Upgrated the equipment? Or something else...

eNo wrote:
Ever heard the advice "get better glass, not a new body" or "upgrade
the photographer, not the equipment"? See some of my one thoughts on
these at:

http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=664

~~~
eNo
http://esfotoclix.com


I agree with upgrade the photographer :-)

Many of my best images have come from 50+ year old equipment. And some
of them, like an old rolleicord TLR has a fixed normal lens.

I think the best way to improve your photography is force yourself to
use a VERY basic quality camera with a fixed focal length and LEARN how
to make it do different thing by using your brain. It will also teach
you more about exposure than any modern auto camera ever will. "Feature
sets" don't improve your photography.

The other is to shoot B&W FILM for a while. This forces you to look at
shapes and understand colors and how they interact so you learn how to
filter the color. Shooting with digital and later playing in PS doesn't
FORCE you to understand this.

Or you can do like some people promote he buy a huge memory card,
shoot thousands of images and then search though them for something decent.

Looking at what a pro sports or newspaper photographer use has little to
nothing to do with what you should choose to use. You also have to
remember many of them are either given or sold cheaply the "newest
stuff" because what better advertising can a manufacturer get than
having the sidelines filled with their gear being used. Obviously THAT
has an effect at least on the OP's buying habits!

The better thing is to honestly sit down and say to yourself, what
exactly does my present gear not allow me to do and try to see if it's
YOU that is the actual limit and not your gear. It's just like the
crappy golfer that instead of practicing, goes and buys new clubs. Of
course you do need -decent- clubs but the newest, latest greatest clubs
aren't likely to turn you into as good a golfer as a pro using them on
TV is.

Stephanie

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:16:41 -0400, "
wrote:

eNo wrote:
Ever heard the advice "get better glass, not a new body" or "upgrade
the photographer, not the equipment"? See some of my one thoughts on
these at:

http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=664

~~~
eNo
http://esfotoclix.com


I agree with upgrade the photographer :-)

Many of my best images have come from 50+ year old equipment. And some
of them, like an old rolleicord TLR has a fixed normal lens.

I think the best way to improve your photography is force yourself to
use a VERY basic quality camera with a fixed focal length and LEARN how
to make it do different thing by using your brain. It will also teach
you more about exposure than any modern auto camera ever will. "Feature
sets" don't improve your photography.

The other is to shoot B&W FILM for a while. This forces you to look at
shapes and understand colors and how they interact so you learn how to
filter the color. Shooting with digital and later playing in PS doesn't
FORCE you to understand this.

All my early photography was in B+W. At that time I used to think that
people who used color had an enormous advantage just from the impact
of their (then) novel images. Fifty years later I think the impact of
the photographs of the people who most successfully shoot B+W have an
enormous advantage over those who have to rely on the impact of color.

Or you can do like some people promote he buy a huge memory card,
shoot thousands of images and then search though them for something decent.

Looking at what a pro sports or newspaper photographer use has little to
nothing to do with what you should choose to use. You also have to
remember many of them are either given or sold cheaply the "newest
stuff" because what better advertising can a manufacturer get than
having the sidelines filled with their gear being used. Obviously THAT
has an effect at least on the OP's buying habits!

The better thing is to honestly sit down and say to yourself, what
exactly does my present gear not allow me to do and try to see if it's
YOU that is the actual limit and not your gear. It's just like the
crappy golfer that instead of practicing, goes and buys new clubs. Of
course you do need -decent- clubs but the newest, latest greatest clubs
aren't likely to turn you into as good a golfer as a pro using them on
TV is.

Stephanie



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:16:41 -0400, "
wrote:

eNo wrote:
Ever heard the advice "get better glass, not a new body" or "upgrade
the photographer, not the equipment"? See some of my one thoughts on
these at:

http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=664

~~~
eNo
http://esfotoclix.com

I agree with upgrade the photographer :-)


The other is to shoot B&W FILM for a while. This forces you to look at
shapes and understand colors and how they interact so you learn how to
filter the color. Shooting with digital and later playing in PS doesn't
FORCE you to understand this.

All my early photography was in B+W. At that time I used to think that
people who used color had an enormous advantage just from the impact
of their (then) novel images. Fifty years later I think the impact of
the photographs of the people who most successfully shoot B+W have an
enormous advantage over those who have to rely on the impact of color.

I think MANY photographers has no idea what luminosity and tones really
are and how this applies to shooting good images. They rely on the color
to make an image "pop". It's like the whole crowd who gets all excited
about shooting fall colors or a brilliant colored sunset and they are
relying on the vivid colors rather than the shapes and tones to make
something decent out of what is in front of the camera. Most sunset and
fall colors images I have seen would be dull and bland in B&W. You need
to be able to shoot something that is interesting in B&W and THEN add
color. I still try to visualize the scene in B&W even if I am shooting
color. If it wouldn't work in B&W, there probably isn't much there to
start with.

Stephanie

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:13:34 -0400, "
wrote:
: Eric Stevens wrote:
: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:16:41 -0400, "
: wrote:
:
: eNo wrote:
: Ever heard the advice "get better glass, not a new body" or "upgrade
: the photographer, not the equipment"? See some of my one thoughts on
: these at:
:
: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=664
:
: ~~~
: eNo
: http://esfotoclix.com
:
: I agree with upgrade the photographer :-)
:
:
: The other is to shoot B&W FILM for a while. This forces you to look at
: shapes and understand colors and how they interact so you learn how to
: filter the color. Shooting with digital and later playing in PS doesn't
: FORCE you to understand this.
:
: All my early photography was in B+W. At that time I used to think that
: people who used color had an enormous advantage just from the impact
: of their (then) novel images. Fifty years later I think the impact of
: the photographs of the people who most successfully shoot B+W have an
: enormous advantage over those who have to rely on the impact of color.
:
: I think MANY photographers has no idea what luminosity and tones really
: are and how this applies to shooting good images. They rely on the color
: to make an image "pop". It's like the whole crowd who gets all excited
: about shooting fall colors or a brilliant colored sunset and they are
: relying on the vivid colors rather than the shapes and tones to make
: something decent out of what is in front of the camera. Most sunset and
: fall colors images I have seen would be dull and bland in B&W. You need
: to be able to shoot something that is interesting in B&W and THEN add
: color. I still try to visualize the scene in B&W even if I am shooting
: color. If it wouldn't work in B&W, there probably isn't much there to
: start with.

That is nonsense. Effete, erudite nonsense, but nonsense all the same. Of
course there are subjects that work perfectly well in B&W, and B&W photography
has a long and noble tradition. But to suggest that a picture should not be
taken in color unless it would have worked as well in B&W is assinine.

Bob

" writes:
I think MANY photographers has no idea what luminosity and tones really
are and how this applies to shooting good images. They rely on the color
to make an image "pop". It's like the whole crowd who gets all excited
about shooting fall colors or a brilliant colored sunset and they are
relying on the vivid colors rather than the shapes and tones to make
something decent out of what is in front of the camera. Most sunset and
fall colors images I have seen would be dull and bland in B&W. You need
to be able to shoot something that is interesting in B&W and THEN add
color.

That seems a bit excessive.

There needs to be _something_ interesting about a picture (otherwise it
isn't interesting , and a picture with multiple orthogonal layers of
interest is of course even cooler -- but using color as the main point
of interest seems perfectly valid...

[I like to use B&W because color seems just one more thing I have to
worry about!]

-Miles

--
Cabbage, n. A familiar kitchen-garden vegetable about as large and wise as a
man's head.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:16:41 -0400, "
wrote:

eNo wrote:
Ever heard the advice "get better glass, not a new body" or "upgrade
the photographer, not the equipment"? See some of my one thoughts on
these at:

http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=664

I agree with upgrade the photographer :-)

Many of my best images have come from 50+ year old equipment. And some
of them, like an old rolleicord TLR has a fixed normal lens.

I think the best way to improve your photography is force yourself to
use a VERY basic quality camera with a fixed focal length and LEARN how
to make it do different thing by using your brain. It will also teach
you more about exposure than any modern auto camera ever will. "Feature
sets" don't improve your photography.

The other is to shoot B&W FILM for a while. This forces you to look at
shapes and understand colors and how they interact so you learn how to
filter the color. Shooting with digital and later playing in PS doesn't
FORCE you to understand this.

All my early photography was in B+W. At that time I used to think that
people who used color had an enormous advantage just from the impact
of their (then) novel images. Fifty years later I think the impact of
the photographs of the people who most successfully shoot B+W have an
enormous advantage over those who have to rely on the impact of color.

So you think Eggleston would have done a lot better to stick to B&W?

--
Chris Malcolm

wrote:

I think MANY photographers has no idea what luminosity and tones really
are and how this applies to shooting good images. They rely on the color
to make an image "pop". It's like the whole crowd who gets all excited
about shooting fall colors or a brilliant colored sunset and they are
relying on the vivid colors rather than the shapes and tones to make
something decent out of what is in front of the camera. Most sunset and
fall colors images I have seen would be dull and bland in B&W. You need
to be able to shoot something that is interesting in B&W and THEN add
color. I still try to visualize the scene in B&W even if I am shooting
color. If it wouldn't work in B&W, there probably isn't much there to
start with.

Peacocks, parrots, and make up artists are obviously badly in need of
your advice :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

In article ,
says...
-:On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:13:34 -0400, "
-:wrote:
-:: Eric Stevens wrote:
-:: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:16:41 -0400, "
-:: wrote:
-::
-:: eNo wrote:
-:: Ever heard the advice "get better glass, not a new body" or "upgrade
-:: the photographer, not the equipment"? See some of my one thoughts on
-:: these at:
-::
-:: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=664
-::
-:: ~~~
-:: eNo
-:: http://esfotoclix.com
-::
-:: I agree with upgrade the photographer :-)
-::
-::
-:: The other is to shoot B&W FILM for a while. This forces you to look at
-:: shapes and understand colors and how they interact so you learn how to
-:: filter the color. Shooting with digital and later playing in PS doesn't
-:: FORCE you to understand this.
-::
-:: All my early photography was in B+W. At that time I used to think that
-:: people who used color had an enormous advantage just from the impact
-:: of their (then) novel images. Fifty years later I think the impact of
-:: the photographs of the people who most successfully shoot B+W have an
-:: enormous advantage over those who have to rely on the impact of color.
-::
-:: I think MANY photographers has no idea what luminosity and tones really
-:: are and how this applies to shooting good images. They rely on the color
-:: to make an image "pop". It's like the whole crowd who gets all excited
-:: about shooting fall colors or a brilliant colored sunset and they are
-:: relying on the vivid colors rather than the shapes and tones to make
-:: something decent out of what is in front of the camera. Most sunset and
-:: fall colors images I have seen would be dull and bland in B&W. You need
-:: to be able to shoot something that is interesting in B&W and THEN add
-:: color. I still try to visualize the scene in B&W even if I am shooting
-:: color. If it wouldn't work in B&W, there probably isn't much there to
-:: start with.
-:
-:That is nonsense.

not really, just maybe a little too generalized.
With good composition, and good structure in the image
unless the image depends on the colors,
she is right.

much of the time,
if you can not get a good B&W image, add color.
if that does not work, add motion (video.)
If it does still does not work, add sound.
if all of these do not distract enough from the weak subject,
you are out of luck, and out of distractions.

then rethink the image.

-:Effete, erudite nonsense, but nonsense all the same. Of
-:course there are subjects that work perfectly well in B&W, and B&W photography
-:has a long and noble tradition. But to suggest that a picture should not be
-:taken in color unless it would have worked as well in B&W is assinine.
-:
-:Bob
-:

On 27 Sep 2009 11:21:22 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:16:41 -0400, "
wrote:

eNo wrote:
Ever heard the advice "get better glass, not a new body" or "upgrade
the photographer, not the equipment"? See some of my one thoughts on
these at:

http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=664

I agree with upgrade the photographer :-)

Many of my best images have come from 50+ year old equipment. And some
of them, like an old rolleicord TLR has a fixed normal lens.

I think the best way to improve your photography is force yourself to
use a VERY basic quality camera with a fixed focal length and LEARN how
to make it do different thing by using your brain. It will also teach
you more about exposure than any modern auto camera ever will. "Feature
sets" don't improve your photography.

The other is to shoot B&W FILM for a while. This forces you to look at
shapes and understand colors and how they interact so you learn how to
filter the color. Shooting with digital and later playing in PS doesn't
FORCE you to understand this.

All my early photography was in B+W. At that time I used to think that
people who used color had an enormous advantage just from the impact
of their (then) novel images. Fifty years later I think the impact of
the photographs of the people who most successfully shoot B+W have an
enormous advantage over those who have to rely on the impact of color.

So you think Eggleston would have done a lot better to stick to B&W?

I think Eggleston's images are optimised to take advantage of colour
and I don't think many of them would work in black and white.

I suspect you are trying to read an unintended meaning into my words.



Eric Stevens

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:37:32 GMT, Bob wrote:
: In article ,
: says...
: -:On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:13:34 -0400, "
: -:wrote:
: -:: Eric Stevens wrote:
: -:: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:16:41 -0400, "
: -:: wrote:
: -::
: -:: eNo wrote:
: -:: Ever heard the advice "get better glass, not a new body" or "upgrade
: -:: the photographer, not the equipment"? See some of my one thoughts on
: -:: these at:
: -::
: -:: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=664
: -::
: -:: ~~~
: -:: eNo
: -:: http://esfotoclix.com
: -::
: -:: I agree with upgrade the photographer :-)
: -::
: -::
: -:: The other is to shoot B&W FILM for a while. This forces you to look at
: -:: shapes and understand colors and how they interact so you learn how to
: -:: filter the color. Shooting with digital and later playing in PS doesn't
: -:: FORCE you to understand this.
: -::
: -:: All my early photography was in B+W. At that time I used to think that
: -:: people who used color had an enormous advantage just from the impact
: -:: of their (then) novel images. Fifty years later I think the impact of
: -:: the photographs of the people who most successfully shoot B+W have an
: -:: enormous advantage over those who have to rely on the impact of color.
: -::
: -:: I think MANY photographers has no idea what luminosity and tones really
: -:: are and how this applies to shooting good images. They rely on the color
: -:: to make an image "pop". It's like the whole crowd who gets all excited
: -:: about shooting fall colors or a brilliant colored sunset and they are
: -:: relying on the vivid colors rather than the shapes and tones to make
: -:: something decent out of what is in front of the camera. Most sunset and
: -:: fall colors images I have seen would be dull and bland in B&W. You need
: -:: to be able to shoot something that is interesting in B&W and THEN add
: -:: color. I still try to visualize the scene in B&W even if I am shooting
: -:: color. If it wouldn't work in B&W, there probably isn't much there to
: -:: start with.
: -:
: -:That is nonsense.
:
: not really, just maybe a little too generalized.

You may call it "a little too generalized". I call it nonsense.

: With good composition, and good structure in the image
: unless the image depends on the colors, she is right.

Go back and read what she said. She explicitly disparaged the idea of shooting
any image (specifically sunsets and fall foliage) that depends on the colors.

Bob