The hardest part of photography...

01/17/2006 10:56:49 AM · #76

Originally posted by jhonan:

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'

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough," Robert Capa

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/17/2006 10:58:45 AM · #77

Originally posted by Gordon:

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.

Herd mentality doesn't make interesting pictures.

Does the 10m prime fit on the digital elph?

Sports photographers can pick and choose whatever lenses they want, do you really think they only choose the longer lenses on the best cameras to "keep up with the Jones'"?

They use the equipment they do because it gives them the most opportunity to capture the most dramatic and emotionally captivating shots.

Even so - you thought about what equipment to bring from my example and made a suggestion. If the only thing that matters is you (the photographer) then why even think about what equipment to bring. If you are good it won't matter, just swing by Walmart on your way there.

Apple iPhone 5

01/17/2006 10:59:16 AM · #78

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jhonan:

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'

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough," Robert Capa

How close to catch Janet's wardrobe malfunction with a 10mm? - And imagine the distortion!! ;-)

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

01/17/2006 11:04:24 AM · #79

Gordon -
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?

Beagleboy

Canon EOS-30D

01/17/2006 11:05:46 AM · #80

The hardest part of photography is submitting images for critical or competitive review without being too emotionally attached to the photos. I think most of us have a big problem with this.

For example, people submit an image for competitive review. Scores comeback lower than expected. People bitch, à la "People wouldn't know a good photo if it bit them in the ass!" or "People don't get me!".

It's hard to do, but you have to realize that people weren't there when you took the image. They don't have the same emotional attachment to people, places and things that surround you, the photographer.

I think that's the toughest.

ergo

01/17/2006 11:13:29 AM · #81

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

I think this is a good point.

01/17/2006 11:14:10 AM · #82

Originally posted by Megatherian:

No, just that your assumption that you need a 1DII and lots of glass isn't thinking very creatively.

The correct answer to your original question is 'yes if you are a great photographer the camera shouldn't matter'

You should still be able to take fantastic pictures with the Elph, or a view camera, or a range finder, or a 10mm lens, or a 1DII with a 400mm f2.8

Do you think that isn't true ? You wont take the same pictures with each camera, but you should still be able to take fantastic, interesting, engaging pictures of the event with any of those options. If not - you aren't a good photographer.

The 1DII has just as many restrictions on the types of pictures you can take as the digital elph. It just constrains you in different ways. There are plenty of pictures I can take with my little point and shoot that are not possible with a 1DII. Those constraints tend to make you make particular types of pictures. A good photographer understands the constraints of a particular tool and works within and around those to create interesting pictures.

The biggest toys don't always win.

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 11:19:32.

01/17/2006 11:44:43 AM · #83

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Megatherian:
Gordon -
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?

No, just that your assumption that you need a 1DII and lots of glass isn't thinking very creatively.

The correct answer to your original question is 'yes if you are a great photographer the camera shouldn't matter'

You should still be able to take fantastic pictures with the Elph, or a view camera, or a range finder, or a 10mm lens, or a 1DII with a 400mm f2.8

Do you think that isn't true ? You wont take the same pictures with each camera, but you should still be able to take fantastic, interesting, engaging pictures of the event with any of those options. If not - you aren't a good photographer.

The 1DII has just as many restrictions on the types of pictures you can take as the digital elph. It just constrains you in different ways. There are plenty of pictures I can take with my little point and shoot that are not possible with a 1DII. Those constraints tend to make you make particular types of pictures. A good photographer understands the constraints of a particular tool and works within and around those to create interesting pictures.

The biggest toys don't always win.

Exactly. I never said the photographer doesn't matter, my only point is that equipment, lenses, lights - all of those do matter too. There is no one size fits all with equipment any more than there is a one size fits all with photographers. It is the combination of having the right photographer in the right location with the right equipment that makes a great shot. 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.

01/17/2006 11:53:13 AM · #84

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.

Your question about the superbowl seemed to imply that it was 'obvious' that you'd want the 1DII though. I'm just trying to point out that the camera is always a restriction. The photographer is what makes the images. Not the camera.

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 11:58:36.

01/17/2006 11:57:42 AM · #85

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.

01/17/2006 11:59:44 AM · #86

Originally posted by Gordon:

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.

?

01/17/2006 12:01:08 PM · #87

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.

01/17/2006 12:02:29 PM · #88

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.

?

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/17/2006 12:04:35 PM · #89

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 12:08:19 PM · #90

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

01/17/2006 12:09:22 PM · #91

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.

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

01/17/2006 12:11:05 PM · #92

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.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/17/2006 12:20:25 PM · #93

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.

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.

MPRPRO

Olympus E-5

01/17/2006 12:28:10 PM · #94

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.

01/17/2006 12:28:18 PM · #95

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

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.

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

01/17/2006 12:31:05 PM · #96

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. :-)

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

01/17/2006 01:31:51 PM · #97

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

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

01/17/2006 01:45:51 PM · #98

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 EOS-20D

01/17/2006 01:59:11 PM · #99

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

My point exactly;)

Canon 20D

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

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