Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Alfred Molon, Nov 24, 2012.

  1. No, it caused to learn when to use the preview mode, and when to use
    other modes.
    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.
    I'm sorry to hear that. Obviously these improved learning speeds may
    not happen when learning is impaired.
    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, Dec 16, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Why should anyone use any other than the preview mode?
    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.

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

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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. So why do you think snow is a different colour than a white
    walled building?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  4.  
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  5. Causing gray snow by day and gray "black skies" by night.
    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
  6. 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.
    Nope. The conversion is not yet done and you *might* have
    great control --- but in most cases the camera immediately
    converts it to JPEG.
    The amount of noise, if you have "plenty of light", is
    already very low.
    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 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.
    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
  7. Because 'normal' males are bothered when they aren't the top
    dog in everything.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 17, 2012
  8. Alfred Molon

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, Dec 18, 2012
  9. Alfred Molon

    Savageduck Guest

    On my first cognitive visit to London for my Great-Grandmother's 100th
    birthday in February 1955, I was quite astonished by the black and grey
    snow in Hyde Park.

    After that I always thought there was a difference between English snow
    and all other snow. However I learned that that was still in the days
    of war recovery & reconstruction, coal burning fireplaces, and the
    dreaded London fog.
     
    Savageduck, Dec 18, 2012
  10. But there can only be one top dog in any pack. So the rest must be
    suffering from chronic botherment. Must be really shit being a
    'normal' male.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 18, 2012
  11. 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, Dec 18, 2012
  12. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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, Dec 18, 2012
  13. 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
    People are doing video with their cameras?
    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.
    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).
    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.

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

    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 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.
    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.
    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 ...
    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.
    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.
    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
  14. Oh, I wouldn't call 1 stop slight.
    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.
    Which --- see above --- *requires* underexposure.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 19, 2012
  15. Guess why there are so many competitions and functions: so
    that more people can be "top dog" in at least one category.
    Even if it's "northeastern suburbs coloured height-handicapped
    chess club president" or "best goalkeeper in the shoemaker
    guild of the City of London" (the City --- sized just over a
    square mile, containing the area of most medieval London ---
    contains about 7000 people).
    Which explains a lot.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 19, 2012
  16. [/QUOTE]
    Using an instrument with an amazingly variable automatic
    white balance (amongst other really wild stiff) --- which is
    also fed and strongly influenced by "how it should look" ---
    is a very good method to measure.

    You can't even tell what thing is brighter when they're only
    a couple centimeters away from each other --- see optical
    illusions.

    Next up (and with much more justification): Santa Claus really
    exists and brings everyone gifts, I've seen him in dozens of
    copies in the mall.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 19, 2012
  17. Do you have any proof for that? Last I heard the wins were
    negible to marginal, but I could have heard wrong ...

    Nope. Not histogram. Histogram implies not caring about
    the spatial positioning of the values.

    Really? Any proof? At least for now, you can only switch
    face recognition on/off for AF --- which need not have any
    influence on AE.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 19, 2012
  18. Alfred Molon

    Eric Stevens Guest

    So we now have it on record that you think you don't know what you are
    looking at.
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 19, 2012
  19. Alfred Molon

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Not when I only decide to use Nikon's so-called 'D-Lighting' in
    post-processing in the computer.
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 19, 2012
  20. [/QUOTE]
    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
    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.