What the h*ll?

[BoblyBill]

Well thank you... I'll proudly put that comment under my belt and that coming from someone that I highly respect as far as photography is conserned at that...

 

[markc]

And I don't think your choices are limited by your equipment. If you can't make the portrait you made yesterday, that might be a good thing.

I'm not against limited choices. I think they can spur creativity. But you can't take a picture like this with anything but a fisheye no matter how hard you try. You can take a group shot; subject choice isn't limited; but the effect is the result of the fisheye lens. You have to take a shot with the fisheye effect, no matter what. You can't choose to do a telephoto shot. Those were the kinds of things I was talking about.

I personally think the subject of a portrait shouldn't be bent to any style but the portrait should suit the subject. But my son in law is all hot to force his style on the portrait. I think that is just inexperience. But then I could be wrong it won't be the first time.

It all depends on your goal, but the style of the shot and a subject's personality can both come through. Henri Cartier-Bresson's environmental portraits are a great example of this. I think they all show the subjects personality well, but they still carry the mark of the master who made them. There are many great photographers who have a particular style and yet do wonderful portraits of their subjects. A Yousuf Karsh portrait and an Arnold Newman portrait of the same subject look different from each other to me, yet hold characteristics that are similar to other photos by the same artist. They fit their style, but I still feel like I get an idea of who the person is sitting there; different sides of their personalities perhaps.

That's what the choices are about for me. They not only echo the subject, but the taker. I have zero interest in showing someone partying it up with a bunch of friends. I want to create an image that shows the part of the person that is either alone and introspective, or with a singular connection with someone dear to them. If I take a shot during a team sport event, it's not going to be a of great team moment, but of one player, perhaps amidst the crowded field, deep in their own thoughts of the moment. I'm going to use shallow DOF to blur out the crowd, the other players, and maybe even the field. It's not about them. I'll probably use high contrast and a tight crop, too.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I like the shot but it proves nothing.

If the photographer who made it had left that lens at home, I hope he wouldn't have been forced to rescheduled the shoot for a week later. I hope he would have been able to make an equally interesting though different group shot.... the point wasn't it's cool to have a special lens to do a special thing.... The point was you dont have to have special lenses to make photographs that are special....

 

[markc]

The point was you dont have to have special lenses to make photographs that are special....

I not only didn't dispute that, but I agree with it. *My* point was that equipment limits choices, which you disagreed with. I was saying that if you only have a fisheye, your equipment is limiting your choices. Sure, that's an extreme example, but even if you have a zoom that has a minimum aperture of 5.6, that's going to limit your choice in aperture and therefor your choice in DOF and light availability. If you don't have a flash, that will also limit your choices in the light you shoot in. If you only have a long telephoto, that will limit how slow of a shutter speed you can use. I don't have a flash and I don't mind that limitation, because I don't have an interest in the kind of photography that requires it.

Again, how this affects you depends on how you approach photography. You can take the shots the equipment limits you to, or you can get the equipment tailored to the shots you want to take. I usually prefer the latter (which is why I like to use the SLR for candids and the 6x7 for formals), but either can give you wonder results. I have a friend who has shot for Life, Time, and National Geographic, and one of his favorite cameras is the Holga. He *loves* the particular limits that the camera requires. But when he shot on an aircraft carrier for NG, he used a digital SLR. The particulars of the shoot required it. The Agfa Clack is similar to the Holga, but 6x9, a glass lens, and no light leaks. I loved using it. It limited my choices, but I like working within those limits when I was in the mood for that kind of work.

Saying that you can take wonderful pictures with any camera is true, but it's only half the story.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Well you are limited by the equipment in your bag to some extent I agree. But you should be able to take whatever you have and make it work unless you dont have a camera at all.

I think every photographer who has shot pictures for a while believes he can take a cheap point and shoot and do a good portrait. Where as the new photographer thinks he has to have that special lens to do an adaquate job. You make good picture with any camera not by playing to the camera weakness, but by playing to your own strengths.

So the limitations arent as much as the novice would think. I just dont like giving new photographers the idea that the more crap they buy, the more imagination they will have, Especially when the inverse is actually true.

We never really disagree I just say it differently. In this case I just hate giving people the idea that they need to buy the contents of the camera store to make great shots. You might have to go a mile down the road to make a landscape with a shorter lens but there is always something there to shoot.

 

[BoblyBill]

Take for excample (I'll try to use an excample to try to state what both you and markc are trying to say as I see it), if you ONLY had a 2.5MP camera of x brand that had one shutter, a set ISO, and one lense that was 1500mm long f/2.8 and had only one focal point. You could go to a football game and take some amazing pictures of the guys running up and down this field. Now, to get them in focus at different angles you would have to move to different spots in the stadium to say get them at the fifty yard line than if you were waiting for that amazing catch in the end zone. Now a beginner would have a hard time with the focus because there would only be one spot in which the guy running down the field (ok so actually a radius from where you are at) would be in focus. He also would not know how to place himself so that the light was just right when that player was in the right place so that at the fixed 2.8 and shudder speed the picture would come out exposed. What I think mysteryscribe is saying is that a pro could go to this game and take some absolutely astounding pictures because he knows HIS limits and the cameras. He would have to work hard all night probably running all around that stadium but he could get some great pictures. What I think markc is saying is that camera is very limited in what he could do with it... Yes he takes good pictures, BUT he has to run all around the stadium to do it. Where as if the camera had was a X brand camera with ISO from 1-4800, apurature (sp?) from 30sec-16000, and a lense that was sharp from 10mm-1500mm at f/2.8 he could probably pick maybe two or three spots around the stadium and take the same amazing shots.

Phew that was a lot of thinking for me... How did I do? Is that in summery what both of what you are saying? It still proves that it doesn't matter the camera or items you have you can still get good pictures out of any if you are good enough. You just might have to work harder with less equipment.

 

[BoblyBill]

It almost really comes down to convience... really I think. I would rather start off hard and make it easier on myself than start easy... cause there might be a time that your "easy way" (say having a canon 1Ds Mark II with all the bells and whistles) is gone and your only option for the shoot is an old LP camera and you learned on the Canon then you might have a hard time with the LP. But if you started on the LP and worked your way up to a Canon 1Ds then if your Canon wasn't availible at the time. It would not be a big deal to go back to the LP because that what is you learned on. Just some quick thoughts...

 

[markc]

Well you are limited by the equipment in your bag to some extent I agree. But you should be able to take whatever you have and make it work unless you dont have a camera at all.

You've been making this point and I've been agreeing with you. Do you think what I'm saying contradicts this?

So the limitations arent as much as the novice would think. I just dont like giving new photographers the idea that the more crap they buy, the more imagination they will have, Especially when the inverse is actually true.

I agree; above I suggested that beginners start with a more basic camera instead of sinking money into an expensive DSLR; but I also feel that overstating this also does them a disservice. What do you say to someone that takes a disposable camera with a 35mm/always-f22 lens to a ball game and gets frustrated with the images they get? Keep trying? They are likely to just give up photography before they learn anything useful.

I think it pays to know your equipment, know what it does, know how that affects the image. Once you understand this, the urge to keep upgrading goes away, because you know just what you need to create the images you want. I know that I need a wide aperture prime, but I don't need to spend money on an expensive telephoto zoom or flash unit. I feel no need to upgrade my 10D despite all the new cameras coming out. My camera bag has shrunk from a backpack down to a small shoulderbag that will hold the body, a couple of lenses, and the battery charger and other small bits.

I also mentioned that how you approach photography has a big impact on how you look at equipment. When many of us go out to take pictures, we will look for image that grab our attention and then set up the shot for what would turn what we see into a good photograph. We might see some nice trees by a pond in the distance, so we zoom out to wide angle, pick a narrow aperture, and shoot a nice landscape. We might then spot a boat at the edge of the pond, so we walk a little close, zoom in a bit, and open the aperture some to separate it a little from the water.

A few years ago I took a class called "Snapshot to Series" in which the instructor showed us how to approach photography a little differently. He had us all pick a theme; it could be as simple as "Windows" or more interpretive, like "Urban Blight". The end goal was to end up with a coherent series of images on this theme. He suggested making the same choices from photo to photo to help cement this coherence. Use the same focal length, similar apertures, the same processing, etc. The idea wasn't to go out looking for cool images to take, but to have a specific idea of the kind of images you wanted to make, and then go out and "find" (create, really), those images. If your theme is roadside stands, and you are shooting them at 35mm, don't bother with that great shot you see that would need a 100mm. Snap if you really want to for your collection, but your mind shouldn't even be there.

I'm not saying that it's a better way to work, but I found it really instructive. I prefer to work this way where I am with my photography. I put the 85mm lens on, and my eye starts seeing the world the way the camera will see it with that lens at 2.0, b&w, and high contrast, before even raising the camera to my eye. I'm not looking for good shot that I *can* take, I'm looking to make specific shots, and I'm going to put myself in the position I need to be able to create them.

If I were given a disposable camera, I could still find pictures to take that would turn out nice, but they wouldn't be the kind *I* want to take. I would know what to look for, so I wouldn't bother with portraits or the like. I'd concentrate on landscapes, urban scenes, and other shots that work well with a wide angle, but the style choices would be forced by the camera; they wouldn't be mine. I could still compose, but that's only one part of creating an image. There's not much of an issue there for people who shoot wide, so it's not inherent in the camera. There's nothing wrong with the camera. I just don't want to shoot that way.

It probably still sounds like I'm promoting expensive equipment to some people, but that's not the case. I personally think limited choices help the starting photographer. I often chime in suggesting that people don't need to upgrade, or that they might want to start with a simple camera, or suggesting a 50mm for a lens. I think it's best to know how to work what you have before you can understand what you gain (or lose) with other equipment. You can't upgrade your creativity or imagination.

 

[markc]

Now a beginner would have a hard time

That's a good shot. I tried to better explain myself above. It's not so much how hard it would be for a beginner. A beginner will have a harder time than someone who's experienced, but that will be the case no matter the equipment. For me it was more about what you use the equipment for and how the end result will look. That a fine set-up for sports (if it had normal focus), but would be a lousy set-up for sweeping landscapes. I originally meant it to be nothing more complicated than that. It's simple math, really. If two camera/lens combos are the same, except one has 4 apertures and the other has 7, the one with 7 has 3 more choices available to it than the one with 4 has. Aperture affects DOF and exposure. Those choices affect the image. Do you really need those extra 3 apertures? That's an entirely different issue.

 

[fmw]

The equipment one uses has more to do with budget and preference than anything else. We use what we have and what we have is we want that we can afford.

I read in another thread that a new photographer was motivated to buy a $5000 camera system. Then he jumped on the forum to ask what an aperture is. That is a head scratcher for most of us but some people have a lot of money so they can fund a better preference than others. That's fine. It just doesn't have anything to do with photography really. It has to do with spending.

Beginners are consumed with megapixels and specifications. 10 years ago few people knew what a megapixel was and 15 years ago nobody did because there weren't any megapixels. Yet photography hasn't really changed and good images look pretty similar to what good images looked like 15 years ago.

15 years ago beginners were consumed with auto focus and 30 years ago they were concerned with auto exposure. None of it has anything to do with photography. It just has to do with cameras. I'm not sure that photography and cameras have as much to do with each other as many people think.

 

[Alex_B]

Well, our lust for new equipment sometimes also is just driven by convenience and lazyness. Sometimes, having the perfect (whatever perfect exactly means) equipment for a special scene to capture just makes it much more easy and allows you to switch your brain off a bit. The result will often be a beautiful standard image (where people might even say "wow, what a brilliant shot").

I will illustrate this with myself as an example, there were two years, where I put aside all my zoom-lenses covering everything from 28mm to 300mm on 35mm film and locked them in the cupboard. Instead I exclusively used my 28mm and 50mm prime lenses. This would of course severely limit what I could do (wildlife was really hard to capture for example).
However, the percentage of photos which have some special something in that phase was much higher than before, when I used my zoom lenses. I guess the limitation made me use my brain more! And I was much more active to find the right perspective for a shot.

With the side effect that image quality was better, since my primes are optically better than my zooms of course

That much just for the fact that limitations can be a great advantage for the work you produce.

I have to admit though that due to the same limitations I missed some beautiful chances to take nice images of Reindeer in Lapland. As a consequence, later I bought a new zoom lens. However, I then sometimes try to constrain myself to using only selected focal lengths on that lens, such as 24mm, 50mm and 70mm, just to get my brain working better in terms of perspective and composition

These days however, after draining my bank account for alot of new gear, I feel like I degenerated back to the early lazy zoom phase. Although my images technically got much better, in terms of light and composition they got worse. But I hope my new learning curve will be faster now that I know where to go

I cant believe I have all my favorite photographers on the same thread. And they are all trying to sound humble. The truth is guys the people who are commenting here (except for me) are the least likely to need any of this discussion. The people who do need it are staying as far away as possible for it.

Well, if I am included in that selection, I feel honoured

But regarding those people who you say would need it, but stay away far from this thread, well that implies there is a need to change their attitude towards photography ... which I think there isn't. For many people, the race for equipment is also something exciting. It is like people who buy a sports car capable for racing, but they just drive it up and down the local road. Of course those people don't need that car, but still it is fun to them, and I can perfectly understand that. Of course having those cars does not make them better drivers, but it means more fun to them. Same holds for cameras.

 

[Alex_B]

I read in another thread that a new photographer was motivated to buy a $5000 camera system. Then he jumped on the forum to ask what an aperture is.

That is totally fine, if 5000 USD don't mean much to him (and there are people out there like that). Then his camera system for him would be just a beginner's system which he will use to learn ... or not.

If however, he just feels pushed to spend that much money because people and this world made him feel he would need to spend it in order to take good images, then it is really a pity!

10 years ago few people knew what a megapixel

And most still do not know today!

Just go to any camera shop (British) / store (US) and talk about megapixels and resolution, both with the customers and the people selling things, you will be amazed that the majority thinks megapixel give you the resolution of the images. They were never told that megapixels refer to an area, whereas resolution refers to a length. Hence they think a sensor with 8 megapixels means twice the resolution of a sensor with 4. If you then go further and try to tell them that resolution also has to do with the lenses, many will think you are an idiot, because every child knows from all the advertisements that it is megapixels which do it

 

[Torus34]

And finally, resolution [digital] has to do with the size of the final print and the DPI of the printer, or alternately the resolution of the monitor screen.

I've never been a member of the 'larger is better' school. Maximum print size for me is 6" x 9" [35mm] or 11" x 14" [6 x 6cm], with most printed smaller. Print here refers to enlargement on old-fashioned silver chloride/bromide paper. I do take the trouble to matte my prints before hanging them on the wall.

Oh. Almost forgot. For pinhole work, I use 8" x 10" paper negatives and contact print the images. It's so easy to make an 8" x 10" pinholer [some presswood panel, a few lengths of 3/4" square stock for bracing, glue, a bit of aluminum can stock and some black plastic electrician's tape] that there's little to be gained by going smaller except portability. But then, pinholers have different priorities and ease of camera transportation isn't usually at the top of the short list.

 

[SaSi]

Isn't this whole thing of Sensor MegaPixels equivalent to how fine grained film and how fine grained developer one is using?

I have had this discussion some many years ago, however there was no internet back then to stir discussions.

I understand that film grain and pixel properties are not totally equivalent, but my point is that fine grained film did provide some benefits for certain types of photography (forensic photography SHOULD be one of them), while medium grain films and processes were favourabl for others.

The digital sensor properties are perhaps different, but yet again one has to weigh the benefits of a denser sensor against the benefits of larger pixels.

The only major issue here is that once, people could use their camera with any and all different types of films, from finegrain slow BW to 50 ISO slide to colour rich negative to 1000 ISO, to ...

Now, with digital, this idiotically simle versatility goes away and once you have bought your camera, you have bought all the "film" you would need for the time you would be using the camera...

It seems like buyers desperately need a simple figure by which one can scale the quality, usability and performance of an item. I cars it was (and still is horsepower), in ampliphiers it was wattage, in cameras it is megapixels and so on.

I am currently using an 8Mpixel camera and although it is not perfect in a lot of things (clever focusing, clever metering) I find the quality of the pictures much much better than the quality of scanned films on a high quality film scanner. You see, in the film equation, one has to take into account the quality and skills of the minilab and operator...

I would be looking for totally different things in a new camera to buy it.

I would have to be compatible with my lenses (or had to exceed my wildest expectations to switch over)

It would have to have a 48 bit dynamic range rather than 36 it now has in RAW,

I would also like the sensor to be user configurable, so that one can not only change the ISO setting - which is merely a selection of signal ampliphication, but also to tie together 2, 3, 4, ... pixels for a smaller actual resolution and a better dynamic range. Cameras now just scale down the resulting capture.

It would have to be clever and have user defined apperture limits for each separate lens I use (a bit of explanation: I would like the camera to limit the use of 1.4 ~ 2.0 appertures on my bright lens since it performs much better closed down. I would like it also to have an override button for those dark moments when I really need the light).

I would also like the camera to focus with darker lenses (why should it only work with f/5.6 or brighter? Are the electronics in there so crude? )

I would also like (rather WANT) the camera's viewfinder to have a 98% representation of the picture and I also want it larger. (As a side effect, this would also make a larger camera, and I really like that. I am not a japanese female - no offense here - so my hands are large and the camera get's lost in my palm. I had to buy the optional grip just so that I can hand hold the camera descently).

Finally, I would also like the camera to work properly with flash. I experimented with Canon's top-of-the-range 580EX and ETTL-2 and found that it was no more clever than the simple automatic flashes of 25 years ago. I still use my ancient Panasonic flash which is as powerful and as reliable in taking good shots as the pretty expensive toys available now.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Okay so the guy buys a ton of equipment because owning the equipment is a joy unto itself. I know that thinking exisits. I see it all the time. (in the family) I actually understand it, not just know it, from this discussion and have decided to say..

Never mind, let em eat cake..

Mark I never thought you disagreed at all. We just discuss in a head butting style... I make a point, you see a side that I usually didn't explain or discuss. You state a point of view that is compatable but raises another issue. I usually respond with a side of your issue that isn't obvious at least to people who think like me.

I truly hope that doesn't offend you because the others on the thread get a heck of a lot of information that neither of us would probably get out without the other. Together we might make one great teacher, you mostly. Problem is all the knowledge on this type thread doesn't get out to people who could benefit from it.

But that's okay to because photography is a journey and you can't know where you are going unless you know where you have been. Like someone else said, "It starts out one thing and moves on to other things." if you are lucky. if not you can get stuck in one phase or another. I suppose.