Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

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

  1. In rec.photo.digital Trevor <> wrote:
    > "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.


    Why not simply hit the exposure lock button when it gets it right or
    you've adjusted the compensation to get it where you want it? Then
    you can move the viewpoint as much as you like without changing
    exposure.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 13, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Trevor

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:20:39 PM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave says...
    >
    > > > 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > It's still manual, it's just that you get direct feedback about the
    >
    > exposure by looking at the histogram and the LCD screen.


    Sorry I still don;t understand that.
    My father had a Cosina CS1 when looking through the viewfinder you had LEDsof red and green representing the exposure you moved either the aputure orshutter speed to get a green light for correct exposure it was called semi-automatic. IIRC. You could buy a servo which attahced to the camera which was a motor which turned the shutter speed dial to get the LED to go greenthis was automatic exposure.


    > > > 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

    >
    >
    >
    > Automatic = the camera sets the focus for you.
    >
    > Manual = you set the focus


    And when applying this to exposue.. if teh camera tell you the shutter speed and aperature why is it called manual ?

    >
    >
    >
    > Besides, why do it the difficult way, when thanks to modern technology
    >
    > things are so easy?


    I thought it was because the photgrapher knew better than the camera regarding the correct exposure that's why it called manual as the 'man' or women of course sets the exposure and not the camera. ;-0


    Morden technology allows for correct exposure without the man or women doing anything other than remberign to point the camera in the right directionand shooting hence P&S cameras.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 13, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >On 13 Dec 2012 09:30:33 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    >wrote:
    >> Unfortunately it
    >>also seems to be heavily dependent on having some of those rather rare
    >>creatures, excellent art teachers.

    >
    >My sister attended a university school of art and ended up marrying a
    >graduate. I knew a number of their fellow students including, quite
    >strangely, several who had gone through school with me. I concluded
    >that they didn't teach art. What they did was teach their own
    >particular school of art. Differences of opinion led to heated battles
    >about what was art and what wasn't. It's amazing how many arguments
    >amounted to nothing more than post facto defenses of 'what I like'.



    The whole point of art is to convey a message. The viewer may or may
    not like the message. Some people may like it while others don't.
    There may be strong feelings involved. That's art.


    >I can't see how the artistic side of photography can be any different.



    It isn't. Why should it be? Surely you don't seriously want
    photography to be only about content?
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 13, 2012
    #23
  4. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:16:38 +0000, Anthony Polson
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>On 13 Dec 2012 09:30:33 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>> Unfortunately it
    >>>>also seems to be heavily dependent on having some of those rather rare
    >>>>creatures, excellent art teachers.
    >>>
    >>>My sister attended a university school of art and ended up marrying a
    >>>graduate. I knew a number of their fellow students including, quite
    >>>strangely, several who had gone through school with me. I concluded
    >>>that they didn't teach art. What they did was teach their own
    >>>particular school of art. Differences of opinion led to heated battles
    >>>about what was art and what wasn't. It's amazing how many arguments
    >>>amounted to nothing more than post facto defenses of 'what I like'.

    >>
    >>
    >>The whole point of art is to convey a message. The viewer may or may
    >>not like the message. Some people may like it while others don't.
    >>There may be strong feelings involved. That's art.

    >
    >Different messages are given in different languages. The messages of
    >some artists were totally incomprehensible to those who favoured the
    >'messages' of others.
    >>
    >>
    >>>I can't see how the artistic side of photography can be any different.

    >>
    >>
    >>It isn't. Why should it be? Surely you don't seriously want
    >>photography to be only about content?
    >>

    >I wouldn't like you to think that there is only the one school of
    >artistic 'message' and that it can be taught to all those who are
    >prepared to make the effort to learn.



    I think I made it clear at the outset that it was extremely difficult
    to teach camera owners about art, unless they had some artistic talent
    to begin with. The vast majority of camera owners have none. A week
    behind the counter of a minilab will confirm that.


    >For example, you will find
    >little communication between those who understand the 'message' of
    >http://images.fineartamerica.com/im...eart-so-big--abstract-art-jaison-cianelli.jpg
    >and those who prefer the 'message' of
    >http://media.artfinder.com/works/r/vanda/7/5/7/78757_full_570x391.jpg
    >Without specialist knowledge the followers of either school are going
    >to have difficulty with the 'message' of
    >http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hK299eGLEyA/UC3ZHLeuwVI/AAAAAAAAB1I/DBc98CFyQk0/s1600/boschcover.jpg
    >
    >The same applies with photographs and no one has a universal truth.



    Except your universal truth, often repeated, which appears to be
    "content above all else", with absolutely no effort made to deliver
    any message of any kind. Your misplaced praise for the Milan
    Cathedral shot, which manages to be an atrocity in multiple ways,
    suggests a disregard for any message other than "incompetence".
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 14, 2012
    #24
  5. Trevor

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:48:35 PM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave says...
    >
    >
    >
    > > Sorry I still don;t understand that.

    >
    > > My father had a Cosina CS1 when looking through the viewfinder you had LEDs of red and green representing the exposure you moved either the aputure or shutter speed to get a green light for correct exposure it was called semi-automatic. IIRC. You could buy a servo which attahced to the camera which was a motor which turned the shutter speed dial to get the LED to go green this was automatic exposure.

    >
    >
    >
    > I'm a bit surprised by this question. It's as if you had never used a
    >
    > digital camera.


    Whether it's digital or film is irrelivent to this question, an expouser based on shutuer speed, aperature and sensitivity to light, in fact the same goes for video too.

    > > > Automatic = the camera sets the focus for you.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > Manual = you set the focus

    >
    > >

    >
    > > And when applying this to exposue.. if teh camera tell you the shutter speed and aperature why is it called manual ?

    >
    >
    >
    > The camera does not tell you the exposure. It's just that on the LCD you
    >
    > can see a preview of the image and you will see if it is over- or
    >
    > underexposed. Some cameras will also display a histogram. You can use
    >
    > all this to set the exposure.


    Which for me tells me the camera is telling me what exposure it is setting.
    So that is semi-automatic.



    > > I thought it was because the photgrapher knew better than the camera regarding the correct exposure that's why it called manual as the 'man' or women of course sets the exposure and not the camera. ;-0

    >
    >
    >
    > In fact in manual mode the user sets the exposure, i.e. chooses aperture
    >
    > and exposure time.


    Yes exacty NOT the camera.



    > > Morden technology allows for correct exposure without the man or womendoing anything other than remberign to point the camera in the right direction and shooting hence P&S cameras.

    >
    >
    >
    > Also DLSRs have an automatic mode.


    And cars too, you do know the difernce nbtween automatical cars and manual cars regading gear shifting I do and I don't drive.


    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 14, 2012
    #25
  6. Trevor

    Trevor Guest

    "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In rec.photo.digital Trevor <> wrote:
    >> "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.

    >
    > Why not simply hit the exposure lock button when it gets it right or
    > you've adjusted the compensation to get it where you want it? Then
    > you can move the viewpoint as much as you like without changing
    > exposure.


    Because I don't find that any easier than using manual in many
    circumstances. I do use alternatives in cases where I do find them a
    benefit. That's what I love about modern pro camera's, the options are there
    to be used as you (and I) find appropriate for our own particular needs.
    Unlike the full manual film camera's I started with, I rarely find
    conditions that can't be easily catered for these days. Life is good,
    photography wise at least. :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 15, 2012
    #26
  7. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm <> writes:
    >> In rec.photo.digital Trevor <> wrote:
    >>> "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.

    >>
    >> Why not simply hit the exposure lock button when it gets it right or
    >> you've adjusted the compensation to get it where you want it? Then
    >> you can move the viewpoint as much as you like without changing
    >> exposure.


    > Lack of fingers. And I don't know if it even works right -- what
    > happens if I change the exposure compensation while holding exposure
    > lock?


    Never thought to try that ... (fiddle fiddle) ... Wow! It works really
    cleverly! The exposure lock (I've set it to toggle) locks it at
    whatever the exposure was at that moment. Under the image in the
    viewfinder is a range of + & - exposure values with an arrow over the
    middle (0) in plan vanilla autoexposure mode. On activating exposure
    lock the arrow and scale is immediaely locked, and a seond arrow
    appears which tracks how much the actual exposure value has now
    deviated from the locked value.

