Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: larsrc on December 17, 2006, 07:22:31 pm

Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: larsrc on December 17, 2006, 07:22:31 pm
Thank you Michael for challenging some of the trite sayings in photography.  If it was just the photographer, surely we wouldn't be seeing top-photographers spending massive amounts of $$$ on equipment.  But it probably takes a good photographer to get the potential out of expensive equipment.

If you're into more challenging of triteness, how about taking up the "zoom with your feet" saying?

-Lars
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Paul Sumi on December 17, 2006, 07:52:19 pm
A couple of corollaries to Michael's essay come to mind:

1. No images are captured if no shutters are released.

2. A less-than-perfect image is better than no image at all.

Paul
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Kenneth Sky on December 17, 2006, 08:27:08 pm
Whenever you hear the phrase "With all due respect" the speaker usually means "I don't respect your point of view at all"
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 17, 2006, 09:23:41 pm
Quote
Whenever you hear the phrase "With all due respect" the speaker usually means "I don't respect your point of view at all"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is there really something like "respecting a point of view?".

I would think that you typically respect "people" or "institution", but "agree" or "disagree" with opinions, which doesn't imply a lack of respect for the person expressing the opinion you "disagree" with, hence the expression "with all due respect".

But anyway, what does it have to do with the article?

One throught about the article. The opinion "it's the photographer" might be an extreme reaction to what might appear to be an overblown focus on the impact of gear (resolution,...) on the value of images.

One of the strenght of this article is that the example photograph was shot with cheap gear, but is nonetheless an interesting image. The natural focus on the latest and the best here at LL and on other sites tends to hide the underlying truth that situation, light and the photographer are always key elements of a succesful image.

Some people react because that isn't said often enough anymore, it is taken for granted and therefore hardly ever stated.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: John Camp on December 17, 2006, 09:40:32 pm
Forgive me for being a bit obtuse, but didn't Michael just prove the opposite of his argument? That is is, in fact, the photographer and not the equipment? That he used an inadequate camera and still got a very good image? Maybe I missed something there...

JC  
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: DaFu on December 17, 2006, 10:56:08 pm
I thought the article was on the money (and that picture grows on you).

It was also rather funny.

Dave
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Jann Lipka on December 17, 2006, 11:43:53 pm
Of course it is both, but what is most important depends on the resulting image :


What I hear from customers:

A The image came out good.

- Very nice picture , this camera must be very  expensive
( a 40+ lady looking onto LCD screen of my 5D )

B The image is not so goood (actually you rarely hear that )
   

-The photographer is crap .
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Paul Sumi on December 18, 2006, 12:54:15 am
IMO. from purely the craft side of photography, what a skilled photographer does is use whatever camera he/she has in hand to its maximum potential.

Obviously, Michael's Hasselblad has far greater image-making potential than the G7 but I would argue he got much more out of the Canon than many others would have from the Hasselblad.

Paul
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Bobtrips on December 18, 2006, 01:08:20 am
Quote
Forgive me for being a bit obtuse, but didn't Michael just prove the opposite of his argument? That is is, in fact, the photographer and not the equipment? That he used an inadequate camera and still got a very good image? Maybe I missed something there...

JC 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91072\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You're probably the kid who pointed out that the Emperor was walking around in his birthday suit, aren't you?
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Ray Maxwell on December 18, 2006, 03:20:04 am
When I was 10 years old I was invited to a local adult camera club by one of the members.  At the time, I had just purchased my first 35 mm camera, an Argus C3.  One of the club members had a Leica.  I naively asked him why he used such an expensive camera.  After all at age ten, I was very happy with the images I was getting.  He replied, "If I use one of the very best cameras and I don't get a good image, I can only blame myself and not the camera.  This made a strong impact on me.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Craig Arnold on December 18, 2006, 03:40:01 am
I would say though that there are occasions where, as trite as the saying might be, it's still an appropriate comment.

In a forum thread that has gone on for 100 posts about which camera is better the D80 or the 30D for example, for someone upgrading from their digital P&S and looking to learn more about photography.

For all intents and purposes there are a great many situations where, given the (very limited) skill level of the photographer, subtle choices between similar equipment are really irrelevant. And yet weeks and months of obsessing over which camera shows better detail at 100% at ISO1600 are taken to be significant. In that context I believe the saying is apt.

If I climbed into a Formula 1 race car it really wouldn't make any difference which manufacturer's car I happened to be in. I simply don't have the skill to exploit the differences. For Michael Schumaker of course it makes an enormous difference.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: pixman63 on December 18, 2006, 03:45:12 am
Quote
Forgive me for being a bit obtuse, but didn't Michael just prove the opposite of his argument? That is is, in fact, the photographer and not the equipment? That he used an inadequate camera and still got a very good image? Maybe I missed something there...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91072\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The other version of this saying is "a good photographer can get great pictures with a Box Brownie", which, in the words of a British writer contains just enough truth to prevent it being called a lie, but enough falsehood to make it very misleading.

Michael's picture in the article was dependant (to a large extent) on the focal length he desired, rather than the camera per se. If he had had a 135mm (preferably the old f/2.8 Elmarit with glasses, which uses the 90mm frames) to put on the M8 would the choice of kit been different? Perhaps, if he could have been assured of focus accuracy, but that's a question for Michael. If the Hasselblad had been closer to hand, again, would the choice have been different?

Michael's skill enabled him to get a good result despite the limitations of the camera, so to that extent the argument - ie, that its the photographer, not the camera -  is proved. However, there are a multitude of reasons why professional photographers use the kit they do, and vanity (which might be partly behind a well-heeled amateur buying a pro camera) isn't one of them.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: pixman63 on December 18, 2006, 03:50:33 am
A thought just occurred.

Would it be wrong to suggest that for film users the idea that the photographer's eye is far more important than the camera is certainly true - given the same film stock and same lens, a low-end body can give results of equal quality to the most expensive in the rannge - the same is not necessarily the case for digital users.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on December 18, 2006, 04:04:36 am
I just finished a deployment to Iraq. I was not able to take my Canon DSLRs and L glass with me due to space and weight limitations. So I took my Olympus SP-350 point-and-shoot, which while much more limited than the DLSRs, still got me some very good captures:

(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-09-28_0013.jpg)

(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-10-04_0013.jpg)

(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-10-07_0008.jpg)

Was I frustrated at times with the slow RAW mode shooting rate? Absolutely. Did I miss some shots as a result? Definitely. And the noise levels are painfully high after using a 1D-MkII. But in spite of the equipment limitations, I still got some images that I believe I can be proud of, because I used what I had available to the fullest of its capabilities. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to sell my Canon gear; there are things it can do that the SP-350 is really terrible at, like available-light-only concerts, indoor weddings, and fast action.

I use the least limiting tool that is available when the opportunity presents itself.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: DiaAzul on December 18, 2006, 04:06:40 am
Was Superman better because he wore his underwear outside his tights?
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 18, 2006, 04:14:52 am
Quote
Was Superman better because he wore his underwear outside his tights?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91120\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Isn't that going to be the main question answered by the next movie?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Forsh on December 18, 2006, 05:00:29 am
Another Superman movie?  

Let's hope not!

With regards to the topic, I have seen some amazing stuff shot by people with point & shoot cameras. I mean, things that made my jaw drop. With art isn't the real inspiring stuff always the stuff that the true artist captures, regardless of the medium?



http://www.mobypicture.com/user/littletonhairsalon/view/17414018

http://www.last.fm/user/littletonsalon

http://www.kiva.org/lender/botox

http://denver-colorado.weebly.com/

http://littleton-juvederm.weebly.com/

http://plancast.com/p/lrw9

http://www.salonandspa.services/component/tags/tag/17-juvederm-in-littleton

http://www.salonandspa.services/our-services/juvederm-littleton

http://botox.flavors.me/
 
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify  
 


2   Site & Board Matters / About This Site / Spammers all over the site.  on: September 18, 2007, 09:54:16 AM  

http://www.mobypicture.com/user/littletonhairsalon/view/17414018

http://www.last.fm/user/littletonsalon

http://www.kiva.org/lender/botox

http://denver-colorado.weebly.com/

http://littleton-juvederm.weebly.com/

http://plancast.com/p/lrw9

http://www.salonandspa.services/component/tags/tag/17-juvederm-in-littleton

http://www.salonandspa.services/our-services/juvederm-littleton

http://botox.flavors.me/
 
Remove messageRemove ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify  
 
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Scott_H on December 18, 2006, 06:04:07 am
In my mind this is a bit like referring to certain characteristics of the medium as defects.  I know equipment can be limiting, and frustrating at times.  I also know that the cause of my frustration is generally my preconceptions more than anything else.  My challenge is to  let go of those preconceptions and be creative, and work around and with those limitations.  It would be nice if there were no limitations, but there always will be; even with and uber-camera.

I think a lot of the time that a lot of people seem to spend agonizing over equipment choices would be better spent actually taking pictures.  Get out and find out what your camera can do, and push it to its limits, rather than worrying about what it can't do.

If I need a specific output, that has specific characteristics, that might guide my equipement choices somewhat.  I guess its one of the luxuries afforded an amature that I don't need to make those choices based on a clients needs, and can learn to work with the gear I have.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: erusan on December 18, 2006, 06:22:29 am
Two thoughts that came to mind after reading the essay (I remember a remark by Michael somewhere earlier that had me waiting fo rthis one for some time...).

1, Why all the trouble as a professional photographer to educate a deliberately ignorant crowd? If I am right, the said cliche comes up most on internet forums with high put-through -a certain well-known review site comes to mind- where people oblivious to the relationship between aperture and shutter speed are taught by the "nouveau photographe", who started photography with a DSLR and expensive glass and learned from these forums themselves.
Is there something to gain by taking up the glove with people who are in a totally different realm of experience regarding photography?

2, The combination of different factors and the degree in which they matter is very much dependent on the sort of photography I would think. Classical "beautiful" photography will gain more from good equipment than, for instance, hard-core experimental fine art. I have in mind the factor of subject matter here, and the time allowed and needed to compose and process it into a rewarding capture.
Again, the specific character of fast-paced journalism/reporting photography against for instance, slow paced pinhole art photography comes to mind.


Perhaps I, as a non-pro / shallowly-experienced amateur hobbyist photographer with lenses too good for my skills, may be wrong here, but what I would be interested to know more about the motivation for a pro succesful photographer to take so much issue with what the people down below enjoy spending their time with: pixel peeping and lens stroking :-)
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: seany on December 18, 2006, 08:10:41 am
Having read the article and viewed the image what comes across to me is the photographer [michael]saw the opportunity,assessed the possibilties,used the equipment to hand[g7] was aware of it's limitations,used his very considerable talents to both conceive and compose the shot knew exactly how too pp the image and produced a very fine photograph.
The question arises as to whether a less skilled person could have produced such a fine image in similar circumstances is one we can argue over forever,as far as this corrospondant is concerned the photographer was the most important element in the process.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: LeifG on December 18, 2006, 08:15:13 am
On this occasion I agree wholeheartedly with Michael. It gets on my nerves no end when some folksy know it all posts that hoary old cliche, and then the discussion goes down the same old route. "Oh yes it is. Oh not it isn't. He's behind you." I wish someone would create a standardised discussion, and then we could all link to it when needed, and avoid repetition of the same old stuff.

I make no claims to bring a skilled photographer, just someone who enjoys nature, but most of my pictures of fungi and insects could not have been obtained with lower grade gear.

I like that statement that using quality equipment means that there is only one person to blame i.e. the photographer.

There's also the statement that sometimes it is possible to get images with cheaper gear,  but it is so much nicer to have the luxury of using some of the finest kit available. What's wrong with stimulating the world economy and generating an income for clever Japanese, and other peoples?
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: brucepercy1 on December 18, 2006, 08:55:07 am
Bernard,

I agree. The statement is most usually used in reference to the over emphasis on photography gear. This site, and many others deal with the technical aspects of photography i.e equipment and the craft side of what photography is all about, but the art side is often neglected. It's been very welcome to me, to see Alain Briot's articles regarding his motivations and more about his 'philosophy'.

But so often, I do think that people believe that if they had some top range camera or special lens, that their images would be better. Surely this is just as as foolish?
And we all know this isn't true. If it were - anyone with a lot of money to buy top range equipment would be making fabulous pictures.

I think there is indeed an over-emphasis on the equipment, certainly in many forums on the web. I'd love to see people getting out there more with their existing equipment and shooting and improving their 'art'.

That, to my mind, is where this statement about the photographer comes from. I know in my own case, I'm always getting asked what sort of camera I used to create the images on my site, when I feel they should be asking me about my motivation, what attracts me to photograph the subjects I choose, and why I feel that certain subjects are more worthy than others.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: dturina on December 18, 2006, 09:24:22 am
Quote
But so often, I do think that people believe that if they had some top range camera or special lens, that their images would be better. Surely this is just as as foolish?

Well, not really. When I didn't have a fisheye lens, I always thought I could use it to take the kind of pictures I otherwise couldn't. When I bought the fisheye, this proved to be correct and I really did take some pictures that would otherwise be impossible. It's just that one needs to have realistic expectations. If you want to take sharp photos, you need a sharp lens. It doesn't have to be the most expensive lens, but it needs to be sharp. If you want to take blurred arty shots, you need Holga or Diana, but choice of equipment is as important as light, subject or anything else involved in the process of taking pictures. The real question is, when is it good enough, where's the point after which better equipment doesn't really produce discernible or relevant differences. I guess that's what is usually meant by "it's the photographer, not camera"; I translate it as "improve the weakest link first".
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Dale_Cotton on December 18, 2006, 10:26:43 am
No question ever raised by a human being that contains even a single abstraction is ever settled. There are still people arguing in favour of a  flat earth (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/) (although with how much tongue in cheek I can't say).

Each proposition like "it's the photographer, not the camera", as this thread proves, is not cherished for it's ... OK: I have to say it ... truthiness, but for it's catalytic efficiency in that most human of all human endeavours - the bar stool debate. I can well understand Michael's exasperation when an old chestnut like this is dragged into an equipment purchasing thread. But even if someone could settle the issue, he'd be doing photographers everywhere a profound disservice in removing one of a limited number of photo-related conversation-starters from the photo forum, pub, camp fire, and coffee house repertoire.

How many megapixels does it take to equal film?

How far can you enlarge a [fill-in-the-blank]-megapixel image?

Is photography an art form?

Nikon vs. Canon.

Who makes the best tripod?

German lenses are superior to Japanese lenses.

Primes are better than zooms.

SLRs are superior to rangefinders.

A simple old all-manual SLR is better than a modern, fully automated, whizz-bang wonder-cam.

Large formats are superior to smaller ones.

All the thousands of frames you young-uns shoot now-a-days just proves you don't know how to use a camera.

Film is dead.

Yes: the list goes on - but not forever. We need to cherish every one of these debate-provokers, not destroy them ... otherwise we'd have to listen to yet another discussion on who makes the best luxury car or which political candidate will win the next election or which team will make the play-offs.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: darwin on December 18, 2006, 10:54:41 am
The simple fact of the matter is that to create a photographic image you need some sort of equipment and means to capture the image. Those who are most successful in photography are those who have embraced specific tools that enhance their personal way of seeing things. That may be a Brownie, a pinhole camera, a 4x5 or an SX-70.  It is really the marriage of the mind and the 'appropriate' gear and technique that  works together to express the photographer's inner vision.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Ray on December 18, 2006, 10:58:43 am
Quote
Yes: the list goes on - but not forever. We need to cherish every one of these debate-provokers, not destroy them ... otherwise we'd have to listen to yet another discussion on who makes the best luxury car or which political candidate will win the next election or which team will make the play-offs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Dale,
You appear to be saying that you'd rather watch Luminous Landscape than CNN.

Is this correct?
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: psyberjock on December 18, 2006, 11:20:27 am
I thought this was a great article. I have disagreed very strongly in the past with other articles claiming that the gear doesn't matter and that the photographer is the only filter of success.

This article that Michael has written contains the perfect balance. He makes the point that equipment is important then counter balances it with examples of the importance of the photographer.

Obviously the photographer is the biggest variable in the equation, but the equipment is still a large part. I know this to be personally true from my own photography. I started with a Canon Elph 200, (my first real camera, I think) and I carried it everywhere and took tons of pictures. I was very happy with the versatility and quality of my pictures.

Then about a year ago, I hit a wall that I couldn't climb over with my Elph. My mental pictures kept improving as I learned about new techniques and desired to experiment in new ways, but my physical (as physical as pixels can be) pictures stopped progressing. I just couldn't do what I wanted to do any more. It wasn't because my camera was breaking (though it was getting beat up and foggy), I just began wanting to do things I had never tried before. Things that I couldn't do with an Elph.

I started to become very frustrated and one day as I walked to a shrine and saw some fall leaves floating down a gutter in light that required more than what I had, I went home and bought a Canon 20D. I began taking pictures with my new camera and I immediately noticed a difference.

Then once I bought my first additional lens I realized how much more I could accomplish. Going from 18-55mm to 55-200mm changed things completely. However the new lens also introduced more problems as I realized my kit lens was not very sharp and actually did a horrible job compared to my new 55-200mm.

Then I bought my L 24-105mm as recommended by this site.

My entire photographic experience has shown me that gear matters. If you don't have a hammer of some sort (nailgun equals really great camera), you're not driving any nails. You need the right tools for the job.

Now I also think that it is true that Michael could take a better picture than me if he used a Kodak disposable and I used an H2. I don't think that is the point. The point is that I take better pictures with my good equipment than I do with my crappy equipment. I believe Michael feels the same way.

If presented with his choice of ideal equipment for the job I don't think he would have chosen the G7 for his picture of the dusty driller, but that's what he had available. If you want to discover if the equipment has any effect, compare that picture to Michael's other pictures. Not to your own or someone else's, because then you're introducing new variables and the experiment is useless.

So, does equipment matter? Of course it does. Are some photographers better than others? Of course they are. Do I take better pictures when I use better equipment? Of course I do. Do you?
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Dale_Cotton on December 18, 2006, 11:26:23 am
Quote
Dale,
You appear to be saying that you'd rather watch Luminous Landscape than CNN.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes. But for sports entertainment nothing beats the fora at dpreview ... unless photo.net is still up to its old form.

Incidentally, I would have had to end every single line of my previous post with a smiley, so I ended up not putting in any ... hope it was clear to all where my tongue was as I wrote it.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: brucepercy1 on December 18, 2006, 11:56:09 am
Hi,

Equipment enables us to capture images, but it doesn't guarantee we will take good ones with it.

Here are a few points to consider:

* Steve McCurry takes incredible pictures. Do you think this is because he uses a Nikon Camera?

* If I bought a Nikon camera just like Steve's, would I take images just as good as his?

* Do you think his style would be unrecognisable if he used a completely different system?

* Can you look at each of Michael's images and tell me which system he used to create them?

That for me, is what is meant by 'the camera does not matter'.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: John Camp on December 18, 2006, 01:38:39 pm
This has been a fun thread, and afer reading all through it, you know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see some also-ran camera company like Fuji or Kodak (I doubt Leica or Canon would do it, for obvious reasons) give a P&S digital with decent specs to a really good sports photographer and have him cover a pro football game -- and then compare his shots with the published photos of the regular shooters with their super-long lenses and their trunks full of gear.

I used to work for a newspaper as a reporter and I'd see our guys at the ball games with two-foot-long lenses on their super cameras, and monopods that probably weighed fifteen pounds, and the next day, there'd be three shots -- a guy going into the end zone, a guy leaping to catch a pass, maybe a shot down the line with a bunch of helmets facing off...in other words, mostly cliches, but done with only the most exquisite (and heaviest) gear. Is it really necessary for a newspaper shot, that is essentially printed on toilet paper? Maybe mobility and lightness would wind up counting for more than 800mm and f4.

JC
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Bobtrips on December 18, 2006, 02:07:32 pm
Quote
This has been a fun thread, and afer reading all through it, you know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see some also-ran camera company like Fuji or Kodak (I doubt Leica or Canon would do it, for obvious reasons) give a P&S digital with decent specs to a really good sports photographer and have him cover a pro football game -- and then compare his shots with the published photos of the regular shooters with their super-long lenses and their trunks full of gear.

I used to work for a newspaper as a reporter and I'd see our guys at the ball games with two-foot-long lenses on their super cameras, and monopods that probably weighed fifteen pounds, and the next day, there'd be three shots -- a guy going into the end zone, a guy leaping to catch a pass, maybe a shot down the line with a bunch of helmets facing off...in other words, mostly cliches, but done with only the most exquisite (and heaviest) gear. Is it really necessary for a newspaper shot, that is essentially printed on toilet paper? Maybe mobility and lightness would wind up counting for more than 800mm and f4.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps the limitations imposed by the gear would cause the photographer to be more creative rather than shooting the same old shots.

That said, what the readers probably want is the "same old shots".  They're not looking for art, they're looking to see their favorite player making the key play.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Bobtrips on December 18, 2006, 02:15:33 pm
Wouldn't this be a good time to revisit the ...

(Drum roll, please....)

FunkyCam? (http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/funkeycam.shtml)
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: brucepercy1 on December 18, 2006, 02:59:44 pm
Lovely article regarding the funky cam:

"I am as guilty of it as the next photographer. There's simply far too much attention paid to the technical quality of our images. Ultimately though, this isn't what's important. It's what the photographs are "of" and the vision behind them that makes them succeed or not."

Does this mean? It's the photographer, not the camera?
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Bobtrips on December 18, 2006, 03:16:38 pm
I think it means that Michael has no role to play in the current US administration.

He's capable of seeing issues from various perspectives and changing his mind when a better idea strikes....

 
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 18, 2006, 05:09:01 pm
Quote
I think it means that Michael has no role to play in the current US administration.

He's capable of seeing issues from various perspectives and changing his mind when a better idea strikes....

 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well said, Bob!
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: jani on December 18, 2006, 05:22:46 pm
Quote
On this occasion I agree wholeheartedly with Michael. It gets on my nerves no end when some folksy know it all posts that hoary old cliche, and then the discussion goes down the same old route. "Oh yes it is. Oh not it isn't. He's behind you." I wish someone would create a standardised discussion, and then we could all link to it when needed, and avoid repetition of the same old stuff.
Within Usenet, where the art of repetition is perfected, this happens occasionally.

Some enterprising person creates a FAQ, and the FAQ may contain a typical discussion.

Some people have also used the Flame Warrior roster (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/) to -- ahem -- "prove" their point.

Funny reading, though.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: howiesmith on December 18, 2006, 06:13:49 pm
Quote
Thank you Michael for challenging some of the trite sayings in photography.  If it was just the photographer, surely we wouldn't be seeing top-photographers spending massive amounts of $$$ on equipment.  But it probably takes a good photographer to get the potential out of expensive equipment.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

On this one, I have to side with the camera.  Otherwise, how could LL have 10 pages and counting on why Canon left RAW off the G7?  Or all the debate about the M8"s problems?

If good images were made by good photographers, couldn't folks just accept these cameras for the flawed tools they are?  And go take some decent images anyway?
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 18, 2006, 08:16:21 pm
Quote
On this one, I have to side with the camera.  Otherwise, how could LL have 10 pages and counting on why Canon left RAW off the G7?  Or all the debate about the M8"s problems?

If good images were made by good photographers, couldn't folks just accept these cameras for the flawed tools they are?  And go take some decent images anyway?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The whole debate could be helped by a 20 new pages thread on the topic "where does valid camera performance discussion stop - where does pixel peeping start?".

Until now, it appears that the border location is influenced mostly by:

- the age of the captain,
- the second derivative of Southern Alaska bear popullation numbers,
- the thickness of the ice layer on the hidden side of the moon (hint: this is a trick),

I will start this thread in a few seconds in the "camera" section of the forum.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: JJP on December 18, 2006, 08:23:34 pm
When I see a superb fine arts image, the first thought to come to mind is: who's the photographer!
Same goes with my profession in the skilled trades....when I see equipment that's been superbly installed and tuned, the first thought to come to mind is...who's the teck who done the work!
jj
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: mahleu on December 19, 2006, 03:33:28 am
"Knowing what I know now, any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras." - Ansel Adams

Equipment expands the photographers possibilities.
The photographer limits the equipment's (sometimes).
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: drew on December 19, 2006, 07:24:57 am
Isn't this just about trite aphorisms in relation to photography? Go to any camera club and at least one bore is certain to trot one out. Hell, I might even have been guilty of the odd one myself! Besides 'it's not the camera it's the photographer', can I suggest some others and encourage others to contribute;
'the negative is the score and the print the performance' (original attribution, one St. Ansel)
'I am not interested in cameras, especially ones with all those fancy electronics, I use an all-manual......(insert suitable model at this point, e.g. Leica M3, Nikon FM2 or some obscure antique)'
Anyone who thinks the 'rule of thirds' or the 'golden mean' is of any use other than to pad out either spoken or written discussion of photographs.
'A camera is just a light tight box, it is the lens that takes the picture'
Since this is the festive season, can I suggest that any perpetrators of these heinous crimes should be obliged to dress as a fairy and be made to sit on the pointy end of a christmas tree?
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: drew on December 19, 2006, 07:31:55 am
I am warning to my task now. How about;
'the only lens you will ever need is a standard lens'
That must be a variation on 'zoom with your feet'. These people need to zoom their brains!
Or how about;
'I cannot think in black and white at the same time as I think in colour' (bless!)
'real photography has got silver in it'
'digital photography is just zeroes and ones' (or bits and bytes)
'I make Giclee prints'
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 19, 2006, 08:12:12 am
Quote
Besides 'it's not the camera it's the photographer', can I suggest some others and encourage others to contribute;
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Adding to the confusion, how about " it's not 'it's the camera it's not the photographer', it's the photographer"?    

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Rob C on December 19, 2006, 09:00:53 am
Quote
Adding to the confusion, how about " it's not 'it's the camera it's not the photographer', it's the photographer"?   

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Come again, Bernard?

Ciao - Rob C
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: svein-frode on December 19, 2006, 10:15:10 am
A nice little humorous essay not to be taken too seriously... As I see it, what makes a good/successful image is decided by the following factors (no. 1 being the most important factor):

1. Subject (Does it interest the viewer or not?)
2. The Photographer (Does he/she have the skill and vision to capture the subject so it communicates as desired?)
3. The Equipment (Can it technically capture and print the vision of the photographer?)

Of course, a photographer without a camera, or an event (subject) happening without a photographer present will never become an image.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: johnll on December 19, 2006, 05:13:34 pm
Great article by Michael, and an excellent shot of the driller.
No doubt there are situations in which the 8-bit JPGs ex-camera will prove a limitation. I was worried about this issue but decided to get a G7 anyway. I have not done any real stress-testing of the issue, but I have found that I can avoid posterization (so far) by (1) converting the JPGs to 16-bit TIFs before doing any editing, then (2) converting to 8-bit at the very end for printing. It may be that this would not work so well for a monochrome image (reduced eventually to a single channel) such as the driller example. Of course, if you blow any highlights in a JPG, they are irrevocably lost, so you have to be careful not to blow anything that you didn't intend to.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: larsrc on December 19, 2006, 09:55:16 pm
Quote
When I see a superb fine arts image, the first thought to come to mind is: who's the photographer!
Same goes with my profession in the skilled trades....when I see equipment that's been superbly installed and tuned, the first thought to come to mind is...who's the teck who done the work!
jj
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not for me, the first thing outside the picture that I look for is "what's the focal length/f-stop/ISO/shutter speed" - these are the "hidden variables" that can teach me something about how to improve my skills.  Also interesting is the way the picture was taken (waiting around for hours, lucky shot, talking with the subject etc).  Knowing the name of the photographer doesn't do a thing to improve my skills (and I don't meet enough renowned photographers in my neck of the woods to get to use it).

But before looking for metadata, I devote some time to analyzing what it is makes the picture great -- are rules followed or broken, what special things did the photographer notice, how does the picture affect me and why.

-Lars
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: cescx on December 20, 2006, 01:28:33 am
I agree with Michael, really it is not necessary a camera to create an image, the image is created in the imagination. when we utilize the camera, it is to show that image to the others. And our obsession by the gear, it comes given always by the frustration that the image that obtain, is not the one that had imagined
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: brucepercy1 on December 20, 2006, 07:02:42 am
Quote
Not for me, the first thing outside the picture that I look for is "what's the focal length/f-stop/ISO/shutter speed" - these are the "hidden variables" that can teach me something about how to improve my skills.  Also interesting is the way the picture was taken (waiting around for hours, lucky shot, talking with the subject etc).  Knowing the name of the photographer doesn't do a thing to improve my skills (and I don't meet enough renowned photographers in my neck of the woods to get to use it).

But before looking for metadata, I devote some time to analyzing what it is makes the picture great -- are rules followed or broken, what special things did the photographer notice, how does the picture affect me and why.

-Lars
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can appreciate that as a photographer, you want to study others work, but it does sound as if you've forgotten to just take the picture in and enjoy it first and foremost?

I agree that 'special things' like 'what the photographer noticed' are key and more interesting to me, than what gear was used.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Bobtrips on December 20, 2006, 11:36:41 pm
Quote
Not for me, the first thing outside the picture that I look for is "what's the focal length/f-stop/ISO/shutter speed" - these are the "hidden variables" that can teach me something about how to improve my skills.  Also interesting is the way the picture was taken (waiting around for hours, lucky shot, talking with the subject etc).  Knowing the name of the photographer doesn't do a thing to improve my skills (and I don't meet enough renowned photographers in my neck of the woods to get to use it).

But before looking for metadata, I devote some time to analyzing what it is makes the picture great -- are rules followed or broken, what special things did the photographer notice, how does the picture affect me and why.

-Lars
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But that seems to say that what you are looking for is the photographer.

Not his or her name, but the intellect that made the image.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Rob C on December 21, 2006, 05:50:40 am
Quote
I agree with Michael, really it is not necessary a camera to create an image, the image is created in the imagination. when we utilize the camera, it is to show that image to the others. And our obsession by the gear, it comes given always by the frustration that the image that obtain, is not the one that had imagined
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cesck - Yes, you are absolutely right about the frustration, but that isn't, for me, due to problems with cameras or lenses, but of the total failure of the available members of the female species to approach the levels of perfection enjoyed in my imagination. This is in keeping with the words of Paul Simon in his ode to photography, 'Kodachrome'.

It's somewhat of a disappointment, I have to admit, but then it all comes down to that other huge photographic problem: finance.

Feliz Fiesta!

Rob C
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Rob C on December 21, 2006, 05:51:52 am
Bobtrips - analysis on the button!

Ciao - Rob C
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: jjj on December 22, 2006, 08:01:25 pm
Don't think the essay proved anything. A good photographer produces good pictures with any kit, it's not a cliche, it's a truism. There is a difference. A big difference. A wider range of kit just give a good photographer more scope for dealing with a variety of situations and the ability to meet demands of clients.
Give an average person a 1DsII and some L glass, a good photographer a G7 and the photographer will produce better pictures. What Michael did was simply make an educated decision, based on his vast experience to choose the most appropriate tool for the job. All 'better' kit does is reduce your limitations. Trying to shoot a fotballer at oppoite end of pitch with a compact is daft. You are using the wrong tool, not bad equipment.  But as was touched on above, limitations can make you more creative. Having just one prime lens rather than a plethora of zooms can focus your attention and can stimulate you more. Personaly I find limitations creatively expanding. Quite a few shots in my print folio were taken with an old 2.1M Ixus. They are some of the most popular images.
Give a bunch of people the same kit - a more valid excercise surely and then see who produces the best pics.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: X-Re on December 23, 2006, 12:18:29 am
Interesting discussion...

I got a simple message out of the article... When it boils down to it, all else being equal, it is the photographer - with no vision to drive it, the camera sits on the table like the inanimate object it is. But, a photographer without a camera is a spectator. Both are required. Different levels of equipment can accomplish different results, with varying amounts of tolerance, depending on the equipment, the subject, and the photographer's skill and creativity. Better gear is generally better at producing "better" images - or, put another way, higher quality equipment is generally more capable of realizing the photographer's vision.

So, it is the photographer... but its also the gear, and many other factors...

I had a discussion recently w/ a friend re: potentially switching platforms, and he asked me "Will having 'x' piece of equipment make you a better photographer?" My answer was no - but having 'x' piece of equipment opens up possibilities that my existing gear cannot currently attain. And that's what its all about, right? Having the right piece of gear to allow you to achieve the vision you have at that particular moment... What seems to separate the "men" from the "boys" is how they deal with imperfect gear and still achieve amazing images...

What do I know, though

Dave
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: pixman63 on December 23, 2006, 04:02:19 am
Quote
I used to work for a newspaper as a reporter and I'd see our guys at the ball games with two-foot-long lenses on their super cameras, and monopods that probably weighed fifteen pounds, and the next day, there'd be three shots -- a guy going into the end zone, a guy leaping to catch a pass, maybe a shot down the line with a bunch of helmets facing off...in other words, mostly cliches, but done with only the most exquisite (and heaviest) gear. Is it really necessary for a newspaper shot, that is essentially printed on toilet paper? Maybe mobility and lightness would wind up counting for more than 800mm and f4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 The other week, whilst watching "A Question of Sport" on the BBC they showed a clip from a football (soccer if you must - sigh!) match in which was to be seen a photographer standing behind the goal with a pair of Rollei TLRs round his neck. The contrast with the sports togs these days couldn't be more pronounced.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Rob C on December 23, 2006, 05:39:18 am
Yes, the difference between the Rollei-warrior and the current frozen action stuff is as plain as the nose on my face; the tools today are better so the choices are better. The photographers always did their best - their livelihood depended on it!

Another place where the differences show up is in boat/yacht photography: look at olde Beken of Cowes pics and then at the stuff in today's yachting magazines...

Ciao- Rob C
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: tnargs on December 23, 2006, 07:28:10 am
that is one fabulous photo. thanks for sharing it.

no thanks for demeaning it with technical disparagement. on the basis of what: a standardized aesthetic?

ref: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/...n-internet.html (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html)
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Ray on December 23, 2006, 07:59:39 am
I'm surprised such a basic dichotomy has attracted so much interest. We have craftsmen and their tools. You can't have one without the other. They evolve together. Whatever your skill or profession, you can achieve more with better tools.

There's nothing particularly difficult to understand about this. If your profession is killing people, you can kill more people, more efficiently with better weapons (tools). If your profession is (metaphorically) shooting landscapes and people with a camera, you can do it more efficiently and more effectively with better tools (ie better cameras). What's all the fuss about?

It seems that many readers of Luminous Landscape seem to be desperate for something to discuss. (Okay! So call me a cynic.)
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Forsh on January 17, 2007, 03:26:32 am
http://www.google.com/+SalonandspaServices-botox-denver-littleton

http://burgerfi.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/exquisite-salon-and-spa-denver-littleton-colorado/

Exquisite salon and spa in Littleton, Colorado just inside the greater Denver area offering a unique medical

spa and salon services. This spa offers a wide range of features including colon hydrotherapy, zerona body

contouring, manicures, pedicures, facials, massages, juvederm, botox, laser hair removal, laser hair growth,

co2 fractionals, skin resurfacing and more. We currently serve clients in the following locations: Denver,

Englewood, Lakewood, Unincorp, Jeffco, Centennial, Sherridan, Columbine Valley, Morrison,Greenwood Village,

Grants Ranch and Gov. Ranch. All services are overseen by Dr. Janet Dean. We welcome walkins and provide

free consultations to clients for all services. We are open 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and are

closed on Sundays.

http://www.kiva.org/lender/juvederm
http://zerona-littleton.flavors.me/

http://littleton-salon-and-spa.webnode.com/
https://www.scribd.com/bioidenticalhormones
bioidentical hormones Littleton
bioidentical hormones natural
bioidentical hormones dr
http://www.kiva.org/lender/bioidenticals
http://colonicirrigationwirral.com/a-brief-history-of-colonic-hydrotherapy-by-colonic-irrigation-wirral/
https://ccd.academia.edu/littletonhairsalon
Littleton Hair Salon

http://botox-littleton.webnode.com/


Medi Spa Services:
https://colonhydrotherapylittleton.bandcamp.com/releases 
http://botox-littleton.webnode.com/ 
http://sutros.com/botox-littleton |
http://botox-denver.livejournal.com/743.html |

http://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/A6SL7A8T4EJ9P 
http://www.salonandspa.services   

http://www.salonandspa.services/our-services/botox-littleton   
http://www.salonandspa.services/our-services/zerona-littleton
http://charleston.thedigitel.com/users/botox-littleton 

http://www.zimbio.com/member/ZeronaLittleton  |  https://shardsofdalaya.com/forum/members/zerona-littleton.93942/   http://botox-denverbotox-denver.newsvine.com/_news/2014/10/03/26267234-denver-littleton-salon-spa-botox-co2-fractional-hormone-replacement-laser-nail-fungus-removal   
 

https://disqus.com/home/user/okinawa     

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/littleton-spa-botox-juvederm-denver

http://www.scoop.it/u/zerona-littleton/curated-scoops

http://littleton-juvederm.weebly.com/

http://botox-littleton.webnode.com/
Colon Hydrotherapy
http://colon-hydrotherapy-littleton.webnode.com/

Botox Injections
http://plancast.com/p/lrw4

Laser Hair Removal
http://plancast.com/p/lrw5

Bioidentical Hormone Replacement
http://plancast.com/p/lrw6

Littleton Wedding Packages
http://plancast.com/p/lrw7

Colon Hydrotherapy
http://plancast.com/p/lrw9

CO2 Fractional
http://plancast.com/p/lrwa

Hair Salon Littleton
http://plancast.com/p/lrwb

Juvederm Littleton
http://plancast.com/p/lrwc

https://plus.google.com/100859034838310617434/posts

http://youtu.be/tJwnztZoMJU

http://juvederm-littleton.weebly.com/

http://botox.flavors.me/
http://about.me/botox.littleton



http://botox.flavors.me/

https://www.scribd.com/juvederm




Book our salon and spa online at Exquisite Salon And Spa:
http://exquisitesalon.mytime.com

https://app.box.com/s/8prajmodgc0i603de89n

https://app.box.com/profile/225790491

<a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/100893797586216839096/about">Littleton Hair</a>
<a href="http://littleton-hair-salon.webnode.com/"></a>
<a href="http://blog.riosalado.edu/2014/07/rio-salado-chosen-as-great-college-to.html">Littleton Hair</a>
<a href="https://littleton-hair-salon.bandcamp.com/releases">Exqiuisite Salon</a>
<a href="http://www.reverbnation.com/littletonhairsalon/press">Littleton Salon</a>
<a href="http://littleton-hair-salon.weebly.com/"></a>
<a href="http://www.logospire.com/logos/14090">Littleton Spa</a>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/AB26278LGLZG4">Denver Hair Salon</a>
<a href="http://www.listideas.com/littleton-hair-salon/littleton-hair-salon">Littleton Groupon</a>

<a href="http://www.professionalontheweb.com/p/w/littleton+hair+salon/41571">Hair Salon in Littleton</a>

http://www.enthuse.me/wedding-packages-littleton

http://www.enthuse.me/littleton-hair-salon

http://ratemyarea.com/people/zerona-96949

http://plancast.com/littleton-hair-salon

https://colostate.academia.edu/hairsalonlittleton/Posts

http://www.professionalontheweb.com/p/w/littleton+hair+salon/41571

http://www.enthuse.me/denver-colorado#/show/links

http://littleton-hair-salons.weebly.com/

http://www.fotothing.com/littletonhairsalon/

https://cudenver.academia.edu/DenverColorado/Posts

http://littleton-hair-salon-denver.webnode.com/

http://moby.to/58a4bo

http://www.mobypicture.com/user/littletonsalon/view/17416168

http://juvederm.flavors.me/

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=16290.0

https://zerona.wufoo.com/forms/zerona-body-contouring/

https://www.scribd.com/zeronalittleton

http://www.bizcommunity.com/Profile/ZeronaLittleton

http://about.me/zeronadenver

http://www.kiva.org/lender/zeronalittleton

http://www.kiva.org/lender/botox

http://denver-colorado.weebly.com/

http://about.me/littleton.hair.salon

https://www.scribd.com/LittletonHairSalon

http://botox-denverbotox-denver.newsvine.com/
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: jjj on January 25, 2007, 10:11:25 am
Quote
Better tools remove limits and allow artists better control of their work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Limits can be a good thing creatively speaking. Having a smaller range of tools at one's disposal can make you use your brain more, rather than simply using the 'normal' perfect tool.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 25, 2007, 12:36:03 pm
Quote
Limits can be a good thing creatively speaking.

For training purposes perhaps, but anything beyond that is a cop-out; trying to make some external process accomplish something that needs to happen internally. Downgrading from a Canon 1D-MkII and bag of L glass to an Olympus SP-350 didn't make me a better photographer while I was in Iraq; it was a constant nuisance dealing with the limitations of the tool, and I missed a few shots I'd have had no problem getting with the DSLR. Now that I'm back from Iraq, the Olympus is collecting dust until the next time I'm forced by circumstances to leave the DSLRs behind.
Title: It's the photographer?
Post by: Cstrikedish on February 09, 2007, 04:13:06 am
hello guys,

I'm the first time at this forum.