Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-19-2014, 07:05 AM   #61
Pentaxian
ivoire's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: chicago burbs
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,381
Saw this in anothe post which seems to "sum" it up:

" the difference between an art photographer and a professional is that the art photographer insists on satisfying her own opinions about her work in her work. A professional defers to other peoples' opinions...usually the client's, or that of the client's representatives. There's more to it than this, but that there's the short-short version".

credit to: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/11/the-difference.html

She definitely satisfys her opinion/style

What i enjoy about digital photography is the ability to present the world as we see it or modify it to our own vision. Follow the herd or make it your own.


Last edited by ivoire; 01-19-2014 at 07:23 AM.
01-19-2014, 07:11 AM   #62
Pentaxian
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 600
QuoteOriginally posted by ivoire Quote
Saw this in anothe post which seems to "sum" it up:

" the difference between an art photographer and a professional is that the art photographer insists on satisfying her own opinions about her work in her work. A professional defers to other peoples' opinions...usually the client's, or that of the client's representatives. There's more to it than this, but that there's the short-short version".

She definitely satisfys her opinion/style
This is it.

Some people do this photography thing for a job and have to satisfy the majority.

Most of us are lucky enough we only do it as a hobby to satisfy ourselves and we're only in competition with ourselves. I'd never want to do this as a job, it would spoil all the fun.
01-19-2014, 02:20 PM   #63
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,674
Just to go back a little. I think that what makes these photos work is a combination of subject (I have cute kids, but not access to these type surroundings), light (very good quality in most of the photos), and glass. You aren't going to take a Canon 5D MK anything with a 50mm f1.8 and take these photos. Not because of depth of field, but because of how it renders out of focus areas. An awful lot of lenses, don't do a great job. I'm not familiar with Canon lenses, except the 85mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 and neither one of those is going to give this type of rendering, even with a lot of photoshopping.

These are a couple of shots (of my kids), that have fairly narrow depth of field (but obviously not that full frame look) and fairly smooth rendering of out of focus areas. The first two are taken by my wife (she's better at portraiture than I am).

With DA * 200.




With DA *55







The primes that I have, particularly the FA 31, 77, DA *55, DA *200 and DFA 100 really render out of focus areas well.

I think with all of that, I am saying that I think glass is more important than the camera, or even the sensor size. One stop less depth of field would not have made or broken most of these photos -- particularly when you consider the post processing going on.
01-19-2014, 03:11 PM - 1 Like   #64
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by paulh Quote
I spotted these in another thread and was thinking the same thing. Truly amazing photos. (I think the photographer did use a FF Canon)
Whilst these images are good technically they also look staged and remind one of cheesey 19th century paintings of kids with animals generally recognized as kitsch.

It's a pity that hardly anyone in these forums expects an image to be nothing more than an agglomeration of visual effects supportive of cute or sentimental values.

01-19-2014, 03:49 PM - 1 Like   #65
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Whilst these images are good technically they also look staged and remind one of cheesey 19th century paintings of kids with animals generally recognized as kitsch.

It's a pity that hardly anyone in these forums expects an image to be nothing more than an agglomeration of visual effects supportive of cute or sentimental values.
I don't think that's a fair assessment. This woman is shooting in a certain genre, and within that genre she's killing it.

This isn't street shooting, it's not abstract, it's not documentary/art or documentary/reportage, it's not even typical portraiture.

I'm not a huge fan of certain types of film making, but I still can assess talent and effectiveness and even enjoy it for the craft - how well a filmmaker pulled something off relative to his/her peers. Still photography is the same way.

For example, I'm usually bored to tears by bird shots, but I can see and appreciate a very good one. Same with Macro or sports - not my idea of something I'd spend time doing, but I'm capable of being wowed by some real talent within those genres. Try to see it that way, keep an open mind along those lines.

.
01-19-2014, 04:23 PM   #66
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
A few questions that come to my mind by this thread:

1. Could someone define a bit more precisely what the "The Full Frame Look" is?
An honest question - I just want to be on the same page as everyone else.

2. It sounds to me as if some object to PP on moral grounds alone. PP is "bad"
if it alters the literal visual accuracy of an image even if that is the explicit creative
intent of the photographer. Fake fog for instance.
Do I have that about right?

3. Isolation (DOF?) APS-C vs full frame.
Can't you get more or less the same effect, within broad limits, on either
depending on FL and/or aperture?...

... K20, f/7@560mm
You don't even need an APS-C to have a shallow DOF with a long lens shooting at a close range. Here is a shot taken by a P&S camera with much smaller sensor .
Lesser goldfinch | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/231...ml#post2608015
01-19-2014, 05:06 PM - 1 Like   #67
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Just to go back a little. I think that what makes these photos work is a combination of subject (I have cute kids, but not access to these type surroundings), light (very good quality in most of the photos), and glass. You aren't going to take a Canon 5D MK anything with a 50mm f1.8 and take these photos. Not because of depth of field, but because of how it renders out of focus areas. An awful lot of lenses, don't do a great job. I'm not familiar with Canon lenses, except the 85mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 and neither one of those is going to give this type of rendering, even with a lot of photoshopping.

These are a couple of shots (of my kids), that have fairly narrow depth of field (but obviously not that full frame look) and fairly smooth rendering of out of focus areas. The first two are taken by my wife (she's better at portraiture than I am).

With DA * 200.





With DA *55

.
.

In your examples, the 200mm telephoto shot is almost out of scope, because when you're shooting telephoto at a distance like that it's hard not to isolate the subject with any format.

The 55mm shot of your son is very nice, but that's a perfect example of something I'd personally like better if the background was diffused just a tad more - just making it a little less distracting to the subject.

I've shot thousands of shots like that with my 50s and 55s on aps-c, and I noticed a difference when I started to shoot an 85 on FF. It's very subtle, but the picture just looks better to me in the same situations. I'm not saying anyone else has to feel the same way or value the same things as me... but it's something I noticed. It's hard to articulate when I don't have an equivalent aps-c shot to compare (vs. my 'shooting memory' that came from thousands of iterations,) and I'm in danger of eliciting a 'so what, aps-c can do the same thing' response from some folks every time I try to show an example.

Here's a difference I 'see' all the time - I've show this example quite a bit before, because it was one of the few times I happened to have both an aps-c and FF camera within reach with equivalent FL lenses on:

50m f/2.8 FF vs 35mm f/2.8 aps-c, taken from same position.


Here's a shot take with the 85 f/1.8 wide-open - now, this background has playground equipment and especially very intrusive specular highlights in the background. Any 50, 55 I would have used for this on aps-c (that I've ever shot) just wouldn't quite diffuse the background and pop the subject quite as much. Almost, maybe good enough... but not the same. Even my incredible 58 1.4 VL Nocton wouldn't have given me the same look.



You know what would have given me something close to that look? My Cosina 55 f/1.2 wide-open. But that's not nearly as sharp as the 85 f/1.8 wide-open, and the Cosina has LSD-inspired bokeh wide-open, which can be a blessed thing or a curse, depending on what you're shooting

Here's a mid-range telephoto shot that my 77td can come close to emulating,... but not quite, it's just a bit too short, and if I moved in I would have a little different look that I'm very used to seeing and like... but just not quite the same.

180mm f/2.8 FF = 120mm f/1.8 on aps-c


Here's a tighter-in shot where I wanted his whole body more in focus, so I stopped down one to f/4, giving me the equivalent of 120mm f/2.5 on aps-c - and at f/4, that 180 gets brutally sharp:



And here's the sort of shot where I notice it just as much as any other - just life-documentary things, unposed, taken at a typical indoor FOV from a typical distance at an aperture that gives me adequate shutter speeds for moving subjects - this take with a 50 on aps-c wouldn't have softened the surroundings quite as much, the effect would have resulted in a less special (to me) capture of my youngest on his frst birthday. It would have looked a little bit more like a very good P&S or phone cam shot, in other words.

85mm f/1.8 == 58mm f/1.2



Just day to day snaps, things 'float' more, if I want them to:

50mm f/1.8 == 33m f/1.2




And it sucks to describe this, because you'll just have to take my word for it - or understand the equivalency involved and work it out based on what you remember about your own shooting. I wish I had a comparative aps-c image for ever FF shot I've taken, somehow, magically - the point would become obvious and fully accepted.

.

01-19-2014, 05:09 PM   #68
Pentaxian
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 600
Rondec's spot about the lenses playing a much bigger part in image quality than people realise.

But, having said that, it's still easier with a 35mm equivalent sensor and once you add up the cost of all that FA Limited and DA* glass (UK prices now) I think you're better off with a FF and less glass but high quality glass. It just makes it easier and other brands have amazing glass too, like the Nikon 85/1.4 and 1.8 G's and their Trinity of zooms.

Sorry fellas, but I find it too much work and hassle to produce super fine images using an APS-C and this is with a K-5 IIs. I'd have absolutely no chance with the sensor in the K-3. Each to their own really.

I've thunk on this a couple of days, what's the full frame look? It's sharpness without harshness. It's sharpness with smoother resolution and smoother bokeh. jsherman999 above has summed it up very well and demonstrated this with pics.

Last edited by Parry; 01-19-2014 at 06:02 PM.
01-19-2014, 05:12 PM   #69
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,674
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.

In your examples, the 200mm telephoto shot is almost out of scope, because when you're shooting telephoto at a distance like that it's hard not to isolate the subject with any format.

The 55mm shot of your son is very nice, but that's a perfect example of something I'd personally like better if the background was diffused just a tad more - just making it a little less distracting to the subject.

I've shot thousands of shots like that with my 50s and 55s on aps-c, and I noticed a difference when I started to shoot an 85 on FF. It's very subtle, but the picture just looks better to me in the same situations. I'm not saying anyone else has to feel the same way or value the same things as me... but it's something I noticed. It's hard to articulate when I don't have an equivalent aps-c shot to compare (vs. my 'shooting memory' that came from thousands of iterations,) and I'm in danger of eliciting a 'so what, aps-c can do the same thing' response from some folks every time I try to show an example.

Here's a difference I 'see' all the time - I've show this example quite a bit before, because it was one of the few times I happened to have both an aps-c and FF camera within reach with equivalent FL lenses on:

50m f/2.8 FF vs 35mm f/2.8 aps-c, taken from same position.


Here's a shot take with the 85 f/1.8 wide-open - now, this background has playground equipment and especially very intrusive specular highlights in the background. Any 50, 55 I would have used for this on aps-c (that I've ever shot) just wouldn't quite diffuse the background and pop the subject quite as much. Almost, maybe good enough... but not the same. Even my incredible 58 1.4 VL Nocton wouldn't have given me the same look.



You know what would have given me something close to that look? My Cosina 55 f/1.2 wide-open. But that's not nearly as sharp as the 85 f/1.8 wide-open, and the Cosina has LSD-inspired bokeh wide-open, which can be a blessed thing or a curse, depending on what you're shooting

Here's a mid-range telephoto shot that my 77td can come close to emulating,... but not quite, it's just a bit too short, and if I moved in I would have a little different look that I'm very used to seeing and like... but just not quite the same.

180mm f/2.8 FF = 120mm f/1.8 on aps-c


Here's a tighter-in shot where I wanted his whole body more in focus, so I stopped down one to f/4, giving me the equivalent of 120mm f/2.5 on aps-c - and at f/4, that 180 gets brutally sharp:



And here's the sort of shot where I notice it just as much as any other - just life-documentary things, unposed, taken at a typical indoor FOV from a typical distance at an aperture that gives me adequate shutter speeds for moving subjects - this take with a 50 on aps-c wouldn't have softened the surroundings quite as much, the effect would have resulted in a less special (to me) capture of my youngest on his frst birthday. It would have looked a little bit more like a very good P&S or phone cam shot, in other words.

85mm f/1.8 == 58mm f/1.2



Just day to day snaps, things 'float' more, if I want them to:

50mm f/1.8 == 33m f/1.2




And it sucks to describe this, because you'll just have to take my word for it - or understand the equivalency involved and work it out based on what you remember about your own shooting. I wish I had a comparative aps-c image for ever FF shot I've taken, somehow, magically - the point would become obvious and fully accepted.

