On 2014-05-09 14:18, Kostas Papakotas wrote: > OK, Rant mode on…. Noted! Possibly some ranting in my reply as well :-) . > Do you feel that we have focused so hard on digital techno stuff that we > have lost the real object? No, not really. I mean, since well before digital there have been people whose engagement has been primarily with the technical side rather than the artistic. Technical chops are useful for technically difficult subjects or situations, and to give you the ability to implement difficult artistic ideas. They're useful for all sorts of documentary and scientific work, too. And I find the technical side personally interesting (having financed buying my first good camera with my first computer job...). We may have more of the people who get completely lost in tech and don't see anything else than we used to. We've had a huge influx of people to photography with the digital era, and a lot of them have come from the computer business (many of us have had lots of money to play with). > Since I discovered an issue with my pentax underexposing shots I –for > the first time after the purchase- have delved into the technical camera > details. > Somehow I found myself watcghing a video review of the newest Pentax, > but I did not go further than 2.5 minutes of the 17. > And I was astounded for seeing people fighting over forums for the > techno stuff. > I feel strange seeing others worshiping the histogram. > It tells me nothing! I mean I do not need it to tell me that my shots > are underexposed! I can see it in the highlights and in the darks of the > photograph itself! Sure, when I see the final picture on a calibrated monitor in known lighting conditions. Guessing on the back of the camera in the random light wherever I'm standing, I like the precision of the histogram. > And all this “exposing for the right of the histogram” thing? Pretty much exploded, where I hang out. > Or adjusting in CameraRAW to fill the space? > Of course you do! You have started with a bad photo (not properly exposed) Sometimes I've started with a scene that actually has *less* brightness range than my current cameras can render. Now *there's* a problem I never had with film! Sometimes it's beneficial to expand the tones in that case, sometimes it isn't; depending (as always) on the subject and what you're trying to do with it. > Well, you let the smart meter do the job, now you pay with hours of editing. > Didn’t anyone tell you that there are 8 stops between the black and the > white (OK OK that is for the film), and you have to CHOOSE what you will > loose by exposing for what you think is important? Hey, some of the new people are coming to that in only a year or two, which is *so much* faster than most people ever managed it on film! And we get 12 or so stops these days; life is good! > Ok, rant is off….. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info Nikon DSLR photo list: http://d4scussion.com
