clive_murray_white

<p>Julie - many years ago in one of our Sunday Newspapers there was creativity test, and being an artist I thought that I'd really do well at it - instead I came out as average, this you can imagine annoyed me a bit, my first reaction was to question whether the test was valid, but then decided that regardless of that "I" should be able to work out how master these tests and get the highest possible scores. A matter of pride for an artist - you may say.</p> <p>It was one of the tests like the Guilford Creativity test - http://99u.com/articles/7160/test-your-creativity-5-classic-creative-challenges so when I started to think about finding a strategy to "win" I realised that the thing that was holding me back was that I thought of an answer, then seemed to almost start all over again and then think of another answer, very slow indeed. The trick is to let a "run" of answers happen and the minute they start to dry up you look around the room you're in and allow it to suggest to next "run" of answers, so in the case of a brick, you get all the normal ones but then things like, pendulum, fishing sinker, drawing board support, bookmark, platform shoe, plinth, nutcracker, hammer.....so runs of things egged on by looking at your environment is the key to it. We'll call this the "Roadrunner" effect (after the highly creative cartoon)</p> <p>But that doesn't help a huge amount in the kind of artistic creativity that you are alluding to, I'd say waiting for it to happen is the most frustrating way of going about it; much better to employ a number of effective strategies. In art many of us tie originality, uniqueness, newness and creativity together but fail to notice that as individuals, we are all unique, original by definition, have new experiences all the time - or, if you like - every moment is a new moment. The fastest shortcut to making something new, original and creative that expresses everything you stand for is to simply set out to make the most "beautiful" thing possible. Because your idea of beauty will be different to anybody else's and your attention to every minute detail will guide you pretty well. We do have to forget the stereotypical notions of beauty to succeed at this.</p> <p>There many techniques that can help you discover your interests and full creativity, one of my favourites is doing different versions of the same idea - the great American sculptor Claes Oldenburg had the best approach to this that I can think of, he always made a soft version, a hard version and a Ghost version of any of his ideas, because by doing that all sorts of new ideas would creep into his work, give him joy and surprise him, in a way he'd setup a system that guaranteed that just about every day was a very exciting journey.</p> <p>I have a very productive technique that I call Ridiculous Criticism, it relies on converting what everybody else says are the strong points of a particular artist and turning them around so they become the opposite, so if we look at Ansel Adams, we can quickly say that he portrayed a view of America that was idealistic, overly grand, too perfect, was frozen in time, subjugated all of the elements in the landscape to his vision instead of allowing them democratic rights to perform as individual elements. Personally I like his work but it is helpful really bag it because it motivates me to put my money where my mouth is and start looking for clues in all sorts of places that may provide an impetus for something completely different. Enough for now I think.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I'm sorry that I stumbled across this thread 6 months too late - and that it dissolved for the reasons it did - I have spent most of my life as artist/lecturer and unlike almost all my colleagues I suspect creativity is not half as mysterious as we often try to pretend that it is - in essence it runs counter to the kind of thinking that starts at a point and narrows a concept down further. Instead it goes the opposite direction, offers more and more possible lines of attack until, the artist, scientist, writer, teacher etc notices an extremely elegant solution to their subject of inquiry - there are of course numerous techniques to enhance this thought/action process. </p>

<p>I agree that very high ISO is more useful for B&W, in fact for my quick, point anything in my office, ISO25600 shot, with the cheap 24-85/3.5-4.5 at f8 @ 1/30s, I desaturated it completely, modified the tones to suit B&W and then because I thought it more important to show a colour shot I brought back the colour to a point where I felt everything looked pretty natural</p>

<p>Flickr didn't seem too friendly went via Facebook - ISO 25600 + 100% sharpening in Lightroom<br /> <img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/10446647_783008108398573_2763151596334700178_n.jpg" alt="" width="850" height="567" /></p>

<p>sorry meant to up load a the picture but failed - will try again in a minute</p>

<p>This thread made me realise that I hadn't bothered to go past ISO 3200 with my D800 as it serves me very well - in fact it amazes me when I compare it to my previous cameras at ISO 800.</p> <p>Sure at 100% in the Lightroom sharpening box I can see some grain/noise, the style of which I find quite engaging in some situations, particularly if I describe it to myself as "interesting grain" rather than "ugly noise".</p> <p>It made me see what ISO 25600 looked like, I even sharpened it up to 100% without any noise reduction and liked what I saw - a very usable creative effect that if used judiciously in appropriate situations could substantially enhance some pictures.</p>

<p>Sadly Andrew, the family takes absolutely no notice of my well intentioned advice........... but still insist that I take a few snaps, my technique for this is outrageously simple, just pop the 85G on, open it up and take as many nice moment portraits as I can, thus pleasing just about everybody. Though I'm sure every family has at least one relative who wants you delete every picture ever taken of them.</p>

<p>The worst thing about having a D800 is that the family (widest possible interpretation of the word) all automatically assume that you'll be on hand to make any event look special for posterity - even if they insist on getting married on a wind swept sand dune overlooking the ocean at 3:00 pm on a blazing Australian summer's day. Of course no one in the family sees this as a ludicrous location which will make them look like shipwreck survivors.</p> <p>Families require counselling sometimes, I'm preparing to advise my daughters that 18% grey clothing for both bride and groom + quietly photogenic and gently lit location - I'm sure they won't listen.</p>

<p>I too have had a "monumental" medical event and here's my advice, for what its worth. It is never a real good idea to attempt to predict the effects that these life changing events will have on you, it is far too easy to argue yourself into dilemmas like the one you've just invented, i.e. to sell or not to sell. </p> <p>In fact, there is another way of looking at the situation, you will see the world differently, so everything becomes new again, you won't be able to predict what you will feel the need to photograph now or the form those expressions will take - so sell nothing and just enjoy the journey.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I'm with you on most of what you say Larry especially the idea of a niche segment, I even like the Mamiya 7D idea but I'd still look at D800/800E as the basis for something, partly because of speed and lens compatibility. All the MFDs that you mention are reflex.</p> <p>My thinking would be to have another look at modular and maybe large format type functions, this way they may even be able to "slip" a tilt shift module between lens and sensor - the whole system could be made from existing stuff but deconstructed and slotted onto some kind of foundation chassis. </p>

<p>If Nikon was a vehicle manufacturer it would create concept models for the big Motor Shows - a smart way of developing these innovative designs would be to have an open to all international concept design competition - I reckon it should be based around the D800, $US20,000 first prize, maybe 5 shortlisted designs get mocked up by Nikon for the big Camera shows.</p> <p>Mind you I wouldn't say no if they rang me up and offered me a silly amount of money to design my version of an "Artist's Camera".</p>

<p>Another way to work out what Nikon should make for us :-) would be to list the reasons why we decided that we needed a "good or very good" camera and how we justified that to ourselves.</p> <p>I've always needed a good camera for my work - I'm a sculptor, enough said - for last 21 years we've had an art gallery as well and over that time my photographic interests have expanded to become my hobby or in art school terms my elective. The fact that I can take a reasonable pic means that my community (and family) relies on me to some extent to document moments that are important to them.</p> <p>My own children, all grown up, all have reasonable cameras, and have some pride in taking quality pictures.</p> <p>I mention these things because I suspect that many of us on this forum have similar stories to tell and our demographic is the one that Nikon needs to understand before launching into FF mirrorless or anything else for that matter because we are the vast majority of their customers.</p> <p>To me small isn't necessarily much of an advantage, once cameras get bigger than genuine pocket size only weight matters. My favourite film camera was a Fuji GW 670, aka the Texas Leica, which made me think of using the guts of a D800, interchangeable Nikon lenses, maybe a rangefinder style viewfinder that altered as we zoom, no retched little bright light that alarms people as we aim the camera at them and a Live View monitor that is crystal clear at high magnification, could go on but that'll do for now.</p>

<p>As this unfolds I find myself thinking that we are making several big mistakes by concentrating too much on the OP's "Should Nikon make a high end Mirrorless?" question and after thinking about it bit I'd now emphatically say "No". Nikon would do a lot better by looking very carefully at the evolution of image capturing in the last few years.</p> <p>Our business had its annual "party" on the week end, always an event that people feel compelled to document and post on Facebook etc, this year there were only 2 cameras (both high end Nikon DSLRs) the rest were phones, some of which are taking pretty remarkable pics.</p> <p>Similarly several colleagues are currently travelling in the Northern Hemisphere with just their phones to document their trips - the lesson here is very simple Nikon should make a seriously good super "Phone" or go into partnership with one of the phone manufacturers.</p> <p>The other "market" that seems to have changed beyond recognition is in journalism, a typical example of this is with our national broadcaster and it's web presence, a single journalist now is photographer, film cameraman, director and interviewer all at the same time - they all make do with fairly highend Nikons and Canons but often complain bitterly that they are frustrated, particularly with the video, with these cameras. I've never seen a mirrorless or a Sony of any kind being used in this context.</p> <p>I could go on but to me the "no brainer" is for Nikon to go for top end phone followed by most usable tool for current day journalism.</p>

<p>Time to go back to the drawing board and start again, I have D800 and Fuji X100 both drive me nuts sometimes and my mind wanders towards thinking about what I'd really like in a device that takes photos - I think I'd enjoy the opportunity to enter an aspirational design competition that encourages participants to take a very fresh look at all the elements that have evolved into our current SLR or Rangefinder based offerings.</p> <p>I have a sneaking suspicion that some clues to creating a better camera system can be found in phones/pads that bypass viewfinders altogether and give a reasonable view of the actual picture you may be trying to take. The fact that these devices are held in a completely different way to a "normal" camera may also have quite a bearing on new camera design.</p> <p>So instead of just thinking of a copycat Nikon mirror-less lets go for something truly innovative.</p>

<p>Hi Lex, I'm neither for the golden section or against it, it's just one of those peculiar things that refuses to lie down, probably for the reason you suggest, for every rebuttal there will be an equal number or more, that passionately embrace it, and, as is human nature, defend it nearly to death.</p> <p>It does have some nice tricks though, because it works just as well with any rectangle regardless of it's aspect ratio.</p> <p>In reality the reliance on it started to go off the tracks when: a) people started questioning, about 150 years ago, if the old ideals of beauty and harmony were quite appropriate for the new era, b) when people started to try to make pictures in which there was no single most important feature or was intended to be equally important, and c) when piles of art from Africa and Asia started being exhibited in major European cities which, of course, was not reliant on the Golden section as compositional guru.</p>

<p>Just thought I'd add this - for those with an objective bent, at the core of Western Art was the theory of the Golden ratio, Golden Section or even the Fibonacci series, all meaning the same thing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio</p> <p>The idea that numbers and specific proportions could aid in the depiction of "beauty" is an interesting study in itself</p>

<p><em>Are you interested in art history or art appreciation? Have you studied it formally or on your own? If so, how has it influenced your photography</em>?<br> <br> I usually hangout on the Nikon forum and rarely go for a wander through the others, but I did today and this caught my eye because until I left university teaching to concentrate purely on my own art I'd taught Art history, sculpture and drawing since the late 60's. It surprises me that no other "experts" had contributed to this thread and because of this a couple of very important issues haven't even been raised.<br> <br> Sure Art and Art History has its own incomprehensible (and elite) language but we should try to overlook that because quite unwittingly every photograph ever taken owes something to the history of art - I suspect that forum members with little or no knowledge of history wouldn't realize that the images they make are rooted in an evolved tradition, things like composition, landscapes, portraits, groups, casual street scenes, and, in fact, every pictorial convention comes from painting. This in itself is not particularly important but looking at it as a very useful resource is quite another matter. And no more so than when we think of "composition" which to the majority of enthusiast photographers has been watered down to a very strange and limiting expression called the "rule of thirds" - sure it sort of works, but it's composition lite and tends to deter people from really having a good look at the infinite variety of compositional approaches that may aid their own visions and imaginations.<br> <br> Like it or not it is never hard to find an art history pedigree in every photo.<br> <br> </p>

<p>This conversation has taken me back to my Leica days, its even made me notice just how much I've forgotten since moving exclusively into Nikon digital. From the moment you posted this I knew it was the kind of topic that could rage for weeks on the Leica Users forum, and on Photo.nets Leica forum, Erwin Putts, Sean Reid and Thorsten Overgard have probably written so much about Leica 35mms that they would fill books.</p> <p>35mm has always been the most popular length on Leica M film cameras and it then stands to reason that Leica would make mind blowingly good lenses to satisfy its popularity, so your question isn't really a 35cron or other brand but which of the four film versions of the Summicron - - or should you look at Summilux or Sumaron etc - or do you dare to accept that the Version 3 was made in Canada, is just as much a good Leica as the others but is shunned by purist Leica users.</p> <p>My guess is that you wont be happy 'til you've got exactly the Summicron you argue is the best.</p> <p>You should really repost the Leica part of your question on the Leica forum and get real advice - mind you if I was going back to rangefinder film I'd go Mamiya 7 you could probably swap out your Leica gear for a Mamiya kit that is unbeatable.</p>

<p>Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 looked after me pretty well, though not really a cheapy and is quite a hefty lump of glass.</p> <p>Trying to describe the different ways that Zeiss, Leica and the odd Voigtlander lenses "draw" and then try to compare Nikon with them could occupy passionate minds for a very long time as in the end it get's down to personal taste rather than battles about sharpness. </p>

<p>To be on the safe side I'm just checking to see if this is the correct silver oxide 1.5v button camera battery replacement for MS76 used in an old Contax 139 that I thought should be brought back to life.</p> <p>Duracell MS76 Silver Oxide Battery, 1.5volt seems like it should be OK, what do you reckon?</p> <p>Thanks in advance - Clive</p> <h1 > </h1>