He's saying "it's not the size of the file" with a dissolve into something I can't read, because they shot this video on a cell phone camera. Live your own advice!
Composition in my opinion is not IMMUNE to technological change. I may want to compose a scene in which parts of the scene will be totally washed out yet I will need detail in that part of my composition. And technology is what makes it possible from the days of graduated filters (which were made possible by technology) to today's software replication of such filters. I believe you made that statement much too large as there are things that we can't do without the assistance of technology.
Agreed there. Lighting... umm, flashes and strobes are technology. Those can get better, with technological changes. But, overall, a great video, with, like he said, valid points.
great video, friendly and not patronising an some great points that many entering into photography dont realise. however sometimes raw is much better if shooting in low light and trying to minimize noise.
You have some good points but look at Loretta Lux. She couldn't have existed 20 years ago. I think you underestimate the changes careful, intelligent use of the technology can bring.
About the RAW vs. JPEG debate. You don't mind the loss of image data because of JPEG compression? There may be some detail that you can never get back.
not to mention the deta loss in any photo editing. and that it auto sharpens creating noise, and the fact that RAW is 16/32bit colour while any JPEG is only 8bit?
i agree from experience that its allways best to get the white balence in camera though, and most of the rest of it..
IF you need to post process and push/pull yeah, but their point is if you can get things out of camera as is, then there's no such need. As for the 16/32 vs JPEG only 8- keep in mind JPEG is a non linear compression so the key aspects of the image go into the information... it's more richer than it may seem.
Now if you are doing HDR or you need to push/pull a lot then yeah, but I think their point is, for their markets, they don't need such thing *if* you get it right.
Good JPEG engines compress so little as to make virtually no difference. If you are getting the result out of camera and you have a decent JPEG engine that you can tweak to the "film of your taste" (which most current cameras do) then you are not losing much at all.
im only watching this for school
chichikitty527 6 months ago in playlist PHOTOGRAPHY
a bunny!
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(") (")
chichikitty527 6 months ago in playlist PHOTOGRAPHY
music by Chris Martin (as in Coldplay?) nahhh
sigrone 8 months ago
About the first lie, if you don`t need big camera then why you use Nikon D700?? why not a Nikon D90 or even a bridge camera??
szerelmem30 1 year ago
my personal main 2 lies on the market at the moment.
1. megapixels (compacts with 10mp??)
2. high iso (doesn't really do THAT much, unless you go fullframe)
pimpvandestraat 1 year ago
much of these tips are only part true.
Or following them will make stuff easier.
But many aren't true completely. One time I happened to open a 1 year old raw file. And got back clouds in the sky that I didnt even knew were there.
Raw vs jpg does it matter? Usually not. Sometimes it does.
pimpvandestraat 1 year ago
Amen, you got White balance right, exposure right, you got composition, you are really a photographer!
AndreIt1980 1 year ago
Amen, you got White balance right, exposure right, you got composition, you are really a photographer!
AndreIt1980 1 year ago
I love this video....great tips!
TheScatKat1 1 year ago
its not the size of the file its what you do with it?your a d -bag
jasper39x 2 years ago
He's saying "it's not the size of the file" with a dissolve into something I can't read, because they shot this video on a cell phone camera. Live your own advice!
kevinalford 2 years ago
loved this video, now i might piss off alot of people but, you should do a "I'm a PC commercial"
phirepix 2 years ago
beautiful
hamoonmehran 2 years ago
Composition in my opinion is not IMMUNE to technological change. I may want to compose a scene in which parts of the scene will be totally washed out yet I will need detail in that part of my composition. And technology is what makes it possible from the days of graduated filters (which were made possible by technology) to today's software replication of such filters. I believe you made that statement much too large as there are things that we can't do without the assistance of technology.
josealonsoleon 2 years ago
Agreed there. Lighting... umm, flashes and strobes are technology. Those can get better, with technological changes. But, overall, a great video, with, like he said, valid points.
bryceman111 2 years ago
Lots of good tips here, and some humor,
Now thats refreshing...More Please !
Igotbadjoints 2 years ago
great video, friendly and not patronising an some great points that many entering into photography dont realise. however sometimes raw is much better if shooting in low light and trying to minimize noise.
great stuff guys
dombower 2 years ago
Love it. Totally agree.
spstudios01 2 years ago
You have some good points but look at Loretta Lux. She couldn't have existed 20 years ago. I think you underestimate the changes careful, intelligent use of the technology can bring.
teak43 3 years ago
Good stuff - I'll pass this along to all my newsletter subscribers.
PartTimePhotography 3 years ago
About the RAW vs. JPEG debate. You don't mind the loss of image data because of JPEG compression? There may be some detail that you can never get back.
boydebrook 3 years ago
not to mention the deta loss in any photo editing. and that it auto sharpens creating noise, and the fact that RAW is 16/32bit colour while any JPEG is only 8bit?
i agree from experience that its allways best to get the white balence in camera though, and most of the rest of it..
spikey19872006 2 years ago
IF you need to post process and push/pull yeah, but their point is if you can get things out of camera as is, then there's no such need. As for the 16/32 vs JPEG only 8- keep in mind JPEG is a non linear compression so the key aspects of the image go into the information... it's more richer than it may seem.
Now if you are doing HDR or you need to push/pull a lot then yeah, but I think their point is, for their markets, they don't need such thing *if* you get it right.
Raist3db 2 years ago
Good JPEG engines compress so little as to make virtually no difference. If you are getting the result out of camera and you have a decent JPEG engine that you can tweak to the "film of your taste" (which most current cameras do) then you are not losing much at all.
Raist3db 2 years ago
I love your "measure twice, cut once" attitude about photography!
Laurdien 3 years ago
the best
ciprynus 3 years ago
Absolute truth! Love you guys!
photoshopmama 4 years ago
Awesome video guys!
improvphoto 4 years ago