Reading mode: Light Dark

An eyeopener...

Go to last post
David J. Littleboy said:
Good tools let you do things that poor tools make harder or prevent
you from doing.

That's why good photographers are concerned about their tools, and
why there's absolutely nothing wrong with being concerned about one's
tools.

And why crtiticizing a concern for tools is stupid and obnoxious.

And it really is obnoxious.
Click to expand...
There is two types of concern for tools (maybe more too). One type is the concern that the equipment is suitable for the job at hand and is clean and in good working order, batterys charged and such.

The other concern is that "Mine is longer than yours" or "I have to have the largest tool to compensate for lack of ability or other more personal imperfections..." mentality.

The first one is a concern I think everybody should have in some degree. Unfortunatly I believe there is an abundance of the second one on this forum, and that can be or get obnoxious really quick when their "equipment" gets challenged. That's why I'm becoming tired with this forum.
David J. Littleboy said:
David J. Littleboy said:
Give a cheap point & shoot to 10 different people to shoot
one picture and someone will have a better photograph on it.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the poor tool prevented the good photographer from taking
the image he wanted and forced him to take some other image.
Click to expand...
A good photographer would win on the framing and composition alone, a better photographer would tweak the whitebalance and EC and obtain a even better shot. A good photographer wouldn't HAVE to shoot at f1.2 to try to separate himself from the P&S shooters :-)
David J. Littleboy said:
But it's a really poor photographer who can't make use of better
equipment to get better images.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. But if you don't improve your photographic skill, buying better gear will only get you more of the same looking shots, they probably will be a little bit sharper and take up WAY more space on your harddrive...

I have been there and done that, if anybody else feels the same way, if anybody else have felt let down by the fact that their new equipment didn't give them the superior looking images they expected, please speak out :-)
 
Geenine said:
David J. Littleboy said:
Good tools let you do things that poor tools make harder or prevent
you from doing.

That's why good photographers are concerned about their tools, and
why there's absolutely nothing wrong with being concerned about one's
tools.

And why crtiticizing a concern for tools is stupid and obnoxious.

And it really is obnoxious.
Click to expand...
There is two types of concern for tools (maybe more too). One type is
the concern that the equipment is suitable for the job at hand and is
clean and in good working order, batterys charged and such.
The other concern is that "Mine is longer than yours" or "I have to
have the largest tool to compensate for lack of ability or other more
personal imperfections..." mentality.
Click to expand...
I don't see much of that here. Other than the trolls, of course. Sigh.

Look. This is a hardware list. Hardware is the appropriate subject for this list. If you have a problem with that, that's your problem.

Again, for people interested in producing the best images they can, hardware is a completely appropriate concern.
Geenine said:
The first one is a concern I think everybody should have in some
degree. Unfortunatly I believe there is an abundance of the second
one on this forum, and that can be or get obnoxious really quick when
their "equipment" gets challenged. That's why I'm becoming tired with
this forum.
Click to expand...
So if you don't like it, don't participate. Personal tastes vary. I find that I learn stuff here, so I intend to continue to participate.
Geenine said:
Geenine said:
Sure, but the poor tool prevented the good photographer from taking
the image he wanted and forced him to take some other image.
Click to expand...
A good photographer would win on the framing and composition alone,
Click to expand...
But that's unrelated to the tool. So irrelevant to any hardware discussions.

Besides, using a good or bad camera will change a good photographer's behavior a lot more than it'll change a bad photographer's behavior. The good photographer will try to get the most out of both tools.

So hardware is much more relevant to good photographers than bad ones.

I really think that you've got this completely backwards.

Hardware is more important the better the photographer you are, simply because you can get more mileage from it.
Geenine said:
a
better photographer would tweak the whitebalance and EC and obtain a
even better shot. A good photographer wouldn't HAVE to shoot at f1.2
to try to separate himself from the P&S shooters :-)
Click to expand...
If you like the razor-thin DoF look in portraits (I happen to not like it, but it's one of the things a lot of very good photographers use a lot), and want to take those sorts of images, a P&S camera can't do it. It's not about differentiating oneself from P&S users, it's about creating the images you want to.

But, yes. Good photographers can get better mileage from lesser equipment than mere mortals. But that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with not wanting to put up with those limitations all the time.
Geenine said:
Geenine said:
But it's a really poor photographer who can't make use of better
equipment to get better images.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.
Click to expand...
Fantastic.
Geenine said:
But if you don't improve your photographic skill,
Click to expand...
You are getting into an ugly, ad-hominem straw-man argument here. You are assuming that people concerned with tech details are not concerned with the beauty of their images. This is, besides outrageously rude, simply wrong.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
It was newsworthy only. At the right place at the right time, a co-worker takes her P&S out and shoots! It becomes a story, she sells the ONLY available image. Pure luck I say....but the camera didn't matter.
 
...of thinking the word "best" means "most expensive".

