Nikon new release D7100

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
results. The don't really have to know how or why.

which means knowing that fine detail can cause artifacts, just as i
said originally.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:18:19 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was doing.

which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
results. The don't really have to know how or why.

which means knowing that fine detail can cause artifacts, just as i
said originally.

But that's not the same as knowing about technicalities such as Airey
discs and circles etc or oversampling, or the effect of having an
anti-alias filter etc.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with
regular patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was
doing.

which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
results. The don't really have to know how or why.

which means knowing that fine detail can cause artifacts, just as i
said originally.

But that's not the same as knowing about technicalities such as Airey
discs and circles etc or oversampling, or the effect of having an
anti-alias filter etc.

the point is you have to know about aliasing artifacts even if you
don't know the technical name for it, just as you have to know about
aperture and depth of field even if you don't understand optics.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 03:26:13 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with
regular patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Absolutely correct.

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

Yup! And the D800E would not be used for high fashion shooting if that
problem existe, or if the photographer did not know what he/she was
doing.

which means they *do* need to know about the technicalities.

No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
results. The don't really have to know how or why.

which means knowing that fine detail can cause artifacts, just as i
said originally.

But that's not the same as knowing about technicalities such as Airey
discs and circles etc or oversampling, or the effect of having an
anti-alias filter etc.

the point is you have to know about aliasing artifacts even if you
don't know the technical name for it,

.... which is much less than was being argued further up the thread.
Apart from that, I agree with what you have just said.

... just as you have to know about
aperture and depth of field even if you don't understand optics.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
says...
I would expect them to be at the sight of a photographer fronting up
with a Samsung GT I9100 cellphone for the shoot.

It was a Samsung S2, but any camera without an AA filter can produce
such results. Also Nikon DSLRs.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Eric Stevens
says...
No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
results. The don't really have to know how or why.

Photographers need to know that cameras without AA filters can cause
aliasing, i.e. they shouldn't be using a camera without an AA filter on
a fashion shoot.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 3/03/2013 7:51 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
says...
No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
results. The don't really have to know how or why.

Photographers need to know that cameras without AA filters can cause
aliasing, i.e. they shouldn't be using a camera without an AA filter on
a fashion shoot.


In practical terms have you used a camera without the AA filter on a
fashion shoot?

If not how can you give this advice?

On 3/2/2013 10:54 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:29:56 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , PeterN
says...
He may be technically correct, but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results. Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities. They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

But especially for fashion subjects, where there is fabric with regular
patterns, aliasing can cause very ugly results:
http://www.molon.de/S2/P5.jpg

Imagine if a whole fashion shoot is like that, horribly messed up by
aliasing. You can't fix that with post-processing. Creative directors
would be quite ****ed of.

I would expect them to be at the sight of a photographer fronting up
with a Samsung GT I9100 cellphone for the shoot.


Actually the presence of a creative director during a fashion shoot
would be unusual.


--
PeterN

On 3/2/2013 9:13 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I wonder if you even know what a creative director does. i.e. In
addition to a lot of other things, they hire the photographer. Few
creative directors have the tine, or inclination to do the photography
themselves. MOST ONLY WORK 70-90 HOURS A WEEK. If you worked half that
time, you would not have the time to post the way you do.

wrong again. i know what they do and have worked with some.

you should quit before you dig yourself a deeper hole.


I can think of no other way to say this:
you are either full of ****, or the creative directors you cliame to
have worked with were not very successful..

--
PeterN

On 3/3/2013 3:51 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
says...
No they don't. All they have to do is know that they get acceptable
results. The don't really have to know how or why.

Photographers need to know that cameras without AA filters can cause
aliasing, i.e. they shouldn't be using a camera without an AA filter on
a fashion shoot.


True. But we were talking about creative directors, not the
photographer. nospam appears to have no clue.

Here is a typical job description: The ones I know earn considerable
more than stated in the article.
http://advertising.about.com/od/profiles/p/creativedirect.htm

--
PeterN