Perfect example of Photographer

Because then she'll mis-focus everything.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

I've been taking pictures INDOORS and relying on my DSLR and lenses to compensate for the poor lighting!

Guess I must've struck a noive.

especially since the first point was that the original post had flawed logic..

I mean better, by means of the quality of the output. I have an Ixus V3 as well, and the results cannot compare to a 1D or 1Ds. SOmetimes the pictures are good but it's just not the same. Like the difference between a D30 and a 1D. Sure the D30 takes excellent photos, but given the same circumstances the images are better all round from a 1D. For example, a concert photo, the equipment matters (especially with no flash). You can have all the best composition in the world and an E10 ain't gonna get the picture.

I can run around all day, without a lot of thought and get some excellent, printable, enlargable and arguably salable photos with a 1Ds. I'd have to try a lot harder with a E10...

But with patience, a good eye (both which proabably equal talent), any camera will take a stunning photo. It's about being in the right place at the right time, making the picture or just being plain lucky.

This lady looks like she has the patience and fortitude to make fantastic images on better equipment, Just as was already mentioned unwittingly by the original poster.

But remember the post from "my images are too perfect". Perhaps for the mood and atmosphere, an inferior camera is the go.... there's a thought.

DavidP said:

I think most people are smart enough to know that a better lens
won't help them compositionally.

Most think that a better lens will help them out sharpness-wise.
Depending on what is causing the poor sharpness, they may or may
not be correct.

Rob Martin said:

I buy the best to take better photos....

The skill and experience must follow if I follow the art.....

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Click to expand...

--
------------------------------

if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................

You are absolutely correct, well composed pictures are created by the person behind the camera.

What you can do with those pictures is affected by the equipment used to take it. There are also some types of pictures that you simply cannot take with most non SLR cameras.

Why are you disturbed by people buying high end equipment? Why have you decided that you need to be the Don Quiote of the dpreveiew Canon SLR forum? Is it YOUR calling in life to tell people to eBay their 5-6k camera kits because they take crummy pictures?

Have you EVER seen a post that states, 'I'm going to buy the XXX L lense because I'm sure it will help me to compose pictures better'? It's not your money. Some people like to buy nice stuff. Some people buy things they can grow into.

IMHO, you are pursuing a non-existant problem. It's all in your head.

jdobbs2001 said:

William C said:

... lens that take photos that are just as good or better. So what is
your point of all this, not to buy DSLR cameras. Lets go back to
film, buy
P&S cameras? An E-10 is now under $800 I and will never go back
using that camera.

Bill

Click to expand...

Whewwwwwww like the IQ train missed the stop this time around. My
point is you see plenty of people chasing hardware spending money
hoping it will bring them talent when all it brings them is less
money in the bank and a pile of expensive lenses. I have seen some
real sad no effort attempted at all shots with 5-6k worth of
equipment and no attempt to ever bother putting the effort or money
into some education. This girl who right now has a sub 600 dollar
camera takes excellent pictures an example of who is behind the
viewfinder that makes the difference.

Click to expand...

before calling people thickheads,
go to a mirror and have a good look....

Your original posts were two slices of bread short of a loaf. It's not a wonder there are interprestations on whatever it is you are now starting to get abusive about.

If someone misses the point, they're not stupid. So go now Mr Gump and have a think.....
--
------------------------------

if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................

Fighting the (lack of) light is not the way to good photos. LOL.

I will demonstrate this (hopefully) this weekend at a concert series that runs from noon 'til midnight.

Scott Larson said:

I've been taking pictures INDOORS and relying on my DSLR and lenses
to compensate for the poor lighting!

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

in his head.....

hehe

I agree with your sentiments . . .

John Duesterhoeft said:

What you can do with those pictures is affected by the equipment
used to take it. There are also some types of pictures that you
simply cannot take with most non SLR cameras.

Why are you disturbed by people buying high end equipment? Why
have you decided that you need to be the Don Quiote of the
dpreveiew Canon SLR forum? Is it YOUR calling in life to tell
people to eBay their 5-6k camera kits because they take crummy
pictures?

Have you EVER seen a post that states, 'I'm going to buy the XXX L
lense because I'm sure it will help me to compose pictures better'?
It's not your money. Some people like to buy nice stuff. Some
people buy things they can grow into.

IMHO, you are pursuing a non-existant problem. It's all in your head.

jdobbs2001 said:

William C said:

... lens that take photos that are just as good or better. So what is
your point of all this, not to buy DSLR cameras. Lets go back to
film, buy
P&S cameras? An E-10 is now under $800 I and will never go back
using that camera.

Bill

Click to expand...

Whewwwwwww like the IQ train missed the stop this time around. My
point is you see plenty of people chasing hardware spending money
hoping it will bring them talent when all it brings them is less
money in the bank and a pile of expensive lenses. I have seen some
real sad no effort attempted at all shots with 5-6k worth of
equipment and no attempt to ever bother putting the effort or money
into some education. This girl who right now has a sub 600 dollar
camera takes excellent pictures an example of who is behind the
viewfinder that makes the difference.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
------------------------------

if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................

It's an excellent group of images, indeed.

But, L glass or a DSLR can do things an Olympus C-700 simply can't. Talk about action shots, low light with no flash, wide angle (the c-700 starts at 38mm, I believe) just to name a few.

Better equipment won't teach you composition, but it sure gives you more possibilities.

I've worked with an Oly 2100 Uz for a long time. Got great things with it, but I do things with my D30 I was not able to do before.

Best regards,

--
Antonio Nunes
http://www.antonionunes.com

jdobbs2001 said:

Anyhow You do not need L glass or a DSLR to take great pictures.
Impressive work. It all depends on the person behind the viewfinder
not investments of money in hardware.

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Click to expand...

degradation as the night develops?

A concert photo that's not all noise and dramatic light, ain't a concert photo...... Don't forget your night filters for the day shots...

lol

DavidP said:

I will demonstrate this (hopefully) this weekend at a concert
series that runs from noon 'til midnight.

Scott Larson said:

I've been taking pictures INDOORS and relying on my DSLR and lenses
to compensate for the poor lighting!

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Click to expand...

--
------------------------------

if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................

DavidP #28649 said:

But do they mean better composition, or just better sharpness?

Click to expand...

DavidP #28649 said:

I think most people are smart enough to know that a better lens
won't help them compositionally.

Click to expand...

What if it's not a better lens, a much softer one, actually, but a more expensive one with a red ring at the end?

My compositions immediately got better as soon as I got my 16-35L. It took four days to see an improvement, because it took four days for me to take a real photo through that lens. Over the next few days, I could see a huge improvement. Or at the very least, a lot of what I think are great photos ( with great compositions ) that I had never been able to shoot before.

On a D60, my 50/1.4 becomes a compositionally-challenged 80 mm lens. Before my D60, the last camera I had ( one of those $600 Oly deals ) had a zoom that bottomed out at 39 mm. I have some good or decent landscapes from that camera, but having a 26 mm FOV lens has in fact imprated unto me better compositions.

Which isn't really the same as compositional skill. I love the mountains, and I guess you can see that in my photos. Like Lew said, you can't hammer a nail with a bananna, and like Forrest says, you can't shoot broad landscapes with a tele lens.

DavidP #28649 said:

Most think that a better lens will help them out sharpness-wise.
Depending on what is causing the poor sharpness, they may or may
not be correct.

Click to expand...

Getting back to "better" lenses, I would love for my 16-35L to be as sharp as my 50/1.4 is. And I would love for my 50/1.4 to render color like my 16-35L does.

Watch this space -- I'm leaving in a week:

http://valhallaphotos.com/html/Galleries/LandscapeGalleries.htm

jdobbs2001 said:

Man today the peanut gallery must have opened the floodgates.

Click to expand...

Yes, and one seems to have created another useless thread here. Quality subject by the way.

draxjobs said:

Reading comprehension problems?

Click to expand...

Not up to this point, although your ambiguous statement below could qualify.

draxjobs said:

This gallery is an example of
someone who is a photographer and is not letting her equipment
limit her creativity and abilities.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you look at several of the photographs, this person did let her equipment limit her creativity. Pushed the camera right to the limits, and probably wished she'd had more at that point. In others, the camera and the photographer were quite a good match.

draxjobs said:

Yes if she had that equipment
she will push it to the limit but the limitation of all
photohardware is the person behind the viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Very nice comment. To paraphrase: If she had that equipment, she will push it to the limit... but wait scratch that because then again she is the limit, not the equipment.

The limits of photography are a complex combination of the photographer and the equipment. This is obvious to a third grader, and doesn't require a new thread. What would be more telling in situations like this, is to see the shots that got away due to the equipment. Perhaps a gallery of the worst shots instead of the best. I think that would be a better indication of the limitations of the equipment, and to some extent the photographer.

Jason

Yep, you've got to have the right focal length for your needs. As well as the right aperture.

This may necessitate an L-lens, even if you don't care about ultimate sharpness.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

I gues I could put the ND filters on during the day, and shoot at ISO 200 to force me to open up to f/2.8

Then just add some grain later. Maybe convert the daylight pics to sepia tone, too.

LOL.

Every once in a while, it's nice to shoot a concert photo at f/8, though. With decent lighting.

Rob Martin said:

degradation as the night develops?

A concert photo that's not all noise and dramatic light, ain't a
concert photo...... Don't forget your night filters for the day
shots...

lol

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Another thread with this topic? Yeah, yeah, we all are quite aware that good gear does not a photographer make. But we also know that if you give someone with talent a better tool you'll have even better results.

I guess you haven't been around here for very long. It seems like this topic is discussed every 2-3 days. Oh well, I don't want to sound like the forum police....

As for Daniella, she creates some very nice images. But those Death Valley shots taken with a Cokin blue and gold filter aren't fair. Diminishes the veracity of the images....

jdobbs2001 said:

Anyhow You do not need L glass or a DSLR to take great pictures.
Impressive work. It all depends on the person behind the viewfinder
not investments of money in hardware.

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/stefanm

Exactly -- she knew the limits of the camera, and chose shots that the camera was capable of achieving.

Good point later about the complex interaction of photographer, equipment, subject, etc.

Jason Hutchinson said:

jdobbs2001 said:

This gallery is an example of
someone who is a photographer and is not letting her equipment
limit her creativity and abilities.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you look at several of the photographs, this person
did let her equipment limit her creativity. Pushed the camera
right to the limits, and probably wished she'd had more at that
point. In others, the camera and the photographer were quite a
good match.

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

kidding.....

time for sleep...

it's 11:21PM here and last night was a boys on the town in Bangkok night..... need sleep..... and water......

--
------------------------------

if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................

Stefan1967 said:

As for Daniella, she creates some very nice images. But those Death
Valley shots taken with a Cokin blue and gold filter aren't fair.
Diminishes the veracity of the images....

Click to expand...

Using the Cokin was an artistic decision just like choosing the desired composition. From a technical standpoint, yes, it makes it more difficult to judge an image for sharpness, color, etc. but from an artistic POV I disagree.
--
Keith
http://www.pbase.com/dod1011/galleries
(More images to come...)
(See my profile for gear)
' Be respectful to your superiors, if you have any.'
Samuel L. Clemens

At the same time, she made the most of what she had at hand, I think.

Great use of filters to darken the sky, and very good composition (distant shots of mountains are easier, but she has some ones with nice foreground details.)

I don't think pictures like those just come out of a camera

But I get your point too...I find myself strangely drawn to mundane subjects at times, probably for similar reasons.

Kiran P said:

I mean look at how beautiful all those places are where she took
pictures. She could pretty much have been blind folded and pointed
the camera anywhere and still ended up with amazing shots!
(hehe... well just kidding of course... but kind of true as well!)
I'd love to see some amazing everyday shots without the help of so
much subject nature all around!

I love the landscape shots... all shot at f2.8 and still the depth
of filed is amazing!!! I did get a 10D just so I could have the
shallow depth of field pics, but man... unless its super sunny, you
can't barely use f8.0 when you're outside on ISO 100... what a
shock!

Kiran

Click to expand...

--
http://www.madmaxmedia.com

DavidP said:

Fighting the (lack of) light is not the way to good photos. LOL.

Click to expand...

I always thought the best photographers were the ones who were able to get great pictures in less than ideal conditions or were able to take many well-composed shots in quickly-changing conditions. These kinds of pictures are more challenging to take than flowers or mountains.

For example I took this picture (along with a hundred others) at a dance competition without a flash which would have ruined the nice backlighting. I didn't use an L lens (85mm). but it was f2.0 @ ISO 1600 and the shutter speed wasn't too fast. I really think I needed my expensive camera to get it.