Whither goest us?

[Buckster]

Lossy file formats loose data points.

Not to nitpick, but I'm pretty sure you mean "lose" rather than "loose".

I wouldn't even mention it, but it's clear you take pride in your writing, so you might appreciate the nuance involved. Sort of like how a lot of folks misuse "their", "there" and "they're" or "two", "too" and "to".

Anyway, it's just something to note for future use... Carry on...

 

[soufiej]

Thanks, Buckster. I didn't notice that one, but you're write ... I mean "right".

 

[soufiej]

Actually, I'd say the debate has gone far enough. The point I made was there are an extremely limited numbers of phone cameras which can operate in RAW formatting. Whether you see that as a detriment or not is your decision. IMO this is more of a factor in the "difference" between a DSLR or even a higher end compact and a smartphone. This, for me, makes far more of a statement from the manufacturer regarding the value of the camera they are including in their phone. The issues of, "Oh, a smartphone is OK for bright light", and so forth are minimal IMO. It's like saying a Honda Civic is OK if you aren't towing a boat. You use the tool best suited to the job.

IMO the answer to the question what sets "our" photos apart from "their" photos isn't in "composition and inspiration". That's simply whistling past the graveyard. You really think because you use a smartphone camera you can't have inspiration and great composition?! That is just the same as saying you own a DSLR and so you must have inspiration to come up with great compositions.

Arguing endlessly between two people who see lossy formats so differently is time wasted. Get back to the other issues of the thread and think what you want to think about my point.

 

[photoguy99]

So my takeaway here, as it pertains to the original question, is that Serious Photographers should shoot however they like, with whatever they like, but they should tell people that they're using high end gear, RAW format, and so on, to create the subjective experience of increased quality.

This isn't a bad idea, and in fact lots of people do it. Peter Lik sells a lot of prints based, in part, on these ideas.

 

[fjrabon]

Actually, I'd say the debate has gone far enough. The point I made was there are an extremely limited numbers of phone cameras which can operate in RAW formatting. Whether you see that as a detriment or not is your decision. IMO this is more of a factor in the "difference" between a DSLR or even a higher end compact and a smartphone. This, for me, makes far more of a statement from the manufacturer regarding the value of the camera they are including in their phone. The issues of, "Oh, a smartphone is OK for bright light", and so forth are minimal IMO. It's like saying a Honda Civic is OK if you aren't towing a boat. You use the tool best suited to the job.

IMO the answer to the question what sets "our" photos apart from "their" photos isn't in "composition and inspiration". That's simply whistling past the graveyard. You really think because you use a smartphone camera you can't have inspiration and great composition?! That is just the same as saying you own a DSLR and so you must have inspiration to come up with great compositions.

Arguing endlessly between two people who see lossy formats so differently is time wasted. Get back to the other issues of the thread and think what you want to think about my point.

I'm not even arguing with you at this point, I just want to know what it is you think you're looking at when you view an image made from a raw file.

 

[The_Traveler]

I didn't read most of the posts so if this has been said, well. I agree.

Every once in a while, anyone, no matter how ignorant or inexperienced, can get a decent or even great picture in any random situation, but the chances of it happening are unpredictable and are combination of luck, circumstance and the excellence of the equipment available to them. (note that photo shops in the mall work on standard setups and standard lighting and produce clean work that is excellent in terms of focus, sharpness and color with untrained teenagers pushing the buttons.)
The difference between me (as an avid but non-professional photographer) and that random anyone is that I can look at any situation and get the best shot out of it possible with the equipment I have.
And then I can take that file and make it conform to the image in my mind's eye.

 

[pixmedic]

So my takeaway here, as it pertains to the original question, is that Serious Photographers should shoot however they like, with whatever they like, but they should tell people that they're using high end gear, RAW format, and so on, to create the subjective experience of increased quality.

This isn't a bad idea, and in fact lots of people do it. Peter Lik sells a lot of prints based, in part, on these ideas.

not really sure how sarcastic that was or was not....
but as a successful artist, (im an artist now) ive never had a client (that was not also into photography) ask me about my gear or what format I shoot in. Even the few clients I have worked for that were also hobbyist photographers didn't really do much more than ask out of curiosity since they shot different brands of cameras. They saw my work, liked it, and paid me to do it for them.

now, that isn't to say that some people wouldn't be impressed by a lengthy gear list and and even lengthier explanation of why I shoot raw, im just saying it really has not come up much in my experience.

oh, I did forget a particular circumstance where it did actually come up a few times. when I second shot for wedding photographers. Thats pretty much it though.

you know...now that you mention it...
maybe I should start bringing up gear and file formats to clients. maybe i can charge them more after explaining that I shoot raw and not jpeg. Gonna have to try that one!

 

[The_Traveler]

not really sure how sarcastic that was or was not....
but as a successful artist, (im an artist now)

That seems like quite a bit of passive aggressive hostility coming out now ever since your rant in the 'artist' thread.
Why that bothers you so much I don't know but you really ought to let it go.

 

[pixmedic]

not really sure how sarcastic that was or was not....
but as a successful artist, (im an artist now)

That seems like quite a bit of passive aggressive hostility coming out now ever since your rant in the 'artist' thread.
Why that bothers you so much I don't know but you really ought to let it go.

what?
im not allowed to change my mind?
no hostility here man. im all coolsies.
what is with your constant assumptions about me?
obsessed much?
you really ought to let it go.

 

[table1349]

Just because most of us own some sort of automobile, it doesn't make all of us Indy, Grand Prix or NASCAR Drivers. While I drive a nice vehicle, it does not have the capabilities for speed that any of the three previously mentioned vehicle types do. I guess I am driving something akin to the cell phone or point & shoot version of an automobile.

 

[photoguy99]

Fully sarcastic with reference to the audiophile/RAW discussion.

But it's a completely legit sales tactic. Peter Lik's sales associates are notorious for talking up the gear and the process. "Peter only uses film, there's no photoshop, and the finest.. " blah blah blah, when we know that he's shooting this stuff with medium format digital and 'shopping the tar out of it, and making perfectly ordinary prints on a standard (albeit good) commercial paper. It works, his pressure cooker galleries sell loads of prints.

No, people don't *ask*, but if you *tell* them as part of an orchestrated pitch, it can fill in a complete picture of high end, luxurious, etc. Same as it would never occur to any thinking human being to ask if a speaker cable should be plugged in one direction or the opposite one, but if you *tell* them that *your* cables are directional, well, it starts to sound very fancy and desirable.

So.. sarcastic? A joke? Or serious? Depends on how you look at it! I am vast and contain multitudes.

 

[syaudi]

if you want someone to at least gain some inspiration or perspective about light and composition, I highly suggest examining Old Master art.
I went to an art museum just last weekend to check them out and I was blown away. now my mindset is pretty much "if the Old Masters could create such windows into an intense world of light, positioning, and emotion from a scene in their mind, then I too will work for impactful lighting and composition from looking at the scene in a mirror."

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Back to the OP...

Before digital, average people and professionals with film shot on the same quality "sensor" (the film) as everyone else. Did that somehow degrade professional work? I think not.

The only real difference with digital is that it's everywhere. The outcome of photography being in everyone's pocket is something noone can really predict... There are Doomsayer's and Optimists, but the real truth of the matter is that it's yet to be seen.

 

[soufiej]

Back to the OP...

Before digital, average people and professionals with film shot on the same quality "sensor" (the film) as everyone else. Did that somehow degrade professional work? I think not.

The only real difference with digital is that it's everywhere. The outcome of photography being in everyone's pocket is something noone can really predict... There are Doomsayer's and Optimists, but the real truth of the matter is that it's yet to be seen.

Everyone shot on film? Maybe, but most average photographers didn't shoot on the same film as the pros and they certainly didn't use the same equipment. Modern camera designers have gone to great lengths to make today's cameras as fool proof as possible. Point and shoot is, in most ways, a success story. Point and shoot fifty years ago is a large part of what set the consumer level cameras and shooter apart from the pros; f Stops and Shutter Speeds - The Brownie Camera Page

introduction to Medium Format Photography

 

[photoguy99]

W.Y. Photo's point (I think) is that the gap between "casual shooting" and "serious professional shooting" has widened. A change in degree so vast has overtaken us that it has changed the fundamentals of how we relate to photographs. A change in degree so large that it produced a significant change in kind. And yet there is no reason whatever this should reflect on "professional" photograpy, whatever that even means. Ever photographer, every photograph, is separate from ever other.

(The complaints remain the same, however. People were complaining about the stupid amateurs and their terrible pictures in the 1860s.)

In fact, I disagree with W.Y.Photo, I think the fundamental change in our relationship to photographs, as a culture, has and does impact the working professional, to their detriment.