaled was a factor? I have noticed that different programs and techniques for scaling have had major effects on the noise.

 

So my conclusion, if everyone didn't already know, is that this is a fairly complicated subject and without standardizing some tests and ways to convert and view the images we'll have a difficult time in making general conclusions. (Other than those who have extensively tested several cameras and have determined what works best for them.)

 

I've concluded that I don't like the 1DmkII very much at 3200. I'll see about my 5D when I have the time. I presume the 5D, a 1DsMkII and a 1DmkIII would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5D is very similar to that. I never used it at ISO 3200 when I could avoid it at all. The 1Ds2 is meant to be a little better, but not much. I wonder about the 1D3. It is meant to be better, some say a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

/// no Alan we never left noise it just transformed into into a verbal form......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 5D is very similar to that. I never used it at ISO 3200 when I could avoid it at all. The 1Ds2 is meant to be a little better, but not much. I wonder about the 1D3. It is meant to be better, some say a lot.

 

My experience is that the 5D is better at higher ISOs that the 1Ds2. It makes sense, as the 5D has newer electronics. The 1D3 is supposed to be the best of the bunch (haven't seen one yet.)

 

I have to agree with Alan's premise that comparing cameras' noise characteristics head-to-head is somewhat academic. Certainly useful in terms of knowing which tool will give the best starting point for solving a particular problem. But with a bit of skill and practice in post-processing, any of the cameras mentioned in this thread can deliver really good results at silly-high speeds. Remember the look of ISO 1600 film??!

 

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 5D is very similar to that. I never used it at ISO 3200 when I could avoid it at all. The 1Ds2 is meant to be a little better, but not much. I wonder about the 1D3. It is meant to be better, some say a lot.

 

Yes but don't forget that the 1DmkII is only 8 megapixels and the other cameras are higher res. So even if they have exactly the same noise at 100%, they are doing better.

 

In my previous post I meant say that I never used the 5D above 1600. I am very pleased with it at 1600 and lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow wow ..... what an arguments i hear here........... wow wow

)

 

 

jamie ...... man........ did i say what brent should do....... did i say any kind of instruction how to photograph.......... ?????????? i have no idea what was the assignment.... but brent tries to explain it........ according to exaplanation........ no - 70000000000 is stilllllll tooooooooooo muchhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, in my taste...... it is still the NUMBER DEMOGOGY........................

 

 

now i will tell what the stupid statement those NUMBERS remind me ????? u know those men that talk alot about sex ........ like this kind of bullshit """""" i can do sex 10 times at night and i do sex everyday with 5 different woman""""""""""" "im just back from one slut and i made her 7 times one after another""""""""""""""""" """""""""i have huge ******** """""""""""""" """""""""""""""NUMBERS DEMOGOGY"""""""""""""""""""" ignorance and infantility.............

THIS IS THE ASSOCIATION that comes to my mind when i hear people (epsecially tech toy kitschy kitschy boys) talking like that..............

u need 7000000000000000000 to get good work - do it..... but dont tell me that your work is good because of it.......... it is bulshit.......... it means that u r probably not a good sensetive, precise and confident photographer ........... inflantility and neurozis ........

 

sorry for my "explicit" expresions....... but think about it............ just think about it....................... the proffesional inatility and inflantility (yes i know the english languege not as bad as it may seem if u pay enough attention to my languege games).............

 

 

i made 200000000000000000000000 700000000000000000000000000000 pics .......... who cares.............. WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------how and when this "10 times sex at night" statemnt becomes a referance to proffesionalism and fine photography.............. what a degenratography is it ?????????????? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

now u tell me......... do u think that all those NMBERS of crap photographs are equivalent to michel jordans avarge scorings per game ???????????? do u think it is the same ?????????????????

when the great MJ in his great games made 40 points for this or that game --------- all, but all without exeption ----------- all the points were for "winning"......... so ya...... in that case his amazing numbers are amazing.............

but when photographer tells me that he makes 70000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 that is inflantility and demogogy of NUMBERS........ nothing more........... it will not tell me how good his pro photography is .......... on contrary..... it usually indicates that we are talking no more no less than degeneratography....................................

 

 

NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS

 

NUMBERS NUMBERS OF CRAP...............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mani........... i ahve never ever said that digital photography is bad even if i think that film is better........ i have never said that one that uses digital camera is bad photographer.............

i know very well the place of digital workflow in proffesional photography.. mafazines ads etc etc................ belive me i know it more than tech-toyboy small talks................. and let me tell u... and still not everything is so sharp as people present (no place for film etc)..... if u r good enough then even the very digitally oriented places will make the effort for u and take your fotos whether film, digital, big polaroid, altprint or whatever it is......... the issues are not that one dimensional as all those interent small talker pros present (if no digital then no photography bulshit statements)............

my words have no intenetion to make the pros or amature fotographers to stop using digital cameras............. what they use is up to them........... but when some of them talk in public this way or another, then they should expect some reaction to their usual nonesense talk ..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow wow ..... what an arguments i hear here........... wow wow )

 

 

jamie ...... man........ did i say what brent should do....... did i say any kind of instruction how to photograph.......... ?????????? i have no idea what was the assignment.... but brent tries to explain it........ according to exaplanation........ no - 70000000000 is stilllllll tooooooooooo muchhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, in my taste...... it is still the NUMBER DEMOGOGY........................

 

 

now i will tell what the stupid statement those NUMBERS remind me ????? u know those men that talk alot about sex ........ like this kind of bullshit """""" i can do sex 10 times at night and i do sex everyday with 5 different woman""""""""""" "im just back from one slut and i made her 7 times one after another""""""""""""""""" """""""""i have huge ******** """""""""""""" """""""""""""""NUMBERS DEMOGOGY"""""""""""""""""""" ignorance and infantility.............

THIS IS THE ASSOCIATION that comes to my mind when i hear people (epsecially tech toy kitschy kitschy boys) talking like that..............

u need 7000000000000000000 to get good work - do it..... but dont tell me that your work is good because of it.......... it is bulshit.......... it means that u r probably not a good sensetive, precise and confident photographer ........... inflantility and neurozis ........

 

sorry for my "explicit" expresions....... but think about it............ just think about it....................... the proffesional inatility and inflantility (yes i know the english languege not as bad as it may seem if u pay enough attention to my languege games).............

 

 

i made 200000000000000000000000 700000000000000000000000000000 pics .......... who cares.............. WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES WHO CARES

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------how and when this "10 times sex at night" statemnt becomes a referance to proffesionalism and fine photography.............. what a degenratography is it ?????????????? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

now u tell me......... do u think that all those NMBERS of crap photographs are equivalent to michel jordans avarge scorings per game ???????????? do u think it is the same ?????????????????

when the great MJ in his great games made 40 points for this or that game --------- all, but all without exeption ----------- all the points were for "winning"......... so ya...... in that case his amazing numbers are amazing.............

but when photographer tells me that he makes 70000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 that is inflantility and demogogy of NUMBERS........ nothing more........... it will not tell me how good his pro photography is .......... on contrary..... it usually indicates that we are talking no more no less than degeneratography....................................

 

 

NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS

 

NUMBERS NUMBERS OF CRAP...............................

 

Hey, imants--any vacancies down the hall from you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once saw a film of some supposedly good photographer named Richard Avedon shooting Nastassja Kinski with a snake. He was shooting 8x10 film about as fast as his assistants could re-load.

 

I thought, how good can this guy be if he has to shoot so much film to get a picture? Doesn't he know what he wants?

 

So I decided that I was a much better photographer than that, so I limit myself to 10 frames per day while on assignment. I tell my clients I will give them exactly 10 excellent pictures per day for a very high price and I only push that button when I'm sure I have a great one. It is just a mindset and once I got into it I find that now I only shoot great pictures that are truly art. Zero rejects.

 

Another benefit is that it totally eliminates the need to edit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I once saw a film of some supposedly good photographer named Richard Avedon shooting Nastassja Kinski with a snake. He was shooting 8x10 film about as fast as his assistants could re-load.

 

I thought, how good can this guy be if he has to shoot so much film to get a picture? Doesn't he know what he wants?

 

So I decided that I was a much better photographer than that, so I limit myself to 10 frames per day while on assignment. I tell my clients I will give them exactly 10 excellent pictures per day for a very high price and I only push that button when I'm sure I have a great one. It is just a mindset and once I got into it I find that now I only shoot great pictures that are truly art.

 

Another benefit is that it totally eliminates the need to edit.

 

cracked me up - humour is the best response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mani........... i ahve never ever said that digital photography is bad even if i think that film is better........ i have never said that one that uses digital camera is bad photographer.............

i know very well the place of digital workflow in proffesional photography.. mafazines ads etc etc................ belive me i know it more than tech-toyboy small talks................. and let me tell u... and still not everything is so sharp as people present (no place for film etc)..

 

It's cool vic - i know where you're coming from. Even though I'm one of those guys you probably hate that works in advertising, I also feel that film is vastly superior to digital - but we both recognize digital has it's place, too - and frankly, it's the only way my bureau can even think about working for the last five years, at least.

 

Anyway, vic - take it easy - this forum would be dull place if guys like you weren't allowed to be around! You keep me smiling anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...