I think I'm bored with audio now.

[Lynn124]

You sure did, there, Ansel! And welcome to our group, and back from the dead!

 

Beautiful. Yep, I didn't know Ansel was still alive. Very nice composition.

[Lynn124]

Got a dx Nikon a while ago. Been having fun with it.

 

 

 

Not sure why the photos are so small here...

[lucretius]

Yes, the general quality of photography has jump hugely since the introduction of digital. I think the real game changing part of digital is the new cost structure it brings. In the film days, cameras are relatively inexpensive but the film cost adds up very quickly if you shoot a lot. For digital, you pay a rather hefty upfront cost, but the incremental cost for the consumables is rather negligible. That encourages experimentation. Those who are inclined to learn can come up through the rank very quickly and cheaply. That's my theory at least.

 

I have a Nikon FM3a (film camera), Nikon Df, and a Fujifilm X100S. By far, I prefer the film camera (FM3a) - right combination of size, weight, controls, image quality, etc. However, due to the PITA involved with film processing and subsequent digitizing, I rarely take the FM3a out. Normally, the choice comes down to the Df or the X100S -- usually, if it's just street photos or family snaps, I'll take the X100S but if I am on a "photographic mission", I'll take the Df.

[lucretius]

First off I was quoting wwaldmanfan. Second I happen to agree with him despite your "nonsense" comment. For the most part today's photojournalists and sports photographers are point and shoot guys taking tons of digital shots hoping to get one that tells a story. In the past they didn't have the luxury of digital and those guys understood what was needed to tell the story Today's professionals take tons of shots hoping to get one that tells the story

 

 

In the film days, photojournalists and sports photographers would should a lot of rolls of film, produce contact sheets and select from the contact sheets, which frames to print. I don't see how that is fundamentally different from today.

[Priaptor]

In the film days, photojournalists and sports photographers would should a lot of rolls of film, produce contact sheets and select from the contact sheets, which frames to print. I don't see how that is fundamentally different from today.

 

Because you don't want to see. Did you ever shoot in the film days and develop and make contact sheets and then got to your darkroom?

 

To compare it to today's digital era (where you can't literally instantly see the shot) is laughable. Hardly comparable but believe what you want.

[gmgraves]

Because you don't want to see. Did you ever shoot in the film days and develop and make contact sheets and then got to your darkroom?

 

I'm sorry, I don't follow you! Yes, I used to shoot Velvia or Ektachrome in my Nikon (F2, F3, F4) and then go into my darkroom and develop the film using E4 and later, E6 then make a contact sheet from Cibachrome or Ektaprint. Sometimes I would shoot Kodak Lumier color negative film (the finest grained color negative film I ever saw. Great contrast control, the only drawback was ISO25 speed) and develop it using C41 and, again, make contact color prints. Of course, in B&W, it was PanX or Ilford Pan F 50, usually on Ilford Multigrade IV paper (Ilford used to have an essentially grainless B&W film that one developed in C41 color negative chemistry, but while I used it and liked it, I don't remember what it was called or any of the particulars about it). I mastered all of the color and black and white processes available at the time, and frankly I don't miss any of them on iota. I can shoot all day with one 64 GB micro SD card, come home, upload all the pictures to Apple's Aperture 2.1 and then edit them till my hearts content in Photoshop and print to my HP color inkjet up to 11 X 14 (or view a slide show on my 4K big screen).

 

To compare it to today's digital era (where you can't literally instantly see the shot) is laughable. Hardly comparable but believe what you want.

 

Again, with digital, you most assuredly CAN instantly see the shot, where in the film days, if you didn't have a polaroid back for your pro 35mm or 120 camera, you had to wait until you were back in the darkroom to see your pictures, then you get only tiny film-sized thumbnails until you make enlargement prints. On most digital cameras you see the picture instantly after taking it on a much larger screen on the back of the camera or review all the pictures taken that day at any time. If you take your tablet with you, you can wirelessly upload any or all the pictures and review them at any time with tablet resolution. So, I must be not understanding what you are saying, because, unless you are trying to say that digital, generally, hasn't the ultimate resolution of film, I don't get your point at all.

[lucretius]

I'm sorry, I don't follow you! Yes, I used to shoot Velvia or Ektachrome in my Nikon (F2, F3, F4) and then go into my darkroom and develop the film using E4 and later, E6 then make a contact sheet from Cibachrome or Ektaprint. Sometimes I would shoot Kodak Lumier color negative film and develop it using C41 and, again, make contact color prints. Of course, in B&W, it was PanX or Ilford Pan F 50, usually on Ilford Multigrade IV paper. I mastered all of the color and black and white processes available at the time, and frankly I don't miss any of them on iota. I can shoot all day with one 64 GB micro SD card, come home, upload all the pictures to Apple's Aperture 2.1 and then edit them till my hearts content in Photoshop and print to my HP color inkjet up to 11 X 14 (or view a slide show on my 4K big screen).

 

 

 

Again, with digital, you CAN instantly see the shot, where in the film days if you didn't have a polaroid back for your pro 35mm or 120 camera, you had to wait until you were back in the darkroom to see your pictures, then you get only tiny film-sized thumbnails. On most digital cameras you see the picture instantly after taking it on a much larger screen on the back of the camera or review all the pictures taken than day at any time. If you take your tablet with you, you can wirelessly upload all the pictures and review them at any time wit tablet resolution. So, I must be not understanding what you are saying, because, unless you are trying to say that digital, generally, hasn't the ultimate resolution of film, I don't get your point at all.

 

I'm not sure what Priaptor was getting at. I was simply trying to point out that photojournalists and sports photographers were just as much of point and shoot guys in the film days (especially since the invention of autofocus and automatic aperture adjustment, etc.) as they are now. Of course, I am well aware that the digital workflow offers incredible efficiencies. Although, I do wonder what professionals have the time to continually check the LCD screen.

[semente]

I am much happier with digital but I miss seeing an image appear in a white sheet of paper under the red light.

I also miss the long slide projection sessions after a long trip.

I miss the travelling more...

 

R

[gmgraves]

I'm not sure what Priaptor was getting at. I was simply trying to point out that photojournalists and sports photographers were just as much of point and shoot guys in the film days (especially since the invention of autofocus and automatic aperture adjustment, etc.) as they are now. Of course, I am well aware that the digital workflow offers incredible efficiencies. Although, I do wonder what professionals have the time to continually check the LCD screen.

 

I guess it depends upon what kind of photography one is doing. Certainly sports photographers, who are taking sequence shots (and are "hoping" that they are capturing dramatic stuff somewhere in each sequence) probably don't have time during the shoot to review their shots although perhaps travel photographers do. In fact, I'd go far enough to say that digital photography has probably been a real boon to the National Geographic types who used to shoot hundreds of rolls of film on assignment and mail the exposed film back to Washington DC every chance they got without ever seeing what they captured, till they, themselves, got back home.

[gmgraves]

I am much happier with digital but I miss seeing an image appear in a white sheet of paper under the red light.

I also miss the long slide projection sessions after a long trip.

I miss the travelling more...

 

R

 

Now those sentiments, I understand!

[Priaptor]

I'm sorry, I don't follow you! Yes, I used to shoot Velvia or Ektachrome in my Nikon (F2, F3, F4) and then go into my darkroom and develop the film using E4 and later, E6 then make a contact sheet from Cibachrome or Ektaprint. Sometimes I would shoot Kodak Lumier color negative film (the finest grained color negative film I ever saw. Great contrast control, the only drawback was ISO25 speed) and develop it using C41 and, again, make contact color prints. Of course, in B&W, it was PanX or Ilford Pan F 50, usually on Ilford Multigrade IV paper (Ilford used to have an essentially grainless B&W film that one developed in C41 color negative chemistry, but while I used it and liked it, I don't remember what it was called or any of the particulars about it). I mastered all of the color and black and white processes available at the time, and frankly I don't miss any of them on iota. I can shoot all day with one 64 GB micro SD card, come home, upload all the pictures to Apple's Aperture 2.1 and then edit them till my hearts content in Photoshop and print to my HP color inkjet up to 11 X 14 (or view a slide show on my 4K big screen).

 

 

 

Again, with digital, you most assuredly CAN instantly see the shot, where in the film days, if you didn't have a polaroid back for your pro 35mm or 120 camera, you had to wait until you were back in the darkroom to see your pictures, then you get only tiny film-sized thumbnails until you make enlargement prints. On most digital cameras you see the picture instantly after taking it on a much larger screen on the back of the camera or review all the pictures taken that day at any time. If you take your tablet with you, you can wirelessly upload any or all the pictures and review them at any time with tablet resolution. So, I must be not understanding what you are saying, because, unless you are trying to say that digital, generally, hasn't the ultimate resolution of film, I don't get your point at all.

 

We are on the same page.

 

Lucretius was trying to claim that because in the old days you could do contact sheets etc you had similar utility to today with digital. My point was it's much easier to be a "photographer" today than in he era of film while he was claiming there wasn't much difference which I (and it seems you) disagree with

[sphinxsix]

@Lynn124 Lovely photos!

[coot]

deleted

[sphinxsix]

Just lots of birches

 

 

 

In a different style.

 

[Paul R]

Yes. And if you don't mind doing more editing, either get rid of the moon or moving it to a better place. Darken the duller sand bank on the lower right. And if you feel adventurous, increase the vibrancy on the brighter colored sand "river".

 

I have been working on that a bit, following your suggestions. I find myself resisting making too many changes, as then it seems a bit like creating a reality instead of describing it or remembering it.

 

Think vaguely like Audiophile vs DSP.

 

-Paul

[accwai]

I have been working on that a bit, following your suggestions. I find myself resisting making too many changes, as then it seems a bit like creating a reality instead of describing it or remembering it.

 

I think it's down to your intention. Since you asked for suggestion to improve, you probably have in mind something other than the first posted version. Try to find what that's in your mind and get it out

 

Personally, I believe each photo is a reality in and of itself. It is not possible to use it to describe a reality "out there". There is an essay in the Edward Burtynsky book "China" that analyses this in detail. Perhaps you can find a copy in a library near you.

[Audio_ELF]

Ilford used to have an essentially grainless B&W film that one developed in C41 color negative chemistry, but while I used it and liked it, I don't remember what it was called or any of the particulars about it

I think it was XP series - XP1 then XP2 and finally XP2 Super (iirc).

[Audio_ELF]

We are on the same page.

 

Lucretius was trying to claim that because in the old days you could do contact sheets etc you had similar utility to today with digital. My point was it's much easier to be a "photographer" today than in he era of film while he was claiming there wasn't much difference which I (and it seems you) disagree with

Actually, and from a different point of view, its a lot harder to be a photographer these days. The skills needed to be a photographer are still needed, but everyone thinks all they need is a Canon 5DS or Nikon 810 and they are a professional photographer and can shoot weddings, parties, etc. For a photo-journalist its even harder because smart phones, etc. allow real on the spot photographs and there is the pressure to get images taken, edited and sent in 10-15 minutes for modern news websites, etc.

 

On Lucretius's point; sports photographers still generally work in the same way in terms of taking the photo. Of course these days there is none of the messing around with chemicals in the hotel bathroom; but that doesn't make the process of taking the photo different or easier.

 

Now if you suggest that "art" photography is easier then yes ... an artistic photographer has time to review, adjust lighting, etc. without recourse to polaroid backs, etc.

[Audio_ELF]

So guys - what is wrong with this picture and how could I make it better? iPhone 6S. -Paul

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30034[/ATTACH]

The main things wrong (IMO) is the light and you are standing in the wrong place. If you'd have moved left then the line of bushed would have lead your eye into the picture more ... it would have been interesting too to have tried a portrait imagine (again IMO though its hard to tell) the moon in the top third. If you were taking a picture of the moon, then make the moon more a focal point. The light is very uninteresting too; especially the sky. As for editing the picture you took, I'm not sure there is much you can do except learn for next time. The best editing you can do is move your feet.

 

One interesting challenge if you want to learn and improve ... go out sometime with just a 50mm lens (or equivalent - if you use a crop frame camera something like 35mm on Nikon or Canon or 25mm on a 4/3 camera). Learn to move your feet. Treat the camera like a film camera, don't think "oh I cam fix it later in Lightroom / Photoshop).

 

Sorry I'm likely lecturing here ... but look at other people's photos. Try to stand back and ask yourself - what makes this photo good.

[Priaptor]

Actually, and from a different point of view, its a lot harder to be a photographer these days. The skills needed to be a photographer are still needed, but everyone thinks all they need is a Canon 5DS or Nikon 810 and they are a professional photographer and can shoot weddings, parties, etc. For a photo-journalist its even harder because smart phones, etc. allow real on the spot photographs and there is the pressure to get images taken, edited and sent in 10-15 minutes for modern news websites, etc.

 

On Lucretius's point; sports photographers still generally work in the same way in terms of taking the photo. Of course these days there is none of the messing around with chemicals in the hotel bathroom; but that doesn't make the process of taking the photo different or easier.

 

Now if you suggest that "art" photography is easier then yes ... an artistic photographer has time to review, adjust lighting, etc. without recourse to polaroid backs, etc.

 

I still have to disagree.

 

First as it pertains to the term "professional", IMHO, digital has truly enabled many with limited skills to become "professionals" if we define professional as anyone selling or getting paid for their services. The ability to shoot hundreds if not thousands of shots at any venue (such as weddings, parties, sporting events) with the ability to batch convert pretty much makes the main variable of of importance, access, rather than ability. I am not saying ability plays no role in these venues, just less than it did. I still marvel at some of the older photos of venues from the past compared to some of the crap in today's world of weddings, etc.

 

As it pertains to photojournalism, your point is well taken regarding competing against smart phones, etc, but again, that is just another example of access it doesn't make the competitor necessarily "good". Plus the photojournalist usually has more access than some random person with a smartphone it is just that much of the news that has garnered so much attention these days tends to be random and being in the right place at the right time with any recording method is used to show the news, but again, it is not because of good work.

[Audio_ELF]

First as it pertains to the term "professional", IMHO, digital has truly enabled many with limited skills to become "professionals" if we define professional as anyone selling or getting paid for their services. The ability to shoot hundreds if not thousands of shots at any venue (such as weddings, parties, sporting events) with the ability to batch convert pretty much makes the main variable of of importance, access, rather than ability. I am not saying ability plays no role in these venues, just less than it did. I still marvel at some of the older photos of venues from the past compared to some of the crap in today's world of weddings, etc.

You say you disagree, then what you say sound more that you agree (because of your comment about the "crap in today's world of wedding"). If we ignore the "candid" snapshots which yes is much easier with digital than it was with film; then good wedding photography is still about getting the lighting, the posing, etc correct.

 

Thats what I was meaning ... people "claim" to be professionals, but the true professionals still have to know about these things. An amateur* takes 100 snaps hoping 1 or 2 will be good; a professional takes 30-40 photos knowing that 75% will be good. Also (in my experience) a professional thinks about the shot as they take it, an amateur thinks "oh we'll correct that in Lightroom / Photoshop".

 

Note *: I use the term amateur to refer to their approach, not to if they are paid or not.

