Frans,

Why would you repeat something of this nature without identifying your source? There is a lot of BS anyone can read these days especially on-line when there is no accountability for what is written.

And, I would be curious when a digital camera has so many pixels how it resolution could greater in reality than is supported by the number of pixels it uses to record images.

And, how exactly do you measure and assess "better color accuracy".

David,

It's interesting to observe that your first reaction to my post is one of disbelief and trying to discredit me.

Out of courtesy to Shutterbug I did not identify the information source, other than to say "a major photographic publication". But since you apparently want me to reveal the source, it's Popular Photography's production model Nikon D200 dSLR test report, including certified laboratory test results.

Nowhere did I claim that this camera's resolution is greater than what is supported by the number of pixels. Camera resolution measurements do NOT count the number of pixels but measure resolving power, similar to how the resolving power of film is measured.

Similarly, color accuracy can be measured objectively using the appropriate laboratory equipment.

These tests are part of the scientific approach to evaluating cameras as opposed to using subjective observations and opinions, thereby eliminating biases and personal preferences.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans,

Just how, when you are repeating something someone else authored, do you acquire ownership of the material so that you are personally discredited?

You are not serving Shutterbug any courtesy by not mentioning any other photo/digital information source. In fact many if not most of the Shutterbug contributors on the masthead write for other publications as well, and many have been on the staff of other photo publications at one time or another like myself. The photo magazine community is a small one and most of us are acquainted with our colleagues to some degree or another.

I don't think anyone truly involved in digital camera imaging confuses resolution to mean anything digitally other than the image size pixel count. And trying to say a digital camera makes sharper pictures than another is disingenuous at best considering all raw digital captures are soft and varying kinds and amounts of post-capture sharpening are always applied.

As for color accuracy, like film the output has never been anything but the choice of the manufacturer to produce an "interpretation" that is subjectively pleasing and popular. In other words what is good color is what user's choose to buy the most of, as it always has been with film. Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Fuji Velvia produce different color looks that to varying degrees are unrealistic because it pleases the customers. In other words the manufacturers intentionally vary from purely accurate and neutral color reproduction because if they did produce neutral truly accurate color it would not sell as well.

Photographers by and large are artists and use a camera to produce aesthetically pleasing results. However photography is used by some scientists to record and document, and they are are very minor part of the photographic community, and photography to them is just an adjunct to their primary activities.

I am and have never been at all concerned what a camera does objectively and scientifically because I use it as an artistic tool to create photographs whose purpose is NOT to record reality objectively, but subjectively to create images that are judged primarily from an aesthetic perspective. And from what I gather from most readers of Shutterbug their interests are primarily to make images that are subjectively pleasing. Ansel Adams and other great photographers of the past we presently revere acquired their stature by what they did creatively to make aesthetic statements true to their personal vision, not because many of them were also good technicians.

David,

Whether you admit it or not, your whole response was belittling in nature.

If you have a beef with how Popular Photography measures digital camera resolution, color accuracy or any other parameter, why don't you talk to your collegues over there?

I am not talking about artistic or aesthetic aspects of photography. I am talking about science and engineering of digital photography and how, in the technical terms of resolving power and color accuracy, an APS-size sensor 10 megapixel dSLR that costs $1700 compares to a full-size sensor 12 megapixel dSLR that costs $3000. Apparently you are not willing to engage in this kind of technical discussion.

Ansel Adams and other great photographers of the past acquired their stature not in spite of but to a great extent because of their technical knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of the equipment and materials they worked with.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

I agree with Frans...I think that your reply was a bit on the harsh side. I would think that someone "in the know" would better serve the online community by challenging the points mentioned and countering them with their own observations...

while I think comparing Nikon to Canon is fairly pointless....Frans makes a very important point that a "handicapped" APS-C equipped camera that lists for half the price of the Canon in question...somehow managed to impress the reviewers of a very major publication so much that they not only felt it outperfomred the 5D in many categories but even went on to point out that the D200 outperformed the D2X in most of its tests. Now THAT I find to be more meaningful to me since Im a Nikon guy.

I guess I feel that as a representative of those "in the know" and as a very good writer for a magazine that I do respect ( and I mean that...I really like many of your articles) you have a responsibility to perhaps respond with a bit more care...because every once in awhile a poster really will have a reputable source. Its perfectly fine to disagree...but a careful response was more warranted in this case. Of course...I should talk, I put my foot in my mouth all the time :-)

as for this line

"Photographers by and large are artists and use a camera to produce aesthetically pleasing results. However photography is used by some scientists to record and document, and they are are very minor part of the photographic community, and photography to them is just an adjunct to their primary activities."

I couldn't disagree more... MOST photographers are merely looking to record events in their every day lives...Can there be any doubt about this? Is the point and shoot market targetted at artists? Is a wedding photog an "artist"? Why would an "artist" need 12 AF sensors, 5FPS, P mode and zoom lenses? I would think they'd be better served with a more contemplative camera like and Alpa or a Linhof.

some ENTHUSIASTS are indeed looking to make art...but most are just looking to take better pictures. All to many have never even SEEN good photography let alone ever made it. I know SO FEW people who consider their photography "art"...although I do consider my own pursuits to be artistic

most "PROS" are not artists.... I am rarely asked to give any artistic expression with my commercial work. Most of the time the client tells me exactly what and how they want it.I use completely different equipment for art than I do for work. The work gear is far more mainstream. The art gear far more useful for the purpose ( mostly LF and 120 panoramic)

>>Apparently you are not willing to engage in this kind of technical discussion.<<

I don't think it is particularly significant to whether someone has the vision and the skill to use the tools whatever they are to create images that have something of meaning to say.

