3 ms·

While I understand the author's perspective of the ease of smartphones for photography he is really only viewing a subset of photographers. In this instance his

While I understand the author's perspective of the ease of smartphones for photography he is really only viewing a subset of photographers. In this instance his audience would be photojournalists who need to minimize the time from capture to presentation. Once could also see those casual users who want to share their images on social media quickly too. The author's view excludes fine art photography as well as a number of other types which value quality of speed and quantity. If you need or want to deliver images fast then yes camera companies are in 'denial', but I would argue the majority of photographers aren't.

CydeWeys 10y ago
> The author's view excludes fine art photography as well as a number of other types which value quality of speed and quantity. Making it faster to get photos off the device helps fine art photographers as well, just not as much, because they're less latency-sensitive. I don't see any way in which it hurts them.
- photigragraphy 10y ago
  Fair point. I suppose I have the perspective of "If my workflow worked fine before why should I change it?" Also chances are if you shot several gigs of data you are using your own external card reader, especially so if you aren't using SD cards. I can transfer 32GB from a CF card in about 3 minutes with my USB3 reader too. On a personal note I still shoot film and am perhaps a bit more comfortable with longer latency than most others.
- tensor 10y ago
  Most photography professionals aside from journalists use RAW format which results in many gigabytes of data. The author is proposing that images go to the cloud, but this just isn't feasible with our current cellular connections when you have gigabytes of data.
sigstoat 10y ago
better networking features would be great for studio photographers. if their camera is always within 20 feet of their computer, why should they even need to buy SD cards? they should be able to shoot straight into lightroom, wirelessly. even if you don't need speed, you'll still always take all the convenience you can get. i'll admit i have not explored every feature of my 70D and lightroom, but i'm pretty sure the combination can't pull that off.

CydeWeys 10y ago

> The author's view excludes fine art photography as well as a number of other types which value quality of speed and quantity. Making it faster to get photos off the device helps fine art photographers as well, just not as much, because they're less latency-sensitive. I don't see any way in which it hurts them.

photigragraphy 10y ago
Fair point. I suppose I have the perspective of "If my workflow worked fine before why should I change it?" Also chances are if you shot several gigs of data you are using your own external card reader, especially so if you aren't using SD cards. I can transfer 32GB from a CF card in about 3 minutes with my USB3 reader too. On a personal note I still shoot film and am perhaps a bit more comfortable with longer latency than most others.
tensor 10y ago
Most photography professionals aside from journalists use RAW format which results in many gigabytes of data. The author is proposing that images go to the cloud, but this just isn't feasible with our current cellular connections when you have gigabytes of data.

sigstoat 10y ago

better networking features would be great for studio photographers. if their camera is always within 20 feet of their computer, why should they even need to buy SD cards? they should be able to shoot straight into lightroom, wirelessly. even if you don't need speed, you'll still always take all the convenience you can get. i'll admit i have not explored every feature of my 70D and lightroom, but i'm pretty sure the combination can't pull that off.