Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 645D vs D3x  (Read 76001 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #220 on: June 13, 2011, 03:26:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Rob,

Nice to see you.

You know, my training has not been photography but fine arts. It is a good and a bad thing. The bad thing is that I was never trained on the orthodoxy of photography techniques. The good thing is that I was never trained on the orthodoxy of photographic techniques.

If still photography would die tomorrow for motion-only, I won't cry on its thumb. Things are moving, has to move on. That's the excitment IMO to be alive. Dead-living people tend to get hooked on the things they know, and feel desperate when the world is moving forward. Here in the Flamenco scene, the new generation is trying to make the genre evolve but there is an enormous resistance. People always try to keep the things where they are. Thank god human nature is evolution, nothing lasts, nothing is fixed forever. If not we would still be drawing with hands on the cave's rock.

I'm happy that you enjoy digital tools.

I don't know what is a "good" lightning. In my youth, I used exclusively cine lightning that I bought in the "puces" (fee marquet you say?), it's funny to see it coming back later now. Proper photographers wanted always to send me on the strobe side but never accepted. I hated Velvia when everybody was on it and if there is something I really never do (because I don't need to) is to use a "correct" WB.  I mix different lightning temps and have almost zero interest in dynamic range, isos settings and "right" exposure.

But the funny thing Rob, is that in my assistance exp, you won't beleive the number of "traditional photographers" wich cameras are completly unsetted. I don't count the number of times I had to reconfigured cameras settings to avoid disasters. And more the photographers are on the high-end, more you had to be carefull about that...

I really think that a new golden age is about to come. Le roi est mort! Vive le roi!
But now it's a mess.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 03:42:23 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #221 on: June 13, 2011, 04:03:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Fred

*I bought in the "puces" (fee marquet you say?),*  almost: flea market.

Yes, I understand you view about the advantage, in some circumstance, of not having a technical training in a sort of standard 'how' to do things; it can help, but better, if you can manage it, is to have the background and be able to accept it for what it is: good experience in doing some things in some ways.

In my own case, my experience was limited/fashioned by the work I chose to do, and the way in which I wanted to work. I never, ever, wanted to have a team. The most I ever wanted was my wife to help out morally and with a reflector or holding a flash umbrella in the wind. I'm one of these people who has two extremes when working: either as alone as possible or, alternatively, with a crowd watching, but the latter only if I know the model well and we have an instinctual method of working together. Since my model days seem long over, the crowd appeal manifests itself with the music stuff, and it seems to give the players something extra to play to - they must get bored as hell playing the same basic set every time and making the same wisecracks, too. I sometimes wonder at the way that famous groups are reputed to behave regarding photographers at concerts: why, apart from management or promoters making more money off them if they can control photography as well, should they restrict pro shooters to only the first few numbers of gigs? Strange.

Those two links were very interesting; thanks for that.

Rob C

« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 05:39:53 AM by Rob C » Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3972



WWW
« Reply #222 on: June 13, 2011, 03:02:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Fred

*I bought in the "puces" (fee marquet you say?),*  almost: flea market.


Yeah, I would weep if stills went away. Stills are the inheritors of the tradition of painting - itself as old as Lascaux and then portaiture, like this

The cinema is more an inheritor of the art of theatre. A story, not a moment, or a feeling.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #223 on: June 13, 2011, 04:01:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I would weep if stills went away. Stills are the inheritors of the tradition of painting - itself as old as Lascaux and then portaiture, like this

The cinema is more an inheritor of the art of theatre. A story, not a moment, or a feeling.Edmund




Edmund, I don't think you quite meant what you just wrote! Tell  me you were thinking of something else. Please?

I think it's beyond argument that motion can create feeling far more convincingly than stills alone ever can; it's got more dimensions, for a start.

Rob C
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3972



WWW
« Reply #224 on: June 13, 2011, 06:27:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob, I assure you when I wrote that I was thinking of you. Smiley

I agree that motion (theatre) has more dimensionality - but it robs the viewer of the privilege of slow contemplation. Some like it slow.

Edmund


Edmund, I don't think you quite meant what you just wrote! Tell  me you were thinking of something else. Please?

I think it's beyond argument that motion can create feeling far more convincingly than stills alone ever can; it's got more dimensions, for a start.

Rob C
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #225 on: June 14, 2011, 02:19:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, I assure you when I wrote that I was thinking of you. Smiley

I agree that motion (theatre) has more dimensionality - but it robs the viewer of the privilege of slow contemplation. Some like it slow.
Edmund





Okay, just for you, then:

http://youtu.be/VWZkRNEULi4

;-)

Rob C


PS The opening portrait is what, in my head, real glamour is, not the semi-porn that has stolen its passport today.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 02:21:50 AM by Rob C » Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #226 on: June 14, 2011, 04:40:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I would weep if stills went away. Stills are the inheritors of the tradition of painting - itself as old as Lascaux and then portaiture, like this

The cinema is more an inheritor of the art of theatre. A story, not a moment, or a feeling.

Edmund

I don't get it.  Stills, motion, motion from stills, stills from motion or a combination . . . who cares?

Rules are so 1980.

If it's good then it's good, if it stinks it stinks.

These are great times because you can be anything you want to be. 

Conceptual artist . . . go for it, all you need is some good ideas and a laptop and you can present a concept that would take an ad agency two months to generate.

Photographer, film maker, it's all there even if you have a $400 camera.    If the story is compelling, the creativity is good, the effort interesting, someone will take notice and you can be the next Robert Rodriquez, George Lois, or Helmut Newton.

Seriously, the walls are coming down and there are no rules and one twitter and facebook account and you can show it to the world.  You don't need NBC, BBC, Warner Bros., or Conde Naste's blessing. 

It's artistic and commercial anarchy and i love it, love nearly everything about it, because the barriers for entry get changed every week, so while they're putting up a new gate, sometimes you can slip through the cracks and get into the room.

Once you get into the room, it's damn hard to throw you out.

IMO

BC

Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #227 on: June 14, 2011, 07:06:27 AM »
ReplyReply

These are great times because you can be anything you want to be.  

Certainly can, but thankfully this doesn't only apply to recent times.

I've never known what to put on those forms that insist on a definitive occupation, painter, illustrator, photographer, curmudgeon...? The point is it's often difficult to know where one begins and another ends.

Therein lay the excitement.
Logged

paulmoorestudio
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 240


WWW
« Reply #228 on: June 14, 2011, 07:24:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't get it.  Stills, motion, motion from stills, stills from motion or a combination . . . who cares?

Rules are so 1980.

BC

maybe 1980 and before.. but I wasn't in the business really till 1983..  maybe I was just young then and the world was my oyster, I could shoot anything, boundaries were
being broken left and right ..
minox, 35recording film, super 8, 16mm, polaroid transfer, cross-processing, agfa1600 pushed.. 8x10, and everything in-between..and I could say the same about choices of how to light.
.. now?  seems we still have choices..but we also have created new pigeon holes to bind our collective vision.. remember the ringflash, now HDR, trends the artbuyers and young
creatives latch onto and think so new and hip. 
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #229 on: June 14, 2011, 08:33:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Certainly can, but thankfully this doesn't only apply to recent times.

I've never known what to put on those forms that insist on a definitive occupation, painter, illustrator, photographer, curmudgeon...? The point is it's often difficult to know where one begins and another ends.

Therein lay the excitement.

Indeed.

I'm often surprised that the irruption of motion is sometimes seen as a threat to the photographic craft, or that it is the end of the MF world like I read several times.  I don't  think it is the end of anything. Convergence is something that as been annunced years ago and does not really take anybody by surprise. 

I don't understand either those labelised concepts: here the photographer, there the illustrator and over here the film maker. I don't buy that.

Precisely, today we have the tools and structures for really expressing ourselves in almost any support we want to. I honestly feel much more freedom and excitement today than 10 years ago.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #230 on: June 14, 2011, 08:46:36 AM »
ReplyReply

remember the ringflash, now HDR, trends the artbuyers and young creatives latch onto and think so new and hip. 

That's fashion*, what's hip today is dead tomorrow, until the next cycle.

--

*in this sense not the genre. But there again...
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3972



WWW
« Reply #231 on: June 14, 2011, 02:03:37 PM »
ReplyReply

J,

 I agree with you 100%. If you can get them to pay, it deserves to be done Smiley

 There's a well known artist in Paris called Le Peintre Nato who expresses himself with his penis. I'm not joking. His art form is a live performance. He's quite respectable. You can Google him, for obvious reasons I can't link to his images here.

Edmund

I don't get it.  Stills, motion, motion from stills, stills from motion or a combination . . . who cares?

Rules are so 1980.

If it's good then it's good, if it stinks it stinks.

These are great times because you can be anything you want to be.  

Conceptual artist . . . go for it, all you need is some good ideas and a laptop and you can present a concept that would take an ad agency two months to generate.

Photographer, film maker, it's all there even if you have a $400 camera.    If the story is compelling, the creativity is good, the effort interesting, someone will take notice and you can be the next Robert Rodriquez, George Lois, or Helmut Newton.

Seriously, the walls are coming down and there are no rules and one twitter and facebook account and you can show it to the world.  You don't need NBC, BBC, Warner Bros., or Conde Naste's blessing.  

It's artistic and commercial anarchy and i love it, love nearly everything about it, because the barriers for entry get changed every week, so while they're putting up a new gate, sometimes you can slip through the cracks and get into the room.

Once you get into the room, it's damn hard to throw you out.

IMO

BC


« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 02:05:20 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
haring
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 198


WWW
« Reply #232 on: July 19, 2011, 01:17:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, the D3x is amazing so is the Canon 5d!!! They both are narrowing the gap between MF and Digital 35mm...
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7329


WWW
« Reply #233 on: July 20, 2011, 01:27:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

They go where MF used to be before, but MF is also on the move. There has never been a substitute for square inches...

Best regards
Erik


Yes, the D3x is amazing so is the Canon 5d!!! They both are narrowing the gap between MF and Digital 35mm...
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3972



WWW
« Reply #234 on: July 20, 2011, 07:20:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

They go where MF used to be before, but MF is also on the move. There has never been a substitute for square inches...

Best regards
Erik



Anyone who puts a D3x and a Canon 5DII in the same category doesn't need anything more than a 5DII.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
DaveOls
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #235 on: July 20, 2011, 01:11:36 PM »
ReplyReply

     If you want the quality of the 645, but not the $ 10,000 price, you can always get the film version for a lot less.

DaveO
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7329


WWW
« Reply #236 on: July 20, 2011, 02:09:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The tests I have done indicates that Sony Alpha 900 is at least on par but mostly superior to Velvia on 67. Print film may be another case.

My experience is that your advice is not a good one, but opinions may differ.

My test is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900

Best regards
Erik


     If you want the quality of the 645, but not the $ 10,000 price, you can always get the film version for a lot less.

DaveO
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #237 on: July 20, 2011, 03:20:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik,

In my opinion, on look alone, films beats digital.  I saw your test when you did it and thought it was challenged, in many ways.  Velvia is the worst chrome film ever made.  It has what, maybe 5 stops of range?  And those Colecovision colors.  Awful.  I think you are fair and not intentionaly biased, but it was obvious to me that your set up for the film, inluding scanning and the type of film chosen, the camera chosen, and your criteria for excellence dictated that the digital would come out on top.  What this means is that digital is right for you. 

For pixel peeping, convenience and sharpness, digital takes it.  But remember, sharpness is a bourgeois concept.

That being said, I don't think film is a wrong choice for someone wanting the look of medium format without the absurd hobbyist prices. 

Regards,

TMARK
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7329


WWW
« Reply #238 on: July 20, 2011, 04:12:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The reason I compared with Velvia was essentially that it was the film I used for something like 15 years before going to digital. I used also Provia but decided that I preferred Velvia. Anyway 67 and Velvia was what I was doing for a long time, and I did scan several hundred 67 slides.

The main reason for looking into this was threefold:

1) When scanning slides I felt that going beyond 1600 PPI started to show diminishing returns, I wanted to find out what quailty I could extract from a 67 slide.

2) I essentially hoped that I would find advantages with my Pentax 67 and 5 lenses, so I would use them more

3) Finding out how digital fared against Velvia

I have used around a dozen different slide films before arriving at Velvia, mostly because Kodak's handling of Kodachrome was not acceptable to me, and I always had a strong dislike for Ektachrome.

The reason I mentioned my test is that you can buy a very good camera today costing around 2000-3000 € and take pictures with zero cost. For the tests I made I exposed 3-4 rolls of film and had to wait 1-2 weeks for development. Cost for a film including development is perhaps 15 € (including postage). I needed to check focusing and so on. With digital I just made a single exposure.

With film you still need to scan it. I use an advanced CCD scanner from Minolta (no longer made) and it set me back 3000€ when I bought, I also have a projector at a similar price (made by Götschman). So everything about film is expensive. With Digital I essentially made a single exposure, checked the LCD and that's it.

So I feel that saying that MF film is an economical alternative is in my view an incorrect statement.

I have a plan to redo the test with negative film, the film has been in the fridge a long time, but I'm to lazy to get around to doing it.

Michael Reichmann, Bill Atkinson and Charlie Cramer made a shootout with Digital backs and film 2006, and their findings were pretty consistent with mine, but they also used Velvia.

I don't think sharpness is a bourgeois concept, by the way. Neither bourgeois nor concept. For the stuff I'm doing it is essential. Doing landscape mostly, that may be a bourgeois concept!

Best regards
Erik




Erik,

In my opinion, on look alone, films beats digital.  I saw your test when you did it and thought it was challenged, in many ways.  Velvia is the worst chrome film ever made.  It has what, maybe 5 stops of range?  And those Colecovision colors.  Awful.  I think you are fair and not intentionaly biased, but it was obvious to me that your set up for the film, inluding scanning and the type of film chosen, the camera chosen, and your criteria for excellence dictated that the digital would come out on top.  What this means is that digital is right for you. 

For pixel peeping, convenience and sharpness, digital takes it.  But remember, sharpness is a bourgeois concept.

That being said, I don't think film is a wrong choice for someone wanting the look of medium format without the absurd hobbyist prices. 

Regards,

TMARK
Logged

uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


WWW
« Reply #239 on: July 21, 2011, 09:26:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Nor for cubic inches  Cheesy
Eduardo

Hi,

They go where MF used to be before, but MF is also on the move. There has never been a substitute for square inches...

Best regards
Erik


Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad