Anyone that pretend
They know it all about PHOTOGRAPHY
Is just one person opinion
NEXT GUY will have different opinion
So what happen masses follow one of these
PRICES, Processing, softwares are all preferences and they can be personal preferences
NO set rules on pricing, processing programs you use etc etc...
ONE PERSONs opinion doesn't set rules in stone
I have seen people always ask what price to set for their work, or stating very come statement AS IS FROM CAMERA, who cares that is traditional photography don't expect to get rich just cause it's AS IS from camera ....and remember CAMERA is not your EYE and doesn't match exact color that you see in nature .....so then processing is necessary ......washed out PHOTOGRAPHY doesn't appeal doesn't make people WOW ....what do you think ANSEL ADAMS did in his dark room.....nova days DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY is misunderstood and most of all everyone is photographer ....
Oh and best YET ...NOT PHOTOSHOPPED .....does it make any difference ...ask yourself what are you trying to prove ? This is digital era everything goes
There is a word for people who think they own the world and know all the answers and look down on others who, judging from their work - are just a good. But we aren't allowed to use bad words here or put others down.
I always reply that it isn't the camera,but the vision behind the camera. There are images here taken with phones and sell well and images here taken with ten's of thousands of dollars worth of top of the line gear and aren't much more than well exposed snapshots. There are images on the Internet taken with Holga cameras, with plastic lenses that sell for 5 fiqures or more.
It's not what you're holding in front of you, but what you're using behind it.
Vision can't be bought at B&H Photo and that's what separate the true artists from the technicians.......
You are absolutely right ....however if u leave image as is no matter how well the skills are
you still must process those images ......digital cameras are not there yet ...if we exclude composition and subject
you will find out that colors no matter what u do in camera won't be what your eye see .....therefore from a memory
that you stored in your mind when shooting must be enhanced ......
Although u didn't have to do that when u used VELVIA
When we talking landscape
And equipment ....sure somewhat snapshots
But when one shoot wildlife there is no time to blink eye
Those animals don't stop like in a zoo and pose for you
It's work and equipment does help......it's speed redyness and skill
However cell phone shots he he I laugh big time....it differs when we talking poster size and on up images
No one will ever convince me that in that case equipment is not important .....but again there is photographers and there is photographers
I have seen some images that come out of good equipment but if person is not artistic image will be flat and less to be desired
Unfortunately wildlife resident in a zoo doesn't pose for you either. Some species may sit because they choose to do so, but many are more or less continually on the move! It can also be a different style to photographing in their natural habitat, eg a particular characteristic of a species or the personality of a particular animal. Someone with a huge lens and tripod may not be able to respond quickly, and miss many opportunities for 'unique' shots.
zoo shots are harder actually. because you don't have choice animals, backgrounds, angles, etc. people are in the way, you can't get into the pen, many places don't allow tripping hazard tripods. getting something that doesn't look like a zoo shot is much harder. and if you can do it with a phone, even better at showing your skill. those camera phones are actually getting some decent pictures. not really for size, but overall clarity they work pretty well. surprisingly well.
Adam Ansel said about this darkroom work that 'Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships'. What makes his work shine is his dedication to getting things right to begin with, to painstakingly wait and wait and wait until everything comes together. That is not the same as processing a digital image in PS IMO. His images would have probably already looked awesome without the darkroom work, partially because he shot on film which already has certain characteristics. His darkroom work was not about trying to polish a turd (which in the end is still a turd as we all know)
Oh and best YET ...NOT PHOTOSHOPPED .....does it make any difference ...ask yourself what are you trying to prove ? This is digital era everything goes
Yes it does make a difference. The nature of digital is such that it's hard to escape the need for post processing. In essence you are converting what you see into a bunch of zeroes and ones through the sensor as apposed to burning light into a chemically treated piece of plastic.
I can see how people would be into getting the most out of a photo without photoshop. Instead of using photoshop to 'correct God's mistakes' it has become a crutch for people to lean on. To the point maybe where its not photography skills that matter, but photoshop skills.
I have no interest in becoming a photoshop guru or spending hours playing around with sliders. Why not? Because I want to be a photographer not a digital artist. And there are others like me who are more interested in the photography aspect rather than the post-processing, who just want to get out there and shoot.
Ask yourself what YOU are trying to prove with this post.
Which goes to prove my statement that regardless of equipment, the Artist has to be where they need to be and be able to "see" the image about to be created and capture the right moment, whether with a phone, a plastic camera or the new "state of the art" cameras.
The greater the artist's vision, the greater the art that is created, vs, the most expensive camera system doesn't guarantee the best images!
the best gear only gives you the opportunity to capture a picture. the more expensive the camera, the faster the shutter, the faster the focus, the larger and cleaner the image is. but if you don't have a story, don't have good lighting etc, no camera will help you out. photoshop is a very useful tool, i do rely on it, not because the images are bad but that's how i present my own things. you can get great work out of a small camera. digital has better exposure and color compared to film as far as i'm concerned, and many can get it right in camera. many will still tweak it.
many do think it's a show off that they don't need to edit. or they don't think they need to edit. many things should be edited. editing is the icing on a cake, you don't need it, but it tastes a lot better with it. but, if you can do it right the first time, then it cuts down on edit time and you can do more with your day.
This is what is wrong with digital world.....everyone wants to be Photograher ....
But they don't wanna accept digital manipulation ..they wanna keep it as film era
You can't have both
You either accept digital the way it is or go back to film...
I been 30 years film Photograher ...but I also accepted digital for what it is
Manipulation, photoshop u name it ...sooner we accept these factors sooner we will produce better work
The really great thing about reading the opinions of others is that we have the freedom to take them, or leave them. The best part is that we can learn from them. I pay far more attention to people with experience than those without. But I also don't dismiss the thoughts of those who are less experienced. If we get too arrogant and blow off what someone says just because we think their photography is crap, then we might miss out on a valuable gem of information. We also have to remember that we were once that person. Its a balancing act. We have to weigh it all out and see what fits with our goals and ideals. We also have to be willing to eat humble pie and change our way of thinking sometimes too.
Mike said: "many do think it's a show off that they don't need to edit. or they don't think they need to edit. many things should be edited. editing is the icing on a cake, you don't need it, but it tastes a lot better with it. but, if you can do it right the first time, then it cuts down on edit time and you can do more with your day. "
I couldn't agree more. This is perhaps one of the best statements in the thread.
DwN said: everyone wants to be Photograher ....But they don't wanna accept digital manipulation
The opposite is just as bad I think. Over processing. Thinking that applying an effect on something makes it a great photo. A few years ago when Topaz came out with all those filters and people started combining HDR with heavy buzz filters I saw a lot of crap winning on contest web sites. Why? Because it looked "cool" and quickly drew the eye to it. Where is all that stuff now? You certainly don't see it selling on FAA.
"You can't have both." WHY NOT? I love digital. Some of my images I process the hell out of, going for
various severe effects. Most of them I process to a point where they are what I consider nicely enhanced.
Very few of them I post AS IS from the camera - and if I do, I will mention that, because some people
are interested. I am not trying to prove anything, just saying this is what I saw.
but you can have both. if you were good with film, you should be just as good with digital. not much as changed. they work the same way. the main difference is, when you sent your film in to be developed, the lab would automatically adjust colors and such so the prints would look good. with a digital, it's all in your hands. it will come out the same as a film camera. if your really good with a camera, you'll need to just tweak the colors a bit.
yes there are many cameras out there. and many people do shoot them. and many think they are wonderful at it, and they are totally wrong at the same time. but that doesn't matter. the more cameras there are, the cheaper they will get for me.
photoshop is the spice on your taco. it's the frosting on your cake, its the color in your butterfly, it's the shine on your peacock, it's the color in your coolaid. you don't really need it, but it makes everything nicer and cleaner. if we didn't have those things in the examples mentioned, we wouldn't miss them. but its nice to have them. at most if your good at shooting with a camera and know what to expose for, or better, know the settings to use (something i have no idea how to do), then all you should have to do later on is, increase brightness, straighten it a bit, maybe clone out something unavoidable. that should be it.
unfortunately, many take the program for granted. why should i pose in that picture, when you can just easily photoshop me in later. or i'll worry about how dark or bright this is later on, photoshop can fix anything. compose? why bother, i can clone out that garbage can, i don't need to shoot around it. blurry? bad lens? doesn't matter, i'll sharpen it to the max later on.
a good picture is one that doesn't look edited at all. the ones that tout they didn't do anything - usually have crooked, over and under exposed images. the ones that show off they did edit it, are usually over sharp, over saturated, too much contrast - and often still crooked.
@am - yeah the nikon is up to 36mp, but still has only 25,000 iso max. the 5d mkiii has 22mp, but has an iso range of 100,000. it's better for low light. where as the other camera is better for outdoors for larger prints. i think digital passed 35mm a long time ago. it hasn't beaten medium format, which is the new comparison for some reason. unless you get a digital medium format with like a 100mp or more cmos. but the pictures are giant in megs. after a while they'll compare them to large format film... which would be totally unfair.
Oh, digital surely has passed film now and my friend has a medium format back that captures 80+mps! And then he stitches together 3-4 images and ends up with files that are over 1-2 gigs!
He has a print made from our local Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, of this 1 gator, probably 8-10 feet that hangs out in the same basic area everyday and he made a life size print on canvas of it! Amazing!!!
I would be more interested in ISO range than total megabytes!
the mkiii, 25,000 iso or so, is about the same as iso 5000-6400 on the mkii more or less. it cleans up pretty well. it gets messier on 50,000 and up, but i would rather have noise than blur.
iso 10,000 on that camera is amazingly clean.
In my experience, a Lab guy/gal, has never been able to produce what I needed, compared to what I can control and adjust myself and that's the true value of digital photography. For a lab to produce a print, comparable to what I can do with Photoshop, would cost hundreds of dollars and multi visits to the lab, darken this, but not that, saturate this, but not that,etc. would be impossible and folks that think that those were the good old days are dreaming! I had a Lab and was a Master printer, but there is no way for me to produce an image, with chemicals and papers, that can possibly stand up to what I can now do with the computer and a old Epson printer!
Printing B&W could come close, but any color images would never attain this level of perfection, we,as artist can now produce,
Not about cameras and photographers,...but I've seen the same mentality with some of them too.
I knew someone many years ago who constantly would brag and brag about his Corvette.
The bragging and boasting would never stop,.......my Corvette is better than this, better than that, theres nothing like my Corvette, you have a lousy car, you don't have a Corvette.
I finally said the him,....For crying out loud,....All you did was buy the stupid thing,....you didn't build the damn thing from scratch.
Went right over his head.
Louis "Sachmo" Armstrong had a wonderful quote,....
“There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them.”
a good camera can make the difference depending on what the subject is. just like a good lens makes a difference. it's more like having a really good kitchen knife, you can't make locks with a basic knife. it has to be razor sharp to make thin slices, and in cases like that, one can say the knife had an hand in it. or a plain oven vs a stone hearth oven to bake pizza in. the equipment can separate you from others.
top of the line cameras focus faster in many conditions, have better iso, mp etc. but it's a tool, and nothing more than that. put a $3000 camera in a the hands of someone who doesn't know anything about composition or timing or whatever, and you will get a snap shot from a very expensive camera. a good photographer can get great results out of camera without relying on photoshop.
photoshop does help you clean things though and makes it a bit better. canon cameras have a tendency to be a bit soft out of camera. or i should say, they don't sharpen it as much as other cameras, so adding more sharpness after makes the image better looking usually. whenever possible i try to limit the amount of cloning i have to do. i'll stand over to one side, at an odd angle. i'll wait for a person to walk by and block the offending object. i'll line up hard to clone things with something that's easier to do. anything to help me down the road. the better you can get it in camera, the less work you have to do later. at most a good picture might need to be brightened, that's how it should be typically if done right.
i can take a good shot with a pocket camera as well, but i just don't have the same control as i do with an slr, so the camera is actually pretty important. it's the reason i keep upgrading mine.
