Gear Realities

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,923
3,131
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
jdramirez said:
c.d.embrey said:
Google photos of your favorite sport, from the 1950. You'll be amazed at how good they are.

1952 World Series
http://goldinauctions.com/ItemImages/000009/9180a_lg.jpeg
i was at a minor league baseball game a few weeks back and they had photos of people who made it to the majors... from today and yesteryear... and OMG... the images from yesteryear were so awful. They were crazy grainy and looked out of focus... I suppose they were action shots... but I manage to get action shots of baseball in focus even when manually focusing...

I don't disagree with your thesis... but I was surprised because I expected yesteryear to be better...

And for what it is worth... I'm not that impressed with the world series photo...

Personally, I've always thought this was one of the all-time greatest sports photos (says a lot more than any razor sharp action shot ever could in my opinion)
http://www.milliondollarbackfield.com/images/tittle16x201.jpg
 

Omni Images

EOS RP
Jul 12, 2014
200
1
www.omniimages.com.au
Mackguyver, I'd have to mention that landscape photography is not just a case of using the widest lens possible to cram as much as you can in.
Most if not all my shots are taken using my 1Dmk4 with 35mm 1.4LII lens and using the manfrotto 303+ pano head in the vertical position stitching maybe 8 to 12 shots together.
Even a 50mm lens is good for this on a full frame body.
The pano head is such an important item for stitching as it will allow you to stitch images that have close foreground objects such as bushes, rocks etc and also have your background subject line up too .. so you don't get ghosting of the merged images.
A longer lens brings up the details of a mountain range etc ... using a wide lens pushes the detail way off so as you can't see detail of trees and rocks etc in say a mountain range.
I also use my Linhof 617s with the 90mm lens ... I wouldn't go any wider.
I would agree on using the tilt shift for increased focal range, I have a 4x5 Horseman and that is exactly what they can do.
A good landscape image I feel is one with interesting close foreground detail along with detailed background .. all in focus .. that is the landscape photographers conundrum.
 

c.d.embrey

EOS RP
Jul 21, 2010
663
11
jdramirez said:
that i like... but if it was taken today, people would say that it doesn't follow the rule of thirds.

Some of the best/most famous photos violated the rule-of-thirds, and every other rule you can think of. Some were even out-of-focus.
 

Keith_Reeder

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
957
469
60
Blyth, NE England
c.d.embrey said:
Google photos of your favorite sport, from the 1950. You'll be amazed at how good they are.

Actually, for the most part, they're really not.

They're "good for their time", "good for the gear available" - and yes they capture a moment - but that's not the same thing at all as them being "amazingly good" in terms of the part the gear has played in their capture.

By modern standards, they just don't cut it. Even rank motorsport beginners aspire to standards much higher than these old offerings get anywhere near to.
 

Keith_Reeder

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
957
469
60
Blyth, NE England
unfocused said:
Personally, I've always thought this was one of the all-time greatest sports photos (says a lot more than any razor sharp action shot ever could in my opinion)

Why, though? A sentimental attachment to the idea that "old, grainy and b&w" somehow has a meaning, a significance - a "truth" - in itself? (Nothing wrong with that, of course).

For me, I see in that image a great photo opportunity somewhat lost for the want of modern equipment to capture it.
 
<-- start Taboola -->