If your photography sucks you need better gear

[michaelwj]

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.

"Image" is a generic term, of which a photograph is a subset. For example, I make images of specimens using X-ray fluorescence microscopy at work. They're not photographs. A photograph is type of image, an image is not a type of photograph. Many photographs can be arranged/composited to make an image, but the reverse is not true.

"Bokeh is the new bourgeois concept", provided it's razor sharp in the focal plane!

 

[ptpdprinter]

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.

We have been forced into it by film aficionados who maintain that digital images aren't technically photographs.

 

[LCSmith]

"Image" is a generic term, of which a photograph is a subset. For example, I make images of specimens using X-ray fluorescence microscopy at work. They're not photographs. A photograph is type of image, an image is not a type of photograph. Many photographs can be arranged/composited to make an image, but the reverse is not true.

Yes, I take your point. That is the general meaning; but notice how cleverly the language has evolved. If we may speak of images, we may also speak of image quality -- and it is only a very small squeak of rationale to equate image quality with the quality of an image. In other words, the quality of an image (in this case, a professional quality image) may be "consumed" by purchasing a lens/camera/sensor which produces higher "image quality". And so, in the mind of the consumer, the end of the photographic endeavor or pursuit is higher or better or more dynamic (I love this word also) image quality, not quality of image -- or maybe the distinction has been "blurred" (pun intended).

 

[Mcary]

Just read steve huff’s test on Sony’s latest lens:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/...-8-g-master-experience-review-the-money-lens/

This quote of his stuck out for me:

“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.”

😉

No more worrying about learning to see light, or learning about composition just get an A9 and this lens and you're the next HCB, Ansel Adams or Irving Penn.

 

[LCSmith]

We have been forced into it by film aficionados who maintain that digital images aren't technically photographs.

No one is forcing anyone, friend; although it is certainly interesting, the abilities of sensors these days not just to write light but to create light, in a way. There may be a few small minded "aficionados" (as you put it) or luddites who may mistakenly argue that good photographs or photographic art cannot be created with a digital camera. I am not one of those. My interest is in how language can shape our thinking about the craft. I think it was Bertrand Russell who put it this way, "Language serves not only to express thoughts, but to make possible thoughts which could not exist without it."

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Yes, I take your point. That is the general meaning; but notice how cleverly the language has evolved. If we may speak of images, we may also speak of image quality -- and it is only a very small squeak of rationale to equate image quality with the quality of an image. In other words, the quality of an image (in this case, a professional quality image) may be "consumed" by purchasing a lens/camera/sensor which produces higher "image quality". And so, in the mind of the consumer, the end of the photographic endeavor or pursuit is higher or better or more dynamic (I love this word also) image quality, not quality of image -- or maybe the distinction has been "blurred" (pun intended).

That’s a worthwhile distinction.

 

[JoeV]

Huss on Huff!

 

[michaelwj]

Yes, I take your point. That is the general meaning; but notice how cleverly the language has evolved. If we may speak of images, we may also speak of image quality -- and it is only a very small squeak of rationale to equate image quality with the quality of an image. In other words, the quality of an image (in this case, a professional quality image) may be "consumed" by purchasing a lens/camera/sensor which produces higher "image quality". And so, in the mind of the consumer, the end of the photographic endeavor or pursuit is higher or better or more dynamic (I love this word also) image quality, not quality of image -- or maybe the distinction has been "blurred" (pun intended).

This is really two seperate issues.

The first one is the term "image". When I think of image qualities, they are really things that can apply to any image, from example a microscope image or an X-ray image. Both have contrast, sharpness, etc. The language has evolved from photograph to image when we started to process photographs through more generic image processing software (photoshop is not really a photo editing software, it's an image manipulation software).

The second point, that we can "consume" professional image quality is not new. Every product segment has this phenomena, we are told we can buy into a persona, be it a professional photographer, or a professional cyclist for example (I can buy the bike, shirt, knicks, shoes, etc that Chris Froome won the TdF on, but I'll still be an overweight middle aged amateur - marketing wants me to think otherwise).

Anyway, that's just my 2c.

 

[zuiko85]

"The 50mm lens and metaphysical doubt"

Look it up.

 

[benlees]

Gear? I just use my mind palace...

 

[michaelwj]

"The 50mm lens and metaphysical doubt"

Look it up.

Alternatively, you can add links into the text so we can just click them!
😀 😀 😀

 

[Pentode]

When my photography sucks I just lower my standards. Works every time.
My photos from 10 years ago are MUCH better than they used to be!

 

[kuuan]

The specular out-of-focus highlights, specially behind the curly hair lady, look rather ugly and disturbing to me. Strong and weird shaped double even triple outlines, strongly pointed lemon shape a bit disturbing too.
Thank you, I'll stay with my Takumars & Co


....
when as teenager I had bought my first SLR, Minolta XG1 in the late 70s that already had "A" mode, my older brother explained to me: close the aperture until exposure time hits between 1/100 to 1/60 sec., not longer. Wasn't all that bad of an advice, for a newbie

( got my fill of "bokeh play" later, rather recently, when I got into using old manual lenses on digital )

 

[Contarama]

Sweeney told me to get a fast fifty and worry about the rest later. My photography still sucks but what sage advice

 

[Godfrey]

I know - I don't get many 'Likes' by using f/5.6...

Hmm. Some of my most "liked" photos were made at f/16. What am I doing wrong? 😀

G

 

[pgk]

Technical excellence is merely a prerequisite, not an end in itself, for professional photography.

 

[David Hughes]

LLLCSmith "That is the general meaning; but notice how cleverly the language has evolved."


I don't think it evolves so much, the word "evolved" implies a gradual and natural change.

Most of the time it is deliberately changed to make us feel silly or on the wrong foot. Salvation lying, of course, in buying something. I mean, who'd buy an apple pie when they could have tarte au pomme? Especially if it came with crème anglaise?

Note the use of a foreign language to add a certain glamour. Ooops, I mean a certain Je ne sais quoi...

The same thing happens with computers, every now and then I realise that I was doing that in the 60's only we didn't call it that.

Regards, David

 

[Archiver]

I can think of any number of instances where I was unable to take decent (by my standards) images given the limitations of the camera. The early 2000s digital cameras were pretty bad for low light and fast action, and it wasn't until I got better gear that I was able to get the kinds of images I wanted. Sure, under some conditions like bright light, slow moving or immobile subjects, I could get decent pictures with the Canon S45 or S70, but outside of that it was pretty hit and miss.

All gear has limitations which govern its optimal performance range. 'Better' gear has a wider performance envelope and therefore makes it easier to create good images under suboptimal circumstances. I'm at a point where my expectations for imagery match the performance of the gear I'm using, but it took a long time and a lot of gear to get there. As my skill increased, I was able to wring more and more performance out of a given camera, but still hit a wall when it reached its limits.

Steve Huff is, however, shilling for Sony gear. His claim is that with this camera and lens, anyone can take a professional looking image. Yeah, no.

 

[Solinar]

Note the use of a foreign language to add a certain glamour. Ooops, I mean a certain Je ne sais quoi...

I might borrow that quote at a future date. In the mean time, I'm more of an apple pie with a small scoop of vanilla ice cream type of person.

Translation: My photography will have to get by with what I already have.

 

[jsrockit]

Steve Huff is, however, shilling for Sony gear. His claim is that with this camera and lens, anyone can take a professional looking image. Yeah, no.

Well, certainly anyone CAN take a professional looking image with this lens (and with some skill of course)... but maybe it was implied that everyone WILL take a professional looking image if they have this lens (and not anything else). Just point it at anything and it makes a magical image.