-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Camera Matters -- Awards with cheap cameras - Found one!
- Thread starter Autonerd
- Start date
Then I suspect you haven't seen an otolaryngologist in quite some time. Might be worth a check-in.
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
What a profoundly insulting comment, both towards those of us who appreciate the image and the judges who chose it. I thought this forum had restrictions on unfriendly comments like this?From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Herd mentality, mob mentality or pack mentality describes how people can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors on a largely emotional, rather than rational, basis.In the last Camera Matters thread, the question came up about whether a pro photographer ever won an award with a simple camera. I stumbled upon an example today: According to the New York Times, "..a photo of Al Gore on the stump that Mr. [David] Burnett took with a Holga won a top prize at the 2001 White House News Photographers' Association's Eyes of History contest."
Here is David Burnett's Holga Eye gallery .
"Herd mentality (also known as mob mentality) describes a behavior in which people act the same way or adopt similar behaviors as the people around them often ignoring their own feelings in the process." Think of a sheep blindly following the flock no matter where it may go.................................sometime even off an cliff........................
So no folks, it was the person that matter, aka someone famous at that. The picture is Horrible. Period. An so were the judges.
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
And that I believe is the root of the hostility to this image.I really couldn't remember -- there were a LOT of replies to read.
It must prove something.But to get back to the original point that Thomas brought up (which I am not sure I want to do), I think the point (which I accused him of not addressing) was that a talented photographer can make compelling photos with pretty much any camera, and an untalented photographer who cannot make compelling images will (usually) not begin to do so if given an advanced camera.
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
Yes but twitching is a a highly specialised form of photography requiring highly specialised tools and effectively rules out a great many cameras and lenses, even the highest quality ones. The lessons learnt there wouldn't easily translate into the wider fields of photography.
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
I don't think anyone is forgetting lenses but they are subsumed under the overall category of gear.I am a good example why this is wrong.I really couldn't remember -- there were a LOT of replies to read.
It must prove something.
It's no more profoundly insulting than your references to 'tall poppy syndrome,' attempting to insinuate (or state outright) that those who disagree with you suffer from a condition rather than simply have a different opinion or outlook to yours.What a profoundly insulting comment, both towards those of us who appreciate the image and the judges who chose it. I thought this forum had restrictions on unfriendly comments like this?From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Herd mentality, mob mentality or pack mentality describes how people can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors on a largely emotional, rather than rational, basis.In the last Camera Matters thread, the question came up about whether a pro photographer ever won an award with a simple camera. I stumbled upon an example today: According to the New York Times, "..a photo of Al Gore on the stump that Mr. [David] Burnett took with a Holga won a top prize at the 2001 White House News Photographers' Association's Eyes of History contest."
Here is David Burnett's Holga Eye gallery .
"Herd mentality (also known as mob mentality) describes a behavior in which people act the same way or adopt similar behaviors as the people around them often ignoring their own feelings in the process." Think of a sheep blindly following the flock no matter where it may go.................................sometime even off an cliff........................
So no folks, it was the person that matter, aka someone famous at that. The picture is Horrible. Period. An so were the judges.
I'd recommend taking a deep breath, step back, and then come back and approach the conversation with some perspective.
You love the photo and think it worthy of praise. You belittle those who disagree by saying that they do so because they suffer from a syndrome. BacktoNature hates the photo and thinks it's worthy of no praise whatsoever. He insults the image and accuses those who like it of suffering from a mentality.
One coin, two sides.
--
Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview. I'm just a regular poster unless explicitly stated otherwise in the body of the post.
500px
Rambow
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,010
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 3,157
"Not all men are created equal", says the DPR uncodified constitution and house of Lords.
But wait! Do not punish me yet, Sirs, but i am a mere serf and all i wish "is to not be opressed"(Machiavelli).
Last edited:
OK, do sport, macro, wildlife, photojornalism,real estate , indoor events, stage ....with an Holga and see how many offers to buy your photos you get.
But that's the part I disagree with, Franco, because there are scores of photographers who produced great photos and died years before equipment that we would consider "good" was even invented.
And I think this is where we run into problems -- the definition of "good". Obviously art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
I will say that to me, an interesting subject and compelling composition is the element that makes a photo "good", and I have rarely seen IQ or other quality issues that made a good photo bad. I do think there are some people who equate "good IQ" with "good photo". I do not. To me, a photo can be tack-sharp but still rather boring. Or, as I am fond of saying ad nauseum, if you have to zoom in to decide if a photo is good, it isn't.
Probably not an overwhelmingly popular opinion on a "gear" site.
Aaron
Fair enough. For the sake of this discussion, I use "camera" as a generic term for the picture-taking kit -- body, lens, flashes and strobes, etc. "Gear" might be a better word.I am a good example why this is wrong.
