The one thing Apple understands is photography

[Don Haines]

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

Why is it that the only person at a wedding who cannot take a picture of the bride feeding the groom the first slice of wedding cake and have the picture on the bride's Facebook page within a few minutes is the same person who is being paid to take pictures?

And, if the paid photographer did try to do that, he or she would need a Rube Goldberg combination of devices, media and interfaces.

Photographers should be able to take a picture, review it on the back of their camera, make a few simple adjustments (cropping, exposure, color correction) and hit a "send" button to get that photo to the client or directly to social media or a website.

The fact that no manufacturer offers that capability today shows just how miserably camera manufacturers have failed their customers.

That's what this article and the much better Mayflower Concepts Presentation (that the article links to and which has been previously discussed here) are talking about.

Tom Scott's work around only underscores this. There is no reason photographers should settle for such work arounds. It ought to be right there on the camera. And, if you need a larger screen, it ought to migrate to your iPad or laptop automatically, without having to use cables or complicated interfaces. It should just work.

That's what Apple understands.

The interesting thing is that while this may be mostly an inconvenience for enthusiasts, it is a complete fail for the professional market.

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to cover an event for a client, go home to start processing pictures and see on the client's Facebook page a couple dozen horrible pictures from the same event that some fool with an iPhone posted while I was uploading images to my computer. Think about virtually every breaking news event of the last several years -- the first pictures and video usually comes from an iPhone, not from a professional photojournalist covering the event.

The inability to instantly get pictures from the camera to the internet creates lost opportunities and those lost opportunities ultimately mean lost revenue and a more difficult struggle to retain the few remaining jobs for professional photographers. (When I go to a press conference, the Chicago Tribune reporter will be tweeting the event with pictures using her iPhone, while the poor AP photographer has to wait until he gets back to the bureau before he can send any pictures. Is it any wonder that fewer and fewer news organizations are employing photographers?)

This is what Canon, Nikon and all the other manufacturers have missed and it's hurting photographers in very concrete ways.

Lets just say, tomorrow Samsung did that... lets just say with the introduction of the NX2.
Those "simple adjustments" is going to take up time no? Not to mention, selecting a picture from the multitude of pictures, checking for focus etc.

Can you afford to waste time at an event where micro-moments may happen? Your uncle tom, who is not being paid, has a crappy camera, can waste all the time he wants posting on facebook (or other social network).

You are a wedding photographer.... you are under contract to produce a wedding album and a number of stills of important moments, and you have a negotiated delivery date. That is your job, not producing facebook updates. If your client wants social media updates, add it into the contract and even hire a second (or third) shooter just for that task. As a pro, you deliver the goods, no mater what they are.....

 

[AcutancePhotography]

hire a second (or third) shooter just for that task.

That's an interesting strategy. Do any wedding photographers do this:

-Have one shooter doing the more traditional types of shots for the album, prints and such
-Have one shooter doing the JPEG-upload in real time to facebook/Social media?

I am not sure a bride will pay extra for the second, but you never know what a bride will want to pay for... or for someone else to pay for.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Apple understands nothing except marketing.

I was born in '83, and I didn't get into photography until recently, so I'm genuinely curious: in past decades, were wedding photographers freaking out that drunk uncle Buck could take a blurry Polaroid of the bride walking down the aisle and hold it up (probably still shaking it) before she reached the altar?

If yes, then history would suggest that brides preferred then, and probably prefer now, to have a high-quality album later instead of, or in addition to, the instant snapshots.

if no, why not?

And, if I'm wrong and brides suddenly do prefer to have web-rez jpegs uploaded in instants with no careful cropping, color balance, sharpening, or other manual edits performed carefully on a calibrated monitor with adequate time, don't look to a hypothetical 80D (or whatever) with a nano-SIM slot and an app store to "save" wedding photographers; the job is dead anyway. If that happens, the couple will know someone with an 80D/ 5D5/ A7Riii/ whatever who's willing to shoot and upload as a favor in exchange for not having to sit in a chair throughout the ceremony. I know I would, and trust me, I can't compete with anyone on this forum in photography skills. If I'm good enough, the game is over.

 

[Don Haines]

hire a second (or third) shooter just for that task.

That's an interesting strategy. Do any wedding photographers do this:

-Have one shooter doing the more traditional types of shots for the album, prints and such
-Have one shooter doing the JPEG-upload in real time to facebook/Social media?

I am not sure a bride will pay extra for the second, but you never know what a bride will want to pay for... or for someone else to pay for.

It happens all the time with stills and video.... social media should be no different, but I have never heard of someone who wanted crappy pictures quickly uploaded to the web so bad that they wanted to pay extra for them..... but hey, the customer is always right. If someone wants to pay you for it, go for it!

 

[unfocused]

hire a second (or third) shooter just for that task.

That's an interesting strategy. Do any wedding photographers do this:

-Have one shooter doing the more traditional types of shots for the album, prints and such
-Have one shooter doing the JPEG-upload in real time to facebook/Social media?

I am not sure a bride will pay extra for the second, but you never know what a bride will want to pay for... or for someone else to pay for.

Let's try this again.

The point is very simple: In a world where connectivity is ubiquitous, ALL camera manufacturers have failed miserably in integrating connectivity to their devices. And, in doing so, they have placed professional photographers as a competitive disadvantage.

Yeah, there are workarounds. You can hire someone to take your filled cards and process a few images on a laptop while you shoot. But, the point is, you shouldn't have to rely on work arounds.

There is no legitimate reason why cameras should not connect as easily to the internet as phones do. There is no reason at all that cameras should not have better tools for editing and adjusting images in-camera with an interface that is not just as good as a smart phone, but better.

No reason at all, except that the manufacturers have been lazy, cheap and clueless about the marketplace.

I presume that every photographer wants to build their business. Acutance, can you honestly tell me that at a wedding with 300 guests, you see absolutely no marketing value in being able to quickly find just five pictures you've shot, do sufficient editing to make them look good on the web, add your logo and upload those pictures to the bride's Facebook/Instagram/Twitter Feed before the end of the reception, so that there is a wave of people at the reception "liking" and sharing the photos and commenting on how great the bride looks? Guests sharing the pictures with their friends and relatives who are planning to get married? -- all before they leave for the night?

I presume that most wedding work comes from referrals from happy customers. Those five pictures are going to be seen by hundreds more people than will ever see the bride's wedding album. Is there no value to you to be able to have access to the potential customers that night, while they are all excited and their sales resistance has been lowered by the free bar? Those potential customers will have no trouble remembering who you are or finding you that night, because you are that guy with the good camera who has been shooting pictures all day.

I'm not just talking about wedding photography. As I said, photojournalists are handicapped by this lack of connectivity. Sports photographers (unless they shoot for the professional teams and can both afford expensive, complicated work arounds and also lock out amateur competition through restricted access) would also benefit from being able to send or post a few pictures during halftime without needing anything but their camera and maybe a personal hotspot from their phone. There are many others as well.

Yeah, as I said before, it's more of a benefit to professionals than amateurs who aren't under any time constraint to deliver a product. But, Canon, Nikon and Sony all claim to cater to the professional market, when they clearly have failed in this regard.

That's the point that the article and linked video are making.

And frankly, it's a heck of a lot more important that 1/4 stop of dynamic range that gets obsessed over constantly.

 

[tomscott]

I understand the comments but don't nessasarily agree with them.

My main income is wedding photography. The brides that I work with have never asked for images instantly. I wouldnt want to work that way shooting a wedding is no short task it is heavily involved and extreamly tiring. Shooting for 8-10 hours and then delivering the images? Too much and from my experience that isn't the expectation of the bride.

I would also hate to deliver images in that style, I want to add my style of editing not only is the style of shooting a trade mark but also so is the way you deliver the final product. I couldn't do what I do and deliver the quality of images I would be happy giving a client with a few clicks and sending it to Facebook the images that I posted from my travels prove that even with half decent software doesn't produce professional results.

I shot a wedding at the weekend it was two hours away, they paid me to be there from 8am until 9pm so I set off at 6am and shot for 13 hours and then drove two hours home. 17 hour day, just isn't feasible. The wedding was also in the country and there wasn't any 3G for miles anyway.

