[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1317364179' post='11984']
Well my own quite mediocre and predictable fee-for-service work would be quite embarassed to be described as being in the same solar system with the accomplishments of the F64 contributors in the early 20th century. But it is at least fair to say that the first priority most people have for their cameras is not "how few things can this camera focus on at once?"?
[/quote]
Sorry for my bad English.
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not comparing you or mine work to F 64 group.
My point is that is good to look at masters’ work and history, because those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1317365930' post='11987']
Sorry for my bad English.
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not comparing you or mine work to F 64 group.
My point is that is good to look at masters’ work and history, because those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
[/quote]
A bit silly to only look at a certain group and then make that into how things are, though. Don't see anyway why Ansel Adams would be special, there are many photographers that are much more important or better... just not in the USA.
There are very good photographers that at times make use of shallow DOF, and there are very good photographers that always use s huge DOF. There are very good photographers that use 135 format, there are very good photographers that use large formats.
My point is and was, the smaller the sensor, the more restricted one id in creative possibilities. Just that.
I have no admiration for Ansel Adams, his work does nothing to me.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1317373496' post='11991']
I have no admiration for Ansel Adams, his work does nothing to me.
[/quote]
Ansel Adams wouldnt probably be regarded a great photographer nowadays as his subjects have been photographed by trillions of other, quite often in better light and with a better composition. However, he still rules as a print master. You will struggle to find equally well executed B/W prints with comparable presence and tonal graduation now adadays. Considering that Ansel lived in an analogue world where B/W printing required spending days in darkrooms and adjusting the print with paper masks without being able to see the end result, his achievments are truly impressive. Whther you like B/W landscpae shots or not is a totally different matter, of course. Taste is free of critizism.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1317379151' post='11993']
Ansel Adams wouldnt probably be regarded a great photographer nowadays as his subjects have been photographed by trillions of other, quite often in better light and with a better composition. However, he still rules as a print master. You will struggle to find equally well executed B/W prints with comparable presence and tonal graduation now adadays. Considering that Ansel lived in an analogue world where B/W printing required spending days in darkrooms and adjusting the print with paper masks without being able to see the end result, his achievments are truly impressive. Whther you like B/W landscpae shots or not is a totally different matter, of course. Taste is free of critizism.
[/quote]
Still his subjects/composition (and deep DOF that was praised above) does very little to me.
Other photographers from his period I find much more inspiring and artistic, whether they made as good a prints or not does not really come into the equation for me.
Another point worth to make in this aspect is that a shallow DOF was not really in the tool box many decades ago. Lenses were not yet of a quality that one had the freedom we have now without serious back lashes from all kinds of aberrations. Above it is suggested that good/great photographers put as much of a scene/image as possible in focus. That is of course not true. Some, do, others don't.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1317379763' post='11995']
Still his subjects/composition (and deep DOF that was praised above) does very little to me.
Other photographers from his period I find much more inspiring and artistic, whether they made as good a prints or not does not really come into the equation for me.
Another point worth to make in this aspect is that a shallow DOF was not really in the tool box many decades ago. Lenses were not yet of a quality that one had the freedom we have now without serious back lashes from all kinds of aberrations. Above it is suggested that good/great photographers put as much of a scene/image as possible in focus. That is of course not true. Some, do, others don't.
[/quote]
Well I should mostly disagree with jenben and brightcolor.
Jenbenn – No, the prints is not magical. Most of the Ansel Adams’s prints are made by assistants, but sketches for developing are made AA.
Brightcolour – it is not the DOF that makes some images great. Painters has been having DOF tool for ages.
To all – print techniques, cameras, lenses DOF and light are tools. Better tools in mine of yours opinions doesn’t mean better results.
E.g – Now we have incredible pens but nobody can write better than Shakespeare.
The paint technology reaches the level that we can even not imagine. But still people likes small and dull of colors picture of Mona Liza.
Next time when you stop to look at one image ask yourself what is the reason why you stop looking at this image. Is it, the size, enorm details, DOF, light, post processing, print technique.
Or is something aesthetical, like composition, lines, forms, shapes, patterns, colour combinations etc. I canot tell all of them since I consider myself as beginer amateur photographer.
Back to the main subject. new small cammeras
I don’t consider the limited DOF as limitation.
I don’t consider that 10MP are not not enough.
I don’t consider the EVF as limitations. Funny enough the most of people who complains about EVF are photo stitch-ers or HDR-ers. I wonder what they are doing with OVF.
