Nobody “slandered” anybody or even used the word idiot. Grow up.
RedHuey
joined 2 years ago
Ok, I looked at those. I find it hard to believe that the one thing, is responsible for the other thing. Lenses don’t work that way. A hair on the lens won’t project like that onto the sensor. This is a mystery to me. Usually you can put quite a lot of garbage on a lens before you will even notice any small degradation, and it doesn’t look like the thing that originates it.
I assume you’ve properly tested your theory and know what you are talking about, in which case, I have no idea what is going one, as I’ve never seen it work that way.
Actually, I’ve done most of those things. Even back in film days before autofocus was invented. You DO NOT need everything automated at 10fps to take pictures, good pictures, even great pictures, of just about anything. If you do, then you don’t know what you are doing. That’s just a fact.
Yes, modern technology can be a great help and does wonderful things, but people were taking great pictures long before even the most rudimentary in-camera light meters came about.
The problem is in the modern belief that there IS a perfect picture that must be captured. That it exists, and that photographers will miss it forever unless they use every tool at their disposal. There isn’t. There are only the pictures you take. That YOU take. Not that the camera takes. Not that Luck takes. If you can’t take a great wildlife picture without auto-everything at 10fps, then you need to go back to First Principles and learn photography again. There is a reason why so many modern photos are technical masterpieces, but have no heart in them. The reason is that nobody took them.
Ok. Charge them for it. Figure out what the hassle is for you. Calculate the fee, then tell the client that that service will be provided for $X if they want it. Then either get paid for doing it, or let them decide to do it themselves. If you are a professional, why is this even a question for you? A professional charges for a service. So tell them what the charge is.
Does it actually affect the photo, or is it just that you can see it?
Did I say “no catalog?” I don’t think so. Of course you need one, but it has to be narrowly defined. A file cabinet with 10,000 drawers is next to useless.
Burst mode of not a necessity for many photos at all. It IS a necessity if you have the modern belief that photography is about capturing some objectively perfect shot that exists, but much be captured for some reward. So you take 50 pictures in 5 seconds of the same exact thing and figure you’ll go through them to find the one that happened to catch that elusive perfect moment. This is simply lucktography. It is meaningless because you, as the “photographer” have done nothing but drive your camera out to some spot, and aim it at something. The camera does everything else. You don’t even have to do the thinking here. It is literally just taking a snapshot with a $5000 Instamatic.
I’ve been taking pictures for probably 45 years now. And I have no where near a million pictures. Also, my ratio of throw-away bad pictures to keepers is nothing like 100:1. You make your choices in this game.
This is the inherent problem of taking a million photos. There is NO solution to this problem that won’t take many many hours to implement, if it’s even practical anymore.
Step one is turning off the burst mode of your camera.
Step two is adopting a proper filing structure when you import your photos. Not a library, but a specific place on your storage medium with a directory tree. You should at least be able to immediately drill down to a specific date with a specific camera.
Step three is tagging as aggressively as possible when you import the images. Every single image should have at least one, if not three or four tags, so that you can find those images by tag(s).
If you’ve done steps two and three, then your problem is only volume, which is solved by not taking 600 pictures of the same things (step one).
If you have not already done steps two and three, then that’s what you have to do. On your old photos and from here out. Nothing further will really matter or be helpful until you’ve done that.
A possible way to approach it, if you did do step two, is to divide the whole into manageable chunks. Start with the current year. Get that under control all by itself. Then, if that wasn’t an unmanageable amount of time, go one year, or six months, or whatever, further back. Get everything tagged and properly organized. Etc.
But no software solution is going to do any good if you don’t have this done.
Is this really a thing? A base ISO of 12,000 is basically unusable in every day use. Is this a specialized camera for some specific use?
Otherwise, just use whatever light meter you have and calculate the difference. Elementary exposure calculation.
Well, you can go to eBay right now and buy any number of utterly ancient SLR cameras, and whatever might be wrong with them, it’s never the lens mount, so…
So…they requested you work at the holiday party. And do something you are not qualified to do.
Just say no, and explain you aren’t really able to do so.
Of course higher MP (and better lens) will look sharper than lower MP (and lesser lens). Are we supposed to be surprised or care about this explanation?
Really though, if the sharpness of a photo, or how many MP your camera has is of utmost importance, your pictures are probably suffering from just being boring. Spend the brain power you are using up thinking about how your camera may or may not be competitive, to develop skill, style, and ability. All are far more important. Far more.
One more thing that NOBODY ever mentions: photographers in the 70s were not absolutely obsessed with absolute sharpness and stop-motion. Film just doesn’t allow that really. A lot of the great photos had plenty of flaws by modern standards. Most of the editing in a darkroom was just to get a very good print with good contrast and the intended details. Cropping was common. As was dodging and burning. Further re-touching was done, of course, but it was mostly confined to certain kinds of photographers. Depending on how your pictures were to be used, a lot of further processing was pointless.
We just didn’t think about photos as people do now.