Whatever happened to Camera-craft?

;):canon:This is swearing to me LOL:oops: :$:rolleyes: :nikon: now this is language i like or even :beer::beer::beer::beer:who is getting them in now and best of all some offering a :jaffa::ty:
all getting out of context now
 
Kingo9919 said:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, when I say get it right in camera I mean in the principles of photography, like the right exposure being selected instead of taking the shot with the attitude of if its a bit light or dark I can sort it in PS, selecting the right WB instead of sorting it in Ps, getting the framing and composition right instead of oh I can clone that out or well with a few layers I can add that bit I missed in PS
Call me old fashioned but I learned photography the hard way when it could cost you a lot of money for wasted film and prin5ing cost if you got it wrong in the camera :):exit:
Click to expand...
OMG! It's like saying I am the only true driver out there because I used to start my car with a crank handle and repair it three times by the roadside on a trip of 50 miles!!! I don't know any photographers that prefer to "sort it in PS" . It often takes time. Adjusting WB takes all of about 0.5secs. So what? Who cares? Old people are the only 'true' photographers yada yada yada... Congratulations. Camera craft is dead, youngsters and digital aren't real photographers etc. Yawn. Move on. Enjoy what you do, I'll enjoy what I do. Yes, you are much better photographer than me cos you shot or shoot film. Does it really matter? Are your skills/craft better than mine? Maybe, maybe not.
 
Not such a freindly site after all is it?
 
Kingo9919 said:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, when I say get it right in camera I mean in the principles of photography, like the right exposure being selected instead of taking the shot with the attitude of if its a bit light or dark I can sort it in PS, selecting the right WB instead of sorting it in Ps, getting the framing and composition right instead of oh I can clone that out or well with a few layers I can add that bit I missed in PS
Call me old fashioned but I learned photography the hard way when it could cost you a lot of money for wasted film and prin5ing cost if you got it wrong in the camera :):exit:
Click to expand...

Getting the WB right in camera? But WB settings only affect the in-camera JPEG, if you happen to be shooting jpegs. I sometimes shoot paintings for the painter, when it's very important to get white balance right. But I don't fuss with getting it exactly right at the time of shooting. I let the auto WB get it nearly right, which it's good at, just for the convenience of not having a distractingly tinted live view while working off a tripod, and I'll include enough gray card and reference colour samples in the shoot to be able to do a really careful WB back at the computer.

As for getting exposure right at the time, there are some situations, such as landscapes with sun and clouds, where the dynamic range in the view, and how you wish the photographic image to represent it, is so wide that no single exposure can get it right. Some kind of multiple exposure and blending or HDR is necessary. Some like to do the multiple exposure and blending in the camera by using a graduated filter at the time of shooting. That's much easier than blending together two negatives when printing in the darkroom, but if you have the appropriate skills not as easy or as flexible as doing it in computer.

I've carefully said "in the computer" here rather than "post processing", because modern digital cameras have increasingly powerful computers in them. Some of them offer the user the ability to multiple exposure HDR and panorama stitching in camera at the time of shooting, but not quite as good as could be done later in post processing with a bigger more versatile computer.

For those reasons I argue that "getting it right" according to the "principles of photography" means making the best use of the resources avsilable, which sometimes means shooting with a view to getting the best images with which to finish the job later in computer.
 
True
But i did not expect people to take offence over what what really is just my preferance to the way i like to take photographs, i was not saying only old toggers are the best ones, far from, there are a lot of very tallented young photographers out there and i respect them for acheaving what ever they are trying to acheve
:exit:
 
Last edited:
chris malcolm said:
Getting the WB right in camera? But WB settings only affect the in-camera JPEG, if you happen to be shooting jpegs. I sometimes shoot paintings for the painter, when it's very important to get white balance right. But I don't fuss with getting it exactly right at the time of shooting. I let the auto WB get it nearly right, which it's good at, just for the convenience of not having a distractingly tinted live view while working off a tripod, and I'll include enough gray card and reference colour samples in the shoot to be able to do a really careful WB back at the computer.

As for getting exposure right at the time, there are some situations, such as landscapes with sun and clouds, where the dynamic range in the view, and how you wish the photographic image to represent it, is so wide that no single exposure can get it right. Some kind of multiple exposure and blending or HDR is necessary. Some like to do the multiple exposure and blending in the camera by using a graduated filter at the time of shooting. That's much easier than blending together two negatives when printing in the darkroom, but if you have the appropriate skills not as easy or as flexible as doing it in computer.

I've carefully said "in the computer" here rather than "post processing", because modern digital cameras have increasingly powerful computers in them. Some of them offer the user the ability to multiple exposure HDR and panorama stitching in camera at the time of shooting, but not quite as good as could be done later in post processing with a bigger more versatile computer.

For those reasons I argue that "getting it right" according to the "principles of photography" means making the best use of the resources avsilable, which sometimes means shooting with a view to getting the best images with which to finish the job later in computer.
Click to expand...
Now why could i not have said it like this:)
 
Kingo9919 said:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, when I say get it right in camera I mean in the principles of photography, like the right exposure being selected instead of taking the shot with the attitude of if its a bit light or dark I can sort it in PS
Click to expand...

A "bit" dark or light, if you shoot raw will have little detrimental outcome on the finished image these days. Nothing to worry about. If you read anything I've ever posted you'll know I'm a strong advocate for getting everything as right as you can in camera, and being a photographer that shot film most of his professional life, is more than capable of doing so, but this attitude of it must always be BANG on is just not really as big a deal as you're making out.

Kingo9919 said:
, selecting the right WB instead of sorting it in Ps,
Click to expand...

Again, if you shoot in raw, this is utter b******s. There is absolutely NO reason why correcting white balance in Lightroom is a bad thing (other raw editing software is available :)) as it's not fixed in raw. In fact, IT IS BEST PRACTICE to do this in conjunction with a reference shot containing a grey card. How can YOU or indeed ANYONE actually set the correct white balance unless you measure the colour temperature of the light? Do you carry such a meter around with you? No.. so stop talking b******s please.
 
Last edited:
This is realy getting out of hand, it seems that you are takeing my comments to the utter extreams and reading in to what i have said as my meaning that it is all gospal, i do not mean it as gospal it is only a general statement about WB
this is my last post about this
 
What is camera craft .... and ....... what is computer craft?

Digital cameras are computers ..... within reason if you get it wrong technically in camera it can be brought back by computer, by the computer in camera to a lessor extent, and by the computer on your desk to a more powerful extent

Is camera craft therefore only to applicable to composition and subject?

or is processing also part of camera craft?

I mainly shoot Birds and Dragonflies .. I shoot RAW and over 90% of my shots are (need) processed on the computer and the same percentage are cropped

In the days of film I have had the opportunity to adjust areas like shadows/highlights, sharpness, selective colour saturation and other selective adjustments ......... digital is so much better in many areas, IMHO

I would say that my computer-craft is getting better each day, (because of better apps as well as my ability) and is better than my camera-craft which only improves slowly

Technically my images are improving because of better equipment, camera bodies and lens .. is my ability to use these more effectively camera-craft or just practice

Quite simply is your camera-craft is judged by the image that you take .............. or is it judged by the image that you produce?


(@Kingo9919 - Harold don't get upset - we are all idiots;))
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Hearing a camera shutter noise in a public bathroom can never be for anything normal.
Click to expand...

I've been meaning to respond to this sig quote for some time. Back in the days of film I sometimes used to use public bathrooms to switch between rolls of half exposed film of different ISO etc.. On a bright sunny day a toilet was often a good place to find no windows and relatively dim light which improved the security of fumbling around in a portable dark bag. Which often involved the sound of a shutter as one wound past the requisite number of already taken exposures.

So it's not necessarily the case that the sound of a shutter in a public bathroom can't be for anything normal. Unusual, yes of course, but not inappropriate or reprehensible.
 
Kingo9919 said:
This is realy getting out of hand, it seems that you are takeing my comments to the utter extreams and reading in to what i have said as my meaning that it is all gospal, i do not mean it as gospal it is only a general statement about WB
this is my last post about this
Click to expand...

Good... because as a general statement about white balance it's flat wrong. There is nothing clever about setting white balance in camera, as unless you know the exact colour temperature of the lightsource at that exact moment, you're just guessing. Shoot raw, use auto WB and take a reference shot with a grey card and you can get it almost completely accurate every time by setting WB post-shoot by sampling the grey card. As there is zero quality penalty for doing so. Why would anyone do anything else?

Drag yourself into the 21st century please instead of going into a "This is my last post" sulk about it. You're wrong... change your practice instead, and admit you're wrong.
 
Last edited:
I agree with others that getting it as close as possible in the camera is something I usually aim for but for some things there is essentially very little difference if it is done on camera or in Post. In digital anything after the light hits the sensor is essentially post processing, whether you apply white balance in the camera or in via an external computer program you are manipulating the data after the sensor captured it. As others have pointed out this is analogous to making adjustments during printing from film.

There is craft in both.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
OMG! It's like saying I am the only true driver out there because I used to start my car with a crank handle and repair it three times by the roadside on a trip of 50 miles!!! I don't know any photographers that prefer to "sort it in PS" . It often takes time. Adjusting WB takes all of about 0.5secs. So what? Who cares? Old people are the only 'true' photographers yada yada yada... Congratulations. Camera craft is dead, youngsters and digital aren't real photographers etc. Yawn. Move on. Enjoy what you do, I'll enjoy what I do. Yes, you are much better photographer than me cos you shot or shoot film. Does it really matter? Are your skills/craft better than mine? Maybe, maybe not.
Click to expand...

Rich,

You obviously have strong opinions on this sort of thing but why express them in such an such an aggressive fashion? You come across a right ****.
 
Last edited:
Getting it wrong in camera and relying on post processing is nothing new. People do this with film all the time. Under expose, send to local lab to get printed and the machine will compensate.

Whilst it's not standard practice amongst professionals and amateur hobbysists, Joe Public does this all the time and has since photography was invented.

Kodak relied on this with millions of fixed aperture and shutter speed box cameras. Set for correct exposure in average daylight, a bit of over or under exposure was easily compensated for.

No different with digital really - although digital will not cope with blown highlights like film will. No real excuse not to try to get it right in camera though.


Steve.
 
Interesting that this thread has been recuscitated. (I just cannot spell that word!)

It is often said here that photographers "have always" used techniques like merging images, even in film days, and that therefore anything now goes in digital. Since I last got involved in a discussion about digital techniques I've come across an interesting quote. I only did a tiny bit of darkroom work myself but Steve Mulligan in his 2008 book "Understanding Composition - The Complete Photographers Guide" (publ 2008) said this -

"There is a definite art to combining different negatives into the same photograph. The standard method is to use a series of enlargers, each one set up with a different negative. By running the paper through the different enlarger stands and with adroit burning and dodging, some very interesting effects can be achieved. The wonderful and whimsical photographer Jerry Uelsmann .............is the undisputed master of multiple-negative printing........

Most people can't afford several enlargers but the same method can be applied - albeit with more difficulty - with a single enlarger. I have made a few multiple negative prints and by carefully changing the negatives in the carrier, and with a lot of experimentation, some have actually worked. This requires some serious dodging and burning, as well as a ridiculous amount of patience. with practice, however, this technique offers a fun technique to single-negative printing."

And this is for black and white. As mentioned I have no experience myself and maybe it actually is a bit easier than he makes out but since when have photographers "always" gone to such lengths to produce something which can (apparently) be done quite easily, in colour, using PS?
 
chris malcolm said:
I've been meaning to respond to this sig quote for some time. Back in the days of film I sometimes used to use public bathrooms to switch between rolls of half exposed film of different ISO etc.. On a bright sunny day a toilet was often a good place to find no windows and relatively dim light which improved the security of fumbling around in a portable dark bag. Which often involved the sound of a shutter as one wound past the requisite number of already taken exposures.

So it's not necessarily the case that the sound of a shutter in a public bathroom can't be for anything normal. Unusual, yes of course, but not inappropriate or reprehensible.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
Frank Hurley was the photographer on Shackleton's Antarctic expidition where he took some great photographs. He was also a war photographer and was quite happy to add dramatic skies, extra explosions and more smoke to make an image stronger.

If you are not aware of Shackleton's expedition, look it up. They survived against all odds. The book Endurance is well worth reading - and looking at the pictures!


Steve.
 
Pookeyhead said:
In fact, IT IS BEST PRACTICE to do this in conjunction with a reference shot containing a grey card. How can YOU or indeed ANYONE actually set the correct white balance unless you measure the colour temperature of the light?
Click to expand...


If you've a Lowepro backpack, the grey of the interior is allegedly 18%, so can be used to set the white balance ont he camera
 
Steve Smith said:
Frank Hurley was the photographer on Shackleton's Antarctic expidition where he took some great photographs. He was also a war photographer and was quite happy to add dramatic skies, extra explosions and more smoke to make an image stronger.

If you are not aware of Shackleton's expedition, look it up. They survived against all odds. The book Endurance is well worth reading - and looking at the pictures!


Steve.
Click to expand...

I read "The worst journey in the world" but that's something else, I think. Will definitely look into Hurley. I'd heard his images were composites and it would be interesting to know more. The guy was obviously technically a genius and well ahead of his time, Although obviously I don't approve.;)
 
I don't think Hurley's Antarctic images were composites (some of them might have been) but they are quite beautiful in a hostile, frozen wilderness sort of way.

Here is one: https://genevaanderson.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/south-1.jpg

The book Captain Scott by Ranulph Feinnes is very good. He doesn't put so much blame on Scott himself as other authors do.

And if you like adventure, read this true but incredible story: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Desperate-Voyage-John-Caldwell/dp/0924486201


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Good... because as a general statement about white balance it's flat wrong. There is nothing clever about setting white balance in camera, as unless you know the exact colour temperature of the lightsource at that exact moment, you're just guessing. Shoot raw, use auto WB and take a reference shot with a grey card and you can get it almost completely accurate every time by setting WB post-shoot by sampling the grey card. As there is zero quality penalty for doing so. Why would anyone do anything else?

Drag yourself into the 21st century please instead of going into a "This is my last post" sulk about it. You're wrong... change your practice instead, and admit you're wrong.
Click to expand...
I said this is my last post on this, so as not to offend anyone else, i am not sulking i am just moving on to something else to stir things up abit :sneaky::sneaky::sneaky: just kidding please dont hang me
 
Kingo9919 said:
I said this is my last post on this, so as not to offend anyone else, i am not sulking i am just moving on to something else to stir things up abit :sneaky::sneaky::sneaky: just kidding please dont hang me
Click to expand...

Don't worry mate, there's just some people with strong opinions on here who don't know how to moderate their language. It's nothing personal.
 
Kingo9919 said:
Not such a freindly site after all is it?
Click to expand...

Absolutely it is, one of the friendliest forums I visit. I would suggest in future you spend a bit of time reading though a 16 page thread before you just dive straight in, there are people with differing views and some people express themselves in a more forceful manner , it doesn't make them unfriendly.
 
big soft moose said:
it always has been- literally speaking it means painting with light
Click to expand...

'Drawing' with light would be a better translation I think. Monochromatic as the first results were kinda makes sense, I guess :)

I've been snapping for years, had a lot of fun on film as a boy, and, luckily learnt a great deal about basic photography as I was growing up. Recently moved to digital and (due to budget constraints mostly) have been using a lot of manual lenses, mirror lenses and vintage glass to get my results (some of my lenses are older than me!).

I find manual lenses on more modern bodies is a nice bridge between the more satisfying, soulful 'craft' that I miss, and the more modern, needs for full sequence coverage / high FPS that seems popular. I don't feel the 'craft' has gone anywhere though, the beast has just changed his hat.
H.
 
Kingo9919 said:
I said this is my last post on this, so as not to offend anyone else, i am not sulking i am just moving on to something else to stir things up abit :sneaky::sneaky::sneaky: just kidding please dont hang me
Click to expand...
It's a strange attitude, to say something that you know to be confrontational and then feign surprise when you get a result. You've come across like a teenager after his first pint. Picking fights he's not equipped to win and then complaining about the bullies.

You're perfectly entitled to hold ridiculous opinions, but this isn't the place to air them if you're not equipped to defend them.

This is a remarkably friendly forum, in my experience people who have made a handful of posts and then complain that it's not tend to be really well balanced (with a chip on each shoulder) ;)

If you step down off your high horse and you're prepared to understand that there's lots of people who might know nearly as much as you, you'll find this can be a rewarding community.
 
jerry12953 said:
Rich,

You obviously have strong opinions on this sort of thing but why express them in such an such an aggressive fashion? You come across a right ****.
Click to expand...
Aggressive? Really? Wow? To the point maybe, honest as well, but aggressive it certainly wasn't! You should see me when I'm really angry...:)

Oh and notice there that I didn't call anyone names...unlike some I could mention...
 
Classic internet. [emoji106]
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Aggressive? Really? Wow? To the point maybe, honest as well, but aggressive it certainly wasn't! You should see me when I'm really angry...:)

Oh and notice there that I didn't call anyone names...unlike some I could mention...
Click to expand...

Well I've been the recipient of your honest and to the point opinions myself and it is not a pleasant experience...... so I'm not surprised at Kingo9919's reaction. He was quite clearly shocked.

As for being a friendly forum, it generally is. But note my comment above in post no 630.
 
jerry12953 said:
Well I've been the recipient of your honest and to the point opinions myself and it is not a pleasant experience...... so I'm not surprised at Kingo9919's reaction. He was quite clearly shocked.

As for being a friendly forum, it generally is. But note my comment above in post no 630.
Click to expand...
Oh well you must be right then. Sorry if I've hurt your feelings! Stroke, stroke, hug, hug! I'm a pussy cat really...

On a serious note, I just say what I feel. It's not meant to in anyway be aggressive. Forthright, yes. To the point, yes. Never aggressive so apologies if you've felt threatened. Not the intention. Ever.

Oh and a ****? Been called much worse!!!!
 
Byker28i said:
If you've a Lowepro backpack, the grey of the interior is allegedly 18%, so can be used to set the white balance ont he camera
Click to expand...

I do, and it's not. Internet myth I'm afraid.

View attachment 42398

Plus.. it's not the 18% that's important. It's the neutrality of the grey.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
That's good news as I've been using it at times.
Click to expand...


No.. it's not neutral either LOL. Just by looking at it I can tell it has a blue/green cast to the interior of my Lowe Pro. You can even see it in the image above.

Just buy a proper grey card... they're cheap :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Plus.. it's not the 18% that's important. It's the neutrality of the grey.
Click to expand...


Depends what you are using it for. If it's just for a lightmeter reading, the 18% is enough (although a incident reading is easier).

Or palm of your hand and open up one stop. You will always have that with you.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top