Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-28-2010, 02:37 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 359
It seems like razor sharpness and absence of noise are just as important as content and storytelling. It's a trend I guess...a very baroque one! The result is thousands of identical pics that are technically good, but many of them are also hopelessly boring. Eye-candy is fine but it's not enough in the long run. Sooner or later people will get fed up with the exaggerated pop/punchy "plasticky" style.

Sure, you can pp a pic to any style you want, so a clean image from the camera's sensor is not a bad thing. However, camera bodies like the K10d, and perhaps K7, encourage you, and sometimes force you, to go for a more realistic approach and focus on content.

Kind regards
.lars

06-28-2010, 07:01 AM   #17
emr
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Recercare Quote
It seems like razor sharpness and absence of noise are just as important as content and storytelling.
Do you see good technology and artistic content as something mutually exclusive or contradicting???
06-28-2010, 07:50 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by Nubi Quote
But I am not such a huge fan of K-x sensor. Pictures by k-x do not seem to have as much depth, in terms of 3D rendition, so to speak. K-7 on the other hand, appears to offer more "depth."

This is part the reason why I choose stay with Pentax. Other brands may have less noise, but the pictures by them . . . . . I just cannot work up a good feeling about it. I feel like I am looking at a girl with an enormous amount of make up, so to speak.

Am I the only one who feels that way? Am I way off base?
Are you saying you can tell apart a K7 image from a KX image?

How about just Pentax from Canon/Nikon?

I'm sure there are some differences but I'd bet 95% of it is just wishful thinking.
06-28-2010, 08:07 AM   #19
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,767
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
Are you saying you can tell apart a K7 image from a KX image?

How about just Pentax from Canon/Nikon?

I'm sure there are some differences but I'd bet 95% of it is just wishful thinking.
I can often tell a raw image from the K-20d from a K-x. The color and exposure are different from the different sensors. It is not really a "sixth sense" kind of thing.

However, run them all through Adobe ACR and the jpeg processor and I'd be more hard pressed. The auto-color function of ACR is a huge equalizer. To put together the modern equivalent of slide shows, I've used Photoshop to allow my four Pentax bodies, my wife's point and shoot and even film to blend together in a single set of jpegs.

A lot more of our creativity is buried in the jpeg process than we would like to think.

06-28-2010, 09:21 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 359
QuoteOriginally posted by emr Quote
Do you see good technology and artistic content as something mutually exclusive or contradicting???
No, not necessarily. I just want more focus on content/storytelling and less focus on technicalities. Today a completely brain-dead pic can get a lot of praise and attention simply because it's razor sharp or very clean at high ISO. What I miss is the discussion of content.

Sure, sometimes I like stupid comedy shows as a relaxation, but most of the time I prefer to watch something that actually requires a bit of thinking or something that can start a discussion (without necessarily becoming overly academic/intellectual).

Of course it's possible to combine good technology with artistic content, and lots of people do, but I still think we're in a period of time where (too) many amateurs, including myself, are exploring and playing with the new technology simply to get tech-wise the same quality as pro's.

I suspect that new and exciting technology makes it also easier to focus on technicalities....and it's always easy to blame the equipment or your own PP-skills if your pics are sub-average tech-wise. I mean, this is something that is easy to accept without being insulted as you can always learn. However, it's much worse if people are expecting an interesting content and you don't cut it.....because then the only one to blame is your own creativity and ability to think, which is not that easy to improve.

With that said, I am no better than others.....but I am trying to get away from the tech-obsession.

Kind regards
.lars
06-28-2010, 09:25 AM   #21
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,767
QuoteOriginally posted by Recercare Quote
No, not necessarily. I just want more focus on content/storytelling and less focus on technicalities. Today a completely brain-dead pic can get a lot of praise and attention simply because it's razor sharp or very clean at high ISO. What I miss is the discussion of content.

* * *

With that said, I am no better than others.....but I am trying to get away from the tech-obsession.

Kind regards
.lars
I get exactly where you are coming from. It is also one of the reasons film has interested me again.

It came home to me when we got back from a trip and I saw my wife's photos with the P&S. She has a great eye for a story, and I love the way she goes for the shot, rather than the perfect image.
06-28-2010, 09:31 AM   #22
Nubi
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
Are you saying you can tell apart a K7 image from a KX image?

How about just Pentax from Canon/Nikon?

I'm sure there are some differences but I'd bet 95% of it is just wishful thinking.


I would like to think so, but again, I do agree that a bit of that can well be due to wishful thinking.

But, printed to A3, RAW, unprocessed, as GeneV points out, to me it is not that difficult. I do have to agree that telling apart from K-7 and K20 is a bit difficult for some reasons. Images projected on monitors . . . . Not sure.
06-28-2010, 09:36 AM   #23
Nubi
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Recercare Quote
No, not necessarily. I just want more focus on content/storytelling and less focus on technicalities. Today a completely brain-dead pic can get a lot of praise and attention simply because it's razor sharp or very clean at high ISO. What I miss is the discussion of content.

Sure, sometimes I like stupid comedy shows as a relaxation, but most of the time I prefer to watch something that actually requires a bit of thinking or something that can start a discussion (without necessarily becoming overly academic/intellectual).

Of course it's possible to combine good technology with artistic content, and lots of people do, but I still think we're in a period of time where (too) many amateurs, including myself, are exploring and playing with the new technology simply to get tech-wise the same quality as pro's.

I suspect that new and exciting technology makes it also easier to focus on technicalities....and it's always easy to blame the equipment or your own PP-skills if your pics are sub-average tech-wise. I mean, this is something that is easy to accept without being insulted as you can always learn. However, it's much worse if people are expecting an interesting content and you don't cut it.....because then the only one to blame is your own creativity and ability to think, which is not that easy to improve.

With that said, I am no better than others.....but I am trying to get away from the tech-obsession.

Kind regards
.lars


I think this is precisely the point that I was going for.

Again, this is not to say that the fundamentals of photography is NOT important. Quite contrary. But, I think it is the degree of emphasis that is placed on something like noise rather than the content of photo itself . . . .

I think that this is a great discussion . . . . .

06-28-2010, 09:43 AM   #24
emr
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Recercare Quote
Of course it's possible to combine good technology with artistic content, and lots of people do, but I still think we're in a period of time where (too) many amateurs, including myself, are exploring and playing with the new technology simply to get tech-wise the same quality as pro's.
Perhaps that's precisely the point. We're living in the era where anybody can get sharp pictures with good exposure. Not everybody can or even needs to be an artist, as there are many aspects of photography.
06-28-2010, 09:58 AM   #25
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,547
QuoteOriginally posted by Recercare Quote
It seems like razor sharpness and absence of noise are just as important as content and storytelling. It's a trend I guess...a very baroque one! The result is thousands of identical pics that are technically good, but many of them are also hopelessly boring. Eye-candy is fine but it's not enough in the long run. Sooner or later people will get fed up with the exaggerated pop/punchy "plasticky" style.

Sure, you can pp a pic to any style you want, so a clean image from the camera's sensor is not a bad thing. However, camera bodies like the K10d, and perhaps K7, encourage you, and sometimes force you, to go for a more realistic approach and focus on content.

Kind regards
.lars
That's an interesting outlook, but I'm really not sure if noise and sharpness are specific to plastic looking photographs though. From where I see things, I often feel as though film grain and noise are the trends of the past in much the same way classic cars are in our day. And though most of us love the classics, I can honestly say that I am no sooner compelled to using one than I would a modern vehicle.

On the issue of photographic evolution, I get the feeling that as long as we are working to catch-up to our own visual stimulus, then so too will the objectives we set continue to move forward. ie. when I stand in my living room and experience both the the outdoor light and ambiance of the room around me(no extended DR needed), I am reminded of the headroom we have with regards to advancements.

I also beleive noise to falls under similar category too. ie. when the lights go down and my pupils dilate, my visual sense seems not impaired by shadow noise(for example). And so I'm thinking that our appetite for sensor development will remain justifiable until we reach a point where camera sensors will either match or exceed our own visual experience.

My two cents...


PS. Image grain is an essential aspect of digital imaging(smooth gradients & color transitions). Though in a perfect world... the ideal would be using it without having to sacrifice detail in the process
06-28-2010, 12:35 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 359
QuoteOriginally posted by emr Quote
Perhaps that's precisely the point. We're living in the era where anybody can get sharp pictures with good exposure. Not everybody can or even needs to be an artist, as there are many aspects of photography.
You don't need to be an artist just because you focus a little bit more on content. When my mother, a rookie p&s user, shows her vacation photos I notice that she tries to capture the atmosphere of the place, the mood and traditions of the local people, the special moments. She has simply asked herself a couple of questions: "Do I find this scene interesting and is it likely that others will find it interesting, does it tell a story and perhaps encourage people to talk?". She does not think about technicalities and she's not an artist. In fact, she's not very interested in photography at all.

The point is that I like her way of thinking and if you can combine it with good technique then that would be even better.

Kind regards
.lars
06-28-2010, 12:48 PM   #27
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,767
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
That's an interesting outlook, but I'm really not sure if noise and sharpness are specific to plastic looking photographs though.

* * *

PS. Image grain is an essential aspect of digital imaging(smooth gradients & color transitions). Though in a perfect world... the ideal would be using it without having to sacrifice detail in the process
Overdone noise reduction is a big part of the plastic look. Like Pentax, I have adopted the "less is more" approach to NR, for some of the same reasons I've learned to like Rodinal for B&W developing. Detail and story is usually more important for what I am doing than trying to remove all evidence of the photographic process.
06-28-2010, 12:51 PM   #28
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,767
QuoteOriginally posted by Recercare Quote
You don't need to be an artist just because you focus a little bit more on content. When my mother, a rookie p&s user, shows her vacation photos I notice that she tries to capture the atmosphere of the place, the mood and traditions of the local people, the special moments. She has simply asked herself a couple of questions: "Do I find this scene interesting and is it likely that others will find it interesting, does it tell a story and perhaps encourage people to talk?". She does not think about technicalities and she's not an artist. In fact, she's not very interested in photography at all.

The point is that I like her way of thinking and if you can combine it with good technique then that would be even better.

Kind regards
.lars
That is what I was getting at with my wife's P&S photos as well. The trouble is, that if she did (properly) use one of my cameras she might catch even more of that mood. A P&S adds all the plastic and other garbage in a way that is hard to remove.
06-28-2010, 01:17 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by Recercare Quote
Today a completely brain-dead pic can get a lot of praise and attention simply because it's razor sharp or very clean at high ISO. What I miss is the discussion of content.
I must say, I have hardly ever seen a pocture get praise and attention simply because it is razor sharp or is clean at high ISO. If an picture does receive praise for this type of technical attribute it is in the context of being a technical demonstration in the first place.
If such technical praise comes along with a picture being aesthetically pleasing I see absolutely no problem with that.
06-28-2010, 01:21 PM   #30
emr
Guest




One should also note that there are certainly different forums. Some focus much more on content and "art", while others much more on gear. In this case we're on the "Friendly Pentax Discussion Community" and thus I find it rather gear-oriented to begin with. Not that there's anything wrong about discussing the art of photography, on the contrary.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k-7, k-x, noise, photography, pictures, sensor, speak
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SR noise in K-x Hemi345 Video and Pentax HDSLRs 3 02-17-2011 09:17 PM
K7 and noise ... again. jpzk Pentax DSLR Discussion 128 11-24-2009 09:55 AM
Another.....K-7 noise..... the swede Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 10-17-2009 02:57 AM
Noise Simon23 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 6 05-12-2009 08:03 AM
cs3 noise filter vs. noise ninja vs. ??? reknelb Pentax DSLR Discussion 0 03-04-2008 04:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top