Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Thanks Sean  (Read 8842 times)

sojournerphoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 473
Thanks Sean
« on: March 31, 2008, 09:56:32 am »

Thanks Sean for your sensible article that so clearly articulates a clear view of how important specific tools can be.

There are times I choose to use my GX100 over the slr's because it's better for the job I have in mind.

Mike
Logged

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1413
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
Thanks Sean
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2008, 10:06:19 am »

I didn't even dive into the previous forum hullabaloo over Michael's article, although I felt strongly.  I did misread Michael's intent (or perhaps I misread his tone) on the previous article, but Sean has provided an excellent clarification that I certainly agree with.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

David L. Robertson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
    • http://www.photographybydlr.com
Thanks Sean
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2008, 11:24:52 am »

Thank you, Sean, for creating a well-reasoned and supported piece, free of the negativity that Michael seems to feel compelled to include in his "rejoinders."  Just because someone doesn't agree with your point, Michael, doesn't mean they have "sub-optimal reading skills."  Believe it or not, you are fallible and your original rebuttal was mean-spirited and personal, rather than informative.  Sean has filled the void that you created, and you are to be applauded for recognizing your own shortcoming in this regard.  If only you could have done it without trying to belittle your critics.  Humility is not a sin.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Thanks Sean
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2008, 11:32:28 am »

Sean put it all into context beautifully and emphasized the important fact that both the equipment and the artist's vision matter.

A lot of the KR supporters seem to want to interpret KR's piece as saying pretty much the same as Sean's. The difference is that Sean says what he means, clearly and unambiguously. If KR meant to say the same thing, then I can find no internal evidence for that in his essay.

Thank you Sean, and thank you Michael for posting this for us.

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5824
    • M&M's Musings
Thanks Sean
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2008, 12:57:23 pm »

As others have said, thanks for a well thought out and written article.

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned t

Wally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Thanks Sean
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2008, 01:20:43 pm »

That was a nice piece, it makes me want to delurk for my yearly post  

I really liked this quote
Quote
Yet, some who like to trot out the Holga camera as a star example in these kinds debates may not realize that the whole toy camera movement, in the photographic art world, began specifically *because* of the way these cameras draw. Photographers who made waves with the Holga have used the camera, and its way of drawing, its light leaks, its plastic lens, very intentionally and for specific visual purposes. They've made pictures with the Holga that *look like* pictures made with a Holga. Photographers who don't realize this have, perhaps, never seen these Holga prints on exhibition.

I am one of those people. After many years of shooting with a 4x5 and then Canon DSLRs I am now shooting with a Holga Camera and Infrared film precisely because the Camera and the film I use with it gives me the look I want.
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Thanks Sean
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2008, 02:52:23 pm »

Rather states the obvious really. Which is what the original article should have said, but didn't, it just went off on one, sorry to say. This new one is much more balanced..and good.


I do not like Michael's tone though..

"This was not likely the case because of what I actually wrote, but rather because some folks with possibly sub-optimal reading skills thought one of two things"

I think most people can read..You just failed to balance out the article you wrote. You didnt mention the obvious thing, ala what matters most is what you do with whatever you have. If we are all 100% honest, both the Rockwell and LL article are both taken to extremes on this. And both failed to state the obvious, ala the least important part is gear, nobody in their right mind would say its 100% not important...and I doubt many would say its the most important factor either.

I have a tip for LL as well, if you are going to write, can you do so without the use of iffy words..such as what horses do after they eat, might be able to take it as a more informed article minus the point scoring shock tactics.

Oh and can we get that DOF article fixed as well please...sorry!
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 03:19:56 pm by barryfitzgerald »
Logged

sreidvt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Thanks Sean
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2008, 04:01:22 pm »

Thank you very much for the comments on my article.  I'm glad that some have found it useful.

Cheers,

Sean
Logged

NikoJorj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1082
    • http://nikojorj.free.fr/
Thanks Sean
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2008, 04:20:15 pm »

Quote
I think most people can read..You just failed to balance out the article you wrote.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
May I not agree to this?
I'm not a native english speaker, and so can surely miss some inflections in tone, but it also helps me (I think) to take a bit of hindsight on what's written, and read a tad deeper.
I agree that the Sean Reid article was differently written, but it contained basically the same theme as in the original article by Michael :
Quote
Photography is both an art and a craft.

Fortunately (or not   ) for him, the Ken Rockwell article is made credible by the fact that there are many camera out there taht are definitely more potent than a Holga... But it's nowhere as clear as the two on this site (and by the way, could an American tell at which degree of humour (or at least, odd or even degree?) I'm supposed to read the following :  
Quote
Jesus Christ's dad Joseph built a masterpiece of a wooden staircase in a church in New Mexico in 1873 [...]

Well, enough for it, I think!
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 04:20:51 pm by NikoJorj »
Logged
Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery

Moynihan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • jay moynihan:  glances stares & nods
Thanks Sean
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2008, 04:25:22 pm »

Quote
I am now shooting with a Holga Camera and Infrared film precisely because the Camera and the film I use with it gives me the look I want.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Beautiful picture!

Moynihan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • jay moynihan:  glances stares & nods
Thanks Sean
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2008, 04:26:49 pm »

thank you for the very thoughtful piece.

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Thanks Sean
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2008, 04:30:57 pm »

Quote
May I not agree to this?
I'm not a native english speaker, and so can surely miss some inflections in tone, but it also helps me (I think) to take a bit of hindsight on what's written, and read a tad deeper.
I agree that the Sean Reid article was differently written, but it contained basically the same theme as in the original article by Michael :
Well, enough for it, I think!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Feel free to not agree! That is what a forum is about...lol

I think the problem I had with the original article is this

The tone and manner in which it was put down (questionable use of words!)
The fact the KR article had been up for ages (why only recently a response?)
I did not myself find it balanced..(I agree the KR article isnt either!)

And Michael has avoided responding to this, which he wrote himself..and this is kinda not helping his cause:

[a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/parable.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/parable.shtml[/url]

I think the original article could have been much better, but that is just my own view on things. The newer one is much more balanced.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Thanks Sean
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2008, 11:32:48 pm »

Well, you all seem to be falling over yourselves to congratulate Sean Reid on a well balanced article, so I'm going to provide a counterpoint.

I feel a bit uncomfortable with the evidence Sean has provided to support his claim that the camera does matter. His argument is basically anecdotal and essentially, "I know of a number of artists; musicians, composers, painters and photographers who considered that their equipment did matter, therefore it must be true, ie. the camera does matter".

Looking at this from an more objective perspective, it might simply be the case that artists are as gullible as the rest of us in this respect. They hope to gain some sort of undefined advantage from better and more expensive equipment. Maybe it's a status thing, like living in a house that is bigger than we need, or driving a luxurious car capable of breaking the speed limit twice over (if not three times) to get us from point A to point B.

I've read anecdotes about the practicing habits of great pianists, from those living in close proximity or even in the same house. Sometimes they don't give a stuff if the piano is even in tune, yet when they are on stage, they will often make a big fuss about the tuning accuracy of the instrument they are using, sometimes even bringing a piano tuner on stage, in between pieces, to provide that miniscule touch-up. It's called showmanship.

Surely we all know, at least those of us who appreciate classical music, that the greatest music ever written and never yet surpassed, the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, was all written using very inferior keyboards by modern standards.

The availability of the modern piano has not necessarily given us music more sublime than a Beethoven piano sonata.

As far as I'm concerned, the case that the 'camera matters' is not proven. But of course, we should be clear about the context of such arguments.

For example, if I were to say, 'I'd like to take some photos but I don't have a camera', then any reply along the lines, 'it doesn't matter... period', would be plain foolish. You can't take photos unless you have a camera.

Likewise, if I were to say, 'I'd like to photograph that small bird sitting on a branch 200 metres away, but I don't have a telephoto lens', then the response 'it doesn't matter' would be incomprehensible unless the respondent were to add, 'I've got a telephoto lens. You can borrow mine'.

What amazes me is that so many of the arguments opposing Ken Rockwell's statement that your equipment doesn't matter are along these lines, ie. you can't shoot distant, small wildlife without a telephoto lens. Do some people really believe that Ken Rockwell doesn't realise this?

The fact that Ken has a lot of gear, both Canon and Nikon equipment, much of which he has tested and compared, should be a clue that when he makes this controversial statement, 'The Camera Doesn't Matter', he is referring to the artistic merit of the resulting photo, not the technical merit.

To elaborate on this point, if you don't have a telephoto lens with you when out shooting, then there will be certain subjects that are not possible for you too address. Taking close-ups of small wildlife at a distance will be out of the question. Everyone understands that, surely.

Consider the following parable. Three people go on a day's shooting. They all have equal artistic talent and photograqphic competence. One has a 1Ds3 with a standard 50mm lens; one has a 40D with a 500mm lens, and one has a 5D with a 50mm lens plus a 500mm lens.

The guy with the 1Ds3 and 50mm lens will shoot different subjects to the guy (or gal) with the 40D. However, the results of the day's shooting should be equally impressive in their own right, although the subject material will be different.

The guy with the 5D and two lenses might be in trouble. He sees an opportunity for a distant shot, but by the time he's fitted that 500mm lens to his camera, he's lost that narrow window of opportunity. Never mind! He hangs around at the scene for a while, waiting for another opportunity, loses patience and, seeing a wide angle view that catches his artistic eye, decides to change lenses. But once again, by the time he's changed lenses, the lighting has changed and the wide angle shot is just ordinary. Too bad! I guess he had too much equipment.
Logged

RomanJohnston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
Thanks Sean
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2008, 12:46:24 am »

I have said it before.....and am saying it here again. Balance is the key....and an amazing photographer with equipment that does what they want... and from that harmony....magic will ensue.

Any breakdown on EITHER side of that equation will diminish the results proportionally.

Roman
Logged

Marlyn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Thanks Sean
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2008, 01:20:16 am »

I can't belive people still arn't getting this.  How many times does MR have to spell it out ?     The Ken Rockewell article was a trigger,  one more thing MR came accross in a sea of similar posts and content, which set him off on the topic in question.  The article was NOT a debating rebutal in the classic sense,  targeting each point in an argument etc, and neither is Seans.

Sean.  Thanks for the article, well written and enjoyable.

As to my personal belief on this topic, I belive the tools defiantly matter, and so does the artistry.  True craftsmen, of any kind, master both the tools and the technique. The more advanced they get in technique, the more they notice subtle differences in tools, and prefer one over an other to produce the best work.

I consider myself a professional in several technichal disciplines, and I know, from my own direct experience  that tools do matter.    Using an extereme I can (and have) tune a fire control radar to within tolerance with an old CRT Spectro, a manual sine wave generator and a few tools,   but I much prefer a digital spectrum analyser and a HP function generator, and will get a better result.

Finding the balance is what is important, and choosing the right tools to let you do the job, or execute the technique your vision requires.


Regards

Mark.
Logged

atassy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
Thanks Sean
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2008, 06:13:25 am »

thanks a lot for a very useful and interesting article! and most of all, for joining the cry for bigger sensors in small cameras. hopefully the giants of the industry will hear it soon
it would be time for them to draw a line between the point-and-shoot and the small, quality viewfinder digicam.
Logged

viewfinder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
Thanks Sean
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2008, 06:08:52 pm »

"........I can't belive people still arn't getting this. How many times does MR have to spell it out ? The Ken Rockewell article was a trigger, one more thing MR came accross in a sea of similar posts and content, which set him off on the topic in question. The article was NOT a debating rebutal in the classic sense, targeting each point in an argument etc, and neither is Seans..."

This may well be true but, unfortunately, KR was specifically singled out by name.
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Thanks Sean
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2008, 08:11:50 pm »

Quote
I am one of those people. After many years of shooting with a 4x5 and then Canon DSLRs I am now shooting with a Holga Camera and Infrared film precisely because the Camera and the film I use with it gives me the look I want.



That really is a rather enchanting photograph!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up