More to photography that just the camera and gear

[AlexColeman]

Too much?

 

[Garbz]

Way too much Don't mind my complaining. It's just hard for someone who creates a picture for the 19c cost of the print to fork over $27 for a photo. It's the same in other industries too though. My girlfriend kringes at the thought of paying $5 for a doughnut when her store makes them at a cost of 12c each.

I'm assuming your laughing at the 'lens sharpest at f8' comment (if not this doesn't really apply) but Peterson goes to great lengths to explain this in Understanding Exposure that this is, at least in part, true from the standpoint of the math involved in the optics (as well as F11).

I am laughing at the justification of using f/8 when I meant is as a joke And the sharpest point on a lens changes for every lens and for which camera they use it on. It's true though most zooms are usually sharpest around f/8 on APS cameras.

 

[usayit]

I guess where I'm going with this is just because those people getting paid minimum wage to sit in these photo factories don't know which side of the camera to look in, doesn't mean they don't know what makes a good photo.

It really isn't any different than any other product mass produced and sold at chain stores. If you head to the local home entertainment shops, you will more than likely get a person who understands the complex needs of various audiophiles that walk through the door. If you head to BestBuy, you might have a wider range of choices but no doubt you'll get a person working minimum wage who knows very little.


On the other hand, I've seen good and bad sessions from various photographers at the "Flash!" studio in my local mall. My wife did request that I schedule a session with one particular "photographer". She was tip-toeing around the idea knowing very well that photography is a life long hobby. I agreed in part because we wanted a family picture with our very rambunctious 2 year old and needed the flexibility of walking in and out of the mall when my son needed a break. I also didn't have access to a studio (let alone one setup for children) at the time and it is difficult without a 2nd person to assist. I will also admit, I couldn't afford a "real" studio photographer at the time nor did I want to spend "premium" time with one chasing my son around trying to get him just to sit and smile for 2 seconds.

In the end, it worked out surprisingly well. I enjoyed the chat I had with the photographer who was simply just trying to pay her way through community college. I wouldn't say the photos were A1 grade but I was happy, my son got to play with some toys at the studio, my wife was happy, and the entire extended family (spread throughout the US) were happy to get photos of us as a family.

There is a place and time for everything.

 

[Mike_E]

Congrats on the graduation!!

I think you've nailed the one niggling little thing about this art. It's dead and has no life but what we give it.

Without the care and attention we give it, it's just a bland representation of what was real at the time we pressed the shutter button.

Without skill, there is only luck. And that lady stays someplace else. LOL

 

[jealous]

the tools an artist uses makes no difference.
seriously, a good photographer will take a good shot with a disposable as well as a canon 5D-compensation-machine.
just as a good designer will do just as good a job with paper and glue as with a new mac.

Owning a camera and even operating it on manual doesnt make me a photograper, owning a car and knowing how to change the oil doesnt make me a formula one driver and writing a supermarket list and using correct grammar doesnt make me Tolkein.

i guess what im saying is that theory never beats practice and technical knowledge does not make you a good anything. It helps you get there, but alone its worthless.
-J

 

[Garbz]

Yes but knowing how the tools work does. That's the issue I raised. These people are known not for being artists but just for going to work and pushing a single button on a piece of equipment setup by someone else, to a set of instructions written by someone else. I'm just saying it looks like the job may not be quite as braindead as many people make it out to be.

 

[JerryPH]

the tools an artist uses makes no difference.
seriously, a good photographer will take a good shot with a disposable as well as a canon 5D-compensation-machine.
just as a good designer will do just as good a job with paper and glue as with a new mac.

I disagree. If I asked you to walk into an indoor soccer field (where ambient was ISO 3200 at F/1.4 and 1/500th) with a Kodak brownie and demanded that you give me 20 quality motion blur free shots using just that tool, then handed you a D3 with a 85mm F/1.4... are you saying that the results would be the same? I think not.

I am not referring to you or this post, but I sincerely think that people are deluding themselves if they believe that hardware makes no difference and that they can do anything a pro dSLR can with ANY camera out there.

We all know that the best camera on earth in the hands of someone clueless is useless, and knowledge with experience rule, but high end bodies and lenses do make a huge difference.

Not even the best photographer on earth can bend the rules of physics, science and modern technology and under challenging conditions, newer equipment will net you better results that is IMPOSSIBLE to match under the same circumstances and low end equipment.

If it did not make a difference, we'd all be using Kodak brownies at indoor sporting events instead of using, or at the very least, wishing for, D3s with 85mm F/1.4 lenses.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

the tools an artist uses makes no difference.
seriously, a good photographer will take a good shot with a disposable as well as a canon 5D-compensation-machine.
just as a good designer will do just as good a job with paper and glue as with a new mac.

I disagree. If I asked you to wa...

Sorry Jerry but I believe you missed the point. jealous said artist.

 

[jealous]

thanks cloudwalker for pointing that out

yea I was refering to the ability of a good artist to make something out of nothing. now I see what you are saying Jerry, you wouldnt get the same shots at an indoor ISO whatever f.1.2 shutter thing speed jargon with a brownie as with a whatever camera you mention BUT i do stick to my point and believe that a GOOD ARTIST will get good shots either way. Id even go so far as saying a good artist would get better shots with the brownie as it would require more imagination and thinking instead of just the old digital approach of 'point and shoot'. which is what alot of "photographers" do.

Technology has allowed the number of pseudo artists/photographers/designers to skyrocket, and sadly they pass themselves off as legit creative thinkers (which they are not).

I submit that if we were asked to photograph 'life' 99% of us would come up with boring/typical/lame **** because 99% of us rely on tech knowledge to cover up a lack of creativity. polishing turds has never been so prevelant.

ask any artist/designer at the top of their game, as in world class, and they will tell you that technology changes and button pushing can be learnt easily but the core of any creative trade is foundation skills and creative thinking.
This is why i cringe at the gear lists that some people have - you have every canon lens but you still take average photos - why is that?

I do believe you have a point - we would all be using brownies if we were all artists.
but we are not, we are mostly lame photo-journalists.

 

[Crazydad]

^ Than why do the artists use the high end stuff if it doesn't matter?

Michael Schumacher would absolutely amaze me with the speed he could get out of my 4cyl Honda going around the Nurburgring. But I'm pretty sure he would go much faster in a Ferrari.

The better equipment allows the true artist a lot more freedom to do what they want as best as they can. Saying the equipment doesn't matter is foolish.

 

[jealous]

I think our definition of artist may be quite different - A national geographic photographer (for example) is not an artist. fine art photographers use all sorts of cameras-yes that includes 'high-end' cameras but as I said this does not make the photographer. you will find the artists pushing culture forward use anything and everything. look at what poeple are doing with Holga's - a far more interesting and creative direction than anyone with a 5D or D3 is going.

 

[Crazydad]

I think our definition of artist may be quite different - A national geographic photographer (for example) is not an artist. fine art photographers use all sorts of cameras-yes that includes 'high-end' cameras but as I said this does not make the photographer. you will find the artists pushing culture forward use anything and everything. look at what poeple are doing with Holga's - a far more interesting and creative direction than anyone with a 5D or D3 is going.

You are correct and in this case, and there is no real answer. We just need to make sure we are not narrowing our own definitions too much. I'm sure at least some of the photogs for Nat Geo would disagree with your statement.

Just because I personally do not like Picasso's works, does not mean I don't think they are art. If you don't like a particular type of music, does that mean it is not art?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I'm sure at least some of the photogs for Nat Geo would disagree with your statement.

Have to disagree with that as a close friend of mine was an NG photographer for many years. Met him as his assistant afterwards when he was doing commercial work. His work for NG, he called documentary photography which is what it is.

I worked with him for about a year and since we had become quite friendly I brought him some of my art photography one day. The first thing he said was: I'll look at them but understand that I know nothing about art.

There is no denying that the work produced by those guys is beautiful but they are given the means to produce it.

 

[rufus5150]

Let's lay that out, just for curiosity's sake:

The statement:
1. Some NG photographers are also artists.

The Counter:
2. We know beyond any doubt that one NG photographer is not an artist.

Therefore:

3. All NG photographers are not artists.

The logic doesn't work. If Crazydad was saying 'all NG photographers are artists', then we could reasonably conclude that his premise was false based on your evidential sample of 1.

Crazydad's statement only asserts there there is at least one (and maybe more) NG photographers who are artists. Unless anyone cares to try and define an NG photographer specifically as 'not an artist', then we have quite the empirical task in front of us, and even then we could conclude, a posteriori, only that all of the NG photographers up to this point have not been artists.

But wait... there is this bit of evidence:

Amazon.com: The Art of Photography at National Geographic (Evergreen) (9783822893111): Jane Livingston: Books

Which would seem to suggest that some photographs printed in NG were indeed considered art, either by their photographers or their editors.




It does raise an interesting question, though -- is the title 'artist' only able to be given to one's self? If I produce paintings that sell for disgusting amounts of money and push the boundaries of the art world, yet I claim only to be a craftsman that paints to make a buck from sales to locals, am I an artist by external definition?

 

[jealous]

sorry bro you make a good point - i was refering to the nat geo photos not being art and therefore those who do only this type of photo work are not artists.

and a book named "the art of..." does not make it art

the term artist is FAR too loosely thrown around. about 2% of those claiming to be artists are artists... I feel.

and an artist is not just a painter or a sculptor etc - an artist is a creative and unique thinker, you can be an artist with math or science for example...

Remember - the camera is but a tool to comminucate an idea. therefore, the 'high-end' gear is not neccesary unless your idea may be to comment on the sea of bad, uninspired photography we are drowning in...