This is an image of a rooftop ladder where a photographer claims he shot a silhouette of a plane though while waiting for a plane to fly over.

It won a Nikon prize in Singapore.

Goes to show that you only need an ounce of photoshop skills to win something online.

Using photoshop, the image was detected to be fake. But Nikon refuse to admit its error. This sparked a whole slew of fake pictures that became a meme.

Including this one of a Tie Fighter. 

So what do we take from this? Obviously a picture is worth a thousand words but with Photoshop, it's worth probably far more. 

I recently had a conversation with a camera retailer who joked that these days, you don't have to be a top notch photographer to get jobs...as long as your photoshop skills are excellent that's what clients want. 

Looking back, what he said is true. I mean, which of you out there who shoot weddings and commercial photos would refuse to use Photoshop to remove any imperfections?

Running a Photo Contest is a fatal affair for a Brand

During my time with Sony, I was given a chance to run a photo contest and we did. It was a difficult decision and we had to take Photoshop into account. 

You had to send in copies of your originals which were short listed and later, asked for the RAW files. The contest itself was free to enter. We only wanted pictures that told a story and that was it. There was a lot of work involved and many people were engaged for a rather simple project like this. 

All because we wasted to be sure that whoever won the prize deserved it. 

When brands like Nikon give out prizes to undeserving photographers, it gives the impression that Nikon values Photoshopped images more than real ones and this is VERY bad for the brand. 

Nikon was in no doubt not in a big hurry to remove the image from its Facebook page or for that matter cancel the award. They were lost for words. Sort of like shooting yourself in the foot and then putting your foot in your mouth. 

This is why having a photo editor run a contest is crucial. And these are not your average Tom, Dick or Harry. They are experts in detecting fraud and in another time, they would be known as fraud detectors. Why do Brands have to do this? Because Photoshop exist. 

Photoshopping is not illegal for Stock Image Sales

Many a time, Stock Image Banks or Libraries do not make it clear on the subject of image manipulation because they encourage it. 

Stock images sell because it is a cleaned imaged, that means an image that has been created or staged to the point that it appeals to buyers. 

If you have brands in the background or foreground, it is up to you to remove them. Once it is done, it because more marketable as the buyer doesn't need a copy of Photoshop to clean it up for their use. 

A less than perfect photo isn't enough. It has to be perfect, not for viewing but for commercial use. 

Once photographers get into the habit of this, then firing up Photoshop becomes a routine affair for processing photos rather than use Image Editors like Lightroom. 

Photography is about the capture of Images

This is where I have problems with the above understanding. You become less of a photographer and more of a photo manipulator. 

You then have to ask yourself where you stand. 

I don't have a copy of Photoshop sitting on my computer for the last five years, and have allowed my Photoshop skills to depreciate with each new version of Photoshop CC. Do I miss it? 

Not one bit. 

I find that I enjoy my photography more either using a mobile device or on an analog camera. I don't even use my digital cameras to shoot anymore. 

The purity of the experience is in the art of making photos with a camera and not with a computer. I don't think of capturing less than perfect photos because I know I can fire up Photoshop to change things around in an image. 

This is a very important lesson if you want to learn the art of Photography in a digital age. 

You have to ask yourself if you are doing it for profit or for your own sense of enjoyment before embarking on it and if you say the former, that is to sell your works, then you probably need to ante up on your Photoshop skills more than your Photography skills. 

Photos can also be sold as framed artworks so this works to your advantage if that is your goal. 

The the purist who just wants to enjoy Photography, my advice is for you to take up a film camera before you shoot with a digital one. The experience and skills you pick up from this contributes exponentially to your skills later and you won't regret a moment of it. 

The Petzval lens previously released by Lomo was a huge hit, but it was fixed 85mm. This is a nice focal length for portraits but the blurring, well, I think it could have been better.

The upcoming 58mm is also similar, that it allows for those swirly bokeh effects and will also be available soon thanks to its support from Kickstarter.

These are all manual lenses, for both Nikon and Canon mounts and you can be assured that it will work on digital as well as film cameras. The only problem is that aperture settings are totally manual so you won't be seeing any metadata exposure in camera.

