celluloidprop
Well-known
Starting with a loaded question (assumption that people would rally to the inherent superiority of Leica), repeatedly stating opinions ('dynamic range is not an issue,' 'the bokeh is perfect') as facts, and refusing to accept criticism as anything but equipment-related hostility...
I hope this is just some quality trolling.
I hope this is just some quality trolling.
jpmac55
Established
It depends on the audience but I tend to agree but perhaps for a different reason. Most of us who are photography hobbyists or professionals could argue your point but the iphone and its cohorts dominate the conversation right now. The Facebook crowd don't care so much about blown highlights and won't even bother with post production. Why bother?
So yes, I think there is still a need for good camera gear amongst photo enthusiasts but most people in my circle of friends and family are mostly interested in looking at snap shots taken from their cellphone. And the sooner they see the photos the better.
TennesseJones
Well-known
it's a spoof...
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
What matters is the decisive moment.
David_Manning
Well-known
Has anyone ever read American Cinematographer magazine? The holy grail of cinematographers is depth in an image, usually through focal length and lighting. It's not about using a Panaflex body, or an Arri because Panavision sucks and is overpriced. They go into tremendous detail about lighting...even if it's supposed to look like natural light.
Translate this to still photography.
I think the reason I use more professional equipment for personal photography is because I think it's easier to add depth. This frequently has to do with sensor size (notice I'm not talking about image noise...I really don't care about that...I've used fast film before) but mostly with the glass. My favorite vacation photos have depth, and even though I've taken wonderful images of my family with a p&s in a dark restaurant, they're wonderful because of the subject...not the merits of the photo itself.
I think you can make images technically better by lots of post-production, but it won't make up for the depth you can create with gear that allows separation and control. We're not talking snapshots, we're talking portraits or other planned photography.
So, for Nick (and by the way, your wife is a beautiful woman, so understand we're talking about your posted subject), the image seems kind of like all the stops were pulled to salvage a snapshot. Please don't take that as a personal or professional attack. I'm just talking about the technical act of capturing images with two different tiers of equipment. I happen to think that it would have looked much better (more organic) with a better lump of glass, larger sensor, less compression, and maybe (though not specific to the camera) more depth through lighting.
So, long-winded opinion...yes, the gear CAN matter.
Family snapshot with decent sensor and lens combo (it's not art, just a snap):
Translate this to still photography.
I think the reason I use more professional equipment for personal photography is because I think it's easier to add depth. This frequently has to do with sensor size (notice I'm not talking about image noise...I really don't care about that...I've used fast film before) but mostly with the glass. My favorite vacation photos have depth, and even though I've taken wonderful images of my family with a p&s in a dark restaurant, they're wonderful because of the subject...not the merits of the photo itself.
I think you can make images technically better by lots of post-production, but it won't make up for the depth you can create with gear that allows separation and control. We're not talking snapshots, we're talking portraits or other planned photography.
So, for Nick (and by the way, your wife is a beautiful woman, so understand we're talking about your posted subject), the image seems kind of like all the stops were pulled to salvage a snapshot. Please don't take that as a personal or professional attack. I'm just talking about the technical act of capturing images with two different tiers of equipment. I happen to think that it would have looked much better (more organic) with a better lump of glass, larger sensor, less compression, and maybe (though not specific to the camera) more depth through lighting.
So, long-winded opinion...yes, the gear CAN matter.
Family snapshot with decent sensor and lens combo (it's not art, just a snap):
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I'm coming to the conclusion that technically correct is a variation on politically correct. Both of them change with time and fashion and, more often, who you are talking to.
Vaguely in focus is what suits most of the ladies; I've spoken to lots of them some born in the 19th century and others born in the 20th or 21st. None of them like razor sharp pictures, a lot object to retouching (or whatever it's called this week) and most of them are happiest when it's flattering and the recipient likes it.
Funnily enough not one of them has made a comment about the camera.
And a lot of people have asked for copies of one I did that's badly out of focus, in my opinion, yet works well. The young lady (3 or 4years old) didn't want her picture taken and had exasperated me. I gave up, put the camera back on auto everything (its normal restive state) and tried to stand up and fell apex over base. The picture I grabbed of her laughing at me was focused on the chair as it was a grab shot and you all know what AF does now and then. But everyone loves it...
Regards, David
I'm coming to the conclusion that technically correct is a variation on politically correct. Both of them change with time and fashion and, more often, who you are talking to.
Vaguely in focus is what suits most of the ladies; I've spoken to lots of them some born in the 19th century and others born in the 20th or 21st. None of them like razor sharp pictures, a lot object to retouching (or whatever it's called this week) and most of them are happiest when it's flattering and the recipient likes it.
Funnily enough not one of them has made a comment about the camera.
And a lot of people have asked for copies of one I did that's badly out of focus, in my opinion, yet works well. The young lady (3 or 4years old) didn't want her picture taken and had exasperated me. I gave up, put the camera back on auto everything (its normal restive state) and tried to stand up and fell apex over base. The picture I grabbed of her laughing at me was focused on the chair as it was a grab shot and you all know what AF does now and then. But everyone loves it...
Regards, David
KenR
Well-known
What makes it a point-n-shoot shot is the on axis flash that washes out the face - no modeling. Of course, fashion photogs have started using ring lights for the same effect. Camera matters a bit, but planning a shot (ie the photographer) matters more. In the old days the masses used non-adjustable cameras so their shots were out of focus and badly exposed, while advanced amateurs and pros used better equipment that largely took care of the technical issues. Now, the equipment is so good that any one can take a technically perfect shot, but what appears (or doesn't appear) in the frame is still up to the person pressing the shutter.
jammcat
Lick My Lens Cap
Gear matters only if the photographer's need requires it.
The reason people become gear-heads is because they feel limited by their equipment, attributing blame to it rather than to their own lack of ability... or perhaps they spend too much time on forums.
Most enthusiasts overcompensate with lenses, cameras, and what have you when searching for the look they want in their photos. Once an individual finds what works for them they are able to develop their own "look".
Nobody needs a $15,000 three lens kit to accompany them on a walk to the bakery.
Still, playing with all sorts of different gear may lead the photographer to find their perfect camera combination, and allow them to start focusing on photography rather than photography equipment.
Software is similar. Some people are content with little post-processing, some require more. It entirely depends on style and the need.
The reason people become gear-heads is because they feel limited by their equipment, attributing blame to it rather than to their own lack of ability... or perhaps they spend too much time on forums.
Most enthusiasts overcompensate with lenses, cameras, and what have you when searching for the look they want in their photos. Once an individual finds what works for them they are able to develop their own "look".
Nobody needs a $15,000 three lens kit to accompany them on a walk to the bakery.
Still, playing with all sorts of different gear may lead the photographer to find their perfect camera combination, and allow them to start focusing on photography rather than photography equipment.
Software is similar. Some people are content with little post-processing, some require more. It entirely depends on style and the need.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I find these to be technically and aesthetically superior to Nick's "photograph".
And Nick, joke or otherwise, who are you kidding?
peterm1
Veteran
I think of it in systems terms. (Any one with systems training might understand this instinctively - but others may not.)
Put simply, photography is a system made up of the Photographer, the camera (and any other hardware) and the post processing in a computer using relevant software.
The three are integral to the whole.
Having said that, I could not imagine publishing a photo on Flickr or anything of this sort without post processing. But that is not new - Ansell Adams (to name one photographer) spent a huge amount of effort in the darkroom.
As far as I am concerned its the same game - new technology.
So I think its not correct to say the camera does not matter. Just as (for me) its wrong to say that post processing does not matter.
However, I accept that some people do not feel this way and who have a view about "purity" of image making - they like to "edit" their image "in camera" and then let the results speak for themselves. These people tend to be from the "reportage" school of photography.
Put simply, photography is a system made up of the Photographer, the camera (and any other hardware) and the post processing in a computer using relevant software.
The three are integral to the whole.
Having said that, I could not imagine publishing a photo on Flickr or anything of this sort without post processing. But that is not new - Ansell Adams (to name one photographer) spent a huge amount of effort in the darkroom.
As far as I am concerned its the same game - new technology.
So I think its not correct to say the camera does not matter. Just as (for me) its wrong to say that post processing does not matter.
However, I accept that some people do not feel this way and who have a view about "purity" of image making - they like to "edit" their image "in camera" and then let the results speak for themselves. These people tend to be from the "reportage" school of photography.
dasuess
Nikon Freak
I recently went to a Leo Kottke concert where he told the story when his guitar was stolen years ago. He got a new one and while doing several concerts at a single venue, he kept complaining onstage about how bad the guitar was and how difficult it was to play. He was visited by a famous guitarist backstage one day who took the guitar and proceeded to play some wonderful music with it. Handing it back to Leo, he remarked that the problem was maybe not with the guitar.
bobbyrab
Well-known
Did he ever get the guitar back?
dasuess
Nikon Freak
Not to my knowledge. That was back in the 70's I think. All of the times I've seen him in the last 15 years, he was usually playing 6 and 12-string Bozo's, probably custom made.
DanOnRoute66
I now live in Des Moines
Yes, it is only about software/software skills. I don't even use a digital camera anymore. I just hold up a disk with the latest version of Photoshop and capture away. Seriously, can we move on?
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
The camera doesn't matter, and the software or processing skills either.
That, if we talk about photography as a way to communicate feelings.
Jobs and the "Academy" are another story... A great photograph can be or not of high technical quality: that's precisely just another one from all the qualities a photograph can have, and it is not an important one...
Cheers,
Juan
That, if we talk about photography as a way to communicate feelings.
Jobs and the "Academy" are another story... A great photograph can be or not of high technical quality: that's precisely just another one from all the qualities a photograph can have, and it is not an important one...
Cheers,
Juan
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Another technical masterpiece, Nick!
And a great thread too!
Phil Forrest
And a great thread too!
Phil Forrest
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Interesting post Nick. I've watched the decline of professional photography as pros are replaced by amateurs with high end cameras with in camera processing. I watch and read about people saving images and printed photographs that were previously garbage. Several things are happening first is the digital world is slowly stamping it's profile onto image making. With settings in camera for film profiles or lens profiles the photographer is really not much more that an image collector. The image is made by digital processes. The post processing is capable of doing the same or even more to an image imported into it.
What people are discussing is composition; or your SO; or your choice of words.. but the crunch is the image. People use Canon Mark II 5D cameras with in camera processing to make "Holga" images … these camera manufacturers and software makers are overwhelming the world of the camera. I think if you had chosen to convert the image to a "Holga" or Hipstamatic people would have a hard time disagreeing. Mainly because their sensibilities wouldn't be hurt based on a financial decision to purchase a $1,000.00 camera and a $1,500.00 lens. At the far end of the spectrum would be the decision to purchase an M9 and a Noctilux.
What matters in your illustration is the fact that these acts are being performed as I write and publishers are buying images thru Getty Images feeds from flickr. The world continues to change. I still don't like HDR though!!
Jan
What people are discussing is composition; or your SO; or your choice of words.. but the crunch is the image. People use Canon Mark II 5D cameras with in camera processing to make "Holga" images … these camera manufacturers and software makers are overwhelming the world of the camera. I think if you had chosen to convert the image to a "Holga" or Hipstamatic people would have a hard time disagreeing. Mainly because their sensibilities wouldn't be hurt based on a financial decision to purchase a $1,000.00 camera and a $1,500.00 lens. At the far end of the spectrum would be the decision to purchase an M9 and a Noctilux.
What matters in your illustration is the fact that these acts are being performed as I write and publishers are buying images thru Getty Images feeds from flickr. The world continues to change. I still don't like HDR though!!
Jan
celluloidprop
Well-known
Why would Holgafying or Hipstamatic make a difference?
Here's the gist of most comments: it's a bad photo. Bad light, bad composition, bad mise-en-scene. No amount of processing, in any style, can change those things.
Here's the gist of most comments: it's a bad photo. Bad light, bad composition, bad mise-en-scene. No amount of processing, in any style, can change those things.
To an extent, they don't matter... meaning a good photo can be made with a bad camera. However, can it do it consistently in a variety of situations? Also, I'm a true believer that being very comfortable with your camera and actually liking your tool can help you get better photos consistently.
Software doesn't frame the photo...
aldobonnard
Well-known
Not a so odd question, thanks for asking.
What matters is knowing your equipment well and what/how it delivers, and then forgetting about it when you shoot, but shooting subjects with having in mind its rendering and limitations.
Agree with Sparrow, he adequately summed up the issue!
What matters is knowing your equipment well and what/how it delivers, and then forgetting about it when you shoot, but shooting subjects with having in mind its rendering and limitations.
Agree with Sparrow, he adequately summed up the issue!