I know people who are enthusiasts and know much more detail about cameras than I, have extensive and expensive collections of cameras, but do little with them other than make some snapshots. Most of them are honest enough to admit that they are gear-heads fascinated by the hardware and their value in a picture is whether it is sharp and saturated.

I was also acquainted with a highly respected engineer who designed optics for a well known company some years back. He did not make photographs himself, and surprised me by stating that a lens design would be committed to production based entirely on the bench tests and without ever being used to expose a piece of film.

You are welcome to your perspective. Science and engineering are essential to designing and making cameras, true, but is largely irrelevant to using a camera effectively.

I think your emphasis on the technical would be something Ansel would not agree with but in small part. Besides photography Ansel was an accomplished pianist. He often repeated the idea he understood printing in the darkroom was like playing the piano, the negative was like the music score and the printing was like its performance. To be a great performance requires much more than just being able to read music accurately.

Being you took it upon yourself to suggest how I should conduct myself here in the forum, I will answer simply by saying I have been devoted (and I choose the word specifically) to photograph for most of my 73 years working full-time as a photographer, mostly because it is what I love to do. What I have to say is what I think and believe to be true at least in terms of my personal knowledge and experience. I expect others to have sometimes very different perspectives than I do, and that makes neither they or I right or wrong, it just makes us different, and viva la difference. If it were otherwise I'd have become bored and left photography long ago. And I am not here participating to pander to anyone by saying something I don't believe myself just to make someone feel good. If that is harsh it is unfortunate, but it is not intentional on my part to offend or harm anyone by speaking frankly and directly.

I do make a distinction between the enthusiast photographer and the snapshooter whose only purpose is recording the people, places and events of his or her life. I think when an individual with a camera takes a picture of something because something special is seen in the scene and it becomes a serious intention about making pictures deriving creative satisfaction from the process, then they begin to pick up magazines like Shutterbug and Popular Photography, and think of themselves as photographers.

No not all photographers are creative artists. Some use a camera just to make money. But usually besides having some business acumen such a photographer does have to practice an art at least with some craftsmanship. And I would also say some photographers who are in it commercially are also truly creative artists and have been recognized as such, like Richard Avedon and Irving Penn, and many more since.

I represent no one other than myself. I identify myself as a contributor for Shutterbug, but I am an independent and have no authority to speak for the publication and assume none.

However, I do take the photo enthusiast and what they do seriously, as I believe photography has over more than a century become the visual folk art of this era. And what they create is more than an idle pleasure it is a record of what is visually meaningful to many thousands in this world. That a camera is used is essential, but what kind make or model is of little importance relative to what is made and created by their use that becomes a part of the cultural heritage.

no one questions your credentials David...

its because of your credentials that perhaps we expected and WANTED to hear a more organized and contemplative reply ......rather than just dismissing the post as BS..

perhaps simply offering your reasons why you feel the the tests somehow failed to point out important points? Perhaps how you feel the article's test methodology fell short of your expectations? Perhaps something more objective than one liners in some of your other posts regarding this camera like " (the D200) that will never go anywhere" and "(referring to effective megapixels of the D200) what ever happened to REAL megapixels"

what exactly is your Beef with this particular camera? it seems your objectivity goes out the door every time the D200 is mentioned.. If you dislike the darn thing....or if you dislike the APS-C solution then present your argument! convince me...if its a good argument I'll change my mind..i really will. It has to be admitted that something as unimportant as sensor format plays a huge role in the purchasing decisions of gear heads ( the clear target audience for cameras in this price range)....artists interested in abtract expression have no problem making do with Holgas and second hand Graphlex cameras.

as for wedding photogs being artists..... not the ones I see.....not when consumers balk at the idea of spending $900 on a photo package. Perhaps the high end guys ( and there are damn few of them) have the liberty of art....but MOST just go through the motions... and take the formula pics.They do it so poorly that everyone feels that Unlce Ed and his digicam could have done a better job..When was the last time you looked at a wedding album and were FLOORED by the results? As for other forms of commercial photography...just look on the magazine rack. The current issues of Cosmo and TV guide come to mind.. WOW I am appalled by the decline in the quality of the imagery on the covers of major publications ( and I am NOT reffering to Shutterbug)..Im talking about mainstream fashion and entertainment mags. Even mags like Vanity Fair and Vogue are starting to use imagery of far less quality than days past... art it aint...

There's a billboard in my city of the morning crew of a local radio station taken by my biggest competitor. The skin tones are so far off that the faces look like cartoons. It seriously looks like the shot was some snapshot taken by a disposable camera....which surprised me because this guy normally does such top notch work. I asked him about it because we are loose aquaintances and he told me that the customer liked THAT picture the way it was... even though it was technically CRAP.. the client always gets his way...and except for a few NAME photographers in MAJOR cities...the rest of us get by taking the images the client wants, the way they want them...and inveitably we get little to no control over editing and often not even over composition ( enter the art director).

I love my job...I really do.... but photography is also my hobby...and thats where I get to have my fun.

OK, I have to weigh in on this.

First, re Frans' original post: David beat me to the punch in asking Frans to specify the source of the report. We all see so much undocumented crap on the internet that it's like waving a red cape at a bull when I see it. (Frans, don't take that personally.) So, I can understand when David, or anyone else, gets a little testy when they see it, too.

Second, I'm not even going to touch the resolution argument. We keep beating it to death without.....uh....resolution. You buy what works best for you in your own application.

Third: How is color accuracy measured in a way that's meaningful to the user? What's the standard, Adobe RGB, sRGB, CIE LAB, Engineer's Eyeball or (?), and how does that relate to the outcome of my 13X19 prints after post-processing in ACR and CS2? (This question relates only to "color accuracy" in the camera, not color management in general.)

That's my rant. Now, David and Frans, you guys play nice.....

Bill

you make many excellent points...

I think the underlying issue with this review is not which is better....the 5D or the D200. There is nobody who is likely to convince me that EITHER camera has an upper hand...and that either camera offers any significant advantage to the user

the point is that the D200 has achieved that level of performance at HALF the price ( and I would argue that it has more features).. and it does it with APS-C sensors. Up until now just about everybody have been touting the complete superiority of the FF sensor.....yet for some reason that superiority never seems to actually show up in real world use..

if you think of it, its kind of an uncomfortable situation. The review shows us that you DON'T have to spend tons of money to get the same performance. This is pretty radical stuff. For instance in the Pop photo review they went so far as to compare the D200 to the D2x in the same test and they basically came to the conclusion that you'd be a fool to invest in a D2X when a D200 offers almost every feature and shares similar build quality but costs 1/3 the price. As an ownder of a D2X, that kind of info means a lot to me. Its something I expected but I never imagined a major mag would ever actually say it

as for color accuracy... I share your schepticism of the testing process in the same way that I question Pop Photos "subjective lens evaluations"... but their testing process is CONSISTANT between camera models. Wether you agree or disagree with the process is open to debate....and with David I wish he would explain the flaws he sees...because I really would be interested in that post...honestly....merely dismissing all this as meaningless and BS offers me NO usefull insight...and when you label yourself as Mr. Digital Help I think its important that you live up to that name. In his February review of the Canon 5D David did a great job of reviewing the camera from an artists and a gearhead's perspective...he had no problems making comments about the 5D's color accuracy when he wrote that review...I wonder why he questions the possibility of such a comparison between 2 cameras..I just wish he had dissected the information from the Pop Photog article...and the conclusions drawn from it with the same precision.

You are correct that Frans should have perhaps mentioned the source right from the start...but I very much understand why he didnt... its a little bit bad form to post the articles of one mag...when you are on a competing mag's forum. I read and buy both magazines and I like both but I would never refer to a Shutterbug article on the Pop Photo boards either... On the other hand I think its only fair that Dave asked for a little more info before declaring the post BS...

as for the resolution argument... and buying what works best for you... I AGREE and I think everyone on this board agrees... but many of us look to mags like Pop Photo and Shutterbug for meaningful and consistant equipment reviews to give us the info we need to make these decisions. The point of the post is that up until recently no major publication has made an in depth comparison of the two and concluded that the MUCH cheaper APS-C camera produces similar performance ( lets not bother with arguments that one is better in one area or slightly worse in another...the differences are trivial anyway).. This essentially says to the consumer...don't get hung up on this FF sensor issue. The APS-C can give you the same results...

the only reason I questioned the "most photogs are artists" concept is that it shows a lack of understanding of the reader base....WHY they buy the mag. Pop Photo doesnt put a pretty picture on its cover...it shows a larger than life pic of the EQUIPMENT... there is a huge difference between gearheads and artists....not knocking either side...i share the views of both those parties...

But judging from the posts on this Forum and over at Pop Photo ...I am not seeing people asking about color theory, composition help, contrast control, zone metering or lighting theory.....I see posts about how to use flash...how to shoot a wedding....endless posts about wether to use a UV filter not, .what lens is best to take on vacation and what online place to get their Birthday pics printed..

Those are the majority readers and those are the people who are the target audience...and they buy the magazine to learn BASIC technique and to learn about GEAR!!! its the reason the mags exist... to be a forum for gear oriented articles and advertisements. It isnt much help when a contributer of the mag touts the importance of full frame sensors and their superiority...and to instantly dismiss a nameless post as BS.... then when told it was from a MAJOR REPUTABLE source to dismiss the findings as irrelevant and flawed because he and the readers are "artists" more interested in abstraction then resolution...

you can't have it both ways....

its also a big relief to legions of Nikon gearheads like myself who have been taking constant abuse on these boards over the FF vs APS-C sensor issue ..... its a vindication of sorts.......

I know Pop photo did an article about how they do their lab tests...im trying to find it because its a very fair question. As for color accuracy..if I recall they take a color test image ( like the ones you get with a color profiler on your PC) then they measure the variance on a calibrated PC.

for resolution they employ a similar method to the one that has always been used for lens resolution tests...you take a photo of lens test chart and compare the results... of course those results would only have absolute meaning if you used the same lens for both...but it is a fair measure of the "total" package... sort of like measuring the horsepower of a car at the wheels and NOT at the engine.

the important thing about such tests is that they are consitant from one camera to the next.... then a database of all the models can be assembled and easily compared. Only a major reviewer like a magazine could ever hope to assemble that much data to make it meaningful

And so, David, you have wasted an otherwise perfectly good opportunity to stay on subject and have a meaningful discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of full-frame and APS-sized sensors. If I had wanted to discuss the artistic and aesthetic aspects of photography, I would have said so.

My thanks to UniQ who so skillfully voiced many of my own concerns, including the lack of rational responses to my inputs. So, I'm signing off...

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

What I have a beef with is the attention given to "specifications" and lab-type tests and the value invested in this perspective. Very likely any really well skilled photographer given both cameras (disguised) and assign to make a series of photographs with both, would produce results when printed as large as practical without interpolating the data, would result in prints all but the pickiest nose to the print would find indistinguishable.

I don't like to get into any of these p...ing contests and I am afraid I react to them unfavorably regardless what brands and models are involved because they cannot result in anything valuable. I purchased a Canon 5D primarily for reasons which are practical, not because it might be technically better or not from any other camera. All of the APS chip dSLR's I have used are more difficult for me to see clearly and focus manually which is what I choose to do for many of the photographs I make, and the other is a significant inventory of Canon lenses which work "normally" with a full-frame chip. Those kinds of values are to me what I have to deal with working every day, and whether one camera is a gnat's whisker better in lab test results IS to me irrelevant BS if I may be honest.

As for wedding photography it is the individual's choice whether the customer makes the rules and dictates the terms or whether it is the photographer. Practicing professionally is the same for any craft, art or skill - if you sell out your integrity the client or consumer public will make your life a living nightmare. But all too many who do something independently for customers don't believe they can maintain their integrity and make it, so they are condemned to loose it. But I cannot speak directly to wedding photography on the basis of experience as I did one wedding for a fee back in 1953 and afterward swore I'd never do another (except for close friends for free) and have stuck to that oath. But I did just about every other kind of professional photography for most of my lifetime. I never made really big money partly because I refused many more jobs than I accepted, but have been reasonably comfortable with the rewards, and have never felt I'd rather do something else.

When I was president of the southern California ASMP chapter the national president had been in office for many years. I recall not long before he retired in a talk he gave to ASMP member he noted that he had done covers for one of the national news weekly magazines, many of them each year for most of his career, and the fee he obtained for the last one was the same as he got for the first. That's typical in editorial, what I get paid for a monthly column today is the same as I got for a monthly column in the mid 70's. In other words what you are seeing in quality follows the old adage you gets what you pay for.

When i was still a student in photography school I occasionally could afford a nice meal in a good restaurant. The one I liked was in a small village a few miles away, and run by a couple devoted to preparing and serving fine, natural food. On each table there was a little notice to the affect: that the owners were devoted to fine food which takes time to prepare properly, so customers are advised they should be patient and wait on the chef, rather than the other way around. any customer that demands being catered to and pandered to gets what they deserve, grudgingly made mediocrity.

"What I have a beef with is the attention given to "specifications" and lab-type tests and the value invested in this perspective. Very likely any really well skilled photographer given both cameras (disguised) and assign to make a series of photographs with both, would produce results when printed as large as practical without interpolating the data, would result in prints all but the pickiest nose to the print would find indistinguishable."

that was the point of the whole post in the first place...all the hype given about the GEAR...is largely that...HYPE

take into account the HUGE price difference and the point becomes all that more profound

-----------------

"Those kinds of values are to me what I have to deal with working every day, and whether one camera is a gnat's whisker better in lab test results IS to me irrelevant BS if I may be honest."

yet in your recent review of the 5D you felt it was necessary to make the following statement in regard to the 5D's price/performace ratio

"I believe Canon has forced a tipping point in terms of the price/performance equation. First of all, I think it will be quite well into the future before the competition catches up."

further fanning the flames on the POINTLESS Canon vs. Nikon debate....... but if someone points out that reputable reviewers feel that the D200 at HALF the price....coming from the very competition you claim is so far behind..manages to excell in several categories.........

then all of a sudden this is meaningless drivel and beneath your consideration

You feel perfectly fine making comments about the color characteristics of the 5D in your review...yet dismiss a reviewer who actually hooked the 2 cameras ( and many other cameras as well) to a colorimeter and actually MEASURED this variance. Your 5D review is not some Bohemian "art first" review...its loaded with personal observations about performance..the only difference is that you eyeballed it and POP photo used a more scientific approach

----------------------

"As for wedding photography it is the individual's choice whether the customer makes the rules and dictates the terms or whether it is the photographer."

and

"But all too many who do something independently for customers don't believe they can maintain their integrity and make it, so they are condemned to loose it."

so what you are suggesting is a business model where the photographer tells the client what they want....

and if a photographer gives the clients what they want VS giving them what the photographer wants to give them....then the photographer has lost there integrity??!!

Typical phone conversation from a prospective client who calls my studio

first question... "do you do ________ photography?" fill in the blank...commercial, website content, product photography, business portraits... whatever

second question " how much does it cost?"

Third question " when can you have it finished?"

somewhere near the end I might get a request to actually see examples of my work

THIS IS THE MINDSET OF THE CLIENT!!! and any photog who actually does this for a living can vouch for me here... PRICE is the motivation of the client. Only rich individuals and MAJOR MAJOR corporations have the liberty of shopping for a photog based solely upon portfolio. Do you have any idea how many times I've been asked if I do weddings? Im sure many enthusiast photogs can vouch for me here...how many times have you been out shooting and had someone ask if you do weddings? they dont even know if you are a good photographer!! they just see you have a camera and they are asking you to shoot their kid's wedding. The next question ( if you say yes)..is HOW MUCH? never will they ask to see your portfolio this early in the game...

Im not a wedding photog...but if i was I would drag you by the ear to one of my gigs and force you to sit and watch the process from first meet and greet to final delivery of prints.....and make you eat your words regarding integrity and selling out...

where did you EVER get this idea that photography is different from any other business?? You have clients and they have desires... you fill the clients needs and desires or you lose your business. I got to feed my kids and family,,, I dont have the luxury of saying no to a client because they might prefer pink backgrounds or lousy compositions vs the images I think are first rate!!!

Ansel Adams actually did commercial work too you know. I remember this one particular ad he did for a donut shop. Now do you think Ansel really had a burning desire to shoot an ad for a donut shop? Dont you think he would rather have been out shooting landscapes? he did it for the cash..pure and simple. If it hadnt have been for his rich father financing his early year-long photo expeditions it is fairly likely that Ansel Adams never would have progressed much beyond mundane commercial photography... well thats probably not true..the guy was a GOD.. but you get the idea

--------------------

"But I did just about every other kind of professional photography for most of my lifetime. I never made really big money partly because I refused many more jobs than I accepted, but have been reasonably comfortable with the rewards, and have never felt I'd rather do something else."

before I ASSUME anything here... were you EVER full time? because from the sounds of this you took only the jobs that suited you and paid the bills some other way.

if THAT's the case I need to let you in on something... that's a hobby not a job!!??Being published or getting paid does not make you a professional ... getting paid again and again... THATS a professional.

according to the bureau of labor statistics there are 130,000 pro photographers in the US... both full and part time. Their average salary is in the high $20,000 to low $30,000 range with the majority of those working for newspapers and portrait studios as EMPLOYEES... Walmart being the largest employer of portrait studio photogs...

if you are in the upper 10% of the field you can expect to earn a whopping $50,000 a year.

the reporters go where they are told and take the pictures the boss wants...hopefully they do get some creative control...some chance to strut their stuff. I did this for 2 years while I was in school. Fun, but hardly artistically gratifying.

the portrait studio guys who work the mall stores and the discount stores just insert a new person into the picture...same lighting... same setup every time. Most of these people are "camera operators" not photographers. A VERY FEW ( maybe 2-3 per major city) specialize in truly artistic and visionary high-end portraiture.

