~andy1349

Audio Engineer/Photographer

Profile

Gallery

Prints

Faves

Journal

9/10 Photographers are Idiots

Sat Jun 27, 2009, 4:17 AM

What the hell? I post one forum topic hoping for some educated discussion about the feasibility of Digital Systems approaching the quality of Film. I was hoping for some educated people to reply (those with engineering or graphics degrees) and get some high class discussion going about the advantages and disadvantages about the digital signal processing chain.

Unfortunately, no one seems to know a single thing about this, with one particular individual even offering maths proof for his incorrect knowledge which I couldnt help but laugh at.

This sort of thing I discuss all the time with the guys on my course. Perhaps we go into too much depth with engineering, and over analyse it all, but when it comes to creative use of our skills, we get results through applying what we've learnt. Its why my course holds a world famous reputation.

To me though, its pretty obvious that a lot of photographers just don't have this keen interest in the engineering side to even the most basic photography principles. I'd even place money on few reading this being able to accurately describe Aperture calculations and how they link in with Diffraction to alter depth of field, yet to someone who knows its incredibly simple.

What the hell happened to the world?! Does no one care about academic studies anymore because they're too obsessed with maximising their views on deviantART?

Photography Roadmap

Entry Level DSLR:
Completed Mid 2008, Nikon D40

52mm Polarising Filter:
Completed Late 2008, Camlink 52mm Polariser

Ultra Wide Angle Lens:
Completed Jan 2009, Tamron 10-24mm Lens

77mm UV Filter:
Completed Jan 2009, Jessops 77mm Skylight Filter

77mm 0.9 ND Filter:
Completed Feb 2009, Tiffen 0.9 ND Filter

77mm Warming Filter:
Not Complete

77mm Gradient Filter:
Not Complete

77mm IR Filter:
Not Complete

External Flash (probably Nikon SB-400):
Not Complete

Wide-Telephoto Zoom (at least from 18-200mm)
Not Complete

UV Filter:
Not Complete

Polarising Filter?
Not Complete

Upgrade DSLR (midrange or prosumer model DX Sensor, perhaps a D90):
Not Complete

50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 Lens:
Not Complete

UV Filter:
Not Complete

Extended Telephoto Lens (unless the a previous telephoto lens is sufficient):
Not Complete

Friends:

Clubs:

21 Comments

Mood: Irritated
Reading: Endless pointless replies

Devious Comments

~~love 0 0~~

~~joy 0 0~~

~~wow 0 0~~

~~mad 0 0~~

~~sad 0 0~~

~~fear 0 0~~

~~neutral 0 0~~

=chriscx1 Jun 27, 2009, 5:13:24 AM

unfortunately you can only compare a digital photo with a scanned film photo, because it's scanned, the test means nothing. and which film with which digital camera ?

--
What I See Is not What I Get
____________
[link]

~ZombieOverlord Jun 27, 2009, 9:29:38 AM

Actually, I had heard something to that extent while I was attending the Art Institute of Portland. One of the photography professors there was talking about it one day while I was checking out equipment to him.

--
Time waits for no one.

~andy1349 Jun 27, 2009, 9:32:03 AM

it does really get on my nerves, and the stance some take that they'd rather spend time learning about composition is fair enough, but there has to be a grounding in the subject before you can apply what you've learnt... grrr, maybe i just love a good rant though

--
"I hear what you're saying lois, but unlike my credit card, i'm carrying a very low rate of interest" Peter Griffin

~andy1349 Jun 27, 2009, 9:35:02 AM

clearly the whole thing would have to be done on a subjective basis, but one thing I said in the forum, but no one picked up on, is that the resolution of the lens is surprisingly low, so it doesnt matter than 35mm film is equivalent to about 150 megapixels, as most lenses can only resolve perfectly to about 10-40ish judging by unbiased tests ive seen.

I was aiming for a comparison between 35mm film and full frame DSLRs ideally, with the D3x being the major one as it has the highest DxO mark of any Full frame camera

--
"I hear what you're saying lois, but unlike my credit card, i'm carrying a very low rate of interest" Peter Griffin

*taffmeister Jun 27, 2009, 10:20:34 AM

There's nothing wrong with a good rant, we all do it when we feel justified in doing so. The simple fact is if you don't understand the relationship between ISO, apperture and shutter speed it doesn't matter how well composed the scene is, it's just a well composed snap.
If you don't choose how much of the depth of field is in focus and you don't decide which part of the scene to make the exposure for and you don't decide to have part of the scene showing motion blur then you should be using a compact point and shoot and not be calling it "art".
Art requires concious decisions to be made about composition and photographic art requires this too but it also requires photgraphic decisions to be made too and those can't be made without knowledge.
There that's my two penneth in the pot.
As I said, there's nothing wrong with a good rant.

~andy1349 Jun 27, 2009, 10:32:10 AM

rants are fantastic, and you end up learning so much by listening to someone who really knows their stuff having a good rant

a large portion of my lectures at university are just rants by the lecturers about their old days working for the BBC.

I guess us nuts who actually understand the whole subject may be a dying breed with today's hardware and software almost rendering us useless most of the time. Not long ago in a recording studio id need at least 2 hours before any audio could be put to tape, but now its as simple as turning on the computer and plugging in the mic

At least software cant take away our sense of composition and perception

but we do have software that can predict pop music hits...

--
"I hear what you're saying lois, but unlike my credit card, i'm carrying a very low rate of interest" Peter Griffin

*taffmeister Jun 27, 2009, 11:01:05 AM

It's the same with photography, it used to take hours to produce a good print in the darkroom, make a test print to make sure the print exposure was correct then make a full print decide whether to use a soft paper (low contrast) or a harder paper(higher contrast), matt ,silk, or gloss, see which areas needed dodging and or burning.
That's not even mentioning the expense and time developing the film in the first place.
It realy boils my piss when some kid who has never seen a 35mm negative suggests that my work isn't up to scratch because maybe there's a little burn out in the sky or a little area of solid black in a shadow somewhere. Much of the time I use the DSLR in the same way as I used my 35mm slr and accept that the sensor has the same latitude as film.
I suppose what it boils down to is sometimes I make photographs and sometimes I make phtographic art but I always try to get on camera as close to the finished as I can.
Bugger the software, use the camera for what it was designed for.
Phew, I'm knackered now.

~andy1349 Jun 27, 2009, 12:23:12 PM

to be honest though, shooting and developing film is now so cheap its almost a viable alternative to digital. pro level digitals are about £3500+, but an old Nikon F5 or something may be £200? Im guessing here, but im sure you get the point.

I do wish we'd designed the digital system with some more leeway in terms of the shadow and highlights. We're pretty much stuck with 2 options of either hitting the rail voltage of the system and clipping, or underexposing to get everything in. Its not really a dynamic range issue, but more an issue with the sensor that needs some far more complex thought put into it as film response logarithmically towards light and the digital response is more linear.

It has restored my faith somewhat that there are a few people out there that have some good knowledge behind them

--
"I hear what you're saying lois, but unlike my credit card, i'm carrying a very low rate of interest" Peter Griffin