For the SOOC's among us!

[Lance B]

I think the end result, however you get there, is the important thing. If you are happy with it, then everyone else can toddle off to the taxidermist.

Exactly!

[Steve Axford]

a tech camera takes a better image sooc than any slr and thus requires less processing. no focus stacking, blending different exposures or alien skin exposure software etc.... that stuff occurs when taking the shot. adobe is helping us compensate for the slr's poorness.

er - how does a "tech camera" eliminate the need for focus stacking? You can do what you like with tilting the sensor/film, but you still only have a limited dof to work with. I can't see that this has anything to do with slr.

[I @ M]

Somehow I think that we are reading things here totally differently to each other, all I see is an article that shovels scorn at digital camera users who label images "SOOC" and equally at those who espouse the superiority of film.

You on the other hand seem to see me as "defending" or being a fan of the slr camera above all else and denigrating any other format, nothing could be further from the truth because I simply do not care what is used to achieve an image.
That extends from Holgas to Hassleblads and Pentaxs to Polaroids. If the end result works for the viewer it doesn't matter what camera produced the image. My views extend to the processing side of things as well, if the end image works then that is all that matters.

No, I have no more than very limited experience of being at the controls of "tech" cameras, one of the reasons is that I see no need for them for the type of photography that I do, which incidentally is becoming more and more tripod reliant, which I and others appreciate.

Better images are a very subjective thing and if one were to display the same subject taken with a (insert brand, format tech camera here ) and a ( insert brand, model compact camera here ) and without knowing which camera produced which image ( or even that two different cameras produced the different images ) I and or others felt that the "better" image came from the compact then the elitist notion that tech cameras produce better images becomes, ( to borrow a phrase ) IMHO, horsesh*t.

[sunny6teen]

cheers Steve. I can see what you're hinting at.
although something like advertising was what I had in mind and being able to change the focal plane to keep the entire subject sharp.
you're right though. that really only suits a subject where it has the same lines as the focal plane. it's not going work out as well with unusual shapes like flowers etc.
but of course you can still stop down a lot more before diffraction becomes a concern.
why I mentioned it is because the t/s lenses are unable to combine movements.

I wish canon etc would lay off the video development/research and knuckle down on the basics first.

[Steve Axford]

Well, you can stop down more with MF/LF but you need to coz the same fstop gives you (much) less dof. In general, the greater the resolution, the less dof you will get. ie there is no free lunch. You get the best dof with the crummy little cameras with tiny sensors. Sad but true. A video photographer has made a video camera and lenses that allow you to have enormous dof. He doesn't say how he does it, but I'll bet it isn't by using a large sensor. In this case the "tech camera" will be the equivalent of a mobile phone.

[arthurking83]

......

I wish canon etc would lay off the video development/research and knuckle down on the basics first.

I can't see how the development of video ability in recent designs has stifled the technological advance of cameras in any way.

Realistically video and the basics are separate and mututally exclusive engineering paths, and one needn't hinder the progress of the other.

In fact it could be argued that developing video capable DSLRs may be leading the cameras into new and improved performance anyhow! Sensor noise in long exposures, memory capacities and the bandwidth of buffer to card improvements. Video demands much more on these two hardware systems.

I can't see any area of basic functionality in current DSLR designs that have gone by the wayside due to video feature improvements.


BTW and FWIW: I'm actually a big fan of SOOC myself. I simply try to capture the best image I can at the time of exposure. My personal favourite images of mine are usually the ones that I don't have to process much, other than the simple steps I can do on the PC/Camera. Of course this is rare, but that has been and still is my main goal with my gear.

[sunny6teen]

yeah I was only referring that stopping down wasn't a disadvantage. the dof in 35mm and LF are the same because LF lenses are optimal at around f/16 f/32 or so.
you need to stop down anyway so it balances it out.
once you start making movements you have the advantage of keeping your subject sharp from front to back without focus stacking.
being unable to keep something like a fence sharp (unless it's on the horizontal plane) with an slr was my point.
hence why I'm thinking that a camera with movements provides better sooc images than an slr. less work to do in post and those retouchers don't come cheap

Well, you can stop down more with MF/LF but you need to coz the same fstop gives you (much) less dof. In general, the greater the resolution, the less dof you will get. ie there is no free lunch. You get the best dof with the crummy little cameras with tiny sensors. Sad but true. A video photographer has made a video camera and lenses that allow you to have enormous dof. He doesn't say how he does it, but I'll bet it isn't by using a large sensor. In this case the "tech camera" will be the equivalent of a mobile phone.

[Steve Axford]

yeah I was only referring that stopping down wasn't a disadvantage. the dof in 35mm and LF are the same because LF lenses are optimal at around f/16 f/32 or so.
you need to stop down anyway so it balances it out.
once you start making movements you have the advantage of keeping your subject sharp from front to back without focus stacking.
being unable to keep something like a fence sharp (unless it's on the horizontal plane) with an slr was my point.
hence why I'm thinking that a camera with movements provides better sooc images than an slr. less work to do in post and those retouchers don't come cheap

Sounds like you are just using the advantages of your camera. That's sensible, but it doesn't mean the camera doesn't have disadvantages - and poor dof is one. For some limited applications you can use tilt, but that won't work for most macros, so you are left with focus stacking. Don't get a lot of fences in macros.