Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
- Original Message - From: Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round , because photography is all about realism and nothing else. Wheee!! The last thing photography is about is realism. William Robb
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
What is important to understand with tripods is that a sharp image is just one of the beneifits of using one. A tripod tends to slow the process of taking a picture down, which is usually but, obviously not always, a good thing. It allows the maker to examine the scene and compose it just right. When it is the way you want it, you lock it down and that's your image. It allows you to take longish exposures. It gives you the opportunity to use slower film (higher quality) at the extremes of day when the light is better. It allows you to use a cable release which further improves picture quality. There is more but I think you get the point. If you are not using a tripod you are not maximizing your potential or the potential of your equipment. But, like everything in life. It's your choice.. There are times when a tripod is not necessary, or at least not convenient. But, dare I say, that it is not anywhere near as often as many photographers think it is. Vic You know, I don't think I am completely convinced that every picture has to be supersharp or even very sharp. Or that sharpness is the #1 indicator of a good picture. Or whatever. Re tripods. Marnie aka Doe Smacks to me of the concept that a photograph should be as close to realism as possible, because photography is all about realism and nothing else.
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
It is about capturing the visual experience/sensation so that someone else feels what you did. Photography can not be reality or literal, because, for among other things, you have transformed something from 3D space to a 2D plane. BR From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] What you say may be true for some aspects of photography, but for an image recorder like me, I try to record exactly what I'm seeing and experiencing at the time, with the least amount of distortion of fact as possible. Making the photo a slice of reality as *I* saw it is easily 90% of the effort. Else, why take the shot? keith whaley
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
Ah, well then I simply do not agree with mr. Wilde. :-) Paul Delcour From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:09:43 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:10:57 -0400 Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:25:52 EDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:26:11 -0400 You know, I don't think I am completely convinced that every picture has to be supersharp or even very sharp. Or that sharpness is the #1 indicator of a good picture. Or whatever. Re tripods. Marnie aka Doe Smacks to me of the concept that a photograph should be as close to realism as possible, because photography is all about realism and nothing else. Hear, hear. Cameras lie, we make the lies. The telling of beautiful, untrue things is the proper aim of art - Oscar Wilde -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
That is very interesting. I never thought of it that way. So other brands put emphasis on a certain aspect of lens technique. Nikon on sharpness, Leica as well? Something like that? Is there any source on the web for this kind of info or is this typical user experience? It's impossible for a simple (read little money owning) amateur to test these things. Have several bodies with lenses from several manufacturers and go out testing: no way. It pleases me to know this overal compromise by Pentax. I think it's how I would like my lenses to be. :-) Paul Delcour PS I know, I know, you haven't seen any pictures of me yet. In due course I'll try and make a webpage with some representable ones and you can all shoot holes in them as much as you like. From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:22:39 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:23:04 -0400 William Robb wrote: I actually don't find Pentax lenses to be overly contrasty. Pentax glass is more about balance. Everything is compromised somewhat, this is the nature of lensmaking, but no one parameter is compromised overly at the expense of another parameter. This matches my obsevations also. I have always said that Pentax optimises their lenses for best overall picture quality rather than best sharpness or best contrast as many other manufactures do. This is one of the reasons that our lenses that make those wonderful photos don't always have real high test scores in photo publications. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
You know, I don't think I am completely convinced that every picture has to be supersharp or even very sharp. Or that sharpness is the #1 indicator of a good picture. Or whatever. Re tripods. Marnie aka Doe Smacks to me of the concept that a photograph should be as close to realism as possible, because photography is all about realism and nothing else.
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
You know, I don't think I am completely convinced that every picture has to be supersharp or even very sharp. Or that sharpness is the #1 indicator of a good picture. Or whatever. Re tripods. Marnie aka Doe Smacks to me of the concept that a photograph should be as close to realism as possible, because photography is all about realism and nothing else. Sharpness is important,to me anyway,in my rural landscapy stuff and flowers.Just hate to see a soft image of an old barn with all that lovely hand crafted wood. On the other hand,if my portraits tend to lean a tad on the soft side,i dont mind that. The horse stuff is either.As long as the head is in focus its sold:-) I',m not sure what i'm trying to say,but i said it anyway.g Dave
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
Guess I shouldn't mention that I very frequently shoot my 67ii handheld or that I just purchased a 120 soft lens for it. For me, a tripod represents the best way to take a photograph to get the technical aspects correct. Not only does it provide for a sharper picture, but it really aids in composition. Nothing like being able to look around the viewfinder, make minor adjustments, etc. But for spontaneity, the tripod works against you. Too slow and fiddly. This would typically be people shots (notably candids). So I work both ways - when the tripod is reasonable to USE (not carry - never reasonable to carry, just have to tough it out), then I use it. When dealing with spontaneous/fast moving situations, I don't. Bruce Friday, September 19, 2003, 12:25:52 PM, you wrote: Eac You know, I don't think I am completely convinced that every Eac picture has to be supersharp or even very sharp. Or that Eac sharpness is the #1 indicator of a good picture. Or whatever. Eac Re tripods. Eac Marnie aka Doe Smacks to me of the concept that a photograph should be as Eac close to realism as possible, because photography is all about realism and Eac nothing else.
