Snake oil in photography

[Prana Ferox]

If you think there isn't snake oil in musical instruments, start a discussion with musicians about tone woods.

Camera sensor noise for a given shot is dominated by sensor tech and pixel pitch. You can mitigate sensor noise by scaling down, which for a given sensor tech and pixel pitch is easier with a larger, higher MP sensor. If you're not printing, you're almost certainly scaling down anyway, to fit on a computer monitor or certainly a phone screen. We also have really, really good post-processing and NR these days; TBH I see people post-processing noise in all the time. Dynamic range tends to fit the same pattern.

I have an Olympus 20MP camera and a 61MP FF Sony A7R4. They're pretty similar sensor tech and pixel pitch and at a pixel level they behave pretty similarly. The Sony takes a helluva lot more pixels in a picture but it has a lot of compromises to do that. They both have their uses.

 

[Offler]

Sorry but this is not comparable. Photography is a means of creating art, so by this logic why not have snake oil in musical instruments? Both a pointless discussion in my opinion.

If you think there isn't snake oil in musical instruments, start a discussion with musicians about tone woods.

Camera sensor noise for a given shot is dominated by sensor tech and pixel pitch. You can mitigate sensor noise by scaling down, which for a given sensor tech and pixel pitch is easier with a larger, higher MP sensor. If you're not printing, you're almost certainly scaling down anyway, to fit on a computer monitor or certainly a phone screen. We also have really, really good post-processing and NR these days; TBH I see people post-processing noise in all the time. Dynamic range tends to fit the same pattern.

I have an Olympus 20MP camera and a 61MP FF Sony A7R4. They're pretty similar sensor tech and pixel pitch and at a pixel level they behave pretty similarly. The Sony takes a helluva lot more pixels in a picture but it has a lot of compromises to do that. They both have their uses.

I have two Olympuses M1x and M5MkIII. I recently started to shoot in a studio with controlled light.

Now, there is a discussion that tells people that larger sensors have larger photosensitive surface, and thus have better noise to signal ratio. SNR is something that people on this forum know a lot about. For sure, larger photosensitive surface can grant better readout, but there is plenty of other things to consider.

1. Not all of the surface of a sensor is photosensitive.
Pixel pitch is a factor, also most current CMOS sensors contain other electronics on the surface, not just photodiode. In general only 25% of currently made sensors surface is photosensitive.

2. NMOS, CMOS and CCD sensors
NMOS and CMOS actually refer to an analog amplifier type which is used for each pixel at the stage just before the signal is converted to digital. NMOS creates most noise, CCD sensors dont have per-pixel amplifiers and CMOS is middle of the road.

CMOS sensors have to sacrifice most of the surface to other electronics.

3. M43, Full-frame and Medium Format.
Take "Fullframe" as a commercial term, its just 35mm frame. People who argue about noise, or ISO performance and would never go for a small sensor (APS-C or M43) are usually not going to buy medium format system anyway, god forbid to get a CCD sensor.

4. Bit depth
This topic is usually completely omitted in the previous debate. Some people do understand that it affects dynamic range, and/or color reproduction, again lowering effects of noise.

I have not met many photographers who do understand technicalities and how sensors do work.



Now... when I get back to my first statement - studio and controlled light:

1. Lets use lowest native ISO for the sensor - its a general rule that at this setting will the sensor perform at its maximum dynamic range and lowest noise.
2. Set aperture to value where each specific lens has best MFT* readout.
3. Learn readout value of your sensor - 1/60s is commonly used.

At this value, you will get the most out of the sensor. With studio strobes, this get little bit more complicated, and even lower values (up to 1/250s without HSS) will yield excellent results, reducing noise even more.

*A value where the image is sharpest.

In general, once you are in the studio and can set the ideal light intensity, any sensor can shine.

 

[Bernard23]

If you think there isn't snake oil in musical instruments, start a discussion with musicians about tone woods.

Camera sensor noise for a given shot is dominated by sensor tech and pixel pitch. You can mitigate sensor noise by scaling down, which for a given sensor tech and pixel pitch is easier with a larger, higher MP sensor. If you're not printing, you're almost certainly scaling down anyway, to fit on a computer monitor or certainly a phone screen. We also have really, really good post-processing and NR these days; TBH I see people post-processing noise in all the time. Dynamic range tends to fit the same pattern.

