RachelReilly wrote:
Stefano is on a troll roll today!

Please recalibrate your sarcasm meter

MiGel wrote:
Does good equipment help? Yes.

Despite all your objections and reluctance to admit it you told us you agree with this thread when you wrote this statement.

Chuckarelei wrote:

Cheap slut is no match for high priced whore?

Hey!  I resemble that remark

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

Please recalibrate your sarcasm meter

Yeah yeah yeah, troll and sarcasm - same thing !

K E E L I N G wrote:

Despite all your objections and reluctance to admit it you told us you agree with this thread when you wrote this statement.

And you kindly ignored the other statements...On top of misinterpreting this one.
Read it carefully. Was I talking about a "36 MP camera that helps"?

R Bruce Duncan wrote:
Check out this 19 year old who shoots better than 95% of the photographers on MM:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/1850535

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.

MiGel wrote:

And you kindly ignored the other statements...On top of misinterpreting this one.
Read it carefully. Was I talking about a "36 MP camera that helps"?

I didn't ignore anything, I understood every word you said.

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.

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.

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.

Figures

R Bruce Duncan wrote:
Check out this 19 year old who shoots better than 95% of the photographers on MM: https://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.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

The 7D is a child's toy - a poxy APS-C sensor, only 18mp...

Anybody who uses one and calls themselves a serious photographer should be ashamed!

That depends on if she has hit the aps-c ceiling of course. At least she isn't shooting with a 50d. Those are just for hacks.

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.

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.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:

R Bruce Duncan wrote:
Check out this 19 year old who shoots better than 95% of the photographers on MM: https://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.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Somebody please do this (if it hasn't been done already). I would love to see that side x side.

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

Don Garrett wrote:

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.

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

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.

The one at the back looks constipated!

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...

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
I LOVE my SONY's...


But any REAL photographer knows it's not just the Arrow, it's the Indian.
It's not just the equipment, it's the man at the switch.

REAL photographers don't need much...

I love the A99!

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
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.

Great post!

Lens Criminal wrote:
I love the A99!

I'm jealous!

I'm happy with the a77, but that a99 is looking SWEET!

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...

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...
[img]http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z205/JekyllnHyde_photos/June 21st 2010/muhammad-ali-knock-out.jpg[/img]
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.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

I'm jealous!

I'm happy with the a77, but that a99 is looking SWEET!

I don't have one *yet*, Sony let me play around with the A99 and several other of their new cameras. good stuff.

Hero Foto wrote:

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.

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.

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...

Lens Criminal wrote:

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?