Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mort, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. Mort

    Mort Guest

    Bowser wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:57:49 -0500, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012.11.24 05:13 , Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/22/sony-tells-dslr-owners-youre-
    >>> idiots_n_2174844.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology

    >>
    >> The advert is pretty crass. Notice that all the "victims" of this jerk
    >> are using Canon and Nikon cameras?
    >>
    >> It reminds me of the pitch by Olympus for the PEN EP-1 four-thirds
    >> camera. The ads had Kevin Spacey talking about DSLR's and all the gear
    >> and that "I don't want to be that guy." Much more subtle than what Sony
    >> is doing with this NEX advert.
    >>
    >> Maybe Sony _really_ want to get away from DSLRs.
    >>
    >> That said, during the photowalk in Montreal I did chat with a
    >> photographer (not in the photowalk) who asked why his Sekonic meter
    >> wasn't giving him the same reading as his camera. I sorted him out
    >> (maybe - he wanted the camera and meter to agree exactly - wasn't going
    >> to happen except by chance) but found that whoever taught him about
    >> exposure compensation did it from the point of view of using aperture or
    >> speed priority rather than from manual settings.
    >>
    >> Maybe I'm old fashioned but if you're teaching exposure the baseline
    >> should be manual, not semi-auto modes.

    >
    > Hell, when I was first shooting an SLR my "meter" was the little sheet
    > of paper tha came with the film.
    >


    When I started, Kodachrome was ASA 10, and we used a small circular
    cardboard exposure guide, e.g. sunny and no clouds = 1/60th at f 6.3.
    That was not too successful, and I was pleased when the Weston meter
    first was available, especially with the dome attachment for incident
    readings = good for faces.

    Today, I meet many people with fancy DSLR cameras who never heard of an
    f stop or a shutter speed. They use them as Ph.D. cameras, = Push here
    Dummy.

    Mort Linder
     
    Mort, Nov 25, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <Gwhss.401335$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > We got away with a lot of sins on exposure in the film days because of the
    > latitude it had. They could correct for a few stops of exposure error. In
    > digital we have instant results, but it has to be pretty much right on or
    > there are problems.


    it's the other way around. film has *less* latitude and is less
    forgiving of errors. digital lets people be sloppy, because it's
    relatively easy to fix things in post.
     
    nospam, Nov 25, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mort

    ASCII Guest

    Mort wrote:
    > I was pleased when the Weston meter
    >first was available, especially with the dome attachment for incident
    >readings


    While I've seen 'dome' style incident attachments, especially on some of my
    Gossens, the Weston had a sort of concave diffuser, like this:
    http://www.westonmeter.org.uk/westoninvercone.htm
     
    ASCII, Nov 25, 2012
    #3
  4. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    >"Mort" <> wrote in message
    >news:50b183a2$0$24737$...
    >
    >> When I started, Kodachrome was ASA 10, and we used a small circular
    >> cardboard exposure guide, e.g. sunny and no clouds = 1/60th at f 6.3. That
    >> was not too successful, and I was pleased when the Weston meter first was
    >> available, especially with the dome attachment for incident readings =
    >> good for faces.
    >>
    >> Today, I meet many people with fancy DSLR cameras who never heard of an f
    >> stop or a shutter speed. They use them as Ph.D. cameras, = Push here

    >
    >We got away with a lot of sins on exposure in the film days because of the
    >latitude it had. They could correct for a few stops of exposure error. In
    >digital we have instant results, but it has to be pretty much right on or
    >there are problems.



    Self-evidently you have never used slide film.
     
    Anthony Polson, Nov 25, 2012
    #4
  5. ASCII <> wrote:

    >Mort wrote:
    >> I was pleased when the Weston meter
    >>first was available, especially with the dome attachment for incident
    >>readings

    >
    >While I've seen 'dome' style incident attachments, especially on some of my
    >Gossens, the Weston had a sort of concave diffuser, like this:
    >http://www.westonmeter.org.uk/westoninvercone.htm



    It is based on an inverted cone, hence "invercone".

    Clever, eh?
     
    Anthony Polson, Nov 25, 2012
    #5
  6. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/25/2012 12:04 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <Gwhss.401335$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> We got away with a lot of sins on exposure in the film days because of the
    >> latitude it had. They could correct for a few stops of exposure error. In
    >> digital we have instant results, but it has to be pretty much right on or
    >> there are problems.

