Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,735   Posts: 1,515,404   Online: 1095
      
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 126
  1. #41
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,892
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Perhaps integrity is not important to you.
    I know I keep busting your butt about this, but mostly I just kid about it, however it demonstrates a good point here.

    You took a street image that was crooked, very obvious, and didn't straighten it, it looked amateurish to me, and I asked about it and you said it was a street shot and you didn't have time to frame it or you wouldn't get the shot.

    So how do you feel about the integrity of that image? You like it, I know you do,,and wouldn't have gotten it if you had taken more time, does this give you less integrity as a photographer?


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #42
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    706
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    But how did you feel about your own integrity with this sort of photography?
    Integrity? Bulletproof! My pact with my clients, for which they retained my services and offered remuneration, was to get the shot. I could not in conscience deliver less than what I offered and what they expected. My competitors, the other people in the photographer's scrum, were mainly friends and acquaintences. It was just that they worked for someone else. They knew the deal as did I.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  3. #43
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,492
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I know I keep busting your butt about this, but mostly I just kid about it, however it demonstrates a good point here.

    You took a street image that was crooked, very obvious, and didn't straighten it, it looked amateurish to me, and I asked about it and you said it was a street shot and you didn't have time to frame it or you wouldn't get the shot.

    So how do you feel about the integrity of that image? You like it, I know you do,,and wouldn't have gotten it if you had taken more time, does this give you less integrity as a photographer?


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

    It hasn't got dick anything to do with "integrity" of the image, or the photographer. A photographer was there, irrespective of the lens he used, he shot the scene. What's the hue and cry here that the shot should be technically perfect, compositionally pleasing, in-focus and "straight"? God, blah, blah, blah about silly peripheral subjects. Why should on-the-spot street/docu photography have to meet other people's standards?
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  4. #44
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,892
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    It hasn't got dick anything to do with "integrity" of the image, or the photographer. A photographer was there, irrespective of the lens he used, he shot the scene. What's the hue and cry here that the shot should be technically perfect, compositionally pleasing, in-focus and "straight"? God, blah, blah, blah about silly peripheral subjects. Why should on-the-spot street/docu photography have to meet other people's standards?
    Did you read the rest of this thread? We are agreeing and you don't seem to realize it.

    My point was exactly your last sentence...

    "Why should on-the-spot street/docu photography have to meet other people's standards?"

    The same is true for Paperazzi and new reporters... What's important is that the purpose of the photo was taken and used and appreciated for its purpose.

    Cliveh was saying that the news reporter DIDN'T have integrity, and I was inferring that he did, and does cliveh... That was my point...



    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,049
    Quote Originally Posted by David Allen View Post
    If the viewer of a photograph notices the type of lens used or that a strong filter has been used or that an image has been significantly manipulated (analogue or digital) then the image is ultimately a failure because the viewer's awareness of these factors detracts from the image and what you want to convey.
    some very narrow criteria for failure there, I'd say.

    the photographer's intent may be that they should be noticed in order to form part of what she or he wishes to convey .

    or she or he may not give a flying doughnut whether the viewer notices any of these things

  6. #46
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    It hasn't got dick anything to do with "integrity" of the image, or the photographer. A photographer was there, irrespective of the lens he used, he shot the scene. What's the hue and cry here that the shot should be technically perfect, compositionally pleasing, in-focus and "straight"? God, blah, blah, blah about silly peripheral subjects. Why should on-the-spot street/docu photography have to meet other people's standards?
    Well, if it is claiming to document, it should not mislead.

    I'm saying that generally, not that the picture originally posted is particularly misleading. Everyone knows that people don't tilt like they do in the picture, so it's clear that the lens used did not make the scene look as it would to a person standing there. Still, I think it would have been improved by cropping on both the left and right sides to remove much of the distorted look.

    On the other hand, a lens can be misused in a way that is not as apparent. I am thinking of a picture in the local newspaper of the one-stoplight small town (ca. 8,000 population) in which I was living in the late 70's. The city council was considering a sign ordinance to regulate signs. The newspaper photographer attempted to show sign "clutter" by using a really long lens to create a much greater impression of clutter than actually existed. Several signs were in the image, some traffic signs, some building signs, looking in the image as if they were very close to each other. But it was not how it looked at all. The 6 or so signs in the image were actually along a distance of more than a long city block. If you didn't know the city, you would get the impression that there was significant sign clutter.
    It was foolish to publish the clearly deceptive picture, because everybody in town knew that no place in town looked anything like the photograph; the picture lost its impact and just irritated people. Especially me. I'm still irritated by the lack of professional integrity it showed.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Dougherty View Post
    On another note, I first started seeing this pervasive use of ultra wides in early 1990s skateboard photography...
    This is interesting to me, the early '90s were a low-point in skateboarding with not much money around.

    The first use of fisheyes for (published) skate photography was in the late '70s by Warren Bolster, they were de rigueur by the '80s. Glen Friedman used ultra wides (17mm) in the late '70s too. When the big money came into skateboarding around 2000 photographers started to use medium format fisheyes.

    The fisheye was first considered useful as it allowed the ramp and the skater to be in the shot when the skater was very high (for example: http://www.dennyburk.com/Stuff/ChristAir.jpg), later it was exploited as the distortion made everything look bigger / higher.
    Steve.

  8. #48
    JohnRichard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    262
    Images
    15
    What about the 16mm on the Contax G series? Flicker streams seem to be pretty normal looking.

    Sent from my LT30at using Tapatalk 2
    - J. Richard
    4x5 Speed Graphic, Looking for another 8x10.

  9. #49
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,159
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnRichard View Post
    What about the 16mm on the Contax G series? Flicker streams seem to be pretty normal looking.

    Sent from my LT30at using Tapatalk 2
    That lens is somewhat anomalous in that it is a highly corrected, specialized lens. Were it not on a rangefinder, it could not exist. It is remarkably free of pincushion and barrel distortions, but if you put something at the edge of its field of view, it will distort it from a perspective point of view. No way around it. But compared to a fisheye, or even a superwide zoom for SLR, it is distorionless. I wish I had the Contax G-series catalog still that showed images from the 16mm - there were some good illustrations of its effect. Now, center a subject in the frame and position it at medium distance and it will look quite normal.

  10. #50
    Shawn Dougherty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,131
    Images
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    This is interesting to me, the early '90s were a low-point in skateboarding with not much money around.

    The first use of fisheyes for (published) skate photography was in the late '70s by Warren Bolster, they were de rigueur by the '80s. Glen Friedman used ultra wides (17mm) in the late '70s too. When the big money came into skateboarding around 2000 photographers started to use medium format fisheyes.

    The fisheye was first considered useful as it allowed the ramp and the skater to be in the shot when the skater was very high (for example: http://www.dennyburk.com/Stuff/ChristAir.jpg), later it was exploited as the distortion made everything look bigger / higher.
    The time period I suggest probably has as much to do with my age as anything else. I was born in 1978 and didn't really take note of skateboarding or skateboarding photography until the 90s.

    The attraction to wides for skateboarding action shots is certainly clear.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin