Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Hardware Worship Religion

Reply
Thread Tools

Hardware Worship Religion

 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:08:51 -0500, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
wrote:

>> I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before choosing
>> an item to buy, ..

>
> All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
> the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.
>
> However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
> the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
> difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
> a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.


Other parts of it are that artists (painters) tend not to produce
much that's really decent until after they put in the many hours
required to learn their craft and develop the necessary skills.
It's much easier for novice photographers, who don't need the same
amount of practice and dedication to be able to occasionally produce
a nice picture. So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
good enough.

Another difference is that brushes are simpler than cameras. They
don't come with 500 page manuals. Much can be learned from teachers
or from observing good painters at work, but most of all it takes
practice, lots and lots of practice. And eventually the paintings
really improve. Most photographers never RTFM, never learn more
than a tiny subset of what their cameras can do, and are happy with
that. Many of the photographers here are much more interested in
the technical side of their cameras, partly because they're so
complex, and partly because they're constantly evolving, unlike
brushes. New paints and materials may surface from time to time,
but the pace is much slower, and much less studying is required. To
be really good, painters have to learn a lot of artistic theory,
composition, etc. But that's not a difference. Good photographers
have to learn that as well.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:50:13 -0800, John Navas wrote:

>> So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
>> small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
>> beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
>> good enough.

>
> With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
> Ways too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
> images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.


I know that it didn't occur to you, but "good enough is good
enough" wasn't intended to be a slur. It only recognizes that
people have different preferences and priorities. In fact this was
a phrase I first heard used in a business sense, where those
companies striving to achieve perfection often ended up as big
losers, while the ones that knew when their products were good
enough to go into production were usually successful.

There isn't enough time to become proficient in everything that
might interest us, and if photography is chosen, other interests
might have to suffer. There are many things other than photography
where I feel that "good enough is good enough". My audio system is
one. My TV is another. Same for my computer. I don't own any of
the really top of the line DSLR bodies or lenses, and it doesn't
bother me at all. Why did you assume what I didn't say or mean?
Snapshot shooting isn't really what interests me, but it's fine for
most people (the "them") and I see nothing wrong with their
preference. You really seem to be going out of your way to find
things to criticize and argue about.


>> Another difference is that brushes are simpler than cameras. ...

>
> I'm pretty sure every serious painter I know would disagree with that.


And I'm quite sure that they're wrong. But you didn't say whether
you agree with what you assume is their opinion. I know that
painters have a great interest in brushes, pigments, etc., and can
spend an inordinate number of hours discussing them with other
artists, just as some musicians talk about and spend much of their
lives looking for the perfect mouthpiece, reed or the wood used for
their guitars. The complexity might be a concern for luthiers and
other craftsmen, but musicians don't deal with that kind of
complexity. In camera terms, this might be like searching for a
lens that has the elusive bokeh that you prefer, which may not be
the bokeh that others prefer. But this is far from complex and
doesn't require the kinds of study and practice that learning to
become proficient using cameras requires.

I recall recently reading some well known photographer (sorry,
can't recall the name) who said that if he didn't use his camera for
a period, maybe a month or so, he'd lose his "chops" and it would
take at least several days of shooting to regain his former skill
level. Musicians on the other hand usually lose less of their
"chops" and gain more in creativity after a similar layoff, which
I've experienced many times. This effect is probably similar for
artists and writers. Give painters new brushes that are unfamiliar,
and they will immediately be able to put them to good use, even if
they have to adjust their style and technique. Replace a camera
with another brand and photographers will at best be able to limp
along using very basic modes. It could easily take days or weeks
for them to approach their former shooting proficiency.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Stephen Bishop <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>If you want the best image quality, go with a dslr. *If you want the
> >>most stealth and portability, go with the p&s. *Period. * Don't even
> >>waste time trying to justify how one camera type is as good as or
> >>better than the other type when they are both designed for different
> >>purposes.

> ...
>
> Rubbish.
>
> Go with a compact digital if you care about:
> ** Size


That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.


> ** Weight


That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.

> ** Handling ease


That's "portability", John.

> ** Super-zoom capability


That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.

> ** Very good to excellent results in most situations


That falls short of "the best image quality", John.


> ** Much lower cost


That's a dependent variable.


-hh
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:03:35 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
>> ...short of "the best image quality", John.

> I couldn't care less.



And that's ALL you need to know. As they say..

'case closed'
 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> -hh<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> >> Go with a compact digital if you care about:
> >> * Size

>
> >That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.

>
> More than that.


So then Stephen was correct, just not to the full degree that you
personally want. This means that Navas's claim of ' Rubbish' is
functionally recanted.


> >> * Weight
> >> * Handling ease
> >> * Super-zoom capability


Ditto, ditto, ditto. Navas continues to recant.

> >> * Very good to excellent results in most situations

>
> >That falls short of "the best image quality", John.

>
> I couldn't care less.


We know.


> >> * Much lower cost

>
> >That's a dependent variable.

>
> Nonsense.


'Best' is only achieved through the application of greater efforts
which invokes the laws of diminishing returns, which is invariably
expensive. There's no such thing as a free lunch.


-hh
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:29:45 -0800, John Navas wrote:

>> Snapshot shooting isn't really what interests me, but it's fine for
>> most people (the "them") and I see nothing wrong with their
>> preference. You really seem to be going out of your way to find
>> things to criticize and argue about.

>
> You seem to be pretty sensitive on what was only a clarification.


Really? You completely misunderstood and criticized what I said,
implying that I intended it as a slur. That's NOT a clarification.

>>> So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
>>> small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
>>> beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
>>> good enough.

>>
>> With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
>> [Way] too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
>> images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.


and then excused your misinterpretation by saying

> Because it's often a slur here, meant to suggest that someone's
> standards are lower, a negative value judgment.


An acceptable excuse, but then this excuse contradicts your
previous claim that you hadn't criticized, but clarified. It's easy
to see where this leads, which is that you're just another of those
on the internet that will never admit error, no matter how much it
damages their credibility. In this newsgroup you're not unique,
although not yet as offensive as a couple of those that share some
of your other attributes. I can imagine how you'll respond. Try to
surprise me.

 
Reply With Quote
 
SneakyP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
news(E-Mail Removed):

> This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
> with film photography.
>

In contrast...

what was news to me was the fact that films will compress the dynamic range
in the upper regions whereas digital will tend to white-out the saturated
areas. Digital also has a non-logarithmic scale of discreet ranges
whereas film will have a better picture that is smoother in the darker
ranges.
The more data a digital will capture, the better the picture is whereas the
darker ranges in a film will capture the data better than the whiter areas
because it isn't plagued with electronic noise interfering with the darker
portion of the picture.
Completely backwards, but nevertheless so much different.


Just asking all here: have there been any DSLR cameras that can do what
the film type have been shown to do?
My perception is that those film cameras do a much better job of capturing
pictures, but that was a little over a year ago.


--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.

Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)
 
Reply With Quote
 
SneakyP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:10:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote
> in <q%36l.12397$(E-Mail Removed)> :
>
>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>[]
>>> Certainly there is not only room for both, but IMO there
>>> should be a fusion of both. My original observation was that there
>>> are many people who appear, from what they post here, to be far more
>>> obsessed with the hardware than in the art of photography.

>>
>>I think that immediately springs from the name of the group - it's
>>concerned with those aspects which are "digital", and not those which
>>are artistic.

>
> I think the name just distinguishes digital from film without anything
> non-artistic implied.
>

perhaps the name should have simply been rec.photo.

..digital, and .film, could have been sub-groups off of that.
Anyone familiar with Medium Format Cameras? I've yet to see a Digital be
able to take those types of pictures.





--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.

Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
SneakyP wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
> news(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
>> with film photography.
>>

> In contrast...
>
> what was news to me was the fact that films will compress the dynamic
> range in the upper regions whereas digital will tend to white-out the
> saturated areas. Digital also has a non-logarithmic scale of
> discreet ranges whereas film will have a better picture that is
> smoother in the darker ranges.
> The more data a digital will capture, the better the picture is
> whereas the darker ranges in a film will capture the data better than
> the whiter areas because it isn't plagued with electronic noise
> interfering with the darker portion of the picture.
> Completely backwards, but nevertheless so much different.


Digital is linear when captured, only non-linear when converted to JPEG.
You are correct about the white saturation. I am not so sure you are
correct about the low-light or toe end of the film range. Why do
astronomers now use digital? Is digital or film photon-limited at the low
end?

> Just asking all here: have there been any DSLR cameras that can do
> what the film type have been shown to do?
> My perception is that those film cameras do a much better job of
> capturing pictures, but that was a little over a year ago.


Fuji had some dual-pixel CCD cameras at one time - perhaps the Fuji S5 -
designed for high-end range extension by adding in a less sensitive sensor
pixel as well as the standard pixel.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03...superccdsr.asp

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
In message <Xns9B83E414AC0B8invalid@69.16.185.247>, SneakyP
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) :


>Anyone familiar with Medium Format Cameras? I've yet to see a Digital be
>able to take those types of pictures.


Most of them are now Digital Have been for some time 25-60MP backs on
them.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Must We Worship nais-saudi Python 3 07-16-2010 06:23 AM
Python Worship Nick Python 2 12-01-2006 06:00 AM
Re: Religion vs. Faith Mik the cyst-crusher Computer Support 2 03-30-2005 03:47 PM
?? CONSISTENT CRIMES OF THE EVIL ANGLO-SAXON RACE AND RELIGION CHURCH MOLESTED CHILDS C Programming 0 05-07-2004 07:16 PM
UNIFIED THEORY OF RELIGION Nomen Nescio Digital Photography 19 09-14-2003 08:14 PM



Advertisments