The hardest part of photography...

01/18/2006 02:24:05 PM · #1

Certainly a lack of consideration, or understanding, of light is one of the key aspects in beginner's photography

debbybris

01/18/2006 01:03:48 PM · #2

Lol, I would worry about light if it would make me a master of photography!!!

But nothing is as simple as that, so I will have to be the beginner as I have the equipment.(LOL)
:o)

IceRock

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/17/2006 11:12:53 PM · #3

masters worry about light. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

01/17/2006 09:31:25 PM · #4

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by Didymus:

Beginners worry about equipment,
professionals worry about time,
masters worry about light.

"Beginners worry about equipment,"
- they do not have equipment, with out eqipment there is no masters no professionals.
"professionals worry about time"
-they have quipment and they have lot of work but no time
"masters worry about light. "
-they have equipment and they have lot of time too, so what else they can worry about.

conclusion: a workless professional is master of photography.

Wondered I why I'm getting better...

zxaar

01/17/2006 09:20:47 PM · #5

Originally posted by Didymus:

Beginners worry about equipment,
professionals worry about time,
masters worry about light.

"Beginners worry about equipment,"
- they do not have equipment, with out eqipment there is no masters no professionals.
"professionals worry about time"
-they have quipment and they have lot of work but no time
"masters worry about light. "
-they have equipment and they have lot of time too, so what else they can worry about.

conclusion: a workless professional is master of photography.

debbybris

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

01/17/2006 04:14:56 PM · #6

It is true that you have to have an eye to get that perfect photograph.
I am sure if 100 people went to the same place and with the same camera and had to use the same setting, then there maybe a few contenders....but if you were aloud to ps your photograph then thats a totally different photograph.
I have such basic knowledge of computers and what can be done to photographs.
I studied photography at college which was fine, slr, black and white film, process it myself and then into the darkroom to dodge and burn the sky.......oh how things have changed...lol!!!

Now I have treated myself to a 20d, and santa kindly bought me a starter studio for christmas......I so fell like a learner driver with a ferrari........but I love photography so much that I get what I want from it, and enjoy seeing such grat photographs and talented photographers on this site.!!
Some say how they achieved the photograph and this is great for me, as it helps me alot.
debbie :O)

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

01/17/2006 03:58:50 PM · #7

Originally posted by LaMerry:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by TooCool:

The camera don't count. The lens don't count. The post processing don't count. It's you the photographer that makes the photograph...

I wish that was true. I could have saved a lot of time and money.

But that IS true!... Cameras don't take pictures, people do. You could have all the best equipment of the world, have spent thousands and thousands of money, but if you have no talent, it won't be worthy! And really, if you have the talent, you could make wonders with a 3 MP point and shoot digital camera...

Yes this is so true. I can't remember if it was here or another photo site but there was a post about a guy who traveled the country with a cellphone camera and some of the photos he produced were really great!

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/17/2006 03:53:23 PM · #8

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

This is terrifying; slippy favors the same sort of shirts I do... He has better teeth though...

That's good to know. If you ever come to visit you don't have to pack so many clothes. I am in need of some Crest White Strips, though. I drink coffee all day, gotta stay alert!

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/17/2006 03:49:06 PM · #9

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I'd like to say that I did better with my cheap camera than the expensive one. Surely this will change, with practice and better glass. Either way, I keep standing in all the same spots;)

Oh bull, I saw your frog shots. :-P

This is terrifying; slippy favors the same sort of shirts I do... He has better teeth though...

R.

rox_rox

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/17/2006 02:09:02 PM · #10

LOL

01/17/2006 02:04:04 PM · #11

OK, that is a little troubling...

Warn me if you're ever driving on the roads up here, I'll keep my car in the driveway that day.
;-)

rox_rox

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/17/2006 01:59:11 PM · #12

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

My point exactly;)

Canon 20D

Power Shot A80 (Edit: I like this one better)

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 14:02:58.

01/17/2006 01:45:51 PM · #13

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

I'd like to say that I did better with my cheap camera than the expensive one. Surely this will change, with practice and better glass. Either way, I keep standing in all the same spots;)

Oh bull, I saw your frog shots. :-P

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 13:55:57.

rox_rox

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/17/2006 01:31:51 PM · #14

Don't have time to read all of the posts just yet. However, I'd like to say that I did better with my cheap camera than the expensive one. Surely this will change, with practice and better glass. Either way, I keep standing in all the same spots;)

"A man may never step into the same river twice. For he is never the same man, and it is never the same river." Heraclites

01/17/2006 12:31:05 PM · #15

Originally posted by Gordon:

If this 'DSLRs are better' argument was true, then shouldn't anything I write be more eloquent than Shakespeare - after all, look how much more advanced the equipment I have is.

I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. :-)

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

01/17/2006 12:28:18 PM · #16

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The constraints don't have to be due to lack of resources, often they can/should be self-imposed.

I'm sure this guy could have covered the 2004 election with a 1DmkII and any lenses he wished for had that been the approach he wanted to take. Yet he chose a different path and his photos stand out because of it.

Exactly. But if you are constrained due to lack of resources (or lack of location/ mobility) or any one of the tons of other 'lacks' people bemoan in these and other forums, the best advice is to look to those restrictions as a creative tool.

Some of the best pictures I took in Italy are when I decided I wanted to take 20 good pictures, from within a 4ftx4ft square and with none of them in focus. It took me a long time but it certainly made me go beyond the obvious tourist snaps.

MPRPRO

Olympus E-5

01/17/2006 12:28:10 PM · #17

Originally posted by basssman7:

what would happen if you give 100 people the same camera equipment, took them to the same place, and let them have at it.
...

You would certainly be able to tell who has the creative eye. ...

getting off of soapbox now.

Ernie

Good post Ernie, I had brought up that subject on my blog Here a few days ago. Got into talking about the diffenence between a snap shot and a photograph. A very small view of the subject. Enjoy.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/17/2006 12:20:25 PM · #18

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The more important question is "Would you shoot it to meet the expectations of someone else or yourself?"

'How much is someone else paying me and are they telling me which shots they want?'

I got a somewhat similar assignment to shoot the Austin Marathon last year. Along the lines of 'here's a media pass, go and do something interesting'

Most of my shots don't have recogniseable runners in them. They don't look like most running pictures you see in running magazines or on magazine covers. I didn't have long lenses or something capable of capturing traditional running shots, so I was forced to try something different.

They ended up being used for the next year's marketing campaign. I've sold several of them multiple times for textbooks and other publications.

Having lots of options and lots of toys/cameras/lenses can often be the biggest restriction on your creative outlook. Having lots of constraints can force you to be more creative and get better results.

Better cameras and lenses can lead to more boring, predictable pictures, if you aren't careful.

01/17/2006 12:11:05 PM · #19

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

I'd say an SLR is more useful for getting good quality photos, and a P&S is more useful for spy work. :-D

I'm reminded of the sports illustrated cover of Tiger Woods on the last tee of the Masters. He was at the top of his backswing.

Try taking that with a DSLR and you'd better be able to run fast ;)

All I'm trying to suggest is that yes, maybe the camera does matter, but not in the way that everyone around here seems to assume which is more $$$ == better in every way. The camera is just a tool. You have to learn the capabilities of the tool and use it for what it is appropriate for. But it is the photographer that does that.

Does it matter if an author uses a quill pen, a biro or a word prcessor ? Is is writing better ? He might be more productive, have less technical spelling errors, but is the final product better ?

If this 'DSLRs are better' argument was true, then shouldn't anything I write be more eloquent than Shakespeare - after all, look how much more advanced the equipment I have is.

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 12:18:48.

01/17/2006 12:09:22 PM · #20

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The more important question is "Would you shoot it to meet the expectations of someone else or yourself?"

'How much is someone else paying me and are they telling me which shots they want?'

I got a somewhat similar assignment to shoot the Austin Marathon last year. Along the lines of 'here's a media pass, go and do something interesting'

Most of my shots don't have recogniseable runners in them. They don't look like most running pictures you see in running magazines or on magazine covers. I didn't have long lenses or something capable of capturing traditional running shots, so I was forced to try something different.

They ended up being used for the next year's marketing campaign. I've sold several of them multiple times for textbooks and other publications.

Having lots of options and lots of toys/cameras/lenses can often be the biggest restriction on your creative outlook. Having lots of constraints can force you to be more creative and get better results.

Better cameras and lenses can lead to more boring, predictable pictures, if you aren't careful.

01/17/2006 12:08:19 PM · #21

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Megatherian:
Arguing that the photographer is the only thing that matters is like arguing that the hardware is the only thing that matters - it's all important.

Has anyone disagreed with that at any point ?

How 'bout this:
A person can learn to take a good photo, but a P&S can't learn to be an SLR.

Therefore, the equipment is more important.

?

So obviously, because a P&S has greater DoF, quieter operation and is lighter to carry around, the SLR is a less useful camera.

?

Ah, you Devil's advocate! ;-)
I'd say an SLR is more useful for getting good quality photos, and a P&S is more useful for spy work. :-D

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/17/2006 12:04:35 PM · #22

Originally posted by Megatherian:

So you are saying that picture by Garry Winogrand is 100% perfect? That had he had access to today's technology when that was shot, he would have shot it exactly the same with the same equipment? The picture could not be improved upon?

From what I know of Winogrand, he would have shot it the same way regardless of what was available. He was not one for gizmos, gadgets and the latest toys.

I think it would be interesting to shoot the Superbowl with a pinhole camera, a Holga or maybe even a digital elph.

The more important question is "Would you shoot it to meet the expectations of someone else or yourself?"

01/17/2006 12:02:29 PM · #23

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Megatherian:
Arguing that the photographer is the only thing that matters is like arguing that the hardware is the only thing that matters - it's all important.

Has anyone disagreed with that at any point ?

How 'bout this:
A person can learn to take a good photo, but a P&S can't learn to be an SLR.

Therefore, the equipment is more important.

?

So obviously, because a P&S has greater DoF, quieter operation and is lighter to carry around, the SLR is a less useful camera.

?

01/17/2006 12:01:08 PM · #24

Originally posted by Megatherian:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Megatherian:
Arguing that the photographer is the only thing that matters is like arguing that the hardware is the only thing that matters - it's all important.

Has anyone disagreed with that at any point ?

This thread is debating the OP's statement:
"The camera don't count. The lens don't count. The post processing don't count. It's you the photographer that makes the photograph... "

I've been rebutting that by saying it all counts, it all matters.

Many people seem to think the camera matters a whole lot more than it actually does though. The camera is a restriction. Each camera has its own restrictions. A good photographer will make a good picture, no matter what those restrictions are. It might be a different picture with different equipment but the camera doesn't matter substantially to the ability to make a good picture.