Re: [SI] Curves - 1 week to go APOLOGY

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, Nov 21, 2012.

  1. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:10:01 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 2012.11.27 20:59 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:10:45 -0500, Alan Browne
    : > <> wrote:
    : > : On 2012.11.26 22:58 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : > :
    : > : > I'll add my name to those who think the rule is silly. The only
    : > : > legitimate reason for such a rule in any context is avoidance
    : > : > of deception.
    : > :
    : > : The reason for the rul was to put the emphasis on capture rather than
    : > : editing.
    : >
    : > There isn't any difference. The picture is taken by a computer (politely
    : > referred to as a "digital camera") and edited with another computer. What
    : > difference does it make which is which?
    :
    : You're correct that there isn't any difference, but you are out of your
    : tree wrong about what the similarity is.
    :
    : First off the photo is not taken by a computer. It is taken by a
    : photographer using a camera with a light sensitive capture media.
    : Whether that media is film, a digital sensor or a little bird inside
    : chiseling the presented image onto a piece of slate is immaterial.[1][2]
    :
    : What is material is that the above is image capture. And image capture
    : is what the SI is all about. The ability of photographers to find (or
    : even manufacture) a scene that meets the mandate and then capture it on
    : the media with a camera. If the camera needs film and/or batteries and
    : or feed for the little birdie who chisels inside, that is immaterial to
    : the capture.
    :
    : Getting it out for presentation legitimately requires re-sizing,
    : cropping, some adjustments to the overall image. It does not require
    : content modification.
    :
    : [1] The "computer" in a digital camera does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at the
    : time of capture other than allowing the shutter to be tripped. Prior to
    : that point the "computer" has already set the aperture value, the
    : shutter timer value and the analog gains of the sensor according to the
    : settings by the photographer. It has "armed" the sensor to be ready for
    : the image ('cleared' the sensor).
    :
    : AFTER the image is captured, then the computer is instrumental in
    : copying the image from the sensor, applying digital gain (if needed),
    : creating the JPG version (if needed), the thumbnail in the raw file (if
    : needed), storing it to the storage media, displaying it and so on.
    :
    : [2] Refer to the historical documentary series "The Flintstones" for
    : accurate depictions of photographic apparatus in use in the depicted period.
    :
    : > : Just as most darkroom photographers will crop, adjust contrast, colour,
    : > : tone, sharpness, dodge, burn and so on so that the photograph is still,
    : > : essentially, what was captured - but not a derivative product as
    : > : photoshop (etc) are so capable of doing through extensive manipulation.
    : >
    : > There are no "darkroom photographers", just as there are no longer any glass
    : > plates. Can we please stop living in the past?
    :
    : Of course there are darkroom photographers - that is to say
    : photographers who develop and print their images in darkrooms. It is
    : quite popular with some, even today.
    :
    : Oh, please look up analogy.

    Calm down, Alan; my command of the English language is just as good as yours.

    Please understand that I've had much more experience as a computer programmer
    than as a photographer. I don't make the layman's error of regarding a
    computer as a competitor rather than as a tool. The fact that I see a digital
    camera as a computer doesn't mean that I imagine that the photographer isn't
    in control.

    But a digital camera opens up possibilities that weren't readily available to
    film photographers, and we'll either embrace those possibilities or be
    replaced by those who will. The replacement will happen eventually in any
    case, but we don't have to go tamely into oblivion. Our successors will
    neither respect us nor admire us if we do.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 29, 2012
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/28/2012 10:09 PM, Frank S wrote:
    >

    <snip>
    >>


    >
    > Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
    > "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
    > exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
    > into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
    > image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
    > appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
    > self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
    >
    > Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
    > participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
    > few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
    > participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
    > simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.


    The key word being "interpret." Yes, I understand that the mandate
    calls for no extensive manipulation. However, if I see a potential
    image, that just cries out for further interpretation, (read extensive
    manipulation,) I think we should be free to do so. If there is a bright
    red garbage can, I could either move it prior to taking the shot, or
    later, in post There is no esthetic, or moral difference. If the sky is
    dull gray when I took the shot, and the image would have looked better
    with a Siskerized sky, I should be free to do so. Assuming the mandate
    is necks, what is wrong with using my artistic license to extensively
    stretch the neck of a giraffe for artistic, effect.
    What about using perspective correction to change the angle of a building?
    I have a problem with a subjective limitation. If the mandate makes it
    clear that I can only do dodging, burning and cropping, then I cannot
    sharpen or blur parts of the image. But, if I use a Lens-baby to achieve
    the same effect, it will be OK. I agree with Bob on that issue.
    Manipulation is manipulation , whether in camera, or in post. I am
    permitted to use the aperture on my lens for selective focus, yet there
    is a restriction on simulating the same effect in post. This makes
    little sense.

