Brooks Jensen on niches and APUG

David A. Goldfarb · Apr 6, 2007

Small sensor cameras have shorter focal lengths in absolute terms, and the idea of a "focal length equivalent" only provides a way for people who are more accustomed to 35mm photography to get an idea about the field of view of the small sensor lenses. The analogy doesn't apply to DOF, in part because DOF depends on the format (because the value for acceptable circle of confusion used to compute DOF depends on the format).

Small format cameras do have shorter lenses and more inherent DOF for the same field of view, aperture, and subject distance.

jstraw · Apr 6, 2007

David A. Goldfarb said:
Small sensor cameras have shorter focal lengths in absolute terms...

This is where I get lost. My small sensor camera has whatever focal length I stick on it.

David A. Goldfarb · Apr 6, 2007

jstraw said:
This is where I get lost. My small sensor camera has whatever focal length I stick on it.

Well, yes, but if you want a "normal" lens you probably use a shorter lens than you would use for 35mm, and if you want a "wide" lens it's also shorter, and the same would be true of a "long" lens.

copake_ham · Apr 6, 2007

There is a simple way to resolve this - if you have both a Canon SLR and a full-frame sensor Canon DSLR.

I do not - I have Nikon gear.

But, with the Canon's the f/ls and DOFs should be identical and there should be no difference in terms of the photographic/imaging output what Brooks claims he's shooting.

Mark Sawyer · Apr 6, 2007

Just a note that this has been a most interesting thread to follow, with thanks to those who have been holding Brooks' feet to the fire in a most civilized way, and to Brooks, of course, for participating so thoughtfully.

I'd cast my vote in favor of giving specific information about the equipment used. It takes no more space to be specific rather than general, and sometimes the specifics make a difference. And the cases where it makes a difference to me are likely quite different than the cases where they would for someone else.

While I detest no particular way of working, I do think the method of working has an importance, if only to the photographer's own experience. And when an artist/photographer claims tools and technique are unimportant to the photograph, I feel almost as if I've heard a poet say that grammar and vocabulary are unimportant to the poem...

lenswork said:
(WARNING, circle-of-confusion approaching at warp speed!)

I've always wanted to work with a mirror-lens, if only to talk, not about circles-of-confusion, but donuts-of-confusion...

Alex Hawley · Apr 6, 2007

lenswork said:
At some point -- and I think I getting there pretty soon -- I have to just give up intellectualizing about such lofty issues. I find I just want to pick up the camera and go back to work. This is the kind of stuff they pay philosophers to figure out and I'm happy to let them do so.

Ummm-yeah. Does tend to get circular and ever-deepening doesn't it? As I recall , this general debate concerning the well-rounded individual has been going on for several thousand years, and obviously not confined to just photography.

Brooks, rather than trying to explore the general field for broad absolutes, why not consider how the many small niches of photography combine together into the large field and keep the large field healthy and thriving? The outcome might not be so dire.

David H. Bebbington · Apr 6, 2007

Mark Sawyer said:
I'd cast my vote in favor of giving specific information about the equipment used. It takes no more space to be specific rather than general, and sometimes the specifics make a difference. And the cases where it makes a difference to me are likely quite different than the cases where they would for someone else.

While I detest no particular way of working, I do think the method of working has an importance, if only to the photographer's own experience. And when an artist/photographer claims tools and technique are unimportant to the photograph, I feel almost as if I've heard a poet say that grammar and vocabulary are unimportant to the poem...

Conversely, what other medium is there where so many practitioners (mainly amateurs) are so fixated on the technical details of the equipment used? These can be interesting as a minor afterthought, but if anyone gets to the point where they are seriously disturbed at the thought of being asked to react to an image on an emotional level without any verbal information, then I would say they have missed the point in a big way!

bjorke · Apr 7, 2007

David H. Bebbington said:
Conversely, what other medium is there where so many practitioners (mainly amateurs) are so fixated on the technical details of the equipment used?

Ever bought an electric guitar?

David H. Bebbington · Apr 7, 2007

bjorke said:
Ever bought an electric guitar?

