A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 17th 11, 08:59 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?



"VOR-DME" wrote in message ...

In article ,

says...


tsk, tsk, tsk...quit, please, with the non sequiturs. The issue at hand is
the creation of said images with those camera phones. The issue is not
the
want or the need by people to make such images. It is not whether those
images would occur to those owners of camera phones. It definitely is not
whether those people find them ugly. The issue - the creation of said
images - is in the nature of a rather standard assignment, I would think,
as
per the "professional photography school" class referenced.

Now, once again....

"So elucidate, please, how with the phone camera one can create each of the
three images discussed....not with after image manipulation, but with in
camera operation. I for one would be particularly interested in how that
third image - the one of a tack sharp receding line with everything away
from the line increasingly blurred the further from that line - is created
with a phone camera."



Somehow we’re really not having the same conversation here. You say, "The
issue at hand is the creation of said images with those camera phones," but
I
do not understand why you feel that is the issue at hand. I started the
thread
with a humoristic account of students taking pictures of a view camera with
their i-phones, and went on to muse about their first impressions of what
they
must consider to be a monstrous old beast. I would certainly not want to be
the one to try to explain to these students that the view camera does things
they cannot do with their digital cameras, because to me that premise is
clearly false. All of the exercises you mentioned are easily accomplished in
software today, and that is simply the way things are done. These students
will use a number of formats throughout their degree training, ranging from
cell-phone cameras to large-format film, but all of them will spend more
time
behind a computer screen than they spend behind any type of camera or
"capture
device". I am not going to go into a didactic on Photoshop technique (you
ask
me to elucidate), but the depth of field exercise you describe is easily
accomplished, and with far greater control than we have doing it in the view
camera. I’m not going to say what their bokeh looks like, but I really do
not
understand your insistence on the fact that the desired result must be
created
in the camera, and not in post production. That’s just not the way it is any
more.

By the way, I am familiar with the work of Jerry N Uelsmann, and was really
quite taken with his technical wizardry back when those images were new. I
wonder what those students in the photo school today would think of that
work.

****
by golly, what wonderful spin to duck the issue rather than address it.
More and more red herrings.

"I would certainly not want to be the one to try to explain to these
students that the view camera does things
they cannot do with their digital cameras, because to me that premise is
clearly false."

Okay - I'll bite. Demonstrate that the premise is indeed false. As I
said - and for the third time -

"So elucidate, please, how with the phone camera one can create each of the
three images discussed....not with after image manipulation, but with in
camera operation. I for one would be particularly interested in how that
third image - the one of a tack sharp receding line with everything away
from the line increasingly blurred the further from that line - is created
with a phone camera."

  #13  
Old January 17th 11, 09:31 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
VOR-DME[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?

In article ,
says...


You clearly have not fired at rifle on the kd range, have you?


Last I heard we were doing art and photography here, not munitions.
But then, maybe I'm just ducking the issue yet again.

  #14  
Old January 17th 11, 10:00 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Doug McDonald[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 128
Default What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?



Elucidate? I am not going to publish pages and pages of Photoshop tutorial
here, and I’ve explained why. I feel I have a pretty good grasp on what a
twenty-something photo student is looking at today, and I’ve gone into this in
some detail. If you want to discuss this, but you insist on excluding the
issue of after-capture software, then I’m afraid you are the one who is
ducking the issue.


After-capture software is hard-put to do out-of focus in most cases.

Consider a tree branch with leaves, in foreground, versus a distant
background.

Explain how to do it easily in Photoshop.

Doug McDonald

  #15  
Old January 17th 11, 10:07 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,353
Default What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?

On 1/17/2011 12:29 PM VOR-DME spake thus:

In article ,
says...

by golly, what wonderful spin to duck the issue rather than address
it. More and more red herrings.


You remind me of the Woody Allen joke of a man creating a libel suit against
the publisher of his own autobiography! I created this thread, which was
intended to be a lighthearted commentary on a situation in which I found
humor, and now I find myself being accused of "ducking the issue" and "red
herrings"! Good Lord! I am really at a complete loss as to what you are on
about - perhaps another reader could step in and set this straight?

Elucidate? I am not going to publish pages and pages of Photoshop tutorial
here, and I’ve explained why. I feel I have a pretty good grasp on what a
twenty-something photo student is looking at today, and I’ve gone into this in
some detail. If you want to discuss this, but you insist on excluding the
issue of after-capture software, then I’m afraid you are the one who is
ducking the issue.


Well, ahem, if I can just step in here for a second: I think you put it
pretty well when you said that you and Lawrence were having two
different conversations here. I think that's what they call "talking at
cross purposes", right?

Lawrence apparently wants to play by a certain set of rules here which
you are choosing to ignore. Fair enough on both sides, and ultimately no
harm, no foul. He wants you to tell him how you can make the images he
describes with a phone camera but with "no after images manipulation",
to quote from his most recent reply.

I guess I have to side with you he basically, who gives a ****? The
results can be easily gotten with post-capture processing, so the whole
question of whether this device (phone camera) can actually *capture*
such images, unassisted by subsequent software manipulation, is
exceedingly academic.

Especially to those 20-somethings you most risibly describe, which as I
saw it was the whole point of your point in the first place.

I was also going to say that my own tendency is to bristle at such
suggestions that you make, that they (the wet-behind-the-ears students)
can get the same result with their stupid phone cameras as someone
behind the ground glass of a view camera. But even if you believe, as I
do, that film is superior in many respects to crappy digital processes,
I have to agree with your analysis.

In fact, one can look at it this way: given that images produced on film
do have inherent limitations and artifacts as you described, that have
shaped our perception over the last century or so, both of the world
itself and of captured images of that world, isn't it a bit presumptuous
to expect present-day photography students to artificially force
themselves into the same constraints imposed by a view camera? And
furthermore, wouldn't that actually be a further insult to classical
photography, or at best a back-handed compliment, by making digital
image-making into a perverted simulacrum of ancient wet processes?

As much as I love antique photography, and as much as I despise much of
what passes for "art" nowadays, especially WRT digital photography, I
realize that this is the future, and it's as futile fighting it as it is
trying to stop earthquakes.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.
  #17  
Old January 17th 11, 10:58 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Doug McDonald[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 128
Default What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?

On 1/17/2011 3:37 PM, VOR-DME wrote:
In ,
lid says...


After-capture software is hard-put to do out-of focus in most cases.

Consider a tree branch with leaves, in foreground, versus a distant
background.

Explain how to do it easily in Photoshop.


I am really an old-timer and a large-format nut, not a Photoshop wizard, but
this particular challenge is actually very well managed, particularly in the
later versions of Photoshop. You create an Alpha-channel and apply a gradient
to it. After this you use the Photoshop lens blur filter. The advantage is
that you have control over all the parameters. The placement of the gradient,
the extent of the blur, etc. It is fair to say that this level of control
exceeds the amount of control we have using large-format camera parameters by
a good margin.


Huh? How do you distinguish between the edges of the leaves, which must
remain sharp, and the background, which needs to blur? Even if you do
(say green leaves and red background) how do you get the blur function
to blur the red into the just barely blurred slightly out of focus leaves,
so it looks right? I have PS CS2 and I sure can't do it.

I'm not talking about one whole area of the picture close, and another far.
Except for the edge between them, that can be done well.

This is not about art ... its about technique. A phone camera if of course
capable of all the art that an artist can do with it. You do make the
art point, of course.

Doug McDonald
  #18  
Old January 17th 11, 11:37 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
VOR-DME[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?

In article ,
lid says...

Huh? How do you distinguish between the edges of the leaves, which must
remain sharp, and the background, which needs to blur? Even if you do
(say green leaves and red background) how do you get the blur function
to blur the red into the just barely blurred slightly out of focus leaves,
so it looks right? I have PS CS2 and I sure can't do it.

I'm not talking about one whole area of the picture close, and another far.
Except for the edge between them, that can be done well.



My apologies, I misinterpreted your question and gave an over-simplified
response. Once again, not being an expert in Photoshop, I am not the one to
give a definitive response, but I believe in the case you cite you will have
to spend some time developing a mask. You can try using color depth, contrast
etc to create an initial auto-detect, but you will have to get into the nitty
gritty of it to perfect it. To reiterate, there may be other add-ons or third
party software to help with this, and if you don’t find it, check back at noon
tomorrow. Once again, I would add, we are trying here to reproduce a strictly
photographic effect, which may or may not be deemed useful by a photographer
with a larger palette. It is a simple matter, with any camera, to record
something close in focus with an out-of-focus background, so this is something
we see very often, yet as I posited earlier, we react to what our medium does,
and a part of our creation is based on "what happens". Classical paintings
rarely display something like a tree branch with sharp leaves against an
out-of-focus, yet discernable background. If one of these students today wants
to do this it may well be an initiative to reproduce "the look of one of those
old photographs". One way to achieve this would be to use flash in the capture
process, which through inverse square law will produce a much greater
enhancement in near objects, thus helping the subsequent software in making
the distinction.

  #19  
Old January 18th 11, 04:47 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default What do you do with a 4x5 Sinar-P?



"VOR-DME" wrote in message ...

In article ,

says...

by golly, what wonderful spin to duck the issue rather than address it.
More and more red herrings.



You remind me of the Woody Allen joke of a man creating a libel suit against
the publisher of his own autobiography! I created this thread, which was
intended to be a lighthearted commentary on a situation in which I found
humor, and now I find myself being accused of "ducking the issue" and "red
herrings"! Good Lord! I am really at a complete loss as to what you are on
about - perhaps another reader could step in and set this straight?

Elucidate? I am not going to publish pages and pages of Photoshop tutorial
here, and I’ve explained why. I feel I have a pretty good grasp on what a
twenty-something photo student is looking at today, and I’ve gone into this
in
some detail. If you want to discuss this, but you insist on excluding the
issue of after-capture software, then I’m afraid you are the one who is
ducking the issue.

****

Egads - ducked again! The issue raised is really very simple - operation of
a view camera vs that of a camera phone in creating specific images. No
post image capture manipulations. What does "pages and pages of Photoshop
tutorial" have to do with this issue? Where in all your drivel have you
addressed this issue? You've spun and spun and spun as you've done here yet
again. You must be a fishmonger at heart with all these red herrings you
toss out. For the fifth time -

"So elucidate, please, how with the phone camera one can create each of the
three images discussed....not with after image manipulation, but with in
camera operation. I for one would be particularly interested in how that
third image - the one of a tack sharp receding line with everything away
from the line increasingly blurred the further from that line - is created
with a phone camera."

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sinar F, F1 or F2 Daniel Rocha Large Format Photography Equipment 0 December 20th 05 10:12 AM
Sinar P or P2? nobody Large Format Photography Equipment 6 November 29th 05 01:15 AM
Sinar db mount, can it be used with Sinar P? nobody Large Format Photography Equipment 2 November 22nd 05 06:42 PM
FA Sinar binocular reflex housing kit for Sinar 4x5" Bart Large Format Equipment For Sale 0 December 29th 04 05:32 PM
FS Sinar binocular reflex housing kit for Sinar 4x5" Bart Large Format Equipment For Sale 0 December 6th 04 09:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.