Thoughts on Photography

GD
Posted By
Grant_Dixon
Jun 16, 2004
Views
1790
Replies
89
Status
Closed
I have been following a thread in another news group about lenses, tripods and sharpness. To my mind it seems that sharpness has become a mantra. As if it is the holy grail of good photography and if you don’t take tack sharp images you are a failure. I have many photographers that I really admire, heroes so to say. Here are nine that I like and each presenting a photograph that is not sharp but is extremely strong all the same. http://www.cavesofice.org/~grant/Soft/

Grant

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

DG
David G House
Jun 16, 2004
Grant..

Thanks for the link…. I also enjoy the soft focus touch…. Personally I think that there is now this age of Digital that can create the most spectacular of sharpness in images (although I understand that Electrocrome is still the choice of many)… Evidence is in our latest Photo Challenge…. there certainly is a lot of discussion about "technique" as opposed to "Electronic Enhancement"…. Like most other things I am sure the pendulum will swing back…. guess we’ll just have to wait for it to become popular again.. πŸ™‚

David
LK
Leen_Koper
Jun 16, 2004
Grant, as usual I agree. All this fuzz about lens quality is meant to hide a lack of capability to create decent images. They spend lots of money on lenses and are too lazy to carry a tripod. Nevertheless they can boast a lens with 10 more lines per mm. than most other people do own…..Viagra for their mind.
When it comes to lenses for SLR cameras they all want fast lenses and complain about the weight. Most of these lenses will probably be used for family snaps at the beach in full sunlight.
Especially the Nikon and Canon 2.8/300 are their favourite lenses. Of all lenses a 300 is probably the least useful lens: to long for people photography and too short for wildlife.
Moreover, you arent a real man if you don’t own a Leica with its superior lenses. πŸ˜‰

It is a pity so many people need expensive stuff to compensate for their inferiority. Car owners often prove the same mental weakness: the larger the car, usually, the shorter its owner. LOL!
(BTW, I own a very small car, but I am a great mind, of course) πŸ˜‰

Leen
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 16, 2004
Leen

I agree with you almost but not quite a 100%. I have this feeling that owning a Leica is equivalent to owning a very large BMW SUV the best penis extension money can buy.

If the size of a brain was inversely proportional to the size of a Car I would be the Alfred Einstein of Dundas

Grant
SB
Stu_Bloom
Jun 16, 2004
Well, there are two issues here.

1. Is it worthwhile writing/reading about lens quality, including sharpness?

Yes, I think it is.

2. Is it possible to make a fine photograph that is not sharp?

Yes, I think it is.

If you’re using soft focus as a creative expression, that’s one thing. If your pictures are all soft because you’ve got a crappy lens, that’s something else indeed.
JF
Jodi_Frye
Jun 16, 2004
Leen, my car is an old piece of sh*%! and i don’t care..it’s gets me to where i want to go…was does that say about me ?

Grant, what an interesting play on words. What does it say about the female passenger ?
BG
Byron Gale
Jun 16, 2004
wrote
If the size of a brain was inversely proportional to the size of a Car I would be the Alfred Einstein of Dundas

Grant,

Is Alfred related to Albert?

(duck and run)

Byron
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 16, 2004
Byron

It is a very old joke and you would be amazed at how many heads it goes over.

Grant
BG
Byron Gale
Jun 16, 2004
Grant,

OIC… I should have known it was intentional!!

B
SB
Stu_Bloom
Jun 16, 2004
Actually, Alfred Einstein was a very much respected music critic and writer. In the 1930s, he wrote what was for years regarded as the definitive biography of Mozart.
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 16, 2004
Stu

Oh my Alfred Einstein is taken? I will have to change the name to …. lets see … thinking … thinking … I have it … Sergei Eisenstein

Grant
RR
Raymond Robillard
Jun 16, 2004
I drive a Honda Civic and I’m 5′ 6"… (it’s interesting to see where this comment of yours will lead us… LOL !)

Ray
DG
David G House
Jun 16, 2004
Hmmm I have a 1943 Leica IIIc does that make me an "real" old man… Geeeeeez and I was born in the 60’s…. I think… πŸ˜‰
FK
Flar_Kibiger
Jun 16, 2004
what car?

cu,
fl "16meters" ar
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 16, 2004
David

Very interesting question. But I have a rule that covers this situation. "Never insult someone that lives within and hours drive of my home."

Grant
DG
David G House
Jun 16, 2004
Looking very puzzled… I thought I was insulting me.. Grant not you…. I soooooooooooory….. Intention lost in Cyber land… too bad these things didn’t come with voice and facial expressions…. πŸ˜‰

David
DG
David G House
Jun 16, 2004

P.S. Grant… and seeing as you are only an hour away… when you commin’ down this a way….????
SB
Stu_Bloom
Jun 16, 2004
Oh my Alfred Einstein is taken?

<http://www.hajosalfred.hu/data/Alfred_Einstein.htm>
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 16, 2004
Stu

…. and so is Sergei Eisenstein lol

Grant

P.S. you have to love Microsoft dictionary I typed 6 words and the dictionary flagged 3 of them and they are all correct just a tad unusual
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 16, 2004
David

Good question! I suspect there is something in the Woodstock area that would fit on my POD.

Grant
SB
Stu_Bloom
Jun 16, 2004
Not to mention Katrin Eismann and Dwight Eisenhower and Alfred Eisenstaedt.
RH
Ron Hunter
Jun 16, 2004
wrote:

I have been following a thread in another news group about lenses, tripods and sharpness. To my mind it seems that sharpness has become a mantra. As if it is the holy grail of good photography and if you don’t take tack sharp images you are a failure. I have many photographers that I really admire, heroes so to say. Here are nine that I like and each presenting a photograph that is not sharp but is extremely strong all the same. http://www.cavesofice.org/~grant/Soft/

Grant
Some people think that ‘fuzzy’ is ‘artistic’. I suppose it is, to them, but not to me. I want the photograph to represent exactly what I SAW when I took it. My vision is sharp, so I want my photos to be sharp as well.
J
jhjl1
Jun 16, 2004
Leen you have lost me with this post. I am having a hard time telling if you are serious or joking around or perhaps both. You seem to be saying that lens quality doesn’t matter unless you own a Leica. The last paragraph mentions buying expensive items having to do with inferiority of a person and physical stature or lack thereof. Are you saying that buying a Leica or quality lens or large car means one is inferior. If so, inferior to whom or what? Most of the best photographers I have met seem to use high quality bodies and glass. There are some in this forum (John B and Grant) who use pretty good glass and don’t seem to be suffering from an inferiority complex. As for as a 300mm (unfortunately not the 2.8) lens being useful I think it depends largely on the photographer. I find I use 200-300mm for deer photos quite often. If it were a longer lens I would find myself backing up from my subject. —
Have A Nice Day, πŸ™‚
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/
wrote in message
Grant, as usual I agree. All this fuzz about lens quality is meant to
hide a lack of capability to create decent images. They spend lots of money on lenses and are too lazy to carry a tripod. Nevertheless they can boast a lens with 10 more lines per mm. than most other people do own…..Viagra for their mind.
When it comes to lenses for SLR cameras they all want fast lenses and
complain about the weight. Most of these lenses will probably be used for family snaps at the beach in full sunlight.
Especially the Nikon and Canon 2.8/300 are their favourite lenses. Of
all lenses a 300 is probably the least useful lens: to long for people photography and too short for wildlife.
Moreover, you arent a real man if you don’t own a Leica with its
superior lenses. πŸ˜‰
It is a pity so many people need expensive stuff to compensate for
their inferiority. Car owners often prove the same mental weakness: the larger the car, usually, the shorter its owner. LOL!
(BTW, I own a very small car, but I am a great mind, of course) πŸ˜‰

Leen
SB
Stu_Bloom
Jun 16, 2004
Most of the best photographers I have met seem to use high quality bodies and glass.

Yes, and most of those who like to talk about how Cartier-Bresson made great photos with a shoebox camera and recyled 127 roll film seem to have five-figure glass budgets.
DG
David G House
Jun 16, 2004
Grant..

Well we have a Jazz and WIne festival comming up not to mention all the Nature Trails in the Area….. drop me a line sometime and we can arrange something…

David
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 16, 2004
James

There is a lot of tongue in cheek in what Leen is saying but there are some hard truths. Camera system resolution is measured is based on three things contrast, lens resolution and film resolution. The formulas are not that complex but if you work them out you will find that the value of an exception lens over a reasonable lens is not a great as the as the numbers of the lens would indicate. Often you will get better results changing your film over spending mega buck on an exceptional lens. The other thing is that the difference in a superior lens to an inferior lens is and often are eliminated by not using a tripod. I will try to find the formulas for you.

I can only speak for myself about the digs against Leica. Leica are exceptional pieces of equipment they are engineered and manufactured to exceptional standards and there lenses are arguably some of the best manufactured. I know a number of people that own them and … well they are all so self absorbed with how great there equipment is that they are sickening. All the one I know don’t take photographs with their Leicas they just own them. After a while you can get fed up with their arrogance. So unfairly Leica becomes a target. How expensive are they well I have a system that would make most people cringe at the cost and to replace it with Leica it would cost over 400% more. Now time for confession years ago I owned a Leica M4 for about 6 months and my photography never improved, I was happy to get back to Nikon. Now there are many photographers that have take wonderful photographers (Henri Cartier-Bresson) using Leicas but I suspect most Leicas are jewellery.

I suspect Leens swipe about a 300 mm lens is based on experience. While there are uses for this length of lens it is a sort of odd ball size as Leen pointed out. Unfortunately it is a size, for some reason, that attracts many people just getting into photography and is usually ill suited for their needs.

For what it is worth I do have great equipment, although not lots of it. In
my case I have purchased almost every piece of my camera equipment second (exception of two digitals) hand at huge savings buy people that made mistakes in selecting this high end stuff.

Grant
CS
Chuck_Snyder
Jun 16, 2004
Grant and James: I have a 300 mm lens that I bought because I thought it would act like nearly a 500 mm lens with the multiplier effect of the digital SLR. Well, Grant burst my bubble on that one when he pointed out – correctly – that the multiplier doesn’t improve the magnification of the lens; it simply means that there’s less area to hold image information. When I look through my digital SLR, the bird seems just as far away as it does with the same lens attached to my film SLR; as Leen points out, for bird photography in the wild, the 300 mm doesn’t bring it close enough at all. I won’t make that mistake again….until I forget what I’ve learned, which seems to be happening more frequently of late.

Chuck
LK
Leen_Koper
Jun 16, 2004
james, I wasn’t joking.

Generally.
A lot of people seem to consider lenses to be produced to discuss their qualities instead of using them properly. The more a lot of people emphasize the qualities of the optics, the less they use it.

Specific.
Of course lens quality is important. Unfortunately some people think one can only produce decent images with a top quality lens. Many of todays optics are of excellent quality and just only in very critical situations one is able to see the differences. When stopped down two stops, it is usually impossible to tell the difference between a Nikon, Canon, Tamron or Tokina when it comes to image quality. Most differences just only show in test labs.

I do not state people owning a Leica are inferior; some, quite some are indeed. Just like people driving an Excalibur.
In their opinion Ernst Leitz was God himself and they still worship everything that has the Leica name on it. Everything else is to be considered crap. Leitz has its own Talibanlike fanatics.
πŸ˜‰

Leen
J
jhjl1
Jun 16, 2004
Have you considered a TC attachment? I don’t really use mine for birds but find it ideal for other game animals though I wish it were faster. And yes I normally use a tripod but not always possible when tracking animals.


Have A Nice Day, πŸ™‚
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/
wrote in message
Grant and James: I> When I look through my digital SLR, the bird
seems just as far away as it
J
jhjl1
Jun 16, 2004
I had hoped so. I have been saving to buy some L glass and had my bubble burst. I do try and use a tripod and release whenever possible but there are times when a long, fast lens would seem appropriate.


Have A Nice Day, πŸ™‚
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/
wrote in message
James

There is a lot of tongue in cheek in what Leen is saying but there are
some
hard truths.
LK
Leen_Koper
Jun 16, 2004
James, in a life before this πŸ˜‰ I used to be a chartered accountant.

I know it is a hobby, a hobby does cost money, but have you ever tried to figure out the extra costs PER QUALITY IMAGE of these exotic lenses?
And have you ever thought about the extra weight you will have to carry and how many opportunities you missed because you were too tired to walk that extra mile?

Leen
J
jhjl1
Jun 16, 2004
I would think some people like to discuss them so that they can make an informed decision. The lens I currently use for wildlife is an inexpensive ($200.) 75-300 Canon zoom. Even when stopped down and on a tripod some of the images are soft and exhibit some CA. I would like to think a high quality Canon L lens would solve this problem.


Have A Nice Day, πŸ™‚
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/
wrote in message
james, I wasn’t joking.

Generally.
A lot of people seem to consider lenses to be produced to discuss
their qualities instead of using them properly. The more a lot of people emphasize the qualities of the optics, the less they use it.
Specific.
Of course lens quality is important. Unfortunately some people think
one can only produce decent images with a top quality lens. Many of todays optics are of excellent quality and just only in very critical situations one is able to see the differences. When stopped down two stops, it is usually impossible to tell the difference between a Nikon, Canon, Tamron or Tokina when it comes to image quality. Most differences just only show in test labs.
I do not state people owning a Leica are inferior; some, quite some
are indeed. Just like people driving an Excalibur.
In their opinion Ernst Leitz was God himself and they still worship
everything that has the Leica name on it. Everything else is to be considered crap. Leitz has its own Talibanlike fanatics.
πŸ˜‰

Leen
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 16, 2004
Leen

" Leitz has its own Talibanlike fanatics."

Consider this line stollen!

Grant
J
jhjl1
Jun 16, 2004
Leen if I started thinking like an accountant I would quit all of my hobbies. Think of the money I could save if I quit fly fishing, gardening, hiking, back packing, camping, climbing, skiing, snow shoeing, cooking, collecting cookware, shooting guns, archery and general party animal. If you spend your spare time walking up and down mountains with a heavy pack it gets to a point where weight just doesn’t phase you anymore. I do use my tripod and release more now than in the past thanks to you.


Have A Nice Day, πŸ™‚
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/
wrote in message
James, in a life before this πŸ˜‰ I used to be a chartered accountant.
I know it is a hobby, a hobby does cost money, but have you ever tried
to figure out the extra costs PER QUALITY IMAGE of these exotic lenses?
And have you ever thought about the extra weight you will have to
carry and how many opportunities you missed because you were too tired to walk that extra mile?
Leen
LK
Leen_Koper
Jun 17, 2004
Think of the money I could save if I quit fly fishing,
gardening, hiking, back packing, camping, climbing, skiing, snow shoeing, cooking, collecting cookware, shooting guns, archery and general party animal.

I suggest: quit "shooting guns" and "party animal". These two don’t mix very well and thus it would make the world somewhat safer and we all might be able to enjoy your presence on this forum for a little longer.
πŸ˜‰

Leen
J
jhjl1
Jun 17, 2004
They are totally separate hobbies! Never shall the two intertwine.


Have A Nice Day, πŸ™‚
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/
wrote in message
Think of the money I could save if I quit fly fishing,
gardening, hiking, back packing, camping, climbing, skiing, snow shoeing, cooking, collecting cookware, shooting guns, archery and general party animal.

I suggest: quit "shooting guns" and "party animal". These two don’t mix very well and thus it would make the world
somewhat safer and we all might be able to enjoy your presence on this forum for a little longer.
πŸ˜‰

Leen
RM
Ron_Minler
Jun 17, 2004
WOW! Words of wisdom from Leen, God himself.
Talk about lack of respect for others!
Ron
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 17, 2004
James

I use to say the same thing when I was sober. They now call me Old Nine Toes Dixon. πŸ™‚

Grant
SS
Susan_S.
Jun 17, 2004
While I don’t own a DSLR I have an ordinary SLR with ordinary (emphsis on ordinary) lenses. And I can asssure you that poor quality lenses are a distinct disincentive to photography! (Having used both poor quality zooms and fast 50mm standard lenses, I know which I take better pictures with..)

In my ideal world if money was no object I would have a 10D with some fast lenses – not so much for the image quality in terms of sharpness, but for the speed, and the speed of focussing which is supposed to be better with the better lenses. I would dearly love a 300mm 2.8 lens – both my children are performers and I would love to be able to get decent shots of them on stage. I used to have a fairly fast 200mm lens for my Olympus SLRand that was useful for band photography which I used to do a fair bit of – but 300mm would have been better. School sports is another use for which a fast lens of the 300mm or so range is useful…(Yes I take a lot of pictures of my kids. Yes I want to take really Good pictures of my kids…even on the beach!!! And yes I’m willing to spend a reasonable amount of money to do so)

Chuck – I don’t get this thing with how magnified the image is throught the viewfinder. Surely it’s not the fact that the lens doesn’t act as a telescope that is important – it’s the percentage of the image that the subject takes up in the final output – and with the DSLR the bird (or whatever) will take up more of the picture, as the field of view is smaller than the same shot taken with the same lens on the film camera. My G3 has a max "telephoto" focal length of 28mm – (35mm equivalent of 140mm lens) – and I know for sure that I don’t get results that look like wideangle at that setting! I would have thought that for the photographs (which is the point of the exercise) it’s the 35mm equivalent that is important, not the actual focal length of the lens.

Susan S.
RR
Raymond Robillard
Jun 17, 2004
I have the 100-300 mm version (Canon), and it’s quite unusable because of the color aberration. And it’s not just a thin line… Those aberration are, sometimes, huge. They’re cute, but mauve isn’t part of my personal palette of colours… !

Chuck : I would too try a converter (2x) for your lens. You’ll need a tripod, and for the 10D, remember that it can’t achieve auto-focus under f/8 (f/8 and up). I have one and it works nicely. You’ll need a few extra minutes at Photoshop for pictures taken with the converter, but it’s worth it (sharpen the picture and saturate the colours a little more)

Ray
J
jhjl1
Jun 17, 2004
Yes but "Old Nine Toes" now packs a fast, heavy lens which can be used to beat someone into submission. Now counting my toes, ducking and running.


Have A Nice Day, πŸ™‚
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/
wrote in message
James

I use to say the same thing when I was sober. They now call me Old
Nine
Toes Dixon. πŸ™‚

Grant

RH
Ron Hunter
Jun 17, 2004
wrote:
Most of the best photographers I have met seem to use high quality bodies and glass.

Yes, and most of those who like to talk about how Cartier-Bresson made great photos with a shoebox camera and recyled 127 roll film seem to have five-figure glass budgets.

While hardware is a significant aspect, it is the 3 lbs of neural matter between the ears of the photographer that REALLY must be of high quality if the picture is to be good.
JB
John_Burnett_(JNB)
Jun 17, 2004
Stu, I thought you made a couple of very good points. I’ll leave it at that.

PICTURES: Yes, there are many people who obsess with sharpness and will ‘pooh-pooh’ a picture if it doesn’t show the ‘requisite’ amount of crispness and detail. There are others who won’t be satisfied with anything less than full and complete tonality with all highlights and shadows under control, and will point to areas of pure black or white like some kind of photographic ‘lesion’.

EQUIPMENT: Yes, there will always people who are willing to spend enormous amounts of money on an 85mm f1.2L and 200mm f1.8 and really wish Canon would reintroduce the 50mm f1.0, simply because they are the ‘most expensive’, ‘highest-rated’, ‘fastest’, or whatever. And some of these people will ‘pooh-pooh’ all lesser choices.

People always take things to extremes, and like-minded extremists tend to band together and to be snobbish together. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the ‘reverse-snobs’ who take great pride in doing better with less. [I have to smile when I think about my father-in-law who loved to build furniture like chests of drawers out of scrap wood he found in ditches — things like broken shipping pallets. He was full of tales about ‘fools’ wasting good money on this and that.]

About 95% of my photographs are taken on a tripod with a cable release. About 95% are taken with the aperture selected first, so I get to choose the appropriate depth of field. And most of the photos I take, I want them to be sharp, and show detail, in the areas that I choose. I have read endless charts and graphs and annecdotes and looked at many examples of pictures. And I have done my own experimentation and tests. Why did I embark on this path? Because I wasn’t happy with the pictures I was getting with the ‘kit’ lens. Not because someone else wasn’t happy with them, or because someone else said "you have to buy this $2000 lens or your pictures won’t be sharp", but because *I* wasn’t happy with them. Not at f3.5, and not at f11.

After many ‘trials’, I have finally come up with a compromise set of lenses that I am happy with (it’s always a compromise unless one has virtually unlimited finances, and even then…). Does this mean I’m DONE buying lenses? Probably not forever. But here’s an important thing Β– I know absolutely that my EQUIPMENT isn’t holding me back in any way for the types of photography that I like to do most.

Along the way, I learned a thing or two. Things that I wish I’d known (or believed) before. And if someone wants to benefit from my mistakes, then be my guest. I don’t have answers for everyone, because everyone’s situation is different. But if someone asks, I’ll glady say "here’s what happened in my case" or "based on what I’ve seen, here’s my opinion". People are welcome to believe/disbelieve as they will. Some people have already made up their mind and a contrary opinion isn’t going to change it anyway. Some people will never make up their mind, EVER. Such is life.

Great choice of photos, Grant. Now you need to post some of your favourites that just happen to be super sharp! πŸ™‚

(Sorry about the prolonged ramble).
CS
Chuck_Snyder
Jun 17, 2004
Ray: Thanks. The teleconverter is a good idea that I’ll pursue. Do you have a recommendation?

Susan: Re the ‘magnification’ of a DSLR, I suppose you’re right that what’s important is how much of the frame is filled. However, it points out to me that the sensor of a DSLR is the size of a frame of APS film, which makes uniformly terrible enlargements. I guess I’d rather have a sensor the size of a frame of 35 mm film and give up the ‘magnification’ for the extra information that would be present in the captured image. That would certainly be a lot of pixels, wouldn’t it?!

Chuck
CR
Chris_Rankin
Jun 17, 2004
Thank you John,
DS
Dick_Smith
Jun 17, 2004
Grant,

In defference to your first post, I must say you picked many of my favorite photographers in your group of nine. Lee Friedlander and Gene Smith, in particular, have always held out a special fascination for me.

This has been a most interesting thread, I thought I detected some rising temperatures in the midst of it, but it does seem that the opinions on most things photographic will continue to be spread all over the map….bitmap or paper.

Dick
JB
John_Burnett_(JNB)
Jun 17, 2004
Chuck, you can have your ‘full-frame’ 11mp digital today, IF you’re willing to part with about $8000 US. It’s called a Canon 1Ds πŸ™‚

The article below talks about digital image quality compared to film. Lots of tech-talk, but scroll down to the RESULTS chart for a quick look. If you accept the author’s premise, then the Canon D60 (and thus the 10D/300D) will deliver image quality that is about 78% of Fuji Provia 100F+ 35mm film. I haven’t pushed pictures from my 300D all that big, but I have printed some 8 x 12’s that I am quite pleased with.

Article:
<http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml>
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 17, 2004
Sharp for John B

Unfortunately the web doesn’t do these justice they must be seen in a gallery. Remember these were sharp for the day.

http://www.cavesofice.org/~grant/Sharp/

Grant
CS
Chuck_Snyder
Jun 17, 2004
JB, thanks. The 1Ds is a bit beyond my ‘sweet spot’ for camera price. Plus, it is absolutely huge; I saw one recently in the hands of a photographer and it was bulky to the max. I’d have to take up weight training to be able to hold it.

Chuck

p.s. Current B&H price: $7495.95 + shipping (can’t believe they’d charge shipping on an item that expensive…!)
RR
Raymond Robillard
Jun 17, 2004
Chuck, I bought a very inexpensive one, on e-bay (in fact, I don’t think it has a brand name!). Canon makes some (1.4 and 2x), but they are a little on the expensive side. If you plan on using it for a long time, I’d say go for the Canon.

Also, keep in mind… Garbage in, garbage out… If your current lens is no good, a 2x converter will double problems as well.

Ray
JB
John_Burnett_(JNB)
Jun 17, 2004
Thanks, Grant. Nice selection, BTW. I don’t remember seeing that Callahan before and it is super. You are right about having to see an actual print to get a real idea of the quality of some of these.

What is apparent with the photos that you have posted is that subject, lighting, composition, exposure, ‘timing’, and technique are all essential elements in making a great photo. But the degree of sharpness also has a role to play in the overall effect of the picture. Sometimes pin-sharp focus is appropriate and it ‘adds’ to the picture. At other times it is inappropriate or of much less importance than some of the other elements. Sharpness should not be the only, nor even the dominant, criterion for judging a photo.

As with photographers today, some of the ‘greats’ you featured didn’t think much about the equipment or didn’t have access to it. I’m sure others certainly had the very best that was available for that time. Looking at photography through the years there are common cameras and lenses that keep appearing time and again. Among them are the Rolleiflex TLR, the Hasselblad, Leica, and later, Nikon and Canon. And many amateurs (and other pros) bought these same brands and models because all the pros/greats used them. Some wasted their money, and others put these tools to very good use.
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 17, 2004
John et al

I am not advocating that only soft images should be the way to go, what I am against is sharp images as a holy grail, as the only approach to photography. As you pointed out there are so many more variables, sharpness is just one of them.

Grant
LK
Leen_Koper
Jun 17, 2004
Grant, thank you for showing these wonderful collections of images. Two images I have seen in print, the Adams and the Weston ones. When confronted with these monuments of photographic history one gets very humble.

BTW, many of these images show real low key; a nice illustration for the photo challenge.

Leen
J
jhjl1
Jun 17, 2004
Ron did you notice how Leen and I were able to disagree, yet remain civil and friendly toward each other. That is the way intelligent adults do things in this world. There really is no need for personal attacks. After reading this and your reply in the "Exhibition" thread it seems you have a personal problem with Leen. Perhaps this would be best dealt with in private rather than spewing your venom here.


Have A Nice Day, πŸ™‚
James Hutchinson
wrote in message
WOW! Words of wisdom from Leen, God himself.
Talk about lack of respect for others!
Ron
SS
Susan_S.
Jun 17, 2004
I agree James – although I initially decided that it was probably better to ignore any invective rather than encourage it by giving it notice, but since you have raised the issue, I’ll put in my tuppence worth now!.
I think it’s always important to remember that there are real human beings on the other end of these electronic conversations- and that you do need to think carefully before posting. If I’m disagreeing with someone (not that it often happens in this forum, but I’ve been known to participate in more robust discussions elsewhere!) I tend to write the post and then come back to it ten minutes later and reread before I send it, in an effort to avoid causing offence or being overly aggressive or criticising the individual rather than their opinions. It doesn’t always work, but it stops me getting into too much trouble in the heat of the moment!
J
jhjl1
Jun 17, 2004
Great minds think alike.


Have A Nice Day, πŸ™‚
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/
wrote in message
I agree James –
RM
Ron_Minler
Jun 17, 2004
If you don’t like my posts, then don’t read them. You’ve just done what you told me not to do, spit your venom. It seems that this group has a little chat group here that just pats each other on the back and wallows in it.
If anyone being a professional would help people instead of making cutting remarks when someone asks for help this could be a good forum. I refer to the remarks made about people asking about lenses as I did. My expertise is in horticulture and when I get asked those very basic questions about how to water, how often to water, what fertilizer etc,etc, I don’t cut people down, I try to constructively answer them. I’m entitled to my onion just as Leen or anyone else is and if you don’t like it then don’t read it.
No need to reply as I’m done with this chat site.
Ron
JH
Jim_Hess
Jun 17, 2004
Who pushed Ron’s button?
DG
David G House
Jun 17, 2004
Not too sure Jim.. but apparently it seems to be a hair trigger…. oh well….
LK
Leen_Koper
Jun 17, 2004
I apologise.
I never meant to show any lack of respect to anyone. I didnot expect anyone to misunderstand me as I was just only joking. I noticed James did understand the meaning of my words.

Probably I should be more masculin and use emoticons more often. πŸ˜‰

Leen
J
jhjl1
Jun 17, 2004
Leen, I certainly feel there is no reason for you to apologize. As I mentioned in another reply you and I disagreed in a civil, friendly manner as adults often do.


Have A Nice Day, πŸ™‚
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/
wrote in message
I apologise.
I never meant to show any lack of respect to anyone. I didnot expect
anyone to misunderstand me as I was just only joking. I noticed James did understand the meaning of my words.
Probably I should be more masculin and use emoticons more often. πŸ˜‰
Leen
RH
Ron Hunter
Jun 17, 2004
wrote:
If you don’t like my posts, then don’t read them. You’ve just done what you told me not to do, spit your venom. It seems that this group has a little chat group here that just pats each other on the back and wallows in it.
If anyone being a professional would help people instead of making cutting remarks when someone asks for help this could be a good forum. I refer to the remarks made about people asking about lenses as I did. My expertise is in horticulture and when I get asked those very basic questions about how to water, how often to water, what fertilizer etc,etc, I don’t cut people down, I try to constructively answer them. I’m entitled to my onion just as Leen or anyone else is and if you don’t like it then don’t read it.
No need to reply as I’m done with this chat site.
Ron

Well, on the off chance that you do look back in, be known that is NOT a chat site, but a NEWSGROUP. The rules are different, and so are the people.
FK
Flar_Kibiger
Jun 18, 2004
even though i’m a newbie photographer, i really enjoy reading this thread.

IMO, technical knowledge and hi-end equipment *might* help, if you know what you want to do, but it’s not the basic thing.

photography is like painting or sculpting or whatever.
to achieve good work, you need your *mind*.
tools are just tools.
better tools *might* assist you to do what you want to do.

but if you don’t have any ideas, no hi-end equipment will help you out.

"sharpness" seems to me like… say "red-ness"…
CS
Chuck_Snyder
Jun 18, 2004
Flar, I have some fairly up-to-date equipment but am a mediocre photographer at best. Lots of reasons for that (lack of creativity certainly heads the list) but a factor that separates my current camera from my first 35 mm SLR is all the technology – which can be very distracting and may in fact cause me to be a worse photographer. With a simple manual focus, match needle or manual SLR, you have a clear, uncluttered view of your subject, and all the decisions around composition, focus, exposure, depth of field, etc. are in your hands to be considered thoughtfully. With the all-automatic cameras of today, decisions are made for you, or there is data overload in trying to figure out what to adjust and how to do it. I really do believe I took better pictures with my Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic F (vintage 1969) than I do with my Canon 10D. Just one opinion….perhaps relevant to no one but me.

Chuck
NH
noel_hsu
Jun 18, 2004
Nice photographs! And they even look pretty decent on the screen. I think the image needs to be as sharp or as dull to convey the photographer’s point and point of view. Today’s software permit one to alter the image to suit. But I find I get the most pleasure by not having to do much to the image, i.e it works as it is. I too occasionally get caught in the technique race where how it’s done becomes more important than the content. Just as color is easier for most to view (since we see in color) so is it with clear images. Anything that takes work (images abstracted into monochrome, or not quite focussed, or action not quite frozen…) appears less interesting, to most. Just my 2cents.
LM
Lou_M
Jun 19, 2004
. I really do believe I took better pictures with my Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic F (vintage 1969) than I
do with my Canon 10D. Just one opinion….perhaps relevant to no one but me.

Hey, Chuck, you could have something there. As I’ve mentioned before, I wish I could just get a digital back for my vintage 1980’s SLR. That camera does everything I need, except it’s film instead of digital.

Autofocus means nothing to me. The manual focus ring on the digital SLRs I’ve played with recently feels like a cheap toy compared to manual focus lenses of 20 years ago.

Guess I’m just a control freak. πŸ™‚
LM
Lou_M
Jun 19, 2004
Grant,

Based on some recommendations on this forum about 6-9 months ago, I joined a camera club. Going and seeing pictures critiqued by a group of people has really opened my eyes (and tweaked a few neurons for things I used to know but forgot).

At one of the meetings, a visiting photo judge was highly critical of many photos–some deservedly, some (IMHO) not so (none of the photos was mine, so there’s no bias there). Anyway, her mantra was "sharpness, sharpness, sharpness". All she talked about was sharpness and tripods and shutter speed.

On the one hand, I definitely learned from her. I use a tripod more often now, for example. But on the other hand, she really didn’t seem to see anything else in the photos. That was a little disappointing, as you say.
LM
Lou_M
Jun 19, 2004
Klar,

Good point. Reminds me of the old saw, "It’s not the equipment, it’s the photographer."

Noel,

Now that I have Elements and digital photography, I tend to take two kinds of photos: Ones that I want minimal changes to (although Elements still helps with cropping and color balance on just about every photo I take), and ones that I enjoy using stronger effects on.
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 19, 2004
Lou

I am a member of a camera club but do not submit my images to judges. Judges are people and like all people their opinions are prejudiced by what they have experienced. True there are judges with less or more sophisticated opinions but in the end they are opinions. Be well aware that when someone enters a judging they are opening the doors to these opinions. I think your approach is the sophisticated approach. Listen to what they have to say and cherry pick out of that, learn from there good opinions but don’t even dream that there opinions are flawless.

Now here is how to handle judges. This is based on the experience of a friend of mine that holds the highest honours in the PSA he is a multi event winner. He spent a very long time studying the judges. Finding out say one judge has a preference for sharpness where another chose monochrome and another chose nudes. Then he when he went for a shoot he would shoot with who was going to judge his image and always present that judge with something the had a preference for. He is a very good photographer but his images are all taken with winning in mind. He kept this a very close secret but I did pick up on it and jokingly accuse him of being a photographic prostitute he just winked and said the customer always comes first.

Grant
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 19, 2004
Chuck

You can go back and turn off all the auto this and auto that and have a modern day version of a Pentax Spotmatic F. BUT … I think it is more much more. I like you yearned for the days of the old camera the one hat I learned on the one that I had many failures and some successes. It bothered me that now that I had more sophisticated equipment my photographs were well more pedestrian. Then one day it struck me that it was I that had changed. I realized that I while I took some of my most sophisticated photographs when I was young I also took way to many bad ones. Now with the new camera almost all my images were well focused and well exposed but that was it. I was photographing safely not taking chances, I was producing sharp well exposed boring images. I was playing it safe only taking photographs that I knew would work. Heck when I was 22 I didn’t know what would work. So now I have decided to avoid the safe images and try to experiment more, shift the colours tilt the horizons and guess what I am much happier with my new found images. I now read books on design and art as well as photography and am learning things like negative space, balance and dynamic placement. It is a whole new world once you start experimenting again.

Grant

P.S. As and aside my first system was a Two Pentax Spomatic F and eight lenses.
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 19, 2004
Flar and Lou

Just to punctuate what you have both said so eloquently. The more sophisticate the equipment you have the more options that are available to you but in the end it is the photographer that trips the shutter. A favourite line of mine is "Just image how much better an artist Rembrandt would have been if he had cobalt blue." There are those that get the sarcasm and those that don’t πŸ™‚

Grant
JH
Jim_Hess
Jun 19, 2004
I think all this new technology and the benefits that we derive from it is all relative. I was born with, and will die with, cerebral palsy. Personally, I don’t think it is a severe case because I’m able to drive a car, and work, and basically get along independently. I will admit that eating is not one of my better talents, but that’s just the way things go. So it would seemingly be ridiculous for me to take on photography as a hobby, right? But I played around in a darkroom back in my junior high school days, and got hooked. It was a challenge for me to get the paper centered properly on the red mask so that I could have a white border on my pictures, but I persisted. I don’t think you can imagine the delight I discovered in computers and photo editing software. It has made a world of difference for me. I’m not a good photographer. I don’t really know how to compose very well. And it probably looks ridiculous when I have this little digital camera mounted to my big bulky tubular tripod with the paint chipping off, but I don’t care because at least I can get a few pictures that when I spend the time with Photoshop Elements I can at least have something that I can be happy to share with others. There’s no contest, none of my photographs are great. And that’s why I don’t share very many in this forum. But I’m having a lot of fun, and I’m learning a lot from all you professionals and would be professionals.
VB
Vicky Bilaniuk
Jun 19, 2004
wrote:
(Having used both poor quality zooms and fast 50mm standard lenses

OK, I’ve been away for a long time (sadly) and granted, I’ve missed a *lot* of the conversation, but would someone *please* tell me what a "fast lens" is? Is this an autofocus thing? I’m no pro – photography is *definitely* just a hobby for me and I only own cheap equipment (as can be seen in my cactus picture, which was taken with my mere little
2.1 mp digital), so I have no clue. The only autofocus lens I own is
the built-in one in the digital camera, so I’m really inexperienced with them. …and I keep ending up with bad shots on the digital because sometimes the autofocus fails and I don’t notice (that little LCD just ain’t big enough for me to tell!).
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 19, 2004
Jim

Thanks you for sharing your story. If your image of clouds is any indication of the type of photographs that you take I suspect you are being very humble in you description of your talents.

Grant
LK
Leen_Koper
Jun 19, 2004
Vicky, a fast lens has nothing to do with sports cars etc. A fast lens is a lens with a larger maximum aperture than most other lenses. This allows faster shutter speeds. That’s why it’s called "fast".

Leen
LK
Leen_Koper
Jun 19, 2004
.. I really do believe I took better pictures with my Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic F (vintage 1969) than I
do with my Canon 10D. Just one opinion….perhaps relevant to no one but me.

Funny, my former girl friends were always better kissers than… Oops!

Leen
VB
Vicky Bilaniuk
Jun 19, 2004
OK, thanks. Now I get it.
CS
Chuck_Snyder
Jun 19, 2004
Careful, Leen…..she may be monitoring your posts…..! πŸ™‚
LK
Leen_Koper
Jun 19, 2004
Chuck, I love living dangerously. πŸ˜‰

To be honest, we have been married now for almost 34 years (wedding day is easy to remember, September 11) and I still haven’t found anything I would prefer over being married to her.

In German there is a nice expression, JΓΌrgen will be able to translate it better than I can: "Was sich liebt, das neckt sich".
(If you are nagging someone, it is because you love that person or probably better: usually you nagg someone if you love that one. JΓΌrgen, HELP!!!)

Leen

Leen
JD
Juergen_D
Jun 19, 2004
Leen,
It would be something like "loving people tease each other". My wife, a former English teacher, also offered ‘taunting’ and ‘bantering’… πŸ™‚

Juergen
R
RobertHJones
Jun 20, 2004
My German is very very rusty but I would translate it as "You tease the one you love."

Bob
RH
Ron Hunter
Jun 20, 2004
wrote:

Grant,

Based on some recommendations on this forum about 6-9 months ago, I joined a camera club. Going and seeing pictures critiqued by a group of people has really opened my eyes (and tweaked a few neurons for things I used to know but forgot).

At one of the meetings, a visiting photo judge was highly critical of many photos–some deservedly, some (IMHO) not so (none of the photos was mine, so there’s no bias there). Anyway, her mantra was "sharpness, sharpness, sharpness". All she talked about was sharpness and tripods and shutter speed.

On the one hand, I definitely learned from her. I use a tripod more often now, for example. But on the other hand, she really didn’t seem to see anything else in the photos. That was a little disappointing, as you say.

Some people do seem to get ‘fixated’ on one aspect of a photograph and ignore all the others.
RH
Ron Hunter
Jun 20, 2004
wrote:

Chuck

You can go back and turn off all the auto this and auto that and have a modern day version of a Pentax Spotmatic F. BUT … I think it is more much more. I like you yearned for the days of the old camera the one hat I learned on the one that I had many failures and some successes. It bothered me that now that I had more sophisticated equipment my photographs were well more pedestrian. Then one day it struck me that it was I that had changed. I realized that I while I took some of my most sophisticated photographs when I was young I also took way to many bad ones. Now with the new camera almost all my images were well focused and well exposed but that was it. I was photographing safely not taking chances, I was producing sharp well exposed boring images. I was playing it safe only taking photographs that I knew would work. Heck when I was 22 I didn’t know what would work. So now I have decided to avoid the safe images and try to experiment more, shift the colours tilt the horizons and guess what I am much happier with my new found images. I now read books on design and art as well as photography and am learning things like negative space, balance and dynamic placement. It is a whole new world once you start experimenting again.
Grant

P.S. As and aside my first system was a Two Pentax Spomatic F and eight lenses.
I learned basic photography with an Argus C3. It belonged to my brother, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he still has it. There is much to be said for learning the basics without the aid of computer technology, but it really isn’t necessary. How many people under 50 can drive a manual transmission car?
ML
Mark_Levesque
Jun 21, 2004
Vicky-

Here’s how I think of a "fast" lens: A lens that lets a lot of light in such that you get a correct exposure with a shorter shutter speed.
WE
Wendy_E_Williams
Jun 21, 2004
How do you know if a lens is "Fast" or not? …..

Sorry I’m still trying to get my head around the concept of using lens πŸ™‚

Wendy
GD
Grant_Dixon
Jun 21, 2004
Wendy

Somewhere on the lens there will be a number that looks something like this 1:2.8 or 1:2.8-4 the part after "1:" indicates the speed. If there are two numbers after the colon separated by a hyphen it generally indicates that the lens speed changes over a zoom range. The lower the number the faster the lens.

Grant
WE
Wendy_E_Williams
Jun 21, 2004
Thanks Grant.

Wendy
NH
noel_hsu
Jun 21, 2004
F-stop is defined as the focal length divided by the aperture. For a given focal length the widest aperture will give the smallest F-stop and this is the number quoted on the lens together with its focal length. Typically, with a zoom lens, with fixed aperture settings, the quoted f-stops will be something like 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5. In the last 15 or so years lenses have come into the market with focal-length independent f-stops, e.g. 28-70mm F2.8

Thus, the ‘speed’ of a lens is related to the amount of light that the lens allows into the camera body. As mentioned earlier, the smaller the f-stop the ‘faster’ a lens. For example, a 50mm F1.4 lens is termed faster than a 50mm F1.8 lens.
Hope that helps.
JB
John_Burnett_(JNB)
Jun 21, 2004
Also, Wendy, FAST is a ‘relative’ thing. For a 50mm ‘prime’ (non-zoom) lens, F1.8 or F1.4 is fast. For a 24-70 zoom lens (which covers the 50mm range), F2.8 is fast. For a 400mm telephoto, F4 is fast, and F2.8 is incredibly fast. On the other hand, a faster lens usually means a larger lens (to accomodate the larger aperture and optics). So the 400mm F2.8 may be a fast lens, but its 11.8 lbs. might slow YOU down a bit. And it will certainly put a dent in your bank account at around $6500 US. (Canon also makes a 400mm 5.6 that sells for a paltry $1100.)

BTW, full F-stop numbering works like this (from largest aperture toward smallest, and ‘fastest’ toward ‘slowest’):

F1.0
F1.4
F2.0
F2.8
F4.0
F5.6
F8.0
F11.0
F16.0
F22.0
F32.0
….

There are also ‘intermediate’ F-stops like F1.8, F3.5, or F4.5. And some zoom lenses change F-stops as the focal length changes. The Canon Digital Rebel 18-55mm ‘kit’ lens is an F3.5-F5.6 lens. This means that at 18mm (F3.5), it is ‘average’ in speed. But by 50mm (F5.6), it is 3-1/2 ‘F-stops’ slower than the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 prime lens. To put that in perspective, an exposure of 1/250sec at F1.8 would be about 1/20 second at F5.6.

That is one of the reasons the 50mm f1.8 is so popular with Digital Rebel users, even though it duplicates a focal length already covered by the kit lens.
LK
Leen_Koper
Jun 22, 2004
One more reason for the popularity of the 1.8/50 with dSLR users with APS size chips: the 1.8/50 makes a wonderful, but extremely cheap, portrait lens. Due to the smaller chip it works like a traditional 1.8/80 mm portrait lens. Uusally these lenses for full frame cameras are about 4-6x more expensive.

Leen

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections