mikemorrellNL

I generally agree with you, Allen. My very first (digital) camera was a Canon G5 which I bought 20 years ago. It was a 'point and shoot'(P&S) camera which I - for work- exclusively used on 'automatic'. The G5 also had the option of dialing in manual settings. It was through playing about with these manual settings that I started te learn the basics of 'photography'. But I suspect that the vast majority of P&S users did just that: point and shoot (on automatic) by pressing a button and not having to thin.k. Fast forward to 2023. A good P&S camera still costs around $1000. Roughly the same price as a top model mobile phone. P&S cameras may still take better quality photos than a mobile phone. But my guess is that the vast majority of mobile phone users prefer to spend around $1000+ on a top model mobile phone rather than slightly less + another $1000 for a P&S camera. My take is that that advances in mobile phone camera technology (lenses + software) has made the 'added value proposition' of a P&S camera much less attractive. As you say, both P&S cameras and mobile phone cameras are about 'convenience/simplicity without having to think' too much. For most people, using their mobile phone cameras to take and share photos is more convenient than carrying and using a separate P&S camera. The video below (while being a clearly sponsored video from - for me - an unknown tech company called Oppo), gives IMHO good illustration of how current mobile phone software contributes to the 'image quality' from mobile phone cameras. Bottom line: tech inevitably becomes either outdated, economically unviable and usually both. It seems that P&S camera's have (largely) had their day. Why the Smartphone Killed the Point & Shoot Camera (11 mins)

My guess is that the vast majority of 'photo-takers' do so on their mobile phones. They may not be passionate 'photographers' but they do regularly (or often) take photos and want to quickly share them with friends. Also, it seems to me that a lot of people (like me) use mobile phone cameras and digital cameras side by side. In the sense of 'whatever does the job' and 'whatever you have available'. Another thought was that not only improved mobile phone lenses might be a deciding factor to upgrade a mobile phone but also improved all-round functionality, including in-phone image (and video) processing. I recently saw a phone ad that seemed to include an 'AI app' to manipulate photos. So that the 'subject' was moved within the photo. Something that takes more time in Photoshop, If you google, there's quite a bit of research on 'mobile phone marketing' and 'mobile phone camera use'.. These links are just 2 examples: - Why do we market phones as cameras? (Medium) - DSLR Owners love Their Smartphone Camera as much as You do (Techpinions) My take is that 'passionate photographers' use phones in their photography just as much as they use their digital cameras. Somewhere in this research, there's a comment that people often use their mobile phone cameras as a memory aid. This certainly applies to me!

Cheers!

Correction: the underside of the balcony does (visually) show that it's a balcony so worth including. The question is just 'how much underside' in relation to the cropped-ff wall engraving

Perhaps because I'm a saxophonist too, I think that you've posted much better photos this one. I don't know anything about about Minox/miniatures. What is see in this photo is: - the underside of a balcony which - for me - adds nothing to the photo - a cropped-off top of the intricate wall engraving - an overall greenish tint To me, it looks like a 'street snap shot' for which just a bit more time composing the photo (higher with all the wall engraving and much less underside of the balcony) would have improved the photo. So would as white-balance adjustment. Finally, given that the saxophonist is small in the photo, perhaps a title such as 'balcony with saxophist' would be more appropriate 🙂 Mike

Hi. I think this photo definitely has some potential with some post-processing. As it it is, it looks very brown and dark. And TBH not so sharp. So the first thing that I would suggest is to 'color correct' the photo in post-processing, brighten up the whole image and sharpen up the stairs. I don't often post 'alternative versions' but I hope these willl illustrate what I mean. My 2nd version is just a quick and dirty version with the stairs highlighted and the background darkened. You may wish to adjust the relative brightness of the stairs vs. the background. If you're interested in any more info, please let me know.

My 2 cts (and many more): - I suspect that there are many images in magazines, on websites - perhaps even in newspapers - which are intended to be 'illustrative' rather than a photographer's factual account from her/his perspective; personally, I don't have a great problem with applying AI to generate 'illustrative' images/videos though I would strongly prefer adding a note saying "illustration". Let's be honest, many of the TV-ads we see on TV these days (take auto's as an example) have been extensively manipulated via CGI and/or AI - there of course many 'news' images (and videos) which readers/viewers assume to be authentic; i.e. have not been AI-manipulated Consumer 'trust' in media outlets (amongst many other things) is critical to their succes. I can well imagine the confusion about - and the protests against - the World Press Photos' initiative to allow AI-generated images into its 'Open Forum' category. This initiative runs IHMO completely counter to what press photos and the World Press Photo have always been about. As far as I'm aware, there is still hope. Photo competitions increasingly request original RAW images for entry. Together with EXIF data that shows how a final image has been produced step by step. Sure, Photo-editing apps such as Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop now incorporate native so-called AI-functions. and filters. The same is true for many Lightroom and Photoshop 'plug-in' filters. So for photo-editors and curators, the job of deciding which photos are eligible and which aren't is becoming increasingly complex. My main hope is that image AI-tools develop, so do image AI-detection tools. As far as I've read, these 'detection tools' search for subtle patterns of 'pixel manipulation' that can't be explained by the Exif data. On a last point, image manipulation occurs during post-processing (with or without AI). Image manipulation occurs IMHO on a much wider scale by: - photographers who (coincidently or deliberately) take photos and decide which to submit to various news outlets - news outlets who decide which submitted images to publish It will come as no surprise that few news outlets are completely neutral w.r.t. their targeted readership/viewer groups. Readership/viewer groups often break down along political and demographic lines. So the selection of submitted photos/videos by a photographer and especially the choice of photos/videos to publish to their targeted readership/viewer groups IMHO far outweighs any 'technical image manipulation'. I completely accept that media outlets may select and manipulate photos and videos to appeal to their targeted readership/viewer groups. So - even without AI - readership/viewership targeted selection and manipulation of images and videos has been with us for years. My main fear is that media outlets may use AI to manipulate photos and videos to better target their readership/viewership groups.

Good decision, Gary. No point on splashing out on Topaz If it doesn't offer you any significant advantages. I bought the (non-AI) Topaz suite many years ago because the Denoise app was highly rated. Since then, I've received 'free updates' on most Topaz apps. Notably the 'AI' versions of Denoise and Sharpen. In other (not necessarily photo-related) apps, there's often a 'reduced update price'. I really like Topaz's policy that if you've ever bought the Topaz suite, than any and all updates are free

Hi, the vast majority of my photos are of people and events indoors. I rarely use a flash so I often need to use a relatively high ISO. Whenever I need to reduce high ISO noise, I tend to use the Topaz AI filter from Photoshop. In general, I think it does a good job of removing noise from 'large surfaces' (walls, clothing, faces, etc.) while preserving details. It's not perfect for all photos, but usually good enough for cleaning up noisy photos. The same applies to the Topaz Sharpen AI filter. I find it good in picking out details to sharpen. That said, sharpening can of course increase noise in some areas! The main reason I use the Topaz filters is their ease of use. I like the 'split screen' (before and after) view and the movable 'zoom in' window that show me what the effect of the filter would be in various parts of the photo. And of course, I can adjust the filter parameters to see whether either more or less noise reduction would be beneficial. Similarly, I can select between a number of different types of 'blur' and adjust the parameters to optimize sharpening. I can't really compare the Topaz filters to Adobe's native capabilities because - these days - I rarely use the native Adobe filters. As far as I can see, Photoshop allows you to remove noise in 2 places. Either in the 'Camera Raw' (detail) filter or in the 'Reduce noise' filter. The latter also has a movable 'zoom in' Window that allows you to adjust the parameters. Compared to Topaz, what I I'm not quite sure what you mean by upscaling but Photoshop usually does a good job of resizing a photo to a larger size automatically. But it allows you to select your preferred 'resizing algorithme.

Just a note: a couple of days ago I noticed that my current 'all photos' catalog only showed my photo folders for November. I eventually had to revert to the previous version of the catalog and re-import my 'November' photos. So keeping the last 3 or 4 versions is a good idea, just in case. This is the first time this happened to me in some 8 years of using LR. Mike

Totally agree! My (amateur/voluntary) photography preference is 'people'. Whether it be street, portraits or events. When photographing people, I wait. Trying to anticipate when individuals or groups might be most expressive (gestures, emotion). Whenever I suspect an 'expressive moment' might be coming up, I take a 'burst' of photos. Often I'm wrong. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes I miss the 'expressive moment', But I have no doubt that photos that show human expression are the best photos.

Hi @Ricochetrider I always love viewing your photos in the various categories that interest you most. And also those in the 'No Words' and 'Critique' threads. It's great to read that you're still motivated to 'push your (photography) ball down the road'! You're dead right that there's always so much more to learn! IHHO both in terms of 'creativity' and 'excellent production'. I totally agree that viewing prints (of whatever size) is a very different experience to viewing photos on a screen! For the past 5 -7 years, 99% of my own photography has been as a 'voluntary photographer' (people and events) for local not-for-profit organizations. So my main focus has been to be a 'competent' events photographer rather than creating 'own work'. On your list, I'm OK with digital post-processing. in Lightroom and Photoshop. I usually don't print my photos but organizations that I volunteer for do for flyers, etc.. Recently, I worked with an organization to design a poster and flyers (based on a photo by someone else) for an exhibition of local, amateur 'artworks' in the central library of my home town. On my laptop screen it looked fine but when when we got the poster professionally printed in A2 and A3 paper formats, it looked absolutely amazing! The large format posters hang in the entrance to the library to draw the attention of visitors to the exhibition. This really brought home to what the difference is between the screen and a print! FWIW (on creativity), years ago I saw an exhibition by a local artist Corry van Hoof. I was blown away by how she'd processed her photos (usually with a color wash) into 3-dimensional constructions. I can't quite remember how we got in contact but in recent years, I've been helping her now and again with 'IT-challenges'. Sometimes e-mailing photos of her artworks for an upcoming exhibition. Sometimes solving a problem with her printer. She's in her late 70's and probably early 80's. As she herself says, she still enjoys the 'art' and she's a competent user of the Windows 7 PC connected to her printer. But she struggles with 'new tech' such as Windows 10/11. TBH, we spend more time talking about her recent work and upcoming exhibitions as discussing her 'tech problems'! If you're interested in her work, you can find some examples via the following links: - gallery nasty alice - kunstdrift Visiting her apartment is amazing! She uses all sorts of materials (including wood,cereal boxes, etc.) to construct a framework onto which she pastes her (color-washed) photos. Most of her photos are textures and details that she intends to post-process into a 3D-artwork. She uses a professional A3 color printer. On my most recent visit, I was astounded when she asked "I think I'm going to clean out my appartement. If If I wanted to get rid of my printer, would you like to have it (free)?" I of course said yes! So I get a new impetus to print A3 photos at home 🙂

Strangely enough, I've just discovered this thread which started back in 2020. First of all, I wish to thank all contributors. And especially @Ricochetrider and @dcstep for their continuing dialoog. I wish both all the best in their publishing careers! I have absolutely no ambition (or vision or competence) to create photos worthy an exhibition or publication. As a photographer (and sax player), I remain a 'bog amateur'. But I love reading how amateur photographers - through their vision, creativity, skills and perseverance - have broken through into to world of exhibitions and publications! Congrats, Mike

Many thanks to all who have helped to fix this issue! Respect! Yes, there have been workarounds but it's just so nice not to have to use them. Mike

Very late to this thread. My initial impression is that the image looks a bit flat. My suggestion is that you bump up the 'presence/contrast' to create an image with more 'depth'. Mike

Like you, I still love my 6D! I can photograph anything I want with the 6D and the photos always turn out perfectly! Based on your comment, I'm asking myself why I didn't buy a better 6D rather than a 5D mk iv! I've found the 5D mk iv to be a more 'sophisticated' (and more difficult to learn) than the 6D. I'm getting there, bit I sometimes long for the relative simplicity and ease of the 6D. TBH (just as an amateur/voluntary photographer, I'm seriously considering ordering extra cards and batteries so that can use the 6D and 5D mk iv (with different lenses) together.

For photographers (or just people who like taking photos) I think that this has been true for some time. When I decided that I needed to upgrade my (Samsung) phone in 2020 the quality of photos that a new (Samsung) phone could take was certainly a major selection factor. I'd had Samsungs for years, I was used to Android and didn't (and don't) want to switch to Iphones. At the time, I decided to with the Samsung Galaxy S20+. Identical to the basic Samsung S20 but with 5G connectivity. The Samsung S20 Ultra (with an extra lens) was - for me - just too expensive in relation to how I expected to use its cameras. I've found that I've often used the camera on my mobile. As a 'backup' for my DSLR photos & videos and for photos and videos when I'm just 'about and about' without a DSLR. In fact, I began to rely more and more on my mobile phone on day trips, leaving my DSLR at home. Perhaps more importantly, my mobile phone enables me to take good quality photos of day-to-day things I want to record/remember: events, sheets of music, product I see in stores, etc. @AlanKlein, I don't believe that image quality improves with each new version of a mobile phone. Or that photographers (like me) fall into into the trap of 'upgrading to the newest version' without first checking out whether and how 'imaging capabilities' may have improved. This video shows the improvements in image quality between my Galaxy S20 and the current Galaxy 23. Improvements were only made (2-3 years later) in the Galaxy S22 and the current Galaxy S23. Looking at the Iphone wiki page, the story looks pretty much the same. So yes, lens, image sensor and in-camera image-processing capabilities are steadily improving. But my impression is that 'major improvements' tend (at the moment) to happen every 3 years or so. As each new mobile phone version is announced and comes on the market, many owners of previous versions ask themselves 'is it worth my upgrading?'. For most people, the answer to upgrading from one version to the following is "probably not". For most people, there needs IMHO to be a significant advantage in upgrading from an older version to a newer version. For photographers too. Mike

Hi @JDMvW, my impression is that many PN members still love using (what I perhaps irreverently would call) 'retro cameras'. In other word 'classic cameras', mostly film-based but also 'instant cameras'. I agree with you that 'new' DSLR's are quickly becoming a dying breed. As companies like Canon and Nikon have for years switched their investments into 'mirrorless' cameras (and compatible lenses). Nikon still have more new DSLRs on sale than Canon but at steadily reduced prSo a'new' cameras, DSLRs are definitely coming to the end of their era. The new era is mirrorless (with a whole lot more tech. that DSLRs!). The upside of all this is that I (and many others) got to buy a great 2nd hand DSLR!

Hi @paddler4, Many thanks for your vote of confidence in the 5D IV!

Thanks for your comment, @SCL! In general, of course you're right! TBH, I just wanted an upgrade of my 60D (with a broken dial) that worked. In hindsight, I realise that I probably should have done more research into mirrorless. But, for better or worse, I'm still happy with my 2nd-hand 5d mk iv. I do quite a lot of volunteer work. In 'communications' as a a voluntary photographer, article-writer, 'educator' for website editors and also as 'practical help' volunteer to mainly seniors in solving 'tech' problems. I also play tenor saxophone in a Bigband and attend a weekly series of 'jazz improvisation' workshop. So for me, photography is not really a passion, it's more of a 'craft'. As an amateur, I can take, post-process and deliver photos that delight my 'clients'. They at least invite me back 😉. So my gut feeling is that that the (5D) body + my current lenses are sufficient for my amateur purposes.

That the digital camera market has been rapidly moving away from DSLRs to Mirrorless over past years is well known. This topic is very 'tongue in cheek' and is not meant as 'news'. But the video below does include a functionality/price comparison between Canon DSLR and mirrorless bodies. Background Not so long ago, I upgraded my older - and still very usable! - 2nd-hand Canon 6D (2012) to a slightly less old 2nd-hand Canon 5D mk iv (2016). I bought the 2nd-hand 5D via a reputable online camera store. I was delighted by the condition and by the completeness of the delivery (new strap, manuals, etc.). So far, it's been a joy to use. Though it's been a learning curve to use the additional and more sophisticated functionality than my trusty 6D has. Up until now, I've used the 5D for taking photos. On the few occasions in which I wanted to take videos too, I used my mobile phone for the video's. But I also want to learn how to take videos with the 5D. I have the manual but Youtube was my go-to 'how to' source. That's how I came across the video (18 min.) below by Lewis Carlyle of/for Premium Light Academy. I've watched multiple Canon 5D mk iv videos but this one is definitely my favourite! Simply because of Lewis's humor, love, appreciation and continued use of this 'dinosaur' camera. Even if you have no interest in DSLR's or the Canon series, even the intro may be worth watching. Key points At the start, Lewis highlights that the 5D mk iv still retails (new) at about $2750 - in Europe-and upwards. A high price for a DSLR body launched in 2016! He also points out that Canon mirrorless bodies (R7, R8) with much newer and better functionality than the 5D mk iv, retail - in Europe - new for about half this price. His states that the 5D mk iv continues to be one of his 'workhorses' and praises its quality - especially for video - but that he wouldn't recommend buying the 5D mk iv (new) in 2023, In his opinion, there are far better and cheaper Canon (mirrorless) alternatives at roughly half the price. He also clearly supports the idea that 'the photographer, and not the technology, makes the photo. A personal note I've used Canon DSLRs for years. So with every 'body upgrade' all my lenses perfectly match an upgraded body. T.B.H. I hadn't expected a 2nd-hand market in mirrorless bodies but I've since learned that there is. Anyway, my decision to stick with a Canon DSLR - as opposed to mirrorless - was based on 2 main criteria: stick with what I know, and stick to a body that seamlessly matches my lenses. I'm getting too old (and have too little motivation) to start experimenting with 'mirrorless' bodies and 'lens mount conversion kits'.

This composition is a whole lot better than the original one! Congrats! The 3 shells are now front and center as the 'subject' and look closer, more detailed and sharper. With the table top as 'background', the photo is great as it is. I have no idea how far you still want to go with this photo. Or what your post-processing skills/tools are. But if there's one suggestion I could make, then it would be to experiment with the shade/light contrast between the table top and the shells. That is, slightly boosting the exposure (or brightness) of the shells and slightly reducing the exposure (or brightness) of the table top. My argument (photographically) for this post-processing is that most viewers (except you) won't know what the shade of the table top is (lighter or darker) or what the lighting conditions were. Again, the photo is fine as it is. But with a (subtly) darker table top and (subtly) brighter shells, the shells might stand out even more in a photo that still looks 'natural'. Best wishes, Mike PS. I (lightly) post-process most of my 'selected photos' but I respect those photographers who don't!

Just my 2 (and many more) cts: - I still (truly) believe that it's the photographer who makes the photo (with whatever equipment) rather than equipment that she/he uses; but I'm still heavily influenced by Michael Freeman's books on ' The Photographer's Eye' and 'The photographer's vision'. I have others, but these are the 2 books that first opened my eyes to 'photography'. Neither of these 2 books cover 'equipment'. Just 'vision' and 'composition'. - Cameras of both Iphones and Samsungs are becoming ever more sophisticated. They both have higher digital sensor resolutions (48 Mb and 108 resolutions respectively) than most DSLR's. Including my Canon EOS 5D Mk iv. Lenses are steadily getting better too. The latest Iphone has 3 lenses: an ultra-wide (13 mm), a wide-angle (24 mm) and a 70mm lens. Samsung goes a step further on the zoom range and has a 230mm equivalent lens.. - Of course mobile phone lenses are less flexible than optical zoom lenses. But with such a large sensor size, even some 'digital zoom ' produces good quality hi-res photos. - If you're a dedicated macro, sport or wildlife photographer, or require on-camera or synchronized flash, then a mobile phone camera is probably not (always) for you. But that leaves many other photography applications (walkabout, product, portrait, group, event) with which a mobile phone would probably work just fine with. You can dial in automatic or manual exposure settings and just go for it. I've gotten into the habit of taking most of my photos with my trusty DSLR + lenses. And also taking some photos with my mobile phone. My 'mobile' photos sometimes turn out better than my DSLR photos. Bottom line: whether you used an analogue or digital camera, to get get the best photos you a) need to envisage, plan and compose your photos well and b) know how to use your equipment. The same is IMHO true for photographers that use mobile phones as 'image capture equipment'. For them, the various components of 'good photography' (lighting, composition, exposure, etc.) remain the same. See my references at amateurphotographer

Thanks for posting this link, John! Julia Fullerton-Batten's work is absolutely stunning! Her storytelling style reminds me of Gregory Crewdson. But I love her dedication to recreating historical events in her 'Thames' project. And some of her 'Thames' photos have significantly more (historically costumed) figurants than I've seen in Crewdson's work. I can't really imagine just how much research, creative and organizational work went into arranging and lighting these tableaux in order to take, post-process and produce these photos!

My previous post timed out so I'm adding (in summary) what I intended to add. I'll leave it to the mods to answer your question, but just a member .... In this version of PN, you don't have a default album linked to your account. So you can't just 'upload photos to your account/profile'. Instead, you can upload photos to one of the 'general' albums (photography topic/genre/style) and/or create one or more 'personal albums' to which you can can upload photos. If you click on 'member albums' left in the main menu, you'll see a list of both the general and personal albums that members have created so far. As the screenshot in the previous post illustrates, visitors to your profile can see the 'personal 'member albums that you have created and (thumbnails of) all the photos that you've uploaded. Either to 'general' albums or to your personal albums. Hope this helps, Mike