Do we worry too much about gear?

[G. Gray]

The gearheads seem to forget that the object of photography is to make a print.

we sure do
check this out:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

 

[boriszulj]

are thinking more about what they have instead how they use their cameras.
gmacklem wrote:
Don't

get me wrong, if I had the money I would upgrade every time.

I have money but I don't upgrade every time. Why? Simply cause there is no need to do that at the moment. Also, one of the reasons I have money is because I don't throw it away. And from my point of view, buying tiny better camera to say: "I have the latest" would be just that!
But that's me!
--
Boris
Degustibus non disputandum est!

 

[chisquared]

Could be true for some posters. But, I think most of us enjoy learning about and using the latest technologies. We also are interested in techniques.

The best tools and the best skills yield the best results.

 

[chisquared]

Was once true.

 

[Christoph Stephan]

The gearheads seem to forget that the object of photography is to
make a print.

Prints are not everything! In film days (and nowadays as well) I always enjoyed a slide presentation. The print albums are meagre in comparison (and a pain if you view pictures in a group). Nowadays I view my digital pictures on the computer screen (and looking forward to the day when beamers will become better and more affordable). Only a selected very few will be printed out and adorn my walls.
--
Chris

 

[CountryBoyShane]

I definitely second that motion. There are way too many threads that ask about what dang lens they should get with their new_ D, ISO tests, and sharpness tests. What makes things remarkably boring is that the most exciting things these people have shot are test charts, pencils, or drooling babies.

WHOOP DE DOO!

Get out there and shoot!!!!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shanegorski

 

[Sis-Q]

Hi Greg,

Looking at your images, the thought occurred to me that maybe we rely too much on photoshop. If you returned to that lovely seen on a clear day with optimal light - you could have done it much more justice for your end goal. On the other hand working with the fog for what it is has artistic merit - fog lends a soft and surreal look to the scene. So why take a foggy scene and try to make it a clear scene? Sure, you made an acceptable print through technology and pp skill . . . but if you are really after excellence it seems like working with (rather than against) the fog on that day, and returning on another for the alternative crisp scene in the golden hour, would have been best.

Regarding your point about gear - yes, the photographer is the most important element - and that includes working the scene to the optimum before, during, and after the shot, gear is secondary. Luck also plays an important role of course

Cindy

Anyway, the first picture has been processed rather heavily. As you
can see from the second picture taken at the same time, there was a
lot of fog that muted the colors and put a haze over the scene. So
much so, this picture is pretty well worthless straight from the
camera. Through processing using curves, hue/saturation layer and
sharpening (probably oversharpened in this example) I was able to
eliminate the effects of the fog.



Notice the fog in the background. It was much heavier in these pics
but I was able to PP it out.



--
Greg
http://www.pictureroanoke.com

The hardest thing a person has to do is live by their own words. -
Me 2006

--

My Galleries Here: http://www.pbase.com/cindyd

 

[jonlee1]

--
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right!

 

[Christoph Stephan]

I used my (now old) EOS 20D and got great pictures ou of it. However, I look forward to upgrading to a 40D. I believe it will improve picture quality substantially. Why? I got nice pictures out of my EOS 20D on weekends. However, none of my longer holidays were spotless, the spots of sensor dust in the sky were truly limiting to picture quality ( more so than better lenses, etc.). Truly, you can remove them in post processing. You can clean the sensor every zillion times However, the hobby should be hobby, not work! Whenever I cleaned the sensor, new "guests" arrived just after the next lens change (or mirror actuation etc.). A DSLR without effective sensor cleaning truly is like a car without windscreen wipers (You can clean the windscreen by hand, if you wish...)

Also, I found that in less than optimal weather (grey skies) my EOS 300 film camera with Fuji Sensia could still deliver punchier slides than my EOS 300D/ EOS20D: Again nothing which cannot be solves with hours of postprocessing if you are happy with this.

Therefore I am looking forward to the 40D with its dust removal, picture styles, and possibilities to increase colour saturation up to +4.

--
Chris

 

[jerryk]

If the 40D is like the 1DMKIII and 1DSMKIII shakers, you still need to clean you sensor. Just a little less frequently.

