Took years to bust out of the same f64 habit..
It was a gradual transition partly due to making an awful lot of images using 35mm (mostly Canon) and 120 roll film (mostly Hasselblad) coupled with mostly full aperture images with selective focused areas and not just everything in perceived focused images (ala f64). This introduced the question and issue of lens in to out of focus personality and bokeh at full aperture and slightly less... which drove the fondness for Tessar formula lenses like Kodak Ektar and such, coupled with a dis-like for non iris lenses and some double Gauss large aperture lenses like Planar, Xenotar and such..
All part of the creative/expressive image creating process, for some the f64 ideology-method fits them excellent, for others not so much at all..
Much about image goals and how best to achieve them. IMO, the goal of any image what does the image "feel" like and does this feeling _ emotions occur repeatedly over the years viewing the same image?
Bernice
Hard to objective about one's kids. Images I printed 30 years ago still hang in my brain...even some of the unsuccessful ones -- especially them if I worked with them long and hard.
A few years ago I was making my way along Lost Man Creek and came upon a spot I photographed in the early 80s -- and had worked with the image unsuccessfully. The little spot had not changed, remarkably enough, and all the work I had done with the image flowed back to me. It was a delightful experience...just too bad I never got a print I thought was worth showing. Can't fix so-so composition.
It is getting tougher and tougher to photograph these days. I have lost interest in just creating interesting images of interesting things and/or interesting weather, or creating traveloges of interesting places. It is an interesting mental place to be. I still do it, but improving, hopefully.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
I think less (laugh now)
I may prefer a sharp PART of an image or none
Look at Iga's image posted today. I called it lovely!
Size of image presentation, aka viewing distance matters
a lot
As I was a 'snap shooter' most of my life, I focused on important and let the rest go
Tin Can
Might try non-outdoor landscape images with the idea of busting out of that rut.
So much to see and share around us with no need to travel. There was a time when making images of windows and such at home were a thing..
Taking a walk with a roll film or digital camera can open up creative image possibilities as there are images that are best done with a view camera and other images best done with a non-view camera..
Much about seeing and sharing the world around up and giving these nouns "voice"...
Bernice
YES, much about letting go and taking in the moment... which is essentially our only perceived reality.
Bernice
[QUOTE=Tin Can;1668670]
I think less (laugh now)
As I was a 'snap shooter' most of my life, I focused on important and let the rest go
[QUOTE]
Sadly, I was denied the f/64 experience.
My 14" Commercial Ektar only stopped down to f/45
What did I miss?
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I have been most concerned about camera movement. I have wondered about lens diffraction as well. I does seem that some 16x20 or 20x24 prints are OK and some are a little too soft. I have looked at lighting as a factor, contrast, micro-contrast (very important). This is a very useful discussion.
Bernice Lou; Might try non-outdoor landscape images with the idea of busting out of that rut...
No rut -- on a plateau and do not wish to return to the lowlands of easy meaningless (for me) images...seeking out the trails to higher ground.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Bookmarks