Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?

Mxsmanic writes:

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

What better equipment do you have in mind?

A Hasselblad. Or a view camera. Both would produce better images.

Only if the subject would give you time to set them up, though, and hold
still long enough for a sharp exposure. That's why the 35mm revolution
was so fast and such a big deal; it produce much more realistic photos.

That photo is outdoors, not especially close, and not involving anything
moving. Amusingly, I think it's possible that a Brownie might actually
have done better -- or at least a larger-format folding camera with a
good lens might have done better.

So it was the photographer who made the photo, and the equipment really didn't
matter.

Or it was an f/8 and be there moment, and neither one really mattered.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
So the camera *IS* important to some extent! How important depends on
the
viewer and purpose of the photo.

There are very few photos for which image quality is paramount.

As always you forgot the all important, IN YOUR OPINION.
All commercial photographers, and many amateur photographers would beg to
differ.

Trevor.

MC wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

It sounds like some people here are bitter about the fact that people
can take good-quality pictures today without "paying their dues" with
hours in darkrooms and thousands spend at labs.

What technology does is even the playing field. Now everyone can have
a decent camera and take pictures with it easily. Which means that,
to a greater and greater extent, the only thing that separates pros
from amateurs is the photographer himself. Equipment doesn't matter,
and doesn't help.

But the point that is being made is that it is this technology that has
given the really bad photographers a false sense of being good.

Being good almost never meant having a sort-of OK exposed photo
which is sharp. You probably could train an ape or a clever dog
to manage that.

Which means that it's a skill, not very different from driving
a car and arriving without an accident.

If your claim to fame was just that ... well, you never were good.

This
leads to the world to being flooded with mediocre photographs and
photographers which, in turn, leads to the bar being set so low that
the ingnorant and uneducated will actually employ second rate
photographic services as being the norm.

And what's wrong with that? Most people don't drive first
rate luxury cars, wear first rate watches, have first rate
supercomputers, live in first rate mansions, have first rate hair
cutters, own first rate lenses and first rate cameras, wear first
rate clothes, fly first class, etc.

Why should they employ first rate photographic services? It's more
expensive and doesn't give *them* anything of value.


Anyone can push the shutter button on a camera but very few understand
what makes a a good photograph, let alone how it is acheived.

Anyone can take scissors and cut hair, but very few
understand what makes a good haircut (only what a not-lousy
haircut is) ...

-Wolfgang

"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
There are very few photos for which image quality is paramount.

As always you forgot the all important, IN YOUR OPINION.
All commercial photographers, and many amateur photographers would beg to
differ.

}Actually I don't think I agree with that.
}I don;t seem many award winning pictures of lens resoultion test
}charts.

If you think that's all commercial photographers and serious amateurs shoot,
I'm not sure what you are even doing reading these newsgroups? There must be
some relevent to the subjects you are actually interested in, if any.

Trevor.

On 2/3/12 2:08 PM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Trevor writes:

If you think that's all commercial photographers and serious amateurs shoot,
I'm not sure what you are even doing reading these newsgroups?

That's about all that gearheads shoot. Great equipment, terrible, terrible
photos. Nothing but test shots, tree bark, old men, sunsets, cats, and
flowers.

Yep. Those subjects sure pay the bills, you bet.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
That's about all that gearheads shoot. Great equipment, terrible, terrible
photos. Nothing but test shots, tree bark, old men, sunsets, cats, and
flowers.

Nothing like a maniac to make such inane generalisations.

Trevor.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
I'd like to see how seasoned, talented pros do it.

I thought you already knew it all, that's what you've been telling us
anyway.

Trevor.

On 2/3/2012 10:22 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Trevor writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

That's about all that gearheads shoot. Great equipment, terrible, terrible
photos. Nothing but test shots, tree bark, old men, sunsets, cats, and
flowers.

Nothing like a maniac to make such inane generalisations.

Where can I view your photo portfolio? I'd like to see how seasoned, talented
pros do it.


You have a better chance of seeing Mothman's portfolio.

--
Peter

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:25:51 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
: PeterN writes:
:
: You have a better chance of seeing Mothman's portfolio.
:
: What type of equipment does he use?

His imagination, mostly. But he rails on about the inestimable advantages of
cheap superzoom P&Sses and thinks we're all fools for owning DSLRs.

Bob