
Denial About Workflow Among Camera Companies - jseliger
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/so-much-denial-about-workfl.html
======
ak217
Personally, I think the biggest issue is that the DSLR makers just haven't
taken integration seriously at all. My Canon 70D - with all its incredible
ergonomics and amazing optics and sensors - has a wi-fi feature and attendant
smartphone app that feel broken and tacked on, and ultimately don't work at
all for me. If I didn't go out of my way looking for them, I wouldn't even
know they exist.

It's painfully obvious that my DSLR should be able to immediately upload my
shots to a cloud post-processing service integrated with downstream
destinations like web albums, Dropbox, Google Drive, etc. It was obvious a
decade ago. It's easy to justify commercially, as a lucrative subscription
revenue stream. The fact that DSLR makers have done next to nothing to bring
us to that point - not even a single meaningful partnership between a DSLR
maker and a software company - makes me think they deserve the disruption and
market downsizing they will experience.

~~~
bemmu
I feel the same with my Nikon D5300. I bought it and saw "wi-fi" as a feature,
so I assumed I can at least transfer photos over wi-fi from the camera to my
computer, see each shot on the screen after taking it and perhaps use the
camera as my computer webcam over wi-fi. Turns out you can do none of these
things, at least with the default software.

You can transfer photos to your phone. You can also use your phone as a remote
shutter, which is kind of neat at first. You don't really end up using it
though, as a dedicated 1 dollar remote shutter button is faster than fiddling
with your phone wi-fi settings and launching a dedicated app.

~~~
totalZero
You're 99% correct as far as I'm concerned, but.... how long does it take you
to turn on wifi and start an app?

~~~
brokenmachine
I don't have that camera but I assume it's the same as one I have. First I
have to enable wifi on the camera, then wait maybe 10 seconds for the phone to
connect to that network. Then find the camera app and open it, then it takes
maybe 5 seconds to connect. The quickest I could probably do all this is maybe
15 seconds or so, but it's usually about 30 I'd say for me when I'm not racing
or concentrating.

30 seconds is long enough for me to not bother using it most of the time.

If the phone is already connected to a wifi network, you have to manually go
into the wifi settings and change to the camera network. This is the part that
I find most painful because usually when I'm outside, my tablet is tethered to
the wifi network of my phone which I have to disable to be able to have the
phone connect to the camera's wifi.

My camera won't allow you to do any operations on the camera when you're
connected to it's wifi though, maybe a highend SLR would allow you to have
it's wifi network always available?

The whole thing is pretty clunky, it is pretty cool to have a wireless
(unfortunately low-res) remote viewfinder though, much better than using a
timer and you can get the framing better.

~~~
totalZero
Yeah I agree it's definitely a pain in the ass if you're switching networks
and you have a bunch of devices already connected.

Side anecdote: It took two of my friends, a CS guy and a PhD student in MechE
-- both at MIT -- thirty minutes to figure out how to set up the connection on
the PhD guy's Canon so that they could send photos to a phone. I feel like
they could hire two people with UI experience and drastically improve the
whole system for less than a half million dollars.

~~~
brokenmachine
100% this!

I work with some super-intelligent people (Professors, Doctors, etc), and it's
amazing the things you find that they are unable to do, mostly because of
crappy UI in software. There should be a lot more thought put into UI design.
If the enduser can't work out how to use your software, your software is
essentially useless (or possibly even dangerous).

With apps/webpages all having so many options for flexible UIs now, there's
too many options for programmers to create their own cryptic UI that nobody
understands but them.

I feel like in the old days things were much more predictable. Not that I'd
like to go back to those days, but we've certainly taken two steps forward,
one step back.

One thing that especially irritates me is the trend for everything to be an
icon, especially on phones. I do understand why this happens, but it has the
effect that if you can't remember or don't know what a particular icon
signifies, there's (usually) no way to hover to get a tooltip to tell you
before you press it. I say "usually" because my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 has what
_could have been_ a great feature that it senses when you finger comes near to
the screen without pressing it, but unfortunately it only works in the stock
browser and SMS app (both of which I don't use!). I guess Samsung has not
released the API for it to work in other apps? It really could have changed
how phone UIs work for the better.

Edit: the hovering feature is called Air view. It's slightly creepy how it can
sense your finger even when you're not physically touching the screen. I've
read some webpages that said it should work in Chrome, but for me it only ever
worked in the stock browser, but I just tested that and now that doesn't even
work, although it still works in the stock SMS app. I think it may have broken
since the Android 5.0 update. I'm using a Samsung Galaxy Note 3, Android 5.0.

------
0xCMP
It's always kind of sad when they people who know their field the best are
being disrupted because if they could just _accept_ the ways things are
changing they could create better products than those they're disrupted with.
So many "better" products die because of inability of leadership to accept
this quickly enough.

Phone cameras will continue to get better. Phones will continue to have more
space (You can get an iPhone with 256GB now right?). They will have more
compute power. They have access to the network to do serious post-processing
(does someone remember that company which did this on-demand with racks of Mac
Minis?). The threats are real to their companies and products.

And yet, I bet if they took the time to understand that problem they could
blow away phones because phones just aren't specialized cameras like the ones
they're able to make.

~~~
0xCMP
Oh and you know who has adapted to all this surprisingly well? Adobe.

They not only have apps on phones that link with Creative Cloud but they've
designed and released free apps which are superior to many of the social media
content creation apps out there. They're able to create quality videos and
images to post on any social media platform using any images in lightroom or
photos (apple).

That's an excellent case of a company being ahead of the curve and actually
using their knowledge to build the better products instead of being disrupted.

------
JohnBooty
I feel what this guy's saying about camera makers' goofy workflows. I've done
that myself -- gone out and shot a bunch of stuff on my DSLR and let it
languish on the SD card for months because importing and editing the photos on
my laptop was a bit of a pain.

Honestly though, now that I've plopped down the relatively small amount of
money?

The SD-to-Lightning adapter for iOS gets me about 90% of the way there. Sure,
I have to physically move the SD card from my DSLR to my phone, but whatever.
At that point they get imported and as far as anything in iOS is concerned
they're indistinguishable from photos I took with the phone itself.

(I'm reasonably certain this is more or less equally easy to do with Android
given an OTG cable or internal SD slot but I don't know)

I'm not even sure I _want_ my camera maker trying to be any smarter than that.
Ideally, of course, the phone should be able to put photos onto my camera via
wifi or BT. But I can freaking well guarantee that functionality will just
_rot_ at some point. It will be broken by some future OS update, or some other
reason, and it's not a thing I expect I'd be able to count on in 12 months or
5 years.

~~~
RyJones
I won't quote myself at length[0], but the motivating quote at that startup
was "pictures go to SD cards to die".

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11511905](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11511905)

------
tomc1985
Fine, but if this guy's proposals fuck up my RAW workflow then he and all his
ideas can burn in hell. I want quality, not speed, and I could care less
whether the image lives on an SD card or in the cloud. Nevermind the fact that
a lot of photography happens away from the cloud, out in the wilderness, and
if we march forward into this brave new world of thin devices and cloud
integration then these photographers will get left in the dust... thereby
preserving the older (and superior IMO) workflow.

Creative professionals are not very interested in keeping up with the curve.
In art, mastery over media is a lifetime endeavor and it somewhat assumes that
the medium will not change very much. Disruptions affect one's ability to
produce quality output for a good long time, because they have to relearn the
medium. Pretty much the only people who are OK with that on a regular basis
are tech nerds (and not artists)

~~~
brokenmachine
Part of the article was about how the professionals were getting beaten to the
punch by kids with smartphones.

I agree with his point that the pro camera gear should, at the very least, be
better at sharing than a cheap smartphone.

No pro (or amateur?) is going to buy a camera that doesn't support SD cards
for a while now anyway so your precious RAW workflow will be safe regardless,
even if they finally add usable sharing options.

I am a tech nerd though, so I'm OK with it either way.

~~~
tomc1985
That's one class of professional. Photography is a very large field -- kids
with smartphones aren't supplanting model shoots, or fine artists, or wedding
photographers, or even the party/event people. It's frustrating to watch naive
technologists make broad pronouncements about narrow observations,
particularly when they want to disrupt a "precious" process (contemptuous
much?) that isn't necessarily broken for many. Don't fix what ain't broke, no?

The 'kids with smartphones' thing is so much deeper than simply the ability to
publish quickly. One of my siblings does photography for a locally-based
national newspaper and the biggest reason for iPhone journalism is cost (aside
from integration). To that end press photographers are being issues iPhones
and told to capture most of their work that way. Photography is adapting to
the future just fine, just not in the way some money-hungry entrepreneur would
like

~~~
brokenmachine
Excellent point.

I don't think the author was intending to do anything that would break
existing workflows though, he was just lamenting the fact that pro camera gear
doesn't have the ability to share as easily as you would be able to from a
phone (and why not?).

I presume he still would think that the cameras should have SD cards/usb
tether if you need them.

------
foolrush
Would suggest the author is conflating a diversity of workflows for a single,
monotheistic view.

Professional imagers have _large_ files, and they _must_ post-produce them.
Those things like card readers, additional ports, etc. ignore that particular
audiences needs. To draw an analogy to another closely relation field in
motion pictures, this too is mired in a divergence of needs and contexts. The
author of the post would probably cringe at the complexity...

Making a case for XXX workflow should always be grounded in the contexts
present. While a professional league sports team only makes up less than a
shred of a fraction of active players, the needs of that league are not
suddenly insignificant due to share.

~~~
rodgerd
> Making a case for XXX workflow should always be grounded in the contexts
> present.

Here's the context: camera makers are getting the shit kicked out of them. The
market is plummeting. It caters to the myopic needs of people who want to
pretend that, to be a photographer, you have to work like it's a 1950s
darkroom, only with computers.

Compact cameras a being destroyed by cellphones, which is where all the
imaging innovation is actually happening. Without the cross-subsidy to high-
end cameras, prices for lenses and bodies are going up with every generation,
unlike every other tech out there.

But you know, keep pretending it's everyone else who's wrong.

~~~
foolrush
> The market is plummeting.

If there were a niche that wasn't being served, then sure, pocket camera /
cell phone could fill it where previous consumers only had a DSLR.

That said, that same niche that provides an entry point to photography will
yield people that begin to understand why you can only achieve certain
aesthetics via larger format sensors and optics. At that point, DSLRs are
purchased again.

Canon isn't going anywhere with DSLRs. Nikon? No. Sony? Seems their foray into
interchangeable lens cameras has grown, not receded.

In the end, no one is going to be able to sit and argue with someone that
doesn't understand the differences and questions of qualia with you, but you
know, keep pretending it's everyone else that is in the dark.

~~~
rodgerd
> Canon isn't going anywhere with DSLRs. Nikon? No. Sony? Seems their foray
> into interchangeable lens cameras has grown, not receded.

The facts - sales volumes and profitability - don't actually agree with you.

------
1_2__3
This is certainly a lot of words, which I think I can summarize as
"smartphones are easy and powerful and flexible and DSLRs should be as easy
and powerful and flexible too". Which is sort of silly, it's like saying buses
carry a lot of people conveniently so all vehicles should be buses or be more
bus-like.

And yes, I do think we'll still have SD cards in a few years.

~~~
dom0
I really, really don't want my camera to be permanently connected to the
internet / to have permanently attached wireless connectivity. And I think
there is a fair amount of market share in a place that does not want that,
either.

~~~
6nf
Can't you just disable that feature? Why do the rest of us have to be stuck
with dumb, disconnected cameras?

------
hammock
My friend shoots using his Samsung Galaxy S7 with an electronically-stabilized
Steadicam-type thing, and adeptly edits with Adobe Premiere on the phone
itself. And the product looks great. The competition is only going to get
harder for you, OP.

------
vvanders
Not sure what the author is on about, last I checked almost every company
offered a wifi adapter for their cameras.

Heck, with my 6D I can share directly to my phone and post to social media
just like you can with a smart phone camera.

The thing is for the stuff I want to do, I spend _at least_ as much time in
post and doing that on a smartphone would be a huge pain.

~~~
bb88
Yes, but for some cameras it is $900.

[http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-
products/product/wireless/w...](http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-
products/product/wireless/wt-5a-wireless-transmitter.html)

~~~
vaishaksuresh
Even if we ignore the wifi feature, most cameras let you connect directly the
computer and transfer images. you don't need SD card slot or a dedicated card
reader.

I have a full frame camera and the raw images are ~30 MB. I wouldn't want to
transfer 32GB of data over wifi anyway.

~~~
wmf
I think the author is imagining going from shutter press to a CMS or social
media in seconds. Any workflow that involves a computer at all has already
lost.

If cameras can produce JPEGs presumably they should be able to produce low-res
JPEGs.

~~~
baq
yeah there's no reason why lightroom couldn't work on the camera itself if it
can run on an ipad. it's not like the high end dslrs couldn't be fitted with
the necessary compute power - lightroom runs on old ipads after all.

~~~
21
And for that matter you should be able to put a SIM card into the camera for
direct network access. It's also big enough to put some nice antennas inside
it, so you should have better signal than a phone.

------
zokier
The author seems to ignore the advancements that the industry has done in the
past few years. Here[1] is a blog-post from 2010, introducing then-new in-
camera raw conversion feature. Select quote:

> Just shoot Raw, and double the number of frames you can record in burst
> mode, then process the images you need to share immediately in camera. You
> can sample down as far as 720x480. That means with an Eye-Fi SD Card you
> could upload a properly resized image directly from the 60D to Flickr, even
> if it began as a Raw file.

> Seems like a handy feature to me.

Soon after that manufacturers started including built-in WiFi in their cameras
(for example Canon 6d from 2012/2013 [2]), which acknowledged the need for
getting images easier and quicker to the world. And the capabilities in this
area have been steadily improving, see for example Sony Alpha 7R[3] from 2014.
You could argue that its still not yet good enough (which is probably true),
but that is completely different argument than what the author is positing:
"What I’m complaining about is that it isn’t beginning to happen today, and it
should have happened yesterday.". Arguably this sort of workflow improvement
already began happening five years ago, and is very much on track to continue
improving.

[1] [http://thedigitalstory.com/2010/11/in-camera-raw-
proces.html](http://thedigitalstory.com/2010/11/in-camera-raw-proces.html)

[2] [https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-
eos-6d/13](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d/13)

[3] [https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-
alpha-a7r/11](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7r/11)

------
lanius
Somewhat relevant, I used my DSLR to take pictures in a country 8 timezones
away.

Later as I was going through my pictures, I unfortunately realized that the
EXIF DateTime field is a _string_ , meaning I had to batch-convert the
timestamps into the country's local time. It was a completely unnecessary
annoyance, why couldn't EXIF just use Unix time?

------
photigragraphy
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
> 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.

~~~
tensor
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.

------
antman
A sulution is Toshiba Flashair SD cards which have a microcontroller and
support LUA scripting.

[https://flashair-
developers.com/en/documents/api/lua/sample/](https://flashair-
developers.com/en/documents/api/lua/sample/)

