If your photography sucks you need better gear

If you believe that you need a new modern lens then you haven't tried the really superior very old lenses from the 1930's and 1940's.
 
Any one who is trying to question the guy who is selling ghost busting device should correct thier expectations.
We are dealing with adult carrying child brain. At one side he belives in ghosts at another side he thinks what he knows what professional photography is.
 
I was looking at portraits taken by Arbus, Meier, Liebovitz, Bailey, Hardan, Avedon, Karsh, Penn, Ritts, Seliger, Ellen Mark, McCurry...

None used that Sony lens. And none only had an eyelash in focus. Obviously those photographers had no idea what they were doing.
 
Many years (decades) ago I owned a book titled "the Amateur Photographer's Handbook" by Aaron Sussman. Not sure when it was published but I bought it around 1970, used. Probably did more to teach me my style of photography than any thing else. In one chapter titled what lens do I buy he studied hundreds (forget the exact number) of award winning photos in publications of the day plus going to various clubs that had photo contests and found that over 90% were taken with a normal lens with an aperture /5.6 or /8. That's always stuck with me and I think some of my best photographs fit that formula. I often wonder why I keep buying fast lenses -:(
 
ptpdprinter said:
Folks, when are you going to smarten up and stop reading his blog? It's all clickbait.
Click to expand...
Who I noticed being out of the limelight for a couple years already is Ken Rockwell. I guess he makes the most nowadays from referring sales from his site.



raid said:
If you believe that you need a new modern lens then you haven't tried the really superior very old lenses from the 1930's and 1940's.
Click to expand...


I used to say to a friend that "in imperfection lies expression". Ironically, cinematographers do seek imperfect lenses for that very reason. But on the point of lens qualities, those lenses can be up there.
 
I long ago concluded that any problems I have with my photographs have nothing to do with my cameras or lenses. Every camera I have ever owned was capable of taking a world class photograph in the right hands. This is equally transferable to other avocations. I am a dedicated fly fisherman. New top of the line fly rods now sell for nearly a thousand dollars plus the cost of the reel and line. I've seen the very best casters attach a line to a broom stick and cast the whole thing out in one stroke. I stopped buying new fly rods long ago. Same with golf clubs, etc. etc.. Or, as they used to say about another sort of endowment, "It ain't the meat! It's the motion!!" =)
 
"If your photography sucks you need better gear"

Damn! I knew there was a reason.

Honey, sell the kids and mortgage the house. I need an M10.
 
Huss said:
“When I was shooting with the lens I kept thinking…Sony is making it too easy. I mean, with an A9 and this lens? Anyone can take an amazing professional quality image.”
Click to expand...

This quote interests me for a number of reasons. Let's get the obvious out of the way -- Mr. Huff's comment sounds like an advertising pitch. You too can take professional quality images!

In a way, he's right. When the A7R2 first came out, I bought in along with most of the lenses available at the time. I shot them all wide open and lathered my retinas in buttery bokeh baths. The 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 in particular.

But there is an aesthetic homogeneity which begins to happen with those cameras and lenses. I did not like it.

Isn't it interesting how we have moved, in general, from talking about good photographs, and now we talk about good "images"? What makes a good image? Is it different from what makes a good photograph? The phrase "professional quality images" is really interesting to me.

Bokeh is the new bourgeois concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom