Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rand47 on March 27, 2015, 10:23:16 am
-
I read with interest a fellow's post "over there" (usually filled with not-so-helpful-stuff) that rang true in some ways for me. It is too easy to get all wrapped around the axle over the gear side of photography - to the point where the "stuff" that should provide a broader capability becomes stuff that limits creativity. This isn't exactly the central point of the post, but it was one of the take-aways for me. In addition, I think this guy's experience is typical of what I sense at the root of a lot of what I see on photography web sites these days - people who have become addicted to technology rather than photography. Since the craft requires technology "to do" this is a very easy slippery slope. I read the "For Sale" section of this web site with amazement at the massive expenditures reflected, and now sold at a significant loss, by folk who are for the most part hobbyists. (I include myself in this, by the way.) That says something, I think. There is a sort of squirrel cage of gear acquisition and subsequent sale fueled by the frequent release of newer and ostensibly better gear combined with a manic pursuit of "something" that isn't always about expression of our vision. LOL Anyway, just reflecting and thought some of you might find this fellow's post at least entertaining.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3817077
Rand
-
It's quite easy to get stuck with the technical side of photography because it's easy to see "where to know" (that is, what you need to learn and what is for).
Much more difficult is engage non-technical sides (vision/composition/style/message and so on) because it's much harder to even define those sides and it's not so clear what to do to "get there".
-
I've been photographing for some 60 years, and I think it was about 40 years ago I first noticed that every single time that I had "upgraded" my camera to a more modern and "sophisticated" one, the quality of my seeing took a significant hit, until I relearned what was important to me.
I still frequently feel the lust for the newest and greatest, but the camera that behaves like a well-worn old shoe gives me the best results.
-
… thought some of you might find this fellow's post at least entertaining.
The post is well done -- comic self-deprecation, with a feeling that many will recognize to some degree.
I agree with Diego (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99065.msg810014#msg810014), that it's simply easier to see technical limitations (although the dpreview post shows how well we can delude ourselves on-that-front).
It's much more difficult to examine and understand our own limitations, so that we may change through photography.
-
I read the "For Sale" section of this web site with amazement at the massive expenditures reflected, and now sold at a significant loss, by folk who are for the most part hobbyists. (I include myself in this, by the way.) That says something, I think. There is a sort of squirrel cage of gear acquisition and subsequent sale fueled by the frequent release of newer and ostensibly better gear combined with a manic pursuit of "something" that isn't always about expression of our vision.
Rand
Hobbyists photographers spending too much on gear and less on creating dynamic and interesting content?!
You haven't even scratched the surface. Posted this on another Lula thread but I feel it's appropriate to post it here...
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-display-calibration/1904321-colorimetry-research-cr-100-cr-250-experience-thread.html
Keep in mind these guys spend over $100K on equipment that doesn't create any content. All that gear and expenditure just for consuming content including our dinky little photos made with our $3000 camera rigs.
I don't think we have a problem here as photographers. At least we're making something.
-
Good post by Lookingbill.
I must confess I overspend on gear, but in a sideways way it really motivates me to improve.
Suppose the image is crud.
I'm a logical guy.
It's very likely not the 36MP camera.
It's almost certainly not the fast prime lens.
It's not Lightroom's fault.
The only logical conclusion is that Somebody has to improve his craft :)
Good gear leaves me zero excuses when I underperform.
-
Good post by Lookingbill.
I must confess I overspend on gear, but in a sideways way it really motivates me to improve.
Suppose the image is crud.
I'm a logical guy.
It's very likely not the 36MP camera.
It's almost certainly not the fast prime lens.
It's not Lightroom's fault.
The only logical conclusion is that Somebody has to improve his craft :)
Good gear leaves me zero excuses when I underperform.
That ties in very neatly with my own rationale:
"If I own good equipment, the only thing I can blame for a poor photograph is my lack of skill."
-
To address the OP's linked dpreview confessional I was compelled to research this Sigma SD14 camera the ranter's having a hard time letting go by examining Imaging Resource.com full rez jpegs and have come to the conclusion he made the right decision switching to the Canon 5D even though it must've been very painful letting go of his "baby", the Sigma.
I couldn't examine Sigma Raw files because it requires downloading their software. But I can say with confidence from this confessional and similar discussions describing a camera's "tonality" I've now come to the conclusion most folks by and large have poor judgement in determining true color rendering and/or image quality.
The sample jpegs on Imaging Resource compelled me to download and edit them but to no avail due to the fact I can't increase saturation and bring out all that tonality on ashen looking color especially on IR's "Pine" image. I didn't see anything special about the color and in fact it made me appreciate even more my cheap Pentax K100D's Sony sensor which produces far sharper and more realistic color by comparison.
But I do understand the attachment to a piece of hardware by constantly defending it on account of others bashing it's poor quality. Sometimes you just have to let go.
-
I couldn't examine Sigma Raw files...
I'm not sure that looking at jpegs file is of any use is examining faveon's virtues and flaws.
-
But I do understand the attachment to a piece of hardware by constantly defending it on account of others bashing its poor quality. Sometimes you just have to let go.
It's a fundamental tribalist error, made whether the particular piece of gear has serious issues or not. I belong to this group, therefore I must defend this thing. I'd suggest it accounts not only for most bad behavior in 'Net photo forums but, defining "thing" in a broader sense, for the majority of human antagonistic & irrational behavior.
-Dave-
-
I wrote a review at DP for Leica M240. They refused to post it and banned me after I put some of my pix on my gallery.
-
I'm not sure that looking at jpegs file is of any use is examining faveon's virtues and flaws.
In the end, images have to be viewed and judged via conversions to display/print formats like JPEG or TIFF, so it make sense to me that "bottom line" comparisons involves the whole image production chain including conversions to those formats. And perhaps the fairest comparison is done by using conversion tools provided by each camera's maker, giving them the best chance to present their cameras' capabilities in the best light. I am skeptical of insisting on comparisons done with the same conversion software, because that software might be better tuned for some cameras (in particular ones from the biggest brands) at the expense of others (in particular with Sigma's Foveon X3 and Fujifilm's X-trans, with their unusual raw conversion needs.)
-
In the end, images have to be viewed and judged via conversions to display/print formats like JPEG or TIFF, so it make sense to me that "bottom line" comparisons involves the whole image production chain including conversions to those formats. And perhaps the fairest comparison is done by using conversion tools provided by each camera's maker, giving them the best chance to present their cameras' capabilities in the best light. I am skeptical of insisting on comparisons done with the same conversion software, because that software might be better tuned for some cameras (in particular ones from the biggest brands) at the expense of others (in particular with Sigma's Foveon X3 and Fujifilm's X-trans, with their unusual raw conversion needs.)
The only problem is that the "image production chain" that produced the images you viewed may not be neither optimal nor showing the strength and weakness of the faveon design.
For example, comparing the jpeg from a canon sensor with that from a Sony sensor you may not notice the striking difference in shadow noise.
-
The only problem is that the "image production chain" that produced the images you viewed may not be neither optimal nor showing the strength and weakness of the faveon design.
For example, comparing the jpeg from a canon sensor with that from a Sony sensor you may not notice the striking difference in shadow noise.
I know that it adds that extra degree of variability, but that variability is there in the final print or on-screen image, so it cannot be ignored; that us why the only fair way I see around this is to give the camera maker the opportunity to make its strongest case, by using the raw conversion software and procedures that it provides, or a third party product that it recommends. Tests should of course include difficult scenes like ones of high subject brightness range (so-called high DR), so such comparisons should include whatever resources and guidance the maker provides for handling such scenes, so to assess the shadow noise that you mention.
If the camera maker fails there, it is not much use buying a camera with an allegedly wonderful sensor and raw files that even its maker cannot turn into a good final, viewable product.
To me, what I propose is akin to judging a film primarily by developing and printing according to the maker's instructions, not by imposing some standard development and printing procedure, or somehow examining the _undeveloped_ film. (Raw files are more like undeveloped film than developed negatives or transparencies.)
On the other hand, I can see why some tech. fans who are interested in exploring, comparing, and debating technologies, rather than assessing the actual photographic capabilities provided to them by various tools, might want to spend their time analyzing raw files.
-
I know that it adds that extra degree of variability, but that variability is there in the final print or on-screen image, so it cannot be ignored;
The variability of the process is in the final print/image only if you use that process.
If you use another process that variability is not there.
Is exactly the same thing of the white balance: you cannot judge the color rendition of a sensor from a in-camera jpeg because the camera may have apply the wrong white balance.
For such judgement you need the raw file.
-
I've been photographing for some 60 years, and I think it was about 40 years ago I first noticed that every single time that I had "upgraded" my camera to a more modern and "sophisticated" one, the quality of my seeing took a significant hit, until I relearned what was important to me.
I still frequently feel the lust for the newest and greatest, but the camera that behaves like a well-worn old shoe gives me the best results.
Very true.
There is always an important learning curve, which means time, when acquiring something new.
It is not impossible to overcome, but you'd better be sure you are willing/able to spend the required time before buying new stuff. It does apply to some extend to lenses also by the way.
It is also true that photographers often buy stuff because of want rather than need, sometimes in quest of that magic silver bullet. I would lie if I claimed that that never happened to me... ;)
Then in the end what matters is to be clear about the expected benefit relative to one's work and to ensure that it is indeed achieved after the piece of equipment is deployed in production. I have found that this feedback mechanism helps controlling future buying impulse... no perfect though but it has, for example, so far prevented me from investing again in medium format digital, which is a victory in itself from an expenditure soundness standpoint (if not from a photographic outcome as well)! ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm not sure that looking at jpegs file is of any use is examining faveon's virtues and flaws.
I'ld agree with you overall, but I've inspected quite a number of downloaded jpegs & Raws from a wide range of camera models from P&S's to $3K systems and most of them render color quite similarly with expected image quality. Each has their slight nuance to WB interpretation and how they record memory colors such as blue skies, forest greens, a red bell pepper & skin tones but nothing that would distort color constancy as noticeable as I've seen in the Sigma images. I would expect to see scouring the internet at least one unedited jpeg off this camera that looked right as I do with most cameras.
However, I do remember years ago being quite impressed with the first or one of the early Sigma models examining a jpeg of a close-up of a woman's freckled face that showed a lot color detail and depth. What I saw off the SD14 was a totally different camera or maybe a color rendering engine.
One thing I'm sure of I wouldn't take that camera if it was for free.
-
I'ld agree with you overall, but I've inspected quite a number of downloaded jpegs & Raws from a wide range of camera models from P&S's to $3K systems and most of them render color quite similarly with expected image quality. Each has their slight nuance to WB interpretation and how they record memory colors such as blue skies, forest greens, a red bell pepper & skin tones but nothing that would distort color constancy as noticeable as I've seen in the Sigma images. I would expect to see scouring the internet at least one unedited jpeg off this camera that looked right as I do with most cameras.
However, I do remember years ago being quite impressed with the first or one of the early Sigma models examining a jpeg of a close-up of a woman's freckled face that showed a lot color detail and depth. What I saw off the SD14 was a totally different camera or maybe a color rendering engine.
One thing I'm sure of I wouldn't take that camera if it was for free.
Once again, you should check RAW files from faveon's sensor to have a more complete judgment.
But if you say you wouldn't take the camera even if it was for free I wonder how unbiased is your evaluation.
-
Once again, you should check RAW files from faveon's sensor to have a more complete judgment.
But if you say you wouldn't take the camera even if it was for free I wonder how unbiased is your evaluation.
My problem is I can't find any good SD14 samples. Why don't you find me a finished SD14 Raw image converted to jpeg and posted online that you think has top shelf color rendering. I'll see if I can scrounge one up over at Pixelpeepers. They usually supply a decent Raw format selection. One other site I found with Raw downloads gave a caveat that did not recommend Lightroom (no reasons why, WTF!), but only Sigma's supplied Raw converter.
I shouldn't have to download Sigma proprietary software whose color engine renders the very same jpegs I'm not so fond of. I have no beef against any brand of camera. I chose my Pentax K100D back in 2006 because it was the cheapest DSLR with on body image stabilization. It has its color quirks as well but not as bad as what I'm seeing from the SD14 online and that's rare for me to describe of any camera when most of them deliver decent color.
So all things being the same...blah, blah, blah!...with all the freakin' competition out there I shouldn't have to have this much trouble examining a camera. Am I making myself clear enough for ya'!? Are you gettin' my point now!? GEEZ!
I can assure you I'm the least biased and most honest person on the internet. I have no skin in the game what-so-ever. Over 10 years discussing these sorts of issues I'll own that one.
-
My problem is I can't find any good SD14 samples. ...
That doesn't change the fact that in order to evaluate a sensor you should have the RAW files.
If you can't experiment with them, how can you see how good the sensor is?
The shadow noise of Canon sensor about which I talked earlier is a perfect example: look at the jpegs e you wouldn't notice it.
I can assure you I'm the least biased and most honest person on the internet. I have no skin in the game what-so-ever. Over 10 years discussing these sorts of issues I'll own that one.
Well, if you said you wouldn't take the camera even if it was for free, let me doubt about the "least biased" thing.
On the honestly I have no intention at all to doubt it.
-
OK, I had to enter in a Google search exactly "Sigma SD14 Raw downloads" and scroll down a couple of pages to get this obscurely named review...
http://www.polas.net/sigma/sd14/d200/sd14_vs_d200.php
I downloaded the SD14 .X3F Raw and opened in ACR 6.7 and my suspicions have been confirmed. The color sucks especially for a sensor design that supposedly offers an edge over others. Also confirmed by SD14 user's online statements inaccurately describing its poor AF which on closer inspection of the Raw has more to do with what appears to be demosaicing errors where objects have a vector like hard surrounding edge with soft internal detail (that's weird). Another issue is there's no camera profile selection in Camera Calibration panel, just lists "Embedded".
Reading that week old dpreview confessional I didn't even know that model came out the same time as my Pentax K100D in 2006 which I paid around $550 back then. I thought the SD14 was a recent model.
This explains further why the ranter had hard time letting it go, way too much history defending it for so long?
-
OK, I had to enter in a Google search exactly "Sigma SD14 Raw downloads" and scroll down a couple of pages to get this obscurely named review...
That's the way to go.
This explains further why the ranter had hard time letting it go, way too much history defending it for so long?
That's probably the case.
-
I'm placing my correction on the sharpness appearance on a new posting...
Correction...That particular site's review had the image over exposed which gave the impression of softness. I had to reduce exposure -1.50 in ACR and the sharpness looks really good.
But still it's color is not what I'ld call a stellar performance.
I didn't know kiwi fruit could be orange brown instead of the green I'm accustomed to seeing in the super market.
-
I didn't know kiwi fruit could be orange brown instead of the green I'm accustomed to seeing in the super market.
Now you know! ;D ;D
-
Just tried out the SPP for Mac OS and what a surprise. I have to say it's probably the best OEM Raw converter I've encountered regarding redraw preview/zoom speed, navigation and simplicity. I don't even use my Pentax's SilkyPix converter because it's too much a PITA and slow.
The Color Adjustment panel acts like a more intuitive white balance adjust being able to drag a tint selection around to get the right green/magenta balance for proper sunlight appearance which might explain the god awful color of jpeg renderings I've been seeing online. It's really tough getting the right tint of warmth on sunlit aged/faded wood and not screw up color constancy.
So I'm inclined to agree that the converter and user experience may be the defining factor on the final results.
I can sense from the behavior of the previews twiddling around with the sliders the folks who designed SPPv5 know their shit! They just didn't provided enough tools to refine the results or at least they don't make it easy hunting around for it in the GUI.
It was interesting to look back at old software I'ld never even considered before I bought my Pentax.
-
You should try DarkTable (expecially the equalizer tool, it's quite cool)
-
I've been photographing for some 60 years, and I think it was about 40 years ago I first noticed that every single time that I had "upgraded" my camera to a more modern and "sophisticated" one, the quality of my seeing took a significant hit, until I relearned what was important to me.
I still frequently feel the lust for the newest and greatest, but the camera that behaves like a well-worn old shoe gives me the best results.
I may sometimes forget my great-grandchildrens' names, but I still clearly remember my very first camera upgrades: first from a double-stroke Leica M3 to single-stroke, a good upgrade, then to a post-1000000 serial-number M3, another good upgrade because some essential springs had been strengthened, and then to an M4, to me the best of the Leica Ms. Sure, I tried the M6 and the M7, but Leica was then into fiddling with the finders and adding TTL, etc, and somehow, the cameras were lesser choices, and as this poster suggests, the changes intruded upon my shooting. Of course, when digital came along, it was as though I had never held a camera before. Everything had to be relearned, but nothing since has given me the authority of my shooting as did those early Leicas. Would I go back to them and film? No, digital effectively burned those bridges for me, but in those melancholic moments of nostalgia, in a dark and smokey bar over a long-necked beer, I wonder....
