The end of a certain type of pictures

sanmich · 05-02-2011

With the great performance of cameras like the D700 in low light and all the talk about extreme ISO, I have come to wander about something:
I never use anything higher than 800/1000 ISO.
when there is not enough light, I get blurred pictures, with lots of movement. Some of them are more interesting than the sharp ones, and for some reason better convey the low light atmosphere.
Is this the end of movement pictures in low light as we know them?
Are we going to see a trend showing a certain type of pictures never seen before, with a very low lighting but still sharp?
Remember the first Kodachrome (ISO 10?) series of Ernst Haas?
I don't see that style enymore, if you see what I mean...

n5jrn · 05-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanmich

Are we going to see a trend showing a certain type of pictures never seen before, with a very low lighting but still sharp?

Probably. Why wouldn't photographers take advantage of a new technology? This is hardly a new trend. 35mm film allowed smaller and lighter cameras (and thus a different style of shooting) than medium format, MF film in turn allowed for smaller and lighter cameras than large format, plates allowed shorter exposure times than daguerreotypes, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanmich

Is this the end of movement pictures in low light as we know them?

Probably not. Fashions will come and go as they always have, but there's nothing stopping anyone from shooting at lower ISO sensitivities in low light for aesthetic effect. Options are being added, not taken away. There's still a few photographers out there shooting daguerreotypes, for that matter.

Pickett Wilson · 05-02-2011

Back in the day, we shot blurry, wide open photos when available light was the thing because we had no choice. ISO 400 was fast then. I would have killed to get sharp photos with good DOF like I can now.

youngcoby · 05-02-2011

Well, I don't think this kind of photography will disappear. It's still you to decide which ISO to use.
If you want these kind of pictures, just fire at a low ISO which will need a bit of a longer shutter time.

Richard G · 05-02-2011

I am going back further and trying longer exposures like 1/2 sec, with a camera and lens and film where I could use 1/15th. The choices remain.

Keith · 05-02-2011

I really like the option and also like the way the files from my D700 look at 6400 ... and let's not forget that the fastest shutter speed of these modern DSLR's is 1/8000 which is three stops better than what was around when SLR's first became dominant.

These wonder cameras still produce noise at 6400 but it's controlled and manifests itself as something far more eye pleasing than what my old D70 produced at 800 ISO which was downright ugly IMO.

It also allows better depth of field in low light shooting if you want it. Not to mention the ISO settings usually start at around 200 ISO and there's nothing written into the warranty that says you must shoot the camera at higher ISO's than this. Movement blur is only a few clicks away if that's what you want. If people aren't choosing to do this then that's progress I guess ... maybe we have moved on from a certain type of image but that type of image was largely created by circumstances and not choice in the main.

In a nutshell I reckon it's a great asset.

Spyro · 05-02-2011

I like the option too, after all it's only an option.

The way I see it the problem is with cameras that have no digital equivalent. Like Medium Format RF, pocket FF, pano, LF, square, folders etc
Digital cant (doesnt want to?) make them, therefore marketing doesnt advertise them, therefore people starting now dont even know them, and these people think the only thing that differentiates cameras is resolution, high iso and design. Thats what marketing told them, thats what they know.

But these cameras existed for a reason, reason was they made a certain kind of photo. This kind of photo will die when film dies.

peterm1 · 05-02-2011

I certainly think that if high ISO is an option many will use it regularly. I would. I have a D200 which is pretty mcuh still limited to ISO 800 due to noise considerations at hhigher ISO settings. But I would love the opportunity to shoot at much higher ISOs at least occasionally. I have seen pictures posted here from a D700 shot at at an extended ISO of 24,000 ISO (or whatever the equivalent is ) and the noise which manifests appears much like film grain and does not look half bad. Who would not use this if it were readily available to all? I certainly would as low light shoots in semi darkness can provide excellent opportunities for nice image making.

Mister E · 05-02-2011

Blurry pictures are relegated to art while pictures in the dark with out motion blur are photography.

dave lackey · 05-02-2011

One's choice of photographic opportunities should not be dictated by either the camera or the trend of what is popular (or supposed popular). As a photographer, I shoot what I want. High ISO over 800 is not what I want.

In the words of a number of "master photographers", one should not copy but develop one's one "style" if you will. High ISO may work for one but not for another.

As long as we have choices, I reckon the variety of images will always remain with us.

Case in point as my email notification just notified me that Helen has posted a style that works for her and others:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com:80/52...9870fc09_b.jpg

uhligfd · 05-02-2011

I tried some lightning bugs in the meadow at night last summer: The exposures on 400 ISO film took about 2-4 minutes; the trees etc were clearly shown, but the bugs' light trails were nearly invisible.

So, out with 6400 or higher ISO and shorten the exposure time and catch that bug light on a sensitive sensor where 400 ISO fails; by all means!

LKeithR · 05-02-2011

I think the newer technology simply gives us more options. If one really needs to take sharp clear images in low light the higher ISO capabilities of the newer cameras is a godsend; on the other hand, if I want an image that is less technically perfect but more visceral and evocative, I can haul out my Digilux 2 and shoot at ISO 100 and 1/8 or 1/4 second. We always have choices...

SciAggie · 05-02-2011

I wanted motion blur in this shot. I wanted to shoot my school principal among her students while keeping the focus on her. I would not have used a higher ISO or shutter speed. Is it art or a photograph? I don't know. I just know it was the look I wanted.

Mister E · 05-02-2011

For sure art. Selective color is ALWAYS art.

porktaco · 05-02-2011

nah. it'll still be there because that's the feeling you get from being in those low light situations yourself. however, there will be a whole bunch more nightvision type photos. in the end, nightvision is not nearly as cool as blurry candelit cafe.

sanmich · 05-02-2011

Folks, I'm not saying progress is not good.
If I had a very high ISO, good film, I would probably opt for it too.
I'm just contemplating the fact that some good pictures I have are in fact the result of a constraint that is disapearing.

Ade-oh · 05-02-2011

It just means there is more choice because absolute constraints are disappearing: that can't be a bad thing.

peterm1 · 05-02-2011

Those type of photos with a little movement can still have a certain charm in the right place. BUt now we have a choice.

IMG_2377a1 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

Fedia · 05-03-2011

Well, if one or two pictures among your twenty frames come out blurred then it suggests that a couple of times you just failed as an artisan... but if the whole series has that motion blur aesthetics, the images tell a story, and give the audience a chance to feel the mood - then it's photographer's style and his visual language... Either shooting sharp images or motion blurred ones talent and photographic vision is everything... film camera or digital camera, aps-c or fx, fast lens or just f5.6 doesn't really play any role in this. Fortunately or unfortunately but very, very few guys with cameras have that vision. And very often when I come across some images posted online, or even see them alive in galleries! as "personal projects", instead of being affected by the work I start thinking - "why this adult man is doing this? this looks ridiculous!, no doubt he would be much better at something not visual arts related"...

robert blu · 05-03-2011

I think that a certain type of photography will disappear for a short time because most of photographer are more interested is showing the technical capacity of their new toys than in the atmosphere of the photo. As soon as this becomes "normal" the game will be no more interesting. As for my taste there is no need to have absolutely everything sharp and frozen, seems me unreal. As I said in a different thread for me high iso is 800/1600 ...
robert
Leica x1; 1600 iso; f 5,6 ; 1/40

PS of course there are low light occasions in which very high iso are really welcome.

dave lackey · 05-03-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by SciAggie

I wanted motion blur in this shot. I wanted to shoot my school principal among her students while keeping the focus on her. I would not have used a higher ISO or shutter speed. Is it art or a photograph? I don't know. I just know it was the look I wanted.

Very nice! I have come to realize that a static, super sharp image is NOT what my eyes see during the course of the day. With contacts in, glasses on, whatever, only what I am actually focused upon is in focus.