Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon vs Phase  (Read 43179 times)
Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


WWW
« Reply #180 on: September 26, 2007, 08:43:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sample shot on f5.6


[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Who needs a MF system. We are way too engaged in technical aspects.
Lets make quality images like this gentleman with a Rebel and a G7.

[a href=\"http://photo.net/photos/rarindra]http://photo.net/photos/rarindra[/url]

Not as good as mr. Tucker, but so good you do not think about
what camera he used, but just enjoy the visual.
Logged

Willow Photography
geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536



WWW
« Reply #181 on: September 26, 2007, 09:18:52 AM »
ReplyReply

but if you'd look at these pictures at 200% on a 30" Quato screen in a darkened room you would realize that they are totally worthless and have no value at all, neither monetary nor artistic...
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #182 on: September 26, 2007, 09:26:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Who needs a MF system. We are way too engaged in technical aspects.
Lets make quality images like this gentleman with a Rebel and a G7.

http://photo.net/photos/rarindra

Not as good as mr. Tucker, but so good you do not think about
what camera he used, but just enjoy the visual.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I must say, great ideas and moments, but most of this pictures are way overedited in PS. The landscapes has no deep or details and the colours are typical Rebel XT (I own one).   The portraits are inexpresive. I supose all this coud gain with a more natural vision. This surrealistic and overprocessed approach is nothing I see as master photography ... I don't see the point of comparing it to Tucker's photography either. It's a completely different vision.
But who needs a MF camera? Well, if you plan to create your images in PS instead of in your camera you surely do not need one. That's the reason I use MF, because It give me the pictures almost as I see them.

Again, just my opinion...
« Last Edit: September 26, 2007, 10:38:55 AM by samuel_js » Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #183 on: September 26, 2007, 09:33:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree. Wilow try printing those files or looing at them on a big screen.
Too many internet pictures that look good on internet only.
Web images are NO way to see the quality difference.
Plus that guys as PP them to death that they are not even Pictures anymore.
Snook
Logged
SeanPuckett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


WWW
« Reply #184 on: September 26, 2007, 09:39:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Many hundreds of people have commented favorably on and rated these images very highly in the gallery itself.  It's very interesting that there should be such an immediate and strong negative reaction to them in this forum.
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370


« Reply #185 on: September 26, 2007, 09:47:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I think they are gorgeous images and probably will print just fine up to a certain size.

I wonder how much time and effort it took to get the images this far.
Logged
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #186 on: September 26, 2007, 09:54:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
never could accomplisch that with a 35mm 135mm on f2.0

Completely false,Frank.


Mark
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #187 on: September 26, 2007, 10:04:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This was the 210mm on f5.6 or in 35mm terms roughly a 135mm lens.

When you look at the full ress version only the right (left on the picture) eyeball is in focus, the rest is OOF.
never could accomplisch that with a 35mm 135mm on f2.0

BS. You've obviously never used the 135 f/2L on a full-frame camera. I've done portrait shots where the eye was in focus, but the eyebrow was not, and neither were the lips. At f/2, shooting head-and-shoulders type framing DOF is between 1/4 and 1/2 inch. I'll post some 100% samples later.
Logged

Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


WWW
« Reply #188 on: September 26, 2007, 10:07:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: SeanPuckett,Sep 26 2007, 04:39 PM
Many hundreds of people have commented favorably on and rated these images very highly in the gallery itself.  It's very interesting that there should be such an immediate and strong negative reaction to them in this forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote


I am not surprised at all.

Just the statement "but if you'd look at these pictures at 200% on a 30" Quato screen in a darkened room" says it all.
Who the f... look at an image in that way but a pixel peeper.

"That's the reason I use MF, because It give me the pictures almost as I see them."

The pictures on this site is how this man exactly sees it, not almost.
How he does that, with or without PS is irrelevant.
He doesnt take a picture, he makes a picture.

Mark Tucker also takes pictures like HE sees them.
Lots of his pictures are blurry and with odd colors.
And often, those are the most interesting ones.

And Samuel, maybe I am to personal now, I looked at your pictures
and they are, for the most, only a registration of whats in front of your camera.
No personal interpetation. IMO
Logged

Willow Photography
Lester
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #189 on: September 26, 2007, 10:35:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I shoot both with a DSLR and MF, I do shoot them for different reason. My question is why do we need to see someone picture at 200% with a 30" screen? Can't we just enjoy someone images, if we like it or not? Not all photographers is the same, each has his or her own style. Do we need  to knock them down, just because their images are diffferent from ours? Just take pictures, that you like and used the camera you like and hell with them.





Quote from: Willow Photography,Sep 26 2007, 11:07 AM

Quote from: SeanPuckett,Sep 26 2007, 04:39 PM
Many hundreds of people have commented favorably on and rated these images very highly in the gallery itself.  It's very interesting that there should be such an immediate and strong negative reaction to them in this forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote
I am not surprised at all.

