Forum menu
I think we may be homing in on a harmonious conclusion as I realise a lot of the argument is over teminology. I don't think of the camera controls as creative but functional - the creativity (if any) is in the mind of the snapper as they decide the framing, focus and areas of interest.
Of course I'm always fritzing with the ASA and relative EV to get the best compromise between subject movement, rendering quality, camera shake, backlighting, shadow detail etc etc, but as I do it I'm not thinking "Oooh, look at me being [b]creative[/b]!", but "Grrrr! Now the stupid camera needs me to do this :(".
It so happens the Program mode seems to make a reasonable job of the kind of shutter and aperture compromises I like, biased towards overall sharpness, so I'm happy to leave it in that, but there's one other vital factor left out of the mix, which is my inability to remember what I've set, so I end up shooting landscapes at 1000 ASA after action, or action at 200 ASA, or getting lots of overexposed shots after I wind up the EV for riders against the sky. It doesn't matter that it's all displayed round the edge of the viewfinder, as I've never consciously seen any of that stuff while shooting, as my concentration is on the subject out there in the world - perhaps due to using SLRs for 25 years before there was any of that clutter.
And that's why I want a real viewfinder that lets me feel like I'm looking directly at the subject, not a little screen in my hand!
no it isn't. it's the job of the DOP to do this and whoever does the grading in post production.
😆 yeah okay, but it is part of the creative process and the overall creative direction and "look" of the programme, no? (don't encourage sfb ffs!)
I'm more concerned about the rider than the backgroundThat's what spot metering is for.
Nahh, that's what a remote stobe is for. 😉 Expose for the background, then use just enough extra light, placed exacly where you need it, to light the rider up and freeze (most but not all of, in my case) the action
I've got one more addition to make to my kit before I'm happy with shots like this:
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4770092865_1ddb084f7d_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/4770092865/ ]IMG_8520[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr
Have a guess what it is... 🙂
(Oddly, my local photography shop doesn't stock them either!)
I think Elfin will guess, becasue he thinks like I do.....
For the black shirt, well if I wanted him to be brighter than the last guy then I'd just add a stop to the exposure compensation.
So you do actually agree that priority setting are restricting and for full creativity you need to step outside an automatic setting. 😉
If you can use manual on the fly then do so, you'll have greater control over the image rather than relying on the camera to figure it out for you,
If you can't (or don't want to) use manual, then use aperture or shutter priority, there's no shame in it, and you'll be doing what many pros do.
If you're interested in taking photography seriously avoid using the auto settings...start off with the aperture and shutter settings, and then play around with manual when you're comfortable.
Have a guess what it is..
Better looking subjects?
A right fork leg?
Have a guess what it is...
Women? Naked women? Women with their norks out? Is it women????
They sound like SFB answers! 😉
So you do actually agree that priority setting are restricting and for full creativity you need to step outside an automatic setting.
Nope, I just use priority + exposure compensation, where you use aperture + speed.
I don't think by using the compensation I am stepping "outside the automatic setting". I'm just using the controls available. (and I don't really consider priority modes to be automatic either.)
Remember though, I am a rank amateur. I don't do nearly enough photography to be able to guesstimate exposures on the fly in the way you describe. I simply don't have that experience. So I let the camera handle that part whilst I still maintain the control I need over the exposure.
Tell you what, some of that set are better then I remember. It's nice to look back at them again...
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4762038954_7d60e5d088_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/4762038954/ ]IMG_8412[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr
They sound like SFB answers!
FYI I am not the only man to appreciate totty 🙂
I don't do nearly enough photography to be able to guesstimate exposures on the fly in the way you describe
I'm not sure why one would want to unless frequently operating under heavily controlled lighting conditions, particularly when sophisticated light metering is on hand 🙂
From the two pictures from Elfin, the TT picture has too much movement for my tastes, I'd like to see at least a small area being clearly defined, the eyes or face for example.
It's interesting, reading different people's opinions about that pic. I was going for a pretty abstract sort of feel, evocative of the blur of movement as a rider speeds past. Not really trying to include any significant detail, but just enough to show what's actually happening. Like I said, I'm not particularly satisfied with it. Happy that someone likes it though.
The track photo is quite beautiful, not just as an image, but also it is a quite difficult image to take from a technical point of view. How many pictures were rejected from that shoot????
Why, thank you! 🙂 I was pleased with it. Was fairly difficult, as the riders were doing 30mph+; and the 24mm exaggerates perspective. The riders were going past me in a split second, so only had a tiny window of opportunity to get the right shot. Only took about half a dozen shots from that angle; most came out ok but that was the best.
there's something awry there either in exposure developing or printing.
it looks muddy so maybe under exposed and there is an area of overexposure running along the top of the frame so either lack of agitation when in the tank or a reflection off the baseboard mask when printing. it certainly doesn't look like everything was 100% spot on in the process from exposure to print.
Ooh, picky! 😉
it's an outdoor track, so the lighting isn't the same as indoor ones. I think the exposure's bang on for the rider, tbh. So, I'd disagree with you on that one. Processing is fine too. The scan is just how it was off the film, so maybe a little tweaking in Photoshop with Curves, but I'm happy with how it is.
It's meant to serve as an illustration of how to capture fast action with fully manual control and no motordrive. I think it does that job quite well.
You're more than welcome to print me a 'perfect' copy, though. 🙂
I think it's stupid to argue that manual is more or less creative. Quite a lot of pictures, they'd be impossible or hard to create using full auto. But also, there are tons of pictures out there that rely on quick picture taking, no thinking about settings, and just pressing the button at the right moment. In the past I bet people taking those pictures just set some rough settings and crossed their fingers that any problems could be fixed in the darkroom, whereas nowadays the camera at least adjusts for conditions.
When it comes down to it auto modes are just another useful tool for getting pictures, no reason not to use them for ninety percent of pictures (where you're not doing special effects with blurring or depth of field, or shooting fast action in poor light). It doesn't make you less creative if you get a picture using them.
Sure, but relying on auto alone is bit limiting.
I dunno. I learned using manual-only cams, and never had a problem with only using manual, even in tricky conditions.
In fact what I'd really love, is a digital FM2. Full frame 35mm sensor, proper tough-as-bastards metal body, no fripperies such as built-in flash, 'sports' and 'portrait' modes etc, silly built-in shitty digital effects and all that bollocks.
And not costing £1700....
no fripperies such as built-in flash, 'sports' and 'portrait' modes etc, silly built-in shitty digital effects
I never use the scene modes myself but they do mean I can hand the camera to someone else to get a picture of me without needing to give them a 20 minute lesson.
They are not hard to ignore though, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be in mssing them out?
They are not hard to ignore though, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be in mssing them out?
easy to ignore ? I dunno, mine has 16 buttons and 3 dials not counting the menu system which would have elfin running round in circles screaming when he really wants clockwork...
I can hand the camera to someone else to get a picture of me without needing to give them a 20 minute lesson.
I'm not sure I'd want to give 3k of camera to someone who'd need a 20min lesson. I'm not sure I'd let anyone use 3k of my camera. [dreams of EOS5d] 😉
I'm not sure I'd want to give 3k of camera to someone who'd need a 20min lesson.
how hard can it be ? "Look through here. Turn this. Press here" Job done 🙂
Well, my FM2 has a mechanical shutter, which is 'wound up' like a clock before each firing. Over 30 years old, still bang on after thousands and thousands and thousands of shots. No current digital cam would last that long. Not designed to anyway; next year's model has 32 Megabastards or something. 🙁
No current digital cam would last that long
too right, I'm on 91000+ exposures after 2 years. It's only rated to 150,000 so I have a year before it may crap out 🙁
no fripperies such as built-in flash, 'sports' and 'portrait' modes etc, silly built-in shitty digital effects and all that bollocks.
No current digital cam would last that long
Elfin, you're raving a bit there I'm afraid.
a) You've no idea how long digicams will last
b) You're perfectly at liberty to ignore any features you don't like. I've never taken a single shot in the 'art' modes on my camera, but I don't complain about them.
Sticking with something just because it's old and slagging things off because they're new is stupid.
Sticking with something just because it's old and slagging things off because they're new is stupid.
There's no way on Earth owt but the pro DSLR models wooduv survived the punishment my FM2's had:
Been left in rain
Been hit by police baton
Been dropped onto concrete pavement (more than once)
Been in 100ºF heat
Been in -30ºC cold
And other abuse.
I'll be willing to take your DSLR and subject it to that sort of punishment, see if it'll survive. Any takers?
You're perfectly at liberty to ignore any features you don't like. I've never taken a single shot in the 'art' modes on my camera, but I don't complain about them.
I'm just saying I'd like a cam with the layout and the robustness of my FM2. Granted it'd need things like ISO control, white balance and resolution settings, but that's it. Won't need loads of other useless settings. IE, a pro cam but simple. For people who know what they're doing... 8)
Been in 100ºF heat
Been in -30ºC cold
Why is the warm temp figure in ºF and the cold in ºC? Continuity please, old chap!!
There's no way on earth your crappy old film camera would take 1000 images on a tiny memory card and let me see what I'd taken the instant I took it...
What's your point, caller? Just having a whinge about the modern world? There there, soon today will be the good old days, and you'll be able to like all this stuff 🙂
Elfin's ideal camera:
[img] 
?0.1004751809355326[/img]
Have to agree with Elfin on this one, old film SLR's i'm sure would withstand much more abuse than a digital version (must say he picked a very tough one too in that FM2)
Same as my old Seiko automatic watch, been bashed crashed and submerged, can't imagine the latest digital gizmo taking that sort of battering and still be working thirty years on
too right, I'm on 91000+ exposures after 2 years. It's only rated to 150,000 so I have a year before it may crap out
Mine is on approx 70k from a projected 100k so potentially even nearer going shutter up than yours
Because the warmest was in England, where we use Fahrenheit, and the coldest in Norway, where they use Centigrade.
I know, I know.
What's your point, caller? Just having a whinge about the modern world?
Just because your wife beat you at Risk!
No; I'm asking for a digital cam that's like my favourite film cam. So simple and easy to use. Cams don't have to have loads of silly features; they're added to entice buyers,and add 'value'. I'd rather pay for sturdiness and simplicity, than frippery I'll never use.
All I'm asking for is a sturdy, simple digital cam. Stripped of frippery and idiot modes. Like cams used to be.
What would be nice, is a replaceable back/sensor unit, so you can keep the main body, and just upgrade the sensor as more megabastards are added.
But I don't think the [s]greedy bastard[/s] camera manufacturers see it the same way...
Elfin's ideal camera:
are you [b]mad[/b] ?? Where do the plates go ??
Same as my old Seiko automatic watch, been bashed crashed and submerged, can't imagine the latest digital gizmo taking that sort of battering and still be working thirty years on
So you think dozens of tiny intricate moving parts is somehow more robust than NO moving parts? Ok.
Jeez.. wtf is it with these rose tinted glasses? Are they now mandatory or what?
There's no way on earth your crappy old film camera would take 1000 images on a tiny memory card and let me see what I'd taken the instant I took it...
And the new breed need 1,000 images on a tiny memory card so they can mess up 999 times, erase them and have 1 good picture, whereas the photographer who learnt on film has learnt how to take pictures properly.
Because the warmest was in England, where we use Fahrenheit
Do we bloody hell.
But I don't think the greedy bastard camera manufacturers see it the same way...
What do camera manufacturers do with their profits? They reinvest them into inventing even better stuff. That's my camera, and yours too.
Gah.. I can't abide cloudy thinking!
And the new breed need 1,000 images on a tiny memory card so they can f*ck up 999 times, erase them and have 1 good picture, whereas the photographer who learnt on film has learnt how to take pictures properly.
AARGH!
So I need to take some photos and then wait a week to see if my pictures were done right, then consult my notes and see what I did wrong... then somehow try to get back to the same spot and subject in the same light and conditions to try something else..?
Is that a better learning process than to take the pic, look at the back of the camera and see straight away what you did wrong, change it and immediately take another picture, and another and another, thereby completeing the lesson in minutes rather than years?
I bet you'd rather learn to play chess by playing postal chess right?
Do you have your mail delivered by stagecoach? To teach yourself the value of wasting time?
Good god.
AARGH!
Logical response.
Gah.. I can't abide cloudy thinking!
Stop doing it then! Have a read of my posts, then [i][b]think[/b][/i].
whereas the photographer who learnt on film has learnt how to take pictures properly.
I learnt on film 1973-2004. Digital is way better and I'd never want to go back 🙂
I am reading your posts Elf. Yes, you want a more robust camera. Fine.
Why can't you ignore the new features you don't like? Why does new stuff offend you?
So you think dozens of tiny intricate moving parts is somehow more robust than NO moving parts?
And the electrical circuits mix well with water do they?
Swiss Military Watches seem to survive ok for an old school product with lots of moving parts
Couldn't agree more for those who want to learn, but it does allow lazy folks to just pick up a camera, take a picture, erase it, take another, erase it, take another, deicide it'll do, learn nothing then talk photography bollox about their DSLR and their photography hobby.
Because I'm expected to pay for stuff I have no need for, when what I want is being provided.
I've had a look at various digital cams in shops, with a view to buying one. All bar the D300 up are too flimsy and plasticky for my liking, and having seen a fair few busted plastic-bodied cams, I don't want something that could fall apart. The police baton strike would've busted a D70 or whatever.
Plus, the D700 is a weighty beast. Don't need something that large really. I've got an F5, and it's a proper bastard. The FM2 is perfect; small, not too heavy, and built like a tank. I want a digital version of that please.
So don't call me a luddite just cos your wife beat you at board games. 😐
Pentax and Sony both have weatherproof DSLRs, the Pentax has a metal body and rubber protective corners...
Oh oh oh oh and;
Betcha can't get a digital SLR cam in [b]Titanium[/b], can you? Eh? Eh? No, thought not!
See? I win.
[img] 
?zz=1[/img]
And the electrical circuits mix well with water do they?
And tiny gears and cogs do? A rubber o-ring keeps water out at a cost of 1p. Sorry - you can get a watch and calendar that's waterproof, never needs winding and keeps better time than any box of cogs for less than £5. You aren't gonna convince me that old is best when it comes to watches.
but it does allow lazy folks to just pick up a camera, take a picture, erase it, take another, erase it, take another
And? So what? WGAF if some people dont' want to mess with settings?
Buying something expensive because you want to show off is a totally different argument.
Now you've lost me!
D700; lovely cam, but what a lump:
[img] 
[/img]
See my point now?
Betcha can't get a digital SLR cam in Titanium, can you?
[img] 
[/img]
Trumped by catalogue boy, eh Elfin? 😆