This is Gingerbaker's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Gingerbaker's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
"Pay more attention to the light. It's all you ever photograph." Hideously wrong. Shooting in good light is cheating - everything looks great in good light. If you are a digital photographer, own your craft proudly. Your craft includes Photoshop. Taking the right shot of the right subject in lousy light, and using Photoshop to make it real art is every bit as valid and takes twice the effort and four times the skill of craft as getting it right in camera.
Toggle Commented Oct 7, 2015 on To Begin With... at The Online Photographer
I thought this was a settled issue. Gold-foil rewriteable archival DVD's are about a dollar a piece, and are anticipated to have a 200-year lifespan. Two hundred years from now is a lot longer than most anyone alive today on the planet is likely to be remembered. For the 99.9% of us who are not recognized photographers, and really can't imagine ourselves to be the next Vivian Maier, that should be plenty good enough, shouldn't it? I mean.... if the reply to that question is no - the solution is not a better storage medium, it is some sessions with a shrink.
I can tell you that an iPhone once ate me and my Canon 5D plus off-camera flash for lunch. At a dark restaurant, as part of a wedding reception, about six of us were huddled together in a booth. I wanted to take a photo of us at that table, but the 5D has no built-in flash, and my Canon 580 flash can't be used at such close quarters. So, I cannily tried bouncing that flash on a path that would have made Willie Mosconi proud. After about five tries, I had a decent photo. Not great, but decent. It was then that the sister of the bride joined us at the table. She sat down, and said "Oh, I just have to get a pic of this!" Pulling out her iPhone, she took a photo in one second flat, and showed it to us. It was bloody brilliant. The little flash on the iPhone was perfect for such intimate close quarters photography. And the flash algorithms built into that tiny device are to be applauded.
I find the idea that a camera other than a GXR might have been able to capture that scene properly, while the GXR could not, interesting. Are there predictable characteristics of other sensor/processors which would render this scene more satisfactorily, and what might they be? Because I think there might be. But I don't think our typical measurements about dynamic range, color rendition, resolution or ISO noise are going to address this. I think it has more to do with the rendering of luminance differences at different luminance values, but that is a guess. For example, I have seen comparison shots between two different brands of cameras taken after a rain storm at night of an operating food shack. Both shots were low key and overall exposure values were very similar. But the output of one camera was much more aesthetically pleasing than the other, because the reflections of the shack on the wet pavement had higher luminance values than the other brand. It rendered the light differently.
Toggle Commented Jun 18, 2014 on The Wrong Camera at The Online Photographer
Here you go, Mike, my nomination for the most beautiful song with banjo, plus it qualifies for " wistful, slow-drag, plaintive, romantic folkie songs with a certain gentleness":
My Canon 5D (and most or all other Canon DSLR's AFAIK) does not allow exposure compensation if the camera is in Manual Shooting Mode. The questions is: Does one really need it? If you want to add/subtract stops of exposure in Manual Shooting Mode, just use the exposure scale in the viewfinder. Why futz with another control button? Granted, having exposure compensation in addition to what you can do with the viewfinder exposure scale gives one more stops of compensation at one's disposal, but does one really need 20 stops of range?
Fuji 2800Z My first digicam. A whopping 2 MP. Adjustable WB and EV (exposure compensation). And that was all, except for the zoom lens. Fell in love with photography with her. Sadly, she is gone forever.
I thought I was over this one. Then I listened to it to post it here. Do not listen to a bluesy Gillian Welch sing "Pass You By"...
...This fixation you, and a lot of others, have on the Hasselblad stuff is not about form vs function--it is class envy.... [Comment heavily edited... --Ed.]
2015 Mac Pro concept revealed: ;>D
Might this be helpful, Mike? Make your own fractal antenna:
That is a very... interesting article. It asserts that 3 out of the top 5 useless majors have to do with the production of food - Agriculture, Animal Science, and Horticulture. And yet, anybody who has actually been paying attention to the issues surrounding global warming knows that the horrific drought events seen in Texas and Oklahoma (and in many similar latitudes around the world) this past year are predicted to become worse, to become business as usual, and to spread into ever larger areas. These areas are basically what are currently known as the breadbasket agricultural regions of the world. By 2100,much of the breadbaskets of the world are predicted to be dust bowls. And, as world population continues to rise from almost 7 billion today to 9 billion by century end, there will come a time between now and then when there simply will not be enough food to feed everyone. And this may well come at a time when there is not enough affordable gasoline to distribute what food there is. And in many places in the world, there will also not be enough fresh water available for agriculture. According to the experts, we will start to see the beginnings of this scenario start to play out around the world about 2030, when the perfect storm of dwindling food supplies, unsustainable population growth, gasoline expense and shortages, and water shortages come together in a perfect storm, and our way of life on planet Earth will be affected in significant ways for most of the people on the planet. When food no longer appears in continual abundance in supermarkets, or has become prohibitively expensive for many people, we are going to see a back-to-the-land movement like we have never seen before. There are actually young people in my neighborhood who are already buying fallow small farms in anticipation. One would think that Agriculture, Animal Science, and Horticulture will be making quite a comeback in the not too distant future.
Was Ansel Adams a "photographer"? His prints depict nature in a way that is decidedly different than what one's eyes would perceive, and are also decidedly different than what his camera captured. He was proudly forthright that he made images (using darkroom manipulation) as opposed to simply taking pictures. And almost all of us manipulate our images. How far we go is a matter of taste, a matter of amount, not kind. To paraphrase Churchill (or Shaw): We've already established what kind of (image maker) we are, now we are just haggling about price. I am inclined to say that if we take our own photographs and use them in our art, then we are photographers.
Ctein: "S/N improves with the photon count, but, so what? The S/N is so low, in practice, that the visible image degradation from less exposure, at low ISO's, is far, far less objectionable than blown out highlights. It's simply not a major visual factor, with decent cameras used at low ISOs." Thank you for confirming my point - that ETTR improves S/N ratio. :) But why do you keep insisting that "blown highlights" are so objectionable? As I said, with my camera, a Canon 5D with jpg picture settings set to middle values, my overexposure flashies provide very useful information with regard to recoverable highlights. Unless the exposure is truly too high - producing truly blown skies, for example - small amounts of exposure flashies are not a problem at all. This means that after using ACR adjustments sparingly - I have no blown highlights any more. Really, the discussion should be about recoverable highlights and truly blown (unrecoverable) highlights. With proper in-camera jpg settings, small amounts of flashies mean *virtually no* unrecoverable highlights (Lighting fixtures in long-exposure night photography might be the exception). And a much better S/N ratio in the shadows, which allows more shadow detail to be recovered, if one wants, before noise gets to be a problem. Those small areas of red-highlighted over-exposure in your lovely night photograph of the domed building, for example, would be perfectly amenable to localized correction, allowing you greater latitude to reveal more shadow detail if you wanted. Forgive me, but I can't help but remark that neither you or Mike make mention of the these new tools in the ACR RAW develop module - the adjustment brush or the parametric curves sliders. Have you rejected their use? My Canon 5D is getting fairly long in tooth and is a pretty noisy beast compared to more recent offerings, so this ETTR stuff, while helpful to me, may not be so important to other folks. ETTR seems to work quite well with the new tools available to us. I truly see no downside to its implementation, outside of more time in post, although I do wonder if all this manipulation might lead to drawbacks in regard to color rendition,etc, perhaps?
Ctein: "Your camera detects photons, not protons. Hydrogen is made of protons (99+% by mass/energy), light is made of photons (100%, no added ingredients). I know, it was almost certainly your auto-spell correct, but how could I resist? (What? Rules? In a physicists' fight?!)" LOL! You need to download the updated software. Next year, they promise tachyon detection. :D
""There is almost no chance, short of shooting straight into the sun or powerful light source, to have blown highlights - which had escaped notice in either histogram or flashing highlight warnings - that would not be easily recovered with these tools." Gingerbaker, That's...crazy, man. I do so very totally disagree with you. Mike " Please notice the qualifier - blown pixels that escaped notice of the over exposure warning. These are very small areas indeed, and a quick swipe with the adjustment brush in the ACR module set to (-) exposure will rectify these small areas easily. Do you normally use the ACR adjustment brush? It's a miracle.
The only way you are going to prove your point to me, Ctein, is if you make two exposures of a subject, one exposed to the right, one exposed to your liking, and then processing each optimally in PS, printing, and demonstrating a discernible difference. Which I do not think will turn out in your favor. Why? Physics. My exposure has a lot more protons being counted than yours. And because there is little reason to be afraid of blowing highlights these days unless you are shooting only jpg. ACR offers us localized exposure control by brush or by gradient; 4-slider parametric control of highlights, lights, darks and shadow; highlight recovery, fill light, and exposure sliders in the basic ACR module. There is almost no chance, short of shooting straight into the sun or powerful light source, to have blown highlights - which had escaped notice in either histogram or flashing highlight warnings - that would not be easily recovered with these tools. I have my camera jpg settings set at mid values so my histogram (and I assume my flashy highlight clipping warning)correlate well with my RAW exposure. I welcome small amounts of flashy warnings in review mode - it means I have effectively pushed my exposure far enough to the right and therefore maximized the number of protons my sensor has counted. Because I know how darned easy it is to recover those small areas of overexposure in post. And like it or not, more protons means more information, and more information is better than less information. Especially at higher ISO settings, where your scheme of adding positive exposure in post +/- external noise reduction can in no sense be expected to outperform exposing to the right. Yes, modern sensors are a lot better than older sensors, and one does not need to expose to the right to get perfectly good results, especially at lower ISO's. But Adobe Camera Raw (and other RAW developers) are also a lot better than they once were. Clipped highlights that can not be successfully recovered, and recovered locally at that, from exposures that are not wildly overexposed, are becoming rare as hen's teeth. Starting with more protons yielding a brighter exposure (and therefore a higher signal/noise ratio) and then artistically making the image darker locally or globally will (must?) offer slightly better results than the other way round. Surely, that is simple physics at work? And why I think you have your work cut out for you if you are going to convince this photographer. :)
"If one actually reads the Bible, it becomes obvious pretty quickly that the literary methods employed are things such as allegory and extended metaphor, tales with morals, mythos, parables, symbolism, and poetic justice. In other words, you can't read it "literally"—or you miss many of the points entirely!" Really? Tell that to the millions of people labeled 'heretics' put to death over the centuries by Catholic inquisitors because they did not take the texts literally. Tell that to the Vatican, and virtually every Christian denomination extant today, who adamantly maintain that their central truth claims - all rejected by science, btw - Adam and Eve, the Immaculate Conception, the Ascension and Resurrection of Jesus are historical documented events and decidedly NOT metaphorical. There are something like 30,000 different sects in Christianity because none of them can agree on interpretation of canon, and a large part of the problem is that *no one* can agree on a rational schema for determining which parts are factual and which parts are metaphorical. This metaphor vs. fact argument is pretty hot stuff in the atheist blogosphere at the moment. Here is a good place to jump into the fray for those interested:
If we really wanted to learn to see the world in B&W, what would be very instructive to use would be sunglasses that removed chroma and left only luminance values. And what we would find, of course, is that along with shadow and light, form, and texture, etc - all the things that we think of being important to B&W composition - is that different colors have different luminances. A very striated, brightly-colored multi-colored flower, for example, may make a wonderful B&W subject, because all that color striation translates into B&W texture and form. The difficulty or challenge would be in being able to predict just how those different colors will translate into different luminances. And which brand sensor you use, which filter you use, which white balance setting you use, etc might well alter the relationships. Hence, seeing in B&W initially is a wonderful skill that will allow the photographer to choose and compose his subject and his composition. And this is a skill that can be developed with a B&W sensor - or, indeed, with any of our color Bayer sensors. But, the ability to then tweak the luminance values of the different colors captured by the color sensor in the B&W module of, say, Camera Raw, so that the finished B&W matches our original vision of what the B&W capture should be - is that cheating, Mike, or is that just a bloody miracle?
