pizzaman
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by pizzaman
-
-
For anyone who was following this or stumbles upon this trying to figure out their own situation with this I ended up selling of all my Fuji stuff and grabbing an A7rII with the techart 3 adapter for my contax lenses, though I'll eventually pick up that 55mm 1.8 as well. I would have kept the Fuji if money were no thing (but it is), since the Sony is a sort of different animal, but not all that different.
In the end am not at all bummed about this, if anything I waited too long.
There are some things to miss about the Fuji, but none of them really practical things. Mostly the form factor of the camera, which doesn't really have real world implications that I've found. Unless you're interested in it as a shoulder accessory.
From IQ to IBIS to getting full frame back to the responsiveness/ AF of the Sony - this is noticeably better across the board in challenging conditions in my opinion.
Cheers.
-
peterh, all photographers have different ethics levels. Some strive to produce accuracy, but sadly most don't.
I have only ever used two focal lengths for my journalism images, 35mm and 50mm (full frame equivalent).
I do everything I can not to blur the background, because the background is part of the scene.
I have been fortunate enough to work with many photographers, some of whom are household names, who have always done the same. 40 years ago, when I started, that was how the majority of photographers worked. Super long lenses and lenses with huge apertures didn't really exist then, and if they did they were not regarded as usable in daily reporting. Blurring backgrounds is a relatively recent trend and innovation, which you will see if you look back at photos of even 20 or 30 years ago.
Choice of ISO on film is fixed. You cannot adjust curves on a negative. You cannot compare film ISO with adjusting curves in Photoshop.
Modern camera JPEGs are already light years ahead of film. We now have advantages that we would never have dreamed of or imagined even 20 years ago, and yet we coped remarkably well with the comparatively primitive equipment we had, so much so that most modern photographers read books and look at photos in order to try to become more like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Don McCullin, etc... so if they want to do that, why do they then continue to use Photoshop?
Photoshop is not necessary. I don't use it. I don't even have it on my computer, because I took the trouble to learn how to take photographs that do not need Photoshop. If there's something in my image that is unsightly I leave it there... if the image is not quite level, I leave it like that... that's how the photo was taken, and many other photographers of my generation do the same.... though very few of us have converted to digital. Most of the great photographers that we admire, who are still alive, still use film.
It may be hard to believe, but it is actually easier to learn how to take a great photograph that doesn't need manipulation, than it is to learn how to use Photoshop, especially with modern digital cameras, that let you adjust the settings for contrast, colour, sharpness, etc., in the camera.
Modern digital photographers have everything that the real pioneers of photography would have given their right arm for, and yet they still want more and more.... but strangely enough, even with all the modern advantages, very few seem capable of producing photographs as good as those produced by the great names of the past, who used film and just one or two short lenses.
We now use cameras that are effectively computers, we have amazing advantages over photographers of 20, 30 and more years ago. These advantages should, theoretically, lessen the desire to "cheat", but instead, for some perverse reason, it's encouraging people to seek more innovative ways to cheat... an interesting analogy would be to compare it with drug use in sport over the last 40 years.
Photography - Photo Graphy - means "drawing with light" - Photshop means drawing with a computer. Photoshop is NOT photography.
Photographers have different purposes depending on the line of their work or the nature of their assignment.
It is not 'sad' when a photographer doesn't strive to tell the truth if that is not their job. Photographs are not truth, never have been and never will be.
Reportage/photojournalism/whatever you want to call it is as much a practice of aesthetic training as commercial portraiture. 35 mm lenses on a Leica, Tri X and dodging and burning for drama were as much a visual style as a 3 light studio portrait with a Hasselblad. The methods of finishing a photograph are different now, but discounting that just reeks of grumpy old person resistant to change. My example of blurring a background was just one in a number of possible ways to manipulate the scene. There is no recreating it. A 35mm lens distorts an image. There is nothing that recreates the reality of a situation. A photograph subjectively cuts out a certain part of a real scene and therefore it already lies by omission. It often strips of context, which is most important.
See this piece - by a very noted photojournalist - which I believe gets at the heart of some of these issues rather poignantly.
No one is disputing the value of making a good image in camera - and I would say that most times I see examples of manipulate photojournalism it doesn't actually make the photo any better. The classic examples, like the removal of the fence in the Kent State protest are just silly aesthetic elements that have nothing to do with the relevant content of the picture (which is why it is any good).
I'd also disagree that modern photographers are not capable of making images like the greats of the past. A lot of photojournalists still use the very same lens set up (not that this means anything) and make very strong work. If you can't recognize this I would say you're either romanticizing the past or you're not looking at the work that is being produced today. There are so many good documentary photographers out there risking life, limb and stability and yea, making images that are just at strong as those of the past - maybe even more so.
Reuters and now World Press are trying to make rules around something that is ultimately a challenge to do. I understand and even sort of admire the motivation, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation in that news photographs have always been manipulated, but it in my opinion it has never really made them any better. Most tone manipulation is in pretty shit taste and heavy handed anyways. A lot of photojournalists don't know the first thing about aesthetic and narrative restraint and actively try to overly dramatize whatever it is they photograph.
-
As someone who still takes photojournalism assignments on occasion (but not from Reuters) I can say that this is, well, basically being lambasted as one of the most backward initiatives (aside from eroding pay and increasingly awful contracts) in news photography this year. Reuters is trying to get itself closer to objectivity in a world where that is simply not possible. 20 years ago your film choice manipulated the scene, now your raw curves do so. Or, now your curves layer on your jpeg does. Or now your in camera processing does the work. Whatever. Ridiculous.
No photograph is truth. If you think that you're not already manipulating things by blurring out a background with a telephoto lens instead of in photoshop, well then you're already drawing totally arbitrary lines in the sand. Sure, that's the rule but the only reason it stands is because of tradition.
-
A $3-4k body would revolutionize the medium format world, and might be hard to do. The only time medium format digital has been priced that low is the first generation Pentax 645D AFTER the new 645z was out. That was a special situation for two reasons. First, it was distinctly inferior to the new camera (and doesn't have interchangeable backs, so no upgrades were possible). Second, it is inferior in image quality to a few high-end full-frame bodies - not only does it have the lowest image quality of any presently sold medium format camera, it is inferior to a D810 or an A7rII by most measures, even (arguably) at base ISO.
If Fuji could get a body out even at $5k, using the current (or a new-generation) Sony CMOS, it would be a huge step. Pentax is at $7k for the 645z body with the Sony 50 mp sensor, and Phase One and Hasselblad are selling (presumably very few) backs in the $25k range with the same sensor! A mirrorless body should be cheaper than an oversized SLR, and, due to the different shape (medium format SLRs are nearly cubical to accomodate the mirror), there's room for a huge rear display on a "Texas Leica" - it won't cost Fuji anything, either - just use an off the shelf phone display, and it'll be close to a 4x5 ground glass!
A small, light (by medium format standards - I'd expect the weight of a smallish fullframe DSLR) mirrorless camera with a 50-70 mp CMOS sensor with XTrans, either a hybrid finder or a top-end EVF coupled with a 4"+ display cribbed from a cell phone and, most importantly, a line of Fujinon lenses made for the sensor format would not only intrigue many photographers who had been using traditional medium format, but also users of fullframe DSLRs and even 4x5 field cameras (70 mp XTrans will beat any scan from 4x5). PLEASE make tilt/shift lenses for this camera (or even include SENSOR tilt - it's not impossible!)
I'd love to see a mf Fuji / Sony - whatever. Some sort of digital mamiya 7 ish thing would be perfect for me.
But as someone who has used plenty of modern cameras depending on where and what job I'm working and owns an admittedly showing its age 645D - besides ISO and in some instances dynamic range the 645D sensor still beats the D810 and Canon 5DS in most practical terms. It is sharper with more detail and holds up in print at bigger sizes better when used as a normal MF camera is used. It shows it weak spots in reportage/low light but for studio, landscape and portrait work I'd take the 645D over any 35mm sensor out today. The sensor size makes a noticeable difference.
-
-
If you can't see these things in other people's photos, how can you possibly see things that you choose to photograph?
Oftentimes it's for one of three reasons: 1: This is the internet, images are small, many and if not immediately captivating we don't waste our time. Maybe in a gallery we would see this.
2: Things that make a picture to you just do not speak to other viewers. We don't care and/or it is not that interesting as a viewer.
3: It is not photographed effectively. If you care so much about this, how can you better make a viewer care? Seems a better photograph is in order, or maybe it is not something that lends itself to this particular medium so well. I often find that photographers would probably be better off writing.
-
Your quote: "Without curiosity and questioning, there cannot be good photos."
Okay - true - but if the photos do not inspire curiosity and questioning in the viewers then it is possible that the photographs fail in their intended function. If people are getting drawn to cliches (homeless person) - this isn't the viewer's fault. This is the photographer's fault for presenting such easy bait for criticism.
I don't see any of these images as particularly controversial. To me it looks like you are trying to inject controversy into some images that do not read that way. The kids in the image of the man with the stick, they all look like they are playing. Maybe that's not the case but that's how you photographed it and because of that it doesn't read as controversial. I see one or maybe two images that strike me as exploitative (the picture of the obese woman - it's basically a one-liner - it says 'oh hey look an overweight woman) or a little bit calloused (as many street photographs/photographers can be), and the rest as pretty normal b/w street photography that, for the most part, doesn't grab me because it is derivative of images I have seen done better many times. But none of that should matter, if you love to shoot, then do it. I like to shoot street photography too, so I'm not knocking it, but at some point though you may face the fact that your work isn't contributing to an advance in the cultural dialogue.
You want to call out social issues through imagery? You need to put in a lot of time getting to know people and into really understanding their story and the cultural and social implications of their story. You can't just look at something on the street and snap a picture and think you are really doing much to talk about social ills.
Personally, I don't think these types of images have advanced in any significant way since the 60s/70s. Actually, to be cliche, I don't think it has really advanced since Robert Frank's The Americans. Winogrand was an obsessive snapper with a great eye and wit but his images were more insight into his own soul than into the cultural dialogue of the time. The color street photographers of the 80's/90's advanced the dialogue more (Alex Webb, Costa Manos), but even that work at times is over calculated and can leave a viewer marveling at compositional aspects and forgetting the humanity in the photograph.
-
Thanks for posting your experience.
Similar shoes over here, wanting to downsize and get rid of the Nikon kit but came to the conclusion that if you are a working editorial/wedding photog it's not a good idea - and the repair center experience is a new addition to that list. There are people on the forum that will argue that but I think there's a variety of reasons you should hang on to your Canon stuff for the time being, as I am my Nikon, as much as I would rather use something else sometimes.
-
Probably obvious but Robert Adams (also an amazing photographer) and Susan Sontag are some of the best writers on photography from the past 50 years. Anything either of them have written is probably worth your time.
They talk about photography from a more philosophical point of view - its' place and function in society - motivations for making different kinds of work.
For me, it is one of the best ways to advance how you think as a photographer.
There are a ton of good photo books out there, but I think you'd be doing them an injustice by looking at them in ebook form, if they are even available in that way.
-
That's pretty awful.
But is it that big an issue - why not just use the RAW? I'd be fine if Fuji tossed out their JPG processing altogether, or every camera manufacturer for that reason. With LR RAW is no more inconvenient than jpg these days no?
-
-
-
Another post without proper testing and knowledge by peterh. Raise your hand if you're not surprised...
MF works pretty well with the focus clutch lenses and the zooms. I wouldn't try it on the 35 1.4 and longer as the focal length+aperture combo provides a thin DOF, so hard to achieve fast manual focus. I use manual focus with 16/23 for dancing and it's quite easy. The EVF with focus peaking is an enormous help in these situations.
That being said, I use autofocus even in very low light with 16-55 and 35 and since firmware 4.0, the 35 is really really quick to focus, even in very low light.
How low light are we talking abjurina? The 35 did well at 6400, 1.4, 1/60 which is pretty much the maximum I needed thus far.
It's pretty silly to resort to personal attacks when talking about cameras. And where did I say I have never used the tools described? Because I have, and those are my conclusions. Just because I don't own a tool doesn't mean I have no experience with it.
And what if you want to shoot low light with a 35 or 56mm lens at 1.4 or 1.2? I still think you'd have better luck using a 50/85 and the AF on a dSLR. That's my experience. You can choose to think whatever you want but when someone is paying you upwards of 3-5 grand for pics of this day why would you chance it? The poster asked, and I gave my opinion.
-
Anybody out there try using manual focus for weddings? Particularly receptions? I'm trying to find a better way to achieve better focus when the lights go really low. Even with a flash, I'm not getting focus-assist with the fuji, so I'm wondering if anyone else has tried manual focusing at all and in particular, using perhaps a 3rd party lens to do it? Anyone?
This is why I don't think the Fuji's are the best tools for these situations. MF can work if you're very well practiced at it, but I don't think it's very efficient with the EVF. The real solution here is to take your losses if you won't fathom another tool, or use a canon/nikon and get more keepers. That's just how it is at the moment.
-
-
Whoa! This isn't DPReview.
The OP's needs are relatively specialist and not easily met, by Fuji or any other mirrorless system, IIRC. No camera system is perfect, and no camera system is ideal for everyone, and what the OP describes is beyond Fuji's flash system as it stands. We should be pleading with Fuji to make a flash system that allows people like the OP to stay in the Fuji fold than patronise people who hit the limits of the system.
IMO the worst thing a company can do is listen to its fanboys. It's even worse than listening to the detractors, because at least the detractors give you an indication of what might not be that company's finest hour. The OP raised some valid points about AF (that a few of us have addressed if not entirely resolved) and about flash (which no one can fully address). It's that kind of commentary (and the rational responses) that Fuji should be noting.
I agree. If I were a company I would want to know what is making my users consider not using my equipment anymore at least as much as I would want to know what they love about it.
Also, I never said my work was good. If you asked me, I'd say I make pretty crap pictures in general. Somehow it is my job though, and I love it and want to keep doing it therefore I am always looking for ways to do it better. Tools come into this equation only when I can find tools that get out of my way more easily. Seeing as the Fuji tends to just 'get in the way' in real life applications - for me at least - (despite it's smaller size) I was looking for some input from other users.
-
-
It's a way to save an image that is otherwise totally screwed by unintended high contrast. Works well in both color and B&W. Unfortunately, the fad of making this effect into particular photographer's branded "look" isn't over yet.
Yea, or it's a suitable implementation of how a photographer sees the world and wants to represent it with their work and just not to everyone's tastes.
To be honest, when people talk about fads right now I feel like that is a casual way to dismiss the work they don't like.
Right now, photographically, it's hard to say there are any dominant fads unless you are only looking at one type of photography consistently. So much good (and crap) photography is out there right now and succeeding, and it's doing so looking any number of different ways. There are so many outlets, it depends what you're into, but everything is arguably in style these days. I even see schmaltzy 80's style photography finding it's place in the right magazines.
Your way doesn't make it the right way. There aren't any actual 'rules' and if you think there are I can guarantee you'll find a strong photograph somewhere that breaks them.
-
I will agree with this.
Set your camera to back button autofocus. It is the way I am used to working with all cameras and you can make the fujis work the same way.
I never have accuracy problems with my x pro 1.
Speed on the other hand isn't the best, but as long as you know how responsive it is and don't try to force it in the wrong situations, it is a great, and accurate camera.
-
It depends on the style of photographer.
There is no rule that says your tones must reach both ends of the spectrum.
Have you ever looked at the work of James Nachtwey? He went through a phase where much of his work was toned and printed in a very grey and very flat way - this isn't to say that there were never full blacks or white, but they were kept to a minimum. His website is super outdated but much of his agent orange work and XDRTB work, for example I would put in this category. I spent a summer internship printing for him and I remember how much focus we had to have on getting most of the image to be midtones.
New piezography printing has helped digital b/w printing to where there can now be subtlety and detail in darker tones than before - I think this is a good thing, but some people like their images contrasty and punchy and that's cool too.
-
Answer in bold.
I gave you my reason/evidence. You just don't like it. That's okay.
-
Look, I'm not going to bash you for your opinion, but it is confusing to me while somebody would seek out a forum post dedicated to shooting wedding photography with Fuji gear only to tell people that Fuji cameras are incapable of shooting weddings. Particularly when it's been proven all over the world that this has and is being done.
Good point.
I was just going through the forums and looking at/reading about how other people use their tools and had a strong enough opinion on said topic to say something. Bad idea I guess and I apologize if I rubbed some the wrong way.
But to clarify, I never said they were incapable, just not the best tool, not to me at least, which obviously is just one stupid opinion in a vast world of image makers.
But I'd still like to see a wedding shot with a Fuji or a demonstration of how Fuji's are as responsive for reportage work as SLR's. I haven't seen it yet. I guess this is a matter of taste when it comes to the work being done though.
-
Looks great but too wide.
Having used Leica digital in the past, the Fuji cameras work better in general in my opinion. They don't have the build quality but everything else about the Fuji is close enough to or better than the Leica. I don't think any of the Leica offerings are a reasonable value and they continue to not be.
If given the choice and all other factors were equal I'd still take a Fuji body, or maybe I'd take this Q and sell it for a nice vacation that I would just bring the Fuji on.
-
That's total bollocks.
Just because you obviously lack the knowledge to properly use a Fuji at weddings doesn't mean it's a total failure as a tool.
I suppose you're talking about the wedding dance, where the dance floor is usually dimly lit and the couple moves quite fast. This is where I, personally, used to use the 16/23/35 primes (now adding the 90). Manual focus with the wides, AF with the 35/90. Works a treat, believe it or not.
I've shot weddings with Fuji, usually with another shooter. When the X-T1 failed due to too low light, the 6D or 5D III failed, too.
If you, as a photographer, know your tools and are prepared for the situations and know how to best use your tools in different situations, then you don't miss anything.
If people complain about the Fujis, it's usually due to their own inability. When you're used to DSLRs and start trying to use the Fujis as a DSLR, the whole attempt is destined for failure. It's not a DSLR. Using another system requires time and effort to get the most out of it. But thats often forgotten.
Besides: hiring a photographer (or firing in your theoretical case) for his/her gear is superficial nonsense. You hire a photographer for the style, the portfolio and maybe the approach but not for the gear. That's like saying to the catering team: which brand of pots do you use?
Yea, but when you hire someone based on their style and then they show up with equipment that is not best suited for that style, I would question it when it is such an important day. No one ever said it is a total failure of a tool. It's just not the optimal tool for certain types of wedding photography. Big difference between total failure. You can relax.
To say people complain about the Fuji's being based on their own inability is to say that they have no shortcomings, which is nonsense. Maybe for you they don't, but I would prefer to use stuff that just works in the most direct way possible. Unfortunately, Fuji doesn't hit that mark in many situations as well the traditional brands. I can't wait til this changes. And yes, some people may not get on with them correctly and of course they are not and should not be used like an SLR. Which is one reason that I don't think they are the best for a photojournalist type wedding, because I still think the SLR is the best tool for that.
I can agree to disagree, but I don't see how the Fuji is as responsive all around as a Nikon/Canon. It just isn't. AF in general, low light AF, lens options, DOF choices, file sizes, buffer write times and other instances that are real world issues on wedding day the Fujis fall short in. Sure you can learn to work around it, but that's not optimal when there is a better (less sexy and heavier I know) tool for the job.
And until that happens, it's not best for certain types of weddings, in my opinion. Sure you can shoot all the premeditated stuff with them but it is the unexpected that is tougher to get and more often missed. Unless you are an absolute wizard - I don't understand why you would begin with a handicap on such a day.
I love the Fujis and they are better for some types of work, but none of the weddings I've seen have convinced me they are better for weddings. I see a lot of good imagery of expected scenarios and choreographed moments. I don't see much beyond that. As a client, I would hope for more. But I also have the curse of being a photographer hiring one. Good thing I hired my friends I guess.
Leica vs Fuji vs Sony
in Fuji X-Pro 1 / Fuji X-Pro 2 / Fuji X-Pro 3
Posted · Edited by pizzaman
I've used all of them (Leica film, digital, Fuji X pro, Sony A7RII) and I've got to tell you after over a year with the Sony the 'computerness' of it has melted away and it actually feels like a better and simpler camera than the X pro ever felt to me - and professionally are in a similar situation as you. I use it mostly with Contax G lenses and the techart adapter that actually improves on the AF that the Contax G system had, though it is not flaw free it's mostly quite solid, especially with the 45 and 90, which I use most. Combine that with the superior sensor, that makes it's difference known in all of the pictures I've made that couldn't have been made with the X pro - well, I feel like the Sony design gets a bad rap because it doesn't match the nostalgia of old designs - but in real life use - for me - it actually is quite user friendly over time, has become quite intuitive to where it will not disrupt the flow of any shoots, and the results it gives are just hard to argue with.
The Leicas are great but yea, the cost / quality equation - no practical justification these days, and the Sony still wins on IQ/resolution anyways.