My own feelings is this. If you can get a second hand Nikon lens (manual) at 50mm full frame lens, with a 1.5x crop factor for APS sensor cameras, you already got yourself a good portrait lens. What's more the corner sharpness of these old 50mm lenses are nothing short of legendary compared to the Petzval. This means you can place off center subjects and make them sharp.

I am not a fan of center sharp bokeh lenses. The corner sharpness of Petzvals is poor so therefore all your subject shots have to be placed in the center of the focus screen. The lens cost 500 bucks, and God knows how much it will be when it becomes available for retail in Christmas. 

Was the product rushed? What about the light leak issue? Was the promised firmware update released to address more issues with the camera?

I can't help but feel that the product was rushed to market without proper testing. I know Sony well, having worked with them in the past on several cameras, they seem to like to gloss over some of their weaknesses time and again. Their chief problem is that they want to catch the buying wave of consumers.

The A7 series is no different. A full frame interchangeable camera that is not entirely a DSLR, and yet, gives the impression of having a full frame quality imaging is probably the best snake oil they have sold to the masses so far.

I did a little research on the dynamic range capability of the camera. This is measured by dpreview.com and all you have to do is select the suitable camera for comparison so I don't use any crafty methods to debunk any myths.

If you look at the above chart, the A7r performs very poorly in dynamic range charts. Compare that with the Nikon D600 in auto mode, you can see the difference. I have also taken the liberty to compare two other popular cameras, the OMD-EM5 from Olympus and the Fujifilm Xpro1. The Xpro1 doesn't have a auto mode so I have selected a ISO 200 setting. Dollar for dollar, you can't beat the Olympus OMD EM5 in dynamic range capability.


What Dynamic Range doesn't offer you

Dynamic range charts tell the sensitivity of the sensor in capturing light in both the highlights and shadow areas withint a picture, it does not tell the deal with issues such as  noise reduction algorithms or color accuracy.

I care much for high ISO as I rarely ever shoot above ISO1600, having ISO 6400 is useful if you are a professional but I don't have such a requirement on my day to day shooting.

Even in low light, I prefer to use a tripod for the camera and shoot at a slower ISO. I don't shoot dance or music concerts very often, and for that I have no need for a high ISO and even higher shutter speed to stop motion.

The dynamic range chart tells a clear picture that the Sony A7r is not a good camera to use in high contrast scenes even in DRO mode, and you probably have to use HDR capture to get more out of your images, meaning...you need to carry a tripod for a three frame capture.

Do you need another camera?

I am of the opinion that you should have two different cameras to cater to all your shooting needs. The casual shooter only needs an iPhone to get good results in daylight, and the second camera should address the weaknesses of the iPhone in everyday use, like poor dynamic range, poor shutter speed response and poor noise handling, and poor low light response.

Say you have a good iPhone/Nokia Lumia 1020 for your everyday use and want something more. Then your best choice is to consider your shooting requirement, ask yourself this:-

How often do you shoot in low light?
Do you shoot action subjects?

These are the only two question that is pertinent. Fast AF and shutter speed is probably the key to your action requirement, while in low light, you need to handle  such shooting with a combination of low light capability and high ISO capture.

What does Sony Needs to Do?

Address their weak points, namely poor high ISO handling and dynamic range. Their noise reduction algorithm stinks, and DRO was something they were bragging about when I worked with them on the A700 Resource Portal. It sounded very futuristic then but today, as you can see form the poor dyanmic range results, it has taken a severe beating.

Sony cannot rely on their mass market brand name alone to sell cameras. I still do believe they are able to come out with innovative products but the performance issues often associated with it leaves a very bad aftertaste on the consumers who have bought into them.

A product must be sold on its strengths and not price points alone. A full frame camera like the A7r looks tempting at that price but the performance of the camera is less than desirable. The rush to put more pixels into megapixels must stop. Consumers will get tired of the same sales pitch and turn to their smartphone cameras instead, when this happens, Sony Alpha Cameras are doomed.