    >
    > Dismissed.
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 29, 2012
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/29/2012 5:33 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2012.11.28 21:45 , Robert Coe wrote:
    >
    >> Calm down, Alan; my command of the English language is just as good as
    >> yours.

    >
    > Then in the context of the above, what darkroom photographer is should
    > have been clear and you should have kept your petty "living in the past"
    > comment to yourself.
    >
    >>
    >> Please understand that I've had much more experience as a computer
    >> programmer
    >> than as a photographer. I don't make the layman's error of regarding a
    >> computer as a competitor rather than as a tool. The fact that I see a
    >> digital
    >> camera as a computer doesn't mean that I imagine that the photographer
    >> isn't
    >> in control.

    >
    > I too have a long history in computer programming having worked as a
    > programmer for about 15 years on avionics products.
    >
    > However I've never mistaken a digital camera, no matter what its
    > internals, for a "computer".
    >
    > The computer aspect of it is of least interest to me. I take the photo
    > - whether with my 30 year old Hasselblad or my FF digital camera. I
    > don't think of the later as a computer at all. It's a camera.
    >
    > The SI is about _capture_ not about editing and creative use of a
    > computer to distort or correct the capture.
    >
    > Indeed since the SI began, when most images were film scans, the only
    > difference was the conversion of the film image to digital. So for all
    > those years "editing" of images was not important although the same
    > tools (Photoshop etc.) were available to all from the beginning of the
    > SI. It's all about, you guessed it: capture.
    >
    >> But a digital camera opens up possibilities that weren't readily
    >> available to
    >> film photographers, and we'll either embrace those possibilities or be
    >> replaced by those who will. The replacement will happen eventually in any
    >> case, but we don't have to go tamely into oblivion. Our successors will
    >> neither respect us nor admire us if we do.

    >
    > You're talking about the abilities of editing programs on computers long
    > after the capture is made. Film scanning has been going on for decades
    > to make digital images. It's far from new or recent.
    >
    > But that is _not_ what the SI is all about. It was conceived around
    > image capture. Not editing.
    >


    And if the participants would like a change, does that mean it can't
    evolve.
    Heck, if mens bars can accept women, then SI can change.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 30, 2012
    #43
  4. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <> wrote:
    :
    : "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : [snipped for brevity]
    :
    : If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more you
    : bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
    :
    : Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
    : "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
    : exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
    : into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
    : image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
    : appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
    : self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.

    I try to stay out of pissing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
    whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I stand
    by every word.

    : Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
    : participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
    : few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
    : participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
    : simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.

    I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with closed
    minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first loaded
    a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss that
    notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the younger
    members of our group.

    : Dismissed.

    In your dreams.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 30, 2012
    #44
  5. tony cooper

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <> wrote:
    > :
    > : "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    > : news:...
    > : [snipped for brevity]
    > :
    > : If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more you
    > : bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
    > :
    > : Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
    > : "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
    > : exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
    > : into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
    > : image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
    > : appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
    > : self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
    >
    > I try to stay out of pissing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
    > whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I
    > stand
    > by every word.
    >
    > : Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
    > : participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
    > : few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
    > : participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
    > : simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
    >
    > I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with
    > closed
    > minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first
    > loaded
    > a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss that
    > notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the
    > younger
    > members of our group.
    >

    Wow, I *am* in the presence of maturity. I'm only 60 LOL
    Tim
     
    Tim Conway, Nov 30, 2012
    #45
  6. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/30/2012 11:17 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
    > "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <> wrote:
    >> :
    >> : "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >> : news:...
    >> : [snipped for brevity]
    >> :
    >> : If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more you
    >> : bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
    >> :
    >> : Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
    >> : "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
    >> : exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
    >> : into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
    >> : image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
    >> : appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
    >> : self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
    >>
    >> I try to stay out of pissing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
    >> whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I
    >> stand
    >> by every word.
    >>
    >> : Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
    >> : participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
    >> : few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
    >> : participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
    >> : simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
    >>
    >> I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with
    >> closed
    >> minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first
    >> loaded
    >> a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss that
    >> notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the
    >> younger
    >> members of our group.
    >>

