Reading mode: Light Dark

An eyeopener...

Go to last post
G

Geenine

Leading Member
Messages
994
Reaction score
12
Location
Oslo, NO
the next picture could have been taken with anything really, as it is a just a matter of good lightning... I believe I used f/4 or something.... I could have done this with my 10D and the photo would be virtually the same (on the web)



but this picture I did the same day shows a different story. f/1.4 or f/1.2 on a FF camera brings an unmatched bokeh and feel of depth.... there's no way you'll achieve this effect with cheap equipment.



There are many, many more situations that demand good equipment, think of a rare bird at dusk, 100 meters away, indoor sports, underwater, the kids lol

Ken is a bit silly... but he knows how to stirr up a discussion.
Geenine said:
Just finished reading this article by Ken Rockwell and I must admit
that I agree almost totally with what he says, even though I'm a bit
of a gearhead myself :-)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
Click to expand...
--
fun; http://www.x32.nl
work; http://www.ministerievanbeeld.nl
 
I believe he is talking about general photography, not specialty stuff. There is of cause a need for more expensive and special equipment, but like he says, they are also just tools to enable the photographer to create the image he has in his mind.

Bokeh is really easy to create in PP, but things like birdpfotography and macrophotography etc. of cause requires special equipment.

The thing is that we should make much more efforts to grow as artists by learning, that is what gets us better photos, that gets us better pictures in our minds, that our equipment can realize.

Trading a 5D for a 5D MKII gets us nothing as photograpers, only some joy as gearheads. I'm sure that many people are also very disapointed that their photos looks just as dreary with their new gear as it did with their old, I know, I have been there :-)
 
I totally agree with Ken this time and it's great to read comments like this, however I know that many people here will not be in acordance with his thoughts. So many gear, marketing strategies and technical arguments are making us sick. Creativity needs practice!
Geenine said:
Just finished reading this article by Ken Rockwell and I must admit
that I agree almost totally with what he says, even though I'm a bit
of a gearhead myself :-)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
Click to expand...
 
not quoting directly, but the essence is here:

The job of the equipment is to get out of the way and let the brain behind the camera SEE the image so it can be captured.

I don't always care for KR's opinions, but I wholeheartedly appreciate that he has them and that he exercises his right to hold and express them.

cheers,
S.
--
beam me up captain, there's no intelligent life down here!
 
First off, I continue to find Ken Rockwell to be one of those odd absurdities in the camera world. Every segment of society has their court jester, their village idiot and he's plays the part oh so well. So, I guess you can "kinda" get a hint out of where I stand on him. At the same time, comments from Luminous Landscape stating they don't believe a good photographer can take a good shot with any camera, are also a joke. Personally, I've always found LL to be an "elitest" site full of snobs. It's like you've got Ken Rockwell's, Tom-Foolery on one end and LL's "legend in their own mind attitude" on the other. Reality is somewhere in the middle. Finding it is the problem.

--

The only true wisdom I have to impart is to say.....get out there and shoot! Anything else is subject to interpretation.
 
Seaclam said:
At the same time, comments from Luminous Landscape stating they don't
believe a good photographer can take a good shot with any camera, are
also a joke. Personally, I've always found LL to be an "elitest" site
full of snobs.
Click to expand...
LL actually didn't say anything of the sort. Ill quote directly from the article: "I'm a pretty decent photographer, and give me a Holga toy camera and I can do some fun shots with it." He did say that you need the right tool for the job.

It's not all black and white. If you have the money, I say buy the best equipment money can buy. You'll enjoy photography much more than futzing around with bad equipment. I agree that talent, patience and practice are important, but often that comes from time spent with a camera that you enjoy using. I draw inspiration from my tools just as much as I draw inspiration from light and subject matter. I'm always thinking: "How can I use that super wide angle lens I have to warp my subject", "What scenario can I devise to maximize the blur I can create with my fast lenses", or "How can I use ISO 1600 to create grain".

What they did say was that you need the right tool for the job.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gariepyjeanmichel/show/
 
He said at the top:

"A Final Thought

One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any camera. Horseshit."

From my perspective, I've seen lots of photos taken by excellent photographers with very meek and humble equipment. LL seems to think that without the "right stuff for the right job", one might as well not even try. That's completely elitest, unspirational and shows a lack of creativity. Dear God, I wonder just how bad these photographers really are on LL if you gave them just a cheap entry level camera and a cheap 50mm lens and said.....sorry that's all you get. They'd have a heart attack.
JeanMichel Gariepy said:
Seaclam said:
At the same time, comments from Luminous Landscape stating they don't
believe a good photographer can take a good shot with any camera, are
also a joke. Personally, I've always found LL to be an "elitest" site
full of snobs.
Click to expand...
LL actually didn't say anything of the sort. Ill quote directly from
the article: "I'm a pretty decent photographer, and give me a Holga
toy camera and I can do some fun shots with it." He did say that you
need the right tool for the job.

It's not all black and white. If you have the money, I say buy the
best equipment money can buy. You'll enjoy photography much more than
futzing around with bad equipment. I agree that talent, patience and
practice are important, but often that comes from time spent with a
camera that you enjoy using. I draw inspiration from my tools just as
much as I draw inspiration from light and subject matter. I'm always
thinking: "How can I use that super wide angle lens I have to warp my
subject", "What scenario can I devise to maximize the blur I can
create with my fast lenses", or "How can I use ISO 1600 to create
grain".

What they did say was that you need the right tool for the job.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gariepyjeanmichel/show/
Click to expand...
--

The only true wisdom I have to impart is to say.....get out there and shoot! Anything else is subject to interpretation.
 
...................
 
Geenine said:
Bokeh is really easy to create in PP, but things like birdpfotography
and macrophotography etc. of cause requires special equipment.
Click to expand...
Bokeh is impossible to create in Photoshop. Look at it, it is entirely different from gaussian blur or any other digital softener.
Geenine said:
Trading a 5D for a 5D MKII gets us nothing as photograpers, only some
joy as gearheads. I'm sure that many people are also very disapointed
that their photos looks just as dreary with their new gear as it did
with their old, I know, I have been there :-)
Click to expand...
As with all new toys, you'll have to explore the new possibilities.... 5DmkII is quite a lot better than the 5D was. Try to shoot a party with iso 6400 without flash with both camera's, the mkII is really a lot better at this.

--
fun; http://www.x32.nl
work; http://www.ministerievanbeeld.nl
 
unintentionally most likely.

There's probably not many top photographers who do not own the best gear in their chosen medium, but I suppose most would be able to make do with whatever piece of junk was handed to them (if that circumstance were ever to present itself, mostly not likely).
Geenine said:
Just finished reading this article by Ken Rockwell and I must admit
that I agree almost totally with what he says, even though I'm a bit
of a gearhead myself :-)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
Click to expand...
 
Even though he generally should still be beaten daily ....in this article he is 100% correct.
--
'Stop it now or you will go blind'
 
hunk said:
Geenine said:
Bokeh is really easy to create in PP, but things like birdpfotography
and macrophotography etc. of cause requires special equipment.
Click to expand...
Bokeh is impossible to create in Photoshop. Look at it, it is
entirely different from gaussian blur or any other digital softener.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting using gaussian blur, there is a lens blur option that does a pretty good job, there are also plugins available to achieve this effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ycqAzHg-w

Wth a little training, it's not difficult to achieve a good bokeh effect in PS, even I can do it, and I'm DEFINATLY no PS expert :-)
hunk said:
hunk said:
Trading a 5D for a 5D MKII gets us nothing as photograpers, only some
joy as gearheads. I'm sure that many people are also very disapointed
that their photos looks just as dreary with their new gear as it did
with their old, I know, I have been there :-)
Click to expand...
As with all new toys, you'll have to explore the new
possibilities.... 5DmkII is quite a lot better than the 5D was. Try
to shoot a party with iso 6400 without flash with both camera's, the
mkII is really a lot better at this.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see a GOOD shot from the MKII, that could not be done equally well with a 5D. I guess landscape photography with lots of details far away, printed very large, would probably be where the increased resolution would make a difference. However, for such photography, you really can't beat medium format or large format.

From what I have seen in reviews, I'd consider ISO 6400 pretty much useless for quality shots that are expected to be printed large. Also at partys, you seldom have good enough quality of light to be able to take good pictures without flash. Bad light=bad pictures, as KR says a lot on his website;-). I would think that a 5D @ISO 100 with a well diffused flash would deliver much more pleasing shots in just about all of these situations:-)
 
Seaclam said:
First off, I continue to find Ken Rockwell to be one of those odd
absurdities in the camera world. Every segment of society has their
court jester, their village idiot and he's plays the part oh so well.
So, I guess you can "kinda" get a hint out of where I stand on him.
At the same time, comments from Luminous Landscape stating they don't
believe a good photographer can take a good shot with any camera, are
also a joke. Personally, I've always found LL to be an "elitest" site
full of snobs. It's like you've got Ken Rockwell's, Tom-Foolery on
one end and LL's "legend in their own mind attitude" on the other.
Reality is somewhere in the middle. Finding it is the problem.
Click to expand...
And I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. However, most people don't find "reality", or in this case, "the truth of the matter" to be very interesting reading I guess. If it isn't filled with bs opinions, then it's just not worth publishing or reading. It would seem that some people just can't stick with good 'ole plain vanilla and be happy with it. ;)

--
B
 
--

Of course the equipment matters....for certain types of photography. Try using a Sigma DP1 for side-line sports photography and see how many of your photos are published...you need a long/fast lens stupid.

On the other end of the scale, I'm sick of friends/family/random encounters asking what camera I use when they see my photos...as if THEY could get the same results if only THEY had my camera.

It's not worth arguing about...you need the gear AND the skill.
 
Clint Dunn said:
--
Of course the equipment matters....for certain types of photography.
Try using a Sigma DP1 for side-line sports photography and see how
many of your photos are published...you need a long/fast lens stupid.

On the other end of the scale, I'm sick of friends/family/random
encounters asking what camera I use when they see my photos...as if
THEY could get the same results if only THEY had my camera.

It's not worth arguing about...you need the gear AND the skill.
Click to expand...
--

Of cause you need gear, you need the tools nessecary to get the job done. But the only way I have been able to get better at photograpfy is by reading, watching other peoples work and learning, and thereby improving my skill. Trading in one DSLR for another has never improved my photography worth mentioning at all. The only gear that has made a real difference has been my studiostrobes and flashes (and learning to use them:-).
 
Geenine said:
I'm not suggesting using gaussian blur, there is a lens blur option
that does a pretty good job, there are also plugins available to
achieve this effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ycqAzHg-w

Wth a little training, it's not difficult to achieve a good bokeh
effect in PS, even I can do it, and I'm DEFINATLY no PS expert :-)
Click to expand...
Geenine, I'm an expert on Photoshop and I assure you there is no way to achieve good bokeh in PP. It only can be done on 'two dimensional' images and there is no way you can work around floating hair, transparancy, etc. What you call a good effect can be nice, but it's not as nice as a good lens can do...

Highlights on this car are typical bokeh, soft, but with an edge



Transparancy, try to make the background blurred through glass... pff



Every old lady has a different bokeh



These razorsharp hairs float in the air... how to blur the background?



Filters just don't give you this depth, and it takes a lot of masking to use 'm correct



Try this



Or this... the hairs make it impossible to achieve in PP



the last one at original resolution linked
http://www.x32.nl/images/eos/wolkjeoriginal/IMG_8848.JPG
Geenine said:
I have yet to see a GOOD shot from the MKII, that could not be done
equally well with a 5D. I guess landscape photography with lots of
details far away, printed very large, would probably be where the
increased resolution would make a difference. However, for such
photography, you really can't beat medium format or large format.
Click to expand...
It shows on posters and large calenders. A lot of my works gets printed big. Think of posters in trainstations etc. Often as big as two meters. Medium format beats the 5DmkII but the gap is small enough to use a quick, light, cheap dslr if possible.
20 MP make a difference at large sizes.. look at the detail on this... (5MB jpg)
http://www.x32.nl/images/eos/BURKAMASKER.jpg
Geenine said:
From what I have seen in reviews, I'd consider ISO 6400 pretty much
useless for quality shots that are expected to be printed large. Also
at partys, you seldom have good enough quality of light to be able to
take good pictures without flash. Bad light=bad pictures, as KR says
a lot on his website;-). I would think that a 5D @ISO 100 with a well
diffused flash would deliver much more pleasing shots in just about
all of these situations:-)
Click to expand...
Well, that's a matter of taste. What matters for me I can use iso 1600 instead of 800 and still have a picture I can sell to my clients.

--
fun; http://www.x32.nl
work; http://www.ministerievanbeeld.nl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top