Another case of Canikon snobbery?

Clavius · 06-02-2015, 03:46 AM

I blame myself here...

I don't understand anti-PP snobbery and/or the "straight-out-of-the-camera"-crowd. The film equivalent of no post processing is shooting polaroid film. Which is fun, but hardly anything to be snobby about.

I also don't understand what this has to do with the Canon brand. No-PP snobs can be found in all brands. There's a big community of them here on PF as well.

Third thing that I can't grasp is what this has to do with rectingular vs fishe eye UWA lenses. Both have their uses and charms. Both can be PP'd to death or not PP'd at all.

TaoMaas · 06-02-2015, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by willskywalker93

The friend (questioning that status) responded with this: "Well I don't do editing outside of what I capture. and I'm more creative with it."

Should I take this as a personal insult to my skills as a photographer...

Unless this person was an ultra-purist, I would take that statement as, "Oh...I don't understand post-processing."

willskywalker93 · 06-02-2015, 05:20 AM

Yeah, I'm assuming she knows nothing about PP as well. As for the snobbery, I guess more back story would have been needed. Any time I've ever discussed my camera, her only response is "well my 5D this, my 5D that" until I mention the astro tracer, in which case the response is "I don't do astro photography" or something of that nature.

**TER-OR** · 06-02-2015, 06:41 AM

I'm not sure she's an ultra-purist - is she relying on the camera's jpg engine - and what are the settings? Highlight compensation, shadow recovery, contrast push etc...

RAW and PP are the film/darkroom comparison now. If you've never taken an underexposed image and adjusted the exposure to see just how much that sensor captures, do so. It's always better to err on the side of underexposure with modern DSLRs, you can recover dark but not overblown. The tools exist for a reason, it doesn't make you less of a photographer for using them.

And no, fisheye is not distortion - that's a feature. You expect it, and you bought the fisheye FOR this feature. Otherwise, why not just stitch a panorama?

Murfy · 06-02-2015, 07:04 AM

I think it just sounds like she doesnt know something and is scared or doesnt want to admit it. I have seen and heard a lot of weird things from people. I was talking to someone about photography and she asked the camera I used and I said pentax. she said she used a canon 5d, (i didnt ask, I dont care) then she followed up with 'but I am not very good and I feel bad for charging people' huh?

TaoMaas · 06-02-2015, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by willskywalker93

Any time I've ever discussed my camera, her only response is "well my 5D this, my 5D that"...

Yeah, I work with a Canon owner like that. I've told this before, but we were discussing close-up capabilities and I mentioned that we might need a macro. My co-worker said, "Oh...I've got a macro." I said, "Great! What is it?" They said, "It's a macro." I began to get suspicious so I said, "Is it a prime lens...or a zoom with a macro ability?" They said, "It's a real macro." At that point, I knew they didn't know what the hell they were talking about because anyone on this forum who has a macro lens knows what it is. This person couldn't tell me if they had a prime lens, zoom lens, add-on attachment...or what. They're able to get good shots, but I don't think there's a lot of thought behind them. That doesn't always matter, btw, if a person has good instincts, but when I was learning to play an instrument and didn't want to learn my scales, my teacher said, "Gut instincts will only take you so far. There will be nights when you're just not feeling it. If you want to be a professional, you still need to perform on those nights. That's when you'll need to know this stuff." It's the same with the visual arts.

**csa** · 06-02-2015, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

Mmmm. What about the corrective work that was done in the darkroom, when we were still shooting film. That's no different really from what we're now doing in Photoshop.

You are so right! Only difference is, Photoshop is much quicker than what we used to do in the darkroom!

DeadJohn · 06-02-2015, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by willskywalker93

The friend (questioning that status) responded with this: "Well I don't do editing outside of what I capture. and I'm more creative with it." Should I take this as a personal insult to my skills as a photographer or a general statement that her Canon 5DIII needs no correction and automatically enables her to be more creative than we mere Pentaxians?

My interpretation: It's neither brand snobbery nor an insult to your skills. She seems arrogant in her photography skills. Many photographic subjects don't need any processing but some subjects are much better with a bit of adjustment.

BrianR · 06-03-2015, 06:36 AM

I'm also missing the brand snobbery here and not understanding why you seem to be fishing around for something to take offense to

. People are in general crappy enough as it is, I prefer to wait for the obvious insults to come my way before getting upset instead of trying to invent slights.

normhead · 06-03-2015, 07:19 AM

I have a 10-17 fisheye and Sigma 8-16 rectilinear until 12mm. I'm not getting rid of one because I have the other... sometimes they are in the camera bag at the same time. So I'd say the problem is the OP thinks because he grew tired of his fisheye, everyone does. I rarely use the fisheye, and I often regret it. Especially with people near the edge of the frame, the fisheye looks much more natural than the rectilinear. Fisheye for people , rectilinear for buildings is pretty much my rule.

willskywalker93 · 06-03-2015, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I have a 10-17 fisheye and Sigma 8-16 rectilinear until 12mm. I'm not getting rid of one because I have the other... sometimes they are in the camera bag at the same time. So I'd say the problem is the OP thinks because he grew tired of his fisheye, everyone does. I rarely use the fisheye, and I often regret it. Especially with people near the edge of the frame, the fisheye looks much more natural than the rectilinear. Fisheye for people , rectilinear for buildings is pretty much my rule.

