| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2008 09:05:47 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... "real" photographers make their own light sensitive materials and develop them over pots of boiling mercury... |
Roman Photography? |
No, but early photographic emulsions were developed by fuming over mercury. Lots of photographers got sick and died from it
|
|
|
|
01/22/2008 09:06:15 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, "real" photographers make their own light sensitive materials and develop them over pots of boiling mercury... |
I used to do that, but instead of boiling mercury I used my (now) ex-wife's crocodile tears.
Ba-da-bum!
R. |
Which is more toxic?
|
|
|
|
01/22/2008 10:13:15 PM · #28 |
Say something to-the-point and polite, maybe, like:
"Well, a bad driver could still wreck the nicest car" |
|
|
|
01/22/2008 10:15:39 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I had my first-ever photo sale just before Christmas and I was at Walmart making some prints for it (yes, Walmart, I know, but that's another story). The woman at the next machine looked over at the screen and said, "Wow! Those are beautiful!"
That, coming unsolicited from a complete stranger, felt sooooo good! :) |
Congrats :-D |
|
|
|
01/22/2008 10:27:24 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Wenders11:
I think that some people just have the creativity and natural talent to get shots that no one else could get even with all the technical skills. I know how to take a good photo, but I don't have even a quarter of the creativity that some people on this site have. I think some of that can't be learned, it's just a natural skill that some people have. You can get some really nice snapshots with a good SLR in auto mode, but if you want to learn how to shoot artistic photography or professional portrait photography, it takes a lot more than a good camera. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No kidding. I see myself as VERY limited; I can't even BEGIN to do what  Scalvert does, for example. I beat myself up trying, and it hurts. I do one thing very well (landscape shots) and a few things pretty well, but I have my limits and (at age 61) I have learned to live with them.
R. |
I gotta agree with that scenario, too.
Possibly one of the reasons that I'm happy with my D70s is that all the cutting edge equipment in the world isn't going to overcome the fact that I'm a good photographer, and will never have the eye or the mind to be a great photographer.
I noticed that when I was working on British cars......for some reason, tuning the carburettors on them seems to rank right up there to some with black incantations from a licensed wizard......yet I always had the "touch" if you will and was generally able to sort out the worst botch job of tuning in a matter of a few minutes. I wish I could say that it was something that I had developed, but it's just a plain and simple gift. I have always had the ability to tell when an engine was running correctly and it's a combination between feel, sound, and after a while, experience.
I wish I had the same touch with photography, but I don't. I'm good enough to take decent, competent shots, but the really good ones that I get are few and far between because they are mostly luck.
It's funny, but I'm downright dreadful with a P&S.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2008 10:34:06 PM · #31 |
Another incident of this today as i was shooting a basketball game with my D50 and my siggy 70-200 2.8 . One of my friends moms wanted me to take pictures of her son, and i said i would get some (just as i would the rest of the players) although i did try to get a few extra of him. She asked me a few times if i had gotten any good ones yet, and i said yes.
Well after the game she asked me again, and i said "yeah, i think so." She said "i think you could get some good ones from here as she pointed to another spot where i'm not gonna shoot from because there is a stage in the gym, so it would make a terrible background. I kinda just said "mmhmm" just to not be rude.
Then she said "I should borrow that equipment of yours and take some pictures." I don't think she seriously thought i would loan my equipment, but she basically said that i wasn't a very good photographer and that she could do better. I just laughed it off and moved on, but i just had to post cause it fit the thread so well.
Message edited by author 2008-01-22 22:34:34.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2008 10:39:12 PM · #32 |
I usually reply that the pro cameras have about 20 exposure settings, and 20 other optional settings, so 20 times 20 allows me to have over 400 ways to screw up an otherwise great shot. This usually makes the commenter think about it long enough for me to move along to something else with a smile.
 ryand, you should have simply asked for a $2,500 deposit and smiled and held out the camera.. LOL.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2008 11:04:23 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
I usually reply that the pro cameras have about 20 exposure settings, and 20 other optional settings, so 20 times 20 allows me to have over 400 ways to screw up an otherwise great shot. This usually makes the commenter think about it long enough for me to move along to something else with a smile.
ryand, you should have simply asked for a $2,500 deposit and smiled and held out the camera.. LOL. |
lol, yeah my problem was that i had to be nice cause shes a family friend, so i had to bite my lip, but on someone i don't know i may have to try your "pro camera" idea.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2008 11:08:46 PM · #34 |
Tripod... $250
Dslr camera body... $1300.
Bag with a few lenses... $4000.
Knowledge to use it all and make a beautiful photo... priceless.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2008 01:43:47 AM · #35 |
Sometimes you hear a great quote that pretty neatly sums up an issue.
Ernest Hemming way was at a photography show of Irving Penn's. Impressed by the work he asked "Great shots Irving, what sort of camera do you use? " Penn replied " Im glad you like the work Ernest. I'm a fan of yours too, what brand of typewriter do you use to make your novels?"
Sadly it seems that the often repeated exchange never took place, but it still bears repeating. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 07:09:42 AM · #36 |
Just had a sad day trying to catch some birds.. equipment for this challenge was definitely a downer..
Although I do spend a lot of time annoying the crap out of 'auto' DSLR owners when they give that 'superior' look at my little p&s.. I start quizzing them about their lens, and different functions.. something as simple as as me asking what iso they're using makes them look uncomfortable.. hah! |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 09:01:08 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
...spend a lot of time annoying the crap out of 'auto' DSLR owners when they give that 'superior' look at my little p&s.. I start quizzing them about their lens, and different functions.. something as simple as as me asking what iso they're using makes them look uncomfortable.. hah! |
Don't ya' love it?
I bit my tongue when a D40 owner told me she was not able to take a good picture until she got her D40.
I want to get an SLR this year, but I'm also tempted to stick with my SLR-Wannabee just to prove the point. Not that it needs proving around here. There are people that run circles around me with lesser equipment.
Message edited by author 2008-01-23 09:01:26. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 09:32:33 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
early photographic emulsions were developed by fuming over mercury. Lots of photographers got sick and died from it |
Modern photographers sometimes spend days fuming over scores and challenge results. Many of them are no longer with us. Some things never change. ;-)
I take pride in learning to do the best I can with whatever equipment I have (both of which tend to improve over time, though not without setbacks). I remember going to a party at the Ritz Carlton in NYC where the hosts had hired a pro photographer. I recognized at a glance that he had a Canon Mark II, 24-70L, and high-end flash with off camera shoe cord and diffuser. Shortly into the party I noticed that he was gone, and found out that he was only there for the reception. I generally carry my camera with me (at the time I had a Rebel 300D, Tamron 28-75 lens and low-end 420ex flash) and offered to take photos of the rest of the party. A few days later, the hostess called me and said, "What the hell did we hire a pro for?!?" She was actually upset. Hehe.
Another time, a DJ at a wedding called me over and asked if he could get copies of a few shots. He said that it was obvious just from watching us that I was getting better shots than the "pro." Those are good days! On the other hand, I've had to "prove" more than once that I actually owned the photos I was picking up from a print lab. :-/
FWIW, DSLRs generally aren't set to the same sharpness, saturation etc. that P&S owners are accustomed to because it's assumed the more experienced photographer will make adjustments in PS. As a result, a rank amateur's photos are likely to be worse with an expensive camera. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 09:55:39 AM · #39 |
I have to give a little seminar on pet photography in a couple of months, and something tells me this subject will come up ;-) I've gotten good shots of animals with a P&S with a decent zoom, but I missed way more than I got because of the shutter lag. Equipment matter a lot when the subjects are pretty much uncontrollable.
I think anybody can learn to take better shots by paying more attention to composition, lighting, and background. Sure, if you've got great editing skills you can remove or minimize distractions in the background in PP, but it's a lot easier to find a better POV and actually notice what's behind your subject before you press the shutter button. It should be fun putting together examples of What Not To Do! |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 10:06:11 AM · #40 |
Under optimum conditions any camera will do just fine. Even a pinhole camera. However, optimum conditions are not very common where and when I shoot.
The more difficult the conditions, the more capable the gear must be - be that the body, the lens or the flash. Want to catch the face of the running back as he's tackled midfield, in the rain? They make the tools to do it, but they're not cheap.
Then you need to consider your output and your standards. If your never printing more than a 4x6 most cameras can do a passable job in 'normal' conditions. Want to print a 16x20 of a group of 40 people in a dimly lit church and want to see detail in their faces?
Then you need to have the right tool for the job. And the right tool to capture your vision.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2008 10:09:37 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by MaryO:
I've gotten good shots of animals with a P&S with a decent zoom, but I missed way more than I got because of the shutter lag. |
Exactly my problem! I have a lot of animal tail and butt pictures.. Shutter lag can make anyone suicidal..
|
|
|
|
01/23/2008 10:15:37 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Originally posted by MaryO:
I've gotten good shots of animals with a P&S with a decent zoom, but I missed way more than I got because of the shutter lag. |
Exactly my problem! I have a lot of animal tail and butt pictures.. Shutter lag can make anyone suicidal.. |
Sounds like you two need a camera that takes pictures BEFORE you press the shutter button. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 10:43:05 AM · #43 |
I'm sure I've offended lots of people inadvertently by not knowing what the heck I was talking about ... so I'm usually ok when someone does it to me.
And just to agree with Gordon, the below shot is a result of equipment, not talent (unless you count the talent it takes to know what equipment I needed):
|
|
|
|
01/23/2008 10:48:50 AM · #44 |
Animals are so fickle :)
And that camera is....intense!
Message edited by author 2008-01-23 10:49:27. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 10:51:56 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sounds like you two need a camera that takes pictures BEFORE you press the shutter button. ;-) |
Not only does the equipment matter, the photographer is practically optional! I'm gonna' take my years of practice and my D200 and go mope in a corner now :::sigh::: |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 11:00:50 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by hopper:
And just to agree with Gordon, the below shot is a result of equipment, not talent (unless you count the talent it takes to know what equipment I needed):
|
I disagree and to go back to Gordons analogy, if I'm a lousy cook going out and buying the best knives on the market ain't going to make by burnt offerings taste any better. Sure the right equipment is important but natural talent and knowledge play a bigger role I think. Ideally equipment gets upgraded with your skill level, if you give a dslr to someone that's never taken a photo before it's going to be a mess (trust me on this there were such people in my Uni class). Photography, like any art is more about seeing than anything else, you saw that shot, many people wouldn't have and that's where the talent is. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 11:05:20 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Wildcard:
Sure the right equipment is important but natural talent and knowledge play a bigger role I think. |
I think it is pretty much equal. Used to be in the past that there was a lot more technical skill required from the photographer.
Things have come a long way since then. Making interesting images is certainly a whole lot about pointing the camera in the
right direction, but the technology is doing most of the hard work these days.
I think there is a lot of conceit in the notion that what camera you use has very little to do with your images being good or not.
If you want to see the difference, go shoot slide film with a manual focus camera without a meter. Then you'll find out how
much you are being aided by your good equipment or not. It is quite eye-opening. You'll come to realise a lot of the talent
lies with the engineers who designed your camera ;)
That silly story about complimenting the chef on the pots, or the writer on the typewriter ignores the reality of the situation
for photography. But mostly it just sounds insecure.
Message edited by author 2008-01-23 11:06:29. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 11:11:39 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think it is pretty much equal. Used to be in the past that there was a lot more technical skill required from the photographer.
Things have come a long way since then. Making interesting images is certainly a whole lot about pointing the camera in the
right direction, but the technology is doing most of the hard work these days.
I think there is a lot of conceit in the notion that what camera you use has very little to do with your images being good or not.
If you want to see the difference, go shoot slide film with a manual focus camera without a meter. Then you'll find out how
much you are being aided by your good equipment or not. It is quite eye-opening. You'll come to realise a lot of the talent
lies with the engineers who designed your camera ;) |
Oops I hit submit before I wrote anything D'oh.
I've shot with medium and large format and you'd be nutty to try it without a hand held meter but I'm not convinced that there is less technical skill required with the equipment we have now, I tend to think it's different skills rather than less skill. For example it's handy that dSLR's have a histogram but if you don't know what it's for it's not going to help much. If you don't see the moments to capture or the interesting angle you're still going to end up with snapshots and if you don't understand the equipment you're using you'll likely end up with not much of anything. Hand held metering has been largely but not completely replaced with the histogram, darkroom skills have been largely replaced with computer skills. Don't underestimate those skills, I've seen people in tears over trying to grasp the basics of PS. I've also seen some pretty crappy shots come out of a 20D...I delete the really bad ones before anyone else sees.
Message edited by author 2008-01-23 11:26:59. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 11:14:04 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Wildcard:
Photography, like any art is more about seeing than anything else, you saw that shot, many people wouldn't have and that's where the talent is. |
and to wander down another rabbit hole, the myth of talent is worth a read if you haven't before. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 11:50:58 AM · #50 |
Thanks Gordon that was an interesting article. What I think though is that talent is passion, talent isn't being able to pick up a camera and suddenly take extraordinary pictures no one can do that. Talent is recognising that passion that you have for something, it's the passion for it that keeps you learning and striving to get better until you begin to produce work that comes close to matching what you see in you minds eye. No one has passion for everything we usually have a few things that can grab hold of us...those are talents, you just have to learn the skills.
I'll try and explain, at the beginning of 2006 I quit my job and took myself of to art school, I had never drawn anything better than a stick figure, I had never sculpted anything but playdough but I had always known that I wanted to it got to the point where I had to. People thought I was nuts and I did feel a bit dippy having to admit that I drew really good stick figures, I put triangle dresses on the girls and all. But I learnt and I worked hard and suddenly people were telling me I was talented. It's just the passion to do it that's what talent is.
Unfortunately economics and cowardice have temporarily crashed the artistic dream but give me time...the passion is still there, the talent will come. Ahhh a lightbulb moment maybe talent is passion + skill. What do ya think? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:39:14 PM EDT.
