| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2004 03:34:54 PM · #1 |
Now that I've gone through 6 cameras I'm starting to pay a bit more attention to which camera is good for which situation. I know there are a lot of people who are rushing head long towards getting a digital SLR or wanting the next latest and greatest camera, but a lot of good image making is in knowing the limitations of your gear and working well within those limitations.
Some times those limitations can actually encourage you to become a better photographer. An example - with a slow camera without a high speed buffer and the ability to shoot 8 frames per second, you might actually get better at predicting sports action and time your results more carefully rather than blasting away to the limits of the 40 frame buffer. Pro sports shooters, that need to get the shot to pay the bills don't have the luxury of experimentation to the same degree.
Or if you have a camera with JPEG only modes, you may end up learning more about exposure to get correct results in camera, rather than shooting RAW and fixing it up later.
I occasionally shoot with a much less capable camera than my D60 and find that while there are certainly restrictions in for example the optio S4 that I carry when traveling, that those restrictions some times mean I get more thoughtful, better constructed images than I perhaps get with more lens options and higher shutter speeds.
Smaller format cameras can take you to more interestingly covert locations than a large DSLR with long lens would let you get away with. Natural candid images aren't often found with a soup plate sized lens pointing at you when you are aware of it.
A big part of taking good pictures is knowing the limitations, working with them to get the best results. If you are always fighting with the gear or lusting after the next big thing, then you might be missing out on the opportunities in front of you to learn and grow.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 03:38:53 PM · #2 |
Very interesting Gordon, just one question,
Are you saying you can make an absolute hash of an exposure shooting raw and still correct it?
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 03:45:28 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Very interesting Gordon, just one question,
Are you saying you can make an absolute hash of an exposure shooting raw and still correct it? |
Lot more latitude than with the same exposure in JPEG modes, yes.
Easily +- 1 stop or even up to a couple of stops in some cases, particularly for underexposures (highlights tend to blow out if you over expose)
The picture quality suffers the more you screw it up, but you can pull a whole lot out of the shadows, mainly due to the extra bit depth of the RAW file.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 03:52:11 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by peecee:
Very interesting Gordon, just one question,
Are you saying you can make an absolute hash of an exposure shooting raw and still correct it? |
Lot more latitude than with the same exposure in JPEG modes, yes.
Easily +- 1 stop or even up to a couple of stops in some cases, particularly for underexposures (highlights tend to blow out if you over expose)
The picture quality suffers the more you screw it up, but you can pull a whole lot out of the shadows, mainly due to the extra bit depth of the RAW file. |
Sounds excellent , I only have tiff besides jpeg, but they are huge (18 mb)
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 03:57:35 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Sounds excellent , I only have tiff besides jpeg, but they are huge (18 mb) |
Actually this comes back to the pro/ con type trade offs in features.
RAW lets you maybe make more mistakes in the field or recover from more mistakes, but at the cost of increased processing time at home. You can tweak white balance, exposure and sharpening settings a lot more in RAW mode, but that means you _have_ to do these things later.
For some kinds of shooting that is great, for others its a big overhead.
There are other advantages like being able to do funky digital combining of images to get better dynamic range and so on, but again there are pros and cons to different techniques.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 04:01:54 PM · #6 |
I don't mind the post processing now, at first it was a bind, but with all the excellent advice here I actually enjoy tweaking them.
Thanks Gordon
Paul.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 04:15:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by peecee:
Sounds excellent , I only have tiff besides jpeg, but they are huge (18 mb) |
Actually, on most cameras there's not a real difference between tiff and jpeg. The essence of raw is that (1) you have more bits (2) no processing in-camera has been done (3) it's not compressed. For most cameras that store tiff, only number 3 applies, often the tiff-image has the same number of bits as the jpeg, and it's processed in the same way as the jpeg. On my sony F717, the incredible amount of extra recording time isn't worth that, at the highest jpeg quality you wouldn't see the difference with tiff. The big advantage of raw is, IMO, in the extra bits and the ability to undo/redo post-processing, so you're not depending on the camera manufacturer's post-processing algorithms (although often these algorithms are very good, a lot of research on digital cameras is spent on post-processing). There was a link to an excellent article on this topic some time ago, forgot to save it but maybe somebody else could post it again? |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 04:28:11 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by nicoledb:
Originally posted by peecee:
Sounds excellent , I only have tiff besides jpeg, but they are huge (18 mb) |
Actually, on most cameras there's not a real difference between tiff and jpeg. The essence of raw is that (1) you have more bits (2) no processing in-camera has been done (3) it's not compressed. For most cameras that store tiff, only number 3 applies, often the tiff-image has the same number of bits as the jpeg, and it's processed in the same way as the jpeg. On my sony F717, the incredible amount of extra recording time isn't worth that, at the highest jpeg quality you wouldn't see the difference with tiff. The big advantage of raw is, IMO, in the extra bits and the ability to undo/redo post-processing, so you're not depending on the camera manufacturer's post-processing algorithms (although often these algorithms are very good, a lot of research on digital cameras is spent on post-processing). There was a link to an excellent article on this topic some time ago, forgot to save it but maybe somebody else could post it again? |
Well explained Nicole, I intend to get myself a dslr when I have enough money, have to sell a few prints to raise it so it could be some time
although I am on the way with my first sale the other day :)
Paul.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 04:40:59 PM · #9 |
The quality of the jpeg compression used varies widely from one manufacturer to another.
I found HP's jpeg compression to be unacceptable, likewise, early Kodak digital cameras. Canon and Minolta seem to be much better.
But there is no loss of detail in a tiff image though it may be lower dynamic range than raw.
Jpeg compression has a tendency to blur out fine detail, particularly in grass, pavement, and gravel. It also leaves compression artifacts that can spoil an image.
That is not to say that jpeg is not useful, it depends on how well the compression algorithm is implemented.
I use jpeg mostly, and raw or tiff rarely. Just be aware of the shortcomings of jpeg and use good judgement on whether or not high quality is requisite for a particular photo.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 05:05:46 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
The quality of the jpeg compression used varies widely from one manufacturer to another.
I found HP's jpeg compression to be unacceptable, likewise, early Kodak digital cameras. Canon and Minolta seem to be much better.
But there is no loss of detail in a tiff image though it may be lower dynamic range than raw.
Jpeg compression has a tendency to blur out fine detail, particularly in grass, pavement, and gravel. It also leaves compression artifacts that can spoil an image.
That is not to say that jpeg is not useful, it depends on how well the compression algorithm is implemented.
I use jpeg mostly, and raw or tiff rarely. Just be aware of the shortcomings of jpeg and use good judgement on whether or not high quality is requisite for a particular photo. |
I only have experience with the Sony compression, but my impression of that is very good, at least on the high quality setting. I can imagine it would be different between manufacturers, so I second your advice to be aware of the shortcomings of jpeg. Unfortunately, on my Sony F717 tiff is not really an alternative. I would like to have raw available though, if only to experiment with the additional possibilities that offers. Maybe when I get that D70... |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 05:30:06 PM · #11 |
I still find that with RAW conversions in Photoshop CS if I underexpose significantly (1 stop or more) I still get more noise in the image after adjustment than if my exposure is correct in the first place. There's certainly more dynamic range in a RAW file but it takes some work to make the most out of a shot that isn't perfectly exposed. As such, I now tend to use center-weighted metering for most of my shots, given that it's much more predictable than evaluative metering and I'm getting used to how it'll react to a given situation. Also, underexposing 1/3rd of a stop tends to avoid the blown highlights, which typically bothers me more than underexposed shadow areas.
I agree about the camera choice though. One of the nice things about the 10D/D60/D30/Rebel is that they're fairly flexible. The 10D is quite a different beast with the BG-ED grip, flash, and 70-200 on it than if I'm shooting with no grip and the 28 2.8 where it just looks like any other little camera and nobody pays attention to it. Still, yes, I would like an S500 to throw in a shirt pocket and go.
Message edited by author 2004-06-14 17:31:37. |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 05:34:29 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Now that I've gone through 6 cameras I'm starting to pay a bit more attention to which camera is good for which situation. I know there are a lot of people who are rushing head long towards getting a digital SLR or wanting the next latest and greatest camera, but a lot of good image making is in knowing the limitations of your gear and working well within those limitations.
Some times those limitations can actually encourage you to become a better photographer. An example - with a slow camera without a high speed buffer and the ability to shoot 8 frames per second, you might actually get better at predicting sports action and time your results more carefully rather than blasting away to the limits of the 40 frame buffer. Pro sports shooters, that need to get the shot to pay the bills don't have the luxury of experimentation to the same degree.
Or if you have a camera with JPEG only modes, you may end up learning more about exposure to get correct results in camera, rather than shooting RAW and fixing it up later.
I occasionally shoot with a much less capable camera than my D60 and find that while there are certainly restrictions in for example the optio S4 that I carry when traveling, that those restrictions some times mean I get more thoughtful, better constructed images than I perhaps get with more lens options and higher shutter speeds.
Smaller format cameras can take you to more interestingly covert locations than a large DSLR with long lens would let you get away with. Natural candid images aren't often found with a soup plate sized lens pointing at you when you are aware of it.
A big part of taking good pictures is knowing the limitations, working with them to get the best results. If you are always fighting with the gear or lusting after the next big thing, then you might be missing out on the opportunities in front of you to learn and grow. |
well said and i totally agree. it took me a while to learn this with the little point & shoot Olympus. once i learned it, my photos became better and i enjoyed the process again.
lately, it seems, i've become so caught-up in wanting a dslr that i've forgotten the joy of photography. it's time i learned it again.
thanks for the reminder, G. |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 05:45:33 PM · #13 |
Whenever I read all the threads about folks wanting / needing a new dslr or lens, one of my photography mentor's lectures come to mind. Basically he said, "It isn't about hardware - when some one asks me what brand of camera I use I don't answer." Instead I ask them, 'If you read a good book, do you say to the author, "Wow, that's a superb book, you must have a great word processor."'
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 06:10:22 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by photom:
Whenever I read all the threads about folks wanting / needing a new dslr or lens, one of my photography mentor's lectures come to mind. Basically he said, "It isn't about hardware - when some one asks me what brand of camera I use I don't answer." Instead I ask them, 'If you read a good book, do you say to the author, "Wow, that's a superb book, you must have a great word processor."' |
text
This is generally correct. The photographer is far more important than the camera. However, if the camera is a fixed lens 320X240 pixel the photogs options become limited very quickly!
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 06:14:23 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by photom:
Whenever I read all the threads about folks wanting / needing a new dslr or lens, one of my photography mentor's lectures come to mind. Basically he said, "It isn't about hardware - when some one asks me what brand of camera I use I don't answer." Instead I ask them, 'If you read a good book, do you say to the author, "Wow, that's a superb book, you must have a great word processor."' |
Boy, you nailed it! I just cringe when I read all the posts about new DSLR's and lenses - better lenses, faster lenses, whatever. I mean, I'm excited for them but at the same time I'm hoping they haven't gone into debt or something equally awful because they think that a new __________ will improve their skills without them actually doing any additional work.
I often wonder what kind of world we would find ourselves in if nobody cared about someone else's car, house, photography equipment, etc. The sweet freedom :-) |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 06:23:12 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by photom:
Whenever I read all the threads about folks wanting / needing a new dslr or lens, one of my photography mentor's lectures come to mind. Basically he said, "It isn't about hardware - when some one asks me what brand of camera I use I don't answer." Instead I ask them, 'If you read a good book, do you say to the author, "Wow, that's a superb book, you must have a great word processor."' |
Interestingly, many authors also obsess about the best writing implements to use...
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 06:29:25 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Now that I've gone through 6 cameras... fighting with the gear or lusting after the next big thing, ...you might be missing out on the opportunities in front of you to learn and grow. |
They make Leicas just for this sort of demographic. ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/14/2004 07:22:22 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by photom:
Whenever I read all the threads about folks wanting / needing a new dslr or lens, one of my photography mentor's lectures come to mind. Basically he said, "It isn't about hardware - when some one asks me what brand of camera I use I don't answer." Instead I ask them, 'If you read a good book, do you say to the author, "Wow, that's a superb book, you must have a great word processor."' |
Interestingly, many authors also obsess about the best writing implements to use... |
Similarly, musicians are always fretting about instruments. The thing is, you don't want your gear to be in the way of your development. To speak for myself, I have lots to learn before I can justify investing in new gear. But it's fun to dream about it! |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 08:35:56 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by nicoledb:
Similarly, musicians are always fretting about instruments. |
It's not unusual for a top-flight violinist to pay several thousand dollars ... for a BOW. |
|
|
|
06/15/2004 06:21:56 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I still find that with RAW conversions in Photoshop CS if I underexpose significantly (1 stop or more) I still get more noise in the image after adjustment than if my exposure is correct in the first place. There's certainly more dynamic range in a RAW file but it takes some work to make the most out of a shot that isn't perfectly exposed. |
Yeah, an underexposed shot is much harder to correct since most of the data is now sitting in the shadows, where the noise is. You can follow the advice to expose right and shift back down in the raw converter. The results are generally better, but you have to be careful about certain saturated colours that are missing green. |
|
|
|
06/15/2004 07:15:37 AM · #21 |
| I believe that the biggest limitations have more to do with the lenses attached to the camera back (whether fixed or interchangeable) than with whether or not your camera shoots in jpeg only, raw,or what have you. With that said, for the purposes of learning about composition, when and if I ever get a dSLR I will most likely start out with a single prime lense for each of the major categories of lens made...that is, a prime for wide angle, standard, and telephoto, because it forces a photographer to use more camera positioning than with a camera fitted with a zoom with a wide range. Imo, a zoom makes for a lazy photographer, possibly, as it can stop one from fully exploring a subject and scene by allowing the photographer not to have to get intimate with the subject and exploring all the different angles and positions. |
|
|
|
06/15/2004 07:54:03 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I believe that the biggest limitations have more to do with the lenses attached to the camera back (whether fixed or interchangeable) than with whether or not your camera shoots in jpeg only, raw,or what have you. With that said, for the purposes of learning about composition, when and if I ever get a dSLR I will most likely start out with a single prime lense for each of the major categories of lens made...that is, a prime for wide angle, standard, and telephoto, because it forces a photographer to use more camera positioning than with a camera fitted with a zoom with a wide range. Imo, a zoom makes for a lazy photographer, possibly, as it can stop one from fully exploring a subject and scene by allowing the photographer not to have to get intimate with the subject and exploring all the different angles and positions. |
I can see where your philosophy is coming from, but if you do anything but studio work it is very convenient to have a zoom which packs many lenses into one tube. I often spend hours in the woods with my camera and am very happy to carry a zoom lense instead of my camera bag. I think the only shot you know will come out bad is the one you don't take, and without the zooms I often wouldn't have my camera with me. |
|
|
|
06/15/2004 09:57:55 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
I can see where your philosophy is coming from, but if you do anything but studio work it is very convenient to have a zoom which packs many lenses into one tube. I often spend hours in the woods with my camera and am very happy to carry a zoom lense instead of my camera bag. I think the only shot you know will come out bad is the one you don't take, and without the zooms I often wouldn't have my camera with me. |
The point is many people use the zoom on the lens, rather than the zoom on their legs. With a prime you don't have the luxury of lazyness.
The big difference is that if you had used your legs rather than the telephoto option on the camera, the result is very different and it can take a while to realise that if you have the zoom options.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 10:15:21 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by cghubbell:
I can see where your philosophy is coming from, but if you do anything but studio work it is very convenient to have a zoom which packs many lenses into one tube. I often spend hours in the woods with my camera and am very happy to carry a zoom lense instead of my camera bag. I think the only shot you know will come out bad is the one you don't take, and without the zooms I often wouldn't have my camera with me. |
The point is many people use the zoom on the lens, rather than the zoom on their legs. With a prime you don't have the luxury of lazyness.
The big difference is that if you had used your legs rather than the telephoto option on the camera, the result is very different and it can take a while to realise that if you have the zoom options. |
Yes thanks Gordon, exactly my point. And when we use our feet to explore a subject and it's environs you can discover things about it that may not have been apparent to you had you just used your zoom. It probably also makes you more aware of the effects that different lens' perspectives have on the image. Plus, I think that a prime lens will give greater image quality. Just my two-cents, from a 2-bit photographer. :) |
|