Aaron
Fair enough as well.
My opinion (and it is just an opinion!) is different: I take photos with a wide variety of (mostly film) gear. Quality runs the gamut, from a rather limited Ricoh KR-5 with a cheapie 50/2.2 lens to 35mm gear that was top-of-the-consumer line in its day and a couple of professional-grade MF Mamiyas. I change gear (heh) roll-to-roll, and I don't think that's reflected in my photography -- that is, I don't think my photos are significantly better or worse depending on the gear I use.
On my Flickr page, I list the gear (where known) with the photos -- if you see a pattern, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Aaron
Yes and the original Tour The France was raced and won at 20 KMPH with what we would consider now primitive bikes. but you can't win with those now....
Take the same photos now with modern gear and, removing the pink tinted nostalgia glasses, tell me wich one would be better.
Of course those images were good then, because there was nothing else to compare them with.
You conviniently edited out that my example was about birding.And I think this is where we run into problems -- the definition of "good". Obviously art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
I will say that to me, an interesting subject and compelling composition is the element that makes a photo "good", and I have rarely seen IQ or other quality issues that made a good photo bad. I do think there are some people who equate "good IQ" with "good photo". I do not. To me, a photo can be tack-sharp but still rather boring. Or, as I am fond of saying ad nauseum, if you have to zoom in to decide if a photo is good, it isn't.
Probably not an overwhelmingly popular opinion on a "gear" site.
Aaron
Pick up a publication from the 60s or 70s or 80s and find me photos that compare to those taken today.
It is a fact that , for example, shooting withy three different cameras , and one of those with three different lenses, I see the level of quality is different from one to the other.
Thaere is no point of introducing philosophy there, I can see it clearly right in front of me.
Don't from this assume that I am saying that great photos cannot be taken or have not been taken with pretty basic cameras, that is not my point.
But that's beside the point, Franco. Forgive me, I'm not familiar with your work, but let's work from the perspective that you are fantastic photographer who makes compelling images. Are you saying you would be unable to do that with a Holga?
If you were (unable), doesn't that mean the quality of your photography is based solely on your ability to zoom, choose a focus point, and maybe set exposure, as opposed to your ability to see a scene that would make a compelling photo and arrange the elements in the viewfinder to make it moreso?
Aaron
I am not sure if the way I write is too hard to be understood or if you are deliberately trying not to understand.
Look again at the list of types of photography I wrote there and tell me you could take photos in those categories that would compete with those taken by people that use specialised gear for that purpose,
Why go through all this pain (film), if gear does not matter? Why not just use your phone? Why do you have such a rich collection of gear? This is like jay Leno arguing that cars do not matter.
tony field
Forum Pro
It all depends upon the nature of the suggested competition. As far as I'm concerned any camera I have purchased since 2002 at the beginning of my sojourn into digital, I could readily compete with modern cameras in all of your above categories. That is not a particularly difficult expectation.... It is readily demonstrable.
If on the other hand I attempt to do a David Burnett art project using a Holga and I had his photographic and artistic ability, I am sure I could Garner the top spot in a contest if the contest were amenable to this process. Sales of the pictures what depend upon who the potential customers are. Even macro work is possible with a holga: all you need is a positive meniscus lens such as a weak magnifying glass.
Now, now, Franco, remember Rule #1. Did you read the first sentence of what I wrote? I'm trying to have a conversation, not a peeing contest.
That said, if you want to see some examples of wildlife (well, cows), real estate, indoor events, and a little landscape and portraiture with a Holga, check out this Photrio thread.
Aaron
--
My Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/aarongold/
Last edited:
Well, first of all, I don't find film painful at all. And as it happens, using the gear is part of what I enjoy about film photography. What I am saying is that the gear I use doesn't affect the quality of the outcome.
Having met Jay Leno on several occasions, and having toured his garage several times, I believe his views towards using cars very much reflects my views of using cameras. (And I agree in terms of cars, too -- I don't care much for value, but prefer old cars for their unique driving experience.) But I think he would also agree that his Doble doesn't do any better a job getting one from his hanger to Bob's Big Boy than his Honda S600 -- it's just a very different experience (like my KR5 and N8008).
That said, I think Jay would also recognize a point we made in that last thread -- that if you put Tanner Faust in a Camry and Joe Average (or even Joe Slightly-More-Than-Average) in a BMW M3 and send the both around Willow Springs, Faust will be faster. I know this from experience.
Aaron
+1.
Why are so many people talking about a great photographer being able to take an interesting image with poor gear? Taking interesting images is just part of what we are trying to do; most of the time we want to shoot something specific, as you mentioned. We still want our images to be interesting, sure, but not only that.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum