Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>> One obvious step is to review a lot -- you can see if it worked well
>>>> enough early enough to remember the situation and what you did, so
>>>> there's some chance of learning from the bad results and what you have
>>>> to change to fix the results. (This wasn't available, of course, with
>>>> film auto-exposure cameras.)


>>> Even faster and easier learning is possible with camera models which
>>> can give you a live view preview of what the taken shot will look like
>>> before you shoot it. With some that can even include shutter speed, so
>>> you can select the amount of motion blur you want, e.g. the smooth
>>> waterfall effect.


>> That will cause you to learn to always use the preview mode.


> No, it caused to learn when to use the preview mode, and when to use
> other modes.


Why should anyone use any other than the preview mode?

>>> Not only a much faster learning


>> Much less learning causes that, yes.


> I was referring to the speed up of learning the *same* amount. The
> speed up of learning with reduced turn round time between experiment
> and result is much stronger than linear. That's been well established
> in learning research for at least several decades.


The difference between ~1 seconds (or however long it takes for
you to see the instant review of the camera) and 0.3 seconds
(the time it takes to decide what to adjust how far and then
perform the ajdustment) is marginal, unless you are tyring
to control a real-time process (e.g. drive a car). The speed
of learning depends on how fast a learner *will* build up an
accurate enough model of the process in his brain. If ---
like with a preview mode --- you enable the learner to nearly
completely bypass having to build a model, that model will
grow slow as the model won't be much tested by questioning it.
Exceptions where the learner can't help but build a model of
everything and test that model are granted, but most people
just aren't like that. These exceptiopns also deal well with
longer times between test and result.


>>> and selection speed, but avoids
>>> cluttering up your memory card with a lot of failed trials.


>> How terrible. Can't buy another or a larger card. Can't
>> delete. Can't format. Can't learn from inspecting a series
>> of e.g. exposure times.


> I'm sorry to hear that.


Me too. Maybe I tend to overestimate people and think
they're at least capable of simple stuff like buying and
changing memory cards.

> Obviously these improved learning speeds may
> not happen when learning is impaired.


Most people are learning impaired --- they want it to "just
work". Which is fine. But you don't get to learn when to
shift gears with an automatic transmission car, either.


>>> (Models with an EVF can do this in the viewfinder as well as on the
>>> LCD, and can also review the taken shot, along with the usual
>>> histogram etc choices if wished, without taking the eye from the
>>> viewfinder.)


>> Yep, the ultimative crutch. You learn to depend on it.
>> Soon you're addicted ...


> Addicts can't do without their crutch. If you can't do without a
> technological aid you can't assess it. You can't discover when it
> fails to work optimally. You can't avoid its use when doing so would
> improve the photograph.


That was the point. You press buttons or twirl wheels
semi-randomly until your preview looks sorta-good. Only very
superficial understanding needed. The second when you don't
have the time to spin the wheels, watching the preview, to
grab a shot you're in a fix.

> I was delighted when I got my first exposure meter. Saved a lot of
> time and film and taught me a lot. I still use an exposure meter for
> non-electronic lenses and for setting up manual flash guns. But I'm
> not stuck if I forget to bring it. I'm delighted with the improved
> autofocus of my latest camera. But I'm still using manual focus to
> find out when and why it fails. No gadget is perfect.


Most camera owners wouldn't know what an exposure meter was.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Chris Malcolm says...
>> I do sometimes meet novices with new DSLRs who are struggling and
>> failing badly with fully manual operation.


> Strange. If they are in live view mode with the histogram enabled, they
> see immediately is something is over- or underexposed and can quickly
> adjust the exposure.


Causing gray snow by day and gray "black skies" by night.

> Same with the focus. All they need to do is activate the 10x loupe and
> life view, then they can easily focus manually.


Try that with an erratically moving object (say a player on
the field) at some time, then we talk.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
Doug McDonald <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 12:12 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:> In article <ka485b$uob$(E-Mail Removed)>, Trevor says...
> >> How many times do I have to spell it out, a "properly exposed" RAW file is
> >> not necessarily the same as a "properly exposed" Jpeg.


> > Please explain what you mean with that. I've been using digital cameras
> > since 1997 and have never heard somebody making a difference between a
> > properly exposed RAW and a properly exposed JPEG.


> Oh there is a difference!


The difference is: in JPEG you cannot adjust the exposure
much. In RAW you can pull as much as you like and push a bit
more than in JPEG.

> Raw is different ... it is linear. The conversion is done later and
> you have great control.


Nope. The conversion is not yet done and you *might* have
great control --- but in most cases the camera immediately
converts it to JPEG.

> In particular you can decrease the apparent exposure
> without harming the picture. This means that if you have plenty of light you
> can expose, for example, a black cat on a black background so that
> the highlights in the cat's fur are just below clipping, and get lower noise
> by readjusting so-called "exposure" in the raw-jpeg conversion, putting the
> toe and shoulder where you want it.


The amount of noise, if you have "plenty of light", is
already very low.

> For jpeg and very high contrast scenes (i.e. that dog) you have to put the
> dog as the main exposure target, and you will most certainly have clipped
> highlights. The imposition of the toe in jpeg means that you can't underexpose
> the dog and correct later and have it look right.


Underexposing for less clipping is a feature many DSLRs now
do regularly. Called "Active Lighing" or somesuch. Works ---
you guessed it --- with JPEG.

> This is not a problem
> with raw --- you can expose, as the dog photographer did, so as just barely
> clip the clouds, and nicely bring up the dog later, without clipping the
> lighter parts.


If you already need to overexpose black cats in brightly lit
coal cellars to control the noise of your camera, doing the
opposite (underexposing and pushing the now-dark parts) is
a very bad idea. In addition you get less fine graduations
whenever you push-develop in digital.

> I am very very sure that this has been clearly explained before in this thread!


Yep, but what *IS* a properly exposed RAW? One that has it's
exposure detuned and needs manual(!) correction in post, or one
which when converted by the default settings immediately results
in a properly exposed JPEG? Where has that been explained,
and who ruled which case was right and which wrong?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-18-2012
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Underexposing for less clipping is a feature many DSLRs now
> do regularly. Called "Active Lighing" or somesuch. Works ---
> you guessed it --- with JPEG.


If you're referring to the kind of things Nikon calls "active D
lighting", Sony "dynamic range optimisation", etc. these usually
involve a slight underexposure, but that's incidental. They're tone
mapping systems to bring out shadow detail while preserving highlight
detail. It's one of the in-camera jpeg processing options and has a
variety of settings from weak to strong and auto. Also available in
some RAW processing editors with a great deal more variety and
control.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-18-2012
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>> One obvious step is to review a lot -- you can see if it worked well
>>>>> enough early enough to remember the situation and what you did, so
>>>>> there's some chance of learning from the bad results and what you have
>>>>> to change to fix the results. (This wasn't available, of course, with
>>>>> film auto-exposure cameras.)


>>>> Even faster and easier learning is possible with camera models which
>>>> can give you a live view preview of what the taken shot will look like
>>>> before you shoot it. With some that can even include shutter speed, so
>>>> you can select the amount of motion blur you want, e.g. the smooth
>>>> waterfall effect.


>>> That will cause you to learn to always use the preview mode.


>> No, it caused to learn when to use the preview mode, and when to use
>> other modes.


> Why should anyone use any other than the preview mode?


Firstly "preview mode" is a simplification, because there are various
flavours of it. Secondly preview mode is a prediction which only works
to the extent that the camera has all the requisite information prior
to the shot which sometimes it doesn't, e.g. when using flash or very
long exposures.

>>>> Not only a much faster learning


>>> Much less learning causes that, yes.


>> I was referring to the speed up of learning the *same* amount. The
>> speed up of learning with reduced turn round time between experiment
>> and result is much stronger than linear. That's been well established
>> in learning research for at least several decades.


> The difference between ~1 seconds (or however long it takes for
> you to see the instant review of the camera) and 0.3 seconds
> (the time it takes to decide what to adjust how far and then
> perform the ajdustment) is marginal, unless you are tyring
> to control a real-time process (e.g. drive a car).


That's exactly the point. People find it much easier to learn how to
control something if while they're varying it they can immediately see
the effect of the variation, compared to making a setting, taking a
shot, and then reviewing the shot. While you're simply increasing or
decreasing the time between a single experiment and a review the
change is pretty linear. Then there's the very large change between
step by step learning, and learning by controlling a real time
process. When the time of the steps gets into the human reaction speed
region the speed of learning related to speed changes ceases to linear
because you're on the curve of that qualitative transition.

The difference between change exposure setting, shoot, review result
on LCD, make another change and repeat, and being able to ramp
aperture and shutter up and down while watching the immediate change
in the viewfinder is in that crucial band of difference.

Consider trying to find the shutter speed which will give a nice speed
blur on moving skaters while leaving standing skaters sharp. Without
preview it's a case of try, chimp, adjust, retry, chimp, etc.. Can
take several seconds to get it right, maybe longer if you're being
fussy. Whereas with preview you simply rotate the shutter speed dial
while watching the speed blurs stretch out and in. Through the
viewfinder, while following the action, snapping as soon as you like
it, and able to make individual shutter speed choices for individual
bits of action of diffrent speeds, focal length changes, etc..

Quite apart from learning, a much faster way of geting the speed blur
you want, sufficiently much faster that in five minutes shooting you
can come away with many more good shots of a much greater variety than
without preview.

>>>> and selection speed, but avoids
>>>> cluttering up your memory card with a lot of failed trials.


>>> How terrible. Can't buy another or a larger card. Can't
>>> delete. Can't format. Can't learn from inspecting a series
>>> of e.g. exposure times.


>> I'm sorry to hear that.


> Me too. Maybe I tend to overestimate people and think
> they're at least capable of simple stuff like buying and
> changing memory cards.


>> Obviously these improved learning speeds may
>> not happen when learning is impaired.


> Most people are learning impaired --- they want it to "just
> work". Which is fine. But you don't get to learn when to
> shift gears with an automatic transmission car, either.


Only if it's one of those rather primitive auto transmissions that
does it all by itself without allowing you any control of the
process. DSLRs have a great variety of modes of control between full
auto and full manual which makes them a very rich learning environment
for those who want to learn.

>>>> (Models with an EVF can do this in the viewfinder as well as on the
>>>> LCD, and can also review the taken shot, along with the usual
>>>> histogram etc choices if wished, without taking the eye from the
>>>> viewfinder.)


>>> Yep, the ultimative crutch. You learn to depend on it.
>>> Soon you're addicted ...


>> Addicts can't do without their crutch. If you can't do without a
>> technological aid you can't assess it. You can't discover when it
>> fails to work optimally. You can't avoid its use when doing so would
>> improve the photograph.


> That was the point. You press buttons or twirl wheels
> semi-randomly until your preview looks sorta-good. Only very
> superficial understanding needed. The second when you don't
> have the time to spin the wheels, watching the preview, to
> grab a shot you're in a fix.


And being in a fix and having to find out how to get out of the fix is
a good motivation for doing the appropriate learning. In fact it's
precisely the sort of problem which our brains have been evolved to
solve. It's what they're good at. What you're viewing as an awful
problem I regard as a natural useful educational opportunity.

You seem to be suggesting that technical aids are so dangerously like
drug addiction that even just a few tastes to see what they're like
might leave you with permanent brain damage, forever unable to learn
the "exposure triangle", forever unable to take a photograph without
the auto "crutch", forever unable to to step beyond what your camera's
simple auto mind thinks is a good photograph of whatever you pointed
it at.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2012
Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>>> One obvious step is to review a lot -- you can see if it worked well
>>>>>> enough early enough to remember the situation and what you did, so
>>>>>> there's some chance of learning from the bad results and what you have
>>>>>> to change to fix the results. (This wasn't available, of course, with
>>>>>> film auto-exposure cameras.)


>>>>> Even faster and easier learning is possible with camera models which
>>>>> can give you a live view preview of what the taken shot will look like
>>>>> before you shoot it. With some that can even include shutter speed, so
>>>>> you can select the amount of motion blur you want, e.g. the smooth
>>>>> waterfall effect.


>>>> That will cause you to learn to always use the preview mode.


>>> No, it caused to learn when to use the preview mode, and when to use
>>> other modes.


>> Why should anyone use any other than the preview mode?


> Firstly "preview mode" is a simplification, because there are various
> flavours of it. Secondly preview mode is a prediction which only works
> to the extent that the camera has all the requisite information prior
> to the shot which sometimes it doesn't, e.g. when using flash or very
> long exposures.


So you are saying they don't really show you what you'll get,
which tells me they're prolonging the learning: one has to
learn where they don't work, and to find this out, the shutter
button is needed, as usual

>>>>> Not only a much faster learning


>>>> Much less learning causes that, yes.


