| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2006 08:39:09 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is good. Now make it a point to seek out a museum or gallery that has some of his original works on display and prepare to genuflect :-)
R. |
Your gonna make me look for a dictionary but I assume you mean 'humbled'. My point is that even at low res his images are at the very least legendary! |
"Genuflect" is what a Catholic does at the altar. It's worshipping, not feeling humbled :-)
R. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 08:39:40 AM · #52 |
This is the most ridiculous argument, I swear :)
Here are a bunch of folks with DSLRs trying to convince the folks with P&Ss that having a DSLR doesn't matter.
Simultaneously, all the folks with P&Ss are trying to convince the folks with DSLRs that having a DSLR does matter.
Good grief. If high quality lenses and sensors and battery packs and Alien Bees and softboxes and Photoshop really DON'T MATTER, why the heck do we all buy them? I think it's absolutely wrong to say that equipment doesn't even factor in. It's at least 20%, if not more, of the equation.
I WOULD say this - to folks without DSLRs - DON'T LET YOUR EQUIPMENT HINDER YOUR VISION. You CAN still be a good photographer, you can be a GREAT photographer, with a $200 camera, no question. Be the very best you can be.
I DO maintain, though, that you CAN produce MORE work of a HIGHER quality, if you are using high quality equipment. You will probably find that you CAN do SOME things with a DSLR that you simply are not able to produce regularly and repeatably with a PS.
And no, I'm not an authority on anything. This argument just continually drives me bonkers. For crying out loud, let's just take pictures and quit obsessing over why yours are better than mine. It's a given that probably nearly ALL of you are better photogs than I am. But many of you also have better equipment and software, and that spreads the gap just a little bit further. I MIGHT be able to catch up with you a little bit if I were using L glass and $2000 lights, even though I'll probably never pass you. My stuff will probably NEVER look as good as Gordon's, even when he was using a PS. However, now that he's shooting a Mark II, he's CAPABLE of running off and leaving me even further in the dust.
Not that I'm in a contest with Gordon, he's just an excellent photog that has posted a lot of stuff using BOTH types of equipment.
Setz, this is one of those remarkable times where you and I totally agree. Equipment IS part of the equation. Sure, there ARE good photogs and there are BAD photogs. But that isn't 100% of the equation, either. Joey, who hasn't been ALIVE as long as I've been taking pictures, can and does make me look like a rank amateur. That is a given. However, neither does that mean that we should throw away all the DSLRs and have a contest where Joey and I are head to head with equal cameras. That's a silly approach, I KNOW he's a better photog. I might beat him out somewhere along life's way, but that won't mean that all of a sudden I'm better than he is; it will simply mean that my "equation" added up to a larger total than his did on that particular occasion.
It's all a factor. The photographer is the MOST important part, but not the only part.
I need to shut up :) |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 08:50:37 AM · #53 |
The MOST important part is what kind of underwear you have on.
...a great man once said (or maybe not) "It is impossible for a person to be successful at any endeavor if their private parts are not comfortable." |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 08:58:25 AM · #54 |
Predicted theme and out of your backyard in bad condition is hard photographic
Icerock
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 09:23:46 AM · #55 |
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." — Ansel Adams
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 09:24:24 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
No one is saying talent isn't important - it is VERY important, but it's not the only thing in a REALLY GOOD picture.
|
Actually, some people are saying talent isn't important |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 09:24:24 AM · #57 |
The most important part of photography is knowledge. Knowledge of your equipment, knowledge of your subject, knowledge of yourself.
Know your equipment, its capabilities and limitations. Those of you who change equipment and find your images suffer - that's okay, you are learning your equipment. Once you know it, the struggling goes away.
Included in equipment is processing equipment, either SW or HW (darkroom). Know it, learn it, use it to its fullest. Not knowling how to post process is like not knowing how to point and shoot. Its basic stuff...
Know your subject. Don't just walk up and snap and walk away. Study your subject from different points of view, different times of day, different moods. Its not very often that a photographer gets the exact right shot with one snap. Ansel Adams (as noted below) could spend days studying the same location finding the right light, finding the right point of view, finding the right moment to make the snap.
