Are we demanding too much of our digital cameras these days?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by aniramca, Oct 14, 2007.

  1. aniramca

    aniramca Guest

    I just like to hear some comments about this issue. I Don't know if
    these newsgroups are generally read by amateurs or professional
    photographic enthusiasts, but I recall in the film camera era, we do
    not have the luxury of an LCD, EVF, AEB, picture previews, 1/8000s
    shutter speed (perhaps the pro one was then?), and many other
    features. An SLR camera usually comes in one fixed lens (50mm). If
    your camera had a feature in which you can do multiple exposures, you
    were happy. Most of other SLR did not have that feature. Are we
    demanding too much from our digital cameras nowadays? I wonder whether
    there is professional photographers nowadays who do not know how to
    utilize a PSP or PS, or using any computer at all other than for just
    downloading and uploading the digital files.
    If you are not a pro, why do you need RAW format pictures? Let the
    camera manufacturers compete among each others and try to produce the
    best quality pictures through their processing engine. If not, let
    them produce a couple versions of final products and let you choose
    among them. Why do you have to end up sitting in front of a computer
    trying to fix and clean photos over photos at the end of your photo
    session? In the old days, you let your film developers do the work
    for most of amateur photographers. Why not now?
    Thanks for the discussion.
     
    aniramca, Oct 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    Steve B Guest

    I think you'll find that Mr./Mrs Average just accepts what the camera churns
    out as jpg and gets them developed at the local supermarket or high street
    photo lab. We're the less than 10% of camera users who just can't leave
    things alone and have to tweak and love RAW, the other 90% just aren't
    interested, they may enjoy taking photos and the instant feedback of digital
    but that's as far as it goes. At a push a couple may fire up Picasa to
    alter the brightness or sharpness on some auto setting or other but they
    really have no idea what they're doing and would rather just go out and buy
    another camera that takes 'nice photos' every shot.
     
    Steve B, Oct 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gee, in the real old days, you used glass plates and you
    made your film on site in a dark tent.
    Why do you need an SLR? ;-)
    Many reasons, from increased dynamic range and lower noise,
    giving the ability to dodge and burn to bring out more details,
    to low light photography involving stacking multiple frames.

    http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/night.and.low.light.photography

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

    http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm
    Pick up the book: The Print by Ansel Adams.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 14, 2007
    #3
  4. aniramca

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Most of us DO let the camera do the work. I rather suspect that most
    DSLR users also do most of their shots with the camera set on 'auto'.
    Still, it is often nice to have that extra bit of flexibility, and that
    extra range, IF one is physically able, and willing, to carry a larger
    camera, and whatever accessories he can manage.
    As for 'post processing'. I try to do as little of that as possible be
    making sure I take a good picture in the first place. One can make up
    for some limitations of the camera on the computer, and can fix a
    picture that is just a bit less than perfect, making it really great.
    Many people don't pay much attention to the details when selecting a
    camera, and then find that they spend too much time in the
    'post-processing' step. At least, with digital, one CAN work with an
    image to get the best looking end result.
     
    Ron Hunter, Oct 14, 2007
    #4
  5. aniramca

    Taylor J. Guest

    Not only are they demanding too much, they don't even realize what they are
    demanding. How often do you hear someone complaining because their camera
    couldn't autofocus on an image lit by candlelight, taken handheld with their P&S
    zoom lens set to 430+mm for a tight closeup with a 1/2-second shutter speed, and
    then complain that their image was blurry ... what a shitty camera it must be!
    Followed up with "Can anyone recommend a better camera?" And then the fool DSLR
    crowd chimes in with the ludicrous reply that a DSLR could have taken that shot!
    No problem! (Watch them try to claim it again, forget the fact that 400+mm of
    handheld focal length was mentioned, they'll just ignore that important bit to
    make fools of themselves again.)

    I can only laugh every time I see crap like that being posted.

    People like that should have their arms cut off. :)
     
    Taylor J., Oct 14, 2007
    #5
  6. aniramca

    Avery Guest


    Is that right, I wonder if you ever owned a SLR camera, or any camera
    for that matter.
    You don't understand RAW , do you?
    Ever worked in a darkroom as opposed to spending time in a dark room?
    You can. Just take your memory card to any photo booth and print away.
     
    Avery, Oct 14, 2007
    #6
  7. aniramca

    Scott W Guest

    There was a time that an SLR came with a fix 50mm lens, my first SLR
    came that way, but that was a long time ago. For the last 20 years or
    so most inexpensive SLRs have come with a cheap zoom lens.

    As for needing RAW and or Photoshop, yup we need them and really we
    always did. For many years the choice for many of us was to either
    shoot B/W, in which case we could control the print in our own darkroom
    or shoot color, in which case you go what the lab thought looked good.
    There were some and still are some people doing their own color work in
    home darkrooms, but this is way harder then what B/W was.

    Then comes digital and we can all have control of the color prints we
    make, wonderful stuff.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Oct 14, 2007
    #7
  8. aniramca

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Why did you crosspost this to four different newsgroups?
     
    Alfred Molon, Oct 14, 2007
    #8
  9. aniramca

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    Funny message. Although the tech has changed, the path of making images
    hasn't. In the older days, people would shoot with a single sheet of film,
    or a plate, at a time. Why did that change? Because there was a more
    productive and better way to capture images. Same now. the snapshooters
    (remember Kodak's slogan, "you press the button, we do the rest"?) will
    always just take the camera's output, whatever it is. But people interested
    in making better images will always push their tech to the limits, and work
    within that tech to optimize it to suit their result. Take Ansel Adams, who
    would vary exposure times and development times to capture the full range of
    brightness in a scene. And now we have digital, which presents a whole new
    world of potential to capture, manipulate, and print images, so why not push
    it to the limit? Why NOT shoot RAW and then process to extract the maximum
    quality out of the gear? Why handicap yourself by letting a mediocre
    computing enging perform image processing quickly and on the spot when a
    much more powerful PC and more sophisticated software can do a far better
    job of post processing?

    To me, nothing has changed but the tech. Shooters who want to produce
    superior images will always push their tech to the limits.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 14, 2007
    #9
  10. aniramca

    Pat Guest

    To a large extent I don't think you understand modern photography.

    Lots of pros -- even those who are incredibly good with PS -- use
    nearly un-touched-up photos all the time. I just shot a girl and the
    only touch-up I did was to hit a few blemishes. I send out the proofs
    with no-retouching at all. I shot them the way I wanted to see when
    so what did I have to touch up?

    Most pro-upload software is strictly jpg (but some will do tiff).
    I've never seen any that do RAW. So everything gets uploaded that
    way.

    When doing lots of pictures, workflow is important so you do
    everything you can to reduce your work. Shooting in jpg is one way to
    reduce the work. The different between a pro and somone who is not,
    is that the pro shoots in jpg (most of the time) because he/she has
    the lighting and environment under control. There's no need for raw.

    I shoot digital very similarly to the way I shot film. Get it right
    the first time.
     
    Pat, Oct 14, 2007
    #10
  11. aniramca

    ray Guest

    I'm not a pro, but I always shoot raw on my Kodak P850. Why? Because there
    is a lot I can do to improve some pictures. My work flow consists of
    initially pulling out the jpeg image which is embedded in the raw file. If
    I don't see anything I can do to improve it, then I don't try - that
    happens with a fair number of pictures. I will, indeed, spend some time
    (though generally not a great deal) working on photos which have
    interesting subject matter but are sub-optimally presented.
     
    ray, Oct 14, 2007
    #11
  12. aniramca

    Not4wood Guest

    It is normal for the human mind to try to improve everything. When a small
    percentage of the population takes a picture they accept it and think it
    beautiful without any change. It might be, but every Photographer will look
    at it and take it apart first to see about any kind of a change to make it
    better.

    When I worked for a small Wedding Studio we always color corrected and
    cropped everything. During the week I was the printer on the Proof Printer
    machine. Even those small 4X5 were color corrected, even if they weren't
    really cropped. After any enlargements/prints for albums were printed most
    if not all went to the spotting room as a just in case.

    About 3 years ago, our friends wife got a digital point and shoot and when
    she got back the results she was extremely impressed with the overall
    quality of the colors and contrast. I asked her if she was going to edit
    anything via her computer and then I had to explain about Digital Darkroom.
    At that time I had very little knowledge but I explained her the reasons.
    She said her pictures didn't need editing and were perfect the way they were
    and wasn't interested in knowing about Photo Editing.

    I guess the more knowledge you have, the more you want to learn and improve.

    Not4wood
     
    Not4wood, Oct 14, 2007
    #12
  13. aniramca

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Kinon O'Cann added these comments in the current discussion du
    jour ...
    I'm confused. What is so wrong with wanting to take good pictures
    according to both the older norms and guidelines and today's?
    e.g., had PhotoShop been available to the greats of the past, I'm
    sure they would've used it, but it seems to me that if at all
    possible, then learning by whatever method(s) you feel
    comfortable with what photography is all about, then less "tech"
    would be needed. If I, as an obvious example, could figure out
    better how to "fix" my digital images at compose time, I'd be a
    lot happier and spend a lot less time in PSP 9. Perhaps the key
    to this is that it may not be at all obvious to a great many
    digital photographers, especially newbies buying a P & S or low-
    end EVF, knew more about what they were doing. All of that said,
    however, so long as the person taking the pictures is satisfied
    with the results whether it be a simple 4 x 6 at Meijer or an
    expensive custom lab 16 x 20 from a world-class DSLR, then why
    should any of us be upset.

    So, just call me confused here, but let me politely suggest that
    it isn't at all necessary for everyone who just wants to shoot
    vacation pics or pictures of their kids growing up to own $10,000
    worth of gear, 16 mega pixels, RAW, et all. After all, isn't
    "beauty in the eyes of the beholder"?
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 14, 2007
    #13
  14. aniramca

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Not4wood added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    ....
    An analogy I've long used is that if we had all waited for a
    truly outstanding electronic 4-function calculator, we'd still be
    waiting. I ran a Nikon FTN for well in excess of 5,000 slides
    over a 10 year period, then went to home video with two different
    machines as my daughter was growing up, then moved completely the
    other way with a simple "P & S" 35mm, and now to digital and am
    on my 3rd camera. You are entirely correct that it is natural to
    want to improve our results as technocracy improves and/or even
    change schemes as I did moving from film to video and back to
    film

    More to my world of the car biz, I could wax philosophical and
    say that today's technological wonders, each with sometimes 25 or
    more complex digital computers running them, are really no
    different than a Model T in that their purpose still is mainly to
    get us from point A to point B. Who just a year or two ago
    would've thought that a mandatory set of options might include
    video, iPod, or cooled/heated cup holders? Not to mention, better
    fuel economy, quieter operation, and at least LESS damage to the
    environment than even a short decade ago?
    My wife and I just received the digital prints we bought from our
    annual church portait session. We could've settled for the 1 free
    8 x 10 and bought nothing else and we certainly could've not
    "wasted" our money on the cropping and digital improvements, but
    since the cost was modest and the on-screen previews did look
    good, we invested - and we're quite happy. So, again, I agree
    with your basic point.
    My 29 year-old daughter and her new hubby this summer bought a
    couple of Canon small cameras. Hers is a simple P & S and his is
    a small but more sophisticated Powershoot EVF. They each have
    completely different criteria for both the purchase and the whole
    purpose of the cameras. My daugher, for example, exactly fits
    your friend's wife's new P & S - Kelly just wants to either
    upload her images to Meijer or take her SD card to one of their
    kiosks. She has zero.zero interest in even minor digital
    enhancements and, as you might imagine, thinks that my wasting
    time tweaking is a total waste.
    Here, I must differ, abeit only mildly. SOME want to learn, while
    others want improved images in a smaller, simpler camera and just
    let it go. This is the great thing about the concept of "freedom
    of choice" which explains why the number of cameras on the market
    are well into the hundreds. There simply is no one right or wrong
    way to do things, and probably not even a finite set of right or
    wrong ways.

    Have a great Sunday!
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 14, 2007
    #14
  15. The P&S troll still doesn't understand basic math and physics,
    and is so angry and ignorant it wants physical harm done to
    those more knowledgeable.

    The simple physics is larger pixels collect more light, even at
    the same f/ratio. This is not directly a P&S versus DSLR issue, but
    currently P&S cameras tend to have small pixels and
    DSLRs tend to have large pixels. The active area of a pixel in
    a large pixel camera is often 16x or more than that of a small pixel
    camera. Thus the large pixel camera collects 16x or more the light.

    Now applying the above simple math (divide the exposure
    time by 16 and still collect the same amount or light per
    pixel (at the same f/ratio), and you get the same signal-to-
    noise ratio image. Thus the small pixel camera with 430 mm
    lens at 1/2 second equals the (16x) larger pixel camera at
    1/(2*16) = 1/32 second exposure. With IS lenses delivering
    up to 4 stops of shake reduction, one actually has a chance of
    making reasonably sharp image with the large pixel camera,
    and a poor chance with the small pixel camera.
    Then add to the fact that you can get faster lenses on DSLRs,
    and what formerly was near impossible becomes routine with the
    large pixel DSLR and fast lens.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 14, 2007
    #15
  16. aniramca

    Michael Guest

    Personally, I still use film and both 35mm and a 6x7 SLR. I have a
    digital point and shoot for point and shoot. I don't see how
    manipulating your images on a computer is different than film
    photographers going to the darkroom and laboring over their wet process
    prints. The venue has changed but the principle is the same. And for
    all those film users who just have/had their stuff developed and
    printed, you have the majority of digital users who just let the store
    print from their memory card. As I said I am primarily a film
    photographer, but I don't quite get the OP's point about demanding too
    much from the DSLR. Seems to me the DSLR users are demanding the same
    from their cameras as film SLR users demand from theirs, and are
    willing to do the same amount of "post production" work to get it.
     
    Michael, Oct 14, 2007
    #16
  17. aniramca

    Allen Guest

    A little learning is a dangerous thing;
    Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
    Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

    Still true, as you have pointed out.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Oct 14, 2007
    #17
  18. aniramca

    Taylor J. Guest

    See? LOL! What did I tell you? The DSLR trolls will still try to justify their
    cameras.

    LOL
     
    Taylor J., Oct 14, 2007
    #18
  19. aniramca

    Not4wood Guest

    LOL, actually not true. The only troll and anger I see here is you.

    Before digital, a true photographer would be inside the darkroom doing what
    they had to do to make the film and prints good enough for there liking.
    Without digital color photography, we always color corrected and cropped and
    then spotted.

    You for some reason cant except the fact that everything that is done is the
    exact same thing that was always done. Just now its with more modern
    technology. Whether you used a larger format or 35mm you did darkroom work.
    Now its digital darkroom and the expectations are still the same. To get
    the best results we can from what we previsualized in our heads. If we use
    a P&S it still doesnt matter, we will end up in the digital darkroom.

    Not4wood
     
    Not4wood, Oct 14, 2007
    #19
  20. aniramca

    Kiltofahr Guest

    Unfortunately, you are wrong.

    High-tech can help you to capture great images but without a sense of artistry,
    composition, and creativity, all your tech is useless. Content will beat quality
    EVERY TIME.

    And please, don't cite Adams as some kind of "king" of photography. The only
    reason he became known was from his relentless self-promotion. Any child with a
    box camera could take the very same images he took if they stood in the same
    locations. I often use Adams as a modern day analogy of "The Emperor's New
    Clothes".

    An old friend who used to have an exceptional eye for photography would always
    come to me to do his "darkroom" work (analog or digital). He could see
    composition, he had the creativity, but his eye lacked the ability to bring it
    out in a more interesting way. I would push a curve, crop a slight amount, fudge
    an annoying bit out of the image ... voilà! His photo was now something that
    anyone would be proud of. He could never see, no matter how many times I showed
    him, how those most miniscule of adjustments would take his photos from "Wow,
    nice!" to "Awesome".

    Luckily I have the qualities needed for both aspects of photography, from taking
    the image to the presentation. Never, in all my life, has the ability of my
    photography to astound others ever depended on the "tech" of the equipment used.
    From meager beginnings with box-cameras using 120 and 620 roll film developed
    and printed with home-made darkroom enlargers and timers, even making my own
    chemical baths from raw chemicals (sodium thiosulfate, "fixer" is great for
    removing iodine stains btw), up to and including excellent digital cameras and
    the best editing tools available, NONE of that mattered. Without the ability to
    see and capture worthwhile content with an inherent talent and creativity to
    present them in the most pleasing or interesting way, none of your "tech" will
    ever matter to anyone.

    I see people proudly posting their images taken with the highest-tech available
    today. Their photography is to laugh at.
     
    Kiltofahr, Oct 14, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.