Photographer's Corner - equipment

[Walt34]

Yes, it certainly looks as if the curtains might be neutral gray. But there are all sorts of random color shifts/artifacts in the photo that make me think of aging film or print. I figure the best you can do is try to get the skin tones and hair looking about right.

I suspect old film is the main issue with uneven color shifts, otherwise the jacket would have more consistent color. I'd have to dig up the slide but I think it was a film from Montgomery Ward, which means the cheapest they could find. The lighting is from one or two tungsten photo lamps; my father also used an 8mm movie camera and had a set of photoflood lights (as he called them) and he used those sometimes for still photos.

 

[meierlde]

I suspect old film is the main issue with uneven color shifts, otherwise the jacket would have more consistent color. I'd have to dig up the slide but I think it was a film from Montgomery Ward, which means the cheapest they could find. The lighting is from one or two tungsten photo lamps; my father also used an 8mm movie camera and had a set of photoflood lights (as he called them) and he used those sometimes for still photos.

While it may not be possible to know it is possible that the film is daylight film (white balanced for the sun) not tungsten film (balanced for incandescent lights) Essentially there was a white balance issue in the old days, and you had to know what light sources were to be used to pick the best film. (This is why the old flash bulbs flashed looking whiter that lamps, because they emitted light at a higher temperature.

 

[Chuckanut]

I have an old Canoscan 9000 which I used to scan many old slides and negatives so as to digitize and preserve them. (Yes, I kept the original film.) It did a pretty good job overall. It also convinced me that if I was going to go to a digital darkroom, there was no point in shooting film anymore. Original digital photos were significantly superior to scanned film. Perhaps had I had professional drum scanning done, that may not have been true, but I could not afford that.

 

[Chuckanut]

FWIW, here are Thom Hogan's nominees for mirror-less interchangeable lens camera of the year.

Camera of the Year Nominees | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

 

[seraphim]

Yea, read that article. I was perfectly happy with my Nikon DSLR until this thread came up. Now I want that Leica, which I can't justify. Am considering the AW1, as we canoe a lot.

 

[Chuckanut]

Below is a link to what I think is a thoughtful article by Thom Hogan and several cameras that really did improve his photography. I must admit to being prejudiced since one of them is from the Olympus micro 4/3 system, which has certainly helped me for the same reasons it helped Thom.

Answering My Own Question | byThom | Thom Hogan

 

[explanade]

Yeah I'm thinking about the OMDs but hate the idea of a smaller sensor, with poorer low light.

I'm watching how the Sony A7/A7R does. It's about the same size and weight as my D7000 but has essentially the D800 sensor (the A7R does).

There's no lens collection though. Hoping Nikon or Canon does a full frame smaller-body (mirror less would be fine though it would need an electronic viewfinder).

Any new camera I buy must have Wifi integrated and some GPS option (like the current Nikons which have a well-supported accessory data port).

 

[Surfdaddy]

I have had a Sony NEX-6 for about a year after moving from a Nikon DSLR. The NEX-6 is a full APS-C sensor.

I wouldn't go back to an SLR. Main advantages of the mirrorless are very fast sequential shooting (10fps), small size, outstanding electronic viewfinder, better controls than the Nikon. I can also use my old film Pentax lenses and my Nikon lenses in manual mode with inexpensive adaptors. Biggest disadvantages are shorter battery life and somewhat slower focusing.

 

[Chuckanut]

Yeah I'm thinking about the OMDs but hate the idea of a smaller sensor, with poorer low light.

You might be surprised at the quality of the OMD Image. it might be worth some trial shots.

Most love the small size and low weight of a complete system. My 45mm lens (90mm in full frame) is an f1.7 and smaller than a normal 50 mm lens. The 75mm (150mm equivalent) is also a f1.7 and also very much smaller. Optically they are great.

 

[Chuckanut]

You might be surprised at the quality of the OMD Image. it might be worth some trial shots.

Most love the small size and low weight of a complete system. My 45mm lens (90mm in full frame) is an f1.7 and smaller than a normal 50 mm lens. The 75mm (150mm equivalent) is also a f1.7 and also very much smaller. Optically they are great.

Actually, they are f 1.8 lenses. Just to be accurate.

 

[Chuckanut]

I recently found this quote from Michael Reichmann's website and wondered what others think about it.

Now, in early 2014, I don't believe that there are significant differences in image quality between major cameras and camera brands with roughly similar MP count sensors. Yes, one might have better high ISO capability, another might have more or less pleasing colour rendition – important if you shoot JPGs. But, other than megapixel count, which at more than 16MP is of little importance to anyone who doesn't make gallery-sized prints, it's my belief that IQ difference between cameras with sensors of MFT size or larger, is of less importance than how they handle, and of course, most important of all, individual lens quality.
So, while reading DxO test numbers, and some reviewer's and user's comments on various camera's image quality can be of interest, I find that how easily (or badly) a camera responds in one's hands plays a bigger role in how pleasurable and valuable a tool it might be, than does a quarter stop ISO difference or a small difference in dynamic range measure. Your mileage may differ.

 

[explanade]

I know a lot of people talk up ergonomics but that doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

I figure I just have to learn the controls, however they're laid out.

But the bigger deal is that you have to go through a camera's menu system and each camera is different.

That is why I'm looking to see if cameras with Wifi will let you control settings from an app. Even better if you can save macros or a set of different settings commands from such apps, so you don't have to figure out and remember how to access little-used settings.

 

[Mr. Paul]

Given the resolution at which we mostly look at photos, yes the photographer has always been more important than the gear.

That said, you never know when you'll get a shot that calls for a "gallery size print" so I always have the beast and never replaced my point and shoot after it broke years ago.

 

[Chuckanut]

I can understand not wanting another P&S. In my case I found that the new Micro 4/3 systems gave me the small light equipment I needed with no loss of image quality that would be noticed other than by the 'pixel peepers.'

My Olympus PL-5 with one of those wonderful Olympus prime lenses can make a gallery sized print that looks good. What it can't do is weigh me down to the point that I don't take it on hikes and all day walk-abouts in interesting cities.

 

[seraphim]

Don't get much call for gallery sized prints anymore lol. Don't have my RB67 anymore, either.

I read up on the mirrorless craze going around, considered ditching my DSLR, but then realized I don't really have any gripes with it. Carrying it around on a chest rig seems normal and it's not in my way, and all my actions with are natural - no menus I have to flip through. Almost got caught up in something just because others thought it was a good idea.

I think if I ever get another digital camera, it'll be medium format. Would like to afford a scanning back for the 4x5, but I don't use it enough anymore to justify the expense.

Did get a Wein safe-sync today, hooked up the old flashes and they work like a charm - it will fire the hotshoe and PC connection simultaneously, and cut the trigger voltages down to 6v, so the camera is protected. Tomorrow the studio flashes come out of storage.

Got the time, now that I'm retired - maybe I can make some money with the gear, again. But no weddings - nie weider...

 

[seraphim]

"Given the resolution at which we mostly look at photos, yes the photographer has always been more important than the gear."

+1

But the higher resolutions, especially in uncompressed modes, permit more smooth post-production work - and sometimes offer more options without a reduction in quality.

 

[photoguy]

What exactly does "gallery size" mean?

 

[Mr. Paul]

What exactly does "gallery size" mean?

What it means to me is 16 x 20 and up.

 

[seraphim]

What Mr Paul said - anything that hangs for [professional quality] display purposes in a museum or gallery is going to be larger, and probably require(d) a larger negative than a 35mm format. I'm not sure what type of digital resolution is required for that level of quality, but probably something better than the pro-consumer models mentioned here. A scanning back for my 4x5 would work, but only in limited applications with static subjects, I'd think.

 

[explanade]

I don't print anything so a smaller format may be worth investigating.