Imagine the smirk you would get if you you mentioned "artistic merit" to the guy who took the pics of your kid at school..

then there are the legions of wedding photogs..most on the lower end of the biz who cater to everyday people who balk at the idea of $5000 photography bills and complain about how overpriced the $900 package is..A VERY few cater to the high end...the socialites... the RICH. These are also normally the same FEW who also provide the high-end portraiture. They've got talent, all the cool toys, killer portfolios...and they are almost as rare as hen's teeth. And beleive me, they take jobs that don't interest them artistically ...because it pays for that downtown studio address and the killer gear.

that leaves a VERY SMALL handful of commercial, stock and other misc. photogs with varying degrees of artistic freedom. Its a fair bet you wont find more than a TINY handful of legitimate full time "artists".. stock photogs ( I do a lot of stock) take pics of very mundane things...for use by businesses who cant afford to directly commission a photographer. If you ever wondered where that pic of a student using a Bunsen Burner in chemistly class came from. well now you know. Text book publishers dont want art...they want illustration..

where exactly is this niche of Bohemian artists wandering around the country providing art to the masses? they're called amatures..and some of the purest art made comes from these ranks...they alone are free from the pressures of commercialism... the pros dont make art...

Photography is a lot like modeling..eveyrone thinks that its this glamourous gig... Professional photography has WAY more to do with BUSINESS than photography. I spend at LEAST 90% of my day dealing with BUSINESS than with actually taking pictures. I KNOW I am not alone in this... I know I have never personally met or even HEARD of a professional photographer who has the luxury of taking the jobs he wants and leaving paying work by the wayside because he didnt want to lower himself to non-artistic pursuits...

what planet do you live on? because I want to visit! It sounds like a cool place to set up shop.

-----------------------------

I guess the whole point of this debate....if there is one... is that it seems the people who write these magazines and who bandy about the word "pro" like its candy seem to be so disconnected with their readership and the realities of the business of photography that they have created this fantasy world where every "pro" is like a supermodel who lives this jetsetting lifestyle only taking the jobs that worthy of their talents.

As I mentioned before.....its a profession and its also a hobby... in my experience, only the hobbists have the luxury of pure artistic expression. A very rare handful of phtographers ever rise up to the point where they can pick and choose.

---------------

For a writer who talks up the "art" aspect of the major mags.... I find the article selection in all the Photo mags to be almost totally devoid of information pertaining to the "art" as opposed to the GEAR...

for example... the April Issue of Shuttterbug..and Icould do the same thing with every other magazine ..so dont think im using Shutterbug as the only example...ALL the mags are like this...

April issue of Shutterbug... 14 articles that all about GEAR, 5 articles that can only be defined as puff pieces showing photographs made by photographers much better than we are...but giving no insight into how to make them or imporve our craft...and 1...count it...ONE article about an alternative photographic process that actually does give the reader a chance of recreating what he sees in the mag...

Its all useful info...and I read it cover to cover...but lets be honest

GEAR oriented articles....

1. "The Dog ate my Homework"...about data recovery from your digital media..not one mention of ways to improve the images that you filled up that card with...

2. "Studio Supplies" all the cool gear you can buy for your studio but no mention of how to do studio photography

3. "What's in the Bag" an entire article on the GEAR that wedding photogs use....politically correct in that it includes a film photog....2 Nikon and 2 Canon photogs... but no mention at all about how to shoot a wedding or why the gear was selected.

4. "Test Report- digital capture" how to make sure you aren't missing out by having too slow a media card in your DSLR... more GEAR

5. A fine review of the Canon 60mm Macro lens...but no info on how to use it

6. A fine and politically correct review of the Mamiya 645D2 ...sort of a teaser...since NOBODY buys a medium format digital setup based on a review in a magazine....sort of way to show how the other half lives...

It also fails to mention that the cropping factor of the camera CRIPPLES the lens selection which hasnt been updated since the film days...I hope you dont like shooting wider than 29mm ( in 35mm terms) because it aint gonna happen..but I digress..

7. A fine review of the Voigtlander Bessa...I do admit ..you guys have the best coverage of RF cameras around... but still its just a gear article

8. A test of the Evolt E-500...more gear

9. Point of view...more about memory cards....and how I am not being served by my "old tech"

10. Street smarts... I actually love this article ..its cool to see the trend in older and collectable gear...but its still more GEAR

11. an article about digital capture and the clients who buy it.....an informative article... but still all gear and why people choose digital capture vs film...

12. Digital Darkroom "faster Photoshop"... more gear...and how to make it work faster

13. Digital Darkroom Raw workflow... your article..actually a decent one.. it does fail to mention that a significant amount of "pros" actually work in JPEGS.. you see we dont have time to fix it in photoshop..not when we have to shoot 3000 frames a week to meet dealines.. its so much easier to get it right in the camera. But to be fair... its a good article and a good primer for RAW mode... but still, its just more GEAR

14. Books and DVD's more gear...this time about CS2

Vaguely "Creative" articles that show you how great you can BECOME as a photographer...but give absolutely NO info on how to actually do it..

1. Master Class... decent interview... SOME insight into the thought process...but at least half the article dedicated to the GEAR he used..lots of name dropping and a short diatribe about the bonuses of digital capture

2. Photo Assignment.. Mountain views.. examples of images that readers sent in ... great concept.. but what good is it if it doesnt give any hints...or help in how to create the images? sending people off to just take pics and send them in leaves those who already know how to do it just sending in old images...while those who might actually want to learn how to do this cool stuff left with the trial and error method. Next photo assignment....high iso photography. i am willing to bet a SIGNIFICANT portion of the readership doesnt even know how to change the ISO on their camera. Probably not a MAJORITY...but a fair amount

3. Student Union... another cool profile segment but not one single iota of info to help the reader actually attempt any of the profiled photog's technoques... he does have a very cool site

4. Passport "green day".. gave me some good insight into the photog's mind...but there is not one single mention of the photographic techniques the photog used to make any of the pictures... no mention of the lighting situation or his ISO choices..or depth of field considerations...his composition concerns etc... only a brief insight into his thought process...certainly not enough to help a beginning photog learn anything..

5. One Final thought-- a picture ...and the story it tells...but NO insight about how it was made or any of the photog's creative thoughts about its creation.

articles that actually do show you HOW to do something

1. Digital darkroom...Alternative output..Bravo..we have a winner...finally, an article about creativity..with some info on how the average reader can duplicate the results seen in the magazine.

Pardon me if I make the assumption that photography mags and most websites are devoted to GEAR....are flooded with GEAR and the ADS for gear....and are somewhat biased towards telling us all about the GEAR we need to buy...and are absolutely responsible for the GEAR mentality...the concept that you need GEAR to be any good at this photography thing. Pardon me if I get excited when I finally see a gear oriented mag actually tell me that HYPE is HYPE. When was the last time you saw a mag say that spending $5000 on the top of the line GEAR might give you NOTHING more in return than the $1600 GEAR

THAT is revolutionary ...

>>"I believe Canon has forced a tipping point in terms of the price/performance equation. First of all, I think it will be quite well into the future before the competition catches up." <<

That quote from me in my report, is in a context of talking about Canon, and does not mention any other brand of camera. And, I believe it is a valid perspective considering the cost of previous full-frame sensor chip cameras that have been available.

I have never claimed to be "scientifically objective" in my reports. They are individually done user reports, and all my reports are I believe clearly written from that perspective. I do use instruments and measurement at time if it reveals something of practical significance. But I would not make the claim of being scientific about what I do to report on products. There are scientists involved in this industry, and from conversing with some I think most would not find what photo publications do to test really meets scientific protocols.

>> before I ASSUME anything here... were you EVER full time? because from the sounds of this you took only the jobs that suited you and paid the bills some other way.

if THAT's the case I need to let you in on something... that's a hobby not a job!!??Being published or getting paid does not make you a professional ... getting paid again and again... THATS a professional<<

Just for your information I got my start as a full-time photographer in the Air force during the Korean conflict. I went to photography school for two year on the GI bill and then got two academic degrees on top of that.

I worked in Hollywood as a freelance photographer all through the 60's and early 70's and was a full member of ASMP and a chapter president for 2 years. I joined the staff of Petersen's PhotoGraphic in '75 and also maintained and ran a studio business in addition, as well as fit in teaching at a private LA art and design school for a couple of years. Although I have had editing and writing work continuously since the 12 years I worked for Petersen's, I have always had my own studio and more than covered the overhead with paying jobs, until I was 62. And I do all of the photography for my articles and books.

When I went to photography school in the mid 50's there were only a handful of professional accredited photography schools in the country. By the mid 70's there were dozens churning out degreed graduates at a prodigious rate.
If you go back in those labor statistics you quoted you will find the number of professionals actually working in the US has not increased all that much since the 50's. But the number of photographers has increased by many times.

So what you describe as present day photo business conditions are the result of the effect of simple supply and demand. Too many photographers and not much demand for their services. I think you will find the day rates for advertising and editorial photography pretty well reached there averaged peak in the 60's and with a few rarely talented exceptions have remained flat since.

How does one survive in such an environment, much less maintain professional integrity in doing good photographic work, surely not by being one of the pack and taking an orthodox approach. I have always loved doing photography so I found or created my own niches that fit who I am. But it has meant much of my "career" has required working 12 or more hours a day. Now at almost 73 I can't do that after burning the candle at both ends for too many years.

I am not claiming I am some uniquely talented exception. There are many friends and colleagues I know who do their thing in their own way with integrity. But it is getting more and more difficult.

As to what Shutterbug and other photo magazines do in terms of their editorial priorities, I will not disagree with your perspective. It is not my call what they do, it is that of the publishers and editors. And they are under also a lot of marketplace competitive pressure, and what readers want to read is only one priority that has to be considered. The times they are a changing.

Quote:
>>"I believe Canon has forced a tipping point in terms of the price/performance equation. First of all, I think it will be quite well into the future before the competition catches up." <<

That quote from me in my report, is in a context of talking about Canon, and does not mention any other brand of camera. And, I believe it is a valid perspective considering the cost of previous full-frame sensor chip cameras that have been available.

what exactly does full frame have to do with it. Your comment in the review did not justify the comment saying that it will be a long time before another full frame sensor camera matches this price/peformance ratio.......it clearly states the Canon 5D has achieved a level of performance the competitors cant match (at this price point)(90% of the DSLR market is controlled by Nikon and Canon...the other 10% by what remains of the minor players...NONE of which make a full frame camera..so there is no other meaning that CAN be derived from this statement OTHER than you have come to the conclusion that Canon has hit upon something that the OTHER camera makers have not... ironically the D200 had been announced several months prior to this article...so you were either unaware of its performance potential or you had dismissed it sight- unseen as having NO chance of matching the performance of this camera. .... as an objective reviewer it should be obvious that if the price/performance of the 5D is revolutionary then the price/performance of the D200 is off the chart seeing as it costs $1600 less. $1600 is a LOT of money...

the review was fine.... but I feel that comment was unnecessary, gear-centric, inflammatory to non Canon users, and worst of all it wasnt even close to being true.

I dont care that you make comparisons between one camera line and another...as gearheads..most readers expect it.....but I think its very hypocritical to declare yourself "above" this equipment-oriented mentality... wether you admit to it or not, you are absolutely playing into this gear-centric attitude and that statment IS in context to the issue at hand and if I were to scour the boards and other reviews I am positive I would find other comments to back this up...

I also find it very surprising that you consider a $3300 camera to have a high price-performace ratio. Maybe inside the Canon lineup...but wow! $3300 is still way out of reach of most photographers. And what is that saying to the 30D crowd?....it can only be saying that their $1500+ camera is a toy in comparison and they better wake up and buy a full frame because nothing else will do.

as for the reviews... I dont expect you to have a whole array of test equipment at your disposal. But I find it odd that its OK for you to OBSERVE minor color deviations with the 5D sensor...then DESCRIBE them in detail.... and thats totally fine, but the second someone actually attaches the camera to a machine to test its variance then that is taking it too far. The purpsose of this kind of measurment is to see how transparant the camera is to the process. Im sure an artist can appreciate how important it is that his tools do not cause color variations or introduce artifacts or produce banding...or any effect that causes our vision to be distorted. Since its impossible for one guy to test all the gear without equipment and make his judgement without ANY possibility of bias....the test gear provides a good starting point in helping to identify and measure a camera's trasnparancy to the process.

I for one agree that not all testing gives us the whole story. Resolution testing of lenses does not tell the whole story.... color accuracy tests do not tell the whole story. BUT these tests can be consistant from one system to the next and its a START to help make purchase decisions. I think a good review should incorporate both scientific testing and objective critique of the camera...howit operates, howit pleases and how it fails. I am not critiquing your review technique...only your insistance that you follow some formula that is much different from the formula that other reviewers take. You are describing the differences...they are measuring them.

as for your career....I envy you if you were truly able to successfully blend art with work. ....I respectfully disagree that I lower my standards when I give the client what they want. I think its safe to say that regional differences and the current realities of the business (vs the situation in the 60-70-80's) keep many talented photographers away from the Business of photography. Its a business for me...and I feel I do a fine job and at no time do I feel I ever deliver less than my best on any assignment. I am proud of my work, but I cant account for a client who selects images that are not the best of the bunch and uses them for their projects. Im not lowering my standards by taking their money ( as long it was earned money)...I also feel strongly that there is no shame in being good at what you do, and certainly no loss of integrity involved with mass market photography. I think that perhaps my definition of "photographer" and yours are different enough that they cause some misunderstanding.

as I mentioned before, photography is also a hobby for me and THAT is where I make what I want to make.

on a final note. I want to say that I have A LOT of respect for you to have the guts to stand up and explain yourself. I might not agree with you on some issues ( honestly i think we probably are on the same page on many issues)... but it takes guts to go on a web forum and identify yourself as a contributing author.... because that does indeed make you a target.....

I doubt I would have the guts to write a column for a mag and then go on a forum and take the heat.....because there is always someone who will disagree with you.

>> as an objective reviewer it should be obvious that if the price/performance of the 5D is revolutionary then the price/performance of the D200 is off the chart seeing as it costs $1600 less. $1600 is a LOT of money... <<

At the time I wrote the Canon 5D report the Nikon 200D had not even been announced.

>>but I feel that comment was unnecessary, gear-centric, inflammatory to non Canon users, and worst of all it wasnt even close to being true. <<

That's is what you're reaction was based on what you read into what I said. That perspective is your own, and it is your problem, and I'm not about to try to second-guess what all the possible ways my words can be misconstrued. If any writer did they would not write anything other than what panders to everyone and says nothing.

>>I think that perhaps my definition of "photographer" and yours are different enough that they cause some misunderstanding. <<

That is obvious.

If we all agreed on everything I'd die of boredom. It's already too much a cookie-cutter world we have all made for each other to suffer. We each have only one life and can cram only so much in it, so the one thing we can control is the quality of what we put into our lives, and maybe how much of anything really isn't an issue.

Dear David, Frans, UniQ, et al,

First, understand that I REALLY, REALLY don't want to start the firefight again! But, Popular Photography has apparently admitted to some errors in the Canon 5D vs. Nikon 200D tests. The link is:

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=5&article_id=1881&print_page=y

Scroll to the bottom of the article. And, please don't shoot the messenger.....

Bill,

I wonder how many times Norman Rothschild and Bob Schwalberg turned over in their graves over that one.

Anyway, although it makes me feel my expressed doubts seem not to be unjustified, I still find the article's use of the term "resolution" referencing digital imaging unnecessarily ambiguous and confusing when the digital photo industry has established the term to refer to image size in pixels. The tests Pop did are just a version of their old "lens/film resolving power" test of years ago. I always took such lab tests not seriously because they exclude so many important factors that influence the recording of image detail in the reality in which photographs are actually made.

But I suppose the "gear heads" must be entertained.

So thanks for being a hawkeye and bringing this to light here.