You need to learn a lot more about the basics before you draw conclusions, and once you learn the basics, you too will conclude that the kit in fact does matters.

This is not to say that the most expensive kit means the best image quality. For example, if I want a certain look, then the "best" camera to get that look might be a $35 toy camera over an $8,000 1DS Mark III. Or a $70 lens over a $2,400 lens.

If you want to really learn photography, stop reading KR. Because he will put all kinds of really bad and wrong ideas in your head.

--

Canon 5D Mark I, L-primes 14mm through 200mm, 580ex flash. L-zooms 16mm through 400mm. Shoot with primes 90% of the time.
 
David J. Littleboy said:
You are getting into an ugly, ad-hominem straw-man argument here. You
are assuming that people concerned with tech details are not
concerned with the beauty of their images. This is, besides
outrageously rude, simply wrong.
Click to expand...
nice writing... ad rem
 
I say that the SUBJECT and the LIGHTING matter even more than the photographer or the equipment.

Give me and somebody else a good DSLR and lenses. I'll take some pro basketball players in a well-lit gym, and the other guy can have some junior-high girls team in a poorly lit team. Then let's see who gets the better pics. :D
 
MitchAlsup said:
An arrow has never taken game by itself--it was always the indian
behind the arrow.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you've not done much archery whith home-made arrows...
MitchAlsup said:
Same thing in cameras.

HCB could take better images with a Brownie Instamatic than most of
us with all our super sophisticated gear could ver hope for.
Click to expand...
But wasn't HCB a gearhead who used the best cameras money could buy?

To a certain extent, this is a serious question. Leica, during the last 50 years at least, has been outrageously overpriced top-of-the-line bling. So presumably it was when HCB was shooting.

Maybe the Leicas before the M series were more modest cameras. But I kind of doubt it.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
I'm not sure this answers your question, but here are some quotes from Henri Cartier-Bresson. I will say, I think you might be surprised by the number of photographers (even 'good' photographers) who consider the camera of minor importance.

"For us the camera is a tool, the extension of our eye, not a pretty little mechanical toy. It is sufficient that we should feel at ease with the camera best adapted for our purpose. Adjustments of the camera – such as setting the aperture and the speed – should become reflexes, like changing gear in a car. The real problem is one of intelligence and sensitivity. - Henri Cartier-Bresson - February 22, 1968., The World of Henri Cartier-Bresson by Henri Cartier-Bresson , ISBN: 0670786640

"For a subject to be strong enough to be worth photographing, the relationship of its forms must be rigorously established. Composition starts when you situate your camera in space in relation to the object. For me, photography is the exploration in reality of the rhythm of surfaces, lines, or values; the eye carves out its subject, and the camera has only to do its work. That work is simply to print the eye’s decision on film. - Henri Cartier-Bresson - on composition. "American Photo", September/October 1997, page: 76

"They . . . asked me:
"'How do you make your pictures?' I was puzzled . . .
"I said, 'I don't know, it's not important.' - Henri Cartier-Bresson

more here: http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=98&name=Cartier-Bresson,Henri

cheers,
David

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lightstalkers http://www.lightstalkers.org/david_g
Pbase http://www.pbase.com/japanese__wanderings
 
Interesting how people who say that what camera you have 'don't matter', always seem to have a really expensive one themselves..

--
'These are my principles - if you don't like them, i have others!'
  • Groucho Marx
 
PeterGlaso said:
Interesting how people who say that what camera you have 'don't
matter', always seem to have a really expensive one themselves..
Click to expand...
--
I guess like me they are recovering gearheads who have finally seen the light.

Another very interesting thing is that SO often, when I look at other peoples pictures online. The very best images I see, those that really pop off the screen even when viewed as thumbnails, was done with either a 300D/350D or a Nikon D40 with kit lenses, sometimes even with a P&S. They do of coarse have a statictical advantage, but still, I'm talking about some of the best pictures I have ever seen, and their gear is certainly good enough to let the talent they obviously where born with, really shine.

I certainly also recognise that being a gearhead, does not exclude anybody from being a very good and talented photographer.

But quite often the images from gearheads looks the same, it's seldom I have seen anything truly original from a gearhead. As an example, a guy who only shoots with L primes will very seldom use softness or grain as an effect, even when the image would truly benefit from it, likewise with deep DOF. How many times have you seen anybody post a truly original dreamy and grainy picture taken with a 85L @ f16? Gear actually often limits us as a photographers.

I have just found out the same as HCB and KR, that the gears job is only to "print" the image from my minds eye. It's a real eyeopener when you go from almost worshiping gear, to seeing it as no more than a toolbox. My focus has shifted from worrying about what's tucked away in my bag to enjoying and improving what I can hang on my wall. My photography is going to be MUCH cheaper and much better in the years to come, I'm convinced about that.
 
I knew this post was going to end up being an article mainly focused on technical comments and not on the creative aspect. After all, this is a blog where most users seek for news and other technical news for the use of our tools.

I do not know Ken Rockwell, but the article Geenine makes reference to is about what the photographer should do with his photos and how the gear should be subordinated in second place during the creative process.

I have been a photographer for more than 35 years. I am conscious about the fact that this does not make me better than any one of you: furthermore, I always say I consider myself as an apprentice in terms of photography and, by the way, this is something I feel very proud of. During this period of time, I have worked with Hasselblad, Pentax (35mm and 6x7), Nikon, Leica and (nowadays) Canon. I have not been impressed by any one of them by itself: they are all capable of making good and bad photos. It is obvious that when looking for gears we wonder which one is the best we could buy with the available money. We always try to choose our best option. This is natural and logic.

The gear is important, but the transcendence of a photograph is far from MTF curves or bokeh’s quality (so popular nowadays). We all know that in technical terms, one photograph can be better ‘analyzed’ than another one, according to the quality of the components that have been used. Nevertheless, from the creative or artistic point of view (or whatever you would like to call it), the photographic technique should always be ‘SUBORDINATED’ to the creative process, undoubtedly. In the early 80’s, I did a stenopeic photographic exhibition with a camera made of cardboard and a pinhole instead of a lens and I sold more than a half of my photos, but I focused my work on the camera’s features and I organized it according to the available tool. I could not take photographs of moving objects with a camera that needed extremely large exposures, but I did still life photos, old town and street photos, etc, so I adapted my gear to the requirements of the process. The key word may be ADAPTATION and not the extreme obsession of always having the best tools.

The majority of photographers that have taken photographs with proper personality (and whose works are exhibited at galleries and museums) used gears that did not have the quality and possibilities that we have now. The key is practicing and working: working creatively. We should try to give the best of ourselves as photographers without being influenced by marketing strategies and by a technology that should had always been subordinated to imagination.
 
I don't think you get the idea, no wait -- fact -- that Ken Rockwell is a joke. His web site is a parody, and that anything he writes should be taken with a grain of salt. Have you seen his gallery? Is there anything memorable in there? Take a look at the about section of his web site. Enough said.

Have you donated to keep his web site afloat? I reckon his site started out as a sarcastic joke but, when he woke up to the fact that the majority of gearheads aren't photographers (and more importantly, praised him for his views), it snowballed from there. Gearheads might own expensive equipment but (the majority) are incapable of producing a shot which would make you take a step back, or pause and gaze in wonder. These are the type of people who take Ken Rockwell for gospel.

As for my input on the topic, gear does matter. There are things I can now do with my 5D Mark II that would be impossible with my old 350D. Conversely, my modified 40D can do things that my 5D Mark II can't do when it comes to astrophotography.

On an unrelated note, have you got samples of your work that we can look at online?

Regards,
H
Geenine said:
I'm slowly beginning to understand why KR is less than popular here
on DPR :-)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm
Click to expand...
 
--
Joe Sesto
 
If you can make a good composition, you can do it with any camera. However, a camera with great technical specs can expand the range of options at your disposal. Therefore, having a great technical camera is an advantage, even if you are already good at composition.

However, i think Ken's point was (or should have been - certainly others have picked up on this) that a shitty photographer with a fancy camera is still a shitty photographer. My 5dMkII replaces my 'blad, shoots at high ISO, has AF, etc. This means that I can get 200 good shots to edit from (in focus, properly exposed, etc.) rather than 20. I'm still editing to my own high standards, but instead of kneeling in the dirt every 12 frames to change film, hoping my exposure is right after the clouds rolled in, praying that I was able to get it in focus at f4.0 on a 150mm with

I just lived this scenario, shooting tourists in Times Square with the hasselblad for a couple months and then shooting tourists in the pantheon with the 5d2 over a couple days. ( http://www.bradfarwell.com/proj/tourists/ and http://www.bradfarwell.com/proj/pantheon/ ) For the record, the digital shooting was infinitely easier (and more to choose from), and the print quality is the damn same.

As my teenager self would have phrased it: Sure, a ninja armed with a box of raisins will kill you. But a ninja armed with a sword will kill you waaaay more efficiently.

---
http://www.bradfarwell.com
 
How I see and have seen this is I have two ways to improve my photos.
Learn better techniques.
And have the gear that support my style of photography.

Learning the better techniques is always a good thing.
But it takes time - a lot of time.

And I see we all have our limits how good we can be - though those limits may be quite a lot wider than we think.

So what benefit me in cameras.
Megapixels allow me to make "the right composition" during PP - I do that often.
Fast AF allow me to capture the sudden moments I discover - I do that often.
Good high-ISO helps e.g. in low light sport - I do that often.

So I see some better gear help me to take better photos. Not to say I do not need to learn better technigues, but I know my limits. So for me, the gears do matter. And new gears usually provide me so immediate benefits in my photography - though may mean some extra learning to use those properly and fully enough.
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...
 
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