PHOTOGRAPHERS WASTE So Much Time on This
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2023
- In this video, we'll discuss some common image quality issues that photographers waste a lot of time worrying about, and how to avoid them.
If you're a photographer, then you know that image quality is one of the most important aspects of your work. But sometimes, we forget to worry about other,, more important, things. In this video, we're going to discuss some of the most common image quality issues that photographers waste a lot of time worrying about. From shooting in low light to avoiding camera shake, you'll learn how to avoid these issues and shoot better photos, faster!
You can find me on;
Instagram / scottchoucino
Facebook Group / 1893064874281393
Tin House Website and WORKSHOPS www.tinhouse-studio.com/
My Commercial Workscottchoucino.com/ 
Хобби
![Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Wednesday, Apr. 29, 2020 [Finding Black Hole Structures]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SbDzqlOLIZA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
You can see my diffraction aberration fringes in the real world here scottchoucino.com/
I'm an unsuccessful photographer who also doesn't worry about these things
😂
Ha ha
😅
I buy expensive equipment and in my mind i imagine how good my images could be, if i took the gear outa the box.
Breath of fresh air. I wish more RUclipsrs would watch your channel before squawking on about sharpness and pixel peeping nonsense.
I just sold a 16 mp Ricoh GR2 photo to a big company for their ad campaign. They were delighted with the vibe of the image, not the technical pixel peeping.
Insecurity. That's the driving force behind perfectionism and OCD. Very few are successful despite it, and even fewer because of it. Most remain mired in it. But the marketing people love it!
Eh, I think the primary issue is that the more a person dives into a particular subject the more they notice the subtle details, and it can be extremely easy to lose perspective and overly focus on those details.
Whats actually funny is the obession since digital with making technical "perfect" images....and now all the kids are trending back to film. I started in the 90's on film and what makes film unique are the flaws that make an image truly artful, because they are very rarely technically perfect.
They’ve already moved on from film to old digicams (even lower “quality”)
The same is true of vinyl records which have exploded in popularity. For many people the fact that they don't produce sound of perfect clarity is a plus.
Although, in those days, some people were arguing about the shape of the grains and the acutance of developers 😃
True. Here are some of things that I find really matter - 1) Subject matter, find something interesting to video or photograph. 2) Lighting, a sadly neglected area. 3) Setting, an interesting location in which to feature your subject matter.
I started photography at 65, three years ago. I shoot mainly landscape and street. By landscape I mean rural and urban landscapes. In short I shoot what interests ME. When I look at a photo I don't look for imperfections. Thanks for your insightfully videos, I really enjoy them and learn a lot from you. Keep it up mate
Same here…started 3 years ago at … (wait while I do the math) … 48. Got lucky to get on a path to being paid to shoot photos and most technical terms are alien to me. I have other things to worry about. Keep shooting!
100%. For folks in documentary settings like museums, they can also use the sharpest aperture and utilize focus stacking since their subject is static. Many cameras even have this functionality built-in now. I think you're also right about the best photos not being perfect. Jamie Windsor has a video around this exact idea ("When Bad Photos Are Better") - as people we like art that has imperfections. It feels more authentic. The more perfect something is, the more fake it tends to look.
At last a photographer who talks sense.
If you say enough things somethings bound to be right eventually haha
I think this is your best video yet. A smack in the face with a dose of reality.
What a great video. It should be mandatory viewing for photography club judges, albeit I don't mess with that stuff any more. Their obsession with sharpness throughout the image, while dismissing the aesthetic value of differential focus, and with all things technical at the expense of creativity, is maddening. I believe it was Picasso who said: "learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist."
oh god dont get me started on them haha
Especially photography group judges.
A certain channel on YT does critiques and always.... always zooms to 100% to pixel peep for sharpness, noise and fringing. If the image isn't sharp or has fringing then it is immediately considered a bad image regardless of the actual picture captured. Scott thank you for being one of very few RUclipsrs that doesn't spout BS and actually shares valuable knowledge and information to help us.
I was a photographer for 30+ years. My definition of a good photo was, a good photo was one that you got paid for.
Perfectly stated! The gear usually isn't the limiter of our creativity potential.
The same thing happens with musicians requiring that perfect instrument or perfect amplifier before they can write their perfect song. They forget that the song isn't made by the amp: it's just the medium that brings it to the audience.
Great analogy, music ;-)
I think Jimmy Hendrix agrees with you. Just a little, just kidding, not kidding.
Absolutely! I think The Beatles often just picked up whatever instrument was lying around to catch (and record) their song ideas! Never held them back..!
Hey Scott. I discovered your videos fairly recently and I must say, I have learned a TON from you. You say it like it is and cut through the BS, love it.
So when I was in college, I worked at a summer camp and saved up my money to buy my first 35mm SLR camera. It was the Canon Rebel 2000; not what most would consider a "pro" camera lol. There was another guy on staff at that same camp who also had a 35mm camera (can't remember what it was) and he was the tech nerd who always babbled on about numbers and all kinds of crap that I had no idea about. He had told others who were working at the camp that he was going to take photos and make prints and was going to sell them if anyone was interested. Despite the fact that I had been taking photographs for most of my childhood and adolescence, I knew nothing about the technical aspects of what I was doing. I just pointed my camera at the thing I liked, and snapped away. Even though having technical knowledge is definitely important, especially for professionals, it's not the only thing that you need to know. The irony about this situation was, my photographs were vastly more popular than his because, for all of his technical knowledge, he just didn't have a great eye for photography. The majority of my photos received lots of praise, and his just...didn't get much of any. I kind of felt bad for him for sure. But, this video kind of reminded me of that whole scenario. Sometimes getting the shot creatively will trump getting the shot technically.
Images with soul, beat micro contrast! Really glad you did not make videos when you were a micro contrats nerd ;) These are the best videos you make now, educating the simple lads like me lol :)
Great conversation I think the majority of people who want their images to be technically perfect are probably hobbyists, the working professional photographers are looking for the shot which like you said, make the subject of your image be interesting!
It can be a difficult transition, in transitioning from a hobbyist where you have time to worry about such things (as part of the interest of the hobby) to professional. When much of your self education is mixed in with such distractions and trivialities it can be hard to discern what matters.
That’s what is so valuable about the lessons Scott is sharing. Thank you!
Probably one of your best videos ever. Every contributor to to the DPR forums and other discussion groups, should be forced to watch it until it sinks in, before their allowed to put finger to keyboard or start to photograph their cat's whiskers.
On a serious note, I think a lot of this stems from people's lack visual awareness. It's much easier to fixate on the technical side of photography, than to discuss the aesthetics of image making and to be frank, some are just gear heads who's hobby is collecting camera equipment. They spend ages perfecting their lens line up and once completed, they switch systems. Mirror-less has been a God send to these people.
Very timely for me this. Im considering shooting with a somewhat idiosyncratic setup as it will aid my production workflow and style/aesthetic. For gear, my ethos is 1). Choose something practical and suitable 2.) Make sure you enjoy using it. As you said, only the gear reviewers will notice minor chromatic irregularities, its their job.
Let how you use your tools be organically part of your style! I love this comment 🙂
I bought an Olympus TG6 six weeks ago, and the image quality wasn't as good as I thought it would be. After mulling over returning it I decided to keep it because it's very small and good in low light. I have already come to love the images I get from it, despite them not being the best quality. There is more to this photography lark than megapixels and sharpness. Great video!
I used to obsess over sharpness, right up until I got my first extremely sharp lens.
Once I had it, I fell back in love with my vintage glass.
I think a lot of it is a defence mechanism - blaming gear for my own lack of skill or creative limitations. Once I have the best gear, I realize the limiting factor was me all along.
As a sports photographer, battery mA ratings do make difference. I have used a battery a couple of years ago, with a slightly lower rating than the Canon batteries, and on a 70-200 2.8, there was a dramatic difference in focus accuracy. Not on smaller lenses though.
But for stills work, it should not be problem.
'It doesn't matter because your photo sucks'. YUP! YUP! YUP! The most refreshing and honest video on the internet.
Thank you for this. I have never cared about gear. I really have to fake interest most times when talking to other photographers because I find most are OBSESSED with the technical.
Man, I freaking love your perspective and straight raw soothe saying. This clip reinforces for me the doctrine of "Direction of Pursuit", which gives purpose to my photography. Thank you!
Your cadance perfectly holds my attention and your rhythm of emphasis really drives home subtext. Your use of English and her nuances is simply delightful when not deeply insightful. I'd listen to you talk about anything as long as it held your interest.
Thank you so much. It seems that my creativity went out the window on e I learned the technical side. This gives me such a sigh of relief when I'm trying to make a photo and worrying about the technical. I'm going to stop worrying so much.
I totally agree. Now say it louder in the back for the big RUclipsrs who push otherwise. 📸
Thank you for saying these things!!! So true.
Absolutely love this.
You need to know all of these and ignore them, that's the hard part, but job needs to be done.
As usual, great commonsense advice! Being a gearhead does not great photography make. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
👍 Wonderful! Exactly on point as always!
Love it!!! 🎉
Totally agree. Great advice
I Love this guy's honesty!!
