Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 11/24/12 1:54 PM, in article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:57:49 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.11.24 05:13 , Alfred Molon wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...-owners-youre-
idiots_n_2174844.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Tec hnology

The advert is pretty crass. Notice that all the "victims" of this jerk
are using Canon and Nikon cameras?

It reminds me of the pitch by Olympus for the PEN EP-1 four-thirds
camera. The ads had Kevin Spacey talking about DSLR's and all the gear
and that "I don't want to be that guy." Much more subtle than what Sony
is doing with this NEX advert.

Maybe Sony _really_ want to get away from DSLRs.

That said, during the photowalk in Montreal I did chat with a
photographer (not in the photowalk) who asked why his Sekonic meter
wasn't giving him the same reading as his camera. I sorted him out
(maybe - he wanted the camera and meter to agree exactly - wasn't going
to happen except by chance) but found that whoever taught him about
exposure compensation did it from the point of view of using aperture or
speed priority rather than from manual settings.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but if you're teaching exposure the baseline
should be manual, not semi-auto modes.

Hell, when I was first shooting an SLR my "meter" was the little sheet
of paper tha came with the film.

Mine was the "Ÿ16 Rule"...

On 11/24/2012 2:09 PM, Anthony Polson wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...r=Tec hnology

Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
knowing how to use their camera.

Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.


Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.

Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
short time.

That is a valid statement; leastwise, I most certainly do indeed agree,
as far as that goes. However, artistic abilities may be enhanced through
the application of the technical aspects provided in the equipment being
used to produce photographic artistic imaging.



Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.

I tend to think most if not many photographers have little to no
picturesque artistic talent outside the photographic realm of using
tried-and-true methods to produce a graphic image.


The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
arbitrary rules of composition. :-)

The "arbitrary rules of composition" have not been often discussed or
published without first gaining better than average validity in their
application. They may not be considered as axioms but they most
certainly qualify to be considered as necessary assumptions.

Light ..... is one of the most important features in a composition. Type
of lighting and/or light intensity may affect a composition in a
pleasing manner or in a manner of rejection. One might even say, without
light there is no art for art must have light to be appreciated.
Technically, we attempt to learn as much about light as we do about the
technical aspects of the equipment we use to produce a photographic
image. Angularity is another technical aspect that enters into the
subject of photographic imaging. In the field of photography, a better
than working technical knowledge of light, equipment, and angularity
will often enhance the application of the "arbitrary rules of
composition." The application of all is what leads to artistic
embellishments. Outside of studio set-ups, when in the field, the
subject matter of interest is already being supplied. The rest is up to
the all-round working knowledge of the photographer as well as the
environmental conditions which may be facing the photographer.


Nick

On 2012.11.24 14:54 , Bowser wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:57:49 -0500, Alan Browne

Maybe I'm old fashioned but if you're teaching exposure the baseline
should be manual, not semi-auto modes.

Hell, when I was first shooting an SLR my "meter" was the little sheet
of paper tha came with the film.

f/16 x 1/125 - sunny
f/11 x 1/125 - part cloudy
f/8 x 1/125 - cloudy

etc.. ...

As a kid that's all I needed....


--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

On 11/24/2012 7:34 PM, nick c wrote:

snip


The "arbitrary rules of composition" have not been often discussed or
published without first gaining better than average validity in their
application. They may not be considered as axioms but they most
certainly qualify to be considered as necessary assumptions.

Light ..... is one of the most important features in a composition. Type
of lighting and/or light intensity may affect a composition in a
pleasing manner or in a manner of rejection. One might even say, without
light there is no art for art must have light to be appreciated.
Technically, we attempt to learn as much about light as we do about the
technical aspects of the equipment we use to produce a photographic
image. Angularity is another technical aspect that enters into the
subject of photographic imaging. In the field of photography, a better
than working technical knowledge of light, equipment, and angularity
will often enhance the application of the "arbitrary rules of
composition." The application of all is what leads to artistic
embellishments. Outside of studio set-ups, when in the field, the
subject matter of interest is already being supplied. The rest is up to
the all-round working knowledge of the photographer as well as the
environmental conditions which may be facing the photographer.


The so called rules are starting points. Strict adherence would classify
photography as a craft, not an art.

--
Peter

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:09:44 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...r=Tec hnology

Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
knowing how to use their camera.

Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.


Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.

Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
short time.

Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.

I think you are oversimplifying things. I'm not seeking the
combination of menu settings that turn me into a master photographer.
I'm exploring the things that the often strange things that the
various menu settings enable me to do.

The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
arbitrary rules of composition. :-)

You have described a person without either visual imagination or
creativity. It has nothing to with whether or not they have a
technical background.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Bowser wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:57:49 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.11.24 05:13 , Alfred Molon wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...-owners-youre-
idiots_n_2174844.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Tec hnology

The advert is pretty crass. Notice that all the "victims" of this jerk
are using Canon and Nikon cameras?

It reminds me of the pitch by Olympus for the PEN EP-1 four-thirds
camera. The ads had Kevin Spacey talking about DSLR's and all the gear
and that "I don't want to be that guy." Much more subtle than what Sony
is doing with this NEX advert.

Maybe Sony _really_ want to get away from DSLRs.

That said, during the photowalk in Montreal I did chat with a
photographer (not in the photowalk) who asked why his Sekonic meter
wasn't giving him the same reading as his camera. I sorted him out
(maybe - he wanted the camera and meter to agree exactly - wasn't going
to happen except by chance) but found that whoever taught him about
exposure compensation did it from the point of view of using aperture or
speed priority rather than from manual settings.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but if you're teaching exposure the baseline
should be manual, not semi-auto modes.

Hell, when I was first shooting an SLR my "meter" was the little sheet
of paper tha came with the film.


When I started, Kodachrome was ASA 10, and we used a small circular
cardboard exposure guide, e.g. sunny and no clouds = 1/60th at f 6.3.
That was not too successful, and I was pleased when the Weston meter
first was available, especially with the dome attachment for incident
readings = good for faces.

Today, I meet many people with fancy DSLR cameras who never heard of an
f stop or a shutter speed. They use them as Ph.D. cameras, = Push here
Dummy.

Mort Linder

In article ,
Pat McGroyn wrote:

He should probably wait for the next version of the G1X. The current
one, while pretty good, was rush released. There is a lot of room for
improvement.

That is quite an understatement!

I'll admit that some G1X photos are impressive. An enlarged face in a
group can be quite sharp when everything goes right. "Good" photos are
better than those from my old G11.

The most serious problem I find is that the closest point the G1X will
focus at maximum zoom, is the optimum point to make a portrait. At some
critical point it may show a face in focus when partially depressing the
shutter release, but jumps focus to the background when completely
pressing the button.

Also frustrating is the slow response of the shutter. Many times I've
had people move out of the frame before it reacted.

I see Canon released a G15 in time for holiday shopping. I doubt it is
the next version of the G1X, because of its relatively low price.

Please forgive me for hijacking the thread!

Fred

"Mort" wrote in message
...

When I started, Kodachrome was ASA 10, and we used a small circular
cardboard exposure guide, e.g. sunny and no clouds = 1/60th at f 6.3. That
was not too successful, and I was pleased when the Weston meter first was
available, especially with the dome attachment for incident readings =
good for faces.

Today, I meet many people with fancy DSLR cameras who never heard of an f
stop or a shutter speed. They use them as Ph.D. cameras, = Push here

We got away with a lot of sins on exposure in the film days because of the
latitude it had. They could correct for a few stops of exposure error. In
digital we have instant results, but it has to be pretty much right on or
there are problems.

Gary Eickmeier

In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

We got away with a lot of sins on exposure in the film days because of the
latitude it had. They could correct for a few stops of exposure error. In
digital we have instant results, but it has to be pretty much right on or
there are problems.

it's the other way around. film has *less* latitude and is less
forgiving of errors. digital lets people be sloppy, because it's
relatively easy to fix things in post.

In article , PeterN
says...
The so called rules are starting points. Strict adherence would classify
photography as a craft, not an art.

Yes, although part of photography is indeed a craft.
--

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