The truth as told by Robin Wong...

A small snippet quote ""They worry more about low-light camera performance than they do finding a compelling subject with a nice background – or finding something to photograph that they are passionate about. To all you who are of the religion of low-light I got news for you. You’re traveling in the wrong direction. As photographers we WANT light. We look for it, chase it, pray for it, beg for it, and when necessary make it. We don’t try to shoot a black cat in a black barn at night when the moon is obscured by clouds. Worship the light. Don’t obsess over low-light camera performance. Go find a nicely-lit scene and any $500 camera will make a great image if it’s operated by someone who knows what to look for and how to execute."
Any cheap camera can do good photographs, and chasing low light camera performance won't improve your photography. There are a lot more things to pay more attention to."

I am trying to use his Blog as a mentor to (re) affirm my beliefs..... anyway, I like this guy......

http://robinwong.blogspot.be/

--
Dwight
take a peek at the world I see at
http://picasaweb.google.com/dwightparker
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_KATpPlc9tH4/SXE0GnbJyOI/AAAAAAAAAss/gFd6pXB48JA/s400/sunset%20pano%20sig.jpg

Very refreshing read, thanks for posting.

Quite true - but as a social photographer, I often don't have the choice - I simply have to take a picture with the light available or use flash which is often less than attractive.

--
Julian Kirkness
http://www.kirknessphotography.com

A good high ISO performance isn't necessarily about shooting black cats in a black barn. It can also be needed in relatively good light if you want to use a very fast shutterspeed (to freeze motion), and even more so if you want a decent DoF at the same time.

Glad he said it. The marketing experts make people believe they won't be able to make good pictures unless they can shoot grain free images in lowlight. While there are exceptions as noted above his comments are more true than not.

too true, i recently bought a cam with great Hi ISO performance, and with the grim dark weather this time of year in the UK it really does make a difference from getting a decent shot to just getting anything.

--
The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Actually, I find that particular quote trite. I shoot a lot indoors, in bars and other dark places. In addition I live in a part of the world where there is very little daylight in the winter.

Yes, yes, mister Wong, I too worship the light — it's just that there is so little of it. I do need a camera that can suck up as much of it as possible.

When it comes to blogs, I prefer the more sober style of Ming Thein.

Agree in principle, although for me personally I love to shot black cats in dark alleys...

He's right - there is NO technical innovation that will improve the photographers eye, or make one a better photographer. BUT there are several that make it easier or possible to catch more challenging shots. Auto focus is a good example. Image stabilization is another. And so is good high ISO sensitivity. High ISO also tends to correspond to wider dynamic range and both can make it easier to capture a whole host of shots. Capturing a moving subject in marginal light for example - you could get the shot at ISO 200 but you may be able to capture the shot the way you WANT IT at ISO 1600. Using zone focus in less than the perfect sunny afternoon. On an m43 camera, I love to zone focus at f7.1 or f8, depending on the lens. As I move into shadows or as the sun moves behind the clouds or starts to go down in the afternoon, being able to bump the ISO comfortably makes it possible for me to continue shooting the way I like to in more marginal light. Which I couldn't do with a camera that tops out at 200 or 400, which many did and film used to.

Sure, it would be nice to shoot everything during the golden hour when the light is perfect, soft enough to look good, bright enough to illuminate well. But there are a LOT of great photographs to be taken outside of those conditions and the right tools can make it more possible. And sometimes its nice to be able to get a shot in very low light without a flash or a tripod - not quite a black cat in a dark barn with the moon obscured, but pretty dark:

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

There are many other places of worship.



--
Looking for equilibrium...

but sometimes I just feel like going out at night and taking shots with long exposures.  it isn't just about low-light performance and large aperture lenses so I can take a photo in the dark.  I don't use high ISO if I can help it, opting instead for a longer exposure at a lower ISO.   I also use a tripod versus relying on ISO-boost shooting handheld.  the photos have a completely different feel to them compared to well-lit daytime shots, which I enjoy.  it isn't obsession with the camera gear and its technological advances, but simply a matter of the type of photography I enjoy.

of course, in general terms, low-light photography most likely comprises a small part of what an average photographer would encounter.  it is nice to have the latest equipment that can shoot at high-ISO without as much grain as the previous generations, but this is merely a performance number that most likely won't be fully utilized.  their presence is indeed overdone in advertisements and reviews.  but the cameras that have these features also have other features, such as better sensors that offer better detail, resolution, and other things.  like a car with a 500bhp engine, you won't use it fully most of the time and you might as well have a cheaper alternative, but it sure if more fun to use and the experience of shooting may be well worth it to the user.

I don't disagree with Robin Wong, but it seems his scope is very limited.  of course you need light to take a nice photo.  the camera sensor responds to and captures photons after all.  no photons and you have no photo.  I'm sure the folks he describes exist, but he is glossing over so much in my opinion.

I wonder what some blogs would say should Olympus come out with a revolutionary fantastic high ISO camera in the market all of a sudden. I guess photographing a raven 10 miles from any city at night during the new moon would be the height of artistic achievement then.

Sometimes the light is not there and we still have to work. This event took place at night!

OM-D

--
John
Semper Fi!
http://jwhphotos.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v48/p327905257-2.jpg

But if what you're passionate about is photographing family/friends indoors in natural light, often after sundown in low-light settings, high ISO performance becomes important. Or when photographing sports through a long/slowish lens on an cloudy early winter late afternoon---you'll need some ISO speed to get 1/750+ at f/8.

I don't want to have to "make light" in my living room to shoot, and I can't "make light" on the soccer field or in a restaurant, club or coffe shop. That's what high ISO performance is for.

Is Robin telling us that good images can't be shot in low light? Maybe somebody can make a splendid image of: "a black cat in a black barn at night when the moon is obscured by clouds."

There are always photo-geeks looking to slam a piece of gear by seizing on spec deficiency or supposed performance shortcomings, whether it matters to them or not. They are always right and always wrong. One stop difference at high ISO doesn't matter to someone who shoots in bright daylight or loves flash, but it might matter to me. High ISO, Dynamic Range, color depth, AF speed, focus accuracy, burst rate are all specs we can bicker about. They are always totally meaningful and meaningless. There are people on this forum who can produce significantly more impactful images from a $100 point-and-shoot than I can produce from any of my high-end cameras. But I'll get more keepers from a soccer game shot at 12fps on a Sony A57, and my interior shots at ISO1600 from a Fuji X100 will have a lot less noise.

And there are always photo-geeks looking to tell other photo-geeks to stop obsessing over specs and just take photos. Many things never change...

I agree with Robin. Most of the best photos in the world thus far were not because of high ISO capable cameras, but the photographer who crafted his vision with the tool(s) he had at that time. There are far too many pixel peeper engineers who take too many "Test" shots and not enough photographers "Making" photographs...

--
'Make it so'

The reason why relatively few shots from the past are at high ISO is for the simple reason that high ISO film was dreadful and only in recent years with the likes of the D3s/D4. Has the potential of high quality high ISO low light shooting {especially of moving subjects} started to come into the mainstream. Believe me when the D3s came along it was a genuine revelation for my work at the time in which low light shooting was an intrinsic  part. It is arrogance on the part of a photographer to decide that because he doesn’t need a particular development to condemn those who do. Perhaps low light shooting lacks soul ,

Here in the E-5 {yes the one with soul}review  high ISO low light shooting didn’t seem to be quite such a waste of time to him

http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/olympus-e-5-review-extreme-low-light.html

Jim

Robin has stated a self evident truth, in so far that p/phy is light, and light at night is usually appalling.

He can say that the king is naked because he is not earning a living by selling cameras like this site (and moderators). He is an engineer (geologist?), so he makes ends meet without having to lie about the latest and greatest.

A 500 $ camera does it? Very true, but of course you need some visual literacy, instead of ignorance and money, which is why this forum, and many others at DPR, are a sham.

Quaility of images posted in this forum is so low, especially from low light shooters, that it is a good demonstration of how money is wasted by lack of basic training and reliance on costly equipment.

Am.

--

Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

ooops

--
The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Awesome hat ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com