Post Your Photography Here #2

[Redcarmoose]

Your point is hard to argue. I guess even with film there was post-processing done in the dark room and other various methods. The point I wanted emphasize was that in this digital and technology driven world it seems that more emphasize is being placed on post-processing in general. It seems that the amount of post-processing is limited with film (you can only do so much compared with Lightroom these days), that is what makes it more appealing and conserves the natural feel of film. But that is only my opinion. Either  way, I truly enjoy both digital and film photography.  

Early Photoshop

 

[MikePio]

The difference is those photos are commercial/advertisement based and not representative of the average person who would edit or post process there photography from that time. I am referring to the use of post processing in the average everyday person who takes photographs, not commercially driven advertisement or professional studio work.  That is a whole different ball game. I mean the everyday hobbyist who enjoys taking photographs. These days you have access to so many post-processing software and different features that weren't available to everyday people back then. So ultimately that shows in all levels of photography these days. In both positive and negative ways. 

 

[vwinter]

Photos?...Those aren't illustrations?
Circa say 1940

 

[MikePio]

Photos?...Those aren't illustrations?
Circa say 1940

 
Difficult to tell right? I am sure majority of them are photographs but have been extensively post-processed for commercial use. Here are photographs taken more traditionally during that time period. 1940
 
 

 
 

 

[Redcarmoose]

Before color photography was normal, magazines like National Geographic had hand retouched images. So as I understand it, the images were shot in B/W then hand painted. I could go and find examples, but I think most of us know about the trend. It was not just National Geographic either, it was Life Magazine, it was pictures that you would buy to put up in your house. So it was a mix of B/W photography and hand painting. So you could only imagine what the advertisers had to do. How could a person read a magazine and look at all the bright hand painted photos and then gloss over the advertisement? The advertisements had to be brighter. Just think of it like TV commercials getting louder when watching TV. They were airbrushed and manipulated photographs, and people were influenced and spent money because of them in 1935.

 

[Redcarmoose]

The difference is those photos are commercial/advertisement based and not representative of the average person who would edit or post process there photography from that time. I am referring to the use of post processing in the average everyday person who takes photographs, not commercially driven advertisement or professional studio work.  That is a whole different ball game. I mean the everyday hobbyist who enjoys taking photographs. These days you have access to so many post-processing software and different features that weren't available to everyday people back then. So ultimately that shows in all levels of photography these days. In both positive and negative ways. 

Your reading more into my post than needed. I'm simply expressing that there were times before when heavy unreal images were mentally satisfying. Those images also are very special from a historic standpoint looking back because color photography had not been invented yet.

Mankind had no logical reference as to how a color photograph would look. It was all a guess. What happens to us mentally is we are shown a reality that allows us to believe it is real. Our ideas as to what is real looking is always suggested.

I'm not saying that an HDR image being held next to the area photographed is going to look more real as apparently the stock white balance photograph Will look more real. My question actually goes a little deeper.


I simply don't think any photograph ever, will simply look like reality.

 

[Audioscope]

Guys, I think the place where the latest and greatest camera sensors shine is in difficult, low light situations.  
 
I can take photos that are just as good with my iphone as my mirrorless system when the lighting is good.  The only difference is that the iphone photo will be less sharp most of the time.
 
Also, if you post-process your photos, the shadow detail of the new sensors is impressive.  With the older sensors, the details will blow out even when you manipulate the exposure or tonal curve by 1 stop.  This is a critical and real improvement for people who need that latitude with their files for post-processing work.

 

[MikePio]

  Guys, I think the place where the latest and greatest camera sensors shine is in difficult, low light situations.  
 
I can take photos that are just as good with my iphone as my mirrorless system when the lighting is good.  The only difference is that the iphone photo will be less sharp most of the time.
 
Also, if you post-process your photos, the shadow detail of the new sensors is impressive.  With the older sensors, the details will blow out even when you manipulate the exposure or tonal curve by 1 stop.  This is a critical and real improvement for people who need that latitude with their files for post-processing work.

 
Good point. With the advancement of sensor technology and features it seems like the new more advanced cameras have an amazing ability to shoot in low light with less noise. I am pretty sure if you took a photo using a high ISO value on your Iphone in low light condition the picture would be pretty grainy compared to your mirrorless cameras, with ideal lighting this would be probably less apparent. What do you guys think about the Sony Alpha a7 II? Has anyone used it?

 

[Audioscope]

Good point. With the advancement of sensor technology and features it seems like the new more advanced cameras have an amazing ability to shoot in low light with less noise. I am pretty sure if you took a photo using a high ISO value on your Iphone in low light condition the picture would be pretty grainy compared to your mirrorless cameras, with ideal lighting this would be probably less apparent. What do you guys think about the Sony Alpha a7 II? Has anyone used it?

I have an A7 (I) and used it extensively since 2014, so I have some insights on it that I can offer.

Under ideal conditions, the images that it is capable of outputting are extremely impressive and sharp as nails. This is especially true with the native Zeiss lenses like the 55mm f/1.8 and the Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8. These ideal conditions mean: no extreme light/dark gradations in the scene, for the most part, because these sensors are known to cause banding/posterization artifacts during those conditions. You will see rings of halo in the gradation from light to dark areas in those situations, because the camera does not have true 14 bit output like most DSLRs. I can't speak for the A7R2, but with the A7 it (could be) a problem sometimes.

In terms of the ability to mount any lens from any mount - this is true, but digital does not work the same as film, and a lens designed for another mount may not produce sharp or plesantly-rendered photos on the A7 cameras. No doubt, the ability to use any lens is a great feature though.

In terms of autofocus - definitely not as fast or accurate as DSLRs yet, and the focus points are not fine enough for pinpoint focus of someone's eye, for example.

Handling/controls - it operates like a computer, and less like a camera.

The system has many plus and minuses, but if it works for your style of shooting, it is a great camera. The nice thing about the A7 II is that it has built-in stabilization, making any old manual focus lens on it stabilized.

 

[MikePio]

   
I have an A7 (I) and used it extensively since 2014, so I have some insights on it that I can offer.
 
Under ideal conditions, the images that it is capable of outputting are extremely impressive and sharp as nails.  This is especially true with the native Zeiss lenses like the 55mm f/1.8 and the Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8.  These ideal conditions mean: no extreme light/dark gradations in the scene, for the most part, because these sensors are known to cause banding/posterization artifacts during those conditions.  You will see rings of halo in the gradation from light to dark areas in those situations, because the camera does not have true 14 bit output like most DSLRs.  I can't speak for the A7R2, but with the A7 it (could be) a problem sometimes.
 
In terms of the ability to mount any lens from any mount - this is true, but digital does not work the same as film, and a lens designed for another mount may not produce sharp or plesantly-rendered photos on the A7 cameras.  No doubt, the ability to use any lens is a great feature though.
 
In terms of autofocus - definitely not as fast or accurate as DSLRs yet, and the focus points are not fine enough for pinpoint focus of someone's eye, for example.  
 
Handling/controls - it operates like a computer, and less like a camera.
 
The system has many plus and minuses, but if it works for your style of shooting, it is a great camera.  The nice thing about the A7 II is that it has built-in stabilization, making any old manual focus lens on it stabilized.
 
Sample from my portfolio, with A7 + Zeiss 55mm
Conceptual portrait.
 

 
Thanks for the informative post! I really like the feature that you can use pretty much any lens and the stabilization. I have plenty of older lenses around so that would be a great option even if there is some sacrifice in sharpness. Fantastic portrait by the way, I very much like the style. Do you specialize in fashion photography?

 

[Audioscope]

Thanks for the informative post! I really like the feature that you can use pretty much any lens and the stabilization. I have plenty of older lenses around so that would be a great option even if there is some sacrifice in sharpness. Fantastic portrait by the way, I very much like the style. Do you specialize in fashion photography?

Thank you, that means alot to me! I spend alot of time photographing people, and creative portraiture are what I enjoy most.

 

[MikePio]

   
Thank you, that means alot to me! I spend alot of time photographing people, and fashion and creative portraiture are what I enjoy most.  I have some recent work on my instagram and website, and I always welcome critique and feedback!  https://www.instagram.com/visualpoetryjourney/
 
Let me know if there is a set you like, and I can tell you a little more about the equipment I used for that.

 
Great work. Secrets of White Room is a really powerful set (which equipment did you use?). The model looks at ease and natural. I love the contrast as well. There is a palpable chaos and disarray to the composition of the photographs. Reminds me of someone struggling with mental illness or at least that is my immediate impression. I will need some time to properly look through the rest, but if there was one area of critique I would give, just briefly looking through the sets, is that sometimes your subject (model) seems a bit stiff/awkward in the shot. I think Lucid Corridors seems those most obvious, but I am not sure if that was the intention perhaps? 

 

[Zojokkeli]

Good point. With the advancement of sensor technology and features it seems like the new more advanced cameras have an amazing ability to shoot in low light with less noise. I am pretty sure if you took a photo using a high ISO value on your Iphone in low light condition the picture would be pretty grainy compared to your mirrorless cameras, with ideal lighting this would be probably less apparent. What do you guys think about the Sony Alpha a7 II? Has anyone used it?

I have A7II. It's a solid camera, but I would like just a bit better low light performance and snappier autofocus. A7II has been on the market for a while, so maybe there's a new model coming later this year.

 

[james444]

 

[MikePio]

I have A7II. It's a solid camera, but I would like just a bit better low light performance and snappier autofocus. A7II has been on the market for a while, so maybe there's a new model coming later this year.

 
Seems like the Sony is a bit behind in that regard comparing to the latest Canon and Nikon bodies. I think I will start saving for the new Model like you mentioned, perhaps they can tweak things a bit more. I guess after awhile I always like trying something new since I have had plenty of time with Canon and Nikon. That is perhaps why I enjoy the Sigma so much, it so vastly different and is somehow refreshing even with all of its shortcomings. (Plus I have a thing for Sony 

).