Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: CharlesRamsey on March 17, 2014, 11:01:40 am
-
I'm not going to let the statement real photographers by Michael Reichmann pass without some comment. I've been on the edge of the industry since the 80's when I did quality control for Colorcraft or since I was born when you consider my Uncle Noel started in WW2 and owned the Hardin County Independent. But I'm not going to accuse all of you for being snobs because you own cameras that he couldn't afford. That's not what this is about. What this is about is what real photographers focus on that is opposed to scientific photographers. Even back then I knew there were two common red rhodopsin variants. Now I think there are hundreds, tetrachromats aside. What is correct color is a mater of taste and the scientific instruments do not adequately mimic the most common eye. Try putting a fluorescent color under your densitometer and see what happens. When the Lytro first came out I wondered if it was able to bring everything in focus. I now know this can be done in software and I'm amazed they didn't think of this. Real photographers worry about bokeh which means a factor of 10 increase in the cost of lenses for an increase of 1 f stop at the high end. Scientific photographers want everything in focus. 24 frame per second video drives me nuts and I can see the doubled frames when these are adapted for television. 16 9 aspect ratio or worse? How about a square sensor like the machine vision cameras use if you must have more pixels. The only thing I agree with with real photographers is camera makers are putting too many pixels at a cost of low light ability. Scientist were able to extract license plate numbers in blurred photographs in the 60's why isn't this software available in all cameras today? It seams lithium batteries were not expensive enough now we have computerized batteries that charge each cell and shut down in high humidity and cost $60 to replace. I'm not a real photographer and never will be.
-
I'm not going to let the statement real photographers by Michael Reichmann pass without some comment. I've been on the edge of the industry since the 80's when I did quality control for Colorcraft or since I was born when you consider my Uncle Noel started in WW2 and owned the Hardin County Independent. But I'm not going to accuse all of you for being snobs because you own cameras that he couldn't afford. That's not what this is about. What this is about is what real photographers focus on that is opposed to scientific photographers. Even back then I knew there were two common red rhodopsin variants. Now I think there are hundreds, tetrachromats aside. What is correct color is a mater of taste and the scientific instruments do not adequately mimic the most common eye. Try putting a fluorescent color under your densitometer and see what happens. When the Lytro first came out I wondered if it was able to bring everything in focus. I now know this can be done in software and I'm amazed they didn't think of this. Real photographers worry about bokeh which means a factor of 10 increase in the cost of lenses for an increase of 1 f stop at the high end. Scientific photographers want everything in focus. 24 frame per second video drives me nuts and I can see the doubled frames when these are adapted for television. 16 9 aspect ratio or worse? How about a square sensor like the machine vision cameras use if you must have more pixels. The only thing I agree with with real photographers is camera makers are putting too many pixels at a cost of low light ability. Scientist were able to extract license plate numbers in blurred photographs in the 60's why isn't this software available in all cameras today? It seams lithium batteries were not expensive enough now we have computerized batteries that charge each cell and shut down in high humidity and cost $60 to replace. I'm not a real photographer and never will be.
I wouldn't worry about it. At the end of the day a photographer is somebody in the act of taking a photograph, let others fret over the nuances and just get on with what you enjoy or puts the bread on the table. :)
-
Charles, can I suggest that you inform us where this reference to 'real photographers' is. Because your post seems like a long ramble about a number of seemingly unrelated points otherwise. I'm a bit lost.
Jim
-
Charles, can I suggest that you inform us where this reference to 'real photographers' is. Because your post seems like a long ramble about a number of seemingly unrelated points otherwise. I'm a bit lost.
Jim
+1.
-
+1.
+2
-
+3
-
+4
-
Maybe it's time to start a Society for Long-Unappreciated Real Photographers (S.L.U.R.P.) :D
-
Maybe it's time to start a Society for Long-Unappreciated Real Photographers (S.L.U.R.P.) :D
I'll drink to that!
-
Charles, can I suggest that you inform us where this reference to 'real photographers' is.
My guess, Mr Reichmann's most recent article - "What Matters? (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/what_matters.shtml)"
Page search "real photographers" finds -- "Work with real photographers to find out what they want, what they like, and what they don't like."
-
My guess, Mr Reichmann's most recent article - "What Matters? (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/what_matters.shtml)"
Page search "real photographers" finds -- "Work with real photographers to find out what they want, what they like, and what they don't like."
Which has zero to do with what the OP is yapping about :~)
Good catch...
-
My guess, Mr Reichmann's most recent article - "What Matters? (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/what_matters.shtml)"
Page search "real photographers" finds -- "Work with real photographers to find out what they want, what they like, and what they don't like."
Ah yes, thank you.... I did scan the article again before my first post but missed it right at the end. So now I can understand a couple of the points Charles raises, but it still seems a bit of a ramble. Then we may not get clarification either because I see Mr Ramsey has been registered for four years but only made seven posts in the Forum.
Jim
-
I'm still here. There is a market for cameras that take AA batteries yet all the real photographers who do reviews state they hate them. Does it bother any of you that lithium is a national stategic metal and we are prepared to go to war with any country that cuts us off.
-
I'm still here. There is a market for cameras that take AA batteries yet all the real photographers who do reviews state they hate them. Does it bother any of you that lithium is a national stategic metal and we are prepared to go to war with any country that cuts us off.
Nope...
-
Nope...
I guess that the question these days is more about what Russia would have to be cut off of to go to war with the rest of the world.
That will make this whole "debate" about real photographer a tiny bit secondary I am afraid.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Now we can understand why running a site like this with an open forum can drive someone crazy.
Michael
Ps. I'm not quite crazy yet, That's why Kevin is now here. ;)
Michael
-
Charles, can I suggest that you inform us where this reference to 'real photographers' is. Because your post seems like a long ramble about a number of seemingly unrelated points otherwise. I'm a bit lost.
Jim
+1
-
Now we can understand why running a site like this with an open forum can drive someone crazy.
Michael
Ps. I'm not quite crazy yet, That's why Kevin is now here. ;)
Michael
Welcome to the real world ...
Cheers
~Chris
-
I'm still here. There is a market for cameras that take AA batteries yet all the real photographers who do reviews state they hate them. Does it bother any of you that lithium is a national stategic metal and we are prepared to go to war with any country that cuts us off.
I'm not sure that it's natural resources we have to worry about as much as the whole economic system collapsing due to the fiat currencies becoming utterly valueless. The whole circus seems to be flying on a wing and prayer and even the Bank of England has waded in to the argument by telling economists they've got it all wrong - http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/18/economy/boes-sharp-shock-monetary-illusions
-
Now we can understand why running a site like this with an open forum can drive someone crazy.
Michael
Ps. I'm not quite crazy yet, That's why Kevin is now here. ;)
To finish the job off?? ;D
-
I had 3 cameras on hand a Sony HX100V a Kodak Z1285 and an Olympus tough TG2. I'm on a bicycle tour and had to buy the Kodak at a pawn shop after the barrery in the Sony died. After force charging the battery I decided to compare the three cameras. The test was done at 100 percent overcast at noon and I photographed a steel ruller. The sony has 16 megapixels and the Olympus has 12 megapixels the sensors are the same size and both are BSI. The resolution of both were the same and they both took identical time and f stop to make the photos. The kodak has 12 megapixels and a slightly larger sensor it was twice as fast as the olympus at the same f stop. By the way the kodaks are quite tough my old ones have fallen out of my shirt pocket several times and survived. My old Kodak Z1085 IS would have been even faster than the Z1285 and I'm willing to bet also has the same resolution. The Z1085 IS was advertized as taking AA batteries but it turned out lithium only not NiMh. I would have returned the camera had I payed full price for it. I tried to buy a set of nickle zinc rechargable batteries which would have worked in the camera at 1.9 volts but no store had them. Kodak wanted me to buy their lithium batteries and charger. I have money but on a tour I need to keep the weight and bulk down since my lights take AA batteries that's what I want. The sony not only has a proprietary usb plug bus so does the power cord. The Olympus also has a proprietary USB charger. Why? My poloroid tablet gets by with a standard micro USB charger. There is one bright spot the Sigma cameras can be charged with a universal laptop charger I think I will buy an SD15 which I believe will have a higher resolution than my current 3. By the way I have calculated the theoretical DXO mark scores of the SD15 it is 61 not great but about the same as the Fuji forensic cameras.