October 31, 2014, 01:06:19 AM

Author Topic: How to Annoy a Photography Snob  (Read 15006 times)

krisbell

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr Page
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #105 on: April 18, 2014, 06:54:01 AM »
Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...

I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures per se but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!

Current gear: Canon 5DIII, Canon 100mm f2.8 macro (broken), Canon 16-35mm f4L, Canon 300mm f2.8L II, 2x extender III

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kristianbell/

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #105 on: April 18, 2014, 06:54:01 AM »

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1991
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #106 on: April 18, 2014, 07:10:47 AM »
I would consider myself to be the antithesis of a 'Photographic Snob', and I'm all for IS standard to wide primes. I do not want to always have to carry or use a tripod and virtually all of my Building Panoramic pictures are taken just after sunrise or just before sunset so you're talking about EV 9. In these pictures I always want through depth of field, so about f8 depending, and an ISO of 100. ( Though this is not written in stone with the 6D). So my most common shutter speed is in the region of 1/20, and I can't guarantee to hand hold that speed shake free with any focal length without IS.

So from my point of view these new three IS primes are excellent. Bring on the 50 ! I guess the only reason they have not been introduced earlier is that the focus has been on zooms, which is, after all, where the bulk of the market is, but I wonder if the increase in smaller cameras is going to regenerate the small prime market.

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1991
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #107 on: April 18, 2014, 07:18:35 AM »
Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...

I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures per se but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!

If you are not going to manipulate the data in post processing I agree that if you can get it right in camera, then given the modern camera produced jpegs, there just isn't any practical difference.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3389
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #108 on: April 18, 2014, 07:47:16 AM »
At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck."  OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs.
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important.
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement.
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life.
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.
or to summarize... "I have IS turned on, so why are the wings of the hummingbird blurred?"

To me, IS is a tool. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes it is not. The trick is knowing where and when.

I agree to the extent that IS is frequently not needed at these FLs, and that it certainly is not a cure-all for poor technique. However, I have made quite a few shots where IS has undoubtedly helped, and have never had a shot ruined by it. I leave it on always, needed or not.
I leave it on most of the time too.. But through trial and error I found that you really do need to turn it off when on a tripod and if you are resting the camera on a good solid surface or you will get IS induced blurring of the image. I think the best example of IS induced blurring is trying to get a picture of the ISS overhead... You have a tiny bright dot surrounded by darkness and there is nothing for the IS to lock on to, so it jumps around and the IS makes the picture worse...
The best camera is the one in your hands

AcutancePhotography

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #109 on: April 18, 2014, 12:32:40 PM »
It did not take too long for this thread to go down the toilet.  >:(
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #110 on: April 18, 2014, 12:54:42 PM »
Some highly amusing banter going on here. Just my two cents to the 'must shoot RAW' snob line, for which I am sure I will get flamed...

I think that probably for many posters on this forum, the use of jpeg is the more sensible choice. The file sizes are a lot smaller and you have to be fairly decent at photoshop before you get any overall noticeable improvement in final picture quality with RAW. Just coming from looking at the 'Show us your best landscape picture' thread where some peoples best pictures are IMO not great (a tree branch in flat light). Not intentially trying to knock those people or their pictures per se but there is little evidence they have sufficient post-processing ability to ensure the careful, artistic and selective use of what are essentially extremely heavy handed techniques such as de-noising, sharpening etc necessary to improve on most DSLR's in-camera processing. Having out of the camera useable jpegs also might get round the 'death by editing' syndrome, where all objectivity goes out the window in favour of a faux-HDR, totally over-processed look. I should know, I've been there myself!




While I decry those who advocate RAW shooting as the be all, end all of photography- I have a similar feeling about those who strongly criticize shooting in RAW and PP-ing. Shooting RAW has a lot of benefits, and actually just ONE disadvantage- file size.

A person isn't born with 'decent' Photoshop talents- he learns his way, and he learns by making mistakes and getting feedback.

Snobbishness implies thinking of oneself as superior to others, and I feel the proponents of 'getting it in the camera' are as guilty as the other camp in this case.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

brad-man

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 748
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #111 on: April 18, 2014, 05:52:23 PM »
At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck."  OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs.
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important.
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement.
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life.
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.
or to summarize... "I have IS turned on, so why are the wings of the hummingbird blurred?"

To me, IS is a tool. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes it is not. The trick is knowing where and when.

I agree to the extent that IS is frequently not needed at these FLs, and that it certainly is not a cure-all for poor technique. However, I have made quite a few shots where IS has undoubtedly helped, and have never had a shot ruined by it. I leave it on always, needed or not.
I leave it on most of the time too.. But through trial and error I found that you really do need to turn it off when on a tripod and if you are resting the camera on a good solid surface or you will get IS induced blurring of the image. I think the best example of IS induced blurring is trying to get a picture of the ISS overhead... You have a tiny bright dot surrounded by darkness and there is nothing for the IS to lock on to, so it jumps around and the IS makes the picture worse...

Point taken. Since I was relating IS to 85mm and wider, I was referring to hand held shooting. Though the majority of my subjects are closer than 250 miles, I shall keep your good tip in mind ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #111 on: April 18, 2014, 05:52:23 PM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #112 on: April 19, 2014, 06:00:05 AM »
Snobbishness implies thinking of oneself as superior to others, and I feel the proponents of 'getting it in the camera' are as guilty as the other camp in this case.

Definitely agree, it can apply to both types of photogs.

kirispupis

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #113 on: April 19, 2014, 08:32:06 PM »
There's only one true way to really annoy a photography snob - take better photos with lesser gear.  Most of the photography snobs I know take horrible shots with very expensive gear.  The photographers I know who truly have talent are far friendlier.
5D3|TS-E 24 II|TS-E 17|TS-E 90|200-400/1.4x|MP-E 65|100/2.8 IS Macro|70-200/2.8 IS II||16-35/2.8 II|EOS M

RustyTheGeek

  • Buy and Sell
  • 1D Mark IV
  • ********
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #114 on: April 20, 2014, 11:44:24 AM »
I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining.  8) 8) 8)
How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question L supremacy"? ;D

My only beef with third party lenses is poor resale value, which of course stems from people's ignorance of third party lenses, thus triggering a vicious cycle.
So if the 35A and 35L were both the same price I'd go for the L. I've used it briefly, and while the Sigma is probably better, the 35L is amazing already. But I won't pay $ 500 for that L ring! I actually tape over the L rings on my lenses.


But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body.
And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.

Another reason to never read a single word Rockwell has said about anything, ever!

You were joking when you said you taped over your L red rings, right?

Rockwell makes for fun reads. Gives you a chuckle once in a while, but you're right- not for any edification.
I actually did tape (gaffer's) over my red rings- well over my entire 24-70II, actually (and a lenscoat is en route for my 70-200). :)
Captures less attention (it is important for me for a few reasons) and keeps my lens scratch free as a bonus.
By the way, you were totally right about the 135L- it is magical. Just received it yesterday and I already love it!

+1  I have taped over the red rings for years with black gaffers tape.   Along with other parts of the lens.  Partly for less attention, partly for protection since the top edge of the lens is usually shiny hard plastic that hits everything, esp when the camera is put down on a flat surface, etc.
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

Halfrack

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #115 on: April 20, 2014, 12:00:22 PM »
Not to validate Ken, but the Canon 17-55 2.8 is almost an L in every way.  The upside is there are lots of used 17-55 EF-S lenses out there, and getting them repaired is a known quantity.  Sigma has improved dramatically, but if you're going to flip a lens after 6 months, better to stick with Canon.  If you're going to keep and love it, Sigma is a solid choice.
"Me owning a lens shop is kind of like having an alcoholic bar tender." - Roger Cicala

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #116 on: April 20, 2014, 12:24:20 PM »
Not to validate Ken, but the Canon 17-55 2.8 is almost an L in every way.  The upside is there are lots of used 17-55 EF-S lenses out there, and getting them repaired is a known quantity.  Sigma has improved dramatically, but if you're going to flip a lens after 6 months, better to stick with Canon.  If you're going to keep and love it, Sigma is a solid choice.

He recommended the 18-55, not the 17-55 if I remember correctly.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« Reply #116 on: April 20, 2014, 12:24:20 PM »