Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

 

“Our autobiography is written in our contact sheets,  and our opinion of the world in our selects”  

"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."  

 

Bill Pierce is one of the most successful Leica photographers and authors ever. I initially "met" Bill in the wonderful 1973 15th edition Leica Manual (the one with the M5 on the cover). I kept reading and re-reading his four chapters, continually amazed at his knoweldge and ability, thinking "if I only knew a small part of what this guy knows... wow."  I looked foward to his monthly columns in Camera 35 and devoured them like a starving man.  Bill has worked as a photojournalist  for 25 years, keyword: WORK.  Many photogs dream of the professional photographer's  life that Bill has earned and enjoyed.  Probably Bill's most famous pic is Nixon departing the White House for the last time, victory signs still waving. 

 

Bill  has been published in many major magazines, including  Time, Life, Newsweek, U.S. News, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, New York Magazine, Stern, L'Express and Paris Match.  :His published books include  The Leica Manual,  War Torn, Survivors and Victims in the Late 20th Century, Homeless in America,  Human Rights in China,  Children of War.  Add to that numerous exhibitions at major galleries and museums.  Magazine contributions include  Popular Photography,  Camera 35, Leica Manual,  Photo District News, the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, the Digital Journalist, and now RFF.  Major awards include Leica Medal of Excellence, Overseas Press Club's Oliver Rebbot Award for Best Photojournalism from Abroad,  and the World Press Photo's Budapest Award. Perhaps an ever bigger award is Tom Abrahamsson's comment: "If you want to know Rodinal, ask Bill."

 

I met Bill in person through our mutual friend Tom Abrahamsson.  In person his insight and comments are every bit as interesting and engaging as his writing.  He is a great guy who really KNOWS photography.  I am happy to say he has generously agreed to host this forum at RFF  From time to time Bill will bring up topics, but you are also invited to ask questions.  Sit down and enjoy the ride!

 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 07-26-2019   #41
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistach View Post
4- I don't buy the outresolve argument. A nice thing of transfer functions is that they multiply. There are excellent prime vintage lenses like Leica R, Zeiss F, Minolta Af etc. Now suppose that at a certain point in a certain direction at a certain spatial frequency the lens has a tf=0.7. A poor sensor with say a tf 0.6 wil give a product 0.42, not ideal. A sensor with lot of megapixels may have a tf close to 1, with the result that the product is approximately 0.7, meaning that it will squeeze from the lens its maximum possible performance. I remember that I Leitz engineer, asked what sense does it make to put a fast film in a Leica, answered similarly, but of course with the role of the lens and sensor exchanged

I agree. One of my pet peeves with my Ricoh GR2 images (whose lens resolution is of the same order of the sensor's resolution) is moiré, aliasing, and demosaicking artifacts. If a sensor resolution were an order of magnitude or so greater than that of the lens, these problems should be significantly reduced.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-26-2019   #42
Cascadilla
Registered User
 
Cascadilla is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 62
Yes, but the difference between 6 and 12 mp is pretty obvious and significant even to casual users at reasonable print sizes. Between 250 and 500, not so much for 99.9% of photographers/print viewers.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-26-2019   #43
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,698
If you don't want a camera with 61MP, don't buy it. No need to rationalize your decision.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2019   #44
Eric T
Registered User
 
Eric T is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 752
For me, cropping is the big advantage. There may be no need to carry around huge telephoto lenses going forward.
__________________
Eric Triplett in sunny Florida
These days I shoot mostly with Sony A7Riii, Sigma Quattro SD H, Panasonic G9, Panasonic GH-5.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-15-2019   #45
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric T View Post
For me, cropping is the big advantage. There may be no need to carry around huge telephoto lenses going forward.
Except photos taken with a normal lens and cropped look different than those taken with a tele.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #46
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Except photos taken with a normal lens and cropped look different than those taken with a tele.
Details, details !
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #47
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Except photos taken with a normal lens and cropped look different than those taken with a tele.
Uh, no they don't. If you stand in the same place, there is absolutely no difference other than what might be seen between any two lenses - distortion and the like. Perspective does not change.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #48
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Uh, no they don't. If you stand in the same place, there is absolutely no difference other than what might be seen between any two lenses - distortion and the like. Perspective does not change.
You forgot DOF, OOF and compression of space. Of course these relate to focal length.

While what you might "see" is the same the rendering will be very different.

Obviously the lens sees things you don't and renders them differently.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #49
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,333
Of course, any two lenses, even two of the same focal length, may have different rendering. That's not what I'm talking about.

Put a 50mm lens on an FX and DX Nikon and take two photos, from the same position. Crop the FX to the same field of view as the DX. It's the same image. DOF is also the same. OOF is the same. Compression is the same.

Now, if instead of cropping in the FX, you took a few steps forward, that's a totally different scenario. But the statement was about cropping as opposed to changing lenses, and that's what I'm talking about.

Focal length doesn't change perspective.

I know you shoot with larger formats. If you shoot a larger and smaller format, with lenses that equate to the same field of view, and match their aperture size (actual physical size), you will still get the same DOF, same compression, and generally if the lens design is the same across the formats, they will be essentially identical in rendering. Try it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #50
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickthetasmaniac View Post

- Lenses. I genuinely expected high-performance lenses would become more compact as computer design and fabrication improved. I've watched in amazement as the new generation of 50mm f1.4 lenses have come on to the market (Zeiss Otus, Sigma Art, Pentax D-FA*, Panasonic S Pro, etc...) - far heavier, bigger, more complex and more expensive than ever before (the Panasonic has 13 elements, weighs almost 1kg and costs $3.5k). I think this is largely due to the increased demands of designing for sensors that will probably exceed 100mp before long...
Nick,

I own a SL. Take note that all the native primes are all APO (all Crons) except my 50 Lux.

At Photoville I was able to borrow the APO 35 Cron from John Kreider the Leica Technical Specialist for the Leica "S" and the SL.

This lens has 13 elements and 5 of the lenses are ASPH. APO corrected and is also a very highly corrected lens. The "L" mount has less design restrictions than a "M" mount. It is said that these APO lenses are built and designed for 4-5 generations out. Leica is even making the wides APO.

The Crons with a 67mm filter thread are big, and are not small lenses, but a lot smaller than my 50 Lux that utilizes an 82mm filter.

It does seem to exploit big MP count the glass gets scaled up. It will be interesting to me to see how my Leica 50 Lux-R "E60" performs on a SL2 with the rumored 48 MP sensor. It suffers no handicap on my 24 MP sensor currently, but will it hold up at 48 MP?

BTW the APO 35 Cron has given me mucho GAS. A remarkable lens. At this point I have more lust for the glass than the big MP count sensor.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #51
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,513
I have delusions of Ansel, so I got the GFX50R. The detail and dynamic range is worth every penny of the price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #52
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post

Focal length doesn't change perspective.
Corran,

I own a Rollie Whiteface 3.5F with an 80mm lens.

At one time I also owned a TeleRolliflex with a 135mm lens.

But look at the excerp that I quoted.

The FOV is rendered by the same lens in the example you gave, and basically it is cropped due to sensor size or change of format.

Of course it looks the same: You did not change the focal length. You effectively cropped the image by a change of format (sensor size).

I went shooting to capture an iconic shot that required trespassing in a railyard at night to capture an iconic shot of the Empire State Building. I had both Rolliflexes with me, but I used the Telerollieflex for the explotation of compression of space.

I assure you that the two cameras recorded and rendered differently. The position was from the same spot using a tripod.

Cropping is cool, but it really isn't a substitute for focal length. Wides, normals, and teles all render differently.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #53
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,333
Any difference between your Rollei and TeleRollei are due to the lens differences from design, not the focal length itself.

Compression doesn't change with focal length. This is a very, very common misconception. If you shot the same image with both cameras/lenses, the compression would be the same, you would just have more or less field of view between them. This misconception occurs because many people use a longer focal length in conjunction with getting farther away from a foreground subject, which does increase compression, but because of that change in camera distance.

I don't disagree that some rendering differences can occur, but only due to individual lens characteristics, just like, say, an older Rollei with 80mm Tessar will "render" differently than your newer Rollei with I assume a Xenotar or Planar lens.

Any change in compression is caused by getting closer or farther from a foreground subject compared to a background subject.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #54
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
I have delusions of Ansel, so I got the GFX50R. The detail and dynamic range is worth every penny of the price.
D,

I love large format, but I try to emulate it using small format digital.

In large format, shadow detail, and the midrange are most important, especially in larger prints.

In small prints not enough detail and tonality gets displayed. In big prints files open up.

Of course printing big gets expensive.

Know that I tend to shoot like a large format shooter as if trying to make/create a perfect negative as if for contact printing even though I'm making just a digital file.

I use a Helipan 2X yellow so I really don't need to boost contrast in post when using my Monochrom (18MP) and Post processing is minimized to limit digital artifacts.

Back when Leica first released the SL I took my 1975 SL2-MOT to PhotoPlusExpo to harass the guys in the Leica booth.

"Why would I buy a new SL when I have an old one that is still great," I said. I also mentioned that they could of come up with a fresh name.

So Richard Herzog was manning the Leica booth, who is a large format shooter and is somehow was affiliated with Phase One, asked me about my work and what I do.

I said I'll be right back, because earlier I had gifted Robert Rodriguez, the Canson Artist in Residence, a 13x17 print of the Domino Sugar Refinery on the East River taken from the Williamsburg bridge. I went to borrow the print to show Richard back at the Leica booth.

So my small print kinda blew the guys at the Leica booth away. Richard Herzog asked, "Is this large format? Is this film?" This was a small 13x17 Piezography print and not a 20x30 on 24x36 sheet which is my big print size.

Even with only 18 MP there are some files that could use a 44 inch printer. I still own the MM with CCD sensor. A very primitive camera, and arguably the most unforgiving digital camera. No Bayer filter array, means no possibility of recovering blown highlights. I know the M246 is a much more advanced camera and better in every way, but I still love the unique rendering and the unscooped midrange, despite the warts and all.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #55
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,333
Anyway, you can try it yourself. Here's a plush in front of my Speed Graphic, with a 55mm lens and cropped vs. a 200mm lens, not cropped. Compression is the same.

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #56
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Any difference between your Rollei and TeleRollei are due to the lens differences from design, not the focal length itself.

Compression doesn't change with focal length. This is a very, very common misconception. If you shot the same image with both cameras/lenses, the compression would be the same, you would just have more or less field of view between them. This misconception occurs because many people use a longer focal length in conjunction with getting farther away from a foreground subject, which does increase compression, but because of that change in camera distance.

I don't disagree that some rendering differences can occur, but only due to individual lens characteristics, just like, say, an older Rollei with 80mm Tessar will "render" differently than your newer Rollei with I assume a Xenotar or Planar lens.

Any change in compression is caused by getting closer or farther from a foreground subject compared to a background subject.
Corran,

So you don't think say a 105/2.5 Nikon lens does not flatten (compress) a models features to flatter them, and that by cropping a 50 and using magnification the same compression can be formed?

Shot from the same distance of course.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #57
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Anyway, you can try it yourself. Here's a plush in front of my Speed Graphic, with a 55mm lens and cropped vs. a 200mm lens, not cropped. Compression is the same.

Corran,

Looks the same perspective to me. Pretty dramatic.

Thanks for posting this example.

You should know that I rarely crop in post, and when I do it is never to the extent where it approaches a change in focal length.

Interesting how and why I don't crop.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #58
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,333
Cal, I'm not much of a cropper either, except occasionally to change aspect ratio or remove a slight annoyance on the edge of the frame. I certainly prefer to fill the frame with my intended image.

Of course I don't have every lens and camera and format with me at all times, so we do what we must!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #59
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,513
An article from PetaPixel, the author bills himself as a fine art printmaker.
https://petapixel.com/2019/09/19/is-...r-photographs/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #60
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 69
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
An article from PetaPixel, the author bills himself as a fine art printmaker.
https://petapixel.com/2019/09/19/is-...r-photographs/

I would imagine that`s how things will progress .
Wouldn`t be surprised if in ten years or less you`ll not be able to buy a 24mp camera .

I don`t see why that will really matter in any way .
We`ll just do things differently.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-2019   #61
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 8,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
An article from PetaPixel, the author bills himself as a fine art printmaker.
https://petapixel.com/2019/09/19/is-...r-photographs/
This isn't news to anyone. Tech moves on and will
cost you big time in all the peripherals to keep up with it.

It’s up to you if you want to play that game.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-20-2019   #62
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
This isn't news to anyone. Tech moves on and will
cost you big time in all the peripherals to keep up with it.

It’s up to you if you want to play that game.
Huss,

What I glean is the vision to future-proof if one decides to go that way. My thinking is the current SL APO glass (Crons) might be future-proofed 4-5 generations.

Presently on my SL (24MP) I see the enhancements of the APO glass, and the SL2 rumored to be 48 MP is only eating into one generation. This Leica APO glass might be good for 100 MP and it is available today, or in my case on a waiting list (35 Cron).

The even higher pixel counts will come later. My point is that the glass is here now.

Also interesting the 20x30 print size cited. This is where the extra resolution becomes evident. Will 20x30 become the new print size?

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-21-2019   #63
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Corran,

So you don't think say a 105/2.5 Nikon lens does not flatten (compress) a models features to flatter them, and that by cropping a 50 and using magnification the same compression can be formed?

Shot from the same distance of course.

Cal
Right!

All that matters is where one stands.

If you crop instead of move your feet, the images' perspective will be different.

If you walk closer to the subject (i.e. cropping is not needed) with the 50 mm the images' perspective can be identical.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-21-2019   #64
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Uh, no they don't. If you stand in the same place, there is absolutely no difference other than what might be seen between any two lenses - distortion and the like. Perspective does not change.
I've thought about it...you are most likely right. Still trying to wrap my head around it. I guess I was confused by how when sensor size changes, than lenses look different.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-21-2019   #65
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 3,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
An article from PetaPixel, the author bills himself as a fine art printmaker.
https://petapixel.com/2019/09/19/is-...r-photographs/

All that talk about even better prints from higher res. sensors sound like he is up to his nose at the print counting dpi's.
A great shot is a great shot and no one is even thinking about getting up close and start complaining about some dodgy resolution that isn't up to par with the latest rat race MP champ. If the print is getting scrutinized for flawed technical execution, it just isn't a great shot to begin with.

If you don't see the light, there is no 100MP sensor to save your behind to make the image a great one.
Vision is actually pretty simple.
It starts with your eye and not with the technology you use to capture it.
Don't try to put the cart before the horse.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

cOMMENT
Old 09-21-2019   #66
DennisM
Registered User
 
DennisM is offline
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 57
cOMMENT

Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
All that talk about even better prints from higher res. sensors sound like he is up to his nose at the print counting dpi's.
A great shot is a great shot and no one is even thinking about getting up close and start complaining about some dodgy resolution that isn't up to par with the latest rat race MP champ. If the print is getting scrutinized for flawed technical execution, it just isn't a great shot to begin with.

If you don't see the light, there is no 100MP sensor to save your behind to make the image a great one.
Vision is actually pretty simple.
It starts with your eye and not with the technology you use to capture it.
Don't try to put the cart before the horse.
Well said!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2019   #67
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
All that talk about even better prints from higher res. sensors sound like he is up to his nose at the print counting dpi's.
A great shot is a great shot and no one is even thinking about getting up close and start complaining about some dodgy resolution that isn't up to par with the latest rat race MP champ. If the print is getting scrutinized for flawed technical execution, it just isn't a great shot to begin with.

If you don't see the light, there is no 100MP sensor to save your behind to make the image a great one.
Vision is actually pretty simple.
It starts with your eye and not with the technology you use to capture it.
Don't try to put the cart before the horse.
Klaus,

I see your point, but then again if you admire large format prints that are done well, one does nose up to look at the amazing resolution and fine detail. Already I would argue that the transcending of formats is happening. I dare say that already I have some prints/files that resemble large format IQ and tonality of say shot with a fast film.

Did you get to see Salgado's Genesis show at ICP? These wet prints were made via 4x5 digital negatives using the best lab in Paris. About half used 645 film for image capture, and the other half was full frame digital. The likely forensics was that a tripod was used for enhanced resolution and IQ.

I'm not saying that everyone can use or needs this IQ, but whether people like it or utilize it or need it; it is where the technology is going.

Back in 2012, when I bought my Leica Monochrom, Piezography had a digital negative system that required a different inkset to print negatives for contact printing. Today they offer a "what-you-see-is what-you-get" calibrated system that allows both Piezography printing for proofing and printing of digital negatives for contact printing without the need for changing the inkset. This new digital negative system is turnkey.

I know not everyone is a printmaker who prints for exhibition, or prints limited editions, but I say this resolution is mighty useful for some. Also not everyone prints big, but today the technology is such that I could do a "Salgado" and make contact wet prints on the scale of Genesis without the best French lab in Paris at home.

I will also say that my 24 MP SL is still a great camera and in this pixel race/competition that sometimes it is the size of the pixel that wins, in say low light/high ISO situations.

I asked a Leica Rep about "Future-Proofing" and one response was that the Leica "Q" lens is future proofed to 80 MP. Meanwhile the second generation Q2 I believe is only 47 MP. When and if Leica comes out with a "Q3" would you buy one? Perhaps 61 MP or so. BTW the old original "Q" is still a great camera.

The APO Crons for the SL are said to be future-proofed at least 3 generations and maybe 4 generations whatever that means (100 MP???). BTW the concensus among photographers that own the APO 50 Cron-L and APO Cron-M is that the "L" lens is better. Also the same is said when comparing the APO 75 Cron-L to the APO Cron-M. The "L" lenses are bigger, but offer higher performance without the size and weight constraints of the M-body and mount.

Of course none of these developments matter if you don't print, print small, or can't utilize the resolution. I say though for some who want to create digital negatives the resolution is an asset.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2019   #68
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Right!

All that matters is where one stands.

If you crop instead of move your feet, the images' perspective will be different.

If you walk closer to the subject (i.e. cropping is not needed) with the 50 mm the images' perspective can be identical.
Willie,

That was my thinking. I'm now more confused then ever.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2019   #69
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
All that matters is where one stands.
Yes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
If you crop instead of move your feet, the images' perspective will be different.

If you walk closer to the subject (i.e. cropping is not needed) with the 50 mm the images' perspective can be identical.
No!

You are saying two completely opposite things. Think about it.

If you shoot an image with an 8x10 camera and 300mm lens, and then you physically cut out the center of the image, a 35mm-sized chunk, does the perspective of the image change? No! Only the field of view changes. The relationships between objects in the frame do not change magically by cutting down the film, or cropping a digital image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2019   #70
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,349
^
Wot Corran sez!

Things that change the relationship between stuff at different distances in a photo so they look different: (a) moving away or from the subject, (b) staying still but using lenses of different focal lengths.

Things that don't change the relationship between stuff in a photo: (a) cropping a photo, (b) changing the format (e.g. FF vs APS - sensor or film).
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2019   #71
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichC View Post
^
Wot Corran sez!

Things that change the relationship between stuff at different distances in a photo so they look different: (a) moving away or from the subject, (b) staying still but using lenses of different focal lengths.
Well, check out the photos I posted earlier. The relationship between stuff at different distances doesn't actually change when you use different lenses, only the field of view. And if you match the size of the aperture (actual physical size, not f/number), DOF will be the same as well. Individual lens characteristics will of course be dependent on the lens (distortion, fall-off, rendering, contrast, etc.).
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2019   #72
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichC View Post
^
Wot Corran sez!

Things that change the relationship between stuff at different distances in a photo so they look different: (a) moving away or from the subject, (b) staying still but using lenses of different focal lengths.

Things that don't change the relationship between stuff in a photo: (a) cropping a photo, (b) changing the format (e.g. FF vs APS - sensor or film).
Well, check out the photos I posted earlier. The relationship between stuff at different distances doesn't actually change when you use different lenses, only the field of view. And if you match the size of the aperture (actual physical size, not f/number), DOF will be the same as well. Individual lens characteristics will of course be dependent on the lens (distortion, fall-off, rendering, contrast, etc.).
Sorry - you're entirely right. I was momentarily spouting rubbish! What I should have written was "including using lenses of different focal lengths but moving yourself so that the same subject appears identically sized in each photo".
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2019   #73
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,333
Yes exactly! I thought you might've meant to say that.

It's hard to explain in words. Interested photographers should try it themselves with a digital camera and zoom lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-24-2019   #74
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Yes exactly! I thought you might've meant to say that.

It's hard to explain in words. Interested photographers should try it themselves with a digital camera and zoom lens.
Corran,

This is a good experiment/learning tool.

Thanks for the post.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-24-2019   #75
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 3,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Klaus,

I see your point, but then again if you admire large format prints that are done well, one does nose up to look at the amazing resolution and fine detail. Already I would argue that the transcending of formats is happening. I dare say that already I have some prints/files that resemble large format IQ and tonality of say shot with a fast film.

Did you get to see Salgado's Genesis show at ICP? These wet prints were made via 4x5 digital negatives using the best lab in Paris. About half used 645 film for image capture, and the other half was full frame digital. The likely forensics was that a tripod was used for enhanced resolution and IQ.

I'm not saying that everyone can use or needs this IQ, but whether people like it or utilize it or need it; it is where the technology is going....

... Also the same is said when comparing the APO 75 Cron-L to the APO Cron-M. The "L" lenses are bigger, but offer higher performance without the size and weight constraints of the M-body and mount. ...

Cal

Hi Cal,
you are one of the few people who have seen my prints of images captured with the Monochrome (MM, 18MP CCD), mostly shot with the 75Apo 'cron, handheld. One shot was cropped to half frame, printed 20x30 on 24x36 by ConeEdition using Piezography on Hanemühle FA Baryta. " You can see the peach fuss" That's printed resolution from a 9MP captured file. I have been milking IQ in those shots. Bright sunlight, lowest ISO, shot wide open, B&W yellow filter, 1/1000s or shorter, careful focussing, holding my breath etc. but still handheld.

And printing was not a bargain but the only possible option with Jon Cone. All this effort you don't make for any images, they have to be worth it. If you do care about the image you can squeeze amazing quality out of existing tools.


If you have a boring still life shot and you can help it using a Phase One with 100MP and have it printed on fancy paper with high res etc but what you will get is a high quality print of a boring image that looks impressive just because of the high end tools that have been used. Technical capability is used to cover up lack of artistic vision, rant mode off .. oh wait where did I turn it on?
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-24-2019   #76
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
Hi Cal,
you are one of the few people who have seen my prints of images captured with the Monochrome (MM, 18MP CCD), mostly shot with the 75Apo 'cron, handheld. One shot was cropped to half frame, printed 20x30 on 24x36 by ConeEdition using Piezography on Hanemühle FA Baryta. " You can see the peach fuss" That's printed resolution from a 9MP captured file. I have been milking IQ in those shots. Bright sunlight, lowest ISO, shot wide open, B&W yellow filter, 1/1000s or shorter, careful focussing, holding my breath etc. but still handheld.

And printing was not a bargain but the only possible option with Jon Cone. All this effort you don't make for any images, they have to be worth it. If you do care about the image you can squeeze amazing quality out of existing tools.


If you have a boring still life shot and you can help it using a Phase One with 100MP and have it printed on fancy paper with high res etc but what you will get is a high quality print of a boring image that looks impressive just because of the high end tools that have been used. Technical capability is used to cover up lack of artistic vision, rant mode off .. oh wait where did I turn it on?
Klaus,

The original 18 MP Monochron is a very capable camera in the right hands for sure. I believe that it will be somewhat of a cult camera one day. For one I think it has a unique rendering due to its CCD sensor.

Also I would argue that it is likely the most unforgiving digital camera camera because of the lack of Bayer Filter Array compounded by the CCD sensor. CMOS sensors and color cameras are more forgiving in recovering highlights.

You do make a great point that many shooters don't necessarily fully exploit their gear, but I know from seeing the results in your prints printed by Jon Cone's Studio that you approached the max that a MM could produce.

I think it was a smart move to retain our MM cameras. Also know that out of all the digital cameras two stand out as being the most like a basic film camera: the Leica CL (Digital Barnack); and the original Monochrom.

I can list all the things that make it a primitive camera: the not so good high ISO when compared to a M-246; the crappy screen; the slow small buffer; the lack of video capabilities; no live view... For me the slow performance and basic utility combined make my MM most like a film camera.

Not everybody fully exploits the resolution, IQ, or tonality like we have.

I believe your Jon Cone prints were 20x30 on 24x36. They were stunning.

BTW when I showed off that small 13x17 inch print of the Domino Sugar Refinery on the East River taken from the Williamsburg Bridge to the crew at the Leica booth at a PhotoPlusExpo they could not believe it was shot with the Monochrom. LOL.

Richard Herzog, a large format shooter, thought it was shot with a large format camera.

Also we know that we can print what we can't see on a dimmed down EIZO in a darkened room. We know that we can print what you can't see. Also "big prints don't lie."

Christian once pointed out the lightning rods on a smokestack that were visible on a 20x30 print that were over a quarter mile away on the Domino Refinery.

Cal

POSTSCRIPT: Sometime in early December "Maggie" has a gig where we will be on a luxury river cruise that begins in Amsterdam, stops at about half a dozen cities on the Rhine River, and ends in Switzerland. I'll let you know our itinerary, but I don't know if I'll have the time to hook-up with you.
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:26.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.