PDA

View Full Version : A few shots



Haselsh1
15-05-2011, 15:08
Here's a few shots taken over the Easter weekend whilst out with my Nikon F3:



http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/img492aaa.jpg

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/GrabHandleonTrainWagonatLevisham2011.jpg

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/aaa496.jpg

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/aaa490.jpg

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/aaa495.jpg

Marco
15-05-2011, 16:45
Now I know bugger all about photography, but there's something about those images - an 'atmosphere' or 'texture', or three-dimensionality, and a 'creamy quality' - call it what you will, that for me is lacking in most of the other images I've seen on here...

They look bloody awesome - almost as if they're jumping out of the screen! :stalks:

Is the F3 a 'NOS' film-type camera? If so, I think I get why you prefer that type of equipment and photographic reproduction process (and so do I).

If not, and I'm talking bollocks, then just ignore me! :)

Marco.

Tim
15-05-2011, 16:52
I think that first one is fantastic, really love it :)

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/ab240/Haselsh1/img492aaa.jpg

Haselsh1
16-05-2011, 11:49
Many thanks for the comments on the images. Marco, you are of course right, the Nikon F3 is a film camera of some note that I use with its associated MD-4 motordrive and rolls of films. The shots you see here were taken using Ilford FP4+ and developed in Tetenal Neofin Blue and this is were the alchemy comes in.

If I line up fifteen rolls of film with each one different to the one next to it, I know I shall get fifteen completely different sets of negatives. Now I can start by choosing fifteen different developers each of which will change the characteristics of the negative and then I can alter the dilution of those developers and that will again change the result.

What can you do with digital…? You can only do what the application writers allow you to do.

Silver based photography is truly amazing as a lot of people are now realizing and the results it gives are totally staggering. I have a joint exhibition of photography here in Pickering next year. Perhaps if you’re on holiday in the area you could all call in and take a look. There will be no entry fee.

Marco
17-05-2011, 07:11
Hi Shaun,

I'm sure that digital photography also has its benefits - I'd imagine that it's simply about choosing the best tool for the job - but often I find the results somewhat 'flat' compared to the best shots I've seen from 'vintage' film cameras.

Thanks for the offer regarding your exhibition - I may well take you up on that! Best to send me a reminder nearer the time, and if we're free, we might take a trip up to Yorkshire and stop again at The Star Inn :cool:

Marco.

Haselsh1
17-05-2011, 07:16
Digital photography, as with most things digital, is about convenience and not a lot of anything else. People choose it because it is easy. Photography for me is difficult because it is all chemistry and composition and is a long way from being convenient. That is why I still do photography after forty one years experience.

Yoga
20-05-2011, 14:07
Nice study of contrast :¬)

Haselsh1
21-05-2011, 08:35
Thanks for the comments you guys. It would be nice to say that I look for all of these things before depressing the shutter and that it is all planned in my head but that would just be a load of pretentious bullshit. What I do just happens the way it happens and when I develop the film I get real pleasure on seeing the negatives for the first time. The real fun and quality starts in the darkroom with some really stunning quality papers but that's another subject alltogether.

Haselsh1
21-05-2011, 08:39
The exhibition I'm referring to will be held at the Learning Centre on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway Station in Pickering. At the moment, it is very much in the planning stages but the centre has been booked, so all willing, it will be going ahead. It is to be a joint venture between myself and a guy called Rob Passey who hails from Derbyshire and focusses (geddit) on industrial architecture and dereliction.

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 09:44
Nice shots Shaun ...
Nice camera too ... My favourite nikons ... F3 for film, D3 for digital

But I do stand by what I and many people say the these days, with the right kit, digital is perfectly capable ... And shot in RAW high quality photography can be learned in a lot less time than with film ... mainly of course thanks to that fine combo of keys ctrl+z
Digital photography has brought the hobby truly to the masses ... Which has arguably considerably upped the anti for us "pro's" which IMO is no bad thing!
There is a lot more good quality photography out there these days, a hell of a lot more ... And it's all right they at our finger tips...
But it all provides inspiration to like likes of me to get better, and with that convenience and ease of shooting and pp it means the likes of me and other digital Photographers are more likely to fullfill our potential and fullfill it quicker!
What I'm trying to say is that don't write of convenience as a bad thing ... Even within fine art photography ... As it has opened up creating that art to many more people ... It has given a lot more people the joy of creating something really beautiful without the frustration of 100's of lost hours in the dark room ...
Your stand point Shaun ... And I mean this with respect, smacks of bitterness to the above ... 41 years of learning skills that take hours to produce images that Joe bloggs on the street couldnt be able to and wouldn't be bothered to tell the the difference from digital ...
There may be differences in quality, but they are subjective ...
Writing off digital as pure convenience does come from a truth, but is IMO a truth that is no longer relevant and is actually a touch offensive to those of us who have spent years honing skills within the digital medium. Creating great digital photography is still very hard and takes a lot of practice to get right, I still learn new stuff every day and I imagine I will until I die or go blind ... That's why I started a forum ... To help me learn and get better ... And help others learn and get better...
Which neatly brings me too ... I've said it a million times, I'm still disapointed you haven't joined my forum! The skills you have would be of great interest to many of my members and I'm sure you would make a great contribution ...
This image was taken because I was inspired by your shots of flowers ...

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC5386sharp.jpg

It might not be as good as yours, but I feel it has it's merits ... And despite being digital took waiting for perfect light, and a good 2 - 3 hours of very fine adjustments in digital software to produce ... I might have had the advantage of ctrl+z to help me along the way but the process it's self still provided me with a learning curve that will help increase the quality of my images as time goes on!

I have also been recently inspired by Ross's wedding photography ... It hasn't even crossed my mind if he shoots digital or not, just that his work is of a high standard ... IMO, a standard I'm yet to achieve ... I don't feel bad about that I feel inspired by it ... That's what photography should be about IMO ... Seeing other peoples work and being inspired to get better ... Regardless of how it is produced!

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 09:47
As an aside ... I have been waiting for an opportunity to show you that image for ages ... Not for your praise ... Just to show you that I have taken inspiration from what you do ...
I no longer care to try to prove to you that digital is as capable as film ... I now just want you to understand that it isn't just about convenience ... And that us digital users take as much pride in learing and doin what we do as people like your self ...I like a chanllege see ;)

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 09:51
And Marco ... With film, it's nothing to do with the camera ... Just lens and film ...After a point (well light sealed) Film cameras then selve had no effect on image quality ... A good film camera is purly a reliable film camera ... And that's where the f3 excells!

Haselsh1
21-05-2011, 11:17
Hamish, for what its worth, your image is no better or worse than anything I have ever produced, it is merely different and therein lies the key. I love that image, it is exquisite but from a personal level, I don't do low key, I do high key. Does that make one better than the other...? Of course not. What it does do is make one every different from the other.

Just to touch on digital versus film again, all of my flower photographs except just one or two are done using a digital camera and not a film camera. Why...? Simple, I can't get the depth of field with a film camera. Digital has massive depth of field and that is just what I need for that kind of imagery. Also, there are going to be quite a few of my flower images in my exhibition next year, all at 2016" and framed exquisitely by a guy up here in North Yorkshire who is a true craftsman.

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 11:56
Surely it's just lens choice that determines dof
On your cropped sensor you need a 35mm lens to get 50mm equiv focal length ... But because it's a 35mm lens you still have the dof of 35mm lens
I can see the logic though...
Mine was shot at f/16 (from memory ... It was stopped well down anyway) but although diffraction causes a softer photo some of that sharpness can be brought back ... And what can't be brought back is, at least I think it is, an addition to image quality not a subtraction ... Does that make sence? Sharpness is obviously nice, but softness can bring a little somthing if managed correctly ...

Haselsh1
21-05-2011, 12:13
Not wanting to insult your knowledge of photography Hamish, depth of field is dependent upon the following:
Focal length
Camera to subject distance
Size of the imaging format
It is well known that the larger the format of the film, the less depth of field you have. It is also well known that depth of field is very widely dictated by the camera to subject distance. The closer you are, the less depth of field you have, and, it is of course dependant on the focal length of the lens as you stated.

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 13:34
Your not insulting my knowledge just saying what I'm saying in a different way...
Your DSLR is a smaller format camera ... Smaller format camera = broader depth of field

Werner Berghofer
21-05-2011, 13:43
depth of field is dependent upon the following:

Allow me to add the aperture (or f-stop) to your list.

