July 23, 2014, 08:21:48 AM

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] 4 5 ... 25
EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon Cine Zoom Lens?
« on: March 30, 2014, 05:04:52 PM »
Is the *optical* quality of a Canon CN-E50mm T1.3 L F better than the IQ of a 50mm 1.2L? If yes, it would be interesting to get compared to the Zeiss Otus 55 f1.4...


Should be the same or virtually identical, different coatings maybe so maybe better contrast, more aperture blades I think, better mechanics.

Smart, if this is true. But it doesn't address the pressing need for a 7DC or 5DC 4K DSLR or Cinema EOS equivalent for under $10K, does it Canon?  :) ;)

What need?

EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS C200 & C400 at NAB? [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2014, 12:02:00 PM »
Canon is promoting 4k everything in their cinema camera literature despite having primarily 1080p cameras. The difficulty is that Canon's audience WANTS 1080p. The reason the Alexa and CX00 are successful in tv is because they integrate into familiar workflows. But there is money to be made by upgrading to 4k. The sensor Canon is using is already a 4k sensor. This kind of an upgrade is not out of the realm of possibility, odd as it seems. The F3 uses a prosumer codec at 1080p... F5 has 4k in some weird proprietary wrapper to stave of "it's not future-proof" claims and make good literature and 1080p prores/dnxhd, which is what networks actually require. That's the step Canon would be smart to make and they don't even need to change the sensor.

Whatever Canon announces at NAB, it will likely be way more expensive than everyone thinks it should be, and way underpowered compared to the competition....weirdly enough it will sell like hotcakes!

Exactly. Canon and Arri are taking cues from Apple... expensive, conservative design with some intermittent real innovation. And very very high prices for the specs. More Arri than Canon. Canon needs to get its menu systems under control! Messy!

Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Samyang 24mm f/1.4 for Canon
« on: March 13, 2014, 11:45:00 AM »
I wonder how much this lens differs from the 24mm Cine. Is it just the same lens rehoused?  The Rokinon 24mm cine is my favorite lens on crop sensors.

Optically the same.

I find the 24mm f1.4 Samyang to be sort of garbage (especially compared with the Canon, which is dramatically sharper wide open), but if you need a wide fast FF lens for video.... could be worse.

Videography Technique / Re: making a reel of just interviews?
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:50:27 PM »
Good advice has been given here . . . another thought, sometimes I just point people to pieces of work on my website instead of a reel. For example, a client who is just looking for an interview can watch a couple finished pieces that are mostly interviews. That way they can see the whole work, and it will be more coherent than multiple different parts put together into a reel.


Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:17:59 PM »
Say what you will about Britney Spears, but KISS is some of the worst music of all time.

Videography Technique / Re: making a reel of just interviews?
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:10:17 PM »
Shoot some b-roll on spec, maybe? I agree with having shorter (30-40 second at longest) and specific reels for different clients. You don't need a lot of b-roll to make a 40-second reel, which is all most clients will watch anyway.

I have this same problem. Have done a mix of stuff and my reel doesn't cater to any particular audience, but I don't have enough for four different reels yet! Haven't gotten any work off it since I cut it, only work based on owning a camera, but I haven't really been trying that hard lately:

DP Reel on Vimeo Small | Large

For this year, I'm cutting more like you suggest... three or four short, targeted reels and links to footage I've shot that I have clearance to post. But I think just interviews is a bit limited; I'd find some basic b-roll if possible. Find a crane and shoot a couple establishing shots, do some simple some time-lapse, just look at corporate reels and what b-roll they have and then copy five or six shots. Put some music so the words themselves become irrelevant and if you don't have enough b-roll throw some titles in. Shooting for any particular genre is a Catch 22 unless you network feverishly or have connections... if you need to shoot on spec, shoot on spec but do it smart.

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:58:23 PM »
The question : "Bad Photography becomes salable art " can apply to music. Never sold as much bad music sells nowadays. It is also a fact that never did so much bad photography as today. The internet is full of bad photos . But no one can force me to buy a stock that I do not like , and no one can force me to agree that a photo is good just because it was sold for a fortune .

The problem is that the "average taste" is undemanding when it comes to CONTENTS . A photo cell can be good if the theme is interressante and achievement is well taken . Similarly , a photograph of medium format camera can be uninteresting ( even if technically perfect ) for lack of subject content .

I'm sure Billie Holiday would not need to make a music video like Miley Cyrus ( nude in a wrecking ball ) because the music was enough to hold the attention . Tanbem think Cartier - Bresson would not need to use the perfect technique to mask the lack of content in your photographs .

Well said.  Billie Holiday had a magical voice and talent.  Unfortunately our culture today celebrates the mundane and the vulgar.  It celebrates the idiocy of youth. 

Do you own any Tesla stock, out of curiousity?  I have strong opinions about Elon Musk...haha.  I've never bought that stock, but am beginning to wonder if it isn't worth trading after all.  That way I too, like Elon, can profit off the taxpayers' backs.

I think a lot of this is fallout from MTV of the 80's.

I mean, yes..it did seem to save rock music, but it also propogated that only GOOD LOOKING folks are to be promoted to be todays music stars...not talent.

Many of my favorite groups of the past were butt-ugly, but you didn't see them that often, you heard them and learned to love quality songs/albums they put out. 

And also, there is the proliferation of music today listened to on really low quality systems...ipods with horrible earbuds (most people don't replace them with quality ones), or now, the Beats headphones, that are just awful middle of the road bad bass, with no real dynamics. This has all led to the compression wars that have killed dynamic range on music in order to just make it louder sounding. I grates on the ears....and it has affected even old recordings when remastered.

Wow, ok, I'm getting way off photography...but still, I still amaze kids that come by and hear what a REAL high end stereo system can sounds like...tube SET amps running Klipschorn speakers.  http://www.klipsch.com/klipschorn-floorstanding-speaker
Now that is a pleasing system to listen to..while post processing images.

There...I brought it back to photography!!


I actually think Wrecking Ball is a very good pop song, but I agree music has gone downhill.

The kinds of rock bands that are talented and clever enough to write raw, gutsy music (like the Stones or Nirvana or even the Pumpkins or Pixies more recently) are now for whatever reason doing esoteric music that’s too cold and intellectual and difficult to access. And the emotional immediacy isn’t there; it’s just very formal and cold and you need to think about it to appreciate it.

I like the immediacy of Miley or Britney Spears, but the music is written by committee and takes no risks whatsoever. It’s garbage, but some of it is good, well-crafted garbage...

The loudness wars… that’s another issue. Speakers are so bad music needs to be compressed to fit into a tiny dynamic range. Reminds me of HDR, actually, which I think is hideous and only looks good on a small iPhone screen or something (never printed large) and is why I like these 8x10 photos.

That said, Gursky to me falls into the visual camp that’s analogous to bands that are talented musicians but too distant and self-aware to make anything raw. Which is why this photo is so silly in many respects. And why high art is so silly (it’s too intellectual). But I do think a lot of his work is good, and prefer this photo to any HDR. (There is some good commercial photography, too, but most of it is in print… actual commercials. A lot of middlebow “art” is horrible. Stuck in Customs is the worst photography I’ve ever seen. It's like Kinkade's paintings. I’m sorry to be a snob, but this stuff is the worst of both worlds. There has been good stuff that occupies this space, and it's the best stuff… Beatles, Spielberg, etc.)

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 01:11:22 PM »
While I'm just a photographer I really am trying to create my own concept of art in this world.

So is Gursky...

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 11:45:04 AM »
Most people who aren't familiar with the artist don't get the concept. I don't see it and come away with the same feelings of a bleak, sterile god perspective of the world that you do. It may be telling that the photo doesn't speak for itself (I.e. context partially drives your reaction). Or not. I dunno, and it doesn't really matter.

It really does come down to taste. To me, a good photograph need to be interesting to look at. Interest can come from the subject itself or it can come from how a subject is portrayed (composed). The subject is uninteresting, and the composition doesn't add anything to me. Perhaps that is because I don't know what it really looks like and thus can't recognize anything particularly unique about how the scene is portrayed.

Shrug. If someone wants to pay 4million for it, have at it; it's no skin off my back.

I think it's one of his less interesting photographs, too, but it's paradoxically interesting among his photographs for being the most extreme in terms of coldness and the banality of the subject. I don't think you need a lot of backstory to "get it" though. It's the Rhine on a cloudy day presented as flatly as possible. Stand up next to a full-size print and you'll feel like you're seeing a familiar, boring sight, only rendered completely symmetrical and cold (and actually very beautiful in an odd way). So the subject isn't that interesting, but to me the composition (which is exquisite, imo) is, almost because it's so composed and flat. And seeing something very "everyday" but altered in terms of presentation is striking and uncanny. There's something to this photo, but the thumbnails do it no justice!

That said, these are much more interesting to me:





And, again, none are that interesting except when printed HUGE.

I would have chosen a different print, too! But the guy is the real deal and I still think this is a great photograph, just not like... the best. I do have an immediate emotional/intellectual reaction to it, though. It's not of overwhelming beauty, but I think it communicates what it needs to communicate well, and I do think it's very beautiful in a way... certainly more beautiful than anything I've seen on here, on flickr, etc.

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 11:12:06 AM »
Fair enough.

I guess I'm just saying... it's easy to appreciate something that's very good (when presented with it in a proper context; this photo is pretty inferior in thumbnail and not in a gallery printed huge) but it's difficult to articulate convincingly why it's good. "Emotion and lyrics" is my example of a bad description that could very well be honest...

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:33:22 AM »

I could ask you to describe why Beethoven's 9th is great without using words like "melodious" "beautiful" or discussing texture and composition... Give it a go. You can instantly recognize that it's great, so describe it (don't do any research first, either!) and convince me. Let's say I prefer Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus because it has more emotion and lyrics. Convince me otherwise.

Well, I'm not religious, but I certainly recognize the emotions in the lyrical sections of Beethoven's 9th...

Well, there's a convincing argument.  ???

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:59:51 AM »

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:57:13 AM »
Just look at this:


Who could have a colder eye toward a subject? It's all texture and composition and coldness and distance.

Who could make a colder photo called Love Parade? It's beautiful, too, but there's nothing human about it to the extent that the subject is almost ironic, or maybe it's about a beauty that transcends the human and concerns humanity more broadly.

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:46:29 AM »
I would recognize that it's an excellent photograph, but nothing more.

Ok, let's forego your comments on how he is an 'unmistakeable genius', I wouldn't get it if you knocked me on my head with that genius!
(Mind you, the term is technically wrong, since so many of us right here have cheerfully made the 'mistake' of not understanding that 'genius')
Let me ask a simpler question:
Why is this an excellent photograph?- please explain it as you see it. Please avoid esoteric terms like cold, banal, etc. or terms like composition and texture without explaining why that is good. I am not asking about the 'concept' in it. Just why this is an excellent photograph.

It's also possible everyone here has no taste. Most casual non-photographers could identify what's right with Gursky's work (as a whole, not just this one odd photograph of his) seeing it in a gallery or at least simply understand what he's up to, but we're too obsessed with MTF and clone tools. :)

I could ask you to describe why Beethoven's 9th is great without using words like "melodious" "beautiful" or discussing texture and composition... Give it a go. You can instantly recognize that it's great, so describe it (don't do any research first, either!) and convince me. Let's say I prefer Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus because it has more emotion and lyrics. Convince me otherwise.

See why you put me in a tough spot? But I'll try:

Again, this isn't my favorite photograph of his, but why it's good or at least interesting is fairly simple to articulate. Gursky's work is all very cold and formal... He rarely has one identifiable person in his frame, and when he does have one that person is at a distance. His photographs are all about textures found in large, manmade spaces, and he often photographs with long lenses from a distance with a near-orthographic/planometric feel or from heights not normally accessible to people (helicopters, etc.) and then composes extremely cleanly and prints huge. The universe feels very disorganized at normal viewing perspectives and most photos here are chaotic or sloppy. His photographs have ultra-simple compositions (sometimes as simple as one texture) and within those compositions blocks of texture and gradation that are only really appreciable at wall-sized prints... reminds me of Pollock a bit, order in chaos. Also reminds me of one of my friends, a brilliant landscape photographer (who is much more fun, and shoots Canon!): http://www.alexmaclean.com

Seeing the everyday world appear so flat and composed and organized and distant is unnerving... usually it only appears that way very small (molecular structure, crystal structure) or large (solar systems, etc.) and seeing that geometry and distance applied to banal man-made objects gives this god's-eye-view perspective that's cold and unnerving and overwhelming and (particularly when these prints are big) makes the subject feel small and humanity small and irrelevant somehow. His photos are about organizing the modern world from a distanced, symmetrical, omniscient perspective that is not sympathetic to its subjects, who are rendered irrelevant relative to the texture they fall into... really god's eye view stuff. And you see it and are overwhelmed by the symmetry and coldness of his take on humanity and the modern day, particularly when you see a big print... it's overwhelming. Almost cosmic, being faced with something so big and cold and composed that makes you feel so small in comparison. See it printed large!

This photo is so extreme in its style... the subject matter so banal, but the composition so perfect (the bars are balanced exquisitely for color, texture, shade, etc. and weighted perfectly; if you deny this you have a horrible eye for composition). Say what you will but this is a ridiculously good composition, so good it's almost, well... boring. It's an everyday view of a familiar subject seen with godlike distance and symmetry. That's it. Pretty simple stuff and to me not as interesting as his other work. Almost a parody of Gursky it's so extreme, probably why it sold for so much.

The guy comes across as a cold bastard. He listens to techno, probably watches David Fincher. If that coldness and order appeals to you, then his work is amazing. Printed large, it makes you feel insignificant as though faced with an overwhelmingly huge god's-eye-view. A little bit preachy, a little bit pretentious, but expertly composed and (as seen printed full-sized on a wall) even viscerally breathtaking. Gursky's work reminds me of Zodiac or Aphex Twin (circa Drukqs) or something. Cold, clinical, formal, but lacking in humanity.


I prefer photography with a human element to it, but Gursky does something no one else is doing or even successfully emulating. Guy's great.

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:12:26 PM »
I do think he's an unmistakable genius at what he does and that if you're not seeing it, the problem isn't with him.

So if some no name took this picture, you would recognize the "unmistakable genius" in it?  I don't believe that in the least.

I would recognize that it's an excellent photograph, but nothing more. Again, it's not my favorite photo of his by any means, but I do think it's better than any photograph I've seen posted here, for instance.

If I saw his body of work I'd recognize it as unmistakably brilliant, as I think most anyone would. And "genius" I use loosely; I'd call Spielberg and Fincher and Scorsese and the best DPs (Deakins, Richardson), etc. visual geniuses even though they've produced a ton of garbage. I'm generous with the label, but I do think it's easy to recognize a singular vision and articulate articulation of it and it's better to praise than tear down great work within a medium, even if the genre isn't your favorite. I do think the subject here is pretty banal and the execution (as regards composition) so perfect that it's almost boring. Not my favorite photo of his.

There are artists that are highly successful that I just don't get. Again, Mondrian I don't really get.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25