December 22, 2014, 07:19:57 PM

Author Topic: This web site is making me question why I lurk here  (Read 11152 times)

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9415
    • View Profile
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2012, 02:17:18 PM »
If people posted one or two of their images to demonstrate their positive or negative points, then there would be more believability.  Some do, but most do not.
 
 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2012, 02:17:18 PM »

V8Beast

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1049
    • View Profile
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2012, 02:26:40 PM »
What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that  these anxious  obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing. 

You mean to tell me that people getting hard-ons over their poorly lit, terribly composed, and otherwise uninspiring snap shots - just because they can see amazing detail in their girlfriends' hairy arm pit when pixel-peeping at 100% - doesn't impress you ;D

YellowJersey

  • Guest
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2012, 02:50:53 PM »
What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that  these anxious  obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing. 

You mean to tell me that people getting hard-ons over their poorly lit, terribly composed, and otherwise uninspiring snap shots - just because they can see amazing detail in their girlfriends' hairy arm pit when pixel-peeping at 100% - doesn't impress you ;D?

 This man speaks the truth.

joos

  • Guest
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #33 on: March 29, 2012, 03:01:07 PM »
If people posted one or two of their images to demonstrate their positive or negative points, then there would be more believability.  Some do, but most do not.

Hey now let's not be reasonable...  its easier not to post photos so people won't criticize your work.....  Who wants to hear about how they can improve....  Everyone is an expert... 

All kidding aside, when I get around to posting photos, I welcome criticism. For me, that is the only way I get better. 
I think sometimes some people forget that a camera is only half of taking a good photo, and us as users are the other half...
For me being in the military, my rifle is not going to automatically qualify me as an expert. I have to learn my weapon system, work on my technique, and continue to practice fundamentals so I ensure I put rounds on target.  As far as I'm concerned, photography is no different.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 03:13:25 PM by joos »

lonelywhitelights

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
  • Adam Cross
    • View Profile
    • adamcrossstills.com
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2012, 03:18:56 PM »
+1

really great post, the whiny gear heads need to take a chill pill once in a while so they can quit making a bad name for us regular gear heads :P
UK-based Film and Television Stills Photographer

thepancakeman

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 457
  • If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
    • View Profile
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #35 on: March 29, 2012, 03:36:43 PM »
Although I agree that this forum seems to have had some recent deterioration, this thread only exemplifies the situation.

Whining about whiners--really?  Pause and think about that for a second.  And belittling others photographic skills (or lack there-of) is neither productive or friendly.

AnselA

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #36 on: March 29, 2012, 03:54:17 PM »
I frankly did know what kind of reception my posting would bring but I am happy it has been read and appreciated by many. Craig and others - thanks

For some reason, a few folks here think I was criticizing 90% of all photos posted on this site. I was not. Rather I wish I could shoot as well as many here who have routinely posted amazing images of their work. If it was not clear from my post, I was focused solely on the photos initially posted in reference to the 5D Mark III's performance. I might have been somewhat hyperbolic but they were not a pretty lot and did not help me understand what this machine could do nor what the real problems might be. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #36 on: March 29, 2012, 03:54:17 PM »

SomeGuyInNewJersey

  • Guest
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2012, 04:18:55 PM »
I find early adopters without the proper risk taking temperament are the root cause of most the problems here.
I must admit this one is very true of me. I am not keen on being an early adopter. Knowing how anticipated the 5d3 was by so many I preordered to make sure I got one before the summer when I am going on a great trip that I really want to be upgraded in time for. I didnt want to be looking at the shots from that trip later this year, the duds and even the better shots wishing that I'd gotten my 5d3 in time.

I have learned early adoption is not for me. Too stressful with too many added variables. Youve just spent a lot of money on this new piece of kit that you want use for years to come and find that your first few shots are not sharp. Is it you, is the new kit lens, is the camera? You dont want to just slam out shot after shot to get used to the camera because you need to take under 200 shots to return it.

Some of the hysteria, that I admit to having partaken in when I should have known better, is seeded in the issue with people who dont usually use DPP having to use it because their usual software for organising images (Lightroom or Aperture) cant read the files. This combined with the fact the jpgs are a bit weird looking to a lot of people because of the amount of NR turns peoples attention to the camera.

Once the issue with DPP was highlighted and people were able to use ACR 6.7 to get atbthe RAW files the issue is resolved but the damage is done...

The seeds of doubt were sown with a lot of people... Its hard to shake that first impression even though it turns out the camera was not at fault.

What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that  these anxious  obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing.
Are you one of the people who downloaded the rather dull and uninteresting RAW files I posted yesterday of a house? If so, I apologise.

I wasnt going anywhere interesting to actually take good shots but I knew people were asking about RAW shots of outdoor scenes so I hastily posted a few of my own "crappy composition, worthless lighting" test shots so anybody interested in looking at 5d3 RAW files could. Again I should have know better. I deleted the post a few hours later.

I find a lot of the problems with scenic images most people post on the web to say "look at this stunning shot with camera x" are pointless, they are just showing the photographers composition skills and a pretty scene he took his new camera to. When you reduce the full image to 800 pix wide you arent showing the capability of the camera at all. A shot with many cell phone held steadily at the same scene would look great reduced that small.

I wonder what the reception would have been if it was priced $1,000 cheaper?
I think the 5d3 would have got a better reception from a lot of people if it was cheaper. When the price comes in at more than you expected you expect to get more than you expected.

For many people it seems the much awaited 5d3 being an much improved 5d2 not a revolutionary camera was a disappointment enough. The increased price didnt help them with that feeling at all.

Daniel Flather

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 871
    • View Profile
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2012, 04:35:00 PM »
As soon as I read..."the 5d3 AF system sucks", I move on to another website (sorry Craig and your advertisers).  I don't seem to get any useful information from that comment which invariably the post started with "dude or bro".  So, please tell me why the 5d3 AF system sucks because I haven't bought the camera yet and I'd like to make an informed purchasing decision.

I actually laughed out loud when I read you post, thanks! :)

+100000000000
| 5D3 | 8-15L | 24L II | 35L | 50L | 85L II | 100/2.8 | 200/2L | EOS M | 22 STM |

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2012, 04:36:25 PM »
I think the 5d3 would have got a better reception from a lot of people if it was cheaper. When the price comes in at more than you expected you expect to get more than you expected.

For many people it seems the much awaited 5d3 being an much improved 5d2 not a revolutionary camera was a disappointment enough. The increased price didnt help them with that feeling at all.

You might want to step back and take another look.

The 5DII already had superlative image quality and low light capabilities. The 5DIII improves on them, but (of course!) it doesn't turn it into a medium format camera.

But compare the non-sensor specs with any other camera but the 1DX and the 5DIII either comes out on top or is running neck-and-neck.

You do realize, don't you, that the celebrated 1N and 3 (film) cameras ``only'' did 6 FPS, and only with a battery booster / grip? And they had 24 (or 36) image buffers, after which you had to swap out the film canister in order to clear the buffer? And that the 1DsIII only does 5 FPS? And none of them had the 5DIII's autofocus system. Or high ISO performance, or megapickle count, or or or or....

I mean, really. What more could a photographer want? A flying unicorn pony to carry your 12-1200 f/1.0L IV IS?

Cheers,

b&

dstppy

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 958
    • View Profile
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #40 on: March 29, 2012, 04:51:32 PM »
I'll take a shot at the psychiatrist's chair too! (nice to be on the other side for once ;D)

I honestly blame Facebook/Twitter . . . no really.  This last year has been a nasty one for rude and uninformed people.  I used to keep my mouth SHUT because almost everyone here really knew a lot more about things, now you've got to scroll a page or two before you get an informed opinion.

I think it happened around the 'giveaway' time . . . that and/or when we got a few really good juicy rumors and then the armchair news aggregators put us on the radar for the masses.

Don't confuse this with my REGULAR 'web 2.0 ruined society' posts :)

This last year really seems to have brought the worst out in some posters . . . then again, maybe it's just the 'bad driver' effect . . . you just notice the really bad ones so much that it SEEMs like there's more of them.

I really miss the sidebar on the main site that showed the 'recent activity' when there weren't all the same topic/different thread there.  We should have 3 mk3 threads: samples, reviews and complaints.  BTW, weren't there a large share of these people moving to Nikon because Canon abandoned them?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 04:54:23 PM by dstppy »
Canon Rumors is presently creating photographer shortages in Middle Earth (all the trolls emigrated here)

SomeGuyInNewJersey

  • Guest
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2012, 04:59:02 PM »
I think the 5d3 would have got a better reception from a lot of people if it was cheaper. When the price comes in at more than you expected you expect to get more than you expected.

For many people it seems the much awaited 5d3 being an much improved 5d2 not a revolutionary camera was a disappointment enough. The increased price didnt help them with that feeling at all.

You might want to step back and take another look.
The 5DII already had superlative image quality and low light capabilities. The 5DIII improves on them, but (of course!) it doesn't turn it into a medium format camera.
Why do I need another look? Isnt that what I was saying? Improvement from 5d2 to 5d3 rather than a revolutionary leap?
The fervent over defending of the 5d3 on this site is as bad a the 5d3 bashers...
You do realize, don't you, that the celebrated 1N and 3 (film) cameras ``only'' did 6 FPS, and only with a battery booster / grip? And they had 24 (or 36) image buffers, after which you had to swap out the film canister in order to clear the buffer? And that the 1DsIII only does 5 FPS? And none of them had the 5DIII's autofocus system. Or high ISO performance, or megapickle count, or or or or....
I mean, really. What more could a photographer want? A flying unicorn pony to carry your 12-1200 f/1.0L IV IS?

Cheers,

b&

Are you really releasing this pent up tirade about film cameras and unicorns because I said that as a new version of the 5d2's line the 5d3 was improvement not revolutionary? The 5d2 was a game changer the 5d3 improves on its weaknesses... what is so provacative about that?

Of course I must be deluded and dumb because I dared say anything other than the 5d3 is the most amazingest ever possible camera. I didnt even say anything negative about it.
Do you want to use this as an excuse to brag about your wonderful printer again? You must be soooo superior to those of us who only sell our prints at 20x30 inch.
This forum really is getting screwed up...
 
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 05:01:42 PM by SomeGuyInNewJersey »

SomeGuyInNewJersey

  • Guest
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #42 on: March 29, 2012, 05:04:53 PM »
See how easy it is to get pulled into the flow...  :(

canon rumors FORUM

Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #42 on: March 29, 2012, 05:04:53 PM »

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« Reply #43 on: March 29, 2012, 05:27:19 PM »
Why do I need another look? Isnt that what I was saying?

What you were writing, as I recall, is that the 5DIII was more expensive than you expected yet it came with less-than-you-expected improvements.

So, pray tell, what improvements did you expect that would have made it worth the $3500 price tag? A pink flying unicorn pony?

No, really. I'm serious. I'd have thought that top-of-the-line autofocus, better-than-1DsIII FPS, the best high ISO performance in any 135-format camera available on store shelves, the second-highest resolution sensor in the format, a top-of-the-line viewfinder and LCD screen, and one of the best-ever movie cameras in the format would have at least met expectations -- but, clearly, it didn't meet yours.

What were you expecting?

Cheers,

b&

kuwazome

  • Guest
5D3
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2012, 05:35:47 PM »
I think the problem with the 5D Mark III is not that its a bad camera...
if you think it is, then you are not qualified to be taking photos.

The problem is that currently Canon no longer have a high megapixel offering.
What most of the replies here do not realize is that there are print sizes between
12x18 and billboards... such as 24x36 and 36x48, that 22mp simply is not enough for.

Theres also the problem that most photographers do not come from a print
background and don't really understand that there is a huge difference between 300ppi
and 400ppi printing. Its not so much about whether or not your clients can see it, or
whether the general viewer can see it. It is about striving for more than "just okay."

Just because they do not consciously see it, does not mean that no points are
added unconsciously to their first impression of your work. Go out and find a print sample
book that has 300ppi vs 400ppi photos and then tell me if you don't see a difference.
400ppi looks like a USM sharpened photo on paper as if it were a screen.
Its really something else.

A 12x18 print at 400ppi is around 34.5mp. That size is pretty common to see in
photos that run an entire spread... including the bleed.

Keep in mind that the typical commercial printers you have at home, or your local
print house printers are not able to create something of this quality. Not all 400ppi prints
are equal, I'm talking about commercial, large scale presses.

Interpolation really isnt a solution as much as its just a temporary fix. If you
cannot tell the difference between a high res photo and an interpolated photo, then
your attention to detail is lacking... I really question the quality of your photos as well.
Sure you can make a ton of money being "just okay," but we're talking about
achieving more than that.

Resolution does not make a photo better, but bad resolution really takes away
from a photo. That argument that people are not going to look at a poster up close
is really, really false. Every time I put a poster up, the first thing anyone does
is look at it up close... as long as they can get to it.

Sometimes photographers also forget that there is typography set on the posters
as well. These are vectors so naturally they are super sharp and high resolution. Put
that together photo and all of a sudden the photo doesnt look quite as good.

Don't get me wrong, almost all of the people complaining about resolution have
no idea what I'm talking about, nor do they have access to print such large and high
resolution prints. I'm just saying, don't write resolution off for the rest of us that
actually want to be perfectionists.

Canon sure went crazy on fixing AF on the 5D Mark III, but I fear that
they've forgotten what made the original 5D2 so popular... I see the 5D3 as
more of a logical next step to the 7D... not the 5D2.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 06:18:23 PM by kuwazome »

canon rumors FORUM

5D3
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2012, 05:35:47 PM »