What's the most useful technology in photography?

[spilot]

Excuse Me,

... I build, I run my own IT business.

What too late to learn, what hate computers ?

I service, build, and customize them.


Kindly broaden thy views...


Regards,

CJ

 

[syncmaster]

Originally posted by spilot
... I build, I run my own IT business.

So do i , i can not see your point !!

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by spilot
(Photoship is) Of course useful in touching up softness and poor metering. But wouldn't this be like MSG, used to spice up averagely cooked food?

Actually, not. Soft pictures and poor metering is more akin to raw food. Such as setting the wrong temperature in the oven or leaving the food in there too long. In the same way that MSG cannot really help with a carbon garnished slice of toast, or a raw turkey, Photoshop shouldn't be used to help in this situation either. Hence the photographer still needs to strive for in camera perfection.

Your analogy is more like using Photoshop to turn a well exposed, sharp picture, but inherently boring and lacking real compositional interest, into one that is a successful picture. Unfortunately a lot of the masses will buy into the result, but it doesn't disguise a poor picture to anyone who really knows. In the same way that MSG will have little sway with a true gourmet.

 

[spilot]

Syncmaster & Jed,

Obvious and apparent we're in cross currents of viewpoints.

I rest my case on this subject.

Personal preferences are like Religion - so best not to further debate on a potentially endless rebuttle.


Regards,

CJ

 

[Jed]

Erm... actually, I'm not disagreeing with your suggestion at all... just pointing out that your specific analogy is flawed. I don't deny that Photoshop is useful or that it's had a detrimental effect as well. Just picking at your analogy.

In fact, if anything, I thought I was agreeing with you in my last post! I wasn't sure if you was saying that Photoshop was useful (helping with softness, colour), or whether it was detrimental (MSG analogy; your use of the word "but" indicated a contrary intention to the first part about it being useful).
Like I said, I'm a fan and a critic of Photoshop, so I don't necessarily disagree with you, and was just nitpicking on your analogy. Which to your open admission of being a newbie, I thought you might appreciate the correction of the relationship between exposure and sharpness to the cooking process. That's all. No statement about Photoshop's usefulness or detrimental effect at all in my previous post. Nor here.

 

[syncmaster]

Originally posted by syncmaster
I voted Auto Focus , but if were was one option as computers , i will was vote on that .

The power of the computers have change ,and will continue to change the ways that people do things .

At the bottom line or the DCs is computers , and all the computers does have common language OS , and they cooperate together , easy as that .

The DCs got boarn to work with computers .. Its so simple .

The old fashion photographers , does admire the power of the digital cameras , but they hate computers ..
Well that's theyr biger problem mostly , simply becauce , they think that its too late to learn how to use them .

I do not see any quotes about photoshop im my above post .

spilot your quote does not make any sense to me .
You started one quote ,by using some of my words ,and i just lost you in the way .

The most profesionals photographers is a bit old to learn new tricks and move to digital photography and using the computers as media for viewing - printing or even editing .
I am not saying that this is a fact ,but it is a reallity .
Oh yes there is one good explanation for that ,the DCs become good enough for Pro photographers the last 3 years , this people did not had the time to move that fast, forward .

In the next 5 years there will be more Pros on the DCs vagon ,and less at the classic film one .
If the Dye-sub printing solutions become cheaper ,the market of the classic film it will die in one night .

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by syncmaster
Jed : started one quote ,by using some of my words ,and i just lost him in the way .

Erm, did I? Where? I apologise beforehand. But tell me where!

 

[syncmaster]

Originally posted by spilot
What too late to learn, what hate computers ?

 

[Jed]

Erm, that wasn't me? That was spilot?

 

[syncmaster]

Originally posted by Jed
Erm, that wasn't me? That was spilot?

Bump .. it took me some time to find out what did mix me up .
spilot reply after my post ,but in his next ,he put together our names as diferent point of views in comparison of our posts .
AND there i got mixed .

Any way sorry man ,there is no harm done ..

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by syncmaster
Bump .. it took me some time to find out what did mix me up ...
Any way sorry man ,there is no harm done ..

Shrugs... yup, no harm done.

 

[mylau]

Most useful technology, hmmmm, I think it is USM or AFS or HSM. I use auto-focus in almost all my shots. Most of the time the speed of the auto-focus is needed. Whereas the others are only used when needed.

 

[sriram]

I would have chosen AF, but in my experience, TTL flash metering has saved me from many a headache. With TTL flash, I can do almost anything and get accurate flash exposure each time - I've shot with the flash off camera, with a diffuser, with the head tilted up, bounced it off the ceiling/walls, synced at 1/8000s, used wireless master/slave flash, and E-TTL has done its job each time (I just power on the flash and shoot) My prefs would be:

1. TTL flash metering
2. AF
3. Silent focusing motors (USM etc)
4. Image stabilizer

 

[jasonpgc]

If only we have Auto Focus and TTL Metering with out battery

 

[beachbum]

for me...

1. TTL metering- spot, multispot and matrix
2. TTL flash
3. AF - including USM, HSM, AFS...etc

 

[zhoufang]

lens coating
Aspherical lens
UD/ED/fluorite element
floating element
IS/VR

these are really basic but useful technologies

 

[djork]

Originally posted by zhoufang
lens coating
Aspherical lens
UD/ED/fluorite element
floating element
IS/VR

these are really basic but useful technologies

i wouldn't say they're basic but more of an advancement?

 

[Jed]

Not basic? Goodness me.

Have you ever seen any decent pictures taken at all with lenses with no coatings, no aspherical glass, no low dispersion glass, no floating elements, and most importantly, no form of internal stabilisation?

Absolutely shocking. It's a pity Ansel Adams didn't have any of those basic technologies, otherwise he'd have been a great photographer. Curiously enough, I'll swear his pictures are far better in quality (image quality) than anything a Canon user churns out with the latest multicoated, aspherical, fluorite ridden, floating element, and most importantly, image stablised (what, no USM!?!?) lens.

Sigh, the joys of technology. I suppose in five years we'll be calling DO a basic technology too.

 

[djork]

Originally posted by Jed
Not basic? Goodness me.

Have you ever seen any decent pictures taken at all with lenses with no coatings, no aspherical glass, no low dispersion glass, no floating elements, and most importantly, no form of internal stabilisation?

Absolutely shocking. It's a pity Ansel Adams didn't have any of those basic technologies, otherwise he'd have been a great photographer. Curiously enough, I'll swear his pictures are far better in quality (image quality) than anything a Canon user churns out with the latest multicoated, aspherical, fluorite ridden, floating element, and most importantly, image stablised (what, no USM!?!?) lens.

Sigh, the joys of technology. I suppose in five years we'll be calling DO a basic technology too.

yes, i've seen pictures taken without all what you stated in the first paragraph. i'm sure they are decent with respect to the time they are taken, ya can't just compare images take with the EOS range with those taken with cameras in the 50s. our equipment has come a long way, but things do get better with advancement (from no coat to mono coat to multicoating, apochromatic lenses, bla bla bla), but i believe in the photographer itself, not the equipment.

there are people still using those 50s cameras today.. i won't say their photos are crap, the emulsion of the film also counts a lot. just try using yesterday's film in a modern day camera.

of course these days you can just walk into PP and buy the latest hi tech gear.

i'm sure people don't need all the fancy fluorite, DO, IS, to take pictures, but they do AID you in producing a less chromatically abberated photo, somehow make ya lens ligher and shorter, allow ya to hand hold ya camera at 1/10 of a second.

and i won't judge a photographer because of the equipment he/she owns. it's all about exploring opportunities, no matter what occasion or equipment one owns.

 

[denizenx]

hi is Single Lens Reflex tech counted?
otherwise we would be using bubble viewfinders like cheap cams and/or using those old MFs where u look through the hole before mounting a plate there...

otherwise maybe it shd be phase detection AF, in low light where the eye cannot really see properly.

imho, all the other techs add to the convenience but not essential...