Thanks Jimmy, great topic. I have moved in a slightly different path with my gear. A lot of my images (and the style that I like) are about stationary images. For this type of photography, I have acquired a nice kit of vintage Olympus prime lenses. Beautiful colours, old-style sharpness and lovely rendering. Also, they are very light 😂. For portraits, I will use a Olympus f1.2 45mm or maybe f1.2 25mm. If I am shooting things that move around a lot: eg, family party, f1.2 17mm. I lean into the auto focus of a digital lens. For B&W photography, I use an E-M1 with a vintage Olympus 28mm f3.5 welded on. Thank you for all your videos this year and I hope that you have a great Christmas with your family and friends. Cheers, Peter🎉🎉🎉
Hi Jimmy thank you for the nice video today, I think capsure the moment is the most important thing in photography and then everything else, Merry Christmas to you and family, Greetings from South Carolina!
I would also choose quality images over image quality and it is wonderful to have quality gear today that I could not have when started photography in 1968.
Capturing "the moment" will always be of far greater importance than capturing a technically superb image. Indeed, in some instances, a technically perfect image may detract from the message you're trying to convey. Think about "abstraction" in painting or drawing, where we leave stuff out to concentrate upon and emphasise what's important. A blurred movement image of an athlete, to abstract that movement, is typically far better than technical perfection, which would "freeze and lose" that movement we want to abstract. Think about it.
Like many, I started in film and I've never developed the habit of shooting lots of frames at once, I still shoot a little bit like I'm using an old film camera, focus and recompose, wait for the moment, shoot a conservative number of frames and I don't like my viewfinder cluttered with information. I've had to force myself to break some of those habits. Of course none of that guarantees a better photograph, I was a sloppy film photographer and I'm still a sloppy digital photographer but no amount of spending on better gear is going to change that, watching better photographers at work on RUclips might though. PS. I'd like to know where you get your excellent array of different camera straps from, particularly the one on the Zf.
So is weather in Belgium and even in Ontario, Canada. Talking from my current experience. Regarding pixels and image quality. I meet long time photog, who has to sell his FF Canon and get dMF FujiFilm. Simply because his customers are paying for large to huge prints. Which are tens of thousands dollars per print. Not something dotty they want :) As for hobby photogaphy it is practical at 10 MP. If you aren't cropper. IQ is also about colors. Sonikon colors are awful. Leica, Oly, FujiFilm, Canon colors are good enough even SOOC.
If Image Quality is of a technical nature, then Quality Image is of an emotional nature. The latter probably because Henri Cartier-Bresson, Alex Webb, Taka Hiro and a plethora of other photographers almost a century ago defined the standard for what is comme il faut to this day still. They did not proclaim anything back then. That is what we are doing today based on the feelings their images [still] create. Can not help wondering if the grainy and sometimes blurry images of what in so many ways also was a very different time would have had the same appeal captured with today's razor sharp M.Zuiko PRO or Voigtländer APO lenses combined with e.g., a godsend OM-1 Mark II with all its qualities and capabilities. The big masters eye for situation and composition (their claim to fame) would undoubtedly have been the same and they would still be "first movers' in the world of photography but would the fare superior image quality have changed or even spoiled the feeling. I do not know. I have just shy of 25K RAW images after all the crap is weeded out. Of the 25K images approximately 55% of high Image Quality, 25% you-have-potential-but-I-will-probable-never-get-around-to-do-anything-about-you, 19.5% fun-play-test and 0.5% that makes even myself smile. Of the 0.5% roughly half are both Image Quality and Quality Image with the other half gravitating towards Quality Image only. Maybe a Quality Image must have some technical 'errors' to become appealing and for us to focus on the feeling.
Quality image??? Well there are many images of very mundane landscapes, street, birds, planes etc etc, that are technically perfect. But are never going to be regarded as a quality/iconic image.
Well stated. And the photographs you displayed demonstrated it well.
Thanks Jimmy, great topic. I have moved in a slightly different path with my gear. A lot of my images (and the style that I like) are about stationary images. For this type of photography, I have acquired a nice kit of vintage Olympus prime lenses. Beautiful colours, old-style sharpness and lovely rendering. Also, they are very light 😂.
For portraits, I will use a Olympus f1.2 45mm or maybe f1.2 25mm. If I am shooting things that move around a lot: eg, family party, f1.2 17mm. I lean into the auto focus of a digital lens.
For B&W photography, I use an E-M1 with a vintage Olympus 28mm f3.5 welded on.
Thank you for all your videos this year and I hope that you have a great Christmas with your family and friends. Cheers, Peter🎉🎉🎉
Hi Jimmy thank you for the nice video today, I think capsure the moment is the most important thing in photography and then everything else, Merry Christmas to you and family, Greetings from South Carolina!
I would also choose quality images over image quality and it is wonderful to have quality gear today that I could not have when started photography in 1968.
Capturing "the moment" will always be of far greater importance than capturing a technically superb image. Indeed, in some instances, a technically perfect image may detract from the message you're trying to convey. Think about "abstraction" in painting or drawing, where we leave stuff out to concentrate upon and emphasise what's important. A blurred movement image of an athlete, to abstract that movement, is typically far better than technical perfection, which would "freeze and lose" that movement we want to abstract. Think about it.
Like many, I started in film and I've never developed the habit of shooting lots of frames at once, I still shoot a little bit like I'm using an old film camera, focus and recompose, wait for the moment, shoot a conservative number of frames and I don't like my viewfinder cluttered with information. I've had to force myself to break some of those habits. Of course none of that guarantees a better photograph, I was a sloppy film photographer and I'm still a sloppy digital photographer but no amount of spending on better gear is going to change that, watching better photographers at work on RUclips might though.
PS. I'd like to know where you get your excellent array of different camera straps from, particularly the one on the Zf.
So is weather in Belgium and even in Ontario, Canada. Talking from my current experience. Regarding pixels and image quality. I meet long time photog, who has to sell his FF Canon and get dMF FujiFilm. Simply because his customers are paying for large to huge prints. Which are tens of thousands dollars per print. Not something dotty they want :) As for hobby photogaphy it is practical at 10 MP. If you aren't cropper. IQ is also about colors. Sonikon colors are awful. Leica, Oly, FujiFilm, Canon colors are good enough even SOOC.
If Image Quality is of a technical nature, then Quality Image is of an emotional nature. The latter probably because Henri Cartier-Bresson, Alex Webb, Taka Hiro and a plethora of other photographers almost a century ago defined the standard for what is comme il faut to this day still. They did not proclaim anything back then. That is what we are doing today based on the feelings their images [still] create.
Can not help wondering if the grainy and sometimes blurry images of what in so many ways also was a very different time would have had the same appeal captured with today's razor sharp M.Zuiko PRO or Voigtländer APO lenses combined with e.g., a godsend OM-1 Mark II with all its qualities and capabilities. The big masters eye for situation and composition (their claim to fame) would undoubtedly have been the same and they would still be "first movers' in the world of photography but would the fare superior image quality have changed or even spoiled the feeling. I do not know.
I have just shy of 25K RAW images after all the crap is weeded out. Of the 25K images approximately 55% of high Image Quality, 25% you-have-potential-but-I-will-probable-never-get-around-to-do-anything-about-you, 19.5% fun-play-test and 0.5% that makes even myself smile. Of the 0.5% roughly half are both Image Quality and Quality Image with the other half gravitating towards Quality Image only. Maybe a Quality Image must have some technical 'errors' to become appealing and for us to focus on the feeling.
Quality image???
Well there are many images of very mundane landscapes, street, birds, planes etc etc, that are technically perfect. But are never going to be regarded as a quality/iconic image.