# Whither goest us?



## Torus34 (Mar 22, 2015)

[The slow wind-up ... ]

Are you a serious photographer?  Gather round here and put your thinking cap on. 

These days, most folks have cameras as a part of their cell phones.  The quality of the cameras continues to improve with each passing year.  Meanwhile, the point-'n-shoots have evolved to the point where images taken with them aren't distinguishable from those taken with top-o'-the-line DSL's of but a very few years back.

We've lots and lots of folks taking lots and lots of pictures.  The results, as far as exposure and pixel count are concerned, are often of a very high level of quality, surpassing the best we could achieve a decade ago.

We're reaching the point where a print of reasonable size taken with one of the latest DSLR rigs and one taken with a P&S are indistinguishable.  The discussions about gear, many years old, are becoming less and less relevant to the finished product.  [Ed.: There may be a parallel here between the evolution of artist's pigments and brushes to modern standards and the present stage of the digital revolution in cameras.]

[and the fast pitch ... ]

So where does that leave us as 'serious' photographers?

What distinguishes 'our' prints from 'theirs'?


----------



## Designer (Mar 22, 2015)

IMO there will always be a significant difference between a casual snapshot by an untrained photographer and one that is composed with care, lighted with skill, and photographed with correct application of technology.

So even if his cell phone is capable of 56 megapixels, it still won't know where to add light.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 22, 2015)

Buying a D4 or 5DmIII doesn't make you a great photographer.  It makes you a camera owner.

Same reason buying a Viking 8-burner stove doesn't make one a great cook.  Or buying a Ferrari makes one a great driver.


----------



## sandollars (Mar 22, 2015)

Composition and inspiration.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 22, 2015)

I call it Image Impact and I call it Consistency. The serious photographer is able to capture images with greater Image Impact than the casual person with a camera. The serious photographer will be able to capture an image with greater impact much more consistency than the casual person with a camera. The serious photographer strives to see and capture the Exceptional Image.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 22, 2015)

Torus34 said:


> Meanwhile, the point-'n-shoots have evolved to the point where images taken with them aren't distinguishable from those taken with top-o'-the-line DSL's of but a very few years back.


Point and shoots are being replaced by the cameras on phones.  The average Joe and Jane snapshot producer doesn't have a working knowledge or concerns about depth of field, shutter speed, ISO or creative lighting, so those abilities that point and shoots provided to emulate DSLRs were irrelevant to the masses, and most of the people who actually wanted those abilities with a camera went with DSLRs anyway, and maybe had a point and shoot just for the times they didn't feel like taking their "good" gear to the beach or wherever.



Torus34 said:


> The results, as far as exposure and pixel count are concerned, are often of a very high level of quality, surpassing the best we could achieve a decade ago.


Good exposure and pixel count are no doubt good things to have, but they don't turn snapshots and selfies into wall art and portraits.



Torus34 said:


> We're reaching the point where a print of reasonable size taken with one of the latest DSLR rigs and one taken with a P&S are indistinguishable.


Again, the P&S is going away, so it's pretty irrelevant if it's coming close to DSLR quality.



Torus34 said:


> The discussions about gear, many years old, are becoming less and less relevant to the finished product.


THERE'S the nail on the head: "Finished Product".



Torus34 said:


> So where does that leave us as 'serious' photographers?


Lens and sensor sizes matter when dealing with things like depth of field, and a wide variety of choices in shutter speed, aperture and ISO configured in a way for someone to easily make choices from shot to shot with them, rather than dig through menus to change any of them, let alone all of them, are HUGE differences between the cellphone camera technology the masses are using for snapshots and selfies, and the technology that actual photographers need in order to control "finished product".



Torus34 said:


> What distinguishes 'our' prints from 'theirs'?


It's not enough that the prints are sharp, clear and have good color and can be made big.

The "finished product", no matter how big or how clear or how sharp or how color-accurate, is STILL either just a snapshot or selfie, OR it is wall-art, portraiture type work.

It's the same difference that has ALWAYS "distinguished our prints from theirs".  The same difference that has ALWAYS existed between what the masses produce as opposed to what professionals produce.  Today's gear vs. yesteryear's gear makes no discernible difference that I can see.

When the masses start using their cellphone cameras the way professional photographers use their cameras to control all aspects; Fluidly changing ISO, shutter and aperture on the fly as the situation changes; When they're actually studying and savvy on composition, light and shadow, posing and all the rest.  When they're setting up lights and scrims and reflectors and snoots and so on to control the light, THEN I think there will actually be something to discuss about how there's not enough of a difference between "them" and "us" and are thereby threatening "professional photographers".


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 22, 2015)

Many thanks to those who've commented.  Several of you seem to understand what I'm getting at here.

It's basically a difference in composition, the understanding of the effects of light and the choice of subjects that differentiate the serious photographer, whether amateur or commercial, from the pack.  In some specialties such as wedding photography, the ability to pose subjects also makes a huge difference, but that when reduced to basics becomes composition.  [Ed. Hint for newbies taking wedding snapshots: Get the father of the bride and the bride to look into each other's eyes.  Count slowly to 5 and click.]

So far, so good.

Next question: Why are there so few discussions on composition and lighting vs. gear on this site?


----------



## TammyCampbell (Mar 22, 2015)

I believe that Ansel Adams said.." You don't take a photo you make it."
The equipment is secondary to the photographer.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 22, 2015)

Torus34 said:


> Next question: Why are there so few discussions on composition and lighting vs. gear on this site?


Because this site's Google ranking tends to attract a lot of folks who fall into the "noob" or "just got a camera" or "I used to be a serious photographer, but it's been so long that I forgot how and need a refresher (GIANT LOAD OF BS)" categories, who generate more questions about gear than anything else, since they don't know much about anything else yet to even ask about it, and they gotta start somewhere.

Those of us who tend to hang out here and enjoy helping or bantering about this stuff, and are willing to answer the questions posed aren't ourselves usually in need of advice about composition and lighting, so who's left to ask about them and start such conversations?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 22, 2015)

Torus34 said:


> Many thanks to those who've commented.  Several of you seem to understand what I'm getting at here.
> 
> It's basically a difference in composition, the understanding of the effects of light and the choice of subjects that differentiate the serious photographer, whether amateur or commercial, from the pack.  In some specialties such as wedding photography, the ability to pose subjects also makes a huge difference, but that when reduced to basics becomes composition.  [Ed. Hint for newbies taking wedding snapshots: Get the father of the bride and the bride to look into each other's eyes.  Count slowly to 5 and click.]
> 
> ...



Actually, there's tons of discussions about composition, lighting, and gear on the sight.  You just have to look in the right forum sections and at posts looking for critique.  Some of the best discussions stem from someone looking for C&C on their photos.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 22, 2015)

Talking about composition or lighting in the abstract is already done in lots of places in tutorials and books.
What you get on this site is comments about composition and lighting as it applies to specific photos.
As it happens we have the typical pyramid of photographers, weighted towards the relatively inexperienced.

Composition specifically is hard to 'teach' because there is no set of standards that apply to every photo or situation.
Composition is taste and understanding of how viewers' see and process images - and that is difficult to get across, like teaching someone how to mix perfume. What works in some pictures doesn't work in others. If anyone attempts to use established 'rules' then the result is cookie cutter images.


----------



## runnah (Mar 22, 2015)

Torus34 said:


> [The slow wind-up ... ]
> 
> Are you a serious photographer?  Gather round here and put your thinking cap on.
> 
> ...



Idk, I can buy a thing of paint down at the store but I wouldn't be an threat to a serious painter.

Also if a photigrapher is worried about a guy with a cell phone out shooting them, maybe they should step up their game.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 22, 2015)

Composition and its related facets are so vague and ambiguous in the context of the varied skill levels here.

It basically boils down to "Use the rule-of-thirds except when you shouldn't," because the concept of composition is vast and subjective just like the experiences of this forum's userbase.

Most discussions of that nature eventually degrade into shouting matches about whether or not the other person has photography good enough to make them a credible source of information. From the onset, it's a race to the bottom.

Gear is (_generally_) much more cut and dry. Either you like 50 megapixels, or you don't, and nobody can tell you "Hey, you're full of s****."


----------



## Solarflare (Mar 23, 2015)

Torus34 said:


> These days, most folks have cameras as a part of their cell phones.  The quality of the cameras continues to improve with each passing year.  Meanwhile, the point-'n-shoots have evolved to the point where images taken with them aren't distinguishable from those taken with top-o'-the-line DSL's of but a very few years back.


Yeah ... riiight. Also, pigs have started to fly and rivers flow upward. Because the laws of physics no longer apply and what you describe is thus absolutely physically possible. Like - ever.

Small sensor cameras can produce tolerable results thanks to electronic post processing, i.e. trickery, like sharpening. But they cannot fool physics. The details that the small sensor and abysmal, often already diffraction limited optics do not manage to capture are gone, and no post processing will restore them. All the post processing can do is produce an illusion.

What I rather see is a diversion. One group of people thinks like you do. The other group demands higher and higher qualtiy optics, and larger and larger sensors.





TammyCampbell said:


> I believe that Ansel Adams said.." You don't take a photo you make it."
> The equipment is secondary to the photographer.


 And yet Ansel Adams carried around a large format camera for his landscape photography. Guess he wasnt talking about the idea that "gear isnt relevant" there, after all.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 23, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> TammyCampbell said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that Ansel Adams said.." You don't take a photo you make it."
> ...


That's a good point.  He could have carried a simple Brownie.  Instead, he used a pack mule to deal with all the gear he hauled around Yosemite.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 23, 2015)

For me, part of being a serious photographer that sets me apart from those who aren't is my obsession with light. Light is the most important aspect to any photo in my opinion, and while a camera may be able to capture something in high detail, it makes no difference if the photograph is poorly lit.


----------



## TammyCampbell (Mar 23, 2015)

Shrugs...you could have all the equipment in the world but. If you have no eye you have no eye. I'm not a professional I'm relatively new to Dslr. I'm still learning. But I enjoy it. I try to push myself to make a better photo..Made Explore this morning on Flickr..So some people enjoy it anyways.

Sewing kit macro Flickr - Photo Sharing


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 23, 2015)

Adams carried a bunch of gear because, arguably, he was a gearhead. This worked out well for him since the up and coming modernist aesthetic is driven in a large part by a gearhead world view. Ultimate sharpness, total control of the process, etc.

This is not a complete description of either Adams or modernism, of course. But it does pretty well cover the gear.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 23, 2015)

Torus34 said:


> So where does that leave us as 'serious' photographers?
> 
> What distinguishes 'our' prints from 'theirs'?



Awareness, and ability to work with light (as Dan and others have noted).
Perspective and framing (often not shot from eye-level).
Ability to use the equipment's features (blur, depth-of-field, perspective control, focus placement, specialized filters).
Posing, staging, setup of image (preparing the shot).
Timing (the peak or decisive moment).
Control over foreground/background appearance.
Post-processing that brings out the best in the image, without overwhelming it with "tricks".

All of these things distinguish a serious and capable photographer from those who just hold their image-making device and point.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 23, 2015)

Torus34 said:


> [The slow wind-up ... ]
> 
> Are you a serious photographer?  Gather round here and put your thinking cap on.
> 
> ...



You are using ONLY camera phones for your question, therefore, I will do the same.

Is there a phone camera which can work in RAW format?   To my knowledge, the answer is still, "No, there is not".   Do phone cameras use a great deal of Jpeg processing to achieve their image results.  Yes, undoubtedly so and in ever increasing amounts of processing in the device.  Does the camera phone user have significant control over the Jpeg processing in a camera phone?  Very little if any in most cases.  While camera phones are increasing in various specified technical capacities, those technical merits ignore the most significant issue of all.  In any in camera processing system, the electronic circuits of the system are doing a significant amount of the work of constructing the final image data package.   They are doing so by applying carefully constructed algorithms which tell the designer what to leave out and what to put in to cover their tracks going away.  They use Jpeg processing.  Using what I feel is very basic logic then, a camera phone has nothing to do with a painter and their brushes and pigments and far more to do with a paint by numbers pre-planned recipe, a rather highly restricted palette in terms of color and dynamic range, "kit" image. 

Possibly worst of all, those same algorithms operate identically on all data packages to produce very similarly pre-planned and exactly identically constructed results.  Since these circuits apply identical algorithms to each and every data package, it is not unfair to say the image to image results of those circuits are always going to be based on identical applications of mathematics.  What if suddenly someone were to tell the world's greatest photographers their work and efforts, skills and talents will turn out results which dictate your eight year old's snapshot of great granny will look very similar to their patiently acquired images of the Acropolis?  What if the architects of the world's greatest monuments had worked with nearly identical sets of mathematics to only achieve nearly identical results from design to design and from century to century?  My!  what a boring world that would be!!!

For example, my neighbor simply hasn't invested the time nor effort to learn even the basics of cooking.  At a holiday meal she will buy prepared foods which she can then scoop into a bowl or reheat in an oven.  She doesn't call herself a cook by any means.  Her results depend almost entirely on where she shops and what she buys as a prepared item.  Smartphone cameras are nearly identical in their preparation of the resulting image.  The only real world difference, since all these devices work using identical processing systems and a very small selection of sensors and lenses, is the name on the package.  The question then becomes, not can you detect the difference between a smartphone image and the image turned out by a DSLR in competent hands but rather one of, can you detect the variances between 1,000 smartphone camera all using the same down to the least significant bit data packaging formats?   There, I would say, you cannot - by design.

More specifically to the apples to apples example, is a low bit rate MP3 a true representation of the live music source?  Clearly, as MP3 and Jpeg are both lossy format systems, they are not in the most important ways representative of the source.  Both systems discard "lower value" data for greater storage amounts.   It is a quantitative measurement and not a qualitative  reality.  Ask any audio forum or working engineer about the quality of MP3's as a source for a high end audio system and you will - or at least should - be told MP3's are fine for their intended very low fidelity playback devices.  That device is a low to extremely low-fidelity portable or car system used where quality of playback is minimally important.  However, if you use MP3's as your source in a higher quality music system or even if you are simply an attentive listener, MP3's lossy format will quickly show the holes and gaps which existed in the constructed/reconstructed concept of the original source.  If your only priority for music is that it becomes ubiquitously available, then MP3's were invented exactly for that use.  Smartphone cameras may take five steps backward and join the line on the right.  One brief exposure to a mid-fi system should have you scratching your head about the value of a MP3 as your storage format.  An hour spent with a truly high fidelity reproduction system an you will resist going backwards in quality to your MP3 portable system.  Timbral accuracy, tonal palettes, pacing and timing, inner voicings and thoughtful communication between artists and audience are the domain of high fidelity.  Three dimensional images holographically projected onto a virtual soundstage are only available through the highest fidelity to the source.   As a society, we seem to have grown out of the concept even of striving for and consistently bettering ourselves at "high fidelity" anything.  Along with not knowing by heart the first stanza of "The Star Bangled Banner', we have lost our desire to truly know the artistic great works of the past and the future.

Any time you begin to compare lossy digital formats you are saying you are willing to accept the errors and distortions of low fidelity systems.  While most would need to listen to an MP3 rather carefully on a portable system to detect its most significant issues, on the more faithful to the source system you can easily perceive the aliasing errors, time and acoustic phase shifts, and the very obviously truncated details and range of the live music source.   Just as Jpeg smooths off the edges of images, so too does MP3 smooth over the broadly spaced sample bit to sample bit gaps which exist in lossy formats.
*
Most importantly, lossy storage formats represent everything which is a failure of digital processing in general.  It is enough to say lossy formats discard data for greater storage space.  It is all the more important to understand there is no going back from a lossy format.*  What a lossy format provides us today, it will be 1,000 years from now.  While you can downconvert a WAV lossless data package to a smaller MP3 quality format, you cannot upsample the remaining data that as been discarded in order to retrieve the original WAV format.  It would be like asking someone to work a crossword puzzle when all of the "DOWN" clues have been ripped away.  *Once data has been discarded, it has been discarded forever and the low fidelity data is now all that you are left with.  *

Think about that!  Once you toss out the moment to moment movement of a great work of art, whether it be a classic symphony or a "re-master" of a '20's vocalist, you have said goodbye to that data forever with a lossy format.  The same holds true of a Jpeg imaging data package.  Once the circuits have applied their algorithms to a data package and applied the "corrected" data created through "error corrections" systems, that is all you will ever have to work with going forward.  Just as MP3's lossy systems discard relevant data such as the micro-second timing of a great artist, so too will Jpeg's lossy systems toss out the seemingly insignificant bits which create the entire data package.  And they will never be returned to their original state.  Just as an MP3 looses dynamic range and applies increasing amounts of compression in its place, so too does the Jpeg format forever compress data into smaller and smaller, more incomplete data packages for the sake of storage capacity.  In both cases, once the data is gone, it remains gone permanently. 

We can discuss the photographer's eye and their compositional skills or their inner dialogues which go into capturing the image they see in their head.  We cannot though say a lossy format used as the tool to forge those ideas into reality is ever the correct tool for the job.  It would be like a sculptor working only with a mallet.  An illustrator working only with an eraser.  A great chef working only with Chef Boy-ar-dee.

IMO that is the most significant response to this on going issue of what is the difference between a smartphone camera's results and a DSLR's results. We can dance around the issues of lenses and bodies and technical finesse which comes with a DSLR.  IMO though, all that is equally wasted if the working and storage formats immediately discard what was there and substitute mathematically derived substitutes which never existed outside of an electronic circuit and will never be more than a signal series of on's and off's in an electrical circuit.  I would guess the camera phone industry has more important fish to fry in terms of sales and buzzwords before some brave soul creates a smartphone the size of a small loaf of bread in which RAW formatting could occur.   The uninformed buyer and user of a smartphone camera will be taken more by the sizzle of even more real worldly unimportant specs before the ability to truly and accurately recreate a source image in a bundle of data points even begins to create a very small yet very easily noticed blip on the radar screen of the average camera phone user. 

The rest, IMO, is blah-blah-blah when we are always discussing low fidelity systems which ignore the reality of the source.   It is an on going debate between the DSLR crowd who wish to see themself as technical master craftsmen and women and the dumbed down populace who have never been encouraged to attend a symphony performance or view the Grand Canyon and realize you could stand at its edge for months and even years and still never capture all that it has to offer the truly perceptive viewer.  In a world where photography is all the more common, a postage stamp sized image of the Grand Canyon will suffice for most.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 23, 2015)

What separates me from the average person in photography is the fact that I have a Hasselblad. That makes me such a pro that even Ansel Adams would be like "Sh*t dawg, u got mad wicked skillz man. Yo hizzle fo shizzle." And we all know film makes you an instant hardcore pro too, so I'm like the ultimate photographer ever. Suck it Peter Lik.


----------



## TammyCampbell (Mar 23, 2015)

Don't get me wrong technique and Equipment  is very important .Great equipment is wonderful if you have it and can. Technicians can do wonderful work. But to me taking great photos with inferior equipment must take some skill. We all have to work with what we have ..and everyone has a different learning process too. Thank goodness. Or we would all create the same photo. I've had to make pasta magnifico with Rague before. I like to Macgyver my way around things sometimes..rule breaker. Part of the fun.
Maybe I'm missing your point though... Not the first time...or the last.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 23, 2015)

To me what separates the casual shooter from the hobbyist from the professional is this:

Casual shooters just want a picture. They don't compose the image, they just see something and take the picture. Their photography is thoughtless and it shows. 

Hobbyists take pictures when the conditions work for them. When things start going wrong they don't know how to fix it and don't have to fix it, they have the luxury of just walking away. 

Professionals have to get the shot no matter what. They're problem solvers. Their gear isn't necessarily better than a hobbyist and their "knowledge" isn't much past a very good hobbyist either. But the difference is the professional has been in the situation enough that they can calmly solve the problem.   Being a professional is mostly about getting the work done. It doesn't matter how great your gear is, coordinating a wedding or a team shoot for a 100 person football team takes certain skills that casual shooters and even advanced hobbyists just don't have. Mostly due to lack of experience. 

In all paid photography involving people I've always felt that what sets the pros apart is how they manage their session moreso than any sort of innate talent. 

When things get tough a pro will give you the best shot possible under the conditions. A hobbyist, when things start going sideways, will give you reasons why it didn't work. A casual shooter never even took it on.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 23, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> Torus34 said:
> 
> 
> > These days, most folks have cameras as a part of their cell phones.  The quality of the cameras continues to improve with each passing year.  Meanwhile, the point-'n-shoots have evolved to the point where images taken with them aren't distinguishable from those taken with top-o'-the-line DSL's of but a very few years back.
> ...


Nobody but photographers obsessed with gear are demanding higher and higher resolution images. If that was the case people who own phase ones would be getting 100% of the work. Zack Arias owns a phase. You know what he shot a campaign for Land Rover with? A Fuji XT1 crop frame camera. 

New technology is great, I'm all for it. But Jay Maisel with a camera phone can outshoot an idiot with a medium format digital and it won't even be close.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 23, 2015)

soufiej said:


> Torus34 said:
> 
> 
> > [The slow wind-up ... ]
> ...



There are so many factually incorrect things here that I don't even know where to begin.  And I even sorta agree with the direction you lean, but your facts are just all out of sorts.  Everything from how JPEG, MP3 and RAW works to the programs available to do camera phone photography is outright incorrect.

edit: you do realize that you can't view a raw formatted file, right?


----------



## TammyCampbell (Mar 23, 2015)

I felt last weekend the pressure of kind of being the photog of our hiking group last weekend. Light wasn't great ,  and couldn't haul a ton of gear to keep up with everyone. But I made what I could out of it. I wasn't paid mind you but call it personal pride. To give the best I could. I didn't do things perfect.. I had forgotten that my ISO was set for conditions of the Aurora the other night. Otherwise it would have been set for 100 . I guess that's the old hobbiest giving an excuse there. But I'll chalk it up to experience and next time will be better for sure. 
DSC 6888.jpg Flickr - Photo Sharing 
DSC 6886.jpg Flickr - Photo Sharing 
DSC 6870.jpg Flickr - Photo Sharing 
Ash cave falls Flickr - Photo Sharing 
DSC 6622.jpg Flickr - Photo Sharing 
DSC 6873.jpg Flickr - Photo Sharing


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 23, 2015)

TammyCampbell said:


> I felt last weekend the pressure of kind of being the photog of our hiking group last weekend. Light wasn't great ,  and couldn't haul a ton of gear to keep up with everyone. But I made what I could out of it. I wasn't paid mind you but call it personal pride. To give the best I could. I didn't do things perfect.. I had forgotten that my ISO was set for conditions of the Aurora the other night. Otherwise it would have been set for 100 . I guess that's the old hobbiest giving an excuse there. But I'll chalk it up to experience and next time will be better for sure.
> DSC 6888.jpg Flickr - Photo Sharing
> DSC 6886.jpg Flickr - Photo Sharing
> DSC 6870.jpg Flickr - Photo Sharing
> ...


I also didn't mean "hobbyist" in the pejorative sense.  There's nothing wrong with being a hobbyist, it's just a different set of demands.  And it's a different level and pressure of experience.  I think if anything, many hobbyist are much more "skilled" than professionals.  But a professional is just smoother under pressure, and has systems in place, developed through years of trial and error, that keep mistakes from happening.  

Professionals don't really produce better images than hobbyists.  But professionals get the job done, always.


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 23, 2015)

All sorts of great ideas being booted around here.  I'm surprised my OP elicited such response.

