-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of dynamic range in photos from year 1898.
- Thread starter ajfotofilmagem
- Start date
Because back then, photographers knew how to expose their images properly - no need to unblock shadows by 5 stops in the darkroom...
Upvote
0
As always, lighting made the difference, it was not so much of a matter of exposure, just good lighting. Photographers had no more information about exposure than we do, in fact, a lot less. They went by rule of thumb, or had a standard exposure setup in their studio where the lighting was fixed.
Upvote
0
Call me crazy but the video gives no indication of the dynamic range the photographer was working with so the premise of the thread is flawed and presents the amazing work with a currently controversial tag it simply doesn’t deserve.
That photographers have been able to take compelling, realistic and life like images with the available tech since the 19th century should be no surprise to anybody, the surprise is that so many people feel the ‘need’ for so much more than they currently have to take images with a fraction of the interest or compelling nature. The constant clamor for more DR, IBIS, less “jittery or nervous” AF, etc.really does come across as a bad joke whenever you take the time to actually look at whatever image genre you personally aspire to and see what others achieve those results with. Give an Eastern European a 400D and 50 f1.8 and you’ll often get more compelling images than most of us with an R and RF 85 f1.2 and half a dozen lights.
That photographers have been able to take compelling, realistic and life like images with the available tech since the 19th century should be no surprise to anybody, the surprise is that so many people feel the ‘need’ for so much more than they currently have to take images with a fraction of the interest or compelling nature. The constant clamor for more DR, IBIS, less “jittery or nervous” AF, etc.really does come across as a bad joke whenever you take the time to actually look at whatever image genre you personally aspire to and see what others achieve those results with. Give an Eastern European a 400D and 50 f1.8 and you’ll often get more compelling images than most of us with an R and RF 85 f1.2 and half a dozen lights.
Upvote
0
Anything is possible, even taking BIF with a 1DX MkII AF, or getting sharp images from a 7D MkII pixel pitch...
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Just because I have seen an amazing amount of very high quality output from very modest gear from Eastern Europeans, maybe that is a product of my exposure to them, maybe it is a function of their ability to get the best out of what they have. Maybe there is no correlation at all.
But I have found many Eastern Europeans to have a strong photography background and history, much more so than South Americans or Africans for example, and as such some of their output and ingenuity is stunning. That doesn't mean I believe any other nationality doesn't have good creatives, I marveled at the art scene and creativity in Senegal (though none of it was good photography), just that some Eastern European creatives seem particularly attuned to photography and don't seem to get hung up in the gear acquisition syndrome hamster wheel of creative death.
In general give a Western teenager a 400D and a 50 f1.8 and they'd laugh at you, take a picture of it with their iPhone and post that to Facebook.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
