 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / February 2006LCD displays on DSLR's neccesary
I hope the powers that be read this, wouldn't mind knowing other peoples thoughts as well. *will camera manufacturers ever bring out a DSLR with no LCD at all?* is that screen really needed. I don't think it is. I have used quite a few different dslr's and the most annoying thing about them is some functions are only changeable on the lcd screen, eg the ISO. Also some of the software/firmware is unnecessary, sepia toning and black and white functions, image rotating, zoom etc. what I would like is a real camera, not a condensed desktop scanner with a zoom lens, and neck strap on it with those pretty little bells and whistles. I would ask why do they bother you ? If you remove these few items mentioned...what would you add to make it a 'real camera' as you say ? Just ignor them. The sepia & B&W will stay i assume as not evryone wants post processing & it may well be a marketing idea to tell people that the DSLR can shoot in these modes. I have met a LOT of people that have DSLR's that do not understand ISO at all...have no idea what an F stop is etc etc ....they may be catching people that want to hear those things are on the camera. >I hope the powers that be read this, > wouldn't mind knowing other peoples thoughts as well. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > with a zoom lens, and neck strap on it with those pretty little bells > and whistles. > I would ask why do they bother you ? If you remove these few items > mentioned...what would you add to make it a 'real camera' as you say ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ....they may be catching people that want to hear those things are on the > camera. they don't bother me as such, a lot of the bells and whistles are included because they can and to get attention and make a sale. Black and white on a digital doesn't impress me like film does. sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter, dont get me wrong i'm not being anti digital or anything. I think kosh made a mention of viewing LCD's outside in the sun, in a previous post a while ago, difficult to read sometimes, not like the two colour lcd on the top right of a canon dslr or pentax for example, thats all you need to use a camera, for me a colour screen is pointless it serves no purpose other than give me a headache squinting at it in full midday sun somewhere trying to change a function on the camera thats not displayed on the other screen. really want i would like to see is a camera thats a camera, not some marketing tool full of widgets and gizmos to advertise a brand name, because they can do those things. I personally would never buy a camera that required all config and display thru the colour LCD. You need a little B&W LCD for shot counters, TV, AV, ISO etc, > I personally would never buy a camera that required all config and > display thru the colour LCD. You need a little B&W LCD for shot > counters, TV, AV, ISO etc, exactly ! > Black and white on a digital doesn't impress me like film does. > sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll > of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter, dont get me wrong i'm not > being anti digital or anything. Black and white film with a sepia filter ... just like the old days :-) > for me a > colour screen is pointless it serves no purpose other than give me > a headache squinting at it in full midday sun somewhere trying to > change a function on the camera thats not displayed on the other screen. Histogram? > really want i would like to see is a camera thats a camera, not some > marketing tool full of widgets and gizmos to advertise a brand name, > because they can do those things. How about only use the functions you find useful. I find custom functions a bit easier having the description there, rather than trying to recall which number gave MLU etc What functions are you having to use the LCD for that you can't deal with? ISO can be changed on the EOS 20D & D70 without the LCD. KC >> Black and white on a digital doesn't impress me like film does. >> sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > What functions are you having to use the LCD for that you can't deal with? > ISO can be changed on the EOS 20D & D70 without the LCD. Tv, Av, iso, frame rate, aeb, Wb in fact the entire operation thru that little screen on top. heres something, a shutter with a screw thread in it :) and preshot mirror lock-up. whats the point in including bulb mode if you cant use it, and yes there is the remote controls, there great, not so great if your standing behind the camera. ----- off topic bit, some fun when trying a few dslr's..... I did try-out the 20D, it didn't like having an adaptor ring on it to run my sigma FD 600mm lens (which has a pistol grip) dont know why maybe store camera had a fault ....... something else i tried on hte 350D (one sick puppy here) 600mm lens + 2x tele-converter + adapter ring + digital 1.6 crop = 2560mm @ f16 no bad, should've seen peoples faces when i tried that out in store. :) :) :) > something else i tried on hte 350D (one sick puppy here) > 600mm lens + 2x tele-converter + adapter ring + digital 1.6 crop > = 2560mm @ f16 no bad, Not sure how 600 * 2 * 1.6 = 2,560 though. MrT. >> something else i tried on hte 350D (one sick puppy here) >> 600mm lens + 2x tele-converter + adapter ring + digital 1.6 crop [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > MrT. ok here goes .... 600mm + 2x teleconverter = 1200mm 1200mm + FD-EF adaptor ( .3x mag) = about 1600mm 1600mm on something like and eos350D (.6x mag) =2560mm > What functions are you having to use the LCD for that you can't deal with? > ISO can be changed on the EOS 20D & D70 without the LCD. > > KC hot swap a cf card :) > What functions are you having to use the LCD for that you can't deal with? > ISO can be changed on the EOS 20D & D70 without the LCD. > > KC not related to LCD's had this a mind for quite a while hot swap a CF card > sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll > of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter, ??? Since you don't even know what sepia toning is, why do you care? MrT. >> sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll >> of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > MrT. Excuse me sunshine i know what sepia toning is! so stuff you. back in the old days of dip and dunk the photo's being washed weren't fully washed and had some residue silver halide/nitrates left on it, and when exposed to normal light ie displayed on their mantel the photo starts going brown over the years. Digital cameras do a very poor job of simulating this, they over saturate the sepia. > >> sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll > >> of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Excuse me sunshine i know what sepia toning is! so stuff you. Then goes on to *prove* he has NO idea! :-) > back in the old days of dip and dunk the photo's > being washed weren't fully washed and had some residue > silver halide/nitrates left on it, and when exposed > to normal light ie displayed on their mantel the photo > starts going brown over the years. Digital cameras do a very > poor job of simulating this, they over saturate the sepia. A simple google search will prove how wrong you are. (Some of us have *actually* used sepia toner on prints, and selenium toner etc.) And what connection your new "explanation" has with your original assertion about "screw on sepia filters" is beyond me. MrT. >>>> sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll >>>> of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > MrT. I also have my own photo enlarger setup at home with all the chemicals etc a packet of kodak sepia toner aswell. as for the screw on filter bit re read the post. let me make an example here, someone on 1930 takes a photo, has it developed printed etc, it is black and white. over the years goes browish/yellow from residue left on the photo. if those b&w's are keep out of the direct light they are still b&w, I have photos taken in melbourne during australia's federation when king edward made a visit and they are still b&w becasue they were never left out in direct light. besides your making a mountain out of a mole hill simply because I asked a simple question, are LCD's really needed and my thoughts on useless bells and whistles I asked a simple question, are LCD's really needed histogram and rapid review.... especially when each new camera sensor has slightly dfferent characteristics and my thoughts on useless bells and whistles of which there are many. Including the new kodak function that won't let you take a picture of a person if their eyes are closed..... how bloody easy do they need it!?! > >>>> sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll > >>>> of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter, > I also have my own photo enlarger setup at home with all the chemicals > etc a packet of kodak sepia toner aswell. Hard to believe, if so why all the irrelevant/incorrect crap? >as for the screw on filter bit re read the post. Yes, care to explain what a screw on sepia filter for use with B&W film actually is? And how it creates a sepia toned print? > let me make an example here, someone on 1930 takes a photo, > has it developed printed etc, it is black and white. over the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > edward made a visit and they are still b&w becasue they were never > left out in direct light. And/or washed properly in the first place. BTW one of the major benefits of sepia toning is it's high degree of permanance compared to non toned silver halide prints. Properly done 1930's sepia prints will show very little change at all. But as interesting an anecdote as that is, what the hell has it got to do with *Sepia Toning* and "screw on sepia filters" ? MrT. > But as interesting an anecdote as that is, what the hell has it got to do > with *Sepia Toning* and "screw on sepia filters" ? > > MrT. re-read the original post > > But as interesting an anecdote as that is, what the hell has it