oh no, I just got the Nikon badge

an attempt at an "artsy" over-processed image

@AJHenderson not sure I am seeing the over-processing or the artsy-ness here...

@AJHenderson you got the what now?

@JamWheel the nikon badge on Photography.SE

basically just means I've answered a certain number of questions tagged as Nikon and gotten a certain number of upvotes related to those answers

luckily, I did get the Canon one a while ago

so I don't feel too bad

@JamWheel it's supposed to be fairly subtle. I normally like hyper-real color grading, but I tone mapped this one a bit more aggressively. It has over-done contrast and clarity and a few other minor manipulations that detract from the accuracy of the image

but alter the feel of it

I don't often do creative tone mapping as generally I like my images to be vibrant and lifelike rather than dreamy or surreal

depending on your display I suppose it might not even be obvious that it is over-processed, particularly since I didn't go really crazy with it

@AJHenderson oh i see :) seems reasonable - a shower will probably sort you out for that :)

@AJHenderson i've only viewed it on a non calibrated screen so far, i'll look on another later

@JamWheel perhaps a really long shower

I just kept scrubbing and scrubbing but couldn't get it off

lol

the brand rivalry thing makes me chuckle

in reality the difference in output is trivial

well, not really trivial, but also not one better than the other

and honestly, I think for the vast majority of cases, it is a "for fun" thing

I don't actually hate Nikon, I just like pretending to hate nikon

I actually looked very seriously at the D800 before going with the 5D mark iii simply because the Canon controls were more natural in my hands

even my wife (a complete non-photographer) noticed the difference when I was handling them

from the viewer's perspective, the output difference will be trivial

unless your a photo judge and looking at some ridiculous piece of detail rather than viewing the image as a whole

if the images are manually processed, yeah, most likely. The cameras do have distinct looks though in terms of automatic processing

just because of the different processing algorithms

yes - but as the viewer, you would be hard pressed to know whether work has been done to achieve that or whether the camera did it, right?

from a punter's view

I suppose you could argue that for the most part they aren't significant though

they were a little bit more so in the case of the D800 vs 5D Mark iii, simply because the resolution and DR of the D800 is stupid crazy

quite, you wouldn't know if it was straight out of the camera or not if you were the customer

if you receive a product like a photo book from a wedding and had paid someone to do it - it probably wouldn't occur to you to consider which took it

but the Mark iii has stronger NR in any realistic test

and one vs the other wouldn't degrade the output

stop thinking of it from a macro test level

that's the only time it matters

well, they do put limits on what you can do with the final image though

pretend you aren't a photographer

you go and buy a poster

you can't get the super wide DR of a D800 on a 5D mark iii and you can't get as noise free of an image on a D800 as you can on a 5D Mark iii

or a photobook

and those differences would be noticeable to a consumer

they wouldn't know why they were

but they could notice if you showed one image next to the other that there was a difference

a lot of people wouldn't even see that

they wouldn't be able to tell you what the difference is

just that one looked "more vibrant" or one looked "fuzzier"

but that said, a good editor could sacrifice a little resolution to help makeup for the noise or could artifically tone map the image in to appearing to be wider DR than it is

which would make it hard for most users to notice again I suppose

so skill of editor still matters more, but it is still a significant difference in the RAW image

and impacts how much work you have to do on it

so I guess my final answer would be that there are mildly significant differences, but that they aren't critically different

you can work around the differences and largely account for them on the practical level

but they can require additional work to do so

it doesn't matter much (if at all) in terms of final output, but it does matter in terms of your workflow

because the tools have relative strengths

at most common print sizes noise is rarely visible

and in general each manufactuer has their points they focus on

but again

imagine you know nothing about photography

you aren't given product a to compare to product B

you go and look at two different wedding tog's websites

you'll look at the images and like them or not

and choose one vs the other

both will have good quality images

so from that perspective, I would say - the differences are largely trivial

yeah, from an end consumer's perspective it doesn't matter much

exactly, and mostly, that is where the images end up

but the point of the difference is to make the photographer's life easier, not that it impacts the end product you can make significantly

it's kind of like an expensive chisel vs a cheap one

yes - even that is subjective though

it's not like that

it's like two expensive chisels from different manufacturers

a buddy of mine does stone crafting and uses chisels that cost $300 a piece. He could make the same thing with a $15 chisel, but it would take him longer and he'd have to put in more effort to get it

that's not the same comparison

canon and nikon aren't wildly different on price

ok, valid point

so lets say you have one $300 chisel that is good at making curved surfaces and another $300 chisel good at making flat surfaces

you might be able to use the flat surface one and make a round surface with it, but you aren't using it's strengths

the ease of use thing... i have used canon all my life - naturally, i end up finding canon easier i guess as despite large changes there is some feel of familiarity between them

so it makes extra work for you

again, not valid - that's like comparing an image taken with a wide angle lens vs one telephoto

put two pro spec bodies against two similarly tasked lenses next to each other

if you're used to nikon

you'll find it easier to use

and vice versa

chances are, any technical issues in the images - you'll have developed a workflow around as well

sure it is valid, on the same tier, there are significant differences between the quality of the RAW images captured

so you'll have 'gotten used to them'

not so much that you can't work around it for making a final image

but the difference is if the image naturally has the characteristics you want or if you have to work to bring them out

neither is so different that you can't adjust, but you do have to make extra adjustments

ok - but sensor use vs sensor use - compare full frame to full frame, I don't think the differences are as stark as an analogy as comparing two tools designed to do different jobs

of course, there is also the possibility that you want a look that neither camera does and then you have to make heavy alterations either way

yeh - those extra adjustments only really matter while you adjust to them yourself, if you see what I mean

if you're a native nikon guy

you probably don't notice them

same with the canon dude

if you switch between them

my point is that the D800 is designed for high resolution, high DR photographs, the 5D Mark iii is designed for slightly lower resolution and better low light performance

they are tools designed for different target groups

i think we're talking at cross purposes

both can work as a jack of all trades, but they have different strengths

at some point you have turned this into D800 vs 5D MkIII - i was talking canon vs nikon generally - compared at the appropriate levels of cameras in the range

yeah, I'm using those two as examples because I've worked most closely at comparing them

are they each other's opposite number in the respective ranges?

i haven't a clue when it comes to nikon model names

yeah, they are the equivilant models

@JamWheel I will say there is something to this point. I didn't end up having to put it to the test because my technical needs happened to match up with the workflow that I knew well as well

I'm not 100% sure what I would have done if the strengths had been reversed

but then again, I initially learned Canon because of their tendency to be strong in those characteristics

(and also in part because they crossed both video and still)

@AJHenderson fair enough - but my "output" point still stands I think. workflow isn't output, it is the route to output - and the resulting image would be hard for a layman to tell anything other than it looks good quality and that they like it or not :)

@AJHenderson i have used nikon film SLRs i think at the studio i used to work in

@JamWheel yeah, I'm willing to grant that with enough work, you could make the output similar enough that most people wouldn't notice

we also had pentax stuff

@AJHenderson i don't think you'd need to make them the same, every photographer produces images with their own style based on their own processing. they would just be different

but for that matter, the average consumer is going to have a hard time telling a well touched up T3 photo from a 1Dx photo

and possibly even from a smartphone photo

as long as the smart phone photo is well taken and touched up

the real thing is "do i like the photo?" and "Does it look good if I print it?" - within most normal parameters, the answer will probably be either "yes" or "no" - and neither will be to do with whether it was nikon, canon or otherwise

right, the point of choosing a body is personal convenience and preference

@AJHenderson which is why the whole canon vs nikon thing - at the end of the day, when the image is in the hands of the person that bought it, really doesn't matter

and that is what we should all concentrate on

producing great images :)

our only real disagreement seems to be that I put a little more emphasis on the fact that the natural strengths that one focuses on makes it a slightly better choice in terms of workflow efficiency over the other

depending on the situation

certainly

I guess the one situation it might really matter is action photography

where Canon's AF gives a decided advantage

because most people do recognize focus issues

true

but the photographer wouldn't publish a soft image

so the output will be the sharp one, or no image

right, but it is a situation where the Nikon might fail to get a usable shot when the Canon wouldn't

and that might be the difference :)

but that's also more model specific

a photo vs no photo

since I don't know that Canon's AF is universally better across the product range

but if the person you paid is shooting with one or the other, you won't know what they might have got, you'll just get the end result and probably still be happy with those too

the canon AF might focus, but if the photographer is looking the wrong way or nattering with someone - you wouldn't get the image either.