I have also found It generally is the case that the bride is very picky with what images she wants to share on social media its very personal and you shouldn't be making that decision it's not professional. These images are forever and making a half arsed edit just to post your work as quick as possible seems backward to me and doesn't show your work to its best and when your paying $1-4000 dollars for a wedding photographer it's not what I would expect either.

I don't think there is any problem with sitting down the next day and editing 3-4 images and sending them to the bride along with a sentiment explaining thank you for allowing me to be apart of your wonderful day feel free to post etc etc

99% of bride go on their honeymoon the next day so I don't understand the rush, take your time ensure the images are lifetime memories!! It's a nice break for them after 12+ months of organising the day and the last thing they want is to be bothered on their honeymoon. Something to look forward to when they get home.

I would agree if you were talking about a time sensitive event then Ye they need to get out as fast as possible but I don't think the majority of the points apply to weddings. If you already have the contract how is it going to be detrimental.

When the images are ready and are posted I find I get a huge response as in the contract I ask the bride to tag my name in any social media, so I tend to get a wave of interest. Weddings are planned years in advance generally and aren't as time sensitive. I also seem to get more referrals from the couples word of mouth, Facebook is great and it's a great resource for business but if someone is looking for a photographer and your active in posting as a wedding photographer there will be plenty of material on the page.

The points you have made are valid but seems to me a bit of a forced self promotion if your images are good people will come. That's worked for me and I don't worry, but when I first started, getting work out was important but it was never higher on the agenda than producing great work which is still my main argument that what ever mobile software and outlet Weill never be as good as a well retouched professional looking image.

 

[unfocused]

I understand the comments but don't nessasarily agree with them...

Thanks Tom. I appreciate the thoughtful response. I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that is the only or even the best approach.

As I said, my issue is that camera manufacturers are so behind the times when it comes to connectivity that no one, professional or amateur, has a choice. Different people have different styles and needs, I simply find it frustrating that in these times, a tool that we all pay dearly for cannot perform some basic functions that are otherwise ubiquitous.

To go back to the original premise of this thread: The one thing Apple understands is photography, this lack of connectivity and difficulty of doing simple things that every phone can do was the point of the original story and the linked video (which was discussed quite extensively in the past).

I often feel like this forum is dedicated to a bunch of buggy-whip connoisseurs debating the best model for their carriage (dynamic range being a prime example) and meanwhile, the automobiles are zipping right past our noses.

Expectations, permissions, protocol, timing and priorities are all things that need to be worked out between client and photographer. But, we shouldn't settle for tools that preclude us from even discussing this with a client.

 

[Don Haines]

I understand the comments but don't nessasarily agree with them.

My main income is wedding photography. The brides that I work with have never asked for images instantly. I wouldnt want to work that way shooting a wedding is no short task it is heavily involved and extreamly tiring. Shooting for 8-10 hours and then delivering the images? Too much and from my experience that isn't the expectation of the bride.

I would also hate to deliver images in that style, I want to add my style of editing not only is the style of shooting a trade mark but also so is the way you deliver the final product. I couldn't do what I do and deliver the quality of images I would be happy giving a client with a few clicks and sending it to Facebook the images that I posted from my travels prove that even with half decent software doesn't produce professional results.

I shot a wedding at the weekend it was two hours away, they paid me to be there from 8am until 9pm so I set off at 6am and shot for 13 hours and then drove two hours home. 17 hour day, just isn't feasible. The wedding was also in the country and there wasn't any 3G for miles anyway.

I have also found It generally is the case that the bride is very picky with what images she wants to share on social media its very personal and you shouldn't be making that decision it's not professional. These images are forever and making a half arsed edit just to post your work as quick as possible seems backward to me and doesn't show your work to its best and when your paying $1-4000 dollars for a wedding photographer it's not what I would expect either.

I don't think there is any problem with sitting down the next day and editing 3-4 images and sending them to the bride along with a sentiment explaining thank you for allowing me to be apart of your wonderful day feel free to post etc etc

99% of bride go on their honeymoon the next day so I don't understand the rush, take your time ensure the images are lifetime memories!! It's a nice break for them after 12+ months of organising the day and the last thing they want is to be bothered on their honeymoon. Something to look forward to when they get home.

I would agree if you were talking about a time sensitive event then Ye they need to get out as fast as possible but I don't think the majority of the points apply to weddings. If you already have the contract how is it going to be detrimental.

When the images are ready and are posted I find I get a huge response as in the contract I ask the bride to tag my name in any social media, so I tend to get a wave of interest. Weddings are planned years in advance generally and aren't as time sensitive. I also seem to get more referrals from the couples word of mouth, Facebook is great and it's a great resource for business but if someone is looking for a photographer and your active in posting as a wedding photographer there will be plenty of material on the page.

The points you have made are valid but seems to me a bit of a forced self promotion if your images are good people will come. That's worked for me and I don't worry, but when I first started, getting work out was important but it was never higher on the agenda than producing great work which is still my main argument that what ever mobile software and outlet Weill never be as good as a well retouched professional looking image.

well said!

 

[Hillsilly]

I would have liked to have tried Aperture. But, like 95% of people, I'm a Windows user. If Apple really understood photography, they would have made a Windows version, kept it current and be making a fortune as viable Adobe alternative.

If their only photography trumpcard is the iPhone, well....

I understand that the premise of this post is more about the connectivity benefits. But most camera manufacturers are developing reasonable WiFi camera integration and control. I haven't used Canon ones, but the Fuji ones which I'm familiar with are ok. There aren't many things I can think of that are lacking. And given that Android apps at least equal, if not exceed Apple Apps, I don't know how much of this is Apple driven vs camera manufacturer driven.

Re The comment above about a sports photographer easily sending a few photos at half time - most cameras already do that right now.

For those seeking to do more, I'm curious what kinds of mobile phone plans people must have around the world. Here in overpriced Australia, once you start going over about 10gb/mth for 3G/4G data, the plans start getting very expensive. You'd have to have a very good business case to be streaming all of your photos as you shoot them. Is it different elsewhere?

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I would say that photography is one thing that Apple knows the least about. And that is not to disparage Apple by any means. It's just that Apple knows a heck of lot about many things including making tons of money.

This was the first thing that came to mind for me. I know companies that understand photography and companies that care about photography. Apple is neither.

As I've said before, Apple is (and always has been) in the business of making money, filing lawsuits and marketing whatever they come up with as being the most innovative and wonderful items ever to grace the earth. They are NOT in the business of anything else and are NOT photography experts. They are sales and innovation experts at any and all methods/costs. And they have understood better than most all others that if you make something simple, elegant and attractive that operates in a basic and intuitive way you will attract a lot of buyers at twice the price. Create a sense of grassroots struggle in your company history and you'll attract a lot of loyal sympathizers.

I think the Futurama "Attack of the Killer App" ("eyePhone") episode should be required watching for everyone... (LOL).

 

[expatinasia]

I would say that photography is one thing that Apple knows the least about. And that is not to disparage Apple by any means. It's just that Apple knows a heck of lot about many things including making tons of money.

This was the first thing that came to mind for me. I know companies that understand photography and companies that care about photography. Apple is neither.

As I've said before, Apple is (and always has been) in the business of making money, filing lawsuits and marketing whatever they come up with as being the most innovative and wonderful items ever to grace the earth. They are NOT in the business of anything else and are NOT photography experts. They are sales and innovation experts at any and all methods/costs. And they have understood better than most all others that if you make something simple, elegant and attractive that operates in a basic and intuitive way you will attract a lot of buyers at twice the price. Create a sense of grassroots struggle in your company history and you'll attract a lot of loyal sympathizers.

I agree completely. It is amazing what they have done from a marketing and sales perspective. Almost completely brainwashed millions.

Only apple I will ever buy grows on a tree.

 

[tomscott]

I understand the comments but don't nessasarily agree with them...

Thanks Tom. I appreciate the thoughtful response. I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that is the only or even the best approach.

As I said, my issue is that camera manufacturers are so behind the times when it comes to connectivity that no one, professional or amateur, has a choice. Different people have different styles and needs, I simply find it frustrating that in these times, a tool that we all pay dearly for cannot perform some basic functions that are otherwise ubiquitous.

To go back to the original premise of this thread: The one thing Apple understands is photography, this lack of connectivity and difficulty of doing simple things that every phone can do was the point of the original story and the linked video (which was discussed quite extensively in the past).

I often feel like this forum is dedicated to a bunch of buggy-whip connoisseurs debating the best model for their carriage (dynamic range being a prime example) and meanwhile, the automobiles are zipping right past our noses.

Expectations, permissions, protocol, timing and priorities are all things that need to be worked out between client and photographer. But, we shouldn't settle for tools that preclude us from even discussing this with a client.

I generally think your right in the fact there is room for innovation to produce a product that is a more rounded tool. I just think one of the reasons it hasn't is that there are so many good tools for the job. I think it would almost be like bloatware for a lot of people and if it was available I think most serious pros would still use industry standard software like lightroom and PS to output.

I think what would be an improvement if nothing is a more intelligent way of sending those images as you go. Say you do actually use that useless rate button on the 5DMKIII all the 5 stars could be sent instantly across to your device so it removes the workaround and speeds up workflow so it could actually be possible instead of at the end of the day trawling through thousands of images to find those few you have in your minds eyes.

Or another way like sony is doing, make a decent SDK to allow developers to actually produce good apps and if people buy them and there is money to be made then it would be great for everyone.

A lot of these companies do need their heads banging together, lightroom mobile could be a very useful tool if it was more fully fledged and worked the same way lightroom desktop works. So you could import images straight to the mobile device and then creates smart previews uploads Raws to the server to sync so you could edit the odd raw file. Ive edited raw files on my iPad before but it just takes forever to render the changes so atm jpeg is still the way to go.

Your right about the forum in many ways its populated with more tech enthusiast than photographers but then it is a gear forum not an image forum. I find it amazing that in the image threads there is barely any discussion with actual images yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pages on dynamic range, how crap canon is doing etc etc and the many circle of trolls and anti trolls that the forum holds in such high regard and argue with or against never ever post images. Think that says a lot tbh. I probably post both in similar quantity because I like both but I won't let the tech undermine the main reason I started the profession in the first place. Many of the times I don't find the issues 'issues' as there is always a way round it but like you said sometimes they are less than satisfactory.

Theres a perfect example of this in this thread.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27237.0

Good read.

Thanks for your comments unfocused, it is always difficult voicing an opinion that is not the way of the many, its how ideas are developed and how innovation begins. The purists often fight to the death to keep something they have done for so long alive. Probably sums up Canon at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 375103]

Apple definitely understands photography. Just look at the prototype mode dial for their upcoming Iphone camera, it's revolutionary! :

 

[Don Haines]

A lot of these companies do need their heads banging together, lightroom mobile could be a very useful tool if it was more fully fledged and worked the same way lightroom desktop works. So you could import images straight to the mobile device and then creates smart previews uploads Raws to the server to sync so you could edit the odd raw file. Ive edited raw files on my iPad before but it just takes forever to render the changes so atm jpeg is still the way to go.

Your right about the forum in many ways its populated with more tech enthusiast than photographers but then it is a gear forum not an image forum. I find it amazing that in the image threads there is barely any discussion with actual images yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pages on dynamic range, how crap canon is doing etc etc and the many circle of trolls and anti trolls that the forum holds in such high regard and argue with or against never ever post images. Think that says a lot tbh. I probably post both in similar quantity because I like both but I won't let the tech undermine the main reason I started the profession in the first place. Many of the times I don't find the issues 'issues' as there is always a way round it but like you said sometimes they are less than satisfactory.

Theres a perfect example of this in this thread.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27237.0

Good read.

I agree about editing on an iPad... it seems clumsy and slow to me. In my opinion, it's the weakest link with iPhotography.... and importing files from my Canon or Olympus is PAINFUL!!!!!

As to the gear geeks, this forum is the perfect place for them so it is no wonder they abound in great numbers. Yes, we all want more out of our cameras.... but I think that many of us realize just how good ANY modern DSLR is and although many of us won't admit it publicly, the biggest limitation is ourselves. That said, better tools will move us forward regardless of the skill level.

I started digital photography with an Apple Quicktake... 320x240 pixels... that's 0.077 megapixels, and it stored as 8 bit jpegs. I thought it was revolutionary and at that point in time Apple really was cutting edge photography.. (picture 000)

A number of p/s cameras followed, all more powerful than the last. Once they reached the 1Mpixel mark they started to produce usable images like picture 001, from a 1.3Mpixel Olympus P/S

The rest of the images are from an Olympus E400.... a 10Megapixel camera with 10 stops of DR and ISO up to 1600, although 800 and above was unusable...... To my mind, this was the point where DSLRs eclipsed film SLRs. The image quality was better and digital editing took off about the same time. From this point on, any DSLR you bought was a great camera....

Image 002, hand held sharpness in a dimly lit room....

Image 003, you could shoot by campfire!

Image 004, you could shoot at sunset!

Image 005, you could capture deep blacks and bright green in the same exposure!

Yes, you can do better now, but these are 12+ year old technology.....

 

[LDS]

Why is it that the only person at a wedding who cannot take a picture of the bride feeding the groom the first slice of wedding cake and have the picture on the bride's Facebook page within a few minutes is the same person who is being paid to take pictures?

Because he or she is expected to keep on shooting instead of messing with his or her small camera screen in the attempt to fix a photo and upload it to Facebook? What if doing it he or she misses some other important shot? Other guests are free to ignore what's going on while updating Facebook pages, is the paid photographer allowed to do so?

And, if the paid photographer did try to do that, he or she would need a Rube Goldberg combination of devices, media and interfaces.

Letting aside it's not so complex, what's wrong with that? You're a pro, so you're expected to have the right gear for the task. If you're expected to upload photos as an event evolves, you need the proper personnel and gear to ensure those images are uploaded properly, even if something fails temporarily. Have you see how many people man a cinema camera? Hey, why don't they get away with AF, auto exposure and later fixes on the camera screen?

Photographers should be able to take a picture, review it on the back of their camera, make a few simple adjustments (cropping, exposure, color correction) and hit a "send" button to get that photo to the client or directly to social media or a website.

If you wait for the proper moment to do that, it changes little if you had uploaded them wirelessly to a laptop or whatever and use it for the final steps, which may be also quicker. If you need to do it on camera, it means you're doing it in the wrong moment, and you are just distracted instead of performing what you are being paid for, shooting the event.

The fact that no manufacturer offers that capability today shows just how miserably camera manufacturers have failed their customers.

Will you give a photographer access to your personal pages so you can upload photos for you? Your personal phone may contain credentials for your personal services, what about a "stranger"?

And, if you need a larger screen, it ought to migrate to your iPad or laptop automatically, without having to use cables or complicated interfaces. It should just work.

It's exactly what Canon WiFi adapters do (at an absurd price, I agree). You shoot, and photos are uploaded via FTP. FTP is good, very good. It's a full standard protocol that run across very different devices and networks. It doesn't rely on a single "app" that may work today on a given phone OS, and no longer work tomorrow.

If you like, it's not difficult to have them "professionally" processed automatically as they come in, and upload them then whenever you want. Sure, maybe if you're not an IT expert you need to hire one to help you, why shouldn't you? Today, just you may need to hire a makeup expert, a professional hairdresser, or whatever, for a truly professional work you may also need someone expert in IT.

A colleague of mine did exactly this but the WiFi part (too expensive for him), it shoots mountain bike events, he plugs the CF into its laptop, images are downloaded, automatically processed, and uploaded so events participants can look at them and decided which to buy (unless the organization already paid for them). Meanwhile, he keeps shooting with another card - his camera is not busy while trying to process and upload anything. He wrote the software, I had already told him he should sell it...

That's what Apple understands.

No, Apple understand if it can lock you in in every of its products, it's a lot of money coming.

Think about virtually every breaking news event of the last several years -- the first pictures and video usually comes from an iPhone, not from a professional photojournalist covering the event.

That's just because most people have a smartphone in their pocket, not a pro DSLR. Once they would have had no photo at all, but someone being lucky.

But which pictures have a better chance of becoming "iconic" for an event?

When I go to a press conference

Here, you're right, there's even no need for a pro DSLR to take the usual useless media filler picture that comes from press conferences, a smartphone is usually enough.

 

[tomscott]

Some great examples there Don.

This is the things we are so used to such big increases that now its all about fine tuning learning the skill everything else is just noise really.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Your right about the forum in many ways its populated with more tech enthusiast than photographers but then it is a gear forum not an image forum. I find it amazing that in the image threads there is barely any discussion with actual images yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pages on dynamic range, how crap canon is doing etc etc and the many circle of trolls and anti trolls that the forum holds in such high regard and argue with or against never ever post images. Think that says a lot tbh.

I don't think it says much at all. This forum is very recent as forums go and doesn't have a long history or image sharing and discussion and many leave that stuff to other places. Many also don't want to mix up the fanboy and anti-fanboy arguing and nonsense with their photography.

This is mostly just a rumor forum and what rumors deal with is the hardware.

 

[privatebydesign]

Your right about the forum in many ways its populated with more tech enthusiast than photographers but then it is a gear forum not an image forum. I find it amazing that in the image threads there is barely any discussion with actual images yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pages on dynamic range, how crap canon is doing etc etc and the many circle of trolls and anti trolls that the forum holds in such high regard and argue with or against never ever post images. Think that says a lot tbh.

I don't think it says much at all. This forum is very recent as forums go and doesn't have a long history or image sharing and discussion and many leave that stuff to other places. Many also don't want to mix up the fanboy and anti-fanboy arguing and nonsense with their photography.

This is mostly just a rumor forum and what rumors deal with is the hardware.

1 of 588 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.0
1 of 169 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19270.0
1 of 149 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=295.0
1 of 100 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12203.0
1 of 34 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11988.0
1 of 62 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.0

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Your right about the forum in many ways its populated with more tech enthusiast than photographers but then it is a gear forum not an image forum. I find it amazing that in the image threads there is barely any discussion with actual images yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pages on dynamic range, how crap canon is doing etc etc and the many circle of trolls and anti trolls that the forum holds in such high regard and argue with or against never ever post images. Think that says a lot tbh.

I don't think it says much at all. This forum is very recent as forums go and doesn't have a long history or image sharing and discussion and many leave that stuff to other places. Many also don't want to mix up the fanboy and anti-fanboy arguing and nonsense with their photography.

This is mostly just a rumor forum and what rumors deal with is the hardware.

1 of 588 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.0
1 of 169 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19270.0
1 of 149 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=295.0
1 of 100 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12203.0
1 of 34 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11988.0
1 of 62 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.0

It has some image sharing but it doesn't have the long history of general photo talk and image sharing all the same as many much older photo forums.

 

[privatebydesign]

Your right about the forum in many ways its populated with more tech enthusiast than photographers but then it is a gear forum not an image forum. I find it amazing that in the image threads there is barely any discussion with actual images yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pages on dynamic range, how crap canon is doing etc etc and the many circle of trolls and anti trolls that the forum holds in such high regard and argue with or against never ever post images. Think that says a lot tbh.

I don't think it says much at all. This forum is very recent as forums go and doesn't have a long history or image sharing and discussion and many leave that stuff to other places. Many also don't want to mix up the fanboy and anti-fanboy arguing and nonsense with their photography.

This is mostly just a rumor forum and what rumors deal with is the hardware.

1 of 588 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.0
1 of 169 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19270.0
1 of 149 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=295.0
1 of 100 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12203.0
1 of 34 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11988.0
1 of 62 http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.0

It has some image sharing but it doesn't have the long history of general photo talk and image sharing all the same as many much older photo forums.

Not saying the forum has the history, merely illustrating that there are image threads with hundreds of pages and 10'000's of views. Considering its age, and the name Canon Rumors, I think the image threads are pretty strongly represented, it isn't and never will be Canon Images, or Canon 500px/Canon Flikr etc, but for a tech centric forum there are a lot of image posters which rather flies in the face of tomscott's comment.