.
Sure. All well and good. The DA *55 shots were both shot at f2.8, so could have opened up another stop to stop and a half and still had a decent shot. Most of my photos we are talking about here are snaps. Some are a little better and some not so good, but I just really don't care that much about narrow depth of field. My point was more about out of focus rendering, which is OK in some of your photos and not good in others. This has to do with intrinsic qualities of a lens and some lenses are better at smoothing out busyness in a background than others. You can help a little bit with post processing, but some bokeh is not pretty, even if it is blurred.
01-19-2014, 05:14 PM   #70
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,674
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I don't think that's a fair assessment. This woman is shooting in a certain genre, and within that genre she's killing it.

This isn't street shooting, it's not abstract, it's not documentary/art or documentary/reportage, it's not even typical portraiture.

I'm not a huge fan of certain types of film making, but I still can assess talent and effectiveness and even enjoy it for the craft - how well a filmmaker pulled something off relative to his/her peers. Still photography is the same way.

For example, I'm usually bored to tears by bird shots, but I can see and appreciate a very good one. Same with Macro or sports - not my idea of something I'd spend time doing, but I'm capable of being wowed by some real talent within those genres. Try to see it that way, keep an open mind along those lines.

.
So she's good at kitsch?

People like kitsch. It just isn't art. As snaps of her kids (I assume they are her kids), they are awfully good though.
01-19-2014, 06:26 PM   #71
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,237
Original Poster
It's about how she used the tool - the thread title

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
So she's good at kitsch?

People like kitsch. It just isn't art.
I just don't think most folks I encounter are good enough to carry this ^^ attitude off - as I said before, it sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you meant it fully in jest, but...

You can call it kitsch all you want, but there are a ton of folks who think what you (or I) like to shoot are a complete waste of time. Some people think all landscape taken after Ansel Adams is kitsch (and they may have a point,) some people think that all street shooting taken since Henri Cartier-Bresson is overly derivative and bordering on kitsch itself.. And there are a ton of 'art' photographers who are achingly bad, and have no idea.

But it's really beside the point of this thread - my main point was how she's able to use the format to further what she sees in her' mind's eye. She's an example of someone who uses the Full Frame Look to her own ends very successfully - even if you, or I or anyone on PF don't appreciate those particular ends.

.

Last edited by jsherman999; 01-19-2014 at 06:31 PM.
01-19-2014, 06:32 PM   #72
Pentaxian
Parry's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 600
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I just don't think most folks I encounter are good enough to carry this ^^ attitude off - as I said before, it sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you meant it fully in jest, but...

You can call it kitsch all you want, but there are a ton of folks who think what you (or I) like to shoot are a complete waste of time. Some people think all landscape taken after Ansel Adams is kitsch (and they may have a point,) some people think that all street shooting taken since Henri Cartier-Bresson is overly derivative and bordering on kitsch itself.. And there are a ton or 'art' photographers who are achingly bad, and have no idea.

But it's really beside the point of this thread - my main point was how she's able to use the format to further what she sees in her' mind's eye. She's an example of someone who uses the Full Frame Look to her own ends very successfully - even if you, or I or anyone on PF don't appreciate those particular ends.

.
This is right. Anything post processed much beyond a snapshot taken with a 50 point and shoot may be considered 'kitsch' by many. It's an art form. Some people like one type of art other people, another.

A dear friend is a famous Vietnam War photographer, been a pro for 40 years. He said of the appreciation of photographs "there's 7 billion people in the world, so there's 7 billion critics, you can't please them all'.
01-19-2014, 08:23 PM   #73
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23,674
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I just don't think most folks I encounter are good enough to carry this ^^ attitude off - as I said before, it sounds like sour grapes to me. Perhaps you meant it fully in jest, but...

You can call it kitsch all you want, but there are a ton of folks who think what you (or I) like to shoot are a complete waste of time. Some people think all landscape taken after Ansel Adams is kitsch (and they may have a point,) some people think that all street shooting taken since Henri Cartier-Bresson is overly derivative and bordering on kitsch itself.. And there are a ton of 'art' photographers who are achingly bad, and have no idea.

But it's really beside the point of this thread - my main point was how she's able to use the format to further what she sees in her' mind's eye. She's an example of someone who uses the Full Frame Look to her own ends very successfully - even if you, or I or anyone on PF don't appreciate those particular ends.

.
Honestly, I am not convinced that photography is art. Certainly what I do -- landscape photos and snaps of my kids -- definitely isn't art. It is enjoyable for me.

I am not qualified to comment much on art (I do believe Bossa has a better background for it). I think Ansel Adams was a great technician, but I am not sure if he was an artist, but that is a different argument for a different day...
01-20-2014, 06:27 AM   #74
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Newcastle, AU!
Posts: 276
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
To each his own, but think about the effect these shots have had - this is one of the more famous, publicly acknowledged sets I've seen in years. Now think about all the folks who try to do just what she's doing, and don't quite make it. There are subtle differences that, if we're being fair, can only point to a good degree of talent and ability to put on the screen what she saw in her mind's eye. She uses her tools and format so very well.

That's not something everyone can do by just firing up photoshop. Personally I think responses like yours contain a hint of sour grapes. and I've seen them applied to Keitha's work as well; try to get beyond that to see what's at play here.

.
For the record I think Keitha's work is amazing and far above this stuff. This is popular, but so are the Kardashians (they obviously require far more work). I disagree this is just what people want to do, its what one person meant to do and others like it. Sure, have a go yourself its fun. But its the excellent aesthetic vision she has above all else. I don't think you can underestimate talent nor vision.
I've seen it here with both you and tougefc. Your apsc and full frame shots are great. Theres a slight difference, but nothing that could have made the great shots less great. You capture a moment and give it a lovely feel or aura. The more I see child snapshots from my friends the more that initial impression clears.

And my posts contain zero sour grapes! I just think theres a tinge of if you replaced the kids/animals with dolphins/unicorns these wouldn't look out of place in a shop that sells enthusiast 'tobacco' accessories. Personal taste aside, still gotta love the talent involved.

e: On reading the thread you pretty much said the same thing I'm trying too, the only difference is that how much the format matters here. I dont like 35mm in film so I struggle to care about it in digital. Imagine how much better it would be with a phase one or 645d? Atleast you get the extra colour depth then. Yeah digi 35mm pops more then apsc. But nowhere near what you can get on a 67. Which is nowhere near what you can get in large format.

Last edited by bibz; 01-20-2014 at 06:40 AM. Reason: I read the thread
01-20-2014, 07:05 AM - 1 Like   #75
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Newcastle, AU!
Posts: 276
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Honestly, I am not convinced that photography is art. Certainly what I do -- landscape photos and snaps of my kids -- definitely isn't art. It is enjoyable for me.

I am not qualified to comment much on art (I do believe Bossa has a better background for it). I think Ansel Adams was a great technician, but I am not sure if he was an artist, but that is a different argument for a different day...
This is a great point too, its obviously a deeper discussion then just the pics, but thats what makes this forum great

You've just got to appease the inner its desires. To flex the creativity muscle to make something unique. For Ansel it was that tack sharp perfectly balanced image. Pretty easy nowdays. f/64 group would get ridiculed for not using the dxo measured highest performing aperture! Art is very personal, and is totally subjective. Popular cannot mean good. And no. not all photography is art. Sometimes the process is reward enough. But theres enough consideration in every stage that over time you might tap into that soul appeasing zen. It's the dragon man, you gotta chase it!

In music I was magnetised to the extreme. Both in guitar and metal. Now in photography I'm noticing a similar pattern. Photo's of people (esp models) seem to be an easy out. Like a big cliche hook in a chorus. Terry Richardson. Pop music photography. Every song/pic has to look/sound the same. Wheres the Black Sabbath of photography? I wanna follow that line...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame.... Deedee Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 14 10-08-2013 05:39 AM
For Sale - Sold: Full frame $1600 Canon EOS 6D full USA warranty, NIB pocketrounds Sold Items 30 06-04-2013 11:43 PM
The full frame Pentax? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 02-13-2012 10:09 AM
How do the K5 photos compare to Full Frame camera photos as far as the "look" goes? crossover37 Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 166 05-16-2011 07:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:32 PM. | 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