Why Equipment is only half the story

Graham Fountain wrote:
working within the limitations of the equipment, and
even using those limitations to your advantage is what makes a
photographer great.

Huh? A limitation by definition cannot be an advantage.
Because then it wouldn't be a limitation.

Another example is using the
extreme graininess in films like 3200TMZ to advantage to add atmosphere
to the photo, rather than the "cleaner is better" approach.

So making a photo noisy is an advantage?

One reason digital rules film is that adding noise is possible with
digital.
With film like the 3200TMZ the noise is already there. You're stuck
with it no matter what. It's a limitation.
Digital gives you the option (advantage) of adding the noise later and
determining the quality and quantity of that noise. Why you'd want to
is a subject for another time.
Once again .... Advantage Digital.

We tend to see the best of the best "old sports photos" though.
If you and I were looking at the daily sports photos on the sports page back
in the day...we might be less impressed.

That's a good point. And even the current daily photos in the local
paper are pretty abysmal.
I guess that's why those folks are working for the local paper here in
Podunk.

One reason digital rules film is that adding noise is possible with
digital.
With film like the 3200TMZ the noise is already there. You're stuck
with it no matter what. It's a limitation.
Digital gives you the option (advantage) of adding the noise later and
determining the quality and quantity of that noise. Why you'd want to
is a subject for another time.
Once again .... Advantage Digital.

One has to hand it to Bret, he's a staunch defender of his personal
purchasing choices, right or wrong.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...

Graham Fountain wrote:
working within the limitations of the equipment, and
even using those limitations to your advantage is what makes a
photographer great.

Huh? A limitation by definition cannot be an advantage.
Because then it wouldn't be a limitation.

Another example is using the
extreme graininess in films like 3200TMZ to advantage to add atmosphere
to the photo, rather than the "cleaner is better" approach.

So making a photo noisy is an advantage?

One reason digital rules film is that adding noise is possible with
digital.
With film like the 3200TMZ the noise is already there. You're stuck
with it no matter what. It's a limitation.
Digital gives you the option (advantage) of adding the noise later and
determining the quality and quantity of that noise. Why you'd want to
is a subject for another time.
Once again .... Advantage Digital.

Annika1980 wrote:
We tend to see the best of the best "old sports photos" though.
If you and I were looking at the daily sports photos on the sports
page back in the day...we might be less impressed.

That's a good point. And even the current daily photos in the local
paper are pretty abysmal.
I guess that's why those folks are working for the local paper here
in Podunk.

Interesting...
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/Public/footy This shot was taken with
a crappy old 20D and a "white lens". As far as the concept of pressing the
button and getting one out of a lot of shots goes. I come from an era when
changing the film holder between shots forced me to concentrate on the
moment and anticipate the shot.

The play (Aussie rules football) was on the far side of the ground and I
used a "monopod". I sat on the side line like the "Southern Gentleman" I'm
not and tracked the play for about 15 minutes. I took 10 shots in half an
hour. I think I'd have gotten a more pleasing photograph if I'd used my 645
Pentax or (If I only had the glass) my Mamiya Rz67.

I used to shoot a lot of sport in earlier times and I can honestly say; The
quality of the scene has not changed. I can't get any "better" pictures now
than I did in the '70s. The quality of lenses has been at a very high level
for more than 20 years and certainly the Mamiya 1000s SLR cameras were
capable of this level of capture then. Auto focus is not all it's cracked up
to be either.

I paid about the same in inflation corrected prices for the Mamiya gear as I
did for the 5D and D2x stuff. I think what has changed dramatically is the
amount of disposable cash people have today and the ready access to credit
if they don't. This gives people who previously could not afford "Pro" gear,
the means to get it. Sadly this also leads to many people with little or no
ability taking "technically correct, sharply focused" pictures and thinking
they are "creative" in their work.

Interesting...
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/Public/footy
This shot was taken with a crappy old 20D and a "white lens".

I like that shot. I'd like it even better if you cropped out the guy
walking in the background on the left and perhaps the player on the
right.

D Mac wrote
(in article ):

Interesting...
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/Public/footy This shot was taken with
a crappy old 20D and a "white lens". As far as the concept of pressing the
button and getting one out of a lot of shots goes. I come from an era when
changing the film holder between shots forced me to concentrate on the
moment and anticipate the shot.

Sort of the same process by which I kid taught how to shoot with
a single shot rifle will hit what he aims at, and one trained
with a magazine fed semi-auto will spend a lot of money on ammo
and hit very little.

I think what has changed dramatically is the
amount of disposable cash people have today and the ready access to credit
if they don't.

That's a huge cultural problem, even if it comes in 'handy' in
the short term.

This gives people who previously could not afford "Pro" gear,
the means to get it.

And gives their children and/or relatives the responsibility of
taking care of them later on when they are broke. Or, as is
more often the case, everyone else gets to pay for it instead.

What we should do as a culture is let people starve if they blow
their money on toys in their earlier years and run out after
they're too old to work. One generation of it actually
happening should make the point far more effectively than group
counseling seminars on credit management.

Sadly this also leads to many people with little or no
ability taking "technically correct, sharply focused" pictures and thinking
they are "creative" in their work.

Very true.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Annika1980 wrote:
Interesting...
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/Public/footy
This shot was taken with a crappy old 20D and a "white lens".

I like that shot. I'd like it even better if you cropped out the guy
walking in the background on the left and perhaps the player on the
right.

There is one difference between you and me Bret, which is light years apart.
Not including my good looks and undeniable charm. I almost never crop a
picture. I guess this comes from making big enlargements from 35mm film when
every speck of area was important. I notice you are like a lot of people I
come across who crop almost everything to get the composition which I use
the viewfinder to get. There's probably no clear reason for my method over
yours or which one is better or worse other than old habits die hard. Unless
you can't work with the gear you have, of course!

Douglas

D Mac wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Interesting...
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/Public/footy
This shot was taken with a crappy old 20D and a "white lens".
I like that shot. I'd like it even better if you cropped out the guy
walking in the background on the left and perhaps the player on the
right.

There is one difference between you and me Bret, which is light years apart.
Not including my good looks and undeniable charm. I almost never crop a
picture. I guess this comes from making big enlargements from 35mm film when
every speck of area was important. I notice you are like a lot of people I
come across who crop almost everything to get the composition which I use
the viewfinder to get. There's probably no clear reason for my method over
yours or which one is better or worse other than old habits die hard. Unless
you can't work with the gear you have, of course!


I really don't want get in the middle of any squabble between you boys,
but I couldn't agree more with the croppping out of the spectator in the
left bg.

I think I might keep the chap on the right, but I'd have to see.

As to composition, I try to nail it in the viewfinder, but am glad for
those I miss that I can rectify it in post if need be.

--

John McWilliams

"D Mac" writes:

There is one difference between you and me Bret, which is light
years apart. Not including my good looks and undeniable charm. I
almost never crop a picture. I guess this comes from making big
enlargements from 35mm film when every speck of area was
important. I notice you are like a lot of people I come across who
crop almost everything to get the composition which I use the
viewfinder to get. There's probably no clear reason for my method
over yours or which one is better or worse other than old habits die
hard. Unless you can't work with the gear you have, of course!

If you're using a fast prime to shoot a sports event from the
sidelines, for example, you're pretty much stuck with the FOV you get;
cropping can't be done in-camera at that point. You could skip every
picture that didn't use the full frame, I suppose, if you weren't
working professionally.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

D Mac wrote:
I almost never crop a picture.
I guess this comes from making big enlargements from 35mm film when
every speck of area was important.

If an element of the photo distracts, it should be removed. It matters
not if you do it in camera or later. It's the final pic that counts.

I notice you are like a lot of people I
come across who crop almost everything to get the composition which I use
the viewfinder to get.

Too bad you missed this one in the viewfinder then. The guy on the far
left ruins what might have been a very good photo.

Not cropping certainly doesn't make you a better photographer than one
who does. It just makes your work suffer. In a perfect world, we'd
always get the exact composition we desire in the viewfinder. But that
rarely happens shooting sports. Just another reason that more
megapixels ("better equipment") are important.

When I shoot I purposely try to give a little space around the subject,
giving me a margin of error. This not only keeps from cutting off
hands or feet in an attempt to "fill the frame," but it also allows you
some wiggle room when you are printing at various sizes.
If most of my prints were a 3:2 ratio (like an 8"x12") then I wouldn't
worry so much about it. But I prefer 5"x7" or 8"x10" prints where you
have to crop something.

BTW, how is that new Canon printer working out? Have you made any
large prints with it yet?