PHOTOGRAPHERS WASTE So Much Time on This
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- In this video, we'll discuss some common image quality issues that photographers waste a lot of time worrying about, and how to avoid them.
If you're a photographer, then you know that image quality is one of the most important aspects of your work. But sometimes, we forget to worry about other,, more important, things. In this video, we're going to discuss some of the most common image quality issues that photographers waste a lot of time worrying about. From shooting in low light to avoiding camera shake, you'll learn how to avoid these issues and shoot better photos, faster!
You can find me on;
Instagram / scottchoucino
Facebook Group / 1893064874281393
Tin House Website and WORKSHOPS www.tinhouse-s...
My Commercial Workscottchoucino....
You can see my diffraction aberration fringes in the real world here scottchoucino.com/
I'm an unsuccessful photographer who also doesn't worry about these things
😂
Ha ha
😅
I buy expensive equipment and in my mind i imagine how good my images could be, if i took the gear outa the box.
I just sold a 16 mp Ricoh GR2 photo to a big company for their ad campaign. They were delighted with the vibe of the image, not the technical pixel peeping.
Whats actually funny is the obession since digital with making technical "perfect" images....and now all the kids are trending back to film. I started in the 90's on film and what makes film unique are the flaws that make an image truly artful, because they are very rarely technically perfect.
They’ve already moved on from film to old digicams (even lower “quality”)
The same is true of vinyl records which have exploded in popularity. For many people the fact that they don't produce sound of perfect clarity is a plus.
Although, in those days, some people were arguing about the shape of the grains and the acutance of developers 😃
100%. For folks in documentary settings like museums, they can also use the sharpest aperture and utilize focus stacking since their subject is static. Many cameras even have this functionality built-in now. I think you're also right about the best photos not being perfect. Jamie Windsor has a video around this exact idea ("When Bad Photos Are Better") - as people we like art that has imperfections. It feels more authentic. The more perfect something is, the more fake it tends to look.
A certain channel on YT does critiques and always.... always zooms to 100% to pixel peep for sharpness, noise and fringing. If the image isn't sharp or has fringing then it is immediately considered a bad image regardless of the actual picture captured. Scott thank you for being one of very few TH-camrs that doesn't spout BS and actually shares valuable knowledge and information to help us.
Breath of fresh air. I wish more TH-camrs would watch your channel before squawking on about sharpness and pixel peeping nonsense.
What a great video. It should be mandatory viewing for photography club judges, albeit I don't mess with that stuff any more. Their obsession with sharpness throughout the image, while dismissing the aesthetic value of differential focus, and with all things technical at the expense of creativity, is maddening. I believe it was Picasso who said: "learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist."
oh god dont get me started on them haha
Especially photography group judges.
Perfectly stated! The gear usually isn't the limiter of our creativity potential.
The same thing happens with musicians requiring that perfect instrument or perfect amplifier before they can write their perfect song. They forget that the song isn't made by the amp: it's just the medium that brings it to the audience.
Great analogy, music ;-)
I think Jimmy Hendrix agrees with you. Just a little, just kidding, not kidding.
Absolutely! I think The Beatles often just picked up whatever instrument was lying around to catch (and record) their song ideas! Never held them back..!
Thank you for this. I have never cared about gear. I really have to fake interest most times when talking to other photographers because I find most are OBSESSED with the technical.
Images with soul, beat micro contrast! Really glad you did not make videos when you were a micro contrats nerd ;) These are the best videos you make now, educating the simple lads like me lol :)
I bought an Olympus TG6 six weeks ago, and the image quality wasn't as good as I thought it would be. After mulling over returning it I decided to keep it because it's very small and good in low light. I have already come to love the images I get from it, despite them not being the best quality. There is more to this photography lark than megapixels and sharpness. Great video!
Great conversation I think the majority of people who want their images to be technically perfect are probably hobbyists, the working professional photographers are looking for the shot which like you said, make the subject of your image be interesting!
It can be a difficult transition, in transitioning from a hobbyist where you have time to worry about such things (as part of the interest of the hobby) to professional. When much of your self education is mixed in with such distractions and trivialities it can be hard to discern what matters.
That’s what is so valuable about the lessons Scott is sharing. Thank you!
At last a photographer who talks sense.
If you say enough things somethings bound to be right eventually haha
👍 Wonderful! Exactly on point as always!
Man, I freaking love your perspective and straight raw soothe saying. This clip reinforces for me the doctrine of "Direction of Pursuit", which gives purpose to my photography. Thank you!
Your cadance perfectly holds my attention and your rhythm of emphasis really drives home subtext. Your use of English and her nuances is simply delightful when not deeply insightful. I'd listen to you talk about anything as long as it held your interest.
This is the best TH-cam video on photography that I have ever watched!!!
I totally agree. Now say it louder in the back for the big TH-camrs who push otherwise. 📸
If you want to learn something of use, head over here www.tinhouse-studio.com/product-category/workshop/
As a sports photographer, battery mA ratings do make difference. I have used a battery a couple of years ago, with a slightly lower rating than the Canon batteries, and on a 70-200 2.8, there was a dramatic difference in focus accuracy. Not on smaller lenses though.
But for stills work, it should not be problem.
Nice video. And well put. People who are worried about chromatic aberration are not photographers, they’re what many refer to as “the local guy with a camera.” The surgical sharpness that a digital camera produces is not only unpleasant to look at but a weakness aesthetically. This is why some shoot film and why others are putting old character lenses on digital cameras. No one really wants to look at a face nor a landscape that is razor sharp. Allow the viewer to dream a little, for crying out loud.
I Love this guy's honesty!!
I appreciate your common sense approach.
This is purely the work of the industry to herd consumers towards gear…and you hit the nail on the head. IT DOESN’T MATTER . You are focusing on the wrong stuff if that’s what keeps you up at night. Thanks for the video
Thank you, my OCD needed to hear this!
OMG!!! This is so true. I literally laughed out loud. As photographers we do what we need to do. Your statement about the interest level of the subject of the photo is an argument I've had with more than one person. On the basis of that one observation I am going to subscribe.
I agree - Scott's ability to say out loud what we hear in our hearts has helped me be very happy with some technically flawed images that were just simply great photos!
Lol 🤣🤣🤣best comment ever "Goldie and the 3 bears with the aperture" you got to.let me use that 😂😂😂
Thank you so much. It seems that my creativity went out the window on e I learned the technical side. This gives me such a sigh of relief when I'm trying to make a photo and worrying about the technical. I'm going to stop worrying so much.
Love it!!! 🎉
Everything you said is 100% correct.
All flows from the principle of don't worry about it until and unless it actually affects or is limiting you. Whether that be upgrade kit or extra bit of editing. That possible marginal gain is at the cost of where the real difference is actually at.
You are mostly correct. For 95% of shoots, none of the crap matters. When it does, the photographers who shoot that 5% know how to do it. Focus-stacked macros, for example. OTOH, if I didn't know the truth, I would suspect that "bokeh" was invented by the Camera Industry® to sell expensive lenses. We used to talk about "nice soft blur". Now it's "the bokeh balls". "This ten-thousand-dollar lens has microscopically better 'bokeh' than this five-thousand-dollar one."
Absolutely love this.
Between the lines I take this as, "yes these things are important" BUT if you have modern-ish pro or semi-pro gear and Lightroom or the equivalent, you're now close enough to just not worry about them anymore.
Nice video. Gained a subscriber. I used to shoot at the max aperture the lens provided. All situations. I guess is did this because I wanted to get my moneys worth. I get home and not enough of the image is in focus to use. Last trip to Europe, I set my ISO to auto, aperture to 7.1 and got great images. I shoot with a pair a Canon 5DM3s and various 4.0 L zooms and nice, not the best, primes. My best shot from the trip was on a 50mm Zeiss at 7.1. $450 lens and I can’t wait to return.
It's nearly impossible to see aberrations from the camera in physical print. I worked on imaging the plates that go onto a printing press for a few national newspapers. The pressman can't align the black, yellow, magenta, and cyan plates perfectly all the time so any minor technical imperfections will be covered up by the imperfections of the medium.
It's also totally not surprising that Louis Vuitton, Dior, Rolex, etc. have teams dedicated to finding printing errors for a partial refund. The attitude towards imperfections in camera would surely be different if photographers were regularly asked for refunds because of a fringe.
So true, hurrah at last a photographer who knows what he is talking about stating the facts. If you need f16 or f22 it's the subject/subjects that matters not what's happening on the edges.
PERFECT IS ENEMY OF GOOD. In Chile we say "paja molida" (ground straw).
The only time it matters to me' is when (like now) I'm shopping for new gear. But I am also concerned about value for the dollar.
It always makes me laugh when people shoot test charts, then micro analyze the len's faults.
Straight savage when you said “the only people who care are gay reviewers” 😂
Idk bout this rant. Kubrik was an insane gear nerd. Some people see the tool as a foundational element of the art and others just see it as a tool, its both totally ok and valid.
L-O-V-E... your down-to-earth sense-talking! Yes, the nerdy obsessiveness all over TH-cam is EXHAUSTING! And I too have had more than my fill of all that stuff, (because yes, I've read, and listened to far too much of it), and entirely agree with everything you say. I look back fondly at my film-shot Nikkormat pictures of forty years ago, and many are soft. But great! (As are so many by hundreds of the world's most famous and revered photographers). But, like you say, they are, and remain damn good pictures! And the softness or blurs, matter not one jot! THE PICTURE is what sticks in your mind! Love all your videos. So glad you make the time to so entertainingly, pass on your observations, and wisdom!
This is absolutely why I don't care about the new lenses, companies are coming out in, I shoot Nikon, I'll shoot older Nikon f lenses or sigma lenses or whatever. The flaws are the reason those lenses were so sought after
I just went and bought an old Nikkor 55 1.2 it's one of the "softest" lenses Nikon made, but it's beautiful for portraits and it gives a unique look for a wedding
Been photographing for museum...even there it is not important to be perfect, you only need to present lived life...
👌
5:25 Rostrum camera⁉️
... in other words, Rembrandt wasn't obsessed with the chemical composition of the paint.
You forgot one important thing on wasted time or at the least being overly obsessed with a single technical aspect. If you buy a lens that can stop down to an aperture of f/1.2 that doesn’t mean that every photograph you take must be shot at that aperture. Not every background and foreground has to be blurred out.
At 00:39 you talk about chromatic aberration.
Did you mean DIFFRACTION?
Chromatic aberration is a lens fault that causes colored fringes.
Diffraction is the reason sharpness suffers when the aperture is too small
They are two very different things.
All that nerdy stuff just goes in one ear and out the other. It helps to be slight deaf as listening takes effort, if it takes too much effort I just switch off.
Sanity at last!
Your GBP to USD conversion rate is a bit out of whack.
Chromatic aberration and diffraction are different things.
Chromatic aberrations are different from diffusion.
Diffusion is from too small an aperture - Chromatic aberration is the coloured border around objects.
All lenses are really good these days - especially if not used wide open.
Unlike clients - too many photographers are obsessives with these things ...🦘
I started photography at 65, three years ago. I shoot mainly landscape and street. By landscape I mean rural and urban landscapes. In short I shoot what interests ME. When I look at a photo I don't look for imperfections. Thanks for your insightfully videos, I really enjoy them and learn a lot from you. Keep it up mate
Same here…started 3 years ago at … (wait while I do the math) … 48. Got lucky to get on a path to being paid to shoot photos and most technical terms are alien to me. I have other things to worry about. Keep shooting!
Hey Scott. I discovered your videos fairly recently and I must say, I have learned a TON from you. You say it like it is and cut through the BS, love it.
Insecurity. That's the driving force behind perfectionism and OCD. Very few are successful despite it, and even fewer because of it. Most remain mired in it. But the marketing people love it!
Eh, I think the primary issue is that the more a person dives into a particular subject the more they notice the subtle details, and it can be extremely easy to lose perspective and overly focus on those details.
True. Here are some of things that I find really matter - 1) Subject matter, find something interesting to video or photograph. 2) Lighting, a sadly neglected area. 3) Setting, an interesting location in which to feature your subject matter.
So when I was in college, I worked at a summer camp and saved up my money to buy my first 35mm SLR camera. It was the Canon Rebel 2000; not what most would consider a "pro" camera lol. There was another guy on staff at that same camp who also had a 35mm camera (can't remember what it was) and he was the tech nerd who always babbled on about numbers and all kinds of crap that I had no idea about. He had told others who were working at the camp that he was going to take photos and make prints and was going to sell them if anyone was interested. Despite the fact that I had been taking photographs for most of my childhood and adolescence, I knew nothing about the technical aspects of what I was doing. I just pointed my camera at the thing I liked, and snapped away. Even though having technical knowledge is definitely important, especially for professionals, it's not the only thing that you need to know. The irony about this situation was, my photographs were vastly more popular than his because, for all of his technical knowledge, he just didn't have a great eye for photography. The majority of my photos received lots of praise, and his just...didn't get much of any. I kind of felt bad for him for sure. But, this video kind of reminded me of that whole scenario. Sometimes getting the shot creatively will trump getting the shot technically.
You need to know all of these and ignore them, that's the hard part, but job needs to be done.
I was a photographer for 30+ years. My definition of a good photo was, a good photo was one that you got paid for.
Very timely for me this. Im considering shooting with a somewhat idiosyncratic setup as it will aid my production workflow and style/aesthetic. For gear, my ethos is 1). Choose something practical and suitable 2.) Make sure you enjoy using it. As you said, only the gear reviewers will notice minor chromatic irregularities, its their job.
Let how you use your tools be organically part of your style! I love this comment 🙂
As usual, great commonsense advice! Being a gearhead does not great photography make. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
I think this is your best video yet. A smack in the face with a dose of reality.
Sigma art lens line up is every impressive I love the sigma art line up, thanks so much for your videos I'm not a food photographer I'm a portrait and fashion but alit of your advice translates perfect to what I do also, so I really appreciate your content and time
Best vid to date THS.
I used to obsess over sharpness, right up until I got my first extremely sharp lens.
Once I had it, I fell back in love with my vintage glass.
I think a lot of it is a defence mechanism - blaming gear for my own lack of skill or creative limitations. Once I have the best gear, I realize the limiting factor was me all along.
Hahaha, I shoot up to f/22 very often, yes, there are technical issue, but not a single client has complained. One of my main lenses for beauty/makeup is a 20+ yr old lens pentax 645 80-160mm and is not sharp as any new lens, but clients are very happy with it. We commercial guys shoot for clients not for other photographers. Also like you , I use a lot of zoom lenses. At one time, I was backed by sigma and had every single "Art" prime lens, it was a pain to work with and not being able to position the camera where I needed it (perspective angles) - So I only have zooms todays. I position camera where it needs to be for the shot and zoom to frame. - point to all this, sure primes are sharper, but clients dont care.
Your closing statement about audiofool cork sniffing is the best comparison you could have made. I worked a quarter century in the audio electronics industry as an engineer, there is no difference and if one can hear a difference in a double blindfold test, then one cable is faulty!
I have no end of people commenting on my photography when they see the apertures I have chosen to use, and its always the cork sniffing boffins that have these skewed opinions. An aperture is chosen by me for technical reasons revolving around light control of a needed DOF, all the other nonsense can go out the bloody window, if I need 16, I use 16 and speak with my lighting and composition as best I can.
When "that guy at the party" can correctly answer the five factors that affect DOF, then perhaps we can sit and have a conversation about lighting or something creative.
Unfortunatley I can give you only one thumb up. Would like to give you onethousand. What a great channel!!
Which is the biggest waste of time.?
A. Discussing lens sharpness.
B. Colour grading my black and white pictures.
C. Both equally pointless.
5:23, or you're doing medical photography or very high end jewelry photos, Harry Winston, Tiffanys, Rolex etc.
hahahah nice one!!! for me... 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and 100mm 1:1 macro 2.8... additional sigma 15mm f2.8... have this lenses for years and i DON'T need any.
I've chosen lenses specifically because of their technical defects in my line of photography. Refraction at f/22 can actually enhance the subject or mood of a shot. I take a "wabi sabi" approach insofar as nothing is perfect and that "defects" are what makes things unique. And no one notices perfection or defects unless they are glaring. Technically perfect things are boring IMHO. And if it goes to print, no one sees the small defects or looks for them unless they are anal- retentive nuts. I know all the technical issues inside and out, but I rarely worry about them, and if I do worry, then I'm doing something wrong in my process.
Fantastic video. One can add "Noise" to the list. I've been a second shooter in a super dark room for an event and shoot higher ISO's to get the sharpness I need. The main photographer was worried about the high ISO I was shooting with (iso 5000 on a modern Sony A74) because of noise. HOWEVER, I was getting 95% tack sharp images vs her less than 30 %. The noise was quite usable out of camera and a little click in Lightroom made the noise basically go away. I've been a pro Architectural/Commercial photographer for close to 20 years now...If I listened to all the "photo forum" trolls, I would basically quit. Most have never been paid for one image let alone make a full-time living
I have been shooting photography for over 40 years and you are spot-on all this crap about chromatic aberration it's all these TH-camrs that talk about this that get their lenses for free so they can have something to talk how about I agree with you concentrate on taking the pictures that's all that matters I have now moved over to Sony and I am astonished how good all my photos come out I don't need to get any new cameras. The camera doesn't make the photographer. Thank you for this video I hope more people watch it.
I recently watched a petapixel video the other day where they hooked up a 105 2.5 onto a new Fz and claimed, well, it's not the sharpest vintage lens, but it fits. Are you kidding me? I've watched people's eyes pop out of their mind of photographs that I've taken with one of the best pieces of glass Nikon ever made. I instantly shit on them, and they should be squatted upon. Are you kidding me? How can I even take you seriously? Facepalm. I don't even shoot digital, but I follow this channel for very good other reasons. But c'mon, the 105 2.5? Did you sit down and take a crap on it before you shot it? What more could you possibly need besides the amazing pop out of your head separation and color rendition. Literally, they had this nailed to a wall back in the '70's. Sorry, rant. BTW, thumbs up high five or whatever we are supposed to click on. I'm still fuming, great video then.
THANKS SO MICH FOR SAYING ALL YOU SAID ON THIS VIDEO, 101% agreed!!! Bests regards from a Venezuelan follower!
I thought chromatic aberrations were color fringe and I thought lens softening was diffraction?
Photographer that obsess about CA and pixel peeping in general usually take the worst photos...
I just did field hockey game one of the coolest photos was cropped by like 50 percent, shot at 800iso on a evening (had a F/5 aperture and a 1/500 exposure) and I can see the CA problems but everyone I work with says that is a awesome photo. I don't like pixel perfect because its just too much for one thing, I do work trying to get that single moment.
Probably one of your best videos ever. Every contributor to to the DPR forums and other discussion groups, should be forced to watch it until it sinks in, before their allowed to put finger to keyboard or start to photograph their cat's whiskers.
On a serious note, I think a lot of this stems from people's lack visual awareness. It's much easier to fixate on the technical side of photography, than to discuss the aesthetics of image making and to be frank, some are just gear heads who's hobby is collecting camera equipment. They spend ages perfecting their lens line up and once completed, they switch systems. Mirror-less has been a God send to these people.
Yet again , a brilliant video . Many thanks Scott . I’ve had the “photography “ conversations with other photographers ! Always fall asleep on my feet . As you say spend more time on actually taking pics and hopefully you’ll get a less than perfect excellent shot
I think you are confusing chromatic aberration with diffraction (which is what happens when you stop down to a very small pin hole, (like f22) and light waves kind of shove each other around in there (like too many pedestrians on a very narrow sidewalk, no longer able to all walk in straight path) and reduce sharpness. Color fringing and chromatic aberration are exactly the same thing - one actually causes the other. Imperfect glass will act like a prism, and split light into a micro rainbow on your recorded image, around very bright points of light next to darker areas. Agree with your points though.
This is PERFECT! Not the Advice we WANT to hear but the Advice we NEED to hear. Thank you. =)
When I take a photo, I will pick a lens that is best suited for a shot. I don’t think about chromatic issues or fringing etc.
I am concerned about composition, light, depth of field.
I am be a creative person. I document a moment in time with my images.
If someone says.. I want this aperture with this lens, etc. fine. I follow the instructions and capture the image to the best of my ability because I can.
I have inexpensive kit. I have what I have. That’s it. I know my gear which is key. I can push its limits and work around issues to get results and I’m happy with what i can do
No customer in the history of the world, who said they absolutely love that photograph, followed up with. I love it because it was shot at f16, 100 iso at 1/125 sec.
That's left to the photo wanker who thinks it matters.
I agree it's either a great photo or it's rubbish.
Most people buying a print only care what it looks like on the wall.. The only people who care about fine detail are photographers.. With wildlife photography detail is more important because often subjects are shot at variable distances in challenging lighting conditions and images are often heavily cropped.. For that reason sharpness is more important for wildlife than other forms of photography..
What do photographers waste so much time doing? Well, watching photography videos on TH-cam, of course! (Guilty as charged!) 😜
So true, that's why I stopped posting on Facebook photo forums.
I recently was looking at one my favorite still life photographers websites and I noticed some errors in the background masking. I looked at this particular image a hundred times and I only noticed it on the last viewing. The subject matter drew me in that much.
I disagree, there are famous photos made with certain lenses or cameras which worked with their style, not because they were "perfect", but because they produced a special look.
To me, saying you don't care about chromatic aberrations and distorsions, etc., when you have a 100k campaign and use a crappy lens becaue is easier to use is nonsense, just trying to make a point for the sake of being different. There are hundreds of lenses better and easier to use than that one especially when you have the budget and any improvement on your craft matters even you think "no one cares".
No one cares about the colors Klimt used for his paintings, but everybody recognise the fact there is something special about them.
The pixel-peeping is fueled indirectly by the smartphone industry… because their main talking points, at the generations of phones we are at, target on the phones having better cameras with more megapixels… in that one case… it doesn’t matter… you’re doing computational photography with a pinhole size aperture… move on…
I might be missing your point, but early in the video when you are talking about chromatic aberration it sounds more like you are talking about diffraction.
Just assisted a 250 person portrait shoot. Sometimes you only have a minute with each. Dial in and shoot.
One of my mostly liked instagram click has lot of noise. But till I pointed it out, none of my friends noticed ! As Scott Kelby put it, the only people worry about noise is other photographers !
Love your videos, cuts straight through the BS. Thank you, more of the same please,
Spot on! I’ve got a friend that spends most of his time comparing lenses on boring subjects. Waste of time.
Glad you brought this up 7:25, 😂, tell Michael Fremer that, those guys can "hear" the tone arm of a turn table or can "hear" the difference between a record pressed at one plant from another, BS.