[HN Gopher] Contradictions in photography advice
___________________________________________________________________
Contradictions in photography advice
Author : Breadmaker
Score : 52 points
Date : 2024-11-30 21:36 UTC (6 days ago)
(HTM) web link (medium.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (medium.com)
| Breadmaker wrote:
| The third law of photodynamics: For every piece of loudly-spoken
| advice, there is a piece of equal and opposite counter-advice.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| As in all art - the rules are made to be broken
| HelloUsername wrote:
| Why repeat something that's exactly mentioned in the very
| opening of the article?
| Salmonfisher11 wrote:
| I'm a surf photographer and rely on my camera automatics a lot.
| They are allowed to move freely within defined limits.
|
| 99% of my pictures are technically fine.
|
| I only use full manual if the picture job needs it.
|
| Most of the time setting the aperture is enough (and the camera
| allows to set the exposure time and ISO automatically, but set
| limits which to automatics is not allowed to cross). On the other
| side action/sport photography is mostly shutter time bound - then
| the other side around.
| brudgers wrote:
| Related, Tom Sachs _Paradox Bullets_
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Evrm03Y5hI
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| I always crop, but always and only 8x10. Why? Because I saw the
| results from my past clients. There is something about that
| ration, whether it is genetic or historical, that makes people
| feel more drawn to my photographs.
|
| And I agree with all of his points. Modern cameras have made
| people focus more on the technical and less on the art. I sold a
| photograph I took with a point and shoot Canon A series for $150
| multiple times.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| > Modern cameras have made people focus more on the technical
| and less on the art.
|
| It's not modern cameras that have done that. It's the fact that
| technology reduces the relevance of human experience, so that
| the only way for people to feel a sense of relating is by
| talking about gear, and that sense is superficial indeed.
| ir77 wrote:
| that's not cropping, that's resizing -- you're resizing the
| aspect ratio of your image from its natural dimensions to 8x10.
| cropping would be if you cropped your image to only show 10% of
| that image...
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| No, it is cropping. Because I lose some of the image by
| cropping it to 8x10. If I resized it it would look distorted.
| ben7799 wrote:
| Lots of bad photographers can't seem to figure out photography is
| art. All the rules get in the way of them understanding that. I
| do wonder if photography attracts people who were never
| interested in other art forms. Certainly the best photographers
| have an artists mindset.
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| The dilettante who cares more about the equipment than the work
| is a well worn cliche, but on the other hand lots of "real"
| painters love the smell of paint.
|
| Lots of photographers, good and bad, like how finicky and
| mechanical cameras are.
| ben7799 wrote:
| It's not really that different from a musical instrument. The
| camera might be finicky but you need to get to the point
| you're not focusing on the camera and it just becomes a tool
| that is there. The way digital photography has turned into a
| measuring contest where everyone is always getting the newest
| gear doesn't help with that.
| matja wrote:
| > RAW vs JPG
|
| Most cameras have an option to save both the raw (which depends
| on the camera make, probably .dng/.cr2/.nef) and also a JPEG
| using automatic white-balance and exposure options, so you can
| have the best of both worlds of a quick workflow (using just the
| JPEGs) or tweaking exposure/balance/tone in 12/14 bpp.
| kkapelon wrote:
| At least in beginner cameras, this makes shooting really slow
| and can become problematic for burst photo sessions
|
| Also I believe some mobile phones can do exactly the same
| thing.
| blitzar wrote:
| I would also add that modern cameras can be incredibly
| opinionated about how they process photos. At times they can
| make reasonable choices and at times poor choices all with
| varying consequences.
| alistairSH wrote:
| My consumer grade Olympus bodies allow heavy tweaking of the
| JPG profiles - color and intensity curves, etc (not just
| selecting from the 10+ art filters). Pretty sure Fuji does
| the same. IE, anybody who's willing to dig into editing RAWs
| can also drill into the camera's settings and tweak the JPG
| output.
|
| RAW is still more powerful, but if you don't want to spend
| time in post, there are usually ways to get JPG output that's
| closer to what you want.
