The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]

[Maiaibing]

"I want more pixels" Either get a camera with more pixels or stitch.
"I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot." Er, learn to use the right focal length.
"I also want better low light focussing performance." Well no manufacturer is that much better or worse than any other on that, which hardly means Canon need to "fight back".
"Finally, much better high iso." Again, Canon are very competitive in this area, they either lead the competition or are very close, so again, they hardly need to "fight back".

Somehow your comments make me wonder if you take pictures at all...

 

[unfocused]

"I want more pixels" Either get a camera with more pixels or stitch.
"I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot." Er, learn to use the right focal length.
"I also want better low light focussing performance." Well no manufacturer is that much better or worse than any other on that, which hardly means Canon need to "fight back".
"Finally, much better high iso." Again, Canon are very competitive in this area, they either lead the competition or are very close, so again, they hardly need to "fight back".

Somehow your comments make me wonder if you take pictures at all...

If you followed this site at all you'd know that Private is one of a handful of people here who actually earns a living from photography. Comments like the above only make you look foolish.

 

[mackguyver]

"I want more pixels" Either get a camera with more pixels or stitch.
"I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot." Er, learn to use the right focal length.
"I also want better low light focussing performance." Well no manufacturer is that much better or worse than any other on that, which hardly means Canon need to "fight back".
"Finally, much better high iso." Again, Canon are very competitive in this area, they either lead the competition or are very close, so again, they hardly need to "fight back".

Somehow your comments make me wonder if you take pictures at all...

If you followed this site at all you'd know that Private is one of a handful of people here who actually earns a living from photography. Comments like the above only make you look foolish.

+1, and note that unless they are sponsored by Canon or Nikon, the vast majority of pros are using older gear, yet taking far better photos than the people whining about DR, megapixels, lens sharpness, etc. on forums.

 

[bdunbar79]

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? ... what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

I want more pixels. I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot. At least 30 would be very useful. 36 would be great. If I could get 100 I would take it.

I also want better low light focussing performance. In low light shooting relatively fast moving subjects I have to take 3 shoots to be sure to get one right - both with the 5DII and the 5DIII (this was the deal breaker for me).

Finally, much better high iso. 5DIII is of course a little better than 5DII but not the jump in performance I would like to see.

That's pretty much it - quite a modest list when it comes to number of items. Time will tell if Canon will deliver.

Fortunately for you, there is an answer. There is an option that satisfies all of those wants. And the answer is...

MEDIUM FORMAT!

Too expensive? Well, that's not Canon's fault.

As a trade-off you could get a 1Dx.

 

[jrista]

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? ... what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

I want more pixels. I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot. At least 30 would be very useful. 36 would be great. If I could get 100 I would take it.

I also want better low light focussing performance. In low light shooting relatively fast moving subjects I have to take 3 shoots to be sure to get one right - both with the 5DII and the 5DIII (this was the deal breaker for me).

Finally, much better high iso. 5DIII is of course a little better than 5DII but not the jump in performance I would like to see.

That's pretty much it - quite a modest list when it comes to number of items. Time will tell if Canon will deliver.

"I want more pixels" Either get a camera with more pixels or stitch.
"I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot." Er, learn to use the right focal length.
"I also want better low light focussing performance." Well no manufacturer is that much better or worse than any other on that, which hardly means Canon need to "fight back".
"Finally, much better high iso." Again, Canon are very competitive in this area, they either lead the competition or are very close, so again, they hardly need to "fight back".

Those are not features where Canon is trailing, unless you compare them solely to the number of pixels on the 36mp Sony sensor in all its iterations. All you are really saying is you'd like Canon to "fight back" with more pixels because you can't choose the right focal length and everything else they do is comparable to competing product capabilities, hardly a compelling reason for Canon to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line. I'd hoped your input would be far more worthwhile than you can't choose the right focal length and need mp to sort out your short comings.

If you want a 100mp sensor for cropping purposes just use a P&S, it is effectively the same thing and will give you the same IQ.

Totally agree here. Canon is highly competitive, and even the leader in some cases, in all of these area.

@Maiaibing: There are technical specs, and there are real-world results. Technically, the difference between Canon and Nikon at high ISO is marginal, with Canon having a slight lead. In the real world, well, just go look at some actual photos. Canon absolutely EXCELS at high ISO. It does much better than technical measurements, like those from DXO or DPR, would otherwise indicate. But high ISO performance is often the LEAST of the things people who buy the 1D X concern themselves with. AF system performance, accuracy, precision, and the camera's frame rate are often more important, or at least equally important.

A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras, a bunch of high end Canon lenses, and did his entire next couple of safaris with nothing but Canon gear. Right out the gate, with no other experience other than a couple of days he'd had when he tested the camera on some owls and otters...he was willing to completely move his entire kit from one brand to another.

To me, that is the kind of real-world performance that speaks VOLUMES more than any test DXO, DPR, Imaging Resource, etc. may do. For most people these days, we already have more than enough resolution. We already have more than enough dynamic range. Noise levels are quite low across the board, even on the noisiest sensors (note that most medium format cameras that people have been using for the last five or six years have the same amount and kind of noise as Canon sensors do...high end, $40,000 medium format digital cameras even have BANDING in the shadows! But it doesn't matter...people still buy them, still use them, because the need to lift shadows by six stops is so small in the grand scheme of things, as to be irrelevant.)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?

I mean on these forums in general. It would just simply be nice to get past the whole Nikon/DR thing at some point. I'm not saying we stop talking tech...but there is more to owning a Canon camera than debating DR.

Yeah but this a rumors site, here we talk equipment, off-line we talk art and shoot.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.

Do you buy your camera equipment according to their sales figures?

My purchases are directed by my needs as a photographer. I did not buy the 5DIII after extensive testing - because it just did not bring anything useful to me. So for my money Canon will have to "fight back" or my next DSLR will not be a Canon unless I have a 5DII break down. Simple as that.

YMMV.

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? As far as I can see the only thing the 5D MkIII doesn't do significantly better than the 5D MkII is low iso shadows, even then it is better, just not significantly better. And seeing as how the "best" competitors are only performing a stop or so better in this one metric I'd like to know what you, personally, would like from Canon. Also, what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

The best competitors are more like 3 stops not 1 stop better than the 5D3 for low ISO shadows. The 5D3 is basically the same as the 5D2, it actually measures a trace worse for standard DR and has similar banding one direction (far less banding in the other direction though, but so long as you have any in either direction....). At high ISO is where the 5D3 does better than the 5D2 in the shadows.

According to DXO ScreenDR (the ACTUAL dynamic range you get out of a REAL RAW FILE...we don't edit downsampled RAW images, because then it wouldn't be RAW, and we would lose a hell of a lot more editing latitude anyway...so YES, I AM comparing Screen DR, and I believe it is the ONLY valid DR comparison for what most photographers care about: RAW exposure editing latitude):

5D Mark III: 10.97 stops
D800E: 13.24 stops
D800: 13.23 stops

The D800/E are the best still cameras as far as dynamic range goes. That makes the difference 2.27 stops at best, or 2 1/4 stops.

If we did use Print DR, then it's 11.7 vs. 14.4, which is 2.7 stops, or about 2 2/3rd stops. (Mind, Print DR is NOT ACTUALLY MEASURED. It is extrapolated, but not measured...so a 2.7 stops difference is assumed, not guaranteed.) You don't get a full three stop advantage in either case, however as far as editing RAW images goes, Print DR is irrelevant. We CAN NOT EDIT RAW IMAGES THAT ARE DOWNSAMPLED, BECAUSE RAW CANNOT BE DOWNSAMPLED. We edit RAW files as RAW files...as 100% original, unmodified, full size bayer pixel array data. The sole reason we HAVE the kind of editing latitude we have is because we edit RAW. Therefor, Print DR is irrelevant when it comes to discussing our ability to lift shadows (which IS what EVERYONE thinks about when they think "dynamic range"). Shadow lifting ability is different than total image noise levels throughout the entire tonal grade...but no one really cares about total image noise levels. Above 18% gray, noise, even though it is still present to the same degree, is much harder to see...our eyes pick up small differences at lower intensities better than they pick up small differences at high intensities.

