Lightweight Gear

[DanK]

All done with LR. Yes if you push the sharpening you see worms, but it's not a problem in reality. When I'm faced with trying to recover something useful from an image taken at ISO 12800 there is always Pure RAW to fall back on but that's not a common occurrence.

PS, I've tried Capture 1 and the difference (compared to LR) seemed to me to be very small.

Thanks for describing your experience.

I've been comparing the XT-4 to the OM-1. With the kit lens, the two weigh nearly the same amount, despite the difference in sample size. The XT-4 nominally has an advantage of 6 MP, but given that the XT-4 is 3:2 and the OM-1 is 4:3, the effective difference is more like 3 MP for most of the aspect ratios in which I normally print. The more significant differences in my mind is that the XT-4 has about a stop more DR at base ISO (although not even half a stop at other ISOs) and is 14 rather than 12 bit.

[eiler m]

. . .

Then again - mostly all of the truly brilliant shots in the last 100 years are simply perceiving it, seeing it, being there and then timing it - not the gear

Better it could not be said! Thanks :-)

[bhurley]

My lightweight kit uses rangefinder lenses on a small full-frame mirrorless camera. I have the Sony A7iii as well as the original A7s; the A7s is smaller and lighter due to the lack of IBIS, but it's a more primitive camera (less customizable, worse menus, worse EVF); the A7s and the other "s" series cameras are also lower resolution (12 megapixels) as they're designed for low light and video, but 12 megapixels is more than enough for my purposes. I prefer the A7iii, though, as it's a better camera in every way.

I have two sets of rangefinder lenses -- a set of vintage LTM lenses (35mm, 50mm, and 90mm are my usual set; I also have a 100mm and a 105mm) and a set of more modern M-mount lenses (28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 73mm). They are all small and light; the 28mm and 35mm lenses are particularly tiny. Wide-angle rangefinder lenses usually have problems on Sony, Nikon, Canon, and Sigma mirrorless bodies due to the thick sensor stack; they perform best on Leica but I'm not going to buy a Leica body. The only one of my lenses that has problems on my camera is the 28mm, which shows extreme vignetting and corner smearing wide open; these problems largely go away when the lens is stopped down.

[rpcrowe]

IMO - photographers have been chasing resolution to the point of diminishing return. Twenty four MP seems to me as the "sweet spot" for an APSC camera amd is petty darned good even for a full fame.sensor.

I most often use zoom lenses (my Sony 85mm f/1,8 is an exception) and as a result do not need to crop extensively.

Usually, I don't print much larger than 11x14 inches bit, here is a 24x36 inch print that I did from my 24 MP Sony A7iii. This was with the 85mm f/1.8 Sony lens wide open at f/1.8. Cropping of this portrait was minimal.

[DanK]

I agree. Modest up-rezzing is good enough that one can go above the size implied by the native resolution of the printer. And high resolution brings with it greater diffraction.

Years ago I came across an earlier version of this advice on the resolution needed for quality printing:

https://www.smugmughelp.com/en/artic...s-for-printing

If I had unlimited choice, I would probably opt for 22-26 MPX for APS-C and 30 or so for FF. The 26 MPX in the new Canon 6D Mark II seems a bit low for FF, but then again, I very happily printed images from my Canon 5D III for years, and that was only about 22 MPX.

IMO - photographers have been chasing resolution to the point of diminishing return. Twenty four MP seems to me as the "sweet spot" for an APSC camera amd is petty darned goog even for a full fame.sensor.

I most often use zoom lenses (my Sony 85mm f/1,8 is an exception) and as a result do not need to crop extensively.

Usually, I don't print much larger than 11x14 inches bit, here is a 24x36 inch print that I did from my 24 MP Sony A7iii. This was with the 85mm f/1.8 Sony lens wide open at f/1.8. Cropping of this portrait was minimal.

[BobGilbody]

I know just enough about things to confuse myself. Some years ago I was looking at a large painting done by Tom Roberts.
https://digital.nga.gov.au/archive/e...&viewid=2.html
If I stood away from the painting it looked good. If I looked at the painting closely it was not. Just my take on things.
In the 1960's 'super realism' was explained in a magazine I read. I didn't like super realism.
Sfumato [ Mona Lisa ] cangiante, chiaroscuro and unione.
Like I say I confuse myself. Portrait photographers have used a glass plate smeared with petroleum jelly to soften lenses that were too sharp. In BW photographs sharpness is often 'achieved' by contrast.
An artist once told me that the Mona Lisa is an image that represents a facial expression that is not found in nature; hence the enigmatic smile.
Anyway why worry, if it looks good to me I like it.

[Manfred M]

Richard / Dan / Bob - I think the question is all about what "good enough" and that is highly dependent on both the photographer, the audience and the photographic genre as well as the personal style of the photographer. When you are making prints for yourself, you are the only one who can decide what is "good enough". The moment the audience is someone other that the photographer, that has to be taken into account.

There are also "fashions" in photography; as an example the Vaseline on the lens filter is something that was popular decades ago but I have not seen a lot of this technique over the past 25 years. There are far better tools in the digital photographer's toolbox to soften the look. Softness is something that has long been associated with photographing women, especially in the glamour and portraiture genres, regardless of the age of the subject.

A look / finish that works well in glamour is likely not going to work in a industrial photograph. Something very hard and crisp is more likely to work in this genre.

We also have to look at different levels of print making. The SmugMug example Richard has pointed out is the same level of quality we see from many of the mass-market print houses. They are primarily aiming at the retail market and the results they provide are effectively the same that we saw from commercial photo labs in the film days. Minor corrections on exposure and colour balance was as far as things went. These print houses use the inexpensive chromogenic processes that are a modern iteration of the dye-coupled, chemically processed papers that we saw from the likes of Kodak, Fuji, Agfa back at the turn of the century. These are not quality prints, but that has more to do with the prep work than the printing-making process. I have seen some absolutely stunning chromogenic prints.

If anyone has watched people in a gallery (whether they are looking at photographs or paintings) tend to examine works from distance and closeup. While we are taught that we should learn to appreciate art from a distance; the general rule of thumb is we should not get any closer than the diagonal of the image and ideally two to three times the diagonal, that does not stop people from pixel peeping or looking at the way that the paint brush or palette knife worked the paint. I find that viewers hold photographers to a much higher standard than they apply to painters...

[DanK]

True, but there still is the question of what people will notice, even highly critical people. E.g., I have had a number of critical people, including photographers, artists, and a gallery director, closely examine prints that exceeded the native resolution of my printer, in one case by a very large amount, and I have never had a single negative comment about the quality of the print. (The image is another matter.) To put this in perspective, my work is the sort that requires fine detail, e.g., macro work, and I generally print on baryta-style papers to preserve detail. Most were shot with a 22 MPX camera, so after cropping the amount of up-rezzing was fairly modest at that size. The most extreme, which I've posted here before, is a substantial crop from a 12 MPX (Lumix LX-100) grab shot, which was printed 11 x 19:



I almost never print more than 17 x 22 (43 x 56 cm), so I think the impact of having more than 30 MPX or so would be quite trivial, and one would have to net diffraction effects from that.

Richard / Dan / Bob - I think the question is all about what "good enough" and that is highly dependent on both the photographer, the audience and the photographic genre as well as the personal style of the photographer. When you are making prints for yourself, you are the only one who can decide what is "good enough". The moment the audience is someone other that the photographer, that has to be taken into account.

There are also "fashions" in photography; as an example the Vaseline on the lens filter is something that was popular decades ago but I have not seen a lot of this technique over the past 25 years. There are far better tools in the digital photographer's toolbox to soften the look. Softness is something that has long been associated with photographing women, especially in the glamour and portraiture genres, regardless of the age of the subject.

A look / finish that works well in glamour is likely not going to work in a industrial photograph. Something very hard and crisp is more likely to work in this genre.

