I shot the Oakland Raiders for a magazine on a Canon D60 and a 75-300/4.5-5.6 lens and they were more than satisfied with the images. Would attach some but still have to learn how to attach images here.
I would say that using an appropriate tool for a task simplifies the work with even a better consistency over time in terms of repeatability, especially in difficult conditions.
Examples:
- a good AF give you more probabilities, in less time, to obtain certain results
- a good high iso give you the possibility to obtain decent shoot even during don't good light condition (1)
(1) With camera don't good with bad light, the only trick that remain is to reduce greatly the initial image - to try to minimize the problems - and the appropriate postwork for the noise (which can take some time, since the automatisms tend to flatten the result).
Nico Simon Princely wrote: Ok we have all heard this and there have been rants on here before about it... I must say that however after shooting with a D800 with a highend Nikon Lens. I can visually see how much better the images are vs. a lower end setup.
So while a good camera alone will not make a great picture it sure does help!
I shot this over the weekend on a D800. Yes it is retouched to reflect my style, but right out of the camera with only some exposure correction it looked really good.
It was also really nice having 36mp to work with I can see all kinds of great cropping coming from the images I shot.
The Bottom line is equipment will not make the image but good equipment can make you better if you are already good.
I suspose you go just crazy over Hemingway's typewriter.. Good for you!!!
True that. I'm a canon 5D Mk III shooter and have been amazed at the quality of photos coming out of the camera. Quality lenses also improve quality. Never hurst to have a few primes in the camera bag also. Just got my second one, a 85mm. Getting much more reluctant to do TFP because of the investment I've made in my equipment and the skill set I'm bringing to the table.
Hey, I'm heading to Las Vegas in early April. Any suggestions on places I should shoot?
Amul La La
Posts: 544
Plymouth, England, United Kingdom
I'm using a 300D, and I've been using the same camera for a little while, I just wanted to learn as much about the camera as possible, so I could get the most out of it, I must say, I have learned more and more over a short period of time, and I figure all beginners should start this way, there's absolutely no point buying a £2000 pound camera if they don't know the basic, ISO, WB, Shutter, Aperture, Depth of field, compensation, etc.
It's a terrible misconception for (amateurs), to believe the value of the camera will bring them unbelievable talent, as soon as they take the lens cap off, and switch it on, and for any so called pro's who think that (it's already to late).
Beginners need to learn what the basic features are, what they do/meant for, and generally get a rough idea of how settings work, in conjunction with other settings, (the effects or in effect).
Then there's paramount things that the camera you have no matter how expensive or cheap has no baring on e.g:
composition
idea's/concepts
Which are the most important things along with (how to light) outside or inside.
If for whatever reason you don't form a style or you can't formulate ideas, you have absolutely no creative flair, you can't interact with people and create mood/feeling/emotion with them to even capture it, how will you're work not be boring, if your not creative, the images you made on that £2000 camera mean nothing and the money you spent means less that nothing.
1. learn how to use the camera you have (at least the basics)
2 learn about light, no studio?, go outside and look at the light, where the shadows and highlights are, what the light does with textures. (people downplay how important light outside is, where is the light, it's outside)
3. learn how to be creative, then learn how to improve you're creativity.
Darryl Henick wrote: I shot the Oakland Raiders for a magazine on a Canon D60 and a 75-300/4.5-5.6 lens and they were more than satisfied with the images. Would attach some but still have to learn how to attach images here.
Darryl Henick wrote: I shot the Oakland Raiders for a magazine on a Canon D60 and a 75-300/4.5-5.6 lens and they were more than satisfied with the images. Would attach some but still have to learn how to attach images here.
The Oakland Raiders drafted Jamarcus Russell. 'Nuff said.
+1 Good equipment makes a much bigger difference than some people like to believe. Some images wouldn't even be possible on lesser equipment.
I outgrew my 30D and bought a 5d mkII. The difference in quality was more than noticeable with the same lenses. Sure you can take good pictures with a low end camera. A better camera allows you more options and quality for the most part.
CastModels wrote: great chefs are only where they are today because of a quality stove
The tools won't make someone a great chef. But put those high-end tools (Viking range, Henkel knives, All-Clad Cookware, etc.) in the hands of a great chef and they soar.
The thing is, a great chef can truly appreciate the difference high-end tools make.
It's the same for photography. The tools won't make you a good photographer. But good photographers can appreciate the differences a quality tool can make.
Marciofs
Posts: 1,574
Freiburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
The problem is when you have a great camera, like a Pentax 67 or a Nikon F3, and people don't take you serious when you say you have a grate camera because they are just old film cameras.
The tools won't make someone a great chef. But put those high-end tools (Viking range, Henkel knives, All-Clad Cookware, etc.) in the hands of a great chef and they soar.
The thing is, a great chef can truly appreciate the difference high-end tools make.
It's the same for photography. The tools won't make you a good photographer. But good photographers can appreciate the differences a quality tool can make.
I absolutely agree with you. In my opinion, anyone who differs their opinion with this is usually someone who simply cannot afford good gear.
DBImagery Toronto
Posts: 326
Köhne Ãrgenç, DaÅoÄuz, Turkmenistan
Danielle Hieronimi wrote: I'd love to hear an MUA perspective on this regarding brush and makeup quality. Department store vs. drug store.
Perhaps one began a thread to this effect in the Makeup Forum. Take a look there, then let us know how ya made out This is the Photography Forum, where we discuss.....ermmm.......uhhhhmmmmmm...........hold on hold on, gimme a minute & I'll remember.......
KARL CLIFFORD
Posts: 221
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
I photographed a girl recently who looked at one of the shots on my 5D Mark III and said, wait for it...
"Oh, I love this! Is yours one of those cameras that has photoshop??"
It was her first-ever shoot, so I told her at the end that I didn't want to throw her in the deep end, to which she responded "Oh, did you want to shoot in a pool?"
heard that three times tonight, but it was you must have a really great lens. Was shoot a high end celebrity event, and they couldn't get over the images i was producing.
I was like, no this is a horrible lens from tamron with the rubber coming off. But I am shooting with from a fun angle about where a Hassy would rest if i were shooting medium fomat.
Harold Rose wrote: I suspose you go just crazy over Hemingway's typewriter.. Good for you!!!
No but there is a reason most writers use computers now if they can afford them. The word process or makes it much easier and faster to write. Just like a good camera enables you to do things that you can't with a crappy one.
It's because of the lens... that's why investing in good glass is better then updating your body
True to some degree but it was more so the case before the dSLR came along. The 'sensor' and firmware plays a larger role nowadays that the bodies are almost level in terms on investment 'bang for buck' priority. Good glass though will always be a no brainer in terms of investment for the photographer looking to upgrade.
The tools won't make someone a great chef. But put those high-end tools (Viking range, Henkel knives, All-Clad Cookware, etc.) in the hands of a great chef and they soar.
The thing is, a great chef can truly appreciate the difference high-end tools make.
It's the same for photography. The tools won't make you a good photographer. But good photographers can appreciate the differences a quality tool can make.
CastModels wrote: great chefs are only where they are today because of a quality stove
You must be joking! I have seen great chefs cook on a camp ground set up, a steel plate over an open flame and turn out 5 star quality work.
As a coach to nationally competing culinary teams with gold and silver medals, it is always the knowledge of the chef and his technical skills .... And than that certain something that makes him or her truly great.
I think the same thing holds true for camera equipment . I have seen amazingly talented photographers kick ass on a pin hole camera.
Gary Melton wrote: What? We've gone nearly a whole page and I haven't seen anyone invoke "pin-hole camera" or "Andy Warhol" yet?
Gimmeafriggin' break people...equipment DOES make a difference!
I remember when David Bailey was using an Olympus Trip...
Give a bad photographer good equipment and it won't make him a good photographer. Give a good photographer bad equipment and he'll still be a good photographer.
Jorge Kreimer
Posts: 1,424
Los Angeles, California, US
Fuji X-100
Fuji XPro1
Nikon D800
It does make some difference, but not whether a photo is better or not, especially for the web (I bought the Nikon only because I want to print life-size). The look may be a little different, that's all, but lighting makes a bigger difference to the look, than the camera.
It does make some difference, but not whether a photo is better or not, especially for the web (I bought the Nikon only because I want to print life-size). The look may be a little different, that's all, but lighting makes a bigger difference to the look, than the camera.
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 ...
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 ...
What is? I guess I'm not sure what anyone would be surprised by? It was once the norm to spend about $20k after school to produce your portfolio that you would shop around for commercial work (just as a budding filmmaker would spend easily that much producing a short film as a calling card).
Having said that, we don't know if she's "bought" her way into anything. If the agencies like her work and are able to use it to promote their girls, they'll give her their new girls to shoot for free. Makeup artists, hair stylists and wardrobe may also be working trade with her, or for cheap - especially if she brings them in on some commercial assignments.
So what is about what she is doing?
For the record, most here would be far better off spending their discretionary income on production value items for photoshoots (makeup, hair, location, model, retouching) than on new kit.
Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: For the record, most here would be far better off spending their discretionary income on production value items for photoshoots (makeup, hair, location, model, retouching) than on new kit.
Nah... save all that money and let somebody else supply the makeup, model, location and kit too...
What do you think Ansel Adams work would look like if he had used a Nikon D600, or D800 ?? Or even a new Canon for that matter. As has already been stated, top end gear helps with the finished product, but it's only a tool used by qualified, or UN-qualified workers ~ m'
Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: What is? I guess I'm not sure what anyone would be surprised by? It was once the norm to spend about $20k after school to produce your portfolio that you would shop around for commercial work (just as a budding filmmaker would spend easily that much producing a short film as a calling card).
Having said that, we don't know if she's "bought" her way into anything. If the agencies like her work and are able to use it to promote their girls, they'll give her their new girls to shoot for free. Makeup artists, hair stylists and wardrobe may also be working trade with her, or for cheap - especially if she brings them in on some commercial assignments.
So what is scary about what she is doing?
For the record, most here would be far better off spending their discretionary income on production value items for photoshoots (makeup, hair, location, llama, retouching) than on new kit.
$20K - When was that?
Back in the early-mid 90s it would cost about the following to produce a portfolio for a photographer.
And this is assuming one portfolio image per shoot - which is probably unrealistically conservative.
Per image:
$120 film and processing for 6 rolls
$35 - Interneg
$50 - Custom print 11x14
====
$205
I just found this thread and laughed my butt off. Go tell Ansel Adams he needed to use more than a box camera when he shot some of the best images ever captured by man!
The photographer and his skill matters! Any old camera will work well. JMHO.
This is the Photography Forum, where we discuss.....ermmm.......uhhhhmmmmmm...........hold on hold on, gimme a minute & I'll remember.......
... 
| 
| 
| edu