Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »
 11 
 on: Today at 03:13:31 PM 
Started by Fine_Art - Last post by BartvanderWolf
Not at all.
But I will say that those who obsess over tech stuff do tend to produce competent, but uninteresting photos

LOL, that's like suggesting that people like Rembrandt van Rijn, or Johannes Vermeer, or even Leonardo DaVinci, to just name a few commonly known ones didn't care (or even obsess) about the process as much as the composition and the politics of those times.

Cheers,
Bart

 12 
 on: Today at 03:09:09 PM 
Started by Todd Suttles - Last post by Todd Suttles
Todd, the red trees are "potentially" very  interesting...but the surrounding landscape/sky isn't...and there is so much of it. I don't think the capture is here...even in cropping. /Brandt
Thanks and, Yep. Limited by equipment

 13 
 on: Today at 03:04:43 PM 
Started by Fine_Art - Last post by Telecaster
I actually like grain or noise in images, to me it's in fact more real. Why? Because the world is full of texture, unlike than plastic smooth, digital images that have a video quality.
However banding in shadows or colour noise is something I cannot stand. LR/ACR remove colour noise really well leaving just the 'grain' which is fine by me. As for noise removal software, I've never seen any that actually removes noise and retains detail. Usually it simply looks like the image is softer/not sharp. BTW- adding grain to an image is something you can do to increase apparent sharpness/detail at times

Yep, I agree with this. Chroma & patterned luma noise I don't like. Grain-like luma noise not only doesn't bother me, I often accentuate it for effect. Given that photography is for me a creative enterprise, whatever helps me get a look I like or find compelling or even provocative is the optimum thing to do. Attempts to impose any particular æsthetic or approach as the "right" one should be disregarded.

-Dave-

 14 
 on: Today at 03:01:03 PM 
Started by Fine_Art - Last post by jjj
"As there is between a technically competent image and one that is actually interesting.  Tongue"

I prefer an image that is both. Are you suggesting they are exclusive qualities?
Not at all.
But I will say that those who obsess over tech stuff do tend to produce competent, but uninteresting photos

 15 
 on: Today at 02:56:26 PM 
Started by OnlyNorth - Last post by OnlyNorth
If one asks me where I should wish to live ,my answer could be neither in a mansard nor in a basement.

 16 
 on: Today at 02:54:38 PM 
Started by Brian Hirschfeld - Last post by jjj
For some reason I was reminded of this discussion today.
Anyway.
Here's a single piece of content that required 88,000 shots.

http://dubai360.com/
That was a long time taken to reply!
So is that the work you were talking about or is it someone else's?

But as that is film footage of course one is going to shoot a whole heap of frames, which is quite different from 88,000 photos.

 17 
 on: Today at 02:53:59 PM 
Started by Fine_Art - Last post by BartvanderWolf
Quote
There's a difference between a successful image despite of technical shortcomings, and one because of the shortcomings ...

As there is between a technically competent image and one that is actually interesting.  Tongue

I prefer an image that is both. Are you suggesting they are exclusive qualities?

Cheers,
Bart

 18 
 on: Today at 02:47:34 PM 
Started by bns - Last post by DF1
Gorgeous. Umbria, Abruzzo and Tuscany are on my bucket list.

 19 
 on: Today at 02:46:50 PM 
Started by Nick Walt - Last post by jjj
1) I think the eye tracker would work off the mirror as well IIRC. So it would have to be different in a mirror less design
Nope.  Smiley
"An infrared transmitter and receiver mounted around the eyepiece monitored the position of the iris, thus "knowing" where the photographer was looking and focusing on that point."

 20 
 on: Today at 02:44:48 PM 
Started by Fine_Art - Last post by jjj
I shoot action sequences of wildlife in which I have a second or two of capture time, and I put more priority on catching the most interesting posture, wing position, etc than on perfect ETTR. Basically, I put the camera on continuous high speed drive, hit the shutter when the action commences (bird in flight comes near, heron dives at fish), and capture 2 seconds of action. I wouldn't bracket.
I'd use manual exposure for that sort of thing and set it to ETTR - if that was my preferred method.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad