Originally posted by normhead Hey but what we're going here is a series of opinions I think... the amazing thing about this stuff, is the variety of opinions, once you realize, not everyone has the same opinion and how different they can be, you start to understand that however you shoot, there is an audience. Different people look for different things, and don't value somethings as much as ever. One person's perfection, is another person's bored yawn.
The thing with photography is , we aren't trying to achieve consensus. Everyone has a unique way of seeing the world. No viewpoint is more valuable than others.
I tend to favour more controlled back grounds. I dislike the clutter of images like the above. And trying to control it buy blurring a messy background too often costs one the DOF necessary to keep the subject in focus.
More the style I'd go for... camera stopped down for nice wide DoF, and a backdrop to achieve subject isolation rather than naoorw DoF induced background blur.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEV1murINXaFgASw1XNyoA;...vedon&fr=aaplw My guesses and thoughts were in no way contrary to yours, at least to me while I typed them.
This is truly a much more "environmental" portrait than traditional. And, yeah, as you mention - all the shots under the sun -- even the ubersharpness, hyper-realistic 24k ones -- have an audience. My only impetus for starting this thread was to get a convo going, and hopefully get the ball rolling on why it is exactly that so many other threads in the forum can begin to feel beyond tedious to many (myself included) out there.
I don't discount entirely the quest for a sharper image or the tools to achieve it... its just that at many points along the way, in the discussion of all of that, something is lost (as has been expressed here already much better than I can)... I'm hoping this thread can find it.. Not a be all end all... just a light in the dark.
Personally I think it's interesting how popular (hugely so) the entire "Lomography" thing has become, especially even with younger shooters. It is, as near as I can tell, the absolute antithesis to the Cult of Sharpness... almost a reaction against it. Lomo isn't really my thing - I enjoy a weird, arty image now and again, and I have taken plenty but it's not my forte, viewing or taking. I do understand the appeal of it though, and it seems to be the film punk to the digital establishment! Two extremes.
---------- Post added 07-11-16 at 07:56 AM ----------
Originally posted by arnold I agree that extra sharpness would not really add to the impact of the picture. I think there is just enough blur to make the subject pop. You are close in your judgement of equipment. This was taken in 1961 with a 35mm Practica IV and four element CZJ 50mm / f2.8
Just a snapshot of my sister in the garden, taken by my father. It was Kodachrome 10. Humble equipment by standards of today, but still quite capable for what it was designed for. I do think we are overly obsessed with technology in picture taking.
Oh wow! I was pretty close.
I agree we've become obsessed with the technology, often beyond the point of the technology so that it become the point. Much of that is market/industry driven and it seems to be a beast feeding on its own tail.
"The paradox of choice." This has been written and talked about quite a bit by several authors and speakers, but in my head the idea speaks volumes into the quest for gear and the search for sharpness... talking about and discussing, indeed obsessing about it... and not taking any real photos...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html