that's more down to (in action) the dude getting the better shot or not - and composition and content of the shot is a different discussion

yeah, well, that goes back to the whole professional vs non-professional body, at the end of the day, it is 95% photographer, 4% post and 1% camera make/model

in terms of end image quality

yup

you know, i was talking to the marketing director of a firm I send images to

who told me he gets thousands of images

and he can google things and find images for most aircraft on flickr accounts and so on

and in terms of workflow efficiency I'd say it is 50% photographer, 30% tools and 20% camera make/model

but the vast majority are sub standard

i'd wager he has seen images from all levels of gear and still put them in that category

a good camera does not make a good photographer

by the nature that they are photographing things, they are. there is no qualifier though - 'great' :)

well, I'd challenge that a photographer is someone who composes images rather than simply points and clicks

if they aren't putting any thought behind it, I'd personally argue they aren't really acting as a photographer

dictionary thinks they are - you need to add an adjective to complete the statement :)

yeah, but the practical definition usually involves more than just taking a couple photos occasionally

I've worked on my car a few times, but I wouldn't call myself a mechanic

and if someone really likes taking photos, they are naturally going to start considering how they compose them in most cases

they may have misguided ideas on how to do it

but they'll think about it

and my argument for the dictionary definition would be to challenge what does it mean to "take a photograph"

but that's also a matter of what I think the artistic definition of the word may be versus the dictionary one too

I think there is a fundamental difference between pointing a camera at random and clicking the button and having whatever happens happen vs thinking "this would make a good photo" and taking a photo intentionally

there is, but fundamentally I think the definition of a photograph stands up:

it is what it is

right, the intent would be implied by the meaning of "take" vs "capture"

a 'good', 'professional', 'artistic' type qualifier is needed to differentiate

the thing that annoys me - is when someone refers to an image you have worked on as a 'snap' :)

it is a photographic image made from a photograph

a snap implies no thought

or process

right

and devalues the whole thing

and I'll generally avoid that term unless I am quite sure that they weren't putting much thought in and even then I'm hesitant

I'm usually more likely to encourage the areas they could improve without calling it a snapshot

some people refer to photographs routinely as 'snaps' - even one photographer I know does

makes me want to slap him :)

which is honestly probably the main reason I use the definition I use for photographer being someone that takes images with thought to what they are creating. The starting point to being a good photographer is to think about what you are doing and then learn what you could do better

but you can't learn how to improve if you don't even think about your actions

and it doesn't really have meaning if it isn't the result of a thought process. It doesn't have to be an elaborate one

to take it to an extreme, if I took out my smart phone and started pushing the shutter button at random while spinning in a circle, I wouldn't be acting as a photographer (unless I had some artistic vision of why that would be interesting I suppose)

@AJHenderson sounds like some street photographers

and I use that mainly to encourage people to think about what they are doing

but then, they are aiming at a particular kind of result while shooting from the hip

yeah, it's all about intent and being intentional

the actual action can be exactly the same

almost brings us to the question of ownership of the monkey selfie that was doing the rounds recently :)

yeah, true

ut oh, I'm running out of desk space around the edge of my desk for photos. I'm going to need to get some sticky tack I think

and I guess that is probably where that definition evolved from in my head. I basically define being a photographer as the most basic point after which you can actually start improving

if you don't give it any thought, you don't benefit from the experience and don't improve

if you are someone who is pursuing photography, then you should be improving and you can't improve without thinking about what you are doing

I don't consider myself a mechanic because I don't actively pursue working on cars. I may occasionally do it, but it isn't something I go after

if that makes sense

yes of course

you could describe yourself as a reluctant mechanic

:)

or an occasional mechanic :)

I suppose that'd be fair. I'd personally say I act as a mechanic on occasion

I'm not one because I don't pursue it, but I occasionally act like one

but at a point it is also semantics

(though I enjoy discussions like this because they show the complexity of language)

when you really dig in to the complexities of the ideas that words represent to people and how they can subtly differ

oh yeah, I also did a self portrait last night while doing the pregnancy photos

@AJHenderson nice and evenly lit - background is a bit busy though

@AJHenderson semantics... :) :P

@JamWheel we are in a 1000 sqft. apartment with a computer room, two cats and a baby on the way, we have a lack of clean backgrounds

@AJHenderson bed sheet on sticks :)

there's a couch along that wall

hehe - kidding, I know it is tricky to achieve - I have few clean backgrounds to use for the same

directly behind me

believe me, the thought crossed my mind

do you have studio kit for your wedding stuff?

no

well, sort of

my lighting setup for that photo is a 600EX-RT on camera using a Lumiquest quickbounce with the ceiling bounce port open

there is then a 320EX on a light stand to the right of the camera with a lumiquest softbox on it

and then there is an LED work light acting as a backlight from behind and to the right

it's pretty much entirely artificially lit

do you take lighting kit with you for weddings? in case the weather is terrible for the group shots?

I bring the 600EX-RT and 320EX

getting another 600EX-RT or two is on my list of things to get

the 320 works pretty well but sometimes misfires at full power

just in the 80 or so shots I did yesterday, I had two or three misfires

and for that particular setup, I actually have it plugged in via HDMI to the 55 inch TV directly behind and to the side of the camera

so I can actually see the photo before triggering with a wireless trigger

that makes a self portrait considerably easier

yeah, still a fair bit of trial and error getting the light balance right though

since I don't have any remote control over that

all I have is a shutter release

i keep meaning to book myself in for a studio lighting course. i swear everything i did in my first job has fallen out of my head

which I also learned has a bit more delay than I'd like, but for $80 it's hard to complain

yeah, it's still pretty fresh for me, but then again, I've done stage lighting, which is far more complicated

though it is a bit easier to adjust constant output lamps I suppose

I probably spent a good 15 to 30 minutes setting up and fine tuning the lighting for that batch of photos

heh - the studio stuff i did was a bit like stage lighting at times - we'd have to light huge sets for the commercial advertising stuff we were doing - we'd make up a living room or something in which a product had to be shot or something

ah yeah

yeah, when you get good at that kind of thing, 3 point lighting becomes something you do in your sleep :)

takes time to tweak it all just right

but it's not challenging

just time consuming

I suppose doing it with minimal gear can make it a bit trickier

the only real difference between the livingroom product photo setup and stage lighting is that the subject moves for stage lighting

so you are more concerned with the overall light field

though there are some nice fine tuning you can do when working for lighting on a particular spot

we had a vast softbox - it was 10' or more wide i think

yeah, I'd love one of those but wouldn't have any room to use it

guessing you were shooting MF too?

mf?

medium format?

yeah

sometimes, mostly large format - depended somewhat on the shoot and how mobile the camera needed to be

we'd most often shoot 10x8 or 5x4

makes shot composition fun - everything being upside down and back to front in the viewfinder :)

"move it left... wait, no"

ah, that works too

@JamWheel yeah, I have that problem still when using my TV at home for a monitor

when trying to pose my wife and looking at the TV I am constantly going the wrong way

took a while loading the film holders - 2 per holder - sitting in the dark room to load 50 shots

I should really mirror the input when working on it

we didn't have the choice :) wearing the cape - adjusting bellows etc, hehehe

yeah

I can only imagine what shooting on a modern 80MP MF back would be like

we had 5 x 4 polaroids for test shots

but at 30k+ for one, I don't think I'll be trying anytime soon

and that's just for the back

i saw a guy at an airshow with an MF mamiya i think

shooting ground stuff

we used to have flash power packs the size of a double briefcase hehe

they were heavy bastards

yeah, thankfully battery tech has improved a bit, who was it that had the full power studio strobes in a portable TTL capable form factor now?

ah yes, profoto

profoto.com/int/b1

ours were always powered, but they had to store power for multiple shots

most disgusting light ever

the firm i worked for still exists

basementphoto.com/index.html

@AJHenderson oh?

totally self contained, ridiculously powerful for the size and fully E-TTL compatible

if I had about $7 grand to spend on lights, I'd get 3 of them

haha