If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Adoration of cameras
Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to
their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned with the tools than the images they make? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Adoration of cameras
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Adoration of cameras
wrote in message ... Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned with the tools than the images they make? Gee, where did you ever get a crazy idea like that? ;) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Adoration of cameras
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Adoration of cameras
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:45:45 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:09:44 -0400, wrote: : Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to : their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned : with the tools than the images they make? It's just you. Bob Maybe so. Based on the responses, I may be wrong. I just seem to see many many post about this lens or that camera or a plastic part used here or there or someone worried that that this or that camera has 5% more pixels. Time and ime again, their arguments all tend to be, plastic is bad, or this or that lens may resolve a couple of additional lines for 1,000. They tend to embrase the science of photography while ignoring the art of photograhy, the end result. I certainly don't want to suggest that the hardware of photograhy is not important, but don't you agree that a truely talented photographe, with good gear,r is likely to produce far better results than the lesser photographer with the best gear. I guess I should expect an emphises on the hardware since this NG is devoted to a specific type of camera. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Adoration of cameras
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:21:03 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote: On 10/6/09 08:57 , wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:45:45 -0400, Robert wrote: .... I certainly don't want to suggest that the hardware of photograhy is not important, but don't you agree that a truely talented photographe, with good gear,r is likely to produce far better results than the lesser photographer with the best gear. I guess I should expect an emphises on the hardware since this NG is devoted to a specific type of camera. Pretty much. But consider...the camera is a tool to the art. And the artist playing at a high level begins to depend and interact with his tools in a very intimate way. The science of the tool in artistic hands is understood in the terms of the art, not the science, So discussions tend to be heated, passionate, and very unforgiving of disagreement. Even though with a little patience, it becomes clear that two combatants are actually on the same page, only speaking different language. Try talking acoustics with a musician. Wear pads. There is no doubt a difference between the art and the science of photography. And there are some talented artists out there who really don't fully grasp the science. Just as there are some very skilled photographers out there who don't fully grasp the art. The difference between skill and talent is that skill is learned, talent is inate. Skill understands the science of why it does what it does. Talent understands the emotions of why it does what it does. Skill may be able to express it reasoning more clearly, scientifically, if you will, while talent is less able to express its reasoning scientifically. But it can speak to the emotions of what drives it. Performance differences between skill and talent can be negligible...skill can learn the mechanics of whatever talent does inately...but skill learns the science. Talent pursues the art. And there will usually be more skilled photographers than talented photographers. So, the discussions tend to the science. And since skill is taught, and talent cannot be, there will be fewer discussions by the talent of the art. So, again, discussions tend to be of the science. Then there is the talent, who also becomes skilled, learning the science, pursuing the art. Brilliant photography. There isn't enough space in the room for the ego. It's one of the things that makes them brilliant. But discussions there, tend to be very passionate, and they tend to take the last word, about the science and the art. And...yes, plastic is bad. I agree. I am also sad to say I am not a talented photographer. I am fairly well skilled, but most of my skill set goes back to a different context (I worked with 20X24 to 2¼ equipment) I and just over snapshoot shooter with modern equipment. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Adoration of cameras
On 10/6/09 17:24 , wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:21:03 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 10/6/09 08:57 , wrote: On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:45:45 -0400, Robert wrote: ... I certainly don't want to suggest that the hardware of photograhy is not important, but don't you agree that a truely talented photographe, with good gear,r is likely to produce far better results than the lesser photographer with the best gear. I guess I should expect an emphises on the hardware since this NG is devoted to a specific type of camera. Pretty much. But consider...the camera is a tool to the art. And the artist playing at a high level begins to depend and interact with his tools in a very intimate way. The science of the tool in artistic hands is understood in the terms of the art, not the science, So discussions tend to be heated, passionate, and very unforgiving of disagreement. Even though with a little patience, it becomes clear that two combatants are actually on the same page, only speaking different language. Try talking acoustics with a musician. Wear pads. There is no doubt a difference between the art and the science of photography. And there are some talented artists out there who really don't fully grasp the science. Just as there are some very skilled photographers out there who don't fully grasp the art. The difference between skill and talent is that skill is learned, talent is inate. Skill understands the science of why it does what it does. Talent understands the emotions of why it does what it does. Skill may be able to express it reasoning more clearly, scientifically, if you will, while talent is less able to express its reasoning scientifically. But it can speak to the emotions of what drives it. Performance differences between skill and talent can be negligible...skill can learn the mechanics of whatever talent does inately...but skill learns the science. Talent pursues the art. And there will usually be more skilled photographers than talented photographers. So, the discussions tend to the science. And since skill is taught, and talent cannot be, there will be fewer discussions by the talent of the art. So, again, discussions tend to be of the science. Then there is the talent, who also becomes skilled, learning the science, pursuing the art. Brilliant photography. There isn't enough space in the room for the ego. It's one of the things that makes them brilliant. But discussions there, tend to be very passionate, and they tend to take the last word, about the science and the art. And...yes, plastic is bad. I agree. I am also sad to say I am not a talented photographer. I am fairly well skilled, but most of my skill set goes back to a different context (I worked with 20X24 to 2¼ equipment) I and just over snapshoot shooter with modern equipment. In reality, it doesn't matter your level of performance. If you're getting the results you want, and you're enjoying the process, you'll improve to the level you wish to pursue. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Adoration of cameras
On 10/6/09 17:44 , Rich wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:09 am, wrote: Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned with the tools than the images they make? It's not you. Too many are pathetically and emotionally tied to their equipment. Just look at the reaction when anyone criticizes a brand. If they could convert neurosis into picture-taking talent, they'd all be publishable. I was on a pro bono shoot South Bend, this July, for Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation. D300, D700, and an assortment of glass. It was a lot of fun. At one point someone stepped up to me and asked what I was shooting....before I could answer, he's looked down at the camera at my side and said, "Let's see, EOS......." I looked at him and took a step back, "ExCUSE ME?!!" By that time, he'd caught the "Nikon" on my neck strap, and jumped back looking like he'd just called Mr T a racial epithet. "Oh, God, man...I'm so sorry. Sorry, man...Sorry." And he backed away. I laughed about that all the way back to Chicago. It really is more of a religion than it is about a brand. And, if taken in the proper perspective, very amusing. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Adoration of cameras
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... On 10/6/09 17:44 , Rich wrote: On Oct 4, 10:09 am, wrote: Is it just me or do many people her have some kind of devotion to their cameras and lenses; to the point where they are more concerned with the tools than the images they make? It's not you. Too many are pathetically and emotionally tied to their equipment. Just look at the reaction when anyone criticizes a brand. If they could convert neurosis into picture-taking talent, they'd all be publishable. I was on a pro bono shoot South Bend, this July, for Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation. D300, D700, and an assortment of glass. It was a lot of fun. At one point someone stepped up to me and asked what I was shooting....before I could answer, he's looked down at the camera at my side and said, "Let's see, EOS......." I looked at him and took a step back, "ExCUSE ME?!!" By that time, he'd caught the "Nikon" on my neck strap, and jumped back looking like he'd just called Mr T a racial epithet. "Oh, God, man...I'm so sorry. Sorry, man...Sorry." And he backed away. I laughed about that all the way back to Chicago. It really is more of a religion than it is about a brand. And, if taken in the proper perspective, very amusing. guffaw! That's probably true. On the other hand, of course, there really are only two kinds of people in the world: Nikon owners and the ones who wish they were Nikon owners. (And I am saying that with perfect objectivity, not a shred of personal bias.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Olympus Cameras - similar / consistent results from most of their cameras? | Paul D. Sullivan | Digital Photography | 20 | August 5th 07 09:03 PM |
Best site for buyers of Digital cameras!!! over 200 cameras reviews :) | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | August 7th 06 01:23 AM |
Digital Cameras,Cameras,Film,Online Developing,More | Walmart | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 16th 04 11:52 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? | [email protected] | Film & Labs | 20 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |