Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-08-2012, 06:01 PM   #61
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Finally, a Canadian who is more arrogant and obdurate than I am. I didn't think it possible.
I wonder how he'd react to P&PR.
No one was more shocked than I. :lol :

01-08-2012, 06:44 PM - 1 Like   #62
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
No one was more shocked than I. :lol :
I bet you checked his IP address against mine, didn't you?
01-08-2012, 06:47 PM   #63
Veteran Member
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 2,171
He was from Alberta, niothing more to say
01-08-2012, 07:53 PM - 1 Like   #64
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
IN any case, for my two cents worth, the "look" was a product of the technology of the day. The medium was film. We now use digital media. So, I'm not clear on why a new technology should be under any obligation to emulate an older technology. Dude, you can still shoot film. I can still shoot film...if you want "the look". I still have three working FF film cameras...but, that being said, I am much happier with the new look... sharper, more DoF and so much more control of colour rendition, contrast etc. and all the bells and whistles modern post mod brings. The pictures that got me into Photo Arts at Ryerson Polytechnical 40 years ago have "the look." But I don't long to recreate it. It was the technology of the day, my APS-c bodies are the technology of today... I have no need to recreate the 60's, or the style that was popular then. SO I guess I'll join JinDesu, RioRoco and jsherman999 on the sidelines. Good luck with "the look". I bet you could create a photoshop filter that would do that...

01-08-2012, 08:25 PM   #65
Veteran Member
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
I think "the look" in those first set of photos is more a function of B&W film than FF vs crop. I like the look too, which is why I am starting to shot film. After a bazillion very sharp, clear, (clinical?) photos of my kids it gets a bit boring for me.... shot after shot looking the same. Anything to mix it up a bit is welcome. Film is one way to mix it up. UWA another. Very thin DOF another. We need to keep pushing ourselves to stay interested.
01-08-2012, 08:32 PM   #66
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
I think "the look" in those first set of photos is more a function of B&W film than FF vs crop. I like the look too, which is why I am starting to shot film. After a bazillion very sharp, clear, (clinical?) photos of my kids it gets a bit boring for me.... shot after shot looking the same. Anything to mix it up a bit is welcome. Film is one way to mix it up. UWA another. Very thin DOF another. We need to keep pushing ourselves to stay interested.
Twitch, maybe try shooting with only your phone for a week to get back to appreciating the cleanliness of DSLR


.
01-08-2012, 08:43 PM   #67
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
IN any case, for my two cents worth, the "look" was a product of the technology of the day. The medium was film. We now use digital media. So, I'm not clear on why a new technology should be under any obligation to emulate an older technology. Dude, you can still shoot film. I can still shoot film...if you want "the look". I still have three working FF film cameras...but, that being said, I am much happier with the new look... sharper, more DoF and so much more control of colour rendition, contrast etc. and all the bells and whistles modern post mod brings. The pictures that got me into Photo Arts at Ryerson Polytechnical 40 years ago have "the look." But I don't long to recreate it. It was the technology of the day, my APS-c bodies are the technology of today... I have no need to recreate the 60's, or the style that was popular then. SO I guess I'll join JinDesu, RioRoco and jsherman999 on the sidelines. Good luck with "the look". I bet you could create a photoshop filter that would do that...
+1
As film shooters, we talked about the Kodachrome look, or the look of Tri-X, etc.
Each film added it's own unique fingerprint to the work.
That was one of the beauties of film.
Did you like the grittines of Tri-X or the smooth, almost soft look of Panatomic (which held an incredible amount of detail for all of that. A very subtle film)
The point being, each component of the picture making process brings something to the table. The lens is just one of them.
The format is another, since it does have some influence on depth of field, which can influence the aperture being used, which will affect the shutter speed, etc.
In film, I prefer the look of large format, for example.
Now the sensor, software, electronics influence the image, and in these cameras, film doesn't.
That is a pretty big component to change and expect something to not look different.

01-08-2012, 09:00 PM   #68
Veteran Member
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Twitch, maybe try shooting with only your phone for a week to get back to appreciating the cleanliness of DSLR


.
Maybe I will, there's some impressive photos in that thread. I rarely use the camera in my iphone, don't have an PP tools for it, no idea how to get photos off it and one time I used it and emailed myself the photo I noticed it contained GPS cordinates of my living room in EXIF .... time for a bit or google research I think.
01-09-2012, 07:38 PM   #69
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Hey wheatfield, don't forget to mention all the cool developers as well. I had so much trouble generating acceptable contrast I used to love shooting with 32 ISO copy film used in microfiche cameras (or was it 8 ISO? I can't remember, accept it would have been ASA then), and using acufine to develop. It gave me this super fine grain, high contrast look that I love to this day. My prof once gave a lecture on the characteristics of various developers achieved when you added 50% beer instead of 100% water to your developer when you made it up. Sheeesh, the only thing you can do with beer these days is drink it... how wrong is that?

It used to be all about chemistry... now it's all about the software. The software smells better. No one ever had to give up a career as a photographer because they developed an allergy to software. At least not that I know of.

Last edited by normhead; 01-09-2012 at 07:50 PM.
01-10-2012, 08:56 AM   #70
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,574
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
As film shooters, we talked about the Kodachrome look, or the look of Tri-X, etc.
Each film added it's own unique fingerprint to the work.
Exactly! Folks like to post shallow depth-of-field examples in the FF vs APS-C discussions as if that's some kind of determining factor. But nobody posts landscapes shot at f8...or wildlife photos shot with the same telephoto lens and tout the advantages of APS-C. IMHO, they're simply different formats. Trying to make one format into the other is like buying a hammer and wishing it were a wrench.
01-10-2012, 10:35 AM   #71
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
Back in the day, I'd commonly work with 3 formats simultaneously: 6x6/MF, 135/FF, 135/HF (half-frame). In a 6x6/MF, usually Verichrome Pan. In a 135/FF, either Panatomic-X or Tri-X. In a 135/HF, probably Plus-X. Except for the nearly grainless Panatomic, I didn't try to get specific 'looks' from each filmstock. I developed each roll according to the push needed to produce the images I wanted|needed. Oh, the chemical soups I cooked up...

For me, the big advantage of larger formats over 135/HF was: more real estate to chop up, more leeway with crops and framing in the darkroom. I might make big enlargements from small frames or vice-versa. And I approach digicams the same way, whatever the frame size. Nail the subject, process|enlarge as needed, DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO MAKE THE SHOT!
01-10-2012, 11:29 AM   #72
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
QuoteOriginally posted by alohadave Quote
It's actually very simple math. You get fewer chips when the chip size is larger, than when the chip is smaller.

24x36 is larger than 18x24. 1.5 times to be exact. So, you get 50% more APS-C chips on a silicon wafer than you get with FF.
don't forget to add that the size you can cut from a production wafer is also limited as is the size without a flaw. Hence the reason the Nikon and Sony Ff are stitched sensors not cut from one piece (as are the Canons AFAIK) APSH is supposedly the largest that can currently be made lfrom one cut last time i looked

there are many reasons FF costs more aside from shear size.

As for the look, like norm pointed out it was a function of the film technology of the time, if i need it right now i'll shoot film 35mm, or better yet 645 or 67
but i also like the benefits of my current tech fills almost any need.

so I too will sit back and watch with the other trolls

01-10-2012, 11:38 AM   #73
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Finally, a Canadian who is more arrogant and obdurate than I am. I didn't think it possible.
I wonder how he'd react to P&PR.
But when you are arrogant and obdurate you are frequently correct as well
01-10-2012, 12:10 PM   #74
Veteran Member
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Newrfoundland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,667
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
But when you are arrogant and obdurate you are frequently correct as well
Under the law or probability, that would fall within the allowable limits of acceptability: translated, he's bound to be right at some point
01-10-2012, 12:21 PM   #75
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Under the law or probability, that would fall within the allowable limits of acceptability: translated, he's bound to be right at some point
I'm sure he believes he's always right
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!
aps-c, aps-c vs ff, camera, cameras, crop, dslr, examples, factor, ff, film, images, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How about APS-H ? Livanz Pentax DSLR Discussion 62 09-29-2014 12:54 AM
best 50mm for K-x aps-c boosted03gti Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 12-06-2010 10:54 PM
35mm / APS-C - sophotec Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 20 05-23-2010 01:07 PM
Rebuilding the 35 MM Format FA* line to the DA* APS-C Format Adrian Owerko Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 01-20-2010 11:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:28 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