>>> I was referring to the speed up of learning the *same* amount. The
>>> speed up of learning with reduced turn round time between experiment
>>> and result is much stronger than linear. That's been well established
>>> in learning research for at least several decades.


>> The difference between ~1 seconds (or however long it takes for
>> you to see the instant review of the camera) and 0.3 seconds
>> (the time it takes to decide what to adjust how far and then
>> perform the ajdustment) is marginal, unless you are tyring
>> to control a real-time process (e.g. drive a car).


> That's exactly the point.


People are doing video with their cameras?

> People find it much easier to learn how to
> control something if while they're varying it they can immediately see
> the effect of the variation, compared to making a setting, taking a
> shot, and then reviewing the shot.


Yep, that was the point of "becoming addicted". They only learn
to twiddle the settings until the preview mode shows something
they sort of like. They don't grasp why that happens what
is happening --- they don't need to. Take away their preview
mode and they flounder like a fish on dry land.

> While you're simply increasing or
> decreasing the time between a single experiment and a review the
> change is pretty linear. Then there's the very large change between
> step by step learning, and learning by controlling a real time
> process. When the time of the steps gets into the human reaction speed
> region the speed of learning related to speed changes ceases to linear
> because you're on the curve of that qualitative transition.


Which is totally irrelevant, because the idea is to know ---
without spending time twiddling in the preview mode --- what
sort of DOF your scene needs and what sort of aperture that
means for your camera and focal length, and also, which speeds
you need to have no relevant camera shake (which you cannot
see in the preview mode) and which sort of speeds are needed
deliberately freeze/blur the subject (which again is hard to
judge in the preview mode).

> The difference between change exposure setting, shoot, review result
> on LCD, make another change and repeat, and being able to ramp
> aperture and shutter up and down while watching the immediate change
> in the viewfinder is in that crucial band of difference.


See above: in many cases you *cannot* see the crucial difference
in the viewfinder. Not with any refresh rate that's needed to
even sorta track the subject, and not without a 10x (or more)
loupe, which severely cuts your perception of the scene.


> Consider trying to find the shutter speed which will give a nice speed
> blur on moving skaters while leaving standing skaters sharp. Without
> preview it's a case of try, chimp, adjust, retry, chimp, etc..


No, it's a case of "apply experience".

> Can
> take several seconds to get it right, maybe longer if you're being
> fussy. Whereas with preview you simply rotate the shutter speed dial
> while watching the speed blurs stretch out and in. Through the
> viewfinder, while following the action, snapping as soon as you like
> it, and able to make individual shutter speed choices for individual
> bits of action of diffrent speeds, focal length changes, etc..


Yep, so you want the standing skaters tack sharp. Can't see
tack sharp without a 10x loupe. Can't follow the action *with*
a 10x loupe. Can't judge 'tack sharp' without a refresh
rate faster than 2 times a second without training (the same
training which would have told you immediately how long you can
hold at that focal length with that lens). Can't follow the
action at 2 fps --- probably can't even keep the camera steady.

Much easier to freeze one frame and evaluate it at leisure,
once you have a rough idea (which requires about as much
training as using the preview properly) --- and exactly that
is what happens when you take a shot.

SURE, if you have NO idea at all, then a preview helps ---
provided you have enough ideas how to *use* the preview mode.
And it's limitations. And where it fails. On your camera.
In your specific preview mode setting. Which means the
knowledge doesn't carry over. Unlike 'equivalent focal
length', 'exposure time', 'equivalent aperture', which works
on every camera where you can set them.


> Quite apart from learning, a much faster way of geting the speed blur
> you want, sufficiently much faster that in five minutes shooting you
> can come away with many more good shots of a much greater variety than
> without preview.


If you need more than 20 seconds to try-chimp the right speed
blur, you need to use your camera more than 2 times a year.

Which leaves you with 4:40 pure shooting time. Which means
you need to machine-gun with the preview mode in the first 20
seconds *and* get all the "many more good shots" there *and*
all the "much greater variety". Which is as likely as being
struck by lightning.

>>>>> and selection speed, but avoids
>>>>> cluttering up your memory card with a lot of failed trials.


>>>> How terrible. Can't buy another or a larger card. Can't
>>>> delete. Can't format. Can't learn from inspecting a series
>>>> of e.g. exposure times.


>>> I'm sorry to hear that.


>> Me too. Maybe I tend to overestimate people and think
>> they're at least capable of simple stuff like buying and
>> changing memory cards.


>>> Obviously these improved learning speeds may
>>> not happen when learning is impaired.


>> Most people are learning impaired --- they want it to "just
>> work". Which is fine. But you don't get to learn when to
>> shift gears with an automatic transmission car, either.


> Only if it's one of those rather primitive auto transmissions that
> does it all by itself without allowing you any control of the
> process.


And how many people *do* learn it that way, and how fast?
Now compare that to what people learn in the first few
driving lessons on a manual car.

> DSLRs have a great variety of modes of control between full
> auto and full manual which makes them a very rich learning environment
> for those who want to learn.


You learn faster how to technically use the camera if you *have*
to start with full manual and *have* to think about what you
do --- even if just between review and shutter button. Sure,
the learning curve is steeper that way, which means you climb
faster and need to take more time per shot in the beginning.

>>>>> (Models with an EVF can do this in the viewfinder as well as on the
>>>>> LCD, and can also review the taken shot, along with the usual
>>>>> histogram etc choices if wished, without taking the eye from the
>>>>> viewfinder.)


>>>> Yep, the ultimative crutch. You learn to depend on it.
>>>> Soon you're addicted ...


>>> Addicts can't do without their crutch. If you can't do without a
>>> technological aid you can't assess it. You can't discover when it
>>> fails to work optimally. You can't avoid its use when doing so would
>>> improve the photograph.


>> That was the point. You press buttons or twirl wheels
>> semi-randomly until your preview looks sorta-good. Only very
>> superficial understanding needed. The second when you don't
>> have the time to spin the wheels, watching the preview, to
>> grab a shot you're in a fix.


> And being in a fix and having to find out how to get out of the fix is
> a good motivation for doing the appropriate learning. In fact it's
> precisely the sort of problem which our brains have been evolved to
> solve. It's what they're good at. What you're viewing as an awful
> problem I regard as a natural useful educational opportunity.


So basically you say: "If you're used to preview and lose that
capability, you're in a fix and that's very good for learning".

OK.

Fine.

So why not leave off the preview mode (instead of wasting
months or years on it) and start being in a fix and thus
learning immediately? Please use short, simple words to
explain that ...

> You seem to be suggesting that technical aids are so dangerously like
> drug addiction


Nope. *Some* technical aids. And dangerous only on being
unable to perform the function without them. And them not
being ubiquitous nor very compatible to each other means you
risk being without them or with an implementation where your
knowledge of them is, ah, rather less useful. And even when
they're available, using them produces results are worse in a
relevant subset than if you knew what you were doing.

> that even just a few tastes to see what they're like
> might leave you with permanent brain damage,


Not if you already know what you're doing. But man is lazy,
and this appeals to being really lazy instead of learning and
thinking.

> forever unable to learn
> the "exposure triangle", forever unable to take a photograph without
> the auto "crutch", forever unable to to step beyond what your camera's
> simple auto mind thinks is a good photograph of whatever you pointed
> it at.


Even drug addictions can be overcome. As many an ex-smoker
(and ex-drinker, and ex-heroin-addict, and ...) can testify.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2012
Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> Underexposing for less clipping is a feature many DSLRs now
>> do regularly. Called "Active Lighing" or somesuch. Works ---
>> you guessed it --- with JPEG.


> If you're referring to the kind of things Nikon calls "active D
> lighting", Sony "dynamic range optimisation", etc. these usually
> involve a slight underexposure,


Oh, I wouldn't call 1 stop slight.

> but that's incidental.


Nope. Changing the exposure is neccessary to keep more of
the brightest parts from clipping IN THE RAW SENSOR DATA.
Can't unclip in JPEG what is clipped in RAW.

> They're tone
> mapping systems to bring out shadow detail while preserving highlight
> detail.


Which --- see above --- *requires* underexposure.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:04:23 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>> Underexposing for less clipping is a feature many DSLRs now
>>>> do regularly. Called "Active Lighing" or somesuch. Works ---
>>>> you guessed it --- with JPEG.


>>> If you're referring to the kind of things Nikon calls "active D
>>> lighting", Sony "dynamic range optimisation", etc. these usually
>>> involve a slight underexposure,


>>Oh, I wouldn't call 1 stop slight.


>>> but that's incidental.


>>Nope. Changing the exposure is neccessary to keep more of
>>the brightest parts from clipping IN THE RAW SENSOR DATA.
>>Can't unclip in JPEG what is clipped in RAW.


>>> They're tone
>>> mapping systems to bring out shadow detail while preserving highlight
>>> detail.


>>Which --- see above --- *requires* underexposure.


> Not when I only decide to use Nikon's so-called 'D-Lighting' in
> post-processing in the computer.


In which case you've to underexpose manually or get clipped
highlights in the RAW. Unless of course your scene doesn't have
much dynamic range and you don't need D-Lighting in first place.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2012
In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>>>> One obvious step is to review a lot -- you can see if it worked well
>>>>>>> enough early enough to remember the situation and what you did, so
>>>>>>> there's some chance of learning from the bad results and what you have
>>>>>>> to change to fix the results. (This wasn't available, of course, with
>>>>>>> film auto-exposure cameras.)


>>>>>> Even faster and easier learning is possible with camera models which
>>>>>> can give you a live view preview of what the taken shot will look like
>>>>>> before you shoot it. With some that can even include shutter speed, so
>>>>>> you can select the amount of motion blur you want, e.g. the smooth
>>>>>> waterfall effect.


>>>>> That will cause you to learn to always use the preview mode.


>>>> No, it caused to learn when to use the preview mode, and when to use
>>>> other modes.


>>> Why should anyone use any other than the preview mode?


>> Firstly "preview mode" is a simplification, because there are various
>> flavours of it. Secondly preview mode is a prediction which only works
>> to the extent that the camera has all the requisite information prior
>> to the shot which sometimes it doesn't, e.g. when using flash or very
>> long exposures.


> So you are saying they don't really show you what you'll get,
> which tells me they're prolonging the learning:


They usually show you what you'll get. In certain circumstances they
don't. You're right that learning what those circumsntaces are, and if
an inquisitive person, why, is a good and useful idea. A brief glimpse
of the taken shot flashed up on the LCD or EVF will immediately show
you the difference between preview prediction and result.

> one has to
> learn where they don't work, and to find this out, the shutter
> button is needed, as usual


Of course. It would be nice if our cameras' auto functions were all
infallibly perfect, but none of them are, and it's part of any
inquisitive and careful photographer's work to find out when they
can't be trusted.

>>>>>> Not only a much faster learning


>>>>> Much less learning causes that, yes.


>>>> I was referring to the speed up of learning the *same* amount. The
>>>> speed up of learning with reduced turn round time between experiment
>>>> and result is much stronger than linear. That's been well established
>>>> in learning research for at least several decades.


>>> The difference between ~1 seconds (or however long it takes for
>>> you to see the instant review of the camera) and 0.3 seconds
>>> (the time it takes to decide what to adjust how far and then
>>> perform the ajdustment) is marginal, unless you are tyring
>>> to control a real-time process (e.g. drive a car).


>> That's exactly the point.


> People are doing video with their cameras?


No in the sense that both photographer and camera are in taking still
photographs mode. Yes in the sense that some of what the camera has to
do to offer this kind of preview mode is similar to some aspects of
video.

>> People find it much easier to learn how to
>> control something if while they're varying it they can immediately see
>> the effect of the variation, compared to making a setting, taking a
>> shot, and then reviewing the shot.


> Yep, that was the point of "becoming addicted". They only learn
> to twiddle the settings until the preview mode shows something
> they sort of like.


True if "they" are lazy or learning impaired. Not true if they're
inquisitive and capable. You seem to be criticising these kinds of
camera features on the grounds that they permit morons to use cameras
without understanding anything about photography. Why is that a
problem? And why should that be of any interest to those of us who
want to learn how our cameras work?

> They don't grasp why that happens what
> is happening --- they don't need to. Take away their preview
> mode and they flounder like a fish on dry land.


So what? The preview mode can equally well be used as an aid to
intelligent experiment by the curious.

>> While you're simply increasing or
>> decreasing the time between a single experiment and a review the
>> change is pretty linear. Then there's the very large change between
>> step by step learning, and learning by controlling a real time
>> process. When the time of the steps gets into the human reaction speed
>> region the speed of learning related to speed changes ceases to linear
>> because you're on the curve of that qualitative transition.


> Which is totally irrelevant, because the idea is to know ---
> without spending time twiddling in the preview mode --- what
> sort of DOF your scene needs and what sort of aperture that
> means for your camera and focal length, and also, which speeds
> you need to have no relevant camera shake (which you cannot
> see in the preview mode) and which sort of speeds are needed
> deliberately freeze/blur the subject (which again is hard to
> judge in the preview mode).


It takes a little skill to judge it in preview mode, true. I found it
quicker use it to home in to the right kind of shutter speed and then
use chimping for the final refinement (if there was time) than use
chimping all the way. That's arguably because I'm not a sports shooter
and shoot this kind of ice rink shot about once every two years. It's
also possible that all kinds of variable eye and brain physiology
comes into this and that some people will find the preview facilities
far more annoying than useful.

>> The difference between change exposure setting, shoot, review result
>> on LCD, make another change and repeat, and being able to ramp
>> aperture and shutter up and down while watching the immediate change
>> in the viewfinder is in that crucial band of difference.


> See above: in many cases you *cannot* see the crucial difference
> in the viewfinder.


Obviously for your kind of shooting that might be true. All I can say
is that in my kind of shooting the crucial difference is almost always
shown in the viewfinder. It only fails (for me) in unusual and
predictable circumstances). What's more it's very easy to see if it's
failed by setting the camera to replace the preview with a brief
glimpse of the postview. That quick visual flick between pre and post
makes even small differences stand out.

> Not with any refresh rate that's needed to
> even sorta track the subject, and not without a 10x (or more)
> loupe, which severely cuts your perception of the scene.


A 10x loupe?? Why on earth would you ever need a loupe on a camera
which can easily magnify any part of the image, including the preview
image, up to pixel level? All a 10x loupe would show you is the pixels
of the display, which is very far below the resolution of the image
sensor.

>> Consider trying to find the shutter speed which will give a nice speed
>> blur on moving skaters while leaving standing skaters sharp. Without
>> preview it's a case of try, chimp, adjust, retry, chimp, etc..


> No, it's a case of "apply experience".


If you've got it. Which I haven't. My point is that I'm finding it a
more rapid way of gaining that experience, while considerably
improving the number of good shots I happen to take while doing the
learning.

>> Can
>> take several seconds to get it right, maybe longer if you're being
>> fussy. Whereas with preview you simply rotate the shutter speed dial
>> while watching the speed blurs stretch out and in. Through the
>> viewfinder, while following the action, snapping as soon as you like
>> it, and able to make individual shutter speed choices for individual
>> bits of action of diffrent speeds, focal length changes, etc..


> Yep, so you want the standing skaters tack sharp. Can't see
> tack sharp without a 10x loupe.


As I've explained you don't need a loupe in a camera which can do the
image magnification faster and better than any loupe.

> Can't follow the action *with*
> a 10x loupe.


Which you don't need, whereas the camera has in effect a built in
zoomable loupe. It's harder to follow action with that than simply
looking at the straight image through the viewfinder, but it's
easier to follow the action with it than with a 10x loupe.

> Can't judge 'tack sharp' without a refresh
> rate faster than 2 times a second without training (the same
> training which would have told you immediately how long you can
> hold at that focal length with that lens).


Apparently not, because I seem to have the first training mentioned
above without having the last mentioned above. I do know about the
reciprocal of the focal length for shutter speed, that you have to
adapt that to digital sensor size and resolution, add in the image
stabilising factor when appropriate, adapt it to the holding method
employed (e.g. elbows on wall, monopod, tripod), factor in wind,
factor in unusual rotational inertias (e.g. long reflective vs
refractive lens), etc etc.

In other words predicting steady hand holding speed in advance is an
educated guess which often needs verification and adjustment in
practice.

> Can't follow the
> action at 2 fps --- probably can't even keep the camera steady.


Many action shooters employ the both eyes open method for following
action. Lets them keep an eye on what's happening outside the scope of
the viewfinder as well what's in it. The same technique can be used
when panning to follow action while using the preview facility which
is including a slow shutter speed producing a jerky lagging
display. It does take practice, but it's possible and at least in my
case useful.

> Much easier to freeze one frame and evaluate it at leisure,
> once you have a rough idea (which requires about as much
> training as using the preview properly) --- and exactly that
> is what happens when you take a shot.


That is indeed much easier, but sometimes there isn't time to do that.

> SURE, if you have NO idea at all, then a preview helps ---


I find it also helps in my case where I have quite a good idea, having
learned my photgraphy back in the old days before there was even
autoexposure let alone autofocus.

> provided you have enough ideas how to *use* the preview mode.
> And it's limitations. And where it fails. On your camera.
> In your specific preview mode setting.


Perfectly true. These are all things you have to learn for each new
camera, just as in the old days you had to learn about different films
and developing techniques.

> Which means the
> knowledge doesn't carry over.


Your arguments are much too black and white. That not all the
knowledge carries over doesn't mean that none of it does. All the
knowledge doesn't carry over. But a useful amount of it does.

> Unlike 'equivalent focal
> length', 'exposure time', 'equivalent aperture', which works
> on every camera where you can set them.


Because they're elementary and specifically designed to be camera
independent. In fact angle of view is more independent and useful than
"equivalent focal length" which IMHO is a silly fudge of an incomplete
generalisation.

>> Quite apart from learning, a much faster way of geting the speed blur
>> you want, sufficiently much faster that in five minutes shooting you
>> can come away with many more good shots of a much greater variety than
>> without preview.


> If you need more than 20 seconds to try-chimp the right speed
> blur, you need to use your camera more than 2 times a year.


No, you need to use your camera for that kind shot more than two times
a year. I use my camera more than once a week, but I only try that
specific ice rink problem about once every other year. Two years ago I
spent about fifteen minutes on it, during which time I learnt a
lot. This year I spent only a few minutea on it. I was stopped by a
security guard who was worried that I might have a perverted interest
in photographing child skaters or be planning a terrorist attack.

> Which leaves you with 4:40 pure shooting time. Which means
> you need to machine-gun with the preview mode in the first 20
> seconds *and* get all the "many more good shots" there *and*
> all the "much greater variety". Which is as likely as being
> struck by lightning.


No idea what that argument means. I'm wondering whether you have any
experience of what you're criticising. You're beginning to sound to me
like someone arguing that zoom lenses lead to obesity, atrophy of the
legs, and loss of the manual dexterity and balance required to change
prime lenses while standing on a windswept rock in a river.

>>>> Obviously these improved learning speeds may
>>>> not happen when learning is impaired.


>>> Most people are learning impaired --- they want it to "just
>>> work". Which is fine. But you don't get to learn when to
>>> shift gears with an automatic transmission car, either.


>> Only if it's one of those rather primitive auto transmissions that
>> does it all by itself without allowing you any control of the
>> process.


> And how many people *do* learn it that way, and how fast?
> Now compare that to what people learn in the first few
> driving lessons on a manual car.


It does you credit that you're worried about the educational state of
lazy or stupid photographers and would rather the market insisted on
supplying them with cameras they couldn't work without a proper
scientific understanding of camera technology. Unfortunately the
market is based on consumer choice. On the other hand it doesn't worry
me at all that some of the features I like in my new camera could be
abused by the plebs take better photographs than their moral and
educational state deserves.

[snip]

>>>> Addicts can't do without their crutch. If you can't do without a
>>>> technological aid you can't assess it. You can't discover when it
>>>> fails to work optimally. You can't avoid its use when doing so would
>>>> improve the photograph.


>>> That was the point. You press buttons or twirl wheels
>>> semi-randomly until your preview looks sorta-good. Only very
>>> superficial understanding needed. The second when you don't
>>> have the time to spin the wheels, watching the preview, to
>>> grab a shot you're in a fix.


>> And being in a fix and having to find out how to get out of the fix is
>> a good motivation for doing the appropriate learning. In fact it's
>> precisely the sort of problem which our brains have been evolved to
>> solve. It's what they're good at. What you're viewing as an awful
>> problem I regard as a natural useful educational opportunity.


> So basically you say: "If you're used to preview and lose that
> capability, you're in a fix and that's very good for learning".


> OK.


> Fine.


> So why not leave off the preview mode (instead of wasting
> months or years on it) and start being in a fix and thus
> learning immediately? Please use short, simple words to
> explain that ...


Because that learning process is less fun, and I'm easily bored. Plus
preview lets me get a lot more fairly good shots while I'm doing the
learning. Helps my motivation. I also suspect that learning which is
more fun works faster and better. But I'm willing to accept that may
be a personal idiosyncracy.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2012
Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>> Why should anyone use any other than the preview mode?


>>> Firstly "preview mode" is a simplification, because there are various
>>> flavours of it. Secondly preview mode is a prediction which only works
>>> to the extent that the camera has all the requisite information prior
>>> to the shot which sometimes it doesn't, e.g. when using flash or very
>>> long exposures.


>> So you are saying they don't really show you what you'll get,
>> which tells me they're prolonging the learning:


> They usually show you what you'll get. In certain circumstances they
> don't. You're right that learning what those circumsntaces are, and if
> an inquisitive person, why, is a good and useful idea. A brief glimpse
> of the taken shot flashed up on the LCD or EVF will immediately show
> you the difference between preview prediction and result.


So you need the same time to assess the correctness of the
preview mode as you need to check any other parameters.

Unfortunately, aperture and exposure time is well behaved,
but preview prediction is much less so. Thus you need to
check the results mor often and for a much longer time.

>> one has to
>> learn where they don't work, and to find this out, the shutter
>> button is needed, as usual


> Of course. It would be nice if our cameras' auto functions were all
> infallibly perfect, but none of them are, and it's part of any
> inquisitive and careful photographer's work to find out when they
> can't be trusted.


Incorrect. There can be an inquisitive and careful photographer
who stays with full manual for his work.


>>>>> I was referring to the speed up of learning the *same* amount. The
>>>>> speed up of learning with reduced turn round time between experiment
>>>>> and result is much stronger than linear. That's been well established
>>>>> in learning research for at least several decades.


>>>> The difference between ~1 seconds (or however long it takes for
>>>> you to see the instant review of the camera) and 0.3 seconds
>>>> (the time it takes to decide what to adjust how far and then
>>>> perform the ajdustment) is marginal, unless you are tyring
>>>> to control a real-time process (e.g. drive a car).


>>> That's exactly the point.


>> People are doing video with their cameras?


> No in the sense that both photographer and camera are in taking still
> photographs mode. Yes in the sense that some of what the camera has to
> do to offer this kind of preview mode is similar to some aspects of
> video.


Sure, the camera needs to read the sensor and display the
image in real-time --- but an optical view finder does the same.


>>> People find it much easier to learn how to
>>> control something if while they're varying it they can immediately see
>>> the effect of the variation, compared to making a setting, taking a
>>> shot, and then reviewing the shot.


>> Yep, that was the point of "becoming addicted". They only learn
>> to twiddle the settings until the preview mode shows something
>> they sort of like.


> True if "they" are lazy or learning impaired. Not true if they're
> inquisitive and capable.


A rare minority. Otherwise we would not need schools.

> You seem to be criticising these kinds of
> camera features on the grounds that they permit morons to use cameras
> without understanding anything about photography.


You seem to be misunderstanding me. Morons use an
all-auto-everything mode, not preview mode, not even scene
modes.

> Why is that a
> problem? And why should that be of any interest to those of us who
> want to learn how our cameras work?


See above.


>> They don't grasp why that happens what
>> is happening --- they don't need to. Take away their preview
>> mode and they flounder like a fish on dry land.


> So what?


So they are addicted. And helpless without their crutch.

> The preview mode can equally well be used as an aid to
> intelligent experiment by the curious.


True.
Psychoactive drugs can equally well be used as an aid to
therapy, too.

Unfortunately in the case of drugs, this turns out to be
unlikely in most cases of drug use. I fear it'll be the same
with preview mode: only a very few will use it "as an aid to
intelligent experiment".


>>> While you're simply increasing or
>>> decreasing the time between a single experiment and a review the
>>> change is pretty linear. Then there's the very large change between
>>> step by step learning, and learning by controlling a real time
>>> process. When the time of the steps gets into the human reaction speed
>>> region the speed of learning related to speed changes ceases to linear
>>> because you're on the curve of that qualitative transition.


>> Which is totally irrelevant, because the idea is to know ---
>> without spending time twiddling in the preview mode --- what
>> sort of DOF your scene needs and what sort of aperture that
>> means for your camera and focal length, and also, which speeds
>> you need to have no relevant camera shake (which you cannot
>> see in the preview mode) and which sort of speeds are needed
>> deliberately freeze/blur the subject (which again is hard to
>> judge in the preview mode).


> It takes a little skill to judge it in preview mode, true. I found it
> quicker use it to home in to the right kind of shutter speed and then
> use chimping for the final refinement (if there was time) than use
> chimping all the way. That's arguably because I'm not a sports shooter
> and shoot this kind of ice rink shot about once every two years.


I'm curious. My first guess would be 1/500 or 1/1000 on a
moderate tele to freeze action. What was your first guess
after preview mode and your final shutter speed=

> It's
> also possible that all kinds of variable eye and brain physiology
> comes into this and that some people will find the preview facilities
> far more annoying than useful.


I would find it plainly impossible to see the difference between
tack sharp and mostly sharp in preview. It would only tell
me major blur or no blur --- not only because the EVF doesn't
have that much resolution, but because I can't look that fast.

Same with DOF, but I can get an idea of DOF by stopping down
the lens.


>>> The difference between change exposure setting, shoot, review result
>>> on LCD, make another change and repeat, and being able to ramp
>>> aperture and shutter up and down while watching the immediate change
>>> in the viewfinder is in that crucial band of difference.


>> See above: in many cases you *cannot* see the crucial difference
>> in the viewfinder.


> Obviously for your kind of shooting that might be true. All I can say
> is that in my kind of shooting the crucial difference is almost always
> shown in the viewfinder.


I can't really judge sharpness without magnification,
much less in a limited-dot/3=pixel-viewfinder. If you can,
than your display size won't be much larger than the pixel
count in the viewfinder. Just as one example. Tack sharp
or slightly blurred (but visible in high resolution 20x30cm
prints) is another.

> It only fails (for me) in unusual and
> predictable circumstances). What's more it's very easy to see if it's
> failed by setting the camera to replace the preview with a brief
> glimpse of the postview. That quick visual flick between pre and post
> makes even small differences stand out.


And doesn't show the stuff you can't see due to shortness of
time (given a non-static subject) and low resolution.


>> Not with any refresh rate that's needed to
>> even sorta track the subject, and not without a 10x (or more)
>> loupe, which severely cuts your perception of the scene.


> A 10x loupe?? Why on earth would you ever need a loupe on a camera
> which can easily magnify any part of the image,


That isn't called a loupe?

>>> Consider trying to find the shutter speed which will give a nice speed
>>> blur on moving skaters while leaving standing skaters sharp. Without
>>> preview it's a case of try, chimp, adjust, retry, chimp, etc..


>> No, it's a case of "apply experience".


> If you've got it. Which I haven't. My point is that I'm finding it a
> more rapid way of gaining that experience, while considerably
> improving the number of good shots I happen to take while doing the
> learning.


That's part of the allure. You need no experience! Just change
the settings until it looks (sorta) OK. You need not learn
a thing. And thus you gain the ability to sort-of get what
you want, without needing to note the numbers for exposure
time and aperture.

If you don't want more than sorta-WYSIWYG, preview mode only,
then that's perfectly fine with me, use preview mode, stay
with preview mode.

But you cannot transfer what you learn there to other modes,
not without deliberately and consciously working on it.
In other modes you can't get away ignoring the numbers and
their meanings --- you learn by default.


>>> Can
>>> take several seconds to get it right, maybe longer if you're being
>>> fussy. Whereas with preview you simply rotate the shutter speed dial
>>> while watching the speed blurs stretch out and in. Through the
>>> viewfinder, while following the action, snapping as soon as you like
>>> it, and able to make individual shutter speed choices for individual
>>> bits of action of diffrent speeds, focal length changes, etc..


>> Yep, so you want the standing skaters tack sharp. Can't see
>> tack sharp without a 10x loupe.


> As I've explained you don't need a loupe in a camera which can do the
> image magnification faster and better than any loupe.


See above.

>> Can't follow the action *with*
>> a 10x loupe.


> Which you don't need, whereas the camera has in effect a built in
> zoomable loupe.


maybe even a 1x, 5x, 10x loupe?

> It's harder to follow action with that than simply
> looking at the straight image through the viewfinder, but it's
> easier to follow the action with it than with a 10x loupe.


Yep, try that sometime. Take a flock of birds flying
overhead, track one bird with a long lens and see in the
viewfinder if his eye is tack sharp.

Or try a skater. Try to frame your shot so that just his head
is on it (you're going for the facial expression) --- and his
eyes shall be sharp. Assume he's not just doing repeated,
predictable circles or ovals ... see if you can zoom in,
track his face, check the sharpness ... all in preview mode
with varying distances to the camera.

>> Can't judge 'tack sharp' without a refresh
>> rate faster than 2 times a second without training (the same
>> training which would have told you immediately how long you can
>> hold at that focal length with that lens).


> Apparently not, because I seem to have the first training mentioned
> above without having the last mentioned above.


Ah, you use static motives and a tripod.

> I do know about the
> reciprocal of the focal length for shutter speed, that you have to
> adapt that to digital sensor size and resolution, add in the image
> stabilising factor when appropriate, adapt it to the holding method
> employed (e.g. elbows on wall, monopod, tripod), factor in wind,
> factor in unusual rotational inertias (e.g. long reflective vs
> refractive lens), etc etc.


Yep. So how many bodies and lenses do you regularly use?

> In other words predicting steady hand holding speed in advance is an
> educated guess which often needs verification and adjustment in
> practice.


Really? I try a new technique, I see what comes out, I
adjust as necessary to my goal, I remember what works and
what not for next time.

>> Can't follow the
>> action at 2 fps --- probably can't even keep the camera steady.


> Many action shooters employ the both eyes open method for following
> action.


Action shooters generally do not employ preview mode, though:
they don't want the additional *variable* lag between photons
hitting the sensor and dots lighting up on the EVF.

> Lets them keep an eye on what's happening outside the scope of
> the viewfinder as well what's in it.


Yep. But only for that reason and only as a background task.

> The same technique can be used
> when panning to follow action while using the preview facility which
> is including a slow shutter speed producing a jerky lagging
> display. It does take practice, but it's possible and at least in my
> case useful.


It's a work around for what is a non-problem with optical
viewfinders.


>> Much easier to freeze one frame and evaluate it at leisure,
>> once you have a rough idea (which requires about as much
>> training as using the preview properly) --- and exactly that
>> is what happens when you take a shot.


> That is indeed much easier, but sometimes there isn't time to do that.


Then there isn't time to play with preview modes either.


>> SURE, if you have NO idea at all, then a preview helps ---


> I find it also helps in my case where I have quite a good idea, having
> learned my photgraphy back in the old days before there was even
> autoexposure let alone autofocus.


You're saying you're still surprised by aperture or exposure
time settings?


>> provided you have enough ideas how to *use* the preview mode.
>> And it's limitations. And where it fails. On your camera.
>> In your specific preview mode setting.


> Perfectly true. These are all things you have to learn for each new
> camera, just as in the old days you had to learn about different films
> and developing techniques.


But you didn't need to relearn all of exposure time and
aperture. Which is what the preview mode supplies. Preview
doesn't do newer generations of sensors or digital darkroom.

>> Which means the
>> knowledge doesn't carry over.


> Your arguments are much too black and white. That not all the
> knowledge carries over doesn't mean that none of it does. All the
> knowledge doesn't carry over. But a useful amount of it does.


Yet with aperture and exposure time almost all carries over,
even switching sensor sizes.


>> Unlike 'equivalent focal
>> length', 'exposure time', 'equivalent aperture', which works
>> on every camera where you can set them.


> Because they're elementary and specifically designed to be camera
> independent.


Which makes them a *good* idea.

> In fact angle of view is more independent and useful than
> "equivalent focal length" which IMHO is a silly fudge of an incomplete
> generalisation.


So you'd write an angle of view on a lens --- which is then
attached to a 35mm-sized sensor, a 1.6x crop sensor, a 2x crop
MFT and maybe even to a 2.7x '1"' sensor. For which sensor
would you write the angle of view?

So focal length and thus equivalent focal length.


>>> Quite apart from learning, a much faster way of geting the speed blur
>>> you want, sufficiently much faster that in five minutes shooting you
>>> can come away with many more good shots of a much greater variety than
>>> without preview.


>> If you need more than 20 seconds to try-chimp the right speed
>> blur, you need to use your camera more than 2 times a year.


> No, you need to use your camera for that kind shot more than two times
> a year. I use my camera more than once a week, but I only try that
> specific ice rink problem about once every other year. Two years ago I
> spent about fifteen minutes on it, during which time I learnt a
> lot. This year I spent only a few minutea on it. I was stopped by a
> security guard who was worried that I might have a perverted interest
> in photographing child skaters or be planning a terrorist attack.


And next year you'll be arrested for carrying a camera.


>> Which leaves you with 4:40 pure shooting time. Which means
>> you need to machine-gun with the preview mode in the first 20
>> seconds *and* get all the "many more good shots" there *and*
>> all the "much greater variety". Which is as likely as being
>> struck by lightning.


> No idea what that argument means.


Basically: If you need to chimp for a rather long time to
find the right settings, you don't know your camera well.
If you don't need to chimp for a long time, I call your
""sufficiently much faster that in five minutes shooting you
can come away with many more good shots of a much greater
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
variety than without preview" bull.
^^^^^^^

> I'm wondering whether you have any
> experience of what you're criticising. You're beginning to sound to me
> like someone arguing that zoom lenses lead to obesity, atrophy of the
> legs, and loss of the manual dexterity and balance required to change
> prime lenses while standing on a windswept rock in a river.


You begin to sound like someone who thinks photography *can't*
be done without preview modes, unless one chimps for many
minutes. At least not if you're not a super-photographer.


>>>>> Obviously these improved learning speeds may
>>>>> not happen when learning is impaired.


>>>> Most people are learning impaired --- they want it to "just
>>>> work". Which is fine. But you don't get to learn when to
>>>> shift gears with an automatic transmission car, either.


>>> Only if it's one of those rather primitive auto transmissions that
>>> does it all by itself without allowing you any control of the
>>> process.


>> And how many people *do* learn it that way, and how fast?
>> Now compare that to what people learn in the first few
>> driving lessons on a manual car.


> It does you credit that you're worried about the educational state of
> lazy or stupid photographers and would rather the market insisted on
> supplying them with cameras they couldn't work without a proper
> scientific understanding of camera technology.


Where did I require that one enter Maxwell's equations into
the camera before the shutter works? Or alternatively, the
theory of charge transport in semi-conductors? Or maybe how
to design and make a processor for the camera?

> Unfortunately the
> market is based on consumer choice.


Really? So where are the cameras many ask for?

Isn't it that companies decide what they will make, based on
what *they* think makes them the most money, launch it where
*they* think it'll make them the most money and price it as
*they* think it'll make them the most money?


> On the other hand it doesn't worry
> me at all that some of the features I like in my new camera could be
> abused by the plebs take better photographs than their moral and
> educational state deserves.


I'm not worried about "the plebs". I'm worried about people
who could be more but will be held back by such things.

> [snip]


>>>>> Addicts can't do without their crutch. If you can't do without a
>>>>> technological aid you can't assess it. You can't discover when it
>>>>> fails to work optimally. You can't avoid its use when doing so would
>>>>> improve the photograph.


>>>> That was the point. You press buttons or twirl wheels
>>>> semi-randomly until your preview looks sorta-good. Only very
>>>> superficial understanding needed. The second when you don't
>>>> have the time to spin the wheels, watching the preview, to
>>>> grab a shot you're in a fix.


>>> And being in a fix and having to find out how to get out of the fix is
>>> a good motivation for doing the appropriate learning. In fact it's
>>> precisely the sort of problem which our brains have been evolved to
>>> solve. It's what they're good at. What you're viewing as an awful
>>> problem I regard as a natural useful educational opportunity.


>> So basically you say: "If you're used to preview and lose that
>> capability, you're in a fix and that's very good for learning".


>> OK.


>> Fine.


>> So why not leave off the preview mode (instead of wasting
>> months or years on it) and start being in a fix and thus
>> learning immediately? Please use short, simple words to
>> explain that ...


> Because that learning process is less fun, and I'm easily bored. Plus
> preview lets me get a lot more fairly good shots while I'm doing the
> learning. Helps my motivation. I also suspect that learning which is
> more fun works faster and better. But I'm willing to accept that may
> be a personal idiosyncracy.


I see. You want the easiest way, not the fastest or the
best way.

-Wolfgang
 
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
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Mort Digital Photography 130 12-25-2012 02:28 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Pat McGroyn Digital Photography 8 11-27-2012 04:38 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 8 11-26-2012 12:13 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 1 11-26-2012 05:47 AM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots RichA Digital Photography 1 11-25-2012 09:28 AM



Advertisments