Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,969   Posts: 1,558,558   Online: 1113
      
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 126
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    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
    To be honest, Roger, it would surprise me greatly if people didn't have different preferences.

    And??

    Sorry to be blunt.

    Cate

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargazer
    And??
    Dear Cate,

    I'm interested in how people think. This seems to me an interesting window.

    Cheers,

    R.

  3. #23
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Lenses should be as sharp and contrasty as they need to be for whatever purpose I'm using them. Sometimes "creamy bokeh" is a plus, at other times it doesn't matter at all. If it does, I'm likely to shoot 4x5" with an APO-Lanthar...

    I consider there to be three important (technical) things in a good negative:
    Microcontrast, which is mostly influenced by agitation in developing. Far more important in 35mm film than in ULF, naturally...
    Macrocontrast, which is how the film holds highlight and shadow detail. I don't usually worry about this except in extreme cases, preferring to burn&dodge when enlarging to bring everything into a printable range. I'm trying to learn negative retouching to get better results from some (LF) negatives with far too many high-contrast "fiddly little bits".
    Mesocontrast, a word I've chosen to describe the intermediate bit that's too small for burn&dodge, yet too large to fit in the micro- range. IMO that's the most important bit, since it not only influences the tonality, but is also responsible for the "vividity" of a print. Adjusting development for extreme contrast ranges tends to have detrimental effects on the mesocontrast, so I usually try to develop films consistently for the optimum mesocontrast and rather fight the other effects. Most of my negatives print very well on "normal" graded paper, although many of them can be really difficult due to high macrocontrast... But I like the final prints better when I work this way than when I try expansion and contraction through developing.

    Of course I hope that all this technical thinking can result in a good picture too, but I leave all those considerations to my subconcious (to be checked by my wife on the final print).
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  4. #24

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

    I fully accept the argument that technique must be taken for granted, but not the argument that technique is less important in less excellent pictures.
    I've already used the example of Ansel Adams, and I'll do so again. How popular would he be without his technical skill?

    In other words, a picture that is not of the first rank can still be pleasant if it is technically good, but a weak picture is made weaker when it is not well executed.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Dear All,

    It has just occurred to me that I chose the wrong title for this thread. A much better title than 'What is important to you?' would have been 'What technical points do you notice first?' I have amended the original post accordingly; especial thanks to Cate for clarification.

    OF COURSE technique is secondary to a good picture, but I don't see much need to discuss this. Surely we all agree on it.

    Maybe Ole could change the title?

    Cheers,

    Roger

  6. #26

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

    It has just occurred to me that I chose the wrong title for this thread. A much better title than 'What is important to you?' would have been 'What technical points do you notice first?' I have amended the original post accordingly; especial thanks to Cate for clarification.

    OF COURSE technique is secondary to a good picture, but I don't see much need to discuss this. Surely we all agree on it.
    Roger
    My answers are the same as before.

    Sorry Roger, it's not that I was taking the discussion in another direction. I wasn't saying technique is secondary, I was saying it is fundamental, and varied.

    But that's just me - I think we talk a different language. If I may say so, that fact is possibly at least as important and interesting as the discussion you are trying to lead, which seemed initially to be leaning in the direction of a Robert Winston-type analysis (oh dear, Autumn's coming. he'll be on the telly again soon) but seems to have lost that direction even ...can't say I'm altogether surprised...

    It's O.K., I'm off now

    best wishes,
    Cate

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    Good gradation and image clarity are what I prize. I did not appreciate the extended red sensitivity of Techpan in most cases. It was certainly great for sharp portraits to eliminate skin defects. I do not generally care to have a buit in red filter. This was rather nicely solved by using a 40cc cyan filter with no filter factor; However, other than grain, it is almost impossible to get more image clarity from Techpan than from 100 Tmax.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargazer
    I think we talk a different language. If I may say so, that fact is possibly at least as important and interesting as the discussion you are trying to lead
    Dear Cate,

    Indeed, the point that we talk different languages may be identical to the discussion I am trying to lead.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  9. #29
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargazer
    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
    No real need to apologize, I wasn't getting at you personally either! It's just that IN GENERAL I find it annoying that some [amateur] photographers assume that, if you show any interest in technical specifications, you must be a sad git who only photographs lens test charts and counts line pairs with a loupe! Good equipment (which need not necessarily be super-expensive), including of course film as well as hardware, is equipment which you can rely on without thinking, freeing up mental capacity for emotional/creative matters!

    Regards,

    David

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Dear All,

    I've been thinking some more about Cate's "And?" and have come to the following conclusion:

    I took up photography about 40 years ago. Since then, my understanding, technique and artistry have progressed in fits and starts.

    The artistry is mostly a matter of practice. I'm a better photographer than I was 40 years ago and it would be unfortunate if I were not.

    Understanding and technique have however progressed most and fastest when I thought about something new. The beginner, led by the nose by the weaker elements of the photo press, considers a very limited range of things: for example, he is led to believe that film grain and lens sharpness are the be-all and end-all.

    Then he discovers other things, be they tonality or bokeh or (thanks, Claire) the difference that extended red sensitivity makes. He realizes that his general feeling that he liked or disliked something, but had not the vocabulary or framework to analyze why, can in fact be put into words.

    What I was looking for -- and have found -- is different ways of looking at things: Dave's lens criteria, Ole's contrast classification, Claire's red sensitivity observations. I hope there will be more.

    Some of these may help me. Some may not. Some I may disagree with, but at least, if I disagree, I am thinking.

    This seems to me adequate justification for this thread. Even if no-one else has learned anything, I have. I hope others have (and will) too.

    Cheers,

    Roger

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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