Yes, but wild horses could not make me divulge the fact that I use a Fender American Telecaster and Gibson Flying V '68 re-issue ...

Seriously though folks ... I remember in the 1950s, when someone playing an electric guitar would appear on the TV, it would not be long before one of those viewing would opine that electric guitars play themselves and that the player in question was thus cheating. There was something of the same attitude as with (amateur) photography, the feeling that if you have equipment details, you also have the artist's "secret", that you could do exactly the same as him/her if you chose, and therefore that you do not need to engage with the work on any profound level. The parallel with music soon breaks down - a wannabee player or non-player may think that by buying Clapton's guitar, you can play like Clapton, but as soon as you try it, the vital need for practice (and talent) becomes apparent!

Regards,

David

Sean · Apr 7, 2007

- a wannabee player or non-player may think that by buying Clapton's guitar, you can play like Clapton, but as soon as you try it, the vital need for practice (and talent) becomes apparent!

Digital guitars have recently arrived I suppose eventually the Clapton filter and post processing will help there. How about singing? Listen to this track: Dead Link Removed
The vocals are created by an application called Vocaloid. You enter the words, do some adjustments and it sings the words for you, whamo you are a professional singer A firm in Japan has taken such technology a step further doing real time processing of vocal input that is then corrected and output. I believe it is being done for Karaoke so that anyone can literally sing as an expert vocalist. As the mad pace of technology continues how can anyone assume raw talent will always be necessary? I would like to think so but the ultimate aim of most of this tech is to ensure anyone can do x,y or z without having to be an expert.. -sorry for the offtopic banter

jstraw · Apr 7, 2007

Ever buy a high quality road bicycle? Ever buy a audio equipment, ski boots, a computer, a car, cutlery, ETC.?

Geeks abound!

Jim Chinn · Apr 7, 2007

Talk about niches. My brother bought a used MGA (I think it was circa 1953) way before the internet. I remember him getting hooked up with a group of MGA enthusiasts from all over Europe and the US. He was always waiting for the latest newsletter to arrive in the mail published by a fellow enthusiast that talked MGA history, adds for buying and selling cars and parts and stories about MGA adventures. This was back in the early 80s. So this whole idea of niches, within niches, within niches is pretty old news.. Brooks is just now recognizing something that has been around for many many years.

bjorke · Apr 7, 2007

Been there. Used to waste every other weekend driving to Moss Motors in Goleta to get some $^&^@!! MG part or another.

roteague · Apr 7, 2007

Sean said:
Brooks,

You may want to discuss this in your next podcast. Photorealistic vs. Photography. The below image is completely CG (computer generated). It's not real but looks real and just imagine what these CG images will look like in 10yrs time. Is the below image a real photograph? If the image is all that matters then some may argue the below image IS a photograph. 10yrs down the road it may be the industry standard that photography is 'rendered' and not taken..

Sean,

I follow several automobile forums on the Internet, and it is assumed that every image posted is a "photochop" image. That is what I mean about images no longer being believable.

roteague · Apr 7, 2007

jnanian said:
robert

i find it kind of strange you would say this since all your color images, while they are not "captured" via d****, they are scanned and "outputted" using d**** technology. is it only the capture that you claim is junk, or is all of d***** ?

i like lenswork cause it is based on the image, not how it was made ...

-john

Actually, I was asking the question to put plain what others have been saying in a round about way.

BTW, digital capture and digital printing ARE NOT the same technologies. They are both very different and very unique.

roteague · Apr 7, 2007

jstraw said:
Brooks is still losing me about digis having shorter lenses though. All things being equal they're the same or longer...depending on the sensor.

Brooks is right. It is because of the smaller size of the sensor.

MattKing · Apr 7, 2007

roteague said:
Brooks is right. It is because of the smaller size of the sensor.

Or to put it another way, it is because, with few exceptions, the sensors for digital that are as large as film ("full frame") are either unavailable for your camera, or rare and expensive, or just expensive (e.g. Canon full frame 35mm).

