Thread: EM5 + Olympus 75mm 1.8

LOL! I like worms!

I actually agree. OMD pics do seem more "digital." But processed in a certain way, and they can look great as well. Here's a link to a thread started by Livnius at MU43 with some awesome photos.

Gone Fishing. A dads & sons weekend. - Micro Four Thirds User Forum

But IMO, the M9's and XPro1/XE1/X100's files are less digital looking right out of the box. Especially the M9. Maybe it's the old CCD sensor.

Lovely shot, Christina.

I knew what nianys meant by organic. It's why I like early-mid 90s rap music - dirty samples. None of that slick, smooth stuff. I don't see any connection to the E-M5 files, but we all see and hear different things. Supposedly the guitarist Eric Johnson could hear the difference in tone when the wrong brand of battery was used in his effects pedals .

Originally Posted by nianys

Don't make fun guys. I mean analog, but to me it always equates as "organic" in my mind. Leica files are. Most Fuji X files are. The pic, very beautiful, is pretty heavily processed, notably the dark oversmoothed aread near the ear really bugs me. As a rule E-m5 files tend to always appear very digital looking to me (NOT wanting to open a can of worms here !)

I get teased about it at work: we do a lot of video, TV, and digital design stuff. I'll use the word organic, and see the young ones prepare their pro / con arguments, while the older ones look puzzled. I'm older by the way, but in a very young working space.

I wonder at what point in the evolution of digital photography we'll stop applying the word "filmic" (or similar) as positive and "digital" as negative. If it's on a screen it's all digital.

Originally Posted by Amin Sabet

Lovely shot, Christina.

I knew what nianys meant by organic. It's why I like early-mid 90s rap music - dirty samples. None of that slick, smooth stuff. I don't see any connection to the E-M5 files, but we all see and hear different things. Supposedly the guitarist Eric Johnson could hear the difference in tone when the wrong brand of battery was used in his effects pedals .

Yes Amin you hit the nail on the head. Some people have an acute sensibility to certain stuff, if often goes along with extreme skill (though obviously not for me in this case, lol). I've stopped having heated arguments about FL equivalence and DOF perception because I no longer doubt the intellectual honesty of people unable to spot the ever so subtle differences that literally jump at my throat. I'm the same way about color shift too, on the other hand I have a pretty dumb nose, which won't be bothered too bad until you stick my head in a trash bin ! Oh Gosh, 90 and 2000's hip hop was just soooo great,

I never really thought about it because it's been such a long time since I used a film camera (Olympus OM10). We still have a Minolta Dynax 7,000i in the cupboard but it feels huge and cumbersome so I don't think we'll ever use it again. I also have a film Ricoh GRD but have only shot a few frames and then forgotten about it, film's still in the camera! I hopped over to a thread on m 4/3rds and browsed through some scanned film shots and now I'm beginning to catch your drift. Probably the Pentax K-01 and it's lenses produce the most film like pictures to my mind. Interesting topic :)

Originally Posted by nianys

Don't make fun guys. I mean analog, but to me it always equates as "organic" in my mind. Leica files are. Most Fuji X files are. The pic, very beautiful, is pretty heavily processed, notably the dark oversmoothed aread near the ear really bugs me. As a rule E-m5 files tend to always appear very digital looking to me (NOT wanting to open a can of worms here !)

How about an example?

To me, being a guy with little to no sensitivities, (my nervous system can be classified as ganglia), typically, digital is crisper, greater zones, more deliberately defined/captured and engineered. Analog/film has some randomness, less deliberately defined/controlled, less details in the shadows and highlights and more subtleties in the captured zones a smoother and seamless transitions between zones.

I thought Christina's image had contained 'analog' sensitivities than digital. Under severe analysis, yeah the image was created through a lot of post manipulation only available in a digital world ... but on the surface, at least to moi, the first impression is analog-ish.

ala ... kinda like this ...


Gary

PS- I appreciate your 'acute sensibility' just trying wrap my head around it ... hoping some of that will rub off on me.
G

Gotta add some dust specs and scratches in the digital photos! I can't ever seem to get rid of those whenever I use film. Thanks Walgreens!

Originally Posted by Luckypenguin

I wonder at what point in the evolution of digital photography we'll stop applying the word "filmic" (or similar) as positive and "digital" as negative. If it's on a screen it's all digital.

Sure, it's digital output, but the look and feel can be filmic, or anything else the viewer feels.

I need to attend the Christilou Advanced Candid/Portrait Composition and Processing Boot Camp! Good stuff as always, Christina.

Not sure I am seeing the non-organics of this processed web image, nianys, but I have been known to say my turntable sounds "warm" compared to CD.