Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: wmchauncey on August 15, 2013, 10:14:53 am
-
I am quite proficient at the technical aspects of photography...am rather eclectic as opposed to having a specific style of work and am a fan of Scott Kelby in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpHMuK7Htic
Compositionally challenged is an understatement...to the point that most of my WA work is limited to using a 180 macro or a 300 f/2.8 lens, used due to their superior resolution.
I then take numerous images and photo-merge them to select a tolerable image by composing/cropping, general image improvement within Photoshop. This method seems to work for me.
SOOC holds no interest for me but, I do feel as though something is lacking in my workflow. Comments do hold an interest to me...thanks.
-
Being a fan of Scott Kelby is - imo - a drawback and I am sure there are better photographers out there? This is of course subjective but Kelby to my mind is a PS "expert" and less so a photographer. As to your choice of lenses then you are needing to expand the range. Any "superior resolution" will possibly be lost by what you are doing? A possible rethink of your methods as to a more "normal" way of doing things will help.
-
My mentioning Scott Kelby was only referencing that video and it's explanation on "working a scene".
I have, being a gear head, have most of the "normal" lenses, just don't use them. Would like to be able to "compose using the viewfinder".
-
Quote
am rather eclectic as opposed to having a specific style of work and am a fan of Scott Kelby
unquote
You did infer you are a fan? You also gave the impression that you only had and used two different lenses. I was replying to those pieces of information provided by yourself. Now what is the real thrust of your post? :)
-
My method of "over-shooting" an image by taking numerous images with the intent of merging to crop/compose on my computer
because I can't seem to compose in my viewfinder...I've been told that it denotes a lack of composition skill and is wrong. Is it so wrong?
-
It certainly isn't the best method. :) How long have you been shooting?
-
Started 'bout ten years ago...serious for the last five years or so.
-
Care to post an example?
-
Sure...I use about 20 images to end up with this one
(http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l383/chauncey43/CPRsunrisetwins-copy.jpg) (http://s329.photobucket.com/user/chauncey43/media/CPRsunrisetwins-copy.jpg.html)
.
-
Actually, your approach is not so unusual, it is what GigaPan photographers all the time, at least in terms of combinig multiple images. Though the reason they do it usually has very little to do with composition, but mostly to satisfy the quest for extreme detail and/or large printouts.
In your case, the question is how you know how to crop in post processing stage, but not in viewfinder? I would say some sort of compositional sense in necessary in both cases.
-
Compositionally challenged is an understatement... I then take numerous images and photo-merge them to select a tolerable image by composing/cropping, general image improvement within Photoshop.
For some reason, I took what you wrote about "A delicate capture" (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=80500.msg649684#msg649684) to mean you'd hand-held and then focus-stacked; and that (possible misunderstanding) was enough encouragement for me to rely on taking numerous hand-held images with the intention of a later merge, during a recent week in Yosemite NP.
Rather than "compositionally challenged" the experience seemed compositionally enriched -- if the subject doesn't fit in the frame then take those extra images and break-out of the frame; if 1:1 or 16:9 or ... seem more suitable to the subject then take those extra images and reshape the frame.
-
Sure...I use about 20 images to end up with this one
One of the difficulties I find with blending that many images is maintaining consistent color. Currently I'm trying to merge photos taken along the Big Sur coastline and hills; which combine coastal fog, bright ocean reflections, oak chaparral, bright rock and forest shade. On merge, the fog bank turns purple and the ocean reflections cyan -- not pretty :-)
-
Isaac...your dilemma is most likely caused by different lighting in the various images which must be balanced in LR before the merge process...that my friend is a chore.
Pick one image and balance all the rest to that image...you will need to alter your color temperature as well as play with your HSL sliders.
Don't neglect your adjustment brush with/without the auto mask feature and...that little color box thingy that is usually ignored, it works great sometimes.
Count on this taking many hours...is that image worth it?
Additionally...Photoshop has numerous "merge options", be aware that they will cough out different "looking" images and...using the same option anew may change your outcome.
In the future...take those multiple images as quickly as possible to avoid lighting shifts. Lotsa luck my friend!
-
I am quite proficient at the technical aspects of photography...am rather eclectic as opposed to having a specific style of work and am a fan of Scott Kelby in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpHMuK7Htic
Compositionally challenged is an understatement...to the point that most of my WA work is limited to using a 180 macro or a 300 f/2.8 lens, used due to their superior resolution.
I then take numerous images and photo-merge them to select a tolerable image by composing/cropping, general image improvement within Photoshop. This method seems to work for me.
SOOC holds no interest for me but, I do feel as though something is lacking in my workflow. Comments do hold an interest to me...thanks.
What is your question? You can't compose?
If so, study some art books. If your photos are boring, find more interesting subjects.
-
different lighting in the various images
I think that might also be a problem with the example you posted ;-)
-
Regarding shifting light then manually expose. or expose in aperture priority with exposure lock for a value half way between the lightest part and darkest part of interest in the scene and shoot all of the parts at the same exposure. That way when you join the files together they have the same exposure. If the light and dark parts don't exceed 6 stops then in LR/ACR you can balance out the extremes of light and darks. Some people allow their exposure to change when they shoot different parts of the scene . A mistake. :(
-
I think that might also be a problem with the example you posted
In that particular set of images it was a 60 second time frame, but it was in Auto mode,
Very unwise choice as Stamper pointed out.
-
Regarding shifting light then manually expose...
I do.
The solution was to brush appropriate WB and exposure and highlight reduction and contrast reduction, across the coastal fog bank and ocean reflection in 2 of the images. Bringing those diagonal halves into harmony with the chaparral and woodland allowed exposure blending without creating off-colors.
Also, if I'm going to make focus-stacked panos without automation then I really must practice systematically covering the scene until I can do it on automatic :-)
-
I do.
Good grief, Isaac, never, ever say those two little words unless you really, really mean them! And writing them is even more dangerous.
Whew!
Rob C
-
My method of "over-shooting" an image by taking numerous images with the intent of merging to crop/compose on my computer
because I can't seem to compose in my viewfinder...I've been told that it denotes a lack of composition skill and is wrong. Is it so wrong?
No, not if you're happy with your results.
-
My method of "over-shooting" an image by taking numerous images with the intent of merging to crop/compose on my computer
because I can't seem to compose in my viewfinder...I've been told that it denotes a lack of composition skill and is wrong. Is it so wrong?
There are no rules, just techniques: in my head, the more simple the latter the stronger the image. On the face of it, it seems a contradiction in terms to deny ability of in-camera composition but claim it via computer: they are just different ends of the same sausage.
Rob C
-
"Photography is not a sport... I believe there are no rules in photography. A photographer is allowed to do anything, anything, in order to improve his picture." Bill Brandt.
-
Photography is not a sport
I do like that response Isaac... ;)
-
"Photography is not a sport... I believe there are no rules in photography. A photographer is allowed to do anything, anything, in order to improve his picture." Bill Brandt.
And in the age before Photoshop, he was probably right.
I very much wonder if he'd claim the same today. The line is no longer fine but almost non-existent.
Rob C
-
I don't know much about Bill Brandt's photography, but apparently he was willing to collage two negatives to make a picture of Top Withens -- don't like the sky, use a sky you like.
-
I don't know much about Bill Brandt's photography, but apparently he was willing to collage two negatives to make a picture of Top Withens -- don't like the sky, use a sky you like.
Then a questionable source to quote?
;-)
Rob C
-
Then a questionable source to quote?
If you have any actual knowledge that would suggest that quote was out of character, do share.
-
Photography is not a sport, eh???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfTR3QtbDbU
Kelby can make anything a sport. As a photographer, I have much more respect for McNally than Kelby (Joe is actually a working photographer). Kelby is a photoshop performer. You can learn some great basics of PhotoShop from Kelby, but then you need to advance photographically from there.
There is nothing wrong with your approach. Take it to the extreme to see where you can go with it. As other have said, if YOU aren't happy with your results, then try some different things. Make some games and rules for yourself (make it a sport, if you will). Go out with your camera and a single fixed focal length lens. Experiment. Play. Get goofy.
The composited image you showed is fine. Sorry if you were going for great. Combining 20 images didn't make the result amazing. It still looks like a harshly-lit midday snapshot along a trail. In a perverse way, this is a testament to your amazing Photoshop skills that the image holds together at all. I think you have mastered photoshop, but not the basics of creating a fully dynamic exposure. Don't invest more time in that shot. go back and shoot some more until you are thrilled with the image components for your composite.
-
If you have any actual knowledge that would suggest that quote was out of character, do share.
You're attempting to dodge the bullet. Admirable sentiment, but in the context of the statement you made and my response, nothing changes. If you admittedly don't know much about the source, where the value in quoting it?
Rob C
-
... where the value in quoting it?
You got to keep your quote generator busy, otherwise it becomes rusty pretty quickly ;)
-
You're attempting to dodge the bullet.
You're really really bored.
If you admittedly don't know much about the source, where the value in quoting it?
Even if I knew nothing about the source, the value would be that the quotation was apposite.
-
But Isaac, how could you possibly know?
Rob C
-
It still looks like a harshly-lit midday snapshot along a trail
Partially correct...6-22-08 @ 4:30 PM, back when I shot mostly in Auto Mode without a clue what was going on. ???
I keep working on it because of the natural "God Rays" and Muley twins in the same frame of the series.
Was taken from some property that went away with a divorce. :'(
-
Kelby can make anything a sport. As a photographer, I have much more respect for McNally than Kelby (Joe is actually a working photographer). Kelby is a photoshop performer. You can learn some great basics of PhotoShop from Kelby, but then you need to advance photographically from there.
Scott Kelby sometimes comes across like the world's luckiest amateur photographer. Why? Just see any post where he gets to stand next to the pro photographers at say an American Football match and he then gushes like a complete fanboi.
His business is teaching and writing, not taking photos for a living and he has an extremely successful business doing so. But it would be foolish to carp at him as he's probably more successful than most professional photographers who make money by merely selling images.
McNally is obviously a press photographer first [and a very good one at that], but he's also a talented writer too. Although his book about how to use speed lights 'The Hot Shoe Diaries: Big Light from Small Flashes' should have been retitled 'The Hot Shoe Diaries: Big Light from Nikon Flashes and Nikon Cameras' as some of the 'advice' was quite specific to Nikon kit. Which is not a problem in itself, but not so good when stated as if it applied to all photography gear. Plus if I'm buying a book that is promoting a product i.e. in effect an advert, I expect to pay far less or get it for free. As that's the usual positive offset of putting up with annoying advertising.
-
Quote jjj
But it would be foolish to carp at him as he's probably more successful than most professional photographers who make money by merely selling images.
unquote
Making money isn't the best criteria to judge how good someone is? Judging someone by what they produce is surely a better and more objective ideal. I have a couple of his books and swore not to buy any more, mainly because of his humour and there are better writers - imo - than him.The amount of money he has in the bank doesn't come in to it. :(
-
But it would be foolish to carp at him as he's probably more successful than most professional photographers who make money by merely selling images. jjj
Making money isn't the best criteria to judge how good someone is? Judging someone by what they produce is surely a better and more objective ideal. I have a couple of his books and swore not to buy any more, mainly because of his humour and there are better writers - imo - than him.The amount of money he has in the bank doesn't come in to it. :(
But I wasn't comparing 'quality', just commenting on his success. He is more successful in his aspect of photography than many pro photographers who rely on just selling images to make money. And just because you are a professional photographer doesn't necessarily mean your photos are better 'quality' than an amateur photographer's. There are other important aspects to being a pro over simply being able to take good photos.
Besides 'quality' is probably too subjective a criteria to judge fairly in this case - you even use IMO to qualify your statement about Kelby's writing. Others like Kelby's writing for his humour, whereas you do not.
-
People who merge multiple photographs will generally nail down the white balance across all the images, as well as the exposure. This can be done in-camera if you're shooting JPEG or in post with the right tools. This might not produce *pleasing* colors, but should allow the stitching to succeed with cleanly merged colors. Then paint in local white balance adjustments as necessary to get pleasing color.
As for composition, well, having been digging around in this pretty seriously for a couple years now I find that photographers are insanely poorly served by their resources. Everywhere you look it's idiotic stuff like "Rule of Thirds" and "Horizontal Lines Convey Peace" and nothing about, you know, actual composition.
Henry Peach Robinson's "Pictorial Effect in Photography" (available free on books.google.com) is a nice relatively compact book on photographic composition. I was sufficiently frustrated with the state of the art to write one as well, which you can find by going to my blog and looking. I refuse to plug my own schwag in any but the most indirect fashion, and anyways Robinson said it all better.
-
Making money isn't the best criteria to judge how good someone is
I might submit that...if you sell your stuff, making money is the only way to keep score, do the masses buy your product.
A hobbyist, on the other hand, merely seeks adulations from his peers to stoke his ego. ;)
-
Sure...I use about 20 images to end up with this one
(http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l383/chauncey43/CPRsunrisetwins-copy.jpg) (http://s329.photobucket.com/user/chauncey43/media/CPRsunrisetwins-copy.jpg.html)
.
And with all due respect, this image holds no interest. Why not take one low res shot of something compelling?
-
Let me preface the below by saying that I don't intend this post as a direct reference to, or attack upon the original photograph posted here, more as an observation on the nature of much photography, its worth and what it seems to mean to different people.
And with all due respect, this image holds no interest. Why not take one low res shot of something compelling?
That ¡s the problem with so much in the world of photographic images: too many elephants crowding the rooms.
Folks get blinded by the cost of their gear; by the manipulation facilities available and their competence in using them; others can no longer see the wood for the trees and despair of finding nirvana. Well forget it: there is no photographic nirvana. The best you can hope for is to find the occasional cracking great image, perhaps render it successfully and find somebody else somewhere who actually likes it so much that they let you know.
Someone mentioned the success measurement inherent in the bucks photography puts on the table. Yes, to an extent that’s true, especially in a really professional situation, where you win a commission in the face of the always stiff competition for it, where the buying is mostly done by people with a lot of experience in the medium and with a lot of practice in making calls and decisions on matters such as style etc.
I’m not so sure that you can extrapolate that to include the example of what the ‘public’ is buying or ignoring. Going by the evidence of my own eyes and ears, that usually comes down to the lowest common denominator in all things. If you make your purchasing decisions on whether you or your uncle can produce the same thing as the ‘artist’ is selling, whether an image matches or clashes with your curtains, then that is something very else to a professional judgement.
During my years as a Tony Stone contributor, as a sideline to girl pix, I tried to interest them in graphic travel stuff from the trips: you know – bold colours against pale backgrounds, one mule working an otherwise empty field; a bent road sign on a curve at the edge of a huge drop to the sea below; that single tree on the brow of a field of corn - stuff that had some visual drama or dynamic. They told me that they understood perfectly well what I was on about, but that there was simply no market for that kind of thing other than in postcards, and that brought in negligible return. Travel meant the standard ‘classic’ shot of the same church, palace or ruin. And Stone was very successful – became Getty’s take-off platform. They understood the world’s buying preferences and the precise horses for which courses.
In the end, if the thing is hobby, then why on Earth not forget about the latest and greatest equipment, about spending your kids’ inheritance (or your next car!) on some exotica that won’t make you any better a photographer but certainly much the poorer?
Does it make sense to pay through the nose to have the sharpest picture of something dull? The best thing you can do for yourself is to relax and realise that it’s just a game, some fun, an alternative to watching tv. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that you might discover something better in your work simply by cutting yourself free of gadgetry syndrome, learning how best to use what you have. With the realisation might come some ultimate pleasure rather than angst about what you’d really, really need to buy to make you a better snapper.
