I'm actually encountering something similar with a fellow photographer friend, who i've kinda teamed up with. He needed headshots, so I took some shots w my camera, and his card, last night and gave him the files. Once he got the correct camera raw downloaded, he opened it, and his first response was "holy shit, the files are huge and the camera is crisp as hell!" which he wasn't used too, so now we're talking camera stuff.
It's all about the photographer and the camera together, as always, but it sure helps to have a great camera I can have control over to make the image spot on
Would be interested in a comparison too. I came from a D80, which i gave to my dad after I upgraded so it can continue it's awesomeness with another photographer!
She's got a great eye and is ahead of the game... and when she goes to the proper equipment she'll be amazed at what it will allow her to do, the sky will be the limit for her.
She's got a great eye and is ahead of the game... and when she goes to the proper equipment she'll be amazed at what it will allow her to do, the sky will be the limit for her.
she's already using proper equipment ... her profile statements are LIES ... check the exif data on her site ... misdirection, smoke and mirrors B.S.
she has an entire team creating these images ... including AGENCY talent ... MONEY ... she BOUGHT her way into the industry ...
R Bruce Duncan wrote: Check out this 19 year old who shoots better than 95% of the photographers on MM: http://www.modelmayhem.com/1850535
K E E L I N G wrote: She's got a great eye and is ahead of the game... and when she goes to the proper equipment she'll be amazed at what it will allow her to do, the sky will be the limit for her.
far be it from me to contradict the prince of model mayhem, but her growth (or anyone's for the matter) isn't bound to technology...sterilizing her images with pure digital files could have the exact opposite effect, it may cause a retrogression in the work she produces.
her only limitations are in her own mind, not her equipment..
artists still draw, and they still paint and sculpt, and they still grow as artists, without have a computer involved.
Hero Foto wrote: she's already using proper equipment ... her profile statements are LIES ... check the exif data on her site ... misdirection, smoke and mirrors B.S.
she has an entire team creating these images ... including AGENCY talent ... MONEY ... she BOUGHT her way into the industry ...
never ever believe elitist B.S.
I am so belwildered as to what you mean with "she BOUGHT her way into the industry". Can you explain?
Also, I'm willing to bet that her profile statements are more "outdated" than lies. She clearly doesn't frequent this site much, and she would have no reason to, really.
I appreciate two aspect of an image's quality: the technical and the aesthetic.
Yes, you need a great camera to achieve top technical quality.
But I gotta tell ya: I would vastly prefer to look at an aesthetically interesting image with modest technical quality than I would want to look at a technically superior but boring image from the best camera in the world.
Your technical skills & equipment need only be good enough to carry your aesthetic vision.
I still shoot with my years old digitals. I have a Panasonic DMC-LC1 which has a fixed lens (albeit with a Leica sticker on it) and a whopping 5.2 megapixels.
I still love shooting with it. It is a nice camera, but if you google images with the DMC-LC1 you will see that the nice camera does not save you everytime. There are plenty of bad looking photos taken with it.
Warning - A flower, opened up. 18+ for Pistol and Stem
R Bruce Duncan wrote: If you'd clicked the link, M. Liffmann, you would have seen that she directly addresses the topic of this thread.
And illustrates it nicely, too.
I did check out her work (and didn't read the profile). My point was that 19 is old in many respects. If you're going to be truly great at something, you'll most likely need to learn it way before 19. My guess would be that she had a parent somehow involved in the industry as she seems very well connected. I don't think there is any critique here.
R Bruce Duncan wrote: Check out this 19 year old who shoots better than 95% of the photographers on MM: http://www.modelmayhem.com/1850535
far be it from me to contradict the prince of model mayhem, but her growth (or anyone's for the matter) isn't bound to technology...sterilizing her images with pure digital files could have the exact opposite effect, it may cause a retrogression in the work she produces.
her only limitations are in her own mind, not her equipment..
artists still draw, and they still paint and sculpt, and they still grow as artists, without have a computer involved.
It could. Or she could take things to the next level. As always, it depends on the individual.
Besides, my post was more directed to what faster glass and higher ISO's allow than what "sterilizing" an image allows. Creativity is limited when you don't have the capability to create what your mind sees, and better equipment expands your capability to create in all settings and light situations... instead of just in the ones that her point and shoot will allow.
As a professional photographer who's doing the big jobs I'm surprised you don't understand that. Being able to create in any environment and lighting conditions when a client demands it is largely dependant on what your equipment is capable of.
Dan K Photography wrote: what would be interesting is if next time you shoot with your old set up as well and we can see what the same shot with both setups would look like.
Somebody please do this (if it hasn't been done already). I would love to see that side x side.
Let's see...I use a Nikon D100, D200, D300s, RB67 Pro SD, Bronica SQ, M645, and a Calumet Cambo 4 x 5. Combining these old cameras with a variety of fair and excellent glass, I can still produce images that are considered good or considered to suck. It really depends upon one's point of view! I'm sure if I had Nikon's latest and greatest body and glass, the above remark about the quality of my images would still hold true. Just my humble $.02 worth.
In a large printed image, from the original file, NOT a jpeg on the internet ! Otherwise, it is a useless exercise, and waste of our time.
-Don
Just the opposite. We all know there will be huge differences in quality when viewing a poster-size print from both cameras.
How much of a difference are we going to see in a 800px .jpg posted on the internet? Which is the extent of what a very large portion of MM members are doing.
I know it sounds silly. But I bet there are a lot of people who own the 800 or 800e and have never once made a print from it.
Don Garrett
Posts: 3,775
Escondido, California, US
Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Just the opposite. We all know there will be huge differences in quality when viewing a poster-size print from both cameras.
How much of a difference are we going to see in a 800px .jpg posted on the internet? Which is the extent of what a very large portion of MM members are doing.
I know it sounds silly. But I bet there are a lot of people who own the 800 or 800e and have never once made a print from it.
You might be right about what many, if not most photographers use their cameras for. I would argue that it is a waste of money, and a quality camera to just post images on the internet, and not make large prints from the files. I have seen prints from crummy digital cameras, (early versions), and from my camera, (a 1DsMkII, the first digital camera that I judged to be worth buying). The differences were HUGE. For my purposes, a large, beautiful print is the only reason for owning ANY camera, and the visible differences in the quality of a large, framed print, hanging on my wall, (I can make a quarter of a turn to my right, and see a 44" example that came from my camera), is HUGE. If one is only showing their images as converted, sized jpegs, on the internet, more power to them, but they don't need to spend a lot of money on a sophisticated camera to do that.
-Don
Jim McSmith
Posts: 515
Aldershot, England, United Kingdom
MiGel wrote:
You think so? I don't. It's the things I mentioned.
Here is the image right out of the raw converter (+watermarks):
My point is: If the image is striking, nobody really cares what equipment you used.
Does good equipment help? Yes. Does it need to be "the best"? No. Do 36 MP make the image? No. Not at all.
P.S.: I have a fairly large print of this image here on my wall. Looking totally fine.
Made the test, let a photographer guess which of my images came out of which camera (some are from a 1Ds III). He couldn't find out.
K E E L I N G wrote: As a professional photographer who's doing the big jobs I'm surprised you don't understand that. Being able to create in any environment and lighting conditions when a client demands it is largely dependant on what your equipment is capable of.
i understand things on many different levels, i'm guessing that you only see things from your perspective..
growing commercially and artistically could actually be two different directions..
i grow more artistically using my 60 year old film cameras, then i do shooting digital.
commercial work is all muscle remembrance.
creativity is furthered when you are confronted with obstacles. not by purchasing new equipment.
i guess i'm not surprised that you don't understand that...
I currently shoot with a 5D Mark II and a 7D. Before these two I was shooting with a 40D and a 1D Mark II.
I still have my "old" cameras and still use them alongside the newer ones.
I do see a difference but, for the most part the classics do the job just fine.
i understand things on many different levels, i'm guessing that you only see things from your perspective..
growing commercially and artistically could actually be two different directions..
i grow more artistically using my 60 year old film cameras, then i do shooting digital.
commercial work is all muscle remembrance.
creativity is furthered when you are confronted with obstacles. not by purchasing new equipment.
i guess i'm not surprised that you don't understand that...
I do understand that. But you seem to be so focused on your one point that applies to you that you simply can't expand your thinking to realize that everyone grows in different ways.
Your artistic growth may very well be inhibited by better equipment, that doesn't mean hers will. Some are capable of wondrous things when their avenues are expanded.
So while she may not have to have different equipment to grow artistically, it certainly would open up possibilities for her that aren't available without it. As I said earlier, whether or not someone grows is up to the individual... under those circumstances you say you won't.. but that doesn't mean she won't.
S W I N S K E Y wrote: i understand things on many different levels, i'm guessing that you only see things from your perspective..
growing commercially and artistically could actually be two different directions..
i grow more artistically using my 60 year old film cameras, then i do shooting digital.
commercial work is all muscle remembrance.
creativity is furthered when you are confronted with obstacles. not by purchasing new equipment.
i guess i'm not surprised that you don't understand that...
K E E L I N G wrote: I do understand that. But you seem to be so focused on your one point that applies to you that you simply can't expand your thinking to realize that everyone grows in different ways.
Your artistic growth may very well be inhibited by better equipment, that doesn't mean hers will. Some are capable of wondrous things when their avenues are expanded.
So while she may not have to have different equipment to grow artistically, it certainly would open up possibilities for her that aren't available without it. As I said earlier, whether or not someone grows is up to the individual... under those circumstances you say you won't.. but that doesn't mean she won't.
My take is that you can grow both commercially and artistically only within the technical envelope of the equipment (but mostly teams/models/props/locations etc) you are using. Thus own variety of equipment and expand it as your horizons grow - if you can.
K E E L I N G wrote: But you seem to be so focused on your one point that applies to you that you simply can't expand your thinking to realize that everyone grows in different ways.
lol Chris, you're funny...i certainly realize how people grow, that it can be in many different ways. certainly some become inhibited with their technology (but no one i have seen, has that excuse). But more are inhibited by their own self imposed limitations...
This image was shot with a rolleiflex tlr, manual focus and no light meter. if you've ever seen the video, Ali's right hand was in that position for a fraction of a second...
how could a better technology, make that image better? (rhetorical)
Anyway, you seem to fixated on the thought, that in order to grow, you need new better equipment..to expand your horizons...and that is, quite frankly bullshit...its an excuse not to grow.."i don"t have new equipment so i cant get any better"
its almost like you're a technology salesman..trying to sell us something we don't need.
S W I N S K E Y wrote: lol Chris, you're funny...i certainly realize how people grow, that it can be in many different ways. certainly some become inhibited with their technology (but no one i have seen, has that excuse). But more are inhibited by their own self imposed limitations...
This image was shot with a rolleiflex tlr, manual focus and no light meter. if you've ever seen the video, Ali's right hand was in that position for a fraction of a second...
how could a better technology, make that image better? (rhetorical)
Anyway, you seem to fixated on the thought, that in order to grow, you need new better equipment..to expand your horizons...and that is, quite frankly bullshit...its an excuse not to grow.."i don"t have new equipment so i cant get any better"
its almost like you're a technology salesman..trying to sell us something we don't need.
Seems on the higher end of equipment of the times.
But a modern camera could capture more. Things like face, detail of the look from his eyes etc.
the fact that she is using agency talent and a team has nothing to do with her images ???
Oh it has everything to do with the continued elevation of her work. But she would never be able to test with those agencies if her work and aesthetic wasn't already up to par.
Were you under the impression that when I say "paid test" that I mean a photographer is paying the agency to work with their girls? Because again, that's REALLY not how it works. If they like your work, they'll let you test with their talent because it's a win win for them... if you're a good hustler and they REALLY like your work, you can get paid to do it. If you show up with a book full of 5'4", 130lbs girls doing hand bras and caution tape on white seamless and flat "beauty" lighting, you couldn't pay them enough money to let you book.
lol Chris, you're funny...i certainly realize how people grow, that it can be in many different ways. certainly some become inhibited with their technology (but no one i have seen, has that excuse). But more are inhibited by their own self imposed limitations...
This image was shot with a rolleiflex tlr, manual focus and no light meter. if you've ever seen the video, Ali's right hand was in that position for a fraction of a second...
how could a better technology, make that image better? (rhetorical)
Anyway, you seem to fixated on the thought, that in order to grow, you need new better equipment..to expand your horizons...and that is, quite frankly bullshit...its an excuse not to grow.."i don"t have new equipment so i cant get any better"
its almost like you're a technology salesman..trying to sell us something we don't need.
Back in the early days of Boxing there were strobes placed above the ring in the lights. That's why there are so many awesome classic boxing images.
Without the strobes this would be a much different image...
Back in the early days of Boxing there were strobes placed above the ring in the lights. That's why there are so many awesome classic boxing images.
Without the strobes this would be a much different image...
Were these triggered with steam powered Pocketwizards?
Moderator Warning!
| 
| 
| edu