Last edited by lsisaxon; 17th March 2008 at 01:57 PM.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Last edited by night86mare; 17th March 2008 at 09:21 PM.
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.
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.
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.
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.