Bill,

As the original poster of this thread, I would like to add a little perspective. Thanks for bringing to our attention that Popular Photography discovered an error in their testing and issued a correction. It's good to know that there are organizations that take objective, quantitative testing of photographic gear seriously, make corrections where needed to improve results and have the integrity to admit when they make mistakes. These kinds of tests are invaluable for people to understand the technical capabilities and limitations of gear they are interested in and will also help them maximize their results from using that gear. I fail to see, as another post claimed, how the test in question is "just a version of their old lens/film resolving power test of years ago". Is this to mean that this test is somehow invalid or outdated? If that is the case, then I would like somebody to tell me what better, scientifically correct, method should be used instead. Ah, but I forgot! Photography is all about artistry and aesthetics and scientific testing really has no place in this noble endeavor.

After the correction for the results of the resolving power testing of both the Canon EOS 5D and the Nikon D200, it still looks like the Nikon product is very comparable in overall performance at about half the price, confirming my claims in an earlier thread about full-size versus APS-size sensors.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

thanks for posting that correction!!! that is important info!

ooofah...seems that technology isnt as good as we hoped it would be :-)

if POP photog knows what's good for them, they better be PRINTING that in the next issue...if not I will certainly be flaming their boards :-)

David... I apologize....at least for anything that related to your 5d review....

the D200 is a fantastic price-performance winner in the Nikon lineup....and I'd still buy 3 of them rather than buying one D2X if I had to do it all over again........but its not the "giant killer" that the pop-photo review and its faulty resolution tester made it seem....

I really did not need or deserve an apology, but thanks anyway. You are probably correct the D200 is a good buy. But numbers is not necessarily indicative of better in terms of image quality as far as I am concerned. And I think most critical professional-level users also see image quality similarly. I have a good friend with a high level standing in a demanding area of professional photography who uses a D2X. I'd sure like to see what his assessment would be if he had a D200 to use side by side the D2X. I have the feeling what he would discover is the dimensions of quality that cannot be quantified would justify his investment in the D2X.

Interesting discussion.

Some comparisons of the D2x and D200 here:
http://www.bythom.com/d200review.htm

I don't think Thom is selling his D2x.

Bron

Thanks guys, this was a very interesting thread, I really enjoyed it. There was many good points brought up that could merit further discussion. One thing I'd like to comment about, (well maybe two) is that as a serious amateur photographer that leans toward the artistic side and also use the rules of good photography I see a lot of sucessful pros that have many images that most photgraphers in our club would discard, we see this all the time in private showings etc. Most likeable images are in the eye of the viewer. In our local area some of the more recognizable names in photography are just avearage snap shot shooters.( We can be proud of a regional guy,Robb Kendrick.) In my experience with all the new bells and whistles on the new cameras, I've yet not been able to take anymore creative images as I did with my first camera, but I still always want the next step up for more bells and whistles;I also continue to observe and learn. I hope to buy an new digital soon, I'd like to have a 5D but will settle for a new 30D only because I have Canon lenses. If it weren't for the lenses, I think I'd be just as happy with a Nikon. I'm looking forward to the switch to digital. I'm preparing for it by taking courses in Adobe Photo Shop at the local college.My believe about the customers getting what they want,is to shop for a photographer that takes images like they want. I think no matter how many differant types of images a photogapher may take, I bet you can still pick his images from the rest if he's a photographer you are familiar with.I'm always asked, "why don't you do it professionally" my answer is usually that "I don't want to be expected to be perfect" that may be a lame excuse, but I feel it would limit my ability to be creative, or it may be just my lack of technical expertise and lack of pro equipment.I'm ready to make the step in my semiretirement, I'm going back to school to sharpen my craft and get a degree.It not only takes talent, but right place, right time seems to help.

Panhandler, your post is a great end to this thread, and I wish you every success. Don't worry about achieving perfection, because no one has ever attained it. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to shoot several rolls of film (or fill several CF cards) to get the one shot that grabs us. So, go for it. There's nothing better than doing what you love, and making a little money with it on the way.....

I think all of us who enjoy our craft might wonder why we do not do it for money. or make it our life. Here is the way I look at it. I picked up my hobby around fifty years of age. I enjoy it because it is not demanding. I think you are right because for me I believe when it becomes work it loses a lot for me. I enjoy doing some for other people I know and they are always grateful for my services, but for me giving it away keeps it in perspective for me. The other side is yes I think twenty years ago I would have made it my life. I am different now then I was then. I think about doing it some when I retire if my heath willing, but for now I just want to enjoy my time with my camera.

I also own the Canon 5D like Mr. Brooks. When I thought about buying this camera, I consulted a friend who owned it. Sure I read the technical data in the magazines, but I based my decision more on the Q&A with my friend. We had taken college photo classes for several years though not at the level of Mr. Brooks.

I also looked at photos taken with the D2X and talked to another friend who has one. I was concerned with the noise coming out of Nikon sensors. I've confidence in using NeatImage to remove noise but don't want to use it if not necessary. I had used Nikkon gear for years and really loved it but feel Canon is more responsive and timely to my
needs now.

I agree totally with Mr. Brooks that an excellent photographer can shoot awesome photos with most any current DSLR. One of their secrets is that they shoot, shoot, shoot inorder to pay the bills. We would all be better served if we spent more time shooting and less time discussing magazine articles. I want to see photos better prints than jpg's. Check out the photos below from my link.
__________________________
Charlie Wesley
St. Augustine Beach, FL
http://naturesphotographs.com/AFwebpg.html

I can't believe that Nikon have started to encrypt the white balance information on their cameras. I really anoys me that you have to buy their software if you want to manipulate the data, which usually you do when there are so many other good RAW plug-ins out there.

The last I heard, that encryption policy has been resolved and 3rd party raw converters now do have profiles that support all the latest Nikon dSLR's.

Here's a humorous look at the situation:

Larry,

I don't think anyone took that boondoggle seriously once they thought about it. The question maybe should be was anyone really thinking when the white balance was encrypted?

But thanks anyway for the snapshot, it makes me miss going to PMA anymore even less.