My point more is your pushing so hard on the files do you not expect it to fall apart at some point. Folks can process whatever style they want but complaining about after you hit the point of no return is crying wolf. Also it needs to be clearly stated on what your are doing as not to confuse people with less experience in these matters. It really teaches them nothing. I teach workshops and I would clearly make points as to where these limits are going to be. This is misleading people thinking they are going to run into this when they may never get close to the limits. This stuff needs to be in context of of what works, where the points of no return are. All we hear are this stuff sucks with no real explanation as to the heavy pushing going on. That's really not normal for most people to be doing that. But let's be real honest here I'm a expert at raw processing and I never seen a case where pushing the shadows up to 100 percent is even remotely a normally exposed file. I'm sorry but that's misleading as hell. Does this help someone new to the Sony system or wants to purchase them. I'm not so much talking of the poster above he clearly said he is doing something diffrent to his files, good for him and his technique. But all we hear is how crappy this compression is when in fact you really have to go looking for the problem. Not sure that really helps people. Now granted I'm a old time Pro with 40 years experience but I don't post that every 5 minutes either. So my opinion does count and I'm more about the industry and the people that enjoy being in it and educating people to make smart choices. This does not necessarily help them.
johntruong wrote:
However, I think if you do criticize - you should also have your work available online for others to view as well. If not, you have no right criticize others.
I disagree. A restaurant patron does not need to know how to cook in order to criticize the food. A reader does not need to be a writer himself to criticize an author.
Having said that, however, criticism should be appropriate and talk about the work, not about the person.
"I don't like your style because of reasons X, Y, Z" is valid criticism, even if said reason is just "it's not my cup of tea".
"Your style is shit" is a personal attack.
"Your style is terrible" is a useless form of criticism as it doesn't tell the person why it is "terrible".
johntruong wrote:
I should have trusted my instincts because I knew posting on this thread would not be productive. I am a working photographer and have lots and lots of images to edit and deliver, but feel like I have to respond because things are just taken out of context.
You guys should just read what I originally wrote. I was just simply excited about Sony's new A7r II camera and wanted to join in on the excitement.
I subsequently posted the example of the compression artifacts because someone asked for it and said they had never seen it.
Someday, I hope we all as photographers can work together and discuss problems and issues on these forums without getting offended by other's opinions or being negative or jumping to quick opinions without reading all the information.
Consequently, "processing style" is sometimes dictated by what the client needs and not what I want to shoot at the moment. I openly share my flickr and work online, which is actually extremely diverse in both style and subject matter if you flip through the six years I have been with FLICKR. And I also love group art critiques (I have a BFA in art and photography).
However, I think if you do criticize - you should also have your work available online for others to view as well. If not, you have no right criticize others....Show more →
To be clear I was not really responding to you directly but as a example per say. Do not take offense but was used as we far too often stuff does get out of context .
atwl77 wrote:
I disagree. A restaurant patron does not need to know how to cook in order to criticize the food. A reader does not need to be a writer himself to criticize an author.
Having said that, however, criticism should be appropriate and talk about the work, not about the person.
"I don't like your style because of reasons X, Y, Z" is valid criticism, even if said reason is just "it's not my cup of tea".
"Your style is shit" is a personal attack.
"Your style is terrible" is a useless form of criticism as it doesn't tell the person why it is "terrible".
I was stating this in the context of an art class or a group of artists viewing each other's work and discussing it.... not just randomly critiquing others. The title of this thread is "Announced: Sony A7R II", not "Critique my work please!"
A restaurant patron has the right to critique because they paid for the food. You did not pay for my work.
You may express dislike (which is totally fine!), but it has no use to me because I cannot learn from it - I do not see how you view art because I do not have a glimpse of your work or how you see.
GMPhotography wrote:
My point more is your pushing so hard on the files do you not expect it to fall apart at some point. Folks can process whatever style they want but complaining about after you hit the point of no return is crying wolf. Also it needs to be clearly stated on what your are doing as not to confuse people with less experience in these matters. It really teaches them nothing. I teach workshops and I would clearly make points as to where these limits are going to be. This is misleading people thinking they are going to run into this when they may never get close to the limits. This stuff needs to be in context of of what works, where the points of no return are. All we hear are this stuff sucks with no real explanation as to the heavy pushing going on. That's really not normal for most people to be doing that. But let's be real honest here I'm a expert at raw processing and I never seen a case where pushing the shadows up to 100 percent is even remotely a normally exposed file. I'm sorry but that's misleading as hell. Does this help someone new to the Sony system or wants to purchase them. I'm not so much talking of the poster above he clearly said he is doing something diffrent to his files, good for him and his technique. But all we hear is how crappy this compression is when in fact you really have to go looking for the problem. Not sure that really helps people. Now granted I'm a old time Pro with 40 years experience but I don't post that every 5 minutes either. So my opinion does count and I'm more about the industry and the people that enjoy being in it and educating people to make smart choices. This does not necessarily help them.
It is very valuable to have your experience and your contributions here. We just don't want this place to only be a place where simplifications are made because we don't want do confuse beginners. We also want this to be a place where we can explore and analyze the limits. What used to be the limits of how far something can be pushed without problems has changed, and we don't want to live within the limits of yesterday.
johntruong wrote:
I was stating this in the context of an art class or a group of artists viewing each other's work and discussing it.... not just randomly critiquing others.
Fair enough, and re-reading your post again I can see where you have established that context.
Though just to be a little bit on the nitpicky side... you did put that sentence on a paragraph of its own which I read it as a separate context and therefore a general or blanket statement.
alundeb wrote:
It is very valuable to have your experience and your contributions here. We just don't want this place to only be a place where simplifications are made because we don't want do confuse beginners. We also want this to be a place where we can explore and analyze the limits. What used to be the limits of how far something can be pushed without problems has changed, and we don't want to live within the limits of yesterday.
I agree and thanks. I should point out after I wrote the above I was taken a little aback by the 100 percent shadow boost but than I realized he is working in LR which I do not use and C1 may have a completely diffrent value to match that. I know in C1 even 25 boost is fairly a big jump. So wanted to make that clear as well, I jumped a little not realizing that out of the gate.
Btw my signature on my forum goes like this. I do abide by this wholeheartedly
__________________
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
GMPhotography wrote:
I agree and thanks. I should point out after I wrote the above I was taken a little aback by the 100 percent shadow boost but than I realized he is working in LR which I do not use and C1 may have a completely diffrent value to match that. I know in C1 even 25 boost is fairly a big jump. So wanted to make that clear as well, I jumped a little not realizing that out of the gate.
Btw my signature on my forum goes like this. I do abide by this wholeheartedly
__________________
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
I'll also admit I do have a habit of jumping the gun whenever I see blanket statements being thrown around because more often than not, blanket statements are used to shut another side down instead of being part of a properly composed response.
But your additional comments after that do help to clarify things better afterward.
Fengniao has full size version of the Sony samples. (At least the last one is full size)
The opera interior with itīs many point light sources show no signs of ugly sensor reflections as someone else pointed out earlier in the thread. The lamps are probably not very bright and I do not know if they would have caused issues on the A7, but so far the A7rII might seem to be better in this regard.
Ron Weissman wrote:
GMP,
Thank you. I could not agree more.
Fellow Miranda-ites: There are weight issues with the new A7RII Seriously?? Who knew?
I returned last week from 14 days in southern France carrying, mainly, a Pentax 645Z (plus 2 extra lenses, sometimes with a backup XT1 in the bag). I am in my 60s, 5'6", and quite out of shape (not that I have ever been in shape) and had no camera-weight-related issues. Zero. Nada. It just wasn't a factor in my planning or travels. (And the gear was carried on the plane rather than checked to avoid theft.)
Net: I really don't understand all the "mirrorless must equal weightless" comments. I use mirrorless because of the image quality + advanced features that companies like Sony and Fuji have delivered, not because of weight benefits.
For the kinds of major improvements that Sony's A7RII brings (improved autofocus, silent shutter, better high ISO, in-body stabilization, internal 4K) I'd gladly add a few (or more) ounces to my bag. ...Show more →
*Absolutely* agree. The near nonstop whining about weight really makes me wonder about the demographics of the photography hobby. I have seen posts after posts where authors split hairs down to the nearest 10 grams trying to prove something has less weight!! It's absolute madness. Are people really that old, that weak, that unable to carry around a few pounds?
When I travel, I carry around 10 pounds or more of gear. I never try to drop my bag's weight to super low levels. In my bag I have 3 cameras, 2 of them are medium format rangefinders with another SLR. It's not the most efficient gear. If I could start over again I'd get a Mamiya 7 where I can carry lenses instead of multiple bodies. But the weight is not bad at all and I carry it easily, very very easily, all day long on 8+ hour hikes in urban areas as well as up decent size mountains.
I'm nearly 50 and not the strongest guy in the world.
johntruong wrote:
I was stating this in the context of an art class or a group of artists viewing each other's work and discussing it.... not just randomly critiquing others.
A restaurant patron has the right to critique because they paid for the food. You did not pay for my work.
You may express dislike (which is totally fine!), but it has no use to me because I cannot learn from it - I do not see how you view art because I do not have a glimpse of your work or how you see.
Lots of artists have learned from others who have no artistic abilities. The Rolling Stones recorded the album, "Their Satanic Majesties Request" in 1967. The public for the most part hated it. It bombed. The band took note at how badly it was received and then proceeded to record a series of albums that are legendary today.
Weight is not an issue for general travel or dedicated photo trips. It is an issue on mountain hikes where there is no weight budget for photo gear to begin with.
On the other hand a proportion of people go places where cameras would have rarely be taken along before. I have an internal debate every time I am considering going to alps. Both size and weight are crucial then. Suppose it is a rather niche application. But then again in days gone people were more prepared to lug around 30 kg rucksacks, 10 kg is close to max for me!
Thanks Ratty for plunging us right back down the "you care about weight so you must be weak" rabbit hole, just as we were getting to photographic-consilience.
Weight, like all other things, is personal preference.
For instance, I'm willing to bet that I'm far, far stronger than you are-- primarily as a result of age and physical pursuits (former gymnast, current boulderer and backcountry skier). And yet, I care about weight to an extent that depends entirely on all the other factors involved, which means it can't be simplified to "I'm old and not in great shape so all the rest of you must be able to, or be willing to, carry as much as I do!"
For instance, I've been known to trim the seat-post I use on my old, double-butted, Reynolds 531 racing bike... and then attach it to a leather saddle that weighs a figurative ton because I'd like to keep the thing on the lighter side of things, but I LOVE that saddle and I'll take the penalty for it.
I propose we all work on a few really important phrases: "To me..." "For me..." "I can understand way..." "I can see how you would..." etc. It keeps things civil, and it's good for one's own ability to navigate a world where every individual is entitled to at least one, perhaps half a dozen, opinions on any given thing.
rattymouse wrote:
Lots of artists have learned from others who have no artistic abilities. The Rolling Stones recorded the album, "Their Satanic Majesties Request" in 1967. The public for the most part hated it. It bombed. The band took note at how badly it was received and then proceeded to record a series of albums that are legendary today.
I am 41 years old and have been shooting since I was 11, drawing since I was 6 and have been animating movies for 13 years. The people who have influenced me the most artistically were my teachers and peers.
I'm sure the local garbage man could teach me a few things about art, but I'll go with people I admire and respect. Most of my life, I grew up with parents and family who didn't respect art and thought it was easy and anyone could do it. So I am very protective of it.
alundeb wrote:
What used to be the limits of how far something can be pushed without problems has changed, and we don't want to live within the limits of yesterday.
GMPhotography wrote:
My point more is your pushing so hard on the files do you not expect it to fall apart at some point. Folks can process whatever style they want but complaining about after you hit the point of no return is crying wolf. Also it needs to be clearly stated on what your are doing as not to confuse people with less experience in these matters. It really teaches them nothing. I teach workshops and I would clearly make points as to where these limits are going to be. This is misleading people thinking they are going to run into this when they may never get close to the limits. This stuff needs to be in context of of what works, where the points of no return are. All we hear are this stuff sucks with no real explanation as to the heavy pushing going on. That's really not normal for most people to be doing that. But let's be real honest here I'm a expert at raw processing and I never seen a case where pushing the shadows up to 100 percent is even remotely a normally exposed file. I'm sorry but that's misleading as hell. Does this help someone new to the Sony system or wants to purchase them. I'm not so much talking of the poster above he clearly said he is doing something diffrent to his files, good for him and his technique. But all we hear is how crappy this compression is when in fact you really have to go looking for the problem. Not sure that really helps people. Now granted I'm a old time Pro with 40 years experience but I don't post that every 5 minutes either. So my opinion does count and I'm more about the industry and the people that enjoy being in it and educating people to make smart choices. This does not necessarily help them....Show more →
When shoting landscapes, there can be a lot of contrast and dynamic range in areas like the sky. I have seen similar problems without unusual processing. I often wonder if tonal graduations are also getting compressed in Sony's lossy RAW? Sometimes I get unusual color banding (for 14bit RAW) during post processing.
johntruong wrote:
If you don't see it, then your workflow or the way you work does not bring it out. I suspect it is like this for the majority of the people out there.
But just because you don't see it doesn't mean the issue isn't real. The compression artifacts can be quite annoying when you start pushing and pulling the RAW files around.
I shoot professionally and use all the big three: Nikon, Canon, and Sony. I do lots of post work (you can check out my FLICKR), and see these artifacts quite frequently.
I'm not going to go into detail on my personal workflow, but I can duplicate what I see even with DPREVIEW's studio tests. And these are just simple Lightroom edits. Imagine taking a RAW file and really pushing it to its limits on what it can do.
I find it interesting, too - what confuses me here is the zoom/crop area, why is it not the same for each of the full photos on top? For a better 1:1 comparison I would like to see the same crop from each of the above photos for better comaprison. Just a suggestion!
Seriously?? Who knew?