One thing stood out for me: the difficulty of teaching composition.  Even talking about it beyond the critique of a specific image* is difficult.  Absent the 'rule of thirds', it doesn't yield readily to simple mathematical formulae.  Yet, those who are savvy to the whispers of the Muses know, almost instinctively, the difference between good and bad composition.  Many of us know the contentment of cropping an image just so, and knowing that it's as 'right' as we can make it.

And composition, I think we agree, is one of the prime criteria to separate the photographer from the snap-shooter.

I remember the statement of an art teacher specializing in painting.  He said, roughly, 'Give me someone with a modicum of ability and in 10 years I can give him the technique of a master.  But what's he going to do with it?"

* Thank you, Pixmedic and The_traveler, for noting the individual photo critiques which take place here.  Many of them are most certainly are concerned with composition.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 23, 2015)

I consider myself a serious photographer, yes. Currently, I shoot for a living, so I consider myself a professional as well. Do I have room to grow? Always. I expect that's how it will always be. I'm constantly caught in a rut of trying to develop more of my own style and telling myself "hey, that's a nice shot, but it wasn't your best." 

For me it's all about the light. I can't afford top-notch gear, so I make what I can with what I have. When it comes to landscapes, it's about what I see, and trying to communicate that to people. Trying to communicate this beautiful moment that only I, and no one else ever, will see. It's my willingness to go all the way for a photo that I think sets me apart. I am not a creative genius, but I am willing to hang off a cliff and do my best if it means bringing people that moment. I just happen to have enough ability that I can capture those moments well enough to justify the risk. 

If it isn't about the interface of subject and light, I'm not interested in it.


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 23, 2015)

@Austin:  Bravo!!  Well said.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 23, 2015)

Well my prints are made in my darkroom, i got fed up of the digital bullshit


----------



## soufiej (Mar 23, 2015)

If there is so much wrong you don't know where to begin, please, begin somewhere.

Jpeg and MP3 are both lossy digital formats designed for maximum storage space and not high fidelity to the recorded source.  Lossy formats mean data points are discarded.  Many data points since digital itself is less than a full waveform storage media.  Discarded data cannot be retrieved to more accurately reconstruct the actual live event when a lossy format is employed.  The algorithms are making corrections in either format, Mpeg or Jpeg,  which are very consistently identical for each data package.  The same processing of data tends to give the same results within the boundaries of the lossy format.  Future generations are unable to see or hear what actually took place when all they have to work with are lossy formats.  We as a society are accepting the dumbing down of  media. 

You can't view a RAW file?  You can't listen to a WAV file either.  You must rely on the processing algorithms which reconstruct the digital data into an analog output in either case.  I think I'm missing your point as much as you have missed my own.  This isn't a discussion about the quality of digital media, it is a matter of whether we are going to strive for the most accurate data reconstruction available or settle for lots of data but very low fidelity quality.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 23, 2015)

soufiej said:


> Is there a phone camera which can work in RAW format?   To my knowledge, the answer is still, "No, there is not"


How Android 5.0 lets you get raw for better photos - CNET


----------



## runnah (Mar 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a phone camera which can work in RAW format?   To my knowledge, the answer is still, "No, there is not"
> ...



Thank god! My mirror selfies where certainly lacking quality.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 23, 2015)

soufiej said:


> If there is so much wrong you don't know where to begin, please, begin somewhere.
> 
> Jpeg and MP3 are both lossy digital formats designed for maximum storage space and not high fidelity to the recorded source.  Lossy formats mean data points are discarded.  Many data points since digital itself is less than a full waveform storage media.  Discarded data cannot be retrieved to more accurately reconstruct the actual live event when a lossy format is employed.  The algorithms are making corrections in either format, Mpeg or Jpeg,  which are very consistently identical for each data package.  The same processing of data tends to give the same results within the boundaries of the lossy format.  Future generations are unable to see or hear what actually took place when all they have to work with are lossy formats.  We as a society are accepting the dumbing down of  media.
> 
> You can't view a RAW file?  You can't listen to a WAV file either.  You must rely on the processing algorithms which reconstruct the digital data into an analog output in either case.  I think I'm missing your point as much as you have missed my own.  This isn't a discussion about the quality of digital media, it is a matter of whether we are going to strive for the most accurate data reconstruction available or settle for lots of data but very low fidelity quality.


No, you're not getting it. RAW files aren't even pictures, they're essentially just a recording of sensor data. They have to be converted to another format. A RAW file is  digital negative, a JPEG is a digital image, one is viewable and the other is not.  You can't view a raw image, no matter what program you use, it *has* to be converted. RAW files, for example, don't record a white balanced image.  A raw file would literally have no color. RAW files also capture dynamic range that is higher than can be displayed. They also capture UV wavelengths. They capture everything the sensor records. When you open up a raw file in your post program you're looking at a JPEG that your converter generated. RAW is not a displayable format.  JPEG, on the other hand is a positive digital image and can be viewed without conversion as long as you have a display. It's like you're comparing a negative to a print when you compare raw to JPEG.

You also confused data compression in MP3s with dynamic compression in audio terms, which aren't the same things.  MP3 in no way compresses audio in dynamics. 

also: "Three dimensional images holographically projected onto a virtual soundstage are only available through the highest fidelity to the source." is complete bunk.  You can absolutely play a binaural recording in mp3 just as you can with a wav. To the extent soundstage is real it's just as apparent in high bitrate mp3 as it is in wav.  I own a pair of Sennheiser HD650s, I used to own a pair of Stax.  I was a sound guy for James Brown.  I know lots of engineers and none of them will agree with the assertions you made about mp3.  They think audiophiles are people who just hate money and give it to people who make gold cables for no reason. 

Further, to the extent that you can tell the difference from mp3 and lossless, the difference actually is more apparent on low fidelity sound equipment, this is sort of complicated, it has to do with how human hearing work and how bad sound equipment actually makes the mp3 encoding algorithms cease to work, but you can go over on head-fi and ask any of the people who really know what they're talking about if you want (jude mansilla, for example). 

Have you ever tried to blind differentiate between 320kbps mp3 and wav?  To my knowledge no study with sufficient sample size has EVER found that humans can differentiate between 320 kbps mp3 and wav (or any other format for that matter).

Now yes, lossless has its place, for archival purposes.  I totally agree there.  What I was saying originally is that I wanted to agree with you, but almost all of your factual assertions you used for support were incorrect, you believed the right things for the wrong reasons. 

Where I will disagree is that we need lossless format for viewing.  JPEG fine holds more information than a screen or printer can display and higher definition than the human eye can discern anyway.  320 kbps mp3 is better than humans ability to hear.  If you need an archival record, great, use lossless.  If you just want to look at pictures or listen to music, JPEG and MP3 of sufficient quality are fine.

This has gotten way down into minutiae, but you asked.


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 24, 2015)

@soufiej:

Hi!

You've posted in detail on the different methods of recording photographic digital data.  It's true that some of the current methods are 'lossy' -- not all of the data in the original scan of the sensor is retained.  It has a parallel of sorts in digital vs. analog methods of recording music.  There are some who swear by tape and vinyl on grounds similar to your interest in RAW files.  And this pocm* finds absolutely nothing wrong with seeking the best methodology.

Translated into film photography, this would cause us to strive for the finest grain film and developers and large-format rigs.  And it has, btw.  I still reach for my 120 tlr for certain types of photographs though most often I tote a 35mm.

We shouldn't, though, lose sight of the many absolutely stunning works of photography accomplished with gear that by today's standards wouldn't even rate a disdainful sniff from the technologically savvy.  Good prints, as opposed to snapshots, should say something more than "I am the most accurate representation of the original scene possible with today's technology."  This is nicely embodied in the goal of the portraitist: to create an image which is "more than just a likeness."  It remains possible to make great prints today with equipment that's far from optimal.

Hope this didn't read like a lecture.

Regards.

