PDA

View Full Version : Do we focus too much on the camera and not on the photography itself?



Turn
01-16-2008, 06:02 PM
I feel that we sometimes focus too much on the technical jazz and then "oh yeh here are some photos" rather than focus on the photography itself primarily and then on the technical

its why we buy the camera's and the expensive lenses at first, to take photos that standard lenses can't

I dunno...I spend way too much time on deviantart...

Rhys
01-16-2008, 06:10 PM
I feel that we sometimes focus too much on the technical jazz and then "oh yeh here are some photos" rather than focus on the photography itself primarily and then on the technical

its why we buy the camera's and the expensive lenses at first, to take photos that standard lenses can't

I dunno...I spend way too much time on deviantart...

I know a lot of people spend too much time obsessing about gear. The amateur obsesses. The professional just takes photos.

Rooz
01-16-2008, 07:39 PM
yes, some people do. absolutely. whenever you get people going on insanely about gear, do a quick history check and have a look at how many photos they actually post.

DonSchap
01-16-2008, 07:52 PM
Then there are those who are just spastic about their piece of plastic. :eek:

Part of the fun with spending skads of money concerning technology is making it work. I do not have a photography business to support with my gear. It was purchased as a hobby interest to just experiment, get family shots on occasion ... and take images of high speed aircraft (P&S? Yeah, right!) and "rock on" enjoying what it can do ... piss off about what it cannot do ... and then wait another three years for the next release.

"Gear-heads" ... "Devote's" ... "Hobbiests" ... "Craftsmen" ... "Artists" ... "Professionals" (whatever and not necessarily in that order)

Everyone has their own agenda ... and no one has necessarily got a lock on any of it. Skill-levels are all over the place and I often say ... "Enjoy the Day" ... and just shoot until I ...

GET THE SHOT! :D

May the "learning curve" never end. Photography ... light me up!

The Mangler
01-16-2008, 09:43 PM
do a quick history check and have a look at how many photos they actually post.
What does this have to do with said person's skill level?

Some people (like me) don't like posting tons of images all over the internet because it make them too easy to steal.

Rooz
01-16-2008, 10:00 PM
What does this have to do with said person's skill level?

Some people (like me) don't like posting tons of images all over the internet because it make them too easy to steal.

where did i say it had anything to do with a persons skill level ? :confused:

besides, if you're afraid of people **cough cough** stealing your images then watermark them.

The Mangler
01-16-2008, 10:16 PM
OK, I think I mis-read your post. My apologies.

I think I saw gearhead = no skill for some reason.



On watermarks... To effectively prevent theft the watermark has to be so big/non-transparent that it ruins the image, in my opinion.

-Edit-
Some forums have a no watermark policy, some don't - I can't remember if it's OK here or not...is it?

Rooz
01-16-2008, 10:29 PM
OK, I think I mis-read your post. My apologies.

I think I saw gearhead = no skill for some reason.



On watermarks... To effectively prevent theft the watermark has to be so big/non-transparent that it ruins the image, in my opinion.

-Edit-
Some forums have a no watermark policy, some don't - I can't remember if it's OK here or not...is it?

yepp, watermarks are fine. :)

i think this thread is referring mainly to people that talk about gear and rarely about what the gear is used for. they may be extremely skillful, they may not be. hard to judge that when you don;t see an image though don;t you think ?

cdifoto
01-16-2008, 10:40 PM
I focused on gear until I bought some of the best available. Now I don't have to. The fact that some of us don't post many photos on forums doesn't mean we don't take any. Plus, you don't have to be a good photographer to discuss gear intelligently. However, I subscribe to "put up or shut up" when people try to tell me what technique works and what doesn't.

Phill D
01-16-2008, 11:24 PM
In the last couple of weeks I've been watching a photography competition on Channel 4 called Picture This. I was sceptical at first but it has actually been very watchable at least for an amature like me. Basically 6 amature photographers were given challenges & their efforts are critiqued by expert photographers. Two photographers are eliminated each week. The final is this Sunday here in the UK but I think you can still watch the old programmes if you go to the on demand service on the Flickr sponsored page below.

http://picturethis.channel4.com/

I am enjoying the photography maybe some of you will. No mention of gear at all.

Turn
01-17-2008, 02:47 AM
In the last couple of weeks I've been watching a photography competition on Channel 4 called Picture This. I was sceptical at first but it has actually been very watchable at least for an amature like me. Basically 6 amature photographers were given challenges & their efforts are critiqued by expert photographers. Two photographers are eliminated each week. The final is this Sunday here in the UK but I think you can still watch the old programmes if you go to the on demand service on the Flickr sponsored page below.

http://picturethis.channel4.com/

I am enjoying the photography maybe some of you will. No mention of gear at all.

what the bloody hell! a TV show about photographers how many watchers do they get? 10,000?

seriously lol I never thought any show about photography like that would have a big audience.


I have a friend who sold his D50 first, got a D70's then sold that and got a D300

all within like a year and a bit

that was also a nother part of my rant..

Nickcanada
01-17-2008, 04:58 AM
I went from a 50mm 1.8 to a 35mm 1.4 in about a year. Maybe I am a gear head but it's much easier to do what I do with the stuff I've bought. I don't think people can complain about the amount of pictures I post..... well, I guess you could.

Screenclutter
01-17-2008, 06:04 PM
Right now, I'm worried about blurry indoor photos and crooked photos. I understand why I get blurry photos, but wide aperture lenses get expensive really fast. This is when I start thinking about gear.

As for crooked photos, I'll be practicing with my D40 to see if I can improve. If I find out I'm not taking any crooked photos with the D40, it will mean that the viewfinder on my Canon A610 is probably a little bit crooked. I do notice that the photos I take with my Canon are never crooked when I use the LCD, but time will tell...

DonSchap
01-17-2008, 06:24 PM
If you don't have the big bucks to throw at your photography ... then just do what you can ... unless someone else will pony up the coin for your tools. There aren't that many sponsored photographers in the world, so don't feel too bad. Just do what you do ... work around it, borrow some, even register for photography classes at the local college ... often schools have some high-cost equipment that can occasionally be loaned to or used by the students.

It took a good year before I could dump money into lighting, but the school had it already. So for three semesters, I booked time and made use of it. Look, gearheaded-ness comes later on ... when all those image-assignments start paying off ... or you hook up with a spouse that really loves to see you smile (like that's gonna happen :rolleyes: ). Are people gearheads if they have stuff you wish you had? Is it really just a cry for ... "I WANT ONE" ... ?

Personally, when I can spare a buck or two, I head out and get that new piece of glass or camera body to fill a spot in my "I wanna" gear list or the wish list. Lately I've been trying to convert all my earlier Canon gear to Minolta/SONY-mount gear. It's nearly gone. GEAR-SWAP!

32536

The new prime-time show to go up against WIFE-SWAP ...

32537

which is eventually what happens when you buy too much gear.

"On tonight's episode of GEAR-SWAP ... we're going to find out what happens when we stick a GEAR-headed Male Photographer with a GEAR-Endowed Female Photographer ... and swap their resentful partners." OMG ... this would be good, eh? What a show! By the time the original partners get back, in two-weeks, they'll think they've gone and married CW! :eek:

Dog gone it, there always seems to be something new or missing, doesn't there? Or is it just me? Could be I'm the only one who wants something I do not have (Hey, it could happen :rolleyes: ).

fotogmarc
01-17-2008, 10:18 PM
If you take any hobby or pastime there are going to be people who concentrate on gear. As far as I can see much of the progress in equipment depends on these "gear heads" as they are always asking for more. If only the pros were buying cameras like the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300 do we think they would be priced so low (by pro standards). Dslr's are approx. half the price compared to 5 yrs ago because higher production lowers cost, technology is always advancing and some customers are willing to trade up every 6 months. we can thank them to a certain point.
Let's continue the discussions about gear it keeps everyone better informed, forcing the manufacturers to put out quality products.
Are there militants? Of course and we'll never be rid of them, once in a while they actually contribute.

