Thread: OM-D and Fuji XE1 go live

Originally Posted by Hikari

Who the hell needs vision when we live in such an interesting world. Unless you are doing commercial work, 99.99% of vision comes after the fact the image is made. The only vision I need is to be able to see. I think this idea of the "photographer's vision" has been one of the biggest blocks to creativity. It gives something for writers to wax poetic over, but photography is just a lot of hard work resulting in many more failures in order to get something that works.

I disagree pretty strongly. It's one thing to just look at the world and take a picture "of" something, figuring whatever that thing is will be enough to make the photograph interesting or good. Usually it's not enough. You have to be able to visualize how the shapes and lines and shades and shadows all come together within the frame to make an image that's interesting or beautiful or otherwise impactful beyond the mere recording of the subject itself. Maybe there's an interesting mountain over there - 100 people may take a photograph of it and in most of them you'll barely know what the photograph is featuring. But a few of them will pick a focal length and frame the shot in a way that adds impact to the basic "thing" and catch the light so that shadows may add some shape or texture to the image, and THOSE images will have an impact and beauty far beyond the mere facsimiles of the mountain in the other photos. Sure, the process of looking for the image rather than just the "picture" takes work and sweat and experimentation and more failures than successes. But that doesn't make the ability to ultimately "see" or "visualize" images rather than just "take pictures" any less important. We all have to take a lot of really boring photos before we start to see what makes them boring and what makes the occasional good one NOT boring and then we start looking for those things that make it work and we still take plenty of boring shots, but maybe a few more good ones too. But without that effort, it's all just takin' snapshots.

Every now and then I'll find an image after the photo is clicked and turn it into something with a bit of cropping and PP. but most of the time, if I don't see how an image comes together in the frame before I hit the shutter button, there isn't gonna be anything worth looking at after I shoot it.

Originally Posted by Ray

I disagree pretty strongly. It's one thing to just look at the world and take a picture "of" something, figuring whatever that thing is will be enough to make the photograph interesting or good. Usually it's not enough. You have to be able to visualize how the shapes and lines and shades and shadows all come together within the frame to make an image that's interesting or beautiful or otherwise impactful beyond the mere recording of the subject itself. Maybe there's an interesting mountain over there - 100 people may take a photograph of it and in most of them you'll barely know what the photograph is featuring. But a few of them will pick a focal length and frame the shot in a way that adds impact to the basic "thing" and catch the light so that shadows may add some shape or texture to the image, and THOSE images will have an impact and beauty far beyond the mere facsimiles of the mountain in the other photos. Sure, the process of looking for the image rather than just the "picture" takes work and sweat and experimentation and more failures than successes. But that doesn't make the ability to ultimately "see" or "visualize" images rather than just "take pictures" any less important. We all have to take a lot of really boring photos before we start to see what makes them boring and what makes the occasional good one NOT boring and then we start looking for those things that make it work and we still take plenty of boring shots, but maybe a few more good ones too. But without that effort, it's all just takin' snapshots.

Every now and then I'll find an image after the photo is clicked and turn it into something with a bit of cropping and PP. but most of the time, if I don't see how an image comes together in the frame before I hit the shutter button, there isn't gonna be anything worth looking at after I shoot it.

Ah, but "vision," as in an artist's vision, and "visualize." are not the same thing. When you visualize a scene, you are predicting how the photographic system will interpret that. That is something happening immediately and it can be very intuitive and unconscious. That is what photographers do. So I think we can agree there.

"Vision" is a future action. "I see this in my mind and now I am going out to make it happen." Well, in commercial photography or studio photography, that is possible (but even there I think experimentation and accident are real drivers). For photographers working in the real world, it is not.

Nice set.... I like the third shot the best.:)

Fwiw - some are saying the new firmware for the xe1/xp1 and 35f1.4 update has helped in this situation.. Just made available this week.

I tend to agree that the omd does do a better job in this situation. The times that I tried the omd, as good as it was, I never really got into it, not sure why. :( I did spend the time to figure out how to set the complex menu system to work the way I wanted it to... But at the end of the day, I was much more comfortable with the Fuji x series and the sigma dp Merrill cameras. My first m43 camera was the gf1 w/ 20mm Panasonic. I stopped using it a long time ago. I really wanted the omd to work for me, but I never got the that intuitive feel for it. The sensor iq is outstanding and the image stabilization setup is the best I have ever used. I hated where the on/off switch was and the more I think about it, it could have been the noise from the gyro (I have sensitive hearing in the high frequencies - some noises tend to irritate me)..

Gary

Originally Posted by Hikari

Ah, but "vision," as in an artist's vision, and "visualize." are not the same thing. When you visualize a scene, you are predicting how the photographic system will interpret that. That is something happening immediately and it can be very intuitive and unconscious. That is what photographers do. So I think we can agree there.

"Vision" is a future action. "I see this in my mind and now I am going out to make it happen." Well, in commercial photography or studio photography, that is possible (but even there I think experimentation and accident are real drivers). For photographers working in the real world, it is not.

I'll buy this.

Originally Posted by Hikari

Ah, but "vision," as in an artist's vision, and "visualize." are not the same thing. When you visualize a scene, you are predicting how the photographic system will interpret that. That is something happening immediately and it can be very intuitive and unconscious. That is what photographers do. So I think we can agree there.

"Vision" is a future action. "I see this in my mind and now I am going out to make it happen." Well, in commercial photography or studio photography, that is possible (but even there I think experimentation and accident are real drivers). For photographers working in the real world, it is not.

OK, got ya. I guess it was a semantic misunderstanding. I'm not sure I even know what an artistic vision is, although with someone like Diane Arbus she was clearly going in a particular direction with pretty much all of her work. But I think those evolve out of who the artist is more than something they plan. But the "vision" on a particular photo, or "visualization" is I guess what we're talking about and agreeing on...

Back to the Super Bowl...

-Ray

... and an exciting game it is ... whoa! Fake Field Goal ...

I take objects that exist in 3D space and figure out how I want to compress them into 2D space. It's not totally removed from what I do at work; take 3D designs and present them to be understood in 2D. Likewise a camera is essentially just a machine; understand what it does and doesn't do, and control the input variables to produce a desired output. Sometimes its kinda fun to use a camera in a role it isn't entirely well suited for, but generally the point of having multiple cameras is to know when and where it is appropriate to use each one. Anyhow, it's good to see another example confirming that the E-M5 is a good choice for indoor work in lower light.

I missed a fake field goal attempt in a Super Bowl because my wife wants to catch up on Gray's Anatomy on the DVR? I clearly love that woman.

At the end of the day a good photographer is going to shoot better with any camera than one who is not, but to say that the camera is a meaningless part of the process is a false statement. My images and process are so different when shooting with an 8X10, P&S and everything in between that it sometimes feels like there is a different person shooting. At the same time I also admit that the camera marketing and fan-boy worship of this or that feature has most of the time nothing to do with the shooting a great image. Also when it comes to what is one photographer or another's equipment closet it speaks more to their style of photography than their thoughts on camera ownership.
For me the greatest advances in camera technology that have effect what and how I shoot are high quality seamless digital capture, the digital darkroom, AF of any kind and the light sensitivity and quality at those high ISO of the latest chips. Everything else may be nice not that important.

Originally Posted by Luke

I missed a fake field goal attempt in a Super Bowl because my wife wants to catch up on Gray's Anatomy on the DVR? I clearly love that woman.

It had me standing up ... totally unexpected ... even though it was unsuccessful, great call.

Gary