Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sitarro Auto everything, next it will compose it for you. The problem with all of these no think cameras is it opens up photography to everyone that can afford to get a expensive do everything camera and lenses that will get the photo for you. Oh sure you'll say, that isn't all there is to photography. Sorry, when you decide you want to try and do photography for your vocation you are in for a rude awakening. Now, you are competing with every clown that shoots a snapshot and because he did it with a camera that does everything to make it look good, thinks he too is a photographer. It doesn't matter that the composition sucks or that there isn't anything remotely interesting about it. . . .even though it was nothing but a snapshot before, now it really looks good. The color is perfect, the focus is crisp and the exposure is just what they remember..... they are now a photographer as far as they're concerned, one more customer not needing your services. Not possible ? Think again, go ask a typesetter. |
OK Mr. Grumpy Pants. Who peed in your cornflakes?
First, the Auto White Balance on most of these cameras is barely passable and at times, horrible. Setting up a custom white balance, either before the shot or after in the RAW conversion stage, is almost a necessity. I can't speak for D, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't part of his standard workflow.
Second, most of these 'pro-sumer' DSLRs are designed to use short back focus lenses. As such, the mirror and pentaprism are smaller and the viewfinder is correspondingly smaller and darker. On top of that, the focus screen doesn't have any manual focus aids. Well, they do have a matte screen, but it's nearly unusable. In short, it's very difficult to manually focus these DSLRs even after you replace the focus screen with a split-prism aftermarket unit. If it were worth the trouble, I'd do it. As it is, in situations where I have to manual focus, I just eyeball it the best I can. Thankfully that isn't often.
Third, Auto Exposure is for the birds. You still have to either bracket, or view the histogram on each image to see if you've under/overexposed, override the auto exposure, and shoot again. You can get an 'acceptable' image in auto, but not optimum.
I know that D doesn't just run around and use his 'do everything' camera in Auto mode. He isn't using it as a point and shoot. I'm sure he's using either full manual, shutter priority, or aperture priority, depending on the situation. I know I do.
As to the rest of your rant? Oh well. That's progress for you. One could easily say that if you are using commercially produced film, lenses, camera bodies, etc. then you aren't a 'real' photographer. I suppose you shoot on homemade film, on emulsions you created yourself, using equipment you built and designed yourself? No? Didn't think so. :poke:
Either way, I don't see anyone here claiming that they're a professional photographer. At most, we're just practicing photography. Funny that. A person who practices photography is... wait for it... a photographer.
Thankfully you don't have to be a professional to be a photographer.
Oh, and to clarify, are you suggesting that D and I are 'clowns' that just buy expensive equipment and have no real talent? Just one of us? Or was that more of a general, old fart, rant? I'd just like to know if I should be offended.
