DickArnold

Some twenty years ago I retired from a full time professhional job that had nothing to to do with photography. and which required international travel. I hooked up with a local paper on retirement where I photographed news and sports and this led to my taking on a wedding involving a paper employee. It was all film then and that wedding led to others and I found myself in business. I also photographed for the paper. I sent my wedding work out. I did this growing the business until about the time digital came out. I used Bronica and Canon gear. It got to be hard work. In those days of film one had to know something. My photo business grew because film work took some knowledge and wedding work took good word of mouth. There was no real competition in the seacoast town where I retired because film took work and knowledge that not many possessed. Digital ultimately changed all that. I got so busy I went travelling in a motor home during the winter and took Spring and summer weddings only. It had gotten to be a lot of work and even for an old pilot weddings were a lot of pressure. Nothing like an unhappy mother in law. I actually made a little money but when digital came out I decided to shut the business down. Old and tired. I have been photographing sports to this day; mostly swim meets. I have participated in shows but never made much money out of picture sales.

I really don't care about the ethics of digital post processing. I do it when I need it because of time or effort constraints. Raw is more flexible for volume editing. I make changes in post processing when necessary. I like to get a large swim meet processed and on the web in a couple of hours and prints soon after. When I shoot a swimming meet in large venues the variable lighting, and sometimes nasty white balance make consistency difficulties. I would like all the photos to have the same general color, white balance and exposure character. The same was true with my weddings. I try to please the user within ethical bounds.. I do what that takes. When I worked for a paper I had to conform to journalistic rules about post processing changes. I have no artistic compulsions that I am a slave to. I did my very best to make my brides look good by giving them a little help when needed. Most did not really need much if properly lit. I have photographed professional models who are properly lit and made up. That makes a big difference. I use raw mostly for post processing purposes when needed because of a high volume of pictures. I did a lot of weddings with film where post processing wasn't possible on a global scale as it was impractical because of time and technical limitations. This, to me, is not an ethical issue, it is a production issue. It is all so much easier in digital with Lightroom particularly when making global changes. .I am not for or against raw enabled post processing. I do it if time and picture volume dictates I do it.

I shut down a photo business about twelve years ago. Still very active shooting swim meets and for pleasure and making 13x10 prints of what I like best. I never liked the time pressure of fast wedding delivery and am happy not doing that. Got into Canon M5. Ergonomics not as good as 7DII nor is the viewfinder but I take a lot of pictures with it.

I am not defending raw processing but I use it. As digital came out in 2002 I was leaving the wedding business which I shot all with film. I lost a lot of pictures with film because it was too hard to timely fix errors when mass processing for over five hundred pictures a wedding. Since I left the wedding business I have continued shoot a lot of sports including swimming. In the thousands of pictures I have taken in these endeavors I have saved a lot of decent pictures that would be valuable to individual swimmers because of the flexibility in using raw processing. Shooting indoor swim meets is difficult because of mixed color temperatures, bad lighting and the need at times for high ISOs. When I do a meet can load all raw pictures into Lightroom and make global or group changes to account for color temperature and exposure differences etc. I can then do cropping and any other changes I was to make. I can ready a meet inLightroom for publication and printing in a couple of hours. The main thing is that I can save some good pictures. For me raw processing is a valuable asset as I am trying to make individual swimmers happy. I am not doing this for art although I get personal satisfaction from it. I am doing this to make swimmers pleased with the product. Raw is very helpful n bringing pictures up to a satisfactory standard for use.

After over ten years coming and belonging to PN I just don't come here very often. The site just does not work well for me. DPreview works well because I can readily find stuff that seems to be diffused all across photo.net. Fred Miranda is more navigable and it is easily to get around. My picture portfolio looks better than the old but is also confusing to me to navigate. Luninous Landscape has good and mostly thoughtful discussion. I don't even know if I am still a member of PN after paying dues for most of those ten years. I am interested in the new Sony products. Where are the in-depth reviews that I find on other sites? I can find all of this stuff easily on other sites. I just read through a thread promoting jpeg processing. I shoot sports and find that raw in conjunction with the latest edition of Light Room makes for very fast processing and web publishing of large files of pictures. Frankly I just don't feel like I belong here any longer. .

I have been a member for over ten years. Forgive me because after years of learning and making friends here I have strayed and lost faith in photonet. This was sad because I have learned a lot even though I once owned my own photo business abd worked professonaly. After being a doubter I am coming to believe the new version may help to sustain the site that I earlier thought was failing. I think the site needs some work but it is on the right track. The most appealing facet of PN IMO is the facility to cross talk and become familiar with other members. I find I am just a number on the larger sites I belong to. I have been very comfortable on this site over the years. So I am regaining interest here and hope PN survives. Perhaps "I was once lost but now I am found"..

I have both. An OVF on a 7DII that I shoot swim meets with and an EVF on an M5 that I shoot most everything else. I have done direct comparons between the two.. IMO the OVF works better in bright light that the EVF. I have tested them side by side in bright light. The EVF allows me to carry a light quality camera and does work better in dim light I guess. I have tried two different EVFs for swimming action. Not so good. One EVF was Canon the other Sony. I get a little better overall picture quality with the M5 as it gives a bit more MPs than the 7DII. Big lenses work much better on the 7DII.

I am not interested in arguing over words. I ran a large aviation engineering organization doing aviation R&D. We did a lot of work, as the Navy did with human interface. Hundreds of hours of work and subject testing went into human interaction with aircraft controls and displays. In my humble opinion attention needs to be paid to ease of use issues in the new version. In aviation that meant calling in users to test potential human interface alternatives well before going to ninal design. If nothing else do some more beta testing with casual uninformed users like me to find anomalies in the human interface. In my limited use of this system I find it difficult to move between functions. I believe after being a member here for over ten years that the site has lost a lot of its former appeal. I am hopeful that this new renovation will restore some of the vigor that used to be here. This site has promoted useful dialog between members that has made it quite interesting and develped long term relationships between members. I bet the average user age has increased significantly over the years along with a decline in membership.. The redo is a step in the right direction but in order to continue it, IMO, needs to develop a new, younger user base. I have noticed that DP Review reports a lot on cell phones and their photographic use. I like to dream and read about the latest photo gear enen if I never buy something. PN is well worth saving and the redo was over duie. .

to degrade into a non-competitive state through entropy because the site is inherently non-competitive in today's market.

Entropy, by definition is a gradual system decay into disorder. I flew the Navy FA 18 simulator with success after just 15 minutes orienting myself to the cockpit. My point is not the software you use it is more about developing a decent and useful human interface. Your problem is with that human interface.

It is a big, wide competitive world out there. Go to DP Review or Fred Miranda to see two sites that are easier to use. I can get to forums easier in Luminous landscape. I have been a devotee of photonet for over ten years. As a former senior executive I know better than to get into defensive squabbles with the paying customers. Fix the site problems or die of non-competitive entropy. The old site was easier to use. Face fact not customers.

So, I am not thrilled with the new format. Why do I have to login every time. This is the only site that requires this. Too many categories. I really liked to see all new posts in one column. Too much moving around to find things. I will just vote with my lack of attendance here. There are easier sites out there.

A Bronica ETRSi and Canon EOS 1N both duplicated for backup. All film then.

I have an EOS 7DII and an M5. I photographed a swim meet last Sunday with the 7DII. I use it because I am more comfortable with it and large white lenses. I don't like to carry all this weight around most of the time so I also own the mirrorless. The M5 has a few more MPs than the 7DII and it makes nice pictures but the 7DII is considerably more effective with large lenses. The M has an EVF and it is not as effective as the OVF on the 7DII particularly in bright light where the optical finder handles the glare better. I will continue to shoot sports with the optical finder until EVF quality can meet that of an OVF specifically for action.