got to do > > with *Sepia Toning* and "screw on sepia filters" ? > > re-read the original post So you don't know either then. MrT. >>> But as interesting an anecdote as that is, what the hell has it got to > do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > MrT. two words f.ck off >>>>> sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll >>>>> of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Then goes on to *prove* he has NO idea! :-) ok smarty parts here's my steps for the last chemical toning i did (just before xmas) 1. put print in bleach and agitate till the black has gone ir gone yellow 2. rinse in running water 3.put print in tone bath and agitate 4. rinse thoroughly 5 put print in hardener bath 6. rinse for half an hour. :-P > >>>>> sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll > >>>>> of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 5 put print in hardener bath > 6. rinse for half an hour. At which step did you use the "screw on sepia filter" ? MrT. >>ok smarty parts here's my steps for the last chemical toning >>i did (just before xmas) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > MrT. DOH! > At which step did you use the "screw on sepia filter" ? > > MrT. f.ck off sh.t stirrer, i have no time for plebs like you!!!! > > At which step did you use the "screw on sepia filter" ? > > > f.ck off sh.t stirrer, i have no time for plebs like you!!!! You could have admitted you were wrong in the first place instead of a dozen posts trying desperately to show you weren't. At least it appears you have learnt something (about sepia toning), but unfortunately not how to have a rational debate though. MrT. > > > At which step did you use the "screw on sepia filter" ? > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > MrT. Touche! >>> At which step did you use the "screw on sepia filter" ? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > MrT. oi! all i did was ask a simple f.cking question you turned it in to what it into what it is now. so shut the f.ck up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>> At which step did you use the "screw on sepia filter" ? >>> >> f.ck off sh.t stirrer, i have no time for plebs like you!!!! > You could have admitted you were wrong in the first place instead of a dozen > posts trying desperately to show you weren't. I had nothing to admit because I was asking a simple question. > At least it appears you have learnt something (about sepia toning), but excuse me but i have been sepia-ing photos for ages, I merely commented that digital cameras do a poor job at simulating it!!! in comparison to film and filters. > unfortunately not how to have a rational debate though. i didn't ask for a debate, you turned it into one by deliberately being an ignorant sh.t stirrer. > MrT. Have you listened to Eddie Murphy's album "sexual Prine" and what he says about Mr T? Have a listen to it sometime :) > > You could have admitted you were wrong in the first place instead of a dozen > > posts trying desperately to show you weren't. > > I had nothing to admit because I was asking a simple question. Doesn't look like a question to me......... --------------------------------------------------------------- > sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll > of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter. --------------------------------------------------------------- If there was a question in there somewhere, it wasn't what I replied to, or I would have included it. > > At least it appears you have learnt something (about sepia toning), but > > excuse me but i have been sepia-ing photos for ages, Very hard to imagine, given your previous attempt at explaing it ...... ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Excuse me sunshine i know what sepia toning is! so stuff you. > back in the old days of dip and dunk the photo's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > starts going brown over the years. Digital cameras do a very > poor job of simulating this, they over saturate the sepia. ------------------------------------------------------------ > I merely commented > that digital cameras do a poor job at simulating it!!! in > comparison to film and filters. I'm not sure why any "sepia simulation filter" can't also be used with digital cameras, although I doubt they would be any better at *simulating* a sepia affect as anything that can be done in Photoshop. Maybe you'd care to enlighten us (without the abuse)? BTW, have you ever actually owned a "sepia simulation filter"? MrT. >> I merely commented >> that digital cameras do a poor job at simulating it!!! in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > MrT. ok i apologize for the abuse, it was unnecessary for that here. I'm not usually a nasty abusive person. methods I have used for sepia toning are as follows. 1. de-saturation of a colour image in photoshop then adding a sepia layer over image. 2. black and white film in photo enlarger with sepia filter in enlarger exposed on to colour paper. (i used cokin p series 005 or 045 in the enlarger - btw a prima 635, with a few mods) 3. chemical toning explained before. with digital cameras, the sepia function I have noticed that images look more plastic black and dark tan rather than the more traditional "sepia" also quite over saturated. what i have imagined a camera is doing is de-saturating the image and putting a preset tone over it. it is that function that i felt was poor in effect. (this bit is going of in a tangent) I have seen the in camera sepia effect used by "photographers" when photographing corporate events, and i think it looks cheap and amateurish, sepia has its place and if its not used in the right place it looks out of place or very false. EG what sepia photo would look more real - a sepia of a VZ SSV commodore or a sepia of a 1932 ford coupe? a photo of a couple married two months ago in the latest fashion or a photo of a couple married two months ago in period costume. i have a decent collection of hoya, cokin (and ilford enlarger) filters which i use from time to time to eliminate as much post processing as possible. I try to get it all on film or on memory card without having to do any thing else other than print the image. screw on filters that was referred to before are better than any digital cameras preset function. example: pentax ist dl: photo taken then sepia added while reveiwing image in camera will not look as authentic as the same photo taken with a cokin 045 or cokin 005 for example. sepia filters i have (already mentioned) are cokin 005 and 045 also tobaccos 124 and 125 plus a heap of others (cokin cheese :) ) If i do any sepia filtering in photoshop its done by using croma photographic filters plugin using my own colour presests based on the filters I have. I scanned the filters, used the colour picker to give me the rgb values of that to create the filter. > ok i apologize for the abuse, it was unnecessary for that here. > I'm not usually a nasty abusive person. I accept your apology, I could have been a little less antagonistic too I guess. I just wish your first reply was more like this one. > methods I have used for sepia toning are as follows. > 1. de-saturation of a colour image in photoshop then adding a sepia [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 3. chemical toning explained before. For me it's always been real chemicals or nothing. I'm not enamoured with fake "sepia" tints. And I'm not at all fond of B&W printed on color paper either. > with digital cameras, the sepia function I have noticed that images look > more plastic black and dark tan rather than the more traditional "sepia" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > amateurish, sepia has its place and if its not used in the right place > it looks out of place or very false. I wouldn't dream of using an in camera sepia function, I only shoot raw and process in Photoshop. The only possible reason for using the in camera function (apart from abject laziness IMO) is if you need to print on the spot. >EG what sepia photo would look more > real - a sepia of a VZ SSV commodore or a sepia of a 1932 ford coupe? a > photo of a couple married two months ago in the latest fashion or a > photo of a couple married two months ago in period costume. I partly agree, but the artist/photographer must decide for himself what effect he is trying to achieve for a particular image. Whilst sepia is particularly suitable for an "older" look, It can be used elsewhere. Even more so with selenium etc. > i have a decent collection of hoya, cokin (and ilford enlarger) filters > which i use from time to time to eliminate as much post processing as > possible. I try to get it all on film or on memory card without having > to do any thing else other than print the image. I'm the opposite with digital, my sizeable collection of filters (screw on and gel) is mostly unused these days. I like to shoot raw, and do all processing on computer. It's like having infinite number of filters, and being able to see the result before choosing. > screw on filters that was referred to before are better than any digital > cameras preset function. example: pentax ist dl: photo taken then sepia > added while reveiwing image in camera will not look as authentic as the > same photo taken with a cokin 045 or cokin 005 for example. Sure, but you can still use those same filters, or get the same result with Photoshop. Forget the lousy in camera function! There is no equivalent function in a film camera anyway, so I can't see how this could be considered a problem compared to film. > sepia filters i have (already mentioned) are cokin 005 and 045 also > tobaccos 124 and 125 plus a heap of others (cokin cheese :) ) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > filters I have. I scanned the filters, used the colour picker to give me > the rgb values of that to create the filter. I prefer to adjust the affect to suit the image. However the biggest problem is getting suitable inkjet paper/inks to make it worthwhile, no matter how you achieve your digital result. I do love my computer "darkroom" far more than my real one, but not for HQ-B&W. I have never seen much point in low/med quality B&W, I'd rather use color for that. MrT. variously: | > Excuse me sunshine i know what sepia toning is! so stuff you. | [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | And what connection your new "explanation" has with your original assertion | about "screw on sepia filters" is beyond me. sepia 'toning' it may not be, but a fixed, unwashed print will, over time see the thiosulphate decompose and sulphide the silver present in the print, achieving partial sepia - ing of the image. while not sepia toning to speak of, it nonetheless is a sdulphiding of the image rendering a sepia tone unreliable, prone to disaster and equally as chancy as having the image eroded by fix before the fix decomposes, it was the worst way to sulphide an image :-( just tossing this in.. k > | A simple google search will prove how wrong you are. (Some of us have > | *actually* used sepia toner on prints, and selenium toner etc.) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > eroded by fix before the fix decomposes, it was the worst way to sulphide an > image :-( Yep, but you've been sucked in by his obvious shifting of topic so as not to admit how stupid his original statement was. MrT. > variously: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > k good to see some one posting real comments, unlike some other prat here. >>> sepia toning on camera is bloody awful in comparison to a roll >>> of B&W film and a screw on sepia filter, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > starts going brown over the years. Digital cameras do a very > poor job of simulating this, they over saturate the sepia. umm sin't that simply aged..... sepia toning is a toning solution used to create a similar look. Tea has also been known to be used on the print to get a similar result. > umm sin't that simply aged..... sepia toning is a toning solution used > to create a similar look. Tea has also been known to be used on the > print to get a similar result. Similar is a subjective term. Tea mainly just colors the highlights, and does not increase the life of the print as does bleaching+sepia toning. MrT. >>umm sin't that simply aged..... sepia toning is a toning solution used >>to create a similar look. Tea has also been known to be used on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > MrT. and hence similar rather than saying it is the same. | I hope the powers that be read this, | wouldn't mind knowing other peoples thoughts as well. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | Also some of the software/firmware is unnecessary, sepia toning | and black and white functions, image rotating, zoom etc. all part of the move to compacts before DSLR's are dropped as economically non-viable :-( We'll have the choice of Nokia, Smasung, HP and Sony in the future.. nothing else will exist | what I would like is a real camera, not a condensed desktop scanner | with a zoom lens, and neck strap on it with those pretty little bells | and whistles. I'd like one that uses all those pixels to make a high res b&w camera! Seems a shame that no manufacturer has ripped the effin bayer array off and given us that option! k > I'd like one that uses all those pixels to make a high res b&w camera! > Seems a shame that no manufacturer has ripped the effin bayer array off and > given us that option! I am fairly sure one of the early Canon/Kodak dSLRs had this. Would be nice, but not really a mass market product I guess. I doubt I'd pay $2K for a cam that /only/ did B/W. Maybe with a three-shot mode ... manually and BYO filters. KC | > I'd like one that uses all those pixels to make a high res b&w camera! | > Seems a shame that no manufacturer has ripped the effin bayer array off [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | Would be nice, but not really a mass market product I guess. I doubt I'd | pay $2K for a cam that /only/ did B/W. think about it - they're using x times y sensor aarays to give us now, what, 12Mp.. that's 4 sensors per pixel I'd pay $2G for a 48Mp b&w camera! :) k > | I hope the powers that be read this, > | wouldn't mind knowing other peoples thoughts as well. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > | > | is that screen really needed. I don't think it is. I use multiple Studioflash and slave units with a D100. I find the LCD screen a great accessory when I am setting up lights. I shoot, look at the review screen, re-position the lights, shoot and so on till I get the balance I want. If I was any good I would use my F5 and Minolta V but I just ain't that good :) > | I hope the powers that be read this, > | wouldn't mind knowing other peoples thoughts as well. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > We'll have the choice of Nokia, Smasung, HP and Sony in the future.. hmmm a nokia with a EF mount on it, just imagine that ;). "hey dude ya phones ringing," "thats not the phone ringing its the camera" "pass me my camera would you, need to log on to msn" |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.