• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Different strokes

M

Mike Shimwell

New member
Here is a quote from another forum, 'helping out' someone who is agonising over whether to upgrade his Canon 20D now or wait for a 5D3.

"As far as cameras go, I agree that waiting too long for the latest camera, will only fill your image library with more substandard images. I always upgrade to the latest bodies as soon as they are released."

Please tell me we don't really believe that the standard of an image is dictated by the camera body used and that the pictures I took with the last camera become sub-standard when I egt the new one. Can a camera make me a better photographer?

My cameras obviously belong here:)

20090925_Tmax3200_Northumberland03mgs.jpg

Mike
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mike Shimwell said:
20090925_Tmax3200_Northumberland03mgs.jpg
Click to expand...
Mike,

I do like this picture. Who's have though that gravestones might even look like a whimsical conversation with people aligned in different postures.

As far as the latest, I'm willing to swap my G10 for the G11 to get one extra stop of lose noise exposure. When the tool works closer to human vision, and one needs to work in low light, it brecomes a matter of finance.

There were marksmen in the age of the earliest Winchester rifles, but today's version can get their traget at even great distance.

Asher
 
Nigel Allan

Nigel Allan

Member
Mike Shimwell said:
Here is a quote from another forum, 'helping out' someone who is agonising over whether to upgrade his Canon 20D now or wait for a 5D3.

"As far as cameras go, I agree that waiting too long for the latest camera, will only fill your image library with more substandard images. I always upgrade to the latest bodies as soon as they are released."

Please tell me we don't really believe that the standard of an image is dictated by the camera body used and that the pictures I took with the last camera become sub-standard when I egt the new one. Can a camera make me a better photographer?

My cameras obviously belong here:)

20090925_Tmax3200_Northumberland03mgs.jpg

Mike
Click to expand...

Just think, Mike, if you upgraded to the latest body you would then be able to take colour pictures as well ;)


...but seriously, there are a few issues raised here.

Whilst I DO AGREE that if you 'upgrade' to a camera that is easier to work with such as faster autofocus, better low light ISO and so, it may make practising your craft more pleasurable therefore more fun and in turn it 'could' make you a better photographer simply through increasing your sheer enjoyment of your tools and practising more. (But the question is this: what defines a better photographer?)

I feel this has happened somewhat to me when I changed from the Pentax K20D to the Nikon D300 despite being a long time Pentax lover with two manual bodies since I felt frustrated by its white balance and exposure idiosyncrasies and slow autofocus - I have never wanted or needed autofocus previously until I experienced it and then felt I wanted a camera with better AF once I had a taste for it - go figure. Am I a better photograher for having changed bodies? No, but it has helped me regain my love of photography instead of being constantly frustrated by the results.

Likewise if you work with a camera that is slow or you do not feel comfortable with it may diminish your enjoyment of photography and therefore practising it without joy will likely not yield the best results.

Having said all that, I feel the comments made by that person in the other forum are most likely not referring to upping your game and taking better picturs due to increased enjoyment and increased user-friendliness. I suspect, and this is why I spend more time here at OPF than other forums now, that he was talking about things such as 'sharpness', pixel density, and that lovely term 'IQ'. His idea of a better photo is not one that is creatively better but technically and mechanically better

What I have found in many other forums is when people talk about 'great pictures' they are usually not talking about content or composition or heaven forbid 'meaning or intent', they are talking about things like whether it is in focus or has nice colours etc. (in other words the stuff that most modern CAMERAS DO FOR YOU anyway).

In lots of other forums most people's idea of a good picture is sadly a well focused, well exposed chocolate box or postcard image which bores the pants off me.
 
E

ErikJonas

Banned
...............

What did Ansel Adams shoot with?....Would his images be considered sub-standard? Would anyone want to take on greats like John Szarkowski ...I mean certainly if the camera were the reason for a good image,John Szarkowski using a film camera your images with the latest digital would be far better or better then Ansel Adams,by that logic or lack there of.....

"As far as cameras go, I agree that waiting too long for the latest camera, will only fill your image library with more substandard images. I always upgrade to the latest bodies as soon as they are released."

What a completely idiotic thing to say.........

Its like someone once telling me if i wanted to be professional i'd have to switch to Nikon or Canon......
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nigel Allan said:
.....Likewise if you work with a camera that is slow or you do not feel comfortable with it may diminish your enjoyment of photography and therefore practising it without joy will likely not yield the best results.
Click to expand...

Hi Nigel,

You hit the nail on the head! Some folk can't take film photography as it's too slow and requires conservation of resources and more planning. However, for artistic work, film offers tonal magic of analog that is hard to match. Added to that, there's a rich mine of wonderful lenses and bodies available at modest price. There's almost no limit to detail that can be recorded with intent to print at almost any size imaginable.

Digital, by contrast, straddles the camps of an efficient, cost-effective fast work tool, a wonderful camera for art and endless snaps for mementos.

Still, if one has the patience for film, it will give back and keep giving.


Nigel Allan said:
What I have found in many other forums is when people talk about 'great pictures' they are usually not talking about content or composition or heaven forbid 'meaning or intent', they are talking about things like whether it is in focus or has nice colours etc. (in other words the stuff that most modern CAMERAS DO FOR YOU anyway).

In lots of other forums most people's idea of a good picture is sadly a well focused, well exposed chocolate box or postcard image which bores the pants off me.
Click to expand...

That's thankfully why we strive to help each other on creative paths. Your view has resonance with why OPF was started and is our Raison d'être!

Thanks for underlining this concept! We may wobble and wander of track, share snaps and a joke, but our path is to each realize some shared yet personal purpose. We look in some of our pictures for function or delight in photography more than the technical specifications of equipment owned, more than the ability to get a bird on the wind or the whiskers of a cat sharp, although all these are worthy skills in themselves.

Asher
 
M

Mike Shimwell

New member
Nigel Allan said:
Just think, Mike, if you upgraded to the latest body you would then be able to take colour pictures as well ;)


...but seriously, there are a few issues raised here.

Whilst I DO AGREE that if you 'upgrade' to a camera that is easier to work with such as faster autofocus, better low light ISO and so, it may make practising your craft more pleasurable therefore more fun and in turn it 'could' make you a better photographer simply through increasing your sheer enjoyment of your tools and practising more. (But the question is this: what defines a better photographer?)

I feel this has happened somewhat to me when I changed from the Pentax K20D to the Nikon D300 despite being a long time Pentax lover with two manual bodies since I felt frustrated by its white balance and exposure idiosyncrasies and slow autofocus - I have never wanted or needed autofocus previously until I experienced it and then felt I wanted a camera with better AF once I had a taste for it - go figure. Am I a better photograher for having changed bodies? No, but it has helped me regain my love of photography instead of being constantly frustrated by the results.

Likewise if you work with a camera that is slow or you do not feel comfortable with it may diminish your enjoyment of photography and therefore practising it without joy will likely not yield the best results.

Having said all that, I feel the comments made by that person in the other forum are most likely not referring to upping your game and taking better picturs due to increased enjoyment and increased user-friendliness. I suspect, and this is why I spend more time here at OPF than other forums now, that he was talking about things such as 'sharpness', pixel density, and that lovely term 'IQ'. His idea of a better photo is not one that is creatively better but technically and mechanically better

What I have found in many other forums is when people talk about 'great pictures' they are usually not talking about content or composition or heaven forbid 'meaning or intent', they are talking about things like whether it is in focus or has nice colours etc. (in other words the stuff that most modern CAMERAS DO FOR YOU anyway).

In lots of other forums most people's idea of a good picture is sadly a well focused, well exposed chocolate box or postcard image which bores the pants off me.
Click to expand...



Well said Nigel. I have to admit I started this thread as the attitude displayed was the reason I stopped visiting that particular forum - the equation of a pictures standard with the equipment used - and it irritated me to see it so boldy displayed. Often this was unconcious, but it was there and fed the desire for constant upgrades. I'm really beginning to think this works against people's development as photographers or image seers and makers rather than just being neutral. Ken's recent advice to use only disposable cameras for 2 months or more springs to mind.

I too have benefited from using digital and gaining a revived enjoyment of photography thruogh it. Plus, I'm certainly not anti digital and still use dslr's as well as film. However, I've come to think of quality as describing the nature of the image and not some simplistic concept of IQ, that refelcts only a very narrow band of creative endeavour. I also don't really buy into the approach that suggests you can do it all in post because the process you work with does affect how you look and what you see.

Here's a link to a short video about Henry Wessel that I found this evening, and there's another video linked from Paul Butzi's current blog post. His approach is apparently straightforward, but achieving images like his is not and does not depend on having the latest equipment!

Mike
 
M

Mike Shimwell

New member
To add to the last post, on a recent trip to London I shot a couple from my hotel room window, here together with a crop. All on HP5 with a 35mm lens (that was all I tok with me). the first is actually a stitch up:

The scene
4101371267_0de8b7c950_o.jpg



Asher mentioned catching the bird on the wing:)
4102125946_04441449e6_o.jpg



Flight of Fancy
4102126254_f3e1a4a959_b.jpg

​
 
Nigel Allan

Nigel Allan

Member
The Henry Wessel video makes a lot of sense and is similar to Helmut Newton's statement that in any set of shots or set up with models it is frequently the very first one which ends up being the right one because it contains the most truth before he started directing the models or thinking too carefully about the set up.

This is nice and very refreshing because it frees us to just take pictures without trying to create a chocolate box image (I know I've used that phrase before but it is the most polite way of describing something that otherwise I would be very scathing of and use expletives.)
 
M

Mike Shimwell

New member
Nigel Allan said:
The Henry Wessel video makes a lot of sense and is similar to Helmut Newton's statement that in any set of shots or set up with models it is frequently the very first one which ends up being the right one because it contains the most truth before he started directing the models or thinking too carefully about the set up.

This is nice and very refreshing because it frees us to just take pictures without trying to create a chocolate box image (I know I've used that phrase before but it is the most polite way of describing something that otherwise I would be very scathing of and use expletives.)
Click to expand...


My highlight - this is something it's easy to forget of course. I think being reminded that we are free to work as we wish is a good thing as there are lots of people who will tell us otherwise.

Something I've found is that I actually have an affinity for 35mm, despite thinking that I wanted to make large format landscapes. Accepting the former is very freeing.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top