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
Hear, hear. Cameras lie, we make the lies. :-) Paul Delcour From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:25:52 EDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:26:11 -0400 You know, I don't think I am completely convinced that every picture has to be supersharp or even very sharp. Or that sharpness is the #1 indicator of a good picture. Or whatever. Re tripods. Marnie aka Doe Smacks to me of the concept that a photograph should be as close to realism as possible, because photography is all about realism and nothing else.
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
it should be sharp if you want it to be sharp. Herb Good answer. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
Hi! In light of recent tripod talk the following thought occured in my mind. The smaller sensor/film is, the worse is the effect of shake. This is because even small motion of the camera while shutter is open would translate in larger effect relative to the frame size. Also, smaller film/sensor would mean that magnification necessary to obtain even moderately large print is bigger. Hence less than optimal sharpness would become more apparent. I also noticed William Robb mentioned microscope that he was using to see the difference in sharpness between various shooting conditions. I think that in real world and for amateur photography still very good pictures could be taken without tripod. Though of course, tripod, MLU, cable release, etc are advisable. Hope I am not out of whack grin. Boris
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
- Original Message - From: Paul Delcour Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round I see. Well, I must say I'm not that surprised. If you take really great care to ensure a good stirdy setup, I would expect even 1/500 to show some unsharpness due to movement. However, I was in a situation serveral times when the shot had to be taken and a tripod was not available, or would have been impossible to use, in a theatre for instance. Question is more: how much unsharpness is still acceptable knowing the circumstances. Usually I don't really mind, although the occasional crisp sharp photo of course I like very much. Read my post about wedding photography (subject is tripod use). If you are shooting for a purpose, you suit your technique to that purpose and hope the client doesn't change their mind after the fact. Unsharpness also creates some softness, giving me reason to wander whether those really contrasty sharp Pentax lenses are any good when I accept so much unsharpness. Think about how much less sharp the image would be if you were using a low quality lens. OTOH, if you are accepting poor technical quality as a matter of course, we don't have enough in common to make a discussion out of this. Also: I used to use Kodak neg. film which is quite contrasty. For people my wife rightly said this was too contrasty. I now use a medium film. Again here, why use such hard lenses if I compensate them by using milder films. So here comes the question of using a softer Takumar with a hard film or a Pentax lens with a softer film. Which would give me a more satisfying result. But as I said before, I cannot afford to get all that stuff and simply choose what I need at the appropiate moment. I actually don't find Pentax lenses to be overly contrasty. Pentax glass is more about balance. Everything is compromised somewhat, this is the nature of lensmaking, but no one parameter is compromised overly at the expense of another parameter. William Robb
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round Hi! In light of recent tripod talk the following thought occured in my mind. The smaller sensor/film is, the worse is the effect of shake. This is because even small motion of the camera while shutter is open would translate in larger effect relative to the frame size. Also, smaller film/sensor would mean that magnification necessary to obtain even moderately large print is bigger. Hence less than optimal sharpness would become more apparent. I also noticed William Robb mentioned microscope that he was using to see the difference in sharpness between various shooting conditions. I think that in real world and for amateur photography still very good pictures could be taken without tripod. Though of course, tripod, MLU, cable release, etc are advisable. Hope I am not out of whack grin. This is moving away from the original subject, which was trying to find ways to avoid tripod use by dialing up digital sensor sensitivity. Let me ask you this, why would an amateur, who is supposedly doing the work for love (this is the definition of the term) take shortcuts that can only dissapoint? It's not like we have to take pictures like those poor saps who hung a shingle outside their door. William Robb
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
Hi! On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:10:10 -0600 William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is moving away from the original subject, which was trying to find ways to avoid tripod use by dialing up digital sensor sensitivity. Let me ask you this, why would an amateur, who is supposedly doing the work for love (this is the definition of the term) take shortcuts that can only dissapoint? It's not like we have to take pictures like those poor saps who hung a shingle outside their door. William Robb Oh yes, probably it is somewhat off the original topic. I could see several reasons why an amateur who is serous about their __learning process__ might not use a tripod: 1. Laziness. No, I am serious. 2. Curcumstances - my wife put up quite a fight when I once wanted to take a tripod with me in order to shoot some macro shots in the near forest. 3. Level of an amateur. You see, I for example, haven't yet enlarged past 10x15 cm any of my shots. I do intend to do so some time soon. But again, I haven't done that. All the scans that I've been getting from the lab do not count as a measure of how sharp are the pictures. No offence to the lab, but this is how it is. So I will have to taste this thing myself and conclude my own outcome of it. It took me about a year here on PDML to realize that even with this very low level quality processing that I get from the local labs, I'd better use primes instead of zooms. No, I am not trying to cause this talk another turn of direction. I think I could say (with proper modesty mentioned) that I keep growing as a photographer. I suppose one day I will be experienced enough to use a tripod as often as ever possible. By the way, I need to buy one, that is good enough. The plasticky video tripod that I have sucks. But again, as I said - level of an amateur. Peace! Boris
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
William Robb wrote: I actually don't find Pentax lenses to be overly contrasty. Pentax glass is more about balance. Everything is compromised somewhat, this is the nature of lensmaking, but no one parameter is compromised overly at the expense of another parameter. This matches my obsevations also. I have always said that Pentax optimises their lenses for best overall picture quality rather than best sharpness or best contrast as many other manufactures do. This is one of the reasons that our lenses that make those wonderful photos don't always have real high test scores in photo publications. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