Just the statement "but if you'd look at these pictures at 200% on a 30" Quato screen in a darkened room" says it all.
Who the f... look at an image in that way but a pixel peeper.

"That's the reason I use MF, because It give me the pictures almost as I see them."

The pictures on this site is how this man exactly sees it, not almost.
How he does that, with or without PS is irrelevant.
He doesnt take a picture, he makes a picture.

Mark Tucker also takes pictures like HE sees them.
Lots of his pictures are blurry and with odd colors.
And often, those are the most interesting ones.

And Samuel, maybe I am to personal now, I looked at your pictures
and they are, for the most, only a registration of whats in front of your camera.
No personal interpetation. IMO
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

I am a old fart, over 60
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1521


WWW
« Reply #190 on: September 26, 2007, 10:40:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Hummm, have to be carefull here I see (man what a mess).

When taking the same distance to your model 3 feet.
BOTH lenses give me at f2.0 for the 35mm and f5.6 for the MF a DOF of 0.01 ft before and 0.01 ft behind (total 0.02 ft) the model.

MEANING f5.6 is f2.0 on the SAME distance from the model with the 210 and 135.

Now let's look at the quality 1:1 of the 210 on f5.6 and the 135mm of f2.0.

In other words my 210 is stopped down and the 135mm is wide open.
I don't know if it will bother you much but sharpness of the 135mm is very good wide open, but not as sharp as the 210 stopped down to f5.6

My point is that I don't judge internet version, I judge A2 prints (that's my portfolio size), the 135mm f2.0 did not give me the crisp quality the 210 on f5.6 gives me.

It's again all in what you expect.
On internet version you will not see the difference 100% true, so if you want to shoot for the net go for a G7 indeed, it's MORE than you will ever need.

I don't shoot for the web, I shoot for prints and than every piece of sharpness/detail counts.

What I don't understand is why there is a discussion anyway, we won't take away your 35mm machines and good lenses and high-iso.
Heck I even use it myself on some shoots.
What I don't understand how people who claim to understand photography can argue on this point on and on and on (yeah and I'm the stupid one that answers )

For me MF and 35mm both fill the spaces I need.
I don't think about using the 35mm again in the studio, I don't even dream about using my MF on a concert shoot with low light.

HORSES FOR COURSES
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #191 on: September 26, 2007, 10:54:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Willow Photography,Sep 26 2007, 04:07 PM
Quote from: SeanPuckett,Sep 26 2007, 04:39 PM
Many hundreds of people have commented favorably on and rated these images very highly in the gallery itself.  It's very interesting that there should be such an immediate and strong negative reaction to them in this forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote
I am not surprised at all.

Just the statement "but if you'd look at these pictures at 200% on a 30" Quato screen in a darkened room" says it all.
Who the f... look at an image in that way but a pixel peeper.

"That's the reason I use MF, because It give me the pictures almost as I see them."

The pictures on this site is how this man exactly sees it, not almost.
How he does that, with or without PS is irrelevant.
He doesnt take a picture, he makes a picture.

Mark Tucker also takes pictures like HE sees them.
Lots of his pictures are blurry and with odd colors.
And often, those are the most interesting ones.

And Samuel, maybe I am to personal now, I looked at your pictures
and they are, for the most, only a registration of whats in front of your camera.
No personal interpetation. IMO
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark's photography is in another level. Please don't compare it to this guy...

When I say "almost as I see them" I mean they need not to much processing to actually make the as I want them. I also process my files of course...
You're too personal in the way you should know me better to say If my pictures are only a registration.  If you take the time to look at my b&w, color, and nature porfolios you'll understand you're wrong. The pictures and collections on my website are just a small sample of my work. The real "work time" is when the print is made, not that jpegs, and you should see one of those b&w prints...
I don't think a little quick flash look is enought to judge.
You don't allways have to interprete your images to the extreme. Specially if you work comercial

/Samuel
« Last Edit: September 26, 2007, 10:58:29 AM by samuel_js » Logged
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #192 on: September 26, 2007, 11:24:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree. Wilow try printing those files or looing at them on a big screen.
Too many internet pictures that look good on internet only.
Web images are NO way to see the quality difference.
Plus that guys as PP them to death that they are not even Pictures anymore.
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

gotta disagree

I'm sure his pictures can go up to 13x19 inches at least.
I used to shoot with a Nikon D70 and could take gorgeous photos, only difference is that there's a lack of detail past a certain point.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1521


WWW
« Reply #193 on: September 26, 2007, 12:01:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I have made prints from a 10D up to 6.5 mtrs in height.
Quality was VERY good, viewing from 20mtrs distance (normal viewing distance).

 but I can tell you it has a MAJOR impact on our customer satisfaction, most of them I did not even tell about it but they saw the files were different.
That's the best confirmation I can get.