| ghaff wrote:
| If you import into something like Lightroom and, given the
| price of modern storage, it generally makes sense (for me) to
| mostly shoot raw. Pretty much the only time I'll shoot both is
| if I (rarely) may need to hand off the JPEGs to someone in
| real-time.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| As a professional photographer, I'll say that a lot of these are
| just overhashed and oversimplified arguments that most
| photographers don't consider or even think about, with the
| possible exception that high ISO causes noise.
| ano-ther wrote:
| Agree. Mostly, the "rules" help a beginner to understand the
| levers they can pull to get the intended effect. Then they can
| experiment and develop the artistic taste & technical
| experience so they can choose what to apply.
|
| But they shouldn't be seen as dogma. (Well, unless you do it on
| purpose: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95 )
| kqr wrote:
| Sure, high ISO causes noise, but what's the alternative? Both
| longer shutter times and larger apertures cause blurriness,
| which is worse! People are way too scared of noise.
|
| Having had to push 400 ISO film to 3200 during development, I'm
| super impressed by how little noise modern sensors produce.
| Sure, colour noise looks awful but it's also really easy to
| remove because humans are not really sensitive to high-
| frequency components of chroma anyway.
| ghaff wrote:
| Yep. The fact that I can casually "push" to 1600 or 3200 ISO
| at a poorly lit conference or other setting is fantastic.
| When I was in college, shooting at 1600 in a poorly-lit
| lecture hall or sports arena was about as far as I could
| reasonably go even playing games with development chemistry.
| (Could go somewhat higher but the results were generally
| pretty poor.)
|
| High ISO even for relatively small sensors is an often
| overlooked benefit from digital photography. I got a lot of
| pleasure out of my many hours in a darkroom but I wouldn't go
| back.
| jasode wrote:
| _> To Crop Or Not To Crop? Point: Never crop. Cropping is
| cheating. Get it right in camera. Zoom with your feet. If you
| have to crop later, that only means you blew the composition.
| Counterpoint: It's almost impossible to "get it right" in camera
| every time -- the real world gets in the way. That pelican on a
| piling out in the harbor and you're only sporting the one prime?
| Zooming with your feet isn't an option, so it's all about the
| perfect crop in post._
|
| That point-vs-counterpoint is leaving out a critical difference
| between cropping vs zoom-with-your-feet: _the geometric relation
| between the foreground and background objects will change_.
|
| Cropping is more comparable to a post-processing version of "zoom
| magnification" at the expense of pixel resolution. Or flipped
| around, zoom lenses can be thought of as in-camera "cropping"
| with max pixel resolution but at the expense of crop boundaries
| being irreversible. The geometric relations between objects are
| still the same if your feet don't move in both cases. (Edit add
| for clarity: zoom and telephoto prime lenses are the same for
| purposes of "in-camera cropping" being compared to zooming-with-
| feet.)
|
| Zooming with the feet alters how the background looks in relation
| to the foreground subject -- which may not be your artistic
| intention. Examples:
|
| https://www.slrlounge.com/glossary/compression-definition-ph...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom
|
| In other words, "zoom with your feet" may get you the _wrong
| composition_.
| francasso wrote:
| Why are zoom lenses 'in-camera "cropping" with max pixel
| resolution'? They should zoom physically the same way a prime
| would, just with a less optimal optic structure, no?
|
| I mean the perspective projection you get from a 70-120 zoom at
| 90mm should be the same as the one from a 90mm prime
| patrickthebold wrote:
| Not gp, but as an example of what they mean: take a photo at
| 70mm then at 120mm. You can crop the first photo to be have
| the same composition as the second, but the resolution will
| be lower.
| lalaithion wrote:
| A 70-120 zoom at 90, a 90mm prime, and a 70mm prime cropped
| in to the same field of view should produce the same
| perspective projection. Try it sometime - take two photos
| from the same spot, one at 70 and one at 100 and then crop
| the 70 to the same field of view as the 100. It won't be
| perfectly identical but those differences are due to lens
| imperfections, not something fundamental.
| archerx wrote:
| Zooming in with the lens will also change the background
| because by zooming in your are changing the focal length. Also
| there is the lens distortion to consider as well. A portrait
| taken at 28mm will look very different than one taken at 150mm
| no matter what you do.
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| How does the focal length affect the background? Are you
| referring to the focal length's relationship to the depth of
| field? Because otherwise, I guess that the effect you're
| referring to ("A portrait taken at 28mm will look very
| different than one taken at 150mm no matter what you do.") is
| an artifact of the same thing the GP comment talked about,
| which is the effect of the distance between the camera and
| the subject.
| formerphotoj wrote:
| Wide vs. tele foreground/background lens distortion, not
| just the field of view (framing). Some call this choice of
| lens "lensing" and as noted, the distortion of a 28mm wide
| vs 200mm tele are part of their physical design, optical
| "laws" being what they are.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| GP had it exactly right, perspective distortion ONLY depends
| on the distance between objects to the camera (entrance
| pupil). The focal length literally does not matter at all.
|
| (This is an interesting point of contention, because
| conventional wisdom up until a few years ago was exactly what
| you said, and relaying what GP said got you tarred and
| feathered as an imbecile in the usual "photog forums". It's
| also one of these things which were never in doubt at all,
| and are very easy to check for yourself.)
| nayuki wrote:
| Wrong. Zooming optically can have the same effect as
| digitally cropping a photo. Here's a video explainer:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AmA_Tv6V1k
| kvmet wrote:
| Totally right. I shoot almost exclusively with a 50mm prime and
| make heavy use of cropping. I get to carry a very light, small,
| and FAST lens that works in many different situations without
| needing a flash. Modern cameras have such high resolution that
| the output still has good quality even after significant
| cropping.
|
| There are some situations where "zooming with your feet" is the
| right answer and others where it is impossible. Try everything.
| formerphotoj wrote:
| Try everything...to make the shot your "own." Yep.
| mahoho wrote:
| The first time I ever went out with a zoom lens after starting
| with just a 50mm prime, the amount of creative power and
| freedom I felt really opened my eyes. Without having to worry
| about focal length you can actually compose with the naked eye
| and walk around til you get everything in the right position,
| then zoom in to get the framing right.
|
| Zoom With Your Feet and other photography minimalist cliches
| seem to me kind of mystifying, and more interested in a kind of
| romantic vision of photography than in technical excellence
| formerphotoj wrote:
| Agreed, but would you think it to be good advice for
| beginners? One of those "learn the rules to break the rules"
| kind of rules?
| Melatonic wrote:
| Zooming with your feet and zooming with a lens will give you
| quite different results regarding "geometric relations between
| objects". The word you are looking for here is "Parallax" :-)
|
| Cropping in post is identical to digital zoom and will not
| change parallax and of course reduce resolution (which neither
| of the above will do)
|
| All three give quite different results and of course are viable
| methods depending on what your intended outcome is
| tshaddox wrote:
| Every fixed lens and sensor configuration has some "level of
| zoom" (better terms would be "focal length" or "angle of
| view"). There's not some "natural zoom," unless the author
| wants to prescribe his favorite configuration as the privileged
| one.
| dave333 wrote:
| Rather than contradictions think of photography patterns like
| design patterns.
| justlikereddit wrote:
| Having a hobby which is pretty much "trying every hobby to find
| the right one" I've been doing multiple variants of photography.
| Drawn and painted art. Some quickly aborted starts at creative
| writing. A half decade shattershot effort at solo
| gamedev(involving a branching multi-artistic art-sound-code-
| design efforts) and several other probing efforts.
|
| I thus could consider myself as an experienced advice-reader and
| advice-evaluator.
|
| My conclusion is that everyone is addicted to bullshit advice
| that signals about discipline and purity. If you want to get into
| anything the best approach is to stop reading generalist advice.
| Either probe it in a spotwise creative fashion on your own or do
| follow-along practical work flow tutorials. Advice for overall
| approaches and strategy is a waste of time at best or actively
| harmful and will undermine your enjoyment
| hengheng wrote:
| A lot of this is not photography advice, because it's not about
| what print you put on your wall eventually. This is mostly
| learning advice, eg which path promises the quicker way towards
| improvement for somebody starting out.
|
| And as with most learning advice, both sides of each argument are
| great advice. As somebody who is learning a craft, throw a coin
| and re-evaluate every once in a while.
|
| Using primes or zooms? Using vanilla VSCode vs a highly
| customized environment? Putting every picture through a raw
| converter with split toning vs taking candid snapshots? Using
| copilot vs typing everything yourself? Flash vs natural light?
| Microservices vs monolith?
|
| All answers are right answers. The whole point is that not
| knowing an answer to each means that the photographer should
| explore the topic until they have formed an opinion. No matter
| how, and no matter where their opinion ends up on.
|
| And naturally, online places tend to attract people of equal
| experience who discuss each of those topics, without realizing
| that they're all just taking part in the same learning
| experience.
| turnsout wrote:
| Exactly. Both programming and photography seem to attract
| technicians who want to believe there is a "right" way. Fast
| forward 20 or 30 years, and anyone still practicing has given
| up on absolutes and false dichotomies.
| formerphotoj wrote:
| 100%
| formerphotoj wrote:
| 100%
| internet_points wrote:
| my mom thought all photos had to be taken with us kids squinting
| into the blinding sun (her with the sun in her back) in order to
| get enough light for the camera
| ir77 wrote:
| i don't know how old you/your moms are, but chances are that
| even if you're younger your moms' mom probably did that because
| she was taking pictures with something like kodachrome 64 than
| unless you're in the sun it ended up having 0 shadow detail. so
| it was better to have a least a squinting picture of a kid than
| have half their face be complete darkness.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Depending on the camera and film she had, she might not have
| been totally wrong. Or, at minimum, this likely allowed a
| higher "keep" rate for shots without futzing about with the ISO
| setting, exposure compensation, or anything else (which might
| not have been available if she was using a basic P&S).
| glitchc wrote:
| I've been a photographer for years and it's the first time I've
| heard most of these. Crop vs no-crop, who debates that? Raw vs
| jpg? DSLRs allow you to store both simultaneously.
|
| As for lenses, it all depends on what works for you. A zoom used
| to be my go-to for the longest time, but nowadays I much prefer
| the prime (a Sigma DG Art). It also depends on what you're taking
| photos of. Shoot a lot of wildlife and a zoom is your best
| friend. Shoot a lot of architecture and a prime with excellent
| distortion correction is far better than most zooms. I just
| happen to shoot more architecture nowadays, so the prime is what
| I pack. It's all about using the right tool for the subject.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The biggest contradiction to consider is that the photographer
| has an emotional context from when they took the photo, that a
| random viewer does not.
|
| This is at the heart of why so many people overestimate the
| impact of their photos. They remember being at the Tetons, awake
| cold and alive at dawn, taking the picture (for example). Or they
| remember a particular photo session with a model, perhaps someone
| they knew.
|
| The photographer remembers the moment. But the viewer gets _only_
| what is inside the frame of the image.
|
| The crucial thing is that it is totally OK to take pictures for
| yourself! You don't need to blow some random person's mind in
| order to truly enjoy photography. I think sometimes that gets
| lost, especially with beginners.
|
| Often people are inspired to take up photography because they
| loved some images they saw. But delivering that impact to a broad
| audience is super hard to do. It requires a far more analytical
| and self-critical approach than most people want to sustain in a
| hobby.
| munificent wrote:
| I'm glad this is the top comment because it's also the deepest
| insight I've had in my 20+ years of doing photography.
|
| So much of the art and challenge of photography is about
| creating a single flat rectangular image that somehow conveys
| the sense of depth, presence, time, and emotional impact that
| the photographer had while _being there_ in that actual moment
| in time and space.
|
| A good photo must be _super-real_ in some sense because the act
| of reducing an entire lived in experience in 4D space-time down
| to a single flat image discards so much information. It
| requires just the right subject, framing, composition, light,
| color, everything so that even after so much is lost, what 's
| left is sufficient for the viewer to fill it back in.
|
| Photography is to experiencing the world as poetry is to prose.
| formerphotoj wrote:
| Yes! And if you're trying to please the masses, you risk losing
| that inspiration if your own vision is not as "mainstream."
| This may seem minor, but I can tell you from teaching many
| students that there is a bit of youthful self-identity at work
| when picking up a camera, and that finding one's vision can be
| fraught by the desire to receive affirmation for the photos one
| worked so hard to capture (but that the viewer does not
| see/feel/appreciate).
| shagie wrote:
| In my own philosophy of photography, I've got a generalized
| (and admittedly overly simplified model) of:
| For me / For others Memories / Emotions
|
| There are photographs that I take that are "memories for me" -
| things that I want to remember but are otherwise rather meh for
| other people. There's also photojournalism which is much more
| on the memories for others quadrant.
|
| Likewise, the are photographs that are emotions for me... and
| the sellable ones are emotions for others.
|
| All of those are perfectly acceptable photographs. It's a
| matter of what expectations there are for me when showing them
| to others. And likewise, there are photographs that other
| people other people take for memories for themselves that I
| hope don't disappoint them when they show them to me and its a
| "its ok" as the response when it was a memory that they want to
| maintain. Someone else's wedding photograph isn't something
| that is particularly interesting to me as a photograph.
| Andys wrote:
| That is the art of photography: the challenge of capturing the
| emotional context in a way that conveys it to a random viewer,
| drawing on common elements of culture, nostalgia, etc.
| ir77 wrote:
| this is like a rambling of a mad man, it reminds me of the many,
| many posts on any XXX photo gear forum where majority of the time
| people will dedicate their time arguing about edge sharpness
| performance of lenses or pixel peeping and only a small portion
| of the forum is dedicated to actual pictures, and when you see
| those pictures you quickly close out of the forum because 99% are
| visually just not interesting.
|
| use the auto mode and don't worry about it. if you acutally want
| to have some control then learn the relationship between shutter
| speed, aperture and ISO. I learned this very long time ago
| through a Sunny 16 rule on my Leica M6 and outdoors during the
| day that rule works just fine with today's digital cameras that
| have 8+ stops of dynamic range anyways.
|
| otherwise photography is about in interesting picture. unless you
| crop it so much that it's so pixilated that it hurts your eyes no
| one will scrutinize it or chastise the photographer that they
| took it with a tripod or cropped it and this article is just a
| gigantic self serving vent that really doesn't give anyone any
| better advice on photos.
|
| here's an example of acceptable cropping of a very iconic image:
| https://i.redd.it/6lpvu9dzkv111.jpg
| Finnucane wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember that the preference for prime lenses
| over zoom was because early zoom lenses were crap. Even now,
| (mumble) decades later, intellectually knowing that thanks to
| improvements in glass and cadcam manufacturing techniques,
| today's zooms are much better than what I grew up with, I still
| don't use them.
|
| And I've been listening to the whole crop-no crop thing most of
| my life too. BUt ECB didn't crop! people say (though he sometimes
| did). I try to shoot to get it 'in camera' as close as I can to
| what I want, but as the article says, sometimes you just can't.
| You still get to choose what your final image is going to be. And
| that's the thing about 'rules' and 'advice'--they're just some
| guidelines, things to think about, but they're highly contextual,
| depending on the situation.
| snozolli wrote:
| _"Zoom with your feet!"_
|
| Nothing in photography annoys me more than advice conflating
| zooming with repositioning the camera. A wide angle lens up close
| gives a _completely_ different result than a zoom lens from far
| away.
|
| I've been seeing this awful sentiment for nearly two decades now.
|
| Here's my advice: try everything and try to capture whatever
| feeling you had in the moment. If you convey the feeling, you've
| succeeded.
| alistairSH wrote:
| "Zoom with your feet" is usually related to cropping (and
| enlarging/zooming) in post.
|
| Say you have a 50mm prime and want a photo of a car that's
| parked down the street.
|
| Do you... A) take the shot from where you are and crop/zoom in
| post OR B) walk a block and get the shot composed correctly
| from the start?
| pizza234 wrote:
| > Photography is an art form and that means you get to do
| whatever you want. Edit freely [...]
|
| This has made me lose faith and interest in (most of)
| photography. While I can't speak for the past, modern photography
| often feels dishonest to me. Many photographers heavily retouch
| their images, yet allow viewers to believe that the final result
| reflects reality.
|
| It would be more honest if photographers acknowledged that their
| published work is a creative interpretation rather than a direct
| representation of reality. But of course, admitting this would
| diminish the "wow" factor.
| mannyv wrote:
| Every photograph lies. The art is in making it the lie you want
| others to see.
| nayuki wrote:
| > more honest if photographers acknowledged that their
| published work is a creative interpretation rather than a
| direct representation of reality
|
| My high school English teacher said this on the first day: All
| media are constructions.
| foldr wrote:
| Most retouching techniques used in modern digital photography
| were also practiced in darkrooms.
|
| For a famous example of this, take Ansel Adam's _Moonrise over
| Hernandez_. A straight contact print looks like this:
| https://i0.wp.com/www.haroldhallphotography.com/wp-content/u...
|
| The final image looks like this:
| https://i0.wp.com/www.haroldhallphotography.com/wp-content/u...
|
| https://www.haroldhallphotography.com/ansel-adams-and-group-...
| nachox999 wrote:
| Almost all "advice" is ultimately an artistic decision: It's an
| arbitrary rule that each photographer can change.
|
| However, there are rules that DO help improve the quality of
| photos, especially if you're a beginner. Then, to move beyond
| being a beginner, it's good to know how to break the rules (as
| with any art or discipline).
| grouchomarx wrote:
| working pro for more than a decade now, maybe some off this was
| relevant very early on but it's really just all web forum gear
| chatter. What people miss is that a photographer's job isn't
| using a camera or lamenting settings, it's lighting. Done
| artificially or by modifying what's available, you have to master
| both. The camera is incidental and what he's describing his just
| picture taking. If you're interested in photography it's more
| useful to take a studio lighting course and learn about fixtures
| and modifiers than worrying about iso.
| kmoser wrote:
| > If you're interested in photography it's more useful to take
| a studio lighting course and learn about fixtures and modifiers
| than worrying about iso.
|
| When you do primarily street photography, and you have almost
| no ability to change the light, knowledge of studio lighting is
| all but useless.
| tristor wrote:
| I've been doing photography as a hobby since I was a kid,
| learning from my dad who also did photography as a hobby. We've
| both won numerous awards, although I have not won as many as my
| dad, and none of them are particularly prestigious (mostly local
| / regional contests, often tied into a fair)
|
| Pretty much all of the stuff being discussed here is meaningless,
| although a table stakes that every person should learn. The most
| important thing in photography is learning about light and
| lighting, how light works, how the camera interacts with light,
| and how to capture and harness light. Every single thing you see
| with your eyes, and every single thing you capture with your
| camera is just a reflection of light off your subject and the
| subject's surroundings. If you don't understand light, you cannot
| formulate a composition, and if you can't formulate a composition
| it doesn't matter what settings you use on the camera, it's not
| going to be a good photo.
|
| I love the technical aspects of cameras, both film and digital,
| and I delve very deeply into that myself out of my enjoyment of
| these aspects, but they're really ultimately not important to the
| actual art of photography and taking good photos. They're just
| tools. What matters most is composition. I see a lot of great
| photos online that are taken with smartphones, and there is
| nothing wrong with that. I have complicated gear because I enjoy
| futzing with complicated gear and some of the things I do
| visually are not possible (easily) with a phone, but for the most
| part these days I take most of my photos with a phone and some
| have even been printed and hung in galleries.
|
| There's no reason to worry about any of the meaningless things
| this article talks about until you understand light, composition,
| and have figured out what you want to say with that photo. Keep
| in mind your phone, and any camera you can buy today has more
| digital resolution than any of the professional grade digital
| gear available just a decade ago, and in some cases more digital
| resolution than was available on 35mm film. Even with the revival
| of film today, you get more stops of dynamic range on a current-
| generation professional mirrorless camera than you can get on
| 35mm film.
|
| These technical details basically have ceased to matter within
| the last 3-5 years, all that matters is composition,
| storytelling, and lighting.
| raphting wrote:
| It's a nice comparison of advice that I was pondering with when I
| started photography. As an advice I'd like to give about the
| comparison: stick to one of each options for a series of
| pictures. Do not change these principles too often.
|
| It pays off to develop an intuition about whichever option you
| choose.
|
| Just personally, I try to limit my max ISO, I do crop pictures,
| but I do not alter them. Fujifilm has awesome color grading, so I
| only need JPG. I love my prime lenses and I don't wanna use zoom
| anytime soon. And all these things were different 5 years ago.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-06 23:01 UTC)