Re: Are we all being suckered?

lens crack <lenscrack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> lens crack <lenscrack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Nice way of ingratiating yourself, that "We love" ... typical
>> way of making you look one of the crowd.<

> Mmm, I'm in with the in-crowd - aren't you? (you should try it! - lot's of
> wonderful midnight processions with flaming torches, hearty communal
> singing, and inspiring oratory from the speakers. Rousing stuff, really...)

I oppose burning books, I oppose burning flags, so why should
I condone burning religious symbols, like crosses? I can't
breathe well under hoods either and I look kinda silly in that
white garb. I'd rather photograph them and sell the pics to the
press (attorneys get them for free for work-related purposes).


> Yes, I'm an addict Wolfgang - but I'm trying to overcome my addiction. It's
> My Struggle...

Ok, 10 weeks no more internet, give all your photographic
gear to your local dealer, do something else for a while.

>>> But (and here's the irony) a quick look through some of the on-line
>>> hosting sites will produce a thousand pictures that look quite
>>> fantastic - as sharp as you could wish for,

>> also called way oversharpened.<

> All digital images are sharpened, Liebling, either in camera or in PP -
> didn't you know that?

Oh, I know even analog film is sharpened due to chemical
interactions during development. But you should read slower.
These first 4 letters, I shall spell them out for you,
"Oscar", "Victor", "Echo", "Romeo", they do have a specific
meaning. Go back, read again.

>>> with terrific detail,

>> at 800x600? *suuure*
>> I have one image that on the monitor, even at 1:1, is OK. Printed,
>> it's WOW. On 800x600 it'd not be anything special.<

> Stop strutting about, Wolfgang, and pay attention! No-one mentioned 800x600
> resolution.

Well, what *is* the typical web photo size? Something around
800x600, or smaller, right?

>>> or dreamy bokeh,

>> Oh, yes, because the only way to get that bokeh at 800x600 is
>> using a huge sensor and f1.x lenses.<<

> There you go again! - what is it with you and 800x600?

see above. Or are your web photos 3kx4k pixels, for the
browser to scale down?

>>> or stunning colours,

>> The saturation slider is known to me as well.<

> You're not terribly keen on colour then, I take it?

Black and white has it's uses, yes. But you don't do that by
desaturation, do you?

However, color overdone is overdone. Stunning only in the
context of stun guns, stun grenades and tasers.

>>> the sort of pictures that we would have been immensely satisfied
>>> with a few years ago.

>> You might have been, true enough.<

> I'm easily satisfied Wolfgang - that's why I'm replying to you.

So how comes you are addicted?

>> Which only shows that there are some people with the skill to
>> photograph the decicive moment, the right motives, from the right
>> angle, etc. And some of them know and use a small camera for
>> when they don't want to carry or risk a big camera.<

> Do you usually go around stating the bleeding obvious?

Well, that IS why some web pictures are great, they were
great to begin with.

>> Because we are ignoring all the ones that don't and only look
>> at the top 0.001%?<

> Bloody good job as well! - the servers of the world are creaking under the
> weight of billions of digital masterpieces!

Let me go to any photo community and I can point out pictures
that are not sharp, not stunning, not good looking, not bokehy,
colorful in a "renders you unconcious" way, ... and are at best
simply unremarkable. In other words, not at all what you
described.

>>> - because we view them on our monitors, and the
>>> monitor lends a brilliance and luminescence unachievable in even the
>>> highest
>>> quality print,

>> Nope. The same images would look good printed<

> (sigh) my point was/is that only a relatively small number of people
> actually print their shots! - therefore, the high resolutions obtained from
> dslr's are largely wasted. Do try and keep up.

Your point was that DSLRs are a waste of time and you don't
get:
- If I want or need to crop a picture, I need the MP
- If I want or need little depth sharpness, I need the large sensor
- If I want or need to print a picture *large* with a high DPI
(and real detail, not simply blown up interpolations, thank you
very much), I need the MP. And I want to print my best pictures.
- If I want or need to do available darkness photography, I need
the large sensor cells.
- If I want or need longer tele, well, do you know any non-DSLR
with 500mm (35mm-equiv) and a usable picture?

Therefore, your point is well taken, if you *always* restrict
printing to small pictures, *always* crop little or nothing,
*always* photograph with full flash or with lots of light, if you
*always* use no more than 420mm (35mm equiv) and don't *ever*
care about separating objects by shallow depth of field, well,
you probably don't need a DSLR.

>>> and remember that those on-line images have been downsized
>>> for the web - on their owner's computers they will look even better!

>> Nope, downscaling will hurt bokeh, but will (if done right)
>> hide a LOT of noise and increase sharpness. Where you may have
>> white-l.gray-gray-d.gray-black in 3000 pixels, at 800 you will
>> have a clean white-black border. So they may well look unsharp
>> and undefined at the owner's monitor.

> A novel theory - you've certainly mastered the art of talking bollocks!

So you claim downscaling increases bokeh, increses noise and
decreases sharpness?

Or do you care to point out what you belive I said wrong, so I
can disprove your theory?

>>> What's more, most people (myself included) don't print any, except the
>>> very
>>> best, of our images - we look at them on our monitors, so why do we need
>>> 10mp (or even 6mp) cameras to produce our shots?

>> You cannot print 2MP with 300dpi in more than 5x4".
>> And wouldn't that be a pity, the perfect shot and you cannot get
>> a large image ...

> Read my lips! - 'No more ta........sorry, 'Most people don't print!'

Most people don't own a DSLR, so there.

>>> Because we've been taught to be in love with technology?, because boys
>>> love
>>> toys?, because it flatters our vanity to cart around two or three
>>> thousand
>>> pound/dollars worth of equipment?

>> Because we want printable images if we manage one of the real
>> good ones?<

> I said...........oh, bugger it!.......

You said, yes, but that does not apply to most people with DSLRs.
Which is why you are wrong.

>>> I dunno - but I do know that looking at old images taken on the sort of
>>> digital cameras that we despise today makes me realise just how much
>>> money
>>> I'm forking out for comparatively little extra return.

>> Then you should stop forking out money and break your addiction.
>> Try learning to use your tools effectively instead.

> That's odd! - I once went out with a girl who said the very same
> thing!......

Which is a good indication I was right (again). Cut your
addiction, learn how to use your tools effectively.

Yes, that includes your camera.

-Wolfgang
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: books on outdoor photography
    ... > better pictures on my backpacks and hikes. ... You can take lots of images then just save the ones you want. ... If you're serious get at least a moderately higher end camera that will ... may or may not allow you to change memory cards. ...
    (rec.backcountry)
  • Re: Organizing photos
    ... my wife and she has been taking pictures like crazy. ... The software that came with the camera seems to create a separate ... Then I simply put the images in appropriate folders. ... Printers also come with a photo management program that was fairly ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Im looking for a prosumer "sports" camera
    ... Depends what you want to do with the images. ... I earn a living taking pictures. ... equipment installations and write reports for the customer who have lost ... I get out my Canon A640 camera with its 10Mp sensor, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • digital photos of microfilm images
    ... You turn off the flash, and if your camera has the capability, also the sound effects so as to not disturb fellow researchers. ... My camera is rated F1.8 and I can handhold the camera and take pictures at about 1/60 of a second from a microfilm reader. ... I just took 15,000 plus images of 1940 census district definitions off of film, avoiding entirely the microfilm reader, and was able to take a picture every 2 seconds. ...
    (soc.genealogy.jewish)
  • Re: Best Camera [Setting] for Concert/Gig/Festival
    ... A shutter speed fast enough to eliminate blur caused by the camera ... an ISO setting on the camera high enough to that allows pictures to ... a camera of sufficient quality that the pictures taken at high ISO ... My guess is your camera *does* let you set ISO and aperture, ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz)
Loading