Photo tricks. Part MMXVII

Photo tricks. Part MMXVII

Photo tricks. Part MMXVII

Many noticed that reviews of photographic equipment began to be carried out on some ancient rubbish: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi и Nikon D90... Life is an unpredictable thing that requires a lot of money. At one point I had to sell everything. Now rented orders are mainly for Nikon D90 и Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 + SB-900.

And here are the conclusions I made:

  1. the client does not see any difference in image quality at all
  2. least of all the difference between good and bad photographic equipment is visible when shooting in a photo studio
  3. photo processing is more important than photo equipment
  4. during printing of most photo books, noise / grain is practically invisible, and you should not worry about these artifacts
  5. shooting on old trash is psychologically difficult, but quite real
  6. wide angle, which gives a 28 mm lens on a crop (ether 42 mm) - uncomfortable, but not so much to worry about it
  7. when shooting in hellish conditions with poor lighting, the flash helps very well and is the main tool of the photographer
  8. I shoot 'serious' orders using more or less tolerable equipment. My friends, colleagues and readers of the Radozhivs (with the reader, for example, took an order on his 5D Mark III)
  9. It is important to be able to shoot on photographic equipment of any manufacturer with any control. It teaches to think in general terms and does not bind to the tool by which photographs are created
  10. experience and ability to work with people / client / model is much more important than all this nonsense associated with the choice of photographic equipment
  11. Yes, you correctly noticed, there are more advertisements on Radozhiv :)
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval... Look for me on Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 202, on the topic: Photo tricks. Part MMXVII

  • Charles

    "The client does not see any difference in image quality at all"
    Which was required to prove :)

    • Alexey

      Moreover, it is rare for a client to see the difference between processed and unprocessed photos ...

      • anonym

        The client to the client is different. So you can get it on the face.)

        • Alexey

          You can get on the face and just walking along the street without touching anyone) Nevertheless, there are also those clients who require raw ditches without any processing.

    • Evgeny_d5000

      other clients see both processing and inadequate flu and overexposure, and woe to the photographer who creates such disgrace on his 6d with Elka

  • Boris

    Yes, I agree with Arkady that grain and noise go away in printed photobooks and just single shots. But at the same time, the prints do not show all the small details recorded in the file.
    IMHO, the print level in photo labs is behind the capabilities of modern cameras, images with a resolution of 300 dpi look fuzzy. Even smartphone displays have a higher pixel density!
    From a real review after viewing a photo book: “beautifully done, well, only there is no real clarity”. And I have to explain that the printing house was unable to convey the quality seen on the monitor ...
    And for comparison: over the past 15 years, cameras have grown from 5-10 megapixels to 50 and even 100 (according to the reviews of Arkady on this blog), and the photolabs both printed these 300dpi and print.
    I hope to see a breakthrough in print quality, when it will be possible to order a picture with a resolution of 500-600dpi or more.

    • Peter Sh.

      Everything on printed photos can be seen perfectly. At 240, everything is at the highest level. Prof. laboratories with such permission print.
      If every detail is needed, you can print on A1 format.
      Or look at it with a magnifying glass.

    • Alexey

      It is easier to have a photo printer, it has a higher density of dots and no problems with detailing, and our photo labs work mainly on ancient equipment, apparently from the principle that the client no longer needs it.

      • Boris

        Clients are different :)) For some, the quality of photo laboratories is enough, for others it is not. Recently, a friend of mine was printing his amateur 10x15cm pictures in a photo lab and was at a loss that the same shots on his smartphone look much sharper. The pixel density of the smartphone is 480 per inch! It was a clear demonstration of the backwardness of photo laboratories.

        • Oleg

          If the size of the smartphone was 10 * 15, then I agree, and so, you move the photo printed by the photo lab to a distance when it has the same angular size as the smart display and enjoy the sharpness :)

    • Andreykr

      A breakthrough in print quality is called optical printing and has long been available to ordinary people (printing from film directly). Pictures of 15x10cm will have well beyond 1000 dpi. It doesn't cost much more than digital printing. Already considered that the film is an analogue of "honest" 50 megapixels. But not every lens will miss so many details.

      Smartphone screens are a little short of 15x10 cm, besides, smartphones are different for everyone (many have less than 250 dpi), so the comparison is incorrect, you can transfer the printed photo to someone, send it in an envelope, hang it in a frame, but you won’t get expensive smartphones, to do the same with their help.

      In tablets, the screens are larger, but the dpi also drops accordingly, there is no magic here. The situation on monitors is also sad, top-end ultrafine monitors or MacBooks with (only!) 220 dpi are not cheap. Digital photo frames are even less - ~ 120dpi. So with digital printing (with a picture size of 15x10 cm) and its 300 dpi, not a single screen can be stretched.

      And you also need to look at the photo, not with a magnifying glass, so we are used to driving an enlarged photo back and forth in smartphones, but this is not just viewing a photo, but grabbing individual details from the overall picture. The distance at which the entire photo is covered in its entirety is usually one and a half to two diagonals. And 300dpi at this distance is enough for your head! Closer - the whole photo simply won't fit into the frame.

      Another point: there are no honest megapixels in Canon, for example, and in Nikon too. Even if we divide by 4 (that is, by 2 vertically and horizontally), there will be noise due to the peculiarities of the matrix structure. The information about the color, it turns out, is practically “invented” by the mixing and noise reduction algorithms. And further reduction does not help. So, is it worth developing printing technologies just in order to reproduce the results of the work of imperfect and, one might even say, deceitful technologies of digital photography?

      This nagging is not an argument in favor of film photography, because there are also some defects there. You just have to accept these defects, realize and not build illusions.

  • Dim

    I wish to get out of the black strip as soon as possible

  • Sergei

    "The client doesn't see any difference in image quality at all."
    What a bitterness in your words, Arkady. You yourself, of course, see the difference. I wish you to quickly find a technique to your liking.

  • Jurij

    This article was published on February 27.02th. it is no coincidence)) Orthodox Christians began Lent. Every fasting needs to give up something. A photographer, for example, can switch from full frame to crop. No black bar))

    • Alexey

      What? Both masterpieces were shot on FED and Zenit, and on plywood boxes. Generally come. It's time for us to take up the mind.

      • Arkady Shapoval

        As I wrote in my article "Notes on my work", my favorite photo is Pale Blue Dotin which the technical part of image quality is far from its semantic load. I shot my best / favorite photo in 2010 on whale 18-105 and still can not repeat anything like that.

        • Rodion

          The most impressive photo for me was the photo of Pluto from the New Horizons probe. Childhood dream: the book contained photographs of all planets except Pluto. Instead, there was a dark render of the ball ...

        • Alexey

          I am sure that the best photo is ahead of you.

        • Oleg

          Arkady, can this photograph be put on public display, or are there any contraindications for publication for personal / commercial reasons?

          • Arkady Shapoval

            I can, at best, show at home on the monitor.

            • Oleg

              It sounded like an invitation to visit :)

  • peter

    And more recently, Arkady put an ultimatum to Krop :)))

    • anonym

      For professional shooting :)

      • Oleg

        And what on d90 is already unprofessionally obtained

  • Tele

    For example, I am an amateur with 5d3 and 12Ls. And I like to shoot with them (though not every day), but I liked less with the past 600d and worse glass. And this is my hobby, which does not bring money, but I love it because it brings joy. In addition to work, every person should have interests in life that help to overcome the hardships of being, a dull, though highly paid job, crises in the economy and in the personal, etc. So photography is a great option (like many others) - not to “wash it down”, not start using drugs, not hang yourself, etc. A great pastime and a joyful one. And the process of buying each lens is a separate thrill. And the quality of glass technology is really seen from a distance. I look at old photos taken in a studio 5-6 years ago. God, what a horror. really tear off the hands of “photo professionals”. Then I open my raves, which were filmed at the same time - and the eye is simply glad that I didn’t go for good technique then. I corrected it a little with the newly acquired knowledge - and reshoot it like a new one. And time cannot be returned - children grow, we grow old, life changes. And great photos remain.

    • photo shooter

      500% agree! It's like an antidepressant.

    • anonym

      But what if the work is dull and low paid? There is no time for Markov with L-kami.

      • dragon yes not snape

        If the work is low paid, then you need:
        1. Launch the thought-form “my world takes care of me and money comes to me in an ever-increasing stream”. Repeat this meaningfully many times throughout the day. Launch a thoughtform every day.
        2. In anticipation of the results of the thoughtform so as not to waste time buying a second-hand Nikon D80 and Helios 44m. Learn to work with this set and in breaks to launch a thought form.

        • anonym

          Yes, you, my friend, is a product of the present. I saved your show with psychics. I’m a realist and, I’m not afraid of this word, a materialist.)

          • dragon yes not snape

            You are not a realist, but an ordinary negativist. Your low-paying job is a consequence of your so-called "realism." Read Zeland "Apples Falling into the Sky." It is precisely this kind of “realism” that is very well and well selected there.

            • anonym

              Thought form, say? Well, well!))))

      • photo shooter

        I mean photography and what to shoot - I'm not worried. it is what it is. put Ronald's T-shirt on me (or you) - we'd better not play right away.

  • Vitaliy U

    It is very (sincerely!) A pity that you, Acadiy, had a situation that required such financial losses ... I strongly hope that this is not related to the health (of yours and those of those close to you). In our already difficult time, additional and unforeseen expenses are especially painful ... I wish you a prompt resolution of your problems! Good luck in everything!

    • Valery A.

      Arkady, join, good luck!

  • Pashqwert

    Several years ago, I could not resist at the 5th point and replaced D50 + 18-55 + SB400 with D7000 + 16-85 + SB700 gave $ 840 + 500 + 320. I am satisfied with the flash, the lens is normal, although I overpayed rather so as not to return to the 5th point, and so 18-140 is the most, but because of the carcass there was no limit to disappointment. Although the set points DD, more MP, flash control, large screen are achieved. But the feeling in the hand, autofocus, colors, do not overexpose the principle then stretch. When I read, I thought, people do not know how to take pictures or a matter of purely habit. But I’m not used to it and it is frustrating to this day, very often the result is so unimportant and even unpredictable that post-processing is required and quite a lot of it is needed, compared to paired images on the D50.
    And when, last year, a comrade turned to me, pick up a set for him. Found at a flea market as a new D80 for $ 110 with a few thousand mileage. At the same time I looked at the SB600 - $ 130, $ 50 / 1.8 for $ 60, 18-105 in the region of 150. I looked at the total amount of this kit, and then I remembered how much money I “threw away” (my half-sikik cost $ 110) and sincerely envied him - to join to the world of photos with such a set for $ 450, really a fairy tale.
    He really took 18-55 for $ 30 and 70-210 / 4 for 200 and saves on a flash. But he has been taking photos on the D80 for more than a year and enjoys the shots, minimizing them.

    • Valery A.

      I'll add a little. I have D5100 (matrix like 7000), D50 and a couple of photos with CD-matrix. From lenses, except for whale lenses (including "film" ones) - 50 / 1,8D, 35 / 1,8, Tamron 28-75 / 2,8. At first I wanted to sell the 5100, so that they could not achieve the CD picture, but I like it better, then I noticed that on light lenses (all three in my case) it is already nothing, especially in insufficient light, the result, on the contrary, is predictable, in ex. from CD-models, minimum editing. Try, if possible, high-aperture lenses on your D7000.

      • dragon yes not snape

        Arkady shoots with d90, which is a hundred times worse than d7000 and, judging by the pictures presented, his result is excellent, including in color. Try to play around with the camera settings or with lightroom (here someone left links to ready-made presets from the Nikon club resource). D50 is certainly good, and d7000 is definitely not a gift, but there is no gap between them. And "spitting" from q7000 is really too much.

        • zengarden

          The D7000 is actually quite good, although many people spit, especially on the notorious "skinton". I had this camera; in good lighting conditions, even in jpeg, it was possible to get quite acceptable pictures (portraits). Unfortunately, I had to sell it due to financial difficulties. Now from DSLRs there is an ancient Nikon D70s with a gorgeous CCD-matrix, it shoots well, I like the colors. But you will also have to sell, probably ... It is more demanding on shooting conditions, but you can get excellent pictures, except that the megapixel is less :) so sometimes the downgrade of photographic equipment is not so terrible.

          • Pashqwert

            Thanks for the comments, my negative attitude to the camera is probably caused more by anger at Nikon, and not by the real disadvantages of the camera itself. There is a difference between the D50 and D7000 in the approach and principles of the photography process. I am used to getting the maximum result in the process of shooting and completing / correcting at the computer (I do not mean photo retouching). Now, computer processing is a must for at least some decent result - a regularity of the tendency to simplify / reduce the cost of preparation and release of products. Why spend money and develop built-in image capture algorithms, adjust, test, if the user can do it himself, so he will adjust the focus for daylight or twilight lighting, pull out a picture to his liking from a dim RAW.
            Just what is downgrade, if after buying a “newer and more advanced” camera, in order to get the predicted result, you had to give up on aperture priority (A) and shutter (S) modes, bury TTL and put AF-ON under your thumb. And the need to make an autofocus correction when changing the type and intensity of illumination of the scene being shot and throw the color world into the frame.

            • Valery A.

              It is not clear what kind of “autofocus correction when changing the type and intensity of light”, why “had to put an end to the aperture priority (A) and shutter (S) modes, bury TTL”? Everything seems to be the same, even more convenient, except that the color and contrast are not what we would like. And AF-ON - yes, a useful thing, up to d5100 and the AE-L / AE-F button is difficult to use as AF-ON.

              • Alexey

                Probably, I mean that phase autofocus only works well under normal lighting conditions, at dusk, and under certain other lighting conditions, phase autofocus will be somewhat likely to smear with a little flu and these mistakes are predictable, the problem is not in optics, namely in the principles of operation of such a focusing technique, although the optical schemes of some lenses contribute to misses.

            • Peter Sh.

              You are wrong. I shoot with the D610 in JPEG, exclusively in 'M' or 'S'. I process literally minimal.
              Getting a high-quality result right now is much easier than 10 years ago.

              • Vitaliy U

                What are you talking about? Although, as they say: "to whom and the mare's bride." On Photoru, Nikonclub, there are enough examples of "wonderful skin" from d600 / d610. I saw an excellent result from these cameras in units (a person with the nickname IVX is one of the most successful examples), and then after the deepest work on the raves in the Republic of Tatarstan (mainly in LAB curves). And in the Jepeg, all the "delights" of the high Novonikonov dd are on your face: clay, powder, parasitic fillings. There are no miracles. If we compare the result from the rav even with such mastodons as d700 / d3 (matrices of the same character), then they are ahead (in terms of color) of any novonicon, although they do not smell like a good jpeg either ... it remained there, on the SD / Super SD matrices.

  • Nikita

    Arkady, thanks for the interesting article and for such a wonderful resource. I myself just recently began to get involved in photography, and your resource helps me a lot, I enjoy reading articles and reviews, very informative. I sincerely wish you had such a situation. I wish to solve all problems as soon as possible, and to shoot with the usual technique for you. Good luck to you and all visitors to this wonderful site !!!

  • Tele

    By the way, here is a talented (according to the industry) photographer who killed himself at 30.
    The real poet also wrote.
    I think he fotkal soap box. Almost sure.

    http://www.renhang.org/photography-2016

    • Alexey

      No wonder he killed himself. Such “creativity” characterizes the disintegration of the personality, and aggravates it.

  • David

    Do not deceive yourself - the quality of the technique greatly affects the final result.
    Of course, a professional will take a high-quality photograph on a soap dish. But give him a better technique, the result will be much better.

    • Vitaliy U

      Well, give an example: how will the new technique win in the skillful (!!!) hands of the old artistically? Do not talk about mp, they are very rarely needed and in a narrow range of tasks.

  • Experienced 8-)

    Unless you are shooting objects with a tripod or architecture, the old technique is not capable of working at slow shutter speeds suitable for shooting people without unacceptable noise amplification. Have to use a flash. Accordingly, the background will most often be underexposed. You can fight by setting the backlight, but this is rarely applicable in a sequential shooting environment. This is the main disadvantage of obsolete equipment. (You can watch this, including on different shootings of baptism on this site). The rest can be dealt with with proper dexterity.

    • Vitaliy U

      I have never filmed in the same church (weddings and baptisms), so that ISO 800 (Heather + 50mm 1,4) was not enough for me. In churches there is always (!) Light sufficient for exposure to ISO 800 + f1,8 + 1/100 (shooting in series, it is fully enough for slow dynamics). I'm not talking about the d700, where ISO1600 / 3200 still has color and there is no critical amount of noise. But with new cameras, with their 24 / 36MP, try to shoot at such exposures ... where all their ISO 100500 are used, with deplorable (in color) results ... In total darkness there will be no normal photography for anyone, even with a flash of light, or anything. They will, but for such money it is a sin to take money (they will take the same on the phone, but for free).

      • Charles

        I am ashamed to ask ... You sure were in all the churches of the world to say this?

        • Vitaliy U

          No, unfortunately I did not cover all the churches with my attention (yeah), but in my city I shot almost all of them. In Hagia Sophia and the Blue Mosque in Istanbul (by the way), the expo three did not differ from those parameters (+/-) that I usually use for such conditions. At least you take off pagan rituals around the fires (maybe this will suit you better, I don’t know), but the laws of physics, they are the same everywhere, which concerns light.

      • Oleg

        Or maybe flash / flashes and even something else (umbrellas, lightboxes, reflectors) will help to take a normal photo?

      • Alexey

        And on new cameras and with ISO 3200-6400 everything is OK!

  • Peter Sh.

    All the same, I want to put an end to these pointless disputes about what is better and what is worse.

    Here is a shot taken on the D610, 1/320, ISO6400. On-camera JPEG, it seems, and no post-processing. Light, as always, is very bad. No flash.

    I shoot a report, and for me, skinton, bokeh and other artistry are generally the tenth thing.
    I know for sure that such a focus can only be cranked up with cameras from D610 and higher.

    • Oleg

      Pretty clean. And what do you think of Nikon's crop, what is its working iso, well, let's say Nikon D5500

      • Peter Sh.

        The fact is that a working ISO is a very vague thing. For some, it may be acceptable, for someone not. More precisely, the tasks are always different.

        But most importantly, the working ISO is entirely dependent on light. In my example, the darkness above was close to LV 1, and the spotlights worked. When there are no spotlights, even constant uniform illumination in the LV 3 usually produces terrible noises.
        It seems that when the sensor sees pieces with good lighting and contrast, the camera immediately understands how to paint everything else.

      • peter

        I can say for the d7200. It will be 1,3 steps lower than that of d610 and then in raw, in jpeg due to the lack of a filter and a more powerful processing process similar to d610.
        In poor light condition. more important is autofocus.

        • Artem

          In the eye it is + - 1 step. Compared paired pictures.

      • Alexey

        800, 1600 with reservations, 3200 with large reservations.

    • Vitaliy U

      And what does your example show? What d610 can remove on ISO 3600? And that the camera will strangle the noise well programmatically? (This is a jeep). And no one doubted. Talk about something else: about color. And about the absence of such an ISO above 800 when shooting people (!). Show an example of a portrait on ISO 1600 (at least). The result is obvious and logical, since without light, there can be no color. The camera is not able to come up with something that is not (even as good as the d610). Samsung C25000 (for example) can remove the blue / green man on ISO5, but this is not a photograph, I think.
      And in conditions where there will be enough f2 at a fifty-fifty (as an example) +1/100 exposure, at ISO not higher than 800 any old camera (at least Kodak dslr, at least d80, at least Canon 5d, at least Protroyka from Fuji, etc., etc.) colorizes (! We are talking about it!) any new camera of any manufacturer. Checked more than once.

      • anonym

        "... without light, there can be no color ..."

        Of course, but:

        1. Artistic portraits are not specially taken in poor lighting conditions. Always use good light. Well, or let's just say - sufficient for the high-quality implementation of the idea. Sometimes they even overdo it - they burn out all the shadows and semitones ...

        2. It is difficult to use additional light in a report: flash and even more difficult - lightbox umbrellas. The flash, on the other hand, flattens faces and does not work out the background. This loses the "atmosphere" of the place. Therefore, it is better to shoot a reportage in natural (albeit shitty) lighting. Only occasionally illuminating faces with a low-power flash in an on-camera softbox. This is where we need high ISO, “rubbery” RAWs and good noise reduction (you can't do without it!).

        3. The human eye is a subjective device. Considering the variety of monitors, programs, color spaces, matrices, any conversation about the correct color (especially about the mythical "skin tone") is absolutely meaningless! Just learn to work with RAW on a normal monitor!

        4. Old cameras do not outperform new ones in image quality. All nice “warm lamp shades” are easily done with filters in Photoshop! Plus, they are inferior in all technical parameters, in ergonomics, functionality, convenience ... It simply cannot be otherwise.

        5. Full-frame camera shoots better than crop. It is a fact. Yes, it may have poor autofocus, but in terms of noise, picture quality, dynamic range and depth of field - full frame is better! I'm talking about the D610! And the D810 has good autofocus.

        • Denis

          4. the argument killed “It just can't be otherwise”.
          there would have been no Canon advantages in portraits against Nikon

          • anonym

            And Canon has no advantage over Nikon in portraits. Only if you use Soviet optics. It’s more convenient on Canon. Although maybe Sony's mirrorless ones will be better?

            in point 4 I wrote about old and new cameras ...

        • peter

          5. Question camera + lens. Whoever takes the d610 will, at best, take the tamron 24-70 for the money, whether there will be an advantage in ISO over the d7200 and sigma 18-35 - no, it won't, for the flu, too, dd does not depend on crop and ff at all. In terms of money, the ff will be more expensive, the focus is worse, the gain is only in the focal lens. And d810 is generally a different price category. Of course the d810 is better, but everything before it is better crop with good lenses.

          • Alexey

            It is not.

          • anonym

            I use ONLY fixes! In terms of picture quality, aperture ratio, weight and price, they exceed zoom.

            DD and noise depend on the steepness of the matrix (they are better placed on the full-frame matrix), and the depth of field depends on the size of the matrix (remove the same portraits and understand).

            But the focal length of the matrix does not depend, as many people think. Only the viewing angle changes. Learn materiel! Well, or at least shoot on a full frame ...

            Yes, the D610 has poor autofocus, but it is better than the same D90. And for sports it is better to take the D750 from the available ones. If there is no money on D5. Well, or D500 if crop.

            If a person does not see the difference, this does not mean that there is none ...

            PS. "Yes, a full frame is more expensive, but not much, but in the end it will be cheaper!" (almost from advertising ...)

            • peter

              I read once: "If you don't have enough crop for work, then shoot twice with a crop and you will understand how pleasant it is to work on a crop."
              To achieve a good result, crop is enough, shooting skills and post-processing are much more important. If the last two points are not fulfilled, then no ff will save. Enough at 35photo to see the work done on the crop.

              • Alexey

                To achieve a good result, a brush and paint of three colors are enough.

      • Peter Sh.

        From my modest experience in studio and stage shooting, I can say that yes, the old horse does not spoil the furrow. I have a D200 and Fuji 5Pro, specifically for this. Well, for football too. I don’t shoot football on the D610, for some reason there’s constantly light coming out.
        Of course, if you are a master in Photoshop, then you can get excellent studio photos on the D610, but I can’t. There is no time to study all this, much to my regret. After two or three thousand reportage shots at a time, the lightroom begins to feel very sick. And looking at photoshop is already scary.

  • Vitaliy U

    I apologize: "shot d610 on ISO 6400", which does not change the essence.

    • Alexey

      Vitaly, do you judge the lack of color in ISO 1600- 6400 in the D610 based on personal experience, or abstractly theoretically?

      • Vitaliy

        If you want to know something about color, here everything will be explained to you qualitatively http://www.club-nikon.ru/forum/topic/65503-размышления-о-цвете/page__st__47200 and about color at high ISOs, including.
        PS. I never wrote that d610 does not have colors at high ISOs. He is not anywhere. The equal of any (!) Camera in the public domain is enough to form an opinion on color.

        • Alexey

          That is, theoretically abstractly, and you don't need to tell me about the color if I can see it. Thank you.

  • Peter Sh.

    Forgot to add.
    We have two more studio photographers. Full-fledged professionals, more than one dozen years of experience behind them. Their work, I think, is simply fabulous. I envy them. I dream someday to learn this way too.

    Several times they tried to replace me on the set of competitions. Sat at home with the flu. Once it turned out more or less normal, the rest of the times nothing happened. Now, if I'm sick, I still go out to shoot.

    This means that they say “honest pro” does not stoop to reportage. This is supposedly all bad manners and hefty liquid for the Master.

    I think this can only be said by an amateur.

    • Oleg

      Who has a hand full of something. It will not be easy for a journalist specializing in economic surveys to prepare a report on a basketball match, a tennis player will not be able to play good hockey right away ... It will be easier for them to get into the essence than a person far from journalism / sports ... but they will still need time ...

    • Vitaliy

      Either I expressed myself incorrectly, or you did not understand anything. I had this in mind: a person today (!!!) has his own studio, is engaged in shooting advertisements (including political ones) and work for stocks. He will not go to shoot a wedding / corporate party for any money (well, except for very large ones). Does he need it? But I also wrote that this photographer, starting, grabbed all types of photography (he himself worked in a photo studio). Everything has its time. But the “beginner” photographer is far from being a pro. And the pros are of different genres: sports, wedding, nature photography. And these photographers will be able to shoot, like, everything ... but the results will be different for everyone.

