Video The Difference Between Film and Digital Photography (Video) 182
Robin: This is Sally Wiener Grotta. She was a hotshot photographer back in film days, and she and her husband wrote the definitive early book on digital imaging. So she obviously moved into digital photography quite well. And that’s what we are going to talk about, the difference between film and digital photography. Sally, what is the difference?
Sally: The difference is the technology. It is like asking me, “What’s the difference between cooking on a gas stove or an electric stove?” You still need to be a darned good cook and you still need good ingredients to get a decent meal out of it. The technology does matter. Digital has made photography more accessible, more shareable – that is the big issue.
Photography is shared extensively. It isn’t just staying in a shoebox but the pictures of the kids are coming out on Facebook and on email and such. The one problem with digital that we do have and has not yet been solved is that the pictures are not going into a shoebox and therefore 20 years from now, we won’t know where these pictures are of the baby or the wedding or whatever.
But photography is photography whatever the device is. It requires good tools: digital camera, film camera, whatever, Photoshop or a dark room whatever – good tools are important. And digital tools are remarkable. I am able to get such details out of shadows, I am able to get into my pictures and really develop them beautifully. The lighting potential, the way my lights now communicate with my camera is superb. I used to have to carry enormous cases, I mean giant cases of light, now I can carry them on a backpack with a small shoulder bag with stands, and I don’t need assistance to carry them.
But that’s just the tools. Then you need the skill to use the tools. That requires a lot of practice, requires an understanding, an intimacy with your camera. I always say to somebody, “Don’t buy a new camera just before an important event, just before the wedding, or just before the vacation.” The camera needs to be a second nature to you. And that is part of the skill of knowing your camera.
But the other two elements has nothing to do with the capture, it has to do with talent and vision. And it is like having a computer to write or a typewriter to write. I find it easier to write with the computer. I find it easier to edit and perfect my work with the computer. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I can tell a good story with my camera, with my computer, and whether I have the vision to capture, to see the right image, to capture it just right, and present it just right. That is a very longwinded answer to your question.
Robin: Yes. And it is far from complete. We could go on about this. You teach classes that take days in length, do you not?
Sally: I teach master classes in my studio for up to four students that can be up to three days long. But they are very exhausting, for me and for the students. Because sometimes I will focus in on one day class on lighting, or a one-day class on how to use Adobe Lightroom, which by the way is one of my very favorite programs. I love Adobe Lightroom the way I used to love working in the chemical darkroom, except it’s without the smells. Are we getting lazy? That’s a big question. Yes, the very quick answer is yes as a general thing. We have convenience, I can imagine my great grandmother telling my grandmother she is being lazy because she is using an electric refrigerator and doesn’t have to go shopping every day.
Robin: Oh my.
Sally: I don’t know about you but in the freelance life for me, I put in 18-hour days perfecting a sentence, not a sentence but an article or a book or a picture preparing for an exhibit. There are certain things that are much easier now, changing the light on a picture is easier in software than it was in the darkroom, but the easiest thing is getting the light right initially with your capture.
Robin: Yes. Like you mentioned carrying them, I still have them up here on a shelf, the 50-lbs or 60-lbs worth of lighting equipment.
Sally: It doesn’t break your back. As we get older it is nice that our packages that we have to carry are lighter, although I am using a very large camera now, but that’s because I shoot medium format, I shoot a Pentax 645D, but then I print out on a very large 44-inch printer for my exhibition work.
Robin: So wait a minute. Is this a digital camera?
Sally: Yes, it is a very very beautiful medium format digital camera. What’s important about that is not the number of pixels which of course you do need the right amount of data, but the quality of the pixels, because you are dealing with an image sensor that is physically larger. So even if I had the same exact number of pixels on that larger image sensor, each of those pixels can be wider, deeper and further away from its neighbor, so you can end up with a better quality signal.
Robin: Okay, so let’s bring this down into the realm of practical everyday Slashdot reader stuff.
Sally: Sure.
Robin: What kind of cameras should they buy? I mean obviously you have this huge medium format camera, they don’t generally need that. Let’s talk about somebody who’s going to do some product photography, and maybe some kids and sports and neighborhood stuff.
Sally: It depends. If they want to do sports, then I’d say one of the new or even older used super zooms that gives you a large snout and you can get in closer. I like, even when people went autofocus, the focusing is fabulous, auto exposure, they’re wonderful, I would like to suggest that if you are doing product photography, that you learn about F-stops and shutter speeds, simply so that you can get the full depth of field, the full product in focus. It is a very easy concept and you can get it on a very inexpensive camera. It is a typical point-and-shoot that just allows you to go off automatic. You can get a darned good camera for $200 these days, darned good. I would stick with those companies that are known for their optics, but that’s my old film snobbery.
Robin: Oh yeah. What companies would those be?
Sally: Nikon, Canon, Pentax, I would say are my three favorites. I love Olympus so don’t get me wrong, it is just that those three are my favorite.
Robin: I’ve always had Olympus still cameras actually for many years. Now here’s another thing too, and how do we deal with it: What camera do we really all carry around with us? Our phones, our phones, yes. My everyday camera is an HTC Evo 4G.
Sally: I didn’t learn to use my phone as a camera till just a few months ago, I didn’t know how it worked. But it works. And it is very convenient. I have a hard time holding up that thing, I am not good at composing on a screen, I am used to having it against my eye, but it does a decent job. To me, any camera, like you said you like the Olympus cameras, for me the camera that works best for anybody is the one that they are comfortable with.
So if they are used to the way an Olympus camera works, they should stay with Olympus, because they understand the way those engineers are thinking. If they are used to using their phone, they should stick with their phone – just remember that they should get physically a little bit closer, they should make the subject fill a larger portion of their screens so they can get a decent picture.
Robin: Now I am going to tell you something that’s really amusing, amazing. After we are done here, I am going to go to BestBuy because they have on sale for $39 - $39 a cell phone from Kyocera that has a very well-reviewed camera. Forty bucks! Now I have a better one than that, but it is broken, the other day I dropped it, so I am going to buy this, I am getting a new one from Virgin Mobile, under warranty and all that, but I want to have this cheapie as a spare – think about it. A spare phone camera.
Sally: It is natural for you and me because we were used to carrying extra cameras just in case. I look forward to hearing what you think about Kyocera when you have it.
Robin: Well, I will surely review it in my cheap computing column, but I am always just looking for the minimum cost thing that will work well.
Sally: Unlike you, I don’t relate to video well at all. I am very much a still photographer. The frozen moment is where I can capture, and I can understand the image and the story I am trying to tell. Video is something I don’t respond to. However, my assistant Lori Ryan who is a very fine photographer does all my video for me, when we need a video of my lectures or slide show of my classes, and she will use her DSLR, she is a Canon shooter and she uses the video on her DSLR, and it is quite good.
Daniel sometimes has used big video on one of my point-and-shoot cameras. And I have a majority, I don’t remember what trend it is. And it turns out nice. YouTube doesn’t require that much. And that’s where we are all putting it. You and I probably can look at two prints and we see in a minute the difference between the quality of one and the lack of quality in the other. Most people cannot. We just have that training and that experience. And what’s more, they don’t care. I remember when desktop publishing first came out and I was having a conversation with a lithographer friend of mine, and he was just aghast that the lack of training, he was just and I said, “But it works and I can print it from my desk. And it is good enough.”
Robin: Good enough. I’ll tell you something, everybody I know, and I know quite a few people who are doing independent films and they are all going to DSLRs, and even though I am technically retired unless there is a huge technical advance, there is no real reason for me to buy new video equipment. What I have is very good. But if I buy anything else, it will be a DSLR with a separate sound recorder, an H2, or something, zoom sound recorder, and that’s what I will work with, and that’s what the Indy guys are all going to now. Like you said, $200 for a good camera?
Sally: Yeah.
Robin: And that weighs how much? It still fits in your pocket.
Sally: Yeah, it fits into a pair of tight jeans. That to me is fabulous. But again, what people have to understand is, it is not the camera that takes the picture, it is not the camera that takes the video, it is the human eye and mind, and it has to do with: Learn your camera, spend time reading the manual, now don’t read the whole darned manual, that’s boring, read one command at a time, and play with it, learn the command, find out how it affects your pictures or your video. Get a sense of it, make it part of who you are, and then go to the next one. Because it is the knowledge, the skills with the camera, and then combine it with your own personal vision, you’ll end up with pictures that are yours and not just same old same old pictures that everybody else has.
It was better when it was wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
I read that as "The Difference Between Film and Digital Pornography (Video)"
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what it really boils down to, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
I also misread the person's name as Sally Gotta Wiener rather than Sally Wiener Grotta.
Re:It was better when it was wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
Grotta is not a particularly innocent word either. I'll quote the first sentence of the swedish wikipedia article after passing it through google translate.
"A [Grotta] is a natural cavity, large enough for a man to penetrate in."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Nothing is worse than that... but it was a pretty cool place to work until they told us to stop downloading stuff to our phones.
200$ is fine (Score:3)
Please slashdot, direct me to the 200$ camera that makes good shots, and video (this is 2013, cameras should do video without too much moire or sensor overheat) of low light theater settings.
I was thinking a nikon 5200 with some hdmi recording to compensate for the 29 mins recording artificial limit. Or a non eu market panasonic gx7 which looks cooler. All of the above means shelling out some $$$.
Re: (Score:2)
Please slashdot, direct me to the 200$ camera that makes good shots, and video (this is 2013, cameras should do video without too much moire or sensor overheat) of low light theater settings.
In the interview, Grotto says: "I don’t relate to video well at all. I am very much a still photographer." So I don't think her $200 number applies for something that has the good low-light video performance that you're looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on what you're doing low-light video is easier than low-light stills; most cameras will show less noise in video mode at any given ISO, plus you can fix the shutter speed to 1/30 or whatever your framerate is rather than using the 1/100 or more you need to avoid blur on moving targets for stills.
Re: (Score:2)
For $200? Find a used Olympus E-510 or E-520 and its kit lens. You can do a lot worse. There is a telephoto kit lens too (40-150, 80-300 equiv) that is small, cheap, and surprisingly sharp.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the Holga is also medium format....
a used DSLR (Score:2)
Low light means you want the largest sensor well size you can (ie biggest individual-sized pixel), and a wide aperture lens. A few P&S cameras have both, but you're better off with an actual DSLR.
In terms of a body: the Panasonic GH2 is pretty popular among videographers for quality and controls; there are a bunch of firmware hacks out for it. If you don't mind not having video, you can pick up a used Canon 40D for peanuts, and it's a fantastic camera, and close to your price range.
In terms of lenses, y
Re: (Score:2)
Now is a not a good time to buy if you want to cover both stills and moving image with one machine, the inevitable convergence of the two devices hasn't quite happened yet, and we're on the brink of consumer 4K video being possible.
Give it a year or two and there will be truly convergent devices in all price ranges, and a glut of second hand non-convergent and/or non 4K devices on the market because rich people have rushed out and bought the shiny new stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Low light? $200? I think you're looking for a low-end strip club.
Re: (Score:2)
Please slashdot, direct me to $200 good anything...
It depends very much on one's definition of "good".
Re: (Score:2)
and anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. You can (still) buy a decent bottle of single malt for $200.
So Cute (Score:2)
No, no. This [lmgtfy.com] is being cute.
Re: (Score:2)
The EOS-M got horrible reviews--poor autofocus speed. Canon essentially replaced it with a tiny dSLR--EOS100D/Kiss X7/Rebel SL1
I picked up a refurb Nikon D3100 for $299. Of course, once you have your $300 DSLR, you might want to think about getting additional lenses-- and those can be pricy.
A sixty-second commercial? (Score:3)
A sixty-second commerical? Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
In the time it took the commercial to play, I shot and edited three images on my iPhone...lost interest after that...
What a terrible interview (Score:5, Insightful)
We're nerds. Not blind consumer-sheep. We want to know what she thinks, how the sensors work, what makes the cameras good. We don't want to know that the interviewer has a smartphone with an integrated camera, and that he's about to buy his new camera as a phone from BestBuy because he dropped his old camera.
This is a professional here, stop thinking you know *anything* about the intricacies of her job and show some respect. Imagine interviewing Linus or Wozniak and telling them that you're going to buy a new keyboard because you spilled coffee on the old one. Then asking them for recommendations on what brand of bluetooth keyboard you should get to go with your $120 tablet. I'm surprised she didn't hang up out of sheer frustration.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the impression from the way that Sally responds that the interviewer Robin (who is not properly identified) is
1) Someone she knows.
2) Someone who is known in some groups for her photography work.
This isn't a random journalist interviewing a photographer, but a slightly lesser know photographer having a conversation with a more well known photographer.
Re: (Score:2)
"We're nerds. Not blind consumer-sheep
hahahahhaha.. no. many people here a blind consumer sheep. There just blind consumer sheep about other products.
And knee jerk reaction away from something is also being a consumer sheep
Protip: Cutaways (Score:5, Informative)
Taking advantage of the conversation audio was probably much better than trying to reshoot it while reading off a transcript. Good call there. That said, cutting from video of a person to a similarly framed still of a person is not a big improvement from a cinematic perspective. If you want to do more of these, and you want something to show when the video goes wonkey, you should get some other cutaway material. A great example in this case would have been some stills from her portfolio, Ken Burns style, with some simple annotations of what we are seeing. Another easy option would be occasional reaction shots of the interviewer. Obviously, you have4 complete control over that half of the connection so you can always capture decent quality video on your side. (It's a good excuse to clean up your bedroom, if nothing else.) You could also have images of the things that are being talked about. Pictures of cameras, screenshots of software, etc. At around 10:30, you say "I will have this cheapie as a spare" as you cut away from the video. Would have been perfect to cut away to a shot of the cheapie tos how what was being talked about. Or a shot from the cheapie. Etc.
And of course if you have more technical interviewees, you can ask them to record video of themselves on the call and send it to you after, while you have an audio Skype call for the interview. You can spend as long as you need downloading the already recorded video after the fact.
That said, good job providing the transcript below the video. Excellent model to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Good points all. Just a small addendum/correction: replace
"Ken Burns style"
With
"although not Ken Burns style, as that has been overused lately, and makes it harder to appreciate the image"
Right tool for the job (Score:4, Interesting)
For 95% of what people take pictures of in the real world, yeah, a camera built into a smart phone is probably good enough. However, if you're shooting:
Then you need something like a DSLR with a real shutter & aperture and honkin' big sensor, and hopefully expensive lenses that can take advantage of all of the above. Spending $200 on a hands-on photography class will have much more impact for most people than spending the money on an expensive camera, and then hoping you getting better results when you push the button (which ain't happening).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, Sounds like everything I can do on my Nexus 4.
I got some great action shots when I was a DisneyLand
It's true (Score:5, Insightful)
I liked what she had to say, especially: "The camera doesn't take the picture, the human does." -- that's very important. It's always been possible to take *great* photos with very inexpensive gear, if the composition, subject and lighting are all great.
Most people don't need anything more than a decent $200 or even $100 camera. The trouble is that if you want to go to the "next level" -- you need to spend two or three times that (or lots more), and you can then get into low-light territory, which (IMO) is where all the excitement is. A truly *usable* 6400 or 12800 ISO is unbelievably liberating, and that's now here for well-under $1000.
Re: (Score:2)
> if the composition, subject and lighting are all great.
That's the problem. Most of the world isn't inside of a well managed portrait studio. You have to take the world and your experiences as they present themselves to you.
Quite often life won't accommodate your point-and-shoot camera and what you could manage with a phone would be even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the best portrait studio in the world is outside, with the sun at your back, or behind a thin cloud. I'd say about half of the best photos I've ever taken "just happened" and didn't happen in a studio (since I don't have access to one), and until recently (mirrorless FTW!), they were all taken with P&S cameras. Good composition and an interesting subject are 80% of the battle -- lighting (when not in a studio) is about being in the right place at the right time and choosing (or letting your
Oblig (Score:5, Funny)
More importantly (Score:2)
Is this the slowest of slow news days?
As long as you know what you are doing (Score:2)
They can learn (Score:2)
Why would you be surprised that someone buying an entry level ($800, your number) DSLR would be a beginner?
When they spend $3000 or $5000 or more on the camera -- plus perhaps as much on lenses -- and they don't know how to use any of it, now we're talking smile-into-your-napkin time. Even so, there's nothing saying they won't learn how to use it eventually.
After all, it's a lot more fun learning to play guitar on a Martin dreadnaught than it is on some cheap box from the low price specials category of Musi
Re: (Score:2)
10,000 on a 600mm lens? Why spend that amount of money when you buy a nice f/11 1000mm reflex lens for well under $200?
And you might even be able to take handheld shots with it.
Re: (Score:2)
why? Because the reflex lenses are slow (f/8, or in the cited case, f/11), lack contrast, and generally suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone wants to use a P&S at party, wedding or other extremely-low-light event where the shutter will lag for 1.5 seconds trying to focus with that super-slow lens only to end up with the camera shooting with a shutter speed of 1/3" resulting in a blurry mess, or wants to shoot a sporting event relying on 10x digital zoom only to have the resultant photos smeary pixellated mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I use Manual mode, with manual lenses, about 95 percent of the time, A split prism focusing screen really helps. For tricky light, I use an incident meter.
I enjoy the challenge.
The difference? (Score:2)
Between film and digital photography? I heard no such discussion. Slashdot, please take your editors out behind the barn and shoot them.
On another note: Right at the end of the video, we all heard someone's camera ring with an incoming call. This is a problem I've never encountered with my SL66 [sl66.com].
Did I miss something? (Score:2)
The real difference (Score:3)
I've done chemical photography since 1979, and digital since 2000.
What I have found to be the major difference betwen Digital and film photography is the way it handles light. This is very quantifiable.
Film has a portion ot light effect that it responds to in a linear fashion, which is to say that the film reacts fairly linearly to the amount of light hitting it. At the bottom (dark) end of the response of th efilm, it flattens out, as well as at the top (light) end.
While this is awkward to write about, in graphical fashion, it makes good sense, and if you have a doubling of light and graph it, it makes the traditional "S" curve. At the bottom, there isn't as much difference between doubling the amount of light, and also at the top.
In practical terms, this means that there is less contrast in both the darkest areas of a photo, and also the lightest areas of the photo. In the middle, there is "normal" contrast range.
In digital, the S curve is greatly diminished, leading to more of a straight line from the lightest the camera will show, and the darkest.The contrast range is more constant
This is a big part of what people see when they can tell the difference. between the two forms of photography.
If you want to come pretty close to imitating film response, take the image into Photoshop, select "Curves" and imitate that S curve.
Now as for the other technical issues, Cell Phones have a really big limitation. They use tiny little sensors, which in order to have a normal photo, need lenses of extremely short focal length. This ends up making for pretty "lensy" photos, and even the zooms don't actually zoom, they enlarge an area. This means no lens effect other than the wide angle look.
As for the other parts, the artistic issue, good photos can be made with any camera. People have been using plastic DIana Cameras for years to make art. A good photographer can make great art. Unfortunately, not everone has the eye or figures out how to do it, and we can now make really bad photos pretty easily. But we can always learn.
Re:Love camera phones (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you for pointing out your beliefs that only certain people should be able to use certain products. I guess your opinion is also that only those who drive for a professional living should be allowed to buy a Porsche or those who make their living from cooking should be allowed to buy $300 knives [korin.com].
Apparently it's your belief people shouldn't be allowed to buy what they want with their own money just because they enjoy a product.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
Yup, there's the confirmation.,
Re:Love camera phones (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals,
Thank you for pointing out your beliefs that only certain people should be able to use certain products.
I read that not so much as 'should be able to' as 'will be able to benefit from'.
Or, in other words, unless you really know what you're doing, you're probably wasting your money.
For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.
Re:Love camera phones (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's a lot of different mindsets on things.
Me? I've always been one of those that when I set my mind to something or wanting something, a nice camera for instance...I'd research the hell out of it, drive everyone around me mad incessantly talking about it, and then saving and buying the absolute best of xyz I could afford. I never liked much the idea of compromising and buying something 'small' or cheap, learning to use it, then buying slightly better...then upgrading that...etc.
That may work in some cases, but I just never wanted to go that route....I'd much rather put off immediate gratification, and save and buy NICE and QUALITY the first time around, as best I could.
I've been that way on lots of things. My cookware, is mostly All Clad SS. My knives are Wusthof Trident. Yes, each piece can be pretty $$. I didn't buy the whole set at once....but piece by piece as I could afford it. And along with some choice cast iron stuff, I will have cookware that will last my lifetime and is quite good as a kitchen tool.
I've done the same with my camera. I got the bug about a year and a half ago. I ended up on a video shoot I saw them filming with a Canon 5D2...I'd never seen a DSLR used for video and was curious.
I researched and was getting close to pulling the trigger on one, and found the new 5D Mark III was coming out...so, I waited about 6 more mos...saved and bought one in June after their release.
I have been THRILLED with my choice. A whole new world has opened up to me. I'd never had a real digital camera before, aside from phone and one old point and shoot someone gave me a decade ago. But this new 5D3 is amazing. It can shoot in extremely low light conditions.
I've since then, been learning lighting (both video and stills), I've been learning the post processing tools now...I work with Davinci Resolve for color grading. I got the Adobe Production Premium CS6 suite of tools to learn PS, Premier, AE, etc....
So, I think the thing is...if you're really interested in something...research it, find what you really want....save and buy the best you can. Good tools will last you longer, and in some few cases, can save you money in the long run if it is something you will stick with.
I don't generally fritter my money away on crap. I save and when I have enough for something I want, I pull the trigger and buy something VERY nice, once or twice a year usually. I never have buyers remorse either.
At this point, I'm spending even more money (photography *is* an expensive hobby if done right) on lighting equipment for video, flashes and soon strobes for stills. And glass...that is where you DSLR money is best spent. I just rented the Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens, for a video shoot I did recently for charity. I hate sending that lens back, but I know now...next thing I'm saving for, is a copy of that lens for myself.
If you're not into photography, don't bother buying something nice....but for any hobby or any thing you like doing and appreciate quality and being able to do things....save and buy the best.
Ever since I was a young kid, I worked and saved...and have always had nice stereos (still important to me), nice cars, etc...and now cameras.
In many cases, you get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
Me? I've always been one of those that when I set my mind to something or wanting something, a nice camera for instance...I'd research the hell out of it, drive everyone around me mad incessantly talking about it, and then saving and buying the absolute best of xyz I could afford.
I respect that approach, and it probably works for you. For me... I learn best by doing, and until I've used something a bit I don't really get a solid feel for what I want. Once I've played around with something and find myself saying stuff like "I wish it could do XYZ", then it's time to do some research and pony up for a legit item.
Re:Love camera phones (Score:5, Insightful)
> Or, in other words, unless you really know what you're doing, you're probably wasting your money.
Ignorant nonsense.
A better device allows for taking photos under conditions that a lesser device is simply incapable of managing. As a camera, a phone is actually a step backwards from film cameras in terms of features and ease of use.
While it's true that more expensive "pro" cameras are a matter of greatly diminishing returns, they too have their uses and situations for which they product useful output rather than a pointless blur.
It doesn't take a lot of skill to benefit from better gear. That's one of the great things about modern technology.
DSLRs multiply your skills (Score:2)
Not only that, but the thesis that one can take "good" photos varies hugely with the definition of what a "good photo" is. It's one thing for social media; perhaps another for family; another for marketing; another for deep space; another for stacked macros and stacked low light; another for historical archives; another for forensic analysis; another for HDR; another for sports and other rapid-motion incorporating shots; another for time lapse; another for journalism... you get the idea.
DSLRs are to point a
Re: (Score:2)
Truly invest in a medium format and you will never, ever consider going back to a 35mm format.
Truly invest in large format and you will never, ever consider going back to medium format.
Truly invest in a Panaflex movie camera and glass and you will never, ever consider going back to large format. (I'm stretching the point here, I know.)
All academic, I learned to shoot on my dad's Exacta film SLR. (talk about old patents, That's a lefty SLR, film goes in upside down and winds to the left.)
There is al
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to spot which cameras people are carrying, nosy bastard that I am. Just yesterday saw a scruffy youth with a Canon AE-1. Classic art student camera, along with the Pentax K1000.
There was also a girl with a Yashicamat round her neck. Reckon she was just a hipster though. At least it wasn't a sodding Lubitel. I almost bought one when I left college, they'd have been about 20 quid new at the time. That's a night's beer. Have you seen them now?
Where were we? Oh yeah, I totally agree with you abou
Re: (Score:2)
DSLRs are to point and shoots what high end sports cars are to volkswagons. They have a great deal more potential, said potential rather easily tapped by one with expertise in hand, but getting that potential out of them requires more than picking them up and pushing a button without some supporting knowledge.