-
Sure, I tried the M6 and the M7, but Leica was then into fiddling with the finders and adding TTL, etc, and somehow, the cameras were lesser choices, and as this poster suggests, the changes intruded upon my shooting. Of course, when digital came along, it was as though I had never held a camera before. Everything had to be relearned, but nothing since has given me the authority of my shooting as did those early Leicas.
Experienced something similar where my 2006 Pentax K100D started malfunctioning and looked into upgrading to a newer camera over just buying a used K100D.
I was remembering a frustrating experience I had trying to help a muralist photograph her works where she was asking me tips on how to adjust WB with her Sony P&S. Rummaging around in the Sony's unintuitive menu system trying to find the custom WB selection felt like I never held a camera before.
She assumed I was knowledgeable from watching me shoot nearby with a long range lens attached to my DSLR. I was so unfamiliar with another camera's menu system since I'ld become accustomed to my DSLR which at the time it was new seemed unintuitive as well requiring a long sit down read of its user's guide that I was forced to hand back the Sony and told her I couldn't help her.
So I bought a used Pentax K100D which ended up only having around 5000 shutter actuations.
I just wish I could find a really good side by side comparison of improved image quality between two camera systems, one from 2006 vs an equivalently priced 2015 model just to see if there have been big improvements.
-
I just wish I could find a really good side by side comparison of improved image quality between two camera systems, one from 2006 vs an equivalently priced 2015 model just to see if there have been big improvements.
Does not dpreview satisfies this requirement?
-
Hi,
I was shooting on Iceland in 2006 and I want to go back in 2016. Part is that is that my 2006 images don't event hold a candle to the images I make today. In 2006 I was shooting my first 6MP DSLR. Now I have a better sensor having a better resolution, better lenses and a photographer behind the camera with a lot more experience.
Normally I print at A2, around 16x23". At that size it is clearly beneficial having 12-24MP. When I print larger 39 MP may also be welcome.
That said, good 6MP images from 2006 are better than boring 24MP images from today…
Best regards
Erik
Does not dpreview satisfies this requirement?
-
I just wish I could find a really good side by side comparison of improved image quality between two camera systems, one from 2006 vs an equivalently priced 2015 model just to see if there have been big improvements.
Looking through my own RAW archives (I periodically wipe processed TIFs & JPEGs) I find the early-to-mid 2000s stuff holds up well. Regardless of gear the good photos are still good and the dogs are still dogs. ;) Dynamic range is certainly better with newer models, but I honestly don't find it to be a big deal. Like many folks I used transparency film for most of my pre-electronic color pic taking, and even the early D-SLRs were a step up DR-wise from Kodachrome, Provia, etc. You can do a lot with 5–6 stops when you know how to use 'em. For electronic display, which is mostly how I view photos these days, even 6mp is currently enough. And I expect 6mp will look fine via up-resing on higher density displays too. What I prefer about current cameras has more to do with focusing capabilities, both auto and manual (!), than image quality.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
I mostly consider printed stuff and I absolutely find the resolution advantage significant.
But, the very major development is that i have spent a couple of thousands hours in taking pictures, learning from mistakes and getting inspiration from places like LuLa.
Best regards
Erik
Looking through my own RAW archives (I periodically wipe processed TIFs & JPEGs) I find the early-to-mid 2000s stuff holds up well. Regardless of gear the good photos are still good and the dogs are still dogs. ;) Dynamic range is certainly better with newer models, but I honestly don't find it to be a big deal. Like many folks I used transparency film for most of my pre-electronic color pic taking, and even the early D-SLRs were a step up DR-wise from Kodachrome, Provia, etc. You can do a lot with 5–6 stops when you know how to use 'em. For electronic display, which is mostly how I view photos these days, even 6mp is currently enough. And I expect 6mp will look fine via up-resing on higher density displays too. What I prefer about current cameras has more to do with focusing capabilities, both auto and manual (!), than image quality.
-Dave-
-
"Interesting post on "that other board..."
Define "interesting".
-
"Interesting post on "that other board..."
Define "interesting".
in·ter·est·ing\ˈin-t(ə-)rəs-tiŋ; ˈin-tə-ˌres-, ˈin-ˌtres-; ˈin-tərs-\
adjective
: attracting your attention and making you want to learn more about something or to be involved in something : not dull or boring
Full Definition
: holding the attention : arousing interest
;D