Nothing has changed.

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Kinon O'Cann, Oct 14, 2007.

  1. Kinon O'Cann

    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
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kinon O'Cann

    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
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Kinon O'Cann

    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
    #3
  4. Kinon O'Cann

    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
    #4
  5. Kinon O'Cann

    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 ... voilĂ ! 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
    #5
  6. Kinon O'Cann

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    If all a user wants to do is press the button and get prints, that's fine,
    and there's nothing wrong with it. But there's nothing wrong with those of
    us who want more, either. A great deal of the time, I don't lug my SLR, but
    a smaller and lighter digicam which is plenty.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 14, 2007
    #6
  7. Kinon O'Cann

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    Maybe I'm misreading your reply, but where do you and I disagree? I never
    said that tech replaced artistry, just that digital provided the shooters
    (artists included) with a new set of tools.
    Right, but that's not the point here...
    Well, even though I don't disagree that Adams was not the king, you are
    wrong about his images. The range of brightness in many of his scenes simply
    could not be captured without adjusting exposure and development times to
    capture it, and no simple point and shoot (so to speak) could capture it.
    Don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back. But here again, you
    describe in your previous paragraph how you use tech to bring out the best
    in an image. Then you claim that the tech isn't import at all. Again, I
    agree, but just said that shooters will always use whatever tech is
    available to produce the best images they can, instead of simly pushing the
    button and accepting whatever results the camera gives you. Correct? Isn't
    that what you do? Was every B&W print you ever made a simple straight print?
    No burning, dodging or flashing? Really?
    Probably because they haven't mastered the tech, the tech has mastered them.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 14, 2007
    #7
  8. Kinon O'Cann

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Kinon O'Cann added these comments in the current discussion du
    jour ...

    [snip]
    This is precisely my point. Not always, though, but often, those
    who believe in the "best of the best" overwhelm those who feel that
    simplicity is more than enough for them. Thus, it is no more that
    those who do max mega pixels and RAW are wrong than for P & S users
    to be right anymore than the converse is true. There's more than
    enough capability in today's hundreds of offerings to match up
    needs/wants with complexity of operation, price, size/weight, and
    the desire to spend N+1 hours per image post-processing.
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 15, 2007
    #8
  9. Kinon O'Cann

    Kiltofahr Guest

    The concept of humility was invented by power-hungry control-freak priests and
    other rulers of that ilk, as one of their more subtle but effective ways to
    manipulate the weak-willed and mindless masses. It serves no purpose in the
    natural (real) world. It only causes an effect in the limited and crippled minds
    of humans stupid enough to fall for that pathetic act.
     
    Kiltofahr, Oct 15, 2007
    #9
  10. Kinon O'Cann

    Kiltofahr Guest

    I misread your intent then.

    Your post seemed to infer that the only thing that makes anyone's photography
    better today is better tech because that's the only thing that changes.

    Today I could use a freshly exposed negative taken out of the Brownie box-camera
    that I keep on my shelf, purposely displayed to remind me that it's not about
    the tech. Then print that negative using the same hand-mixed chemicals as I used
    to do, formulas kept handy in my old Kodak notebook of Kodak's original formulas
    and papers (the book stored right next to that camera), build another enlarger
    from two salvaged condenser lenses from an optics-parts box that I keep, a
    tungsten-light, and an old diaphragm-stopped lens from an old bellows camera.
    Just like the very first enlarger that I built for myself long ago when trying
    to learn and eventually perfect my skills. Producing photos today with the same
    items. Photos that would be admired and respected by the most discerning
    photographers today without them even knowing how they were produced.

    We are agreed then, tech has little to nothing to do with being a good
    photographer. It makes it more interesting, more fun at times, but it will never
    enhance inherent talent. It'll only allow bad photographers to show how bad they
    are to a wider (world wide) audience more rapidly , with more glaring
    high-resolution details that only prove how truly bad they are.

    I could easily name at least a half-dozen prolific posters to these news-groups
    befitting that description perfectly.

    One final note for the Adams ass-kissers who can't recognize media-manipulation
    for capital gain when they see it. Can you guess why he could only get his
    images marketable through darkroom manipulation, and only B&W photography at
    that? I could tell you, making this easy for you, but I'll leave that as an
    intellectual exercise for those of you who might still be capable of flexing
    that muscle.

    If you ever saw his original negatives you'd laugh--as did I.
     
    Kiltofahr, Oct 15, 2007
    #10
  11. Kinon O'Cann

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    Pretty funny; people ask my advice about which camera to buy all the time.
    Only once did I reccomend an SLR. Most of the time, it's P&S since I know
    that person will never want to post process.

    And they always love the camera.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 16, 2007
    #11
  12. Kinon O'Cann

    acro-caster Guest

    That's the problem with DSLR owners ... their own doubts on if they bought the
    right camera or not propel them to try to convince others to buy the same
    cameras. If they can convince others to buy one then it's easier for them to
    believe that they made the right choice. They're also the ones that will cite
    sales-reports and desperately try to find "majority rules" news. These
    newsgroups are crawling with people doubting if they invested in the right
    camera or not. Invariably it's those that spent the most money who are always in
    the most doubt, frantically trying to justify the cost to appease their own
    minds, always trying to convince others to join them. Prove them wrong and they
    scream bloody murder. Doing so destroys all their delusional beliefs that
    they've painstakingly designed for themselves. It's bad enough if they can't get
    someone to join them in their delusions, but to actually be proved wrong too?
    That's grounds for a psychotic melt-down.
     
    acro-caster, Oct 16, 2007
    #12
  13. Kinon O'Cann

    X-Man Mk II Guest

    Oh, you mean like this one taken under an overcast sky before sunset, deep in
    the Everglades swamps, with a zoom lens at 360mm f.l.? Taken with a HAND HELD
    P&S camera? The bird filling up the whole frame? Spotted, composed, and shot
    before the chance was missed?

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/1583977610_12254e5cb5_o.jpg

    Like that?

    You must mean another kind I guess. Only YOUR kind of camera can take those
    kinds of photos.



    What a fuckin' fool. Still trying to delude himself into justifying why he
    wasted all that money on a DSLR with L-glass that can't beat any of the popular
    P&S cameras.

    YOU AND YOUR CAMERA ARE A FUCKIN' JOKE, ROGER!!

    The only one that doesn't realize it is ------------------- YOU!

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    X-Man Mk II, Oct 16, 2007
    #13
  14. Kinon O'Cann

    X-Man Mk II Guest

    <Roger's relentless and pathetic SPAM LINKS SNIPPED>

    What? And show everyone just how crappy your photography truly is? Then not even
    the idiots that buy from you now would bother. You know that I don't post my
    good photography to the net. Just a sample to prove that you are 100% wrong. Are
    you just this fuckin' daft to not realize that? (or course you are) Let's put it
    this way, you can't even afford to LOOK at my better photography, let alone own
    a print from it. You'd have to sell your house and cars and land for that. Keep
    that piece of shit camera, it's nothing I'd ever want.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Slam and dunk! The fool with the DSLR was proven wrong AGAIN!

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    X-Man Mk II, Oct 16, 2007
    #14
  15. Kinon O'Cann

    X-Man MkII Guest

    Well, you know what they say about those that have to go around trying to
    convince everyone to come see their photography. Nobody's beating a path to
    their door so they have to try to shove it in everyone's faces. It still doesn't
    sell so they keep doing it

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You think that ****'n Roger fool would get a clue by now, but no.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    X-Man MkII, Oct 16, 2007
    #15
  16. Kinon O'Cann

    X-Man MkII Guest

    LOL!!!

    This is too fucking funny. The ONLY ones that didn't see your reply are the ones
    you removed it from. It didnt' change a thing about mine.

    Here, let me correct your outrageous stupidity.

    There, now everyone can see how amazingly stupid you are.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    X-Man MkII, Oct 16, 2007
    #16
  17. Kinon O'Cann

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    acro-caster added these comments in the current discussion du
    jour ...
    I "fought" strong recommendations to go to a DSLR for a couple of
    years, finally I "succumbed" and bought a Canon Rebel XT, a Canon
    external flash, some Canon and other zoom glass, etc. I hav not
    been disappointed except for it having more noise than I
    expected. However, if I put on the bigger Canon L-glass zoom,
    which weighs in at over 2 pounds by itself, the flash, and even a
    smallish/lighter body than a Nikon D70s, I am toting around
    hearly 5 pounds, which is very tiring on my left arm that has to
    hold up all that weight. Results are great, it is just big and
    heavy. So, for all the folk who don't want a huge, heavy, and
    expensive camera and just want some reasonably good 4 x 6 Meijer
    prints plus maybe stick the little P & S in their pocket, I
    recommend that. Or, if they want more features, have a somewhat
    larger budget, and can stand a bigger camera, I recommend an EVF.
    Depending on who asked for what and for what purpose, they are
    pretty much happy campers.

    The people that are the most UNhappy, a rarity for my circle of
    acquaintences, is when they allow someone - anyone - to con them
    into more camera than they really want, and push them hard to
    post-process. This brand of unhappy people are also too big
    believers of tests they read in Popular Photography. So, to each
    his/her own, I say.
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 16, 2007
    #17
  18. Kinon O'Cann

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) added these comments
    in the current discussion du jour ...
    I obviously agree with this statement, Roger. In this NG and the
    SLR NG, the population is much more tilted toward more expensive,
    more post-processing, more mega pixels, and DSLRs. That's OK if
    everyone remembers your advice herein, but they don't always. That
    IS Okey, Dokey with me so long as no one suggests that someone who
    believes in less is somehow not a "real" photographer. Again, to
    each their own.
     
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 16, 2007
    #18
  19. Kinon O'Cann

    Chris Guest

    I have been reading this newsgroup for a couple of weeks and find the
    arguing and bickering entertaining - at times. I had to post a simple
    message and tell you that this is *right-on-the-money*. The right tool for
    the right job, and most people that are serious about what they are doing
    usually have more than one tool. And, this is not just limited to
    photography!!

    Chris
     
    Chris, Oct 16, 2007
    #19
  20. Kinon O'Cann

    The One Guest

    If you master the settings and working of a digital camera, you don't need
    to shoot RAW, shock horror. I shot in Jpeg for the first time in agesssss
    yesterday and landscapes too. I noticed no difference whatsoever since I do
    not use a shot if it needs more that 2 minutes of post processing. The
    camera is the powerful tool not PS.
     
    The One, Oct 16, 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.