haris Posted July 24, 2008 Share #41 Posted July 24, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just can't admit you're wrong, eh Harris. It need much more clever attempt to provoke me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 Hi haris, Take a look here So what does this say about digital?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest jimmy pro Posted July 24, 2008 Share #42 Posted July 24, 2008 Well, considering that the average person does not own this equipment, no - I would say not. I guess that's a typical attitude by Leica owners. Me when I hear someone say that "average people" don't see things that they do, it implies to me that the guy who says is thinks he's better than them. I think most [non-Leica] guys would get the same implication. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted July 24, 2008 Share #43 Posted July 24, 2008 Me when I hear someone say that "average people" don't see things that they do, it implies to me that the guy who says is thinks he's better than them. In some cases they KNOW they're better...better at the craft. It can certainly come across as an elitist statement...but many times - and this could applied to any field - Joe Six Pack isn't going to see the difference. Some people have a bit more tact in how they discuss things, while others reek of arrogance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 24, 2008 Share #44 Posted July 24, 2008 I guess that's a typical attitude by Leica owners. Me when I hear someone say that "average people" don't see things that they do, it implies to me that the guy who says is thinks he's better than them. I think most [non-Leica] guys would get the same implication. I don't see anything offensive given the context. I mean we would probably argue that the average snap-shooter wouldn't know the difference in quality that a Leica lens offers over their digicam for example. It's just lack of knowledge/awareness. I've not seen side by side shots from the cameras mentioned either so I can't say one way or the other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted July 24, 2008 Share #45 Posted July 24, 2008 I didn't say it was offensive. Why would you think someone else's arrogance would offend me? Actually it kinda gave me a good laugh. Not like saying that the average snap-shooter wouldn't know the difference in quality that a Leica lens offers over their digicam, but more like somebody who's unknown outside Leica circles saying that they can see that Leica is superior to Canon/Nikon pro gear, but a gazillion career professional photographers can't or don't care. That kind of arrogance is just funny. Definately not worth anyone lowering there dignity to get offended at. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 24, 2008 Share #46 Posted July 24, 2008 Whens this place going to get a yahoo style chat room :D :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapp Posted July 25, 2008 Share #47 Posted July 25, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I didn't say it was offensive. Why would you think someone else's arrogance would offend me? Actually it kinda gave me a good laugh. Not like saying that the average snap-shooter wouldn't know the difference in quality that a Leica lens offers over their digicam, but more like somebody who's unknown outside Leica circles saying that they can see that Leica is superior to Canon/Nikon pro gear, but a gazillion career professional photographers can't or don't care. That kind of arrogance is just funny. Definately not worth anyone lowering there dignity to get offended at. Come on, what you call arrogance is a key selling point for Leica. They wold call it understatement though. Understatement would imply that a person knows what he/she is talking about without sounding arrogant. On the other hand there is no reason to talk down Leica gear and explain to a lot of people the difference between your gear and their gear - arrogance can be a nice shortcut in argumentations that are basically pointless - just like adding to this conversation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 25, 2008 Share #48 Posted July 25, 2008 I guess that's a typical attitude by Leica owners. Me when I hear someone say that "average people" don't see things that they do, it implies to me that the guy who says is thinks he's better than them. I think most [non-Leica] guys would get the same implication. :confused:I thought we were talking about digital MF gear here.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 25, 2008 Share #49 Posted July 25, 2008 :confused:I thought we were talking about digital MF gear here.... Gee and I thought the conversations was film/vs. digital. No wonder I'm confused. As for MF cameras vs. 35mm digital, I have been considering an MF digital back for a number of years so I've looked at the equipment and files very closely. The MF backs definitely are capable of making better quality files, but it may not matter to very many photographers or end users. It really depends on the application. I know a number of photographers who use MF digital and they certainly did not get the gear due to marketing hype or the need to impress their clients. With me the issue of the MF is their limited use with wide angle photography. The processes of shooting MF is more involved than shooting FF 35mm digital. For instance wide angle lenses and shifts or tilts require a color compensating test shot for calibration of color shift. And the lens choice is very limited. It would cost me at least $50,000 to get into MF digital and I wouldn't have a back-up. Because I shoot a lot of architecture, I find that I can stitch images when I need higher pixel count and wider angles. The 16 bit color depth is not much of a factor to me. This is a good and inexpensive solution for me. The original of this image is about 150MB RGB 8 bit and represents a much wider view than one could get with a single shot on an MF digital camera. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/57651-so-what-does-this-say-about-digital/?do=findComment&comment=612648'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 25, 2008 Share #50 Posted July 25, 2008 Gee and I thought the conversations was film/vs. digital. That makes two of us:o Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkstar2004 Posted July 25, 2008 Share #51 Posted July 25, 2008 It is absolutely fact that current digital capture is not to the quality of film - asked directly, any manufacturer would agree. I would wonder if that is applicable to Hasselblad's H3D cameras - at 39MP, I would imagine not. Still, I don't own one digital camera - and I don't want one. If I were to win a contest and the prize was either a Noctilux or a Nikon D3, I'd take the Noctilux 100 times out of 100. David Vestal got it right when he said, "Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes... The one thing we've gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception." Imagemaking is about vision and perception, not megapixels, white balance and inks. JMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 25, 2008 Share #52 Posted July 25, 2008 Imagemaking is about vision and perception, not megapixels, white balance and inks. JMHO. How is this any different if you shoot on film or with digital capture? Film and processing requires a lot of technology also. I employ just as much or more craftsmanship when shooting with a digital camera as I did when shooting wiht a film camera. But with digital, I have many more possibilities for self expression than I did with film. (And I consider myself as experienced and competent with film as one could be.) The above photo of mine is one example of an image that would be impossible with any film camera. Note that this is a cylindrical panoramic image but the central building is rectilinear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted July 25, 2008 Share #53 Posted July 25, 2008 ...... an image that would be impossible with any film camera......... And handsomely done Alan. ....................... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 26, 2008 Share #54 Posted July 26, 2008 And handsomely done Alan. ....................... Chris Thanks, I have to say that studying, learning, and trying to perfect my craftsmanship with digital technology was just as difficult and demanding for me as it was with film. The only difference is with digital there always seems like there are more things to learn, and try out. (New software, new equipment, new techniques.) With film, once I felt that I had it under control or even mastered, I was pretty much set as things didn't change much over many years. And I didn't do very much compositing or retouching when I worked with film. So that is an entirely new skill that adds to overall craftsmanship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkstar2004 Posted July 26, 2008 Share #55 Posted July 26, 2008 How is this any different if you shoot on film or with digital capture? Agreed, Allan - not much difference, provided it's done right. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that digital encourages slipshod photographic craftsmanship; or maybe digital just encourages half-assed imagemaking because "it can be fixed in photoshop later." Or maybe digital just plain ol' encourages half-assed "photographers" and fortifies them with an unfounded and riotously optimistic sense of the quality and/or value of their images. Vestal says in one of his articles that a result of the digital tsunami has been that the quality of stock images has declined in general, along with revenues paid to photographers who make images using digital equipment. The law of unintended consequences is still very much in effect. The one thing we've gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception. I'll go along with that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted July 26, 2008 Share #56 Posted July 26, 2008 ......maybe digital just plain ol' encourages half-assed "photographers" and fortifies them with an unfounded and riotously optimistic sense of the quality and/or value of their images.... That is true of the internet and forums in general; some are far worse than others. The WWW is a 'vanity publishing' resource for photographs that would never have been seen, printed, published, or exhibited 10 years ago; it is the price of ready access to the equipment of photography. Thankfully, the pictorialism which dominates the internet is not the only photography being made, though I can't help thinking how much better it would be if great photography was more visible and the weak photography which dominates the web was less prominent. ....a result of the digital tsunami has been that the quality of stock images has declined in general,...... Stock has been decimated as a serious outlet for good photography giving reasonable returns for the talent and effort it takes to make good quality imagery. Commercial photography for the most part no longer operates as a 'Profession' [my observations principally refer to conditions in the UK]; here, commercial photography is barely a trade. ................ Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkstar2004 Posted July 26, 2008 Share #57 Posted July 26, 2008 Stock has been decimated as a serious outlet for good photography giving reasonable returns for the talent and effort it takes to make good quality imagery. Commercial photography for the most part no longer operates as a 'Profession' [my observations principally refer to conditions in the UK]; here, commercial photography is barely a trade. ...Which is a direct result of greed, IMHO. The greed of business people who seek to exploit photographers for their own ends (AKA to "maximize profits"), not of photographers who seek to produce quality work and to simply make a living doing what they love to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 26, 2008 Share #58 Posted July 26, 2008 Well we are getting a little far afield with stock, the profession as a whole, etc. Photography is an overcrowded field full of people who are willing to shoot a job for too little money. You can't blame clients for taking advantage of the situation. This has been evolving for a very long time and has little to do with digital cameras. Editorial photography was the first field that saw a major impact but most aspects of photography feel this pressure to varying degrees. Digital photography and the internet has perhaps lowered any barriers of entry a bit further but I think the trends were already there. There are plenty of stock shooters who are doing top level work, but the market has opened itself up to everyone at any price. I call some of these places "Pat on the back agencies." A lot of people who supply stock are not relying on the income to run a business or support a family. As for the quality of stock, I know some top shooters whose work is better than ever. But the stock photo market has also broadened to include photographs that are not highly produced and look very casual or even commonplace. Keep in mind that the stock photography industry started as mostly a place for photographers to market their "outtakes" from jobs. Then it evolved into and industry where some people shot specifically for stock. As for Vestal's comments about film and craft, I haven't read his articles and don't have the desire to try to take the argument much further. I will say that I always thought that shooting film was very wasteful and was the biggest variable and problem in photography. Despite how good a craftstman I am, there was never certainty that I got the intended result until the film was processed. One can make a pretty long list of all the waste associated with film, processing, Polaroid, messengers, plus shipping organizing and storing finished film images. An example of inefficiency is in taking a simple group shot on film, one had to overshoot simply to make sure that everyone had their eyes open and a good expression. I now can review the image and stop shooting when I am happy with the image. The flip side is that the zero cost of shooting a digital frame lets me quickly shoot a variety of angles whereas the cost of film might have limited me to one or two. And even when limiting the angles of view on film, I had to overshoot for safety and bracket exposures. (I shot transparencies.) So I ended up throwing away several thousand dollars worth of film and processing every year. I was glad to stop using film as it as it makes my images better and my work more efficient. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.