My photo of the week 9

Costs are rising and times are tough.
Please consider a donation to keep this
place going.

Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.

You are logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >>Discussions >>Off Topic >>

Page: [1]

Message

<< Newer Topic Older Topic >>

Escribano

Posts: 6416
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy

My photo of the week 9

Just to show that one doesn't need an expensive camera to get a half decent shot. This was taken on a £25 Olympus RC film camera. Still way better image quality than all but the top digital cameras - because it is the equivalent of a full-frame sensor and that costs a lot of money in digital land.

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Foro Flamenco founder and Admin

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 16 2011 17:11:35

Escribano

Posts: 6416
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Escribano)

Here is a similar shot in another laundrette with the Leica and Zeiss lens - can you see any difference?

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

_____________________________

Foro Flamenco founder and Admin

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 16 2011 18:15:52

Ron.M

Posts: 7051
Joined: Jul. 7 2003
From: Scotland

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Escribano)

They both look good to me, Simon...

I remember my old boss in the University (who was a photography fiend) tell me that the potential resolution is as fine as the grain on the film....which must still make it pretty much better than electronic pixel elements even at this point in time, surely?

On Radio 4, there was a professional news photographer saying that these days you can shoot a zillion shots on a digital camera and review them later, relaxed with a drink in hand on the computer, but that it takes away from being totally involved and immersed in the moment and the "meaning" of the photograph as it affected you at the time.
Plus the fact you were limited to 36 exposures per roll, so you had to be discerning before you pushed the shutter release button.

And the added bonus of the anticipation in the darkroom....

Things like that make a hobby a passion IMO.

cheers,

Ron

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 16 2011 18:30:24

Escribano

Posts: 6416
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Ron.M)

quote:

They both look good to me, Simon...

Exactly, but the Leica and lens cost me a £1000 - one born every minute

_____________________________

Foro Flamenco founder and Admin

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 16 2011 19:33:26

Richard Jernigan

Posts: 3431
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Ron.M)

Interesting comparisons, Simon.

@Ron: I shot, developed and printed film for more than 40 years, both on land and underwater-~1500 dives. I enjoyed shooting Balinese dance performances and hunting fish. Eventually I learned to press the shutter release at the right time once in a while.

When semi-pro DSLRs exceeded 10 Mpix, I dipped my toe in digital. I don't think I would have got this image without digital-- Nikon D300, 17-55mm f/2.8--12 Mpix.

It's a tower about 50 ft high, with a huge fireworks whirligig at the top. The exposure meter was utterly flummoxed. I switched to manual mode and checked the playback after each change in shutter speed and aperture. This is the third attempt. It took maybe 15 seconds. On film I would have bracketed the exposure and hoped for the best. With digital playback I converged to the right exposure while the fireworks were at their peak, and knew I had the shot.

Film still does things digital cannot. But for me, the converse is true as well. I have blown up 35mm Kodachromes to 24"x36". I have done the same with resampled 12 Mpix digital images. Both looked great. Film responds tonally in a different way than digital. There's the romance, for me at least.

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

Attachment (1)

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 17 2011 2:30:46

Anders Eliasson

Posts: 5780
Joined: Oct. 18 2006

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Escribano)

Nice shots Simon.
So are you doing a photo a week. Its a good idea.
Just remember one thing in your antidigital period

There is much more to image quality than the size of the sensor in a digicam.

_____________________________

Blog: http://news-from-the-workshop.blogspot.com/

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 17 2011 7:56:24

Anders Eliasson

Posts: 5780
Joined: Oct. 18 2006

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Escribano)

Richard, thats a very nice photo. Very chaotic and in balance with the central perspective.

_____________________________

Blog: http://news-from-the-workshop.blogspot.com/

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 17 2011 7:59:16

Ron.M

Posts: 7051
Joined: Jul. 7 2003
From: Scotland

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Richard Jernigan)

quote:

The exposure meter was utterly flummoxed. I switched to manual mode and checked the playback after each change in shutter speed and aperture. This is the third attempt. It took maybe 15 seconds. On film I would have bracketed the exposure and hoped for the best. With digital playback I converged to the right exposure while the fireworks were at their peak, and knew I had the shot.

Yeah, Richard...

That makes a lot of sense. Excellent photograph.

(There is a customer of mine, a retired marine biologist who photographs microscopic marine life and makes slides to sell to colleges and universities.
Your picture actually reminds me of some which he showed me.)

cheers,

Ron

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 17 2011 8:12:20

edguerin

Posts: 1589
Joined: Dec. 24 2007
From: Siegburg, Alemania

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Escribano)

Of course you can tell the difference!
Both pics are great though!

_____________________________

Ed

El aficionado solitario
Alemania

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 17 2011 17:27:42

Anders Eliasson

Posts: 5780
Joined: Oct. 18 2006

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Escribano)

yes the top one is overexposed and shaky. Anyways on both photos I would use a tripod and a long exposure to get depth of field. It would make them more interesting. Keep the line going from right to left and not leaving you in the middle. I normally like a short depth of field but not in photos like these.

_____________________________

Blog: http://news-from-the-workshop.blogspot.com/

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 18 2011 7:49:34

Escribano

Posts: 6416
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Anders Eliasson)

Thanks for the critique Anders, I would not agree that the top one is shaky but it is a tad over-exposed.

I don't use a tripod on the street for many reasons. Both shots were an experiment in controlling DOF i.e. getting one door in focus, though it might indeed look better with a greater DOF.

I'll try it the next time I am passing one of theses laundrettes

_____________________________

Foro Flamenco founder and Admin

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 18 2011 9:34:55

Escribano

Posts: 6416
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Richard Jernigan)

Good shot Richard. Digital is much more forgiving on longer exposures than film with reciprocity failure to consider and of course the ability to see the image on the LCD.

I am not particularly anti-digital, I would buy a full-frame digital if I wanted this kind of flexibility but I really like the tones of film, especially in black and white. If they cost the same (in full-frame 35mm and medium format) I would probably go back to digital but then I would be missing out on all those wonderful old cameras.

_____________________________

Foro Flamenco founder and Admin

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 18 2011 9:43:24

Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Ron.M)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron.M

On Radio 4, there was a professional news photographer saying that these days you can shoot a zillion shots on a digital camera and review them later, relaxed with a drink in hand on the computer, but that it takes away from being totally involved and immersed in the moment and the "meaning" of the photograph as it affected you at the time.
Plus the fact you were limited to 36 exposures per roll, so you had to be discerning before you pushed the shutter release button.

cheers,

Ron

I appreciate the battle of the past, and what it took to keep balance with good results under budgets.

Yet, the `good ol´stress with celluloid and its expenses for the darkroom ( let aside ordered development in the times before automated exposure!) are no reason for me to be nostalgic about it.

Instead I embrace the comfort and relief that the new tech allows, so that one mustn´t bother about limited number of shots and can just shoot away. Also love to just take that storage card and stick into a computer, right after the session.

To me personally the challenge with trying to keep postwork on exposure near zero is enough of sportsmanship.
-

What B&W photography is concerned, I am with a popular photograper who once said something to the extend, that there was some kind of pseudo-artistic mannerism going on that made people giving up merrits of colour.

I feel the need for capturing in B&W only very rarely.

Ruphus

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 18 2011 11:16:32

Anders Eliasson

Posts: 5780
Joined: Oct. 18 2006

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Escribano)

quote:

I would probably go back to digital but then I would be missing out on all those wonderful old cameras.

On this agree. They are wonderfull little machines. When I compare feel and buid quality of the Olympus OM2 that I had with the Olympus E450 that I have now, there´s no comparision. Now everything is plastic and eletronics and the E450 is actually one of the better built cameras.

You dont need full frame. Its not nescessary. And, buy one of these 10,-€ mini tripods. They sometimes come in very handy when just walking the streets. Long exposure can be very interesting.

_____________________________

Blog: http://news-from-the-workshop.blogspot.com/

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 18 2011 11:34:52

Anders Eliasson

Posts: 5780
Joined: Oct. 18 2006

RE: My photo of the week 9 (in reply to Escribano)

quote:

Both shots were an experiment in controlling DOF i.e. getting one door in focus

Ok, then I actually prefer the top one. Just one door in focus. The second has more doors semi focussed and it gives the feeling that its not really one or other thing.

_____________________________

Blog: http://news-from-the-workshop.blogspot.com/

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 18 2011 11:37:25