Everyone cares about shadow lifting or highlight recovery...editing latitude. At best, the difference in terms of editing latitude is 2 1/4 stops, based on actual DXO DR measurements taken directly from real RAW files.

Man you just did it again, you can't fairly compare between cameras using Screen DR, you have to use Print DR. I'm start to doubt that you do get normalization after all, either that or are sneakily tricking people to make Canon look better in this scenario (also don't forget the banding differences where the 5D3 has tons more than D800 at low ISO).

 

[wickidwombat]

one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?

I mean on these forums in general. It would just simply be nice to get past the whole Nikon/DR thing at some point. I'm not saying we stop talking tech...but there is more to owning a Canon camera than debating DR.

Yeah but this a rumors site, here we talk equipment, off-line we talk art and shoot.

I'm tired of Mass DR Bating....

 

[Larry]

(Lotsa comment)…

BTW, if you want some WOWs...try this guy out: Deep Sky Colors I think he may just be the best astrophotographer on the planet...he does huge mosaics with the deepest exposures, with the richest colors, taken under the darkest skies on earth, the guy will drive over 7000 miles just to produce one mosaic...and every single one of his images just blows my mind so much I'm not even able to utter the word "wow". It's just. Mind. Blown. No words.

^^ This is my goal. If I can become skilled enough to make just one image that compares to this guys work before I die....then I'll die a happy photographer.

Thanks jrista, for the DSC link. Spectacular images, no question. Being less of a space-image fan than yourself, I'll take a nice framed copy of the night shot "Untouchable Beauty". Assuming it to be as advertised, I am impressed by such capture of natural beauty (of the down-to-Earth sort) ["...as advertised" meaning not a product of liberal "enhancement", instead, a reasonable facsimile of the real thing. The painted "visions" of the American West so often including waterfalls, rainbow, butterflies (unicorns?), etc., etc., are cloying examples of the opposite (What, no Disney castles?).

You make terrific well-reasoned pleas for emphasis other than technomania for the photo-artist. But, …my question (art-as-subject appropriate here?)still lingers:

Everyone in a guitar building/evaluating discussion forum is well aware of the difference the skill of the player makes in the music produced. Talk of styles and technique abound elsewhere, with heavy subjectivity evident in those posts.

But, it seems to me, the forum where bracing styles, top thicknesses, types and characteristics of woods, effects of string gauges, string spacing for finger style vs. plectrum use, body size, etc. are the expected subjects, ..is not the place for disappointment when the "artistry" of playing the guitar is not emphasized.

"Canon Rumors" to me clearly enough suggests that the forum discussion will (or should) focus on the equipment available or expected to be available from Canon, …simple as that. Are there not sufficient other sites which offer conflicting opinion ad nauseam on what constitutes "art"? ("opinion", because one man's art is another's "WTF?")

I of course, have my own reaction to any given image, but someone else's interpretation may, and probably will, be different. I do not care at all if this is so, and am really not seriously interested.
If he/she and I similarly appreciate the image, then that is something we may enjoy, i.e., a pleasurable shared experience. If not, neither of our opinions should be devalued for its holder.

The beauty that is in the eye of any beholder is to some degree a personal treasure. In that sense, arguing against his opinion is to deprive him his uniquely individual experience, …a form, I tend to think it could be said, of theft. :-[

It has taken me many years to arrive at what seems to be a fair balance between being fairly strongly opinionated, and yet mindful of the wisdom of the old saying "If you can't say anything nice, …".

I can truthfully say that I benefit much more than I contribute here at CR, I come here to learn more often than my participation might indicate. And your posts are usually the informative kind I come for, helping me understand Canon (and other) equipment.

The other side of the coin, and I make this observation with absolutely no offense intended, is that I would not come here at all, if the posts were predominately peoples' thoughts on art, including your own.

I am here for the things that seem implicit in the forum title, and anyone's "best BIF"," best landscapes", "best macro", although popular with many, and worthy in their own right, with websites galore featuring them, are not what draws me here.

I don't expect any other members to be concerned with, or impressed by my preferences. I am simply commenting on the fact that I think tech-talk is perfectly appropriate here, and I don't at-all miss what I think can accurately be described as "off-topic" in this plainly labeled forum.

The fact that this forum claims to offer one thing I am interested in, and the fact that I am here often, does not make me expect or demand that other interests of mine will be covered here to my satisfaction.

If this forum discusses (broadly)"Canon Rumors", then the hosts have met their claim, and can not be accused of less. They have not "falsely advertised".

My $.02.

Best wishes.

PS - The writings you have done here, in your efforts to contribute, are similar in kind to what may be offered in any book by its author. And the response will be similar, although in the case of inter-net exchanges, more obvious/emotionally affective.

Some will comprehend and may or may not express gratitude. Many will comprehend less, but still be glad to have been offered the chance. Some will (mistakenly)think they have understood, and comment further based upon that incomprehension, leaving you frustrated (if you focus on these persons). If you take upon yourself the continuing effort to assist the poorer students, and are not sufficiently encouraged by the quicker ones, the task can seem unrewarding.

I suggest that the readers you are able to reach and help, to whatever degree, are the ones to keep in mind. It is almost a certainty that you are appreciated more than you will ever be made aware of. The author writes, the book goes out, readers read, and the effects of the readings can never be completely known.

When seeds are cast, the hope (and the faith) is that some will grow. The unseen reward is best assumed.

 

[jrista]

Man you just did it again, you can't fairly compare between cameras using Screen DR, you have to use Print DR. I'm start to doubt that you do get normalization after all, either that or are sneakily tricking people to make Canon look better in this scenario (also don't forget the banding differences where the 5D3 has tons more than D800 at low ISO).

I understand normalization perfectly. Normalization only works for certain things, though. It doesn't tell me everything, and quite specifically a normalized image that has 14.4 stops DOES NOT tell me the actual real-world editing latitude (i.e. the shadow lifting capability) of the D800. It EXAGGERATES it, unrealistically, by another two thirds of a stop at least. I am not trying to trick anyone. I believe DXO is tricking people when it comes to how they "sell" DR. They aren't technically incorrect, however they ARE practically incorrect.

Your still comparing equipment in an isolated, agnostic context. I'm comparing real-world image workability. There is a difference. PrintDR is only useful within the context of DXO's web site. It has ZERO meaning outside of it. It has ZERO meaning when it comes to actually editing your images. No one downsamples an image, THEN processes it. Everyone processes their images a RAW, in which case, you NEVER downsample, because you CANNOT downsample and still BE editing RAW.

The use of ScreenDR does not change the fact that the D800 has an advantage. Not at all. Screen DR still shows a significant advantage for the D800. This doesn't make the 5D III better, it just doesn't make the D800 even more better than it actually is. The difference is that Screen DR tells you the REAL WORLD editing latitude advantage. A real, tangible thing that, as a photographer, once you are no longer comparing cameras within the limited context of DXO, and actually USING it, you can actually REALIZE.

I could care less about comparing cameras within the limited context of DXO. I could care less about being "fair" within the context of DXO's results. I care about what happens when I have the camera in-hand. I care about what limitations are imposed upon me when I am actually working with a camera's RAW files. I care about the real-world, realizable benefits of the D800's greater DR. I don't deny that it has more DR. Two stops is a LOT more tonal range. A LOT. No one is downplaying that. I just don't like the actual realizable DR benefit of the D800 being inflated. I've seen people spouting numbers like 14.7 and even 14.9 stops of DR (the latter, I think, was for the A7s), when NONE of that is actually a realizable advantage. You don't edit the exposure of downsampled images. You lose WAY too much editing latitude when you convert from a bayer pixel array to RGB pixels. The only number that tells you the real-world editing latitude is Screen DR. It IS a comparable value, within the right context...the context of actually editing images (which is what we all do...we don't compare cameras once we'be bought them...we USE them, and we EDIT their images). If I bring up a D800 and 5D III image in Lightroom, and do the most significant shadow lift I can before noise dominates the shadows...the D800 will get an extra two maybe two and a quarter stops over the 5D III. IT WILL NOT get another three stops, it won't get 3.5 stops, it won't get 4 stops. It will get about two stops of additional shadow lifting, maybe a little more.

All I care about is being realistic about the ACTUAL capabilities of these cameras. I really don't care about endless, infinite camera comparisons in the unique, isolated, normalized world of DXO. Because when people bring it up here on these forums, they are actually taking photos with the D800, A7r, and 5D III, and sharing their edited results. Not one of the people sharing images will EVER realize the kind of additional editing latitude that Print DR is FALSELY leading them to believe they potentially could. That's what I care about. I'm not here to misslead anyone.

I also guarantee you...when someone spits out test results showing that the next Canon camera, with some 57 megapixels, get 15.3 stops of DR with a 14-bit ADC, I'll be THE FIRST one to tell them they are completely, categorically WRONG. (I actually really hope it happens, because I'd just love to prove to everyone that I could care less about brand here. )

 

[nlrela]

And I am still hoping for the Canon 1D-W ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/canon-announces-the-eos-1d-w-the-professional-dslr-designed-specifically-for-wildlife-photographers/

 

[jrista]

"Canon Rumors" to me clearly enough suggests that the forum discussion will (or should) focus on the equipment available or expected to be available from Canon, …simple as that. Are there not sufficient other sites which offer conflicting opinion ad nauseam on what constitutes "art"? ("opinion", because one man's art is another's "WTF?")

Still not getting what I'm saying. Reread this: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21195.msg402874#msg402874

I am not interested in more "What is art?" talk. I'm interested in "How to I use my equipment to realize my own personal artistic vision?" kinds of talk. That need not be devoid of technicalities...however, it would pleasantly be devoid of the incessant, never-ending, beat-the-dead-horse-forever "Nikon has better DR!!!! BLuihuhuhuhthfphbbt!!" crap. As you say, there are PLENTY of places around the net (around everywhere) to debate what constitutes art. There really aren't that many places where you can discuss HOW to be ARTISTIC, or HOW to REALIZE your ARTISTIC VISION. Those are very, very, very different topics than your run-of-the-mill "this is art, that's not" debate.

The other side of the coin, and I make this observation with absolutely no offense intended, is that I would not come here at all, if the posts were predominately peoples' thoughts on art, including your own.

Again, things need not be devoid of technical talk. I just wish people could talk about Canon equipment and not always have every technical topic devolve into the same old useless, pointless, meaningless debate about how Nikon and Sony cameras have more DR. Wouldn't it be nice to just chat about just Canon gear, for a change? Say, when they finally release their big MP camera...wouldn't it be nice to have a conversation about THAT camera, and what THAT camera can do, and how THAT camera can assist you in realizing your personal artistic visions better than THAT cameras PREDECESSOR or Canon alternatives? Without having to worry that someone is going to bring up the DR debate...A-GAIN (which you know will end the useful conversation in the thread, and force it to devolve into the same people saying the same things over and over...AGAIN.)

That's all I'm really getting at. It would be nice to have some cordial conversations about Canon equipment, and how Canon equipment can better your art, without having to worry that some Nikon troll is going to ruin it. It would just be awesome to start talking about some new Canon camera, and have the ENTIRE thread be JUST about that Canon camera, maybe eventually getting to the point where people start sharing actual photos they have taken with it, start sharing their experiences, etc. Our topics so rarely ever get to that point...they are never allowed to...because it always boils down to brand competition.

I dunno...I'm just getting tired of having to debate all the time. Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).

 

[philmoz]

I dunno...I'm just getting tired of having to debate all the time. Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).

I value the thought and clarity you put into your posts, and the valuable information they provide.

But having watched many threads get sidetracked, and devolve into the same pointless arguments, I can't help think that part of the problem is you keep responding to the same trollish behaviour and flamebait posts.

We all know who the trolls are - if everyone just starts ignoring them, they might eventually get the hint and just go away.

Phil.

 

[jrista]

I dunno...I'm just getting tired of having to debate all the time. Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).

I value the thought and clarity you put into your posts, and the valuable information they provide.

But having watched many threads get sidetracked, and devolve into the same pointless arguments, I can't help think that part of the problem is you keep responding to the same trollish behaviour and flamebait posts.

We all know who the trolls are - if everyone just starts ignoring them, they might eventually get the hint and just go away.

Phil.

I've ignored a LOT of these threads that devolve into the DR debate. If it isn't me, it's definitely someone else, or usually a bunch of someone elses. Just search through these forums for all of the topics that somehow, eventually, devolve into the DR debate. I maybe participate in about a third of them. There are plenty more that I simply just don't get involved in at all, or leave when the debate starts. Sometimes I'm in a mood to debate and debunk the same old tired myths, but a lot more of the time, I'd rather work on my own photography.

To lay the blame for the entire problem at my feet is rather uncouth, and certainly ignorant of how deep the problem goes and how many people are involved (certainly more than just "the trolls"...there are certainly plenty of them, but there are plenty of others besides myself who hate to let the trolls have the last word.)

 

[philmoz]

I dunno...I'm just getting tired of having to debate all the time. Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).

I value the thought and clarity you put into your posts, and the valuable information they provide.

But having watched many threads get sidetracked, and devolve into the same pointless arguments, I can't help think that part of the problem is you keep responding to the same trollish behaviour and flamebait posts.

We all know who the trolls are - if everyone just starts ignoring them, they might eventually get the hint and just go away.

Phil.

I've ignored a LOT of these threads that devolve into the DR debate. If it isn't me, it's definitely someone else, or usually a bunch of someone elses. Just search through these forums for all of the topics that somehow, eventually, devolve into the DR debate. I maybe participate in about a third of them. There are plenty more that I simply just don't get involved in at all, or leave when the debate starts. Sometimes I'm in a mood to debate and debunk the same old tired myths, but a lot more of the time, I'd rather work on my own photography.

To lay the blame for the entire problem at my feet is rather uncouth, and certainly ignorant of how deep the problem goes and how many people are involved (certainly more than just "the trolls"...there are certainly plenty of them, but there are plenty of others besides myself who hate to let the trolls have the last word.)

I apologise if you thought I was laying the blame on you - this was not my intent in any way.
The blame lies solely with the individuals who continue to post in a manner designed to antagonise and disrupt the forum threads.

I was only trying to suggest that responding at all, instead of just ignoring them, only plays into their hand and perpetuates the problem.

Phil.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm tired of Mass DR Bating....

Nice one! LOL

 

[Larry]

"Canon Rumors" to me clearly enough suggests that the forum discussion will (or should) focus on the equipment available or expected to be available from Canon, …simple as that. Are there not sufficient other sites which offer conflicting opinion ad nauseam on what constitutes "art"? ("opinion", because one man's art is another's "WTF?")

Still not getting what I'm saying. Reread this:




[AAAK! I don't know why the quote box is not properly placed, why the "re-read this" bracket/link is missing or why the text is red. I attempted to "modify" the color to black with no change, …any suggestions?]