For sheer resolution use like billboards you really don't need 22MP's or more, the quality will get better but most commercial clients will be more than satisfied with a 13-16mp file for a billboard.

It's I think about the love for the quality I made the upgrade myself, it was purely a thing I wanted to do, and at the moment it luckely also pays of with customer satisfaction
Logged
Willow Photography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


WWW
« Reply #194 on: September 26, 2007, 12:03:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark's photography is in another level. Please don't compare it to this guy...

When I say "almost as I see them" I mean they need not to much processing to actually make the as I want them. I also process my files of course...
You're too personal in the way you should know me better to say If my pictures are only a registration.  If you take the time to look at my b&w, color, and nature porfolios you'll understand you're wrong. The pictures and collections on my website are just a small sample of my work. The real "work time" is when the print is made, not that jpegs, and you should see one of those b&w prints...
I don't think a little quick flash look is enought to judge.
You don't allways have to interprete your images to the extreme. Specially if you work comercial

/Samuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I looked at all your B&W. I did not find one that had any mood or made me stop and  look
more closely. They where mere registration of what is in front of you.
And if this is not the best of your work, I am curious to why you
do not put your best on the web.

I have seen many B&W picures on the web that shows of mood
and craftmanship. Doesnt have to be a large print.

I think PS is a good tool to make a picture look like I saw it in my head, not only with my eyes.
Here is an example. It did not look like this, but this is what I saw.

PS I do not think you are a lesser photographer than me or many others.
I only speak of what your pictures do to me.  
Logged

Willow Photography
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #195 on: September 26, 2007, 12:21:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My point is that I don't judge internet version,

Them why do you post images here, in the internet media, to illustrate the various points
you bring forward?

Mark
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #196 on: September 26, 2007, 12:26:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I looked at all your B&W. I did not find one that had any mood or made me stop and  look
more closely. They where mere registration of what is in front of you.
And if this is not the best of your work, I am curious to why you
do not put your best on the web.

I have seen many B&W picures on the web that shows of mood
and craftmanship. Doesnt have to be a large print.

I think PS is a good tool to make a picture look like I saw it in my head, not only with my eyes.
Here is an example. It did not look like this, but this is what I saw.

PS I do not think you are a lesser photographer than me or many others.
I only speak of what your pictures do to me. 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What you (don't) see in my pictures is your personal opinion and I personally don't care, really. Maily because your statements are totally unfunded. Were you there when I took the pictures? Have you seen the original scene? How do you know that pictures aren't the what I want them? You and me have every different visions. I like simplicity because I find it the best way to say what I want to communicate. And If you like that guy's pictures then I totally understand you don't like mine. Thank's
You just [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19726]said farewell[/url] to the MF forum to worlk with 35 mm and need a reason to throw away your medium format and that's fine for me really. Good luck!

If I don't put my best work on the website is because the prints don't fit. Sorry, you have to see it for yourself.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2007, 01:13:58 PM by samuel_js » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1521


WWW
« Reply #197 on: September 26, 2007, 12:28:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Why do I respond anyway
I post internet versions because I don't have anything else that I can share on this forum.

What is shocking to me is to see the disrespect some people are judging others by, come on guys we are all adults ??
Logged
bwpuk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


WWW
« Reply #198 on: September 26, 2007, 12:47:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Who needs a MF system. We are way too engaged in technical aspects.
Lets make quality images like this gentleman with a Rebel and a G7.

http://photo.net/photos/rarindra

Not as good as mr. Tucker, but so good you do not think about
what camera he used, but just enjoy the visual.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Come on Guys,

You know I just don't understand the criticism of Rarindra's work here !  This guy is obviously a great photographer and a good PS operator. I agree some are a bit overdone for my liking but are you telling me he creates all the lighting in PS ? Some of the lighting in his shots is just wonderful. His portraits don't seem any more manipulated than some of the samples I've seen posted on this forum.

Just proves it's not size that matters, but rather how you use what you've got.

My 2 cents

Barrie Watts
Logged

Snook
Guest
« Reply #199 on: September 26, 2007, 01:01:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Well No offense was  intended what so ever for the photographer.
A lot of my stuff is Photoshopped to heck also. But the idea of camparing a G7 or point and shoot camera with Medium Format is obviuosly ridiculous and that comment was for that.
The guys has a nice eye and the light is great.
He actually posted in a retocuh forum his technique. I do not remember where, But he showed a before shot and beleive me it was like a Point and shoot shot. Pretty flat and no dynamic range..
Also his pictures will go to Cr@p if he Blows them up more than 8X10 and or for a double page for a bigger size magazine. That was the point.
Snook
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad