Fuji Velvia RULES! ;-)

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Matt Clara, May 11, 2006.

  1. Matt Clara

    Peter Chant Guest

    I did not know Hammer made a version of it.
     
    Peter Chant, May 17, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Matt Clara

    no_name Guest

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the 1962 film was from Hammer. It was
    certainly in their style.
     
    no_name, May 17, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Matt Clara

    Randy Howard Guest

    Annika1980 wrote
    (in article
    Since you've already admitted you're broke, I understand why you
    may not comprehend this. However, you don't get wealthy by
    purchasing expensive items and giving them away to strangers
    that aren't competent to use them in a way beneficial to you.
     
    Randy Howard, May 17, 2006
  4. Matt Clara

    Annika1980 Guest

    Since you've already admitted you're broke, I understand why you
    C'mon dude, you don't wanna be rich all your life do ya?
    Where's the fun in that? Show me some love.
    Buy me the daddy cammy. I assure I'm quite competent in it's use.
     
    Annika1980, May 17, 2006
  5. For about 10 years I rode my bike to work every day....It was 6 miles,
    slightly uphill most of the way, with a steep hill the last mile or so. I
    had the latest $1000 Motobecane. There was this old geezer on a cheap Shwinn
    who would blow by me every so often on that last hill. I could hear him
    coming, because of the squeak, squeak, and the chain noise from his
    misaligned, unlubricated chain. I would pedal furiously with everything I
    had left in me, but he would always pass me before I got to my turn off into
    work.......It was damned frustrating, I'll tell you.......
     
    William Graham, May 17, 2006
  6. Matt Clara

    DD Guest

    For what reason? Your pictures will all still be the same, they'll just
    have more pixels.
     
    DD, May 17, 2006
  7. Matt Clara

    DD Guest

    Read the book, Bret. It's called "It's not about the bike".

    By Lance's own admission one of the things that he has in his favour is
    his genes. He has bigger lungs than most other human beings and that by
    itself is enough to give him a slight advantage over many of his peers.
    But having said that, it wasn't what made him a 7-time Tour De France
    winner, because prior to getting cancer he didn't perform all that well
    on the tour. It was his attitude that mattered most of all.

    Better equipment is not going to make you a better photographer or
    produce better pics. The sooner you accept that and just get on with
    what you've got, the better off you will be.
     
    DD, May 17, 2006
  8. Matt Clara

    Randy Howard Guest

    Annika1980 wrote
    (in article
    Actually, I do.
    It's exceedingly fun. Trust me.
    I'd rather not.
    Your reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired.
     
    Randy Howard, May 17, 2006
  9. Matt Clara

    Annika1980 Guest

    OK, it was a bad example. I'll admit that a better bike won't help me
    beat Lance Armstrong. My original point was that even Lance Armstrong
    uses a high-tech bike in order to get the most out of his talent. So
    it makes him better. Lance's bike would make me go faster than my old
    Schwinn as well.
    Whether better equipment makes you a better photographer is certainly
    arguable, but the fact that it will produce better pictures is not.
    Surely you aren't arguing that one can produce the same work with a
    cheap disposable as they could with MF or LF gear are you? If
    equipment didn't matter we wouldn't be having this conversation and
    this newsgroup wouldn't exist.
     
    Annika1980, May 17, 2006
  10. Matt Clara

    DD Guest

    No, not at all. Of course there is a difference, but the point I am
    trying to make is that your gear doesn't produce images on its own. It's
    up to the brain behind the viewfinder to do that.

    In the pursuit of photographic Nirvana we all too often forget about the
    reason why we have equipment in the first place: to take pictures that
    we can look at for a variety of reasons, be they sentimental or not.
    When I see pictures I took of my kids as they were growing up I don't
    look at how much detail is in the shadows, or how sharp the picture is,
    I look at them for reference in my life. Remembering is important and
    photography helps us to do that.

    Not all photography is undertaken with reference in mind. Naturally your
    pictures are indicative of a different passion and I suppose a lot of
    your satisfaction is derived from seeing just how much detail you can
    capture, or how accurately you can reproduce a scene. Sure, having the
    right gear will do wonders for that, but it definitely won't make you a
    better photographer!

    To do that you have to consider your technique and approach. For every
    picture that you take ask yourself how you might have been able to
    improve on it. Angle? Lighting? Background? DOF? FOV? The best equipment
    in the world will never be able to improve poor selections in those all-
    important areas for you.
     
    DD, May 17, 2006
  11. Matt Clara

    Annika1980 Guest

    Naturally your pictures are indicative of a different passion and
    Couldn't have put it better myself!
     
    Annika1980, May 17, 2006
  12. It all depends sometimes on what excites the brain. For instance I took a
    grab shot 3 or so months ago and thought I had gotten my perfect picture,
    it was of a cat coming to my granddaughter for the first time. We could all
    see the excitement of the baby, and it was great. Come to find out that
    most people just see a baby smiling at a cat. I still like the picture, oh
    well, so be it. The same people see one lowlight sunrise I have and ohh and
    ahh, It isn't my favorite, it is underexposed as far as I'm concerned.

    I've been looking at annika1980/Brett's pictures since 2000, and I have
    liked lots of them, some are "whimsical" some are serious, and some are
    pretty boring *to me*. The same goes for most every photographer who's work
    I see. Ansel A. doesn't bore me ever, but then I dont have to see his bad
    vacatation snaps, or his kids at Christmas. I like G. Parks, and Henri
    Cartier-Bresson (but gay guy jumping over a puddle isn't my favorite).

    The golf pictures put me to sleep, I was forced to play golf as a kid
    starting at about 8yrs. and I had a sister 4yrs older than me who beat the
    living piss out of me at every game in the world. The only fun I ever had
    playing sports was later as a lineman in Jr. High and High school, where I
    became an assasin, I was huge, evil and cruel, if I was good enough, I'd
    still be playing, because I loved getting even with that bitch over and
    over and over and over, muhahahahahaha (oops, I need my valium).

    "Forget about all that macho shit and learn how to play guitar" -One of the
    John Cougar dudes (AXIS???Melencamph???) :)
     
    Rusty Shakleford, May 19, 2006
  13. Lance hasn't ridden that forty pound Schwinn 10 speed in a few years either
    :)
     
    Rusty Shakleford, May 19, 2006
  14. And your photography is in the same league as his riding.....??

    He's good enough to benefit from every small advantage he can get.
    Given the world class competition he faces, a top-rate bike is a must.

    At your level, the equipment is, within reasonable bounds, irrelevant.
    A few more pixels, or 10 extra lp/mm, will make no discernible
    difference in images you make. None.

    BTW, how _do_ you think Lance made it to the top? Do you really believe
    that Santa left a $50,000 Unobtanium Special under the tree many years
    ago? Has he been riding a superior bike all his life? Hell no. He
    worked he ass off. He has no doubt dissected, analyzed, and
    relentlessly improved every aspect of his training, riding, and racing.
    I strongly doubt he has ever hung out in newsgroups bragging about his
    latest Schwinn, or how his new 1.3mm spokes (the latest thing, you
    know!) "rule!"

    (Think about that.)
    Hoo-boy. That's a whopper! Assuming his single gear ratio is even
    roughly appropriate to the course, he will whip you sorry ass to a
    degree you can't comprehend.
     
    Greg Campbell, May 20, 2006
  15. Matt Clara

    Randy Howard Guest

    Greg Campbell wrote
    No doubt about it. I used to ride cross-country quite a bit in
    the same area he did his off-season training. On more than one
    occasion I had him go blowing by me like I was sitting on the
    side changing a tire, and I thought (prior to his arrival over
    my shoulder) that I was going along pretty good. Totally
    demoralizing.

    Judging by Bret's reported donut habit, it would be far more
    depressing for him.
     
    Randy Howard, May 20, 2006
  16. Matt Clara

    D Mac Guest

    -------------

    There was an interesting discussion this morning amongst a few of the local
    (Pro) Photographers on this very subject When I introduced them to my new
    printer. I lamented that Digitals produced too much "edge sharpness" to make
    a really usable portrait camera - Photoshop mangling aside.

    Lo and behold, 3 others agreed. Somewhere along the line, the designers of
    digital cameras decided on a path to illusion which attempted to make up for
    the lower detail of digital capture by using edge sharpening to produce the
    impression of a highly detailed image when all that happened was the edges
    were made sharper.

    Some time further along the development, the capture of detail in digital
    images became pretty much as good as film but the edge sharpness remained. I
    have my 5D Custom Functions set with sharpness and contrast at their lowest
    level. Even this, produces portraits where the subject still looks as if
    it's pasted on the surface of the photograph. I much prefer the results I
    get from Portra film. Even 35mm although I don't shoot on film that small.

    In recent times I've used edge detection to locate and blur - rather than
    sharpen the edges. This still does not equal 20 year old Portraits I've
    taken but it's getting close. I think Bret has embraced the cult of edge
    sharpness to the exclusion of other composition and image deployment
    options. For his pictures it is probably quite appropriate. For mine,
    totally inappropriate. Probably answers why he says mine are crap too.

    Someone in another group called for the end to the "sharpness cult". I don't
    think his was a lone voice either. Sharpness is OK for objects. Maybe even
    landscapes but where people are concerned, sharpness is not necessarily a
    good thing. For one, slight lack of it hides skin blemishes. It also softens
    the edge transition between hair and body. A lack of sharpness or use of
    'soft focus' lenses often produces a more pleasing result when people are in
    the scene that critically sharp lenses cannot equal.

    Recently I photographed some paintings for the artist in readiness for a
    limited edition canvas print run. He commented on how he liked the canvas
    prints better than the original because the sharp brush marks he made were
    softer in the canvas prints. I used a Leica lens on my 5D for the exercise.
    So if Bret has joined the cult of edge sharpness and continued to worship
    the God of EOS, he's probably not ever going to become a great people
    shooter but he might get some recognition as an illustrative shooter if he
    continues his hobby.
     
    D Mac, May 21, 2006
  17. Matt Clara

    Annika1980 Guest

    Another reason to shoot exclusively in RAW mode.

    Now there you go thinking again! Didn't the doc tell you to hold back
    on that until he swelling on your butt goes down?

    One of my pet peeves is the oversharpening of the edges that you
    mentioned.
    Grossly oversharpened digital photos are easy to spot as they usually
    have the ringing effect around the edges. That's why I usually sharpen
    only in selective areas. My method is similar to yours as I sharpen
    the whole image and then go back and mask out (undo) the sharpening
    around the oversharp edges.

    So on a pic like this ( http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/60096044 ) only
    the bird will be sharpened and not the blurred background. Sometimes
    I'll miss some spots, however. Spiders are a real challenge as they
    have all sorts of diagonal lines that give digital fits.
    It's like I always say, shooting arachnids is one area where film
    really has it over digital.
    OK, so that's the first time I've said that.
     
    Annika1980, May 21, 2006
  18. Matt Clara

    Paul Furman Guest

    Yep, I do this too, especially high ISO shots, even adding gaussian blur
    to the background sometimes. It can be a lot of work though!
     
    Paul Furman, May 21, 2006
  19. Matt Clara

    D Mac Guest

    The pic you point to is a fine example of edge definition in the extreme. It
    looks like the bird has been cut out of another image and pasted on the
    background. This is most definitely not the sort of thing I want to see in a
    Portrait. The 'ringing effect' you speak of is just the over use of
    enhancement tools but it is a side effect of sensor flooding which with some
    very sharp lenses and under some (read most) lighting produces transparent
    fringing similar to the quasi chromatic aberration or purple fringe effect.
    Presumably you understand that issue so I won't go into it here.

    Even on an unsharpened RAW image, the step between a mid contrast object
    (like the red bird) and a lower contrast background is like the toe or
    shoulder cut off of digital. Instead of a infinite transition from one to
    the other, it is finite and predictable. It's also why digitals "blow" their
    highlights early when film will have a total transition to white where
    detail exists right up to the extreme of 254 254 254.

    It is this total transition between contrast variables with fine grained
    film which separates a digital photo from a film print. I believe the
    atmosphere between the lens and the photo paper during a conventional
    enlargement further contributes to the 'look' and softness of a traditional
    portrait.

    Digital anything is a mathematically predictable thing. It must have a point
    at which it begins and ends. Predicting anything with infinite variables is
    something the world will need to develop sooner or later because only by
    this form of prediction can we hope to use to navigate the universe... And
    make portraits as good as our father's could!
     
    D Mac, May 21, 2006
  20. but where people are concerned, sharpness is not necessarily a
    But I eliminate skin blemishes with Photoshop 7........:^)
     
    William Graham, May 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.