Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!  (Read 62466 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #120 on: January 19, 2016, 07:07:16 pm »

Hi Bernard,

Jim Kasson write like this:

I love the way that EFCS makes for sharp images with long lenses on the D810. I hate the controls. To take a picture, you have to press the release twice, once to raise the mirror, and once to trigger the shutter. In live view mode, you still have to press the release twice, once to do, near as I can tell, precisely nothing, and once to trip the shutter. As an example of how mirror up should work, we need look no further than Hasselblad. You press the mirror button once. The mirror goes up. You take as many pictures as you want. You press the mirror button again and the mirror goes down.

Best regards
Erik

Bill,

Are you referring to the fact that MLU is needed to use EFC on the D810?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13641
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #121 on: January 19, 2016, 07:16:41 pm »

I love the way that EFCS makes for sharp images with long lenses on the D810. I hate the controls. To take a picture, you have to press the release twice, once to raise the mirror, and once to trigger the shutter. In live view mode, you still have to press the release twice, once to do, near as I can tell, precisely nothing, and once to trip the shutter. As an example of how mirror up should work, we need look no further than Hasselblad. You press the mirror button once. The mirror goes up. You take as many pictures as you want. You press the mirror button again and the mirror goes down.

Yes, the description of the implementation is correct.

As far as I am concerned, I have found this to be a very minor annoyance after thousands of images shot in the field. I should be the one complaining since I do many panos and probably press the shutter many times more than most shooters, but again, this issue is hardly worth mentioning in my book.

I agree that the implementation of Hassy that I experienced in my H1 days is excellent.

But I don't quite get the usage of the word "hate" here referring to the D810.

I don't remember if the D5 has EFC (wouldn't be relevant for most users of that camera), but I'll check when I get mine if Nikon improved the implementation.

Cheers,
Bernard

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3374
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #122 on: January 19, 2016, 07:21:33 pm »

Bill,

Are you referring to the fact that MLU is needed to use EFC on the D810?

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes, Eric just quoted Jim Kasson on this matter. I haven't upgraded from my D800e to the D810 but likely will wait for the D900 or whatever. However, EFCS is the added feature that most interests me. It doesn't make much sense to use EFCS without having the mirror up, but if one is in live view, the mirror is already up and it makes no sense to require that the camera is in the mirror up mode.

Bill
Logged

Craig Lamson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2744
    • Craig Lamson Photo Homepage
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #123 on: January 19, 2016, 10:16:35 pm »



On this image cameras represented in no particular order are, Canon 1ds3, Leica M8, Kodak dcs 760, P30+/Contax, p21+/Contax, Leica S2, RED One, Leica S2, Canon 1dx, Canon 1d3, Nikon d3, Nikon 700, Canon 5d2.

All of them worked.  All reached the desired result, all have some form of lighting, whether 100% available light at the right time, flash, tungsten, HMI, LED's, some with large crews, some with very small crews.

ASA goes from 200, to 4000.

Some cameras I like better, some not so much, but once captured within the range I needed for post, and they all went to post work, some heavy, some medium, some light.

All of the images shot were with the thought of the concept, with the long game attention of what type of "film look", we would build later in post.

I personally like CCD just because I do, but probably because ccd being slower asa, it makes me think more of the light ratios and the craft of the image.

Though in reality, I don't think it's the ccd, vs. cmos thing, I assume it's just how your grade

This from a ccd p30+ processed and graded in CS5


The same scene from a RED 1, processed and graded in Resolve.


These aren't exact, due to cameras, shutter speed, processing engines, even the actress moving in a different position, but they're so close who would know?

All I can say is numbers, charts, pixel comparing I don't get.  I've never tested a camera away from set that really told me much.   Under pressure, on set is when I really notice what works, what doesn't.

But post is the key and every image of importance, still or motion (not including photojournalism) goes through some form of expert post production.

The last 5 or 6 movies i've seen were shot with arri 35mm film, arri alexas, RED Epics, 65mm Panavision with 70mm projection, Sony F65, with a smattering of  little olympus cameras thrown in ("fury road")

I respect whatever camera or film or digital the dp and director chose but I am almost positive that they could all have been shot on film, or professional digital, 65mm or super 35.

With their talent's, the expert post work, except for the 65mm panavision used the for "the hateful 8", no viewer would have noticed the difference.

In fact the Hateful 8 footage would probably never pass on this technical forum with all the examination through charts and graphs, comparing dr (I never knew that term until this forum).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnRbXn4-Yis

It flickers on solid skies, though has great colour depth, sometimes sharp, sometimes lots of grain, not that physically moveable, but since I viewed it on 70mm film on the roadshow, where you get an interlude, a program, an intermission, it was my movie experience of the year.

So I can appreciate everyones knowledge about filters, adc convertors, sharp lenses, a billion asa, but I think all of this is far down the list of an interesting image, or body of work.

IMO

BC

I know this is a tech ... this  compared to that ... thread, but thanks Coot for once again reminding us that these are just tools to create with, and that its the images that really matter.
Logged
Craig Lamson Photo

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #124 on: January 19, 2016, 11:58:07 pm »

CCD is going away, as Torger reminds us. All the new boxen will be CMOS, and soon mirrorless. All the old MF boxen are CCD. The moneyed can get CMOS, the poor surplus buyers get to use CCD. How terrible. it must feel to have to eat cake ;)

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8848
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #125 on: January 20, 2016, 03:36:03 am »

I know this is a tech ... this  compared to that ... thread, but thanks Coot for once again reminding us that these are just tools to create with, and that its the images that really matter.

Hi Craig,

Yes, James is correct in that the camera is a tool to achieve an end product. He's also correct that "Though in reality, I don't think it's the ccd, vs. cmos thing, I assume it's just how your grade", it's the whole pipeline that is needed for an end result, and in his case grading is a major part of the final look he adds to the images.

But we need to see the camera as an enabler, to make it possible to get the base material we need for creating the final product, the image, the atmosphere, the illusion. For some uses, e.g. fast action, that means fast autofocus (possibly combined with good high ISO performance). For other uses the Tilt/Shift movements are essential to get the shot, and for other uses the canned profiles may produce a pleasing result with minimal additional work. Multishot technology is great for resolution and lack of (color-)aliasing, but useless for moving subjects of with constantly changing light conditions.

When the camera is not an enabler, it becomes a hindrance, regardless of the topology used for the chips, or the choice of CFA filters or profiles. Fortunately, the profiling is something we can do something about, although it will never be perfect (due to the Luther Ives condition, also see this document).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #126 on: January 20, 2016, 03:46:15 am »

I'm not sure if CMOS in terms of feature set is important for the old pro markets which work tethered with studio lighting anyway, but I do think it's important for the new enthusiast market which want the camera to work like a DSLR they know just bigger and better. Additionally, new MFD photographers don't come from MF/LF film any longer, but from 135 digital and expect a certain feature set even if it's not strictly needed for the type of work they do.

It saddens me though that the camera type I love, the tech cam with symmetric large-format-style lenses, may not survive this transition (due to the seemingly chronically poor angular response of these sensors) but instead morph into a boring high resolution mirrorless with unreasonably big and heavy lenses, and that will force me back to 135 with tilt shift lenses as I actually hike with my gear.
Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #127 on: January 20, 2016, 04:02:11 am »



It saddens me though that the camera type I love, the tech cam with symmetric large-format-style lenses, may not survive this transition (due to the seemingly chronically poor angular response of these sensors) but instead morph into a boring high resolution mirrorless with unreasonably big and heavy lenses, and that will force me back to 135 with tilt shift lenses as I actually hike with my gear.

Your current gear is not dead.
In fact, it might very well help you make images for the next 10-15 years until it kicks the bucket. Do you like using it? Then keep using it.