As always Scott, love your mentoring. Your educational videos are actually calming cause you cut the fat. “Get out and take good photos”
Yet again , a brilliant video . Many thanks Scott . I’ve had the “photography “ conversations with other photographers ! Always fall asleep on my feet . As you say spend more time on actually taking pics and hopefully you’ll get a less than perfect excellent shot
This is the best RUclips video on photography that I have ever watched!!!
An old phrase we used a lot in our household and family businesses:
"The problem is in the meat, not the metal."
Keep saying this please. One of my hobbies is to find out what gear great photographers use and by and large it’s not usually as good as a well heeled amateur.
Thank you, my OCD needed to hear this!
This was great!
OMG!!! This is so true. I literally laughed out loud. As photographers we do what we need to do. Your statement about the interest level of the subject of the photo is an argument I've had with more than one person. On the basis of that one observation I am going to subscribe.
I agree - Scott's ability to say out loud what we hear in our hearts has helped me be very happy with some technically flawed images that were just simply great photos!
This is PERFECT! Not the Advice we WANT to hear but the Advice we NEED to hear. Thank you. =)
Between the lines I take this as, "yes these things are important" BUT if you have modern-ish pro or semi-pro gear and Lightroom or the equivalent, you're now close enough to just not worry about them anymore.
You are mostly correct. For 95% of shoots, none of the crap matters. When it does, the photographers who shoot that 5% know how to do it. Focus-stacked macros, for example. OTOH, if I didn't know the truth, I would suspect that "bokeh" was invented by the Camera Industry® to sell expensive lenses. We used to talk about "nice soft blur". Now it's "the bokeh balls". "This ten-thousand-dollar lens has microscopically better 'bokeh' than this five-thousand-dollar one."
That’s why I like watching your videos, hard cold truth. No sugar coating. 👌 cause I’m so fed up with that
I appreciate your common sense approach.
One of my mostly liked instagram click has lot of noise. But till I pointed it out, none of my friends noticed ! As Scott Kelby put it, the only people worry about noise is other photographers !
Loved hearing this. I don't use GM Sony glass, favoring for the "lesser" Tamron kit. I have NEVER encountered an issue pertaining to the gear I used from the client. Did I hit the brief? Yes. All that matters to me in that regard is meeting the brief or better. Cheers!
Your closing statement about audiofool cork sniffing is the best comparison you could have made. I worked a quarter century in the audio electronics industry as an engineer, there is no difference and if one can hear a difference in a double blindfold test, then one cable is faulty!
I have no end of people commenting on my photography when they see the apertures I have chosen to use, and its always the cork sniffing boffins that have these skewed opinions. An aperture is chosen by me for technical reasons revolving around light control of a needed DOF, all the other nonsense can go out the bloody window, if I need 16, I use 16 and speak with my lighting and composition as best I can.
When "that guy at the party" can correctly answer the five factors that affect DOF, then perhaps we can sit and have a conversation about lighting or something creative.
Spot on! I’ve got a friend that spends most of his time comparing lenses on boring subjects. Waste of time.
L-O-V-E... your down-to-earth sense-talking! Yes, the nerdy obsessiveness all over RUclips is EXHAUSTING! And I too have had more than my fill of all that stuff, (because yes, I've read, and listened to far too much of it), and entirely agree with everything you say. I look back fondly at my film-shot Nikkormat pictures of forty years ago, and many are soft. But great! (As are so many by hundreds of the world's most famous and revered photographers). But, like you say, they are, and remain damn good pictures! And the softness or blurs, matter not one jot! THE PICTURE is what sticks in your mind! Love all your videos. So glad you make the time to so entertainingly, pass on your observations, and wisdom!
Sigma art lens line up is every impressive I love the sigma art line up, thanks so much for your videos I'm not a food photographer I'm a portrait and fashion but alit of your advice translates perfect to what I do also, so I really appreciate your content and time
We need more real world photography vids like this, thank you.
Brilliance!!
Nice video. And well put. People who are worried about chromatic aberration are not photographers, they’re what many refer to as “the local guy with a camera.” The surgical sharpness that a digital camera produces is not only unpleasant to look at but a weakness aesthetically. This is why some shoot film and why others are putting old character lenses on digital cameras. No one really wants to look at a face nor a landscape that is razor sharp. Allow the viewer to dream a little, for crying out loud.
THANKS SO MICH FOR SAYING ALL YOU SAID ON THIS VIDEO, 101% agreed!!! Bests regards from a Venezuelan follower!
This is purely the work of the industry to herd consumers towards gear…and you hit the nail on the head. IT DOESN’T MATTER . You are focusing on the wrong stuff if that’s what keeps you up at night. Thanks for the video
I have been shooting photography for over 40 years and you are spot-on all this crap about chromatic aberration it's all these RUclipsrs that talk about this that get their lenses for free so they can have something to talk how about I agree with you concentrate on taking the pictures that's all that matters I have now moved over to Sony and I am astonished how good all my photos come out I don't need to get any new cameras. The camera doesn't make the photographer. Thank you for this video I hope more people watch it.
Best vid to date THS.
❤📷♥️ you are so right...
good video...enjoyed the content!!
Fantastic video. One can add "Noise" to the list. I've been a second shooter in a super dark room for an event and shoot higher ISO's to get the sharpness I need. The main photographer was worried about the high ISO I was shooting with (iso 5000 on a modern Sony A74) because of noise. HOWEVER, I was getting 95% tack sharp images vs her less than 30 %. The noise was quite usable out of camera and a little click in Lightroom made the noise basically go away. I've been a pro Architectural/Commercial photographer for close to 20 years now...If I listened to all the "photo forum" trolls, I would basically quit. Most have never been paid for one image let alone make a full-time living
Summing it up, It's not the camera / lens. It's the photographers eye that makes a great image.
Everything you said is 100% correct.
Unfortunatley I can give you only one thumb up. Would like to give you onethousand. What a great channel!!
All flows from the principle of don't worry about it until and unless it actually affects or is limiting you. Whether that be upgrade kit or extra bit of editing. That possible marginal gain is at the cost of where the real difference is actually at.
Most people buying a print only care what it looks like on the wall.. The only people who care about fine detail are photographers.. With wildlife photography detail is more important because often subjects are shot at variable distances in challenging lighting conditions and images are often heavily cropped.. For that reason sharpness is more important for wildlife than other forms of photography..
So true, that's why I stopped posting on Facebook photo forums.
I studied physics, so I'm somewhat bemused that I don't obsess or worry about such details. To become a better photographer time is better spent in an art gallery.
This!
Going back through year's of my own photos I found they got less interesting the newer the photo was. Then I realised it was because back in the day I spent zero tine trying to get it perfect was just trying to be creative. I would buy a better camera and new lens and I started to spend time trying to optimize and justify my spending money on new gear. So again I made an conscience effort to stop worrying about the things like perfect sharpness and all that and my photos once again became interesting.
Lol 🤣🤣🤣best comment ever "Goldie and the 3 bears with the aperture" you got to.let me use that 😂😂😂
Music to my ears
As a film photographer hobbyist. All the things you talked about people getting upset about are all effects i try to gain 😅
I recently was looking at one my favorite still life photographers websites and I noticed some errors in the background masking. I looked at this particular image a hundred times and I only noticed it on the last viewing. The subject matter drew me in that much.
When I take a photo, I will pick a lens that is best suited for a shot. I don’t think about chromatic issues or fringing etc.
I am concerned about composition, light, depth of field.
I am be a creative person. I document a moment in time with my images.
If someone says.. I want this aperture with this lens, etc. fine. I follow the instructions and capture the image to the best of my ability because I can.
I have inexpensive kit. I have what I have. That’s it. I know my gear which is key. I can push its limits and work around issues to get results and I’m happy with what i can do
I've chosen lenses specifically because of their technical defects in my line of photography. Refraction at f/22 can actually enhance the subject or mood of a shot. I take a "wabi sabi" approach insofar as nothing is perfect and that "defects" are what makes things unique. And no one notices perfection or defects unless they are glaring. Technically perfect things are boring IMHO. And if it goes to print, no one sees the small defects or looks for them unless they are anal- retentive nuts. I know all the technical issues inside and out, but I rarely worry about them, and if I do worry, then I'm doing something wrong in my process.
I am not a commercial photographer. I shoot mostly landscapes, life, travel etc. I have also been duped into believing all this stuff about having the latest and greatest, and my wallet can prove it. Then I saw a photo exhibition by Sabastiao Salgado. Are they (by today's gear reviewers standards) optically perfect, probably not, are they jaw dropping, I am going to cry in the corner, stunning, definitely.
If people notice the imperfections in a photo, don't blame the camera or lens, blame the photographer.
Love your videos, great advice for real people with real budgets.
Idk bout this rant. Kubrik was an insane gear nerd. Some people see the tool as a foundational element of the art and others just see it as a tool, its both totally ok and valid.
Nice video. Gained a subscriber. I used to shoot at the max aperture the lens provided. All situations. I guess is did this because I wanted to get my moneys worth. I get home and not enough of the image is in focus to use. Last trip to Europe, I set my ISO to auto, aperture to 7.1 and got great images. I shoot with a pair a Canon 5DM3s and various 4.0 L zooms and nice, not the best, primes. My best shot from the trip was on a 50mm Zeiss at 7.1. $450 lens and I can’t wait to return.
That's so true.
Personally, I pick my lenses based on focal length and aperture. I do prefer primes, but that's mostly because getting a fast prime is cheaper than getting a fast zoom lens - and primes generally are available with faster apertures, than zoom lenses. I focus on concert photography in dark venues with nothing but stage lights, so aperture and a fast silent AF is key for me.
Glad you brought this up 7:25, 😂, tell Michael Fremer that, those guys can "hear" the tone arm of a turn table or can "hear" the difference between a record pressed at one plant from another, BS.
So true, hurrah at last a photographer who knows what he is talking about stating the facts. If you need f16 or f22 it's the subject/subjects that matters not what's happening on the edges.
If you want to learn something of use, head over here www.tinhouse-studio.com/product-category/workshop/
It's nearly impossible to see aberrations from the camera in physical print. I worked on imaging the plates that go onto a printing press for a few national newspapers. The pressman can't align the black, yellow, magenta, and cyan plates perfectly all the time so any minor technical imperfections will be covered up by the imperfections of the medium.
It's also totally not surprising that Louis Vuitton, Dior, Rolex, etc. have teams dedicated to finding printing errors for a partial refund. The attitude towards imperfections in camera would surely be different if photographers were regularly asked for refunds because of a fringe.
This is absolutely why I don't care about the new lenses, companies are coming out in, I shoot Nikon, I'll shoot older Nikon f lenses or sigma lenses or whatever. The flaws are the reason those lenses were so sought after
I just went and bought an old Nikkor 55 1.2 it's one of the "softest" lenses Nikon made, but it's beautiful for portraits and it gives a unique look for a wedding
Many years ago I was shooting some product photography where the shoot lasted over 3 months to complete. I built a DIY version of your massive "tripod thingy" in your studio.... I had never seen one before, but mine was made with an extending (raisable) hospital end table with a "camera pole mount" bolted to the table. Works just like yours, but I paid exactly $60 usd to make it! It would boom over my subject for shooting down, and could be raised with a screw of a handle.... I kinda miss that thing.
Mmmm... I built my own enlarger out of wood, as a 13-year-old boy in the 1960s. Put a decent lens on it, and it served me for years, till I bought my first Gnome. Took, film-processed, and printed, loads of pictures in my make-shift darkroom. And seeing those images appear under an orange light was magic! Today's digital nerds are SO spoiled! And still they moan..!
The only time it matters to me' is when (like now) I'm shopping for new gear. But I am also concerned about value for the dollar.
Just assisted a 250 person portrait shoot. Sometimes you only have a minute with each. Dial in and shoot.
Another thing that photographers obsess about that no one else notices is catch lights. They will talk at length about their size and shape and position in the eye, and if there aren't any they'll say the subject has "dead eye". In a video about catch lights the professional photographer was raving about a picture he took where the model had huge, extremely bright ring-shaped catch lights that he thought were awesome but actually looked HORRIBLE. Anyone looking at it would be terrified and ask what was wrong with her eyes.
I just did field hockey game one of the coolest photos was cropped by like 50 percent, shot at 800iso on a evening (had a F/5 aperture and a 1/500 exposure) and I can see the CA problems but everyone I work with says that is a awesome photo. I don't like pixel perfect because its just too much for one thing, I do work trying to get that single moment.
PERFECT IS ENEMY OF GOOD. In Chile we say "paja molida" (ground straw).
Hahaha, I shoot up to f/22 very often, yes, there are technical issue, but not a single client has complained. One of my main lenses for beauty/makeup is a 20+ yr old lens pentax 645 80-160mm and is not sharp as any new lens, but clients are very happy with it. We commercial guys shoot for clients not for other photographers. Also like you , I use a lot of zoom lenses. At one time, I was backed by sigma and had every single "Art" prime lens, it was a pain to work with and not being able to position the camera where I needed it (perspective angles) - So I only have zooms todays. I position camera where it needs to be for the shot and zoom to frame. - point to all this, sure primes are sharper, but clients dont care.
hahahah nice one!!! for me... 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and 100mm 1:1 macro 2.8... additional sigma 15mm f2.8... have this lenses for years and i DON'T need any.
I have no idea what those terms mean and only ever hear them mentioned on youtube. Thanks for making care even less about them. 😂
👌
I shoot b&w with a 28mm on a FM2n. Life couldn't be grander.❤