|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
You guys better read this
It's what I've been saying for a long, long time. http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/07/09/ph … o-acierno/ Aug 10 14 12:42 pm Link Vector One Photography wrote: imagine where he would have been with even better equipment.... Aug 10 14 12:52 pm Link Vector One Photography wrote: True, so true. Too much about technology and not enough about photography. Aug 10 14 12:54 pm Link My hero. I'm using an old Canon Rebel with the kit lens. Its the same one I've been using for 8 years. I don't use lights or any of that crap. Good for him Aug 10 14 01:15 pm Link Great stuff!! Love the rabbits peering around the door!! Alice, was that you knocking??:-))) Aug 10 14 01:25 pm Link L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote: Sometimes, or often people who do good things with simple tools don't work better with more complex tools (so-called better equipament) but worst. Aug 11 14 01:10 am Link He is an amazing photographer. Aug 11 14 01:31 am Link Its the creativity and skill foremost not the equipment. Its also learning and knowing your equipment inside and out. Getting new/better equipment doesn't immediately create better images as its back to learning to use them again. Have seen so much remarkable work from other photographers using the most basic equipment. Especially many extremely talented and skill photographers in third world countries who can't afford the equipment most of us take for granted nor have the same access to technology/internet we have to get their work out. Better equipment can help break though technical barriers but how often do most of us push our equipment past their limits. Aug 11 14 01:52 am Link I don't think anybody here has ever argued a crap photographer with great equipment will trump a great photographer with crap equipment. Not exactly a revelation Aug 11 14 02:53 am Link There is nothing noble about using crappy or old equipment. While it's the people behind and in front of the camera that make the picture so does them camera. When you reach the limits of you're equipment it's time to upgrade. Why is crappy equipment bad? Because the pictures are not as sharp, you don't have the MP for large size prints. I know this because I now want to print something I took on a D70 and now I can't blow it up as much as I'd like, but if I had used a better camera and lens I could. I can shoot a great picture on anything but what I'm shoot with can limit my options as to what I can do with the image. Aug 11 14 03:12 am Link it's the shooter, not the gear......ok, old news...  Aug 11 14 03:21 am Link An amazing carpenter can surely make a fantastic desk with a swiss army knife, yet he would most likely chose a suitable selection of planes and other tools for the job.... Aug 11 14 03:24 am Link So a talented youngster with tons of free time, a camera, and a powerful editing program can make great photos? I guess I am failing to see the point. Every high school in america has a kid that can throw a 90mph fastball. But that doesnt mean they will all make it, or should make it, to the pros. The hallmark of a professional is the ability to consitantly achieve great results under adverse conditions. Aug 11 14 03:41 am Link But the EXIFs from then photos in the blog point that they were shot with MarkII and not the point and shoot Sony, I read in an other forum. The guy is still a good photographer the one who wrote the articles picked up the wrong images, because it makes us think they were shot with the "crap" camera... Aug 11 14 04:04 am Link thank you for sharing, it is amazing; the concepts and technique. I don't think the art would be pure if he sells the idea of better equipment. Aug 11 14 04:18 am Link L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote: Like a Canon 5D MkII which the exif says he was using for at least some of the photos? Aug 11 14 04:28 am Link Marciofs wrote: +1 Aug 11 14 04:33 am Link So, another thread about it's not the equipment it's the person (or monkey it seems) behind it? Tell me something I don't know. Aug 11 14 05:04 am Link Do clickbait titles, and misleading articles really qualify as something "we must read"? Aug 11 14 05:06 am Link Marciofs wrote: Oopsie.... Aug 11 14 05:25 am Link Marciofs wrote: Quoted for truth. Aug 11 14 07:41 am Link Telling people what they should do is a sophomoric move Aug 11 14 08:02 am Link Just because it is possible to take a great image with a basic camera, doesn't mean that is the best way to do it. There are times, when a point and shoot is the way to go. Portability, for example, could be an issue. You will never convince me, though, that a great photographer, will take the same quality images with a point and shoot as he would be in the same situation with a capable camera. As an example, if you need a 200MM lens in low light, the point and shoot isn't going to do that for you. I agree with the basic premise that you can take great photos with a point and shoot. I just don't want it to suggest that you can always take "equal" photos with a point and shoot. That simply isn't true. Aug 11 14 08:04 am Link GPS Studio Services wrote: You can't take "equal" photos even with two different models of full frame cameras from the same brand. Aug 11 14 08:20 am Link In other news today, breast milk is good for babies, and breasts are enjoyed by men. Aug 11 14 12:41 pm Link The issue is one that is conceptual to any photographer and the equipment/tool in the hand. The correct view I developed when thinking in terms of photography is not about such issues as a point and shoot technology, the snap shot or such tasking. To my development as a master photographer was the critical step of understand the tool and the using a fine tool to do the ordinary. Put simply, I learned how to make a Leica into a point and shoot camera and to use that fine camera like a point and shoot. That is the mark of a master photographer, to know and make the tool bend to your needs and not have vision at the hand of a technician or tool maker. Aug 11 14 03:31 pm Link many of the "best" photos are about a feeling. Some sort of emotion or story that comes form it. Equipment doesn't matter as much or may not at all. if you don't need the ability to zoom. If shallow DOF is not needed. And you're not chasing megapixels, the phone on your camera...er...the camera on your phone may be all that you need to get the results you desire. What you want to shoot will likely determine what kind of gear your need. if your goal it produce photos like what you see in Sports Illustrated...you may need an expensive camera and almost with certainy a very expensive lens. if you want to shoot certain wildlife, you may also benefit from an expensive camera and lenses. But my ex is proof that while having a 5dMk3, she's doing great with a much more budget minded lens with her 400mm f/5.6 for about $1300. But before that, it was simple Rebel Ti4 (or 3) with a variable aperture 70-300. I spent almost $1,000 on my 105 macro and I can pair it with a $500 2x teleconverter. yet, I've scene stunning, beyond belief (for me) macros done with an iPhone using an $80 adapter. Aug 11 14 03:53 pm Link wow, all those shots are straight out of camera with no other software or tech at all? cool. Aug 12 14 06:16 pm Link Granted... Edwardo has reached a level of success with his Sony point & shoot that is somewhat remarkable... BUT... some of the advantages of shooting with a DSLR over his point & shoot are SUBSTANCIAL... and they are: 1. Shooting in extreme low light conditions where a point & shoot would fail to capture what critics might classify as 'a quality image'. 2. Shooting at extreme focal lengths (super telephoto or super wide angle) to gain unique perspectives that point & shoots are incapable of producing. 3. Exposing your image in a multiple strobe environment that point & shoots can not sync to. I'm a Nikon 'full frame sensor fan' myself, and enjoy the extended ranges of photographic opportunities that both interchangeable lenses and this low light sensor provides...  Aug 12 14 06:43 pm Link Yes, cheap crappy disposable gear gives the world the new visual aesthetics. Many shooters deliberately doing it. Have you heard of Sandy Kim or Manuel Rodrigues, for example? http://www.sandykim.com/ Aug 12 14 11:36 pm Link It was just Yesterday the 35mm cameras were the amateur photographic tool and frame size. Tomorrow the point and shoot will be the pro stuff. Do you remember when telephoned become sundely too big when compared to mobile phones. Then the old mobile phone was a brick compared to recent ones, until they menage to make mobiles that we can put in our pocket. Then came the touch screen and internet with mobiles and because of that they were too small, and now are becoming bigger and bigger. Yesterday big mobiles were laughteble, now are the small ones... I still think that most cameras considered pro tool are not pro enough, while many considered amateur tools are better for me. The same way I hate mobele phones with no phisical keyboard and big screens. I don't like this thing "all in one" or "many option in one". It is handy for amateus so they don't need spend money for specific tools to do many and differet things. I like differet option of tools dedicated for specific things and I consider it real pro thing. As somebody said above, I don't follow the marketing meaning of tools categories denomination. Aug 13 14 12:28 am Link Random Image wrote: +1 Aug 13 14 10:52 am Link I had a Sony Cybershot. They were great for vacations, had a decent battery life, used those godawful Memory Sticks... But they were limited as hell. The second I started trying to experiment I realized I needed something better. Aug 13 14 10:12 pm Link Damon Pena Photo wrote: BINGO... lends pretty strong credibility to the message I posted above... Aug 13 14 10:44 pm Link Select Models wrote: This was my thinking exactly, the weaker less capable camera is great if all other conditions can be controlled or accepted, the more advanced equipment is needed to mitigate environmental factors that often cannot be anticipated. Aug 16 14 04:41 pm Link Grr.. thread title and link. Aug 16 14 11:47 pm Link Vector One Photography wrote: wow, and I almost went to bed and fell asleep without not caring about this. Aug 17 14 12:17 am Link thanks --------------^ Didn't want to sound rude but it's a bit misleading. Also, making a thread just to post a link seems lazy and it can be abused. At least share some of your opinions with the link, etc. Aug 17 14 12:37 am Link I don't mind shooting w point & shot cameras I care less on lighting equipment if I can..usually I shoot w out. But don't mind to use my 5d 5 y old unit now is my back up I love the MarkII And I love some of the primes. Still all these have nothing to do w my creativity neither all the BS about low quality High quality. No mater what still I'm the same creative person. Same philosophy with film and digital stuff. I have read so much BS about it still many profiles state that they don't use digital equipment . They call themselves purist.....but when you look at the content nothing pure about it... It all BS to me:) Any time a topic about lenses it seems anyone use the top of the line but when you take a quick look non thing is close ....it all BS  to me:) Most spend incredible time & energy talking on their accomplishments Then you look at the content and it's nothing ...nothing to see no foundation it's most hit & miss:) it's all BS to me:) Love you all That's no BS to me:) Aug 17 14 12:41 am Link |
