What problems do User's have with photographic equipment?
Discussion
Thom Hogan's readers tell him.
Nikon centric of course, as it's Thom, but applicable to the others as well and as mentioned.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/...
Long but rather interesting I thought.
Nikon centric of course, as it's Thom, but applicable to the others as well and as mentioned.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/...
Long but rather interesting I thought.
Yeah - I found that really fascinating! Thanks for sharing!
I thought there were a few more of the "problems" that didn't necessarily need fixing. And clearly one or two are all about coming up to the bounds of physics, which makes it interesting.
Gripes around workflow were fascinating too. If you really don't want to invest a little time and learning in getting from A to B, maybe you should either just stick at A, or get a bit of kit for being straight at B and give up the control and creativity you can bring to the story!!
Whatever, it's an article by Thom - which is bound to be interesting. (Thom Hogan has always (it seems) been my bible for Nikkor lenses.)
I thought there were a few more of the "problems" that didn't necessarily need fixing. And clearly one or two are all about coming up to the bounds of physics, which makes it interesting.
Gripes around workflow were fascinating too. If you really don't want to invest a little time and learning in getting from A to B, maybe you should either just stick at A, or get a bit of kit for being straight at B and give up the control and creativity you can bring to the story!!
Whatever, it's an article by Thom - which is bound to be interesting. (Thom Hogan has always (it seems) been my bible for Nikkor lenses.)
I think its the expectation of instant gratification (via instant upload) that may be the defining challenge of current photographic development.
Smartphone cameras are "good enough" for the 2 day image which will hang around for years somewhere but otherwise be instantly forgotten. Samsung, iirc, have an Android camera with smartphone capabilities but it does not seem to have revolutionised the world. Yet.
However when you take the Studio Pro who has to satisfy an on-set art director and provide the facility to just that for "tagging" the shots the client wants you start to walk and interesting plank. The art director then sees the immediacy of smartphone images and also recognises that on-line media is taking over from print. So now the director wants the immediacy - take the files at the end of the day MIGHT be enough but direct updates DURING the day direct from the studio could be even better.
Take a 50Mpx image, instant process to requirements, re-size to 545px wide and bung it on a web site. Job done, off to the wine bar. Totally flexible publishing - shoot everything at the last minute so you never have costs of a project that ends up getting binned.
Of course you can't do this with a DSLR in the wild ... or can you?
Several recent Canons (for example) have Wifi built in. In parallel they have developed Irista - a cloud web storage location with easy upload and it takes RAW files. You can log in via Facebook, etc. As people are familiar with that it makes using the site easier. And you can share from it too.
My guess is that, if it survives, they will add on line editing - the sort of functions favoured by those who mostly use on line media. Enough to allow most people to bypass the Processing step even if shooting RAW files. Maybe the start is that he simply reprocess the RAW file in camera.
At that point the manufacturers will most likely need to start to address some of the points that Thom makes about ease of use and providing an answer to the whole user requirement - which when simplified is to capture an image and share it with other people. Nothing much in between is meaningful but is forces upon us by limitations of technology. (unless, of course, you enjoy all the intermediate steps for some reason. The huge uptake of "whatever I get from the phone plus a "filter" or two is good enough" and the drop in camera sales suggests, perhaps, that most people are not really into the dark areas between take and share.
Smartphone cameras are "good enough" for the 2 day image which will hang around for years somewhere but otherwise be instantly forgotten. Samsung, iirc, have an Android camera with smartphone capabilities but it does not seem to have revolutionised the world. Yet.
However when you take the Studio Pro who has to satisfy an on-set art director and provide the facility to just that for "tagging" the shots the client wants you start to walk and interesting plank. The art director then sees the immediacy of smartphone images and also recognises that on-line media is taking over from print. So now the director wants the immediacy - take the files at the end of the day MIGHT be enough but direct updates DURING the day direct from the studio could be even better.
Take a 50Mpx image, instant process to requirements, re-size to 545px wide and bung it on a web site. Job done, off to the wine bar. Totally flexible publishing - shoot everything at the last minute so you never have costs of a project that ends up getting binned.
Of course you can't do this with a DSLR in the wild ... or can you?
Several recent Canons (for example) have Wifi built in. In parallel they have developed Irista - a cloud web storage location with easy upload and it takes RAW files. You can log in via Facebook, etc. As people are familiar with that it makes using the site easier. And you can share from it too.
My guess is that, if it survives, they will add on line editing - the sort of functions favoured by those who mostly use on line media. Enough to allow most people to bypass the Processing step even if shooting RAW files. Maybe the start is that he simply reprocess the RAW file in camera.
At that point the manufacturers will most likely need to start to address some of the points that Thom makes about ease of use and providing an answer to the whole user requirement - which when simplified is to capture an image and share it with other people. Nothing much in between is meaningful but is forces upon us by limitations of technology. (unless, of course, you enjoy all the intermediate steps for some reason. The huge uptake of "whatever I get from the phone plus a "filter" or two is good enough" and the drop in camera sales suggests, perhaps, that most people are not really into the dark areas between take and share.
RobDickinson said:
most of those seemt to be educational, or limited by current tech.
I think punters have much higher expectations today - certainly than when digital was first available. I'm not sure that the article fully explores this, although of course it does reference Nikon in the days when they apparently dismissed FX format and similar evolutions.If you come in just at the end of the opera or play, the punchline can often seem all to obvious when you don't know the rest of the plot....
We do seem to be in a world where "everyone can take a picture" - but Rob - you probably know better than anyone - your "average" camera-buying public have to acknowledge the learning curve: they can't just magic up the "snaps" you manage even if they're staring at the same piece of scenery!
Yep - the problem is almost always not the camera but the shooter. Cameras thesedays are so damned good but only do what they are told.
I can list a whole bunch of limitations and improvements that would make a real difference (at least to me) and could be done right now. But I can always work around them
I can list a whole bunch of limitations and improvements that would make a real difference (at least to me) and could be done right now. But I can always work around them
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff