I’ve recently switched over to shooting in RAW vs JPEG which I think even Mark would endorse despite his general disapproval of my photography habits. =) Coupled with this switch, I’ve started to test out Adobe Lightroom which is pretty spiffy despite a few issues (mostly because it’s still beta). There’re some performance and quality issues here and there, but it’s pretty nice to use for me most of the time. There’s a problem with exporting the color profile correctly on Intel Macs, but Aaron posted a nice workaround, so that’s all good. I think beta2 expires in June or July, so we can probably expect beta3 within the next month or two. Looking forward to it.
As for Sam’s bday, we went to Siena on 360, which was more expensive than I think most of us liked… but that’s ok, Sam, we’ll just bring you to McDonald’s next year. =) I didn’t have my flash that night, so not many of my pics turned out all that great, but you can see some of Van’s. I think Aaron took some too, but they’re not online as of yet.
Lightroom
18Apr06
posted by Oliver
@ 11:38 am
Comments (18)
That’s a cute shot.
comment by Katherine — April 18, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
Yeah, I like.
comment by Van — April 18, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
Ditto on liking the shot. I think the beta expires on June 30th.
What does Mark disapprove of, exactly?
comment by Aaron — April 18, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
The money I spend on it, mostly. Or he just thinks photography is stupid… or both… or something like that. =)
comment by Oliver — April 18, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Yeah, I think it’s a huge waste of money, and that good point and shoot cameras would be a much smarter investment. I could see how it’s nice to have one person in the group with professional quality camera stuff, but six? That means most people are too busy trying to take a good picture to remember the moment than actually enjoy said moment. The ridiculous high quality (and associated expense) is way overkill for everyday use. I don’t need 11 megapixels and perfect lighting to remember things, my brain does a pretty good job on its own.
comment by Mark — April 19, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
Overkill it may be, but it’s oh so much more fun than a point and shoot. =) Plus, lenses do keep their value pretty well and have a much better resale value than point and shoots.
Obviously, I haven’t heeded Mark’s words. =)
comment by Oliver — April 20, 2006 @ 12:44 am
Point and shoot is just that. dslrs are usually for more artsy type stuff…mainly b/c you CAN use many different types of lenses. The fact that most of us to date appear to have used them for mainly social occasions shouldn’t hold too much water. I suspect that as time goes on the genre of the pictures taken will shift(it already has in some instances) from point and shoot to photographic art.
comment by ochs — April 20, 2006 @ 1:00 am
I think we just like bringing them to social events because now that we have an eye for quality a point-and-shoot just wouldn’t cut it.
…We spend according to our means… it’s not really a waste; it’s an investment in a hobby that can easily be converted into a source of income. With practice.
comment by Katherine — April 20, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
well, i can definitely see the difference btw point and shoot and the kind of pics high quality cameras can take. I feel it is a huge investment, moreso than lotsa laptops! I would say if you can AFFORD it and it’s an enjoyable hobby, then it’s worth it. I’m not too sure about having bazillion different lenses though….
comment by Nancy — April 20, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Ochs:
Yeah, the artistic and professional uses are the only valid arguements I can see towards such expenditures, and, as Oliver points out, lenses hold their value fairly well. However, that fails to take into account the huge time investments it take to get any good shots. For example, Sam will spend hours taking pictures, twice as much time to Photoshop them all (all that expensive equipment apparently still can’t manage to take a decent picture on its own). At the end of the day, if he’s lucky, maybe one out of every hundred pcitures will have any real artistic merit.
So then you have to wonder if that one picture was worth the hours of work it took to get it. I would say probably not. “But,” you say, “Sam had fun taking all those pictures. The time investment was not merely in obtaining that single good shot!” And you wouldn’t be wrong. However, if the camera is to serve mainly as personal entertainment, I would point out that there are myriad other ways to be entertained without wasting thousands of dollars. Perhaps it could be argued that few of those provide the unique thrill of having created a work of art, but then photography is surely the laziest and least creative art form. Painting, composing music, et cetera are surely just as thrilling, but then you have to actively create something instead of merely capture that which already exists. Is that convenience worth thousands of dollars? Probably not.
Kathy:
Except, at least to me, at social events the point is not to take a good picture, but to provide aide in remembering said event years later. And how many times have you come away from something with no good pictures because you couldn’t get just the right lighting? High quality equipment actually worsens that problem, because you end up spending more time trying to get a good shot with results that are not really any better (and in some cases even worse) than a good point and shoot would give you. And when you do get a good shot, as I pointed out in my first post, the increase in fidelity, while noticeable, provides little added benefit in the goal of remembering an event.
As for being easily converted into a source of income, I don’t buy it. I’d wager it takes a good deal of hard work to become good enough to make much more money than you would have made if you invested all your photography money in actual investments. Honestly, most of you people are too lazy and not nearly skilled enough to turn a profit in the near future.
comment by Mark — April 20, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
haha, I saw that one coming… =)
comment by Oliver — April 20, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
Good work, Marky Mark
comment by V — April 20, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
lol, well, because ViraJ thinks Mark did a good job, I feel like I have to reply now. While Mark makes good/valid counter-arguments to Kathy and Ochs, I don’t feel they are sufficient for me. If the argument is that it’s not worth the money, even if it isn’t, I think that point is not that important because if I did decide it wasn’t worth it, I could reclaim nearly all of the money I invested into the equipment by reselling it. High end gear keeps its value well, unlike point and shoots which lose value rather rapidly (although there is not as much of an investment to reclaim, so I would say they’re about even in comparison).
If the argument is that it’s not worth the _time_ invested, well that’s very much a matter of opinion and depends on each individual as you have to account for how much they personally value the pictures they take, and how much they enjoy taking them, looking at them later, how much they like post-processing them, etc. etc. If we say photography serves mainly as a means of entertainment, I don’t value the argument that it is not “worth” the “thousands of dollars wasted” because, again, even after being entertained, those thousands of dollars could be reclaimed by selling the gear (thus, not “wasted”).
As for the social event thing, at least for me personally, taking pictures provides more enjoyment out of the event. During and afterwards if I get a good shot. If lighting’s bad, I won’t waste a lot of time, I just won’t take many pictures.
comment by Oliver — April 20, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
If you say that the money I’ve invested in photography is inhibiting me from investing it into some other means that would serve the same purpose better, well then I’ll just say no it isn’t. I have not been inhibited in purchasing anything I want due to my photography spending. If you say it should be spent on something else entirely, well then that’s another discussion altogether. =)
comment by Oliver — April 20, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
Wow, this sure is the first time in awhile that a post has generated so many well written comments =].
I can’t speak for other people so the following is just my feelings and experiences.
I agree with Mark in that having 6 dSLRs at normal social events is just an overkill. I rarely take my camera when we go out these days. Looking at picasa, the times where I did use my camera were at events like softball games, liquid blindspot, the AACM talent show and events like that. The only social event where I have really tried to take pictures at were the TiSA BBQ (we had great lighting that day and cute girls). I agree that focusing too much on taking the photo at social events makes you lose much of the enjoyment of the event, which is why I am not going to be the offical photographer at any of my friend’s weddings.
In about 6 hours, I’m going to the UT fashion show to take photos. Am I getting paid for this? No, but besides taking photos for a friend that has her clothing in the show, I also see it as an opportunity to gain experience in fashion photography and maybe even network a bit there. I have a media pass, researched online regarding fashion show photography, posted in a few forums for more advice and just trying to learn some more about photography. Sure, I will spend hours on both taking photos at the event and the post processing aspect, but I enjoy doing that. It is a hobby to me. Yes, there are many other hobbies that involve less money, but why stop at photography? People spend alot of money buying video games, collecting stamps, or upgrading their cars and you get much less money back reselling used video games. Does that make all of those things a waste of money or time? I don’t think so.
As for me spending hours on photoshop, that is just the natural evolution of things from film. In the old days much time would be spend in the dark room trying to work on a photo. Same thing here. Many different factors are involved in the need to photoshop a photo that does not involve the camera/ lens. Maybe the person you were taking a photo of had a zit on their face, maybe the lighting was not ideal and you have to push it a stop, or maybe there was something in the foreground that you need to clone out. The darkroom/ photoshop process has always been considered part of the photography experience and are tools to lead to the creation of a better photo.
Now I will admit that I can’t draw or create music very well and that out of most of the arts I find photography easier for me. But I wouldn’t say photography is the laziest or least creative type of art, because what is art? The definition of art is very subjective and depends on each person’s opinion.
comment by Sam — April 21, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
Let’s start asking Mark about headphones and why he seems to think its important to spend a bigillion dollars on expensive headphones.
comment by ochs — April 21, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
BAJILLION!
comment by Oliver — April 22, 2006 @ 6:24 am
Marky Markles, will you give me another check? :-[
comment by Katherine — April 22, 2006 @ 2:27 pm