Grumpy about megapixels vs. skill

As an old Saturday Night Live skit began, "You know what I really hate...",
well, here's what I really hate:

I'm getting tired of the posts which state something like, "I want a 100
megapixel camera with 128 bits per color channel and RAW mode so I can take
any old picture with any settings I want so I can crop, rotate, blow-up and
generally mutate the file in Photoshop until I get a professional-looking
picture." Where's the art or the skill in that? Is this what photography in
the digital age is devolving into? Recording the raw photon field from
whatever scene you're facing then playing editor-roulette after the fact in
hopes of getting a presentable result?

What about learning to work within the limits of the medium, learning
something about light and exposure, learning how to frame shots so you don't
have to crop so much? That "M" setting on your camera isn't just there for
a decorative purpose, after all. You don't have to spend a fortune on
formal courses, either, since Agfa, Kodak and many other places on the web
have wonderful free instructional materials to help a person become a
skillful photographer. The knowledge is there for the taking and there are
also many skilled photographers who contribute to this newsgroup who are
more than willing to share their knowledge.

Megapixels and RAW mode aren't everything.

There's a story about Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman on the set of the
movie "Marathon Man" which goes something like this: Before action scenes,
Hoffman, the method actor, would run around the block or perform exercises
to get himself out of breath in preparation for filming the shots. After
observing this methodology on several occasions, Olivier said to Hoffman,
"My dear boy, wouldn't it be simpler just to try *acting*?" Well, wouldn't
it just be simpler to learn how to frame and shoot pictures instead of
relying on technology to rescue a poorly-shot photo? Personally, I'd rather
see a minimally-post-processed 3.2 megapixel photo taken skillfully than a
cropped, altered, and Photoshop-futzed up monstrosity from a 20 megapixel
camera.

End of rant. Yes, I'm a jerk, a moron, an asshole, a liar, a trouble-maker,
a spammer, a troll, and a blow-hard, or any combination thereof. There,
I've said it so you don't have to. Oh, yeah--my own pictures are crap, too,
and I don't even have the excuse of using a Foveon-based camera.

But I do feel better now.

Paul H.

Paul H. wrote:
> As an old Saturday Night Live skit began, "You know what I really
> hate...", well, here's what I really hate:
>
> I'm getting tired of the posts which state something like, "I want a
> 100 megapixel camera with 128 bits per color channel and RAW mode so
> I can take any old picture with any settings I want so I can crop,
> rotate, blow-up and generally mutate the file in Photoshop until I
> get a professional-looking picture." Where's the art or the skill in
> that? Is this what photography in the digital age is devolving into?
> Recording the raw photon field from whatever scene you're facing then
> playing editor-roulette after the fact in hopes of getting a
> presentable result?
>
> What about learning to work within the limits of the medium, learning
> something about light and exposure, learning how to frame shots so
> you don't have to crop so much? That "M" setting on your camera
> isn't just there for a decorative purpose, after all. You don't have
> to spend a fortune on formal courses, either, since Agfa, Kodak and
> many other places on the web have wonderful free instructional
> materials to help a person become a skillful photographer. The
> knowledge is there for the taking and there are also many skilled
> photographers who contribute to this newsgroup who are more than
> willing to share their knowledge.
>
> Megapixels and RAW mode aren't everything.
>
> There's a story about Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman on the set
> of the movie "Marathon Man" which goes something like this: Before
> action scenes, Hoffman, the method actor, would run around the block
> or perform exercises to get himself out of breath in preparation for
> filming the shots. After observing this methodology on several
> occasions, Olivier said to Hoffman, "My dear boy, wouldn't it be
> simpler just to try *acting*?" Well, wouldn't it just be simpler to
> learn how to frame and shoot pictures instead of relying on
> technology to rescue a poorly-shot photo? Personally, I'd rather see
> a minimally-post-processed 3.2 megapixel photo taken skillfully than
> a cropped, altered, and Photoshop-futzed up monstrosity from a 20
> megapixel camera.
>
> End of rant. Yes, I'm a jerk, a moron, an asshole, a liar, a
> trouble-maker, a spammer, a troll, and a blow-hard, or any
> combination thereof. There, I've said it so you don't have to. Oh,
> yeah--my own pictures are crap, too, and I don't even have the excuse
> of using a Foveon-based camera.
>
> But I do feel better now.

Good. I agree with what I think is your underlying thesis. For me, the
delight is in the picture-taking process; any presentable photo that emerges
is a bonus. That's fortunate, since very few presentable photos emerge.

Here's an example: very light level and curve, and nearly no USM, no crop to
speak of. Shot through a water-spotted fifth-floor window.
http://www.fototime.com/02044FCEDE7C3E8/orig.jpg

Do you remember how the SNL skit always ended?

"Never mind"

Frank ess

Paul H. wrote:
> As an old Saturday Night Live skit began, "You know what I really
> hate...", well, here's what I really hate:
>
> I'm getting tired of the posts which state something like, "I want a
> 100 megapixel camera with 128 bits per color channel and RAW mode so
> I can take any old picture with any settings I want so I can crop,
> rotate, blow-up and generally mutate the file in Photoshop until I
> get a professional-looking picture." Where's the art or the skill in
> that? Is this what photography in the digital age is devolving into?
> Recording the raw photon field from whatever scene you're facing then
> playing editor-roulette after the fact in hopes of getting a
> presentable result?
>
> What about learning to work within the limits of the medium, learning
> something about light and exposure, learning how to frame shots so
> you don't have to crop so much? That "M" setting on your camera
> isn't just there for a decorative purpose, after all. You don't have
> to spend a fortune on formal courses, either, since Agfa, Kodak and
> many other places on the web have wonderful free instructional
> materials to help a person become a skillful photographer. The
> knowledge is there for the taking and there are also many skilled
> photographers who contribute to this newsgroup who are more than
> willing to share their knowledge.
>
> Megapixels and RAW mode aren't everything.
>
> There's a story about Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman on the set
> of the movie "Marathon Man" which goes something like this: Before
> action scenes, Hoffman, the method actor, would run around the block
> or perform exercises to get himself out of breath in preparation for
> filming the shots. After observing this methodology on several
> occasions, Olivier said to Hoffman, "My dear boy, wouldn't it be
> simpler just to try *acting*?" Well, wouldn't it just be simpler to
> learn how to frame and shoot pictures instead of relying on
> technology to rescue a poorly-shot photo? Personally, I'd rather see
> a minimally-post-processed 3.2 megapixel photo taken skillfully than
> a cropped, altered, and Photoshop-futzed up monstrosity from a 20
> megapixel camera.
>
> End of rant. Yes, I'm a jerk, a moron, an asshole, a liar, a
> trouble-maker, a spammer, a troll, and a blow-hard, or any
> combination thereof. There, I've said it so you don't have to. Oh,
> yeah--my own pictures are crap, too, and I don't even have the excuse
> of using a Foveon-based camera.
>
> But I do feel better now.

Nice rant there, Paul, but it's true. Just because you can afford thousands
of pounds worth of kit, it won't take better pictures than a £100 cheap and
cheerful camera unless you know what you're doing!
I personally fall into the "just learning how to take half decent pics using
my little Nikon 885 category", but I'm enjoying the learning curve, thanks
mainly to regular reading of this NG.

Thanks to all of you, for all the good advice!

Maze

Maze

Well said! The skilled artist knows the limits of his medium and knows how
to work within them. I have seen excellent pictures taken with 2-megapixel
cameras. With the rapid feedback that a digital camera gives you, there's
really no reason to take potshots (pictures you expect to fix up later) --
it's easy to keep working with the camera until you have something very
close to the final result.

Michael A. Covington

BRAVO, Paul!!!!

You're also 100% right. None of this new digital generation with their
8fps-14mp cameras and 3.9ghz-Photoshop-equipped workstations proudly coming
home with 2,000 images from a 2 week vacation will ever be able to
appreciate the discipline that Edward Weston brought to the art of
photography with his single 8x10 view camera and a $6 lens. His images are
breathtaking because it was all about art, not gadgetry.

Slow down, move in closer, compose carefully, ask yourself is this an image
even worth taking? If not, don't press the shutter button - doesn't matter
if it's film or digital. I take this approach with both my D100 and my 4x5,
and while it doesn't _ensure_ fine art by any means, it sure helps keep me
from simply producing large amounts of mediocre (or worse) crap.

I feel better now too. Thanks for returning this newsgroup to sanity rather
than the rather well-developed craft of camera slut-hood...




"Paul H." <> wrote in message
news:KO7Ab.549$ k.net...
>
> End of rant. Yes, I'm a jerk, a moron, an asshole, a liar, a
trouble-maker,
> a spammer, a troll, and a blow-hard, or any combination thereof. There,
> I've said it so you don't have to. Oh, yeah--my own pictures are crap,
too,
> and I don't even have the excuse of using a Foveon-based camera.
>
> But I do feel better now.
>
>
>
>

Sam Smith

Paul H. <> wrote:

<Snipped Text>
> End of rant. Yes, I'm a jerk, a moron, an asshole, a liar, a trouble-maker,
> a spammer, a troll, and a blow-hard, or any combination thereof. There,
> I've said it so you don't have to. Oh, yeah--my own pictures are crap, too,
> and I don't even have the excuse of using a Foveon-based camera.
>
> But I do feel better now.

Agreed. I have used everything from a Kodak Box Brownie to a Truprint
126 roll film camera, and a series of 110s, and a few SLRs. I actually
cut my SLR teeth on my friends Zenit E when I was at school.

I have owned an OM40 since 1987, and still have it. Some of the best
shots I've ever taken are with the little 110 cameras. They seemed to be
just there, ready to take a picture at the right place and the right
time.

I have yet to learn what my new Z1 can do, thats just a need to get out
and take some pictures. My recently deceased Olympus C960Z I used a lot
in three years though, probably taking three times the pictures I took
with the OM40 in 16 years.

It was only a 1.3MP camera, but that again got some great shots for me,
a lot by sheer accident, and again just being ready to take that
opportune moment.

Most pictures I tried to 'stage', just never worked. I think the real
trick is not to try too hard, but just have an eye for pointing the
camera in the right direction at the right moment.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, OSOS#5 - BMW K100RS 8v, Honda Concerto 16v
Windows free zone (Mac G3)
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ahewitt/index.htm> (last update 12.02)

Andy Hewitt

Paul H. wrote:

> I'm getting tired of the posts which state something like, "I want a
> 100 megapixel camera with 128 bits per color channel and RAW
> mode so I can take any old picture with any settings I want so I
> can crop, rotate, blow-up and generally mutate the file in Photoshop
> until I get a professional-looking picture." Where's the art or the
> skill in that? Is this what photography in the digital age is devolving
> into?

Yes, but it doesn't have anything to do with the digital era but
rather with the "instant gratification" age. In just about any hobby,
people today want something "quick" and the industry adjusts
accordingly because, after all, what they want is more people
in the hobby, i.e. more sales.

> What about learning to work within the limits of the medium,
> learning something about light and exposure, learning how to
> frame shots so you don't have to crop so much?

Look, astronomy is another hobby of mine. I've been a
stargazer for decades and learned to find things in the
night sky the old way (naked eyes, extensive knowledge
of constellations through years of studying etc.) Nowadays,
the new amateur astronomers expect the computer inside
their telescopes to find everything, even the really obvious,
such as planets, the Andromeda galaxy and really bright stars
like Sirius and Vega. Well, I have been to star parties where
these newbies ran out of batteries (or the GPS was down...)
and then they couldn't even find their own butt with two hands.
Oh yeah, and when these people (often equipped with state-
of-the-art GPS-tracking light buckets) see someone with a
humble Dobsonian (which is what most people in the old times
started with), they usually look down on of him/her for owning
such a cheap, all-manual obsolete-looking scope. Well, they
just can't appreciate the fact that part of the hobby is FINDING
objects in the sky because it's a *learning* experience and that's
what amateur astronomy is all about. But evidently today it's more
important to show off your new toy as yet another status symbol.

> That "M" setting on your camera isn't just there for a decorative
> purpose, after all.

I bet 99% of digital camera owners use "P" 99% of the times...

> You don't have to spend a fortune on formal courses, either,
> since Agfa, Kodak and many other places on the web have
> wonderful free instructional materials to help a person become
> a skillful photographer.

Well, from what I've seen in camera clubs I've frequented, most
people aren't really interested in becoming good photographers
but in APPEARING as such. If there's a computerized "shortcut"
to achieve that, they will go for it and gladly skip any traditional
way of acquiring photographic knowledge. Needless to say,
30 years ago the average quality of photos in your typical
camera club was much higher.

Sorry for the rant, I don't want to sound self-righteous, but
what I have described is pretty much factual.

Paolo Pizzi

In article <5k9Ab.33105$>, "Paolo Pizzi"
<> writes:

>Sorry for the rant, I don't want to sound self-righteous,


Tell us how you really feel you fuzzy headed little
piece of garbage.

Dont hold it in....................




















"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."

Azzz1588

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 22:39:38 GMT, "Paul H." <> wrote:

>As an old Saturday Night Live skit began, "You know what I really hate...",
>well, here's what I really hate:
>

<snip valid rant>

As someone returning to photography-as-a-hobby after a 35 year break, I've
jumped from a Minolta SR1 and FP3/D76 to a Canon 300D, with a brief stop with a
Nikon CP990 (a most frustrating bit of kit!)

I totally agree that cameras don't take pictures, the bod behind the camera
does. I took some halfway decent shots with my very first camera, an Agfa Clack
(fixed focus 6x9 glorified box camera, see
http://www.google.com/search?q=Agfa+Clack) at the age of hmmm..., 10. Even had
some published in a major daily paper (though having a Dad who was a staff
photographer did help

What I'm finding with digital photography is I'm having to re-learn some old
tricks, like slowing down and taking proper care with exposure, framing, focus
etc. (little of which can be gainfully fully delegated to the camera!). But, I'm
also discovering that there are a whole heap of new tricks that have to be
learned to replace the old darkroom skills. Sharpening, exposure adjustment,
colour balance etc etc. I expect it will take a year or two to get back to the
stage I was at at the tender young age of 12 ... if I ever get there

I agree with Paul that there's an unhealthy pre-occupation with, in particular,
pixels. (I've never seen anyone harping on colour depth). I got some quite nice
snap shots of my step daughter's wedding with a borrowed Olympus C820-L (a
rather poxy 1Mpx(?) P&S camera that has a shutter lag approximating infinity).
See http://www.splatco.com/david/wedding/index.htm. In one shot the "rainbow"
artifacts actually add to the picture, though I can't claim any credit for that
outcome.

The question Paul kind of raises is whether whatever you do to the image after
you expose it is "valid" as part of the art. Paul appears to not think so. I
disagree. Sometimes inspired "darkroom" work is what makes a picture. I do
however believe the photographer with good shooting skills will prevail over the
one who relies on post-shooting skills, and that will be the case however many
gazillion pixels or bits we get.

DJ

Now that was an intelligent piece of barf that came thru your keyboard...


"Azzz1588" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Tell us how you really feel you fuzzy headed little piece of garbage.
>
> Dont hold it in....................

Sam Smith