Will 8 bullet points do?
Why would I use ISO Auto in a studio? While shooting a landscape? When shooting an ad? etc...
Say, lots of studio photographers do.
So your contention is that no photographer who actually works for a living has the time to plan their captures with care?
I was asked to summarise. I'm speaking as a general events photographer and a professional unit stills photographer. In another thread I mentioned that in the Studio I use base ISO 100 or, in my case, sometimes the dual gain optimum of ISO640 (for my camera). AGAIN, we come back to if you're a hobbyist, obsessed with this stuff, maybe landscapes on a tripod, then knock yourself out. For general photography it's all nonsense.
Already? Have you looked at all the posts where actual . . . wait for it . . . Images are being posted?
Gloom and Doom just days into this effort. Threads like this and the forum will die? I don't share your pessimism.
I have never known knowledge to lead to the demise of a technically-oriented field.
Your Website shows a lot of excellent imagery and use of very sophisticated equipment.
I'd be very eager to learn from your expertise in your field. Care to share your advice rather than just criticism at other's attempts to share knowledge?
Rich
Look at the raw in RD if you want to learn something from your shot (e.g., how good was your pr camera's exposure guess).
Photographers occasionally bracket to get the image with the best exposure. RD helps pick the best one.
Before editing, you may want to know whether you have any clipping in raw (using RD). That way, you can check whether the post-processor can reconstruct clipped data or whether you'll get discoloration and missing details.
I am pretty sure Ansel Adams would have obsessed about raw files. I am pretty sure Jim Kassson obsesses over raw files.
Hi Rich
Thanks for having a look at my work, if it resonates with you then that's great. And that's what maters right? Maybe I'm coming down on hard with my my views here. It's deliberate. I want to help shape this forum and its tone. I see a slippery slope towards folk showing off their tech knowledge, without any semblance of any of it relating to actual photographs. Tech talk is great. in the right sections, for those who care. But ultimately it should all be about photography and creating great images (IMO)
Yes and landscape photographers should to this day. Ansel Adams was never an event photographer and with all due respect to Jim, he is a scientist whose knowledge is unsurpassed, but he's never been an event or similar photographer either. So his comments, whilst brilliant and accurate, have little to do with being photographer reacting to the moment "in the field".
I can see that you're passionate.
It's early here and everyone is just getting to know everyone else. I can assure you that the particular members you've decided to take up a fight with have been, in previous fora, the most helpful, encouraging participants in matters ranging from pragmatic, down in the trenches get-the-image advice to the highest levels of understanding color perception and capture, understanding of sensor electronics and mechanics, camera operation and just general photographic issues. There is a wealth of knowledge here, spanning decades of time and many imaging philosophies.
Rich
Are auto races events?
One day in 1961, I was in a physics class at Stanford, and AA came in and started taking pictures of us. He'd been hired by Stanford to do that. My understanding is that he did a lot of commercial work before he made it big selling art.
Not that uncommon. Michael Kenna was a commercial photographer before he switched to landscapes.
I'm aware of who the real experts on theory are, and I'm not sure I've singled anyone out for a fight? But, as a suggestion to all the experts. Reprogram yourselves maybe? Learn to speak in simpler language and illustrate your posts with actual photographs. You know: 1. You shouldn't do this because 2 You'll get a better result like this.
In other words, I've read millions of words from very respected and clever folk. But it needs to make us better ARTISTS. I've not seen that to date ......
Manzanar, daily life, sports, leisure?
You wrote, "Photography is art, artists never obsess over raw files." Event photographers are not artists, per se.
Something about horses and water...
That's actually a lovely story Jim and an honour to meet the great man. But if he had 5 minutes to setup he wouldn't have been applying his zone system to your group shots. And that's always my point :)
In the spirit of your own words, then . . . How about examples of your work to illustrate what you are saying?
Hey, your Website says you have the chops. Looking forward to them . . .
Rich
A comment like this shouldn't make you feel prickly Jim. It's actually a fair comment. The science of photography is important. But it doesn't make an artist. Equally the science of paint is important, but it doesn't make a painter. Not sure where you get horses and water from, it's totally irrelevant.
