Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
The hunt for perfection
Page <<first <prev 10 of 10
Dec 27, 2018 17:18:16   #
Bipod
 
karno wrote:
Nice image
I agree that you can take excellent images without the hype of dynamic range, and I will admit that I chase the technology, though we all have different needs for our visions
I really must not have a life posting on this pretentious thread on Christmas Day lol


Speaking of pretentious -- it's too bad the sky never actually looks like that---full of magnitude -5 stars--
at least not on this earth.

And Mt. Shasta is actually a nice-looking mountain, though you'd never know it from that overblown
production.

But it does look a lot like the poster for Close Encounters of the Third Kind (minus the flying saucer).
https://monovisions.com/carleton-watkins-biography-pioneer-19th-century-photographer/

Reply
Dec 27, 2018 18:11:50   #
Bipod
 
651roy wrote:
Amazing that even the word Leica brings out such emotions.
Yes Leica has fostered market branding and there are companies profiting from it.
Plenty of people willing to pay and show off the red dot.
Others of us find that one fits our “hands” and style. Yes RF cameras have many limitations compared to (D)SLR of any format. I sure have not felt the need to buy any brand of camera as a status symbol but as a tool.
Late Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

There were many good film rangefinders, not all of them expensive.

It was possible to manufacture a mechanical camera in modest numbers
with a modest investment of capital and still get the unit-cost down. They
weren't built with robots or a wave-soldering line.

Electronics manufacturing is a different ball game. There are huge economies
of scale --much larger than in mechanical or electro-mechanical manufacturing.
Thie means that mass-market cameras are much less expensive than specialty
cameras (i.e., anything Joe Consumer doesn't fancy).

So photographers end up having to buy mass produced digital cameras, because
those made in smaller numbers (Leica, Hassalblad) are just too expensive.
It's a consequence of the digital technology: extremely large capital investment,
but low unit cost in mass production.

When image-sensor maker Micron bought Zilog's vacant 8-inch CMOS fab
facility in 2006, the price tag for the outdated facility in Nampa, Idaho was
only $5 million--very inexpensive by today's standards.

Anybody here ever have a custom digital camera built for them?
There are still few companies that will build custom film cameras.

Several photographers make their own photo paper (e.g., Beth Moon).
Nobody makes their own inkjet printer -- let alone their own image sensor.

Technology isn't neutral--if you pick a big-cap technology you are going
to have to buy off-the-shelf -- and unless you are rich, you are going
to have to buy a mass-produced product.

And cheap to buy isn't necessarily the same thing as cheap to own.
I've been using the same rangefinder since I was a kid: a German-made
Kodak Retina IIIc. But in the last 20 years alone, I've gone through a
dozen digital cameras. Seems like all digital cameras die after a while
and then aren't worth fixing.

Your digital photography is limited by what Joe Consumer (and his uncle,
Bob) want to buy. If they don't buy it, then the giant big manufacturers don't
make it. You may be able to get it from Leica or Hassalblad, but it will be
very, very expensive. And you are going to have to keep re-buying your
digital camera ever few years (or when the warranty runs out).

Reply
Dec 27, 2018 20:39:28   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
Bipod wrote:
"Infinitely better than the rangefinder of the Leica" is a big claim.

Do you have a lot of experence with rangefinders, Architect1776?

There are many different systems of AF -- contrast detection, phase-detection, hybrid,
ultrasound -- which one were you referring to, or was it to all of them?

Perhaps you can enlighten me--what's wrong with this "prized photo of yesteryear"?
Carleton Watkins (U.S.A., 1829-1916) Cape Horn, Columbia River 1867
Please download and have a good look.

Is this image not sharp enough or contrasty enough for you? (Remember, you are just looking at a digital scan--
the original is even better.)

Please explain how you can improve on this photograph using digital sensors, embedded systems,
firmware, PhotoShop, inkjet printer, smart phones, artificial intelligence, neural networks, etc.

One might get the impression that you have never looked at old old photographs in person.