Rob C
-
In the end, if the thing is hobby, then why on Earth not forget about the latest and greatest equipment, about spending your kids’ inheritance (or your next car!) on some exotica that won’t make you any better a photographer but certainly much the poorer?
Does it make sense to pay through the nose to have the sharpest picture of something dull? The best thing you can do for yourself is to relax and realise that it’s just a game, some fun, an alternative to watching tv. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that you might discover something better in your work simply by cutting yourself free of gadgetry syndrome, learning how best to use what you have. With the realisation might come some ultimate pleasure rather than angst about what you’d really, really need to buy to make you a better snapper.
Rob C
I often disagree with you, Rob, and I wouldn't be a proper curmudgeonly geezer if I didn't. But this time I think you are spot on!
Over the sixty-some years I've been photographing (for fun, not money), I have several times fallen for the lure of "better" equipment. Whenever that happens, the fun shifts from photography to toys, and the quality of my seeing and image-finding always takes a direct hit, for a while, until I get sufficiently bored with the new toys to start having fun with photography again.
You do some nifty, fun stuff with your cell-phone, so I hope you can keep on having fun.
Eric M
-
I'm glad to see how this thread has migrated, however...it seems to be talking to all the right-brained folks out there and ignoring the anal retentive, left-brainers.
We're the ones that obsess over that new gear and the MTF charts, PP at the pixel level and insist on a nose-length viewing distance...
the ones that are trying their damnedest to improve their underdeveloped right brain.
Granted those images of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Blood of Christ) were taken after one year of photography experience,
but I assumed that capturing the colors, God Rays, and twin mulies counted for something. Perhaps a different crop or including fewer images in the merge would help???
proper curmudgeonly geezer
BTW Eric...you can't think that you're the only one out there. Makes me feel right at home. ;D
-
I often disagree with you, Rob, and I wouldn't be a proper curmudgeonly geezer if I didn't. But this time I think you are spot on!
Over the sixty-some years I've been photographing (for fun, not money), I have several times fallen for the lure of "better" equipment. Whenever that happens, the fun shifts from photography to toys, and the quality of my seeing and image-finding always takes a direct hit, for a while, until I get sufficiently bored with the new toys to start having fun with photography again.
You do some nifty, fun stuff with your cell-phone, so I hope you can keep on having fun.Eric M
Fortunately, Eric, I've mastered the art of turning the deaf ear. Thus, my ancient Smartphone will remain with me until it stops being smart any longer - i.e. the battery dies and/or becomes irreplaceable, as the previous ones all did, forcing me another step up the ladder in this crazy hi-cost world of cellphone living. Not slavery, mark you, because it only goes on when I want it on, which is seldom. In reality, I have made more exposures with it than calls, or text messages, which makes me feel both ancient and very wise all at the same time. For me, no mean feat.
;-)
Rob
-
Spot on, Rob.
-
I'm glad to see how this thread has migrated, however...it seems to be talking to all the right-brained folks out there and ignoring the anal retentive, left-brainers.
We're the ones that obsess over that new gear and the MTF charts, PP at the pixel level and insist on a nose-length viewing distance...
the ones that are trying their damnedest to improve their underdeveloped right brain.
Granted those images of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Blood of Christ) were taken after one year of photography experience,
but I assumed that capturing the colors, God Rays, and twin mulies counted for something. Perhaps a different crop or including fewer images in the merge would help???BTW Eric...you can't think that you're the only one out there. Makes me feel right at home. ;D
They count for something but ultimately there pretty minor parts of the image as a whole which besides the clouds(that seem blown out in many places) doesn't really offer much to grab me compositionally. The lighting is pretty dull and robs the scene of contrast while making it hard to pickout any indivudal part of it while the foreground dispite the wildlife isn't really used in a way that adds much either.
Personally I'd say your shooting technique is holding you back, while its true such sitiching techniques can allow you to effectively compose in post sometimes they also IMHO make composition in the field much tougher.
-
I wouldn't judge this image by how it looks on the web. Such a large image wouldn't compress well - it looks like it could be very beautiful seen larger.
