View Full Version : Are cameras and lenses too good nowadays?
herc182
06-26-2009, 02:03 AM
I went to an Anton Corbijn exhibition yesterday, which by the way, if you have a chance I massively recommend (http://www.corbijn.co.uk/). What struck me were the following points:
1 - The simiplicity of his shots
2 - Grain
3 - Vignetting
4 - Poor exposures
5 - Black and white
It was funny that I walked around and thought "look at the noise on that shot....look at that vignetting...look at the blown highlights!!"
But actually, thats what added mood and character to the shots. The noise emphasised the drama and the setting of the photo, the vignetting drew your eye into the portrait and the blown highlights seemed to tell a part of the story...
He said that an artist gets to feel his sculptures, where for him, blowing up a photo and emphasising the noise gave him feedback for his shots...
There was a great shot of stephen Hawking (who the guide said she was sure he was dead by now, or at the least dying....) but it was two reflections of the flash in his sunglasses and only his head visible...emphasisng his head and brain rather than arguably his dying body.
Ok, his shots are thought about and intelligent, but what we NOW call failing in camera equipment were actually the essence of his shots.
So I will look at my high iso shots differently now...!
It's no different now than it has been since the very first days of photography. An artist will produce exceptional results regardless of the tools, the rest of us tend to produce mediocre results at best.
Those of us who allow the camera and lenses to take control get what we actually deserve for our laziness.
herc182
06-26-2009, 03:09 AM
I forgot to add how we try to put in the inperfections that have been designed out by using Photoshop!
I agree K1W1, but sometimes, straight out of the camera you are disheartened by what you saw it being in your minds eye and what actually comes out...
Imagine what it was like then for early photographers when there may have been days or longer elapsing between the shutter release and seeing the final exposure. No instant LCD review and bang off another 15 shots and various aperture and shutter speed combinations "just to be sure". :)
faisal
06-26-2009, 03:21 AM
That's why IMO shooting film to fine tune your abilities is the best way to make one a better photographer in digital as well...
herc182
06-26-2009, 03:24 AM
i learnt far quicker and easier on digital...i think on film you can perfect composition?
The other settings and rules are easier to learn with quick feedback (and cheaper) on digital
wirehunt
06-26-2009, 03:27 AM
I don't know about how good they all are. But man there getting EXPENSIVE.
herc182
06-26-2009, 04:09 AM
I would say they are getting cheaper...when first introduced, a DSLR costs thousands...now we are looking at hundreds, and options are available under £500 for a quality picture taking machine!
On my desk here I have a Kyocera "Samurai" 1300DG camera circa 2002. It has a whopping 1.3mp plus a 3x optical zoom with a (maybe) 1.5" diagonal screen of very few pixels. It takes CF and came with, wait for it, a 4MB CF card! Transfer to a PC was via a serial cable and a set of 4 AA batteries would last maybe 50 shots.
The WHOLESALE price was higher than what a current RETAIL price for a D90 body is.
I would say that taking inflation over the last 6 or 7 years into account cameras are far cheaper today than they ever have been.
herc182
06-26-2009, 04:41 AM
lol - My first digital camera I was able to attach to a key ring, it had NO screen on the back, had 0.3mp "sensor". Had built in memory (of 16mb I believe) and the pictures it took were awful. I was almost having to interpolate...it was in a sense, a form of art. Pointelism. I could have sketched better....
I have (had actually) one of those as well.
herc182
06-26-2009, 05:18 AM
I think i have the cables for it, but the camera no longer works. The memory became corrupt. Not sure what the brand was, i think I got it from a "the gadget shop".
Had I put that £40 in a bank 4 years ago, i would be laughing with the interest now...would have had at least £60 :)
DiamondSCattleCo
06-26-2009, 05:27 AM
I'm with K1W1 on this one. A true artist can always make something stunning from nothing, no matter what the tools. Or at least it sure feels that way :)
As for me, I hope cameras keep getting better and better. I need all the help I can get not turning my skin tones purple and having my kids look like blurs ;)
Rod
That's why IMO shooting film to fine tune your abilities is the best way to make one a better photographer in digital as well...
how so ???
Example:
This photo was taken in 1915
http://www.shackleton-endurance.com/Images/shackleton%20images/NightShip2.jpg
“During night take flashlight of ship beset by pressure, This necessitated some 20 flashes ,one behind each salient pressure hummock, no less than 10 of the flashes being required to satisfactory illuminate the ship herself. Half blinded after the successive flashes, I lost my bearings amidst the hummocks ,bumping shins against projecting ice points and stumbling into deep snow drifts.” Hurley Dairy
using this sort of equipment
http://www.shackleton-endurance.com/Images/shackleton%20images/Hurley%20front%20Endurance.jpg
the negatives were then dragged across the Antarctic rowed to the Elephant Island in the south Atlantic then eventually after rescue some 4 months later taken to England. You don't need zillion dollar equipment if you have the gift.
herc182
06-26-2009, 06:15 AM
You don't need zillion dollar equipment if you have the gift.
surely you are misquoting determination and stupidity? :)
faisal
06-26-2009, 08:00 AM
how so ???
With a person like me who's like a shotgun. Click Click Click in a burst and hope that it comes out right and if it does not seem right after viewing it on the LCD, I'd do another burst click thing and try again and if it still hasn't come out right I'd fix it in photoshop.
With Film I can't really do that IMO...it'll force me to take my time to compose my shot, choose the right settings and try to get it almost right in camera...This in the end should help to get it right in camera with digital also....
Obviously this completely depends on person to person...
fionndruinne
06-26-2009, 07:09 PM
Part of the concern with DSLRs and digital media in general is that it seems a bit hard to get the same sharpness and "punch"/contrast on a digital sensor, whereas this was kind of a hallmark with 35mm film. Digital sensors seem to tend towards to much neutrality, they're softer than film and tend to be almost "too" balanced as far as contrast and exposure. We're suffering from a mixed desire for a) all-purpose flexibility and b) the outstanding punch of certain films. Can't necessarily get both from a digital sensor, at least not without post processing.
With a person like me who's like a shotgun. Click Click Click in a burst and hope that it comes out right and if it does not seem right after viewing it on the LCD, I'd do another burst click thing and try again and if it still hasn't come out right I'd fix it in photoshop.
With Film I can't really do that IMO...it'll force me to take my time to compose my shot, choose the right settings and try to get it almost right in camera...This in the end should help to get it right in camera with digital also....
Obviously this completely depends on person to person...
yeah thats a fair point. i think digital certianly allows you to fall into complacency and what some may call "bad habits". spray and pray...however, for a disciplined person its far easier to learn from digital than from film.
cdifoto
06-27-2009, 04:03 AM
That's why IMO shooting film to fine tune your abilities is the best way to make one a better photographer in digital as well...
I disagree with this. You can slow down with digital too. You just need discipline.
faisal
06-27-2009, 04:45 AM
But discipline is hard to find with impatient people like me. Being patient is something I need to learn as I spray and pray a little too much and feel that the pinch of $$ when shooting film will let me slow down and be more precise. As I said it varies from person to person but digital has made a lot of people get those 'bad habits' as it literally does not cost much. I've gone through 55K clicks on my 400D that cost me $900 which comes up to $0.016 per shot. In comparison one shot on film will cost me $1...
fionndruinne
06-27-2009, 06:39 PM
People in general are bad with discipline. It's a result of the softer living conditions of an affluent society. Starts in public schools...
D Thompson
06-27-2009, 07:54 PM
That's why IMO shooting film to fine tune your abilities is the best way to make one a better photographer in digital as well...
I disagree with this. You can slow down with digital too. You just need discipline.
I agree with Don on this. I learned shooting film years ago and I pretty much still shoot like it. Just because you can spray and pray you get a shot doesn't mean you have to or should. Act like you're shooting film, take a breath, come up for air, and think about the shot. Look thru the vf and see if you like the way the shot is composed. Really look before you press the button. Also, too many times you hear someone say they're not worried about it, just photoshop it later.
As far as cameras and lenses being too good today - they're only as good or bad as the person operating them. Some things never change. Yes, the equipment is getting better and better, but there are still crap images taken.
It doesn't matter what you use to take a photo. I took what I reckon was a stunning portrait. I used a disposable 110 camera with 110 film. Under perfect lighting, the photo was flawless.
Many people will decry the non-IS Canon 18-55 but I produced this photo with it...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3366/3649582524_00016398ee_b.jpg
Sure - the focus would have been better if I'd remembered to refocus after moving the target stand slightly but exact focus isn't important in a shot like this... The uniqueness of the photo stands out.
Many people will decry the non-IS Canon 18-55 but I produced this photo with it...
that shot has nothing whatsoever to do with the lens.
that shot has nothing whatsoever to do with the lens.
Case proven then. The inherent quality of a photo has little or nothing to do with the equipment that was used to make that photo.
Case proven then. The inherent quality of a photo has little or nothing to do with the equipment that was used to make that photo.
no, the shot you posted has sweet FA to do with the lens used. you could have taken the same shot with a point and shoot and it would have made no difference. there is no element in that photo that tests a lens' capability. that is purely down to technique and timing.
if you really want to get technical, the lens/ camera was unable to resolve the finer detail of the explosion and fragments.
herc182
06-28-2009, 06:15 AM
Think it should have been rephrased and the lens used not mentioned. Rooz is right that the lens had nothing to do with getting that shot, but the technique, which is irrespective of the equipment made the shot. Alhough, you need something capable of a high shutter speed to make the shot
Mark_48
06-28-2009, 06:42 AM
Think it should have been rephrased and the lens used not mentioned. Rooz is right that the lens had nothing to do with getting that shot, but the technique, which is irrespective of the equipment made the shot. Alhough, you need something capable of a high shutter speed to make the shot
You may get some disagreement on high shutter speed..... :)
tim11
06-28-2009, 07:16 AM
But discipline is hard to find with impatient people like me. ...
All you can say is digital doesn't improve learning progress for impatient people.
With my first digital, I shoot a few, DL and study exif for aperture, shutter and study the effect. And I learn panning within a few hours with decent result after that. That's is the basic advantage of digital that you fail to take advantage of. People used to manually jot down the data of each shot.... .................................................
cdifoto
06-28-2009, 07:40 AM
Digital is actually better for impatient people because it speeds up the learning curve by being available immediately & the shot settings handily embedded in the photo. The same impatient person has to write down his or her settings on a piece of paper for each shot then go through the whole waiting process to view the images. The problem with digital is those same impatient people have to slow down to actually look at the photos they're taking. The rate at which you capture your frames has no bearing on whether you learn or don't learn.
shahmatt
06-28-2009, 09:48 AM
I also agree with the opinion that digital cameras have made photography more accessible to impatient people. During the film days, a bad shot would cause frustration and money wasted in development, perhaps pushing an impatient person to just give the art up. But now a lot more shots are taken and a lot more learning is going on.
Just look at the world around you. In general, there are a whole lot more photographers around now, and a lot more good images taken by them and posted on facebook, myspace etc.
urfslam
06-28-2009, 10:25 AM
This has been an interesting discussion to this point. I think there are two different issues we are talking about. Digital does make it easier (and quicker) to master the mechanics of taking a good picture but I think it does less for the actual artistry of a photographer. Most pros that I've had discussions with talk about scouting a shot, especially landscapes. They talk about going back to a location at different times of the day and year to see how the light has changed, implying that there is a lot of time spent thinking about the shot. I think I'm pretty well versed in how my camera works but I don't think I'm that great of a photographer yet because don't spend the time being an artist. I guess I'm a mechanic right now.
Urf.
cdifoto
06-28-2009, 10:30 AM
That's all well and good for landscapes but that's not the defining characteristic of a professional. There are a lot of genres that do not afford the luxury of time.
Think it should have been rephrased and the lens used not mentioned. Rooz is right that the lens had nothing to do with getting that shot, but the technique, which is irrespective of the equipment made the shot. Alhough, you need something capable of a high shutter speed to make the shot
Umm... The shutter speed on that photo was 1/8th of a second!
Regarding fine definition of fragments, it's not the lens or camera that renders this. Even at the exposure used which was 1/35,000th the smaller particles are still moving fast enough to be blurred. Go down to 1/1,000,000 of a second and below and you're beginning to get into sharper fine particles. Go down further to 1/5,000,000th and you're reaching the limits of technology. Oh and by the way, to get 1/5,000,000th exposure I was quoted $50,000.
herc182
06-28-2009, 11:59 AM
Umm... The shutter speed on that photo was 1/8th of a second!
Regarding fine definition of fragments, it's not the lens or camera that renders this. Even at the exposure used which was 1/35,000th the smaller particles are still moving fast enough to be blurred. Go down to 1/1,000,000 of a second and below and you're beginning to get into sharper fine particles. Go down further to 1/5,000,000th and you're reaching the limits of technology. Oh and by the way, to get 1/5,000,000th exposure I was quoted $50,000.
:eek::eek: Really??? Blimey, shows how much I know!:)
Digital is awesome, but no matter how you look at it, it has cut the value of photographs.
What a picture could once be worth now is only a fraction, simply because its so much easier to get "technically" good pictures, theres alot more supply then demand.
As cameras advance this will only get worse (For professionals anyways, for everyone else its awesome.) Thus pros are forced to either work in the higher-end section (Times, NG, SI, etc) or specialise. (Weddings, Sports, etc.) Even news are slowly turning towards user submitted content such as video and pictures.
Family portraits are quickly becoming a thing of the past, i doubt anyone could still make a living off of this, Schools, even companys are slowly turning towards purchasing a camera rather then hiring a professional.
Look at companies like Lifetouch - they hire sales monkeys, not photographers. They only pay $7 per hour!
Oh god, that site is so poorly done i can't stand to actually look through it to even understand what they are about.
Ray Schnoor
06-29-2009, 06:25 AM
Think it should have been rephrased and the lens used not mentioned. Rooz is right that the lens had nothing to do with getting that shot, but the technique, which is irrespective of the equipment made the shot. Alhough, you need something capable of a high shutter speed to make the shot
Umm... The shutter speed on that photo was 1/8th of a second!
Regarding fine definition of fragments, it's not the lens or camera that renders this. Even at the exposure used which was 1/35,000th the smaller particles are still moving fast enough to be blurred. Go down to 1/1,000,000 of a second and below and you're beginning to get into sharper fine particles. Go down further to 1/5,000,000th and you're reaching the limits of technology. Oh and by the way, to get 1/5,000,000th exposure I was quoted $50,000.
Are you speaking of 2 different photos? You say that the shutter speed on that photo was 1/8th of a second, but then you go on to say that the exposure used was 1/35,000th. Which is it, or are you talking of 2 different photos. I believe that Rooz and Herc are speaking of the same photo.
Ray.
cdifoto
06-29-2009, 07:15 AM
His shutter speed was 1/8th but the duration of the flash was 1/35000th. Since there was no ambient light, the flash duration is what froze the movement of the bits and pieces. An even shorter flash duration would have frozen the pieces better.
Any time there's no ambient (constant) light source contributing to the exposure, it's the flash's duration that determines how much or how fast the action can be and be captured as if it were still. Not all flashes are created equal in this regard.
Ray Schnoor
06-29-2009, 07:42 AM
I had forgotten that he was using a flash at 1/35000 giving him an effective exposure time of 1/35000 s with a 1/8 shutter speed in his darkened shed.
Ray.
Same photo. All my high-speed photos have exposures of 1/35,000th and a shutter speed of 8 seconds.
herc182
06-30-2009, 04:27 AM
Same photo. All my high-speed photos have exposures of 1/35,000th and a shutter speed of 8 seconds.
what flash do you use to give you that exposure??
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.