The danger of high resolution and sharpness
- Thread starter Eldar
- Start date
I not just Canon that is suffering from sales decline.
The average potential customer doesn't appreciate the benefits an expensive DSLR will offer.
And I doubt it's because their dissatisfied with Canon's sensors.
Those consumers are not the ones getting away from high quality photo equipment. On the otherhand, those customers purchase the most lenses, and cameras.
Sales are down because the average consumer does not wish to carry all the lenses and weight and equipment to lug around.
Now with cell phone giving better performance than what DSLR's offered 10 years ago, the moms, grand dads', kids and average shooter is content. And lets be honest. Sony will be offering the iPhone 7 with HDR in the sensor--boosting dynamic range to 15.5 stops for video (not 4k) 2K.
There are many professional and enthusiast, but not enough to supplement those that are not willing to pay extra for higher quality that is not that noticeable to their untrained eye.
I've been in sales for 30 years. The average buyer ( let's say in the USA) doesn't spend $50 for a bottle of wine, $200 for a dress shirt or $70,000 for a auto.
To many, the $10.00 wine is just fine enough.
Canon, Nikon will have to adjust, and accept this change in sales as not going to improve. UNLESS they can get Jane Doe consumer to shell out extra for a better device, and, have to carry another device with him /her. ( to many, this just doesn't make any logical sense)
The average potential customer doesn't appreciate the benefits an expensive DSLR will offer.
And I doubt it's because their dissatisfied with Canon's sensors.
Those consumers are not the ones getting away from high quality photo equipment. On the otherhand, those customers purchase the most lenses, and cameras.
Sales are down because the average consumer does not wish to carry all the lenses and weight and equipment to lug around.
Now with cell phone giving better performance than what DSLR's offered 10 years ago, the moms, grand dads', kids and average shooter is content. And lets be honest. Sony will be offering the iPhone 7 with HDR in the sensor--boosting dynamic range to 15.5 stops for video (not 4k) 2K.
There are many professional and enthusiast, but not enough to supplement those that are not willing to pay extra for higher quality that is not that noticeable to their untrained eye.
I've been in sales for 30 years. The average buyer ( let's say in the USA) doesn't spend $50 for a bottle of wine, $200 for a dress shirt or $70,000 for a auto.
To many, the $10.00 wine is just fine enough.
Canon, Nikon will have to adjust, and accept this change in sales as not going to improve. UNLESS they can get Jane Doe consumer to shell out extra for a better device, and, have to carry another device with him /her. ( to many, this just doesn't make any logical sense)
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:
Interestingly (maybe) this is a thing for painters too - one of my aunt's students painted her house in exchange for hosting the student's wedding there, and she was apparently very conflicted about painting the landscaping as finished (the house had barely been finished being built itself) instead of dirt because "that's not real".
Upvote
0
In 2014 the film Turner reminded me of a comparison that we all do well to heed.
He painted in water-colours & oils both give very different looks to the finished subject and can be very subjective. No one would have suggested to Turner or other great masters that they should only choose one medium over another they chose these methods very diliberately. We as photographers "gave up" film for the convienience of digital, for the immediate results it can give, yet watch as I did in Boston Museum of Fine Art a few years ago the longer dwell time the public were giving to B&W film photographs over color digital photographs it was striking. Ask ourselves why the top cinematographers and directors are still electing to shoot big budget movies still on film as well as digital like the recent Mission Impossible, to be released Start Wars or Spectre the new Bond film? Film has a different, lower resolution but organic look, the colors look different and in some cases less "electronic" or "clinical" which is definately the way high contrast lenses with 50MP sensors are going.
He painted in water-colours & oils both give very different looks to the finished subject and can be very subjective. No one would have suggested to Turner or other great masters that they should only choose one medium over another they chose these methods very diliberately. We as photographers "gave up" film for the convienience of digital, for the immediate results it can give, yet watch as I did in Boston Museum of Fine Art a few years ago the longer dwell time the public were giving to B&W film photographs over color digital photographs it was striking. Ask ourselves why the top cinematographers and directors are still electing to shoot big budget movies still on film as well as digital like the recent Mission Impossible, to be released Start Wars or Spectre the new Bond film? Film has a different, lower resolution but organic look, the colors look different and in some cases less "electronic" or "clinical" which is definately the way high contrast lenses with 50MP sensors are going.
Upvote
0
In my museum travels, I find that I walk up to a painting and then stop a some distance. By major artists, starting from so close guards start complaining:
Da Vinci (Mona Lisa is crowd limited)
Vermeer
Titian
David
Goya
Renoir
Cezanne
Van Gogh
This list is not in order of artistry. Some might say it is in order of skill, but they are wrong.
Choose your minimum viewing distance (or maximum effective magnification), there is good company in that school.
Da Vinci (Mona Lisa is crowd limited)
Vermeer
Titian
David
Goya
Renoir
Cezanne
Van Gogh
This list is not in order of artistry. Some might say it is in order of skill, but they are wrong.
Choose your minimum viewing distance (or maximum effective magnification), there is good company in that school.