*Poor old country mouse.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 24, 2015)

Buckster, thanks for answering my question.  As I said in my post, to my knowledge, RAW had not been available from a phone camera.   I am not someone who follows the smartphone market though.  IMO when phone cameras can operate in RAW format, there is one more chink in the armor of DSLR's to be considered.  We will then get down to the minutea of how a "photographer" thinks rather than how the camera operates when these perennial issues of which is which come up.   Those arguments will become far more difficult to sustain in the future IMO.

*

fjrabon wrote: "This has gotten way down into minutiae, but you asked."

And I still disagree with your assertions.  This sort of discussion however can easily tip into the objectivist (numbers tell me all I need to know) camps and the subjectivist (my ears inform what I understand from the numbers) camps of audio. 

Saying, (to your knowledge)  "no study with sufficient sample size has EVER found that humans can differentiate between 320 kbps mp3 and wav (or any other format for that matter)", is an objectivist dog whistle.  First, yes, people can and do differentiate between low bit rate and high bit rate music files.  The existence of higher than 16 bit files says many, many people can hear the difference and will pay for that difference.  The record labels themself have been producing these "better than CD quality" recordings almost since the dawn of digital recordings back in the 1970's when listener's complained about their "Digitally Mastered" LP's sounding harsh and non-musical.  The swing to upsampled formats as high as 192-196kHz file size say this has been common knowledge since the turn of this century.  24 bit files are the "hot" items for downloads and more and more external DAC's are being produced to handle these and DSD (Super Audio CD) mastered files.  We'll see whether Neil Young's new "audiophile" portable player has any impact on the market but certainly its development into a real world product suggests there are people who can perceive improvements in sound quality and musical values when higher than 320kbps files are in place.  

No, the objectivist crowd doesn't care to simply listen as a subjectivist listens.  Objectivists throw out numbers which tell them all they need to know and that's the end of their discussion and their thought process.  Then they say things like "no one can detect the difference between ... " any number of values and components and expect people to just accept their BS.  But people do detect differences.  And they are bothered by the lack of reality - the literal gaps in information - which exist in archived files.  This is a "I know what I know and I don't need your facts to know you're wrong" type of argument on your part.  Who you worked for or who you think agrees with you is a simple argument from authority that doesn't hold water.  I've worked in high end audio on both the consumer and professional side for over thirty years and I can name more than a few subjective listeners in professional audio and design who whole hearted disagree with you.  I've fought the battles on the audio forums with those who hear the name of these subjectivist writers and immediately dismiss the facts due to the name.   You are perfectly free to believe what you care to believe,  I'm not here to do battle on this forum.  However, ...

Mpeg and Jpeg are lossy formats.  Fact.  Data is discarded in favor of file size.  Fact.  Those are plain and simple facts which are verified by any quick search for the format concepts.  Lossy file formats are not preferred for viewing or listening when musical/image qualities are the goal.  If you are listening through headphones and wanting to tell me about holographic imaging, I would say you literally need to take the blinders off your ears and listen through a pair of Wilson speakers to perceive holographic imaging no headset can duplicate. 

Take a quick poll of those photographers on this forum if you think I'm wrong.  How many photographers here would archive their photos only in Jpeg format?  How many would show their images in Jpeg for more than, say, social media use?  My guess is very few to none.  Would you say, "To my knowledge no study with sufficient sample size has EVER found that humans can differentiate between 
Jpeg and RAW format files"?  I doubt it since you would be jumped on like a goose on a June bug if you suggested such on this forum.  

If that were not a fact, why then do the camera reviews indicate the obvious differences between the Jpeg and the RAW formatting of a camera?  Surely there must be more of a reason than they simply need to fill pages with inconsequential drivel which matters to no one.     

Well, let's try that.  Anyone here actually show your photos in Jpeg format for your best efforts?  Who here has portfolios full of JPeg shots?  

The point I'm making, which you are dancing around, remains, Jpeg, Mpeg or any lossy format are not suitable for archival purposes.  Data is lost in a lossy file format.  Fact.  Data package size is compressed.  Fact.  That's simply logical and factually correct.   If you feel Mpeg doesn't compress dynamic range, you are thinking very narrowly. Given the basic fact sample rates are lower and the reconstruction algorithms must interpolate more broadly between data points, where Mpeg shows one of its greatest weaknesses is in the micro-dynamic range.  Now I will tell you to ask any musician, what provides one player their style versus another player reading the same sheet music?  Given the same notes and chord progressions and the same time signature and tempo, one musician's style differs greatly in the micro-dynamic shadings they place on each note.  The subtle inflections and hesitations, the holding of a note or the way a single note is bent and released are major contributors to any one musician's "style".  Mpeg's lossy compression does away with those "micro-momentary" differentiations.  The algorithms which compress and then read and reconstruct the data points cannot possibly contain those smaller timing differences, the smallest dynamic range differences, when they are simply tossed out during the process of conversion to a lossy file format.   This is where anyone listening to a Mpeg file who is familiar with the workings of a live musical event will say  compressed files for the sake of file size are not adequate.  We can debate whether the WAV format, which was grown out of virtual whole cloth from Nyquist's 1930's theories on digital systems, can even contain sufficient data to adequately convey these dynamic shadings.  Many who favor higher  than CD sampling rates and larger bit files would say they are not since Nyquist had only on paper theories available to support his math.  22kHz brick wall filters, anyone?  But since the dawn of CD's in the early 1980's there have been extensive efforts made to provide "better than CD quality" digital recording systems just simply because people do hear an improvement when files sizes are larger and more densely packed.  When more samples are available to be read and sample rates are raised to move the artifacts of the system farther away from the musical content.   Upsampling minimizes the phase and time errors of CD quality files which are of significantly improved quality over any lossy Mpeg file system.  FACT!

The same holds true for Jpeg formatting in photography.  Jpeg by design discards information in the least significant bit range.  It, like Mpeg, covers up and smooths over the least important data points according to the algorithms which support the compression system.  In Mpeg, if a tuba and a horn are playing loudly, a violin and a piccolo playing softly are considered insignificant data points and they are minimized if not fully discarded.  This is all based on studies of how humans hear and applied to all humans everywhere regardless.  We can even argue about blind testing if you'd like, I'm against it.  It's the same situation as we see in these endless discussions of "which picture looks better?"  In normal real world conditions, people do not listen or look with the question in their mind, is this better or worse than something else?   Once you change how someone sees and hears, you change the results of what they see and hear.   

Mpeg exists simply to allow more storage capacity, not for quality purposes.  Fact.   Jpeg does similar compression of data in the least significant bits of data for an image.  Shadow details are discarded along with smaller bits of detail/highlights which give us the whole image rather than a cartoon like formatted image.  The uniformity of both  Mpeg and Jpeg from file to file is the result of the algorithms dictating the result.  Like shooting in full auto mode or recording to a cassette tape.  The more aware the user is to the deficiencies of the format, the less likely they are to use that format.  Fact.  How many albums do you own which were mastered on a cassette?  

We may end up simply disagreeing on this issue since we seem to be coming at this from different viewpoints which we both feel are valid.

Therefore, I'll simply ask you a few brief questions.  

Do you shoot in RAW?  If so, why?  Do you know a professional photographer who doesn't work with RAW files when they are showing their best efforts?

What, in your opinion, is the real world value of a lossy file format such as Jpeg?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 24, 2015)

the "real world value of a lossy file format such as Jpeg" is simple.
web viewing on social media sites.
(or, for that matter, uploading to any site that has file size restrictions...like, oh i dunno...TPF for instance...where you cant upload a 30mb file.)
small format prints.
viewing on phones or tablets.
emailing or texting pictures.
proofing sets.

there's probably more...but its early and i haven't had enough caffeine yet to think of any.

OH, and yes.. i know a real professional that shoots jpeg. 
Imagemaker46 (scott) who has been doing sports photography for many many many years, at many prestigious venues....shoots jpeg.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 24, 2015)

Torus34 said:


> @soufiej:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> ...




Since my interests in audio and music reproduction go back well into the 1960's, I have made a few guidelines for myself over the years.  "Priorities", if you will.  Actually, if I get into a discussion with someone who favors strict "accuracy" in audio reproduction, I'm generally not in favor of such an approach.  Only though, on the grounds that accuracy is in the eyes and ears of the beholder.  What I find to be accurate musically is unlikely to be exactly what you or another might think to be accurate.  I listen to 78's and I am in awe of the sheer reality of all performers playing together, listening to one another together, playing off the lead of one or more players to create a once and only once performance.  Like photography IMO, the event has been captured and that is what is most important to me.

In high end audio, a benchmark for "high fidelity" to the live source has long been the Mercury Living Presence series.   Recorded in the mid to late '50's and into the early '60's, these were meticulously crafted recordings using, for a full symphony orchestra, only three microphones.   The performers played as if they were in front of a live audience.  If a mistake was made, the recording was stopped and the performers began again from the top.  The old tape was discarded for fear of bleed though so no record exists of what occurred prior to the stopping of the recording.  Played as if they were in front of a live audience, there are no splices, no edits, no over dubs and no gain riding of levels to spotlight any one musician in these recordings.  Hall ambience was abundant and vibrant without overwhelming the direct sounds coming from the stage.  Listening to these recordings on a "high fidelity" playback system from any era can cause what one magazine writer termed "the goosebump effect".

The concept of music reproduction eliciting goosebumps has largely gone out of favor with the magazines and the designers/manufacturers of today's high end audio gear.  A few still find their reality in the music, many do not.  They want accurate equipment first, music second.  New comers to audio have no concept what the idea "goosebump effect" means when I mention it to them.  Yet the recordings are as much alive today as they were in 1958.  They are a time machine backwards to the very moment when they were performed.  And it requires tremendous accuracy to pull off the goosebump effect.  However, it requires a sort of accuracy which has fallen out of favor with today's recording engineers and today's younger listeners.  IMO those musical values encapsulated in the Mercury recordings will remain my hallmark for "accuracy" and not much of the rest really matters to me.

The same is true of my concepts of photography.  I have several photos I've taken with less than ideal equipment which are still great shots IMO.  Looking at them I do not focus on the poor technical values of the equipment.  I see the goosebump effects of a pretty good shot where, despite the technical imperfections, I can look into the past and be taken back to another time.   That though is often a differentiation between analog and digital recording of an event.  That is another issue all together.

I have mentioned on this forum the package of photos - snapshots really - my aunt took when she was in Cuba before the embargo.  Using an inexpensive Brownie, she captured the essence of what is now called "street photography".  She had an artist's eye for composition and detail, pulling emotion out of the simplest of situations.  I am simply in awe of what she captured in those photos when she didn't even have a decent viewfinder to work with.

I've also mentioned this site on the forum; Emphoka

I go there daily for some inspiration.  The submissions to the site are limited to less than DSLR quality shots.  I'm always amazed at what can be accomplished when the human eye and the mind's imagination supercedes the equipment.

I am in no way discounting the value of lower quality equipment.  It is merely a tool in the hands of the thoughtful user.

That though is not my point when I discuss the lowered value of a lossy file format.  I go back to those old 78's, noisy and bandwidth limited as they first seem, which were recorded "direct to disc" and I hear what today's cut and snip, highly processed and reconstructed recordings lack.  And I find accuracy to the original event still to be my goosebump inducing value.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 24, 2015)

soufiej said:


> Buckster, thanks for answering my question.  As I said in my post, to my knowledge, RAW had not been available from a phone camera.   I am not someone who follows the smartphone market though.  IMO when phone cameras can operate in RAW format, there is one more chink in the armor of DSLR's to be considered.  We will then get down to the minutea of how a "photographer" thinks rather than how the camera operates when these perennial issues of which is which come up.   Those arguments will become far more difficult to sustain in the future IMO.
> 
> *
> 
> ...


Yes JPEG is lossy. Studio engineers don't master with Wilsons they master with $400 Yamaha speakers. JPEG is lossy because RAW records more information than can be displayed visually.

Get back to me when you find a blind study where a sufficient sample size could differentiate between 320 kbps. Blind studies are objective fact. What Neil Young thinks and is financially invested in isn't. Neil Young has tinnitus.

I've worked in major recording studios. And yes, most pro audio people believe that sennheiser hd800s are pretty accurate.

But regardless, your ultimate premise is just an extraordinarily flawed one. RAW is simply not a format that can be viewed in the first place. Even TIFF's actual display isn't higher resolution than JPEG, TIFF just keeps the extra non-displayable info "in the background."

Let me ask you this. When you look at your pictures, when they're displayed, what are you looking at?  You keep speaking like you're looking at a RAW image displayed on a monitor or printed out.

RAW's strength isn't the extra "fidelity" it's that it allows complete control over white balance (since white balance is set after the image capture state). It also allows you to rescue detail that is outside what can be displayed. But in order to display it, you have to edit the image to bring that lost shadow detail back into the displayable range. JPEG doesn't discard shadow detail, it cuts out shadow detail that ****cant be displayed anyway****

edit: nevermind, you seem to not trust blind, scientific studies, but you do trust the hearing of Neil Young, who (and God I love his music) stood in front of a Fender Twin turned to 10 for a decade on a nightly basis.  I just can't argue if those are the standards for what is and isn't valid support for an argument.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 24, 2015)

QUOTE="fjrabon, post: 3450978, member: 107876"

_"Yes JPEG is lossy._ "

What exactly does the term "lossy" mean to you if not lost data?

_"Studio engineers don't master with Wilsons they master with $400 Yamaha speakers_."

I'm sorry to say, far too many studios do master using crap for speakers.  Not all though, those studios which favor "high fidelity" to the live source use high fidelity monitors.  They must if they are to know what they are putting on the final product.  Please, do read the history of Wilson Audio and Dave's use of his original Watt monitors for his "audiophile" quality recordings; Wilson Audio A Brief History of Wilson Audio

Does doing it wrong make it right?  Many studio engineers use $400 Yamaha speakers first, because they are a "near field" monitor which suits the space requirements of many studios.  Second, most consumers do not own Wilsons, Quads,  Theils, etc.  They own junk speakers.  One Rolling Stones album was mastered using 6X9 car speakers outside of an enclosure because it was, to Mick and the gang, the result they wanted.   The lossy - lousy actually - sound quality was thought to be what their average listener would enjoy on their cheap boom boxes and rack system of the day.  No pretense was made for "accuracy", simply to commercial appeal.  However, before you go making such sweeping statements and wanting  them to prove some ineffable point, you might want to look at more than you can see in front of just your very nose and from your very limited experience.  B&W and Quad have long been _THE_ speaker of choice for the British recording/broadcasting industry.  KEF existed as a manufacturer of raw drivers and completed loudspeakers for what is one of the best known and longest lived audio products of the 20th century, the LS3/5a designed for mobile recording/monitoring purposes by the BBC.  It was and remains a true studio monitor loudspeaker.   Check the pricing on current LS3/5a clones.  Sorry, your words are only true when we consider the studios using junk speakers tend to turn out junk recordings.


_"JPEG is lossy because RAW records more information than can be displayed visually. "_

I'm am not at all sure how you arrived at that bit of logic.  Jpeg is "lossy" because cameras in smart phones and compact point and shoots required high storage capacity and low data packages in order to put lots of photos in the memory and to display them quickly on any device.  FACT!

_"Get back to me when you find a blind study where a sufficient sample size could differentiate between 320 kbps. Blind studies are objective fact. That Neil Young thinks and is financially invested in isn't. Neil Young has tinnitus."_

I see you're taking the typical objectivist approach to insulting those who disagree with you.  Why don't you simply cease believing what you believe and get in line with what is reality?  Doubling down on your misinformation is again the mark of someone who wants to believe they are right when all of the facts say they are not.   Tossing out insults makes me not very interested in your "opinion".

_"I've worked in major recording studios. And yes, most pro audio people believe that sennheiser hd800s are pretty accurate."_

Again with the argument from authority?  That is a logical fallacy, you know?  Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

I never said they weren't great headphones.  They are very accurate - for headphones.  But headphones do not produce the holographic, life sized, three dimensional, wall to wall imaging and soundstaging of even a moderately decent $200 pair of speakers driven by a $349 integrated amplifier.  Arguing with strawmen and logical fallacies isn't going to win you any points.

_"But regardless, your ultimate premise is just an extraordinarily flawed one. RAW is simply not a format that can be viewed in the first place. Even TIFF's actually display isn't higher resolution than JPEG, TIFF just keeps the extra non-displayable info 'in the background_'."

Again, you are arguing a point I never made.  Jpeg compression discards data.  Mpeg compression discards data.  Anyone looking at the stair step pattern of a lossy format's sampling rates can easily see the gaps which exist in between sampling points when they view low bit rate files.  OK, they can't actually "see" the file, only the representation of what the file "looks like" to the reconstruction systems.  The point remains, data is lost in lossy formats.  Why do you think they are called "lossy"?  You are talking in circles.

_"Let me ask you this. When you look at your pictures, when they're displayed, what are you looking at? You keep speaking like you're looking at a RAW image displayed on a monitor or printed out."_

Let me ask you this, what am I seeing when I look at the play side of a CD?  The data is there even if I cannot hear it by putting my ear up to the CD.  The issue is still the same and it has nothing to do with your statement.  Lossy formats loose data points.  FACT!

_"RAW's strength isn't the extra 'fidelity' it's that it allows complete control over white balance (since white balance is set after the image capture state). It also allows you to rescue detail that is outside what can be displayed. But in order to display it, you have to edit the image to bring that lost shadow detail back into the displayable range. "_

I think you just proved my point.  There is no "lost" data in a RAW file.  It is there just as the data on the play side of the CD is there.  Nothing exists in a digital format until it is reproduced in analog format.  However, if you can retrieve the data, where did it come from if not that it existed to be retrieved.  You simply cannot retrieve data which has been tossed out.  You can downsample a WAV file to a Mpeg file for storage on a portable player.  You cannot however, take a Mpeg file and make it magically be a WAV file.  The same holds true for RAW and Jpeg image data.

_"JPEG doesn't discard shadow detail, it cuts out shadow detail that ****cant be displayed anyway****"_

Yes, Jpeg does discard data points.  Why do you suppose it is labeled as a "lower bit rate" than a WAV file?  If it didn't discard data by way of compression, how do you suppose the file size is reduced?  Jpeg is not a compression/expansion format.  It is compression only.  Compression of data by way of reducing data package size to allow for greater numbers of files, not higher quality files.  You are playing a semantic game with that last statement.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 24, 2015)

soufiej said:


> QUOTE="fjrabon, post: 3450978, member: 107876"
> 
> _"Yes JPEG is lossy._ "
> 
> ...



I don't understand how you still haven't managed to understand that RAW records MORE DATA THAN CAN BE DISPLAYED visually and thus ANYTHING THAT SHOWS HUMAN BEINGS A PICTURE THEY CAN VIEW IS "lossy."  Human beings can only view a certain portion of the visible spectrum at one time.  They can't even view the entire visible spectrum simultaneously, our eyes have to adjust.  JPEG fine exceeds the ability of a display, and our eyes.

*Again, what is that you think you are looking at when you view a picture?  If it is a print, what do you think it was printed from?  
*
Please just answer this one question.  What do you think you're looking at when you "view a RAW image"?

Edit: and yes, if we're talking about issues of fact, I trust blind studies over what people think they can hear or see.  If you want to talk about logical fallacies and cognitive biases, you can't get rid of confirmation bias and the placebo effect without doing a blind study.  Fact.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 24, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE="fjrabon, post: 3450978, member: 107876"
> ...




Look, you aren't even comprehending my point.  

*Lossy file formats loose data points. * 

OK?  

All the rest is claptrap.

And placebo effect is no different than no-cebo effect. Confirmation bias simply says, if you want it to be, it will be - for you.  Fact is what you perceive and what I perceive can be two completely unique perceptions based upon our own "priorities".  That doesn't make you the arbiter of what is actually and factually correct. It happens constantly. Show three people a photo and you'll get back three different perceptions of the photo.  Have three people listen to a piece of music and you'll get three different ideas of what they heard.  Why do you suppose there are so many different models of guitars.  If everyone's perception of "guitar" were the same, wouldn't one model suffice?  

You are now grabbing at straws.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 24, 2015)

ok so...
everything after raw is lossy. 
i get that. 
so what do  _*you *_do with  your raw files?
show me a picture that is not in a lossy format.
if everything after raw is lossy, what difference does it make which lossy format people choose?
what lossy format do _*you*_ choose to display your digital pictures in?


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 24, 2015)

soufiej said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > soufiej said:
> ...



If your definition of lossy is "doesn't make use of maximum data points" then all dslrs are lossy in comparison to large format.

For example, you can make a lossy format, where the only data it loses is UV spectrum.  In that sense it's lossy.  It loses those data points.  They're not data points that a monitor can display (without converting them to the visible spectrum) but it still loses data points.  JPEG also typically cuts shadow and brightness values that are outside what can be displyaed as different by monitors, printers, or especially the human eye.  But we can mostly ignore the human eye part since you want to argue that.  JPEG fine mostly cuts out things that anything you would use to display can't reproduce anyway.  The primary thing JPEG does is cuts out data points that CANT BE DISPLAYED.  SInce you like musical analogies, this is the equivalent of creating a "lossy" audio format that cuts out frequencies above and below what speakers can reproduce or the human ear can hear.  I've heard audiophiles try to argue that cutting 40kHz cuts the "sparkle" of a recording, no matter what science says.  This is, of course, bunk.

Again, what is it that you think you're looking at when you look at an image made from a RAW file?  I've asked this question like 5 times.  It's the whole argument for why if you're viewing and not archiving JPEG is fine, and that RAW only matters for archival and editing purposes, not for "viewing fidelity."


----------



## Buckster (Mar 24, 2015)

soufiej said:


> *Lossy file formats loose data points.*


Not to nitpick, but I'm pretty sure you mean "lose" rather than "loose".

I wouldn't even mention it, but it's clear you take pride in your writing, so you might appreciate the nuance involved.  Sort of like how a lot of folks misuse "their", "there" and "they're" or "two", "too" and "to".

Anyway, it's just something to note for future use...  Carry on...


----------



## soufiej (Mar 24, 2015)

Thanks, Buckster.  I didn't notice that one, but you're write ... I mean "right".


----------



## soufiej (Mar 24, 2015)

Actually, I'd say the debate has gone far enough.  The point I made was there are an extremely limited numbers of phone cameras which can operate in RAW formatting.  Whether you see that as a detriment or not is your decision.  IMO this is more of a factor in the "difference" between a DSLR or even a higher end compact and a smartphone.  This, for me, makes far more of a statement from the manufacturer regarding the value of the camera they are including in their phone.  The issues of, "Oh, a smartphone is OK for bright light", and so forth are minimal IMO.  It's like saying a Honda Civic is OK if you aren't towing a boat.  You use the tool best suited to the job.  

IMO the answer to the question what sets "our" photos apart from "their" photos isn't in "composition and inspiration".  That's simply whistling past the graveyard.  You really think because you use a smartphone camera you can't have inspiration and great composition?!  That is just the same as saying you own a DSLR and so you must have inspiration to come up with great compositions.  

Arguing endlessly between two people who see lossy formats so differently is time wasted.  Get back to the other issues of the thread and think what you want to think about my point.


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 24, 2015)

So my takeaway here, as it pertains to the original question, is that Serious Photographers should shoot however they like, with whatever they like, but they should _tell people that they're using high end gear, RAW format, and so on, to create the subjective experience of increased quality.
_
This isn't a bad idea, and in fact lots of people do it. Peter Lik sells a lot of prints based, in part, on these ideas.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 24, 2015)

soufiej said:


> Actually, I'd say the debate has gone far enough.  The point I made was there are an extremely limited numbers of phone cameras which can operate in RAW formatting.  Whether you see that as a detriment or not is your decision.  IMO this is more of a factor in the "difference" between a DSLR or even a higher end compact and a smartphone.  This, for me, makes far more of a statement from the manufacturer regarding the value of the camera they are including in their phone.  The issues of, "Oh, a smartphone is OK for bright light", and so forth are minimal IMO.  It's like saying a Honda Civic is OK if you aren't towing a boat.  You use the tool best suited to the job.
> 
> IMO the answer to the question what sets "our" photos apart from "their" photos isn't in "composition and inspiration".  That's simply whistling past the graveyard.  You really think because you use a smartphone camera you can't have inspiration and great composition?!  That is just the same as saying you own a DSLR and so you must have inspiration to come up with great compositions.
> 
> Arguing endlessly between two people who see lossy formats so differently is time wasted.  Get back to the other issues of the thread and think what you want to think about my point.


I'm not even arguing with you at this point, I just want to know what it is you think you're looking at when you view an image made from a raw file.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 24, 2015)

I didn't read most of the posts so if this has been said, well. I agree.

Every once in a while, anyone, no matter how ignorant or inexperienced, can get a decent or even great picture in any random situation, but the chances of it happening are unpredictable and are combination of luck, circumstance and the excellence of the equipment available to them. (note that photo shops in the mall work on standard setups and standard lighting and produce clean work that is excellent in terms of focus, sharpness and color with untrained teenagers pushing the buttons.)
The difference between me (as an avid but non-professional photographer) and that random anyone is that I can look at any situation and get the best shot out of it possible with the equipment I have. 
And then I can take that file and make it conform to the image in my mind's eye.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 24, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> So my takeaway here, as it pertains to the original question, is that Serious Photographers should shoot however they like, with whatever they like, but they should _tell people that they're using high end gear, RAW format, and so on, to create the subjective experience of increased quality.
> _
> This isn't a bad idea, and in fact lots of people do it. Peter Lik sells a lot of prints based, in part, on these ideas.




not really sure how sarcastic that was or was not....
but as a successful artist, (im an artist now) ive never had a client (that was not also into photography) ask me about my gear or what format I shoot in. Even the few clients I have worked for that were also hobbyist photographers didn't really do much more than ask out of curiosity since they shot different brands of cameras.  They saw my work, liked it, and paid me to do it for them. 

now, that isn't to say that some people wouldn't be impressed by a lengthy gear list and and even lengthier explanation of why I shoot raw, im just saying it really has not come up much in my experience. 

oh, I did forget a particular circumstance where it did actually come up a few times. when I second shot for wedding photographers. Thats pretty much it though. 

you know...now that you mention it...
maybe I _*should *_start bringing up gear and file formats to clients. maybe i can charge them more after explaining that I shoot raw and not  jpeg.  Gonna have to try that one!


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 24, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> not really sure how sarcastic that was or was not....
> *but as a successful artist, (im an artist now)*



That seems like quite a bit of passive aggressive hostility coming out now ever since your rant in the 'artist' thread.
Why that bothers you so much I don't know but you really ought to let it go.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 24, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > not really sure how sarcastic that was or was not....
> ...



what?
im not allowed to change my mind?
no hostility here man. im all coolsies. 
what is with your constant assumptions about me?
obsessed much?
you really ought to let it go.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 24, 2015)

Just because most of us own some sort of automobile, it doesn't make all of us Indy, Grand Prix or NASCAR Drivers.  While I drive a nice vehicle, it does not have the capabilities for speed that any of the three previously mentioned vehicle types do.  I guess I am driving something akin to the cell phone or point & shoot version of an automobile.


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 24, 2015)

Fully sarcastic with reference to the audiophile/RAW discussion.

But it's a completely legit sales tactic. Peter Lik's sales associates are notorious for talking up the gear and the process. "Peter only uses film, there's no photoshop, and the finest.. " blah blah blah, when we know that he's shooting this stuff with medium format digital and 'shopping the tar out of it, and making perfectly ordinary prints on a standard (albeit good) commercial paper. It works, his pressure cooker galleries sell loads of prints.

No, people don't *ask*, but if you *tell* them as part of an orchestrated pitch, it can fill in a complete picture of high end, luxurious, etc. Same as it would never occur to any thinking human being to ask if a speaker cable should be plugged in one direction or the opposite one, but if you *tell* them that *your* cables are directional, well, it starts to sound very fancy and desirable.

So.. sarcastic? A joke? Or serious? Depends on how you look at it! I am vast and contain multitudes.


----------



## syaudi (Mar 25, 2015)

if you want someone to at least gain some inspiration or perspective about light and composition, I highly suggest examining Old Master art.
I went to an art museum just last weekend to check them out and I was blown away. now my mindset is pretty much "if the Old Masters could create such windows into an intense world of light, positioning, and emotion from a scene in their mind, then I too will work for impactful lighting and composition from looking at the scene in a mirror."


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 27, 2015)

Back to the OP...

Before digital, average people and professionals with film shot on the same quality "sensor" (the film) as everyone else. Did that somehow degrade professional work? I think not.

The only real difference with digital is that it's everywhere. The outcome of photography being in everyone's pocket is something noone can really predict... There are Doomsayer's and Optimists, but the real truth of the matter is that it's yet to be seen.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 28, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Back to the OP...
> 
> Before digital, average people and professionals with film shot on the same quality "sensor" (the film) as everyone else. Did that somehow degrade professional work? I think not.
> 
> The only real difference with digital is that it's everywhere. The outcome of photography being in everyone's pocket is something noone can really predict... There are Doomsayer's and Optimists, but the real truth of the matter is that it's yet to be seen.



Everyone shot on film?  Maybe, but most average photographers didn't shoot on the same film as the pros and they certainly didn't use the same equipment.   Modern camera designers have gone to great lengths to make today's cameras as fool proof as possible.  Point and shoot is, in most ways, a success story.  Point and shoot fifty years ago is a large part of what set the consumer level cameras and shooter apart from the pros; f Stops and Shutter Speeds - The Brownie Camera Page

introduction to Medium Format Photography


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 28, 2015)

W.Y. Photo's point (I think) is that the gap between "casual shooting" and "serious professional shooting" has widened. A change in degree so vast has overtaken us that it has changed the fundamentals of how we relate to photographs. A change in degree so large that it produced a significant change in kind. _*And yet*_ there is no reason whatever this should reflect on "professional" photograpy, whatever that even means. Ever photographer, every photograph, is separate from ever other.

(The complaints remain the same, however. People were complaining about the stupid amateurs and their terrible pictures in the 1860s.)

In fact, I disagree with W.Y.Photo, I think the fundamental change in our relationship to photographs, as a culture, has and does impact the working professional, to their detriment.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 28, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> W.Y. Photo's point (I think) is that the gap between "casual shooting" and "serious professional shooting" has widened. A change in degree so vast has overtaken us that it has changed the fundamentals of how we relate to photographs. A change in degree so large that it produced a significant change in kind. _*And yet*_ there is no reason whatever this should reflect on "professional" photograpy, whatever that even means. Ever photographer, every photograph, is separate from ever other.
> 
> (The complaints remain the same, however. People were complaining about the stupid amateurs and their terrible pictures in the 1860s.)
> 
> In fact, I disagree with W.Y.Photo, I think the fundamental change in our relationship to photographs, as a culture, has and does impact the working professional, to their detriment.




All I was really saying is that it doesn't make the work of truly skilled photographers any less good. Not that it isn't detrimental to their business.

I don't think, however, that the internet or widespread camera use and ownership will kill the art or profession of photography, just that it will change it. The internet didn't kill writers even though anyone can post their own writings in blogs for the world to see, or worse, on social media.. and just because the national literacy rate is at 90-some-odd percent doesn't mean writers are out of a job since everyone can write for themselves.


----------

