AG Schnozz wrote:
> How do you define or describe "a look"?
That way lies madness and/or professional art criticism.
> When is a camera capable of achieving .... but there is something else going
> on too. DOF? Possible. Response curves and dynamic range?
> Again, possible.\
>
I believe that all the links in the image creation chain leave their
marks, some obvious, some subtle. And I suspect it is impossible to
entirely separate out the individual contributions, especially in
something like the A1, where lens. sensor and internal processing are
inseparable. Unlike film days, we can't try different lenses, films and
processing components and times. Certain combinations will just be
pleasing to certain people. We've seen this in the past when particular
lenses that have become classics turn out to have disappointing test
results on high contrast 2D test targets.
I think in the end, it's inexplicable. That's one reason I spend time
looking at the sample shots web reviewer are so wondderfully kind to
provide. sometimes, I'll get excited by a camera, but when I browse
through the images, it just doesn't work for me.
The whole is not only more than the sum of it's parts, it's different
than you might expect, too.
> Here are examples:
>
> http://image66media.com/Gallery/GC01/gc2004_10
> http://image66media.com/Gallery/GC01/gc2004_06
> http://image66media.com/Gallery/GC01/gc2004_11
> http://image66media.com/Gallery/IsleRoyale01/PICT2456163
> http://www.image66media.com/articles.html
>
I really think it's awfully subjective. To be fair about the limitations
here, web images just aren't the same as prints, so my experience of
these image is different than yours.
I don't know what this special look is, but either the web versions
don't have it or I don't get excited by it. The GC images are lovely,
but generally don't have enough textural detail, or local contrast, or
something - back to the how do you... question - for my taste. Of
course, you already know that about me, as I have before posted
different version of one of these and a couple of others.
Although I liked many of your Isle Royale images, some a great deal,
this one is one I just skipped over without really noticing it.
Perfectly pleasant, but whatever that special IT is that you see in it,
I am blind to.
Not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at in the last link, the text
and/or the image?
Images 3 -5 of your recently posted Random Scans reached out, grabbed
me, tossed me on the floor and left me wishing I smoked , so I could
have a leisurely cigarette while I lie there in the afterglow. None of
those above did that to me. Guess I'm immune to this particular magic. I
freely admit it is as much or more likely to be a lack in me as that the
magic isn't there.
> When shot side-by-side with my E-1 for landscape work, the A1
> achieves a different image. Just as 35mm gives you a different look
> than 4x5. The E-1 is a cross between 35mm and 645, whereas the
> A1--even with the smaller sensor gives a look more like a 6x7 or 4x5.
>
In answer to you above question "How do you define or describe "a look?"
Since I have never seriously shot MF and never shot LF except in an
inapplicable, highly specialized use, none of the description based on
that experience means a thing to me.
The LF 'look' that has deeply impressed me has been dependent on large
size prints with exceptional detail - and you just can't get that on the
web. There are a few glorious color prints of forest, Eliot Porters,
probably in a place I have frequented lately. Aside from the excellent
composition, amazing DOF and wonderful color, part of the magic is
walking closer and finding more and more detial visible. Same thing with
big original Ansel Adams prints.
> To be fair, though, these characteristics have been attainable with
> the outstanding RawShooter converter, but there's something going on
> which I cannot explain.
>
To quote myself from above., "I think in the end, it's inexplicable."
One can ease out some parts, but not the whole. Just be glad the A1 and
you have had the opportunity to spend so much quality time together.
> Have others noted a simularity with their 2/3" cameras? Am I smokin
> my shorts again?
Probably, but that's part what makes you a first rate, and sometimes
great, photographer and an interesting person to discuss photography with.
> Have I inadvertantly stumbled upon a camera/converter combination that
> exceeds anything the designers ever imagined?
Ah, who is to know what the designers imagined? The specs were probably
set out in some mundane way, but perhaps the key hands on designers had
magic in their hearts.
> Is there a dog?
>
Yes, but it's invisible, mute and its farts don't smell.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|