I’ve been going through my old photos….

snerkler

snerkler

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26,078
Name
Toby
Edit My Images
No
…. and what I’ve realised is that whilst I can see an improvement overall in my technique there’s very little to choose overall in actual image quality.

Now whilst on the whole this doesn’t surprise me, what has surprised me looking back is how well my images using Olympus m4/3 stand up. I’ve always said I’ve been impressed with the Olympus system but there were times I wasn’t as impressed and I wished I’d used FF, mainly holiday photos. However, looking back I’m far less disappointed with them than I was.

It does me good to go back and look at my photos with fresh eyes because I’m always hypercritical and for quite some time, focussing on techniques and flaws rather than the image. However, several years later I can go back and just appreciate the image. I wish I could do this from the start but I don’t think it’s in my nature.

I don’t really know what the point of this thread is, just a bit bored and sharing my musings :lol:
 
I sometimes look back at my old pictures, and I find myself supprised by the quality of the old digital cameras. OK, you couldnt crop as much, and the high iso was a bit grim, but considering they were about 6mp or something they produced great studio images.
 
I get it... I was looking through some of my photos from around 2010, taken with a Sony DSLR and 35mm lens and they are as clean and sharp as the photos taken today by my Fuji... The only difference is the file sizes from 2010 were smaller!
 
nx4737 said:
I get it... I was looking through some of my photos from around 2010, taken with a Sony DSLR and 35mm lens and they are as clean and sharp as the photos taken today by my Fuji... The only difference is the file sizes from 2010 were smaller!
Click to expand...
This is true for me with landscapes and so on. But for bird photography, the newer cameras have helped me improve enormously.
 
digital cameras were capable of great stills for well over 15-20 years; some will argue more. The difference is the entry price point, functionality, and how far you had to push it to get there or in other terms the technique required.

There are hard metrics like resolution, so if you want 2m print you pretty much have to use 45-50-60MP body with prime lens to match or do multi row pano stacking and that is really that. while my 5Ds is perfectly capable of that, you would arrive at the same results with less effort using something like R5 II or Z9.

Video is really where things have just barely arrived to where they really need to be. I am pretty confident you could use higher end camera like Z9 or R5 II and be confident with results even 10 years later... not so much so with 2015 or even 2019 stills bodies...
 
I’ve been doing similar going back over old photos and re editing/converting the Raws
I have some that I took in I think 2008 of Kookaburra's with Canon 350D and 70-200 F4 am very pleased with how good the re converted images look
I think at least part of it is the lens, its really good, still using it in fact
 
People seem to forget at one point the top of the range canon for professionals was the 4MP 1D and great shots were taken using it.

You don't need to have 60MP and 120000 iso capable camera to get excellent photos
 
Last edited:
But it does help in less-than-optimal conditions!
 
Looking back, I see a number of things. Often the oldest photos look ok until I start wanting to edit, when I realise there's often no depth to the detail and nothing to be gained looking closer. In the case of my first DSLR - Sony A58 - it's a combination of reduced dynamic range and small sensor, plus often low quality lenses. Smaller sensors can create a very flat image without a sense of depth. I'm generally happier with more recent work, but wish that I had the energy and excitement that I did 10 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the flexibility, eyesight etc.!!!
 
There's photos that I took in the first few years I find really disappointing, generally landscapes that demand high levels of detail. There's olive plantations in Andalucia, fallen leaves on a footpath in local woods and similar that spring to mind. The pictures are like impressionist paintings, with a suggestion of detail that's never quite realised.

This kind of performance probably drove me towards simpler, graphic images, because they tolerate a loss of fine detail much better. You never feel the need to get close because all the information is seen from a distance. Later Sony lenses usually held more detail but presented it with a crunchy look. I've only really felt happy with the output from 50 and 35 f1.2 lenses, even when stopped down.
 
Those old cameras work great within their limits. I got out a Nikon D40 (cheap 2006 consumer camera) on Sunday's dance for fun. Results were pretty good considering the low light was pushing down the shutter speed.
 
Delphin said:
People seem to forget at one point the top of the range canon for professionals was the 4MP 1D and great shots were taken using it.

You don't need to have 60MP and 120000 iso capable camera to get excellent photos
Click to expand...
No, personally I never considered that one to be a viable camera. Good luck making a reasonable A4 print, let alone A1. It was ok printing on garbage newspaper at low DPI and limited colours. That's about it
 
ancient_mariner said:
There's photos that I took in the first few years I find really disappointing, generally landscapes that demand high levels of detail. There's olive plantations in Andalucia, fallen leaves on a footpath in local woods and similar that spring to mind. The pictures are like impressionist paintings, with a suggestion of detail that's never quite realised.

This kind of performance probably drove me towards simpler, graphic images, because they tolerate a loss of fine detail much better. You never feel the need to get close because all the information is seen from a distance. Later Sony lenses usually held more detail but presented it with a crunchy look. I've only really felt happy with the output from 50 and 35 f1.2 lenses, even when stopped down.
Click to expand...
Yes, we had some truly awful lenses back in the day, particularly ones like canon 17-40 and that wasn't even cheap.

The greatest damage to my old images was however done by lee grad filters. I so regret using and paying hard earned money for that utter crap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top