Know yourself. Know your capabilities, know your limitations. Know when its time to grow. Know how you feel the moment you get it right so you can do it again.
The hardest part of photography is learning. When you stop, you know you are done. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 09:32:31 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by nards656:
This is the most ridiculous argument, I swear :)
Here are a bunch of folks with DSLRs trying to convince the folks with P&Ss that having a DSLR doesn't matter.
Simultaneously, all the folks with P&Ss are trying to convince the folks with DSLRs that having a DSLR does matter.
Good grief. If high quality lenses and sensors and battery packs and Alien Bees and softboxes and Photoshop really DON'T MATTER, why the heck do we all buy them? |
For 90% of the photos you see and see entered in challenges, any digital camera made in the last 5 years could have taken them. There is nothing special about the camera for those shots.
DSLRs, fancy lenses, high performance fast optics, lighting equipment give you more choices and let you get those last 10% of shots that require fast response, big zoom, low light features and so on.
We buy the gear
1/ in the vain hope that it'll make us better
2/ to reach that 10% of shots we can't take with cheaper cameras
3/ to show off ?
4/ because we can
5/ because it's there
6/ because of the marketing hype
7/ because that last 10% sell more, because they are harder to get
8/ to get more control
I've had shots in the high 5's and 6's with 1Mp fixed everything push button digital cameras. Several people have won challenges with auto-everything point and shoots. Most of the winning images could be taken with just about any half decent digital camera. Some of my best selling, largest printed and highest paid images were taken with a 4Mp point and shoot.
There's a correlation between high scoring sucessful image making and having an expensive SLR. However, there isn't a requirement for that. It is more that those who tend to make good images have also invested more in their hobby, emotionally, intellectually and probably financially. If you can't take a good picture with any old camera, getting a DSLR is going to just make it harder, not suddenly fix anything.
HP Photosmart C20
Pentax Optio S4
Message edited by author 2006-01-17 09:41:51. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 09:41:14 AM · #59 |
having used all types of equipment in all types of situations, i thought there were basically 3 things that made the difference in being successful with photography:
1) equipment. it REALLY DOES matter. there's no way in hell i could have gotten some of the shots i've gotten with anything less than the equipment i'm shooting with now. and there are a number of shots that are still out of reach. i have seen some incredible shots made with lesser equipment, but, if you really want to get the job done, you have to have the right equipment.
2) experience. duh. like courtenay said, if you don't know how to use it, it doesn't matter. it's really a matter of practice, practice, practice, and review, review, review. you really have to be honest with yourself. if you really want to get better, you have to really look at a lot of great photography and then try to emulate it yourself.
3) access. you will hardly ever get the same shots from the bleachers as you will get from the sideline. the closer you are to the action, the better shots you will get. how do you get access? by earning it. you have to start at the bottom and earn the trust of the people who can grant you access. just because you have a camera and desire does not mean you qualify. access is usually restricted, and the people who control access want to make sure it is given to the people who really need it.
after working a while, someone pointed out to me a fourth requirement: showing up. a lot of people like the idea of being able to go and shoot, but they aren't willing to make the commitment. it means going places and shooting things that you might not want to do. it means having to sacrifice time away from family and friends. it means having to often do a lot in order to get very little.
if you want it, you can get it, but you have to make a commitment to it, and you have to be ready to make sacrifices. and i think that is the bottom-line: the hardest part is simply doing it. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 09:51:44 AM · #60 |
I'm going to add one to the list here - The hardest and most crucial part of photography is probably timing. Knowing where to stand just requires that you open your eyes a little. Timing is indeed the tricky bit. For me.
I've been reading up on photography for about a year now. My sister took an art class in painting for about 6 months. She has a Canon A80, I have an S2.
We both went to the beach with some friends.
I took 200 pictures, she took 60.
She came home with about 10 really nice shots.
I came home with about 6.
Hrmph.
Having said that, I can take better pictures with a DSLR than I can with my camera. Why? Mostly little things. Easier to hold, more things to control, and most importantly, when I get a picture in my head to shoot, I can make it happen.
My P&S has a lot of limitations that I run into again and again. Noise is one. Focus is another (stupid EVF - and no focus ring). Shutter lag is another. Low aperture versatility, yet another.
Many basic, basic techniques of photography are significantly more difficult on P&S cameras. Try shooting F/22 to get that pan shot on a sunny day with an S2.
Having said that, I purchased my camera in spite of the limitations I knew it would have (ok, I didn't know about all of them). Indeed, I actually purchased it *because* of the limitations. Learning to work around them would make me better trained to handle my equipment.
3 DSLR wielding photographers and I went to a snowboarding show 6 months ago. 1 took 2 pictures (twin pentax's one with a rare Russian lens), neither worked. 1 took 15 pictures (D70 w/ 80-400mm VR), none of them worked. 1 took 200 pictures (300D, 70-300mm), 25 of them worked. I took 650 pictures and learned a lot because about 50 of them worked - none of which were in the first 350 shots.
Sometimes persistence and willingness to walk the rocky road of failure can take the place of talent.
I find myself in the right place all the time. I see beauty in many forms in many places. Capturing that for others to see is not so simple. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 09:53:55 AM · #61 |
In a thread of photographic quotes here at DPC, there was this one
(can't remember who said it or who posted it, but it's very true):
Beginners worry about equipment,
professionals worry about time,
masters worry about light. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 09:58:33 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
In a thread of photographic quotes here at DPC, there was this one
(can't remember who said it or who posted it, but it's very true):
Beginners worry about equipment,
professionals worry about time,
masters worry about light. |
Well said.
The caveat, however, is that professionals have equipment mastered. Masters have time and equipment mastered. It's a progressive thing.
I suppose I'm still only a beginner, then. Actually, maybe not, since I don't worry about my equipment. I know its role, and I know how to use it. Who knows. Whatever.
I'm just mad because I'm not shooting right now :( It would be much more fun. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:03:29 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
is finding the right place to stand.--Fred Picker
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... |
Ah, this old idea revisited...
Things I love about my P&S:
1. Small - I have it with me almost all the time,
2. Unobtrusive - people don't notice me much,
3. Swivel LCD monitor makes it easy to get funky points of view,
4. Inexpensive,
5. Variety of modes such as Av, Tv, and full manual,
6. Takes movie clips,
7. I don't obsess about keeping it safe, if I dropped it down a bottommless pit, or it were stolen, I wouldn't be too upset,
8. I don't feel obliged to take awesome photos with it.
Things I hate about my P&S:
1. Very grainy in low light, no matter what settings/ISO are used,
2. Low light photos possible with SLRs are simply NOT possible at all,
3. Manual focus is a joke, and auto focus won't work in low light,
4. The only time I can use shallow DOF is for macros,
5. Zoom is a joke,
6. Not enough range in aperture, only F/2.8 to F/8, and the wider apertures are lost when zoomed,
7. Not enough range in ISO (50-400), but it doesn't matter anyway because image quality is terrible at anything over 100 anyway, higher values are unusable,
8. Shutter delay makes any decent action shots a result of pure luck or dozens of repeated tries,
9. Tough to compose shots in the LCD screen, especially in bright conditions, and the viewfinder is useless (combine this with point #8 and action shots are even tougher),
10. Burst mode is a joke,
11. Tends to blow headlights, and must be carefull with exposure compensation setting, often a choice of blowout or grain,
12. Image quality is lower.
That's all that come to mind at the moment.
I've managed a couple of 4th place finishes with my P&S, but I think those, and my other high finishes are due to interesting/unusual subject matter. I'm just lucky enough to work in a fairly interesting city and live in a more rural area, so I have the best of both worlds.
If you look at my photos in anything much higher than 640 pixel resolution, they're pretty sad. And if I couldn't clean them up in Photoshop.... forget about it!
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:04:19 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Of course there is... what, does the Hubble have a brain of it's own? Is it conscious? No, somebody on earth controls it. |
Do you honestly believe that any one person decides what the HST is going to photograph? If so, then who is this HST photographer?
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
If you get a remote trigger for your DSLR, does that mean there's no photographer? |
If the remote trigger changes the camera orientation, aperture, shutter speed, etc., does that mean there's no photographer?
All this is beside the point. The original assertion was that the camera equipment doesn't matter. If that's true, then any halfway competent photographer should be able to get photographs as good as the HST, right? So, where would you stand with your 7D to get photos on a par with the HST?
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:08:29 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
So, where would you stand with your 7D to get photos on a par with the HST? |
Right about where the sensor in the HST is would be a good start. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:10:36 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Of course there is... what, does the Hubble have a brain of it's own? Is it conscious? No, somebody on earth controls it. |
Do you honestly believe that any one person decides what the HST is going to photograph? If so, then who is this HST photographer? |
IMHO the Hubble is a scientific instrument recording photographic (and other) data. It is operated by researchers, not photographers.
Although some of the photographs produced from it look visually impressive, they are still part of a scientific pursuit, not an artistic one. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:21:44 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by IceRock:
Predicted theme and out of your backyard in bad condition is hard photographic |
Huh? |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:29:04 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by IceRock:
Predicted theme and out of your backyard in bad condition is hard photographic |
Huh? |
I second the motion... |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:37:11 AM · #69 |
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... |
So since I dont have talent, using an equation to figure out what it takes talent+3mp= $$$$ and fame.
Me+16.7mp= mediocracy.
I can see that.
:-)
MattO
|
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:39:12 AM · #70 |
Last I heard, the Hubble was open to time requests. Individuals most certainly can and indeed DO request specific pictures to be taken with it. They usually don't take request from Joe Blow of course, but it can be an individual making the request. I believe the request forms are pretty complicated and keep out the college goof-balls trying to get hi-res images of nudist beaches ;).
Additonally, most HST images are not single images. Sometimes, they are as many as several hundred images taken in multiple passes like was shown in a recent thread about the gigapixel image from it.
It's all compositing and layering. It's a totally different beast.
I commented on that thread that actually the number of pixels present in the gigapixel image compared with the number of passes it took, assuming they were side-by-side, 0% overlap stitches (not likely) and assuming it was a single layer (ridiculous) actually yielded a per-frame Megapixel rating not too far off from the average DSLR.
So yeah, you would stand pretty much where the Hubble's sensor is, moving your camera about the width of the sensor in each direction and using a laptop to factor in the earth's rotation. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:44:15 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Additonally, most HST images are not single images. Sometimes, they are as many as several hundred images taken in multiple passes like was shown in a recent thread about the gigapixel image from it. |
So I can't use my Hubble for the next basic editing challenge? |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:46:15 AM · #72 |
Congratulations, you've been invited to shoot the super bowl. Are you going to take the Canon Digital Elph or the EOS-1D Mark II?
Well if you really are a great photographer then it shouldn't matter. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:49:44 AM · #73 |
| Jhonan. My point is that you shouldn't need to worry about the Hubble because your camera, frame-by-frame is just as good and is better suited to carrying around. It is also more likely better tuned to the visible light spectrum. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:51:24 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Congratulations, you've been invited to shoot the super bowl. Are you going to take the Canon Digital Elph or the EOS-1D Mark II?
Well if you really are a great photographer then it shouldn't matter. |
Depends. If I've been invited to shoot the superbowl, then I'd assume it would be because of my own personal unique vision and approach to subject matter. In which case, I'd use something to get photos that aren't the same as 99% of the other people shooting it. A view camera springs to mind as an interesting option. Perhaps shoot the whole thing with a 10mm prime. If you can't take interesting pictures with the Digital Elph, the 1DII isn't going to help you.
Herd mentality doesn't make interesting pictures.
Here's a football picture by Garry Winogrand, but I guess he isn't much of a photographer:
Message edited by author 2006-01-17 10:55:48. |
|
|
|
01/17/2006 10:55:02 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
A view camera springs to mind as an interesting option. Perhaps shoot the whole thing with a 10mm prime. |
You'd need a 400mm to capture the 'wardrobe malfunctions' |
|