Sharon
Good point.
-
Your right tnabbot when you say that Sharon has a valid point.
"judging IQ of an internet image is an exercise in futility" has been one of my mantras, but...is there another way to get peer feedback?
-
Your right tnabbot when you say that Sharon has a valid point.
"judging IQ of an internet image is an exercise in futility" has been one of my mantras, but...is there another way to get peer feedback?
Print and show your prints.
Work towards participating an exhibition.
An image unprinted is a non-image.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Print and show your prints.
Work towards participating an exhibition.
An image unprinted is a non-image.
Cheers
~Chris
I used to believe that too, Chris.
As time goes by my thinking is also slightly differently, and I seem to return to the same feeling I used to have when this journey began: it's the shooting that's the buzz.
Seeing the stuff on paper is fine, makes me feel I haven't quite lost it yet, but then what? I can find the same buzz seeing it on the monitor. In fact, it never looks better. Anyway, prints were never the same buzz as calendars: those brought validation and financial reward; print just wastes money in my case. I have no agents or galleries behind me, so what's the point of more boxes of expensive sheets of paper lying within equally expensive polyster archivals?
After the first flush of printing so many years after closing down the darkroom, it was exciting; now, I put it off, and the HP is playing up anyway, and I can't be bothered playing along with it anymore. It's bad enough my computers are dodgy!
I think it was Joel Meyerowitz I watched recently saying pretty much the same thing, that after some years, you don't really need to print anything anymore... do Garry Winogrand and Miss Vivian Maier come to mind?
Rob C
-
Printing is finishing the process.
I'm against non-printing as much as against coitus interruptus ...
-
Printing is finishing the process.
I'm against non-printing as much as against coitus interruptus ...
A ringing telephone in the middle of the night never ruined a print.
Rob C
-
Giving a framed print to a relative or friend that you're proud of and will be appreciated by them is great. No money changes hand; only love.
-
Printing is finishing the process.
I'm against non-printing as much as against coitus interruptus ...
Christoph,
Don't you think the days of the paper print are numbered? Flat panel digital displays will soon be cheap and commonplace, hanging on our walls. The digital image file will be directly purchased & downloaded from the iTunes store (for $0.99?) to be displayed. This 'print' will be richer than the paper print.
-
Christoph,
Don't you think the days of the paper print are numbered? Flat panel digital displays will soon be cheap and commonplace, hanging on our walls. The digital image file will be directly purchased & downloaded from the iTunes store (for $0.99?) to be displayed. This 'print' will be richer than the paper print.
No, I don't think so.
There is a fundamental difference between physical things and virtual things consumed by the help of modern electronical devices.
The key to true experience always is the body.
Mind losing its connection to the body becomes messed and unhappy.
The experience of a print hanging on a wall is subtly and also fundamentally different from an image on the web or on a flatpanel display.
Though the power of the virtual world has surely become strong since the invention of writing and printing and all these technical means which came afterwards, we still see and hear and think and feel and live through a body.
Since I believe this difference will always be I also think that physical representations of art will always have their place, no matter how good technology becomes.
Cheers
~Chris
-
I agree with Chris; the problem for me is still that I no longer get a kick from making prints, only from shooting.
I also have limited wall-space, and the pix already there will there remain because they make a continuity in my life that has otherwise been shot to hell. One clings to straws, and since a single one can apparently break the back of a camel, maybe that cling is not a bad principle on which to depend!
;-)
Rob C
-
There's a useful distinction to be made between pictures made for a specific endpoint in mind, and pictures that are just.. made.
If you've got a goal, like a print (or an online portfolio, or a stock photography site, or a client, or a set of pictures to load into a digital frame for grandma, or whatever), it's going to be helpful when you're shooting. It will focus you and give you direction, because you know where you're going.
Prints are different, being physical objects, and that certainly exerts an influence on the photographer and on us when we're looking at the thing later.
But, from the point of view of shooting, I think a clear endpoint is perhaps a more important thing than the details of what that endpoint are.
Of course, shooting to no specific goal is also a viable thing, but it is again quite different. The results are much more spontaneous, much more in the line of "here is a thing I saw", it's much more stream of consciousness, much more ephemeral. Often the results are less satisfying, but not always and not for everyone.
-
Of course, shooting to no specific goal is also a viable thing, but it is again quite different. The results are much more spontaneous, much more in the line of "here is a thing I saw", it's much more stream of consciousness, much more ephemeral. Often the results are less satisfying, but not always and not for everyone.
Yes, and that's why I distrust the idea of the B/W Leica: it sort of demands that you know exactly what you want before you go out to shoot. Personally, as I age, I even choose the lens I want to play with, and leave the rest at home. At least the 'normal' camera lets me have the other, non-lens choices all the way to the computer!
Rob C
-
In the end, if the thing is hobby, then why on Earth not forget about the latest and greatest equipment, about spending your kids’ inheritance (or your next car!) on some exotica that won’t make you any better a photographer but certainly much the poorer?
Does it make sense to pay through the nose to have the sharpest picture of something dull? The best thing you can do for yourself is to relax and realise that it’s just a game, some fun, an alternative to watching tv. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that you might discover something better in your work simply by cutting yourself free of gadgetry syndrome, learning how best to use what you have. With the realisation might come some ultimate pleasure rather than angst about what you’d really, really need to buy to make you a better snapper.
Rob C
Now the above is a comment, Rob, that needs deconstructing. ;) You seem to be saying, if one's interest in photography is merely a hobby, then it should be of lower priority than the quality of one's car and/or one's children's inheritance.
I can certainly think of circumstances where one's children's inheritance should be of greater concern than the technical quality of one's cameras. For example, if one's children were disadvantaged, suffering from some incurable malady, whether physical or psychological, one might feel an obligation to leave them as much wealth as possible for their futute security.
Alternatively, if they had got themselves into some serious financial difficulty as a result of unwise investments, one might want to help them out immediately by either lending or giving them the $50,000 that one was contemplating spending on the latest MFDB system.
However, when it comes to one's preferences for the sophistication of material possessions and equipment in general, one should always choose what gives one the most satisfaction for the money.
For example, which would allow for the greater satisfaction?
(1) A new car costing $60,000, but no new camera equipment; or
(2) A new car costing only $30,000 with the other $30,000 being spent on the latestest DSLR, an upgraded lens, the latest edition of Photoshop, a new computer with at least 32 GB of RAM, and perhaps a large-format professional printer.
I, personally, would definitely opt for scenario #2 because I believe I would get greater satisfaction from the significantly improved capabilities of the camera/computer/printer hardware and software combination, than I would from the increased comfort and luxury of a more expensive car.
My reasoning is that a luxury car does not get one to one's destination more quickly or more safely. The choice for me is a no-brainer. However, if I were also to engage in the hobby of car racing, I would have a difficult decision, unless money were no object.
As Alain Briot has pointed out in his numerous essays on this site, the whole of the composition is important. If there's a distracting object in the lower left corner of the composition, then clone it out. I'll add that the whole of the composition also includes such qualities as degrees of sharpness, noise, smoothness of mid-tones etc. If these qualities are not pleasing to the person processing the image, whether that person is hobbyist or professional, the solution may not always be to improve one's technique, but to buy better equipment.
If one gets satisfaction from producing sharp images of birds and wildlife, one needs a good telephoto lens. One would be kidding oneself if one thought that one could get satisfactory results just by improving one's technique, such as quietly sneaking up on the bird whilst wearing a camouflage, and even climbing the tree with phone camera in hand. ;D
-
Ray, it isn't even ten o'clock on a Monday morning. Perhaps my brain is still asleep, but I can't see exactly where your 'argument' lies or why you are in conflict with the piece of mine that you quoted.
If I had a reasonably good camera (which I do) I wouldn't (and don't) feel any desire to go out and buy another one. For what - to look better, richer, in a crowd where nobody knows me, anyway? I don't subscribe to the theory that spending more money makes one a better snapper; all you need is a set of tools good enough to allow you to function as you wish. And, you have to know that it's you that works the tools. I'm sure that Nikon or Canon, I'd still have worked as I did, produced nothing better nor anything worse. You don't need to spend more money all the time in order to have what you need. Now what you want is another matter, and then simply admit to yourself that you may not really be interested in photographs at all: you could just be a gadget freak.
Uprated/updated lenses: what a load of crap! Lenses were good (and far more reliable, too!) years ago, and unless one is making huge blowups from single exposures, I see it as a fine conceit to imagine anything one can do looks better because the old, good, 35mm optic has been replaced by another 35mm one from Zeiss or any other flavour-of-the-month name. Hell, they used to make billboard ads from 35mm film decades ago and they looked stunning! It's about content, ablity to use what you have and content yet again. One could hide behind equipment prices for ever. Something will always be more expensive than one can afford, usually, so yes, that's a good bluff behind which one could hide one's failings! Far better to forget them and just enjoy the imaging.
And this isn't nonsense: one must learn to accept reality and stop self-inflicting damage. To that end I removed my Models ad from my website last night. The past is the past and it won't come back; dredging around on the bottom of the model heap won't bring any joy if you have been surfing at the top of it. Everything has its time.
Rob C
-
Well said.
And this isn't nonsense: one must learn to accept reality and stop self-inflicting damage. To that end I removed my Models ad from my website last night. The past is the past and it won't come back; dredging around on the bottom of the model heap won't bring any joy if you have been surfing at the top of it. Everything has its time.
There's a Welsh word that you may appreciate. 'Hiraeth (http://www.smith.edu/kahninstitute/shortterm_projects_hiraeth.php)' - "The word has no equivalent in English. It often translates as “homesickness,” but the actual concept is far more complex. It incorporates an aspect of impossibility: the pining for a home, a person, a figure, even a national history that may never have actually existed. To feel hiraeth is to experience a deep sense of incompleteness tinged with longing."
-
Well said.
There's a Welsh word that you may appreciate. 'Hiraeth (http://www.smith.edu/kahninstitute/shortterm_projects_hiraeth.php)' - "The word has no equivalent in English. It often translates as “homesickness,” but the actual concept is far more complex. It incorporates an aspect of impossibility: the pining for a home, a person, a figure, even a national history that may never have actually existed. To feel hiraeth is to experience a deep sense of incompleteness tinged with longing."
I don't know any Welsh, but that hiraeth is a good word.
Rob C
-
Thought you'd like it. A friend reminded me of it today on Facebook and I thought what a lovely word, but I'm not likely to use it. And then a few mins later…...
-
My favorite example of gear-itis is Nikon's list of Magic Lenses that are recommended for the D800 wundercamera.
Their current bottom of the line camera, the D3200, has a finer pixel pitch, and is therefore more demanding of lens sharpness, then the D800 (yes yes, only in the center, etc etc) and yet we see no magic list of lenses for the D3200. They ship it with a very cheap kit zoom, which is evidently good enough.
And yet, having paid an immense sum for a D800, many will rush out to replace their current lenses with Approved and Recommended lenses, and (more obnoxiously) will bore other people to death with discussions of how the old glass was just Totally Inadequate on the new camera, which is simple Much More Demanding.
-
My favorite example of gear-itis is Nikon's list of Magic Lenses that are recommended for the D800 wundercamera.
Their current bottom of the line camera, the D3200, has a finer pixel pitch, and is therefore more demanding of lens sharpness, then the D800 (yes yes, only in the center, etc etc) and yet we see no magic list of lenses for the D3200. They ship it with a very cheap kit zoom, which is evidently good enough.
And yet, having paid an immense sum for a D800, many will rush out to replace their current lenses with Approved and Recommended lenses, and (more obnoxiously) will bore other people to death with discussions of how the old glass was just Totally Inadequate on the new camera, which is simple Much More Demanding.
But Andrew, that might just be the bragging rights to which you refer... they count, especially in public conversation.
;-)
Rob C