nightfly
Well-known
It's all about the expectations we bring to the equipment. We feel we can nitpick the M8 at $6000 but at $3000 not so much and even less so for the $20 Kodak.
The internet allows and even encourages us to focus on things other than picture taking. Forums like these are interesting and informative but I'm sure we'd all take better photos if we were doing that rather than reading them.
The internet allows and even encourages us to focus on things other than picture taking. Forums like these are interesting and informative but I'm sure we'd all take better photos if we were doing that rather than reading them.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I'm not so sure. They mostly didn't understand HDR or strobism. Must've been mostly luck.*
*(Can we add André Kertész Josef Koudelka, Bill Allard, and Imogen Cunningham to that list of lucky but unskilled and under-equipped photographers? kthanxbye.)
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Yes, I think there is a sort of techie thing brought in by the digital transition. There is a lot of obsessing over such minutia as "bokeh" of which I was completely ignorant until the advent of digital and the internet and the endless discussions which ensued. Unless you're talking about some distracting doughnuts from a 500mm cat, I don't think I much care about what my bokeh looks like.
Another aspect of this generation that I have come to regard with some interest is the contemporary photographer's aversion to verticals. Is it TV? Or laziness? Over and over I see a portrait, a head shot, done in a horizontal format with all kinds of blurred real estate on either side. You can't even call it an environmental portrait since the contextual background is all bokeh (hey, maybe I'm on to something).
They used to talk about portrait and landscape orientations. Now. maybe it's all landscape all the time.
Another aspect of this generation that I have come to regard with some interest is the contemporary photographer's aversion to verticals. Is it TV? Or laziness? Over and over I see a portrait, a head shot, done in a horizontal format with all kinds of blurred real estate on either side. You can't even call it an environmental portrait since the contextual background is all bokeh (hey, maybe I'm on to something).
They used to talk about portrait and landscape orientations. Now. maybe it's all landscape all the time.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Dick, I am one of those with an aversion to verticals and I know why. It seems that about 95% of what I do simply works best as a horizontal. If I shoot that last 5% as a vertical, I always end up with a series that has something like 19 horizontals and 1 odd vertical that make everything look disjointed. It would be no problem if things were 2/3 one way and 1/3 the other but it just is that 1 out of 20. So I shoot all horizontals.
Maybe that is why I love the 6x6 square or even the 6x7 MF negs. And I tend to crop almost every 35mm neg down to a 4x5 (i.e. 8x10) aspect ratio so it does work better.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Hello Bob —
I think I see why you like horizontals. Your fine work seems to show your subjects in context with their environment. I like it. I was speaking of head shots with lots of blurred background not contributing to any character study or information about the subject.
I'm with you as to the square format. I can still hear the "whoosh" of a Hassy shutter release!
I think I see why you like horizontals. Your fine work seems to show your subjects in context with their environment. I like it. I was speaking of head shots with lots of blurred background not contributing to any character study or information about the subject.
I'm with you as to the square format. I can still hear the "whoosh" of a Hassy shutter release!
Rotdot
Newbie
I think this thread shows a lot of valuable insight from RFF members. I wholeheartedly agree.
Rob hit on an interesting point. I think one of the reasons that appeals to me about the M8 and why I enjoy using it much more than a whiz bang DSLR is that if focus or exposure is off, the fault is mine and not the camera's. Auto aids can often be too much of a crutch that limits growth and learning. Less is more.
Rob hit on an interesting point. I think one of the reasons that appeals to me about the M8 and why I enjoy using it much more than a whiz bang DSLR is that if focus or exposure is off, the fault is mine and not the camera's. Auto aids can often be too much of a crutch that limits growth and learning. Less is more.
Last edited:
Mcary
Well-known
Funny but if I remember correct all the DSLR's I've ever owned all come with something called selective auto focusing but of course it does take a bit more effort to use then just letting the camera make all your decisions for you. The same thing with turning that dial on top from P to Av, Tv or M
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Ted2001
Established
I think one of the big changes with the emergence of digital is the camera already is loaded with "film". Certainly people talked less about film camera bodies, but they talked a lot more about film and developer. Now, that's all one discussion.
I also find the sensor size issue amusing. It seems to have replaced the old film size discussion. The big difference now is the assumption that everyone will inevitably migrate to cameras with larger sensors. If the camera can remain the same size (M8 vs M9), then it makes sense, but when I compare my DX Nikon body and lenses with Nikon's FX bodies and lenses, I prefer the smaller DX.
I stayed with 35mm for years because I did not want the size, weight and cost of medium format. I'm now just as happy with DX and don't care much about ever increasing pixels. Better ISO and less noise never hurt, but I'd rather chase photographs than cameras.
I also find the sensor size issue amusing. It seems to have replaced the old film size discussion. The big difference now is the assumption that everyone will inevitably migrate to cameras with larger sensors. If the camera can remain the same size (M8 vs M9), then it makes sense, but when I compare my DX Nikon body and lenses with Nikon's FX bodies and lenses, I prefer the smaller DX.
I stayed with 35mm for years because I did not want the size, weight and cost of medium format. I'm now just as happy with DX and don't care much about ever increasing pixels. Better ISO and less noise never hurt, but I'd rather chase photographs than cameras.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
So good photographers should get a kick about making a Holga perform?
I often ponder about my engineering background, which makes me rather obsessive about technical quality, photographs included. It doesn't matter if it is film or digital, I want to squeeze the last bit of quality out of it. I have to admit that some of my shots are boring-ish because of that.
But what I do put into photographs, is a lot of emotion. I want to capture feelings and tell stories with them. I think I am succeeding.
What I do miss though is artistic talent or failing that, at least education in this field. Photography for me is capturing what is there, not making something up (clothes, pose, set, lighting). I really, really struggle there. If you find a picture with artistic merit on my site, it is either luck, 'the moment' or blatant plagiarism.
I have seen a recent shoot with Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame. She is a nice girl, but just that, a nice girl. You wouldn't turn your head if you met her in the street (and have never seen Harry Potter
)However, they put her in fantastically diverse and arranged sets with devine lighting and dressed her up in all kinds of dresses. It was in a magazine I leafed though (and didn't buy, aarghh). That kind of photography I can't do because I simply cannot come up with something like that.
Last edited:
Lilserenity
Well-known
Trouble with me is that I'm not looking for perfection in the equipment or the process; but in the subject.
A perfect something that will sum up the moment. But nothing is perfect, and it's an eternal but fun chase. Piecing together each photo like a jigsaw towards perfection...
More troubling is I sometimes try to figure out what it is that I'm trying to perfect, and I don't know. Maybe I'm trying to explain what I see, why I like the things I see when I like them and when I don't like them. It's very confusing.
So I just take more pictures.
A perfect something that will sum up the moment. But nothing is perfect, and it's an eternal but fun chase. Piecing together each photo like a jigsaw towards perfection...
More troubling is I sometimes try to figure out what it is that I'm trying to perfect, and I don't know. Maybe I'm trying to explain what I see, why I like the things I see when I like them and when I don't like them. It's very confusing.
So I just take more pictures.
dee
Well-known
Isn't a bit like taking a camera and one lens to work , say ?
Some pictures will be possible with my 50 [ 67 on the M 8 which I love ] and others will need a wide angle or telephoto ... so I just don't try .
If it gets dark , then my vintage f2 Summitar may be out of it's depth ... and I may choose to add excessive grain .
If I am using colour , some shots will be pinkish , but I can always shoot in monochrome .
If it's into the sun , I can accept flare - or desist .
These limitations apply to any camera , it's down to the photographer to work within this framework .
Some pictures will be possible with my 50 [ 67 on the M 8 which I love ] and others will need a wide angle or telephoto ... so I just don't try .
If it gets dark , then my vintage f2 Summitar may be out of it's depth ... and I may choose to add excessive grain .
If I am using colour , some shots will be pinkish , but I can always shoot in monochrome .
If it's into the sun , I can accept flare - or desist .
These limitations apply to any camera , it's down to the photographer to work within this framework .