Marco
21-05-2011, 14:35
Hi Hamish,


And Marco ... With film, it's nothing to do with the camera ... Just lens and film ...After a point (well light sealed) Film cameras then selve had no effect on image quality ... A good film camera is purly a reliable film camera ... And that's where the f3 excells!

Indeed.

But with a quality vintage film camera, automatically comes the lens or 'vintage glass' (a term you've used before), that often makes the difference, by adding a unique characteristic or 'patina' to the photograph taken, which isn't possible otherwise, no? :)

And after that, the film itself (and process in developing it thereof) further adds its own unique characteristics to the results achieved, if I've understood things correctly.

However, yes, the actual camera body used (vintage or not) I suppose is unimportant, presuming you can fit a vintage lens onto a modern digital camera?

I do think though that there is an artistic skill (art) required in the film developing process, that Shaun has alluded to, which cannot be replicated, or even applied with digital, due to the somewhat rigidly 'structured' functionality of the latter (via software restrictions or whatever) - and it is that artistic skill, or licence, which separates truly great photographs (ones that contain depth and 'soul'), from those which are merely technically excellent.

Indeed, it is rather like someone building a hi-fi system using solely their discerning ears and experience, and honing and tailoring the results produced accordingly, through judicious selection of not only the equipment itself, but cables and ancillaries, to achieve superb results reproducing recorded music, and someone else attempting to do the same thing, simply using test equipment and measurement data.

The fact is, if, (and I say 'if' because I’m not a photographer) with the process of digital photography, there is less facility to tailor the appearance of photographs taken, through human judgement, then the final results obtained with digital will always lack the same creative and artistic expression as those achieved with film photography.

Perhaps it could be argued that, in a sense, digital photography is rather like painting by numbers?

Art will always give more 'soulful' results than science alone, in photography or in audio. It's about the applying of skills to a process which come from within oneself (such as we are born with), and not from those which are merely technology-derived. That's how I see it.

Why do you think we call this place 'The Art of Sound'? ;)

Marco.

Haselsh1
21-05-2011, 15:58
Marco, I certainly do understand where you are coming from and what you are saying here.

To make my point I must first of all say that photography for me is art. It is not just a recording medium and therefore I treat it as an artform rather than a means of just recording an event. To that end, because darkroom printing, or working with silver based media produces a much finer print than digital media, I still work in the silver based arena. Chlorobromide based printing papers produce an image with such depth and delicacy that they must be compared to valves in hi-fi terms. Digital by comparison is just a contrived, superfluous representation of what could be.

I would challenge anyone with artistic skills to go to a photography exhibition and tell me after careful consideration that they cannot tell the difference between a digital print and a silver gelatin print. I have done this many times on my own and with students and time and again the students can see the difference with some clarity.

Once again I have to add that digital photography has its place. It has opened up a whole world of imaging to non photographers. Photographers who are not chemists and do not understand chemistry. As in hi-fi though, and as in valves versus solid state, silver based photography is about sheer quality and has little in the way of compromise whereas digital photography is a compromise.

Haselsh1
21-05-2011, 15:59
Your not insulting my knowledge just saying what I'm saying in a different way...
Your DSLR is a smaller format camera ... Smaller format camera = broader depth of field

What you actually quoted was that it "was just lens choice that determined depth of field"

This is clearly not true.

Haselsh1
21-05-2011, 16:02
Your not insulting my knowledge just saying what I'm saying in a different way...
Your DSLR is a smaller format camera ... Smaller format camera = broader depth of field

I don't use a DSLR, I use a Fuji bridge camera as I have no need for an SLR when shooting things digitally.

Marco
21-05-2011, 16:34
Hi Shaun,


I would challenge anyone with artistic skills to go to a photography exhibition and tell me after careful consideration that they cannot tell the difference between a digital print and a silver gelatin print. I have done this many times on my own and with students and time and again the students can see the difference with some clarity.


I would tend to agree, if a relative numpty like me can tell the difference even on a computer screen! I guess it does help though that my profession as an art dealer/picture framer involves judging and working with elements of art on a daily basis ;)


Once again I have to add that digital photography has its place. It has opened up a whole world of imaging to non photographers. Photographers who are not chemists and do not understand chemistry.


Totally agree; no-one can dispute that - and that's a great thing in its own right.


As in hi-fi though, and as in valves versus solid state, silver based photography is about sheer quality and has little in the way of compromise whereas digital photography is a compromise.

I think that everything is a compromise in some way or other, but I'm sympathetic towards those sentiments.

In terms of turning photographs into an 'organic' art form, however, it seems to me that digital photography has more in-built limitations than film.

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 16:49
Hi Hamish,



Indeed.

But with a quality vintage film camera, automatically comes the lens or 'vintage glass' (a term you've used before), that often makes the difference, by adding a unique characteristic or 'patina' to the photograph taken, which isn't possible otherwise, no? :)



Its possible through post process, most effects can be created/replicated with post process ... how successfully is subjective




And after that, the film itself (and process in developing it thereof) further adds its own unique characteristics to the results achieved, if I've understood things correctly.



yes, regardless of medium - analogue or digital




However, yes, the actual camera body used (vintage or not) I suppose is unimportant, presuming you can fit a vintage lens onto a modern digital camera?



digital cameras are obviously different because they have a built in film in the form of the sensor ... digital cameras do have a character ... the canon 5dmkii for eg is known for its slight magenta shift especially in the blues ... fuji's are known for their vibrant colours ... although through shooting in "raw" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format these characteristics, although still present, can be edited out without any destruction to image quality




I do think though that there is an artistic skill (art) required in the film developing process, that Shaun has alluded to, which cannot be replicated, or even applied with digital, due to the somewhat rigidly 'structured' nature of the latter (via software restrictions or whatever) - and it is that artistic skill, or licence, which separates truly great photographs (ones that contain depth and 'soul'), from those which are merely technically 'good'.




nonsense, this is exactly my point of the last post ... there are no rigid limitations that cant be got around!
artistic skill is equally required in digital process ... it just requires a different skill set ... digital just has the advantage that things can be undone (ctrl+z is the combo of keys to undo) this of course means that learning is easier and faster as an image can be experimented on without possible destruction (especially if shooting in raw) ... as i have said, this has considerably upped the anti as nowadays more photographers are capable of producing passable images ... it has just meant that the really good photographers have to be REALLY good to stand out ...
i can understand how playing with chemicals could be seen as more hands on ... but the reality is, the artistic nature still has to be there to create the final image and the knowledge to produce that image ... be it knowledge of chemicals, or knowledge of software, that knowledge has to be in place to fulfil what was seen in the minds eye either before the photo was taken or before the process begins!




Indeed, it is rather like someone building a hi-fi system using solely their discerning ears and experience, and honing and tailoring the results produced accordingly, through judicious selection of not only the equipment itself, but cables and ancillaries, to achieve musical greatness, and someone else attempting to do the same thing, simply using test equipment and measurement data.



yeah .... that applies to digital




The fact is, if, (and I say 'if' because I’m not a photographer) with the process of digital photography, there is less facility to tailor the appearance of photographs taken, by using human judgement, then the final results obtained with digital will always lack the same creative and artistic expression as those achieved with film photography.



there is equal, often the same, but often very different oportunity to apply ones artistic skills to either digital or analogue photography




Perhaps it could be argued that, in a sense, digital photography is rather like painting by numbers?



i cant tell you how much i find that offensive to my artistic temperament ... not to mention belittling literately years of learning how to create what i want to using computers ... ALL of the photos you have seen including this one ... which i seem to remember you saying you liked were taken on digital cameras

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww282/hamish_gill/_DSC5112-1.jpg




Art will always give more 'soulful' results than science alone, in photography or in audio. It's about the applying of skills to a process which come from within oneself (such as we are born with), and not from those which are merely man-made. That's how I see it.



look ... i dont know how to get this across ... computers are science ... but so is chemistry ... both are just different mediums for creating art



Why do you think we call this place 'The Art of Sound'? ;)

Marco.


why do you think i like this forum ...

i hope this emphasises my point ... im not after praise on content ... just acknowledgement that it takes artistic temperament to create these images ... all of these were taken with a digital camera ... and processed heavily using a computer with an end result in mind ... even the ones that dont look like they have post processed have been extensively

(photos removed)

believe it or not the better the digital camera the blander the standard output of image ... my camera new was £3600 just for the body ... without any post process the images it produces are bland and and flat ...
photography is about 2 things ... taking the photo - composition/lens choice/control of depth of field/shutter speed ... this is the same for digital and film .... the second part is the post process ... this second part ... ... i will say it again ... regardless if done digitally or via analogue means takes equal yet very different skills to produce great images ...

what makes Shaun such a good photographer is not the fact that he can process with chemicals ... but the fact that he can do it and create great images!

Alex_UK
21-05-2011, 17:12
Lots of nails hit appropriately on the head there Hamish. I've had this debate too with music production - "ah, you use a computer, shame you can't play a proper instrument..." :steam: The novel I wrote was rubbish too. I used Microsoft Word and online dictionaries. It would have been so much more creative if I had used a manual typewriter, tippex and real books to look up my spelling... ;)

Alex_UK
21-05-2011, 17:15
if a relative numpty like me can tell the difference even on a computer screen!

But once it is on the screen, it is digital! I think we need a challenge here! ;)

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 17:21
What you actually quoted was that it "was just lens choice that determined depth of field"

This is clearly not true.

ah yes, sorry, i didnt mean "just" lens choice ... i agree ... that is obviously nonsense ...

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 17:23
I don't use a DSLR, I use a Fuji bridge camera as I have no need for an SLR when shooting things digitally.

ah ... i see now ...

Marco
21-05-2011, 17:25
Lol - Hamish... I appreciate the detailed and rather impassioned reply :)

I'm not qualified to argue with you on the respective technical merits of digital vs. film photography, but I know what I can see.... Also, you should read what Shaun wrote in his earlier reply to me and examine why he agrees with my sentiments.

However, for me, this is the crux of the matter:


artistic skill is equally required in digital process ... it just requires a different skill set...


Agreed (no doubt), but the quality of pictures that can be taken with digital photography is ultimately governed by the functionality of the software used to process it, correct?

There are no such restrictions with film photography, true?

If so, then the functionality of that software is limited compared with the artistic ability of the photographer, therefore if there is more scope for the photographer to express his or her artistic talent, then photographs produced will more likely resemble a painting than a photograph, which is essentially where I see the difference lies between digital and film.

It's the 'organic texture' and variations in light and shade, achievable with film photography (and a good photographer), which for me makes digital photography look rather 'flat', in comparison.

This is certainly what I can see whenever I compare the best digital photography with the best of film.

I love that snowy town scene of yours (and other images you've taken), but that's more for its composition, and the 'mood' you created, than anything else. You are obviously a talented photographer.

However, that last set of images Shaun produced have a special quality that in my opinion is unmatched elsewhere in this section of the forum, and it's not just because of Shaun's undoubted ability as a photographer.

Hey, it's only my layman's opinion, so in the final analysis, what the hell do I know! :cool:

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 17:34
why do you think that software limits creativity marco

Marco
21-05-2011, 17:36
Hi Alex,


But once it is on the screen, it is digital! I think we need a challenge here!

Regardless, I can still tell the difference (the patina obtained from the film process still shows through)!

Remember that when Shaun first posted those images, I had no idea what camera he had used and whether it was film or digital, yet I suspected it was film, and I was right, so how do you explain that?

Yes, I think we do need a challenge.....

I think Shaun should produce two images identical in every way, apart from the camera, lens and development process used, and post them here without telling us which one is which, and then let us guess.

I'd be reasonably confident of guessing correctly, even though both will be 'digital', as they're on a computer screen - just like I can tell 'AAD' CDs from 'DDD' ones, blindfolded, simply by listening ;)

Marco.

Marco
21-05-2011, 17:46
why do you think that software limits creativity marco

I should've thought that was obvious. Because what can be achieved is ultimately governed by the functionality of the software. I've already said this.

Any processes involving a computer (such as digital photography) are limited by the capability of the associated software, and what that software is programming the computer (or photographic apparatus) to do.

If film photography ultimately gives a photographer more scope to express his or her artistic talent, via the developing process in the dark room, and understanding chemistry, then artistic creativity is ultimately only limited by one's imagination, which is limitless compared to any computer software....

Marco.

vinylspinner
21-05-2011, 18:12
Hi,

Can I just add that imho anyone can take a photograph, but it takes a certain artistic skill to create a picture that can raise various emotions in people when looking at said picture, be it 35mm film or digital media, as Hamish knows, I use 35mm and always Canon slr, A1 and T90 etc, but I think that without that artistic flair or eye for a picture, a picture is just a picture.

I have seen many photos that make the hair on my neck stand up, they are that emotive, this has been with both film and digital, it is like giving a chap a workshop of tools, if he does'nt know how to use them the results will be average.