Get the forged clubs. You can likely find a suitable set on E-Bay for a song. They are much less forgiving. It might take a whole season, but when you hit even one shot true and sweet, and you feel that ball compress and then fly off the club face with no vibration but complete intent... you will appreciate the purchase.
Please note that while the Supreme Court validated the free speech rights of the WBC, they did *not* rule on whether those rights are superseded by the rights of families to have funeral proceedings without disruption. In fact, the court talks a bit about time and place restrictions on the 1st Amendment, and seems to hint that such restrictions would be properly applied in such a case.
1 reply
"It, like so many of the last batch of DSLRs, has very little to recommend itself,... " He-he. Such cynicism. Consider that these sub $1000.00 cameras will produce images that surpass a digital back that we had to pay about $16k for only eight years ago. And now, for free, they throw in an actual DSLR with HD video, movable LCD, live view, three custom shooting modes, ISO's to 12,000, a DIGIC 4 processor, very good metering, automatic dust removal, and decent focusing in a package that is small and light. I'd say they actually have a lot to recommend them. As a Canon 5D owner, I took the opportunity to try the previous generation of the entry-level Canon DSLR with and without off-camera flash at night in a camera store a couple of weeks ago. I was pretty darned impressed. These cameras really perform. Let's put it this way - if my 5D dropped dead, I would have little reason to spend more than a few hundred dollars to replace it as far as image quality goes. It's pretty cool that one can spend so little nowadays to get so much camera.
Toggle Commented Mar 1, 2011 on The Canon I Missed at The Online Photographer
Hey, look on the bright side. At least you're not shopping for a new big screen TV or a new set of speakers for your stereo.
Toggle Commented Sep 30, 2010 on Shopping Paralysis at The Online Photographer
Mike said: "In my view, black-and-white was already perfect..." Hence your appraisal of digital B&W as inferior? But is it inherently inferior, or just different then film B&W? Can this be determined objectively? I have read articles quoting people who have years of experience printing both film and digital B&W who unequivocally state that digital B&W now surpasses film B&W as far as final output. The digital darkroom offers, it seems to me, vastly superior capabilities than the analog counterpart, because of the ability to manipulate image color information before conversion to gray scale, as well as the ability to dodge and burn selectively for highlights, shadows, and midtones. Add to this the capabilities of layer blending and the digital darkroom is capable of manipulating the quality of light affecting the final image in ways that the analog darkroom can not duplicate. So, why is film B&W inherently superior? Printing? The articles I have read quote those with expertise in this area as stating that the new inks and papers have closed the gap, with Dmax values higher than silver gelatin, and stabilities now rated at 200 to 300 years. Is there validity to this view?
"No Infiniti here in Britain seems they are overpriced Datsuns - an even worse concept than Lexus...." As the proud and original U.S. owner of a 2004 Infiniti G35 Coupe let me be the first to correct your misapprehension. In 2004, your Nissan (Datsun) platforms were all front-wheel drive, whilst the Infiniti line were rear-wheel or all-wheel drives. Consequently, the chassis bore little resemblance, to say nothing of the performance characteristics. Datsun made nothing comparable at the time. My G35 Coupe is drop dead gorgeous, seats four ( two very comfortably and two... not so much), has a full leather interior, Tiptronic-type transmission, climate-control, electric moon roof, huge Bose stereo, etc and the performance and handling characteristics of the concurrent BMW 5 series of the time. ( 0 -> 60 mph in 5.2 - 5.5 seconds, rides on rails, 280 HP and FP of torque, top speed 155 mph). It came with a a full five-year warranty, seven years on the drive train and rust-through, and has one of the better resale values of any car. It made about every Top Ten list in the automotive media, and was even a Consumer Reports Best Buy ( for what that is worth) All for $35k - about one-half of the price of the BMW. First and only car I ever owned that made a trip to the grocery store an adventure, and it transformed my wife from someone who never even noticed automobiles into the second coming of Andy Granatelli. :D Here we are with the new member of the family right before we drove it off the lot.