Mark Sawyer · Apr 7, 2007

David H. Bebbington said:
Conversely, what other medium is there where so many practitioners (mainly amateurs) are so fixated on the technical details of the equipment used? These can be interesting as a minor afterthought, but if anyone gets to the point where they are seriously disturbed at the thought of being asked to react to an image on an emotional level without any verbal information, then I would say they have missed the point in a big way!

Lenswork currently gives only a one or two line mention of the equipment at the bottom of the artist's bio. I find it odd that some people object to even that much mention, and seem to insist that since they have no interest, then no one else should have an interest or access to the information either...

Perhaps a schizm arises between those who follow or collect art photography and those who create it. If one has no interest in making images, then the means of making them holds little importance. To those who work in the medium as artists, I think there is an ongoing learning process and often a love of the tools, materials, and processes.

No, I don't often look at photographs in terms of how they were made, but occassionally, knowing something of how they were made gives me some small but real insight into the creative experience of making them.

removed account4 · Apr 7, 2007

roteague said:
Actually, I was asking the question to put plain what others have been saying in a round about way.

BTW, digital capture and digital printing ARE NOT the same technologies. They are both very different and very unique.

i had a feeling that is what you meant.
your work is quite beautiful, and knowing
you take great care in all your reproduction ...

thanks for the clarification robert.

john

copake_ham · Apr 7, 2007

bjorke said:
Been there. Used to waste every other weekend driving to Moss Motors in Goleta to get some $^&^@!! MG part or another.

Oh oh, I can see that this is going to take us into NPR's "Car Talk" land.

Tommy Magliozzi (...sp. thanks to John) the "click" or the "clack" of "The Tappit Brothers" always get's ribbed by his brother Ray because of the former's 1953 MG!

Now we are really heading into "niche land"!

David A. Goldfarb · Apr 7, 2007

Trombone players have become more gear obsessed as they've had more custom options available in recent years (the double-valve tenor is the most egregious example--you might as well play valve bone), and they can be really gearheaded about mouthpieces, since trombones are relatively simple instruments and there isn't that much to customize, comparatively, but I think Dave Wooten will back me up if I said I thought trumpet players were bigger gearheads than trombone players.

A normal 'bone player can get by with one horn, but it's pretty typical for a proficient player to have two, three, or four horns (for the record, I have three)--maybe a small bore for jazz, a larger bore for orchestras and other classical ensembles, maybe an alto or bass or a valve instrument in the same key like a euphonium, baritone horn, bass trumpet or valve trombone or a historic instrument like a sackbut, contrabass, or serpent. Occasionally you meet someone who likes to collect horns and has more. Trombones aren't particularly valuable compared to other instruments--professional quality instruments being in the range of $1000-4000 new and used, stock and custom (maybe more for something like a contrabass or a reproduction of a historic sackbut, but these are fairly unusual). Then people try several different mouthpieces until they find the right one or two or three, and maybe they sell the old ones or trade them in.

Trumpet players--I don't know. I guess it starts in the orchestra where they might decide they need a piccolo trumpet, C, D, and F trumpets in addition to the regular B-flat trumpet, and then sometimes it's stylistically appropriate to have a cornet or a rotary valve trumpet, and then you gotta have a classic New York Bach, and there's something special about Schilkes, and maybe something moderne with sheet bracing, and wouldn't it be fun to have a pocket trumpet, and before you know it you've just got dozens of them, and then it's mouthpieces--heavy weight, skeletonized, cushion rims, thin rims, shallow cup, deep cup, drilled throat--and then it's little tweaks--heavy valve caps, extra bracing, lacquer stripping, gold plating, it just never ends.

copake_ham · Apr 7, 2007

David A. Goldfarb said:
Trombone players have become more gear obsessed as they've had more custom options available in recent years (the double-valve tenor is the most egregious example--you might as well play valve bone), and they can be really gearheaded about mouthpieces, since trombones are relatively simple instruments and there isn't that much to customize, comparatively, but I think Dave Wooten will back me up if I said I thought trumpet players were bigger gearheads than trombone players.

A normal 'bone player can get by with one horn, but it's pretty typical for a proficient player to have two, three, or four horns (for the record, I have three)--maybe a small bore for jazz, a larger bore for orchestras and other classical ensembles, maybe an alto or bass or a valve instrument in the same key like a euphonium, baritone horn, bass trumpet or valve trombone or a historic instrument like a sackbut, contrabass, or serpent. Occasionally you meet someone who likes to collect horns and has more. Trombones aren't particularly valuable compared to other instruments--professional quality instruments being in the range of $1000-4000 new and used, stock and custom (maybe more for something like a contrabass or a reproduction of a historic sackbut, but these are fairly unusual). Then people try several different mouthpieces until they find the right one or two or three, and maybe they sell the old ones or trade them in.

Trumpet players--I don't know. I guess it starts in the orchestra where they might decide they need a piccolo trumpet, C, D, and F trumpets in addition to the regular B-flat trumpet, and then sometimes it's stylistically appropriate to have a cornet or a rotary valve trumpet, and then you gotta have a classic New York Bach, and there's something special about Schilkes, and maybe something moderne with sheet bracing, and wouldn't it be fun to have a pocket trumpet, and before you know it you've just got dozens of them, and then it's mouthpieces--heavy weight, skeletonized, cushion rims, thin rims, shallow cup, deep cup, drilled throat--and then it's little tweaks--heavy valve caps, extra bracing, lacquer stripping, gold plating, it just never ends.

David,

You need to go to a Jazz@Lincoln Center concert some time when Wynton (trumpet) starts raggin' on the "reed players"!

Now, as a trombonist, he'd admit you to his "church", but will point out that there are no "reed instruments" in the Bible. Just trumpets!

OMG, have we gone way OT or what!

David A. Goldfarb · Apr 7, 2007

Heh. The great concert band conductor, Frederick Fennell used to call woodwind instruments "contraptions."

jovo · Apr 7, 2007

David A. Goldfarb said:
Trombone players have become more gear obsessed as they've had more custom options available in recent years..... but I think Dave Wooten will back me up if I said I thought trumpet players were bigger gearheads than trombone players.
.

String players would be just as obsessed if their gear didn't sell for the price of two of their limbs, and their first born child .... Even so, most players I know have too many bows....gear is inevitable, and sooooo cool to acquire!

David H. Bebbington · Apr 8, 2007

roteague said:
Sean,

I follow several automobile forums on the Internet, and it is assumed that every image posted is a "photochop" image. That is what I mean about images no longer being believable.

When were they ever? The image of the Austin A35 I posted a little while back is from the "good old" days of line-and-wash advertisements - perhaps because it is a British car from the 50s, no one realised that what is in fact a tiny car has been represented with a hood that looks 50% longer than the real thing and is shown full of people enjoying plenty of headroom (for which they would need to be midgets). Distortions of this kind were commonplace at the time.

When you consider the rigors of "conventional" automobile photography (carrying extensive car cleaning materials in a support vehicle, removing every speck of dirt from the vehicle to be photographed (including its tires) before every shot), it is hardly surprising that people creating car images for advertising have gratefully seized on every electronic trick they can get their hands on, even to the point of generating images entirely from CAD data if this is cost-effective. Here as elsewhere, digital imaging offers nothing really new, it simply makes (much) easier what has been possible for decades with vastly greater effort. I could imagine any transparency retoucher drooling with envy at the way the building in the back of the picture Sean posted is reflected distorted in the curves of the car's hood in a totally convincing way!

Regards,

David

Brooks Jensen on niches and APUG

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

jstraw

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

copake_ham

Mark Sawyer

Alex Hawley

David H. Bebbington

bjorke

David H. Bebbington

Sean

Admin

jstraw

Jim Chinn

bjorke

roteague

roteague

roteague

MattKing

Moderator

Mark Sawyer

removed account4

copake_ham

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

copake_ham

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

jovo

Membership Council

David H. Bebbington

Brooks Jensen on niches and APUG

Moderator

Moderator

Admin

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency