# Ken Rockwell is dangerous to photography



## Bungle73 (Apr 26, 2014)

Skip forward to 39 minutes for the rant:



Here's what Mr. Rockwell wrote:




			
				Ken Rockwell said:
			
		

> *Image Quality* top
> 
> *I use * * BASIC JPG.*
> 
> ...



http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3300/users-guide/index.htm

12 images? Really?? I can't believe he wrote all that with a straight face!

I noticed somewhere else he claims "ISO" is pronounced "eye ess oh" and not "eye soh", which is wrong; it's "eye soh". And then there are his views on RAW...

It's like he's the Internet's biggest photography troll.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

I tend to ignore Ken Rockwell ....


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2014)

That video was too fucking annoying to sit through. I couldn't give a shit about his fucking expensive chair.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 26, 2014)

editor said:


> That video was too fucking annoying to sit through. I couldn't give a shit about his fucking expensive chair.


Of course it was too easy to skip forward to the part I told you to skip forward to......?


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 26, 2014)

That is some really fucking annoying guy moaning about ken rockwell being annoying.  Who gives a shit ffs.


----------



## Corax (Apr 26, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Of course it was too easy to skip forward to the part I told you to skip forward to......?


_Dammit, no one took my bait.  Quick, let's start an argument a different way!_


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 26, 2014)

Corax said:


> _Dammit, no one took my bait.  Quick, let's start an argument a different way!_


That's some twisted logic you have there.  If anyone's trying to start an argument here it's you.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 26, 2014)

no you


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 26, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> no you


Um, how have I "started an argument"??


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2014)

"Dangerous."

lol


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2014)

How many pages did you manage last time, Bungle you old troll?


----------



## wiskey (Apr 26, 2014)

I've got a strong sense of de ja vu


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 26, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> How many pages did you manage last time, Bungle you old troll?


Um, it's not me that's trolling in this thread.  I have done absolutely nothing wrong.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

Ken Rockwell has an expensive chair?

Does he sit on it backwards?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2014)

"It's not me, it's everyone else. I'm the only person capable of seeing the truth. It's not me, it's everyone else."


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Ken Rockwell has an expensive chair?
> 
> Does he sit on it backwards?



I don't even take jpgs. I take gpjs.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 26, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> "It's not me, it's everyone else. I'm the only person capable of seeing the truth. It's not me, it's everyone else."


Show me where I have done ANYTHING wrong in this thread??

FFS do you guys have nothing better to do that start shit in a forum that is supposed to be about photography. This is the most unfriendly place on this entire forum. I really cannot be bothered with a bunch of people who are so argumentative and so two faced. This will be my last post in this thread, and likely in this part of the boards.  I'd rather talk photography elsewhere with people who want to have proper discussions.


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 26, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's like he's the Internet's biggest photography troll.



2nd biggest


----------



## Corax (Apr 26, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Show me where I have done ANYTHING wrong in this thread??


Sure, no problem.


Bungle73 said:


> Of course it was too easy to skip forward to the part I told you to skip forward to......?


That's known as "being a pointlessly argumentative dick".

If you behave like that in real life then I assume you spend most of your time looking like a panda.

HTH


----------



## neonwilderness (Apr 26, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't even take jpgs. I take gpjs.


With a backwards camera phone?


----------



## Corax (Apr 26, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> With a backwards camera phone?


The camera phone's not backwards, just the lens hood.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 26, 2014)

*subscribes


----------



## neonwilderness (Apr 26, 2014)

Corax said:


> The camera phone's not backwards, just the lens hood.


Amateur


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

Seriously though, the pronunciation of ISO is a pretty vital point that I don't think we've ever discussed.

Clearly it is Eye Ess Oh and anyone who says otherwise is a cunt. (Edit: actually, even in the context of this srs thread I'm not going to add "backwards" there.)


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Ken Rockwell has an expensive chair?
> 
> Does he sit on it backwards?


That isn't Ken Rockwell in the expensive chair !!


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

This is Ken Rockwell :


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

Just look at that fucking lens hood.

Just look at it.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> That isn't Ken Rockwell in the expensive chair !!



this


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Just look at that fucking lens hood.
> 
> Just look at it.


Well it isn't on backwards, if that is what you mean!!


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Seriously though, the pronunciation of ISO is a pretty vital point that I don't think we've ever discussed.
> 
> Clearly it is Eye Ess Oh and anyone who says otherwise is a cunt. (Edit: actually, even in the context of this srs thread I'm not going to add "backwards" there.)


http://www.nickcarverphotography.com/blog/tag/how-to-pronounce-iso/


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

ISO - eye ess oh - there are three letters so there are three sounds.

But Bokeh - boh keh or boh kay etc but not Bo kay


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 26, 2014)

What about book aye


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> What about book aye


If you want to read a book no problem!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

The simplest solution is just not to talk about bokeh.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> What about book aye


bouquet of flowers


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The simplest solution is just not to talk about bokeh.


But it is the shortest way to say, "the out of focus area" .. time is important!!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2014)

Bokka.

Obv.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2014)

Anyway, I can't see the problem with saving your pictures as gifs. As long as you pronounce it right. And I'm sure we all know the right way to pronounce it, right?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

If anybody would use the word to say anything useful I might allow it, but they just witter on about "creamy bokeh". In fact it should be pronounced "*boke*".


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

Nick On or Nigh Con? TRICK QUESTION it's Niiiiiiikon, as in "I gotta Niiiiiiikon camera, I like to take phooooootagraphs".


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If anybody would use the word to say anything useful I might allow it, but they just witter on about "creamy bokeh". In fact it should be pronounced "*boke*".


I got into plenty of discussions about the qualities of bokeh available from the Nikon 85mm f1.8 compared to the more expensive Nikon 85mm f1.4 people felt very strongly about it, and still do even though there are now G versions of these lenses which have new and different qualities. I plumped for the f1.8, saved myself £500 and am happy.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> But it is the shortest way to say, "the out of focus area" .. time is important!!


What's wrong with  "blur"?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

Was that on dpreview?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Nick On or Nigh Con? TRICK QUESTION it's Niiiiiiikon, as in "I gotta Niiiiiiikon camera, I like to take phooooootagraphs".



Or as some Yanks I know say Nigh Con, like Eye Rak, where was Saddam from, Eye Rak!  

I say Nih Con .... and Fug Gi


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Was that on dpreview?


Yes


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

Greebo said:


> What's wrong with  "blur"?


Blur can apply to the whole photograph. Normally Bokeh is about the qualities of an image in the bit of the image which is not in focus. But there will be a bit in the photo that is in sharp focus so just using the word blur might be misleading.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Blur can apply to the whole photograph. Normally Bokeh is about the qualities of an image in the bit of the image which is not in focus. But there will be a bit in the photo that is in sharp focus so just using the word blur might be misleading.


Okay then, "smudged bit".


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

It is "the quality of the blurring of areas of the picture which are out of focus". But "bokeh" is a stupid word and I think we should invent another one.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2014)

Pretty blur bubbles is what I like to call it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2014)

This thread has turned out better than I thought it would.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

My little bokeh


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

Bokeh .. like this


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 26, 2014)

That's some sort of plant, it's not a bokeh.


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> My little bokeh


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That's some sort of plant, it's not a bokeh.


creamy though eh !! ???

eta: 400mm lens in that shot.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2014)

I'm sorry, weltweit, but that jpg compression distracts from any creaminess. Shoulda gone with gif.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm sorry, weltweit, but that jpg compression distracts from any creaminess. Shoulda gone with gif.


I have used plenty of gif in my time ... especially for block colour ....

I remember dial-up when webpages had to be optimised, not like these lazy designers these days!!


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 26, 2014)

Even down to perfecting and minimising the html.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

ToothlessFerret said:


> Even down to perfecting and minimising the html.


Yes indeed ... minimise bloat!


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 26, 2014)

ToothlessFerret said:


> Even down to perfecting and minimising the html.


And the CSS

I still take the time to make pages as small as possible. I despise unnecessary bandwidth waste. (apart from the shite I post on Urban)


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 26, 2014)

Ken Rockwell pronounces it Say - Sssz - Sssx.


----------



## Mikey77 (Apr 26, 2014)

Instead of boh Kay I think it should be boo gay. As in boogie but with a gay instead of gie.

So, "teh quality of your boogay is most pleasing, young fellow".


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Of course it was too easy to skip forward to the part I told you to skip forward to......?


Always good to take time out to get the full context of a story rather than skipping to some preselected part just because someone tells me too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Skip forward to 39 minutes for the rant:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




TBF to Rockwell, ISO is pronounced either way, either as an enunciation of the acronym (eye-soh) or as the intitials.
Rockwell isn't the biggest photography troll, btw, but he is one of the most opinionated, which is probably what makes him readable and irritating in equal measure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't even take jpgs. I take gpjs.



You member of the revolutionary photographic vanguard, you!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Seriously though, the pronunciation of ISO is a pretty vital point that I don't think we've ever discussed.
> 
> Clearly it is Eye Ess Oh and anyone who says otherwise is a cunt. (Edit: actually, even in the context of this srs thread I'm not going to add "backwards" there.)



The argument used to be whether the film speed standard was pronounced "arse-ah" or "ay-ess-ay", back in the day.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 26, 2014)

weltweit said:


> ISO - eye ess oh - there are three letters so there are three sounds.
> 
> But Bokeh - boh keh or boh kay etc but not Bo kay



Bouquet.

To me, 'bokeh' is a word that would seem appropriate in the following sketch.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 26, 2014)

editor said:


> Always good to take time out to get the full context of a story rather than skipping to some preselected part just because someone tells me too.


There isn't any "full context".  It's a discussion programme with a variety of subjects. I directed people to the relevant part. No need to watch anything else, it's not relevant.


ViolentPanda said:


> TBF to Rockwell, ISO is pronounced either way, either as an enunciation of the acronym (eye-soh) or as the intitials.


Only by people who don't know any better. It's not an acronym:



> * Our name *
> Because 'International Organization for Standardization' would have different acronyms in different languages (IOS in English, OIN in French for _Organisation internationale de normalisation_), our founders decided to give it the short form ISO. ISO is derived from the Greek isos, meaning equal. Whatever the country, whatever the language, the short form of our name is always ISO.



http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

Greebo said:


> What's wrong with  "blur"?



That's often the sound people make when they see the price of a top-range Niiiikon camera.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is "the quality of the blurring of areas of the picture which are out of focus". But "bokeh" is a stupid word and I think we should invent another one.



I vote for "squeem".


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 26, 2014)

'Blur' is much preferable to 'bokeh'.


----------



## Corax (Apr 26, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> This will be my last post in this thread, and likely in this part of the boards.  I'd rather talk photography elsewhere with people who want to have proper discussions.





Bungle73 said:


> There isn't any blah blah blah


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> There isn't any "full context".  It's a discussion programme with a variety of subjects. I directed people to the relevant part. No need to watch anything else, it's not relevant.


Who's expressing the _personal opinion_ is ENTIRELY relevant, silly.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 26, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> 'Blur' is much preferable to 'bokeh'.


Unless you're trying to outsneer other photography nerds, that is.


----------



## fuck seals (Apr 26, 2014)

oh god.  it's back ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 26, 2014)

Ken Rockwell in ISO Urban bun(gle)fight


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 26, 2014)

Violent Panda I wanted to be cheeky and bring up the old ASA designation but Bungle is too young to know about that. If I remember rightly the original ISO which was pronounced by everyone in photography as Eye Ess Oh in those days contained both the American ASA number and the German DIN number alongside each other. The American system was arithmetical and the German one logarithmic. Old photographers will remember some comparisons between the two systems based on familiar films.



.


----------



## cybertect (Apr 26, 2014)

I remember ASA and DIN... but IIRC everyone pronounced "DIN" as "din" rather than "D-I-N"


----------



## cybertect (Apr 26, 2014)

Mind you, there was also more than one version of the DIN standard for rating films.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

cybertect said:


> Mind you, there was also more than one version of the DIN standard for rating films.


At some point, when I have saved some money I plan on a Nikon D610 with up to ISO 25600 ...
With a f1.8 lens I should have great low light capabilities ..


----------



## weltweit (Apr 26, 2014)

The people in that YouTube vid are just narked their stuff is not as popular as Rockwell's.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> At some point, when I have saved some money I plan on a Nikon D610 with up to ISO 25600 ...
> With a f1.8 lens I should have great low light capabilities ..


My Ricoh GR goes up to 25600 ISO. The lens is only f/2.8 though. However I have never needed to use anything higher than ISO 1600 though even in gloomy indoors environments.


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> My Ricoh GR goes up to 25600 ISO. The lens is only f/2.8 though. However I have never needed to use anything higher than ISO 1600 though even in gloomy indoors environments.


I regularly use ISO 3200 on my GR for concerts. Produces excellent results too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Violent Panda I wanted to be cheeky and bring up the old ASA designation but Bungle is too young to know about that. If I remember rightly the original ISO which was pronounced by everyone in photography as Eye Ess Oh in those days contained both the American ASA number and the German DIN number alongside each other. The American system was arithmetical and the German one logarithmic. Old photographers will remember some comparisons between the two systems based on familiar films.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Do you remember GOST too, or did you never have the delight of using Soviet films?


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

How can one man be a "danger to photography"? That claim doesn't even make sense.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 27, 2014)

editor said:


> How can one man be a "danger to photography"? That claim doesn't even make sense.


I followed his advice on cleaning my sensor.  Bastard!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

editor said:


> How can one man be a "danger to photography"? That claim doesn't even make sense.


Don't try to understand Bungle, he is a one-off. Possibly he has got the idea from previous threads that everyone on this forum rates Ken Rockwell. I have only read a few things on Rockwell's website and he makes sense generally but he isn't that important surely. He isn't dangerous in any sense.

Edited to add: I have just seen that post above mine. Here is the video from which that picture was taken:



It is fairly incredible, lasts for about 15 minutes and is in French.


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Don't try to understand Bungle, he is a one-off. Possibly he has got the idea from previous threads that everyone on this forum rates Ken Rockwell. I have only read a few things on Rockwell's website and he makes sense generally but he isn't that important surely. He isn't dangerous in any sense.


Rockwell has written some really useful stuff and I'm sure he has helped an awful lot of newbie photographers. Doesn't mean he's always right though - in fact I'm sure he gets it very wong at times -  but on balance I think I'd rather listen to him that that raging egomaniac in the video clip at the start of this thread.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:
			
		

> That's some twisted logic you have there.  If anyone's trying to start an argument here it's you.



Skip to the end 

Argument Clinic:


----------



## Corax (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Don't try to understand Bungle, he is a one-off. Possibly he has got the idea from previous threads that everyone on this forum rates Ken Rockwell.


That. 

People cited Rockwell on specific points in a previous bungle facepalm thread and he thought this would provoke a new argument. It's a bit disturbing really.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

Corax said:


> That.
> 
> People cited Rockwell on specific points in a previous bungle facepalm thread and he thought this would provoke a new argument. It's a bit disturbing really.


How the fuck have I provoked an argument?? I saw a video on YT where some good points were made and I thought I would post it here for discussion. I have not provoked anything.  It is fucking you people who keep provoking things because instead of discussing the topic you keep with your constant fucking bullshit against me.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Don't try to understand Bungle, he is a one-off. Possibly he has got the idea from previous threads that everyone on this forum rates Ken Rockwell. I have only read a few things on Rockwell's website and he makes sense generally but he isn't that important surely. He isn't dangerous in any sense.


Except that the title came from the video I posted, but hey let's not let the fucking facts get in the way of having a another go at me.


editor said:


> Rockwell has written some really useful stuff and I'm sure he has helped an awful lot of newbie photographers. Doesn't mean he's always right though - in fact I'm sure he gets it very wong at times -  but on balance I think I'd rather listen to him that that raging egomaniac in the video clip at the start of this thread.


You mean the video you admitted that you didn't watch, and then came out with some BS about how you couldn't enter into a discussion about someone's opinion unless you knew their entire life story..........


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You mean the video you admitted that you didn't watch, and then came out with some BS about how you couldn't enter into a discussion about someone's opinion unless you knew their entire life story..........


You're very confused today.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

editor said:


> You're very confused today.






editor said:


> That video was too fucking annoying to sit through. I couldn't give a shit about his fucking expensive chair.





editor said:


> Always good to take time out to get the full context of a story rather than skipping to some preselected part just because someone tells me too.


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You mean the video you admitted that you didn't watch


I watched a fair chunk of that video and long enough to get a good understanding of what was bring said. I just couldn't sit through _it all_, silly.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

editor said:


> I watched a fair chunk of that video and long enough to get a good understanding of what was bring said. I just couldn't sit through _it all_, silly.


So tell me why is is necessary to watch the full 2 hour video to pass comment on the 10 minute segment that I pointed you to?  Tell me what "full story" watching the full 2 hour video would have given you?  All you had to do was watch the segment that I directed you to; you either agree with what Jared said or you don't.


----------



## Corax (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> How the fuck have I provoked an argument?? I saw a video on YT where some good points were made and I thought I would post it here for discussion. I have not provoked anything.  It is fucking you people who keep provoking things because instead of discussing the topic you keep with your constant fucking bullshit against me.


It's a conspiracy.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

Corax said:


> It's a conspiracy.


I really cannot be bothered to play the games of someone who wades into a thread intent on starting agro, and accusing other people of wanting to start a fight when in fact it is they that are doing that very thing. I'm wise to you.


----------



## Corax (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I really cannot be bothered to play the games of someone who wades into a thread intent on starting agro, and accusing other people of wanting to start a fight when in fact it is they that are doing that very thing. I'm wise to you.


Of course you are. It's not you, it's everyone one else. 

Between you and bubbles, I must have posted that a dozen times in the last month.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

Corax said:


> Of course you are. It's not you, it's everyone one else.
> 
> Between you and bubbles, I must have posted that a dozen times in the last month.


Your first post in this thread:



Corax said:


> _Dammit, no one took my bait.  Quick, let's start an argument a different way!_



You have contributed absolutely nothing of worth to this thread - you are seemingly not interested in actually discussing the topic, only  having a go at me - so I suggest you go away.


----------



## Corax (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Your first post in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> You have contributed absolutely nothing of worth to this thread - you are seemingly not interested in actually discussing the topic, only  having a go at me - so I suggest you go away.


Suggest away kitten  x


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So tell me why is is necessary to watch the full 2 hour video to pass comment on the 10 minute segment that I pointed you to?  Tell me what "full story" watching the full 2 hour video would have given you?  All you had to do was watch the segment that I directed you to; you either agree with what Jared said or you don't.


I want to know a little about the _flava_ of this lippy character whose words your appear so smitten by. 

Do you think Ken Rockwell is dangerous to photography?


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

editor said:


> I want to know a little about the _flava_ of this lippy character whose words your appear so smitten by


Do you always over-complicate everything?



> Do you think Ken Rockwell is dangerous to photography?


I think that Mr. Rockwell gives out some misleading and wrong information, and I agree with Jared that the info presented here is sending beginner photographers down the wrong path.


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Do you always over-complicate everything?
> 
> 
> I think that Mr. Rockwell gives out some misleading and wrong information, and I agree with Jared that the info presented here is sending beginner photographers down the wrong path.


So he's not dangerous to photography then? Good.


----------



## RedDragon (Apr 27, 2014)

I liked the table they were sat around, is it a card table?


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

editor said:


> So he's not dangerous to photography then? Good.


Well "dangerous", in the sense that, as Jared said, beginners are going to follow his "advice" then be put off photography when they can't get good images and think it's them.


RedDragon said:


> I liked the table they were sat around, is it a card table?


Yeah, I think it's a poker table or something.  I think Jared might have another, earlier, video where he's setting it up


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Well "dangerous", in the sense that, as Jared said, beginners are going to follow his "advice" then be put off photography when they can't get good images and think it's them.


I don't think many beginners are going to give much of a fuck about what is said in that video because I imagine most people will have lost interest before they reach his big rant.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2014)

cybertect said:


> I remember ASA and DIN... but IIRC everyone pronounced "DIN" as "din" rather than "D-I-N"



I don't remember anyone pronouncing it 'din'.

That would be sort of like pronouncing CIA as 'seeya' or KGB as 'kigib'.


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

Everyone I know called it DIN.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2014)

In Canada, ASA was more prevalent.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 27, 2014)

Ken pronounces it Ahhh Z-aaa


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 27, 2014)

I pronounce ASA backwards.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't remember anyone pronouncing it as 'din'.
> 
> That would be sort of like pronouncing CIA as 'seeya' or KGB as 'kigib'.


