Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 105

Thread: It's about the equipment - Stupid

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,922

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by satan_18349 View Post
    Shoot jpegs = laziness??
    If that is your definition, then you have certainly missed out the essence of his posting. He is simply asking you to understand your equipment better. Simple as that. Taking things out of context and using it as a debate material is not always a good thing.

  2. #62

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by sin77 View Post
    u missed the whole point!
    Of coz we know dslr specs are better than P&S, or else why dslr costs so much more?
    We are talking abt a balanced equation of photographer and his camera.
    Some ppl can only produce 5yr old kid's result using a dslr.
    D40 doesn't cost very much more but it can definitely perform much more under trained hands.

  3. #63

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by chanjyj View Post
    I have sometimes wondered if the photographer's confidence is boosted when he thinks he is using better equipment and therefore will produce better pictures.

    This leads to him actually producing better photos in the end?

    What if the he THINKS the equipment is better but it actually isn't aka placebo effect? Will his photos get better?
    I wonder
    Then switch back to a more basic model to see if he is still able to produce the same kind of pictures. IMO, under normal circumstances, whether I shoot with D300 with 17-55 or D60 with 18-55VR (I shoot both), I should be able to get similar pictures. But there are certain situations when the D300 handles the shadows better while not blowing the highlights. These are all minor technical aspects that differentiate a semi-pro class camera with a consumer class camera. The question is, under normal shooting circumstances, do you need the kind of quality that the D300 with 17-55 gives? Just as a comparison, you can buy another 3 sets of D60 with some spare cash with that kind of money.
    Last edited by lsisaxon; 17th March 2008 at 01:57 PM.

  4. #64

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by satan_18349 View Post
    Shoot jpegs = laziness??
    I must be really lazy plus not willing to upgrade hd space.

  5. #65

    Smile Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quite an interesting thread.

    Something I've been chewing on:
    A friend asked me: if both man + machine matter, what percentage is it? 50-50?

    My answer was:
    If a photographer is experienced / planned well enough, s/he will have chosen the best equipment for the shoot that s/he's embarking on. As such he has tilted the % to say more percentage towards the camera e.g. WB, AF, Lens quality?

    From what I've observed, don't most of the bros and sisters here agree that AS photographer, we are to focus more on FINDING + MAKING the picture more than OPERATING the camera?

    Hence a Auto-AF, Auto-WB, dunno what sensor type of camera will assist you more in getting that shot as you have envisioned it by freeing you up to fiddle with the cam. Unless you are shooting subjects that move mm in decades...

    Photographer - someone who MAKES a photograph
    Camera Operator - someone who's very "keng" (good at) using a camera

    Given... I would love to get a cam that actually sets itself through my thoughts (there are already games with this feature).

  6. #66

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Quek View Post
    Quite an interesting thread.

    Something I've been chewing on:
    A friend asked me: if both man + machine matter, what percentage is it? 50-50?

    My answer was:
    If a photographer is experienced / planned well enough, s/he will have chosen the best equipment for the shoot that s/he's embarking on. As such he has tilted the % to say more percentage towards the camera e.g. WB, AF, Lens quality?

    From what I've observed, don't most of the bros and sisters here agree that AS photographer, we are to focus more on FINDING + MAKING the picture more than OPERATING the camera?

    Hence a Auto-AF, Auto-WB, dunno what sensor type of camera will assist you more in getting that shot as you have envisioned it by freeing you up to fiddle with the cam. Unless you are shooting subjects that move mm in decades...

    Photographer - someone who MAKES a photograph
    Camera Operator - someone who's very "keng" (good at) using a camera

    Given... I would love to get a cam that actually sets itself through my thoughts (there are already games with this feature).
    My take is, as a photographer, I would definitely want the tools that make shoot the easiest. But give be any ranging from a PnS to say maybe a D3, I'll try to make the most out of it.

    When you take photography up to different levels, you will know when the equipment is the limiting factor.
    Last edited by lsisaxon; 17th March 2008 at 04:56 PM.

  7. #67

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    ok, jokes aside...we can all agree that we do not need to state the obvious, that we need a camera (with a lens, preferably!) to take photos. so, we need the equipment, period. we also need the RIGHT equipment, e.g. long fast lenses to shoot sport etc. however, having said that, there are many combinations of equipment (at vastly varying price points) that can give you the same results for a vast range of photographic situations.

    one national geographic photographer shot car racing photos with 28mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses only on his 35mm rangefinder! it's possible to shoot stunning street shots with an expensive leica aka henri cartier bresson, or you can also also shoot stunning street shots with a much cheaper yashica T4, as one well-known taxi driver cum photographer in New York did.

    Yes, we need cameras, yes we need the right equipment to make photos, but... and this is the important but, there are so many choices of cameras, brands and equipment out there now that the exact brand, model, and price of the camera does not really matter for a vast majority of photographic subjects. The photographer matters much more than the camera in these cases.

