March 06, 2015, 07:41:03 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Policar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
1
Kinkade is worse than Lik. Significantly worse.

And that says something. Looking through Lik's gallery he has a lot of nice landscape shots. His compositions are basic but competent, and a lot of the time he seems to wait on good light and I bet those prints look majestic wall-sized.

But the moon shot, for instance, is just so bad. I think it's the hubris (thinking he's a peer of Ansel Adam's) that gets to art critics.

But whether Hirst is just a highbrow Lik is a very good question. Certainly he's shrewder and more conceptual. And his fake sale (for $100 million) is yet more absurd.

2

The difference is that one is an abundant, naturally-occurring mineral that's been made rare by unethical (ahem!) means, and the other is rare because the creator of the work chooses limited distribution.  Copyright vs. cartel.  One is legitimate, the other is not.

Legitimate it is.  So why are people criticizing him for making his work artificially rare?  He makes his prints in editions of 995, which is not especially rare, and yet he gets criticized for this.  The art world has a long history of limited editions, in prints, photography, etc.  Most paintings exist as singles.  Artificial scarcity is the name of the game.  Otherwise Ansel Adams would have been knocking out millions of Moonrises, and Van Gogh would have painted a fresh copy of Starry Night every morning and another every afternoon.

I don't think that was the primary criticism: most of the criticism appears to be directed at his habit of concocting  fables about himself and his work.  The unbelievably high trumpeted sales price on the one print, and the outright lies about the origins of the one moon photo are laughable. Stunts like these not only call his integrity into question, but risk side-effects for ethical photographers.

What concocted fables?  I'm not familiar with his career, but I didn't see that in the NY Times article.  The price of the Phantom print does sound unbelievable.  But I wouldn't claim it's a "stunt" without some proof that is.

What outright lies about the origins of the moon photo?  Again, I'm not familiar with his career and didn't see this in the NY Times article.

There's a hilariously bad photo into which he pasted a picture of the moon taken at a different focal length. And used the wrong transfer mode so it looks like it's in the earth's atmosphere... and claimed (or at the very least STRONGLY implied) it was a single capture.

Adams' prints are super hard to make... lots of dodging and burning per his orders. These are much easier to print. That said, there are more similarities than the art snobs among us might like to think.

3
I don't know who was fool enough to pay 6 million for a photo.

This was previously discussed.  My personal opinion is that his left hand bought it from his right hand.  Or perhaps his cat bought it from him and gave it to the dog as a birthday present.

It's certainly possible.

It's almost hilarious that his record sale comes from an extraordinarily generic (if technically competent) image of one of the most-photographed landmarks in generic landscape photography. Which is then... made black and white to make it more "artistic." This is a little harsh, though:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

I do think the NYT has an elitist bent toward the art world in that they'll call out the sale of Lik's tacky photos, but they call Hirst's sale of a $100 million skull (which is also pretty, and also somewhat tacky) "Warhol-like" and his business model brilliant for incorporating commerce into it... Hirst pretty clearly bought that skull himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/arts/design/13skul.html?_r=0

There's this elitist idea that artists and art critics are "in on the joke" when it comes to high art, but Kincade and Lik sell to the "dumb masses" who aren't and are swindling them.

I'm not so sure Koons and Hirst aren't swindling everyone, too.

4
Lik's mortal sin was succeeding without going to art school or licking the boots of critics.

Typical sucess envy informs the entire article.

He's also a bad photographer.

But there's definitely some classism in that article that just feels wrong. New York old money hating on west coast new money. But his work is also pretty S___e for the most part, not that there isn't S___ty "high art," too.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: More Canon EOS C300 Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: February 25, 2015, 09:22:38 PM »
Blackmagic pocket a toy???
The image from the pocket for film narrative is way better than the C300. In raw, it has texture and nice grain to it. It also doesn't have the punchy vibrant digital look that canon cameras have.
It doesn't matter if the pocket camera isn't as featured as the c300. Or the low light not being as good which is a youtube/vimeo filmmakers worry. The blackmagic flexibility, color science and dynamic range are better than C300.
If I was doing interiews. wedding photography, I'd opt for a C300.
For narrative. Blackmagic.

I never said it was a bad toy. The image is very good for the money. Professional features (even prosumer features) might not matter to you, but they do, to, well... professionals/prosumers.

The low light argument is laughable (and the image is much worse than a C300, but I'm assuming you haven't shot with one). Talk with Shane Hurlbut, who used the C500 over the Alexa because he could rate it cleanly to 4000 ISO or 5000 ISO, slightly better than the Alexa. Or the DP on the last show I was on in which we rated two Panavised Alexas at 3200 ISO for the extra stop needed in spite of a lighting package including an 18K HMI and multiple 6K HMIs and even then we were struggling to get stop at t1.4.

How would you have handled those situations with a BMPP?

Where's your timecode sync? Any professional camera (the C100 is prosumer because it lacks it) will have it. How are you working on narratives without dual system sound? Don't tell me plural eyes. The camera is a toy.

But it's a good toy, probably Black Magic's best camera. For the money it's a nice product, you're embarrassing yourself with ever word you write.

(Of course, for narrative the real answer is 9/10 times the Alexa.)

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Possible Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Spec Talk [CR2]
« on: February 22, 2015, 09:06:01 PM »
Impressive what a large percentage of people here are both printing larger than A3 and releasing video theatrically.

Specs seem great for my needs, and those of 99.999% of the world. If you need better, go medium format or Alexa. Too expensive? Rent.

7
Photography Technique / Re: What is your keeper rate?
« on: February 22, 2015, 07:54:02 PM »
3:10,000

8
EOS Bodies / Re: More Canon EOS C300 Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: February 22, 2015, 03:47:15 PM »
I just got done shooting with the FS7 and I was very impressed. I've been a Canon guy for a long time, but this thing is light years ahead of the C300. Continuous internal 180 fps, 10-Bit, plus 4k.

The quality of the image depends a lot on how you set it up, so I wouldn't be too quick to judge samples online. There are a number of settings, including LUTs, that can have a significant impact on the image. We chose to not bake a LUT into the image, and we were glad we made that choice. I'd rather have the option in post.

We also ran some side by side tests with the Red Epic, and we had some very interesting results. It held up well against a camera that's in a completely different price category. The Red had (very) slightly more dynamic range in the highlights, but you really had to nitpick to see the difference. We sent the ungraded footage to a colorist, and he matched everything up. Then we had people guess which image came from which camera. There really wasn't any way you could tell for sure. Amazing.

The main downside I see with it is the proprietary cards. Sony says you need the G series, but we shot 180 fps all day with the S series, which are much cheaper.

Canon can turn their nose up at the FS7 if they want to, but they'll regret it. The C300 MkII is going to have to be a major leap forward to compete at any level with the FS7. That's coming from a guy who has owned 4 Canons in a row.

Epic or Epic Dragon?

The Epic has the same DR as the C300 (in practice, and there are plenty of tests to prove it, but I've shot tons with both), and the C300 delivers a better image than the Epic 9 times out of 10.

If you're getting more DR than the Dragon, though, that's... well... about right (both should be around 14 stops), but nonetheless impressive.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: More Canon EOS C300 Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: February 21, 2015, 03:10:50 PM »
I really really don't see an issue with the FS7..... 14 stops in latitude, and the skin tones render quite naturally.

I think the reason that people have bad experiences with it is because they simply haven't taken the time to balance it properly.

Check out this video with the FS7 and Leica lenses:




And this group:
https://vimeo.com/groups/fs7/sort:date/format:thumbnail

Nothing against the FS7, but those videos look awful. Cheesy teal/orange LUT on the first one with undersaturated color and poor highlight roll off... plastic skin in the next with inconsistent color between takes. I've seen better video from the Black Magic Pocket Camera (which is a solid little thing, but nonetheless).

Then again, if you think that looks good, the problem might be with your eye and not the camera.

You're kidding right.... the BM pocket cam was a nice try from the beginning. Nothing about it could justify using it for a proper production.

We'll just have to see. I have seen nothing better from the C300 mk I that tells me it's better than the FS7 and I doubt the Mk II will be any better as it's Canon we're talking about.
Everytime someone shoots something with a C cam they all churn out this awful misunderstood flat desat look, that every semi-pro thinks is a film look.


Watch this from start to finish



I wish I were kidding. :(

I agree the BMPC is a toy, but it at least appears to give something resembling a useable image, more so than their 4k camera, even. It's not for "professional" production, I agree! The FS7 has HDSDI jam sync and what seem to be useable ergonomics, which are the key features separating the prosumer and consumer cameras from professional ones, far more important than codec and 4k and slow motion. I expect the FS7's image can be graded to something acceptable, but those two videos look just awful. Some of the worst skin tone and color rendering I've seen in anything passed off as professional level corporate, but I assume it's also because they were poorly lit and had to be aggressively graded to hide it.

A friend of mine produced this video, which won an award at Cannes:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2359024/

It's on Netflix and looks really quite good. I've seen a lot of major spots and tv shows shot on the C-cameras and none seem terribly desaturated. Need for Speed seemed over-saturated, if anything. I'm sure there is undersaturated C300 footage, but I haven't noticed the same trend. I haven't been following either camera on vimeo, though, and know that most videos posted there are incompetently shot.

The second link you provided shows hope, Sony still has issues with it its matrix but there's enough information there to grade it into something usable. Clearly Sony has slightly better DR in the shadows and a better codec, though. That's a start. I'm sure with proper grading, the FS7 can provide a nice image. There's a lot of C300 footage that looks almost as bad as the first two links you posted, so it's likely operator error combined with a bad grade.

That said, as a "C300 killer" the FS7 has some work to do. That or the C300 Mark II doesn't have much to surpass it on all counts. I see the value of having a good image when underexposed two stops and Sony sensors do seem to have the lead in DR, but I'd rather have a great image under normal circumstances.

Again, just my opinion. Although I think anyone who's worked in video before would agree the first two links look pretty awful from a color perspective.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: More Canon EOS C300 Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: February 21, 2015, 04:03:13 AM »
I really really don't see an issue with the FS7..... 14 stops in latitude, and the skin tones render quite naturally.

I think the reason that people have bad experiences with it is because they simply haven't taken the time to balance it properly.

Check out this video with the FS7 and Leica lenses:




And this group:
https://vimeo.com/groups/fs7/sort:date/format:thumbnail

Nothing against the FS7, but those videos look awful. Cheesy teal/orange LUT on the first one with undersaturated color and poor highlight roll off... plastic skin in the next with inconsistent color between takes. I've seen better video from the Black Magic Pocket Camera (which is a solid little thing, but nonetheless).

Then again, if you think that looks good, the problem might be with your eye and not the camera.

11
Lenses / Re: 70-200mm Mk I vs Mk II
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:52:39 PM »
None of these lenses quite live up to the hype, but of the three, the MK II is easily the best. Sharpest, best color rendition, maybe not the best bokeh, but very neutral and with extremely good IS on top of it all. No brainer, IMO.

The MK II is $2,200 new and worth it. If you can find the MK I for $1,100 new, though, I can't say that's a bad deal either. :)

But in my experience it's not half the price at all and if you really want to save money, wait for a refurb to overlap with a refurb sale... you can get the lens for $1,600 or so, which is a steal.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: More Confirmation EOS C300 Mark II Will be 4K
« on: February 10, 2015, 12:34:49 AM »
...
I think the rumor of an new Alexa competitor is dead-on though. The C500 has been a dog in terms of sales, as it's DR fell short of almost all of it's competitors. I'm guessing the C300 drops in price, and the replacement for the C500 (probably a new # or name) debuts with a new chip, with alexa like DR and highlight roll off, at a substantial increase in price --think f55/red.
...

Sorry, you're wrong here.

As countless other threads on canonrumors have decided, the only people that need lots of DR and landscape photographers but they can use HDR methods ,etc, to make up for that.

Clearly the people who choose Alexa over Canon because of DR need some re-education from the experts in these forums.

Otherwise, this issue pretty much confirms that Canon has (or had) a DR problem with their (current?) previous sensor design.

Not sure where you're being sarcastic.
...

How dare you accuse me of being sarcastic! There are many people that post on CR that are deadly serious about this. Just try and argue anywhere that Canon's lack of DR is a real problem and see what kind of treatment you g

Obviously it's a problem for some people and not for others. This whole argument is subjective so I don't even understand how one person can argue one way and the other the next when ultimately they're just addressing their own needs.

For me, DR isn't that important for stills. For video, it is, but 12 stops is so much better than the hvx/hdvx (6-8 stop) era that I'm just ecstatic with what I've got.

The C300 is a great camera. I prefer it over the F5, but not the Alexa. I'm hoping for a good upgrade, but cognizant that if there isn't one, there's always the FS7 or the Amira. I think Canon knows that, too.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: More Confirmation EOS C300 Mark II Will be 4K
« on: February 09, 2015, 11:58:08 PM »
...
I think the rumor of an new Alexa competitor is dead-on though. The C500 has been a dog in terms of sales, as it's DR fell short of almost all of it's competitors. I'm guessing the C300 drops in price, and the replacement for the C500 (probably a new # or name) debuts with a new chip, with alexa like DR and highlight roll off, at a substantial increase in price --think f55/red.
...

Sorry, you're wrong here.

As countless other threads on canonrumors have decided, the only people that need lots of DR and landscape photographers but they can use HDR methods ,etc, to make up for that.

Clearly the people who choose Alexa over Canon because of DR need some re-education from the experts in these forums.

Otherwise, this issue pretty much confirms that Canon has (or had) a DR problem with their (current?) previous sensor design.

Not sure where you're being sarcastic. Video benefits from extra DR more than stills benefit from it. The C300's 12 stops is "enough" for most situations (it took until Vision 2, if not Vision 3, for film to really surpass 12 stops) and the noise and highlight roll-of aren't bad (also not great). But the Alexa's excellent roll-off is a real benefit.

For stills you can use strobes or wait on light for landscapes. I strongly believe dynamic range matters more for "cinema" than it does for published stills.

And why not? For the longest time we had Velvia (5 stops) on one hand and color negative (8-9 stops) on the other.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5Ds & EOS 5Ds R Image & Video Samples
« on: February 06, 2015, 12:31:16 AM »
Fine detail picture style adds an improved debayer algorithm. Cool. :)

Funny that the 5DR photos all have softness from motion/lens blur or are shot at f11, at which point the diffraction is very evident. Images look amazing.

15
Hi guys

For all you out there doing landscape photography; I'm very interested in hearing about what would be your choice if you could only use one lens for shooting landscapes. Whether it would be a super wide angle, telephoto, something in between, zoom, prime, or maybe a specialty lens such as a tilt shift or macro?

(One other point that is beneficial to note is what sensor size you would use that with; full frame, 1.3x crop, 1.6x crop.)

And to try to avoid this being just another thread where various people list all the lenses in Canon's lineup, I would be very interested in why you would choose that particular lens for your needs.

Hope this is not another dreadful repetition. I couldn't find anything like this in regards to landscape photography.

- Alex

90mm TS-E, although if the 45mm TS-E were better I'd choose it instead. :)

I find shift necessary for perspective correction and I like compressing space into a texture.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31