Thing is Don, it's not good enough, to just say, 'I used to get result X', now I get result Y'.

This is a fairly extraordinary claim, and therefore one which needs relatively extraordinary evidence. Especially if the conditions required are low light and long exposures - which are notorious for giving variable results, SR or no SR.

What's needed is a systematic investigation, which must account for the fact that we don't always hold the camera equally steadily.

I must admit it's an interesting question, and I'm inclined to look into it myself. I ran the gauntlet of George's scorn when I broached the subject of the K10D's stop-down-metering problems here, so I guess I'll survive this one too.

Yeah, now you come to mention it, I remember you said this. I tried to blank it out of my memory on the grounds that my head was in danger of exploding.

If it was anyone but you claiming this, Don, I'd say you were nuts.

But since it's you, I'm semi-inclined to reserve judgement on a claim that your hands are steadier than the tripods that Pentax say you shouldn't use SR with.

I'd like to see the evidence, though - including evidence that the results you're seeing aren't within the normal statistical variation of one's ability to hold a camera still.

PS... I do secretly suspect you're right. I've always been quite good at holding the thing steady too, and I've had occasions where I thought blimey, that's sharp, only to discover SR off. And others, where I thought, blimey, that's rubbish, only to discover that SR was on, just not as good at its job as it clearly is most of the time. Not conclusive though, so I still incline towards scepticism. Like the Catholic church, I guess, with Copernicus.

I agree with Martin about many things, but not on this occasion.

First it's important to note that in many of the cases where you'd be using the K10D on a tripod, the camera itself turns SR off.

So if you're using the self-timer, the 2s delay, remote control shooting, the remote 3s delay, bulb mode, or wireless with external flash, it's all done for you in any case - SR is off without having to touch a switch. Have a look at p68 of the manual.

If you really want to press the button yourself with the camera on a tripod, well, go ahead and switch the SR off as recommended in the manual if you like.

I don't, mostly because I never remember to.

The thing is, if you're going to press the button yourself, the likelihood is that the exposure will be longish, but still short enough to benefit from SR, even if the shake, if there is any, is being transmitted from your finger. If the exposure is very long, a little shake at the beginning will not be noticeable in the result, and for such very long exposures, chances are you're using one of the mirror-up options, for which, as I say, the camera switches SR off.

I've never seen the slightest evidence of any actual results justifying the recommendation in the manual, and although a number of people have speculated as to the reason it's included, it always seems to be arm-waving with very little basis in hard evidence to me.

You absolutely, definitely, will not cause any damage to the camera by leaving SR on. I've watched SR moving the sensor about with the lens off, and when it thinks it needs to move more than the bounds of its travel, it just gives up and lets the sensor fall under gravity.

Which is that quiet 'slide-thunk' you hear if you rotate the camera while holding it up to your ear.

Petrol and matches is what you need.

One of the reasons certain threads become so inflamed (far more so than this one, I might suggest) is a sense of exasperation with someone that seems so determined to bite the hand that feeds, and appears so unwilling to repay help with help. It's an attitude quite alien to most of us, I suspect.

I understand, of course, that even if some person X never answers any questions himself, there are lots of other people that can benefit from the answers to the questions he asks. So replying to the continuous taker is of benefit to others who do also give. I agree completely with that.

But one of the reasons this forum is very different from the many IT-related forums out there, that are typically technical resources, mostly for IT workers of one kind and another, is that as well as all that, this forum is also a shared expression of a shared hobby (and yes, in some cases profession) - personal, rather than impersonal.

It also manages to be a good place to be, without becoming dull and bland. Unlike one or two other places I can think of, honest expression of opinion has not become totally secondary to the avoidance of all risk of offending.

I think the prevailing "take and give" spirit here (long may it continue) contributes much to the pleasantness of the environment, and sticks out like a sore thumb when it's absent.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario.

An amateur photographer goes pro. Instead of the amateur places he used to hang out at, he now frequents places more in keeping with his professional status.

However, every so often, he comes across something he needs help with. Presumably the professionals he now hangs out with charge for their time, and books, courses, etc, are expensive.

So he heads back over to where the amateurs hang out, knowing them to be a generous-hearted and helpful bunch, and asks for help.

As usual, the amateurs are very helpful, and freely give of themselves and their time to answer his questions as completely as possible.

Armed with the knowledge thus acquired, our pro 'tog heads back off to ply his trade, his income and doubtless status amplified from the help and advice freely given by so many.

Until the next time....
______________________________


I can't think of the question now. It was something like, "Is this nice?"

I think they're good too.

Why is controversy a bad thing?

Because understanding 'why' as well as 'what' and 'how' adds to the richness available from the experience.

I agree. I wish I could do it.

I've found that a few of my colour shots have been better when converted to mono. They haven't been more realistic, obviously, but they have had more visual impact.

Clearly, different elements of a photo have impact for different reasons, and those elements can conflict. Equally clearly, if you can remove, somehow, conflicting elements of a photo, and leave present the essence of what the photographer was trying to capture, all well and good, and it will be to the good of the final image.

But the more I read about this, the less I can believe that taking colour out of a photograph is anything except a compositional device. A tremendously powerful one, certainly, and one that requires considerable artistic skill. But a device nevertheless.

I'm not sure either, although it is a view I incline more towards, the more I think about it.

But this...
.. is way too much of a generalisation.

I was very struck a little while back, reading about composition, when I happened upon an article called The art of subtraction.

There is certainly something about mono that has the potential to remove distraction (of colour in this case), to allow the photographer to draw attention to his subject, and I wouldn't dispute its value. But there are lots of ways of removing distraction, and I struggle to see mono as other than just one of those ways.

I think we've all been conditioned by a number of factors in this regard.

Firstly, there's a hundred years of mono photography to catch up with - all the historical greats had nothing else, so a large proportion of the great photos of the 20th century are mono.

Secondly, mono is different from the way we see things, so it is intrinsically more eye-catching.

Thirdly, we see bad colour photographs all the time - holiday snaps, family snaps, our own not-very-good attempts at picture taking. So we become conditioned to the fact that most colour pictures are poor. Whereas anyone these days that is making mono photographs is likely to be taking care over what they're doing.

There are probably others, but I think these reasons contribute a lot to the cachet that mono photography has.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking B&W photography; I like looking at it and I can appreciate it when it's good*. And I agree that some of it is profound.

But I can't see that there's anything more intrinsically profound about it than colour, all other things being equal.

_________
*Edit: and I like karmazyniello's pictures a lot.

Would it ever have been invented, if colour negative film had existed first?

I incline to suspect not, or if it had been, its place would be niche rather than mainstream as it has been. A bit like line drawings rather than paintings. There are always a few of them in the galleries, but it's the paintings that take pride of place.

All the cool stuff that you have to be able to do, to make a good monochrome picture, requires that you see in such a way as to make the best of less than there is. To be able to do this reliably, and produce art as a consequence, requires a real talent, I wouldn't for a moment dispute.

But often monochrome versions of colour pictures are good, not because there's anything inherently marvellous about black and white, but because all the distracting colour has been removed.

Almost, dare I say, as if the composition wasn't good enough before, so it had to be messed with, to remove the distractions. The messing, if you'll forgive the pejorative term (and I know some won't) was imposed by the technology when there was no alternative, and thus legitimises what we now do actively.

It's just acceptable messing, because of the history - all the early legends had nothing else to work with, so they acquired all their kudos with it, so the genre is now unassailable.

Of course, if Lilly (our resident exemplar of good monochrome photography) has only a black and white television, I will be happy to eat these words.

With, of course, salt, and black pepper.

Meter looking through the viewfinder, then set it to manual with the same exposure for when you move away.