|
Forum: General Photography
06-15-2016, 01:59 PM
|
| |
I have seen all sorts of comments from learning and understanding the technical aspects of exposure, focus, and the technical sides of different techniques, even to things like the rule of thirds etc for composition.
As far as I am concerned, these all encompass the technical side,
The artistic side is how you elect to apply or not apply the technical rules. A shot can be perfect technically, sharp, well exposed etc, but can fail artistically. A shot can be artistic, while failing totally technically, if you look at the overlap between technical and artistic, there is likely a happy median where perhaps there is a 50% overlap in rules vs art. BUT I don't think you remain shot after shot consistently artistic AND interesting, if you don't know the technical side of things, because you need to value how and when to brake the some or all of the rules.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-15-2016, 09:36 AM
|
| |
At my Photographic Society here in Strathclyde, Scotland technique dominates discussion. Lenses used generally only come up in association with the technique used to take a picture or if someone is looking for advice or if they are being sold to a fellow member. Cameras are very seldom seen other than at the Beginner's Instruction Group or if an official photograph is required or if a problem needs to be solved requring its presence. Price of gear is virtually never discussed except in the conjuction of buying or selling.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-15-2016, 08:17 AM
|
| |
Once upon a time, SLR cameras were mostly the same. You had apertures starting at 1.4 and going up to 22 depending on what lens you put on, and shutter speeds in full stops from 1 to 1/500th or 1/1000th. Focus was manual, by means we all know. That was all the control you had, aided and abetted by incident or reflectant light meters which anyone could buy - your Weston could become my Weston; my Sekonic could become your Sekonic. The sensor was independent of the camera, and the sensor you put in your Leica was the same sensor someone else could put in their Asahiflex. Hell, by rewinding, counting frames and shooting blanks, you could put the same physical roll of film in both cameras.
Things began to change when cameras got on-board metering. All of a sudden, more of the facilities were integral to the camera - the light meter on your Nikon F was no longer the light meter in my Spotmatic or the one mounted on top of my SV. Then AF came along, and the focus control module and actuation system in your Nikon or his Minolta or her Pentax wasn't something you could carry over when you picked up the other person's camera.
(I'm not even going to go into the argument about whose lenses are/were best; that's a dive down the rabbit hole if there ever was one.)
Enter the gear-head. The more there is to differentiate one camera from another (exposure control, focus control, etc.), the happier s/he is. Or maybe not, because s/he's also forever in pursuit of the best and must always have the next big thing. In part I think this is a status symbol - "I have the best" - and in part it's because they're hooked on the idea that better gear means better pictures. From there on, it depends on what you mean by a "better picture". Perhaps these people at their extreme have no true creativity, which is why they cling to sharpness as an ultimate measure.
Ultimately better gear just means getting the same picture more easily, and of that I thoroughly approve. But if you don't have an eye for composition and light, that picture is still going to be unappealing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-07-2015, 09:15 AM
|
| |
The one that is best at reading your mind (tongue firmly in cheek).
This is a recurring topic of discussion on this site and predictably there will be a suggestion in the first 5 or so comments suggesting purchase of a book on exposure in photography. That being said, here is the short answer to your question:
All Pentax dSLRs when presented with a uniformly lit surface of uniform reflectance (e.g. blank white wall) will suggest exposure settings that will result in a centered histogram. All are equally accurate within their spec'ed meter range. For other than a blank white wall, the camera is forced to guess the photographer's intent. Mind-reading technology at present is pretty primitive so the fail-over is to evaluate the range of light in the frame and suggest a exposure that will (hopefully) preserve shadow detail while avoiding highlight clipping. At least that is how multi-segment matrix metering is supposed to work. In theory, the K-3 and K-3II bodies with RGB meter sensors should provide the most complete and useful data. In practice, much depends on the dynamic range of the sensor and the photographer's intent. My K-3 does a decent job, though I can't say it is never fooled.
FWIW, Pentax cameras tend to err on the side of avoiding highlight clipping. This results in a common complaint of underexposed or dull images under bright cloudy conditions.
Steve
( http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Edition-Photographs/dp/0817439390 )
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-07-2015, 09:31 AM
|
| |
I had istDL2, K7, K5II and now K3II. Out of those K3II needs little to none exposure adjustment in Lightroom. The other three pretty often +0.7. But I belive they tend to underexpose to avoid clipping highlights (like Steve said).
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-15-2015, 10:16 AM
|
| |
I think what is being said is that iPhone users are more likely to post than Nikon users since not as much emphasis on social networking and uploading is typical.
There is a bias in the way the data is collected.
This takes nothing away from the awesome pictures taken by phone cameras.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-30-2014, 07:03 PM
|
| |
On a cellphone the front would be the side with the large LCD screen. A hinged LCD on a dSLR might be able to flip 180 degrees back and then around towards the front of the camera (side with the lens on it) so you could see the selfie in progress.
Yes and also Yes.
That is true too. But I don't see how that plays into the current conversation.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-15-2014, 03:07 AM
|
| |
K-9 big thanks for taking your time and writing a critique!
I admit that I have to agree with 90% of the things you said.
It was helpful, thanks again ;)
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
02-19-2012, 06:42 AM
|
| |
Looks like Nikon are preparing prospective D800 users to be careful about using high-resolution DSLR's:
etc:
A lot of the advice seems like Nikon trying to get one step ahead of the flood of disgruntled users on the web once they get ahold of the new higher-resolution camera, with complaints about 'D800 not as sharp as D700', 'my lens is soft', 'D800 AF is crap' etc.
Sounds uncannily similar to some of the issues you read about in these forums when people upgrade to the K-5 from the K10D, K200D, K-x etc. :)
Nikon Technical Guide to the D800/800E |
|
Forum: General Talk
07-04-2011, 09:09 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-18-2010, 09:18 PM
|
| |
| |
