 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006Could high-tech, high-brow equipment be failing us
A few threads below mine is a large discussion about where the street photographers are. I Since this is a system board, it came to me that maybe, perhaps people don't photograph candidly as much is because with each new high tech advance (micro lenses, super zoom lenses, manual settings, flash attachements...) photographers are expected to come up with technically adept shots. These types of shots take time to set up (not to mention have some sophisticated equipment) such as those silky streams, glowing flower petals, and the veins within leaves. Candid shots can be less technically adept (Cindy Sherman was no master of technicalities); but her shots were artful, thought provoking if not downright bizarre. Look up Dorthea Lange on the Internet and practically no one talks about what type of camera she used, yet her feelings about the era in which she lived--the struggles of everyday people created a hauntingly "could-it-happen-to-us" syndrome. Yes, equipment is important; but I have to remember that there's a consumer trap that has me often buying more than I need. There's nothing sweeter than a child licking a lollypop with the candy larger than the child or the cable car ringer shaking his bell. > Yes, equipment is important; but I have to remember that there's a > consumer trap that has me often buying more than I need. The equipment has never failed us at all in the past nor in the present. Most people who buy cameras buy them for snapshots even if they have some intention to get better at it in all respects at some time in the future. A photographer can make a competent or better photo with a cheap P&S digital or recyclable film camera; a snapshooter cannot make a great photo with the best equipment except by fluke. Of course it's so easy to abandon the KISS principle... Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > Yes, equipment is important; but I have to remember that there's a > > consumer trap that has me often buying more than I need. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Cheers, > Alan & Yet: being perceived as a good photographer in part is elimination of the chaff "being a good editor as well", perhaps taking lots and lots of images and boiling them down. Think Gary Winogrand. Never the less the good photographer hopefully becomes adept at that Pointing, shooting and editing. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >>> Yes, equipment is important; but I have to remember that there's a >>> consumer trap that has me often buying more than I need. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > less the good photographer hopefully becomes adept at that Pointing, > shooting and editing. Not to exclude Editing, pointing and shooting or Pointing, editing and shooting. SignatureFrank ess >>>Yes, equipment is important; but I have to remember that there's a >>>consumer trap that has me often buying more than I need. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > good photographer hopefully becomes adept at that Pointing, shooting > and editing. & Yet: even when applying the most considered composition and most carefully applied technique, even an accomplished photographer will have many, many, many images to cull to yield the best. A photographer will experiment and try and explore and in doing so will inevitably fail at images. A fauxtographer will occasionally stumble upon a great phot. And equipment still has nothing to do with it anymore than fine cooking is the result of the battery of pots and pans, knives and ladles. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > And equipment still has nothing to do with it anymore than fine cooking > is the result of the battery of pots and pans, knives and ladles. > > Cheers, > Alan. I agree, although sometimes having the right stuff makes the journey more enjoyable. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> & Yet: being perceived as a good photographer in part is elimination >> of the chaff "being a good editor as well", perhaps taking lots and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > experiment and try and explore and in doing so will inevitably fail at > images. A fauxtographer will occasionally stumble upon a great phot. You know what's funny is often I'll see a unique scene, grab a quick shot then knowing it's special, I'll mess around with different framing & apertures but when I get home the keeper is usually the first grab. Ha! Well I guess I shouldn't complain, occasionally I'll improve on it, just pisses me off to have wasted time & go back to the original. An I the only one who does this? Somehow it's just unnatural for me to take time setting up a shot. I do make adjustments before that first snap as part of adjusting to conditions but often before I raise the camera to my eye. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > >> & Yet: being perceived as a good photographer in part is elimination > >> of the chaff "being a good editor as well", perhaps taking lots and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > part of adjusting to conditions but often before I raise the camera to > my eye. I call it controlled destiny, your see the scene, you have a camera and your skilled enough to get the shot. You know from that point the image is worth something. I have won several contests because of these circumstances. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >>> & Yet: being perceived as a good photographer in part is elimination >>> of the chaff "being a good editor as well", perhaps taking lots and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > part of adjusting to conditions but often before I raise the camera to > my eye. Usually when I do studio shots, that's exactly what happens. A lot of care oges into the very first one, and the others are foooling around, so the first one (or few) are useful and the rest get dumped. But the fun is in exploring other things, trying, and occasionally discovering something new. Actually as we already know digital (boo, hiss) lends itself to exploring much more than film. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>> & Yet: being perceived as a good photographer in part is elimination >>>> of the chaff "being a good editor as well", perhaps taking lots and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > something new. Actually as we already know digital (boo, hiss) lends > itself to exploring much more than film. OK I'll count those as valuable learning for the next shot! SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com I agree. Matt http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com recyclable film camera; a snapshooter cannot make a great > photo with the best equipment except by fluke. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > A few threads below mine is a large discussion about where the street > photographers are. I Since this is a system board, it came to me that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > There's nothing sweeter than a child licking a lollypop with the candy > larger than the child or the cable car ringer shaking his bell. I disagree with the question posed by the title. I'm a long time landscape photographer who usually takes 30 to 45 minutes to set up a shot with a large format view camera. I did the occasional wildlife photo with 35mm. Then I started becoming more intrigued with wildlife (late 1990s). The reason: you must make split second decisions on focus, composition, f/stop, and exposure. Then as cameras improved, and image stabilization lenses came along, the camera could do more (autofocus, focus tracking on moving subjects), and new possibilities opened up. Digital opened up more possibilities with higher ISOs with no loss of color, and (in the higher end cameras) lower noise. Wildlife action as well as sports photography have reached a new heights never before possible. I often find that I am the limit to what can be done, not the camera (e.g. I'm not fast enough to follow that diving eagle when is fills the frame). So technology has improved the ability to get images not possible 15 years ago. Now, I'm replacing large format film with digital mosaics, and improving spatial resolution, dynamic range, and signal-to-noise. See: Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics Then there is low light photography. Digital is enabling new heights to be scaled there too. A small telescope and DSLR achieves lower light astrophotos than were possible with much larger telescopes and film. That along with fast action wildlife photography, I'm having a lot of fun and making images that were impossible 15 years ago. Technology has opened new possibilities to get better images faster. Fortunately, I am at a place in my career that I can afford some of that technology ;-). Roger Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com In article <45042023.9080205@qwest.net>, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote: > > A few threads below mine is a large discussion about where the street > > photographers are. Technology has opened new possibilities to get better [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Roger > Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com I think you missed the point, Matt was commenting on the lack of meaningful social commentary. Something different from being ARAT photographer. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com EXACTLY!! Matt http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com > In article <45042023.9080205@qwest.net>, > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > www.gregblankphoto.com It's Matt--my title referred to candid photography. But I agree that the equipment has created some amazing sports and landscape photography. My point was that you can't get candid shots with long set up times, or you'll miss the action. http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com > > A few threads below mine is a large discussion about where the street > > photographers are. I Since this is a system board, it came to me that [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Roger > Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com > It's Matt--my title referred to candid photography. But I agree that > the equipment has created some amazing sports and landscape > photography. My point was that you can't get candid shots with long set > up times, or you'll miss the action. And my point was that with modern technology, the equipment is so fast and accurate you can do candid photos much easier, than ever before. Technology frees the photographer to concentrate more on composition, and telling the story they want to tell, and less on the technology of getting the shot. Roger > A few threads below mine is a large discussion about where the street > photographers are. I Since this is a system board, it came to me that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > There's nothing sweeter than a child licking a lollypop with the candy > larger than the child or the cable car ringer shaking his bell. You'd be happier reading Lenswork instead of this NG :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > A few threads below mine is a large discussion about where the street > photographers are. I Since this is a system board, it came to me that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > There's nothing sweeter than a child licking a lollypop with the candy > larger than the child or the cable car ringer shaking his bell. I get much better candied shots with my DSLR then I ever did with my SLR. The reason it pretty simple, people act differently when you are taking their photo, they want to look at the camera and smile. But with the DSLR I take hundreds of photos and people soon ignore me and then is when I can start to get the truly candied shots. And because each shot is not costing my money I don't worry if each shot is perfect, and in the end many of the not so perfect shots end up being the most satisfying. > I get much better candied shots with my DSLR then I ever did with my > SLR. The reason it pretty simple, people act differently when you are > taking their photo, they want to look at the camera and smile. But > with the DSLR I take hundreds of photos and people soon ignore me and > then is when I can start to get the truly candied shots. Exactly: Familiarity breeds contempt. I use this trick too: Shoot and shoot and shoot, until everybody gets fed up and ignores you; then, you can concentrate on getting what you want. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.