Reply With Quote
I think it would be a great example of active, rather than activist, skepticism and very worthwhile doing.Originally Posted by Dr B
As a number of you know, I am learning a new hobby - digital photography (producing scientific grade stimuli for experiments as well as landscape photography). One of the things I have noted is the amount of nonsense and myths out there about DSLR technology. I wondered firstly whether people felt, as a consumer issue, it was worth writing a factsheet or short article about myths etc (i.e., the Megapixel myth where people think the more you have, the better the camera is and the better quality the images will be - not entirely true) to help guide consumers. I know it's not the most pressing issue relative to other issues we address, but nonsense in the market place should be our concern.
So, is it a worthwhile idea, and if so, are there other people out there that would like to help by bringing their own experience to the table so to speak and help write a consumer article?
I spent nearly a year studying the engineering differences between the two market leaders (Canon and Nikon) and have a pretty good understanding of the different philosophies of these companies and related issues. However, I am still a novice and would welcome other people with experience helping out.
I think it would be a great example of active, rather than activist, skepticism and very worthwhile doing.
.
I wish I knew that before I forked out 300 bucks!
To my mind, the common or garden myths require just as much de-bunking at the really extreme ones. In fact everyday practicalities can spread the message of critical thinking very effectively.
When looking at other people's photos what I find interesting is that they rarely use anything like the maximum number of pixels their camera is capable of and, secondly, they often highly compress the images anyway. There are situations when a high number of pixels is useful, such as when it is impossioble to obtain an image of an object big enough to fill the frame. However, most camera users, even of DSLRs, rarely come need this facility.
Couldn't agree more. It's skepticism in action rather than activism (to paraphrase John's comment).
I don't have that much interest in photography, other than looking at others' pictures, but it would be very good to have an objective and myth-free fact sheet, though my main interest would be in the principle itself. Let's have more of this sort of thing!
A whole hearted endorsement on the megapixel myth
I come at it from the point of view of administering network services accross which people are trying to shunt gargantuan image files.
I really wishhere was some intuitive indicator that would give people an immediate idea of comparitive file sizes when they e-mail them. Perhaps the icons could be logarithmically scaled so that a file measure in kilobytes was twice as large as one in bytes, one measured in megabytes three times as large and gigabyte sized files four times as large as the smallest files.
That way it might come as less of a surpise when I ask them which building they wish to project the image onto. The problem I suspect comes from professional photographers who have nothing esle to distinguish themselves from the amateur except the (quality/cost) of their equipment. As such the size of the uncompressed jpg that they deliver is considered a badge of professionalism.
My favourite line is that having 12 megapixels is like having a 12 inch penis: great for boasting to your mates but it's rare you'll ever get to use more than half of them.
Why thank you one and all for the support. I will try and work on this in the background over the coming months. I will post a draft up for comment under the members section at some point and all are welcome to contribute.
It will be an anonymous document - generically attributed to UKS. If you have ideas about dslr photography you want covered then please let us know.
I will respond to individual messages later on......
Add another to the list of supporters. Incidentally, does anyone know of a simple, one-click application to resize images for web use? I currently use photoshop or GIMP, but it's a time-consuming task and possibly beyond the average pc user.
It'd be handy to be able to stick your memory card into the reader and resize all to, say, 12"x8" with a maximum file size of 100k.
Last edited by asthmatic camel; 13th January 2010 at 10:30 PM.
Cheers for that!!!!
I dont know of any website that lets you easily re-size images, but its fairly straight forward in Photoshop. I think Dalriada knows about a few free upload sites, but my hunch is they need to be sized beforehand or they dont have an automatic facility to re-size. However, I am no expert on upload websites.
I use PIXresizer. It's not one-click, but it's very simple (I can use it!). The site is HERE. Hope it helps.
Ouch!!!! Yes, this would be what the article is designed to do - give the consumer some non-too-technical information to help inform. Thanks for the vote of support - please do make some comments on the early drafts when we put them together - your experience would be very helpful
Good points. I personally shoot in RAW for maximum control and information during image development and I always use the largest image size setings. When I convert the image from a photoshop document I tend to favour TIFF over JPEG (for experimental stimuli and landscape images) and am currently experimenting with other formats to see what the visible effects of compression are by this conversion (though I use JPEG for e-mails and to navigate around some of the problems Matt mentions). I would recommend anyone here who uses a DSLR which shoots in RAW to do so, you have paid for the function!
I can lose some pixels if i have to level horizons and re-size or if i decide to re-frame and crop in Photohop - but its only possible to crop from larger to smaller (cant go the other way) so it make sense.
I do know some people who have been semi-pros for years and only shoot JPEGS and do hardly anything in Photoshop for proper image development. The reason? They simply have not taken the time to learn Photoshop and often dont understand what RAW is.
Thanks DrS and yes - lets have more of this sort of thing. Its less work if we all chip away at it - so group hug everyoneCouldn't agree more. It's skepticism in action rather than activism (to paraphrase John's comment).
I don't have that much interest in photography, other than looking at others' pictures, but it would be very good to have an objective and myth-free fact sheet, though my main interest would be in the principle itself. Let's have more of this sort of thing!
Cheers Matt - I must admit it was a surprise when it was explained to me!
You might be onto something there. My hunch is most pros use large formats in case customers want greatly enlarged prints etc, but why they cannot re-format stuff for other applications or distribution is beyond me....That way it might come as less of a surpise when I ask them which building they wish to project the image onto. The problem I suspect comes from professional photographers who have nothing esle to distinguish themselves from the amateur except the (quality/cost) of their equipment. As such the size of the uncompressed jpg that they deliver is considered a badge of professionalism.
What infuriates me is that some people go out and buy a camera for around £1000 and then get cheap £200 lenses and wonder why they get poor sharpness and lots of artefacts. A great deal of the quality of the image is down to the glass as much as the camera. This does separate the pros as lenses are very expensive and they can justify the expense more and afford it. The next one on my personal shopping list is around £1000 (its going to take me two years to save for that!!!!). Anyone want a Kidney? One not-so-careful male owner...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks