What is needed nowadays to be a great photographer...?

[knickerhawk]

Are you saying there were no great digital photographers and no great digital photos taken five years ago when state of the art cameras had 12-18 mp? What about ten years ago when 8 mp was state-of-the-art? Fact is, P&S cameras of today are technically superior to state-of-the-art gear from just a relatively few years ago.

Are you saying that Jay Maisel is a failed photographer because his favorite go-to lens is the pedestrian Nikkor 28-300mm super zoom? Fact is, he remains one of the greatest living photographers despite his preference for a consumer lens.

Your assessment and assumptions are way, way off, I'm afraid, and a classic confusion of cause and effect. Simply put, photos are not good because good equipment was used, or good processing was employed. Rather, good photographers know how to use their equipment and processing skills to create good photos. It all begins (and ends) with talent and vision. Everything else is an afterthought.

Sometimes I honestly believe that some folks do not even bother reading the original threads carefully enough and just reply to what they think they read.

How ironic.

To reply to your question, no, I never said that. Perhaps you don't realize it, but you are actually agreeing with me.

No I'm not. Not in any conceivable way am I agreeing with you and, yes, I carefully read and fully understand your original claim. It's just that it's wrong. It's wrong specifically about the Russian photographer you used as an example and it's wrong generally.

Your opinion. Respected, but still wrong because you fail to see the truth.

We've reached the point of no return here by shouting back and forth, "you're wrong...no, you're wrong." I won't bother to reply further on this general back and forth.

On the other hand, I have a more concrete question that might lead to a productive dialogue. What specifically about the images posted by that female Russian photographer leads you to conclude that they required a camera of the cost/quality of the Canon 5DII and the 135mm f/2? Please be specific with your evidence and link to the specific images that support your claim. We can then discuss whether your claims are well supported by the evidence and whether the only way to achieve the specific results was use of a recent vintage high-end combo like the one you think was used.

10 years ago great photos were made as well of course because 10 years ago the 8 megapixel camera you mention WAS state of the art. Back then that level of IQ was acceptable because technology had evolved to that point. Now though that level is simply not enough, this is what I am saying.

Nope. The great images taken back then are still great today. Other than pixel-pimps and gearheads, nobody even knows or recognizes or cares which equipment was used. And to the extent that earlier top-end digital equipment and current low-end digital equipment has greater limitations at the extremes of low light shooting or upsizing, there is still a VERY big sweet spot in which TALENTED photographers with VISION can operate. A VERY big sweet spot. Equipment is the lamest of lame excuses for why any photographer doesn't succeed.

The great images created back then are still great by that standards, not todays. A great landscape shot from back then today will look noisy, small and soft.

Such a crying shame that we all have to ditch our photobooks published more than a few years ago and the museums have to unhang those older digital prints and the galleries can't sell them any more. Such a shame that there are no longer any "great" film-based photographers, since that technology is SO old. Pardon me while I go call our corporate art collection advisor and inform her that those "small" 8x10 Edward Westons in our lobby and virtually every other photo in the collection must be thrown out.

Do you comprehend the implication of your claim that "great images" lose their greatness when better technology comes along? I can assure you that you and I can today eaily take images with more resolution and sharpness, less noise/grain and that can be upsized to dimensions bigger than what Adams used. I can also assure you that our images won't be "great" because of that and that Adams' images won't be any less great because they aren't quite as sharp or grain-free.

The logic of your argument about what defines greatness breaks down as soon as you attempt to extend it on any timeline.

We are not discussing about excuses here, and since I am the OP (believe its called) I know better so trust me on this. This discussion is about whether a photographer (amateur or not) can actually become known and successful by using entry level equipment. Even if he starts with basic equipment, by the time he gains some acknowledgement, he/she will definitely invest in better gear. Why? because this will update the quality of work they produce. If they keep using the same gear, then they are plain stupid.

History is replete with famous photographers who stuck with the gear with which they were familair and comfortable using. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that great photographers are FAR less interested in the latest/greatest gear than we are here. FAR LESS. What they are interested in is continuing to take great photographs.

Lets stop kidding ourselves. When we say successful, we don't mean a lot of "great job" comments on flickr. Successful is a photographer that makes marketable photos, that can make a living from it, put food on the table. Everything less is just romantic nonsense. As eloquently put by a fellow photographer on a previous reply, no good to become known 100 years later after you have died poor. That is the meaning of being a professional, its your profession. Otherwise you are just a hobbyist.

You started the thread talking about "great photographers" but you seem to now be transitioning to a standard based on successful commercial photography. There's an important distinction to be drawn there (it relates to the economics of the business and changes related to how commercial photography is consumed.)

Yes, and you can put a chimpanzee in front of a Steinway. That doesn't mean the noise it creates is going to be any sweeter. The notion that a Canon shooter is going to produce meaningfully better landscape images when he/shet slaps on an adapted Nikon 14-24mm is (sorry to sound like a broken record here) just plain laughable. You're mixing cause and effect again. (FYI, I sold my Nikon 14-24mm earlier this year. A very fine lens but it didn't turn me into John Sexton, unfortunately.)

Not getting the "Chimpanzee" remark, perhaps you care to explain. So why do you believe that all those Canon owners keep buying adaptors and the 14-24 for then?

Put a chimpanzee in front of a toy piano and a Steinway grand. The Steinway might cost $100,000 and the toy piano $10, but the noise will be just as bad on the Steinway.

They have nothing better to do than spend 2k on a lens with various limitations from the incompatibility? If not to produce better shots why then? Please do tell.

Beause most of them are gear suckers like the rest of us and, yes, they apparently have nothing better to do than to spend 2k on a lens that isn't going to let them climb to the next level of greatness. (On a slightly less flippant note, adapting a lens usually implies compromise. If those Canon shooters really had a legit need for the 14-24mm, they'd buy, rent or borrow a Nikon body.)

As for your experience with the 14-24, only you know why you decided to sell it. If you originally bought it thinking it would turn you to John Sexton then I am sorry but that was impossible. You see I believe pro gear will make a great photographer only by contributing to improve work based on a rock solid foundation made of talent and vision. Unfortunately both those traits cannot be bought. And this has been my point all along, you need the gear to make it.

P.S. Have you seen that photo of Jay Maisel with the D4 in hand?

Why don't you email Jay your original post and see if he replies. That should be a real hoot...

 

[RhiteOn]

Above all, you need "The Eye".

Creative people seem to be born with it, others (like myself) struggle...

 

[darklamp]

And since you went into this trouble let me disagree by saying that what you claim about each thread developing a life of its own is true but a good thing only up to a reasonable point.

My point being that you don't get to tell other posters what that reasonable point is ( as you tried to ).

I don't know if you're using threaded view, but if you did you'd see that the conversations have structure. You can see the different off-shoots of each branch. So far from being the chaos you seem to be bothered by, it's actually quite sensibly organized.

Of course in the course of the discussion there could be a deviation from the original path, but that is not necessarily for the best.

Again, who decides what is for the best ?

I don't see the point if this thread ended up discussing whether Duft Punk deserved the Grammy or not.

And I see you've decided to be completely ridiculous having run out of anything sensible to say.

Threads would be incredibly boring if they behaved in this one-dimensional way you seem to want. It would be more boring than the average financial report ( sure as heck, someone will post that they find those things interesting ).

 

[hoakin1981]

We've reached the point of no return here by shouting back and forth, "you're wrong...no, you're wrong." I won't bother to reply further on this general back and forth.

On the other hand, I have a more concrete question that might lead to a productive dialogue. What specifically about the images posted by that female Russian photographer leads you to conclude that they required a camera of the cost/quality of the Canon 5DII and the 135mm f/2? Please be specific with your evidence and link to the specific images that support your claim. We can then discuss whether your claims are well supported by the evidence and whether the only way to achieve the specific results was use of a recent vintage high-end combo like the one you think was used.

Well even if I enjoy our debate I don't like to be bossed around. Furthermore I really resent attitudes in the likes of "oh, I am too important to discuss with you, so unless you provide some hard evidence of your claims I will speak with you no more".

Just so as not to think I imagined it. A simple Google search will satisfy your needs. It is very easy, literally the first 2 hits will do. But I will not do it for you.

10 years ago great photos were made as well of course because 10 years ago the 8 megapixel camera you mention WAS state of the art. Back then that level of IQ was acceptable because technology had evolved to that point. Now though that level is simply not enough, this is what I am saying.

Nope. The great images taken back then are still great today. Other than pixel-pimps and gearheads, nobody even knows or recognizes or cares which equipment was used. And to the extent that earlier top-end digital equipment and current low-end digital equipment has greater limitations at the extremes of low light shooting or upsizing, there is still a VERY big sweet spot in which TALENTED photographers with VISION can operate. A VERY big sweet spot. Equipment is the lamest of lame excuses for why any photographer doesn't succeed.

The great images created back then are still great by that standards, not todays. A great landscape shot from back then today will look noisy, small and soft.

Such a crying shame that we all have to ditch our photobooks published more than a few years ago and the museums have to unhang those older digital prints and the galleries can't sell them any more. Such a shame that there are no longer any "great" film-based photographers, since that technology is SO old. Pardon me while I go call our corporate art collection advisor and inform her that those "small" 8x10 Edward Westons in our lobby and virtually every other photo in the collection must be thrown out.

Well perhaps I put this the wrong way, let me rephrase that. Old great photos are still great and will always be. But one, cannot simply rely on this and keep using entry level equipment just in case he happens to be a grand master like Ansel Adams or Edward Westcon. Most probably he/she will not be a grand master. What I am considering is what it takes to be great nowadays, not a photography grand master.

By the way, you have a corporate art collection advisor? I did not even know corporations had such people.

Do you comprehend the implication of your claim that "great images" lose their greatness when better technology comes along? I can assure you that you and I can today eaily take images with more resolution and sharpness, less noise/grain and that can be upsized to dimensions bigger than what Adams used. I can also assure you that our images won't be "great" because of that and that Adams' images won't be any less great because they aren't quite as sharp or grain-free.

The logic of your argument about what defines greatness breaks down as soon as you attempt to extend it on any timeline.

We are not discussing about excuses here, and since I am the OP (believe its called) I know better so trust me on this. This discussion is about whether a photographer (amateur or not) can actually become known and successful by using entry level equipment. Even if he starts with basic equipment, by the time he gains some acknowledgement, he/she will definitely invest in better gear. Why? because this will update the quality of work they produce. If they keep using the same gear, then they are plain stupid.

History is replete with famous photographers who stuck with the gear with which they were familair and comfortable using. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that great photographers are FAR less interested in the latest/greatest gear than we are here. FAR LESS. What they are interested in is continuing to take great photographs.

Please spare me the drama. Of course famous photographers don't care about the latest gear. That's for sure, because in 90% of the cases they already have the best gear.

Lets stop kidding ourselves. When we say successful, we don't mean a lot of "great job" comments on flickr. Successful is a photographer that makes marketable photos, that can make a living from it, put food on the table. Everything less is just romantic nonsense. As eloquently put by a fellow photographer on a previous reply, no good to become known 100 years later after you have died poor. That is the meaning of being a professional, its your profession. Otherwise you are just a hobbyist.

You started the thread talking about "great photographers" but you seem to now be transitioning to a standard based on successful commercial photography. There's an important distinction to be drawn there (it relates to the economics of the business and changes related to how commercial photography is consumed.)

Well we agree here. Great = Marketable. I really can't see a distinction, Ansel Adam's photos are so great because people love them and consequently buy them the why is irrelevant, original prints or reproductions etc its the same thing. If no one liked them and no one bought them, they would not be exactly considered great would they? The 2 concepts are interlinked either you like it or not.

Yes, and you can put a chimpanzee in front of a Steinway. That doesn't mean the noise it creates is going to be any sweeter. The notion that a Canon shooter is going to produce meaningfully better landscape images when he/shet slaps on an adapted Nikon 14-24mm is (sorry to sound like a broken record here) just plain laughable. You're mixing cause and effect again. (FYI, I sold my Nikon 14-24mm earlier this year. A very fine lens but it didn't turn me into John Sexton, unfortunately.)

Not getting the "Chimpanzee" remark, perhaps you care to explain. So why do you believe that all those Canon owners keep buying adaptors and the 14-24 for then?

Put a chimpanzee in front of a toy piano and a Steinway grand. The Steinway might cost $100,000 and the toy piano $10, but the noise will be just as bad on the Steinway.

I see. And what happens if a grand master pianist sits in front of the toy piano? Let me guess, he/she will compose a masterpiece right?

They have nothing better to do than spend 2k on a lens with various limitations from the incompatibility? If not to produce better shots why then? Please do tell.

Beause most of them are gear suckers like the rest of us and, yes, they apparently have nothing better to do than to spend 2k on a lens that isn't going to let them climb to the next level of greatness. (On a slightly less flippant note, adapting a lens usually implies compromise. If those Canon shooters really had a legit need for the 14-24mm, they'd buy, rent or borrow a Nikon body.)

Well if this was true it would be really disappointing. Furthermore I find it hard to believe that you or I are the smart ones and all those pros who do exactly that are so blind and unable to understand the obvious. To say that is way too presumptuous and hypocritical. What I think is that they strive for the best so they invest both in hard work and equipment to achieve the best quality possible in their offered work. And that is in order to be commercially competitive.

As for your experience with the 14-24, only you know why you decided to sell it. If you originally bought it thinking it would turn you to John Sexton then I am sorry but that was impossible. You see I believe pro gear will make a great photographer only by contributing to improve work based on a rock solid foundation made of talent and vision. Unfortunately both those traits cannot be bought. And this has been my point all along, you need the gear to make it.

P.S. Have you seen that photo of Jay Maisel with the D4 in hand?

Why don't you email Jay your original post and see if he replies. That should be a real hoot...

Perhaps I will, the real hoot would be if he agreed with me.

 

[hoakin1981]

And since you went into this trouble let me disagree by saying that what you claim about each thread developing a life of its own is true but a good thing only up to a reasonable point.

My point being that you don't get to tell other posters what that reasonable point is ( as you tried to ).

Ohhh, Someone is over sensitive :-(

I don't know if you're using threaded view, but if you did you'd see that the conversations have structure. You can see the different off-shoots of each branch. So far from being the chaos you seem to be bothered by, it's actually quite sensibly organized.

Will you keep stating the obvious?

Of course in the course of the discussion there could be a deviation from the original path, but that is not necessarily for the best.

Again, who decides what is for the best ?

Well certainly not you.

I don't see the point if this thread ended up discussing whether Duft Punk deserved the Grammy or not.

And I see you've decided to be completely ridiculous having run out of anything sensible to say.

Oh come on doctor is this the best you have got? Even in this case seems to be better than what you have to contribute to this thread, which is nothing and only trolling.

Threads would be incredibly boring if they behaved in this one-dimensional way you seem to want. It would be more boring than the average financial report ( sure as heck, someone will post that they find those things interesting ).

Now you also know what I want. Good thing no one cares what you think you know.

 

[pavi1]

Same as ever. No new book to write.

 

[Draek]

This pretty much sums it up i think. And you only can achieve this if you invest the time, effort, hard work and cash needed.

I can appreciate some of the feedback received so far, but i truly cannot believe that you can actually make it out there with an APS-C body and a kit lens.

And yet, they have. Have you actually met a pro? not necessarily big shots like Annie Leibovitz and her ilk, just the random guy whose food & lodgings are paid for by his work in photography. Do you really think they started out their business with a 1Ds and a bag of L glass?

I am sorry but Joe Mc Nally would not be who he is with a Rebel in his hands. And same goes for all the acclaimed fashion photographers that use Hasselblads.

Says who? it's like saying you can't be a successful businessman without a Rolex in your hand, just because most of the successful ones wear Rolex. In most cases, success came first, then the Rolex and the Hassy.

I wish only raw talent and true vision could prevail but they dont anymore. For example if somehow/somewhere a seasoned pro was shooting a sunset using a cheap entry level body+kit lens and at the same time an amateur was shooting the same sunset using pro gear whose shot do you think would be published?

The seasoned pro's. Because he's a seasoned pro, and thus not only likely more skilled in imagemaking, he's also more skilled in selling images.

Right, neither's. Because the editor of the magazine would simply chose the 3rd photographer who had both the experience and the equipment to back it up.

Reality shows otherwise.

As for the artists mentioned by Draek.

• Juan Buhler - Street photography (nice but not technically

Yup, and an example of a contemporary, renowned street photographer. Which you thought was impossible.

• Peter Turnley - Street photography

Same as above.

• Ming Thein - Various styles and on his blog you see reviews of the latest Nikons, Leica etc. Are you kidding me? ;-)

Alongside reviews of, for instance, the Panasonic LX7 and Ricoh GR, plus a plethora of relatively inexpensive m43 equipment. Including, also, articles on using them on pro shoots. See how much it affects the quality of his work? yep: so little you didn't even notice.

As for Michelangelo, who i believe even mentioning him in this place is an insult by itself, i trully believe that if the brand that made chisels back then was called Nikon, then i think he would have a Nikon D4s chisel.

Of course you do -- you're obsessed with the idea that a craftsman can't become famous without paying thousands of dollars for each and every piece of his equipment. If I told you Brian May's guitar cost him around $20, you'll probably think I'm either lying or using a humour website like The Onion as my source, because you can't possibly fathom how he could've become and still stay as a famous guitarist with anything less than a $4k Les Paul.

You need it all. Otherwise you fall short, plain and simple. Yes, professionals also have and use cheaper bodies etc. but they also have pro bodies and glass and i dont think they invested the cash needed to keep using their small P&S.

Really; it seems to me you're just trying to justify own your lack of success than anything else.

 

[Nibbio]

1. Vision
2. Control your state of mind - manage the way you feel in the moment
3. Belief - break your limiting beliefs
4. Strategy - a plan of action

Connecting the four together you need -
Standards - what you will not settle for!

 

[Lumixdude]

Lack of success or over priced gear? Todays mirroless Nikon or APS-C MILC is yesterdays Canin 1D and those who have the gear possess the ability to shoot higher quality shots than yesterdays film professional. As per usual DPreview finds a way to justify why everyone should have a full frame camera. It's nice... but it's not necessary when todays $500 MILC has better IQ than yesterdays $5000 DSLR.

 

[JamesRL]

Pianos and master players are something I know something about as well.

I had the interesting experience of piano shopping on a budget with a friend. We went into a shop that had both new and used, everything from concert grands to apartment style compact models.

Of course we wanted to try out models more expensive than what we were shopping for.

But once we had discussions with the sales rep and come down to a price range, we learned what a well experienced player could do. He knew all those instruments well, their strengths and weaknesses. He picked the right music and made all of them sound good (though not the same).

Another concert pianist of my acquaintence has a Steinway grand at his residence. He aslo has a Canadian grand of the same size. He prefers the Canadian one, which most people would say is a very good piano, but not the best(which most experts would say would be Steinway or Bosendorfer).

 

[knickerhawk]

We've reached the point of no return here by shouting back and forth, "you're wrong...no, you're wrong." I won't bother to reply further on this general back and forth.

On the other hand, I have a more concrete question that might lead to a productive dialogue. What specifically about the images posted by that female Russian photographer leads you to conclude that they required a camera of the cost/quality of the Canon 5DII and the 135mm f/2? Please be specific with your evidence and link to the specific images that support your claim. We can then discuss whether your claims are well supported by the evidence and whether the only way to achieve the specific results was use of a recent vintage high-end combo like the one you think was used.

Well even if I enjoy our debate I don't like to be bossed around. Furthermore I really resent attitudes in the likes of "oh, I am too important to discuss with you, so unless you provide some hard evidence of your claims I will speak with you no more".

Are you really saying that evidence-based discussion is a waste of your time and a sign that I'm the one with an attitude? It's really not that hard. Let me show you what I mean. Let's look at the following image:

Loading…

500px.com

What this example makes clear is that she does quite a bit of manipulation in Photoshop (or similar editor). Note the strong halos around the child. Digital dodging/burning (or similar techniques) are clearly at play in this and many of her other images. Personally, I have no problem with that. I do it a lot myself and consider it an important stage of postprocessing my images.

Furthermore, the metadata shows this shot was taken at f/4.5, 1/250 and ISO 100. Those are very much within the sweet spot or norm of virtually all cameras and many lenses. Nothing extreme there that demands the utmost in sensor or lens technology. The pixel dimensions available to us in her posted images are not sufficient to discern anything meaningful about resolution/detail. In fact, they are so modest that digital sensors of a decade ago would have had no trouble rendering them equally well with respect to size.

The reason the shot works has to do with the lighting, composition and color supported by careful processing. She does a very good job with mood, but again this has virtually nothing to do with the specific equipment she happens to be handling.

Ok? Your turn...

 

[backayonder]

Is a great photographer determined by how much money they make or how good their work is and I have a sneaking suspicion that these two factors don't necessarily go hand in hand.

My favourite works are by Don McPhee, Jeff Carter and John Gay their work brings out an emotion in me surely that is a sign of a good photographer.

Sad thing is that quite a lot of Great Photographers are now no longer with us yet when they were their images wee ignored.

That Russian Lady with her pet Rabbit is getting quite a bit of exposure just lately is she a great photographer.

Last year I went to an exhibition in Sydney by Jeff Wall apparently his images sell for millions of dollars . Why I am not sure.

Photography as in art suffers by what I call the Emperorer has got no clothes syndrome

A great photographer is anyone who has an image that creates emotion that makes you stop and wonder

Sometimes I take an image and think to myself wow did I really take that myself

It is quite possible that I have absolutely no idea what I an talking about

cheers

--
My work
http://www.deangale.com

 

[hoakin1981]

We've reached the point of no return here by shouting back and forth, "you're wrong...no, you're wrong." I won't bother to reply further on this general back and forth.

On the other hand, I have a more concrete question that might lead to a productive dialogue. What specifically about the images posted by that female Russian photographer leads you to conclude that they required a camera of the cost/quality of the Canon 5DII and the 135mm f/2? Please be specific with your evidence and link to the specific images that support your claim. We can then discuss whether your claims are well supported by the evidence and whether the only way to achieve the specific results was use of a recent vintage high-end combo like the one you think was used.

Well even if I enjoy our debate I don't like to be bossed around. Furthermore I really resent attitudes in the likes of "oh, I am too important to discuss with you, so unless you provide some hard evidence of your claims I will speak with you no more".

Are you really saying that evidence-based discussion is a waste of your time and a sign that I'm the one with an attitude? It's really not that hard. Let me show you what I mean. Let's look at the following image:

http://500px.com/photo/34736182

What this example makes clear is that she does quite a bit of manipulation in Photoshop (or similar editor). Note the strong halos around the child. Digital dodging/burning (or similar techniques) are clearly at play in this and many of her other images. Personally, I have no problem with that. I do it a lot myself and consider it an important stage of postprocessing my images.

Furthermore, the metadata shows this shot was taken at f/4.5, 1/250 and ISO 100. Those are very much within the sweet spot or norm of virtually all cameras and many lenses. Nothing extreme there that demands the utmost in sensor or lens technology. The pixel dimensions available to us in her posted images are not sufficient to discern anything meaningful about resolution/detail. In fact, they are so modest that digital sensors of a decade ago would have had no trouble rendering them equally well with respect to size.

The reason the shot works has to do with the lighting, composition and color supported by careful processing. She does a very good job with mood, but again this has virtually nothing to do with the specific equipment she happens to be handling.

Ok? Your turn...

Sorry but to simply ask for a clarification of someone's claim in order to proceed in evidence-based discussion is surely not a problem. However, they way you expressed the same query with "please be specific with your evidence" and "support your claim" etc. did not exactly had the same ring, at least not IMO. Anyway, I guess you determined that the camera and lens used was indeed the combo mentioned.

So, kudos on the technical analysis and for spotting the techniques used. Since I have limited experience with PP (working on that) I could not do it myself.

Therefore the question that rises is whether the same photo could be achieved with a simple Rebel and a kit lens then. From what you say you believe that it could be done. To be completely truthful I have my doubts, and this is certainly not in order to just to contradict you.

In this respect, I would be thrilled if you were right and I was wrong. Because that would mean that I have a chance at nice photos like these with my D300s and Nikkors. You see in the years I have been shooting i have shot with various lenses which is normal. Consequently I have been able to appreciate some qualities that make them differ from one another like corner sharpness, contrast, softness, limitations due to diffraction etc. This is why I have my concerns if - and to use the example you have - such results are possible for the detail on the wood or the child's face and feet with a kit lens, even at f4.5.

 

[Perry Kivolowitz]

I'm sorry, I can't resist...

A phone and a button marked "P"

(of course I don't believe this)

 

[Moti]

I'm sorry, I can't resist...

A phone and a button marked "P"

Makes lots of sense to me.

(of course I don't believe this)

You better start to believe in it because it exists. David Hockney for example...

Moti

 

[Miwok]

About shallow dof, fast lens is not always necessary. You can do a lot with a kit lens and PP work.

Here, two example:


Sony 18-55 at F7.1


Sony 55-200 at F7.1

I believe than the (wonderful) work of the Russian Mom could have been done with a "lower", not FF, camera.

--

Miwok

Explore Miwok’s 6,908 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Moti]

Is a great photographer determined by how much money they make or how good their work is and I have a sneaking suspicion that these two factors don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I couldn't agree more to that. While a the quality of the photography is mainly based on talent and photography skills, the amount of money they make is more to do with marketing and sales efforts.

Moti

 

[knickerhawk]

Are you really saying that evidence-based discussion is a waste of your time and a sign that I'm the one with an attitude? It's really not that hard. Let me show you what I mean. Let's look at the following image:

http://500px.com/photo/34736182

What this example makes clear is that she does quite a bit of manipulation in Photoshop (or similar editor). Note the strong halos around the child. Digital dodging/burning (or similar techniques) are clearly at play in this and many of her other images. Personally, I have no problem with that. I do it a lot myself and consider it an important stage of postprocessing my images.

Furthermore, the metadata shows this shot was taken at f/4.5, 1/250 and ISO 100. Those are very much within the sweet spot or norm of virtually all cameras and many lenses. Nothing extreme there that demands the utmost in sensor or lens technology. The pixel dimensions available to us in her posted images are not sufficient to discern anything meaningful about resolution/detail. In fact, they are so modest that digital sensors of a decade ago would have had no trouble rendering them equally well with respect to size.

The reason the shot works has to do with the lighting, composition and color supported by careful processing. She does a very good job with mood, but again this has virtually nothing to do with the specific equipment she happens to be handling.

Ok? Your turn...

Sorry but to simply ask for a clarification of someone's claim in order to proceed in evidence-based discussion is surely not a problem. However, they way you expressed the same query with "please be specific with your evidence" and "support your claim" etc. did not exactly had the same ring, at least not IMO. Anyway, I guess you determined that the camera and lens used was indeed the combo mentioned.

Eh, I was grumpy yesterday and you weren't exactly being specific in your analysis. I was already familair with her work, having discussed in a prior thread on another forum days ago. The 5DII and the 135mm are not the only body/lens combo she's used, so there's some rational basis for asking for specificity.

So, kudos on the technical analysis and for spotting the techniques used. Since I have limited experience with PP (working on that) I could not do it myself.

In my opinion, getting comfortable and competent with Photoshop or some other editing tool is the cheapest way to take your work to the next level. If you like Shumilova's work and you want to mimic it, then I'd say you should prioritize honing your postprocessing skills. Only then is it worth investing in higher-end glass. By far, the least important factor by far (for this kind of work and at these output sizes) is the body/sensor. She does a lot of enhancing/local editing of her subjects with localized sharpening, dodging/burning, etc. and she definitely is manipulating the colors of her images. You will see a lot of similarity with the kind of stuff that shows up in magazines like Digital Photo Pro. Lots of manipulation. Again, to be clear here, I'm a fan of it and not some stick-in-the-mud purist that believes it's a sin against God and man to touch a single pixel...

Therefore the question that rises is whether the same photo could be achieved with a simple Rebel and a kit lens then. From what you say you believe that it could be done. To be completely truthful I have my doubts, and this is certainly not in order to just to contradict you.

In this respect, I would be thrilled if you were right and I was wrong. Because that would mean that I have a chance at nice photos like these with my D300s and Nikkors. You see in the years I have been shooting i have shot with various lenses which is normal. Consequently I have been able to appreciate some qualities that make them differ from one another like corner sharpness, contrast, softness, limitations due to diffraction etc. This is why I have my concerns if - and to use the example you have - such results are possible for the detail on the wood or the child's face and feet with a kit lens, even at f4.5.

You are focusing on the trees and not the forest here. It's such a common (and depressing) line of reasoning that goes on here at DPReview. (To be expected because this is basically a gear-oriented site.) Nice equipment can be unimportant, a nice-to-have factor or critical, depending on the specific use case. If you're looking to nail the killer bird-in-flight shot or pro football game action shot, you're going to struggle with anything less quality glass and a body with excellent AF. However, there still is a VERY broad range of artistic possibilities that don't require super equipment to stand out. Shumilova's work is an example of that - carefully staged or selected scenes with good (adequate) natural lighting and stationary subjects.

As for the "detail" of the deck, you need to consider the size of the image. On 500px the image is 1083x724 pixels. At 100% the 5DII outputs 5616x3744 images. We're talking about a fivefold reduction here, which allows you to cover a multitude of focus/lens aberration sins and effectively sharpen. Bear in mind that even a 12mp camera like your D300s is going to allow you to do a fourfold reduction on this image. I have a D300 myself and see nothing special about the detail rendered in Shumilova's shots AT THIS DISPLAY SIZE. At bigger output sizes, I'm sure we'd start seeing differences.

Also note that virtually all of her shots center the subject and actually benefit from soft, vignetted corners. What distinguishes a lens like the 14-24mm Nikkor from other SWA's is superior corner performance, but in these scenes, that's actually unhelpful detail. As for central sharpness, there are plenty of reasonably priced "consumer" lenses that provide excellent sharpness in the center of the lens even at f/4.5.

To wrap up, it's not the equipment being used here that distinguishes the work. It's the talented photographer (she studied art and architecture, by the way) utilizing her vision and improving technical skills to perfect a specific genre.

I'll leave you with another example from a skilled photographer that shows how unimportant the equipment is. Take a look at this shot and try to guess what camera/lens was used, then look at the Flickr tags for the image...

Loading…

blog.mingthein.com

 

[foleyal]

A discussion should start with definitions. What do you mean by a "great photographer? If you mean becoming famous, then marketing is an enormous factor. Many of us have wonderful photos, but don't spend time marketing. One famous landscape photographer said that he could not be in that business if not for his wife doing the marketing. I assume that you already take good photos, but they lack exposure (excuse the pun). I have won several contests, and sold a few prints, but am lazy about marketing. Perhaps you mean simply taking satisfying photos. If that is the case, don't spend too much time worrying about equipment, and enjoy your pictures.

 

[joeybob]

To wrap up, it's not the equipment being used here that distinguishes the work. It's the talented photographer

To support the above claim and illustrate it further:

Nikon still sells film cameras:

The F6

and

The FM10

Ilford , Fuji , Kodak , and others all sell film...Add a lens and some talent, vision, skill and Viola:

https://flic.kr/p/gDKkCf

https://flic.kr/p/bT57ZF

https://flic.kr/p/5FcLjd

But you don't need a New camera or the latest and greatest tools or photoshop, etc to be a "great photographer" or to get "great" results either:

https://flic.kr/p/eMTSY8

https://flic.kr/p/fkVKL4

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveglass/247483776/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveglass/7520468636/

My point is that photography is much bigger than a camera or a sensor or a lens... Those are merely some of the tools used. After all this forum is a gear forum oriented toward DIGITAL as the medium - nothing else.

***************

The question posed in the original post was : What is needed nowadays to be a great photographer...?

and that is where I take exception to this debate... If the question would have been phrased as: What is needed nowadays to be a great digital photographer...? Then I would have a different perspective.

***************

What makes a photograph/photographer great is subjective.

Being a great photographer is akin to being a great physician. Physicians practice the art of medicine. Some physicians utilize the latest technology to determine a diagnosis other physicians can render the same diagnosis using nothing more then a stethoscope, a thermometer and their experience.

IMO the world is full of great photographers. Some of them use cameras.