| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/23/2008 12:03:37 PM · #51 |
| Just another thought about the ability to see the shot, I would guess that a lot of DPC'rs are visual thinkers, artists tend to be visual, they think in pictures. I was talking to a writer about it recently and she thinks in words. We did a collaboration and will hopefully do some more because when she looks at my photos she sees words and writes them down, when I read her words I see images and want to photograph them. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 12:09:56 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Wildcard:
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. |
I have a couple of friends who are accurate to within about a tenth of a stop, just by using their eye, in natural light. That's skill and experience. They can shoot equally well with film or digital. However, their skill is largely replaced by the camera's decisions and metering. Used to be, you had to be within half a stop or your slide would be useless. Now RAW lets you fix several stops out and get acceptable (though maybe not as good) results. People used to be able to follow focus, or zone focus, but largely the need for those skills have been eliminated by decent auto focus tracking. Sports photography used to be a whole lot harder as a result. TTL means you can get good flash exposures just by pointing the flash in the right direction. So the list goes on...
The technology has come along way in making taking the pictures much easier and more predictable. The camera matters a huge amount, particularly if you aren't shooting in manual, with manual focus, making your own metering decisions and printing the JPEGs you get out without adjustment.
Its maybe arguable if getting a decent print is any easier or harder - those skills have changed, but on the capture side it is vastly easier to get a usable result.
When people tell me 'I must have a nice camera' I just agree - I tell them my camera is awesome. Usually I let them take a few pictures with it too. They quickly get the idea.
Message edited by author 2008-01-23 12:14:43. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 12:13:42 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Wildcard:
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? |
I believe that skills can be developed, and certainly passion can push us to develop those skills. But we cannot overlook that some people "have it" and others do not. Those who "have it" and develop their skills become the great ones.
For me personally, I have the passion. I've developed my skills and continue to work on them daily. Do I "have it"? A bit. Add these together and I can take a good picture.
However, I do have the natural ability in other areas. I'm good at calculating numbers in my head, estimating, planning, & other analytical tasks. I've realized that these things that come easily for me do not for others. And I know that for others photography comes as easily for them.
I read the article  Gordon posted a long time ago and will reread, but I still think it's more than just developing skills.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2008 12:17:31 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
I read the article Gordon posted a long time ago and will reread, but I still think it's more than just developing skills. |
I often think people misunderstand Craig. Really I think he is trying to say that talent isn't enough. You could be the most talented photographer ever, but if you don't work at it, it won't matter. People look at his work and tell him he's so talented. But he worked hard at it. And most of his pictures suck. (but then most of everyone's pictures suck)
Drive, perseverance, hard work are what matter. If someone is more talented and less motivated, you'll still make better pictures, if you work at it. Talent only takes you so far, particularly in photography where so little of it is actually original or inspired, anyway.
Message edited by author 2008-01-23 12:27:12. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 12:18:14 PM · #55 |
Technology is so awesome right now.
The average person with the average camera could take a decent image if they would read the manual for their camera. I know the Nikon manuals I have used tell you how to compose portraits and situate yourself in relation to the light source (as well as how to actually use the camera of course).
Maybe another thing to say would be "maybe if you take enough pictures, eventually one will come out well ;)"
As a side note, I tried using my mother's Kodak Point-and-shoot to take pics the other day (I didn't have the manual mind you). For the life of me I couldn't get a decent image at the swimming pool - I tried all the modes and all the manual settings - I wanted to drown that thing!
Message edited by author 2008-01-23 12:26:05. |
|
|
|
01/23/2008 12:36:45 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
I read the article Gordon posted a long time ago and will reread, but I still think it's more than just developing skills. |
I often think people misunderstand Craig. Really I think he is trying to say that talent isn't enough. You could be the most talented photographer ever, but if you don't work at it, it won't matter. People look at his work and tell him he's so talented. But he worked hard at it. And most of his pictures suck. (but then most of everyone's pictures suck)
Drive, perseverance, hard work are what matter. If someone is more talented and less motivated, you'll still make better pictures, if you work at it. Talent only takes you so far, particularly in photography where so little of it is actually original or inspired, anyway. |
I certainly agree with this. People (non photographers) see my portfolio here and say I'm talented. But they have no idea how much time I dedicate to learning how to take a picture. Just the other day somebody commented about a picture I took and truly seemed surprised when I told them the effort that went into getting it that way. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 01:05:12 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
When people tell me 'I must have a nice camera' I just agree - I tell them my camera is awesome. Usually I let them take a few pictures with it too. They quickly get the idea. |
Are they impressed by your HP C20?
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 01:14:26 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
When people tell me 'I must have a nice camera' I just agree - I tell them my camera is awesome. Usually I let them take a few pictures with it too. They quickly get the idea. |
Are they impressed by your HP C20? |
It's fantastic! I can get 9999 images per card. Focus is really fast, huge 0.5" LCD on the back. Easy to get batteries. millions of pixels and can still get a 5.6 score. |
|
|
|
01/27/2008 01:09:28 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Wenders11:
I'm sure this topic has been discussed to death, but I have to rant! Yesterday two women from my church were over visiting and they noticed my digital photo frame that scrolls through several photos I've taken of our family. ... "yeah, it's all about the camera." Argh! |
At first, I thought the obvious responses would be:
- "Our minister preached really well last week, he must have got himself a better computer" (or "... she must have bought a better Bible").
or
- "I'd really like to paint like Monet, so next week I'm going to buy myself a really good paintbrush."
But then it occurred to me, maybe you should have pulled out your camera, given it to one of your friends and said "Do you want to borrow my camera for a couple of days and see how you go?"
|
|
|
|
02/16/2008 10:00:11 PM · #60 |
My favourite recent conversation that made me want to scream was this:
'Yeah, I saw some of your pictures they're very good. What kind of camera do you use?)
So far, pretty standard stuff. I mumble a reply with some semblance of politeness.
'Oh cool, I've been thinking of getting something like that because I'm really into photography; though not stuff with people in it like you, I'm into more arty, serious stuff like buildings. The problem is that my small camera just isn't working for me any more, I've really already taken all the pictures I can with it, all the angles, and subjects and settings...'
At this point I turned my brain off in order to avoid the inevitable rage-frenzy.
I love my d50 because of the 50mm 1.8 and the depth of field and the low light performance. I got great shots with my little canon powershot before, and really the only two things I envisage wanting in the future are some kind of in-body IS and 17-50 range large aperture zoom. There are many reasons to get a better camera. Having taken all the shots you possibly can with the old one is not one of them.
Message edited by author 2008-02-16 22:00:40. |
|
|
|
02/16/2008 10:48:14 PM · #61 |
In the days that I was chasing competitions and the like ... I got more than several award winners with my F and FM2.
I think folks are missing the point ... it ain't the body baby ... its the glass. That is where the difference is. I can tell the difference when I hang my Nikkor-s 50 on my d2x as opposed to say a piece of Tameron stuff form today ...
Message edited by author 2008-02-16 22:49:01.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2008 10:54:42 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
In the days that I was chasing competitions and the like ... I got more than several award winners with my F and FM2.
I think folks are missing the point ... it ain't the body baby ... its the glass. That is where the difference is. I can tell the difference when I hang my Nikkor-s 50 on my d2x as opposed to say a piece of Tameron stuff form today ... |
Still gotta know how to use the equipment... and many people figure cause they can press the shutter button on theri P&S that they''re experts, when they have no idea what their camera is doing to make the photo come out right... I Blame the Camera makers for all those commercials that tell people that they too can be a photographer... |
|
|
|
02/16/2008 11:20:07 PM · #63 |
I agree with  nomad469. The lens is what connects the world to the 'tronix.
I have been steadily buying older Nikon glass over the last couple of years, and when you get a true gem of a lens, there is a huge difference in what the photos look like.
I shot with a $75 used HP 735 P&S 3mp for about a year before getting one of those cameras that you "must have to get good photos". I found that if you know the camera in your hands and learn the special "thing" that it does best, then you can get great photos with even the simplest of equipment by using careful composition and good shooting techniques. The little HP does close work very nicely. Skies and clouds, and low light, however are the weakness of that 3mp camera.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 02:18:20 PM · #64 |
Two examples of why this is a complicated debate:
1) I started here (long ago) with a Canon S40, switched to a 10D, and now have a 5D. I've only won a ribbon with my S40. Never since! While I certainly feel that I've grown a lot technically as a photographer in the interim, it was my lack of inspirational ideas that kept me out of the upper ranks when shooting on higher-end equipment. In my case, camera quality is obviously decoupled from voter scores!
2) Every single step I've taken away from automatic camera control has improved my photography. First I learned to use aperture priority. Then I learned to meter and expose by hand, shooting in manual mode. Then I forced myself to focus manually. Now I'm learning to shoot with manual off-camera flash. To this end, the higher-end equipment I have has helped me in four basic ways: better optics, lower noise, less lag, and an improved ability to control manual settings (including light) on the fly. If anything, having better camera gear has made my task a lot harder since I'm doing everything by hand, but made my results much more predictable; now that I shoot manual I have to know what I'm doing, and can anticipate what will happen when I press the shutter release a lot easier than I could in the past. I'm not second-guessing some electronic brain, after all! If the picture sucks, I made it suck. If it's good, well, I did that too.
To rephrase my second point, I think that there really is an advantage to 'better' equipment, but it's not because of gee-whiz features and settings. High end cameras make it easy to disable all that automatic crap and get down to the business of understanding a scene, adjusting your settings, and taking the picture at the precise moment you want. They introduce less friction into the process. You could derive the same operational benefits with a crappy manual film SLR from the 70's! It's not so much that DSLRs are fancier, they're simply better at staying out of your way than, say, a digital point & shoot.
Case in point: That extra dial on the back of the 5D, compared to a Rebel? I can use it to adjust aperture on the fly without hitting an extra button. It's more efficient. I can stay focused on the scene through the viewfinder, so I can keep focusing the lens. :)
Case in point: I adore my cheap-ass Vivitar 285HV flashes (in production for 25 years) since I don't have to look at an LCD to adjust them, I can just twist a knob and know I changed the output by a stop. I don't even have to look! They're more useful in the field than my 580EX II, unless I need the extra power! It's not the price/fanciness that matters, it's the manual control. :)
In my opinion, better equipment is better not just because of what it does, but because of what it doesn't do. Every step I've taken away from automatic control has been liberating, even if I'm now 'burdened' with direct responsibility for a lot more of what goes into my photography.
So yeah, it's about the equipment. But the ideal gear should disappear completely, leaving only you, your decisions, and your photos. 'Better' equipment shoots for this goal, and sometimes price and percieved 'high-endedness' is not a good indicator of how well that goal is met.
Message edited by author 2008-03-04 14:29:57. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 04:15:15 PM · #65 |
Very valid points Mousie
Upgrading to the D200 from the D50 I believe has helped my photography -- but not because it's more expensive. Ya, the extra megapixels give me more cropping ability and the metering of my D200 seems much more accurate on auto settings. But the real things that have helped my photography have been the control I'm given over a particular image. And frankly, I'm also getting more bad shots when I screw up.
However, the reasons I upgraded were as follows:
- Better viewfinder with all relevant info. Very important as I don't have to take my eye away from the finder to make adjustments. I can see ISO, shutter, meter, mode, etc.. all while framing my subject.
- Two control wheels which allow manual mode to be much simpler. Perhaps a small detail for some, but it makes a huge difference for me.
- Custom banks for settings. Allows me to preset things and get back there without having to fight in the menus. For that matter, control knobs for all relevant items meaning even less menu digging.
Ya, as I said, there are other perks. But really what I wanted was better control at my fingertips. I can't even begin to say how many settings this thing has and how many different options there are. But at the most basic level, I'd progressed to a point where control mattered and therefore, I wanted a tool which gave me such control.
Tools do matter. But only when they are limiting your growth or getting in your way. I really don't see the point of upgrading until there is a specific list of reasons why you can't do what you want with your current gear.
Message edited by author 2008-03-04 16:16:43. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 05:44:41 PM · #66 |
I do not want to hijack this thread but....................OMG its Mousie!! One of my very first favs! Welcome back, are you going to stick around for awhile?
Back to your regularly scheduled rant, sorry. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 06:54:18 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
I do not want to hijack this thread but....................OMG its Mousie!! One of my very first favs! Welcome back, are you going to stick around for awhile?
Back to your regularly scheduled rant, sorry. |
What she said!! :) |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 11:28:22 AM · #68 |
Haha, hi there! You guys always know how to make a recluse feel welcome. :)
I've been around, lurking a lot. If anything I've been taking more pictures this year than at any point in my life, they just wind up on Flickr instead of here because I'm too lazy to actually check challenge topics before I go shooting. Heck, I have a picture that would have torn up Pet Portrait III, if only I had bothered to shoot it within the challenge window. :D
Originally posted by mjwood0:
- Better viewfinder with all relevant info. Very important as I don't have to take my eye away from the finder to make adjustments. I can see ISO, shutter, meter, mode, etc.. all while framing my subject.
- Two control wheels which allow manual mode to be much simpler. Perhaps a small detail for some, but it makes a huge difference for me.
- Custom banks for settings. Allows me to preset things and get back there without having to fight in the menus. For that matter, control knobs for all relevant items meaning even less menu digging. |
You make my point perfectly, mjwood0! Each of those features serves the purpose of making it easier to determine what your camera is doing and modify it on the fly if need be. They all reduce the friction inherent in taking a photograph, by introducing clarity and improving access. That's exactly what 'better' gear should do. And man it would be nice if the 5D always had ISO visible in the viewfinder.
Eventually we'll get our ocular implants and won't even need a viewfinder! :) |
|
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 11:29:35 AM EDT.