Sensor really is pretty easy.
--
jerryk.smugmug.com

 

[G. Gray]

I agree on slides for a group presentation but a slide is like a print. Viewing on a computer screen is looking at a one MP image that is represented by square dots which are really triangular dots,So $10k worth of equipment is reduced to a 1mp image on a monitor. A print will convey the true image and the colors will meld together to get rid of the dot mentality of computer screen viewing.
I see that you and many others print the best of the best.
I invite you to read two enlightening sites.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Pixelpeepers don't like prints, they want to tear apart 1mp web images and look at imaginary software created square pixels.
Gerry

The gearheads seem to forget that the object of photography is to
make a print.

Prints are not everything! In film days (and nowadays as well) I
always enjoyed a slide presentation. The print albums are meagre in
comparison (and a pain if you view pictures in a group). Nowadays I
view my digital pictures on the computer screen (and looking forward
to the day when beamers will become better and more affordable). Only
a selected very few will be printed out and adorn my walls.
--
Chris

 

[G. Gray]

Its still true.
A print is a print but a screen image is a 1mp image displayed in square pixels.

I read on this forum that a photographers said they could have sold many more images but they were "screen resolution" So, when you see great photos at 800x600 , maybe thats all there is.
Gerry

Was once true.

 

[a_salina]

Yes, it's a snobs forum where "mines bigger and better than yours" rules

I don't think so, Petetommo. At least not with the majority of posters. You're always going to find that kind of person in any group.

I use this forum as a tech support forum, and try to post with the idea of helping others with tech questions, if I'm able.

I do agree though, that it would be nice to have a forum where a large percentage of posters have the same kind of gear and yet is more about photography in general. This would allow people to feel free to post images, discuss photographic technique, and also ask technical questions about the gear that is common to the group. Since every camera has its limitations, often it is helpful to have a large group of users of that camera to ask about how to overcome or work around those limitations when actually taking photographs.

Generally though, the people here are very tolerent of such discussion, which, IMO, is good.

 

[bogongbreeze]

snip
All of these technical subjects are interesting and of great use to
an artist trying to achieve the best possible final result. It takes
craftsmanship to achieve the vision we have in our minds. Without
the gear and a good technical understanding of it, we're limited in
what we can produce.
snip

I agree with this. Without this and other gear forums I'd not be able to exploit the equipment to its potential, nor even use it in the right situation. This and other photography forums really help me understand how to get the best out of the gear.

Now a different question might be do we obsess about getting the latest and greatest all the time - that's a totally different kettle of fish. But understanding how to use the gear we have, how to choose the right lens/body for the job, and what are the limits of our gear is crucial to getting good photos IMO.

 

[The Aussie Viking]

I belong to a camera club, and have done so for almost a year. Whilst I have learnt a lot about composition, and what makes a picture "pop", etc, we shoot on a myriad of gear, from P&S (film and digital), through to medium and large format camera's. Many don't volunteer what equipment they have, to lower the risk of someone stealing it.

As such, it can be difficult to find out information specific to my hardware (40D, 350D, Panasonic TZ3, and assorted gear). This forum has consistently answered questions I haven't even thought of yet, and when I have, a quick posting has given me valuable advice, which has been accurate, and has assisted me no end. I can now drive a 580 II flash confidently, and shift the Ev for light and dark clothing, such as wedding dresses or Tux's with confidence, rather than trial and error.

Sure, there are some "wand-polishers" around this group who for reasons only they can fathom think that if they continue to bash the Canon product, we'll all buy Nikon's in desperation. And I'm sure the Nikon groups suffer the same to some degree. But they are easy to spot and avoid, and I'm sure the manufacturers think as little of them as we do.

In spite of these, this group is invaluable for many of us, and assist in lens choices, backup devices, travel preparation etc. If that is too technical for some, I'm sure there are other less technical forums they can follow. This suits many of us just fine!
--
The Aussie Viking

 

[ALS]

Autumn colors and picturesque old mills. Bleagh. Can't we ever get any stirring shots of rulers at 45-degree angles that are [gasp!] front-focused !?!?!

ALS

 

[gmacklem]

Hi Greg,

Looking at your images, the thought occurred to me that maybe we rely
too much on photoshop.

Yea, it's hard enough to get a good shot to start with, then you have to have good PP skills as well. I guess it has always been that way with darkrooms, it is just more in reach of the hobbyist now with PS and other tools.

If you returned to that lovely seen on a
clear day with optimal light - you could have done it much more
justice for your end goal.

I agree with you and wish I could have had better conditions. For this photo though, I had a friend from GA visiting and we went for a drive. We were actually almost late for peak color and it was very foggy. I work a 40 hr week M-F, so getting out anytime except the weekend is hard. I may have to go back and play with this shot and see what can be done to use the fog for a different look.

On the other hand working with the fog
for what it is has artistic merit - fog lends a soft and surreal look
to the scene. So why take a foggy scene and try to make it a clear
scene? Sure, you made an acceptable print through technology and pp
skill . . . but if you are really after excellence it seems like
working with (rather than against) the fog on that day, and returning
on another for the alternative crisp scene in the golden hour, would
have been best.

I agree here as well. Here are foggy shots from the same day:

Try to ignore the oversharpening, my batch job for web images was too aggressive and I have since scaled it back.

Regarding your point about gear - yes, the photographer is the most
important element - and that includes working the scene to the
optimum before, during, and after the shot, gear is secondary. Luck
also plays an important role of course

Cindy

--
Greg
http://www.pictureroanoke.com

The hardest thing a person has to do is live by their own words. - Me 2006

 

[LarryPhoto]

That is true, I had one of my best shots covered with dust spots, spent 2 hours in PS removing them. My 40D ihas shown no dust on its shots, and I'e had it now for 5 months. Note, till you get the 40D, keep the F-stops at F8 or faster, then dust will not show, however DOF will be reduced.

I used my (now old) EOS 20D and got great pictures ou of it.
However, I look forward to upgrading to a 40D. I believe it will
improve picture quality substantially. Why? I got nice pictures out
of my EOS 20D on weekends. However, none of my longer holidays were
spotless, the spots of sensor dust in the sky were truly limiting to
picture quality ( more so than better lenses, etc.). Truly, you can
remove them in post processing. You can clean the sensor every
zillion times However, the hobby should be hobby, not work! Whenever
I cleaned the sensor, new "guests" arrived just after the next lens
change (or mirror actuation etc.). A DSLR without effective sensor
cleaning truly is like a car without windscreen wipers (You can clean
the windscreen by hand, if you wish...)

Also, I found that in less than optimal weather (grey skies) my EOS
300 film camera with Fuji Sensia could still deliver punchier slides
than my EOS 300D/ EOS20D: Again nothing which cannot be solves with
hours of postprocessing if you are happy with this.

Therefore I am looking forward to the 40D with its dust removal,
picture styles, and possibilities to increase colour saturation up to
+4.

--
Chris

--

 

[Sis-Q]

Yea, it's hard enough to get a good shot to start with, then you have
to have good PP skills as well. I guess it has always been that way
with darkrooms, it is just more in reach of the hobbyist now with PS
and other tools.

I agree with you and wish I could have had better conditions. For
this photo though, I had a friend from GA visiting and we went for a
drive. We were actually almost late for peak color and it was very
foggy. I work a 40 hr week M-F, so getting out anytime except the
weekend is hard. I may have to go back and play with this shot and
see what can be done to use the fog for a different look.

Don't get me wrong - I think PP is just as important as good camera skills - we just have to decide when something is better achieved with one or the other or some combination of both. At time I see images posted that are missing the PP to bring them into their own splendor. Other times (and I'm often guilty of this) I see images that are being pushed to be something they are not, and often they could be so much more if the photographer was just patient enough and worked it when the conditions were just right. I do realize that sometimes it isn't possible to return, especially if it is a decisive moment sort of thing.

Here are foggy shots from the same day:

Try to ignore the oversharpening, my batch job for web images was too
aggressive and I have since scaled it back.

EXACTLY! Those shots are so much better for the fog!

I was fortunate to encounter the golden gate bridge on a foggy day









I actually saw quite a few zipped up camera bags. But I think the fog was a Godsend!
--

My Galleries Here: http://www.pbase.com/cindyd

 

[Keith Reeder]

How on earth can there be "too much technical discussion" on a technical discussion forum ?

Those of you who want to discuss the more aesthetic elements of photography can go somewhere else: to deride this forum for functioning precisely as intended is ridiculous.

It is what it is, and - more importantly - it is what it's meant to be .