[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Thanks very much.
I will give it a go.
By the way planning to visit Switzerland next year. Will PM you for some tips. Hope you don't mind ��

Today so called "Photography" is more Post Processing than actual photography. Camera and equipment are slowly loosing their meaning and world is only looking to Adobe LR/PS/CC, if you are good at Adobe and have a creative edge you'd do wonders with even the most basic camera. No where can you get bird shots with a diffuse background, the sky tones and detail in the clouds and landscape and wonderful vibrant hues of wedding/fashion shoots are all digital manipulation, you replace backgrounds add/subtract light. The most successful photographers these days are all digital manipulators. My trip to Europe was more than 5 years ago in the summer of 2012 and was chaperoned by Thomas Cook, very enjoyable indeed.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

Today so called "Photography" is more Post Processing than actual photography. Camera and equipment are slowly loosing their meaning and world is only looking to Adobe LR/PS/CC, if you are good at Adobe and have a creative edge you'd do wonders with even the most basic camera.

I disagree.

I have put in some of my thought here:

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadge...ml#post4163885 (Gear for the Serious Amateur Photographer)

Please do let me know your comments after you go through my point of view.

You should see Rudra in action. He can create magic from a cell phone.

[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by ampere

I disagree.

I have put in some of my thought here:

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadge...ml#post4163885 (Gear for the Serious Amateur Photographer)

Please do let me know your comments after you go through my point of view.

You should see Rudra in action. He can create magic from a cell phone.

It was interesting to read about your learning curve in photography. Mine started when I visited Europe, I had spent a pile on the family vacation but didn't have a decent camera after some net searching got hold of the Nikon Coolpix P510 (2012) and boy did it kindle my interest after I came back, same year got a Nikon D3200 and slowly started adding lenses and started learning and 500 px was a site guided me and taught me photography; I'm self taught: learnt from other's work. I got myself a kit lens 18-105mm, then 70-300mm, 35mm1.8, tokina 11-16mm, 105mm2.8VR MicroNikkor, then came the itch to move to FX and got a D610+24-120mmf4VR in 2014, Tamron 150-600mm, 20mm1.8G. Nowadays I kill the urge for further impulsive spending. PP is an integral part of Digital Photography. I agree that Rudra can create magic from a cellphone that comes from PP.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

PP is an integral part of Digital Photography. I agree that Rudra can create magic from a cellphone that comes from PP.

The point I am trying to make is after 6-8 years of learning, now I very rarely re-touch 90+ % of images shot. It may be odd crop, saturation, contrast or straightening. By large they are as is. (Its coming full circle)

Only when I am done with the bulk a few remain and I feel like playing with them, I delve into serious PP.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

Today so called "Photography" is more Post Processing than actual photography. Camera and equipment are slowly loosing their meaning and world is only looking to Adobe LR/PS/CC, if you are good at Adobe and have a creative edge you'd do wonders with even the most basic camera. .

I don’t agree at all. Nothing can make up for good photography afterwards on the computer. Capturing sharpness/focus, depth of field, composition, lightningetc starts in the camera.

What sometimes is forgotten what most photographers do on their computer is what photographers used to do in their darkrooms. It’s probably fair to say that an old school analogue photographer would have to spend a lot more time in a darkroom to produce a great print, then a digital photographer would have to spend behind the computer to produce the same result.

Terms such as burning, dodging, wash out are carry overs from the old analogue darkroom. They still mean the exact same thing. It’s just different how you deal with it. Software has made PP a lot more convenient and has given us more options. And has brought it within the reach of just about any photographer. There is a lot of free photo editing software out there and even the best most eloborate software packages are very affordable.

For many photographers, digital processing is an integral part of their photography. A camera set to to RAW will just capture a lot of data. You need software to do actually translate it into an image. Just like you needed a lot of darkroom equipment to make an image out of a negative. (Of course, first you had to develop your film into negatives before you could even start!)

If you want to make print of your (digital) photographs you better brush up on your photo editing skills too. I have started printing about 18 months ago when I joined the Royal Photographic Society. There is simply no way to produce a high quality print from a digital image without quite a bit of editing on the PC>

Camera and equipment have never had any meaning in the sense that I don’t believe it’s up to the camera and equipment to produce stunning results. Just look around at any location which has a lot of people carrying cameras. A fair amount will be carrying Canons, Nikons etc. Several thousands dollars worth of equipment strapped around their necks. Now look at what and how they are shooting. Unlikely to produce anything stunning, creative or unique images. Apart from the odd lucky shot, it will most likely be “holiday snaps” and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But there might be a few in that same crowd with some more developed photographic skills. And they will use similar cameras to produce absolutely unique images from the same place. Nothing to do with the camera or the lens. All to do with having the ability to take great images. Starts in the camera, finalised on the PC.

Not all images need PP either. Some people are just not into it. Some people are against it. (The straight out of the camera only types).

The RPS Benelux chapter of which I’m a member (and the treasurer) ran a big photographic project called Rockin Rotterdam. The aim was to take one creative image of every street in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. In the end we had well over 100 people form the general public submitting photographs. No restrictions on camera’s or format. We only asked for a creative image from a street in Rotterdam

We got well over 4000 images in the end. We just ended our exhibition in the centre of Rotterdam and sponsored by the council which put all these image on display for the public at large.

I think it’s a good proof point that all sorts of people, with all sorts of camera’s or even just iPhones can produce some very interesting images. Some are likely to have received some PP, some a lot, some none whatsoever. But a project like this one encourages people to go out, take a camera, any camera, and start looking around the environment you happen to find yourself in. A street you have never been before. How to find something interesting? How to capture it? For me that is the essence of photography. Capturing an image that somebody else looks at and then has some opinion (nice, great, I don’t get it, I could do better, my kid could do better, stunning, gorgeous etc. etc.)

http://www.rockinrotterdam.eu/portfolio_index

PP is a or can be a part of the journey to get to such an image. But it all starts by looking and forming an image in your head on how to capture a particular image.

I’m working on applying for my first distinction from the RPS. That means looking a lot at my images, redoing them on the PC, or going out and retaking them. Endless feedback from my fellow RPS members at our monthly meetings. I need to produce a panel of ten very high quality images. I can honestly say that the images that are considered my best, are also typically the images I took a long time to shoot. Endless tweaking the camera setup, waiting for the right light, a ray of sunlight looking through a cloud, a passerby etc etc. All my images will receive a fair dose of PP as well. But that measures in 2-10 minutes max. But on most of my good images I have spend many, many hours behind the camera.

The below image did very well in a recent RPS event. I spend about 2 hours in this street in Venice. To find the exact right spot, the right light, to wait for the exact right moment for the gondola to pass. (there was one passing about every 90 seconds!). Waiting for other tourist to walk away. Taking lots of shots trying to get it right. After choosing this one, tiime on the PC doing PP was measured in minutes!

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

Today so called "Photography" is more Post Processing than actual photography. Camera and equipment are slowly loosing their meaning and world is only looking to Adobe LR/PS/CC, if you are good at Adobe and have a creative edge you'd do wonders with even the most basic camera. No where can you get bird shots with a diffuse background, the sky tones and detail in the clouds and landscape and wonderful vibrant hues of wedding/fashion shoots are all digital manipulation, you replace backgrounds add/subtract light. The most successful photographers these days are all digital manipulators. My trip to Europe was more than 5 years ago in the summer of 2012 and was chaperoned by Thomas Cook, very enjoyable indeed.

Partially agree. Adding/subtracting light (if you mean exposure compensation in post, or dodging and burning), vibrance, contrast etc. are all fine, but replacing background is a different ballgame, IMO.

I read an interesting quote by a photographer, not sure whether I agree or not, or to what extent: "...why is optical manipulation ok (e.g. the view you have through a 600mm f/4 is not what our eyes see), and why is digital manipulation not ok?"

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

: "...why is optical manipulation ok (e.g. the view you have through a 600mm f/4 is not what our eyes see), and why is digital manipulation not ok?"

Because a 3D printer might be used to produce a genuine work of art. but it can't be called Sculpture?.

Just a shot in the dark. One man's definition is another man's opinion.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Because a 3D printer might be used to produce a genuine work of art. but it can't be called Sculpture?.

Just a shot in the dark. One man's definition is another man's opinion.

The definition could change after 10-15 years

[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Waiting for other tourist to walk away. Taking lots of shots trying to get it right. After choosing this one, tiime on the PC doing PP was measured in minutes!

Made interesting reading. I also have an image where I waited for the Gondola to pass just below the Bridge of Sighs...

Another one is a unique view to an iconic place: Piazza dei Miracoli...

My interest was kindled by my trip to Europe and the first camera I bought was the Nikon Coolpix P510 and these were the results of a first serious outing with a camera ever for me...way back in 2012.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Partially agree. Adding/subtracting light (if you mean exposure compensation in post, or dodging and burning), vibrance, contrast etc. are all fine, but replacing background is a different ballgame, IMO.

I have no qualms about photographers editing anything. There is one exception and that is where images are taken for a certain purpose that requires an absolute correct representation. (E.g. journalism, proof in a court etc)

Other then that whatever takes your fancy. And it’s not that easy as some make it sound to replace the sky or a back ground. Apart from the actual cutout (not that difficult with practice and the tools) the most difficult part is often to get the lightning correct. If you took a landscape with a dull sky and replace the sky with some sun and clouds, the whole tonal range of the landscape needs to change. Those sort of changes are often near impossible to do.

Which in itself leads to other discussions. At the RPS we have had numerous discusion about some images that appeared (poorly) photoshopped. Some very odd light, shadows etc. Turned out that was still a genuine image, nothing had been done. But when your eyes pick up details that your brain tell you are odd/impossible the reaction seems to be: this image is photoshopped.

Personally I have never replaced a whole sky. I do most of my editing in Lightroom, which tends to be more around tweaking the colours, shades, vibrance, sharpening etc. (Big replacement jobs are better done in Photoshop)

But I do flip the occasional image. Just because (I think) it looks better. In this particular case, these stairs where part of a panel of 10 images. When grouping a set of pictures not only each picture itself need to be good enough on its own. Also, the ten images need to look good together. So you look at the lines, colours, possible flows across the panel etc. Somebody suggested to flip the stair. Which actually did make the panel look better. Remarkable most people also like the flipped image better then the original.

In order to flip it (which is literally one mouse click) I also had to remove a sticker on one of the walls as it had letters on it. Some would baulk at these sort of “manipulations”.

For me photography is an art form and how you produce your art is up to you. Some might like your technique , some might not. As long as it doesn’t need to stand up in court or is used in a newspaper to prove a point it’s fine as I’m concerned.






Still, I believe the amount of time spend with your camera taking the picture is always the most valuable. No amount of PP skills can match what you can catch properly in the first place. I think that is true for photographers that do a lot of PP editing afterwards as well. They typically have a vision on what they want the final image to look like. They will spend a lot of time getting the image in camera as close to how they need it so they can edit from there on so to speak.

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I read an interesting quote by a photographer, not sure whether I agree or not, or to what extent: "...why is optical manipulation ok (e.g. the view you have through a 600mm f/4 is not what our eyes see), and why is digital manipulation not ok?"

It’s a good question. If photography needs to be limited to what we see, we also need to do away with Black & White photography. (Except those few folks with monogromatic vision.

[nibedk]

Originally Posted by architect

My advice would be:
1. Keep the camera as the A7 is an excellent camera any way you look at it.
2. Buy good quality used L-series EF lenses from Canon or FF mount lenses from Nikon.
3. Get a Metabones adapter.

I know the best part of owning a Sony A7 series camera is the compatibility with other mount lenses. But this is always a compromise for someone who starts with a new cam. One may get frustrated as the performance wont match the native FE lenses.

Originally Posted by architect

Secondly someone who is use to Sony steady shot is going to miss the in camera stabilization. Even if it was a Sony A7 MK II I may have tried how finances can work. With A7 MKIII launching before the end of the year getting stuck with a costly 2 generations old camera isn't clicking with me. Even if I like the FF experience the update is going to be very costly. At least now I can get a good price as it is brand new. Its body only so I wont even be using it. If someone picks it then fine else I will have no option to return it.

I know the above steps won't be cheap either. But I feel that after investing about a lakh or so, you can exploit the capabilities of the A7 very well. E.g. you can get a good condition 24-105 L lens from Canon for about 40,000 used. Similarly you can get a 70-200 F4 L IS used for about 50,000 bucks. Then there are primes like 50 mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8 in Canon which are cheap bought used and great value. Throw in the adapter and with an investment of about a lakh you are set!

That's a lot of money. I have some financial commitments which would not allow that kind of investment in lenses. It will be difficult to justify that kind of money as the ROI is going to be zero.

Even if I choose to get another one I can still go for a A77 MK II and get alpha, Minolta and other older lenses for a lot less. At least a couple of ten thousands and I am all set to start my SLR journey again.

Originally Posted by VW2010

Depends on what price you got the A7 for? A7's resale value is going to be very low. Expect something around 35-45K in the used market and the demand is also going to be very low.

Your best option is to return it and then decide what you want. You will incur a loss much less than used resale value the camera can fetch.

This is a brand new body only. Not even opened. heck I haven't yet received the parcel. Your words have given me a mini shock. The main reason I want to dispose off is to have a minimal loss and this beautiful camera can be of use for someone else.

In case it doesn't happen I have made up my mind to take the loss and return it. I know I wont be making best use of the camera. APS-C cams are more useful for the types of photography that interests me.

May be Sony A77 MKII. Additional 20 K I can have couple of APS-C primes and am set for a couple of years at least

Originally Posted by VW2010

A7 is still a wonderful camera. Just rent out lenses if you cannot afford adapter and lens. Today you can rent an 85mm F1.2 canon lens for a fraction of its cost with an adapter.

Cheap and absolutely fantastic lenses include samyang 135 native FE mount, Sony 35mm F1.4, Mitakon 50mm 0.95, and it will be a process to build a system.

A7 is too old a generation and it makes no sense to keep it this point. You are better off returning and putting your money on something you are comfortable with.

Yes for an expert it makes a lot of sense. They can work around the compromises when using adapters and non native lenses. A beginner can get frustrated if they start with non native lenses.

I may have considered a A7 MKII as it has in camera stabilization. But getting stuck with a 2 generations old camera (A7 MK III may get launched anytime soon) just doesn't click with me.

[VW2010]

(A7 MK III may get launched anytime soon)

Yeah, but they will be priced close to 1L or more. Why not A6500 for what you do. Its a fantastic camera with stabilization, better AF, better FPS and has some nice collection of native mount lenses.

Lens collection is a process. Buying all at once is good but hardly gets used. So start with a camera and a flexible lens and add slowly.

Best part is you can slowly add non native lenses and decide as time progresses. A6500 is also much smaller, lighter and easy to get used to mirrorless.

Are you open to renting? You can save a lot over long run while getting a chance to try out different things, different times.

[architect]

Originally Posted by nibedk

That's a lot of money. I have some financial commitments which would not allow that kind of investment in lenses. It will be difficult to justify that kind of money as the ROI is going to be zero.

You have a camera body that used to retail for around 1.4 lakhs till recently. A camera is only half the system, the lenses are the other. You can use cheap lenses for now and upgrade later. But you need good lenses to extract the best out of good cameras.

Regarding the expert bit, I use an 8 year old DSLR with lenses dating back to the nineteen sixties which I have bought for 3 digits from old / used camera dealers. (I also use and own 5 film cameras and shoot film, but that's irrelevant to the topic.)

A long time ago I decided that I wouldn't allow affordability of gear get into the way of my photography. . Don't sell a good camera and take a depreciation hit, just use cheaper lenses on it till you can afford better. At least half of you gear is sorted, its only about upgrading the other half. 30-40 k will get you an adapter and non-L grade lenses.

[nibedk]

Originally Posted by VW2010

Yeah, but they will be priced close to 1L or more. Why not A6500 for what you do. Its a fantastic camera with stabilization, better AF, better FPS and has some nice collection of native mount lenses.

Well earlier this year I had tried a lot of Sony cameras in a Sony store. The only cameras I liked was the A77 MKII. it felt hefty and comfortable in the hand. The APS-C E mount camera ergonomics was not very SLR like. There is size advantage no doubt. But still I didn't like it. I have not used a a6500 but it still feels semi cooked for the price that it sells for. The touch implementation isn't . It was better off without it.

No full frame was considered as I do not think my skills justify a full frame camera. Nothing to do with affordability here.

Originally Posted by VW2010

Lens collection is a process. Buying all at once is good but hardly gets used. So start with a camera and a flexible lens and add slowly.

Completely agree. I would buy at max one good prime within 20 K. The A-mount has more options within that range. FE lenses are insanely pricey.

Originally Posted by VW2010

Best part is you can slowly add non native lenses and decide as time progresses. A6500 is also much smaller, lighter and easy to get used to mirrorless.

As quoted earlier I didn't really like the feel of A6 APSC series. Currently as it stands the biggest advantage Sony mirror less has is the ability to take non native lens. But if you see most of them are compromises. I would not like to start like that where frustration creeps in sooner than later. That should be more of second step after getting to know the camera well. I may be wrong here but that's what I think.

Originally Posted by VW2010

Are you open to renting? You can save a lot over long run while getting a chance to try out different things, different times.

Yes I surely am open to it. Have been looking up Google to see the eco system here in Hyderabad. I hardly got any information. I was in US between 2007-08 and 2012-13. I used to buy Minolta lenses for as low as $20 and sell it off again if I didn't like it. Do we have such a ecosystem for Sony here in India. I would be loved to proven wrong here

Originally Posted by architect

You have a camera body that used to retail for around 1.4 lakhs till recently. A camera is only half the system, the lenses are the other. You can use cheap lenses for now and upgrade later. But you need good lenses to extract the best out of good cameras.

It still retails for 1.2 L now. The A7 Mk II is cheaper @ 1.1 L. My camera was picked up for a little less than 1 L as there was some low price that particular date

Originally Posted by architect

Regarding the expert bit, I use an 8 year old DSLR with lenses dating back to the nineteen sixties which I have bought for 3 digits from old / used camera dealers. (I also use and own 5 film cameras and shoot film, but that's irrelevant to the topic.)

I would have continued holding my SLR had it not given up after 6 years of usage. It had a mechanical failure and the price to fix it was more than what it was retailing for at that particular time. My lens collection was restricting me at that time and I planned to pick up a A77 MK II which was just launched during that time. But both my lenses(used) had severe fungus and could not be fixed. It didn't make sense to put in $2000 dollars on a camera at that time. We just had our baby that time.That's when I decided going for a good bridge cam which fulfills my needs. The FZ-200 as a stand alone camera is extremely good. Where would one get a 25-600 range with constant aperture of F 2.8. Took a small hit on image quality. But for the last few years it has served me well. I was not even contemplating a camera when this A7 was gifted.

Originally Posted by architect

A long time ago I decided that I wouldn't allow affordability of gear get into the way of my photography. . Don't sell a good camera and take a depreciation hit, just use cheaper lenses on it till you can afford better. At least half of you gear is sorted, its only about upgrading the other half. 30-40 k will get you an adapter and non-L grade lenses.

Depends on your definition of cheaper. An adapter for 30-40 K doesn't qualify as cheap for me. If this unplanned gift had not arrived a camera was not even on my shopping list. Now that it has arrived and I have an option of choosing another camera instead of it that I have put my thinking cap on. I am literally being pushed to buy a camera of my choice.

I am still contemplating what to do. My head says take the hit and return the camera or dispose it off based on where the hit is lesser. The heart says to take the offer and get another camera of my choice.

My alter ego says just return the camera and forget about it as if it was a nice dream. Irrespective of what you get - Do you have the time to pursue your passion.

[naveenroy]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

Today so called "Photography" is more Post Processing than actual photography. Camera and equipment are slowly loosing their meaning and world is only looking to Adobe LR/PS/CC, if you are good at Adobe and have a creative edge you'd do wonders with even the most basic camera. No where can you get bird shots with a diffuse background, the sky tones and detail in the clouds and landscape and wonderful vibrant hues of wedding/fashion shoots are all digital manipulation, you replace backgrounds add/subtract light. The most successful photographers these days are all digital manipulators.

Originally Posted by ampere

The point I am trying to make is after 6-8 years of learning, now I very rarely re-touch 90+ % of images shot. It may be odd crop, saturation, contrast or straightening. By large they are as is. (Its coming full circle)

Only when I am done with the bulk a few remain and I feel like playing with them, I delve into serious PP.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Nothing can make up for good photography afterwards on the computer. Capturing sharpness/focus, depth of field, composition, lightningetc starts in the camera.

Thought I can get some of your ideas and thoughts - there are many professional photographers here and many who are looking to get into photography as a serious hobby. Bit of a background - I bought a DSLR - the humble Canon EOS 1000D some 9 years back. I am self taught, reading up on books and articles everywhere. People have told me that I am a pretty good photographer - have received some praise. These were the days when not many people were into photography - and mobile phones didn't have the capability they have these days. Even in the early days after getting my DSLR, I used LR a lot. A lot! So much so that some associates have told me that I am not capturing the true image. But for me, I know that I am not a journalist and don't need to capture images for a documentary - I am making art! I loved my camera so much that I would carry it on any trip I went. Bought the nifty fifty - the 50mm lens for my camera and also a nice macro lens - Canon EF-S 60mm. Did some small time exhibitions, even did a photoshoot for a cookie company (nothing came of it) and did some friends wedding shoots. A friend and I even nearly snagged a photo book opportunity for a large NGO.

And then, I suddenly lost interest a couple of years back. EVERYONE was carrying a camera around. DSLRs everywhere. And the social media boom - everybody had a Firstname.Lastname Photography site! Maybe it is just me but I started believing that ANYONE can take a good photograph! And I think I just got overloaded with images -both good and bad. And another thing happened - EVERYONE was retouching their images. Most were even lying about it - saying that they have not done any PP to the image. All these images were on the internet. I would visit photo sites like 500 and Flickr EVERYDAY. But I stopped. I just couldn't look at more pictures. I think my love of photography died a small death there.

The worst was yet to come. Mobile photography. More than looking at it as another bit of equipment, I think I looked at it as another device to spoil photography! And the filters that come in such mobiles/apps. I mean, I can even understand Instagram but not the mobile-camera app that by default applies saturation and hues and more to any image captured! I look up, the scene is different. The image on the phone is over-saturated! And I saw that more and more people like that. They all want their images to be unreal!

The final straw was that when I recently tried to take some pictures using my trusty 1000D, I just did not like the photos at all. They all looked dull and lifeless to me. I tried LR and I couldn't lift the image out of mediocrity.

Was the camera being too true? Are over-saturated images the photographs of today and tomorrow? Have any of you felt bored of photography or felt overwhelmed by too many images as I have? Have any of you been in this peculiar situation I am in?