Nigel

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 18:16
Computers have helped people expand thier horizons as far as fulfilling imagination ...
Let's look at movies as another example ...
Do you think avatar would have been makeable with a just celuloid? Not likely ...
Where limitations occur more software is made ...
I've never found anything that my imagination can come up with that I couldn't achieve on a computer

Alex_UK
21-05-2011, 18:21
Regardless, I can still tell the difference (the patina obtained from the film process still shows through)!

Well, hopefully we shall find out! ;) I personally don't think I would have a hope in hell's chance of being able to spot "the patina" on screen or even in print... And I personally don't believe there is such a thing in a digital image, that could be identified as being due to a film negative, but of course you do and it would be a boring world if we all believed the same thing...


Remember that when Shaun first posted those images, I had no idea what camera he had used and whether it was film or digital, yet I suspected it was film, and I was right, so how do you explain that?

Umm, because we know Shaun pretty much only shoots film? ;)


Yes, I think we do need a challenge.....

I think Shaun should produce two images identical in every way, apart from the camera, lens and development process used, and post them here without telling us which one is which, and then let us guess.

I'd be reasonably confident of guessing correctly, even though both will be 'digital', as they're on a computer screen - just like I can tell 'AAD' CDs from 'DDD' ones, blindfolded, simply by listening ;)

That would be great - if Shaun or anyone else could do that - I might be able to dig up and scan some old prints or transparencies, but then I wouldn't be able to replicate them in digital, and I do think we need the same subject for this comparison...

And apologies to Shaun that we've ended up turning his thread with some great images into an Analogue vs. Digital debate...

Marco
21-05-2011, 18:22
I'm not disagreeing, Hamish, but the point I made still stands :)


Where limitations occur more software is made ...


Indeed, but no computer software will ever match the limitless imagination and creativity of the human brain (or that of the best photographer).

Marco.

Marco
21-05-2011, 18:27
Hi Alex,


Well, hopefully we shall find out! I personally don't think I would have a hope in hell's chance of being able to spot "the patina" on screen or even in print... And I personally don't believe there is such a thing in a digital image, that could be identified as being due to a film negative, but of course you do and it would be a boring world if we all believed the same thing...


Indeed. However, it's not a matter of 'believing' - I know what I can plainly see!


Umm, because we know Shaun pretty much only shoots film? ;)


I wasn't aware of that, as I don't follow what Shaun does or doesn't do with his photography. I certainly had no idea whatsoever that an 'F3' was a film camera.


That would be great - if Shaun or anyone else could do that - I might be able to dig up and scan some old prints or transparencies, but then I wouldn't be able to replicate them in digital, and I do think we need the same subject for this comparison...


Indeed - bring it on. I'm not saying that I will always be able to tell the difference, but I think that I understand what to look for :)

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 18:32
I'm not disagreeing, Hamish, but the point I made still stands :)



Indeed, but no computer software will ever match the limitless imagination and creativity of the human brain (or that of the best photographer).

Marco.

Ok ... What can a film photographer do that a digital photographer can't replicate in terms of expressing ones imagination?

Marco
21-05-2011, 18:36
We're going round in circles, Hamish... Read what I've already written - the answer is there. Or perhaps Shaun will explain when he returns?

There's a clue in the last paragraph of post #31 (and the bit in bold in post #18) ;)

Now, I'm off to listen to some music :cool:

Laters,
Marco.

Alex_UK
21-05-2011, 18:40
Now, I'm off to listen to some music :cool:

Now that, along with a :cheers: I do agree with!;)

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 19:16
:doh:
thats not an answer

thats like me saying "i can fly a plane" ... then when you ask how me just repeating ... "ive told you ... i can fly a plane"

but yeah ... i agree this convo is going no where fast!

Marco
21-05-2011, 19:30
:doh:
thats not an answer


It is, if you've already given the answer (on more than one occasion) but the person wanting it, hasn't grasped it! ;)

Yup, best leave things there, dude, or give me a call tomorrow, and I'll explain exactly what I mean without the limitations of the written word.

Laters.....

Marco.

Alex_UK
21-05-2011, 19:41
Indeed, but no computer software will ever match the limitless imagination and creativity of the human brain (or that of the best photographer)

Marco - which Image Editing software do you use (or have used)?

The Vinyl Adventure
21-05-2011, 19:45
But what do you know about the limits of digital vs analogue editing processes... That's what I'm saying your not giving examples as to why there are limits of one type and not the other ... Anyway ...

... your alright Marco this sort ofthing is why I set up my own photography forum ... So I don't have to have convos like this ... You argue like a polotician you know ...

I wish I'd never got started ... I just end up feeling like a fool for arguing

Marco
21-05-2011, 20:00
Ok, no worries.

It's not just me that's saying this, though, Hamish - it's Shaun (both of us are in agreement), and he's a professional photographer! He's also one of the best I've seen. Therefore, clearly, what I've written has some relevance.

This is the last from me on this subject, as clearly it's pissing you off, and that wasn't my intention.

Marco.

Haselsh1
21-05-2011, 20:14
I'm very sorry gents. I had no intention of producing this kind of thread when I posted my images here. I shall not say anymore as I feel enough has been said already.

Marco
21-05-2011, 20:59
Nothing to apologise for, Shaun - it's all about opinons. It would be a boring world if we agreed on everything! :)

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
22-05-2011, 09:52
What you actually quoted was that it "was just lens choice that determined depth of field"

This is clearly not true.

Shaun ... not wanting to start any sort of row or upheaval i just want to clarify what i was getting at

obviously saying "Just lens choice" is complete nonsense ...

but...

I had wrongly assumed that you were referring to using a dx format nikon ... (dont you have a dx format nikon?? .. im certain i remember you saying you did)
Based on this assumption, what i was angling at was - surly to gain that extra dof you could just use a wider angle lens on your film camera ...
hence me saying this


On your cropped sensor you need a 35mm lens to get 50mm equiv focal length ... But because it's a 35mm lens you still have the dof of 35mm lens

the dx format camera gives a broader depth of field because of its smaller sensor, because of its smaller sensor you use wider lenses ... why not just put that wider lens on the film camera and crop the image (to the same degree the dslr is effectively cropping the image) .. meaning you can use your film camera to take your flower photos ... do you follow my meaning now??

of course the reality is that you use a fuji hybrid ... which of course uses a massively wide angle lens and a tiny sensor so using a 8mm(for eg) lens and cropping the film would be ludicrous ... but as i said i had wrongly assumed you were using a dx nikon!

The Vinyl Adventure
22-05-2011, 10:17
Ok, no worries.

It's not just me that's saying this, though, Hamish - it's Shaun (both of us are in agreement), and he's a professional photographer! He's also one of the best I've seen. Therefore, clearly, what I've written has some relevance.

This is the last from me on this subject, as clearly it's pissing you off, and that wasn't my intention.

Marco.

Marco ... i too, as you know, am a professional photographer ... i dont have the experience of shaun ... but i do know what i am talking about ... even if i often dont articulate it too well


What you are trying to say is that in the dark room there is no limit to the experimentation that can be done

here is an example ... of what you were trying to say ... albeit a silly one

if i was in the dark room i could urinate in my chemicals to see what effect that had on the end result

in photo editing software there is no predetermined option to "add piss" with a percentage slider ...

i understand that ...

BUT what my point is, is that what ever the end result of urinating in chemicals had on the end photo ... i could replicate that effect in software ... albeit using .. i dunno maybe by altering the saturation of colours or something ...

and of course that is your point ... i dont know and never will know what urinating in chemicals does because there will never be software equivalent

BUT as i said this doesnt matter because what does matter is the end result ... and one day through experimenting with software i might well very accurately (and obviously unknowingly) replicate that effect ... the point being is it is the end result that is the piece of art the process to get there is the choice of the artist and really not for anyone else to judge

you might feel that the process of chemical analogue development is more soulful and more artistic etc ... but that is your opinion and certainly not fact ... that are a great deal of very talented photographers and artists and musicians who use computers to make beautiful artwork of all types ...

as Nigel said yesterday The talent is in the person ... and in understanding how to use the tools ... not in the tools them selves ...


as an aside i wasnt pissed off ... just frustrated that you were arguing a point but were unable to come up with any example to back up your argument ... i did and do ... as i have demonstrated ... understand what you were trying to say ... i just wanted you to show that you did know what you were talking about so the conversation could progress along the lines that i have outlined above

The Vinyl Adventure
22-05-2011, 10:23
... as it goes marco .. your pov is fairly well documented by anti digital folks ... as is my retort ...
the reality is there isnt a right answer ... as of course art, the creation of art, the appreciation of art are all very personal things ... there is a broad spectrum of opinion and i do have an understanding of both sides of this and sympathise with both sides ... i chose digital because i find it easier ... as do many people ... but it does not make me any less creative ... it just means i am creative in a different way to those who use chemicals ... please try to understand that!

vinylspinner
22-05-2011, 10:29
Hi guys,

The talent is in the person ... and in understanding how to use the tools ... not in the tools them selves ...

that is what I was trying to say in post 32....:doh:


I have a fully equipped wood workshop and can produce some great finished items, if someone else without the skills or training on this equipment tried to make something it would most likely be average.

Nigel

The Vinyl Adventure
22-05-2011, 10:37
I did amend my post to credit you with that comment buddy just before you posted that I think :)

The Vinyl Adventure
22-05-2011, 10:41
Marcos point is that if you found a way to programme a computer to use those tools to make an equally beautiful peice of furniture that peice of furniture wouldnt have the same soul ... An argument that I can see has weight ...
The counter argument is that there still has to be a human with artistic vision to tell Te computer how to fashion that same peice of furniture ...
... The problem is that in many peoples POV the involvement of computers of technology removes the soul ...

I just see the computer as another type of tool ... Whxih is my point ... Soul is in the human ... Not in the tools ... Whatever the tools may be!

Tim
22-05-2011, 10:45
The talent is in the person ... and in understanding how to use the tools ... not in the tools them selves ...

Absolutely, we can all buy a paint palette, paints and brushes....... but can we paint and create what people would consider works of art?

Photography is a creative art no matter what tools you use to get you to the end product . . .

vinylspinner
22-05-2011, 10:45
Sorry Hamish, missed that (put it down to old age):lol:

Nigel

The Vinyl Adventure
22-05-2011, 10:55
Absolutely, we can all buy a paint palette, paints and brushes....... but can we paint and create what people would consider works of art?

Photography is a creative art no matter what tools you use to get you to the end product . . .

Exactamundo... That's what I have been saying all along! :)

Marco
22-05-2011, 11:03
i chose digital because i find it easier ... as do many people ... but it does not make me any less creative ... it just means i am creative in a different way to those who use chemicals ... please try to understand that!

Lol - calm down, dear! :lol:

I do understand that, but I'm not debating this subject with you any further, as the discussion will only go round and round (and ROUND) in circles...

Therefore, these are my final comments:

Regardless of what you say about the creativity of digital photography, I vastly prefer the results with film - and when examining both, I can tell the difference fairly easily between them.

Sorry, I prefer Shaun's images, taken with film, to any images you've posted so far (as good as they are) using digital photography.

I still consider that digital photography is more for convenience than quality. I'm not interested in what's 'easy' - only in what is the absolute best! Quality must ALWAYS come first! And that principle applies to almost everything in my life.

Ok, that's it from me on this thread. Cheery-bye now, shweety :wave:

Marco.

Rare Bird
22-05-2011, 19:58
I should've thought that was obvious. Because what can be achieved is ultimately governed by the functionality of the software. I've already said this.

Any processes involving a computer (such as digital photography) are limited by the capability of the associated software, and what that software is programming the computer (or photographic apparatus) to do.

If film photography ultimately gives a photographer more scope to express his or her artistic talent, via the developing process in the dark room, and understanding chemistry, then artistic creativity is ultimately only limited by one's imagination, which is limitless compared to any computer software....



Well i had a very simular argument regarding my dislikes for Drum machines over real drum kits & why i disapproved of the DM

Werner Berghofer
22-05-2011, 20:41
Do you think avatar would have been makeable with a just celuloid?

Do you consider “Avatar” a great movie? Have a look at Fellini’s “La strada”, it was shot entirely on celluloid in 1954. Image resolution may be higher in “Avatar”, but guess which movie has more impact on the viewer’s soul.

Tim
22-05-2011, 21:00
Do you consider “Avatar” a great movie?
No

The Vinyl Adventure
22-05-2011, 23:01
Nah, avatar is pants ... Ironically, concidering my argument as a whole ... Souless shite ... But that's the overly simple story as much as anything else ;)

One of my favourite directors if not my favourite is michel gondry ... A director who seems to avoid computers for special effects ... Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind is probably my favourite film