RAW news: BAD

[rennie12]

Actually I did not phrase my thoughts on professionals very well. I don't disagree with any of your points on this subject.

Re politics & trade & wars -

Yes, too complex for here. And too OT (I just got carried away for which I apologise.)

Thanks again for the nice reply.

Bill

 

[jydurocher]

I think I see the reason for your reception in this forum for calling yourself a "pro" - generally in this (and in most of the forums here) a "pro" has a rather specific connotation - and it is not "earning one's living with a camera".

Without trying to describe the rather nebulous definition commonly expected in these forums I can describe some people who earn their living with a camera who would NOT fit the local definition. For example, someone shooting solely insurance photos (pix of damaged cars, etc), a Walmart portrait shooter, a specialist in medical microphotography, a specialist in evidence photography for a law firm, etc, etc.

They are all using a camera as part of their work, so they are professional. Funny you talk about insurance photos, the business vehicle was damaged, so I took pictures, the other party also but she going farther on her Iphone that I did. Anyhow, I'm showing the pictures of the damage to the insurance evaluator on the HS-10, the short video and he wants to see them on his computer screen. Likes the quality and all, but tells me that he is waiting for a smartphone with better quality. Why? He could geotag the pictures and send them right away to the office!

The Walmart guy is a pro, if the pictures don't look as if the subject is not worthy of the cover of Vogue he's toast.

There is that idea that a pro is a sort of David Hemming in Antonioni's Blow Up, cavorting with models, or a 3 Nikon (or Canon) with $6,000 telephoto lenses on their safari vest shooting in Iraq (or the crazy one played by Denis Hopper in Apocalypse Now), reality is more mundane. A pro lives with TOOLS, an amateur plays with TOYS.

So let's look at this in perspective. A photographer who makes a living (or part of) selling his work is a pro, a lot of the Holga cameras are sold to artists who have decided to use the TOY as a TOOL. I've bumped more than once into the amateur with his $15,000 bag of TOYS who thinks that because of as a Nikon D3 with the 400mm 2.8 somehow he should be allowed in the press section. In this case he actually pointed me with my lowly and unnaceptable HS-10 as prrof positive that he be should allowed in!

Counterpart is a man sitting on a bench at an event and asking me if the HS-10 was a good camera. "I'm too old to carry all of this, he said gesturing to a huge, as in huge, Temba bag." Felt sorry for him in a way, carrying this bag, with it's tens of thousands of lenses, cameras is hard on someone backs. But then, he's showing his toys, the same as the guy who will never admit having a sore back after driving his Ferrari for an afternoon.

And by the way, maybe I should use the Gannett service myself... For reasons unknown, our main front page pictures this week came muddy and dark, yet the right profile was applied, looked OK on preview in both InDesign and the ready to press PDF (less so there). But I'm a pro, taking it in stride, getting a mouthfull from friends and customers... Less I admit that the Walmart guy, asked for miracles tens of time a day, he's a pro.

 

[sportbiker]

Have you looked at Aperture? It does cataloging and organizing; it keeps track of multiple versions, has non-destructive editing and allows you to do all your work in a lossless format (including versions) while converting/cropping for specific output.

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Have you looked at Aperture? It does cataloging and organizing; it keeps track of multiple versions, has non-destructive editing and allows you to do all your work in a lossless format (including versions) while converting/cropping for specific output.

How well does it run on Windows 7?

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Kim Letkeman]

I think I see the reason for your reception in this forum for calling yourself a "pro" - generally in this (and in most of the forums here) a "pro" has a rather specific connotation - and it is not "earning one's living with a camera".

Without trying to describe the rather nebulous definition commonly expected in these forums I can describe some people who earn their living with a camera who would NOT fit the local definition. For example, someone shooting solely insurance photos (pix of damaged cars, etc), a Walmart portrait shooter, a specialist in medical microphotography, a specialist in evidence photography for a law firm, etc, etc.

They are all using a camera as part of their work, so they are professional.

sigh ... professional what?

I already stipulates that they have a profession ... it is just not photography.

Using a camera as part of one's job (e.g. CSI tech, insurance adjuster) does not qualify one as a professional photographer.

Using a hammer now and again as part of one's job (e.g. delivery and installation of Ikea shelving) does not qualify one as a carpenter.

Writing a java script now and again as part of one's job (e.g. IT support) does not qualify one as a software engineer.

Plugging the odd leak in a pipe as part of one's job (e.g. building superintendent) does not qualify one as a plumber.

This is obvious, as it is a matter of focus.

Funny you talk about insurance photos, the business vehicle was damaged, so I took pictures, the other party also but she going farther on her Iphone that I did. Anyhow, I'm showing the pictures of the damage to the insurance evaluator on the HS-10, the short video and he wants to see them on his computer screen. Likes the quality and all, but tells me that he is waiting for a smartphone with better quality. Why? He could geotag the pictures and send them right away to the office!

Awesome ... and that still does not make him a professional photographer.

The Walmart guy is a pro, if the pictures don't look as if the subject is not worthy of the cover of Vogue he's toast.

Depends on the WalMart guy. Some are professional photographers trying to make ends meet ... that guy's focus is all photography. Some are minimum wage people manning the booth on minimal training turning out crap and no interested in turning out anything better. Obviously not a professional anything.

It's a matter of focus.

There is that idea that a pro is a sort of David Hemming in Antonioni's Blow Up, cavorting with models, or a 3 Nikon (or Canon) with $6,000 telephoto lenses on their safari vest shooting in Iraq (or the crazy one played by Denis Hopper in Apocalypse Now), reality is more mundane. A pro lives with TOOLS, an amateur plays with TOYS.

That outburst is similar to others you have had and is related to self image or something. There is no answer for it.

... continued ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Kim Letkeman]

So let's look at this in perspective. A photographer who makes a living (or part of) selling his work is a pro, a lot of the Holga cameras are sold to artists who have decided to use the TOY as a TOOL. I've bumped more than once into the amateur with his $15,000 bag of TOYS who thinks that because of as a Nikon D3 with the 400mm 2.8 somehow he should be allowed in the press section. In this case he actually pointed me with my lowly and unnaceptable HS-10 as prrof positive that he be should allowed in!

So what? Rich dentist syndrome strikes many people ... that it bothers you so is still more about you than him.

That a professional shoots with an HS10 makes no sense to me. Too slow and poor image quality.

But you print on rag, so I guess it's ok in your business.

Are you a professional photographer? Maybe ... I have no idea how much of your living is made from photography.

I have never managed to get a clear idea on that between long paragraphs of angst over others' equipment ...

Counterpart is a man sitting on a bench at an event and asking me if the HS-10 was a good camera. "I'm too old to carry all of this, he said gesturing to a huge, as in huge, Temba bag." Felt sorry for him in a way, carrying this bag, with it's tens of thousands of lenses,

Gotta say it ... now that's a lot of lenses!

cameras is hard on someone backs. But then, he's showing his toys, the same as the guy who will never admit having a sore back after driving his Ferrari for an afternoon.

And again ... your anecdote is more about making yourself feel a bit better over carrying the HS10 ...

And by the way, maybe I should use the Gannett service myself... For reasons unknown, our main front page pictures this week came muddy and dark, yet the right profile was applied, looked OK on preview in both InDesign and the ready to press PDF (less so there). But I'm a pro, taking it in stride, getting a mouthfull from friends and customers... Less I admit that the Walmart guy, asked for miracles tens of time a day, he's a pro.

So how did the problem occur? Whose mistake was it?

And could you at least give us the name of the paper and the city? Nice to take a look at it online and see your work ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[jydurocher]

I think I see the reason for your reception in this forum for calling yourself a "pro" - generally in this (and in most of the forums here) a "pro" has a rather specific connotation - and it is not "earning one's living with a camera".

Without trying to describe the rather nebulous definition commonly expected in these forums I can describe some people who earn their living with a camera who would NOT fit the local definition. For example, someone shooting solely insurance photos (pix of damaged cars, etc), a Walmart portrait shooter, a specialist in medical microphotography, a specialist in evidence photography for a law firm, etc, etc.

They are all using a camera as part of their work, so they are professional.

sigh ... professional what?

I already stipulates that they have a profession ... it is just not photography.

Using a camera as part of one's job (e.g. CSI tech, insurance adjuster) does not qualify one as a professional photographer.

You are right, I should have been more specific. They are professionals using a camera as a tool of their trade. What is expected of them is that they use the tools profesionnally. The insurance ajuster for exemple must take pictures that reflect the damage to the car, not more, not less. Police photographers are bound by the same ethics. But they must have knowledge of what they are using since their work can be questionned in courts.

What I wrote about is the fact that a infinite small number of photographies taken today are anything more than portraits. But when one stands out it is either pure luck or going outside the box. Best exemple is this photo of yours:
http://letkeman.net/Photos/smithsfalls6jun2010/DSC_3559_tip
It's not luck and it can be sold.
So would this one:
http://letkeman.net/Photos/smithsfalls6jun2010/DSC_3190_ready
Cropped to only show one eye.

You have about 60 photos describing the medieval fair there, I'm sure you have taken a lot more, and in my eyes (MINE, I repeat) only 2 are keepers. But what keepers! Both can be sold. Someone wanting a cover piece for a story on medieval fair would love the first, while the second makes an excellent editorial photo.

Now you are not a "professionnal photographer", you dont make a living or part of it taking photographer. Both pictures were not taken with "pro" equipment (in other words, you do not have a 20k$ bag with you, what some consider the basic requirement for being a professional photographer), yet they are editorially interesting pictures that can be sold.

Now over forty some years of selling my craft (I'm no artist) I must have taken 30,000 pictures on film (over 30 years, on and off) and thretwice as much digital (over 7). What I, and I guess you, learned from the chimical days was composition and unless you had a motor drive and a lot of $$$; taking the right pictures on the first click. You also learned to see what would make a good picture, since $$$ again, you could not afford to take bad one.

I'm taking a lot more very (as in VERY) bad pictures today since the $$$$ factor is not there anymore.

These are the main points that I want to make. A camera on the shelves at your local camera store doesn't take pictures: You do. Having the "pro" equipment will not make you a "professional photographer".

And there is a difference between a TOY and a TOOL. I know, my contractor friend laugh at my fancy "energy absortion" hammer (and when I say laugh I'm generous).

Today, the HS-10 fills the bill of what I need, with its defaults far outweighted by its qualities. Tomorrow?

 

[Kim Letkeman]

You are right, I should have been more specific. They are professionals using a camera as a tool of their trade. What is expected of them is that they use the tools profesionnally. The insurance ajuster for exemple must take pictures that reflect the damage to the car, not more, not less. Police photographers are bound by the same ethics. But they must have knowledge of what they are using since their work can be questionned in courts.

Yes, we can completely agree on this definition. The focus is on making a living at a specific profession and using an appropriate level of skill (that need never increase) with photography as one part of the job.

What I wrote about is the fact that a infinite small number of photographies taken today are anything more than portraits. But when one stands out it is either pure luck or going outside the box. Best exemple is this photo of yours:
http://letkeman.net/Photos/smithsfalls6jun2010/DSC_3559_tip
It's not luck and it can be sold.
So would this one:
http://letkeman.net/Photos/smithsfalls6jun2010/DSC_3190_ready
Cropped to only show one eye.

Thank you, very kind.

You have about 60 photos describing the medieval fair there, I'm sure you have taken a lot more, and in my eyes (MINE, I repeat) only 2 are keepers. But what keepers! Both can be sold. Someone wanting a cover piece for a story on medieval fair would love the first, while the second makes an excellent editorial photo.

There are several others that I consider keepers as well, but I shoot mainly for documentation, always looking for the best possible image.

Now you are not a "professionnal photographer", you dont make a living or part of it taking photographer. Both pictures were not taken with "pro" equipment (in other words, you do not have a 20k$ bag with you, what some consider the basic requirement for being a professional photographer), yet they are editorially interesting pictures that can be sold.

Again thanks. But note that many professionals are quite satisfied with equipment like the D300 and D700, Tamron 28-75, Nikon 70-300VR and Nikon 50mm and 85mm 1.8D lenses. Anyone who presumes that a professional absolutely must shoot $20k in equipment is simply uninformed. At the same time, for general purpose photography that consistently meets publishing standards of quality (which includes detail and noise), this would probably be the minimum kit.

Now over forty some years of selling my craft (I'm no artist) I must have taken 30,000 pictures on film (over 30 years, on and off) and thretwice as much digital (over 7). What I, and I guess you, learned from the chimical days was composition and unless you had a motor drive and a lot of $$$; taking the right pictures on the first click. You also learned to see what would make a good picture, since $$$ again, you could not afford to take bad one.

I'm taking a lot more very (as in VERY) bad pictures today since the $$$$ factor is not there anymore.

These are the main points that I want to make. A camera on the shelves at your local camera store doesn't take pictures: You do. Having the "pro" equipment will not make you a "professional photographer".

All true. But again, there is a minimum level of equipment needed to go outside of very narrow parameters and still meet quality standards.

And there is a difference between a TOY and a TOOL. I know, my contractor friend laugh at my fancy "energy absortion" hammer (and when I say laugh I'm generous).

I'm not quite sure that I get the significance there. Adding a feature to a hammer does not make it a bad hammer. Unless that feature makes the hammer unable to stand up to rigorous use, in which case it relegates the augmented hammer to the ranks of amateur (light use) tools. You see that all the time in Home Depot ... you get what you pay for.

Today, the HS-10 fills the bill of what I need, with its defaults far outweighted by its qualities. Tomorrow?

One of the most consistent themes in reading professional photographers is their need for very robust equipment. Titanium chassis and sealed bodies are a start. You can pound nails with a Nikon professional dSLR.

There is no Fuji that exists today that would survive more than a few months under such rigorous usage.

So that takes care of the definition of a "professional grade" of equipment. The HS10 would not stand up to that kind of usage. I presume that your job does not require that kind of pounding on your equipment.

Regarding the quality of the HS10's output, well, it's a very tiny sensor. If you can squeeze adequate image quality out of it in enough circumstances for your job then it is the right tool. But I really cannot imagine why you would shoot something like that over a small dSLR or 4/3 cam and take advantage of vastly superior noise at higher ISO. The overall image quality is much superior ...

What that says to me about your job is that the shooting situations are fairly narrow and the parameters or requirements for image quality are reasonably generous.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Billx08]

Now you are not a "professionnal photographer", you dont make a living or part of it taking photographer. Both pictures were not taken with "pro" equipment (in other words, you do not have a 20k$ bag with you, what some consider the basic requirement for being a professional photographer), yet they are editorially interesting pictures that can be sold.

Again thanks. But note that many professionals are quite satisfied with equipment like the D300 and D700, Tamron 28-75, Nikon 70-300VR and Nikon 50mm and 85mm 1.8D lenses. Anyone who presumes that a professional absolutely must shoot $20k in equipment is simply uninformed. At the same time, for general purpose photography that consistently meets publishing standards of quality (which includes detail and noise), this would probably be the minimum kit.

Galen Rowell often used Nikon's smaller and much less expensive SLRs and lenses. I wonder what Bob Krist uses? He's the guy that Nikon hired to take publicity shots of their new 16-35mm f/4 VR and (IIRC) other lenses. Hmmm, I think that I recognize a few of these . . .





http://matadorgoods.com/whats-in-your-backpack-bob-krist-travel-photographer/

Regarding the quality of the HS10's output, well, it's a very tiny sensor. If you can squeeze adequate image quality out of it in enough circumstances for your job then it is the right tool. But I really cannot imagine why you would shoot something like that over a small dSLR or 4/3 cam and take advantage of vastly superior noise at higher ISO. The overall image quality is much superior ...

What that says to me about your job is that the shooting situations are fairly narrow and the parameters or requirements for image quality are reasonably generous.

And his subjects aren't frisky little children, animals and birds that usually won't have the patience to wait while the HS10 does its thing, slowly.

 

[jydurocher]

Galen Rowell often used Nikon's smaller and much less expensive SLRs and lenses. I wonder what Bob Krist uses? He's the guy that Nikon hired to take publicity shots of their new 16-35mm f/4 VR and (IIRC) other lenses. Hmmm, I think that I recognize a few of these . . .

Cost of said kit, only for the cameras and lenses: $5,230 at BH Photo! Sorry, no match and no comparaison against the $500 HS-10. Gosh forgot the nice proprietary batteries available at all 7/Eleven!

Did not compute the weight either so I cannot say much in chiro care you will have to spend. Insurance cost, more or less the price of an HS-10 annually.

Almost back to my first thread about choosing between the Hs-10 and that nice little 200-500 Sigma zoom lens coupled on a Nikon D3s...

Anyhow, everybody knows that I was waiting for RED to ship the EPIC
http://epic.red.com/downloads/RED_SPEC_SHEET_EPIC.pdf

I already have an 16gig card... So I'm on my way for the rest..

 

[jydurocher]

Now you are not a "professionnal photographer", you dont make a living or part of it taking photographer. Both pictures were not taken with "pro" equipment (in other words, you do not have a 20k$ bag with you, what some consider the basic requirement for being a professional photographer), yet they are editorially interesting pictures that can be sold.

Again thanks. But note that many professionals are quite satisfied with equipment like the D300 and D700, Tamron 28-75, Nikon 70-300VR and Nikon 50mm and 85mm 1.8D lenses. Anyone who presumes that a professional absolutely must shoot $20k in equipment is simply uninformed. At the same time, for general purpose photography that consistently meets publishing standards of quality (which includes detail and noise), this would probably be the minimum kit.

Galen Rowell often used Nikon's smaller and much less expensive SLRs and lenses. I wonder what Bob Krist uses? He's the guy that Nikon hired to take publicity shots of their new 16-35mm f/4 VR and (IIRC) other lenses. Hmmm, I think that I recognize a few of these . . .



http://matadorgoods.com/whats-in-your-backpack-bob-krist-travel-photographer/

Regarding the quality of the HS10's output, well, it's a very tiny sensor. If you can squeeze adequate image quality out of it in enough circumstances for your job then it is the right tool. But I really cannot imagine why you would shoot something like that over a small dSLR or 4/3 cam and take advantage of vastly superior noise at higher ISO. The overall image quality is much superior ...

What that says to me about your job is that the shooting situations are fairly narrow and the parameters or requirements for image quality are reasonably generous.

And his subjects aren't frisky little children, animals and birds that usually won't have the patience to wait while the HS10 does its thing, slowly.

 

[jydurocher]

Not for children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH6-oZcNncE

For laughs, I'm not pointing anyone. Maybe me...

But look at the quotes under the cartoon, a repeat of the arrival of the HS-10. Multiply by 100 pricewise...

 

[jydurocher]

Not for children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH6-oZcNncE

For laughs, I'm not pointing anyone. Maybe me...

But look at the quotes under the cartoon, a repeat of the arrival of the HS-10. Multiply by 100 pricewise...

And then, when I finally get the RED EPIC, the next step:

http://www.howcast.com/videos/217390-How-To-Make-Your-Holga-Lens-Mountable-To-Your-SLR-Camera-EOSNikonSony-ETC

 

[Billx08]

. . .

Cost of said kit, only for the cameras and lenses: $5,230 at BH Photo! Sorry, no match and no comparaison against the $500 HS-10. Gosh forgot the nice proprietary batteries available at all 7/Eleven!

You really stepped in it this time JY. Your logic is deeply flawed because you're basing it on the entire kit ( including TWO D90 cameras! ). Your original assertion described Kim not being a "pro" because he didn't have a $20,000 bag of gear. He replied with :

But note that many professionals are quite satisfied with equipment like the D300 and D700, Tamron 28-75, Nikon 70-300VR and Nikon 50mm and 85mm 1.8D lenses. Anyone who presumes that a professional absolutely must shoot $20k in equipment is simply uninformed.

My own reply added that there are some highly talented, well respected "pros" that use the same and even less "professional" gear, and the photo showed this, by including a D90, 70-300mm VR and 85mm f/1.8 Nikkors and dipped as low as the really inexpensive 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor. Careful shoppers can get all of these for close to $1,500, but the point wasn't about the price, it was about the description of what kind of gear a "pro" needs to use. I have a D90, 18-105mm VR Nikkor and an HS10. I'm happy for you that your HS10 delivers all that you require, and I do find my HS10 useful at times, but there are many cases where I found that it can only produce poor images where the D90 and even my older D50 produce far superior results. It's simply absurd to try to compare the cost of a single HS10 with the cost of multiple DSLRs. That's the viewpoint of either muddy thinking or that of someone that's predisposed to arguing. In this case it may be both.

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Galen Rowell often used Nikon's smaller and much less expensive SLRs and lenses. I wonder what Bob Krist uses? He's the guy that Nikon hired to take publicity shots of their new 16-35mm f/4 VR and (IIRC) other lenses. Hmmm, I think that I recognize a few of these . . .



http://matadorgoods.com/whats-in-your-backpack-bob-krist-travel-photographer/

Wow ... that's a very inexpensive kit for what he can do with it ... I use most of the same lenses, although I have the 18-200VR for my D300 instead of the 16-85 ...

The primes has has are marvelous ...

I need to make a photo like that of my stuff ... so cool ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[ukdelboy]

a business I never knew existed.

I think I see the reason for your reception in this forum for calling yourself a "pro" - generally in this (and in most of the forums here) a "pro" has a rather specific connotation - and it is not "earning one's living with a camera".

Without trying to describe the rather nebulous definition commonly expected in these forums I can describe some people who earn their living with a camera who would NOT fit the local definition. For example, someone shooting solely insurance photos (pix of damaged cars, etc), a Walmart portrait shooter, a specialist in medical microphotography, a specialist in evidence photography for a law firm, etc, etc.

See what I am trying to describe ?

Whereas a glamorous advertising photographer, a wedding photographer, a wildlife photographer, a portrait photographer (NOT Walmart) would all fit the image most (non-pros) here will have of the "professional".

Literally, of course, anyone who actually supports his family by pushing a button which results in a photograph could be accurately described as a "pro" photographer. I suspect if you had described what you were talking about you would have had a much more sympathetic audience.

Maybe not, though.

I am astounded that Indian outsourcing has not ruined gannet's business. It is astonishing what IS outsourced to India - reading medical xrays and all sorts of medical imaging is (to a limited degree) outsourced. A lot of US LEGAL work is actually done by unadvertised Indian attorneys working for US firms - or so I have read in the papers, anyhow.

I personally have come to believe that the US recession is not going to improve - ever - until we end our reliance on shipping jobs to China in return for cheap Barbie dolls.

Better by far we should limit (by law) our import of ANYTHING we can produce for ourselves. We can do without foreign imports (other than some additives (chrome, manganese, uranium ore, and so on) and we should abandon the whole concept of free trade - which is a disastrous scam on the US and will in time bring our standard of living down to the world average - a source of considerable satisfaction to the rest of the world, I am sure.

How could we buy what we need if we don't allow imports ? Very, very simple - we are by far the best producers of food in the world. All we have to do is SELL it (or swap it) for what we need - rather than giving it away.

I guarantee we are too stupid to see what is happening, so don't bother to comment on my comment !! Instead we will simply sink until we have 40% unemployment and an average income of $15,000 a year.

At my age, frankly, I don't much care. It does surprise me - but - stupid is as stupid does - and anybody stupid enough to invade Iraq or Afghanistan is barely smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time; this obviously describes our entire political class these days.

Who would have thought it would come to this -

Me.
--
Best regards,

Del