 

As it pertains to photojournalism, your point is well taken regarding competing against smart phones, etc, but again, that is just another example of access it doesn't make the competitor necessarily "good". Plus the photojournalist usually has more access than some random person with a smartphone it is just that much of the news that has garnered so much attention these days tends to be random and being in the right place at the right time with any recording method is used to show the news, but again, it is not because of good work.

Access is not about the equipment, etc. Its about garnering a relationship with the professionals - be it the police, the military, the politicians, etc.

 

The only thing "easy" with digital compared to film is the processing ... and then its still about skill (IMO). Its the same as good recordings; its not about having a good computer, etc. its about knowing how to set up microphones, setting levels correctly, etc.

[semente]

I still have to disagree.

 

First as it pertains to the term "professional", IMHO, digital has truly enabled many with limited skills to become "professionals" if we define professional as anyone selling or getting paid for their services. The ability to shoot hundreds if not thousands of shots at any venue (such as weddings, parties, sporting events) with the ability to batch convert pretty much makes the main variable of of importance, access, rather than ability. I am not saying ability plays no role in these venues, just less than it did. I still marvel at some of the older photos of venues from the past compared to some of the crap in today's world of weddings, etc.

 

As it pertains to photojournalism, your point is well taken regarding competing against smart phones, etc, but again, that is just another example of access it doesn't make the competitor necessarily "good". Plus the photojournalist usually has more access than some random person with a smartphone it is just that much of the news that has garnered so much attention these days tends to be random and being in the right place at the right time with any recording method is used to show the news, but again, it is not because of good work.

What do you mean by good?

 

There are now, as there were in the film days, quite a few professionals that produce outstanding photographs from a technical perspective which were also uninteresting from an aesthetical perspective or even subject wise...

 

R

[Paul R]

The main things wrong (IMO) is the light and you are standing in the wrong place. If you'd have moved left then the line of bushed would have lead your eye into the picture more ... it would have been interesting too to have tried a portrait imagine (again IMO though its hard to tell) the moon in the top third. If you were taking a picture of the moon, then make the moon more a focal point. The light is very uninteresting too; especially the sky. As for editing the picture you took, I'm not sure there is much you can do except learn for next time. The best editing you can do is move your feet.

 

One interesting challenge if you want to learn and improve ... go out sometime with just a 50mm lens (or equivalent - if you use a crop frame camera something like 35mm on Nikon or Canon or 25mm on a 4/3 camera). Learn to move your feet. Treat the camera like a film camera, don't think "oh I cam fix it later in Lightroom / Photoshop).

 

Sorry I'm likely lecturing here ... but look at other people's photos. Try to stand back and ask yourself - what makes this photo good.

 

Please lecture on - no ego here to be bruised.

 

I think, I like to take photos that remind me - trigger more complete recall - of an event, a place, a person, or something I saw that touched me in some way. Moving my feet is an excellent idea, and one I intend to practice this weekend.

 

Also, I do not think I am too interested in carrying around an actual camera all the time. I need to learn how to get the best pictures I can from the camera I carry around all the time. That would be my iPhone.

 

-Paul

[Audio_ELF]

Please lecture on - no ego here to be bruised.

 

I think, I like to take photos that remind me - trigger more complete recall - of an event, a place, a person, or something I saw that touched me in some way. Moving my feet is an excellent idea, and one I intend to practice this weekend.

 

Also, I do not think I am too interested in carrying around an actual camera all the time. I need to learn how to get the best pictures I can from the camera I carry around all the time. That would be my iPhone.

I find the camera (be it an iPhone or my Nikon) helps me look around and see new things, and looking around helps me take better photos.

[Priaptor]

What do you mean by good?

 

There are now, as there were in the film days, quite a few professionals that produce outstanding photographs from a technical perspective which were also uninteresting from an aesthetical perspective or even subject wise...

 

R

 

Ok I'm wrong.

 

Back to the topic of photography.

 

I have my eye on the new Batis 18 or 25 mm as most of my current "work" is landscape.

 

Any comments.