There are actually quite a few point and shoot cameras that give the user more control than some dSLR cameras. And, if they have a viewfinder that isn't an LCD screen, they come close to the "through the lens" aiming of the SLR.
The truth is that the one thing that really sets the SLR apart is the interchangeable lenses. And, knowing what lens to use when is a big learning curve. Even though I have nearly a dozen different lenses and know when to use them, the one that gets the most use is just an upgrade
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.
While this works for a great deal of things, there are some that this shouldn't apply to. Such as cars, parachutes, chainsaws, fire extinguishers....
Re:Love camera phones (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, in other words, unless you really know what you're doing, you're probably wasting your money.
For myself, I tend to buy the cheapest item available of any category until I understand why the other ones are more expensive.
I did the opposite and started out by buying one of the more expensive consumer-level dSLRs (a Nikon D7000) without having a clue about photography. The idea was this:
a) A camera like that will not be the limiting factor - my own skills will be
b) It's expandable by a myriad of objectives and accessories if I want to get more advanced
c) If it turns out this photography thing wasn't really for me, I'll still get great vacation pictures with the auto mode!
I think some hobbies are just like that - you can't have gear with too poor quality or it will affect your experience so badly you'll lose interest. Learning to play the guitar on a cheap guitar that can't keep the tuning sucks. Learning astronomy on a cheap toy-level telescope is just as bad. Photography might be a different beast, but to me it seems you can't go wrong by buying quality gear from the outset.
Re: (Score:2)
I think some hobbies are just like that - you can't have gear with too poor quality or it will affect your experience so badly you'll lose interest. Learning to play the guitar on a cheap guitar that can't keep the tuning sucks.
Well Sea Sick Steve and his 3 stringed guitar would probably disagree with you...
Another example would be why start driving in a small hatchback when you could just go and buy a F1 car....
Personally I think it is more important to learn things like composition, light and to develop your own style. You don't have to spend $1000's to do that. In fact all the functions tend to get in the way. You are so busy trying to locate the right mode you miss the shot. Or worse do not take the camera out with you becaus
Re: (Score:2)
I read that not so much as 'should be able to' as 'will be able to benefit from'.
Except even the simplest thing, like taking a shot of a friend and having the depth of field short enough that the background is out of focus, is beyond the point-and-shoot. Sure, not everybody needs the top camera, but the benefits of the physics of SLRs is still massive.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, I did not know that "P" was the professional setting on my camera..?!?!.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked her video on accessorizing your camera.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, I know, right?
I think I've read that this indeed was a very well done spoof, and that either her or maybe her husband really is a true pro, and this was done to poke fun at the large numbers of folks, that get some sort of DSLR and hang their shingle out (usually just on FB), and are actually charging people for images.
A funny site for what is going on as pro photography can be seen here at You Are Not A Photographer [youarenota...rapher.com].
Warning...some of these and the c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the tone of the comment, when looked at in its entirety, was one of, "Only professionals should be using this stuff," meaning the OP doesn't believe non-professionals should be allowed to use the equipment.
I try not to do what you said but I do make exceptions. Such as this one.
Re:Love camera phones (Score:5, Insightful)
"People who don't make their living from pictures but insist on using equipment this expensive have more money than sense"
A lot of fancy cameras could be considered jewellery given how many are owned but never used to their potential. Lots of camera enthusiasts think of Leicas as jewellery no matter who is using them (thanks to their hilariously high prices)
Re: (Score:3)
And well....some people have a lot more disposable income than others.
To them, $3K is not a lot of money, more like $300.
People seem to forget that a lot of people make a decent amount of money...so, much of it depends on what you have coming in...and what is important to you. Maybe owning a house having 3 kids is what you want. Others may want a smaller house, or just rent...no kids
Re: (Score:2)
My first DSLR was a Canon 5D3. it isn't top of the line, but it was a bit pricey, and I've had a blast with it. I've been learning so much on how photography works and what can be done with it (and videography too). I put it on manual about and 2nd day I had it and have been learning since then how to shoot and get the effects "I" want.
You bought a nice camera! If you haven't tried "Magic Lantern" yet, you should check it out. It takes it to another level. I Don't have a mkIII, or even mkII, I have a t2i, which can use "Magic Lantern", but if I didn't have family/kids/mortgage etc. I would have that camera! It's a very nice camera and a very nice camcorder in one package.
If you do your research and if you are willing to learn what you can do with your camera, then of course you should get a nice camera if you an afford it! You'll get the
Re: (Score:2)
No. No, it did not have that tone at all. Your reading is an enormous stretch, and does not mean that at all, and unbiased native speakers of English will not interpret it the way you have. I don't know if English is a second language for you or if you same some bias here, but your reading is not
Re:Love camera phones (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a professional photographer, but I do not like point-and-shoot cameras, shutter lag, limit of lens choices (actually no choice just the one), terrible f-stop range, terrible noise on sensors, tiny sensors, and they are way too light to be able to make steady shots, and not seeing through the lens at what you're shooting is totally weird with the electronic lag of CCD to LCD display.
With a DSLR I can shoot with very high shutter speeds, having the ability to change lenses allows me to get either macro close or very far objects closer up. You can also clip on filters to change the image, like polarisers.
Most people will not need a DSLR, but to claim that those cameras are only for professionals is rubbish. Even a cheap DSLR will out do a point-and-shoot. And let's not even get into thiny pinhead size sensors in mobile phones and claim that it's genuinely 8MP+.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just not true. You can get perfectly fine point-and-shoot cameras with all the advantages you ascribe to DSLR cameras. In fact, you can nowadays even get point-and-shoot cameras that will show you a clearer picture through the electronic viewfinder in the dark than you could ever get through a DSLR viewfinder with your own eyes.
Many of the compact cameras listed here will outdo many cheap DSLRs.
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-compact-camera-2013-34-reviewed-963985 [techradar.com]
Re: (Score:2)
At this point dSLRs should only be used by professionals,
Thank you for pointing out your beliefs that only certain people should be able to use certain products. I guess your opinion is also that only those who drive for a professional living should be allowed to buy a Porsche or those who make their living from cooking should be allowed to buy $300 knives [korin.com].
Apparently it's your belief people shouldn't be allowed to buy what they want with their own money just because they enjoy a product.
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
Yup, there's the confirmation.,
Did she really say those things? (The video won't play for me.)
So, really, all those prosumer and entry level DSLRs are only to be used by people who get paid to take photos? I think that would be news to... almost everyone, I'd guess.
I'm a professional photographer. (In that, I make part of my living from photography.) I got into the profession by buying a digital SLR and learning how to use it, in particular how it is different from the film cameras I had previously owned. I learned about post proces
Re: (Score:2)
I see now that the comments were from another commenter, not TFA. I think (some of) my comments still stand, though.
Re: (Score:2)
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
Yup, there's the confirmation.,
Agreed.
But on the other hand, since nobody has seen Mozumder's photos, any camera he posses is useless as well, according to his rules.
Only an idiot would assume a camera phone is the way to go for anything but the most trivial subset of general purpose photography.
and 99.9% of camera phone shots are never viewed, by anyone but the phone owner, and at least 40% of them aren't even viewed by the owner except to delete them.
Maybe most people don't need a dSLR with the quality of some of the Mirrorless cameras
Re: (Score:2)
Or unless you WANT to own one.
This Idea that I have to justify a NEED might work in a top down command economy like North Korea, but even the former Soviet Union doesn't believe in that nonsense any more.
Re: (Score:2)
No where did he suggest that the purchase of DSLRs should be legally restricted to professional photographers. My thing is bikes, I have quite an expensive bike, and I am fully aware of what a waste it is. Whenever people ask me about bikes, I tell them not to buy an expensive one. I do not think that they should be prevented from buying an expensive bike if they want one, just that it would be a waste for them. Similarly it would be a waste for you to buy a DSLR.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is a point here. A number of people I know who have DSLR's but never move the setting off auto, or touch any of the settings. The question is whether they would of been better of getting a cheaper high end compact.
I only got A DSLR when I felt I had reached the end of the capabilities of the compacts I had. Low light performance was especially a issue. But whatever camera I had the main issue is composition. $1000 of camera is not help with that.
Some of my favorite photo's were taken with a $2
Re:Love camera phones (Score:4, Insightful)
dSLR's "should" be used by whoever the hell wants to use them. That's as absurd as saying that pianos should only be used by professional pianists because anyone else can get a harmonica. Who says?
Re: (Score:2)
So much angst.
He's saying that a Stratovarius violin won't sound any better than a Yamaha violin in the hands of an ameteur.
Once you reach the limits of the Yamaha, then move on...
Re: (Score:2)
It's till stupid.
A Camera, especially a good camera, will last for years. It's a device one can grow into. Take some point and click and the one day decide to try and figure what to adjust to get a good picture of some with a sunlit window behind then. Then maybe reduce blurs.
In 5 years you can still have the camera, and it will still take great shots AND still be growing into it.
Now, something like Gold Clubs. Yes, it would be a waste to get custom clubs for a beginner. They don't have extra features, and
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who is both a pianist and a photographer, this metaphor is way off.
A better comparison is more like
cheap 55-key Casio keyboard - decent upright piano - Bosendorfer concert grand (or Stradivarius violin; Stratovarius is a metal band which most definitely doesn't make violins).
cameraphone - consumer digital SLR - Phase One medium format back
Here, the first one will let you do some very limited things, and its output is fine for some purposes but not suitable for many. The second one is a complete t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised. I hadn't heard about that one, but I had heard of something they did with flutes: they had professional flautists listen, blindfolded, to a top-grade expensive flute, and then one made from concrete. They couldn't tell the difference. I can see it mattering a bit more for an instrument where the body itself transmits strong vibrations, but the Stradivari thing has always had the air of hype around it.