I would agree 100% if we change the "better" to " more technically correct!" pictures. As we both know, a better camera system won't help a person's sense of "vision" of what they are trying to capture, just make the image more properly exposed,etc., "Mo betta" is the tecnical term I was looking for,
I was really handicapped with my older dslr while photographing migrating birds. Three frames per second, small buffer, shutter lag, plus slow auto focus killed a lot of excellent photo ops. ISO's higher than 400 are extremely grainy that makes images unsuitable for printing too. But it is an old camera and camera technology has changed for the better. A new camera is in the works and that's why I have to sell prints to upgrade my gear for the type of photography I do. You can have all the vision in the world, but if the camera is unsuitable to record the data effectively, then upgrading is a must. The images which came out were excellent so I did not get skunked! I also had pea-soup fog to shoot through on Tuesday morning, high winds, freezing temperatures, and uncanny lighting so it was very challenging too--and that played a major factor in reducing success too. With nature photography, I do not need to have the limits of a camera to magnify the obstacles that nature throws at me. When I do get a new dslr, my old camera will be used for photographing wildflowers and slow moving critters which it handles admirably. I looked over the D800e and it is a great camera for landcape work and coupled with the best lenses Nikon has to offer can produce some fantastic images.....................Jim
I agree! And your're the "poster child" for a new system! Seems to be a much more robust camera than the Canon 5D MKIII. And I love the fact that it has a pop-up flash built in, which I think every camera should have! Let us know when you get it!
I seem to be in agreement with many of you on this topic. A poor photographer will rarely come out with a good shot even with the most expensive equipment. However, a good photographer will still come out with a good shot with mediocre equipment. Having better equipment allows a photographer the ability to take higher quality images. There are limits to cameras, lens, and flashes and those limits can effect the quality of an image no matter the quality of the photographer.
Ex a photographer taking a shot with a poor lens that isn't sharp from edge to edge will not have a perfectly sharp image no matter how good of a photographer they are. Also, the difference between a pop-up flash and a proper flash is huge and could drastically limit a photographer. I am sure many of you can think of examples for cameras as well.
There are some things inherent to the quality of a photo that do not come from the abilities of the equipment. Those skills, such as composition, the right lighting, and proper exposure control to name a few, someone can apply to any photo no matter the equipment. Thus making it possible for a good photographer to take a good picture with poor equipment.
Sharpness isn't everything and a good photographer with a mediocre lens, will deliver "Art" vs a person with the most expensive gear, delivering a properly exposed image. That was my point. See Holga images for examples.
And as far as your comment about the flash, it really applies to high end cameras that don't have a built in flash vs those that do. Many times, when using my Canon, I wish I had a simple flash, just a bit of fill flash, to improve the image capture. The Nikon has a built in flash and that's a step in the right direction, as I mentioned.
I'll probably stick to Pentax right now. I have quite a bit of cash invested in Pentax lenses and the K5 II series produce fantastic images at 7 frames per second. The D800 is also slow in terms of frames per second and requires a fairly expensive external battery for higher burst rate exposures. The only lens that I will invest in is a 500mm for birds. My 300 does not have enough reach and only works well on birds that are either too dumb or too tired to fly away :D................Jim
the mkiii has a 6 fps, i don't understand why they keep the flash off the thing, that makes little sense. but i have a 270ex flash with a diffuser on there that seems to work pretty well. but the deciding factor will always be - do i want to change the whole lens system? no, not really. though there are some converters available. one of the things i didn't like about the nikon besides the iso, is the lack of a program ability. i can program 3 things on my camera which makes making different kinds of pictures really fast, provided i rotate it to the right one.
I was misunderstood ....
I was saying about film .....when I was shooting velvia ....and I took to Kansas City lab for example, they would adjust colors more blue for water landscape ....but still would look natural and not over saturated .....
Sorry I didn't answer it earlier was busy shooting bears lol
i have the galaxy 3 camera, i think it's pretty good. for a phone in a camera. it handles low light really well, takes a nice movie, provided you save it right, which i did wrong the first time, and kept it in portrait which is too easy to do. in a pinch though it can take a pretty good picture. though between that and almost anything else, i'll choose the other. but what i do like is that the camera is silent (i have an addon that shuts the sound off without crippling the picture).