We also have to look at different levels of print making. The SmugMug example Richard has pointed out is the same level of quality we see from many of the mass-market print houses. They are primarily aiming at the retail market and the results they provide are effectively the same that we saw from commercial photo labs in the film days. Minor corrections on exposure and colour balance was as far as things went. These print houses use the inexpensive chromogenic processes that are a modern iteration of the dye-coupled, chemically processed papers that we saw from the likes of Kodak, Fuji, Agfa back at the turn of the century. These are not quality prints, but that has more to do with the prep work than the printing-making process. I have seen some absolutely stunning chromogenic prints.

If anyone has watched people in a gallery (whether they are looking at photographs or paintings) tend to examine works from distance and closeup. While we are taught that we should learn to appreciate art from a distance; the general rule of thumb is we should not get any closer than the diagonal of the image and ideally two to three times the diagonal, that does not stop people from pixel peeping or looking at the way that the paint brush or palette knife worked the paint. I find that viewers hold photographers to a much higher standard than they apply to painters...

[bhurley]

Even those of us who never print their photos have to think about resolution, now that more people are buying ultra-high resolution monitors for their computers. I printed hundreds of photos in my darkroom days but in the 23 years since I switched to digital I've made exactly two prints. My two full-frame cameras shoot at 12 mpx and 24 mpx, which I assumed would be enough but I'm hearing that eventually people with 6k and 8k monitors might find such images lacking even if they aren't pixel-peepers.

[Manfred M]

Dan - again, I think we continue to agree here, I have done a 33" x 44" from my ancient 36MP D810 and people were surprised that I used a lens that is not know for being the sharpest lens on the market (Nikkor 28 0 300mm). As I have written many times before, if a print maker knows what they are doing, they can do wonders.

I have done a test where I took the same show at the same equivalent focal length with a mFT, APS-C and full-frame camera (using a tripod) and printed them at 17" x 22" size. On their own, they looked good, but side by side the quality difference was obvious when viewed from close up (< the diagonal of the image). The same thing can happen in a gallery where a print from a strong print maker is displayed beside one made by a weaker one and the viewers can and do notice this. I never want my works to not be the sharpest and strongest ones in a show.

Sharp capture (a tripod helps) as does a well focused image (which is why I shoot tethered a lot). Strong post-processing and print prep does to. I agree about a lustre paper like a baryta providing a sharper image as well, although there are images that I find work better on a flat cotton rag.

The problem with the discussion we are having here is that the small digital images we display via the internet never show what we see in a print. The two media are far too different to make for a fair comparison between we see on our computer screens and what a print looks like.

[Manfred M]

Even those of us who never print their photos have to think about resolution, now that more people are buying ultra-high resolution monitors for their computers. I printed hundreds of photos in my darkroom days but in the 23 years since I switched to digital I've made exactly two prints. My two full-frame cameras shoot at 12 mpx and 24 mpx, which I assumed would be enough but I'm hearing that eventually people with 6k and 8k monitors might find such images lacking even if they aren't pixel-peepers.

Brad - the whole question of resolution is quite overblown in my view because I find the range of colours (gamut), the accuracy of those colours and the contrast level far more important than resolution of a computer screen.

I am working on a 4K Adobe RGB compliant screen right now and at my normal working distance, I cannot see the individual pixels. I suspect a younger person with better eyesight might just be able to. The human visual system can resolve to somewhere between 30 arc-seconds (1/2 arc-minute) and 1 arc-minute, depending on which source one believes. My understanding is that the Apple Retina displays were designed around the 30 arc-second resolution, so 6K and 8K is really being developed for larger displays to be viewed at higher distances.

[DanK]

I agree--with A/B comparisons and close inspection one can see the difference, up to the native resolution of the printer. However, other aspects of the image often predominate. In the image I posted, what people notice is the shapes, colors and textures, not so much extremely fine detail.

[BobGilbody]

I am sure all this knowledgeable chit chat is correct but I am of the opinion that the big difference arises when money enters the chit chat.
Galleries exist to make money.
I don't take kindly being told what to like and what is inferior.
I watched 'fake or fortune' and found it pompous bs.
"We need to prove the provenance." I don't give a toss. The thing is what it is. I either like it or I don't.
I take photos for fun. The day I start to concern myself with 'fashion', and galleries, is the day I'll find another hobby.
This is just my take on things. I am happy to learn more but please don't try bs'ing me, I'm too long in the tooth and too grumpy. :-)

[Manfred M]

I am sure all this knowledgeable chit chat is correct but I am of the opinion that the big difference arises when money enters the chit chat.
Galleries exist to make money.
I don't take kindly being told what to like and what is inferior.
I watched 'fake or fortune' and found it pompous bs.
"We need to prove the provenance." I don't give a toss. The thing is what it is. I either like it or I don't.
I take photos for fun. The day I start to concern myself with 'fashion', and galleries, is the day I'll find another hobby.
This is just my take on things. I am happy to learn more but please don't try bs'ing me, I'm too long in the tooth and too grumpy. :-)

This is why I emphasized that it is import to look at who you are photographing for. As a hobbyist, you are primarily shooting for yourself. The moment you start sharing your work, your audience has expanded and you can expect comments from the viewers.

If you are photography club member or enter other competitions, you have to get a positive reaction from the judges (whether you agree with them or not) in order to do well. If you are like Dan, Donald or me and your images are on display in galleries, you have to please the viewers and potential purchasers, whether you agree with their tastes or not.

Provenance becomes a factor in higher end artwork (photography and otherwise) where people want to be assured that they have purchased an original rather than a fake. Like or dislike of the work has little to do with it; if you buy a work from a known artist you want to be assured that the work is by them and not a forgery.

[BobGilbody]

Vincent couldn't do well even with his brother trying to help him out. What does it mean "to do well" ? I guess it means sell prints. That is where the pro and the amateur part ways in their views about images.
I find higher end artwork a con job of the first order. It's a way of removing risk due to currency fluctuations.
One of my photographs that means a lot to me is this:
Untitled by Bob Gilbody, on Flickr
It shows my gt uncle Wilf with two of his brothers, Mat and Jack. Wilf is on the right.
Wilf lived with his elder brother Harry when I knew him. Harry was very religious.
Wilf was shell shocked on the Somme as a teenager. He was reported missing presumed dead. His mother died of a broken heart.
I used to sit and listen to Wilf. He said very little. However he did tell me how he was returned to the living by doctors at a hospital in Shrewsbury. His mother was dead by then.
Anyway what I remember most about Wilf was that he was the only human being I've met that was content. He still shook a lot but could ride a bike.
Just a bit of background info on why I have a total disregard for money.

[William W]

...I am happy to learn more but please don't try bs'ing me, I'm too long in the tooth and too grumpy. :-)

errr... is that a general comment on society - or is it specific comment to one particular comment or the general conversation here?

WW

[BobGilbody]

Good question William. Not sure, guess it's a comment about me. Then again maybe I'm just a sarcastic old fart. See you go back to the post prior to my last one and that confuses me.
"Vincent couldn't do well even with his brother trying to help him out. What does it mean "to do well" ? I guess it means sell prints. That is where the pro and the amateur part ways in their views about images.
I find higher end artwork a con job of the first order. It's a way of removing risk due to currency fluctuations."
What do you rekon to that William?

[William W]

I went back to the post prior to your last simply because that's where I was up to reading this conversation: it wasn't meant to confuse you.

To respond to your answer to my question, I reckon:

1. of the two options, you're probably more a sarcastic old fart than it was a comment about you. (no offense, simply answering the question).

2. (apropos Post #35) "Vincent couldn't do well even with his brother trying to help him out. What does it mean "to do well" ? I guess it means sell prints. That is where the pro and the amateur part ways in their views about images.
I find higher end artwork a con job of the first order. It's a way of removing risk due to currency fluctuations."

I think that's a generalization based upon one interpretation/definition of the division between Amateur Professional. I think it is silly to adapt a one size fits all: I've been fortunate to work with many "professionals" in a diverse range of The Arts, not all are driven by money, some are: and some are philanthropic with what they reap, some are real bastards.

Anyway that above is large digression from the topic, which already has wandered - the point of my question (Post #36) was to flesh out if you were responding to a particular comment here and calling it out as "bs" - I couldn't see any "bs" amongst the "knowledgeable chit chat" - and I thought I might have missed it.

So mine was a simply question, nothing more, nothing less.

WW

[Manfred M]

Bob - in my opinion most high end fine art is BS. So called experts (high end gallery owners, curators and professors at fine arts departments at universities) make pronouncements and everyone who is "in the know" follows those trends in an attempt to be successful. We see the same thing in the fashion industry, the car industry, building design, etc. These pronouncements are opinions and not facts.

Mere mortals like you and me don't count.

[William W]

OK... seems we continue this path, in which case:

My observations are that this is a topic where there are more are polar opinions, than a middle ground typical Bell Shaped Curve.

I think one's position is largely and primarily based on one's intrinsic thinking, if you like, how each of our brains is wired; then, secondarily, one's nurture, especially schooling and the path of (instructional) education.

This topic's polar opinions could be simplistically headed: "Artist" / "Craftsman", for example. (Or perhaps “Artiste” used in its form of sarcastic taint).

Similar headings of polar opinions, on other topics with little middle ground, could be: Scientist / Theologian; Architect / Engineer; Neurologist / Psychologist; Journalist/Poet.

I think neither position is right nor wrong, further I think that there is scope for education at both extremes.

A personal experience which bears on this topic is: I grew up with sarcasm and idiomatic speech as the predominate forms of wit – truly brilliant wordsmithary, which had a knife’s edge and conveyed most colourful and beautiful imagery. I still love it, reading it and better, listening to it.

On the other hand, when working in San Francisco, I quickly learned that such quick wit was not only unappreciated (i.e. not understood), moreover was received with affront, interpreted as a robust personal attack and a precursor to a physical attack which required defence, or, a pre-emptive strike.

Taking time to attempt to understand and learn about Arnold, Dunne and the like, the hard-nosed meat and potatoes Reportage Journalist just might see beauty in their Poetry – maybe not, yet probably it would be worth the attempt for that hard nose Bloke or Girl to become better educated on the topic of Metaphysical Poetry, there just might be spin-offs for them, personally and also in their job.

The “value” of ‘high end art’, ‘(clothing) fashion’, ‘architectural design’ etc, may be ‘overpriced’ in monetary terms and there seems validity in an argument that keeping the monetary value ‘up’ is self serving for those who have ‘invested’.

On the other hand, I witnessed several hard core Mates all of whom had ‘engineering brains’ and all in professions of ‘black and white outcomes’, who were moved, overcome with emotion, after viewing Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci's Last Supper. Comments such as, “priceless”, from an extremely successful Bookmaker and, “speechless”, from a (then) QC, made an imprint on me.

It seems ironic (in the context of this conversation) that Leonardo was a Polymath: active in Engineering, Science, Theology, Architecture, . . . and more.

On a lighter note – Miranda Priestly’s Monologue has an humorous and somewhat sarcastic approach to sending the message of both her polar point of view with the flavour of encouraging education as a precursor to understanding:

“ ‘This stuff’? Oh, okay. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select out, oh, I don’t know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you’re trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don’t know is that that sweater is not just blue, it’s not turquoise, it’s not lapis, it’s actually cerulean. You’re also blindly unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent, wasn’t it, who showed cerulean military jackets? And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic 'casual corner' where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it’s sort of comical how you think that you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you’re wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of ‘stuff’.”

REF: “The Devil Wears Prada”, Theatrical Movie, Twentieth Century Fox, (United States of America) 2006

WW