How to Annoy a Photography Snob

[Don Haines]

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo

how did we get here again?

I was thinking the same thing ... maybe people are only reading the words "photography snob" from the title, and they immediately think of Ken ;D

We're all photography snobs, jaded on some level, are we not?

Yes we are, and I think snobbishness exhibits a skewed bell-shaped distribution with knowledge.
If you know very little, you're not a snob.
As you get to know more, but far less than enough, you develop more and more snobbishness.
You think all you know is correct- and everything else is wrong.
However, once you know a lot, you cross the peak of snobbishness, and you go into enlightenment.
And then on it's all downhill in terms of snobbishness.

Along that scale, my knowledge and snobbishness are both early on the upward slope (fortunately only in terms of photography knowledge, not in my chosen profession, but I have spent a much longer time in that).
Still long way to go here though...

Excellent observation, but if it were true, it would mean the most knowledgeable people are not snobs, and they clearly are.

Or possibly none of us know enough to be truly enlightened

Personally, I don't think you can connect knowledge and snobbishness. I know several very knowledgeable photographers, some are arrogant snobs and some are humble and helpfull... and some are a mix. I also know some very poor photographers who have an inflated opinion of themselves.

 

[CarlTN]

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo

how did we get here again?

I was thinking the same thing ... maybe people are only reading the words "photography snob" from the title, and they immediately think of Ken ;D

We're all photography snobs, jaded on some level, are we not?

Yes we are, and I think snobbishness exhibits a skewed bell-shaped distribution with knowledge.
If you know very little, you're not a snob.
As you get to know more, but far less than enough, you develop more and more snobbishness.
You think all you know is correct- and everything else is wrong.
However, once you know a lot, you cross the peak of snobbishness, and you go into enlightenment.
And then on it's all downhill in terms of snobbishness.

Along that scale, my knowledge and snobbishness are both early on the upward slope (fortunately only in terms of photography knowledge, not in my chosen profession, but I have spent a much longer time in that).
Still long way to go here though...

Excellent observation, but if it were true, it would mean the most knowledgeable people are not snobs, and they clearly are.

Or possibly none of us know enough to be truly enlightened

Personally, I don't think you can connect knowledge and snobbishness. I know several very knowledgeable photographers, some are arrogant snobs and some are humble and helpfull... and some are a mix. I also know some very poor photographers who have an inflated opinion of themselves.

I suppose you are right, but it does seem like the more knowledgeable posters in this forum, have a bit of snobbery going on. Their outlook is fairly rigid.

I don't know any very poor photographers with inflated self opinions. In fact I don't know any poor photographers at all. Many of the decent or very good photographers (or professionals), that I know, or have met...Either have extremely high opinions of their work, or of themselves. This seems especially true of pro's who give seminars, or photo tours. They state things matter-of-factly, when it's really just their own way of doing things...not recognizing there are other equally good ways of accomplishing the same task. (For instance the guy who gave a lecture at a photo club meeting I attended, who said he always shoots with a tripod and a polarizer filter, because "you can't get sharp pictures any other way". That attitude is a hold over from the film days.) I admit I've not met dozens of lecturers or photo education professionals yet, but of the ones I've met and known...this seems to be the case. It's their way, or the highway.

Let's face it. Anyone who spends time and effort on something (whether they're a pro or not), and is happy with the results, would rarely admit there might be the tiniest thing wrong with their approach (or with some virtue they hold to be true)...or attitude. And as for photo equipment, it's like every other endeavor, or hobby...or cars, planes, boats, houses. People like, and defend from criticism, what they own.

 

[jrista]

Another way to look at things, instead of thinking about a "matter-of-fact" way of delivering knowledge, is to look at an instructional pro as someone who does indeed have a lot of experience, garnered over a very long period of time, who has done and tried a LOT of ways of doing things, and has a very firm grasp of what works and what does not.

Here is an example. I love Art Morris' bird photography. The insight and knowledge he FREELY disseminates on his blog and on some bird photography forums is utterly invaluable. His delivery method is blunt, directly to the point, matter of fact, and often somewhat shocking or startling in it's delivery. However, I don't complain about that. The guy has been doing bird photography for longer than I've been alive. He KNOWS what he is doing, he KNOWS his stuff, and every time I listen to what he has to say...regardless of his method of delivery...I learn something, something invaluable, something that improves my skill and changes my photography.

If all you ever do is look at the method of delivery, you miss what's being delivered. I think Art Morris could be a little less blunt in the way he delivers his insight, but I honestly don't care that he's blunt and direct...THE GUY KNOWS HIS S___!!! The fact that he freely shares his knowledge is amazing, and I'm a better photographer for it. If/when I scrounge up the $12,000 or so for one of his IPTs, I'm going, I have no doubt in my mind that it would be some of the best $12,000 I'll ever spend. And to be quite frank, I would rather have someone shut me down when my own thought processes are going down the wrong path, and correct my understanding of a concept or theory immediately, than allow me to continue thinking about something incorrectly. By allowing me to keep my own incorrectly formed opinion, they aren't doing me any good, and rather could be doing me a disservice. You learn from your mistakes, no? Well, you have to know what your mistakes are first, before you can learn from them.

Sometimes what may seem like arrogance may simply be the consequence of having a great depth of knowledge. It isn't arrogance or rigidness and a lack of willingness to change one's opinions. It's a confidence that one's opinions are most probably right, a confidence backed up by years or even decades of extensive first-hand experience, and justification to put the burden on the other guy to prove them wrong. Granted, there are exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions usually tend to out themselves quick enough, with either too much arrogance or not enough knowledge...ignore the exceptions, listen to the experts.

As much as I think I may know something, if it's Morris or Murphy or any number of other highly seasoned bird photographers, or Andy Rouse or other world-renown wildlife photographers, or one of the juggernauts of astrophotography like Robert Gendler or Russel Croman, I bury my own opinions, shut the hell up, and let them teach me. ;-) As a small example, I thought I understood exposure. Then I bought and read Art Morris' book "The Art of Bird Photography", and learned not only that I knew nothing about exposure...but I also LEARNED about exposure!

Anyway...thought that needed to be said, in general, for anyone who would listen.

 

[philmoz]

Frankly your response is needlessly wordy and condescending, and misses the point entirely. But that’s par for the course for you.

Hmm - pot --> kettle --> black.

Can't speak for anyone else; but I would much rather read an informed and informative post from jrista, than a whiny, derogatory and offensive post from you.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Tisk tisk, such hostility...I suppose I am not entitled to relate the anecdote I related, without being talked down to for it.

???

 

[jrista]

Just to be clear, my last post was generalistic, not to anyone in particular (if it was I would have explicitly addressed it.) Just offering a different point of view about professional photographers and their mannerisms.

Oh, also, my last post was not about me in any way. I am no pro, at best an avid hobbyist. I am simply trying to give credit to highly skilled pros who both freely offer their knowledge, and those who offer the opportunity of on site, interactive, personal instruction. I don't think it is fair to lump pros into a stereotype of arrogant, stuck up, condescending jackasses who only like to belittle and shame "lesser" photographers.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Just to be clear, my last post was generalistic, not to anyone in particular (if it was I would have explicitly adressed it.) Just offering a different point of view about professional photographers and their mannerisms.

I felt that was fairly clear already. I was rather surprised by the post above.

 

[CarlTN]

Well, since it was "purely coincidence" and not directed at me, I will be happy to delete it myself. One thing is certain, it's not difficult to annoy a photography snob!

 

[brad-man]

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.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

 

[Don Haines]

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.

 

[brad-man]

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.

 

[jrista]

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.

Image Stabilization has one purpose, and one purpose only: To reduce blur from camera shake at slower shutter speeds. There is no other purpose for IS, thats its sole reason for being.

The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true. As pixel sizes continue to shrink, that notion will become increasingly less accurate and less valid. Smaller pixels register smaller degrees of camera shake. In other words, smaller pixels magnify the effect of camera shake to a greater degree. Were around 4µm pixels (+/- 0.3µm) now, but they will continue to shrink. Having IS on a 50mm lens will be far more valid at 3µm than it is today at 4.3µm. Having IS on a 35mm lens will be more valid at 2µm than it is today.

I don't know how small pixels will shrink...I think were going to have problems with other things before APS-C and FF cameras get sensors with pixels in the 2µm range (exponentially increasing in-camera processing power requirements, similarly increasing computing power needs just to import and process RAW images, significant increases in storage space needs, etc.) By the time we actually do get down to pixels a quarter the area of pixels today, I think the argument about having IS on lenses shorter than 85mm will largely resolve itself...the results will simply speak for themselves.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

Image Stabilization has one purpose, and one purpose only: To reduce blur from camera shake at slower shutter speeds. There is no other purpose for IS, thats its sole reason for being.

The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true. As pixel sizes continue to shrink, that notion will become increasingly less accurate and less valid. Smaller pixels register smaller degrees of camera shake. In other words, smaller pixels magnify the effect of camera shake to a greater degree. Were around 4µm pixels (+/- 0.3µm) now, but they will continue to shrink. Having IS on a 50mm lens will be far more valid at 3µm than it is today at 4.3µm. Having IS on a 35mm lens will be more valid at 2µm than it is today.

I don't know how small pixels will shrink...I think were going to have problems with other things before APS-C and FF cameras get sensors with pixels in the 2µm range (exponentially increasing in-camera processing power requirements, similarly increasing computing power needs just to import and process RAW images, significant increases in storage space needs, etc.) By the time we actually do get down to pixels a quarter the area of pixels today, I think the argument about having IS on lenses shorter than 85mm will largely resolve itself...the results will simply speak for themselves.

So you are saying, in addition to giving false confidence to inexperienced photogs (that IS is a magic tool that will allow slower shutter speeds no matter what) it was also valid for lesser sensor resolutions.
Fair enough.
However, there are still people claiming IS is not necessary on the future 50mm or the existing 35mm, etc. That is a fact, and I think that was Brad's point.
You type faster that I can read. No wonder you are a programmer

 

[privatebydesign]

The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Here are some perfect examples of why I don't give a damn that the 24-70 f2.8 MkII is sharper than the MkI, and why when they come out with an IS version I am in. They were both shot on a camera with 6.4µm pixels.

First image: 24-70 f 2.8 MkI, 60mm f2.8 1/10 sec. If I had had IS this shot would have been considerably sharper.

Second image: 24-70 f2.8 MkI, 24mm f3.2 1/2 sec. If I had had IS this shot would have had better dof control.

Give me IS on a 16-35 now and I'll buy it.

 

[jrista]

The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Um, dude, seriously...you did see that I used the word "WAS", right?

WAS true. Not IS true. WAS true.

I also said that the notion would become increasingly untrue...indicating that it is untrue now.

In other words...I agree with you. Back in the days of 10µm pixels (mid 2000s), I think IS with a 50mm or 35mm wouldn't have been nearly as useful as it would be today.

Chill. Sheesh.

 

[privatebydesign]

The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Um, dude, seriously...you did see that I used the word "WAS", right?

WAS true. Not IS true. WAS true.

Chill. Sheesh.

Well I am using a camera with the same pixel pitch as a 10D, so if it is true today with my camera it was true back in Feb 2003 when the 10D came out. Your comment is completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous.

 

[jrista]

The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Um, dude, seriously...you did see that I used the word "WAS", right?

WAS true. Not IS true. WAS true.

Chill. Sheesh.

Well I am using a camera with the same pixel pitch as a 10D, so if it is true today with my camera it was true back in Feb 2003 when the 10D came out. Your comment is completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous.

Until you show me full size versions of those images you shared, which appear to be quite sharp to me, that prove they are soft and needed IS (vs. say better focus), I'm sorry but I have to disagree tat it is "completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous." I've shot enough with a 50/1.4 to know that my shutter speed is most often well above the 1/focalLength and even above the 1/focalLength*2 baselines to produce shake-free shots except in more extreme circumstances (such as your second photo, however that would usually be where you jack up the ISO to compensate.)

If we were talking about an 85mm f/4 or even f/2.8 lens, I would completely agree with you...but 85mm lenses are f/1.8 or faster, 50mm lenses are usually f/1.4, and most frequently used at their faster apertures. Additionally, with wider fields, it takes more camera movement to result in meaningful motion of image detail at the pixel level, so blur from camera shake becomes less and less likely the shorter the lens.

And what's with the hostility? Wrong side of the bed day today or something?

 

[privatebydesign]

Until you show me full size versions of those images you shared, which appear to be quite sharp to me, that prove they are soft and needed IS (vs. say better focus), I'm sorry but I have to disagree tat it is "completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous." I've shot enough with a 50/1.4 to know that my shutter speed is most often well above the 1/focalLength and even above the 1/focalLength*2 baselines to produce shake-free shots except in more extreme circumstances (such as your second photo, however that would usually be where you jack up the ISO to compensate.)

If we were talking about an 85mm f/4 or even f/2.8 lens, I would completely agree with you...but 85mm lenses are f/1.8 or faster, 50mm lenses are usually f/1.4, and most frequently used at their faster apertures. Additionally, with wider fields, it takes more camera movement to result in meaningful motion of image detail at the pixel level, so blur from camera shake becomes less and less likely the shorter the lens.

And what's with the hostility? Wrong side of the bed day today or something?

First off, no hostility at all, just a very strong disagreement with your untenable point of view. Calling something sh!t that is sh!t is not hostile. I'm just doing an Arthur Morris on you.

Second, you are now putting limits on aperture and iso for focal lengths, you can't do that. What if I want/need f8 and 1/4 at iso 400? Then IS would be good to have. Just because a prime lens might be between f1.2 and f2.8 doesn't mean that aperture is appropriate for the image to be taken, as per my second image example. Same with iso, I used 800 for the second image and ETTR'd because I didn't want to lose DR between the candle flame and the very dark wall detail, if I'd had IS I could have got more DR, and shadow detail, by going to 100iso.

Third, the size of the pixel and the arc of blur are completely unrelated, assuming you have enough resolution to resolve the arc of blur, as my two images with 2003 sized pixels clearly do, having more resolution would not make the blur better or worse, only reproduction size would. Same as diffraction limits and airy discs, more resolution is not worse, but it doesn't increase or decrease the diffraction.

Fourth, do you honestly think I would post an illustrative example that doesn't illustrate my point? I have posted hundreds of them!

Anyway, here are the 100% crops with zero sharpening or noise reduction on the best point of focus. They are both focused within this 700 x 700px square, the sharpness falls off as you go further away. They both show camera movement as can be evidenced by the shadow/ghost around the front of the monks face in image one, and the fact that the second image crop is the sharpest section of the frame, the point of focus and I were completely static (I was braced against a wall) and my camera is set to not take a picture without achieving focus.

 

[philmoz]

Frankly your response is needlessly wordy and condescending, and misses the point entirely. But that’s par for the course for you.

Hmm - pot --> kettle --> black.

Can't speak for anyone else; but I would much rather read an informed and informative post from jrista, than a whiny, derogatory and offensive post from you.

Must have really hit a nerve here, as I received this personal message from CarlTN shortly after (edited to avoid offending anyone):
Who the f..k asked your opinion you a..hole...