I have an Olympus 20MP camera and a 61MP FF Sony A7R4. They're pretty similar sensor tech and pixel pitch and at a pixel level they behave pretty similarly. The Sony takes a helluva lot more pixels in a picture but it has a lot of compromises to do that. They both have their uses.

Except you can measure the differences in tone woods, so it's not snake oil. Snake oil is a claim without ant scientific or measurable data to support it. I still don't get the snake oil bit other than more pixels = better images but that's so obviously wrong it's yesterday's nonsense.
Just my opinion but this only matters if you expect to use a camera (as separate from photography) to recreate the truth. The majority of us don't, it's a simulation of reality that's open to interpretation. It's a very different tool to your domestic hifi system in that respect. Of course, using image capture for forensic analysis be it healthcare or manufacturing is of course a different case.

 

[Not dave]

Having an interest in photography and hifi made me realize there are a lot of similarities between the two. There are photography subjectivists and objectivists. Some review sites are similar to subjective audio in which they shower a product with praise for its sharpness, 3D rendering, bokeh, colour, and so on. The kind of language used would not be out of place in a magazine like TAS. Other sites provide optical measurements, product teardowns, and all sorts of data.

The interesting difference is the far greater tolerance of subjectivists in photography. For example, film photography has less resolution, less dynamic range, is more expensive, difficult to process, and all this affects your final image which will have a distinct look. It is unquestionably inferior to digital in every technical and practical sense. Yet people like this look, and film photographers are not subject to the same kind of disdain from digital photographers that some on ASR have for the audio equivalent i.e. vinyl or tube amplifiers. I guess some people like their coloration.

Of course there are debates like whether full frame is a waste of money, that you don't need medium format, and that Leica is nothing more than a photographer's Louis Vuitton. I suppose there people with the same streak of anti-elitism that runs through both communities.

There are some in photography who like "ICM" (Intentional Camera Movement) in which a slow shutter speed is chosen and the camera is intentionally moved during exposure. Sometimes the lens is defocused to give a dreamy look. I questioned why someone would use an expensive lens for this kind of photography, given that if you are going to intentionally defocus the lens and product a blurry image, any cheap secondhand lens would do. But I have been told that even for ICM, different lenses have different effects. I neither have the experience or knowledge required to challenge that thinking.

The other difference is that whilst audio enthusiasts band into subjectivists and objectivists, photographers band into manufacturers. There are endless wars between Canon/Nikon/Sony fans which would be hilarious if it happened here, e.g. Topping and RME owners arguing with each other about whose brand is superior.

catching up on this thread so apologies if this point has already been raised!
Regarding the bolded text. There is a significant difference between a camera and an amp. The camera is used to create something and is more in line with a musical instrument, or more accurately studio equipment such as a mic. The photographer may want to create something in a particular style and the selection of tools they use is a method to achieve that aim.
Audio equipment such as amps / turntables are recreating something that an artist has already produced, and it can be reasonably argued that equipment that recreates this as closely to the original intent is 'best'.

Perhaps i may read this argument already raised as i progress through the thread!

 

[antcollinet]

catching up on this thread so apologies if this point has already been raised!
Regarding the bolded text. There is a significant difference between a camera and an amp. The camera is used to create something and is more in line with a musical instrument, or more accurately studio equipment such as a mic. The photographer may want to create something in a particular style and the selection of tools they use is a method to achieve that aim.
Audio equipment such as amps / turntables are recreating something that an artist has already produced, and it can be reasonably argued that equipment that recreates this as closely to the original intent is 'best'.

Perhaps i may read this argument already raised as i progress through the thread!

100% correct.

Using lower quality photography media/gear (up to and including - and probably beyond pinhole cameras made from a shoe box) is equivalent to using distortion in a guitar amp. Or any other effects in a DAW.

I know a guy who photographs stuff, prints it out on various textured paper, pastes it to a window, and photographs that. Sometimes he will do stuff to it first like soak it in water, scratch it, sandwich it with other stuff, paint on it etc etc. His work is amazing.

Photographers are (unless documentary) creating art, not a faithful reproduction of already created art.

 

[Roland68]

catching up on this thread so apologies if this point has already been raised!
Regarding the bolded text. There is a significant difference between a camera and an amp. The camera is used to create something and is more in line with a musical instrument, or more accurately studio equipment such as a mic. The photographer may want to create something in a particular style and the selection of tools they use is a method to achieve that aim.
Audio equipment such as amps / turntables are recreating something that an artist has already produced, and it can be reasonably argued that equipment that recreates this as closely to the original intent is 'best'.

Perhaps i may read this argument already raised as i progress through the thread!

And that's exactly what's wrong: the camera doesn't create anything.
With a musical instrument, you can create something new, completely freely.

A camera is just a technical tool with which you create a visual copy of something. You can't create anything new with it, you can only copy what already exists. Of course, a photographer has creative options such as exposure, focus/depth of field, cropping, etc., but it always remains only an image of an existing source.

This makes a camera, or rather an image, a good analogy to music.

There is an original source, and then the image goes through several instances: lens, filter, sensor, processing, conversion, output...
Audio, original file/source, processing (e.g., EQ), conversion, output.

 

[Ste_S]

And that's exactly what's wrong: the camera doesn't create anything.
With a musical instrument, you can create something new, completely freely.

A camera is just a technical tool with which you create a visual copy of something. You can't create anything new with it, you can only copy what already exists. Of course, a photographer has creative options such as exposure, focus/depth of field, cropping, etc., but it always remains only an image of an existing source.

This makes a camera, or rather an image, a good analogy to music.

There is an original source, and then the image goes through several instances: lens, filter, sensor, processing, conversion, output...
Audio, original file/source, processing (e.g., EQ), conversion, output.

Disagree that the camera, or photographer, doesn't create anything; they can create art. It's like claiming a painter isn't creating anything.

 

[Roland68]

Disagree that the camera, or photographer, doesn't create anything; they can create art. It's like claiming a painter isn't creating anything.

I didn't say anything about that.
A camera is just a technical device that creates an image of something real. A camera can't create an image of something that doesn't exist. A painter can also paint something completely imaginary.

If we talk about a photograph as something artistically created, then that can only be the photographer, never the camera.

 

[Roland68]

I know a guy who photographs stuff, prints it out on various textured paper, pastes it to a window, and photographs that. Sometimes he will do stuff to it first like soak it in water, scratch it, sandwich it with other stuff, paint on it etc etc. His work is amazing.

I just thought of this picture from almost 10 years ago.
Do you notice anything?

 

[JeffS7444]

I just thought of this picture from almost 10 years ago.
Do you notice anything?

The perspective of the 2nd story windows looks odd.

 

[gwing]

I just thought of this picture from almost 10 years ago.
Do you notice anything?

View attachment 436027

I like it, very well done. Looking carefully at the lighting on the walls surrounding the r/h door it is very difficult to imagine the light sources that would correspond to the shading effects we see - I think it has been rather heavily doctored, if it is a complete fake it has been done masterfully.

 

[sq225917]

It looks like a render.

A mediocre scan line one at that

 

[antcollinet]

Light on the wall with no lamp to create it?

 

[thunderchicken]

I’m just passing through this thread, but that photo does not do much for me.

Besides the technical issues of blown highlights and not being level, there are artistic issues as well. A photo of a restaurant, for example, should not prominently feature trash cans.

There are storytelling issues as well. Nothing jumps out of the frame or draws the viewer in. As my J school editing professor would say, it’s “plywood.”

While it may have meaning to you, it does not convey that meaning to anyone else. It appears to be a personal snapshot.

I don’t say any of this to be mean, I’ve taken 60k+ photos, including for publication, and the overwhelming majority of them are frankly garbage.

As to camera snake oil, gear acquisition syndrome affects hobbyist photographers as much as audiophiles. I would still argue that most photography gadgets are infinitely more useful than bybee devices.

I think that cameras are tools the same way brushes and paints are to a painter, and that your brain is the most important tool as a photographer. I also think that much like a painter finding inspiration in new pigments or mediums, photography gear can also inspire. How much a particular gadget inspires you is completely up to you. I think anything that brings excitement and drive back to the medium is a great thing. Whether you can get that with a cheap new trigger or it takes an expensive lens is something only you can answer. I found joy and excitement in all kinds of weird photo gear. More importantly, it made me want to use my tools in new ways, which is what art is all about.

Snake oil in audio playback is not remotely equivalent to what seems to be considered snake oil in photography.

 

[Dimitri]

It looks like a render.

Not a render.

Nothing jumps out of the frame or draws the viewer in.

Well.. the trash cans seem to have caught you attention...so that's two things !

Two pizzarias and an Argentinian restaurant all symmetrical like, next to eachother is worth the shot. never saw anything like it before.

As for the blown highlights...yeah...the lighting crew must have had the day off so the photographer had to make the best of it with existing light and a long exposure (hence the headless figure in the background ).

But hey...you miss all the shots you don't take.

 

[Roland68]

The perspective of the 2nd story windows looks odd.

I like it, very well done. Looking carefully at the lighting on the walls surrounding the r/h door it is very difficult to imagine the light sources that would correspond to the shading effects we see - I think it has been rather heavily doctored, if it is a complete fake it has been done masterfully.

It looks like a render.

A mediocre scan line one at that

Light on the wall with no lamp to create it?

The image is actually not manipulated, minimally edited, and not a rendering. The left window on the first floor is open inward at approximately 45°, hence the perspective.
It's a well-known restaurant and popular photo subject in Cologne's old town. Pizzeria Pinocchio Cologne Old Town
The lighting is also natural, at dusk with ambient light and street lamps. The lighting above the right and left doors comes from the sign lighting mounted directly below the windows above.

But that's not the secret.
Actually, I had already revealed that before.

 

[julian_hughes]

...you can only copy what already exists..

I find this to be exactly wrong! Unless using a camera to copy 2 dimensional subjects i.e. on a copy stand to copy documents. Using a camera to make images in a three dimensional world full of sounds and smells and heat and cold and which is progressing in real time is almost nothing like copying what already exists. Because the camera captures only a two dimensional image, of limited angle/viewpoint and usually not even stereoscopic like human vision, of a fraction of a second, without sound, smell, touch, temperature, context or continuity. Whatever is happening when you take a photo you are definitely not copying what exists.

 

[gwing]

I find this to be exactly wrong! Unless using a camera to copy 2 dimensional subjects i.e. on a copy stand to copy documents. Using a camera to make images in a three dimensional world full of sounds and smells and heat and cold and which is progressing in real time is almost nothing like copying what already exists. Because the camera captures only a two dimensional image, of limited angle/viewpoint and usually not even stereoscopic like human vision, of a fraction of a second, without sound, smell, touch, temperature, context or continuity. Whatever is happening when you take a photo you are definitely not copying what exists.

errr, um. Nothing you say there seems to have anything to do with the statement you are refuting i.e. "you can only copy what already exists". No copy is perfect of course (not even a digital file copy if we are stringent enough) but you are talking about copy limitations not whether you can have a copy without an original.

 

[julian_hughes]

errr, um. Nothing you say there seems to have anything to do with the statement you are refuting i.e. "you can only copy what already exists". No copy is perfect of course (not even a digital file copy if we are stringent enough) but you are talking about copy limitations not whether you can have a copy without an original.

No, I'm saying that except in limited 2D fields such as document copying, taking a photograph is not copying at all. No copy is made. Thinking of photographs as copies (the author uses the word copy several times) is a mistaken assumption. That's was my point. To think of it as copying is to misunderstand even the fundamental physical processes of photography.

 

[Roland68]

I find this to be exactly wrong! Unless using a camera to copy 2 dimensional subjects i.e. on a copy stand to copy documents. Using a camera to make images in a three dimensional world full of sounds and smells and heat and cold and which is progressing in real time is almost nothing like copying what already exists. Because the camera captures only a two dimensional image, of limited angle/viewpoint and usually not even stereoscopic like human vision, of a fraction of a second, without sound, smell, touch, temperature, context or continuity. Whatever is happening when you take a photo you are definitely not copying what exists.

No, I'm saying that except in limited 2D fields such as document copying, taking a photograph is not copying at all. No copy is made. Thinking of photographs as copies (the author uses the word copy several times) is a mistaken assumption. That's was my point. To think of it as copying is to misunderstand even the fundamental physical processes of photography.

Sorry, that might be because English isn't my native language.
I don't mean the word "copy" as a copy of something, but rather "image."
The camera (as a tool) captures what the photographer sees. And that is the creative act.
And you'll agree with me that a camera can only capture what the photographer sees.

You'd laugh at how many times I've discussed this very topic with photographers, editors, artists, manufacturers, developers, association members, etc. over the past 35 years, but the result has always been the same.

But no one has to follow an opinion.

Furthermore, we humans are unable to distinguish whether the photographed object is 2- or 3-dimensional; see my next post.