Getting it right - Incompetent ignoramus post -
Aug 24, 2014 11:11:30 #
selmslie wrote:
Now that's really a silly statement! br br Digi... (show quote)
Well, I think you are silly, so I guess we must agree to disagree....One thing about medium and large formats; they are the same in film as they have always been. Digital has been constantly improving. as sensors get more advanced and software gets better, at some point those formats will be rendered moot. It has only been a few years since digital cameras were only capable of less than a couple megapixels, and look at where they are now....And the government has digital cameras that can pick out a pimple from space....It is only a matter of time before they become commodity items, as it is with all technology. I would agree with your statements if they were making great advances in film, but alas, they are not...Any technology that is stagnant is going to be bypassed by the new and advanced...
"A large percentage of them also buy a DSLR with a single zoom lens because they don't want to change lenses."....Did you just pull this statement out of your A$$, or do you have something that backs it up....From where I am sitting, many people are buying multiple lenses. the ones who do not, are buying bridge cameras or P&S....If they are spending the kind of money DSLR's demand, they are serious about shooting more than just what a kit lens will do.
Aug 24, 2014 11:12:21 #
Mark7829 wrote:
I think this college is confusing. Just look at t... (show quote)
How do you figure this college is confusing? They provide the cameras and equipment, but they REQUIRE that you learn film first then you can learn to understand what is going on in the digital camera.. Also they put ALOT of graduates into the professional studios. (and I don't mean the shopping center portrait studios.) They teach photography from the ground up. And they teach Lightroom, Photoshop and all of the Adobe programs including web development. Confusing?? I'm not sure what you are confused about.
Aug 24, 2014 11:20:06 #
Rongnongno wrote:
I received a PM that worries me. br br For some r... (show quote)
Very typical of this generation because so many have been given everything and the electronics today do everything so why should they have to know anything about photography to shoot "amazing" photos.
Aug 24, 2014 11:20:51 #
londonfire
Loc: NY to NC
lighthouse wrote:
Oh what a load of misinformative crap, digital has allowed people to learn so fast in comparison to film that it is ridiculous.
OK. Just like people love to say how smart the kids are today in comparison to us. Just take their phone away and ask them what's 6x7? Be ready for the 'Nipper' look. ( You give away your age if you know what that means )
Aug 24, 2014 11:28:26 #
londonfire
Loc: NY to NC
A few more observations on 'photography' today. People with point and shoots at the rail of a cruise ship firing the flash 20 times to shoot an attraction on shore. When you show them how to turn it off to save power they're amazed.
When I bracket shots and show them to people on the LCD I talk about 'stops' and they haven't a clue what that means. But, I guess if you're only showing them on your phone or 4x6 it doesn't matter.
When I bracket shots and show them to people on the LCD I talk about 'stops' and they haven't a clue what that means. But, I guess if you're only showing them on your phone or 4x6 it doesn't matter.
Aug 24, 2014 11:30:07 #
Aug 24, 2014 11:33:32 #
I think shooting with a digital camera where everything is electronic and automatic, that it is easy to let the camera do the thinking for the shooter. And for a beginner, the dizzying array of controls can be quite confusing, what with all the in-camera adjustments that can be made with the variety of buttons, wheels and other controls. It takes time and experience to learn how to use the camera. I learned on the venerable Pentax Spotmatic, Yashica TL super and a Canon 35mm cameras. There were just four controls--shutter speed, aperture ring, focus and ISO (then referred to as ASA) setting. Everything was manual, so you had to think, and film, while not as expensive as it is today, still wasn't cheap, and I had to pay for processing. I didn't have a darkroom, so I couldn't fiddle with that, either. the end result was that I had to be careful what and how I shot, so as to make every exposure count as much as possible. I learned on Ektachrome and Kodachrome, and still have hundreds of slides taken in the 60's.
I love the versatility of the digital camera, and the electronic control do the same thing as the manual ones did. I just don't have to match a needle in a bracket to get a good exposure. I'm still learning, as there are terms and functions that still confound me. Bottom line is that there is no substitute for doing the "right stuff" with the camera in the first place. You just can't use PP to turn a bad shot into a good one. Yet you can use PP to make a good shot better.
I love the versatility of the digital camera, and the electronic control do the same thing as the manual ones did. I just don't have to match a needle in a bracket to get a good exposure. I'm still learning, as there are terms and functions that still confound me. Bottom line is that there is no substitute for doing the "right stuff" with the camera in the first place. You just can't use PP to turn a bad shot into a good one. Yet you can use PP to make a good shot better.
Aug 24, 2014 11:38:17 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
What gets me is the SOOC crowd that says if you get it right in the camera, you shouldn't have to do any PP. As a long time film and darkroom guy, even if I got a negative that was the perfect exposure and contrast, I would always do more than make a straight print on normal contrast grade paper. And even when I get a digital capture the best it could possibly be out of the camera, I can always improve it in PP, even if in small ways.
Went to a show of Ansel Adams photo's with a short bio a few years ago in San Francisco. He got it as right as he could in the camera but then did anywhere from 30-60% pp to get his images as fabulous as he did. BUT he got the image as close to perfect as he could in the original camera capture.
Aug 24, 2014 11:40:23 #
Racmanaz wrote:
NOBODY ever claimed that you could not improve your photography with digital like you can with film, nobody made that claim. The point is that shooting with film FORCES you to slow down and forces you to think, digital does NOT force you to do likewise, you have to force yourself to shoot slower and carefully with digital.
Early on, I went to large format. 4X5 & 8X10. You take your time when film cost $5 a shot. You learn that what you see is what you get. Nothing more. I kept that same attitude when I added 35mm to my mix. But I have to admit, after digital I have become lazy and take a million shots hoping to get the one right. I need to take the advice of you and Rognongno. It would improve my photography.
Aug 24, 2014 11:41:37 #
Aug 24, 2014 11:43:15 #
Rongnongno wrote:
I received a PM that worries me. br br For some r... (show quote)
Wow! You certainly drew a bunch of flies---but in the crowd were few butterflies. The aforementioned being said, sir--- I still cling to the theory that sometime it's a whole hell of a lot better to be lucky than good!
Aug 24, 2014 11:49:16 #
lighthouse wrote:
Oh what a load of misinformative crap, digital has allowed people to learn so fast in comparison to film that it is ridiculous.
Allowing people to learn doesn't mean that they will.
More people in the field means more mis-information as well.
Post processing does not in any way make a bad pic good.
If you aren't interested in making it right in the camera, you might be better off sitting down and drawing it yourself with crayons.
Aug 24, 2014 11:49:43 #
glblanchard wrote:
Early on, I went to large format. 4X5 & 8X10. You take your time when film cost $5 a shot. You learn that what you see is what you get. Nothing more. I kept that same attitude when I added 35mm to my mix. But I have to admit, after digital I have become lazy and take a million shots hoping to get the one right. I need to take the advice of you and Rognongno. It would improve my photography.
I suspect THAT is the reason that many colleges REQUIRE that students learn film first.. They have to think their way though the shot before taking the photo. If you have to develop the image before you KNOW what you got then you are more inclined to stop and think about the ingredients. Digital makes it easy to shotgun pictures and let the camera do the work, then we wonder what went wrong and struggle to fix it in pp. I am NOT including everyone in this generality, but I have become lazy at times, when shooting digital, and spending double the time post processing the images that would have been simple if I had slowed down and remembered everything that I once taught in film. When in doubt, Focus (not just with the lens but on the image with your mind) and remember the triangle of ISO/Aperture/speed , check you light source and shadows, and whine because you missed the shot. lol... Seriously, the reason for film is that it forces these to become automatic so you don't miss the shot.
Aug 24, 2014 11:51:48 #
MOSFET
Loc: Bronx
I agree with you, Rongnongno, but must admit that I am still, after nearly 4 years of really, actively, striving to produce good-quality photographs, learning-on-the-job you might say, even though I am not a professional photographer. I have learned about contrast, sharpness, detail, but there is much more to learn - much more. Sometimes I thumb through the Canon handbook for a few ideas, but most of the time I experiment with shutter speeds and exposures and lenses, to see what combination looks better.
When I first became a digital photographer, I did not know nearly as much as I do now, although I am certain that most of you probably know all of the camera jargon for describing how a shot is set up. What I do know is that if I want to cover really dark images, I set the ISO for 6400 or 12800 with my Canon T4i camera. If I am covering something very bright, the ISO is typically somewhere between 400 and 100.
Just the other day I was experimenting with exposure, so, F-stops are becoming more important. But in many ways I have a lot to learn. Still, my experience has shown me that if I plan properly, my shots are going to turn out fairly well.
Photography rewards those who really take the time to learn about the properties of light on objects, and how to make the best adjustments to achieve optimum results. But, as I said, even after four years of taking the camera to work with me, there's still lots I have to learn. But, it's still fun, and as long as it is, I'm still going to sometimes just point-and-shoot, but, at other times, when I have some time to play with, make the sort of calculations necessary to really create awesome images.
Thanks for listening and for instructing :)
When I first became a digital photographer, I did not know nearly as much as I do now, although I am certain that most of you probably know all of the camera jargon for describing how a shot is set up. What I do know is that if I want to cover really dark images, I set the ISO for 6400 or 12800 with my Canon T4i camera. If I am covering something very bright, the ISO is typically somewhere between 400 and 100.
Just the other day I was experimenting with exposure, so, F-stops are becoming more important. But in many ways I have a lot to learn. Still, my experience has shown me that if I plan properly, my shots are going to turn out fairly well.
Photography rewards those who really take the time to learn about the properties of light on objects, and how to make the best adjustments to achieve optimum results. But, as I said, even after four years of taking the camera to work with me, there's still lots I have to learn. But, it's still fun, and as long as it is, I'm still going to sometimes just point-and-shoot, but, at other times, when I have some time to play with, make the sort of calculations necessary to really create awesome images.
Thanks for listening and for instructing :)
Rongnongno wrote:
I received a PM that worries me. br br For some r... (show quote)
Aug 24, 2014 11:52:36 #
Rongnongno wrote:
I received a PM that worries me.
For some reason folks are starting to doubt that 'getting it right in camera' is not all that important anymore.
For some reason folks are starting to doubt that 'getting it right in camera' is not all that important anymore.
Ron,
I agree with what you have written, therefore I have clipped out a lot of your comments. I cannot disagree because I began my photographic experience in 1948 with a Kodak Brownie Box camera with 120 B&W roll film. We had to learn how to get the capture right in camera because we couldn't fix it later.
The camera developers have created fast and automatic cameras because that is what the buying public wants, there is no clear way of changing that attitude. Let those people spend all their free time creating photographs that are "so-so". Someday the "brick" will strike them between the eyes and the light will come on, there is a way to capture much better images, and we will be here to guide them.
For the folks that argue with your point of view and methods that allow your work to be successful, thank them for the time to contact you and send them on their way.
Michael G
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.