Done! ( the re-read)

A quote from the re-read: "It's the artistic vision to actual art conversion process that takes so many years, decades, to ultimately master. Because that process is going to be largely unique to each individual, …"

If I may speak frankly, I get the feeling that I am witnessing the angst of an artist struggling with the same drive that fuels the effort of anyone with a true artist's heart - "How do I SAY what I am trying to say, …what I really WANT to say?"

Because the saying is as "unique to each individual" as what is intended to be said, I question that a discussion among a group is going to offer real help to the individual, …his work is just that, his work (!), and no one else can really tell him how to do it.

In the same way that Edison learned a thousand ways NOT-to-make an electric bulb filament, the wastebasket fills with the artist's ways NOT-to-say what he intends. Attempt follows attempt, with the drive unsatisfied, until with luck, there sometimes comes a "There!,…I've got it!" moment, and finally, a period of satisfaction.

If the gods are smiling, it won't be followed, after some time for further reflection and pondering, by the nagging "Maybe it would be better if I had only done this one little thing differently". :-[

I think unfulfillment and frustration are the lot of the artistic temperament, with personal vision the inspiration, and passion providing the energy.

Since you define the "it", only you can recognize the "got it!" moment, and it is only your instinct that could have led you on the path leading to it.

I would appreciate seeing a sample of the type of discussion you have in mind re. "how to achieve your vision".

I find it difficult to imagine such which would actually assist one in his necessarily personal striving.

Here are a couple of probably meaningless-to-others examples of things I find in my own mind, that are perhaps very different from what is in yours :

I don't like Laurence Fishburne's stern "I'm the baddest ass, most threatening, faceless-behind-the-shades intimidator you've ever seen!" macho posturing(or anyone else's, though it seems the "cool" thing these days. I'm a retired firefighter, and know the difference between fake heroes and real ones.)

My personal vision, regarding , let's say, composition in images, is largely a matter of feeling for a vaguely defined "balance" (...not the same as symmetry), …with the "weight" coming from color, form, light/dark intensity, leading lines, etc., etc. How I judge this is by a sort of defocusing of my vision and an attempt to"feel" the effect of the image overall. I "know", somehow, when this feels right TO ME (!), and am confident that it is an honest portrayal of MY interpretation, my "artistic expression".

I realize this is an entirely subjective, and probably somewhat subconscious process, and do not expect others to feel/see the same, and I neither seek nor value their judgement.

How my saying this could be of help to others, in a discussion of "achieving personal vision" is unclear to me. The same procedure might as easily lead someone else with a totally blank feeling, because it is in fact my way, when they alone can discover their own.

The bottom line is that IF anyone finds something of value in something I have created in this manner, especially if they feel the same about other examples, it could be said that they "like my work", my "style", and find some sense of satisfaction or pleasure in viewing it. They might well consider it "art".

I think it is interesting to note that the "it" that I felt I had "got" might in fact be entirely different from the "something" that the viewer found pleasing. Yet somehow a chord was struck.

There will always be elements of mystery in art.

"To each his own", no?

[ I concede that nothing I've said here relates to "Canon Rumors" ;D ]

PS - I know I use quotation marks often, …it is my method of voiceless emphasis, …air-quotes for the internet.

 

[Maiaibing]

A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,

I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work);
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."

 

[jrista]

A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,

I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work);
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."

I believe he became a "Canon Explorer" after he switched. Also, I don't believe Canon actually pays the Explorers of Light photographers...at least, not directly. They may get equipment, but a LOT of high end photographers get free equipment from all the major brands, often simultaneously.

If you read Andy's blog, he seems like a pretty sincere guy. I don't think he switched because he was paid off, and if he was, you need to present solid proof of that. (I'm not one for hearsay and rumormongering about how pros can't have honest opinions.)

 

[kaihp]

If you read Andy's blog, he seems like a pretty sincere blunt guy.

There, I fixed it for you ;D