These shot were taken with the venerable:

 

Sony "Dead A-Mount" SLT-A99V

Vintage Konica/Minolta 17-35mm F/2.8-4 D Lens @ 35mm

 

Due to the current E-Mount craze and obsession with the Sony Alpha/Nex cameras and the A-9, etc., I'm sure glad that the press, the blogs and much of the internet photo commentary constantly remind me that this gear (see above) is obsolete! Even pronounced "dead." Whew! Not too long ago Sony itself was deemed to be "sucking wind" behind the other big manufacturers. Now all of a sudden, Sony sensors and camera technology is the benchmark to beat! Boy, it's hard to keep up.

 

I've been shooting with A-Mount lenses on Sony gear for years and will, by all ostensive purposes, continue to do so without complaint. The worries over "missed" photo opportunities due to low light, fast action, sports, portraiture, "out-of-date" lenses, camera bodies, etc., or the fantasy promises of high quality images because of astronomical ISO settings, speed, auto settings, auto tracking, hyper focus speak less to the art of photography than they do to consumerism and technology. Hype. The art is still in the hands of the shooter.

 

No doubt, I am clearly, certainly sure that I am not the best photographer, but I grew up with them... the greats! Our walls were literally covered with the "Masters" photographs, and we had several as frequent visitors. None of them had the über tech of today's cameras, yet their images and art stand up over time. Practically no effects, no hyper focus, no pixel peeping, no PP software, no perfect framing and no endless talk about "bokeh."  

 

Maybe shots like these simple portraits of Maiko are not as "dreamy, syrupy or commercial" as so many of the new and latest Alpha Series portraits, that seem to drip with over processing and sexualized styling. But... these sample images are clear, fresh and realistic with good dynamic range and depth taken with "out-of-date" gear. They show the person and tell a story. Perhaps they are high-end snapshots, or perhaps... maybe the former is not my style?

 

It'll be interesting to see the responses.

I especially like the bottom shot. A lot of personality coming through the frame.

 

What do you say about the E Mount versus A Mount debate? Well, you can always trust humanity to destroy what is beautiful. A Mount is beautiful, that's why FE wins.

I especially like the bottom shot. A lot of personality coming through the frame.

 

What do you say about the E Mount versus A Mount debate? Well, you can always trust humanity to destroy what is beautiful. A Mount is beautiful, that's why FE wins.

 

Thanks for your reply. My lament (rave) was not so much about the specific "mount" per se, it is much more about attitudes, projections and expectations. I couldn't much

care less about what mount of camera a person uses. These days, they're practically all good. I say practically.

 

I figure that a relatively competent photographer could get good/decent photos with just about any mount, gear or light for that matter. Just depends. There are thousands

of people dumping thousands of dollars on high-end tech. This is not withstanding the incredible offerings of cellphone camera technology. The positive is that

anybody can be a photographer, and everybody can capture a decent snapshot, make art or freeze time. The negative is that anybody can be a photographer, and

everybody can capture a snapshot, make art or freeze time! The environment is flooded, mostly with false expectations.

 

The debate is really more about money, marketing, keeping up with the tech, gear competition, false expectations, inappropriate pride and product blaming. Photography,

as well as other pursuits, have become a lot like "locker room" politics. Who's got bigger, better, longer lasting, more expensive, sexier gear...

 

Whatever the gear... shoot pics, learn, shoot pics, study, shoot pics, learn, find a voice, learn, find a style, shoot pics. Zen in the Art of Photography, if you will. Learn your gear,

shoot photos, practice.

There is symbolism in A Mount and FE Mount. A Mount was always the photographer's system. Minolta made great cameras and lenses but they were always inept at the business and marketing side.

 

FE is the amateur's camera. It's about techies asking, we have this small mount for crop sensors, what happens in we put a full sensor there? We have to reinvent the wheel fifty times over. It will cost us and everyone else an arm and a leg. But its's cool, so let's do it.

`    

   

 

To me, both shots are equal, and thaz a compliment. Compared 

to about 98% of the so-called "portraits" posting in forums, you 

show skill. There is NO SKILL in blowing away a background by 

shooting at f/1.2 .... thaz just spending $2000 to buy the look of 

a Sears Roebuck or Walmart studio snapshot. So kudos on the 

management of the WHOLE frame. And not to neglect the main 

subject in the frame ... really great light, timing, and framing. 

   

As to your remarks about too much processing ... I prolly prefer 

more PP than you'd approve of. But I also abhor the excesses 

that are so common. The two posted images have a very fresh 

and real feel to them ... like reality somehow frozen in amber. I 

like to take just a moderate step away from there, even with the 

shots such as you posted. I like that a picture look like it's been 

derived from reality, and is not too far removed from the reality 

it represents, but I want a picture to admit to its OWN reality, its 

existence as a THING ... and it can be a "cyber" thing or other 

non-material thing. IOW I DO not mean it hasta be printed to be

a thing. A movie is a fine example of what I mean by a "thing". 

You can't hold it in your hand or hang it on a wall, but it is its 

own self-contained "thing". If we viewed it as raw reality, we'd 

see actors, gaffers, stage crew, etc. But instead we see it as a 

thing and it shows us what it shows us.  

  

Acoarst your very fresh realistic looking images also show us 

what they show us ... no denying it. The only reason I prefer to 

add a hint of slightly noticeable PP is cuz I like to remind the 

viewer that images are packages that deliver impressions of 

realities that are not actually present as we view. Maybe weird 

but I like to acknowledge the nature of the process :-)   

   

So I really like your shots but I kinda feel like they are not quite 

"fully dressed" to step out the door and meet strangers. Great 

shots but only 90% ready to step out. The other 10% is in NO 

WAY a patch-up or repair. It's enhancement, the last little step,

and I just wanna DO it, or see it done ! Cuz these are worth it :-)   

       

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&     

 

Here's something similar to your first posted image. You can

see it's not all about extra crazy PP, but you can also tell it's 

had distinctly more PP than yours ... so it says "I'm a picture   

of this person" whereas yours say "here's this person". In both 

cases "this person" is not really here ... and I like to remind the 

viewer of the magic of feeling a bit of a presence of someone 

we really know to be not here right now. So have a look-see:  

  

   

     

  

It's kinda like the unanswerable question of how much to 

dissolve the "4th wall" in theatre. A set has 2 sidewalls and 

1 rear wall, plus an imaginary 4th wall between the stage 

and the house ... imaginary but possibly very substantial 

[given that it's part of a play, an equally imaginary reality]. 

  

The degree to which the script causes the characters to be

seen as actors-on-stage, rather than seeking to polish some  

illusion that these are real people [not actors] in a real place

doing real stuff, the 4th wall becomes softer or harder. There 

is acoarst no single "officially correct" degree of hardness.  

   

I consider that a photo of a person is in essence a frozen 

moment from some sorta play. "All the World's a stage" ... 

I take that kinda literally.  

 

  

  

  

`

Thank you for viewing the photos as well as for your thoughts and reply! 

 

 

`    

   

 

To me, both shots are equal, and thaz a compliment. Compared 

to about 98% of the so-called "portraits" posting in forums, you 

show skill. There is NO SKILL in blowing away a background by 

shooting at f/1.2 .... thaz just spending $2000 to buy the look of 

a Sears Roebuck or Walmart studio snapshot. So kudos on the 

management of the WHOLE frame. And not to neglect the main 

subject in the frame ... really great light, timing, and framing. 

   

As to your remarks about too much processing ... I prolly prefer 

more PP than you'd approve of. But I also abhor the excesses 

that are so common. The two posted images have a very fresh 

and real feel to them ... like reality somehow frozen in amber. I 

like to take just a moderate step away from there, even with the 

shots such as you posted. I like that a picture look like it's been 

derived from reality, and is not too far removed from the reality 

it represents, but I want a picture to admit to its OWN reality, its 

existence as a THING ... and it can be a "cyber" thing or other 

non-material thing. IOW I DO not mean it hasta be printed to be

a thing. A movie is a fine example of what I mean by a "thing". 

You can't hold it in your hand or hang it on a wall, but it is its 

own self-contained "thing". If we viewed it as raw reality, we'd 

see actors, gaffers, stage crew, etc. But instead we see it as a 

thing and it shows us what it shows us.  

  

Acoarst your very fresh realistic looking images also show us 

what they show us ... no denying it. The only reason I prefer to 

add a hint of slightly noticeable PP is cuz I like to remind the 

viewer that images are packages that deliver impressions of 

realities that are not actually present as we view. Maybe weird 

but I like to acknowledge the nature of the process :-)   

   

So I really like your shots but I kinda feel like they are not quite 

"fully dressed" to step out the door and meet strangers. Great 

shots but only 90% ready to step out. The other 10% is in NO 

WAY a patch-up or repair. It's enhancement, the last little step,

and I just wanna DO it, or see it done ! Cuz these are worth it :-)   

       

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&     

 

Here's something similar to your first posted image. You can

see it's not all about extra crazy PP, but you can also tell it's 

had distinctly more PP than yours ... so it says "I'm a picture   

of this person" whereas yours say "here's this person". In both 

cases "this person" is not really here ... and I like to remind the 

viewer of the magic of feeling a bit of a presence of someone 

we really know to be not here right now. So have a look-see:  

  

KiteShop 0550 E2 WVS.jpg    

     

  

It's kinda like the unanswerable question of how much to 

dissolve the "4th wall" in theatre. A set has 2 sidewalls and 

1 rear wall, plus an imaginary 4th wall between the stage 

and the house ... imaginary but possibly very substantial 

[given that it's part of a play, an equally imaginary reality]. 

  

The degree to which the script causes the characters to be

seen as actors-on-stage, rather than seeking to polish some  

illusion that these are real people [not actors] in a real place

doing real stuff, the 4th wall becomes softer or harder. There 

is acoarst no single "officially correct" degree of hardness.  

   

I consider that a photo of a person is in essence a frozen 

moment from some sorta play. "All the World's a stage" ... 

I take that kinda literally.  

 

  

  

  

`