Upvote
0
Every so often I try and do a few 'real world' tests of images printed at different settings/sizes and get other people to look at them, as well as putting them away for a few days and looking at them afresh myself (identifying marks on the back)
Invariably, it reminds me that it is the image content that people see and that the difference between 'very good' and 'very very good' that many of us look for is rarely as obvious as some of us might like
I'm lucky in that I get printers/paper to test/review, so can just run off a whole load of big prints on a whim and see if some assumption I've made in the past is actually relevant.
It helps too that photography is my business, so I regularly get exposed to the realism of clients, at widely differing levels of pickiness (and desire to pay).
Last week the guys at LuLa asked to run one of my 5Ds testing articles looking at print comparisons with my older Canon DSLRs:
https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-5ds-review-through-print-performance/
The (direct) response has been fascinating, really positive and a great tonic to counter any suspicion that the internet is awash with clueless pixel peepers
Invariably, it reminds me that it is the image content that people see and that the difference between 'very good' and 'very very good' that many of us look for is rarely as obvious as some of us might like
I'm lucky in that I get printers/paper to test/review, so can just run off a whole load of big prints on a whim and see if some assumption I've made in the past is actually relevant.
It helps too that photography is my business, so I regularly get exposed to the realism of clients, at widely differing levels of pickiness (and desire to pay).
Last week the guys at LuLa asked to run one of my 5Ds testing articles looking at print comparisons with my older Canon DSLRs:
https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-5ds-review-through-print-performance/
The (direct) response has been fascinating, really positive and a great tonic to counter any suspicion that the internet is awash with clueless pixel peepers
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I part time shoot wedding and my target market are those low budget, my photos are not fancy.
Once in a while I miss the grip of a camera, I like the challenge when I nail the focus, using 6D.
I am satisfied with the quality (sharpness) of 6D + 24-70 F4L.
More spread AF and all cross type, hoping for the 6D ii.
Upvote
0
Eldar said:
IHMO YES. Too much attention to detail and rather than what the detail will provide and the end product. Does the picture look better?
In the end we are either artists or technocrats (who measure things but don't create art).
Upvote
0
.
Thanks for this. I had missed it, and it's very useful, very helpful. You obviously put a lot of work into it. So very few things are worth reading these days -- this is worth every minute spent!!
Thanks for this. I had missed it, and it's very useful, very helpful. You obviously put a lot of work into it. So very few things are worth reading these days -- this is worth every minute spent!!
keithcooper said:Every so often I try and do a few 'real world' tests of images printed at different settings/sizes and get other people to look at them, as well as putting them away for a few days and looking at them afresh myself (identifying marks on the back)
Invariably, it reminds me that it is the image content that people see and that the difference between 'very good' and 'very very good' that many of us look for is rarely as obvious as some of us might like
I'm lucky in that I get printers/paper to test/review, so can just run off a whole load of big prints on a whim and see if some assumption I've made in the past is actually relevant.
It helps too that photography is my business, so I regularly get exposed to the realism of clients, at widely differing levels of pickiness (and desire to pay).
Last week the guys at LuLa asked to run one of my 5Ds testing articles looking at print comparisons with my older Canon DSLRs:
https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-5ds-review-through-print-performance/
The (direct) response has been fascinating, really positive and a great tonic to counter any suspicion that the internet is awash with clueless pixel peepers
Upvote
0
keithcooper said:Every so often I try and do a few 'real world' tests of images printed at different settings/sizes and get other people to look at them, as well as putting them away for a few days and looking at them afresh myself (identifying marks on the back)
Invariably, it reminds me that it is the image content that people see and that the difference between 'very good' and 'very very good' that many of us look for is rarely as obvious as some of us might like
I'm lucky in that I get printers/paper to test/review, so can just run off a whole load of big prints on a whim and see if some assumption I've made in the past is actually relevant.
It helps too that photography is my business, so I regularly get exposed to the realism of clients, at widely differing levels of pickiness (and desire to pay).
Last week the guys at LuLa asked to run one of my 5Ds testing articles looking at print comparisons with my older Canon DSLRs:
https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-5ds-review-through-print-performance/
The (direct) response has been fascinating, really positive and a great tonic to counter any suspicion that the internet is awash with clueless pixel peepers
Excellent article, Thank You.
Upvote
0
Great, informative thread, and one hell of a picture by Don of kayaking the backwaters in fall!
I believe that composition and light make up 99% of what makes a picture...but...those things are damn difficult whereas getting the best tech (while it only accounts for a tiny fraction of what makes a picture) is much easier and fun.
Also, many 'poor quality' photos such as the blurred black and white shot of a soldier on the beach are fantastic shots, made all the better by their grainy and blurry appearance that adds to the frenetic and confused action. One thing to be said for the latest and greatest equipment is it gives you choice - it is easy to produce grainy, black and white shots if this is the look you want or it adds to the narrative of the photo from a 50mp excellently exposed photo - its a little harder to go in the other direction.
I believe that composition and light make up 99% of what makes a picture...but...those things are damn difficult whereas getting the best tech (while it only accounts for a tiny fraction of what makes a picture) is much easier and fun.
Also, many 'poor quality' photos such as the blurred black and white shot of a soldier on the beach are fantastic shots, made all the better by their grainy and blurry appearance that adds to the frenetic and confused action. One thing to be said for the latest and greatest equipment is it gives you choice - it is easy to produce grainy, black and white shots if this is the look you want or it adds to the narrative of the photo from a 50mp excellently exposed photo - its a little harder to go in the other direction.
Upvote
0
Eldar said:Indeed! Proves my point, I think.msm said:
Kjetil Bjørnstad, a great Norwegian composer, musician, writer and music critique, reviewed Steely Dan's Gaucho (for those of you who remember that album. His headline was "The professional emptiness". You can listen through it for days, without finding a single note or tone out of position. But where is the soul?
And, Sporgon, it's easy to become philosophical in this place
How do you rate Derek Truck? Saw a video of him with BB King and that guy is phenomenal!
Upvote
0
I read once of persons like da Vinci, Shakespeare, Einstein, Marco Polo, people of that ilk.
The comment about these execeptional people is that they took humanity a step forward, they shift the bar in terms of what humanity can reach for or attain.
The problem with the 99.99% of us that are not of their calibre, is that we tend to follow, duplicate but never innovate.
Bringing this closer to photography, it's startling the number of people who want to replicate the work of others and have no desire to make their mark when their own art. I've seen so many people trying to replicate sescapes they've seen on FB, it's made me bored of seascapes!
Certainly, the most active conversations I've had in the last year, revolve around gear. We go on for hours about filters, processors, dynamic range and whatever else you want to throw into the mix.
What we speak way less bout is composition, lighting etc and surely that's the heart of photography?
The comment about these execeptional people is that they took humanity a step forward, they shift the bar in terms of what humanity can reach for or attain.
The problem with the 99.99% of us that are not of their calibre, is that we tend to follow, duplicate but never innovate.
Bringing this closer to photography, it's startling the number of people who want to replicate the work of others and have no desire to make their mark when their own art. I've seen so many people trying to replicate sescapes they've seen on FB, it's made me bored of seascapes!
Certainly, the most active conversations I've had in the last year, revolve around gear. We go on for hours about filters, processors, dynamic range and whatever else you want to throw into the mix.
What we speak way less bout is composition, lighting etc and surely that's the heart of photography?
Upvote
0
As a confounding variable to this, we all (myself included) tend to project our own desires onto others. For me, here are my goals for photography, in order:
1) take lots of pictures of my cat before he dies
2) play with fun toys
3) have a creative outlet
Some people, on this forum and others, can't believe others don't want to spend their weekends shooting weddings, or making a studio in the garage and shootings portraits/ families. Landscapers can't believe anyone cares about lightning-fast autofocus more than DR. And on for every subset of interests
It's like people who buy expensive bicycles but can't ride fast, or buy a Porsche to crawl through downtown traffic. For some people, there is pleasure in having the toys and using fine equipment, even if we're not an artist, or a race driver. No matter how much it bothers (some of) the purists.
1) take lots of pictures of my cat before he dies
2) play with fun toys
3) have a creative outlet
Some people, on this forum and others, can't believe others don't want to spend their weekends shooting weddings, or making a studio in the garage and shootings portraits/ families. Landscapers can't believe anyone cares about lightning-fast autofocus more than DR. And on for every subset of interests
It's like people who buy expensive bicycles but can't ride fast, or buy a Porsche to crawl through downtown traffic. For some people, there is pleasure in having the toys and using fine equipment, even if we're not an artist, or a race driver. No matter how much it bothers (some of) the purists.
Upvote
0
I'm late to this party so don't know if anyone's brought up this quote yet:
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adams
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adams
Upvote
0
QUOTE: "So the question is; Are we losing track of why we are doing this, in all this technical progression? Are we losing our ability to see a good picture in our strive for technical perfection?"
For the guys that began a career in film/slides, I'd say the answer to that question frequently, even almost absolutely is YES!
For the guys that began a career in Digital, not so sure - too many digital variables available on any shot.
For those that get lost in the 'digital perfection' it depends more on why you shoot the image, but to me it's the shot, the light, the composition, but most often the subject itself. I've seen - and also shot - some images that are technically 'less perfect' but are still top favorites. I'm also thinking the 'memories' a shot brings out have a lot to do with how one perceives its 'value' as well.
Not such an easy question to answer as it first appears.
For the guys that began a career in film/slides, I'd say the answer to that question frequently, even almost absolutely is YES!
For the guys that began a career in Digital, not so sure - too many digital variables available on any shot.
For those that get lost in the 'digital perfection' it depends more on why you shoot the image, but to me it's the shot, the light, the composition, but most often the subject itself. I've seen - and also shot - some images that are technically 'less perfect' but are still top favorites. I'm also thinking the 'memories' a shot brings out have a lot to do with how one perceives its 'value' as well.
Not such an easy question to answer as it first appears.
Upvote
0