However, even Micro 4/3 is not truly pocketable, so I would still need to carry a bag, especially if you have any kind of zoom lens that stick out.

I used to have a compact and I would put it in my coat pocket but a few times, it dinged against doors so pockets are not the best places.

 

[Mr. Paul]

What Mr Paul said - anything that hangs for [professional quality] display purposes in a museum or gallery is going to be larger, and probably require(d) a larger negative than a 35mm format. I'm not sure what type of digital resolution is required for that level of quality, but probably something better than the pro-consumer models mentioned here. A scanning back for my 4x5 would work, but only in limited applications with static subjects, I'd think.

When I worked at the Denver Museum of Natural History, the museum director went on a trip to China with his new OM-1 and came back having decided he was a photographer. He was the reason the photo dept got everything we asked for so when he told us to produce an exhibit for the museum of his photos we said "ummmm ... ok." We printed and framed the shots up to 30 x 40 and man it was embarrassing to say the least. I don't think he used a shutter speed faster than 1/30 on a single shot.

That said, I've gone up to 20 x 24 with some of my 5DMKII shots and the results are quite pleasing. I think I could go bigger on a select few shots that are very sharp.

 

[photoguy]

What it means to me is 16 x 20 and up.

Ok that makes sense. I asked because sometimes I've also seen very small photo prints in galleries.

What Mr Paul said - anything that hangs for [professional quality] display purposes in a museum or gallery is going to be larger, and probably require(d) a larger negative than a 35mm format. I'm not sure what type of digital resolution is required for that level of quality, but probably something better than the pro-consumer models mentioned here. A scanning back for my 4x5 would work, but only in limited applications with static subjects, I'd think.

Are you referring to landscape photos? Even for landscape, 16x24 is quite reasonable for most mid-range dslrs (assuming proper technique) from a single frame.

Scanning backs are interesting. At one point I thought about getting one but I think stitching is probably easier (and the way most people have gone).

 

[explanade]

What proper technique?

Tripod and mirror lockup for the sharpest focus? Stopped down for the sharpest image from a particular lens?

 

[Walt34]

What proper technique?

Tripod and mirror lockup for the sharpest focus? Stopped down for the sharpest image from a particular lens?

That, and having the composition nailed in the camera, not by cropping.

In the higher end DSLRs like the Nikon D800 pixel densities are now pushing up close to what used to be only for medium format cameras.

 

[seraphim]

"Are you referring to landscape photos? Even for landscape, 16x24 is quite reasonable for most mid-range dslrs (assuming proper technique) from a single frame. "

Not referring specially to landscape - just any shot where the subject is static. Could be commercial, fashion, etc. Define 'quite reasonable'. Quite reasonable for an amateur, for a gallery or museum, a fine art shot? What you consider reasonable another may not. I tend to be extremely critical; 'quite reasonable' sounds like 'not as good as it could be'. Not meant to criticize others, just explaining my own personal outlook.

Framing the composition in camera is always a good idea, but not always attainable; and post production always leaves artifacts that reduce quality, no matter how minimal. Yes, there is the crowd which claims they want the perfect shot/exposure and would never deign to PS, but I generally ignore them. It is a rare shot indeed that would not benefit from post production adjustment, no matter how skillful the photographer. A negative - or in the case of digital, a 'positive' isn't the finished product: it is merely the detail from which the finished image is created. More often than not, IMO, a picture that looks good in camera does not possess the necessary detail to make a final image that 'pops'. The ones that do often don't look pleasing in camera. Not always, but often.

For [film] work In which I was paid, I always shot 6x7 or larger. 35mm was never quite good enough for me. In wedding and portraits, the package price covers expenses, but the large sized ala carte sales brought in the gravy; and customers weren't going to pay a lot of money for a large image unless it shined. Even on 5x7s, the difference between an image created with a 35mm and a 6x7 were painfully obvious.

And there was no point in doing all the labor if I wasn't going to make an acceptably large amount of money.