Given the processing power that is available today there is no reason why we shouldn't expect that more of this type of work isn't performed in near real-time or at "capture-time" in prosumer or professional bodies.
Are medium format that much better than Canon's offerings? I read about a "real 12 stop dynamic range." That would be about 3 stops better but I've never seen any evidence that's true... just curious.
Schlotkins wrote:
Are medium format that much better than Canon's offerings? I read about a "real 12 stop dynamic range." That would be about 3 stops better but I've never seen any evidence that's true... just curious.
Thanks,
Chris
Is that for medium format film or medium format digital? Which vendor(s)?
Schlotkins wrote:
Are medium format that much better than Canon's offerings? I read about a "real 12 stop dynamic range." That would be about 3 stops better but I've never seen any evidence that's true... just curious.
Thanks,
Chris
Actually, according to many tests, the best Canon DSLRs already have 11+ stops of dynamic range.
ChrisDM wrote:
For the type of work I do, photographing multimillion dollar real estate and landscape prints for gallery display, "quite well" doesn't cut it. I must have proper exposure and color "VERY well" across a range of light and color that far exceeds the capabilities of today's digital SLRs. Here is the finished image from the "before" image I posted earlier. This one is a manual blend of 2 exposures. But I predict that someday soon I won't have to work this hard just to make my photos show what my eyes saw:
I see what you mean. And, indeed, for your usage, the image has to be spot on everywhere.
I predict that when the camera companies quit the megapixel race, they will turn to other areas, hopefully including the dynamic range, in-camera. A solution like Sony's, where the camera actually takes more than one exposure very quickly and then blends in the images into a HDR one.
Unfortunately, at that time the clients stop paying large sums of money to professionals and instead take the images themselves, with their cell phone cameras...
astrolucida wrote:
I predict that when the camera companies quit the megapixel race, they will turn to other areas, hopefully including the dynamic range, in-camera. A solution like Sony's, where the camera actually takes more than one exposure very quickly and then blends in the images into a HDR one.
Unfortunately, at that time the clients stop paying large sums of money to professionals and instead take the images themselves, with their cell phone cameras...
I have the opposite view of emerging technologies in terms of the amatuers taking over their professional imaging needs. And the premise of my opinion is this: Great photographs are not made as a result of great cameras. Great photographs are a result, primarily, of 2 things: light and composition. And great light and great composition are much more difficult to obtain then is the latest camera of the year (who can't click a button on www.bhphoto.com?). And the more that technology overcomes some of photography's technical difficulties (like poor dynamic range), then photographs (and photographers) will be more purely ranked by their ability to find, see and/or direct and capture great light and composition.
I can't count the amatuers I've seen over the last few years here who post mediocre photos, trying to understand why they are still mediocre, even though they were captured with a 5D2 with a 24L lens, tripod mounted mirror lockup blah blah blah. Its because in the end, it really isn't about the camera used. Its about the photographer's vision. And as cameras get better so must the photographer's eye, to differentiate him or herself from the masses. And furthermore, the more that technology enables me to overcome technical difficulties, the more I am able to focus on capturing my unique vision, angles and light that I seek. Which in turn will further differentiate my work from the masses. Bring it on!
astrolucida wrote:
Unfortunately, at that time the clients stop paying large sums of money to professionals and instead take the images themselves, with their cell phone cameras...
I don't think that will happen on a large scale. It didn't with 35 mm film, and there are many, many 35 mm SLR cameras out there (I have 3 or 4 myself, although I'm not strictly a hobbyist/enthusiast). All can/could use the same films and all had decent lenses available. And yet, uncle Ernie didn't often get to shoot the niece's wedding in place of the pro. Granted, the personal darkroom is a lot cheaper and easier now.
It still takes that elusive photographer's eye in many/most cases to get the right shot, taken the right way, at the right moment. Not all have it (I'm still looking for it, though I stumble across it from time to time). Not even all professional photographers have it. Perhaps some to a greater degree than others. But the odds are greater that a pro with a nice portfolio will have that ability as opposed to the typical cousin with the big camera.
ChrisDM wrote:
I have the opposite view of emerging technologies in terms of the amatuers taking over their professional imaging needs. And the premise of my opinion is this: Great photographs are not made as a result of great cameras. Great photographs are a result, primarily, of 2 things: light and composition. And great light and great composition are much more difficult to obtain then is the latest camera of the year (who can't click a button on www.bhphoto.com?). And the more that technology overcomes some of photography's technical difficulties (like poor dynamic range), then photographs (and photographers) will be more purely ranked by their ability to find, see and/or direct and capture great light and composition.
I can't count the amatuers I've seen over the last few years here who post mediocre photos, trying to understand why they are still mediocre, even though they were captured with a 5D2 with a 24L lens, tripod mounted mirror lockup blah blah blah. Its because in the end, it really isn't about the camera used. Its about the photographer's vision. And as cameras get better so must the photographer's eye, to differentiate him or herself from the masses. And furthermore, the more that technology enables me to overcome technical difficulties, the more I am able to focus on capturing my unique vision, angles and light that I seek. Which in turn will further differentiate my work from the masses. Bring it on!
Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com ...Show more →
Very well put, Chris... I'm in total agreement.
The better the tools that we have to work with the more creativity that will come from the photographers who have the talent and the vision to effectively use them.
ChrisDM wrote:
I can't count the amatuers I've seen over the last few years here who post mediocre photos, trying to understand why they are still mediocre, even though they were captured with a 5D2 with a 24L lens, tripod mounted mirror lockup blah blah blah. Its because in the end, it really isn't about the camera used. Its about the photographer's vision. And as cameras get better so must the photographer's eye, to differentiate him or herself from the masses.
I certainly hope you are right! However, I have seen some developments that worry me. Small local papers are already publishing cellphone photos taken by their readers on the front page. It costs them less to pay €100 for the best photo than hire a photographer. Though, these photos are often ones that a professional could not get because they don't happen to be on-site at the right moment. As for composition, light and techniques - even my aunt could take better photos with a throw-away camera.
Also, many other publications save a lot of money by getting the cheapest possible images. I'm really wondering why the appreciation of good images has not already increased among laymen. They see so many average photos that you would assume they are already fed up with them. Or maybe they are just numb having seen too many of them?
What this development basically means that currently 1000 amateurs can compete with one professional on the area of newspaper images. Or actually the one amateur who happens to be in the right place at the right time with his camera. But next time it's a different one. As cameras spread wider, improve and amateurs learn, the threshold for professionals will move higher.
But you are right in that the top photographers will survive, no matter what. The skill requirements, though, will increase all the time.
At the low-end, due to technology advances (cell phone cameras, the Internet, etc.), I believe we are indeed seeing a dilution of skills needed to produce "just-in-time" photojournalism.
More people are in more places at any given moment with just enough technology to capture an event in the absence of a working professional.
However, top-notch professional photojournalism (and other divisions of photography) still require top-notch dedicated photography professionals. And I believe that will mostly never change, regardless of advances in technology.
