Re: photography vs cameras
Like, so absolutely! Ok, stop it now Cotty! Christian No no - it's 'Coddy' Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: photography vs cameras
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read Mike Johnston's latest over at Luminous Landscape. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-june-04.shtml Notice he mentions the PDML :) He also blush mentions this photo: http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/7d202806.htm But he got the story wrong: I was trying to get the hawks (probably turkey vultures, really) in the photo - I was waiting for the *hiker* to leave. But I did prefer the shot with the human presence to the one I eventually got when the hiker left. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: photography vs Cameras
The ethical standards have probably improved as the technical ability to get what you want without cheating has improved. Umm, have you not been watching CNN lately? I think the world as a whole is becoming less ethical, and journalism, while not leading the herd, is certainly somewhere in the pack. William Robb While staying at tvs, I did some channel-flicking and MY GOD what a nightmare. Mercifully I was able to catch a bit of the BBC news on BBC World. I don't understand how north America survives most news programmes. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: photography vs Cameras
Cotty wrote: While staying at tvs, I did some channel-flicking and MY GOD what a nightmare. Mercifully I was able to catch a bit of the BBC news on BBC World. I don't understand how north America survives most news programmes. Cheers, Cotty Easy - we who survive don't watch them annsan back from the southland details at 11 p.s. was unsubscribed all the time I was gone so don't know if any of you lot from the great GFM weekend were posting photos, irreverent comments, wry observations, I missed 'em p.p.s - Graywolf, return to botany 101.
Re: photography vs Cameras
Quite nicely, thank you. Cil my Landlord. Where's my chainsaw? Everyone's gonna PAY. Cotty wrote: snip I don't understand how north America survives most news programmes.
Re: photography vs Cameras
I survive it by seldom watching it. There are good things happening in the world, but you would never know from American TV News programing. Unfortunately, many think the world is as bad a place as they portray it. I sometimes wonder how many suicides a year they are responsible for. -- Cotty wrote: While staying at tvs, I did some channel-flicking and MY GOD what a nightmare. Mercifully I was able to catch a bit of the BBC news on BBC World. I don't understand how north America survives most news programmes. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: photography vs cameras
You mean a computer whizz rather than a chemistry whizz don't you? No. Photography is not about chemistry. It is about light. William Robb Like, so absolutely! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: photography vs cameras
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I shot a wedding last winter (I don't do them often, anymore). While at the location we had chosen for our portraits, another photographer was also working. She had a couple of cheap studio flash units, I think they were the low end Photogenics that aren't actually called Photogenic) in a couple of umbrellas, and a point and shoot digital firing them with a slave. Her total equipment outlay was probably less than what I paid for the lens I was using. I didn't think much of her light placement, but I also didn't see her pictures. This is the new professional. William Robb Bill you must be mistaken, Fairygirl was in Australia the whole time Ouch! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: photography vs cameras
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gonz Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Interesting article. Do you think Laurenceau's work falls in that category? Heck no, I just like stirring the pot.. Trouble maker... ;) But much of what he says it true, alot of the photos have alot of prettiness, but I would not remember many of them a year from now. Also, many of them involve alot of PS manipulation, which makes many of these photos fall into a grey zone between photo and painting. Here is a typical one: www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2124841 William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Like, so absolutely! Ok, stop it now Cotty! Christian
Re: photography vs cameras
You mean a computer whizz rather than a chemistry whizz don't you? Nick -Original Message- From: William Robb[EMAIL PROTECTED] So you now need to be a computer whiz rather than a photographic technologist to be a competent photographer. Kinda changes the whole concept of photography, no? It's a trend I started noticing when the AF SLR's started hitting the market. The cameras got more difficult in direct proportion to the photographic skills they were replacing. William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Nick Clark Subject: Re: photography vs cameras You mean a computer whizz rather than a chemistry whizz don't you? No. Photography is not about chemistry. It is about light. William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Gonz Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Have you ever seen this fellow's (contemporary) work? http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=338558 In his case I don't think his talent is due to his equipment, even if it IS a hassy + nice lenses. Read Mike Johnston's latest over at Luminous Landscape. William Robb 1209 Horace St. Regina, Sk. Canada S4t 5L5
Re: photography vs cameras
Interesting article. Do you think Laurenceau's work falls in that category? rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gonz Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Have you ever seen this fellow's (contemporary) work? http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=338558 In his case I don't think his talent is due to his equipment, even if it IS a hassy + nice lenses. Read Mike Johnston's latest over at Luminous Landscape. William Robb 1209 Horace St. Regina, Sk. Canada S4t 5L5
Re: photography vs cameras
I dunno. It's possible to turn this arguement upside down. Photoshop is not exactly an easy take. Read any understandable smart flash manuals recently? One hundred plus pages of Japanese- To-English that makes you think that flash is one hell of a lot smarter than you are. Cameras and lenses that _crash_, for Pete's Sake.. William Robb wrote: snip Photography seems to be the only profession where it is accepted that one needs little or no technical knowledge to practice the trade. I find this most puzzling, especially when it is espoused by photographers.
Re: photography vs cameras
Didn't Minolta actually have a model out that took cards? You want DOF preview, stick in some smarts? I remember rolling my eyes John Francis wrote: There's also a certain amount spent on stuff that looks like a good idea when you buy it, but somehow never really ends up being used. Many years (and a couple of kitchens) ago we bought a microwave oven that used magnetic cards to store cooking programs. You just picked the card you wanted, stuck it in the slot, and pushed start. There was even a way to program your own cards. By the time we replaced it, some 15 years later, I don't think we'd ever used the capability. It was just easier to enter the time.
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Lon Williamson Subject: Re: photography vs cameras I dunno. It's possible to turn this arguement upside down. Photoshop is not exactly an easy take. Read any understandable smart flash manuals recently? One hundred plus pages of Japanese- To-English that makes you think that flash is one hell of a lot smarter than you are. Cameras and lenses that _crash_, for Pete's Sake.. So you now need to be a computer whiz rather than a photographic technologist to be a competent photographer. Kinda changes the whole concept of photography, no? It's a trend I started noticing when the AF SLR's started hitting the market. The cameras got more difficult in direct proportion to the photographic skills they were replacing. William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
That's because you probably already have a spouse better than you need. :) Tom C. From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:43:24 -0400 You know, at GFM someone had a D2H with a VR 80-400 sitting on the table in our area, so I was able to pick it up and dry fire a bit. It's a big thing, but fits nice in your hands. Of course, if I wanted a camera like this I'd have to switch since Pentax will never make a pro model like this. OTOH, the *istD/D100/10D is perfectly fine for what I do, so there's no point in switching so I have the possibility f making an upgrade to a $3500-5000 camera that I will never buy. Despite the logic, it's still sort of a temptation in a technofetish sort of way. It could also improve my shots with the VR; Cotty showed us this on his Canon lens and it was impressive. My point is that folks with the money will buy better equipment than they need, be it cameras or cars or houses or spouses, etc. I would too (except for the spouse part, honey). ;-) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/04 11:45PM Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:44:58 -0400 From: Shawn K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I said: I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team at a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8 with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than what I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures (here's Jake before his race...). That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring to. This sort of thing is only annoying because of what I could have done with that same equipment... to which Shawn said: This is an interesting attitude, because in the beginning part of your post you mention how no one cares about quality anymore, and its depressing to see third party zooms attached to expensive 1,000+ bodies. Well here we have the very scenario you apparently wish for and now that annoys you. Not quite. Shel said garbage in, garbage out -bad gear has killed great photography. I'm normally the gear-nut, but my point was that even somebody with the best possible gear was producing what appeared to be mediocre photography, and was presumably satisfied by her results. Photography is simply becoming less elitist in its uses as more gear becomes affordable to more people. personally think it's nice that a suburban mom spends her money on such quality equipment, and that she cares enough about her son to want the very best pictures possible of him... Bravo mom, yes, but the frustration is that photographer skill is usually much more important than equipment quality in producing quality images. If the goal is more close-up, focused pictures then the gear helps and is of service to tyros. Cameras, and computers, are slowly getting to the point where they DO help unskilled people produce better results, but not nearly as fast as the ad campaigns would have you believe. Both still take skill to get good results. If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality camera. Certainly people wouldn't extend this idea to many other professions. Give me the best tools in the world and I still couldn't make any sense of my Ford Escort. The sad-and-funny reaction to guys who put a $300 lens on a $1000 camera is that most serious photographers would do better with a $1000 lens on a $300 camera. Most of them would do better with a $300 lens on a $300 camera than some putz with money does with a $1000 lens on a $1000 camera, except at some optical-quality level. Also, all this ruckus about AF is rather old news as well. Ditching a system because they don't have one particular AF lens you want is idiotic. Not if your income or enjoyment of photography depends on it it is not. The guys who are complaining that Pentax does not make a particular 600mm lens or a 10MP DSLR are not the average amateur. DJE
Re: photography vs cameras
You know, at GFM someone had a D2H with a VR 80-400 sitting on the table in our area, so I was able to pick it up and dry fire a bit. It's a big thing, but fits nice in your hands. Of course, if I wanted a camera like this I'd have to switch since Pentax will never make a pro model like this. OTOH, the *istD/D100/10D is perfectly fine for what I do, so there's no point in switching so I have the possibility f making an upgrade to a $3500-5000 camera that I will never buy. Despite the logic, it's still sort of a temptation in a technofetish sort of way. It could also improve my shots with the VR; Cotty showed us this on his Canon lens and it was impressive. My point is that folks with the money will buy better equipment than they need, be it cameras or cars or houses or spouses, etc. I would too (except for the spouse part, honey). ;-) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/04 11:45PM Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:44:58 -0400 From: Shawn K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I said: I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team at a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8 with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than what I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures (here's Jake before his race...). That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring to. This sort of thing is only annoying because of what I could have done with that same equipment... to which Shawn said: This is an interesting attitude, because in the beginning part of your post you mention how no one cares about quality anymore, and its depressing to see third party zooms attached to expensive 1,000+ bodies. Well here we have the very scenario you apparently wish for and now that annoys you. Not quite. Shel said garbage in, garbage out -bad gear has killed great photography. I'm normally the gear-nut, but my point was that even somebody with the best possible gear was producing what appeared to be mediocre photography, and was presumably satisfied by her results. Photography is simply becoming less elitist in its uses as more gear becomes affordable to more people. personally think it's nice that a suburban mom spends her money on such quality equipment, and that she cares enough about her son to want the very best pictures possible of him... Bravo mom, yes, but the frustration is that photographer skill is usually much more important than equipment quality in producing quality images. If the goal is more close-up, focused pictures then the gear helps and is of service to tyros. Cameras, and computers, are slowly getting to the point where they DO help unskilled people produce better results, but not nearly as fast as the ad campaigns would have you believe. Both still take skill to get good results. If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality camera. Certainly people wouldn't extend this idea to many other professions. Give me the best tools in the world and I still couldn't make any sense of my Ford Escort. The sad-and-funny reaction to guys who put a $300 lens on a $1000 camera is that most serious photographers would do better with a $1000 lens on a $300 camera. Most of them would do better with a $300 lens on a $300 camera than some putz with money does with a $1000 lens on a $1000 camera, except at some optical-quality level. Also, all this ruckus about AF is rather old news as well. Ditching a system because they don't have one particular AF lens you want is idiotic. Not if your income or enjoyment of photography depends on it it is not. The guys who are complaining that Pentax does not make a particular 600mm lens or a 10MP DSLR are not the average amateur. DJE
Re: photography vs cameras
In the beginning..., the chicken was the egg! Self replicating molecules... Regards, Bob... From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg. It's obvious the chicken came first.
Re: photography vs cameras
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Tom C wrote: No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg. It's obvious the chicken came first. If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a hen. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: photography vs cameras
Hi, No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg. It's obvious the chicken came first. If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a hen. There is a very fine Ethiopian dish called Doro Wat which includes both chicken and egg. I once asked an Ethiopian cook which came first, and she informed that it was chicken. I consider her reply to be definitive. Ethiopia has superb food! http://www.cafelalibela.com/menu.html http://www.ethiopiancuisine.com/menuentrees.htm -- Cheers, Bob
Re: photography vs cameras
If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a hen. That's why I said the chicken... :)
Re: photography vs cameras
I've heard they didn't have any food, but of course that was from some organization that wanted me to send money to feed the starving Ethiopians. -- Bob W wrote: Ethiopia has superb food! -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: photography vs Cameras
From: George Sinos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eliminating the technology threshold opens up the field to more folks that are good at seeing the image but not good technologists. The leaves you free to concentrate on framing theory. I find increasingly that pros are trusting automation to handle the technical stuff because what really matters is content. More of my co-workers now use matrix-metering, AF, etc. As I understand it, Steve McCurry (the National Geographic afghan girl photographer) has always been in the let the camera do the technical stuff camp. I certainly have known pros with great image-capturing talent who were shaky technically. I'm more intrigued by the technology inhibits greatness argument that someone implied. Assuming that great photographers are a given percentage of the total, there should be MORE great photographers now because there are more photographers total. Given that web publishing is cheap and easy, we should be able to see lots of great photograpny. The argument, apparently, is that we don't and therefore it can be suspected that intelligent cameras are inhibiting greatness. I'm not sure I agree that we don't see more great photography, but I might believe that not having to really learn the technical basis of photography might stunt a photographer's development of his craft. The idea that you don't have to learn anything to get decent pictures may keep you from getting involved and aggressively working on technique. From what I can see, in the areas where technology and automation are a big win in speed and ease of use, the photography HAS gotten a lot better. The standards in sports action and photojournalism have gotten a LOT higher. I'll betcha that the pictures that the average guy takes of his kids are better too, with AF that works and auto flash. Remember that a lot of the historic great photos were POSED, because you almost had to back then to guarantee you got what you wanted. That's fine for some kinds of work, but a moral slippery slope for others. The ethical standards have probably improved as the technical ability to get what you want without cheating has improved. In other sub-genres of photography where technical skill is still necessary (studio lights don't have a program mode) or speed of working isn't an issue there is probably less positive impact of technology. Smarter cameras probably won't help develop the next Ansel Adams, and may actually work against it. They can be a real boon for the Weegees of the world. DJE
Re: photography vs cameras
Hi, Ethiopia has superb food! I've heard they didn't have any food, but of course that was from some organization that wanted me to send money to feed the starving Ethiopians. Not all Ethiopians are in Ethiopia, and not all Ethiopians in Ethiopia starve during famines. Nevertheless, the famines are real, and real people do die. The money people send makes a real difference and it saves lives, not just in Ethiopia. If you have the money you should send it. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: photography vs Cameras
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: photography vs Cameras The ethical standards have probably improved as the technical ability to get what you want without cheating has improved. Umm, have you not been watching CNN lately? I think the world as a whole is becoming less ethical, and journalism, while not leading the herd, is certainly somewhere in the pack. William Robb
Re: photography vs Cameras
As I understand it, Steve McCurry (the National Geographic afghan girl photographer) has always been in the let the camera do the technical stuff camp. Currently he uses F100s - before that he was using the N90s. I don't kn ow what he was using at the time of the Afghan Girl shot - that was taken 20 years ago, which is somewhat before the N90 was released :-) Herb Keppler mentions this in his Photo Industry Reporter column today http://www.photoreporter.com/2004/03-08/features/the_way_it_is.html But Steve McCurry isn't yet prepared to go digital - in fact he's still shooting Kodachrome for most of his stuff (although I've seen reports that include Provia and E100s among his regular emulsions). I'm more intrigued by the technology inhibits greatness argument that someone implied. Assuming that great photographers are a given percentage of the total, there should be MORE great photographers now because there are more photographers total. I'd question that assumption. I'd be more inclined to assume that the number of great photographers today is pretty much the same as it was 20, 40 or even 60 years ago. It's the same in any field; there's a number of top-level practitioners who can excel in the field. They'll stand out from the rest, whether they are outnumbered a millionfold or only a hundredfold. Given that web publishing is cheap and easy, we should be able to see lots of great photography. The argument, apparently, is that we don't and therefore it can be suspected that intelligent cameras are inhibiting greatness. I'd see a couple of flaws in that argument. For one, just because a cursory web search doesn't turn up immediate examples doesn't mean that there aren't any great images out there. For another thing, it often takes time before great practitioners of any art are recognised as such.
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: photography vs cameras William Robb wrote: ...and photography is now pretty much a point and shoot game. I know what you intended Bill... but disagree as stated. :) One can have technology do everything but compose the shot, and composing the shot is where it's mostly at when it comes to a good photo. When you take the sentence out of context, it does look pretty disagreeable. OTOH, camera technology has brought us to the point where composing the photo is pretty much the only choice left to the user, if the user is so inclined to take advantage of the technology in the box. You don't need to know all the things that used to seperate the craftsman or professional from the schmuck, and now that schmucks are using the same equipment, more or less, as pros, anyone can be a professional photographer. Having the photographic knowledge certainly helps... i.e., knowing what one can do with aperture, shutter speed, filters, etc., opens up endless creative possibilities that a point shooter type of person will not attempt or know of. It helps, sure, but OTOH, if you are shooting portraits, you can use the portrait program, landscapes? use the landscape program, and for action, use the action program (Canon users get this option, we don't), so there goes needing to know about aperture and depth of field, or shutter speed and freezing action, the camera will do it for you. The wannabe pro (who is the person being discussed in the post you answered), then only needs to know a bit about filters, and may end up with a polarizer or a couple of grads or soft focus filters, probably because that is what the person in the camera store (or on a mailing list somewhere) tells them they need to solve a particular problem. I shot a wedding last winter (I don't do them often, anymore). While at the location we had chosen for our portraits, another photographer was also working. She had a couple of cheap studio flash units, I think they were the low end Photogenics that aren't actually called Photogenic) in a couple of umbrellas, and a point and shoot digital firing them with a slave. Her total equipment outlay was probably less than what I paid for the lens I was using. I didn't think much of her light placement, but I also didn't see her pictures. This is the new professional. William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: John Francis Subject: Re: photography vs cameras I use _my_ Lear Jet as a dust blower to keep the Van Goghs clean ... One of the local Indian bands near where I live has a Lear sitting in a quonset on the reservation. The thing has never been flown, but apparently, some former chief decided that if the white man's government could have private jets, then the Indian governments should be entitled to them as well. Politics at it's finest There's also a certain amount spent on stuff that looks like a good idea when you buy it, but somehow never really ends up being used. Many years (and a couple of kitchens) ago we bought a microwave oven that used magnetic cards to store cooking programs. You just picked the card you wanted, stuck it in the slot, and pushed start. There was even a way to program your own cards. By the time we replaced it, some 15 years later, I don't think we'd ever used the capability. It was just easier to enter the time. Remids me of the stupid Minolta camera that had the interchangable ROM chips to allow the photographer to photograph varying situations without having to worry about any camera settings at all, or the Canon for Dummies® that came with a little book of pictures with a bar graph under each one. For a few dollars more, you could even get volumes 2 and 3 of the little picture books. Look up the scene type, scan the bar graph point the reader at the camera and download whatever information was being passed to the camera, thereby allowing the photographer to take the picture with correct (one presumes) exposure. All this so that the photographer (and I use the term very loosely here) doesn't have to have the photo technical knowledge that should have been included in the owners manual anyway. William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Bob W Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Hi, Photography seems to be the only profession where it is accepted that one needs little or no technical knowledge to practice the trade. I think IT has you beat by a very, very large margin. Just testing you. William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:41:53 -0600, William Robb wrote: I think I am going to have to buy a little British car of some sort. I like fixing things. Well, if you get a Miata, you'll have a reliable British sports car. That's the upside and the downside. You'll get a lot of the British sports car experience (minus Lucas electronics and oil wherever it goes) but the bugger will be pretty darned reliable, so you won't have anything you have to work on most of the time. But there's plenty of aftermarket stuff for them, up to turbos. Or you could stuff a small block V8 in it (most people who do this seem to use Fords for some reason, usually a 302 or 5.0). TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Doug Franklin Subject: Re: photography vs cameras On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:41:53 -0600, William Robb wrote: I think I am going to have to buy a little British car of some sort. I like fixing things. Well, if you get a Miata, you'll have a reliable British sports car. I thought they missed the boat when they put an inline 4 instead of a Wankel into the Miata. They fixed that issue with the RX-8 though. William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:01:38 -0600, William Robb wrote: I thought they missed the boat when they put an inline 4 instead of a Wankel into the Miata. They fixed that issue with the RX-8 though. I agree about the rotary in the Miata. I've heard of 12A and 13B swaps into a Miata, and lots of people use diffs from 2nd gen RX-7s in Miatas. I think Mazda avoided it in the Miata for fuel economy reasons. Rotaries, Mazda rotaries, anyway, aren't known as paragons of fuel economy. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: photography vs cameras
Touche. On Jun 6, 2004, at 2:57 PM, Shawn K. wrote: Yes, of course you are all exactly right. It's funny though, I've never seen a shot as good as this one in an online gallery despite all the new gadgets: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/ adams_clearing_winter_storm_fu ll.html And then there is this shot, of course, the person is clearly using an inferior camera, I mean look at it, I can think of a million ways USM would have made this 10x better: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_mckinley_full.html Or, if only the camera had automatically scratch your rear while you scratch your head and groan mode, this shot could have been vastly improved: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/gallery/gal_ansel_10.html Now, I dare you to find a better shot here: http://www.pbase.com/galleries Have fun!!! -Shawn -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 3:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: photography vs cameras I knew _someone_ was going to say that. I had a good idea who, too. Personally I think there is a far closer parallel between contemporary image capture technology and the new oven we've just installed. We'll use most of the capabilities - different 'exposure modes' (bake, broil, convection, temperature probe, and various combinations thereof), the faster frame rate (or is that double exposure?) possible with a twin oven, etc. There are a few bells and whistles we'll never use; it has a handful of 'green' cooking modes (and even has 'exposure compensation' in case you're cooking in unusual conditions, or if your recipes were developed working with a stove with an inaccurate temperature setting). Sure, it's possible to produce great meals using a wood-fired stove. But it's a whole lot easier to take advantage of what modern technology offers. The best dishes still come from someone who can use experience to know when to stray from the rote following of a recipe. But there's little you can do with the old equipment that you can't do with the new, and a great deal of new opportunities the new technology provides. And maybe there's a corollary in contemporary photo imaging LOL Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many years (and a couple of kitchens) ago we bought a microwave oven that used magnetic cards to store cooking programs. You just picked the card you wanted, stuck it in the slot, and pushed start. There was even a way to program your own cards. By the time we replaced it, some 15 years later, I don't think we'd ever used the capability. It was just easier to enter the time.
Re: photography vs cameras
On 6 Jun 2004 at 19:52, Paul Stenquist wrote: Touche. I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't images to rival St. Ansels in on- line galleries (considering the capabilities of the media). Why there seems to be such a belief that only the past photographers like Ansel and HCB were capable of art is beyond me? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: photography vs cameras
The point is, you'd be hard pressed to find shots of that quality, despite the claims that the technology is taking the quality of the art to a new level. I'm not saying great pictures aren't being taken, I'm saying that the technology isn't responsible for those pictures, and much more to the point, the pictures being taken now are not clearly better than those being taken then, even in the hands of a pro. Would Ansel Adams be a better photographer now with all the modern gizmos at his disposal??? I think in many instances technology hurts more than it helps even. You can browse pbase for hours and not find anything truly noteworthy. Sure, there is a lot of decent to pretty good stuff on there. But, the great shots are just as rare as they've ever been. What's really changed is the volume, and the ratio of in focus shots IMO. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 8:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: photography vs cameras On 6 Jun 2004 at 19:52, Paul Stenquist wrote: Touche. I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't images to rival St. Ansels in on- line galleries (considering the capabilities of the media). Why there seems to be such a belief that only the past photographers like Ansel and HCB were capable of art is beyond me? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: photography vs. cameras
I doubt all pros in photography are equipped with the finest. In my neck of the woods, it seems to be a lot like the music scene. Full time local musicians are poor as church mice, and so are many full time photographers. In both cases, the equipment would be considered marginal by many. Yet the church mice musicians can typically play rings around the well-to-do that trot out their Martin or Jimi Hendrix Fender guitars. I've watched the Cincinnati music scene for a long time, and I _thought_ I had equipment lust well under control when I started photography. Then, of course, I met Y'ALL and got a bug up my butt for primes, MXs, winders, and Lorry Nose what else. Sigh. Lon Mike Nosal wrote: snip I've seen people resent those with better equipment than themselves, saying you can't be a pro just by buying pro-equipment. And others who disdain those with lesser equipment, saying if you don't have the absolute top of the line, you're just a wannabe and don't have money riding on it. or you're not a player. Forget the gear snobbery. Just go take some photos. Cheers, -- Mike
Re: photography vs. cameras
Lon Williamson wrote: I doubt all pros in photography are equipped with the finest. In my neck of the woods, it seems to be a lot like the music scene. Full time local musicians are poor as church mice, and so are many full time photographers. In both cases, the equipment would be considered marginal by many. Yet the church mice musicians can typically play rings around the well-to-do that trot out their Martin or Jimi Hendrix Fender guitars. I've watched the Cincinnati music scene for a long time, and I _thought_ I had equipment lust well under control when I started photography. Then, of course, I met Y'ALL and got a bug up my butt for primes, MXs, winders, and Lorry Nose what else. Sigh. Lon Mike Nosal wrote: snip I've seen people resent those with better equipment than themselves, saying you can't be a pro just by buying pro-equipment. And others who disdain those with lesser equipment, saying if you don't have the absolute top of the line, you're just a wannabe and don't have money riding on it. or you're not a player. Forget the gear snobbery. Just go take some photos. Cheers, -- Mike http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1198 /Henri
Re: photography vs cameras
Hi, I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team at a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8 with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than what I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures (here's Jake before his race...). That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring to. perhaps she was a professional photographer spending some time with her children, and knew exactly what she was doing. To be honest, your assumptions say far more about your prejudices than they do about her photography. Of course they do. I did not, as has been pointed out, see the results of her shooting. From the standpoint of a photojournalist, her photos were, given where and when she was pointing the camera, likely to be unimpressive images AS PHOTOJOURNALISM. She was not a photojournalist, but a mom. I know what she was up to because I talked to her. She was shooting pictures for the team banquet. In THAT context my photojournalistic photos probably would not have been well received (too few kids, not smiling, etc). Most team-banquet style photos would not be well reviewed in artistic and technical contexts because they are not intended to be art or saleable. They serve the user well, but are not great photography. They aren't intended to be. The people bemoaning the death of photography are overlooking the fact that the goal of most photography is not photography. I've been photographing children at a safari park today, using several thousand dollars worth of Contax equipment - including a 300mm lens and x2 converter, like your suburban mom. The children (11 and 7 years old) took at least 25% of the photographs, and most of those that I took may not have reached your obviously high standards I have no standards for other people's private photography, unless I have to edit it at work or some such. I actually have a lot of trouble critiquing other people's work because I KNOW I have a strong trained-in perspective on it. I'm not real sure what the standards and assumptions of the rest of the photographic world are. This is the main reason that I don't contribute to the PAW discussion here on PDML. A lot of gear is crap, and is going to produce technically inferior results even in skilled hands [Shel's original assertion, if I read him correctly]. A lot of pictures are crap (by most artistic or professional standards) even if taken with the best gear [A point often made by Cotty, and what I was originally alluding to in my response]. Neither of these things matters if the user is satisfied with the results. Crap persists because it is satisifying people somehow despite being crap, and that's fine. DJE
Re: photography vs. cameras
Bob W wrote: Hi, http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1198 Another tired example of trotting out the 1/10 of 1% crowd. Interesting read, but it has as little bearing on what most photographers do or need in their equipment. I'm not surprised he's got Holgaroids, carrying all that stuff around... ARRg..
Re: photography vs cameras
edwin wrote: The people bemoaning the death of photography are overlooking the fact that the goal of most photography is not photography. ... a pearl of great price, IMHO Bill
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: photography vs cameras A lighter load, more shots before reloading, and better lens options? Presumably 35mm was adopted because it either gave users more good shots, or an equal number of adequately good shots for less weight and cost. Digital is taking over for the same reasons. And don't forget poorer image quality, in fact image quality so poor that any schmuck with a few hundred dollars to spend can do as well. Switching to MF or LF might make me more elite, but it sure wouldn't help me do my job. Depends on your job. If you are on of the 1/10 of 1%, then no, but for the rest of the pro boys, that larger negative can't help but help. Pro gear, even 35mm, is still outrageously expensive compared to a minimal competant camera rig, and most folks haven't got anything like it. There are shots that you can get with a 600 or 14 that you just can't get with a 35-70. But thats the 1/10 of 1% category, which is the one that everyone wannabe, which is why Nikon and Canon sells so many F5's and EOS 1s to people that could just as well do with a Rebel or F60, but almost no one is actually in the group. So few as to be statistically non existent. I venture that probably 95% of professional photography could be done with a 35-70 zoom. Photography is, of course, more than technical details. Content matters, and in most cases this requires more than f8 and be there. Of course it is, but it is the technical details that seperated the real pros from the weekend warriors. Cameras that take away the need to be technically proficient means that just about anyone can be a pro. Take away the things that seperate the pros from the weekend warriors and the lines blur into non existence. Take away the big negative, and you don't have an advantage over the school teacher who wants to earn an extra few dollars on the weekend shooting weddings. In fact, the teacher has a real advantage, since he doesn't depend on photography for a living, and he can undercut the pros to the point that the market is ruined. It happened where I live, and I am sure it has happened in a lot of other places as well. It's not like brain surgery where you actually have to know something. All you have to do is have a working eye and you can be a pro. No technical knowledge needed. And that is why professional photographers don't get much respect. William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Frantisek Vlcek Subject: Re: photography vs cameras But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their sane mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car, but anybody with a camera thinks he is the photographer. Where has the profession's pride disappeared? This trend has been going on for about 40 years. We called them weekend warriors when I was active in the trade. As soon as professional photographers adopted 35mm as their camera of choice, they opened the door to anyone with a camera butting in on their turf, and as a profession, got exactly what they should have expected. The advances in camera technology over the past couple of decades or so has only made it worse, actual photographic knowledge (you know, that stuff I harp about from time to time?) is no longer a prerequisite, since the cameras themselves are able to take care of all the technical details, and photography is now pretty much a point and shoot game. William Robb
Re: photography vs. cameras
At 05:04 AM 6/4/2004 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures. Unless you saw her photos, you don't know what she got. And what's dull to you can be a treasured memory to someone else. Or maybe she did get 99 dull shots and one truly inspired shot. You just don't know and it's not fair to assume you do. If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality camera. If someone spends $8000 (or $800, or $80) on photo equipment and they are satisfied by the outcome, good for them. Let them spend their money on what they want. I've seen similar attitudes in the cycling community. Someone sees Lance Armstrong win the Tour on a $8000 carbon fiber Trek, so they go out and buy the $8000 Trek for themselves, the full zoot and everything. They can't hold a 20mph pace downhill with a tailwind, but they are having fun imagining they are Lance winning the Tour. Why resent their enjoyment? Of course buying the bike or the camera won't make them a pro, we know it and they know it. Or you see a slow runner wearing top of the line racing flats at the local fun run. Why bother? you say. Saving 5sec a mile won't matter to this back-of-the-packer, they still won't win the race. But maybe those seconds saved matter to the runner. They know they won't win the race, but they can still try to do the best they can. A PR (personal record) is still a PR. I've seen people resent those with better equipment than themselves, saying you can't be a pro just by buying pro-equipment. And others who disdain those with lesser equipment, saying if you don't have the absolute top of the line, you're just a wannabe and don't have money riding on it. or you're not a player. Forget the gear snobbery. Just go take some photos. Cheers, -- Mike
Re: photography vs. cameras
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Mike Nosal wrote: If someone spends $8000 (or $800, or $80) on photo equipment and they are satisfied by the outcome, good for them. Let them spend their money on what they want. And fund development for *your* camera. Kostas
RE: photography vs cameras
Some people can fix things without knowing how. I know a guy in fact who took apart his VW bug engine, cleaned everything and put it back together. He left a few washers out but it still ran perfectly. He'd never done it before, and Thats pretty cool. I admit there are putzs out there, but some people really honestly do pick things up rather easily. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: photography vs cameras ein If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would ein buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. ein Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent ein the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality ein camera. Certainly people wouldn't extend this idea to many other ein professions. Give me the best tools in the world and I still couldn't ein make any sense of my Ford Escort. Agree. I do resent the idea too, especially as it means we photographers are losing money, when every putz thinks he can make the pictures good for his brochure with his 300D and no knowledge/feeling of photography or lighting. Well, that's the changing market, and anybody wishing to continue will have to adapt. But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their sane mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car, but anybody with a camera thinks he is the photographer. Where has the profession's pride disappeared? Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: photography vs cameras
ein If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would ein buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. ein Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent ein the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality ein camera. Certainly people wouldn't extend this idea to many other ein professions. Give me the best tools in the world and I still couldn't ein make any sense of my Ford Escort. Agree. I do resent the idea too, especially as it means we photographers are losing money, when every putz thinks he can make the pictures good for his brochure with his 300D and no knowledge/feeling of photography or lighting. Well, that's the changing market, and anybody wishing to continue will have to adapt. But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their sane mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car, but anybody with a camera thinks he is the photographer. Where has the profession's pride disappeared? Bah! Youngsters today! :-) Back in the days when cars weren't totally computerised, it was very common for people to repair most minor problems with their own hands. (There was also far more economical incentive to do so; the reliability of cars has increased considerably over the decades). On the first car that I owned (a Morris Minor 1000 Traveller) I did most of the work myself, up to and including changing piston rings and grinding in new exhaust valves. That wasn't unusual for the time. Nowadays you'll still find vintage car enthusiasts doing all the work themselves, but apart from changing light bulbs, fuses, filters, brake pads and spark plugs there's very little you can do on a modern car; most other things are either good for the lifetime of the car or will require hooking up to the on-board computerised diagnostic readouts.
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Frantisek Vlcek Subject: Re: photography vs cameras But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their sane mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car, but anybody with a camera thinks he is the photographer. Where has the profession's pride disappeared? This trend has been going on for about 40 years. We called them weekend warriors when I was active in the trade. I'd have to class myself as a weekend warrior, rather than as a professional photographer; like many (most?) on this list photography isn't my day job (and if it were I'd be shooting Canon, not Pentax). As soon as professional photographers adopted 35mm as their camera of choice, they opened the door to anyone with a camera butting in on their turf, and as a profession, got exactly what they should have expected. The advances in camera technology over the past couple of decades or so has only made it worse, actual photographic knowledge (you know, that stuff I harp about from time to time?) is no longer a prerequisite, since the cameras themselves are able to take care of all the technical details, and photography is now pretty much a point and shoot game. F8 and be there is still worth more than the best bag of equipment. But you still have to point in the right direction, and shoot at the right time. It helps if you've got the right lens on the camera, too. Beyond that, you're getting down to the fine details. For some shots I can't match the pros, but that's largely because of equipment limits (which, in turn, are enforced by budget constraints); my 250-600 is a fine piece of glass, but a 600/f4 or 400/2.8 would give me a few more options in manipulating depth of field or allow faster shutter speeds. Most of the time, though, I produce shots that stand up to comparison pretty well against all but the best practitioners in my chosen arena.
Re: photography vs cameras
Hi, I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team at a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8 with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than what I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures (here's Jake before his race...). That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring to. perhaps she was a professional photographer spending some time with her children, and knew exactly what she was doing. To be honest, your assumptions say far more about your prejudices than they do about her photography. I've been photographing children at a safari park today, using several thousand dollars worth of Contax equipment - including a 300mm lens and x2 converter, like your suburban mom. The children (11 and 7 years old) took at least 25% of the photographs, and most of those that I took may not have reached your obviously high standards, but that doesn't mean those are the only type of photos I take with my expensive equipment. Maybe your rich suburban mom takes other types of photo with her expensive equipment too. Your post reminds me of something from David Hurn's 'On being a photographer: Take a mother on a beach watching her child build sand-castles. She suddenly sees an expression which tugs at her heart strings. Without thought, she dips into the picnic basket, aims the camera, and presses the button. The moment has been captured - and will be treasured for the rest of her life. Eighty five percent of all the ingredients of photography are encompassed by this simple act. The mother has an intimate knowledge of her subject. There is no thought of self or creativity, although both are intimately present. The snap was made without concern for technique. These are the ingredients that should be present in the acts of all photographers, no matter how sophisticated, yet they are the very ones which are too often ignored. If photographs of your own children aren't worth thousands of dollars, what is? -- Cheers, Bob
Re: photography vs cameras
Bob, Very well said. I was thinking of that very same comment by Hurn when I read the original post ;-)) Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 6/4/2004 4:12:20 PM Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Hi, I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team at a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8 with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than what I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures (here's Jake before his race...). That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring to. perhaps she was a professional photographer spending some time with her children, and knew exactly what she was doing. To be honest, your assumptions say far more about your prejudices than they do about her photography. I've been photographing children at a safari park today, using several thousand dollars worth of Contax equipment - including a 300mm lens and x2 converter, like your suburban mom. The children (11 and 7 years old) took at least 25% of the photographs, and most of those that I took may not have reached your obviously high standards, but that doesn't mean those are the only type of photos I take with my expensive equipment. Maybe your rich suburban mom takes other types of photo with her expensive equipment too. Your post reminds me of something from David Hurn's 'On being a photographer: Take a mother on a beach watching her child build sand-castles. She suddenly sees an expression which tugs at her heart strings. Without thought, she dips into the picnic basket, aims the camera, and presses the button. The moment has been captured - and will be treasured for the rest of her life. Eighty five percent of all the ingredients of photography are encompassed by this simple act. The mother has an intimate knowledge of her subject. There is no thought of self or creativity, although both are intimately present. The snap was made without concern for technique. These are the ingredients that should be present in the acts of all photographers, no matter how sophisticated, yet they are the very ones which are too often ignored. If photographs of your own children aren't worth thousands of dollars, what is? -- Cheers, Bob
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: John Francis Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Back in the days when cars weren't totally computerised, it was very common for people to repair most minor problems with their own hands. (There was also far more economical incentive to do so; the reliability of cars has increased considerably over the decades). On the first car that I owned (a Morris Minor 1000 Traveller) I did most of the work myself, up to and including changing piston rings and grinding in new exhaust valves. That wasn't unusual for the time. Nowadays you'll still find vintage car enthusiasts doing all the work themselves, but apart from changing light bulbs, fuses, filters, brake pads and spark plugs there's very little you can do on a modern car; most other things are either good for the lifetime of the car or will require hooking up to the on-board computerised diagnostic readouts. I just bought a new Nissan Titan truck. I can check the oil. Thats about it. I think I am going to have to buy a little British car of some sort. I like fixing things. William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
Yo Bill, You can do some work on the Titan as well if you purchase a service manual. It's not as mysterious as it seems. Paul On Jun 4, 2004, at 8:41 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: John Francis Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Back in the days when cars weren't totally computerised, it was very common for people to repair most minor problems with their own hands. (There was also far more economical incentive to do so; the reliability of cars has increased considerably over the decades). On the first car that I owned (a Morris Minor 1000 Traveller) I did most of the work myself, up to and including changing piston rings and grinding in new exhaust valves. That wasn't unusual for the time. Nowadays you'll still find vintage car enthusiasts doing all the work themselves, but apart from changing light bulbs, fuses, filters, brake pads and spark plugs there's very little you can do on a modern car; most other things are either good for the lifetime of the car or will require hooking up to the on-board computerised diagnostic readouts. I just bought a new Nissan Titan truck. I can check the oil. Thats about it. I think I am going to have to buy a little British car of some sort. I like fixing things. William Robb
