Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Trevor, Dec 5, 2012.

  1. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:g2Cvs.942183$4...
    >> Exposure mistakes are in the eye of the beholder... the camera thinks it
    >> did fine, but it doesn't have an incident light meter, which is the only
    >> way to get perfection.
    >> And ALL cameras have that problem, as if you didn't know.

    >
    > I often wondered why cameras couldn't have both incident and reflected
    > meters, and then average the two for the perfect exposure.


    What makes you think the average will always be the "perfect exposure"? (it
    won't be)
    A person behind the camera with a brain and some idea what s/he is doing
    beats any automatic averaging system, especially since the incident and
    reflected readings usually need to be taken at different locations. Spot
    metering, and knowing where to point works pretty well already.

    Frankly for autoexposure, a camera that always placed the total RAW exposure
    just below white clipping would probably suit me better these days. Given
    the number of matrix points used by some camera's these days, it's almost
    possible with mirror mode as it already is with "live view".

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 5, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:q5hws.643095$4...
    >> What makes you think the average will always be the "perfect exposure"?
    >> (it won't be)
    >> A person behind the camera with a brain and some idea what s/he is doing
    >> beats any automatic averaging system, especially since the incident and
    >> reflected readings usually need to be taken at different locations. Spot
    >> metering, and knowing where to point works pretty well already.
    >>
    >> Frankly for autoexposure, a camera that always placed the total RAW
    >> exposure just below white clipping would probably suit me better these
    >> days. Given the number of matrix points used by some camera's these days,
    >> it's almost possible with mirror mode as it already is with "live view".

    >
    > Well, reflected is not always correct because you don't always want the
    > subject to average out to neutral gray. Take a black cat on a coal pile.
    > If you use a reflected meter, it will want to make the exposure too
    > bright, when what you want is to keep it nearer to black.


    Right.


    > Now let's use an incident meter. It is incapable of evaluating the tones
    > in the subject, and may make it TOO black.



    Nope, for traditional film (or no adjustment Jpeg) it should be closer to
    what you want. For digital RAW however, you are sacrificing noise
    performance by exposing too low.


    >But a combination of these two exposures should be pretty damn close.


    In some cases yes, in some cases you may be better off with just incident,
    or just reflected. It all depends on the subject and effect you are trying
    to achieve, especially if there is more than one light source.


    > Another idea - why can't digital cameras use a histogram to adjust
    > exposure?


    Some already do. It works best with RAW files and post processing however.
    Unfortunately most people still want the image to look "right" straight from
    the camera, so that's what the manufacturers usually try to give them, and
    the camera is always going to get it wrong sometimes with such an attempt.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 8, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:q5hws.643095$4...
    >> What makes you think the average will always be the "perfect exposure"?
    >> (it won't be)
    >> A person behind the camera with a brain and some idea what s/he is doing
    >> beats any automatic averaging system, especially since the incident and
    >> reflected readings usually need to be taken at different locations. Spot
    >> metering, and knowing where to point works pretty well already.
    >>
    >> Frankly for autoexposure, a camera that always placed the total RAW
    >> exposure just below white clipping would probably suit me better these
    >> days. Given the number of matrix points used by some camera's these days,
    >> it's almost possible with mirror mode as it already is with "live view".

    >
    > Well, reflected is not always correct because you don't always want the
    > subject to average out to neutral gray. Take a black cat on a coal pile.
    > If you use a reflected meter, it will want to make the exposure too
    > bright, when what you want is to keep it nearer to black.


    Right.


    > Now let's use an incident meter. It is incapable of evaluating the tones
    > in the subject, and may make it TOO black.



    Nope, for traditional film (or no adjustment Jpeg) it should be closer to
    what you want. For digital RAW however, you are sacrificing noise
    performance by exposing too low.


    >But a combination of these two exposures should be pretty damn close.


    In some cases yes, in some cases you may be better off with just incident,
    or just reflected. It all depends on the subject and effect you are trying
    to achieve, especially if there is more than one light source.


    > Another idea - why can't digital cameras use a histogram to adjust
    > exposure?


    Some already do. It works best with RAW files and post processing however.
    Unfortunately most people still want the image to look "right" straight from
    the camera, so that's what the manufacturers usually try to give them, and
    the camera is always going to get it wrong sometimes with such an attempt.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 8, 2012
    #3
  4. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:wVWws.466985$4...
    >>> Another idea - why can't digital cameras use a histogram to adjust
    >>> exposure?

    >>
    >> Some already do. It works best with RAW files and post processing
    >> however. Unfortunately most people still want the image to look "right"
    >> straight from the camera, so that's what the manufacturers usually try to
    >> give them, and the camera is always going to get it wrong sometimes with
    >> such an attempt.

    >
    > Let me get this straight. Most cameras meter with multipoint (or spot if
    > you choose) meters off the mirror or off the sensor before the fact of the
    > exposure. But a histogram is made from the actual image on the sensor, and
    > has nothing to do with the camera's light meter, just shows the result of
    > the current exposure setting.


    Not necessarily for non DSLR "live view" type camera's, which can calculate
    histograms on the fly and use them to determine and display exposure at any
    point.
    DSLR's that determine exposure before the mirror flips up and exposes the
    sensor are at a disadvantage here.


    >We always adjust exposure w reference to the histogram in addition to the
    >image itself, so why can't a camera's computer do likewise automatically?
    >They don't yet, right?


    Some already do. It's not so easy for mirror type DSLR's though, AND as I
    pointed out many times, the optimum RAW exposure is not what a "Jpeg
    straight from the camera" user wants anyway.
    A good camera provides many options, and a good photographer is smarter than
    his camera! Sad that some here happily admit they are not.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 9, 2012
    #4
  5. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <ka1i4p$h6k$>, Trevor says...
    >> Some already do. It's not so easy for mirror type DSLR's though, AND as I
    >> pointed out many times, the optimum RAW exposure is not what a "Jpeg
    >> straight from the camera" user wants anyway.

    >
    > I don't quite follow you here. The user does not want a properly exposed
    > image?


    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. If you still don't
    understand, do some research on why. A good camera should give you the
    option as I have already said.
    Personally I don't have a problem shooting 90% of the time in full manual,
    but many do it seems, since it requires a little knowledge of what all the
    options mean :)


    >> A good camera provides many options, and a good photographer is smarter
    >> than
    >> his camera! Sad that some here happily admit they are not.

    >
    > Yes, fully agree. But what is your point?


    You'd have to read the rest of the thread, I'm not going over it all again.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 10, 2012
    #5
  6. On 12/10/2012 12:12 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:> In article <ka485b$uob$>, 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!

    For a JPEG proper exposure means setting the scene between
    the toe and shoulder of the JPEG conversion so that it "looks" right
    on a screen or on an unadjusted print. JPEG conversion generates
    a toe and shoulder just like slide film. Think of JPEG as slide film.

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

    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. 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.

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

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Dec 10, 2012
    #6
  7. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > "Trevor" <> writes:


    >> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In article <ka1i4p$h6k$>, Trevor says...
    >>>> Some already do. It's not so easy for mirror type DSLR's though, AND as I
    >>>> pointed out many times, the optimum RAW exposure is not what a "Jpeg
    >>>> straight from the camera" user wants anyway.
    >>>
    >>> I don't quite follow you here. The user does not want a properly exposed
    >>> image?

    >>
    >> 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. If you still don't
    >> understand, do some research on why. A good camera should give you the
    >> option as I have already said.
    >> Personally I don't have a problem shooting 90% of the time in full manual,
    >> but many do it seems, since it requires a little knowledge of what all the
    >> options mean :)


    > That's not, generally, the reason. Though I'm sure sometimes it is.


    > The reason is often that it slows you down. If you're shooting
    > fast-moving action in unstable light, it can slow you down
    > significantly -- depending on how "fast-moving" the action is, even
    > devestatingly.


    I learned photography in the days before there were any auto
    functions. I have no problems doing everything completely manually. I
    use some non-electronic lenses which are totally manual, and most of
    my flash guns are manual.

    But almost the only time I use the Manual setting on the camera is
    when I'm using a non-electronic lens or lighting with multiple manual
    flashes. Otherwise I use P A or S modes with exposure compensation
    under my thumb. I think I get just as much control as with full
    manual, and much more quickly.

    But maybe it depends how good your camera is with its auto functions?
    I've found over the years that with each camera upgrade I've ended up
    doing using unadjusted auto modes more often because the cameras have
    been getting better at getting them right.

    I do sometimes meet novices with new DSLRs who are struggling and
    failing badly with fully manual operation. I tell them to use the auto
    modes as a teacher, that there's no point in using manual if you can't
    do as well as the camera can. But they don't like that idea because
    someone told them that professionals use manual, auto is for
    dummies. So I leave them taking ages to take poor shots when
    their camera could take much better ones in seconds.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 11, 2012
    #7
  8. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <ka5g4j$4o0$>, Doug McDonald says...
    >> I am very very sure that this has been clearly explained before in this
    >> thread!

    >
    > It's a matter of semantics.


    Only in your mind.

    >What Trevor is referring to "JPEG exposure"
    > is in reality image processing, i.e. the processing of the RAW file.


    FFS, I'm saying the Jpeg the camera gives you with the camera settings so
    YOU think it looks "correctly exposed" Vs the RAW exposure set for maximum
    dynamic range/minimum noise/minimum clipping that I would want.


    >No point to discuss this further.


    True, some will obviously never understand.


    > In any case, the camera should in the first place attempt to capture the
    > entire scene in the RAW data, i.e. minimise the image area which is
    > clipped. Once this has been achieved, the camera can do all the
    > processing, i.e. apply white and black points, curves etc.


    Sure can by converting RAW to Jpeg, either in my camera after the photo is
    taken, or in my computer. Others here want to capture a Jpeg only, that
    looks "right" immediately on the screen and when printed without further
    processing. That's NOT always what I want. Have no idea what YOU want. Nor
    does your camera unless you tell it.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 11, 2012
    #8
  9. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Personally I don't have a problem shooting 90% of the time in full
    >> manual,
    >> but many do it seems, since it requires a little knowledge of what all
    >> the
    >> options mean :)

    >
    > That's not, generally, the reason. Though I'm sure sometimes it is.
    >
    > The reason is often that it slows you down. If you're shooting
    > fast-moving action in unstable light, it can slow you down
    > significantly -- depending on how "fast-moving" the action is, even
    > devestatingly.


    I find the opposite just as often. Trying to set overides every time I move
    the camera even if the light hasn't changed, simply because there is more
    backlight, or some other reason the camera gets it wrong. If the light
    *really* is changing too rapidly for me to keep up with, I might select an
    auto mode and rely on RAW to salvage something. That would be the other 10%
    of the time.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 11, 2012
    #9
  10. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I learned photography in the days before there were any auto
    > functions. I have no problems doing everything completely manually. I
    > use some non-electronic lenses which are totally manual, and most of
    > my flash guns are manual.
    >
    > But almost the only time I use the Manual setting on the camera is
    > when I'm using a non-electronic lens or lighting with multiple manual
    > flashes. Otherwise I use P A or S modes with exposure compensation
    > under my thumb. I think I get just as much control as with full
    > manual, and much more quickly.
    >
    > But maybe it depends how good your camera is with its auto functions?
    > I've found over the years that with each camera upgrade I've ended up
    > doing using unadjusted auto modes more often because the cameras have
    > been getting better at getting them right.
    >
    > I do sometimes meet novices with new DSLRs who are struggling and
    > failing badly with fully manual operation. I tell them to use the auto
    > modes as a teacher, that there's no point in using manual if you can't
    > do as well as the camera can. But they don't like that idea because
    > someone told them that professionals use manual, auto is for
    > dummies. So I leave them taking ages to take poor shots when
    > their camera could take much better ones in seconds.


    True, unless you know what you are doing, the camera will probably do a
    better job. I tell people they should *try* to *learn* to be able to do
    better than the camera one day. Some people here don't think they will ever
    be able to do that, and they are RIGHT because they don't want to ever learn
    how.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 11, 2012
    #10
  11. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >"Trevor" <> writes:
    >
    >> "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> I learned photography in the days before there were any auto
    >>> functions. I have no problems doing everything completely manually. I
    >>> use some non-electronic lenses which are totally manual, and most of
    >>> my flash guns are manual.
    >>>
    >>> But almost the only time I use the Manual setting on the camera is
    >>> when I'm using a non-electronic lens or lighting with multiple manual
    >>> flashes. Otherwise I use P A or S modes with exposure compensation
    >>> under my thumb. I think I get just as much control as with full
    >>> manual, and much more quickly.
    >>>
    >>> But maybe it depends how good your camera is with its auto functions?
    >>> I've found over the years that with each camera upgrade I've ended up
    >>> doing using unadjusted auto modes more often because the cameras have
    >>> been getting better at getting them right.
    >>>
    >>> I do sometimes meet novices with new DSLRs who are struggling and
    >>> failing badly with fully manual operation. I tell them to use the auto
    >>> modes as a teacher, that there's no point in using manual if you can't
    >>> do as well as the camera can. But they don't like that idea because
    >>> someone told them that professionals use manual, auto is for
    >>> dummies. So I leave them taking ages to take poor shots when
    >>> their camera could take much better ones in seconds.

    >>
    >> True, unless you know what you are doing, the camera will probably do a
    >> better job. I tell people they should *try* to *learn* to be able to do
    >> better than the camera one day. Some people here don't think they will ever
    >> be able to do that, and they are RIGHT because they don't want to ever learn
    >> how.

    >
    >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.)



    There are plenty of opportunities to learn, via tuition (one to one or
    in a group), by study at evening classes, weekend workshops or study
    vacations, by buying a textbook on basic photography and working
    through it with your camera, or by joining a camera club where you
    will find many "old hands" who are fond of passing on their knowledge.

    Unfortunately, most people are unwilling to learn and unwilling to
    spend money that could have bought them more or "better" equipment.

    There is a linkage between better equipment and better images that is
    firmly imprinted on most people's minds by huge advertising campaigns.
    There is no such imprinted linkage between knowledge gained and better
    images. However, I believe that gaining knowledge has a far more
    positive effect on quality of output than buying equipment does.
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 11, 2012
    #11
  12. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >I have no experience learning anything photographic in classes.
    >Certainly there are numerous classes and workshops, and people attend
    >them. I'm sure they think they're learning. I haven't had friends do
    >it, so I haven't gotten to see the before/after to form any opinion. I
    >had some interest in taking photo classes early on, but no opportunity.
    >
    >One friend did do a photo degree in college; I met him part-way through
    >that. He clearly learned some things in classes there, but it's not so
    >clear they were "technical" things much.



    I should hope not!

    As I have said many times, many of the most capable photographers need
    to know surprisingly little about the technical aspects of
    photography. Knowing from personal experience how little technical
    content there is in a photography degree course, I try to give the
    students a little more technical content in areas that will help them
    be even more creative. But it certainly isn't technical knowledge for
    its own sake.

    It should be no surprise that gaining a photography degree earns you a
    Bachelor or Master of Arts, not Science. A BSc degree in photography
    that concentrated only on the technical side would turn out some very
    poor photographers. The BA approach is the right one as long as there
    is someone on hand to disseminate technical knowledge where required.

    Of course there are photography careers that require a high level of
    technical ability but they are comparatively rare.

    I am deeply disappointed when I read of amateur photographers who
    spend hours learning how to use every single feature of their grossly
    over-complicated digital SLRs, when the same amount of time learning
    about the creative aspects of photography would yield far greater and
    more important dividends.
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 11, 2012
    #12
  13. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Anthony Polson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    >>I have no experience learning anything photographic in classes.
    >>Certainly there are numerous classes and workshops, and people attend
    >>them. I'm sure they think they're learning. I haven't had friends do
    >>it, so I haven't gotten to see the before/after to form any opinion. I
    >>had some interest in taking photo classes early on, but no opportunity.
    >>
    >>One friend did do a photo degree in college; I met him part-way through
    >>that. He clearly learned some things in classes there, but it's not so
    >>clear they were "technical" things much.

    >
    >
    > I should hope not!
    >
    > As I have said many times, many of the most capable photographers need
    > to know surprisingly little about the technical aspects of
    > photography. Knowing from personal experience how little technical
    > content there is in a photography degree course, I try to give the
    > students a little more technical content in areas that will help them
    > be even more creative. But it certainly isn't technical knowledge for
    > its own sake.
    >
    > It should be no surprise that gaining a photography degree earns you a
    > Bachelor or Master of Arts, not Science. A BSc degree in photography
    > that concentrated only on the technical side would turn out some very
    > poor photographers. The BA approach is the right one as long as there
    > is someone on hand to disseminate technical knowledge where required.
    >
    > Of course there are photography careers that require a high level of
    > technical ability but they are comparatively rare.
    >
    > I am deeply disappointed when I read of amateur photographers who
    > spend hours learning how to use every single feature of their grossly
    > over-complicated digital SLRs, when the same amount of time learning
    > about the creative aspects of photography would yield far greater and
    > more important dividends.



    Having lived through the days when a knowledge of all the technical aspects
    of photography was a must, including darkroom chemistry, I see NO reason a
    GOOD photograher should not have a sound knowledge of both the ART *and*
    SCIENCE behind what they are doing. Sure you can make some good photo's
    without either if you are lucky, but that's no excuse to not want to learn
    more IMO.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 12, 2012
    #13
  14. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:48:30 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >>"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> In article <ka5g4j$4o0$>, Doug McDonald says...
    >>>> I am very very sure that this has been clearly explained before in this
    >>>> thread!
    >>>
    >>> It's a matter of semantics.

    >>
    >>Only in your mind.
    >>
    >>>What Trevor is referring to "JPEG exposure"
    >>> is in reality image processing, i.e. the processing of the RAW file.

    >>
    >>FFS, I'm saying the Jpeg the camera gives you with the camera settings so
    >>YOU think it looks "correctly exposed" Vs the RAW exposure set for maximum
    >>dynamic range/minimum noise/minimum clipping that I would want.
    >>
    >>
    >>>No point to discuss this further.

    >>
    >>True, some will obviously never understand.
    >>
    >>
    >>> In any case, the camera should in the first place attempt to capture the
    >>> entire scene in the RAW data, i.e. minimise the image area which is
    >>> clipped. Once this has been achieved, the camera can do all the
    >>> processing, i.e. apply white and black points, curves etc.

    >>
    >>Sure can by converting RAW to Jpeg, either in my camera after the photo is
    >>taken, or in my computer. Others here want to capture a Jpeg only, that
    >>looks "right" immediately on the screen and when printed without further
    >>processing. That's NOT always what I want. Have no idea what YOU want. Nor
    >>does your camera unless you tell it.
    >>

    >
    > I can't understand how you expect the camera (or later post
    > processing) do all this when producing a JPEG if you don't start from
    > a "RAW exposure set for maximum dynamic range/minimum noise/minimum
    > clipping". What is it you do or don't want from an exposure which you
    > would regard as suited to a JPEG?



    I can't spell it out any clearer than I have already done. If you don't get
    it by now, I'm not really interested.
    But just once again, *I* don't shoot Jpeg, those who do usually want it to
    look "right" without further fiddling, eg. black cat in coal mine is black,
    not grey.
    The idea of "correct exposure" depends on YOUR idea of "correct", which may,
    or may not match your camera's.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 12, 2012
    #14
  15. Trevor

    David Taylor Guest

    On 12/12/2012 02:31, Trevor wrote:
    []
    > Having lived through the days when a knowledge of all the technical aspects
    > of photography was a must, including darkroom chemistry, I see NO reason a
    > GOOD photograher should not have a sound knowledge of both the ART *and*
    > SCIENCE behind what they are doing. Sure you can make some good photo's
    > without either if you are lucky, but that's no excuse to not want to learn
    > more IMO.
    >
    > Trevor.


    ... and technical knowledge is especially important in the age of digital
    photography. Just look at the misleading and wrong information often
    seen in this newsgroup, for example!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 12, 2012
    #15
  16. Trevor

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:59:04 PM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, 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.


    Is that's what's called manual as for me I'd call that semi-automatic :)
    For me manula exposure is looking at the subject the time & place and the amount of light coming from the sun or other objects and setting a suitable shutter speed aperture that goes with the ISO.


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


    That isntl; manula focuing to me either manukla focusing is loking at the subject and decideing it's 10ft away and turning the lens barrel accoringly.

    Maybe I'm just confused by the terms manual and automatic here. :-0

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    >
    > ------------------------------
    >
    > Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
    >
    > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    >
    > http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 12, 2012
    #16
  17. David Taylor <> wrote:

    >On 12/12/2012 02:31, Trevor wrote:
    >[]
    >> Having lived through the days when a knowledge of all the technical aspects
    >> of photography was a must, including darkroom chemistry, I see NO reason a
    >> GOOD photograher should not have a sound knowledge of both the ART *and*
    >> SCIENCE behind what they are doing. Sure you can make some good photo's
    >> without either if you are lucky, but that's no excuse to not want to learn
    >> more IMO.
    >>
    >> Trevor.

    >
    >.. and technical knowledge is especially important in the age of digital
    >photography. Just look at the misleading and wrong information often
    >seen in this newsgroup, for example!



    Technical knowledge is important because it gives a photographer
    control over his/her art. It is less important than in film days
    because digital imaging is so much more predictable than using film
    and, perhaps most important of all, it offers the ability to review
    shots and take them again if necessary.

    Having said that, digital has brought many more people into
    photography who would have been outside it if film still ruled. They
    include vast numbers of people with smartphones, most of whom don't
    have a clue about the artistic and technical sides of imaging. They
    include large numbers of people who see buying a camera as a logical
    addition to their other computer peripherals.

    The addition of the latter group has produced a paradigm shift in
    photography. A much higher proportion of camera owners have come into
    photography based on their technical interest. These people are drawn
    from a sector of society that is least likely to understand and
    appreciate art and least likely to be able to produce it.

    Almost by definition, those posting to Usenet's photography newsgroups
    are likely to include a much higher than average proportion of such
    people. Perhaps it goes some way towards explaining the near-complete
    lack of understanding of art that is in evidence here.

    It would be very difficult to educate most of these people in the
    artistic aspects of photography. Their interest starts and ends with
    the use of a small number of deterministic "rules of composition" that
    are designed only to avoid some of the worst mistakes a photographer
    can make when composing an image. The formulaic images that result
    are barely any better than shooting at random. Indeed, shooting at
    random stands a better chance of producing a good image by accident.

    When these people decide to learn more about photography, they decide
    to learn more about the technical things they already know too much
    about. They might be fascinated by the myriad options for customising
    their camera settings or obsess about learning new routines in
    Photoshop, but their starting point is almost always a bad image which
    will be difficult if not impossible to make into a good one, no matter
    how great their technical ability.

    Contrast all that with people of genuine artistic ability who need
    only to learn a few basics about digital photography to be able to
    produce images that tell a story, inspire, thrill or even disgust.

    Communication is what photography is all about. It is an unfortunate
    fact that many technically perfect images send no message at all to
    the viewer. Many of the best images are technically imperfect, but
    that is of minor importance if they communicate with the viewer.

    Some will no doubt quote Ansel Adams' search for technical perfection.
    However, Adams was a true artist. His technical knowledge helped him
    get the best out of his artistic ability.

    There are plenty of people today with technical knowledge that bears
    comparison with Adams'. However, almost none of them have anything
    approaching Adams' artistic ability.
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 12, 2012
    #17
  18. Trevor

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:32:08 PM UTC, Anthony Polson wrote:
    > David Taylor <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On 12/12/2012 02:31, Trevor wrote:

    >
    > >[]

    >
    > >> Having lived through the days when a knowledge of all the technical aspects

    >
    > >> of photography was a must, including darkroom chemistry, I see NO reason a

    >
    > >> GOOD photograher should not have a sound knowledge of both the ART *and*

    >
    > >> SCIENCE behind what they are doing. Sure you can make some good photo's

    >
    > >> without either if you are lucky, but that's no excuse to not want to learn

    >
    > >> more IMO.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Trevor.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >.. and technical knowledge is especially important in the age of digital

    >
    > >photography. Just look at the misleading and wrong information often

    >
    > >seen in this newsgroup, for example!

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Technical knowledge is important because it gives a photographer
    >
    > control over his/her art.


    No it isn't that's the advantage of digital cameras It is less important than in film days.

    >
    > because digital imaging is so much more predictable than using film
    >
    > and, perhaps most important of all, it offers the ability to review
    >
    > shots and take them again if necessary.


    It makes taking pictures easier to get what you want.

    >
    >
    >
    > Having said that, digital has brought many more people into
    >
    > photography who would have been outside it if film still ruled. They
    >
    > include vast numbers of people with smartphones, most of whom don't
    >
    > have a clue about the artistic and technical sides of imaging.


    Or go against the olde ways and rules.


    > They
    >
    > include large numbers of people who see buying a camera as a logical
    >
    > addition to their other computer peripherals.


    or to their life in general

    >
    >
    >
    > The addition of the latter group has produced a paradigm shift in
    >
    > photography. A much higher proportion of camera owners have come into
    >
    > photography based on their technical interest.


    I can;t see how you make that claim.

    > These people are drawn
    >
    > from a sector of society that is least likely to understand and
    >
    > appreciate art and least likely to be able to produce it.



    Art can be anything, is art a bed or a cut open cow ?
    50 years ago no one would have considered either as art.



    > Almost by definition, those posting to Usenet's photography newsgroups
    >
    > are likely to include a much higher than average proportion of such
    >
    > people.


    Not now, perhaps you're right to say that about facebook .

    > Perhaps it goes some way towards explaining the near-complete
    >
    > lack of understanding of art that is in evidence here.


    Art can be many things.


    >
    > It would be very difficult to educate most of these people in the
    >
    > artistic aspects of photography.


    And why should they be ?


    >Their interest starts and ends with
    >
    > the use of a small number of deterministic "rules of composition" that
    >
    > are designed only to avoid some of the worst mistakes a photographer
    >
    > can make when composing an image. The formulaic images that result
    >
    > are barely any better than shooting at random. Indeed, shooting at
    >
    > random stands a better chance of producing a good image by accident.


    Pretty meaningless then.


    >
    >
    >
    > When these people decide to learn more about photography, they decide
    >
    > to learn more about the technical things they already know too much
    >
    > about.


    and care less about the images themselves.


    > They might be fascinated by the myriad options for customising
    >
    > their camera settings or obsess about learning new routines in
    >
    > Photoshop, but their starting point is almost always a bad image which
    >
    > will be difficult if not impossible to make into a good one, no matter
    >
    > how great their technical ability.


    So.


    >
    >
    >
    > Contrast all that with people of genuine artistic ability who need
    >
    > only to learn a few basics about digital photography to be able to
    >
    > produce images that tell a story, inspire, thrill or even disgust.
    >
    >
    >
    > Communication is what photography is all about.


    You don;t always need technical ability for that.


    > It is an unfortunate
    >
    > fact that many technically perfect images send no message at all to
    >
    > the viewer. Many of the best images are technically imperfect, but
    >
    > that is of minor importance if they communicate with the viewer.


    yep pays your money and make your choice.



    > Some will no doubt quote Ansel Adams' search for technical perfection.
    >
    > However, Adams was a true artist. His technical knowledge helped him
    >
    > get the best out of his artistic ability.
    >
    >
    >
    > There are plenty of people today with technical knowledge that bears
    >
    > comparison with Adams'. However, almost none of them have anything
    >
    > approaching Adams' artistic ability.


    Well I'd have to check out those peole before I decided on that.
    of course I could dsay rembrant or piscaos are teh bets artist because their painting sell for higher thhn some other artists...
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 12, 2012
    #18
  19. In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > "Trevor" <> writes:


    >> "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> I learned photography in the days before there were any auto
    >>> functions. I have no problems doing everything completely manually. I
    >>> use some non-electronic lenses which are totally manual, and most of
    >>> my flash guns are manual.
    >>>
    >>> But almost the only time I use the Manual setting on the camera is
    >>> when I'm using a non-electronic lens or lighting with multiple manual
    >>> flashes. Otherwise I use P A or S modes with exposure compensation
    >>> under my thumb. I think I get just as much control as with full
    >>> manual, and much more quickly.
    >>>
    >>> But maybe it depends how good your camera is with its auto functions?
    >>> I've found over the years that with each camera upgrade I've ended up
    >>> doing using unadjusted auto modes more often because the cameras have
    >>> been getting better at getting them right.
    >>>
    >>> I do sometimes meet novices with new DSLRs who are struggling and
    >>> failing badly with fully manual operation. I tell them to use the auto
    >>> modes as a teacher, that there's no point in using manual if you can't
    >>> do as well as the camera can. But they don't like that idea because
    >>> someone told them that professionals use manual, auto is for
    >>> dummies. So I leave them taking ages to take poor shots when
    >>> their camera could take much better ones in seconds.

    >>
    >> True, unless you know what you are doing, the camera will probably do a
    >> better job. I tell people they should *try* to *learn* to be able to do
    >> better than the camera one day. Some people here don't think they will ever
    >> be able to do that, and they are RIGHT because they don't want to ever learn
    >> how.


    > 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.

    Not only a much faster learning and selection speed, but avoids
    cluttering up your memory card with a lot of failed trials.

    (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.)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 13, 2012
    #19
  20. In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm <> writes:
    >> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>> "Trevor" <> writes:


    >>>> 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. If you still don't
    >>>> understand, do some research on why. A good camera should give you the
    >>>> option as I have already said.
    >>>> Personally I don't have a problem shooting 90% of the time in full manual,
    >>>> but many do it seems, since it requires a little knowledge of what all the
    >>>> options mean :)

    >>
    >>> That's not, generally, the reason. Though I'm sure sometimes it is.

    >>
    >>> The reason is often that it slows you down. If you're shooting
    >>> fast-moving action in unstable light, it can slow you down
    >>> significantly -- depending on how "fast-moving" the action is, even
    >>> devestatingly.

    >>
    >> I learned photography in the days before there were any auto
    >> functions. I have no problems doing everything completely manually. I
    >> use some non-electronic lenses which are totally manual, and most of
    >> my flash guns are manual.


    > I got my first 35mm camera in 1966, and was shooting both B&W and
    > Kodachrome without a meter. I got my first SLR in 1969, which did have
    > a meter. But worked with a Leica M3 as my main camera from about
    > 1973-1979, without a meter (using a separate meter for that). I learned
    > to shoot bounce flash with a Braun RL515, completely manual, around
    > 1973.


    >> But almost the only time I use the Manual setting on the camera is
    >> when I'm using a non-electronic lens or lighting with multiple manual
    >> flashes. Otherwise I use P A or S modes with exposure compensation
    >> under my thumb. I think I get just as much control as with full
    >> manual, and much more quickly.


    > I've had too many cases where I can see the exposure wandering half a
    > stop or so as I turn the camera a little. This means compensation
    > doesn't really give me stable results, and I'm happier going straight
    > manual when I need it.


    It seems many modern cameras when set to full image matric metering
    add some bias a bit towards a correct exposure of whatever you (or the
    camera) has chosen to focus on. Different models do it in different
    amounts and different ways. I usually use central spot focus because
    I'm used to it and I'm fanatic for sharpest focus, so I notice this
    kind of auto exposure shifting if the center of the image is unusually
    bright or dark.

    But I find much easier than shifting to manual simply locking the
    exposure where I like it so it stops shifting around. Same kind of
    thing as using central point focus. Point camera at chosen focus point
    and lock focus. Then point camera at chosen exposure area or adjust
    exposure with compensation dial and lock that. Faster (for me with my
    camera) than using manual, and gives me the rapid response and
    flexibility of reaction to the unexpected moment of all the auto
    features.

    >> But maybe it depends how good your camera is with its auto functions?
    >> I've found over the years that with each camera upgrade I've ended up
    >> doing using unadjusted auto modes more often because the cameras have
    >> been getting better at getting them right.


    > The requirements of digital are stricter than the requirements of color
    > negative (or B&W), as a result of which I feel like I'm still not up to
    > the quality of exposure automation I had with my Nikon N90 in 1994.


    Possibly because I never had such good film cameras as you, I've found
    that exposure automation has for years (and the last few cameras) been
    better than I got with film, and it keeps getting better as the
    cameras improve in dynamic range and exposure automation.

    > (Currently shooting a Nikon D700, previously a D200 and a Fuji S2 for
    > DSLRs). I imagine the camera itself is doing better than the N90 was,
    > though.


    >> I do sometimes meet novices with new DSLRs who are struggling and
    >> failing badly with fully manual operation. I tell them to use the auto
    >> modes as a teacher, that there's no point in using manual if you can't
    >> do as well as the camera can. But they don't like that idea because
    >> someone told them that professionals use manual, auto is for
    >> dummies. So I leave them taking ages to take poor shots when
    >> their camera could take much better ones in seconds.


    > I have no idea how one learns to shoot well these days. When I was
    > learning it was an article of faith that one could not possibly learn
    > well with a camera having auto exposure (I didn't have a camera with
    > auto-exposure until I guess 1987). (It was probably not true, since
    > people clearly *do* learn how to shoot well with modern cameras. It's
    > just, this isn't the environment I learned in, and it's not obvious how
    > best to learn starting today.)


    O looked at the graduating exhibitions of all the local universities
    and colleges who did degree courses in photgraphy. I chose the one
    whose students produced the most impressive exhibits. I checked out
    the course material. I was disappointed to discover that in order to
    have their degree approved by professional photography bodies most of
    what they taught was film photography. The students told me that some
    of the lecturers didn't like this, and gave more time to digital than
    they were supposed to, sometimes in extra classes which you could
    volunteer for.

    I didn't mind the idea of paying for a photographic education, but I
    objected to having to spend most of my money paying for a film
    education I didn't want.

    Of course the Art side of photographic image making is relatively
    independent of specific photographic technologies. Unfortunately it
    also seems to be heavily dependent on having some of those rather rare
    creatures, excellent art teachers.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 13, 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:
    353
    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:
    273
    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:
    313
    Whisky-dave
    Nov 26, 2012
  4. Mort

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    Mort, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    130
    Views:
    1,509
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Dec 25, 2012
  5. RichA

    Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

    RichA, Nov 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    227
    Anthony Polson
    Nov 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page