![]() The ability to make great images isn't dependent on file formats or fancy cameras. It might be helpful in some cases, but it isn't going to make a mediocre photo any better, and not using it won't make a great photo lousy. You don't need to shoot raw if you are a professional. I hold on to my camera and consider if there's sensor performance that would help me for large prints or not needing to bracket, or significantly better AF tracking for sports with an upgrade. I've always stayed with Canon as I've held on to my original lenses and know the interface very well: and I examine if a new camera might give me an advantage I'll regularly use. I have seen some photographers want to keep buying and switching camera brands because one is supposed to have a better sensor. To get back to my last comments about Ken Rockwell, that's the main issue I've had with his reviews: he goes by his own impressions without getting to know the camera. I do agree that knowing how to use the camera in your hand counts (as well as if you're shooting for RAW, understand about exposure and what your intent is for editing). Professionals are better about knowing what tools they need, and since it's their livelihood, are also willing to invest more in equipment that has higher capabilities. I have given my own experience of situations where I have needed the better low light performance of a dedicated camera sensor, and shooting situations where I want to edit the contrast of an image. I will try to say it again: an iPhone does its own processing, and it doesn't give you the same size image for printing large prints. I have continued to provide examples of why you would need the exposure latitude of RAW, which you have dismissed. Certainly, a professional photographer can compose a better photo on an iPhone compared to someone who doesn't have an eye for photography: but it's also often an inappropriate tool for what they need. He spent much time editing an image in the dark room compared to when he exposed (and he would also note what realized exposure he could get from the negative and what he'd need to do in the dark room). Ansel Adams couldn't have taken his landscape photos on an instant Polaroid or iPhone. If you have all that, you can get professional photographs with any camera from point and shoot on up.Ĭlick to expand.Steiglitz also spent time creating his prints in a darkroom: he did his own editing of the camera's negative exposing the print. Knowing the principles of photography and composition are vital as well. You can work within your camera's parameters. If you've mastered that, you don't need to do corrections. Knowing how to use the camera in your hand is what counts. You don't have to shoot raw to get professional photos, only in specific circumstances where you weren't able to adjust everything properly when you shot it and you need to make corrections. Shooting raw doesn't make photos professional either. If that was the case, all the duffers with $40 grand worth of equipment that use it once a year to shoot the kids opening presents at Christmas are professionals. The equipment doesn't make them a professional. professional photographers use all kinds of equipment. ![]() Steiglitz shot with a "miniature camera" (35mm), Steichen shot Isadora Duncan with a Kodak brownie, street photographers use pocket point and shoots. That effectively allows anything anyone deems to be related to science to be grounds for deletion.Īnd lastly, stating your surprise and disappointment, and wondering if you’ll be banned is itself against the TOS because “ We don't allow discussion of moderation on the forums.” - Head-Fi Moderation FAQ.Īndy Warhol's photos hang in museums and he shot with a Polaroid. If a theme in your post even just implies or leads towards any of these things that’s ground for deletion. This has been explained previously but you just called it all “a total lie”!Īlso, If there’s several such posts/arguments, they’ll delete your posts and lock you out of the thread but they won’t delete the arguments against ABX (unless they’re also insulting).įurthermore, you don’t even have to mention ABX, blind testing, placebo, bias, etc. If your mention of ABX isn’t challenged/argued, nothing at all will happen, if they are challenged, they’ll just delete those posts. Other audiophile communities/websites/publications have effectively done the same thing and long before Head-Fi’s TOS point 5. Not sure how many times this needs repeating? It would even be better for you, because you wouldn’t need to actually admit that you “stand corrected” (or just run away when it’s demonstrated) and you could avoid appearing ignorant. It would be far better for everyone if you actually found out the facts before you start publicly calling others “liars” or “total liars”. Indeed you do, and hardly for the first time! ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |