Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PDN PhotoPlus 2013  (Read 10067 times)
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 537



WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 30, 2013, 09:06:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if you'll feel the same once you lay your hands on it.

Me too.  I have not been positively surprised by a new camera in a very long time. 

This thread is wandering heavily now, but in response to the very interesting article linked above, I pose the rhetorical and inflamatory question: why is (proportionally) so little great photography happening now, when billions are taking hundreds of billions of images every year? I am getting to the point where I might seriously posit that ubiquity of imaging has actually degraded its quality. If this is true (and I know it would be contentious and not 'provable'), it would in part be because words and pictures in the present internet era are treated as fleeting and ephemeral: they hit the top of your Facebook or Instagram feed, are pushed off the top screen by new content in seconds, and are lost to the pixel-dust history, unless you're naked and later run for president.

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 30, 2013, 10:12:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know where you're looking but I see it here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1248480

It's a very hot topic on Canon equipment forums.  The A7r is 50% of the weight of a 5DIII with higher resolution, can use EF and many other lenses.  Quoting one typical comment in the above link:

"Hell yes. Great sensor, high mpix and a small package that takes all my existing lens. What's not to like about that?"



Let's say you have a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, 16-35 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/4L IS and a Canon 6D. The total weight is 2960 grams and with the Sony A7R without adapter this would be 2670 and with adapter and I guess with the adapter it would be the same weight.

Resolution wise we have seen the D800 and the Canon 5D3 to be almost the same real resolution according to DxO and what I see from the files also. So if the Sony delivers all the extra pixels it would maximally be a linear resolution increase of 28%. Not even enough to go one size up from say A3 to A2 with same PPI. A 1 meter wide picture from the 5D3 could be printed maximum at 1,27 meters with the Sony and most likely it will not deliver that. At normal viewing distance would you even see that? I think this is splitting hairs  Grin

Better DR, this is nice, but shooting both Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800E it is very few pictures where I can't produce a clean shot from a single RAW file from the Canon. But of course the Nikon is better.

So I highly doubt that this would convince many photographers.
 
E.g. for a weight reduction that would really count one would need to go down in sensor size or go for very slow lenses. And using an EVF rather than a OVF, not me unless there was a very clear motivation for doing that.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #42 on: October 30, 2013, 02:07:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I pose the rhetorical and inflamatory question: why is (proportionally) so little great photography happening now, when billions are taking hundreds of billions of images every year?

What reason do you have for thinking that might be the case? Maybe there's proportionally more great photography happening now, which you never see.

If those billions who are taking hundreds of billions of images are simply not trying to do great photography, in what way does that degrade the quality of photography? Maybe in absolute terms there's more great photography happening now and the quality is better than ever before.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2013, 02:32:14 PM by Isaac » Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #43 on: October 30, 2013, 05:18:53 PM »
ReplyReply

This thread is wandering heavily now, but in response to the very interesting article linked above, I pose the rhetorical and inflamatory question: why is (proportionally) so little great photography happening now, when billions are taking hundreds of billions of images every year?

How do you define "great"?

And is "great" photography important?

Has it ever been important or is it just that the photographs that we saw on a daily basis were those that had been taken by those with some skill and an eye for their subject (plus lots of film to go through) plus an editorial process to find "the best"?

If I take a picture of a particular moment with my phone to share with others, does it matter more if the picture is considered "great" or just simply if it captures the mood and allows me to share the moment?

Quote
I am getting to the point where I might seriously posit that ubiquity of imaging has actually degraded its quality. If this is true (and I know it would be contentious and not 'provable'), it would in part be because words and pictures in the present internet era are treated as fleeting and ephemeral: they hit the top of your Facebook or Instagram feed, are pushed off the top screen by new content in seconds, and are lost to the pixel-dust history, unless you're naked and later run for president.

I would argue that it isn't the ubiquity of imaging that is degrading the quality rather the lack of a filtering process is meaning that more than just "great" photographs are seen. The desire to share is greater than the desire to filter. And on the other end, people are thus shifting focus from caring about quality to caring about ... intimacy?
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6045


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 30, 2013, 05:47:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Some time ago I wrote the following in another thread, which I think is in sync with Nick's question:

"...A lot of members on the forum lived and worked in a pre-digital and pre-Internet era. It occurred to me that in that era, images like that most likely would have never been displayed publicly (other than to friends and family).

There were only two ways for public access: publishing in a magazine or book, and displaying it at an exhibition (be it of international standing or a local club one). Both ways include some kind of jurying, some kind of triage, filtering before an image reaches public. Images that were poorly composed, out of focus, and overexposed (for no good reason), had very little, if any chance, to be selected. So, when something did reach the public, it already had a certain "seal of approval". Furthermore, it took considerable effort and resources to prepare images for publication and submit them. Unless you wanted to risk your original transparency, you needed to make a decent copy (a problem in itself), pack it well, go to the post office, etc.

So, the effort and resources needed, plus knowing you will be judged seriously, meant for us that we would need to think twice before attempting to go public with our work. The only way to deal with that was to learn beforehand what tools those who would judge our work would use to evaluate it. So we hit the library, attended courses, joined a camera club, and learned about composition, technique, art, perception, etc. For years, sometimes. Consequently, we had to exercise a fair amount of self-restraint, and when we finally submitted something, we did not have to ask the world "what's wrong with my image"... we knew it already (at least the elementary stuff).

Enter the digital/Internet era: after a (shutter) click, with all those wi-fi memory cards, Kodak's Share buttons, various other cameras with direct access to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc., it might take literally seconds and costs absolutely nothing, before an image is displayed to millions. Anyone can post anything to everyone. No triage, filtering, self-restraint... nada. Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before. And no, I am not an Internet Luddite... just pointing out certain unintended consequences..."
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892


« Reply #45 on: October 30, 2013, 06:38:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Anyone can post anything to everyone.

Freedom sux!


Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc. ... Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before.

So don't go looking at photos on Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, ... Freedom rulz!
« Last Edit: October 30, 2013, 06:56:37 PM by Isaac » Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #46 on: October 30, 2013, 09:17:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Hence this deluge of crappy, mediocre, or technically correct, but just plain boring images, creating what psychologists call a "visual noise", on a scale never seen before.

Boring from what perspective?

If I share a photo of my cat doing something stupid with my friends and they get a laugh, does it matter if it is a mediocre photo or not?
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8907


« Reply #47 on: October 30, 2013, 11:33:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's say you have a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II, 16-35 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/4L IS and a Canon 6D. The total weight is 2960 grams and with the Sony A7R without adapter this would be 2670 and without adapter and I guess with the adapter it would be the same weight.


Good point. I get a sense that some folks are overlooking the fact that the weight, quality and functionality of one's lenses, in total, are far more significant than any slight saving in weight regards the camera body.

If a new body such as the A7r were significantly better than my current Nikon or Canon bodies, in terms of resolution, DR and SNR, as well as being significantly lighter and more compact, then I might consider buying one, provided the adapter offered full functionality with my Nikon and Canon lenses.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6045


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 30, 2013, 11:43:13 PM »
ReplyReply

... If I share a photo of my cat doing something stupid with my friends and they get a laugh, does it matter if it is a mediocre photo or not?

What really matters in that scenario is that the cat wouldn't be the only one doing something stupid.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 830


WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 31, 2013, 04:52:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Boring from what perspective?

If I share a photo of my cat doing something stupid with my friends and they get a laugh, does it matter if it is a mediocre photo or not?

I took it that Slobodan was trying to illustrate the point that the reason for the quality of photography 'appearing' to have deteriorated is that more of it is on show now and has escaped the private family album.  He is not denying the right of people to take mediocre pictures (even though he may personally abhor them), just that there is no longer the filtering process before they are show at large.

Jim
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #50 on: October 31, 2013, 07:08:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I took it that Slobodan was trying to illustrate the point that the reason for the quality of photography 'appearing' to have deteriorated is that more of it is on show now and has escaped the private family album.  He is not denying the right of people to take mediocre pictures (even though he may personally abhor them), just that there is no longer the filtering process before they are show at large.

Jim
I think it is similar to the change seen in the music record industry with 1)the inexpensive "portastudio" (4-track cassette recorders with built-in mixing) and 2)the computer music revolution. Instead of having to be "discovered" and sign up for a record contract with a big studio, you could spend $1000 (or even $100) and make your record in the attic.

What has happened? (Perhaps) predictably, there is a lot of crap released. The musical equivalent of bad cat photography. But also some genuinely good work that might never have been possible when you had to have lots of money (usually funded by men in their 50s). More subtly, I think that it has affected the minds of customers: when the production of art is liberated or democratised, customers think differently about fair cost as well.

-h
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #51 on: October 31, 2013, 08:04:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Every pictures means something to someone.

A picture is "good" perhaps if it means something to a lot of people, including complete strangers. A picture is "just a snapshot" if it only means something to the photographer and, perhaps, a few close friends.

The modern era of a trillion pictures means that we can now look at every picture, if we like, regardless of whether it's likely to mean something to us or not. The triage process Slobodan refers to can be thought of as a process of selecting pictures that are more likely to be meaningful to a larger audience.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #52 on: October 31, 2013, 08:07:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I think it is similar to the change seen in the music record industry with 1)the inexpensive "portastudio" (4-track cassette recorders with built-in mixing) and 2)the computer music revolution. Instead of having to be "discovered" and sign up for a record contract with a big studio, you could spend $1000 (or even $100) and make your record in the attic.

What has happened? (Perhaps) predictably, there is a lot of crap released. The musical equivalent of bad cat photography. But also some genuinely good work that might never have been possible when you had to have lots of money (usually funded by men in their 50s). More subtly, I think that it has affected the minds of customers: when the production of art is liberated or democratised, customers think differently about fair cost as well.

Yes, I think you're right about that. And the liberation of people in making music is scary to organisations such as the RIAA because it has the potential to create a world in which music is produced and consumed without a middle man. But the change to producing music is even more fundamental - with computers you don't need a 4-track cassette recorder: it's all software now and you upload MP3 files to the Internet.

I took it that Slobodan was trying to illustrate the point that the reason for the quality of photography 'appearing' to have deteriorated is that more of it is on show now and has escaped the private family album.  He is not denying the right of people to take mediocre pictures (even though he may personally abhor them), just that there is no longer the filtering process before they are show at large.

Ah, that I would agree with.

Back when film was still king, I knew someone that would take a couple of weeks off work and take photographs for postcards. Their keeper rate was about 1 in 36 if they were doing well. Today, we'd probably see "all 36" and any one of them might end up on a postcard, depending on whole "stole" it from the Internet.

But therein lays another challenge: if good material is going to be stolen and used without compensation, what incentive is there to upload good content to the Internet? And if the Internet is drowned in poor content, maybe that delivers security by obscurity?
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 31, 2013, 10:43:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure everybody can post anything and there are for sure a lot of poor pictures posted from a photographic point of view, but not all pictures posted should be judged by photographic standards.

I would also argue that today there are way more great photos posted on the internet than any set of printed photos in the past. The learning cycle for digital photography has meant that there are many more really good photographers out there than at any time in history. These photographers do not post just anything and certainly not from their memory card without serious post processing. There are lots of websites that show excellent work. Even on Facebook a lot of good work is shown every day. You can like or not like likes, but that is the filtering mechanism today  Grin

With respect to learning there are more workshops, more tutorials, more books and more advanced software to make pictures than at any time in history. Compared to today's tools one could be tempted to call anything before the turn of the century to be the stone age....
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6045


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #54 on: October 31, 2013, 11:02:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Could it be, Hans, that you are just describing a proliferation of monkeys and typewriters? If so, I am already packing my sleeping bag and getting in line for the next Shakespearian masterpiece. Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6045


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 31, 2013, 11:05:57 AM »
ReplyReply

... there are more workshops, more tutorials, more books and more advanced software to make pictures than at any time in history...

And more poor souls who are buying into the illusion that one more tutorial, one more book, one more software is going to make them great photographers (right, Rob?).
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 31, 2013, 11:12:19 AM »
ReplyReply

And more poor souls who are buying into the illusion that one more tutorial, one more book, one more software is going to make them great photographers (right, Rob?).

I don't think I said that at all.
Logged

Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 31, 2013, 11:13:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Could it be, Hans, that you are just describing a proliferation of monkeys and typewriters? If so, I am already packing my sleeping bag and getting in line for the next Shakespearian masterpiece. Wink

Do you want to discuss or use the monkey approach?
Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1161


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #58 on: October 31, 2013, 11:16:00 AM »
ReplyReply

And more poor souls who are buying into the illusion that one more tutorial, one more book, one more software is going to make them great photographers (right, Rob?).

Slobodan,

The thing is and you know this is it's easier than ever to learn how to do it, though few know why they should do it.

The assistants I work with know more about the tech side of equipment than ever before, of course they dropped $100,000 of their parent's money to learn this, but few if any know why you use a soft light, or a hard light or for that matter any light.   They all know how to reach for a beauty dish for a face, because you can't lose on that one.

Big difference and that's what comes from a homogenized world where nobody does anything they haven't seen before.

The upside is if you have a clear thought and want to create it's a fairly open field.  

The downside is there is a lot of clutter to get past.

IMO

BC


IMO

BC
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #59 on: October 31, 2013, 02:26:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan,

The thing is and you know this is it's easier than ever to learn how to do it, though few know why they should do it.

The assistants I work with know more about the tech side of equipment than ever before, of course they dropped $100,000 of their parent's money to learn this, but few if any know why you use a soft light, or a hard light or for that matter any light.   They all know how to reach for a beauty dish for a face, because you can't lose on that one.

BC

Yes, BC, but thatís not what I think Slobodan is saying, and in his reference to myself, neither do I.

Both of us have no doubts that RFTM is an obvious rule to follow Ė at least at one stage of a learnerís life Ė but the reference as I understood it was to the art of/in the image, something you refer to yourself in your reference to light and assistants. You can read all the books, study all the diagrams but at the end of the day, hands-on is another animal. And often an animal that the books canít even begin to explore: the creative juice of the moment. Using that to advantage is why they pay you, for example, and why I did what I did for so long.

Referring back for a second to the volume of images today when compared to yesteryear: itís true that a lot of mediocre stuff gets aired, and I do it all the time; the reason is that it no longer makes the slightest commercial difference to me who sees what. Itís changed from supplying a professional, commercial image of some product or person to one of simply playing around with the medium for fun. The two worlds are at the opposite ends of the galaxy from one another.

Looking at those top-gun websites as I do, and as I expect you do too, those slots for ĎPersonalí images that get shown might often be better left out: they can show some really poor stuff, and that canít do much for the photographer, even if the main body of the portfolio looks terrific.

Rob C

Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad