Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,707   Posts: 1,482,865   Online: 980
      
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 126
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Colley
    I know I am seeing or creating something that is somewhat unique, rather than seeing something with the same exact sharpness-bokeh-technical-whatever that everyone else is getting/wanting..
    Dear Christopher,

    That was the point, really. I assume that you don't deliberately make technically bad prints, for example by stamping on the negative before you print it. Or maybe you do, and that IS what's important to you: maybe your definition of a 'good' print is one that is dirty, with holes in it.

    It's not 'what everyone else is getting/wanting', because my argument is precisely that different things matter to different people: tonality to one, bokeh to another, fine grain to a third, sharpness to a fourth.

    As I said to Cate, it must be taken for granted that the picture has something to say, for if it does not, the quality -- good, bad or indifferent -- is irrelevant. But equally, I do not think one can pretend that technical quality is always irrelevant to a good picture. Who would admire Ansel Adams's pictures if they were poorly printed?

    Cheers,

    Roger

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington
    The way I interpreted the question (and the way I believe Roger meant it) is "What is important to you when selecting a lens?"
    Dear Dave,

    That was only part of it. I meant 'what is important to you in a final picture?', hence my comments anout Tech Pan. But yes, the lens is obviously relevant, even though I'd rather use an 'inferior' lens (such as my old convertible Symmar) and good film such as Ilford, rather than a top-flight modern lens (such as my Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N) and a third-rate or outdated film, bought merely because it is cheap.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  3. #13
    Philippe-Georges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Flanders Fields
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    720
    Dear Roger,

    Photo techniques are as important as solfège is to music and grammar to language (*).
    When the story is 'unreadable' then what is the point of telling?
    Of course, this, in the supposition that a picture has to tell a story. But aesthetically (sic), the image has to ‘come over’ so, besides a certain métrise of the techniques, more has to do with inspiration and insight.
    It is the subject that matters as is the way to approach it, photography is the support on which the the message is carried.
    Even not having a message is a message as such.

    The camera is merely the tool, and the right tool is important, by this, the camera (and all the rest) is rather ‘the way to’ then ‘the goal’, to me at least.

    Also, sometimes, the subject (= story?) is commanding the tool.

    But, again, what is good for me is not necessarily good for you...

    Sincerely,

    Philippe

    (*) This is why I apologise for my pigeon English...
    "...If you can not stand the rustle of the leafs, then do not go in to the woods..."
    (freely translated quote by Guido Gezelle)

    PS: English is only my third language, please do forgive me my sloppy grammar...

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,318
    I like Soft creamy OOF areas. I hate pentashaped and the like OOF highlights
    Subject need not allways to be sharp and in focus. I realy fall for images with shallow depht of field and a lot of the alternative processed images that are soft, dark and mysterious. So when choosing lenses I rate OOF areas, tonality and contrast. Unfortunately all this is compromised by poor funding
    Cheers,
    Søren
    Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting

    Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed

    Søren Nielsen
    Denmark

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington
    AFTER I have selected a lens, I don't give its technical specification another thought, but the "Ignorance is bliss" approach simply unnecessarily restricts the means of creative expression at your disposal.
    Well, I don't have that approach either, and that wasn't what I was saying. Neither was I 'getting at you' or anyone else with my comments, sorry if it came across that way.
    Cate

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

    As I said to Cate, it must be taken for granted that the picture has something to say, for if it does not, the quality -- good, bad or indifferent -- is irrelevant. But equally, I do not think one can pretend that technical quality is always irrelevant to a good picture. Who would admire Ansel Adams's pictures if they were poorly printed?

    Cheers,

    Roger
    My point is, often what a photograph 'has to say' is inseparable from the technique used.

    That's one reason why what is important to me technically can vary from photograph to photograph.

    Cate

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,260
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    2
    sense of place ( and having a good time )

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by leicam5
    Dear Roger,

    Photo techniques are as important as ... grammar to language (*).
    When the story is 'unreadable' then what is the point of telling?
    I think the analogy is all but exact.

    if i read something what is like this and is run together and ungramatiocal and mispeled withoyut any puntuation thenm i soon stop reading and it has no impact and i assume the preson doing it dosnm't know or probably care any better

    (substantial exemptions for second languages, of course!)

    The analogy falls down slightly because a picture is grasped in a moment, but then, so are its faults, unless it is a work of genius.

    The picture/poem/novel/history/critical analysis must have something to say, of course, but within that, it can be well or ill written, and its strengths and weaknesses can be analyzed, both compositionally (we use the same word for both words and pictures) and as a production: if letters are reversed in the type, or lines omitted, or the letters are smudgy, this is usually a fault. As ever, this need not invariably be the case: consider concrete poetry, for example.

    Then there are questions such as standardized spelling (an 18th century invention), some in punctuation (?14th century) and indeed calligraphy or fine [book] printing -- and I'd argue that Ansel Adams was a calligrapher among photographers.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargazer
    My point is, often what a photograph 'has to say' is inseparable from the technique used.

    That's one reason why what is important to me technically can vary from photograph to photograph.

    Cate
    Dear Cate,

    Fair enough. What I was trying to get at is that there are some things I automatically and almost invariably notice (such as tonality) and others that I almost never notice (such as bokeh).

    It seems a fair assumption that in some way, because I notice one thing and not another, one thing must be (in some sense) more important to me than another. I don't know why this should be, and I was interested to find out what others thought or noticed --which is why I found Dave's (completely unexpected) answers so interesting.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  10. #20
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    I fully take your point, but I think this has to be taken for granted. Unless the image is utterly stunning, though, we do tend to notice technical points -- and the less stunning the image, the more important the technique.
    On the contrary, Roger, I believe the less stunning the image, the less chance that technique is going to help it. I would reverse the concept: technique has to be taken for granted, in order for the photographer to be able to create on film and paper the image that he/she sees.
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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