What the h*ll?

THORHAMMER · Dec 18, 2006

you could take a pic with a 100$ 4mp p&s, and blow it up to 40 feet by 100 feet, and stick it onto a building.
It would look great.

From 80 feet away.

everything were talking about it relative to who we are and who the audience is.

markc · Dec 18, 2006

mysteryscribe said:
The sports with a pns was a good comment.

The flip side is 'why not if that's what you have.'

If you aren't going to publish them in the newspaper or something equally useful in the braoder sense, why isnt the shot of the field with a small pns's zoom lens satisfactory. The use would most likely be for the family album or even the christmas card. What would make a picture of the mud flying off his soccer shoes a better christmas card.

This might go back to how we look at things differently. I'm not really sure about your approach to photography, so please don't take this as commenting on that. I'm only talking about my own process.

I personally would rather not bother with that shot. If it's just going to be something that's going to sit in the family album, I'll let one of they many other people who brought a camera that day take the shot, and I'll concentrate on enjoying the game. I have no interest in taking a photograph for the sake of taking one. I have a certain vision I want to fulfill. At Christmas, I let the rest of the family do the shots of opening the presents. Not because I think it's beneath me, but because it bores me to tears. (I'm easily distracted unless I'm in OCD mode. Oh, shiny!)

You mentioned earlier that for you, photography was about challenges. That is a component for me as well. The snap of the player is so "been there, done that" for me. I need something that drives me. Right now, I'm trying to improve my ability to tell the stories I want to tell. So far, I've found a certain visual style that lends itself to a certain mood and "story" very well, but there are still elements missing, as it's a bit hit or miss. I have a couple of images that I can use as examples of what I want to do more of, but they are very much in the foyer. I have yet to step into the full potential. Once I feel like I've been able to express this part of me in a satisfactory manner, I'll probably look into developing another style that tells a different kind of story. Perhaps I'll go back to color work.

That snap will be plenty fine for many people, and I don't begrudge them that one bit. But for me, taking it is a waste of time. Not because it's a "bad" image, but because it doesn't get me closer to my goal. I'm not looking to just make great photos, but to say something about myself and my view of the world. Whether people like it or not is secondary to successfully putting my thoughts into image form.

mysteryscribe · Dec 18, 2006

Ah but the thread isnt about what you and I do. It's about the guy who wants the camera to shoot for the family album. He imidiately feels all the advertising pressure to mortage his house for the right camera.

It's about a guy who joins this foreum to learn about his new pns. He immediately gets deligued with 'buy a dslr you will never be happy with a point and shoot even an advanced one'.

In his heart he knows he is never going to do more than shoot pics of his kids birthday parties, but everywhere he looks people are saying no if you are here you NEED a dslr or a high end camera. Well the truth is not everyone does need one.

What I propose is that everyone buy what they need not what everyone tells them they need. Along the way we got side tracked with other issues but thats basically what started this thread.

Buy what you need but for gods sake need what you buy if not today at least need it before it is obsolete. Now that's what my opinion was and still is. And someone elses is something else and thats good to.

Torus34 · Dec 19, 2006

A part of this discussion deals with the photographer's 'vision', doesn't it?

In painting, an artist has access to all the colors and can use them in any way desired. Sort of like having access to all types of photo gear. But artists use specific colors arranged in certain ways. That's why we can distinguish van Gogh from Rembrandt and Klee from Manet. What they use and how they use it determines their 'voice', their 'vision', their style.

Among photographers who do serious work [No, I won't fall into the trap of defining 'serious', thank you!] the gear is whatever they have chosen to express their 'vision' -- their 'voice'.

For some, that can be a pinholer. For others, a battery of rigs and lenses, filters and accessories. It can include different rigs at different times for different specific final goals. Picasso worked in several mediums, including sculpture. His gear differed depending on the final result desired.

Judging a photographer by his/her gear is a meaningless exercise.

When discussing 'serious' painting, we don't get into a discussion of the gear used. [What was the width of van Gogh's favorite brush? What type of hair was used in it? What brand of oils did de Kooning use?]

We discuss the final work.

My 'vision', if I have one, differs from markc's and mysteryscribe's. It's reasonable to assume that I'll prefer different gear and use it in different ways. Judgement should be reserved for the final product -- the print.

That said, lets turn to the newbee and the plaintive question often asked, 'What camera should I buy?'

The newbee is an unknown quantity. Does the newbee have the potential of developing a 'vision?' How can we judge? In painting, the newbee is directed to a few basic brushes and a set of 'student' pigments. The assumption is that with time the student will select replacement gear based on the skills and vision which may, or may not, develop.

Should we not be careful, when making gear recommendations to a newbee, to keep it simple and be very careful not to let our own personal 'vision' affect the advice?

markc · Dec 19, 2006

My impression was that the first post was discussing gear choice in general, not just the guy that shoots for the family album.

That's a great post, Torus.

Torus34 · Dec 19, 2006

Awwww, geeee . . . [smiles bashfully, looks at ground, scrubs toe of shoe in dirt.]

mysteryscribe · Dec 19, 2006

I reread the original post and you are right it did not specify a man shooting for the family album. It specified buying the right amount of camera should probably vary with the kind of thing you planned to shoot. So let me change my answer to the sports shot.

If a man is shooting for the family album and not for publication somewhere else, he most likely does not need a dslr to be satisfied with the results.... however some people will need to see the mud flying off the cleats of there 10 year olds soccer shoes. Why I have no idea.

There is that better?... I think I would at least have a large smile if someone was shooting a ten year old's soccer game with a 5k digital camera unless it was for soccer world.

As for the great artist having all the colors in his palet. I happen to agree but most people who paint a barn only need one or two colors.

The point is everyone with a camera does not aspire to be ansil adams or edward weston. Though out history they never did, and they never will.

To tell those people they need a 2k camera is ludicrous. I have seen that said just recently. You can't make good pictures with a pns camera. Well I beg to differ.. You cant make the same pictures with a point and shoot. That does not make them unacceptable it just makes them different pictures. And with the number of shots people shoot these days I dont see how just by the law of averages they all don't make wonderful shots. They don't of course.

Torus34 · Dec 19, 2006

One of our [my Lady and me] favorite activities is to dine out in a good restaurant and try to 'crack' the recipe.

An excellent little variation on that game is to look at a great compilation of photographs -- Steichen's Family of Man comes to mind -- and then consider the minimum equipment you would need to duplicate a particular shot.

It can be an eye-opener.

mysteryscribe · Dec 19, 2006

Sounds like another great game. If you don't think he would mind, ( I doubt he would mind much these days) why not post one and let's give it a shot.

It should be interesting to see what people think and then why it can't be done with what they are suggesting.

BoblyBill · Dec 19, 2006

mysteryscribe said:
An excellent little variation on that game is to look at a great compilation of photographs -- Steichen's Famnily of Man comes to mind -- and then consider the minimum equipment you would need to duplicate a particular shot.

It can be an eye-opener.

That's a good idea... I like that a lot...

Torus34 · Dec 20, 2006

I'm sorry, mysteryscribe, but I have no means of posting a picture. Someone else will have to submit a 'target' image. As for my own work, none of it ever achieves exposure [sorry!] beyond the walls of my home.