    > Wow, I *am* in the presence of maturity. I'm only 60 LOL
    > Tim
    >
    >


    We are in a tie. I too am 75, and not at all grumpy, unless you disagree
    with me.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 30, 2012
    #46
  7. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:33:56 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 11/30/2012 11:17 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
    >> "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <> wrote:
    >>> :
    >>> : "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >>> : news:...
    >>> : [snipped for brevity]
    >>> :
    >>> : If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more you
    >>> : bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
    >>> :
    >>> : Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
    >>> : "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
    >>> : exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
    >>> : into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
    >>> : image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
    >>> : appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
    >>> : self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
    >>>
    >>> I try to stay out of pissing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
    >>> whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I
    >>> stand
    >>> by every word.
    >>>
    >>> : Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
    >>> : participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
    >>> : few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
    >>> : participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
    >>> : simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
    >>>
    >>> I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with
    >>> closed
    >>> minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first
    >>> loaded
    >>> a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss that
    >>> notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the
    >>> younger
    >>> members of our group.
    >>>

    >> Wow, I *am* in the presence of maturity. I'm only 60 LOL
    >> Tim
    >>
    >>

    >
    >We are in a tie. I too am 75, and not at all grumpy, unless you disagree
    >with me.


    I'm 74 and grumpy as hell.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 30, 2012
    #47
  8. Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <> wrote:
    >:
    >: "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >: news:...
    >: [snipped for brevity]
    >:
    >: If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more you
    >: bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
    >:
    >: Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
    >: "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will take
    >: exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
    >: into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
    >: image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
    >: appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
    >: self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
    >
    >I try to stay out of pissing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
    >whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I stand
    >by every word.
    >
    >: Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
    >: participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
    >: few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of other
    >: participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
    >: simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
    >
    >I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with closed
    >minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first loaded
    >a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss that
    >notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the younger
    >members of our group.
    >
    >: Dismissed.
    >
    >In your dreams.



    Good for you, Bob. Very well said.

    (that applies equally to your original comments as well as to this
    reply of yours).
     
    Anthony Polson, Nov 30, 2012
    #48
  9. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/30/2012 4:26 PM, Anthony Polson wrote:
    > Neil Ellwood <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Even before digital there were arguments over what we would now call post
    >> processing. I remember reading many years ago about a photographer who
    >> sent a set of plates back to the retouchers because the pencil hadn't
    >> covered all the area. there was a stage about forty years or so ago when a
    >> number of competitions were won by prints that had not been made with the
    >> aid of a camera.
    >>
    >> There doesn't really seem to be that much new except for the methods used.

    >
    >
    > There's one thing new, Neil, and that is the much lower average level
    > of expertise on show at this time.
    >



    don't say it. Must... fight ......temptation......
    It's too easy.......


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 30, 2012
    #49
  10. tony cooper

    nick c Guest

    On 11/30/2012 9:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-30 08:17:31 -0800, "Tim Conway" <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>> :
    >>> : "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >>> : news:...
    >>> : [snipped for brevity]
    >>> :
    >>> : If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more
    >>> you
    >>> : bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
    >>> :
    >>> : Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
    >>> : "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will
    >>> take
    >>> : exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
    >>> : into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
    >>> : image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
    >>> : appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
    >>> : self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
    >>>
    >>> I try to stay out of pissing contests, so you and Alan can say and think
    >>> whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I
    >>> stand
    >>> by every word.
    >>>
    >>> : Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
    >>> : participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at least a
    >>> : few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of
    >>> other
    >>> : participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
    >>> : simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
    >>>
    >>> I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with
    >>> closed
    >>> minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first
    >>> loaded
    >>> a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss
    >>> that
    >>> notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the
    >>> younger
    >>> members of our group.
    >>>

    >> Wow, I *am* in the presence of maturity. I'm only 60 LOL
    >> Tim

    >
    > Yup! This is something of an old fart's group. I am 64 in February.
    > Among the regulars I believe we have a few in the mid-40's to mid-50's.
    > Then there are the occasional, true adolescent novices sincerely seeking
    > advice (not a problem), and the mental adolescents attempting to foist
    > their personal agendas on the World.
    >


    I guess I'm a lurking flowerpot 'cause I'm pushing 85.

    Nick
     
    nick c, Nov 30, 2012
    #50
  11. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/30/2012 5:10 PM, nick c wrote:
    > On 11/30/2012 9:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2012-11-30 08:17:31 -0800, "Tim Conway" <>
    >> said:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:09:05 -0800, "Frank S" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>> :
    >>>> : "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >>>> : news:...
    >>>> : [snipped for brevity]
    >>>> :
    >>>> : If it's respect or admiration you aim for, unclench a bit. The more
    >>>> you
    >>>> : bloviate, the more you expose yourself to justified criticism.
    >>>> :
    >>>> : Alan is quite correct in chiding you for the tone of your expression:
    >>>> : "There is no difference" may seem true to you, but many of us will
    >>>> take
    >>>> : exception. We know the difference between drawing a part of the world
    >>>> : into our recording devices and processing the recorded result in an
    >>>> : image manipulation program. If you haven't the flexibility to see and
    >>>> : appreciate conflicting viewpoints, at lease spare us the preachy,
    >>>> : self-important "that's just the way it is" nonsense.
    >>>>
    >>>> I try to stay out of pissing contests, so you and Alan can say and
    >>>> think
    >>>> whatever you like about how I said what I said. But on the substance, I
    >>>> stand
    >>>> by every word.
    >>>>
    >>>> : Every so often someone laments that thoughtful, accomplished
    >>>> : participants here have become former participants. I'll bet at
    >>>> least a
    >>>> : few of them have left because of top-dog ambitions on the part of
    >>>> other
    >>>> : participants who seem to have needs not always in harmony with the
    >>>> : simple "interpret, shoot, present, discuss" thrust of the group.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'll bet many more leave because they think we're grumpy old men with
    >>>> closed
    >>>> minds and a puritanical affection for the way things were when we first
    >>>> loaded
    >>>> a roll of Kodachrome into our new Argus C-3s. And before you dismiss
    >>>> that
    >>>> notion as absurd, reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the
    >>>> younger
    >>>> members of our group.
    >>>>
    >>> Wow, I *am* in the presence of maturity. I'm only 60 LOL
    >>> Tim

    >>
    >> Yup! This is something of an old fart's group. I am 64 in February.
    >> Among the regulars I believe we have a few in the mid-40's to mid-50's.
    >> Then there are the occasional, true adolescent novices sincerely seeking
    >> advice (not a problem), and the mental adolescents attempting to foist
    >> their personal agendas on the World.
    >>

    >
    > I guess I'm a lurking flowerpot 'cause I'm pushing 85.
    >


    Keep Pushing. :)


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #51
  12. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:00:44 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:
    : On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:03:11 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : --- snip ---
    :
    : > ... reflect on the fact that at 75, I may be one of the younger
    : >members of our group.
    :
    : 78 - 79 in 7 weeks.
    :
    : I've been forced to concentrate on capturing images for more than half
    : a century. Now I want to see how much more there is to photography.

    Good for you! Younger people sometimes assume that the elderly are resistant
    to new ideas. We'll be fine as long as we don't let them convince us that it's
    true. ;^)

    In my youth I always enjoyed taking pictures (I bought my first Nikon while in
    college), but never had the time or money to really do film photography right.
    So over the years I effectively dropped out. The arrival of affordable digital
    cameras gave me a second chance, and for the past nine years I've been trying
    to make up for lost time. The fact that I already knew how to use a computer
    has been a big help.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 1, 2012
    #52
  13. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >I'm not bothered by the narrow focus which some people seem to have on
    >what is and what isn't photography. It only concerns me when they try
    >to impose their views on me.



    People who want to learn more and more about the technicalities and
    features of their equipment that contribute nothing of any value to an
    image are the ones who have a narrow focus. Quite frankly, focus does
    not get any narrower.

    I have more than a slight suspicion that the same people are lacking
    basically in creativity and doing everything they can to avoid
    addressing that issue. Obsessing about the technicalities of the
    myriad features of DSLRs is a useful exercise in denial.

    Fill your mind with how your camera works, and it gets much easier to
    forget that you don't have a creative bone in your body.

    We are all guilty of paying too much attention to camera features from
    time to time. Something I find thoroughly refreshing is shooting with
    my Leicas. They represent digital photography at is most fundamental
    level. All unnecessary features are stripped out, and control of the
    remainder is in the hands of the photographer.

    There is no autofocus, no scene mode, nothing that detracts from a
    photographer making all the choices and judgments for him/herself.

    Above all, there is no "Intelligent Auto" mode, which has to be the
    greatest oxymoron in all the long history of photography. "Dumbass" or
    "Lazy" mode would be a better title for this complete abdication of
    any pretence at creative input or control.
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 1, 2012
    #53
  14. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/1/2012 5:37 AM, Anthony Polson wrote:
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> I'm not bothered by the narrow focus which some people seem to have on
    >> what is and what isn't photography. It only concerns me when they try
    >> to impose their views on me.

    >
    >
    > People who want to learn more and more about the technicalities and
    > features of their equipment that contribute nothing of any value to an
    > image are the ones who have a narrow focus. Quite frankly, focus does
    > not get any narrower.
    >
    > I have more than a slight suspicion that the same people are lacking
    > basically in creativity and doing everything they can to avoid
    > addressing that issue. Obsessing about the technicalities of the
    > myriad features of DSLRs is a useful exercise in denial.
    >
    > Fill your mind with how your camera works, and it gets much easier to
    > forget that you don't have a creative bone in your body.
    >
    > We are all guilty of paying too much attention to camera features from
    > time to time. Something I find thoroughly refreshing is shooting with
    > my Leicas. They represent digital photography at is most fundamental
    > level. All unnecessary features are stripped out, and control of the
    > remainder is in the hands of the photographer.
    >
    > There is no autofocus, no scene mode, nothing that detracts from a
    > photographer making all the choices and judgments for him/herself.
    >
    > Above all, there is no "Intelligent Auto" mode, which has to be the
    > greatest oxymoron in all the long history of photography. "Dumbass" or
    > "Lazy" mode would be a better title for this complete abdication of
    > any pretence at creative input or control.
    >


    You still need a creative eye, regardless of the auto features.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #54
  15. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:37:02 +0000, Anthony Polson <>
    wrote:
    : Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    : >I'm not bothered by the narrow focus which some people seem to have on
    : >what is and what isn't photography. It only concerns me when they try
    : >to impose their views on me.
    :
    :
    : People who want to learn more and more about the technicalities and
    : features of their equipment that contribute nothing of any value to an
    : image are the ones who have a narrow focus. Quite frankly, focus does
    : not get any narrower.
    :
    : I have more than a slight suspicion that the same people are lacking
    : basically in creativity and doing everything they can to avoid
    : addressing that issue. Obsessing about the technicalities of the
    : myriad features of DSLRs is a useful exercise in denial.
    :
    : Fill your mind with how your camera works, and it gets much easier to
    : forget that you don't have a creative bone in your body.

    There's certainly some truth in that, but I think you're pushing the argument
    too far. Lack of familiarity with one's equipment can be a significant barrier
    to creativity. It's hard to be creative if you're constantly trying to
    remember (or even figure out for the first time) what settings to use. And
    sometimes the obscure features of a piece of equipment promote creativity in
    those who can use them correctly, even if they just get in the way of those
    who can't.

    : We are all guilty of paying too much attention to camera features from
    : time to time. Something I find thoroughly refreshing is shooting with
    : my Leicas. They represent digital photography at is most fundamental
    : level. All unnecessary features are stripped out, and control of the
    : remainder is in the hands of the photographer.
    :
    : There is no autofocus, no scene mode, nothing that detracts from a
    : photographer making all the choices and judgments for him/herself.

    That's fine, I guess, if you're a landscape or architecture photographer whose
    subjects don't mind waiting for you to think through and apply those choices.
    But for sports, events, photojournalism, etc., automated features can
    considerably improve the quality of one's output.

    : Above all, there is no "Intelligent Auto" mode, which has to be the
    : greatest oxymoron in all the long history of photography. "Dumbass" or
    : "Lazy" mode would be a better title for this complete abdication of
    : any pretence at creative input or control.

    Yeah, but so what? None of us use that mode, and the better cameras usually
    don't have it.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 1, 2012
    #55
  16. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/1/2012 8:13 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:37:02 +0000, Anthony Polson <>
    > wrote:
    > : Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > : >I'm not bothered by the narrow focus which some people seem to have on
    > : >what is and what isn't photography. It only concerns me when they try
    > : >to impose their views on me.
    > :
    > :
    > : People who want to learn more and more about the technicalities and
    > : features of their equipment that contribute nothing of any value to an
    > : image are the ones who have a narrow focus. Quite frankly, focus does
    > : not get any narrower.
    > :
    > : I have more than a slight suspicion that the same people are lacking
    > : basically in creativity and doing everything they can to avoid
    > : addressing that issue. Obsessing about the technicalities of the
    > : myriad features of DSLRs is a useful exercise in denial.
    > :
    > : Fill your mind with how your camera works, and it gets much easier to
    > : forget that you don't have a creative bone in your body.
    >
    > There's certainly some truth in that, but I think you're pushing the argument
    > too far. Lack of familiarity with one's equipment can be a significant barrier
    > to creativity. It's hard to be creative if you're constantly trying to
    > remember (or even figure out for the first time) what settings to use. And
    > sometimes the obscure features of a piece of equipment promote creativity in
    > those who can use them correctly, even if they just get in the way of those
    > who can't.


    Very true. there is no substitute for knowing and understanding the
    capabilities of your equipment. Yesterday, I was playing with live view
    in manual mode. I was using high speed sync flash and couldn't
    understand why my viewfinder was black. (Yes, I now understand what went
    wrong and why.)



    >
    > : We are all guilty of paying too much attention to camera features from
    > : time to time. Something I find thoroughly refreshing is shooting with
    > : my Leicas. They represent digital photography at is most fundamental
    > : level. All unnecessary features are stripped out, and control of the
    > : remainder is in the hands of the photographer.
    > :
    > : There is no autofocus, no scene mode, nothing that detracts from a
    > : photographer making all the choices and judgments for him/herself.
    >
    > That's fine, I guess, if you're a landscape or architecture photographer whose
    > subjects don't mind waiting for you to think through and apply those choices.
    > But for sports, events, photojournalism, etc., automated features can
    > considerably improve the quality of one's output.
    >
    > : Above all, there is no "Intelligent Auto" mode, which has to be the
    > : greatest oxymoron in all the long history of photography. "Dumbass" or
    > : "Lazy" mode would be a better title for this complete abdication of
    > : any pretence at creative input or control.
    >
    > Yeah, but so what? None of us use that mode, and the better cameras usually
    > don't have it.
    >

    the D800 and D4 both have it. though I have never used it, and can't
    think of a circumstance when I would.
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 1, 2012
    #56
  17. Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:37:02 +0000, Anthony Polson <>
    >wrote:
    >: Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >: >I'm not bothered by the narrow focus which some people seem to have on
    >: >what is and what isn't photography. It only concerns me when they try
    >: >to impose their views on me.
    >:
    >:
    >: People who want to learn more and more about the technicalities and
    >: features of their equipment that contribute nothing of any value to an
    >: image are the ones who have a narrow focus. Quite frankly, focus does
    >: not get any narrower.
    >:
    >: I have more than a slight suspicion that the same people are lacking
    >: basically in creativity and doing everything they can to avoid
    >: addressing that issue. Obsessing about the technicalities of the
    >: myriad features of DSLRs is a useful exercise in denial.
    >:
    >: Fill your mind with how your camera works, and it gets much easier to
    >: forget that you don't have a creative bone in your body.
    >
    >
    >There's certainly some truth in that, but I think you're pushing the argument
    >too far.



    When the hammer you have doesn't drive the point home, it is time to
    deploy a bigger hammer. :)


    >Lack of familiarity with one's equipment can be a significant barrier
    >to creativity. It's hard to be creative if you're constantly trying to
    >remember (or even figure out for the first time) what settings to use. And
    >sometimes the obscure features of a piece of equipment promote creativity in
    >those who can use them correctly, even if they just get in the way of those
    >who can't.



    That doesn't describe a lack of familiarity with one's equipment, it
    describes with uncanny accuracy the fact that a high proportion of
    camera owners have less than zero understanding of the basic
    principles of photography.


    The basics are very simple. The concepts of illumination, shutter
    speed, aperture and ISO are easily grasped by an intelligent person
    who is prepared to make the small effort required. The concepts of
    freezing motion, focusing distance and controlling depth of field are
    only slightly more challenging.

    But the vast majority of DSLR owners don't have a clue about most of
    these. A frightening proportion don't understand any of them. They
    look for camera technology to solve their problems. It is no wonder
    that they cannot understand how their cameras work when they cannot
    even recognise the basics of photography, let alone understand them.


    >: We are all guilty of paying too much attention to camera features from
    >: time to time. Something I find thoroughly refreshing is shooting with
    >: my Leicas. They represent digital photography at is most fundamental
    >: level. All unnecessary features are stripped out, and control of the
    >: remainder is in the hands of the photographer.
    >:
    >: There is no autofocus, no scene mode, nothing that detracts from a
    >: photographer making all the choices and judgments for him/herself.
    >
    >That's fine, I guess, if you're a landscape or architecture photographer whose
    >subjects don't mind waiting for you to think through and apply those choices.



    There is no faster camera than a Leica. You make most of your choices
    before you start shooting. There is no need to meddle. Most of the
    time, the only camera setting you change is the focusing distance. The
    rangefinder focusing is still faster and/or more accurate than most
    automatic systems, although for static subjects only, the latest
    mirrorless CDAF systems from Panasonic and Olympus take some beating.


    >But for sports, events, photojournalism, etc., automated features can
    >considerably improve the quality of one's output.



    The guys I know who consistently produce the best output for sports
    and events tend to use manual focus. That includes the younger ones
    who are just coming into the industry from college. I am very lucky
    in that my home location has allowed me to work with six FIA Formula 1
    teams in the last nine years and I am currently retained by three. I
    do only the corporate work but attend meetings with those who do race
    photography (something I am not prepared to do because of the
    gruelling travel involved). Only a small proportion of the race
    shooters rely entirely on predictive or continuous AF.


    >: Above all, there is no "Intelligent Auto" mode, which has to be the
    >: greatest oxymoron in all the long history of photography. "Dumbass" or
    >: "Lazy" mode would be a better title for this complete abdication of
    >: any pretence at creative input or control.
    >
    >Yeah, but so what? None of us use that mode, and the better cameras usually
    >don't have it.



    I think you will find at least four or five SI participants have
    confessed to using it.

    I have no problem with anyone using Intelligent Auto as long as they
    don't claim to be photographers. It is a viable option for people who
    know little or nothing about what they are doing because it helps them
    avoid the worst mistakes, of course without ever knowing what the
    mistakes would have been and why or how iA avoided them.
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 1, 2012
    #57
  18. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 14:33:03 +0000, Anthony Polson
    <> wrote:

    >
    >>: Above all, there is no "Intelligent Auto" mode, which has to be the
    >>: greatest oxymoron in all the long history of photography. "Dumbass" or
    >>: "Lazy" mode would be a better title for this complete abdication of
    >>: any pretence at creative input or control.
    >>
    >>Yeah, but so what? None of us use that mode, and the better cameras usually
    >>don't have it.

    >
    >
    >I think you will find at least four or five SI participants have
    >confessed to using it.
    >
    >I have no problem with anyone using Intelligent Auto as long as they
    >don't claim to be photographers. It is a viable option for people who
    >know little or nothing about what they are doing because it helps them
    >avoid the worst mistakes, of course without ever knowing what the
    >mistakes would have been and why or how iA avoided them.


    That's nonsense. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

    What counts is results, and only results. How you got the results is
    immaterial.

    If the photograph is a good photograph, it doesn't make any difference
    if the camera was set to A,S,M, or Auto. A person is more likely to
    get a good photograph if the right choice of settings was made, but a
    photograph taken in full Auto can be a good photograph.

    There are photographs taken with Instamatics that are great
    photographs. Good subject matter and the right results trumps all.

    People who brag about using only Manual settings and manual focussing
    are just as likely to turn out complete shit as anyone else. If you
    don't have an eye for subject and composition, knowing everything
    about the camera settings doesn't make the results less shitty.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Dec 1, 2012
    #58
  19. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:41:21 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012.12.01 05:37 , Anthony Polson wrote:
    >> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> I'm not bothered by the narrow focus which some people seem to have on
    >>> what is and what isn't photography. It only concerns me when they try
    >>> to impose their views on me.

    >>
    >>
    >> People who want to learn more and more about the technicalities and
    >> features of their equipment that contribute nothing of any value to an
    >> image are the ones who have a narrow focus. Quite frankly, focus does
    >> not get any narrower.
    >>
    >> I have more than a slight suspicion that the same people are lacking
    >> basically in creativity and doing everything they can to avoid
    >> addressing that issue. Obsessing about the technicalities of the
    >> myriad features of DSLRs is a useful exercise in denial.

    >
    >Classic Polson: broadbrush everyone for discussing technical issues
    >assuming it automatically excludes creative or artistic interest and
    >capability.
    >
    >> Fill your mind with how your camera works, and it gets much easier to
    >> forget that you don't have a creative bone in your body.

    >
    >Classic Polson. The world needs more choo-choo photos from your
    >creative bones like it needs a massive lobotomy.
    >
    >>
    >> We are all guilty of paying too much attention to camera features from
    >> time to time. Something I find thoroughly refreshing is shooting with
    >> my Leicas. They represent digital photography at is most fundamental
    >> level. All unnecessary features are stripped out, and control of the
    >> remainder is in the hands of the photographer.

    >
    >As can be done with most SLR's - full manual operation as I (and others)
    >mostly/often have their equipment set.
    >>
    >> There is no autofocus, no scene mode, nothing that detracts from a
    >> photographer making all the choices and judgments for him/herself.
    >>
    >> Above all, there is no "Intelligent Auto" mode, which has to be the
    >> greatest oxymoron in all the long history of photography. "Dumbass" or
    >> "Lazy" mode would be a better title for this complete abdication of
    >> any pretence at creative input or control.

    >
    >Meanwhile Polson's photos on the web speak Dumbass and Lazy at high volume.


    I sat in on a mentoring session at one of the camera clubs I belong
    to. The mentor was a member who is known for his in-depth knowledge of
    all-things-photgraphic and his humongous investment in camera
    equipment. The person being mentored was a high school girl who has
    her first dslr camera; a gift for a recent birthday. She'd used it
    for a few weeks using only the auto settings.

    Camera club guy lectured for 20 minutes on camera settings,
    depth-of-field, and choice of lenses.

    Just for shits and giggles, I brought up his Zenfolio site (all
    members of the club get a free Zenfolio site). He didn't have one
    single image that I would have liked to have taken. All his images
    are tack-sharp, have the right depth-of-field for the subject, and
    evidently were shot at the right speed. No blurs.

    The subject matter, though, was dull as dishwater. Lottsa pet shots,
    some family portraits, and some rather blah landscapes.

    The high school girl (who had a tablet with her to show her photos)
    had several very good shots. I'm not big on landscapes, but she had
    some shots of the sun shining through some Spanish Moss hanging from
    oak trees that were damn good. Also some shots taken at an equestrian
    training facility that were very good.

    She'll benefit from the mentoring session because she'll have a better
    grasp on the technical issues, but she's starting out with an "eye",
    and that's more than the "expert" has.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Dec 1, 2012
    #59
  20. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:02:01 -0500, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >>If you
    >>don't have an eye for subject and composition, knowing everything
    >>about the camera settings doesn't make the results less shitty.

    >
    >I think that was part of what Anthony Polson was trying to say in the
    >beginning.



    Yes, that was precisely the point I was making. I'm glad Tony Cooper
    agrees, even though he was so desperately trying not to. ;-)
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 2, 2012
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. licknlabia
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    461
    licknlabia
    Aug 13, 2003
  2. Tabasco1
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    934
    Tabasco1
    Sep 4, 2004
  3. /* MCSBNGP+++ #270-290-291-293-294-298-299# */

    MCSBNGP+++ Public apology on behalf of Frisbee(R) (with bonus self-deprecation)

    /* MCSBNGP+++ #270-290-291-293-294-298-299# */, Jul 29, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    944
  4. Binh Tucker

    Re: Apology to Mr. Berserker

    Binh Tucker, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    577
    Keyser Soze
    Aug 13, 2003
  5. Reachinout

    APOLOGY

    Reachinout, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    565
    Harrison
    Oct 24, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page