Do yourself a huge favor, Architect1776, take a look at all these photos:
https://monovisions.com/carleton-watkins-biography-pioneer-19th-century-photographer/
"Infinitely better than the rangefinder of th... (show quote)


That is a beautiful image, and there is quite a story there, as well. Those look like apple boxes, being loaded into (or unloaded from) a small boat on the Columbia river in 1867. I find that pretty interesting. Thanks.

Mike

Reply
 
 
Dec 27, 2018 20:44:58   #
Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan
 
patman1 wrote:
I have been away from the camera updates going on around me for a couple of years. Bigger cameras, smaller cameras, full frame and now mirrorless. Seems like a race to nowhere. I've been using Leicas for over 40 years the only improvements, minimal. They offer the best of what a camera should be. A precision camera, practically indestructable with spot on metering, manual focus and with the best split image finder possible. Never had a mirror, who needs it and lenses that are among the finest in the world, barr none. They provide the means to produce any kind of image your looking too create. They are expensive but a once in a lifetime purchase makes it a small investment. I know many of you will disagree but I can go out out a 50 yr old lenses on my camera and produce outstanding images. If I want to shoot telephoto images I can use Visoflex and use it also for some of the most magnificent macro images you ever saw. If I where to live another 20 years I would still be using it and people would still wonder what camera I use to give me those wonderful images. Ok have fun, test me apart, but you all no it's true.
I have been away from the camera updates going on ... (show quote)


Welcome to UHH patman, and Merry Christmas to you.

The word "Leica" seems to elicit some pretty strong reactions. I like your approach, which, if I understand you, can be summed up as keep it simple, go for the quality lifetime tool, and ignore the marketing hype about the latest and greatest.

Mike

Reply
Dec 27, 2018 20:58:14   #
patman1 Loc: Pataskala, Ohio
 
Thanks Mike, see APOLOGIES.!

Reply
Dec 28, 2018 07:58:12   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
patman1 wrote:
I agree with you on most of what you say here. I had an Alpha for a while great camera but very cumbersome. One of my favorite cameras was my RB67 Pro S. Loved that 6x7 image, extremely sharp but very heavy. I needed it for some product photography which required large scale transparencies for printing. Most people don't no that the 6x7 image was far sharper than 4x5 for photo prints, not contacts, the thick star base effected its quality. I also had 6 4x5 Deardorfs, I used in a photo poster business, with custom split backs to give me an ideal image size for 18x24 blowups. If I wasn't incapacitated these days I would love to go out and shoot landscapes with it. Many years ago I was in the color separation business and had a Brown 30 x 40 horizontal camera with 2 lenses gave me the ability to go from 10% to 1000%. I had thought about mounting it in a truck, 18 foot long, and touring the country producing 30 x 40 landscapes, what a dream, of course never happened. Many years ago a very large format camera was mounted on a train, up in Canada that produced some outstanding images. Thanks enjoyed the conversation.
I agree with you on most of what you say here. I h... (show quote)


My camera of choice for smaller than 4x5 was unquestionably my Horseman 985, which was 6x9 and also able to receive RB67 rollfilm backs. Wider choice of lenses made it more practical for me.

Reply
Dec 28, 2018 11:19:31   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. [Abraham H. Maslow ]. . . . Just sayin'

Reply
 
 
Dec 29, 2018 04:07:23   #
Bipod
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
That is a beautiful image, and there is quite a story there, as well. Those look like apple boxes, being loaded into (or unloaded from) a small boat on the Columbia river in 1867. I find that pretty interesting. Thanks.

Mike

There's a place in Washington State that can only be reached by boat where they grow apples.
It's at the upper end of 55-mile long glacial Lake Chelan. About 80 year-round inhabitants.

I was given a book about it, Stehekin: A Valley in Time, a memoir by Grant McConnel,
first published in 1988. Wonderful book. American used to be resourceful, independent people,
capable of self-sufficinecy. In a very few places, they still are.

Or were--by now Stehekin probaby has satillite Internet, on-line gaming and Russian malware.
Nothing can be left unsullied.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 10
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.