    Yes, you need LF to shoot Ansel Adam's wonderfully detailed landscapes, and you will never be able to replicate his results with a VGA camera phone. Heck, even if you had the best LF camera on the planet, I doubt if you could replicate Ansel's prints, since much of the quality of his images stem from his brilliant skill in the darkroom.

    Having said that, it doesn't really matter whether you shoot Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax or Sony/Minolta, whether you shoot film or digital, or whether you use some cheapo banged up second hand camera or the latest whizz bang camera marvel that just hit the shops.

    The camera is essential for making photos, the right lenses are needed to make certain shots under certain conditions, but at the end of the day, which camera you use does not really matter.

    Of course all this debate should not deter us from helping fellow forumers in answering any questions regarding equipment or technique, and from enjoying photography in each of our idiosyncratic and individual ways.


  8. #68

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by satan_18349 View Post
    Shoot jpegs = laziness??
    i like the fact that i have always treated your posts with utmost respect and answered them wholesomely especially since you have claimed to be serious about the issue instead of embarking on some personal vendetta

    selective quoting, means that you are not serious at all

    please refer to entire post, and yes, shoot jpg = extreme laziness, it means that you are more than happy to let a machine orchestrate your visions.

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,256

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i like the fact that i have always treated your posts with utmost respect and answered them wholesomely especially since you have claimed to be serious about the issue instead of embarking on some personal vendetta

    selective quoting, means that you are not serious at all

    please refer to entire post, and yes, shoot jpg = extreme laziness, it means that you are more than happy to let a machine orchestrate your visions.
    but who doesnt post process based on one's opinion and vision either? be it jpg or raw?
    chezburgr i can haz?

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,256

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by zaren View Post
    ok, jokes aside...we can all agree that we do not need to state the obvious, that we need a camera (with a lens, preferably!) to take photos. so, we need the equipment, period. we also need the RIGHT equipment, e.g. long fast lenses to shoot sport etc. however, having said that, there are many combinations of equipment (at vastly varying price points) that can give you the same results for a vast range of photographic situations.

    one national geographic photographer shot car racing photos with 28mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses only on his 35mm rangefinder! it's possible to shoot stunning street shots with an expensive leica aka henri cartier bresson, or you can also also shoot stunning street shots with a much cheaper yashica T4, as one well-known taxi driver cum photographer in New York did.

    Yes, we need cameras, yes we need the right equipment to make photos, but... and this is the important but, there are so many choices of cameras, brands and equipment out there now that the exact brand, model, and price of the camera does not really matter for a vast majority of photographic subjects. The photographer matters much more than the camera in these cases.

    Yes, you need LF to shoot Ansel Adam's wonderfully detailed landscapes, and you will never be able to replicate his results with a VGA camera phone. Heck, even if you had the best LF camera on the planet, I doubt if you could replicate Ansel's prints, since much of the quality of his images stem from his brilliant skill in the darkroom.

    Having said that, it doesn't really matter whether you shoot Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax or Sony/Minolta, whether you shoot film or digital, or whether you use some cheapo banged up second hand camera or the latest whizz bang camera marvel that just hit the shops.

    The camera is essential for making photos, the right lenses are needed to make certain shots under certain conditions, but at the end of the day, which camera you use does not really matter.

    Of course all this debate should not deter us from helping fellow forumers in answering any questions regarding equipment or technique, and from enjoying photography in each of our idiosyncratic and individual ways.

    yup. agree with you.

    its interesting how people are trying to make photography in some way "idealistic" and imposing their beliefs on others, which is entirely unnecessary. its a free world out there, people buy what they want, and what they feel comfortable with. who cares whether that teenage kid is totting a 1dsmk3 or a d3


    time for everyone to strike their own balance in themselves, after all what justifies a purchase? to some.. maybe they just want to have that particular focal length, speed at just only one single occasion to justify the use/purchase of something, whilst most of the time that lens lies in the dry-cab. whether people shoot raw, jpg, does it really matter? unless maybe the camera's in processing is really that bad that people have to shoot raw and process later on the computer. cameras can have their curves adjusted to their preference anyways.

    sometimes its not just about the person behind the view finder, not just about the equipment, but just how people enjoy the hobby that is.
    Last edited by psychobiologist; 17th March 2008 at 07:39 PM. Reason: typo
    chezburgr i can haz?

  11. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    near the Equator
    Posts
    1,255

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    All this is moot if you don't have respect for the scene in front of you or have an eye for spotting opportunities.

    Always fighting.. guess it's a human condition.
    We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde

  12. #72

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i like the fact that i have always treated your posts with utmost respect and answered them wholesomely especially since you have claimed to be serious about the issue instead of embarking on some personal vendetta

    selective quoting, means that you are not serious at all

    please refer to entire post, and yes, shoot jpg = extreme laziness, it means that you are more than happy to let a machine orchestrate your visions.

    You are saying people don't post process JPEGS as they do for RAW?

  13. #73

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by LazerLordz View Post
    All this is moot if you don't have respect for the scene in front of you or have an eye for spotting opportunities.

    Always fighting.. guess it's a human condition.
    Hello Lazer - long time no see. Anyway, something interesting for people here to munch on.

    SAF Pioneer photographers are using the D3 and top gear. Airforce AFIMC (Airforce Publicity) is using the D100 and D70s.

    Interesting huh?

  14. #74
    Deregistered satan_18349's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    hell 極樂世&
    Posts
    1,498

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i like the fact that i have always treated your posts with utmost respect and answered them wholesomely especially since you have claimed to be serious about the issue instead of embarking on some personal vendetta

    selective quoting, means that you are not serious at all

    please refer to entire post, and yes, shoot jpg = extreme laziness, it means that you are more than happy to let a machine orchestrate your visions.
    Hi there, 1st of all, I did read your whole post and agree on the bottom part, however Im just puzzled by what you mean in that phrase, therefore quoting that statement.

    And to hazmee, I had never totally disagree with what night86mare had stressed on, infact I do agree at some point if you yourself were to read what I mentioned earlier here and my thread. So I'll appreciate very much if you don't try to make it sounds like Im particularly trying something else.

    P.S I myself lovvvvvessss PPing my pics, although not RAW files.

  15. #75

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by psychobiologist View Post
    but who doesnt post process based on one's opinion and vision either? be it jpg or raw?
    YOUR vision, YOUR opinion

    jpg output has had some work done to it compared to raw output

    you, of all people, should know and acknowledge this, no? if not don't you think, having a raw format being a plus is ludicrous:?
    Last edited by night86mare; 17th March 2008 at 09:21 PM.

  16. #76
    Deregistered satan_18349's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    hell 極樂世&
    Posts
    1,498

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by hazmee View Post
    If that is your definition, then you have certainly missed out the essence of his posting. He is simply asking you to understand your equipment better. Simple as that. Taking things out of context and using it as a debate material is not always a good thing.
    Hello, If you don't know the essence of my postings too, I hope you read carefully again and see what others felt.

  17. #77

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by chanjyj View Post
    You are saying people don't post process JPEGS as they do for RAW?
    if they post process, why not go all the way in the first place, and get the rawest form?

    you have to admit that there is probably more work to be done by shooting in raw compared to jpg.. of course occasionally you do get people who do nothing to do the raw output jpg me, i like having the purest form of untouched material, nothing compressed, nothing tweaked to it, something that i can do things with.

    is it easier to make a pot out of raw clay, or to make a pot out of a pot?
    Last edited by night86mare; 17th March 2008 at 09:19 PM.

  18. #78

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    honestly, i don't understand why the mods haven't closed this thread.

    the ts has shown in about 8000 ways that he's just intending to vindicate his own choices in life.. offered nothing to the table but one-sided opinion even when people have displayed a willingness to take his.

    i propose that this thread be closed.

  19. #79

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    if they post process, why not go all the way in the first place, and get the rawest form?

    you have to admit that there is probably more work to be done by shooting in raw compared to jpg.. of course occasionally you do get people who do nothing to do the raw output jpg me, i like having the purest form of untouched material, nothing compressed, nothing tweaked to it, something that i can do things with.

    is it easier to make a pot out of raw clay, or to make a pot out of a pot?
    Well, ultimately if I stretch your argument abit, you might as well also say that we do not incorporate white balance data in the RAW files and let's just start the input of WB values when we start to post process?

    Anyway let's not let this end up into a RAW vs JPG thread again.. I'm sick of these threads.
    Anyway for that matter I shoot both RAW and JPG, depending on my mood of the day.

  20. #80

    Default Re: It's about the equipment - Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by chanjyj View Post
    Well, ultimately if I stretch your argument abit, you might as well also say that we do not incorporate white balance data in the RAW files and let's just start the input of WB values when we start to post process?

    Anyway let's not let this end up into a RAW vs JPG thread again.. I'm sick of these threads.
    Anyway for that matter I shoot both RAW and JPG, depending on my mood of the day.
    ...i don't know why we ended up talking about this. maybe i was over-reacting by labelling all jpg shooters as being lazy, this is after all my own practice. i was probably too worked up by satan's happy selective addressing of my points. especially when i have more than addressed his. for this, i apologise.

    in any case, finding the camera with the best output jpgs..

    is simply saying that you want to pick the camera which thinks the most like you.

    and who is going to know that?

    or do people mean, least compression? but even if least compression and oversharpened, then how? this is why i don't really get why satan is trying to paint this as a valid question. i can understand if people complain that a camera's output jpg is horribly compressed.. but when it is say, marginally different at a very low compression level.. then what is there to discuss? when something is 95.6 versus 96, i'm sure there's nothing much to quibble over, no?
    Last edited by night86mare; 17th March 2008 at 09:40 PM.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •