Does technology prevent you from taking images?

That is, of course, a gross simplification and one that ignores a good percentage of great photographic art.

I agree that better equipment does not necessarily make a photograph better, but I disagree with the illogical extension of that truth to the untruth that equipment quality is unimportant in creating great photographs.

Dan

For those what want to write me off as "another gear nut who doesn't photograph," you can find out more from my signature.

bcphoto2 said:

When the big one does come by -- does the image become better if shot
on a 1dsIII rather than the G10? No.

In the old days, did it matter if that great shot was done on a Leica
or a Speed Graphic? No. The shot -- the decisive moment -- was all
that mattered.

Click to expand...

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.

ianbrown said:

I have had my 5DMK2 for 6 months, I admit I am a gadget geek and like
to use the latest equipment. However in this case I have taken fewer
images with the 5DMK2 than with any other camera I have owned during
the same time period.

I know how capable the 5DMK2 is and it’s only as god as the person
behind it, but on a recent visit to London my images were no better
than those I took a couple of years ago with a Canon 40D.

Click to expand...

It is also as dog as the person behind it too. LOL. Remember: god spelled backwards is dog.

ianbrown said:

I went to Venice an took over 800 shots, but whilst there are 6 or so
"good" one's the other 794 are post card or holiday snaps images.

Click to expand...

At least you got lots of pictures with good technical quality, if not artistic quality.

ianbrown said:

I guess I am stating the obvious but better cameras don't give you
better images unless you are at the right place at the right time, or
are lucky or very creative.

Click to expand...

You are stating it wrong. Better cameras do give you better images technically, all else being equal.

ianbrown said:

My main hang up is I won't use the 5DMK2 for images that my G10 will
take just as well. I guess I am looking for the "Big" one and that
may be a long time away, if ever!

Click to expand...

You don't seem to make any sense. How can the G10 take pictures that are just as good as the 5DMKII? That is not possible. Can a Yugo outrun a Ferrari? You may be just as bad at driving while inside a Yugo as you are inside a Ferrari, but don't blame the Ferrari for your bad driving.

ianbrown said:

One day I may be good enough to get the best out of the 5DMK2

Ian

Click to expand...

Give yourself a chance. Take some photography lessons.

Hey guys don't get me wrong, I have been taking images for over 30 years and I would say I am an advanced amateur. I have 3 weddings and 2 Proms to do this year, so I am not a BAD photographer.

My main subject are Portraits and Landscapes.

I look at some images in monthly mags and I have deleted thousands of images that look like them.

I am not saying I am a great photographer, I have lots and lots to learn.

However I guess I get frustrated by seeing superb images that I think I will never be able to achieve.

I guess like all of us its keep trying and reading and looking and learning!

Ian

you are at the right place (the bare scene) and there at the right time (great illumination). That said, it's up to you to recognize the right place and PLAN to be there at the right time to get a nice picture. Also understand that you can never be at "all" the right places at the right time and it's up to you to make the best of whatever shot is offered to you.

BTW, IMO there is nothing wrong with taking what you consider to be just a snapshot; heck, that snap is memory captured that you may (or may not) cherish in the future ... you never know.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

You know what would be really refreshing? Get yourself a Holga, and leave the 5DII at home for a while.

I did that recently, and it's incredibly liberating. A $40 medium-format plastic camera, with lots of imperfections. No need to worry about equipment, just pure joy in shooting. Back to basics. It makes you think about the picture again. One roll will yield 12 pictures, so every shot counts. And you don't have an LCD screen to see what you did. You really have to think about what you're shooting again. Imperfection is part of the allure, and not being able to fully predict what the final image will look like feels great.

Try it, you'll love it

--
Always searching for that one perfect picture...

I've used plenty of cheap cameras in my time. If you haven't it sure could be a different and fun to try a cheap camera. If you have already done that, unless such an approach is "your thing," it probably will be a "been there, done that" experience.

dan

In Search of Light said:

You know what would be really refreshing? Get yourself a Holga, and
leave the 5DII at home for a while.

I did that recently, and it's incredibly liberating. A $40
medium-format plastic camera, with lots of imperfections. No need to
worry about equipment, just pure joy in shooting. Back to basics. It
makes you think about the picture again. One roll will yield 12
pictures, so every shot counts. And you don't have an LCD screen to
see what you did. You really have to think about what you're shooting
again. Imperfection is part of the allure, and not being able to
fully predict what the final image will look like feels great.

Try it, you'll love it

--
Always searching for that one perfect picture...

Click to expand...

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.

I use my 5D for wildlife or anything moving that needs many frames, but everything else I shoot is kodachrome, velvia, or b+w film. So technology isn't holding me back!

Holga or Diana may help you get back in the groove.

Frees you from technology and let's you have fun with a different media and the square format forces you to think differently than what you've been use to.

Whenever I start feeling a little blah about my images I put down the technology and pickup my holga, diana, or lensbaby. Not only is it fun but the images are always different from what would be coming out of my digital camera...some are great, some not so but I always pick up a few ideas to carry over to digital 4x3 format.

I develop my b&w as well which I find almost thearaputic in today's high tech world...kinda like gardening.

(nt)

Something must be wrong with you ...

--
Regards

alexeig

http://www.pbase.com/alexeig

RedFox88 said:

film is liberating

Click to expand...

How is it "liberating?" Can you explain?

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.

It liberates you from the constant fear of obsolescence.
It liberates you from worrying about what RAW processor to use.
It liberates you from ever needed more powerful computers.
It liberates you from your dependency on automation and makes you think.
When you think you are free. "I think, therefore I am"; sounds familiar?
Gee how did I get into this digital mess.
--
rRocco Galatioto

I know...I thought this camera came with an "Ansel Adams" mode! Sigh, maybe that was the 5D Mark 3!! Seriously though, technology aside, I'm a gadget guy as well and certain cameras just work to feed my creativity and others don't. It's not that big a suprise...the camera becomes an extension of ourselves. I was largely uninspired by my 40D, but can't shoot enough with my 5DMkII.

If no one here really cared about the technology, this would be the Canon 20D forum

I use digital and I "fear" none of these things.

I am liberated by:

1. ability to get quick feedback on my images and make adjustments quickly.
2. the fact that cost of film is no longer a limitation.

3. the tremendous freedom that modern post-processing gives me to extend and enhance the techniques used by the great film photographers of the past.

I would not be "lliberated" by returning to:

1. the much higher cost of film and chemical printing

2. the bulk of carting around the amount of film equivalent to the amount of digital frames I have available.

3. the need to store and expose myself to, and safely dispose of toxic chemicals.
4. the expense and size of chemical darkroom equipment.
5. the limitations imposed by film/print technology

Do I think that one is "better" than the other in an intrinsic, general sense? Of course not. Great photographic work has (obviously!) been accomplished with both chemical and digital photography technologies. If you prefer the smell of fixer in the morning to using Photoshop, so be it - but let's let the whole issue of which approach is "better" slide, OK?

I have a friend who worked with A. Adams and who shot LF film for many, many years. He now shoots digital.

Dan

Rocco Galatioto said:

It liberates you from the constant fear of obsolescence.
It liberates you from worrying about what RAW processor to use.
It liberates you from ever needed more powerful computers.
It liberates you from your dependency on automation and makes you think.
When you think you are free. "I think, therefore I am"; sounds familiar?
Gee how did I get into this digital mess.
--
rRocco Galatioto

Click to expand...

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.

Dear Dan,

I ended my piece by making it clear that I shoot digital. BTW, I have since 2001 and have shot less than a dozen rolls since. All my Leicas, Nikons, Mamiya's, my Rolley 6X6 and many others are gathering dust as it were.

I was just making a point and trying to add a little kindling to the fire. Please take it easy.
I totally agree with you.
--
Rocco Galatioto

gdanmitchell said:

RedFox88 said:

film is liberating

Click to expand...

How is it "liberating?" Can you explain?

Click to expand...

Film allows you to concentrate on making a good photograph instead of immediately seeing how the last one looked. It also makes you think more since you can't shoot and review the histogram and reshoot - that's sloppy shooting in my book. Film isn't for moving wildlife (unless you are extremely good) nor is it for sports. If you have the time to slow down and do things right, film is extremely rewarding. More people need to slow down and enjoy things.

As for the need to review and "make adjustments". If you're shooting negative film, you don't really need to worry about blown highlights since negative film has about 3 times more highlight retention than digital. Where digital is all concerned about avoiding blown highlights.

RedFox88 said:

Film allows you to concentrate on making a good photograph instead of
immediately seeing how the last one looked. It also makes you think
more since you can't shoot and review the histogram and reshoot -
that's sloppy shooting in my book. Film isn't for moving wildlife
(unless you are extremely good) nor is it for sports. If you have
the time to slow down and do things right, film is extremely
rewarding. More people need to slow down and enjoy things.

Click to expand...

I slow down and work carefully and precisely when I shoot digital - just as slow and careful as when I used to shoot film. I concentrate deeply and carefully on making a good photograph. Then I may check to see how the exposure and so forth looks, and if necessary I make adjustments (which, uh, slows me down...) that can move the photograph even closer to my vision of the final print.

I think as much or more when I shoot digital since I have more information that I can apply to the creation of the image I have in mind.

I slow down. I enjoy things. (Ask a recent shooting partner who became frustrated when I spent 90 minutes shooting inside a 25 foot radius.)

Film has different issues. Where negative film is less inclined to blow highlights, you have to be more careful with shadows. Of course, if you use transparency film the situation is reversed. Avoiding blown highlights is really very easy with digital capture.

Film is a fine medium. As I wrote above, it is obvious that outstanding photographic work and art has been created using film and digital technologies.

What bores the heck out of me are smug film users who get these bizarre ideas in their heads that just because one uses digital cameras that one cannot shoot as carefully and as intelligently as they imagine they do with film. That is of course entirely unrelated to what medium you use and entirely related to your work process as a photographer.

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.

ianbrown said:

I know how capable the 5DMK2 is and it’s only as god as the person
behind it, but on a recent visit to London my images were no better
than those I took a couple of years ago with a Canon 40D.

Click to expand...

• Of course they are better: they have more DR, less grain (noise), higher resolution.

ianbrown said:

My main hang up is I won't use the 5DMK2 for images that my G10 will
take just as well.

Click to expand...

• G10 is a nice wee camera, but in NO WAY comparable to DSLR quality.

http://lordofthelens.co.nz/

A camera does not change your eye, your mind or your heart.

It's only a mild exaggeration to say I don't see how it is possible to take a bad picture in Venice.

OP has no link to a gallery or any of his work. So he has no feedback loop for others to help him.

It's easy to improve:

Go to a museum. The artists there faced many of the challenges we do. Look at how they solved them.

Pick a photographer who is better than you. Study his work. Ask the simple question: "Why is he better than me?" Try to do what he does.

Ask yourself, "What am I not doing?" Do it.

And spend as much time as possible thinking about, and interacting with, things that are not oneself and not photographic equipment. Having something to say is often useful.

OK. Make a series of pictures about how your equipment keeps you from taking images. Think this through, then shoot it. Turn this, and every other, fruitless negative preoccupation into a source for creativity. I think you'll have more fun.

Good luck.

Bob Tullis said:

ianbrown said:

I have had my 5DMK2 for 6 months, I admit I am a gadget geek and like
to use the latest equipment. However in this case I have taken fewer
images with the 5DMK2 than with any other camera I have owned during
the same time period.

I know how capable the 5DMK2 is and it’s only as god as the person
behind it, but on a recent visit to London my images were no better
than those I took a couple of years ago with a Canon 40D.

I went to Venice an took over 800 shots, but whilst there are 6 or so
"good" one's the other 794 are post card or holiday snaps images.

I guess I am stating the obvious but better cameras don't give you
better images unless you are at the right place at the right time, or
are lucky or very creative.

My main hang up is I won't use the 5DMK2 for images that my G10 will
take just as well. I guess I am looking for the "Big" one and that
may be a long time away, if ever!

Click to expand...

You want the spectacular when it presents itself, but it doesn't
sound like you have the passion to prepare yourself for that event.
If you find your result have not changed much in the past years, then
I'd agree - it's more about the gear than the passion.

Bobo Hodls said:

One day I may be good enough to get the best out of the 5DMK2

Click to expand...

It won't happen through luck. It takes determination to see one's
self through the obstacles and ruts that are part of the evolution of
a photographer.

--
...Bob, NYC

'Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes, it doesn't.' - Little
Big Man

Galleries: http://www.bobtullis.com

Click to expand...

--
Frank
http://www.sidewalkshadows.com

your ablity to capture the scene does not change just because you've changed camera

ianbrown said:

I have had my 5DMK2 for 6 months, I admit I am a gadget geek and like
to use the latest equipment. However in this case I have taken fewer
images with the 5DMK2 than with any other camera I have owned during
the same time period.

I know how capable the 5DMK2 is and it’s only as god as the person
behind it, but on a recent visit to London my images were no better
than those I took a couple of years ago with a Canon 40D.

I went to Venice an took over 800 shots, but whilst there are 6 or so
"good" one's the other 794 are post card or holiday snaps images.

I guess I am stating the obvious but better cameras don't give you
better images unless you are at the right place at the right time, or
are lucky or very creative.

My main hang up is I won't use the 5DMK2 for images that my G10 will
take just as well. I guess I am looking for the "Big" one and that
may be a long time away, if ever!

One day I may be good enough to get the best out of the 5DMK2

Ian

Click to expand...