I remember lots of people pronouncing it "Din" especially in an audio context with DIN leads and sockets. They came under the same regulations. I am waiting for some old photographer to speak of the passing of H and D numbers with nostalgic regret.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2014)

I never heard ISO pronounced 'eyezo', either.

But apparently some people pronounce Canon EOS as 'canon eeoss'.

Go figure.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 27, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But apparently some people pronounce Canon EOS as 'canon eeoss'.



I feel like I've been living a lie.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I pronounce ASA backwards.


I pronounce racecar backwards


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I pronounce racecar backwards


At last the thread is getting somewhere.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> At last the thread is getting somewhere.


Have we had a prime versus zoom argument recently?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Have we had a prime versus zoom argument recently?


No, you go first.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> No, you go first.


I prefer the RAW versus JPEG arguments, and they are more relevant to Ken Rockwell also !!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I prefer the RAW versus JPEG arguments, and they are more relevant to Ken Rockwell also !!


Make your bloody mind up.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Make your bloody mind up.


I have.

I shoot JPEG... 

I used to have to, because I only had small memory cards and a slow computer and small HDD, now I have upgraded my computer but not yet bought bigger cards. But still, I like JPEG, it has an instant quality about it, and my camera produces very good jpeg images it has to be said, if the quality was not there I would think differently but as I like to do as much as possible in the camera, it suits my style of photography.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

I agree with your post above. So end of argument. Plus life is too short for Raw processing.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I agree with your post above. So end of argument. Plus life is too short for Raw processing.


Perhaps a raw aficionado will be along to dispute it .... I am pretty sure there are some on here!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

[Quote ="weltweit, post: 13098849], member: 32888"Perhaps a raw aficionado will be along to dispute it .... I am pretty sure there are some on here! [/QUOTE]
Chacun a son goute


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Chacun a son goute


What about prime versus zoom Hocus Eye?
Do you have a preference?

I go through phases, I own both, sometimes I am happy with one, sometimes the other, they seem to have different plus points. On balance I prefer primes, smaller and unobtrusive, sharp and fast ... etc


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

For the record I shoot RAW (most of the time). This is because RAW gives more scope for post-processing - you can do stuff with a RAW file you simply cannot do with a JPEG.  Also, with JPEGs the settings in camera (sharpness, saturation etc.) are set in stone and cannot be changed after the fact, so if you made an error setting them, or change your mind, tough!  With RAW they are changeable at any time.  And to quote Mike Browne: "I shoot RAW because I want to be in charge of the way my pictures look and not the camera".

Also, the other thing is, as I learn I learn how to process pictures better, which means I can go back to the original RAW files of pictures I took before, and re-edit them to make them look even better.  Couldn't do that with a JPEG.

One of the tips Tony Northrup gives for city night photography requires RAW files: over expose the image when shot, and bring the exposure down in post.  That way you end up with a less noisy image.

And RAW processing doesn't have to take a lot of time, because in Lightroom you can edit one photo, then get it to apply the changes to all of the rest


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 you can edit jpeg files. Not as much as raw I will warrant but first you need to get it as right as you can in the camera which I think is an aim for raw or jpeg shooters but you can edit jpeg images I do it often. And I don't lose anything by doing it either, the original jpeg remains write protected, the edits can be worked on as photoshop files, tiffs, bmps or whatever you want.

You are going to argue 8bit next I guess


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

Weltweit I think you are just trying to keep this thread going. There is no point with only two of us on board.

Oh dear I was wrong, it looks like you have invoked Bungle without even mentioning his name.  I will watch from the sidelines.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> .. And to quote Mike Browne: "I shoot RAW because I want to be in charge of the way my pictures look and not the camera". ..


I set how I want my jpegs out of the camera to look, I set colour, tone, sharpness etc myself and I like what my cam produces. Not all cams produce nice jpegs, mine was praised for its which was one of the reasons I bought it.

One of my favourite settings is black and white, hard tone, ISO1600 for some noise, no sharpening .... I love the way those images look.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Weltweit I think you are just trying to keep this thread going. There is no point with only two of us on board.


Bungle73 is here now too


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

For most users, JPEGs are absolutely 100% fine.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

I think editor is both a jpeg and a raw shooter ... wonder what he thinks about raw v jpeg?


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I think editor is both a jpeg and a raw shooter ... wonder what he thinks about raw v jpeg?


I mainly shoot JPEGs. Get fantastic results from my Olympus and Ricoh cameras. 

I like this article: http://theonlinephotographer.typepa.../ken-tanaka-shooting-jpeg-instead-of-raw.html


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

I have been a camera club member for some 6 years and shown large prints and projected images often. Most camera club users are staunch RAW shooters and I don't tell people what I do, but never has anyone said weltweit your pictures would be better / sharper / more colourful / better exposed / whatever if you shot raw. They have no clue I shoot jpeg and they can't see the difference in the images. And surely it is the images that count?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

editor said:


> I mainly shoot JPEGs. Get fantastic results from my Olympus and Ricoh cameras.
> 
> I like this article: http://theonlinephotographer.typepa.../ken-tanaka-shooting-jpeg-instead-of-raw.html


Yes, I like the article.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

editor said:


> I mainly shoot JPEGs. Get fantastic results from my Olympus and Ricoh cameras.
> 
> I like this article: http://theonlinephotographer.typepa.../ken-tanaka-shooting-jpeg-instead-of-raw.html


So editor, what is it that prompts you to select raw?

I think if I was shooting a group of people in a sort of formal setting I might use raw, in the future when I have mastered it that is, because if I overexposed a face or two I could better recover it in PP than if I had used jpeg ....


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I have been a camera club member for some 6 years and shown large prints and projected images often. Most camera club users are staunch RAW shooters and I don't tell people what I do, but never has anyone said weltweit your pictures would be better / sharper / more colourful / better exposed / whatever if you shot raw. They have no clue I shoot jpeg and they can't see the difference in the images. And surely it is the images that count?


It's just about impossible to tell the difference between a RAW image and a decently processed JPEG in normal* circumstances. I've sold loads of photos and no one's ever asked about what file format was used to record it.

*regular print, web use etc.


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> So editor, what is it that prompts you to select raw?
> 
> I think if I was shooting a group of people in a sort of formal setting I might use raw, in the future when I have mastered it that is, because if I overexposed a face or two I could better recover it in PP than if I had used jpeg ....


Wedding photos some assignments and maybe some circumstances where I feel I may need extra precise control later. But for the vast majority of the time, I'm firing off JPEGs.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

My attitude is that the best post-processing action is to delete and retake the picture, or just forget it. This dates back to my black and white film days when I realised that you can waste a lot of time to try to save a duff image. In those days the saying was 'film is cheap but printing paper expensive.'


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 27, 2014)

I can't be arsed with raw.  Tried to care a  few times but just didn't.  The jpegs out of my pentax were ace and the ones out of the fuji are excellent.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> .... In those days the saying was film is cheap but printing paper expensive.


I hadn't heard that one.

But I know Raw shooters now say memory is cheap so if you want jpeg why not shoot raw+jpeg ....

My dslr is about 14 years old, it is quite fast shooting 6mpx jpeg, its max "quality" is 12mpx RAW but the files are massive and the camera slows down enormously.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> My attitude is that the best post-processing action is to delete and retake the picture, or just forget it. This dates back to my black and white film days when I realised that you can waste a lot of time to try to save a duff image. In those days the saying was film is cheap but printing paper expensive.


Ah, but the camera LCD lies. You look at the back of the camera and think you've got one thing, you get back home and look at the image on your PC and you've actually got something else.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Ah, but the camera LCD lies. You look at the back of the camera and think you've got one thing, you get back home and look at the image on your PC and you've actually got something else.


I think that comes under the category of "a little local difficulty" You need to calibrate your computer screen. As a quick fix set your camera to underexposee by a third of a stop. Try it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2014)

When I get film images scanned, they're turned into tiffs.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Ah, but the camera LCD lies. You look at the back of the camera and think you've got one thing, you get back home and look at the image on your PC and you've actually got something else.


I agree on one aspect, my images on my small lcd on the back of the camera look like little gems, and at that size they are, but when I get back and look at 100% on my PC they often don't look quite as good or sharp. It is worse with a camera phone, on the phone they might look nice but again at 100% I am often disappointed. I think this is an effect of pixel peeping at large size on the computer as much as anything.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 27, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think that comes under the category of "a little local difficulty" You need to calibrate your computer screen. As a quick fix set. your camera to underexposee by a third of a stop. Try it.


No, it's not that. It's actually something Gavin Hoey said in one of his videos, when he was processing an image he'd taken earlier in it, and when he said that I thought to myself "I know exactly what you're talking about".


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> When I get film images scanned, they're turned into tiffs.


I bet they are massive?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2014)

They aren't, actually. 1.6 mb average.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

RoyReed do you prefer RAW or JPEG, or both?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> They aren't, actually. 1.6 mb average.


Oh, I am surprised.

I tried max quality and size (I think it was TIFF also) on one of my cameras and ended up with something ridiculous like a 60mb file which froze the camera for minutes


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 27, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> They aren't, actually. 1.6 mb average.


In order to get such a small file size using TIFF, they must be lo-resolution images, or they are being saved with jpeg compression. A typical 5MP image is going to be between 6-9MB using LZW compression.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2014)

They're black and white.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2014)

Actually I'm wrong. I just checked. They're all 6669kb. The images that I've cropped and altered were 1.6 mb approx., and the altered images seem to have become jpegs.


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 27, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> They're black and white.


That's still petty small. I've just tested it in photoshop with some 5MP black and white images. They are between 3.5 and 6MB in size using LZW compression.


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 27, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Actually I'm wrong. I just checked. They're all 6669kb. The images that I've cropped and altered were 1.6 mb approx., and the altered images seem to have become jpegs.


That make more sense.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 27, 2014)

Bungle, I have no idea who Gavin Hoey is and much less what he said "in one of his videos". Stop watching videos and get out with your own camera to get real experience. You need to make lots of mistakes. That is how you learn. There is no short cut.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Bernie Gunther do you prefer RAW or Jpeg?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 27, 2014)

Don't care.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 27, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Don't care.


Spoilsport !!


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 28, 2014)

weltweit said:


> RoyReed do you prefer RAW or JPEG, or both?


I always shoot RAW.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 28, 2014)

RoyReed said:


> I always shoot RAW.


Because it is the maximum you can get out of your camera, or because it gives you the greatest editing possibilities?


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 28, 2014)

When I'm shooting digital - almost always RAW so that I can correct my shitty exposure and white balance after.

Ken told me to.  He talks to me in my head.


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 28, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Because it is the maximum you can get out of your camera, or because it gives you the greatest editing possibilities?


Because it gives me most control - even though I usually do the minimum amount of editing.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 28, 2014)

I'm setting my fuji to shoot BW and colour at the same time.  That way if the exposure is crap I can show people the black and white version and call it "arty".


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 28, 2014)

I used to swap and change but I've just set my Nigh Con to 'NEF and JPG'... No cunt's making videos about me!


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 28, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Bungle, I have no idea who Gavin Hoey is and much less what he said "in one of his videos". Stop watching videos and get out with your own camera to get real experience. You need to make lots of mistakes. That is how you learn. There is no short cut.


Stop watching?  Um, why?  Gavin Hoey is a professional photographer of some repute, who has nearly 183,000 subscribers on YouTube, also makes videos for Adorama's YT Channel who are a big camera store in America, and who makes very interesting, informative and inspiring videos.

How did you learn photography?  Was it by blundering around in the dark trying to work out everything for yourself, or was it by seeking the advice of people who know what they were talking about? I'm guessing it was the latter. With something as complicated as photography and photo editing why would I want to re-invent to the wheel?

And it was by "watching videos" that I learned the basics, like how to compose a photograph, and how manage exposure.

And I do take lots of photographs. I am usually mucking about with my camera every day, and I have over a thousand images on Flickr. They're not all any good because some were taken before I knew my ISO from my F-Stop.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 28, 2014)

I spent an unhealthy amount of time on the www.dpreview.com forums when I started out with digital photography. It was a steep learning curve on things digital but for that dpreview was good. For the more artistic side of it, composition and the like, it was slightly less good.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 28, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Because it is the maximum you can get out of your camera, or because it gives you the greatest editing possibilities?


I have 5 x 258mb Smartmedia memory cards. (if anyone can remember them), they take about 52 x 2.4mb 6mpx jpeg fine images. Were I to switch to RAW I would get only a few images per card.


----------



## paul russell999 (Apr 28, 2014)

To get back to the point (?) - Ken Rockwell has great technical knowledge but he has some funny ideas... He has a habit of trying cameras out for usability rather than pixel peeping the files. Which is sort of good, but he takes it to extremes - all that stuff about just shooting 5 megapixel, basic quality jpegs is plain odd. If you happen to take a fantastic picture and need to print it biiiiig - you will regret following his advice. I know he will claim to have printed 3 megapixel images the size of a house but...


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> How did you learn photography?  Was it by blundering around in the dark trying to work out everything for yourself...


Mainly, yes and I managed to do OK, I reckon.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

paul russell999 said:


> To get back to the point (?) - Ken Rockwell has great technical knowledge but he has some funny ideas... He has a habit of trying cameras out for usability rather than pixel peeping the files. Which is sort of good, but he takes it to extremes - all that stuff about just shooting 5 megapixel, basic quality jpegs is plain odd. If you happen to take a fantastic picture and need to print it biiiiig - you will regret following his advice. I know he will claim to have printed 3 megapixel images the size of a house but...


But, to be fair to the fella, I suspect that the sort of people he's targeting with his site are unlikely to ever have the need to print out a billboard sized print.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 28, 2014)

I can remember looking at basic jpeg and comparing to fine but not really seeing much difference. In fact I might go back and check the review of my camera to see what they said back then.

I have never printed larger than 10x15 inches. That isn't to say that I never would print larger.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 28, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I can remember looking at basic jpeg and comparing to fine but not really seeing much difference. In fact I might go back and check the review of my camera to see what they said back then.


There really isn't a noticeable difference IME - oh, you might be able to find some tiny piece of difference in compression artefacts in the deep shadows or something but for all intents and purposes no. Of course this could depend on the camera, because they'll all have different definitions of "standard" and "high" quality %.

The value of using RAW also depends on the camera really. I use RAW with my Lumixes because I don't like what Panasonic does to colours with the in-camera JPEG conversion. I never shoot RAW on the Ricoh GR because the JPEGs are beautiful. I keep hearing people insisting that RAW has more detail in the highlights and shadows but I can only assume they are using some weird cameras that have heavy clipping of top and bottom levels, because on every one I've used it's at worst a different type of noise (and in many cases the noise on the RAW is uglier).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 28, 2014)

In general it astounds me how superstitious photographers can be. I suppose really it's just like anything else, particularly on the internet, but people will cling on to something they heard once and flame you unmercifully for even suggesting it might be untrue or simply irrelevant.

I once had somebody try to convince me that TIFFs were better than PNGs because PNGs were lossier. Right, those two lossless formats, one of them loses more information. Mmm.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There really isn't a noticeable difference IME - oh, you might be able to find some tiny piece of difference in compression artefacts in the deep shadows or something but for all intents and purposes no. Of course this could depend on the camera, because they'll all have different definitions of "standard" and "high" quality %.
> 
> The value of using RAW also depends on the camera really. I use RAW with my Lumixes because I don't like what Panasonic does to colours with the in-camera JPEG conversion. I never shoot RAW on the Ricoh GR because the JPEGs are beautiful. I keep hearing people insisting that RAW has more detail in the highlights and shadows but I can only assume they are using some weird cameras that have heavy clipping of top and bottom levels, because on every one I've used it's at worst a different type of noise (and in many cases the noise on the RAW is uglier).


Yes, but what happens WHEN YOU ZOOM RIGHT IN TO PIXEL LEVEL? That is the important thing. The pixels.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Yes, but what happens WHEN YOU ZOOM RIGHT IN TO PIXEL LEVEL? That is the important thing. The pixels.


RAW pixels are obviously better than cooked jaypegged pixels. Because they're RAW. Not just raw, RAW, in capitals, for SRS photographers.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 28, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There really isn't a noticeable difference IME - oh, you might be able to find some tiny piece of difference in compression artefacts in the deep shadows or something but for all intents and purposes no. Of course this could depend on the camera, because they'll all have different definitions of "standard" and "high" quality %.
> 
> The value of using RAW also depends on the camera really. I use RAW with my Lumixes because I don't like what Panasonic does to colours with the in-camera JPEG conversion. I never shoot RAW on the Ricoh GR because the JPEGs are beautiful. I keep hearing people insisting that RAW has more detail in the highlights and shadows but I can only assume they are using some weird cameras that have heavy clipping of top and bottom levels, because on every one I've used it's at worst a different type of noise (and in many cases the noise on the RAW is uglier).


It does.  RAW files give the ability to drag much more detail out of the shadows and the highlights in the image than a JPEG file does. When your camera creates a JPEG it throws a ton of information away, that's why RAW files are so big - all that detail captured by the sensor is still there. I know I'm going to get slammed again for mentioning another video, but I'm going to anyway.  Just look at what this guy does. He turns an average looking photo into an amazing looking one, and all with the power of a RAW file:



I'll stick with RAW, thanks.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It does.  RAW files give the ability to drag much more detail out of the shadows and the highlights in the image than a JPEG file does. When your camera creates a JPEG it throws a ton of information away, that's why RAW files are so big - all that detail captured by the sensor is still there. I know I'm going to get slammed again for mentioning another video, but I'm going to anyway.  Just look at what this guy does. He turns an average looking photo into an amazing looking one, and all with the power of a RAW file:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll stick with RAW, thanks.



Personally, I can't bear those over-saturated, heavily retouched, manipulated, postcardy images.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 28, 2014)

I'm not even going there.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 28, 2014)

> Personally, I can't bear those over-saturated, heavily retouched, manipulated, postcardy images.



A-ch Dee Arrrr

If it's now a hate thread, I know art is personal, and one photographer's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter blah blah blah.....

But fookin' HDR shoit.

It hurts my eyes.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Personally, I can't bear those over-saturated, heavily retouched, manipulated, postcardy images.





FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm not even going there.



But the point is the power a RAW file gives you.

There's another video, where Mike Browne himself uses a RAW file in a much more subtle way to fix a photo he took on an actual job (an interior for a hotel) where the lighting conditions were difficult.  I'd post that, but it's 17 minutes and I'm sure you'd complain.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 28, 2014)

One can certainly post-process RAW files. It is a regular article of faith that one cannot similarly post-process JPEG files, or can only do so to a lesser extent.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 28, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It does.  RAW files give the ability to drag much more detail out of the shadows and the highlights in the image than a JPEG file does. When your camera creates a JPEG it throws a ton of information away, that's why RAW files are so big - all that detail captured by the sensor is still there. I know I'm going to get slammed again for mentioning another video, but I'm going to anyway.  Just look at what this guy does. He turns an average looking photo into an amazing looking one, and all with the power of a RAW file:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll stick with RAW, thanks.




You're like a kid who just discovered that his dick's for more than just stirring his tea  

I'm pretty sure you're not telling anyone anything they don't already know  

P.S... That picture in the video is like one of Ken Rockwell's saturated to death images that he claims has come straight from the camera.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 28, 2014)

Wtf are you lot arguing over?  I told you.  Shoot in RAW for when you fuck up exposure and white balance.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Apr 28, 2014)

When I shoot digital, I almost (98%) always shoot in RAW.  Why?  Because I like to control the final image, its work flow.  I open up the RAW images on the card using the Open Source UFRaw.  Ok, it's not cutting edge.  I then edit the images, maybe adjusting the EV, White Balance, etc.  If I want to create a digital b/w, i like to control it's creation at RAW stage, through channel mixer.  I then save the edited images that I want to save (a select minority) as full resolution, low compression jpegs on my pooter hard drive.

I rarely print.  I share online, so I later edit further, and add compression / lower resolution using Open Source Gimp - before uploading to Flickr.

That's what I like to do when going digital.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 28, 2014)

ToothlessFerret said:


> Wtf are you lot arguing over?  I told you.  Shoot in RAW for when you fuck up exposure and white balance.


The thing is that if you fuck up exposure, shooting RAW won't save you any more than shooting JPEG (unless you have one of these weird clipping cameras which I seem to have managed never to find). You've still fucked it up and your camera has not captured the information you wanted it to and tough luck do it better next time. The JPEG will have blocky shadows which you will not be able to simply boost, as opposed to the horrible dotty shadows of the RAW which you will not be able to simply boost.


----------



## fuck seals (Apr 28, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> You're like a kid who just discovered that his dick's for more than just stirring his tea



two sugars?

Bungle73 you're a fascinating chap.  but i suggest you get out and play with your new toy & take some pics.  see how they come out.  make a few mistakes.  get a feel for the thing.

rather than wondering about achieving perfection whilst gently touching yourself watching youtube videos made by *people who have bugger-all relevance to what you want to do*

srsly.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 28, 2014)

fuck seals said:


> two sugars?
> 
> Bungle73 you're a fascinating chap.  but i suggest you get out and play with your new toy & take some pics.  see how they come out.  make a few mistakes.  get a feel for the thing.
> 
> ...


Like this you mean?

http://500px.com/photo/60791526/tower-bridge-at-night-by-graham-west?from=user_library


----------



## fuck seals (Apr 28, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Like this you mean?
> 
> http://500px.com/photo/60791526/tower-bridge-at-night-by-graham-west?from=user_library




like anything.  i'm sure that's a very nice pic.  but you seem obsessed with academic perfection followed by pontification.  imho.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 28, 2014)

I shoot 98% crap.  I'm working on hitting 92%.  Fiddling with raw is worth say 1% of that.  I'd rather work on the more important shit.

Also, I recently sold all my MTG cards and I can't be arsed with a programming project my mate keeps hastling me about.  More important things to worry about.

On the plus side I'm in the British library a lot and the place is soooo photogenic I can't wait for my lens to arrive.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 28, 2014)

fuck seals said:


> watching youtube videos made by *people who have bugger-all relevance to what you want to do


Not really sure what you mean by that btw?


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Like this you mean?
> 
> http://500px.com/photo/60791526/tower-bridge-at-night-by-graham-west?from=user_library


Is that an example of what you believe to be your finest work?


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Is that an example of what you believe to be your finest work?


It's an example of an image that I am proud of (shot in RAW and edited in Lightroom btw). But if I took it again I would alter a few things.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It's an example of an image that I am proud of (shot in RAW and edited in Lightroom btw). But if I took it again I would alter a few things.


I don't suppose you want anyone's reasonably informed opinion of it, or some of the others in your collection?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 28, 2014)

It's sort of a picture of Tower Bridge.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 28, 2014)

Is it really sharp? I'll on my phone and can't tell.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 29, 2014)

Yep. I'm going back to film.


----------



## sim667 (Apr 29, 2014)

Men with cameras, arguing about how to use cameras.

This is why I've never joined a camera club.


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Men with cameras, arguing about how to use cameras.
> 
> This is why I've never joined a camera club.


They're weird, Especially the ones that hire cheap 'glamour' models to snap away at in their club shed.


----------



## sim667 (Apr 29, 2014)

editor said:


> They're weird, Especially the ones that hire cheap 'glamour' models to snap away at in their club shed.


 
Point 2 of why I've never joined a camera club.

We had a camera club member come and start as a student at a college I was at once, he was in his 40's, ended up dating a (just) 16 year old and kept taking inapropriate photos of her in the student.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 29, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Men with cameras, arguing about how to use cameras.
> 
> This is why I've never joined a camera club.



People can and will argue about anything. Just look at the threads on these boards.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 29, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> People can and will argue about anything. Just look at the threads on these boards.


NO WE CAN'T


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Men with cameras, arguing about how to use cameras.
> 
> This is why I've never joined a camera club.





editor said:


> They're weird, Especially the ones that hire cheap 'glamour' models to snap away at in their club shed.





sim667 said:


> Point 2 of why I've never joined a camera club.
> 
> We had a camera club member come and start as a student at a college I was at once, he was in his 40's, ended up dating a (just) 16 year old and kept taking inapropriate photos of her in the student.



Nothing strange about my camera club. Just a bunch of people who enjoy photography meeting up to chew the fat, look at images, and generally pursue their interest. We don't hire models, we get plenty of volunteers, we get a model, they get prints and or jpegs.


----------



## sim667 (Apr 29, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Nothing strange about my camera club. Just a bunch of people who enjoy photography meeting up to chew the fat, look at images, and generally pursue their interest. We don't hire models, we get plenty of volunteers, we get a model, they get prints and or jpegs.


 
((((camera club not doing it properly))))


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2014)

sim667 said:


> ((((camera club not doing it properly))))


 Sometimes it is nice to be in the company of people who already know what f1.8 or ISO1600 means!


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Like this you mean?
> http://500px.com/photo/60791526/tower-bridge-at-night-by-graham-west?from=user_library


Looks nice, perhaps a slow exposure? I suppose you probably used a tripod? or rested your camera on a wall or something? For me I prefer a little more light in the sky, perhaps a shade earlier in the evening. Well I say that, it isn't really my style of photo.


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Looks nice, perhaps a slow exposure? I suppose you probably used a tripod? or rested your camera on a wall or something? For me I prefer a little more light in the sky, perhaps a shade earlier in the evening. Well I say that, it isn't really my style of photo.


I don't think he wants to hear any criticism unless it's coming from someone who's made a YouTube video.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 29, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Looks nice, perhaps a slow exposure? I suppose you probably used a tripod? or rested your camera on a wall or something? For me I prefer a little more light in the sky, perhaps a shade earlier in the evening. Well I say that, it isn't really my style of photo.


Of course it was a slow exposure, 10 seconds according to the data file that came with the picture. A tripod would inevitably have been used. It is a fine picture. I would have cropped the foreground a bit but that is just personal taste.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 29, 2014)

When I scan in a negative or a polaroid I don't bother cloning away the dust.

I like instagram filters.

I like lots of noise in film pictures.

I think camera shake blur is cool.

I have a lens hood on my Pentax K1000 and currently it's on backwards.

I tend to crop off the paper border around polaroids because I think keeping them on alters our perception of the image.

Often, I can't be bothered scanning so I take a cameraphone picture in bad lighting of my polaroids and upload those instead, and when I do that I tend to leave the paper border in tact, because I think it alters our perception of the image. Plus, I'm lazy.

I have a toy camera plastic lens converter for my Nikon DSLR.

My Hasselblad's name is Heloise. My Polaroid SX-70's name is Penelope. My Nikon D50's name is Boris. I can't remember if my Ricoh GR-D has a name. My Ricoh GR 1 doesn't. 

I wish you could apply Hipstamatic filters to pictures after you've taken them instead of having to select them before taking pictures. 

I love that feeling of bringing a film/digital/phone camera up to your eye (or looking at the screen), lining up a shot, and then BAM hitting the button to take the picture. What happens next interests me less. I get far, far more enjoyment from taking pictures than I do from seeing what I have taken afterwards. I find that's how I approach most things in life though. I have grand ideas about what I want to achieve, but it's the _doing_ that I enjoy, and once I've started the process I lose interest quickly in the finished product or end result.

I like low contrast, noisy digital pictures, with blur and bad composition.

I like tack-sharp digital images with balanced colours and great composition.

I like blurry low-light film pictures. I like well-exposed low-light pictures that were taken using a tripod.

I've shot in RAW and now I mostly shoot in jpg (or film), but tbh I don't take many pictures at all these days. I don't care much for the technical side of things, I just care about how I feel when I'm doing it, or how I feel when I'm looking at pictures. I want to feel pure joy. The joy from hearing the shutter clatter. The joy from seeing the light through the viewfinder. The joy from seeing a pleasing arrangement of objects in someone else's picture. The joy from an evoked feeling or memory or emotion when seeing an attractive conglomeration of colours and lights and shadows. If there's no joy, if there's no slightly giddy feeling, I don't really see the point.

Am I doing it right?


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 30, 2014)

bravo.


----------



## neonwilderness (Apr 30, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Am I doing it right?


No


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 30, 2014)

editor said:


> I don't suppose you want anyone's reasonably informed opinion of it, or some of the others in your collection?


If you like.

I've already showed the older 3 to a bunch of people on the Stunning Digital Photography private FB group, who thought they were great (I've re-edited them in LR since them btw). The TB shot got up to 92.2 on 500px, and I submitted the TB pic for critiquing in of those videos you all seem to be turning your noses up at.  They said it would be better if the ledge in the bottom right corner wasn't there, and if both entrance arches were shown instead of one. It was taken like that because of the limitations of where I was photographing it from, and my equipment.


weltweit said:


> Looks nice, perhaps a slow exposure? I suppose you probably used a tripod? or rested your camera on a wall or something? For me I prefer a little more light in the sky, perhaps a shade earlier in the evening. Well I say that, it isn't really my style of photo.


Yes, a slow exposure, and brought down in Lightroom.  I used a mini-tripod (it's all I've got atm), and rested it on the river wall.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I've already showed the older 3 to a bunch of people on the Stunning Digital Photography private FB group, who thought they were great (I've re-edited them in LR since them btw).


Oh, my opinion surely can't be as worthwhile as any expressed by the Stunning Digital Photography private FB group.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 30, 2014)

editor said:


> Oh, my opinion surely can't be as worthwhile as any expressed by the Stunning Digital Photography private FB group.


Do you work hard at being a prat or does it come naturally? FFS what is your problem?  If you didn't want to do it don't fucking ask.  OK......?

And, another thing, if you're going to be like that, and the way you've been with me the past few weeks, why would I be interested in you "opinion". What sort of "photographer" puts down other photographers who know a hell of a lot more about photography, have more experience, and have done work for TV and magazines, AND give their time to educate people for FREE, because they are "on YouTube"? An insecure one that's who.

I've learned a hell of a lot more from YT videos than I have from any of you, that's for certain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Men with cameras, arguing about how to use cameras.
> 
> This is why I've never joined a camera club.



I never joined a camera club because all the ones local to me seemed to be filled by middle-class gearheads with Nikon and/or Leica obsessions, or who believed that you could only do real photography with a medium format camera.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yep. I'm going back to film.



Do both. Always worth carrying a pair of cameras anyway, IME.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> When I scan in a negative or a polaroid I don't bother cloning away the dust.
> 
> I like instagram filters.
> 
> ...



I bet your Pentax K1000 has the same name as mine - Hernia.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> And, another thing, if you're going to be like that, and the way you've been with me the past few weeks, why would I be interested in you "opinion". What sort of "photographer" puts down other photographers who know a hell of a lot more about photography, have more experience, and have done work for TV and magazines, AND give their time to educate people for FREE, because they are "on YouTube"? An insecure one that's who.
> 
> I've learned a hell of a lot more from YT videos than I have from any of you, that's for certain.


Right there is your problem. You selectively choose which photographers you decide are the ones you want to listen to and then completely ignore or put down the ones you decide you don't like.  Or weirdly slag off how a photographer chooses to carry their lens hood because you feel it's the 'wrong' way.

And when it comes to being insecure, I'm afraid that's your biggest problem. You're unable to commit to a true, from the heart, artistic statement, so you hide behind the quest for technical perfection and the desire to please members of some private FB group.

Where's the passion in your work? What are you trying to say with your work? Where's the artistic expression? Where's _you_?

Anyone can knock out a pretty picture of Tower Bridge but so fucking what?


Bungle73 said:


> I've learned a hell of a lot more from YT videos than I have from any of you, that's for certain.


That's because you don't understand photography, or at least the kind of photography that most of us here are inspired and excited by.

You're a bit like a competent guitarist in a covers band, knocking out note for note copies of talented acts and sneering at those you feel aren't 'good' enough, while the innovation, originality and excitement passes you by completely.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do both. Always worth carrying a pair of cameras anyway, IME.



Any time I have the SLR with me, I'll have a digital camera along as well. I'm just liking film at the moment.

It might be different if I had a very expensive DSLR; but I don't.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 30, 2014)

editor said:


> You're unable to commit to a true, from the heart, artistic statement, so you hide behind the quest for technical perfection .



Don't know about Bungle; but that's a very apt and well-put description of so much that's happening in photography these days in general.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Don't know about Bungle; but that's a very apt and well-put description of so much that's happening in photography these days in general.


A lot of the photo magazines are full of it. 

While sometimes marvelling at the technical ability, I generally find the results to be as dull as ditchwater.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 30, 2014)

editor said:


> Right there is your problem. You selectively choose which photographers you decide are the ones you want to listen to and then completely ignore or put down the ones you decide you don't like.


A bit like you then, because they are "on YouTube", and not a member of your clique.

That FB group that you put down (again) is full of friendly people (which is more than I can say for here), willing to critique others' photographs, and help others with their photography, and run by a couple of professional photographers  who are very experienced, and have one of the top selling photography books on Amazon. They are worth ten of you.

And I'm sorry my image didn't please you. Funny how everyone else seemed to like it, everyone but you. Funny that. And excuse me for not living up to your level of "perfection" as soon as I picked up a camera. And for the record I am interested in constructive criticism; what I'm not interest in is people like you who are only interested in putting other people down.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 30, 2014)

I'm unsubscribing from this thread.  The main point, that Mr Rockwell writes a load of nonsense, I think we're all agreed on. Nothing more to be said.

I'm really not interested in reading any more of Ed's pathetic ramblings, and how he thinks he's "the man" in photography because he's sold a few photos, and anyone else, no matter who they are, nor what their credentials are, just doesn't cut it.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> A bit like you then, because they are "on YouTube", and not a member of your clique.


I'm sorry, that doesn't makes sense. What has YouTube got to do with this. And what clique am I supposedly part of?  



Bungle73 said:


> That FB group that you put down (again) is full of friendly people (which is more than I can say for here), willing to critique others' photographs, and help others with their photography, and run by a couple of professional photographers  who are very experienced, and have one of the top selling photography books on Amazon. They are worth ten of you.


Not entirely sure how you can calculate the comparative worth of photographers, but you banging on about how everyone loves you on a private FB group someplace else reeks of insecurity. 


Bungle73 said:


> And I'm sorry my image didn't please you.


I don't recall actually saying that. 

It's also a shame you chose to ignore everything else I wrote too because I think there was some good advice in there.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 30, 2014)

I take it this is another thread where Bungle's freaking out that people are breaking a random set of 'rules' he's learnt about on the internet?


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> I'm unsubscribing from this thread.  The main point, that Mr Rockwell writes a load of nonsense, I think we're all agreed on. Nothing more to be said.


You could learn an _awful lot_ from Ken Rockwell and people like him. He posts some daft stuff up from time to time, but he also posts up some really useful information that has no doubt helped a lot of people.


Bungle73 said:


> I'm really not interested in reading any more of Ed's pathetic ramblings, and how he thinks he's "the man" in photography because he's sold a few photos, and anyone else, no matter who they are, nor what their credentials are, just doesn't cut it.


Your credibility really falls apart when you start posting up clearly dishonest nonsense like that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 30, 2014)

editor said:


> A lot of the photo magazines are full of it.
> 
> While sometimes marvelling at the technical ability, I generally find the results to be as dull as ditchwater.



I think digital has brought a fundamental change to photography. Film cameras are relatively simple to operate; also, the possible effects achievable via manipulation of negatives, is relatively limited. So, people either used their camera for family snapshots; or those who wanted to be creative, had to do it via attempts and novel or unusual observations of the world.

Digitization has turned photography into a graphics software project. Much greater ability to manipulate the image. I'm sure that a satisfaction comes with the ability to use that software well; but it's a different type of creativity. It's like a creativity without individuality, if that makes any sense.

As a rule, the great film photographers had recognizable styles that they worked at for years in perfecting.  To me, it often seems that the technical masterpieces that people create with software can be beautiful to look at; but there's no way to distinguish the work of one photographer from another.  The objective is different from the one that motivates me; which is a desire to create a body of work that reflects what it is that I see when I look out at the world. I want to suffuse my perspective into the images I create.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2014)

Like a lot of things, there's technicians and then there's_ creatives_. 

I'm only really interested in the work of the latter, although I suspect that Bungle is far more interested in the former.


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 30, 2014)

I think we have a new euphemism "polishing my Leica".


----------



## fractionMan (May 1, 2014)

Not exactly sharp.

D-


----------



## fractionMan (May 1, 2014)

Wrong shutter speed.  Everything a bit blurred.






must try harder. D-


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 1, 2014)

If I  were guessing, I'd say Cartier-Bresson.


----------



## editor (May 1, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If I  were guessing, I'd say Cartier-Bresson.


Of course. And any one of his photos is worth a cartload of perfectly exposed, colour saturated, High deffed, Facebook group-pleasing technical wonders.


----------



## sim667 (May 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I never joined a camera club because all the ones local to me seemed to be filled by middle-class gearheads with Nikon and/or Leica obsessions, or who believed that you could only do real photography with a medium format camera.


 
Oi! Ive got a nikon DSLR and a 2 Leica's.

But then I insist a good photographer can take a photo with anything that can capture light. The first project I get my students to do is to take photos with photo paper in a beer can, and I reckon the camera club types would say "thats not proper" hence I've never joined one.

My uncle rates them to a point though, when he was a photography student he used to enter all of their competitions and won most of his camera gear


----------



## sim667 (May 1, 2014)

Just a thought...... bungle = photographys very own JoBo?


----------



## fuck seals (May 1, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Just a thought...... bungle = photographys very own JoBo?


He's always had more than whiff of Alan Partridge to his postings


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Any time I have the SLR with me, I'll have a digital camera along as well. I'm just liking film at the moment.
> 
> It might be different if I had a very expensive DSLR; but I don't.



I have a cheap DSLR (7-yr old Pentax K100D), and always stick a digi-compact and a film compact in my pockets too, same as I'll put the same two types of compacts in my pocket if I'm taking a film SLR (or TLR etc) out with me.  Sometimes you almost "need" fiilm, because you can pre-visualise a shot and know *exactly* how it'll look, especially with B & W film, and especially if you know the capabilities of the emulsion you're using.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (May 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have a cheap DSLR (7-yr old Pentax K100D), and always stick a digi-compact and a film compact in my pockets too, same as I'll put the same two types of compacts in my pocket if I'm taking a film SLR (or TLR etc) out with me.  Sometimes you almost "need" fiilm, because you can pre-visualise a shot and know *exactly* how it'll look, especially with B & W film, and especially if you know the capabilities of the emulsion you're using.



I still use a Pentax K110D fitted with an old Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 mf lens from time to time, although Nita uses it more often these days.  With that lens, the six Mp K110D delivers some cracking digital images.  I sort of replaced it with a Sony A200 (with 35mm and 50mm primes) as my primary DSLR, but it doesn't deliver the same.

Thing is with film, as Johnny sort of says, I can't compete financially with those that use the latest top end digital gear.  I have no intention of spending several hundred pounds or more on a lens or camera.  If I was to go macro, I'd have to spend a fortune.  If I was to go Nature, I'd have to spend a fortune.  However, using old film technology, I can use some cracking cameras from years gone by, that I could only have dreamed of buying new back then.

Ok, ok, I know fully well that online viewing rates on sites such as Flickr are no measure of worth (and more than a bit sad to chase), but I recently received 20,000 views and over 300 faves on a photo taken on my trusty XA2 loaded with Firstcall budget b/w film, and home developed.  The camera cost me 50p at a car boot.  It was a quick snap of Nita giving the bird to some love graffiti.  Weird place is cyberspace.

By the way - when did this thread become the film V digital thread?


----------



## fractionMan (May 1, 2014)

The  Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 mf is a fantastic lens.  I was using it on my Pentax DLSR before it got crushed.  For 30 quid it's a bloody brilliant bit of kit. I like it so much I've ordered the pentax K adapter for my new fuji.   

I had the autofocus version for just a few months but hardly used it.  I was really excited to have it at first but the autofocus took away something magic and it became just-another-lens.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (May 1, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> The  Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 mf is a fantastic lens.  I was using it on my Pentax DLSR before it got crushed.  For 30 quid it's a bloody brilliant bit of kit. I like it so much I've ordered the pentax K adapter for my new fuji.
> 
> I had the autofocus version for just a few months but hardly used it.  I was really excited to have it at first but the autofocus took away something magic and it became just-another-lens.


My favourite all time lens.  As well as on the K110D, I've also used it on a couple of Pentax ME Supers, where it was the kit lens.  Nita has the Pentax-A version on her 35mm SLR.  Really is beautiful glass.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 1, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Don't know about Bungle; but that's a very apt and well-put description of so much that's happening in photography these days in general.



It probably depends where you look. As ed suggests, the photography magazines will be full of it. Certain self-selecting groups and clubs and forums will be full of it. You'll probably see it in amateur photo competitions, etc. But I don't think that's all there is. It can certainly seem that way if you spend much time in those places. But it's like most things - there is rarely just one trend, but several. One might rise to the top as the most vocal, one might get the most mainstream press, one might attract the most people, but there's other stuff there if you want it.


----------



## editor (May 1, 2014)

I take photos because I love doing so. And although I'm always ready to listen to and learn from others, ultimately if I like a picture I don't give much of a flying fuck what a self-styled Youtube expert or member of a private Facebook group thinks of it because I'm not doing it for them - I'm doing it for me.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 1, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think digital has brought a fundamental change to photography. Film cameras are relatively simple to operate; also, the possible effects achievable via manipulation of negatives, is relatively limited. So, people either used their camera for family snapshots; or those who wanted to be creative, had to do it via attempts and novel or unusual observations of the world.
> 
> Digitization has turned photography into a graphics software project. Much greater ability to manipulate the image. I'm sure that a satisfaction comes with the ability to use that software well; but it's a different type of creativity. *It's like a creativity without individuality, if that makes any sense.*
> 
> As a rule, the great film photographers had recognizable styles that they worked at for years in perfecting.  To me, it often seems that the technical masterpieces that people create with software can be beautiful to look at; but there's no way to distinguish the work of one photographer from another.  The objective is different from the one that motivates me; which is a desire to create a body of work that reflects what it is that I see when I look out at the world. I want to suffuse my perspective into the images I create.



People can be plenty creative - with individuality - using digital processing techniques, even when pushing it past photography and into various forms of photo manipulation or whatever. I think rather than the process itself, it's the sheer accessibility of photography and processing that leads to the appearance of a lack of individuality. When everyone has access to something, it's harder to do something original. There are those who will rise to the top and manage to maintain their individuality, to be original, but it will appear that that almost never happens simply because there are so many people able to use a camera and some software now. I'd also say that the recent popularity of film photography - 'lo-fi' stuff - doesn't mean it will be original or particularly a show of individuality.

It's not the medium itself that hampers a certain kind of creativity, but rather the way the medium has widened access leads to the appearance that there is less originality/individuality, when in fact there's probably just about the same amount there always was - it's just hidden in a larger ocean.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 1, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> . But I don't think that's all there is..



I agree. It just seems to becoming a larger force in the photographic community.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 1, 2014)

editor said:


> I take photos because I love doing so. And although I'm always ready to listen to and learn from others, ultimately, if I like a picture I don't give much of a flying fuck what a self-styled Youtube expert or member of a private Facebook group thinks of it because I'm not doing it for them - I'm doing it for me.



I agree with that, too. If you photograph to please others, it will never be totally satisfactory, because someone always won't like it or get it - because opinions on everything vary. I know what I'm going for, and when I manage to achieve it, it's satisfying to me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 1, 2014)

It's funny: I've been using a [not the best] digital for a few years now. It was starting to feel stale, and I was wincing at the prospect of trying to afford a really good full frame DSLR.

Then I started using my film camera again - and I feel like a kid in the candy store. It's become fresh again for me [Not to say that the quality is anything to write home about at the moment! ]


----------



## ToothlessFerret (May 1, 2014)

Film has become alternative - especially hybrid film/digital, not because it has any more value or because it's in any way "better", but because it can be a little bit like dropping out of the Canikon Arms Race.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 1, 2014)

ToothlessFerret said:


> Film has become alternative - especially hybrid film/digital, not because it has any more value or because it's in any way "better", but because it can be a little bit like dropping out of the Canikon Arms Race.



There's an equally elitist arms race with film too though. It has a different flavour to it, I'll give you that, and it seems to be populated by people who are more in touch with their 'I'm an arteeeest' side than those whose main focus is 'my megapixels are bigger than your megapixels'. But there's still the whole 'ermahgerd leica' thing, or which 1960s budget rangefinder in mint condition from a little jumble sale in San Francisco is the most hip, etc.


----------



## ToothlessFerret (May 1, 2014)

Too bloody right it can be elitist.  Film has it's analogue purist fundamentalists.  Shit.  I buy most of my gear from car boots.  Am I hip?  I'm not interested in promoting anything or telling others how to do it.  I'm too novice and crap a photographer for that.  No, it's just an observation that there is sort of an arms race in the DSLR World that can be a turn off if like myself, you are an amateur with a limited budget.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2014)

ToothlessFerret said:


> My favourite all time lens.  As well as on the K110D, I've also used it on a couple of Pentax ME Supers, where it was the kit lens.  Nita has the Pentax-A version on her 35mm SLR.  Really is beautiful glass.



Apparently it was a modern (for the '70s!) re-jigging of Zeiss's Tessar formula, based on measurements taken from old lenses, rather than worked out in a computer program (as happens nowadays).  Doesn't surprise me, as loads of great primes "paid homage" to the old Zeiss lens formulas.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 4, 2014)

ToothlessFerret said:


> Too bloody right it can be elitist. .




Definitely. How else can 'lomography' be explained?


----------



## weltweit (May 4, 2014)

Some of my camera club friends are too competitive, but not so much on megapixels, they care if they are going to win or come second (whatever) in competitions! I just don't get that at all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> People can be plenty creative - with individuality - using digital processing techniques, even when pushing it past photography and into various forms of photo manipulation or whatever. I think rather than the process itself, it's the sheer accessibility of photography and processing that leads to the appearance of a lack of individuality. When everyone has access to something, it's harder to do something original. There are those who will rise to the top and manage to maintain their individuality, to be original, but it will appear that that almost never happens simply because there are so many people able to use a camera and some software now. I'd also say that the recent popularity of film photography - 'lo-fi' stuff - doesn't mean it will be original or particularly a show of individuality.



I often use lomography to illustrate this - the original movement was about utilising limitations in an original way, but within a couple of years it had become a near-ubiquitous *style* of photography that software provided filters for, as with all that cross-processing of film that some of us enjoyed in the '80s. 



> It's not the medium itself that hampers a certain kind of creativity, but rather the way the medium has widened access leads to the appearance that there is less originality/individuality, when in fact there's probably just about the same amount there always was - it's just hidden in a larger ocean.



May I just say, by the way, "great post!"? 
It reminds me (tangentially) of what I was taught by one of the teachers on my "Graphic Art" course at school, which was that the possibilities are endless *until* you press the shutter, at which time you *limit* the possibilities to what you've pre-visualised as "what you want" from a shot. Then, at the processing stage, you're presented with another set of possibilities - possibilities to modify - but with each possibility comes attendant limitations.
To him the "skill" or "art" (he reckoned the two were interchangeable when applied to stills and film photography!) mostly resided in being aware of the possibilities, and using them to produce the image you *saw* in the viewfinder originally (as opposed to the image that was in the viewfinder, IYSWIM?).  There are *always* going to be some routes that produce more similar results than others, and that's not a bad thing, just a sign that some representations have a broader appeal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 4, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Definitely. How else can 'lomography' be explained?



Millions of cheap cameras loitering in Russian and Ukrainian warehouses, in need of a marketing genius or two?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 4, 2014)

"Lomography", as far as it can be described as a thing, is not elitist. The company called Lomography is interested in getting your money of course, but even their forums and user blogs have lots of people talking about using cheap products that are nothing to do with them. Tbh even their cameras are not absurdly overpriced - it costs money to make new things, particularly in small batches with relatively low sales, and prices on eBay for film cameras do not reflect actual manufacturing costs.

If anything, "Lomography" is deliberately anti-elitist by attacking traditional concepts of what a "good" photo is, or whether there is such a thing at all.


----------



## Badgers (May 4, 2014)

LOLography


----------



## Bungle73 (May 23, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm sorry, that doesn't makes sense. What has YouTube got to do with this. And what clique am I supposedly part of?


Um, because every time I say I saw, or learnt, something on YT, you and the others start pooh poohing it.  It seems to me as far as you're concerned all YT is good for is cat videos, when the reality is there is a lot of good and informative content on it. I can tell you've never watched any of this content, because if you had you'd know how useful it is. But you're just not interested are you?


> Not entirely sure how you can calculate the comparative worth of photographers,


You would say that wouldn't you?  Seeing as you are nobody in the photography world.


> but you banging on about how everyone loves you on a private FB group someplace else reeks of insecurity


Only person who is "insecure" here is you. What I said was that I showed it them and they liked it. Show me where "banged on". The FB group is dedicated to helping people with their photography. You seem to have a big, big problem with anything to do with FB or YT. Insecure are we?


> I don't recall actually saying that.


You don't recall much of what you say do you?  I posted my picture because you said you'd critique it, and then you started on a rediculous rant about how it didn't measure up to your standards and was therefore no good.
And I quote


> Anyone can knock out a pretty picture of Tower Bridge but so fucking what?


Would you go up to someone who was learning to paint, look at their picture, and say "so fucking what"? You would, because it's the kind of person you are.


> It's also a shame you chose to ignore everything else I wrote too because I think there was some good advice in there.


If there was any good "advice" is was burried in you constant desire to put me and everything I do down.



editor said:


> Your credibility really falls apart when you start posting up clearly dishonest nonsense like that.


The only person being dishonest here is you. You are so two faced. Everything I said is true.



> Right there is your problem. You selectively choose which photographers you decide are the ones you want to listen to and then completely ignore or put down the ones you decide you don't like. Or weirdly slag off how a photographer chooses to carry their lens hood because you feel it's the 'wrong' way.


Who am I "ignoring"?  You and your clique?


----------



## fractionMan (May 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Would you go up to someone who was learning to paint, look at their picture, and say "so fucking what"? You would, because it's the kind of person you are.



I can tell you've never been to art college.

You know why?

Because you spend three years having people saying exactly that to people who are learning how to paint.  Or sculpt, or illustrate or take photos.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

This was definitely worth a bump, mm hmm.


----------



## editor (May 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You would say that wouldn't you?  Seeing as you are nobody in the photography world.


I make no bold claims about my photography - it's a hobby really, although I have worked professionally - but I do sell thousands of pounds worth of photos every year and you can see my work on the walls of an international airport, so I guess I know which way to put my lens hood. How about you?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

"Knows which way round to put his lens hood" is the new "really knows where his towel is".


----------



## Bungle73 (May 23, 2014)

editor said:


> I make no bold claims about my photography - it's a hobby really, although I have worked professionally - but I do sell thousands of pounds worth of photos every year and you can see my work on the walls of an international airport, so I guess I know which way to put my lens hood. How about you?


Oh really? If that's the case then why do you continue to deny a DSLR's advantages over a camera phone, like you don't even know what they are?


----------



## editor (May 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh really? If that's the case then why do you continue to deny a DSLR's advantages over a camera phone, like you don't even know what they are?


Find me a single quote where I say that a dSLR has no advantages over a camera phone. Off you go now!


----------



## Bungle73 (May 23, 2014)

editor said:


> Find me a single quote where I say that a dSLR has no advantages over a camera phone. Off you go now!


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...tos-with-their-lens-hood-on-backwards.321675/

And no doubt you will continue to deny it.  Like I said, two-faced.


----------



## editor (May 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...tos-with-their-lens-hood-on-backwards.321675/
> 
> And no doubt you will continue to deny it.  Like I said, two-faced.


Where is this quote? And quit the abuse.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 23, 2014)

editor said:


> Where is this quote? And quit the abuse.


Do I really need to quote the 24 pages you spent arguing with me about it? What would be the point? You would still continue to deny ever saying it, even though there are 24 pages for all to see do where you do.

Oh, and "abuse"? That's rich coming from you.  I've had non-stop abuse from you ever since the FM incident.  Accusing me of "harassing" you for PMing you about the way you were treating me. It truly is pathetic.

And it's not "abuse", it's the truth, as clearly demonstrated again here.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 23, 2014)

Yeah, it was definitely the ed who bumped this thread after nearly three weeks to add a load of insults. The damn stalker.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 23, 2014)

Bungle73 why have you re-opened this discussio? The link you give is not to a quote, it is to a thread which does not contain the editor saying that DSLRs don't have advantages. If he thought this why would he have bought several DSLRs.

It seems to me that you get confused with people's words. Perhaps you also get confused with your own words. Check them before posting. Perhaps you are very busy and doing too many things at once. We all get like that sometimes.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yeah, it was definitely the ed who bumped this thread after nearly three weeks to add a load of insults. The damn stalker.


FridgeMagnet I don't think that Bungle will understand irony.


----------



## editor (May 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> You would still continue to deny ever saying it, even though there are 24 pages for all to see do where you do.


Then just produce one quote that backs up your claim.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 23, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yeah, it was definitely the ed who bumped this thread after nearly three weeks to add a load of insults. The damn stalker.


One, this is my thread, so I will make a reply any time I like in it. Second, where are the "loads of insults" in the first post I posted today?  Third


Hocus Eye. said:


> Bungle73 why have you re-opened this discussio? The link you give is not to a quote, it is to a thread which does not contain the editor saying that DSLRs don't have advantages. If he thought this why would he have bought several DSLRs.
> 
> It seems to me that you get confused with people's words. Perhaps you also get confused with your own words. Check them before posting. Perhaps you are very busy and doing too many things at once. We all get like that sometimes.


I'm not the one who's confused.  Have you actually read that thread? You haven't have you? I gave a list of reasons why DSLRs have the advantage and Ed spent 24 pages arguing that camera phones were just as capable.  24 fucking pages, so don't you or he sit there and deny what he said because he did fucking say it.

He even made up evidence to support his claim, that a publication had switched to camera phones, when that wasn't the full story at all!

And then there's the pathetic images that were posted that were an attempt to reproduce the characteristics of a DSLR that I had mentioned, which if Ed was really the level of photographer he claims to be would know were nothing like I was talking about.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 23, 2014)

editor said:


> Then just produce one quote that backs up your claim.


Why don't you tell me what you were arguing with me for 24 pages about then?  We've been through this before and you couldn't say.  Why is that??


----------



## weltweit (May 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Why don't you tell me what you were arguing with me for 24 pages about then?  We've been through this before and you couldn't say.  Why is that??


Bungle, I know it is easy to build up resentment, a feeling of being wronged - and the like - but is it really worth prolonging this disagreement?


----------



## editor (May 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Why don't you tell me what you were arguing with me for 24 pages about then?  We've been through this before and you couldn't say.  Why is that??


Sadly, it's only you that's having trouble comprehending the clear meaning of what's been said, rather than what your confused head has cooked up.

That's why I imagine that everyone else thinks you're acting like a gibbering idiot here.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 23, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Bungle, I know it is easy to build up resentment, a feeling of being wronged - and the like - but is it really worth prolonging this disagreement?


You're speaking to the wrong bloke. The person who has built up resentment and prolonging it is Ed.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 23, 2014)

editor said:


> Sadly, it's only you that's having trouble comprehending the clear meaning of what's been said, rather than what your confused head has cooked up.
> 
> That's why I imagine that everyone else thinks you're acting like a gibbering idiot here.


So you can't tell me what you were arguing with me about then (one would think that was a simple task)?  Surprise, surprise. Then there's nothing more to be said..............


----------



## Belushi (May 23, 2014)

Jesus Bungle why do this to yourself


----------



## Dr_Herbz (May 23, 2014)




----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> So you can't tell me what you were arguing with me about then (one would think that was a simple task)?  Surprise, surprise. Then there's nothing more to be said..............



"Nothing more to be said". Praise Be.


----------



## fractionMan (May 24, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


>



wise words


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Jesus Bungle why do this to yourself



For our amusement and edification, and because he's a wanksock.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> "Lomography", as far as it can be described as a thing, is not elitist. The company called Lomography is interested in getting your money of course, but even their forums and user blogs have lots of people talking about using cheap products that are nothing to do with them. Tbh even their cameras are not absurdly overpriced - it costs money to make new things, particularly in small batches with relatively low sales, and prices on eBay for film cameras do not reflect actual manufacturing costs.
> 
> If anything, "Lomography" is deliberately anti-elitist by attacking traditional concepts of what a "good" photo is, or whether there is such a thing at all.



Lomography is elitist for the very reasons you say it isn't.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2014)

editor said:


> I make no bold claims about my photography - it's a hobby really, although I have worked professionally - but I do sell thousands of pounds worth of photos every year and you can see my work on the walls of an international airport, so I guess I know which way to put my lens hood. How about you?



I think you're a pretty good photographer; but I'm not buying the money argument. Talent/artistry/money aren't necessarily linked.

This person makes more money from photography that any of us will ever see - combined even.

http://www.annegeddes.com/picture-galleries/?album=1&gallery=13


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 24, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Lomography is elitist for the very reasons you say it isn't.


All right then. What is elitist about attacking traditional concepts of what constitutes good photography and questioning whether there is such a thing at all?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> All right then. What is elitist about attacking traditional concepts of what constitutes good photography and questioning whether there is such a thing at all?



Another question is - is elitism always and necessarily a bad thing?


----------



## editor (May 24, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think you're a pretty good photographer; but I'm not buying the money argument. Talent/artistry/money aren't necessarily linked.


Good job I wasn't positing that argument then, although it's fair to say that if you are making a decent amount of money out of photography then it's likely you at least have _some idea_ of how to take a half decent picture.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2014)

editor said:


> Good job I wasn't positing that argument then, although it's fair to say that if you are making a decent amount of money out of photography then it's likely you at least have _some idea_ of how to take a half decent picture.



My mistake, I thought that's what you meant by this:



> but I do sell thousands of pounds worth of photos every year and you can see my work on the walls of an international airport, so I guess I know which way to put my lens hood.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 24, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Another question is - is elitism always and necessarily a bad thing?


I'm not entirely sure you have this question and answer thing down.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm not entirely sure you have this question and answer thing down.



Does this have anything to do with a discussion of elitism?


----------



## editor (May 24, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> My mistake, I thought that's what you meant by this:


Knowing which way to put on a lens hood is hardly a major boast of talent. Well, not to most normal people.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 24, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Does this have anything to do with a discussion of elitism?


It is trying to. Generally the procedure is that when you contradict someone and they say "why?" you then explain why, rather than asking another question. It tends to lead to the most productive discussions.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is trying to. Generally the procedure is that when you contradict someone and they say "why?" you then explain why, rather than asking another question. It tends to lead to the most productive discussions.



Very clever: but it's gone so far down an irrelevant rabbit hole that I've ceased to be able to follow you.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 24, 2014)

Let me help you then.



FridgeMagnet said:


> All right then. What is elitist about attacking traditional concepts of what constitutes good photography and questioning whether there is such a thing at all?


That.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2014)

I think that by definition, what you are describing is elitist: which brought on the question: must elitism always and of necessity be considered a bad thing?


----------



## weltweit (May 24, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> .. This person makes more money from photography that any of us will ever see - combined even.
> 
> http://www.annegeddes.com/picture-galleries/?album=1&gallery=13


It looks like she is pretty good at what she does.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It looks like she is pretty good at what she does.



But is it art?


----------



## weltweit (May 24, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But is it art?


I don't find that an important question, I think people get hung up on that debate when what really matters is - do your target audience's like it or not? Obviously that is speaking in a commercial sense, you have to like it yourself to motivate you to continue.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 24, 2014)

Weltweit don't be a stuffed shirt. Didn't you see the  in Johnny's post?


----------



## weltweit (May 24, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Weltweit don't be a stuffed shirt. Didn't you see the  in Johnny's post?


I am in a serious mood atm !!


----------



## Tankus (May 24, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I pronounce racecar backwards



eh ? ....oh ....yeah


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't find that an important question, I think people get hung up on that debate when what really matters is - do your target audience's like it or not? Obviously that is speaking in a commercial sense, you have to like it yourself to motivate you to continue.



It depends on whether or not you're trying to make art. Lots of commercial products aren't art.


----------



## weltweit (May 24, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It depends on whether or not you're trying to make art. Lots of commercial products aren't art.


On a personal note: I was given great advice by an experienced photographer some time ago, he said to me "make photographs you like to look at!" .. so that is what I do, I could care less if they are art or not 

But I know someone who wants passionately for his work to be accepted as art and be exhibited in art galleries, he is unwavering in his strict following of a particular style and is having success, despite that he fails to make money - so far.

Anyhow - what is art? not that I care much myself..


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2014)

weltweit said:


> On a personal note: I was given great advice by an experienced photographer some time ago, he said to me "make photographs you like to look at!" .. so that is what I do,..



That's what I do too. I make photographs to please myself.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 24, 2014)

mutter mutter ... Heidegger ... shoes .. Nazi fuckhead ... what is art?


----------