    Exposure comepnsation still works, and adjusts the value of locked
    exposure setting appropriately. So I can lock exposure, still see
    where the real exposure level has moved to, and can indepedently
    adjust the locked value without unlocking it to auto. Very useful
    intelligent implenentation!

    Thanks for raising that question! I've only had this new camera for a
    few weeks. It takes me at least six months to discover most of the
    useful features of a new camera. Plus maybe another year to discover
    that a few of the silly features I never bothered to try are actually
    very useful in certain special circumstances.

    > (And I'm using that finger, which is my thumb, to control the AF,
    > it's not available for AEL.)


    Again may depend on your camera, but in order not to use up any of my
    digits holding buttons down I have set my buttons to toggle. Means I
    can adjust lots of things without taking my eye off the
    viewfinder. And I've set my default autofocus to drop into manual
    focus once it's found focus, so I don't need to press anything to
    start fine tuning with manual focus if I want. In fact some of the
    latest lenses drop into manual focus as soon as you move the focus
    ring on the barrel anyway, but this works with any AF lens.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 15, 2012
    #27
  8. Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:


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


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


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

    > Not only a much faster learning


    Much less learning causes that, yes.

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


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


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


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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
    #28
  9. Anthony Polson <> wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:


    >>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.


    Only the parts they need.


    > 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.


    I am deeply disappointed when people fling the manual of
    their new technical toy (of which kind they have no previous
    experience with, mostly) far away and then either fumble about,
    not knowing what they do, or have to ask questions that a
    simple reading of the introduction would have solved.


    But according to you, probably amateur should use a simple
    camera only having a shutter button. That would be foolproof
    simple and they could all spend the time on creative aspects.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
    #29
  10. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:


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


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


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


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

    >> Not only a much faster learning


    > Much less learning causes that, yes.


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

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


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


    I'm sorry to hear that. Obviously these improved learning speeds may
    not happen when learning is impaired.

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


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


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

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

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 16, 2012
    #30
  11. Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:


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


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


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


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


    Why should anyone use any other than the preview mode?

    >>> Not only a much faster learning


    >> Much less learning causes that, yes.


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


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


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


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


    > I'm sorry to hear that.


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
    #31
  12. 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.


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

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


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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
    #32
  13. Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    > 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!


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
    #33
  14. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

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


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

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 18, 2012
    #34
  15. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>> Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>>> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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

    >>>> Not only a much faster learning


    >>> Much less learning causes that, yes.


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


    >> I'm sorry to hear that.


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 18, 2012
    #35
  16. Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>>> Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>>>> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

    >>>>> Not only a much faster learning


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


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


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


    > That's exactly the point.


    People are doing video with their cameras?

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


    >>> I'm sorry to hear that.


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

    OK.

    Fine.

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 19, 2012
    #36
  17. Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:


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


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


    Oh, I wouldn't call 1 stop slight.

    > but that's incidental.


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

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


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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 19, 2012
    #37
  18. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:04:23 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:


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


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


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


    >>> but that's incidental.


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


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


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


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


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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 20, 2012
    #38
  19. In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>> Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>>>> Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>>>>> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


    >> That's exactly the point.


    > People are doing video with their cameras?


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

    [snip]

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


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


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


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


    > OK.


    > Fine.


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


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

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 23, 2012
    #39
  20. Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


    >>> That's exactly the point.


    >> People are doing video with their cameras?


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


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


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


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


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


    A rare minority. Otherwise we would not need schools.

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


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

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


    See above.


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


    > So what?


    So they are addicted. And helpless without their crutch.

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


    That isn't called a loupe?

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


    See above.

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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


    Ah, you use static motives and a tripod.

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


    Which makes them a *good* idea.

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


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

    So focal length and thus equivalent focal length.


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


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


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


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


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


    > No idea what that argument means.


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

    > Unfortunately the
    > market is based on consumer choice.


    Really? So where are the cameras many ask for?

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


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


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

    > [snip]


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


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


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


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


    >> OK.


    >> Fine.


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


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


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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 24, 2012
    #40
    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:
    339
    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:
    268
    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:
    300
    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:
    1,486
    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:
    221
    Anthony Polson
    Nov 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page