[6BQ5]

Maybe we can take another perspective here. Why are we always blaming the lens for underperforming? What if the digital image sensor is actually the element underperforming here?

[noelpolar]

I took this shot a few days ago with my F*300 4.5......I was bored...Taken through a dirty minivan Bus window on a bouncey road in Vietnam at 60-70 km/h..... was trying to get focus on the worker....so in conclusion....film era lenses out focus and resolve modern lazer guided and gyro stabilised digital lenses.

[fredralphfred]

What you are discussing here is pictorialism. A series of photographic and artistic constructs that were real popular back in the 30s and 40s. By the 60's museums were being opened that completely ignored pictorialists. This particular line of thinking is about 70 years out of date.

Check out this page.
https://imageshack.com/i/b8popularphotography4lj

You're reading too much into my rigid whimsy. I didn't realize there was a school of photography that actually did that. Now I've got some research to do. Was some of that based on the limitations of the equipment, though? Thinking ASA 8 film was fast, 4x5 cameras were compact, and flash bulbs were way safer than flash powder? (OK, OK, I know they had 120 film and TLR's then, but you get the point.)

As I think about it again, that article mentioned something interesting. I'd been thinking of taking some beginning art classes and an art history class to see if I could learn something about composition in the hopes that my photos would actually look like something. But from the blurb you posted, it sounds like that might not produce the desired results.

---------- Post added 06-15-15 at 11:10 AM ----------

fredralphfred's irony is too subtle by half My parish flock has aged to the point that we recently installed nice cushions on the wooden pew seats. Now, while sitting for instruction, we can actually concentrate on the Lessons.

Sometimes it is beneficial to soften rigid dogma.

I'm sure you've been inside "seeker" churches before -- they always remind me of convention centers.

[vonBaloney]

You're reading too much into my rigid whimsy. I didn't realize there was a school of photography that actually did that. Now I've got some research to do. Was some of that based on the limitations of the equipment, though? Thinking ASA 8 film was fast, 4x5 cameras were compact, and flash bulbs were way safer than flash powder? (OK, OK, I know they had 120 film and TLR's then, but you get the point.)

Photography was accused of not being art, only documentary/mechanical, so the photographers made their images look more like paintings. Once photography was more accepted as its own artistic medium, things moved on. (And just because things always move on as generations cycle.)

[hjoseph7]

Some are, some aren't based on my experience.

[pacerr]

What if the digital image sensor is actually the element underperforming here?

Or what if it's a 'mechanical' problem . . . like with the nut that holds the camera up?

[normhead]

You're reading too much into my rigid whimsy. I didn't realize there was a school of photography that actually did that. Now I've got some research to do. Was some of that based on the limitations of the equipment, though? Thinking ASA 8 film was fast, 4x5 cameras were compact, and flash bulbs were way safer than flash powder? (OK, OK, I know they had 120 film and TLR's then, but you get the point.)

As I think about it again, that article mentioned something interesting. I'd been thinking of taking some beginning art classes and an art history class to see if I could learn something about composition in the hopes that my photos would actually look like something. But from the blurb you posted, it sounds like that might not produce the desired results.

I don't know if you were able to step back and forth through the pages to read the whole article, but I used to and this out to my photography students when we started discussing composition. Form my perspective, you need to learn and understand the rules of pictorialist composition, often you can incorporate them into an image quite easily and they do give the impression that you've actually composed the image, but you also have to understand when to break them or when they are just completely irrelevant.

For example in images like this I am using the branches to lead your eye to the bird. You follow the lines to get to the subject. That is definitely a pictorialist construct and consciously done. I also cropped so the branch starts in the corner of the image....





But when what you've got is total chaos, that works too... Rules ar made to be broken. Especially the Pictorialists rules of compositions.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-15-2015 at 01:25 PM.

[stevebrot]

But when what you've got is total chaos, that works too...

Chaos! Bring on the CHAOS!


Steve

[fredralphfred]

I don't know if you were able to step back and forth through the pages to read the whole article, but I used to and this out to my photography students when we started discussing composition. Form my perspective, you need to learn and understand the rules of pictorialist composition, often you can incorporate them into an image quite easily and they do give the impression that you've actually composed the image, but you also have to understand when to break them or when they are just completely irrelevant.

For example in images like this I am using the branches to lead your eye to the bird. You follow the lines to get to the subject. That is definitely a pictorialist construct and consciously done. I also copped so the branch starts in the corner of the image....

But when what you've got is total chaos, that works too... Rules ar made to be broken. Especially the Pictorialists rules of compositions.

That class must have made quite an impression on your students -- that issue is out of stock at backissues.com.

Those photos are awesome! If I didn't know that better gear would improve my photos immeasurably, I would almost think I needed to get out and take more pictures whilst trolling forums less. I appreciate the article -- it was interesting. I did eventually figure out you'd posted the whole thing, and furthermore, how to read it.

I suspect it's about developing an "eye" -- if you work toward applying them as a goal often enough, it eventually becomes second nature, so you can seize the moment when it presents itself. However, it's 87 degrees out (31 deg, Canadian) so I might skip it today.

[monochrome]

I'm sure you've been inside "seeker" churches before -- they always remind me of convention centers.

I have - yes, I have. Out of curiosity my wife and I regularly watch Joyce Meyer preaching on television and attended a faith meeting at her mega-church once. She makes so much sense in her preaching - it's just good, forgiving, faithful generous society. We really shouldn't look down our noses - in so many ways they are correct in their actions and behaviors.

I wore a dark, wool suit, as I do at the staid, Episcopal church my wife and I have attended all our lives - and have never felt so out of place. Yet everyone - EVERYONE - whose eye I caught or who had cause to greet me or touch me was kind and generous and welcoming and cheerful.

Truly, I understand the attraction of the 'seeker' churches.

Sometimes the old lenses render their subjects in a fashion that we have forgotten how to appreciate.

[Sagitta]

Until relatively recently my most modern lens (barring the kit) was an FA 28-90mm. I was always of the mindset that a lens was a lens, and with a few horrible exceptions old stuff could do what new stuff could do with just a bit of easy post processing.

Then I picked up a Sigma 10-20, and went hrmmmmm...

Then in February I picked up a pair of new Samyangs and realized that modern IS better - if only because they eliminate the post process aspect to a large extent.

As far as sharpness goes, I don't think newer lenses outperform in normal (ie, not wide open) use. Its the flaring/contrast/saturation that makes the newer lenses outperform the old.

That said, its like arguing that your new sports car can get to 90mph two seconds faster than an older one. For everyday daily driving, it doesn't make any difference, unless for some reason you're sticking with an obvious dog of a lens and trying to get it to behave how it simply can't - and then its less the lens than it is the person behind the viewfinder trying to get magic from a turnip.

[fredralphfred]

. . . That said, its like arguing that your new sports car can get to 90mph two seconds faster than an older one. For everyday daily driving, it doesn't make any difference, unless for some reason you're sticking with an obvious dog of a lens and trying to get it to behave how it simply can't - and then its less the lens than it is the person behind the viewfinder trying to get magic from a turnip.

I know that' s how it works in some fields of endeavor. For photography, though, I'm just certain it's all in the gear. It can't have anything to do with the fact that I have a lot to learn. People who claim this are just hiding their $10,000 investment because they don't want someone to steal it.

Speaking of film-era lenses -- it looks like your avatar photo was taken with one. Is there a story behind that?

edit: never mind. Just checked your profile page -- no problems there. It appears the "automatic little" adds a film-era sheen to photos.

[Sagitta]

Speaking of film-era lenses -- it looks like your avatar photo was taken with one. Is there a story behind that?

edit: never mind. Just checked your profile page -- no problems there. It appears the "automatic little" adds a film-era sheen to photos.

I had to check out of curiosity - looks like my avatar is courtesy of the DAL 18-55.

[Stagnant]

- An old Soviet lens Kaleynar 5N (100 2,8) failing to handle a backlit scene. In good light it performs as good as 60-250 at this focal length, and even manages to produce a more pleasing colour.

[jgnfld]

- An old Soviet lens Kaleynar 5N (100 2,8) failing to handle a backlit scene. In good light it performs as good as 60-250 at this focal length, and even manages to produce a more pleasing colour.

You may not want to, but PP can remove a lot of haze in situations like this. Google "dehazing". A very simple, literally one click procedure is GIMP's auto white balance tool shown here...(I'm sure other programs have an equivalent tool I just happen to know this one well.)




More complex procedures, especially with a RAW file and a more versatile program can, for example, bring out much more detail in the shadows. I use the latest version of SilkyPix on RAW files which has an HDR slider that is good for that purpose. If that were a RAW file, it could definitely bring out detail in the dark areas.