      • Peter Sh.

        Vitaly, now it’s clear. I'm sorry, got excited.

  • Zoomer

    Quote: “Many have noticed that camera reviews are being conducted on some ancient junk: Canon EOS DIGITAL Rebel XSi and Nikon D90. Life is an unpredictable thing that requires a lot of money. At one fine moment I had to sell everything ... "- I was always amazed by these" many "who noticed everyone ... Sometimes I myself get the impression that everything around is" majors "and" hyper-pros "- and you look at the work - you want to burp ... The worst thing that in every region there are so many. So I somehow wanted to buy myself a new bike ... and the money was ... but I haven’t bought it yet ... because with so many I first came to the conclusion that “a good modern bike” for $ 500 is not inferior to the quality of “Ashanbayka” - for $ 150-200, and then I came to the conclusion that even if “many” still know everything ... current, these “many” go on a whim… and I… I still ride my old $ 200 Auchan bike ). And here's the photo, the same feature: I wanted a D7000 and Tamron 17-240 with VR ... Then I realized that I didn't! Need FF! Definitely! ...))) But I shoot on D80 and Tamron 18-200 was carrying VR, Helios 44m-4 from my father's Zenith, which he himself, by the way, converted to Nikon and Nikkor 50 1.8D bayonet))))…. But there was a time when D50 + (18-55) with 100k mileage was just the ultimate dream!)… but most importantly, “many” always notice everything…))))) Arkady, thank you just Big and Human! For all your work! I will read your reviews. even if you shoot a bush for "canned food" (And you already did it)))))

    PS: From D50 - I parted once, too, for the reason: "Life is an unpredictable thing that needs a lot of money."

  • Zoomer

    And I also liked it: “it is psychologically difficult to shoot with old rubbish, but it is quite real” - not to shoot with old rubbish, it's like not serving in the Army! Who served and filmed, he will understand)))

    • Vitaliy U

      And you shouldn't have parted with d50. I had a d3000, but something went wrong with me (I couldn't find an approach to the development of the ravs, and the color in the jpeg obviously did not suit) ... But a camera for “every day” without problems with developing (as there were soap dishes before) was needed ... I started looking. D40 is Nikon's best option in color in a Jepeg, but I have all the glasses under the “screwdriver”. And then d50 caught my eye. I took it. Now I regret that I did not buy it earlier: in the developer (CNX-D) I edit only bb and expu. Everything! The color is great! Yes, the functionality is not so hot and there are few focus points, and the working ISO is low, but the color covers all the disadvantages. This, by the way, is a thought that fits the original theme: “old” does not mean “bad,” but often vice versa. I had d7000 sold (no regrets). Now I'm shooting d700, Fuji C5Pro and d50. All the cameras are old and they all make me happy (each in its own way).

  • Vitaliy U

    And “yes”: I follow (on the photo) the topics on the new cameras from Canon and Nikon. Impressions are not so hot ... Everywhere you need an approach to the development of ravs (there is no talk of a chamber jpeg at all! I do not understand why this “option” is in new cameras if it cannot be used. It would be better to insert the depth of field calculator into the cameras ... benefits). Canon has a slightly better skin tone compared to Nikon, but not much. And both manufacturers are worse than cameras of previous generations. I don’t know why the engineers gave color to high ISO and wide DD ... if all this is needed, then not often, but color is always needed. And people have no choice, either to take new cameras and waste a lot of time and vision, sit in editors, or buy old cameras, but get beautiful cards without hassle. It's strange ... at least.

  • Alexander

    I looked at Nikon d90 in a new way, lay idle for a long time, and then I bought a 17-50 2.8 sigma lens for him, rented weddings for him, worked with two cameras (Nikon d600), so it’s easier for me to get a good color with Nikon d90.

  • anonym

    D90 is not trash ...

  • Vasil

    It’s a short and a long time!

    Pidtrimuyu!

  • Novel

    "2 the least difference between good and bad photographic equipment is visible when shooting in a photo studio"
    "3. photo processing is more important than photographic equipment"
    if you shoot a model with professional make-up and in the studio, then processing will be 90% (or even 100%) is not needed

    • Alexey

      if you put the right light there

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2017/02/unstoppable/

Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2017/02/unstoppable/