Just because something new got launched doesn't mean what you have in the bag automatically crumbles to dust.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #128 on: January 20, 2016, 04:10:20 am »

Hi,

Well there is something I would call enabling technology:

- High ISO enables us to shoot in windy conditions
- Large pixel count enables us to print large and reduces aliasing
- Magnified live view enables accurate manual focus
- Focus peaking helpful in deciding optimal tilt
- Extra DR is great when shooting dark places in available light, if you don't want to shoot HDR

If you shoot flash, never print large, don't focus manually and don't use Scheimpflug, it obvously doesn't matter.

It is of course different for professional photographers who travel with 100 kg gear.

Best regards
Erik



Hi Craig,

Yes, James is correct in that the camera is a tool to achieve an end product. He's also correct that "Though in reality, I don't think it's the ccd, vs. cmos thing, I assume it's just how your grade", it's the whole pipeline that is needed for an end result, and in his case grading is a major part of the final look he adds to the images.

But we need to see the camera as an enabler, to make it possible to get the base material we need for creating the final product, the image, the atmosphere, the illusion. For some uses, e.g. fast action, that means fast autofocus (possibly combined with good high ISO performance). For other uses the Tilt/Shift movements are essential to get the shot, and for other uses the canned profiles may produce a pleasing result with minimal additional work. Multishot technology is great for resolution and lack of (color-)aliasing, but useless for moving subjects of with constantly changing light conditions.

When the camera is not an enabler, it becomes a hindrance, regardless of the topology used for the chips, or the choice of CFA filters or profiles. Fortunately, the profiling is something we can do something about, although it will never be perfect (due to the Luther Ives condition, also see this document).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: January 20, 2016, 04:13:21 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #129 on: January 20, 2016, 04:27:37 am »

Your current gear is not dead.
In fact, it might very well help you make images for the next 10-15 years until it kicks the bucket. Do you like using it? Then keep using it.

Just because something new got launched doesn't mean what you have in the bag automatically crumbles to dust.

You are right and I indeed plan to. I don't know if my mind is strong enough to hold back for the temptation to upgrade if the other systems just get "too good". Although my gear's image quality today is in an absolute sense very good and will make great prints today and in 15 years, I know that I will get this itch if I'm using a much more cumbersome system and getting worse image quality than say a 135 system, even if mine is more flexible in terms of composition.

The future of tech cams for landscape is probably say three lenses pretty wide, and a live view where you can do shifting, which doesn't lead to actual shifting of the lens just cropping on the sensor combined with keystone correction. So you compose virtually what we did physically/optically, but you at least do it in the field and not in post-processing. When those system exceed the quality of my own I can say it will be hard to not upgrade.

There's a risk that there will be a boring middle-period where you need to choose between using more flexible old gear with "low" resolution and "low" DR and less good color, or more static new gear. It has moved in that direction since the P65+ and forward. I went for the old gear choice.

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #130 on: January 21, 2016, 03:10:46 pm »

Hi,

  • Print large, MP will be good
  • Shoot in a dark church with mosaic windows. DR will rule! But you can use HDR or illuminate the place with 10 kW of HMI lights.
  • Shoot at a concert and high ISO rules

We can live without progress, but historically progress has been good.

Me, my Sony A99 SLT and a tripod


Me, my P45+ and a tripod and HDR by Lumariver HDR


Full images are here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/20140617-_DSC4758_full.jpg

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/20140617_lumariver.jpg

Best regards
Erik

I'm not being critical but you know the camera won't make you good, or even too good, there is no such thing.

This forum goes nuts every time phase announces double the pixel cameras and you know it's coming when a Canon goes do a higher count.  Canon 11 - Phase 22, Canon 22 - Phase 40, Canon 50 - Phase 100.

Those poor souls are always selling pixels.   

Anyway good for them cause they finally came out with a new camera, just wish they'd had opened it up to their past owners. 

For me it doesn't matter, but for people that waited for something better than the old Mamiya it must have been a let down.

Anyway I got off the subject.

Cameras are ok, pixels are ok, people that dig pixels and well depth and cross talk and all that stuff is ok, though I don't really read it, I just glance over it cause it's not that interesting to me.

Not that it's not important, but that's for the guys that make stuff, and I use the stuff they make to make photographs.

You know, I find digital strange.  Never wanted it but once.  I had a inner wear, (panties) gig we shot in LA at the Stahl House.  That glass thing that hangs off a cliff in the Hollywood Hills.

Everybody use to love that house, but for shooting people it was hell, cause all you really had was the pool and inside a model on a sofa looked like they were hanging in the air with window reflections everywhere.

Also for some reason that section of the Hollywood hills gets marine layer.  We wanted something special and we lit then we'd shoot a polaroid get the ratios down quick and boom it would get dark, so we'd shoot another polaroid and snap on the film back and boom it would get bright.   You could spend your life just trying to get into the 9 stop range of the Agfa transparency film I used.

After the gig, I went to photo west (when there was a photo west).  I'm not wild about trade shows but I went to the polaroid folks and said do me a favor, make me a digital polaroid back that is instant that second so I can see the image, snap on the film back and shoot it.  I was on a mission and wouldn't stop until some higher up came over.

He said if he did that, we'd never sell anymore polaroid and I said I don't use it anyway, I use fuji but that's not the point.  I'd write a check right now for 30 grand if I could just see the bloody thing and shoot it before the clouds or the clients changed their minds.

He replied you'll probably get your wish cause someday everyone is going to be shooting digital.  That's not what I wanted then, or now.   I just wanted to see a quick polaroid without a computer and a bunch of wires.

I know now the polaroid guy was right, but after the first 1ds, I would swear to a senate subcommittee that there is not that much difference between that old slow 1ds and the hundred grand (actually more) of stuff I've bought just trying to get back to that film look.

This photo is just me, cameras, lenses and chargers, with two powerbooks.


The van on the right is for lighting and grip, the SUV on the left is just some props.

Away from frame is an RV, two other trucks and a bunch of client and crew vehicles that client's request.  I don't mind if talent changes in a tent held by two grips.

One of the tech heads on this forum made some comment that not everyone carries a thousand pounds of stuff.

We'll let me clue you in. 

No photographer living wants to buy, rent or carry around this much stuff. 

In fact we shot most of the project with one flash, one HMI, one still camera, one lens and one RED 1 with yea, one lens.

But since we get paid and clients are known to change their mind and since we're spending "their" money if something goes down we better have an equal backups.

So that's why we have all this stuff.

So getting back to the original idea of ccd vs cmos.  Who cares. If you can't shoot something at 400 asa, you're never going to shoot it anyway.

I know somebody is going to show me one of those night looks like day scenes, but honestly I've never been asked to make day look like night (usually it's the other way round).

I'll also let the tech guys in to another secret. 

When we shoot something like editorial, we usually don't carry that much stuff.

In fact most good photographers just need a camera and some way to balance the light . . . a piece of foam core, a shiny board, or one of those little plastic flashes with some spun, (diffusion).

But when we shoot for ourselves nobody is looking over our shoulder on a 27" monitor asking if the we can make her/him/it's face brighter.

We just shoot what's pretty, clean the place up and leave.

This was shot with an old S2, one small Fresnel that cost less than a Sony adapter and a piece of foam core.


And it's ccd shot at 640 pushed 1/3 and the people we did it for loved it, so ccd vs. cmos?

That's for people that like to talk and or more importantly sell equipment, but for most photographers that aren't on this forum, they don't care.

But remember those guys that just came out with big cmos cameras were telling everyone a few years ago that their 16 bit ccd backs were superior so take all of this with a grain of salt.

In fact, if you made it this far in my rambling post link to this and listen to these guys.  They shoot some pretty stuff

http://www.vogue.it/tag/alessia%20glaviano


IMO

BC
« Last Edit: January 21, 2016, 03:13:47 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #131 on: January 21, 2016, 03:15:04 pm »

I'm not being critical but you know the camera won't make you good, or even too good, there is no such thing.

When you shoot with mechanical copal shutters, use sliding back and ground glass with a 20x loupe to focus, don't have access to high ISO or (that) long exposure and carry 13 kg of gear then it's more that can be improved than megapixels.

Simply put, it's indeed romantic to use (and I appreciate that), but it's quite messy. Not as much as a large format camera, but pretty close. If I could make the same image with a pocket camera, would I think it would be worthwhile to carry all this gear? Maybe if I started to shoot film instead so I'm doing something historical for real, but when shooting high end digital the end technical quality will always be a factor. Not all, but I would lie if it was not relevant.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #132 on: January 21, 2016, 03:36:26 pm »

Hi,

I don't think megapixels are unimportant. If you have a good lens and make best use of you need a sensor that has a proper resolution.

More importantly, printing large, say 70x100 cm, resolution actually matters a bit.

I like shooting with my Hasselblad V-system and my P45+, but I always carry a DSLR with some zooms from 24-400 mm. Something like 18 kg. But, I am a lazy dog who doesn't walk that far.

Now, that I have a Sony A7rII that matches the P45+ gear in resolution the attraction of the P45+ is reduced. It is still fun shooting it, but for important stuff I choose the much more flexible Sony gear. Why?

  • Need ultra wide? I get it 12 mm
  • Need long tele? I get it 400
  • Need fisheye? I get it
  • Need high ISO? I get it
  • Need T&S? I get it, with 16-35/4 zoom, 24/3.5 TSE, Distagon 40/5, Pentax 67 45/4, Distagon 60/3.5, Planar 100/3.5 and Planar 120/4.
  • Need I DR? I get it
  • Need Macro? I get it, with 25 mm Photar, 50 mm Rodenstock Rodagon, 90/2.8 G Macro, 105/5.6 Nikkor and 120/4 Macro Planar.
So I have a system that is a "Swiss Army knife of photography".

Best regards
Erik

When you shoot with mechanical copal shutters, use sliding back and ground glass with a 20x loupe to focus, don't have access to high ISO or (that) long exposure and carry 13 kg of gear then it's more that can be improved than megapixels.

Simply put, it's indeed romantic to use (and I appreciate that), but it's quite messy. Not as much as a large format camera, but pretty close. If I could make the same image with a pocket camera, would I think it would be worthwhile to carry all this gear? Maybe if I started to shoot film instead so I'm doing something historical for real, but when shooting high end digital the end technical quality will always be a factor. Not all, but I would lie if it was not relevant.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

razrblck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
  • Chill
    • Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #133 on: January 21, 2016, 04:24:36 pm »



This picture always reminds me of one of my favorite photographers: http://www.simsfoto.cz/en/portraits/
Logged
Instagram (updated often)

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #134 on: January 21, 2016, 04:39:44 pm »

J, Aka "cooter",

 All of what you say is true for fashion shooters. But guys who are into landscape and interior landscapes may have a different view.  Hans Kruse and friends do a lot of landscape high-DR stuff, landscape often eats resolution, and for interiors very often you need DR as you have to find a way to get lamps and windows into the shot.

 When I was trying to have an artistic career, I sold quite a few A3 prints from the Canons, and never a single big print from the P45+. Now that must be life trying to tell me something ...My best size seems to be A3, and about 10MP is more than enough for that, as you point out. One of the A3 shots I like most was made with a Nokia phone 10 years ago.

Edmund
« Last Edit: January 21, 2016, 05:57:08 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #135 on: January 22, 2016, 12:06:33 pm »

Hi BC,

Thanks for comment.

The images I have shown were an HDR image from the P45+, made from 3-4 exposures and an image from the Sony Alpha 99.

Here is a crop from single exposures on both:

P45+:
Full size image


SLT 99:
Full size image


These were the best single exposures. The point is that I was happy with the single exposure on the Sony but resorted to HDR on the P45+.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

I looked at your full sized images and I usually don't peep, but your sony image at 50 asa has the same raggedness I see on the A7sII I bought.

Everybody says the A7SII goes to a gazillion asa, but I don't see it, actually thought mine was defective.  Anything above 2000 starts that ragged stuff on hard lines, like the roof of your shot or the chairs.

I think the A7 series is an interesting camera and I bought my mostly for motion, but I don't see the amazing stuff everyone else does at at 50 asa I would think it would be more detailed.

IMO

BC
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #136 on: January 23, 2016, 08:02:48 am »

So getting back to the original idea of ccd vs cmos.  Who cares. If you can't shoot something at 400 asa, you're never going to shoot it anyway.

I know somebody is going to show me one of those night looks like day scenes, but honestly I've never been asked to make day look like night (usually it's the other way round).

I'll also let the tech guys in to another secret. 

When we shoot something like editorial, we usually don't carry that much stuff.

In fact most good photographers just need a camera and some way to balance the light . . . a piece of foam core, a shiny board, or one of those little plastic flashes with some spun, (diffusion).

But when we shoot for ourselves nobody is looking over our shoulder on a 27" monitor asking if the we can make her/him/it's face brighter.

We just shoot what's pretty, clean the place up and leave.

This was shot with an old S2, one small Fresnel that cost less than a Sony adapter and a piece of foam core.


And it's ccd shot at 640 pushed 1/3 and the people we did it for loved it, so ccd vs. cmos?

That's for people that like to talk tech, but for most photographers that aren't on this forum, they don't care.

Of course you are right: technology only matters so much. What matters is whether the pictures are interesting or not. That is what photographers should be discussing on forums.

Except that there is no such forum. You will find forums discussing cameras galore. You will find forums discussing camera accessories, photo software and post-processing, strobes and light gear. I am not aware of a photo forum really discussing picture-making.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #137 on: January 23, 2016, 08:20:58 am »

Hi,

If you are reading a thread named "What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?! on the Equipment & Techniques  forum it should be no big surprise the discussion is about technology mostly.

There are some thread on professional images or even format agnostic images and some threads open for non professional images. But It seems technical threads are quite popular.

Best regards
Erik

Of course you are right: technology only matters so much. What matters is whether the pictures are interesting or not. That is what photographers should be discussing on forums.

Except that there is no such forum. You will find forums discussing cameras galore. You will find forums discussing camera accessories, photo software and post-processing, strobes and light gear. I am not aware of a photo forum really discussing picture-making.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8848
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #138 on: January 23, 2016, 08:55:48 am »

Of course you are right: technology only matters so much. What matters is whether the pictures are interesting or not. That is what photographers should be discussing on forums.

Hi,

Feel free to start a new topic, not in an "Equipment and Techniques" group of forums, but rather e.g. in "The Art of photography" group of forums.

Quote
Except that there is no such forum.

Yes there is! There is on LuLa a forum called "Discussing Photographic Styles (A Forum for the discussion of photographic styles)", and one called ""But is it Art? (A free form forum for opinions on photography as an art form)". There is also a possibility to post your own work and ask for critique (User Critiques forum).

It also depends on what you want to bring to the table yourself.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #139 on: January 23, 2016, 09:35:58 am »

Hi,

Feel free to start a new topic, not in an "Equipment and Techniques" group of forums, but rather e.g. in "The Art of photography" group of forums.

Yes there is! There is on LuLa a forum called "Discussing Photographic Styles (A Forum for the discussion of photographic styles)", and one called ""But is it Art? (A free form forum for opinions on photography as an art form)". There is also a possibility to post your own work and ask for critique (User Critiques forum).

It also depends on what you want to bring to the table yourself.

Not quite. This forum has 153362 threads, "Discussing Photographic Styles" only 6239, which is 24 times less. Moreover, "Discussing Photographic Styles" activity has decreased steadily and the content of the discussions has become -dare I say?- more controversial than interesting.

I am not objecting the technical discussions. It is good that we have them and this particular forum is indeed devoted to technique, so they are at the right places. I am just noticing that there is an apparent lack of interest for other matters.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13   Go Up