There was a semi-related thing with pianos: Kawai, a piano maker, started using plastic p
Re: (Score:2)
i see a lot of parents with DSLR's on the playground. lugging around the camera in a pouch and the accessories to take a few photos of their kids. sometimes they scream at their kids so they can get that nice shot
me, i have my iphone. i'll take 10 or 20 photos in a few seconds of my kid in action and keep the best one. its also small enough for me to go into knee deep water and get some awesome action shots of my kid playing in ocean waves as they splash around him
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe in your universe. In my universe, camera phones are still relatively poor even when compared with even my original Canon 300D DSLR from a decade ago. Compared with my current 6D, the difference is night and day. Literally. The amount of light is proportional to the square of the l
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you can get arrested for doing things like that.
Seriously, though, DSLRs are amazing, so long as you actually learn to use them. I almost laugh out loud on a regular basis when on holiday every time I see someone with an entry-level DSLR in full auto mode with a kit lens, shooting some artefact or monument with the built in flash. Those sorts would do better with an all in one bridge camera and spend the dif
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing is that they're just a decent lens and one rotation of the dial away from good pictures (P instead of full aut
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you have a nice DSLR, you're also likely using some nice tools, like Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture to post process or "develop" your images...and you can easily post to social media (if you're into that type thing) directly from there.
You don't have to send everything you shoot immediately from then and there. Frankly, most images people send out immediately aren't worth looking at...
Personally, I like to shoot pics....and with good ones
Re: (Score:3)
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
It's really quite stupid to state that photos not on a social network are useless:
You might want pictures to put on your own wall?
Portraits of your own family?
Perhaps social networks mean that people are more inclined to view hundreds of slightly interesting pictures instead of a a few nicer ones (since the cost of a photo is now approximately zero), but not everyone shares that opinion. (This is not to state that "good" photos can only be taken on expensive equipment.)
Re: (Score:2)
A dSLR camera is useless if no one sees your photos.
The the person behind the camera sees his own potos. That counts above anything else, if you have any artistic fiber in you.
Re: (Score:2)
Never been a problem for me either. Pop SD card into computer, grab pictures, pull out ones that don't suck, upload to Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Shooting video of your son's hockey games with the Canon SLR will be a disaster unless you are prepared to manually focus all the time; the autofocus systems in SLR's don't work in movie mode. (Some of them don't work at all, and some of them just suck; I don't know which the T3 is.) The one exception is the Canon 70D, which has a fancy split-pixel sensor that lets it AF during movie shooting.
The exceptions are the Sony SLT cameras, which send 2/3 of the light to the sensor and 1/3 to a dedicated AF sensor,
Re: (Score:2)
Funny....that manual pulling of focus hasn't seemed to hurt the movie industry for oh say......forever?
If you have a DSLR and are wanting to shoot video, you know what is required of you. If you want auto focus, then don't use it...but you CAN get extremely high quality video from a DSLR. It is a different shooting
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not at all demeaning SLR's for video -- they do it very, very well, as you say. (Hence my first sentence: if you are prepared to manually focus, it will work, otherwise not.)
The issue is that the people who do manual focus pulling are very very good at what they do. Most DSLR owners, even ones who are excellent stills photographers, are not experienced with video manual focus. It seems that you are; good for you. Lots of folks aren't, and I know of quite a few people who have gotten rude surprises when
Re: (Score:2)
Did you buy the lens before or after you bought your Canon T2i? It seems an odd choice from a crop sensor camera.
Re:Love camera phones (Score:5, Interesting)
What's obscene here is the idea that you have to buy a device with Facebook built into it in order to publish things via Facebook. One should be able to easily combine devices that conform to open standards to achieve things with technology the engineers never thought of.
Profanity is not an inappropriate response to proprietary walled garden nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Aperture 3 will connect to both facebook and flickr. Develop the raw file. Upload. done.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the person that sounds like they don't make enough money to buy nice things they want...?
I'd say frankly, that in this day in age, most high end DSLR owners don't want to promote the fact they have a $$ piece of equipment around their necks...due to some asshole wanting to rob and steal it from them.
I just don't get the point of so many people these days, spouting off that "They only buy xyz for other people to look at it".
Ok, I'm sure some d
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course not...everyone knows that "P" is for professional, so you set that one your camera to get professional results, eh?
[rolls eyes].
Actually, I experimeted the first 2x days with full auto, and then trying the shutter and apeture priority settings, and since then, I've pretty much had it set to full manual and learning how to work it that way.
It isn't that hard once you practice a little.
This weekend, I'm ac
Re: (Score:2)
The point of having a dSLR is being able to change your lens. With a largish sensor, you can also control the depth of field by adjusting the aperture. The viewfinder is also quite useful-- LCDs tend to wash out in bright sunlight, and of course, with a DLSR, you can stabilize the camera against your skull.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Selection bias. When sharing photos was expensive, only incredibly sharp photos were shared. Digital photo-taking developed with digital photo-sharing, cheap and easy.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1980's, I got my first SLR after owning a bunch of crappy 110's. It was a basic Pentax and cost a little over $100. It had no flash and manual everything, including threading the film, but was the best camera I ever owned. 35mm film was expensive on an Army salary, so I had to plan every shot I took. I could take shots with that camera that I have never been able to take with any other. Went down into the dimly-lit tunnels of the Maginot Line and took some perfect pictures there, with no flash.
Re: Some thoughts on film and digital (Score:2)