Testing audiophile claims and myths

[bigshot]

To be fair it was for animals and birds when I saw someone with three.

one for mammals, one for birds and one for reptiles!

 

[Davesrose]

one for mammals, one for birds and one for reptiles!

 

[Ryokan]

one for mammals, one for birds and one for reptiles!

I just use my phone now (Samsung S7) but lately I've thought about getting another DSLR.

 

[Davesrose]

I just use my phone now (Samsung S7) but lately I've thought about getting another DSLR.

If you're going to be buying lenses and the whole system....you should probably look at mirrorless. Camera brands are phasing out their DSLRs (Canon has been coming out with a slew of mirrorless cameras and have announced they're not coming out with any new DSLRs).

 

[bigshot]

In a nutshell, there's two kinds of photographers... those that capture pictures and those that make them.

Sports and wedding photographers capture pictures. They go to an event and "grab shots". They'll have two cameras so they can get pictures of everything, regardless of how near or far. To them, the equipment is important because they're grabbing stuff quick in automatic mode. If the lighting isn't good, they use a flash. Clarity is what counts to document the event. It's a performance thing. When they're done, they sort through the hundreds of shots and see what works. If there are problems, they fix them in post. Raw helps with that.

Photographers who make images aren't shooting an event, they're creating a picture. They'll compose in their mind's eye, think about lighting, balance, color, angles... everything about the picture figured out before they touch a camera. Ansel Adams kept notes on the direction and placement of the sun in particular locations on specific dates and times so he knew the exact moment to go to a particular spot to make a photograph. Some photographers are artists, using their technique to create a mood and atmosphere. They don't shoot a thousand pictures and choose the "good ones". They'll plan and construct one or two images to match what they conceive of in their head. They don't grab or document, they *make* pictures. And once the camera shoots the image, it's not about fixing problems. If post is used, it's to create an artistic effect. Jpegs work fine for that.

The photographers I admire tend to be from the latter category. I was going to be a photographer at one point, but I realized that because of the economics of photography, most of my time would be spent capturing pictures, not making them. That didn't appeal to me. So I changed my line to working with and supporting creative artists that make things. There are more of those in my current field than in photography.

 

[bigshot]

I don't think it's a good idea to put a lot of money into camera equipment right now. The line between still camera and video is blurring. A lot of DSLRs and the lenses designed for still shooting are becoming obsolete, replaced by ones with video features. I think that the categories of SLR and mirrorless and the kinds of interchangeable lenses are all going to be changing. There may even be an entirely new form factor that completely replaces what we picture in our head when we think of a camera, just like the cell phone completely replaced what we thought of as a phone up to that point.

For a while camera manufacturers played the numbers game, just upping megapixels incrementally to get us to upgrade. But now it's at a point where a phone can shoot something that looks better than 35mm film. And image processing keeps getting better and better. It's best to not invest in a bunch of lenses and bodies and just find a really good pocketable mirrorless point and shoot. You'll get more use out of it in the time before it becomes obsolete and you need to buy a whole different kind of camera.

 

[Davesrose]

In a nutshell, there's two kinds of photographers... those that capture pictures and those that make them.

No there's not. There's different kinds of photographers based on subject/market and what techniques they use (and many people would say a good photographer "makes" the picture for any market).

Sports and wedding photographers capture pictures. They go to an event and "grab shots". They'll have two cameras so they can get pictures of everything, regardless of how near or far. To them, the equipment is important because they're grabbing stuff quick in automatic mode. If the lighting isn't good, they use a flash. Clarity is what counts to document the event. It's a performance thing. When they're done, they sort through the hundreds of shots and see what works. If there are problems, they fix them in post. Raw helps with that.

I know sports photographers and have helped with event photography. It's like other photography deciplines. And they are both disciplines that can't rely on flash during the event. There are different reasons why a sports photographer might shoot in JPEG or RAW. The main time a sports photographer shoots JPEG is that they have a fast turn around where they're immediately uploading photos after the event. They are skilled in photography and know what color profile and exposure settings they need for a good JPEG in camera. I also know sports photographers who only shoot in RAW and edit in LightRoom because they do find it necessary to have better exposure latitude than what JPEG is capable of.

Photographers who make images aren't shooting an event, they're creating a picture. They'll compose in their mind's eye, think about lighting, balance, color, angles... everything about the picture figured out before they touch a camera. Ansel Adams kept notes on the direction and placement of the sun in particular locations on specific dates and times so he knew the exact moment to go to a particular spot to make a photograph. Some photographers are artists, using their technique to create a mood and atmosphere. They don't shoot a thousand pictures and choose the "good ones". They'll plan and construct one or two images to match what they conceive of in their head. They don't grab or document, they *make* pictures. And once the camera shoots the image, it's not about fixing problems. If post is used, it's to create an artistic effect. Jpegs work fine for that.

It's like you haven't read any of my posts or know about Ansel Adams. Ansel Adams couldn't have made his images in JPEG because he wasn't letting the camera decide the contrast range of the print. He figured out what settings he would need with the camera, and he spent many hours in the darkroom to be able to edit different areas of a print. He utilized the extra dynamic range of the negative to be able to bring out details that might just show up as solid black in a single enlarger exposure, or blown out in areas in strong highlight. RAW isn't about "fixing problems"...it's about you having the full exposure range of the sensor for you to be able to edit the full contrast range (you have more creative latitude, instead of a JPEG in camera: which the camera is processing).

The photographers I admire tend to be from the latter category. I was going to be a photographer at one point, but I realized that because of the economics of photography, most of my time would be spent capturing pictures, not making them. That didn't appeal to me. So I changed my line to working with and supporting creative artists that make things. There are more of those in my current field than in photography.

Yet you have stated you admire Steiglitz...who spent time in the darkroom.

 

[old tech]

Is cell phone a USA thing? It took me a while to work out that it refers to a mobile phone.

 

[bigshot]

bleh. like talking to a wall. you don't understand a single thing I'm saying, so I give up. It's off topic anyway. Not that this thread sticks to the topic, but...

 

[Davesrose]

I don't think it's a good idea to put a lot of money into camera equipment right now. The line between still camera and video is blurring. A lot of DSLRs and the lenses designed for still shooting are becoming obsolete, replaced by ones with video features. I think that the categories of SLR and mirrorless and the kinds of interchangeable lenses are all going to be changing. There may even be an entirely new form factor that completely replaces what we picture in our head when we think of a camera, just like the cell phone completely replaced what we thought of as a phone up to that point.

For a while camera manufacturers played the numbers game, just upping megapixels incrementally to get us to upgrade. But now it's at a point where a phone can shoot something that looks better than 35mm film. And image processing keeps getting better and better. It's best to not invest in a bunch of lenses and bodies and just find a really good pocketable mirrorless point and shoot. You'll get more use out of it in the time before it becomes obsolete and you need to buy a whole different kind of camera.

I don't think you're aware of the current camera market. DSLRs have been capable of video for awhile (the 5D2 being used as B roll camera for movies and TV). Also mirrorless. The main changes with lenses are creating new lines that are optimal for mirrorless. Canon has a RF line used for R mirrorless cameras. They do have an adapter for EF. There could be some features for video with RF, but it's more about getting better optimal quality and smaller form factor that what you need from a SLR flange distance. Mirrorless is like DSLR in which they will be keeping the lens format for the duration of the body format.

I've listed what areas a dedicated camera (with larger sensor) can be better than an iPhone (depending on your skill and needs). Also with larger sensor, the ability to shoot faster shutter in low light. And having a larger form factor, being able to hand hold without motion blur showing in your image.

 

[Davesrose]

bleh. like talking to a wall. you don't understand a single thing I'm saying, so I give up. It's off topic anyway. Not that this thread sticks to the topic, but...

Yeah, it is like talking to a wall. You keep being steadfast that everyone, even professionals only need JPEG. And that since iPhone is good for you, it must be so for everyone else.

 

[Davesrose]

Is cell phone a USA thing? It took me a while to work out that it refers to a mobile phone.

I think it used to be more of a thing. More Americans said it as it was short. Now most people say smartphone (and then flip phone for anyone who is kicking it old school and refusing to get a smartphone).

 

[bigshot]

tag! you're it!

 

[Dogmatrix]

Is cell phone a USA thing? It took me a while to work out that it refers to a mobile phone.

Yep short for cellular refers to the cells around each mobile tower making up the network I think
Haven't heard anyone call it a mobile phone recently just a phone since the non mobile type aren't really a thing any more

 

[castleofargh]

All my formal photography learning was pre digital and while digital is great I miss the sense of preciousness I had where every press of the shutter button was a carefully considered investment
Now it kind of feels like a machine gun back then it was a buffalo rifle

Ironically, I slowed down after switching to digital because of buffer limits. It drove me crazy. ^_^
My first motorized cameras were EOS5 and later EOS1N(5 and 10FPS max respectively). Moving to digital felt so slow and the noise was so horrible (made worse early on by my diehard habit of underexposing shots), that the first digital cameras actually made me slow everything down and do more contemplative shots, spending time looking at the result, adjusting what needed to be, deciding to go pick up my eos1n from the bag because the digital sensor was garbage...
Before and after, you'd have met a trigger-happy castleofargh, like the fashion guys showed me to do. With at least, systematic double tap and a shoot first ask later mentality that would make any US cop paparazzi proud.
The good old days with the fridge half full of films.



@bigshot, for most photographers, post-processing is part of the job and a big portion of it that makes a real difference (even if all you want is picture that looks like what you shot!!!!). You won't convince photographers that RAW and post-processing are unnecessary. Maybe the very old ones, or some low level amateurs who keep saying that post-processing is cheating. But most photographers know better now.
To me, shooting in something other than RAW (which I sometimes do), means I don't care about the pics. Now do I have 5+ years of RAW pictures still unprocessed on my hard drives? Sure I do. But once I'm done, and I'll have thrown 99.99% of them away, it will be because I suck as a photographer and not because I used jpg. That's professionalism!

Obviously, if you're like my mother and all you know about post-processing is the Instagram type filter set to 11 on 90% of her shots

Then there is no point in using RAW. But that's a different matter.






I'm glad my little off topic of yesterday didn't entirely derail the thread again