    >
    > it's the other way around. film has *less* latitude and is less
    > forgiving of errors. digital lets people be sloppy, because it's
    > relatively easy to fix things in post.
    >

    I find shooting in RAW gives me a two stop latitude. while you may be
    right about some B&W, I don't recall color slide film being that forgiving.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 25, 2012
    #6
  7. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:Gwhss.401335$4...
    > "Mort" <> wrote in message
    > news:50b183a2$0$24737$...
    >
    >> When I started, Kodachrome was ASA 10, and we used a small circular
    >> cardboard exposure guide, e.g. sunny and no clouds = 1/60th at f 6.3.
    >> That was not too successful, and I was pleased when the Weston meter
    >> first was available, especially with the dome attachment for incident
    >> readings = good for faces.
    >>
    >> Today, I meet many people with fancy DSLR cameras who never heard of an f
    >> stop or a shutter speed. They use them as Ph.D. cameras, = Push here

    >
    > We got away with a lot of sins on exposure in the film days because of the
    > latitude it had. They could correct for a few stops of exposure error.


    NOT with Kodachrome you didn't!


    >In digital we have instant results, but it has to be pretty much right on
    >or there are problems.


    Less so than Kodachrome if you shoot RAW with any modern DSLR, and no more
    so even if you insist on shooting Jpeg.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Nov 26, 2012
    #7
  8. Mort

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:LSXss.365161$4...
    > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    > news:50b27052$0$10770$-secrets.com...
    >
    >> I find shooting in RAW gives me a two stop latitude. while you may be
    >> right about some B&W, I don't recall color slide film being that
    >> forgiving.

    >
    > Okay, okay, I was talking about color negative. It was rare that I would
    > shoot slide film.


    But you replied to a post specifically mentioning Kodachrome.

    Even so, I find a good modern DSLR shooting RAW has just as much lattitude
    as color neg film by simply dialing down exposure a stop or so to take
    advantage of the lower noise. Obviously the exposure lattitude favours
    overexposure for neg film, and underexposure for digital (and slide film)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Nov 28, 2012
    #8
  9. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <CzAts.676216$A%4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and
    > no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.


    the processing is the same. add photos to a decent photo app such as
    lightroom and adjust the image as needed. in fact, processing raw is
    exactly the same as jpeg, with generally much better results.

    > I have often wondered if shooting a lower ISO is equivalent to shooting a
    > higher one and adjusting exposure down by a couple of stops. Same image on
    > the pixels, right?


    not usually.
     
    nospam, Nov 29, 2012
    #9
  10. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/28/2012 10:24 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
    > "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    > news:k94gvl$ih9$...
    >
    >> Even so, I find a good modern DSLR shooting RAW has just as much lattitude
    >> as color neg film by simply dialing down exposure a stop or so to take
    >> advantage of the lower noise. Obviously the exposure lattitude favours
    >> overexposure for neg film, and underexposure for digital (and slide film)

    >
    > I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and
    > no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >
    > I have often wondered if shooting a lower ISO is equivalent to shooting a
    > higher one and adjusting exposure down by a couple of stops. Same image on
    > the pixels, right?
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
    >
    >

    Make a few tests for yourself. Look carefully and color rendition and
    decide.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 29, 2012
    #10
  11. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    > I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real

    intuitive and
    > no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.



    No real improvement?

    Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
    of dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?
     
    Anthony Polson, Nov 30, 2012
    #11
  12. Mort

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:xc4us.439565$4...
    >
    > "Anthony Polson" <> wrote in message
    > news:-September.org...
    >> "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    >>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real

    >> intuitive and
    >>> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

    >>
    >>
    >> No real improvement?
    >>
    >> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of
    >> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

    >
    > I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
    > an example?
    >

    Along with what nospam just said, just do the math: RAW has maybe 15-20 MB
    files. JPG has 4-5 MB files. RAW is starting with a lot more data.
     
    Tim Conway, Nov 30, 2012
    #12
  13. Mort

    Tim Conway Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:301120121053428284%...
    > In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
    >> >> intuitive and
    >> >> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >> >
    >> > No real improvement?
    >> >
    >> > Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
    >> > of
    >> > dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

    >>
    >> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
    >> an
    >> example?

    >
    > then you're doing something wrong.
    >
    > a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    > recovering shadow detail. there are many others.


    I agree.
    btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
     
    Tim Conway, Nov 30, 2012
    #13
  14. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9alni$287$>, Tim Conway
    <> wrote:

    > Along with what nospam just said, just do the math: RAW has maybe 15-20 MB
    > files. JPG has 4-5 MB files. RAW is starting with a lot more data.


    file size doesn't mean much.

    what matters is if the file has more information, which raw does. jpeg
    is lossy and it throws out information.

    anyone can pad a file to make it larger or compress it to make it
    smaller.
     
    nospam, Nov 30, 2012
    #14
  15. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9aluv$45a$>, Tim Conway
    <> wrote:

    > btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...


    the clock is not wrong.

    the problem is some apps cache the time zone (which is beyond stupid)
    so when the time zone changes, the time the app has is wrong, despite
    the computer having the correct time. it's a bug. i reset it.
     
    nospam, Nov 30, 2012
    #15
  16. Mort

    Wally Guest

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:27:14 -0500, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <k9alni$287$>, Tim Conway
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> Along with what nospam just said, just do the math: RAW has maybe 15-20 MB
    >> files. JPG has 4-5 MB files. RAW is starting with a lot more data.

    >
    >file size doesn't mean much.
    >
    >what matters is if the file has more information, which raw does. jpeg
    >is lossy and it throws out information.
    >
    >anyone can pad a file to make it larger or compress it to make it
    >smaller.


    Try compressing a JPG.

    W
     
    Wally, Nov 30, 2012
    #16
  17. Mort

    nospam Guest

    In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    <> wrote:

    > >> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and
    > >> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

    > >
    > > No real improvement?
    > >
    > > Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of
    > > dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

    >
    > I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an
    > example?


    then you're doing something wrong.

    a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    recovering shadow detail. there are many others.
     
    nospam, Nov 30, 2012
    #17
  18. Mort

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > news:301120121053428284%...
    >> In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
    >>>>> intuitive and
    >>>>> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >>>>
    >>>> No real improvement?
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
    >>>> of
    >>>> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?
    >>>
    >>> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have
    >>> an
    >>> example?

    >>
    >> then you're doing something wrong.
    >>
    >> a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    >> recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

    >
    > I agree.
    > btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
    >
    >


    One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
    ones, is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 30, 2012
    #18
  19. Mort

    Tim Conway Guest

    "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    news:50b91d06$0$10847$-secrets.com...
    > On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
    >> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >> news:301120121053428284%...
    >>> In article <xc4us.439565$4>, Gary Eickmeier
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real
    >>>>>> intuitive and
    >>>>>> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No real improvement?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?
    >>>>
    >>>> I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you
    >>>> have
    >>>> an
    >>>> example?
    >>>
    >>> then you're doing something wrong.
    >>>
    >>> a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is
    >>> recovering shadow detail. there are many others.

    >>
    >> I agree.
    >> btw, I think your pc clock is wrong...
    >>
    >>

    >
    > One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones,
    > is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
    >
    >

    I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to
    list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious
    saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing
    sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD
    format.
     
    Tim Conway, Nov 30, 2012
    #19
  20. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:

    >"Anthony Polson" <> wrote in message
    >news:-September.org...
    >> "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:
    >>> I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real

    >> intuitive and
    >>> no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG.

    >>
    >>
    >> No real improvement?
    >>
    >> Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of
    >> dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"?

    >
    >I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG.



    You probably need to wear glasses.

    Or if you already wear them, you probably need your eyes re-tested and
    new lenses fitted.

    Clearly, you are not an ignorant man, but if you genuinely cannot see
    what the rest of can, there must be something wrong.
     
    Anthony Polson, Nov 30, 2012
    #20
    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. Pat McGroyn

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Pat McGroyn, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    355
    PeterN
    Nov 27, 2012
  2. Anthony Polson

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Anthony Polson, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    274
    Trevor
    Nov 26, 2012
  3. Anthony Polson

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Anthony Polson, Nov 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    314
    Whisky-dave
    Nov 26, 2012
  4. RichA

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    RichA, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    228
    Anthony Polson
    Nov 25, 2012
  5. Tim Conway

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Tim Conway, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    255
    Tim Conway
    Nov 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page