Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III

On 2014-10-13 01:04:12 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/12/2014 1:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


Personally I would have done something quite different with it, starting
with a severe crop as the buildings, and the shooter's shadow on the ice
don't really work. However that doesn't meant there isn't an interesting
image in there.
To end up with something like this.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-C2.jpg



Did you make that crop just to seek my approval? ;-)

I agree. the building and the far shore do not add anything to thhe image.

My eye compelled me to do it.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/12/2014 08:08 PM, PeterN wrote:




Normally when I process a shot I do not crop so I left the photo
uncropped.

The way /you/ cropped it was nice but since this was a locally taken
photo
I wanted the viewers to get some recognizable visual clues allowing them
to know it was right here in Milwaukee.


Here is one more of his images (again not cropped)

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...01263360_o.jpg







Much better. But, as you know I have a thing for abstractions.




Thanks. I really wanted to get a few of his shots in the show because no
one knows him for his photography.

Normally everyone in the show brings their stuff in framed and ready to
go...so I did the printing and framing as a favor.

Actually it's my wife who does the printing, she has a much better eye
for color. I gave her the images...then she put the finishing touches in
and printed.

Even my own stuff...she has the final say in any print that's in color.
As to B&W I think I do a better job their so I do the final approval .

I assure you that what went into the show looked fine up on the walls.

On 10/12/2014 11:40 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article 2014101122330331566-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-10-12 04:05:18 +0000, philo said:

Savageduck:
Just give us a link to the shots you are raving about, since you
have already displayed this photog/artist's images in one of
your shows, that shouldn't be a problem for you. As for which
camera he used, it would be nice to know the model and that
should be available via the EXIF data.

It is good to see the work of talented folks from time-to-time.

philo:
I put the other guy in my KF for being a boor...

Floyd can be a PITA at times, especially when he does whatever he
can to establish his expertise with all things in arcane technology.
Other than that he has a personally established knowledge of all
things, and quite often can provide some useful advise &
information.

He just chooses to never do so, apparently. I've never seen him express
anything that would lead me to believe he has knowledge about anything. He
is held up as a master troll by other trolls in this group, but he's pretty
poor as far as trolling goes as well. He is a con artist that knows very
little about things he talks about. He has no knowledge about photo
editors, photo processing or anything related to computers. He has poor to
no knowledge about the Englisg language and is constantly having severe
problems expressing a consistent line of thought due to the language
barrier. On top of that, he's an arrogant asshole that tries his best to
use laughter and personal insults when he realizes that a subject is way
out of his league (i.e. all subjects).

I really can't understand why some people in this group actually think he
knows anything about anything.

Sometimes he can give that advise and information
without belittling those on the receiving end.

I've never seen him do anything but attempting the latter.




Check hiis comments when I was trying to decide between a D4 ND A d800.
His information was helpful and informatitive.

--
PeterN

On 10/12/2014 2:36 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
philo wrote:
On 10/11/2014 08:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Just give us a link to the shots you are raving about, since you have
already displayed this photog/artist's images in one of your shows, that
shouldn't be a problem for you. As for which camera he used, it would be
nice to know the model and that should be available via the EXIF data.

It is good to see the work of talented folks from time-to-time.


I put the other guy in my KF for being a boor...
I just did a quick google search and see some pretty
decent point and shoot cameras in the less than $100
range.

The whole point I was making was that one needs an eye
for photography for the photo to be any good and if one
has that eye...the photos from a decent but lower end
camera will be better than those someone gets with an
expensive camera who does not know how to use it.

Anyway here is one image the guy took...No processing
was done other than greatly lowering the resolution for
posting on the web

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...07725285_o.jpg

If you don't like it , that's fine
but it's superior to anything the other guy took with his expensive Nikon

The horizon isn't even straight. It has exactly zero
value as a photograph.

But notice how he stripped the Exif data so that we
can't see if it was taken with a $90 camera or with a
$400 camera.


There are times when a slanted horizon adds to the image.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140120_savannah_6952.jpg

Anyone is free to like or dislike any image. The important thing is for
the maker to produce what he wantted to convey.

--
PeterN

On 10/12/2014 11:30 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/12/2014 10:08 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article 2014101018061063758-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...amera-vs-dslr/

The end of closing line of the article kind of says it all: ~~
[ ... ] remember this photography aphorism: "Amateurs worry
about gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry
about light." ~~

philo:
The other day I was trying to come up with a term reflecting the
quality of one's photos vs the amount of money they've spent on
gear.

I'm sure we all know mediocre photographers with expensive
camera and great photographers who own a $90 point and shoot.

Ron C:
Seems one might draw a similar parallel with photo editing
software. ;-)

Yup! Just as an Armani suit isn't going to be any better than a
Men's Warehouse two-4-one sale suit.

Uhm, not sure if you're joking here. An expensive suit most certainly is
*better* than a Walmart suit, better quality, better fit, better looking.


Yep...I have one expensive taylor made suit. I look so good in it I got
rid of most of the others. Since I rarely wear a suit I doubt if anyone
is counting...but I do get a lot of compliments when I wear it.

It was worth every cent I paid...even though it was four times the cost
of an "off the shelf" suit.$


For that very reason, jprior to my retirement, I used to wear only
custom made shirts cost over $299, each. I only rotated fifteen of them,
and they all had french cuffs. I had cut make and trim suits, which were
fine. All of my ties were custom made and matched my suspenders. These
were also expensive, but like other things i life, presentation counts.
Now I were cheap slacks, Am down to one suit and two tuxedos. I will
admit that my casual shirts are decent quality, but they fit me better.





THe point is that an expensive suit won't make a business man out of a
homeless person, just as Photoshop won't make a graphics expert out of
anyone. But Photoshop most certainly is *better* than many/most/all
"walmart suit" graphic editors, it's just that it's hardly the only thing
needed for the end result.

Regardless of the tools, one needs to learn how to use them to the best
effect.

Indeed. And there is no doubt that a Nikon D4s is *better* than a Canon
Ixus 145, but that doesn't mean that wielding a D4s will make your photo
magically better than using the Ixus. You always need to know how to use
the tools to reach their potential.






--
PeterN

On 10/11/2014 5:39 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 02:54:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Only very exceptional individuals differ from the norm.

That follows, by definition.

Exactly. And trying to define a norm by citing exceptions
is never productive.


There is a problem when one uses the term "norm." to mean all.
Pun intended.


--
PeterN

On 10/12/2014 9:13 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-13 01:04:12 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/12/2014 1:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


Personally I would have done something quite different with it, starting
with a severe crop as the buildings, and the shooter's shadow on the ice
don't really work. However that doesn't meant there isn't an interesting
image in there.
To end up with something like this.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-C2.jpg



Did you make that crop just to seek my approval? ;-)

I agree. the building and the far shore do not add anything to thhe
image.

My eye compelled me to do it.


I Understand, but Philo pointed out the intent of the maker was to
depict local. With that in mind, the image accomplished its purpose.

--
PeterN

On 2014-10-13 01:24:43 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/12/2014 2:36 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
philo wrote:
On 10/11/2014 08:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Just give us a link to the shots you are raving about, since you have
already displayed this photog/artist's images in one of your shows, that
shouldn't be a problem for you. As for which camera he used, it would be
nice to know the model and that should be available via the EXIF data.

It is good to see the work of talented folks from time-to-time.


I put the other guy in my KF for being a boor...
I just did a quick google search and see some pretty
decent point and shoot cameras in the less than $100
range.

The whole point I was making was that one needs an eye
for photography for the photo to be any good and if one
has that eye...the photos from a decent but lower end
camera will be better than those someone gets with an
expensive camera who does not know how to use it.

Anyway here is one image the guy took...No processing
was done other than greatly lowering the resolution for
posting on the web

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...07725285_o.jpg

If

you don't like it , that's fine
but it's superior to anything the other guy took with his expensive Nikon

The horizon isn't even straight. It has exactly zero
value as a photograph.

But notice how he stripped the Exif data so that we
can't see if it was taken with a $90 camera or with a
$400 camera.


There are times when a slanted horizon adds to the image.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140120_savannah_6952.jpg

Anyone is free to like or dislike any image. The important thing is for
the maker to produce what he wantted to convey.

Time to take advantage of that freedom you are granting us.

This is one of those times an artistic angle doesn't work. Neither does
the OoF, or the noise, that isn't grain. Anyway I don't like this shot
of yours as there is too much which puts me off, and the off level is
the least of those. I suspect there were unrecoverable color issues,
hence the B&W treatment. I like grain when it is a part of the process.
I don't embrace noise. As to the OoF, everything is OoF, even the
McDonalds signs. At first I thought that it was movement due to the ¼
sec shutter speed, but neither of the people in the shot are moving.
Then I thought, Peter is just not holding his camera steady, but there
is no movement blur in the brick interfaces. So OoF it is. I am
guessing that you metered on the bright light of the service window,
when metering on anything else would have been better. To me that looks
like an opportunity lost for making a great capture.

Try this for size.
https://db.tt/wZ8ds2ot

....and it's OK, you don't have to like it.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-10-13 01:59:47 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/12/2014 9:13 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-13 01:04:12 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/12/2014 1:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


Personally I would have done something quite different with it, starting
with a severe crop as the buildings, and the shooter's shadow on the ice
don't really work. However that doesn't meant there isn't an interesting
image in there.
To end up with something like this.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Philo-C2.jpg



Did you make that crop just to seek my approval? ;-)

I agree. the building and the far shore do not add anything to thhe
image.

My eye compelled me to do it.


I Understand, but Philo pointed out the intent of the maker was to
depict local. With that in mind, the image accomplished its purpose.

In that case it wasn't much better than a snapshot. I looked for
something within that snapshot which could be extracted and elevated
into a different class of image.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 13/10/2014 11:48 a.m., Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
In article ,
Ron C wrote:

Just for the heck of it, here's an article that might make some folks
wonder why bother spending big bucks on a DSLR when a smart
phone will do.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...amera-vs-dslr/

The end of closing line of the article kind of says it all:
~~
[ ... ] remember this photography aphorism: "Amateurs worry about
gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light."
~~

==
Later...
Ron C
--

It looks like a nonsense article. A better review would be trying to
get the best photo possible with the available lighting, and that would
mean doing a lot more than fussing with the ISO and shutter speed. It
looks like the author messed up his 5D JPEG conversion settings at some
point too. The gamma is weird and high ISO photos have green and
magenta polarization seen in some RAW converters.

Of course it's a nonsense article, written with an intention to try to
validate the closing line.
There are at least a couple of other regular put-downs trotted out - "a
fool with a tool is still a fool" and "nice pen - you must be a great
writer".
It's not in general what I see. Most people with an interest usually
have some clue about what they're doing - or at least have an intention
to learn. Within reason, buying equipment which doesn't limit your
aspirations is a good idea, and that doesn't apply only to photography.