[niceshot]

Mike, I agree with everything in that post. Things like sharpness were never particularly high on my own list of priorities, but more and more I find that I'm deliberately avoiding any sort of technical perfection.

The direction that photography has taken since the start of the digital age just doesn't work for me. Camera makers have always relied on things that they can market as measurable improvements, and nowadays that means more megapixels, higher ISO, so much dynamic range that solid blacks and whites have disappeared altogether. And who cares if the results are so sterile and processed that photos taken on different sides of the world look exactly that same? Just look at the pixel-level sharpness in the far corners!

I've started to feel like the only way I can take photos that capture my own little part of the world in the way that I see it is to intentionally avoid the technical conventions of modern photography. More and more I'm deliberately introducing noise and flare and even slightly "wrong" framing, because at least that makes my photos feel like my own thing, rather than just copies of what I've seen on the interwebs. Using "outdated" equipment is a part of that, as well as a pleasure in itself.

As part of my volunteer work in a charity bookshop I often come across things like British Journal of Photography "Review of the Year" books from the sixties and seventies, and the photography in those books is simply mind-blowingly good. Yet almost every photograph in those books would be considered a technical disaster by modern digital standards.

Of course there is a big downside to this approach, when people think that you were aiming for technical perfection but failed. My general rule is that if someone has ever used the term "IQ" in the context of photography then I ignore their aesthetic opinions entirely.

I agree, that is why I take delight in shooting with an 6 megapixel k-100 and a Auto Takumar 35mm2.3

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[paulh]

I agree, that is why I take delight in shooting with an 6 megapixel k-100 and a Auto Takumar 35mm2.3

Very pretty scene, niceshot.

A couple from mid-October with the A35/2.8 on *ist D:


I used an Agfa film emulation in RawTherapee for this shot:

[niceshot]

Very pretty scene, niceshot.

A couple from mid-October with the A35/2.8 on *ist D:


I used an Agfa film emulation in RawTherapee for this shot:

Nice Paul very nice, need to remember to post more thx again. Here is another

[ralph-uk]

Appropriate for today:



k100D and the F50 f1.7.

Thanks for looking,

Ralph

[BigMackCam]

Appropriate for today:

Very creative, Ralph. Lovely shot with great composition... very appropriate and much appreciated

[stihlmania]

Lovely shot, Steven... great subject isolation - very three-dimensional

Congrats on the K-3II - it's a wonderful camera (I love mine) You may have already discovered this, but just in case - the 24Mp sensor (with no AA filter) shows up limitations in lenses to a far greater extent than the six megapickle sensors of old, when viewed at 100% pixel-peeping reproduction. Of course, at typical viewing and printing sizes, this matters not a jot

On the 24mp sensor showing lens weakness, my 1st D and DS both take almost identical quality images as the K3ii when using my SMC A(star) 400 f 2.8, which is the biggest reason I never felt the need to upgrade my cameras until I purchased my DA 55-300. With this lens hand held, the D's struggeled with image sharpness, until I changed how I was holding them while taking pictures....

[Dartmoor Dave]

With the Super Takumar 55mm/2.0 on the DL2.

[BigMackCam]

With the Super Takumar 55mm/2.0 on the DL2.

How the heck did you take that, Dave?! At first I thought it was a reflection photo that had been rotated to "upside down"... but that doesn't quite explain it!

I'm sure it involves reflections in water (or something!), but I can't figure it out - which is very cool indeed

I love it, BTW... very creative and would look fantastic on a wall

[paulh]

At first I thought it was a reflection photo that had been rotated to "upside down"... but that doesn't quite explain it!

Actually, that's exactly what it is Creative use of reflections and framing. Nicely done, Dave!

[Dartmoor Dave]

Thanks, Paul and Mike. As Paul says, it's just a straightforward 180 degree flip.

Of course, back in the slide film days I would have had to shoot with the camera upside down to get it, since there was no chance to do it in processing. (And now I'm just going to chuckle quietly to myself while you think about it for three seconds then realise why that statement is nonsense.)

"Wait a minute! Wouldn't you just. . . ?"

[89Y49Si]

One of these days I’ll join this club. But ever since receiving my new-to-me *ist DS, I haven’t had the chance to break it out because of work. This thread, along with some friends who think that in order to take great pictures, you need the latest and greatest FF cameras are what caused me to buy one of these fine 6 megapickle beauties.

I also have a focusingscreen . com splitprism screen on the way to help with focusing all my old lenses. Surely can’t wait.

[BigMackCam]

Of course, back in the slide film days I would have had to shoot with the camera upside down to get it, since there was no chance to do it in processing. (And now I'm just going to chuckle quietly to myself while you think about it for three seconds then realise why that statement is nonsense.)

I figured it out in just two seconds, Dave...

You just ask the film processing service to develop it upside down!

I'll PM you my address for the prize

[timb64]

You just ask the film processing service to develop it upside down!

Naah,you just stand on your head,or move to Australia

[paulh]

A leftover from last Fall - A35/2.8 on K100D:

[Dartmoor Dave]

A leftover from last Fall - A35/2.8 on K100D:

Now those are bokeh balls! I think you might have found the perfect lens for photographing Xmas tree lights there, Paul.

This one is underneath Meldon Viaduct this afternoon. It isn't used by trains anymore and you can walk across it. . . if you've got the head for heights. I didn't even consider trying, as being found curled up in a sobbing ball halfway across really wouldn't do my image much good. (Takumar 17mm fisheye.)