If you can remember film days, new camera releases were far and few between, why? Amateur photographers were fewer in number. Film was just too expensive to develop and print when you're trying to learn the basics. There was no control over printing (unless you spent thousands$ on a darkroom). You had to commit yourself to a whole roll of one ISO (ASA), colour or B&W, negatives or positives. The gear was still there, but unless you could afford to shoot several rolls of film on one subject to find you're "sweet AP", much of it was luck and perseverance. There were still your nikoners, canonites, olympians, but we argued over film, AE and AF vs manual, OEM lenses or aftermarket, filters. It was was a lot simpler and it hardly ever got heated.

Now with images instantly reviewed, no cost per image, and photo editing, we want it all.
Does the best gear mean the best photographer? Of course not.
Ansel Adams; in my opinion was the best nature photographer ever. Do you want to compare his equipment to what's available today?

I also get frustrated by some posters screaming their brand, model, lens even tripod, while they take the same shots of sunsets/rises refelecting on the water, adversely centered mountains and portraits of someone looking off into the distance. We can argue, debate, disagree, compare, contrast, toot our own horn, toot somebody else's horn and have fun doing it.
Until your print is hanging on my wall your opinions are just that.


Sorry to inform some people, but the final results are what counts.

Now let's all have fun.:D

Turn
01-18-2008, 01:57 AM
I also get frustrated by some posters screaming their brand, model, lens even tripod, while they take the same shots of sunsets/rises refelecting on the water, adversely centered mountains and portraits of someone looking off into the distance. We can argue, debate, disagree, compare, contrast, toot our own horn, toot somebody else's horn and have fun doing it.
Until your print is hanging on my wall your opinions are just that.


Sorry to inform some people, but the final results are what counts.

Now let's all have fun.:D

you just owned 3/4 of us :P

good post I never knew it was that expensive back in the day

Nickcanada
01-18-2008, 05:07 AM
If you take any hobby or pastime there are going to be people who concentrate on gear. As far as I can see much of the progress in equipment depends on these "gear heads" as they are always asking for more. If only the pros were buying cameras like the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300 do we think they would be priced so low (by pro standards). Dslr's are approx. half the price compared to 5 yrs ago because higher production lowers cost, technology is always advancing and some customers are willing to trade up every 6 months. we can thank them to a certain point.
Let's continue the discussions about gear it keeps everyone better informed, forcing the manufacturers to put out quality products.
Are there militants? Of course and we'll never be rid of them, once in a while they actually contribute.

If you can remember film days, new camera releases were far and few between, why? Amateur photographers were fewer in number. Film was just too expensive to develop and print when you're trying to learn the basics. There was no control over printing (unless you spent thousands$ on a darkroom). You had to commit yourself to a whole roll of one ISO (ASA), colour or B&W, negatives or positives. The gear was still there, but unless you could afford to shoot several rolls of film on one subject to find you're "sweet AP", much of it was luck and perseverance. There were still your nikoners, canonites, olympians, but we argued over film, AE and AF vs manual, OEM lenses or aftermarket, filters. It was was a lot simpler and it hardly ever got heated.

Now with images instantly reviewed, no cost per image, and photo editing, we want it all.
Does the best gear mean the best photographer? Of course not.
Ansel Adams; in my opinion was the best nature photographer ever. Do you want to compare his equipment to what's available today?

I also get frustrated by some posters screaming their brand, model, lens even tripod, while they take the same shots of sunsets/rises refelecting on the water, adversely centered mountains and portraits of someone looking off into the distance. We can argue, debate, disagree, compare, contrast, toot our own horn, toot somebody else's horn and have fun doing it.
Until your print is hanging on my wall your opinions are just that.


Sorry to inform some people, but the final results are what counts.

Now let's all have fun.:D

Maybe I need to see some Ansel Adams prints in person but to be honest I've seen better. :eek: Now that Arnold Newman, he knew how to take a picture! He's not landscape I know but still... lets face it nature isn't going anywhere people move around. ;)

Now lets all have fun! lol

Honest Gaza
01-18-2008, 05:22 AM
-Edit-
Some forums have a no watermark policy, some don't - I can't remember if it's OK here or not...is it?

Policy wise, it's ok.

However, many a poster has been scalded for ruining his own images (for forum display purposes) by obsessing too much over the "stealing" issue, and placing Watermarks that become the subject of the photo.

So a definite NO :mad:

cdifoto
01-18-2008, 06:35 AM
Maybe I need to see some Ansel Adams prints in person but to be honest I've seen better. :eek: Now that Arnold Newman, he knew how to take a picture! He's not landscape I know but still... lets face it nature isn't going anywhere people move around. ;)

Now lets all have fun! lol

Glad I'm not the only one that doesn't get horny over an Ansel Adams picture.:rolleyes:

Graystar
01-18-2008, 06:43 AM
good post I never knew it was that expensive back in the day
It certainly wasn't for B&W shooting. A first-darkroom could be assembled for 200-300 bucks and was small to fit in a small bathroom (temporarily procured, of course ) You?d buy film in 100-ft rolls and load and develop it yourself. It was a very affordable hobby.

With film, the processing is as important as the capture. The capture was actually the easier of the two so a lot of effort went into learning the development process. Good photographs would come with experience...but if you didn?t get development right from the start you didn?t have any photographs to review! Today, there is no darkroom so there?s nothing to talk about BUT the camera.

That said, though, I can understand a desire to have equipment that gives the best possible image. In my introduction to Bullseye shooting I was told to get an expensive, very accurate gun even though I couldn?t shoot nearly as well as the gun is capable of. That?s because accurate equipment was needed for meaningful feedback. In the same way, a camera with a better LCD, better control layout, better menus, more accurate metering, etc., will contribute to better feedback in all areas of the capture process, which also leads to a more enjoyable experience. So if people want to switch cameras around and can afford to do it...I say go right ahead. If current digital camera technology was so mature, we wouldn?t have updated cameras being released practically every year.

As for posting pictures...ever since the Virgin-Mobile Australia incident, with them taking a picture of a young Asian girl from Flckr and using it in their ads without permission, I?ve removed all my images from the web.
________
LAND ROVER TANGI SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Land_Rover_Tangi)

fotogmarc
01-18-2008, 07:11 AM
Glad I'm not the only one that doesn't get horny over an Ansel Adams picture.:rolleyes:

"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves"


Donald Sutherland- 'Kelly's Heroes'

;)

mjsneddon
01-18-2008, 02:00 PM
I think that some people (myself included) don't look to this forum as a place to show / peruse / critque photographs. In my view, this whole website is oriented toward gear. So, I come here to learn about gear, which is not to say that I obsess over the latest camera, lens, or other photographic gadget (even though my wife might disagree.)

I still derive the vast majority of my enjoyment of photography (I am not a professional) from capturing images myself and viewing them (my own and those by others). But when the weather is miserable outside or it is near my bedtime, I take pleasure in visiting this, and other similar forums, to learn what others are saying about things photographic and occasionally offering my own two cents worth.

I'll stop now as I am dangerously close to my two cent limit.

Have a good day.

Phill D
01-18-2008, 09:20 PM
Turn yes I was suprised to see a TV show about photographers too. Channel 4 is a channel that often shows minority audience subject shows though. Personally I'm glad they do. As for actual viewing numbers I've no idea but maybe with the popularity of digicams these days it could be more than you'd think.