I shot mostly buildings and was unaware of this rule, thanks for the heads up!

atupdate · 06-03-2015, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Especially with people near the edge of the frame, the fisheye looks much more natural than the rectilinear.

Can you post any examples? I also switched from a FE to a rectilinear, as the FE didn't seem to fit my shooting style.

Tim

Tim

normhead · 06-03-2015, 10:12 AM - **1 Like**

Breakfast in camp 10-17 fisheye. @17mm

Even the person to the right of the frame in the white hoody looks natural proportioned.

On the point - 10-17 fisheye @ 10mm.. This is what you want, my wife looks skinny. I'd post a comparison picture taken with the Sigma 8-16, but she's stands over my shoulder and makes me throw them all away.

My sister and grandson... Sigma 8-16 rectilinear
Check out his feet..... that's just wrong..

Toronto City Hall art show- Nathan Phillips Square. Sigma 8-16 rectilinear.

Buildings look great, people bottom left look short and squat.

I Love this picture, but if Jennifer (bottom left) ever saw it I'm sure she'd kill me. She looks like a dwarf in this photo/ Sigma 8-16.

One more, again from that series... Faces and bodies completely distorted with the Sigma 8-16. I know this is Jen... but I have to try really hard to put the image together with the face it's taken of. It just doesn't compute. If I'd brought the fisheye...

atupdate · 06-03-2015, 10:45 AM

Thanks Norm. Could you update the post to include the focal length when you have some time? My very limited experience with the 10-17 FE is that it wasn't extremely fishy at 17mm.

Tim

normhead · 06-03-2015, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by atupdate

Thanks Norm. Could you update the post to include the focal length when you have some time? My very limited experience with the 10-17 FE is that it wasn't extremely fishy at 17mm.

Tim

All the Sigma images are at either 8 or 9 mm, probably 8. Pentax doesn't have a code for images under 10mm.

06-03-2015, 06:36 AM	#24
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	I'm also missing the brand snobbery here and not understanding why you seem to be fishing around for something to take offense to. People are in general crappy enough as it is, I prefer to wait for the obvious insults to come my way before getting upset instead of trying to invent slights.

06-03-2015, 10:12 AM - 1 Like	#28
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Breakfast in camp 10-17 fisheye. @17mm Even the person to the right of the frame in the white hoody looks natural proportioned. On the point - 10-17 fisheye @ 10mm.. This is what you want, my wife looks skinny. I'd post a comparison picture taken with the Sigma 8-16, but she's stands over my shoulder and makes me throw them all away. My sister and grandson... Sigma 8-16 rectilinear Check out his feet..... that's just wrong.. Toronto City Hall art show- Nathan Phillips Square. Sigma 8-16 rectilinear. Buildings look great, people bottom left look short and squat. I Love this picture, but if Jennifer (bottom left) ever saw it I'm sure she'd kill me. She looks like a dwarf in this photo/ Sigma 8-16. One more, again from that series... Faces and bodies completely distorted with the Sigma 8-16. I know this is Jen... but I have to try really hard to put the image together with the face it's taken of. It just doesn't compute. If I'd brought the fisheye... Last edited by normhead; 06-03-2015 at 11:08 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Will the Pentax K-30's AF rival that of Canikon?	Adam	Pentax K-30 & K-50	169	07-06-2012 03:33 AM
Thinking of jumping ship to CaNikon	CrazyNuts	Pentax DSLR Discussion	70	02-05-2012 06:20 PM
We hear about people switching to Canikon, anyone switched from Canikon to Pentax?	Eric Seavey	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	08-08-2010 06:54 AM
Brand Snobbery? Is it just here or everywhere?	GLXLR	General Talk	171	01-12-2010 08:41 AM
Had my first experience with Canikon snobbery.	dws1117	Photographic Technique	23	06-17-2008 03:10 PM

06-02-2015, 03:46 AM	#16
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	I blame myself here... I don't understand anti-PP snobbery and/or the "straight-out-of-the-camera"-crowd. The film equivalent of no post processing is shooting polaroid film. Which is fun, but hardly anything to be snobby about. I also don't understand what this has to do with the Canon brand. No-PP snobs can be found in all brands. There's a big community of them here on PF as well. Third thing that I can't grasp is what this has to do with rectingular vs fishe eye UWA lenses. Both have their uses and charms. Both can be PP'd to death or not PP'd at all.

06-02-2015, 05:03 AM	#17
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by willskywalker93 The friend (questioning that status) responded with this: "Well I don't do editing outside of what I capture. and I'm more creative with it." Should I take this as a personal insult to my skills as a photographer... Unless this person was an ultra-purist, I would take that statement as, "Oh...I don't understand post-processing."

06-02-2015, 05:20 AM	#18
willskywalker93 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 407 Original Poster	Yeah, I'm assuming she knows nothing about PP as well. As for the snobbery, I guess more back story would have been needed. Any time I've ever discussed my camera, her only response is "well my 5D this, my 5D that" until I mention the astro tracer, in which case the response is "I don't do astro photography" or something of that nature.

06-02-2015, 06:41 AM	#19
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	I'm not sure she's an ultra-purist - is she relying on the camera's jpg engine - and what are the settings? Highlight compensation, shadow recovery, contrast push etc... RAW and PP are the film/darkroom comparison now. If you've never taken an underexposed image and adjusted the exposure to see just how much that sensor captures, do so. It's always better to err on the side of underexposure with modern DSLRs, you can recover dark but not overblown. The tools exist for a reason, it doesn't make you less of a photographer for using them. And no, fisheye is not distortion - that's a feature. You expect it, and you bought the fisheye FOR this feature. Otherwise, why not just stitch a panorama?

06-02-2015, 07:04 AM	#20
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	I think it just sounds like she doesnt know something and is scared or doesnt want to admit it. I have seen and heard a lot of weird things from people. I was talking to someone about photography and she asked the camera I used and I said pentax. she said she used a canon 5d, (i didnt ask, I dont care) then she followed up with 'but I am not very good and I feel bad for charging people' huh?

06-02-2015, 07:16 AM	#21
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by willskywalker93 Any time I've ever discussed my camera, her only response is "well my 5D this, my 5D that"... Yeah, I work with a Canon owner like that. I've told this before, but we were discussing close-up capabilities and I mentioned that we might need a macro. My co-worker said, "Oh...I've got a macro." I said, "Great! What is it?" They said, "It's a macro." I began to get suspicious so I said, "Is it a prime lens...or a zoom with a macro ability?" They said, "It's a real macro." At that point, I knew they didn't know what the hell they were talking about because anyone on this forum who has a macro lens knows what it is. This person couldn't tell me if they had a prime lens, zoom lens, add-on attachment...or what. They're able to get good shots, but I don't think there's a lot of thought behind them. That doesn't always matter, btw, if a person has good instincts, but when I was learning to play an instrument and didn't want to learn my scales, my teacher said, "Gut instincts will only take you so far. There will be nights when you're just not feeling it. If you want to be a professional, you still need to perform on those nights. That's when you'll need to know this stuff." It's the same with the visual arts.

06-02-2015, 08:34 AM	#22
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133	Originally posted by MarkJerling Mmmm. What about the corrective work that was done in the darkroom, when we were still shooting film. That's no different really from what we're now doing in Photoshop. You are so right! Only difference is, Photoshop is much quicker than what we used to do in the darkroom!

06-02-2015, 08:42 AM	#23
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,834	Originally posted by willskywalker93 The friend (questioning that status) responded with this: "Well I don't do editing outside of what I capture. and I'm more creative with it." Should I take this as a personal insult to my skills as a photographer or a general statement that her Canon 5DIII needs no correction and automatically enables her to be more creative than we mere Pentaxians? My interpretation: It's neither brand snobbery nor an insult to your skills. She seems arrogant in her photography skills. Many photographic subjects don't need any processing but some subjects are much better with a bit of adjustment.

06-03-2015, 07:19 AM	#25
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I have a 10-17 fisheye and Sigma 8-16 rectilinear until 12mm. I'm not getting rid of one because I have the other... sometimes they are in the camera bag at the same time. So I'd say the problem is the OP thinks because he grew tired of his fisheye, everyone does. I rarely use the fisheye, and I often regret it. Especially with people near the edge of the frame, the fisheye looks much more natural than the rectilinear. Fisheye for people , rectilinear for buildings is pretty much my rule.

06-03-2015, 09:03 AM	#26
willskywalker93 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 407 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead I have a 10-17 fisheye and Sigma 8-16 rectilinear until 12mm. I'm not getting rid of one because I have the other... sometimes they are in the camera bag at the same time. So I'd say the problem is the OP thinks because he grew tired of his fisheye, everyone does. I rarely use the fisheye, and I often regret it. Especially with people near the edge of the frame, the fisheye looks much more natural than the rectilinear. Fisheye for people , rectilinear for buildings is pretty much my rule. I shot mostly buildings and was unaware of this rule, thanks for the heads up!

06-03-2015, 09:39 AM	#27
atupdate Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dayton, OH Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,724	Originally posted by normhead Especially with people near the edge of the frame, the fisheye looks much more natural than the rectilinear. Can you post any examples? I also switched from a FE to a rectilinear, as the FE didn't seem to fit my shooting style. Tim Tim

06-03-2015, 10:45 AM	#29
atupdate Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dayton, OH Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,724	Thanks Norm. Could you update the post to include the focal length when you have some time? My very limited experience with the 10-17 FE is that it wasn't extremely fishy at 17mm. Tim

06-03-2015, 11:12 AM	#30
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by atupdate Thanks Norm. Could you update the post to include the focal length when you have some time? My very limited experience with the 10-17 FE is that it wasn't extremely fishy at 17mm. Tim All the Sigma images are at either 8 or 9 mm, probably 8. Pentax doesn't have a code for images under 10mm.