What is Gary Fong talking about?

[hamlet]

At about the 2 minute mark he goes off on talking about getting more consistent pictures by putting your contrast, saturation and sharpness all to 0 and putting the camera into matrix metering. What in the world is he talking about here? I don't understand?

 

[480sparky]

He is talking about a method that works for him.

 

[hamlet]

Are there in published papers or guides i can read about it? I am very curious.

 

[Ysarex]

At about the 2 minute mark he goes off on talking about getting more consistent pictures by putting your contrast, saturation and sharpness all to 0 and putting the camera into matrix metering. What in the world is he talking about here? I don't understand?

He's talking about camera settings that effect the performance of the camera's JPEG processing software (except for the metering mode). Set your camera to record raw files and just don't listen to Gary Fong.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Are there in published papers or guides i can read about it? I am very curious.

If you save raw files the contrast setting on the camera is meaningless.
If you save raw files the saturation setting on the camera is meaningless.
If you save raw files the sharpness setting on the camera is meaningless.
If you save raw files the color space setting on the camera is meaningless.

Save raw files and ignore things that are meaningless.

Joe

 

[hamlet]

Sparky seems to be more political and you are more dismissive. Is he a JPEG guy? I mean, if he is talking about getting it right in the camera.

 

[tecboy]

What Gary Fong was saying is a neutral setting. He thinks it is easier to process in lightroom or photoshop. The setting does not have to be everything in 0 if you are shooting in raw. The matrix metering doesn't have to be what he said.

 

[480sparky]

Sparky seems to be more political and you are more dismissive. Is he a JPEG guy? I mean, if he is talking about getting it right in the camera.

Political?

I thought I was dismissive as well!

I think we're both saying the same thing: Ignore Gary Fong and learn to shoot so you get the results you want. Gary's way isn't the ONLY way.... it's just the way he gets the results HE wants.

If I posted a 3-minute video of ME standing at a podium with a PowerPoint behind me, saying, "THIS is how you photos.... either listen to me and take stunning images or don't and end up with crap!".... would you pay any attention to it?

Like the old saying: There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Ysarex]

Sparky seems to be more political and you are more dismissive. Is he a JPEG guy? I mean, if he is talking about getting it right in the camera.

I'm dismissive of that Gary Fong video -- yes, I would call it worthless. I don't know if he's a JPEG guy, but his comments were targeted at people who shoot camera JPEGs. Getting it right in the camera is a myth.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Sparky seems to be more political and you are more dismissive. Is he a JPEG guy? I mean, if he is talking about getting it right in the camera.

Political?

I thought I was dismissive as well!

I think we're both saying the same thing: Ignore Gary Fong and learn to shoot so you get the results you want. Gary's way isn't the ONLY way.... it's just the way he gets the results HE wants.

If I posted a 3-minute video of ME standing at a podium with a PowerPoint behind me, saying, "THIS is how you photos.... either listen to me and take stunning images or don't and end up with crap!".... would you pay any attention to it?

Like the old saying: There's more than one way to skin a cat.

But Sparky, Gary Fong is somebody!

Joe

 

[Derrel]

He's addressing a convention of what's probably wedding shooters; people who will often have hundreds of prints made per week, perhaps thousands of prints made per month. As he pointed out, you'll hear people urging the use of AdobeRGB in-camera based on its wider gamut, but as he pointed out, that often leads to muddy reds in prints, and overall, images that look like crap when viewed by "many people", in many software/browser/web environments.

He's advocating capturing the images using the camera set to sRGB mode, with the in-camera sharpening set to Off, with saturation set low, and with the contrast or tone curve also set "low". And then using evaluative or matrix style light metering.

He's talking about how to shoot photos that look "right" on the vast majority of computers world-wide, and which are already in the expected color space by the huge preponderance of printing-out machines world-wide. And by the majority of computer set-ups world-wide. He's not talking about the one,lonely guy who sees his images on his perfect monitor and looks at them in Photoshop with a black border around each image.

The same "shoot sRGB" theory is espoused by a number of people who shoot images that are designed to be seen on the web, or on the computers of MANY different people, and images which are destined to be printed by automated machines made by Fuji or Noritsu. This is very,very different than the kind of advice that you'll find from single-computer users in internet forums. He even mentions that very subject at the start. Now that we are more than a full decade into the 21st century, there are some cameras that can shoot gorgeous SOOC images, and I'd bet money that Gary is still advocating shooting in-camera JPEGs shot to a good custom white balance, and also using adequate fill lighting/flash if it's needed.

 

[hamlet]

Sparky seems to be more political and you are more dismissive. Is he a JPEG guy? I mean, if he is talking about getting it right in the camera.

Political?

I thought I was dismissive as well!

I think we're both saying the same thing: Ignore Gary Fong and learn to shoot so you get the results you want. Gary's way isn't the ONLY way.... it's just the way he gets the results HE wants.

If I posted a 3-minute video of ME standing at a podium with a PowerPoint behind me, saying, "THIS is how you photos.... either listen to me and take stunning images or don't and end up with crap!".... would you pay any attention to it?

Like the old saying: There's more than one way to skin a cat.

I would think that you were arrogant, but i would also not ignore your pointers because you have the work to back you up. I would be a fool not to investigate.

 

[Ysarex]

He's addressing a convention of what's probably wedding shooters; people who will often have hundreds of prints made per week, perhaps thousands of prints made per month. As he pointed out, you'll hear people urging the use of AdobeRGB in-camera based on its wider gamut, but as he pointed out, that often leads to muddy reds in prints, and overall, images that look like crap when viewed by "many people", in many software/browser/web environments.

He's advocating capturing the images using the camera set to sRGB mode, with the in-camera sharpening set to Off, with saturation set low, and with the contrast or tone curve also set "low". And then using evaluative or matrix style light metering.

He's talking about how to shoot photos that look "right" on the vast majority of computers world-wide, and which are already in the expected color space by the huge preponderance of printing-out machines world-wide. And by the majority of computer set-ups world-wide. He's not talking about the one,lonely guy who sees his images on his perfect monitor and looks at them in Photoshop with a black border around each image.

The same "shoot sRGB" theory is espoused by a number of people who shoot images that are designed to be seen on the web, or on the computers of MANY different people, and images which are destined to be printed by automated machines made by Fuji or Noritsu. This is very,very different than the kind of advice that you'll find from single-computer users in internet forums. He even mentions that very subject at the start. Now that we are more than a full decade into the 21st century, there are some cameras that can shoot gorgeous SOOC images, and I'd bet money that Gary is still advocating shooting in-camera JPEGs shot to a good custom white balance, and also using adequate fill lighting/flash if it's needed.

Ohhhh! I get it! Wedding photographers should listen to Gary Fong. I'm on board with that 100%.

Joe

 

[hamlet]

He's addressing a convention of what's probably wedding shooters; people who will often have hundreds of prints made per week, perhaps thousands of prints made per month. As he pointed out, you'll hear people urging the use of AdobeRGB in-camera based on its wider gamut, but as he pointed out, that often leads to muddy reds in prints, and overall, images that look like crap when viewed by "many people", in many software/browser/web environments.

He's advocating capturing the images using the camera set to sRGB mode, with the in-camera sharpening set to Off, with saturation set low, and with the contrast or tone curve also set "low". And then using evaluative or matrix style light metering.

He's talking about how to shoot photos that look "right" on the vast majority of computers world-wide, and which are already in the expected color space by the huge preponderance of printing-out machines world-wide. And by the majority of computer set-ups world-wide. He's not talking about the one,lonely guy who sees his images on his perfect monitor and looks at them in Photoshop with a black border around each image.

The same "shoot sRGB" theory is espoused by a number of people who shoot images that are designed to be seen on the web, or on the computers of MANY different people, and images which are destined to be printed by automated machines made by Fuji or Noritsu. This is very,very different than the kind of advice that you'll find from single-computer users in internet forums. He even mentions that very subject at the start. Now that we are more than a full decade into the 21st century, there are some cameras that can shoot gorgeous SOOC images, and I'd bet money that Gary is still advocating shooting in-camera JPEGs shot to a good custom white balance, and also using adequate fill lighting/flash if it's needed.

I have also adopted shooting in ARGB, I can always convert it to sRGB.

 

[480sparky]

I would think that you were arrogant, but i would also not ignore your pointers because you have the work to back you up. I would be a fool not to investigate.

My advice would be.... look into that method. But don't accept it as gospel (The Five Commandments? :mrgreen. Maybe it will work for you, maybe it won't. Maybe you can takes parts of it and create your own working method.

The ultimate goal is: Get the shots you want, using the method that works best for you.