Heresy!

[MarkBarbieri]

I've been reading Scott Kelby's book, The Digital Photography Book, Volume 3. For those not familiar with him, Kelby is the head of the National Association of Photoshop Professionals. He is not a renowned photographer, but he is surely the best known and most prolific Photoshop educator and has a good reputation for teaching general photography techniques as well.

In his latest book, he mentioned several things that go against the grain of "elite photographer" orthodoxy. I thought I'd list some of them here to inspire those that don't want to be cowed by the pixel peeping perfectionists who insist that everything must be done perfectly. I'm not advocating for his views nor am I warning against them; I'm just providing them as an alternative viewpoint to what is often seen online.

UV Filters

...Putting this filter on puts a thin piece of glass between our lens and anything that would scratch, or worse yet, break it. They're very cheap, so if one breaks or gets scratches, you just replace it. Life goes on. Get a scratch on one of your lenses, and they'll hear you weeping six blocks away. I buy a UV filter for every lens I own...

Changing Lenses

...there are just a couple of things you should know. The first is that you generaly don't have to turn the camera off to change lenses. Although you'll read some purists online who claim tohaving the sensor still charged will attract dust and blah, blah, blah, I don't know any pros who actually turn their camera off to change lenses. However, when you do change your lens, to keep dust from actually falling into your camera itself, don't leave the open body of the camera facing straight up. That's just askin' for it. You're better off tilting the body down towards the ground...

"All-in-One" Zoom

...you will see some photographers in forums online saying that these lenses are basically beneath them, because they're not as sharp as they could be, or they're not as rugged as the more expensive lenses, etc. Don't let that throw you. I don't know a single photographer that actually has one of these that doesn't love it, mostly because when it's on your camera, you're never going to say, "Oh, I missed that shot because I didn't have the right lens," because it does it all in one lens. As for quality, I have a 30x40" print of a photo I took with that lens while on vacation, framed, and hanging in my home...I grab this lens first when I'm going on vacation.

I find it interesting that he views it as a vacation lens. I suspect that his perspective is that you do your serious shooting when you aren't on vacation. For me, it's sort of the opposite. Vacations are often an opportunity to do serious photography. If I had an "All-in-One" zoom, it would be the lens I'd throw on the camera when I go to the park with the kids or to a neighbor kid's birthday. For vacations, I'm packing my favorite lenses.

Primes vs Zooms

...There are people who swear that [primes] are visibly sharper than zoom lenses. I truly believe that at one point in time, this was absolutely the case. Zoom lenses were lesser quality, and primes were sharper (and generally they did, and still do, let you focus up closer). But I personally don't think that's the case with today's higher-quality zoom lenses (not just any zoom, but a high-quality zoom, like ones that's f/2.8 all the way through). I think there are but a handful of photographers who, with the naked eye, can tell whether you took a particular shot with a zoom lens or a prime lens...I've talked directly with manufacturers who make both the prime and zoom lenses themselves, and they've told me, point blank, that with today's higher-quality zoom lenses, there is not visible sharpness difference between zooms and primes.

Full Frame vs Standard Digital Chip

Right now, full-frame sensor cameras are getting all the buzz, but for shooting sports, you might want to consider hanging onto that standard-crop sensor digital camera...Because of the zoom factor regular-crop sensor digital cameras have, they will get you much closer to the action.

Histograms

This may be the most shocking thing you read in this book: not only do I not use the histogram on the back of the camera, but most of the pros I know don't either. With digital photography, our main concern is keeping detail in the highlight areas of our photo, so instead of trying to evaluate the histogram, we just turn on our camera's highlihg warning. It warns us if any part of our image is clipping, so then we can use exposure compensation to override the exposure our camera chose, and darken the exposure a bit until the detail comes back.

Memory Card Speed

If you upgrade to the latest high-speed Compact Flash or SD memory cards, is it going to really make a difference? Well, honestly, for most folks - probably not. These more expensive high-speed cards are designed for people like serious sports photographers, with higher-end dSLRs, who need to shoot long, continuous bursts of images.

 

[Marlton Mom]

Quote: pixel peeping perfectionists

Thanks for THAT!

Now all day in my head I'm going to hear:
"pixel peeping perfectionists, pixel peeping perfectionists, pixel peeping perfectionists"!

At least you chased It's a Small World outta my head....

Smoochies,
Marlton Mom

 

[boBQuincy]

Interesting ideas from Kelby! When he speaks of Photoshop I listen, for other subjects I may not listen very much. On some points I agree with him though.

The electronics in our cameras runs at 5 Volts or less. 5 Volts does not qualify as static electricity and is not likely to attract dust. I don't bother to turn the camera off when switching lenses.

Prime lenses absolutely were sharper than zooms and probably still are. They certainly have fewer elements and far fewer moving elements. Even with the best zooms it is difficult to believe that moving pieces are going to align as well as fixed pieces every time, not to mention the light transmission through each element. Whether it is noticeable may be questioned but I bet it can easily be measured.

I do find myself less concerned about histograms and more with lost highlights. Consider that we want to expose to the right as much as possible without blowing highlights, the rest of the image is on it's own.

I take many HDR sets and lots of motion sequences with a camera that has a smaller buffer, I like having faster memory cards.

 

[Groucho]

Bah! Humbug!

The most egregious point there is that sharpness is the only measure of a lens. Many of us like primes not only because they are sharper (and they measurably are, no matter what a salesman will tell you), but for their other qualities - most significantly, speed, and the advantages (DoF, bokeh, low-light, faster focusing, etc) therein.

"Pro" photographers are also likely to be using the highest-quality zooms available. Joe Blow with a $200-300 zoom lens should easily be able to get notably better quality with a $200-300 prime lens. Then there's overall cost, size, weight, etc.

And when was the last time you actually scratched a lens? It's not that easy. Even if you do - a minor scratch in the coating (you're really unlikely to scratch the actual glass!) is unlikely to be noticeable in your actual photos, it would only affect resale value of the lens.

High-speed - I certainly see a difference between slower and faster lenses; and with video becoming more common (I just got a hotshoe mic for mine yesterday!), it's that much more important.

Changing lenses - I saw pros with D3s and top-o'-line Nikon F2.8 zooms at my cousin's wedding recently leaving the cameras straight up and lensless for probably 10-20 seconds at a time, which made me cringe.

Let's face it - this "Kelby" guy is selling a PHOTOSHOP book. Of course he will advocate for photos with lower contrast and flare (UV), dust-filled (slow lens changes), and worse sharpness/bokeh/color/DoF (zoom/megazoom lenses) - those are the thing you'll need Photoshop to fix!

 

[VVFF]

I agree with most all his points. The only exception would be that I am not a proponent of UV filters now that protection filters are available. No need to have a coating that does absolutely nothing but raise cost on the filter.

I believe its stated in a review that with the Canon 50D and future Canon cameras that they cut power to the sensor the second the lens is removed. So no, you don't need to turn the camera off.

 

[WDWFigment]

I agree with almost all of his points. Regardless of whether his rationales are correct, I think his attitude is "who cares" to a lot of this stuff--that's where I agree.

I think a lot of people focus on the things mentioned above because they are attempting to compensate. If you're taking awesome pictures, no one is ever going to say, "boy, that could've been a little sharper had you used a prime rather than a zoom lens with a uv filter on it." Not even professional photographers can claim to care about this on the basis of pleasing clients. No one in the real world actually cares about this stuff, it's purely a creation of photographers. Good pictures will always win out.

 

[boBQuincy]

I agree with almost all of his points. Regardless of whether his rationales are correct, I think his attitude is "who cares" to a lot of this stuff--that's where I agree.

I think a lot of people focus on the things mentioned above because they are attempting to compensate. If you're taking awesome pictures, no one is ever going to say, "boy, that could've been a little sharper had you used a prime rather than a zoom lens with a uv filter on it." Not even professional photographers can claim to care about this on the basis of pleasing clients. No one in the real world actually cares about this stuff, it's purely a creation of photographers. Good pictures will always win out.

Let me start by noting that I greatly admire your talent and your photographs, and that perhaps you do care about some of this (a 30 minute exposure of Spectromagic may be an example). I agree that usually a professional only needs to please a client. However, an artist, whether professional or amateur needs to please themselves and this is often much more demanding.

I have some photos of the same subjects that I have taken over the years and each time they get better because of better equipment, better technique, and hopefully better artistic ability. As the saying goes, "good is the enemy of excellent" and although many people think some of my photos are really good I can see the flaws and know they are not excellent, or at least not as good as I can do. To this end I want to try to use the best equipment I can when I am going for excellence, primes without filters are a good start since that is as good as it gets.

Perhaps this is a perfection hangup, perhaps it is an attempt to compensate, perhaps it is just what happens when we try to do the best we can. More than a few of us on this board seem to be very concerned about doing our best, and I don't think it is pixel-peeping in this case. It is striving for excellence.

Why else would many of us take yet another photo of Cindy's castle when we have maybe 1000 already?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

High-speed - I certainly see a difference between slower and faster lenses; and with video becoming more common (I just got a hotshoe mic for mine yesterday!), it's that much more important.

...snip...

Let's face it - this "Kelby" guy is selling a PHOTOSHOP book. Of course he will advocate for photos with lower contrast and flare (UV), dust-filled (slow lens changes), and worse sharpness/bokeh/color/DoF (zoom/megazoom lenses) - those are the thing you'll need Photoshop to fix!

I use medium speed CF cards and have never had a problem with video. With video, your card is either fast enough or it isn't. Mine all seem to be fast enough, at least for the video on my 5DM2. I guess the video resolution and codec used have a big influence.

The book really is a photography book rather than a Photoshop book. As Bob said, though, he's renowned for his Photoshop teaching and not his photography. In a way, that helps him write photography books geared towards non-pro photographers. You may be on to something, though. He may be less bothered by lens and technique deficiencies because he can correct them much more easily than most.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Here's my personal take on each item.

UV Filters - I'm not much of a zealot either way. I treat my lenses badly. I actually blow them clean with my breath and wipe them with my shirt. I haven't scratched any of them yet. I used to use UV filters. I had one single shot that was negatively impacted by having a UV filter. I had some lights ghost. I don't bother with them but I don't think people that use them are causing themselves grievous harm. I just recommend that if you do use one, take it off before shooting a scene with lights.

Changing Lenses - I pretty much never turn my camera off, certainly not for a lens change. My technique is to lay my camera on it's back (lens pointed upwards), get my new lens ready, and then swap as quickly as possible. I occasionally have dust on my sensor, but I live with it.

"All-in-One" Zoom - I'd probably be tempted if I had an APS-C camera. My wife would definitely like it. It would certainly be handy for basic outings when I didn't feel like lugging around a set of lenses.

Primes vs Zooms - I use high end zooms. I'm sure that you could pixel peep and find differences between my zooms and the equivalent primes, especially at f/2.8, but I would probably never see the difference in prints. I've got a few primes and plan to add more, but they are all for specialty applications (low light, ultra-shallow DOF, macro, tilt/shift, fisheye). I like the convenience of zooms, but they can't do everything.

One thing that has me thinking that primes might make a comeback is the popularity of very high resolution cameras. My current camera has 21mp, which is overkill for just about anything I'll shoot and print. The extra mp are great, however, for cropping. I can crop down to 30% of the original image and still have something I can print at a reasonable size. This means that I could walk around with a couple of primes and use cropping as my zoom.

Full Frame vs Standard Digital Chip - I definitely agree that most people are better off with an APS-C camera. They are especially advantageous if you buy lenses designed for them.

I don't completely with him on the "added reach" of an APS-C camera. Scott's experience is with D3/D700 cameras, which have very large pixels and, relative to their peers, low resolution. With my 5DM2, I can crop to APS-C size and still have an 8 megapixels. That's not quite the reach of an 18mp APS-C camera, but it's not too bad.

That said, my camera isn't a good sports camera. It's too slow (writing all those pixels isn't easy). The AF is also not good enough. The AF speed and accuracy is fine, but the AF coverage is too small.

Histograms - I've always been a big fan of histograms, but I agree that I don't use them in the field for most shooting.

Memory Card Speed - I've always checked Rob Galbraith's site and bought cards that seemed to be a good deal on a price/performance basis. That has never been the fastest cards available.

 

[WDWFigment]

Let me start by noting that I greatly admire your talent and your photographs, and that perhaps you do care about some of this (a 30 minute exposure of Spectromagic may be an example). I agree that usually a professional only needs to please a client. However, an artist, whether professional or amateur needs to please themselves and this is often much more demanding.

I have some photos of the same subjects that I have taken over the years and each time they get better because of better equipment, better technique, and hopefully better artistic ability. As the saying goes, "good is the enemy of excellent" and although many people think some of my photos are really good I can see the flaws and know they are not excellent, or at least not as good as I can do. To this end I want to try to use the best equipment I can when I am going for excellence, primes without filters are a good start since that is as good as it gets.

Perhaps this is a perfection hangup, perhaps it is an attempt to compensate, perhaps it is just what happens when we try to do the best we can. More than a few of us on this board seem to be very concerned about doing our best, and I don't think it is pixel-peeping in this case. It is striving for excellence.

Why else would many of us take yet another photo of Cindy's castle when we have maybe 1000 already?

I agree entirely with your assessment (if I didn't, I'd be a hypocrite, as I do the same things), maybe I should have been more clear in mine. What I don't care for is pixel peeping and this fixation with getting as sharp of shots as possible. I constantly try to improve my shots, but I can't say that I've ever retaken a shot because I got a sharper lens and wanted a slightly sharper image. I can see wanting to improve composition or creativity (or because a new focal length or aperture offers a new possibility), but not because the lens is slightly sharper. I guess I don't see going from sharp to really sharp as being that important to me. I know I'm probably in the minority on that, as I see a lot of sharpness discussions online.

 

[boBQuincy]

I guess I don't see going from sharp to really sharp as being that important to me. I know I'm probably in the minority on that, as I see a lot of sharpness discussions online.

Truth is we see a lot more discussion online than we see photographs! This is more so on forums like Canon & Nikon, most of us here actually post photos! The "brand" forums get really hung up on equipment to the detriment of photography.

 

[jann1033]

purely anecdotal but

UV Filters imo depends on if you are using a top of the line filter or a cheap tiffen. i saw a test once and you could tell the difference with the tiffen even at normal view, not cropped. i figure if i am going to damage a lens scratching will probably be the least of the problem, IE dropped my 70-200 onto flagstone and busted the metal mount, but the front element was still fine and scratch free.( bad me didn't even have a hood or filter on it at the time)


Changing Lenses it could be the newer/ upgraded cameras turn off but every dust smootch on my xt came from me forgetting to turn off the camera at a lens change since i'd turn it on and voila, another speck( so far i don't have any on my 40d but haven't forgotten to turn it off yet either, give me time)


"All-in-One" Zoom again imo depends on the lens and maybe even the particular copy of the lens. some are real dogs and unless the photographer is blind i don't see how he/she couldn't see the difference. if they are so great why not use them all the time lol



Primes vs Zooms my $100+ prime is way sharper than my $400 28-135 but maybe when you get into newer lenses ( or ones that are $$$$$) that doesn't make as much of a difference


Full Frame vs Standard Digital Chip i asked about this before.in that thread, someone posted a full frame shot that was noticeably sharper. imo unless they hold back to sell the full frames i can imagine the gap narrowing more and more. but imo right now there is still a difference. ff may not be the prefect camera for everything but imo it still has a jump on the crops for basic iq. i would like to see two photos, same everything but body though to compare out of curiosity


Histograms use them in photoshop more than while shooting. imo a lot of " older" stuff is becoming less important as more features are added to less expensive bodies...ie the highlight type features are doing what you maybe "needed" a histogram for at one time.


Memory Card Speedi don't have the fastest cards around but they have worked for me. usually i worry about price>warranty> speed when i get a new card

 

[Groucho]

Regarding Bob's "good" vs "excellence" - that is a good point... but another point on the same side is that I think there can be a big difference between an enthusiastic amateur and a professional. Most professionals will go for the F2.8 zoom without giving it much thought, as it will generally consistently produce acceptable results.

I've got a couple very, very nice F2.8 zooms that are very sharp and produce quite nice bokeh and have nice 9-blade apertures. However, I find that the photos from most high-ends zoom lack the personality of a prime lens. When I slap on a 50-year-old prime lens, I'm certainly giving up some control of aberrations and probably even some sharpness (but less than you might think) to a new zoom - but darn it, it's just got a look - for better or for worse - that is just not the same. Sharpness just isn't all there is to a lens.

As an amateur, I have more freedom to experiment with something other than your standard fast zooms and to hopefully produce shots that I find pleasing, whether or not anyone else does.

I use medium speed CF cards and have never had a problem with video. With video, your card is either fast enough or it isn't. Mine all seem to be fast enough, at least for the video on my 5DM2. I guess the video resolution and codec used have a big influence.

(I realized I made a typo in my original message - I said "slower and faster lenses" and meant "slower and faster cards" - oops.)
I've only even used Extreme 3 cards in my K-7 so I have no idea how my slower cards compare for video. That being said, I have used slower cards in my previous DSLRs and definitely saw a difference - especially with the K20D's 21fps burst mode. With a slow card, it would take a loooooong time to flush them all out if I'd taken a lot. A faster card definitely made a difference, and was noticeable even in shot-to-shot time. Granted, a few of my cards are probably dogs - they're technically all Class 6 but I think a few might have been fudging the numbers a little! I've been tempted by a Class 10 16-gig card a few times but I'm assuming that I won't burn through 3 8g cards in one day. We shall see...