If you strike Toto that is... But these guys are working professionals and their gear are (mostly) sponsored.Originally Posted by nickmak
Having too many lenses will definitely kill my bank accounts ...
Last edited by Adam Goi; 20th September 2004 at 06:39 PM.
Let's create a concensus in a different way :Originally Posted by Dennis
Spending too much time talking about equipment rather than "creating" images (either in the mind, in paper or in silicon) is bad for creativity
Whether you choose to carry lots, or little, a single, a few or every focal length, the important thing is creating those images.
If however, any of the above, cause you reduced creativity, then adjust accordingly (i.e. reduce the number of lenses, change to primes like I did to reduce the number of variables and concetrate to the content rather than the tool etc.).
Aiyoh, I think we talked too much, let's just go out and shoot
Originally Posted by espn
best advise in the whole thread!Originally Posted by espn
Before you say post post post, you better post yours first!!!Originally Posted by Garion
And where do you get this idea from?Originally Posted by Garion
Again, I am not being confrontational.
Hi Jed. No problems at all. Just hazarding a guess. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. As a working professional yourself, maybe you'd like to enlighten us on whether the photographic equipment used in daily work by photojournalists is sponsored or not? Or does the photog have to pay for his own gears. TIA.Originally Posted by Jed
I am under the impression that as with other professions it all depends on the engagement mode.. employees vs freelancing etc.Originally Posted by Garion
p.s. hi Jed, (1) how's was Greece.. (2) have you discovered this one? http://www.sportsshooter.com/
Actually, I just re-read my post and realise it might have been construed as confrontational . It was intended as a jealous banter kind of "and where do you get that idea from" (since I don't get it all sponsored!).Originally Posted by Garion
Actually there are many factors that depends on whether kit if photographer owned or company owned. A lot depends on your relationship. As Marios says, freelance photographers (even those doing regular shifts for a company) very very rarely get their cameras provided. Although *some* might. But not all employees get their stuff provided either.
Further, it depends on the company you work for. Different companies have different policies. I know of one for instance that buys you cameras but expects you to have your own lenses. Most regional newspapers will provide all the equipment to their photographers, but most of those photographers would usually also have some of their own gear, sometimes to suppliment what they are given.
In my case, I own some of my stuff and have been provided some of my gear. In terms of value maybe about 20-25% of my stuff is company, the rest is my own, but then some of it also stems from the fact that I started out freelancing, so I had a majority of stuff already.
Marios, how's you? Greece... sore point. We didn't go in the end cause I was supposed to be doing Euro 2004, which we managed to also mess up, so in the end I was just supposed to do the American pre-season football tournament with Man Utd/Liverpool/Celtic/Chelsea, but we ended up not doing that either. So it was just more cricket and tennis. Ah well, and now the footy's started again...
Not everything works out the way we plan it or like it to Live to learn I guess Cricket is good if you like wine...Originally Posted by Jed
First of all, creativity is lens independent. Creativity is in your mind, not 50 or 35. Zoom or no zoom, another dumb discussion because again, its not the focal lengths that determine what you do, but how you do it.
Like the wanker said, time is better spent shooting.
I have no idea of any previous forum history, and neither do I know to whom your comment is directed to.Originally Posted by LimCB
However, I really do take issue with your language. If creativity is the result of one's "wholesome" (state of and what's in the mind, the expression of what one feels when one sees, a visual description of what is in front of us after it has gone through the lens) then I have no desire to see your visual expressions as your oral expressions are of low value.
I believe the administrators should take action. It was a decent question, there was a valuable discussion. Vulcar language has its place.. only in the mind of some.
Originally Posted by LimCBOriginally Posted by marios_pittas
I think what LimCB was trying to say is that a person's creativity is not measured by the amount of equipment he has.
A person who is inherently not creative will not suddenly become creative if he is given a wide range of lenses to shoot with. Nor will his creativity be "created" by forcing him to use only 1 prime lens.
A person who is creative by nature will make the best of what he has, even if it is a disposable camera.
Creativity does not always make up for equipment limitations. You cannot expect a creative person to be able to do astrophotography with just a disposable camera. That is not what I am implying.
Personally, I will not take a person seriously if he says to me "My creativity is killed because I have too many lenses". My assessment of such a person would be that he was never creative enough to start with.
Having said that, I don't agree with LimCB that such discussions can be branded as "dumb".
LimCB has a history of posting irritating remarks, even though he sometimes makes good sense if you can see pass his tone and language.
You can either choose to make the best of his remarks, or attack him. When you attack him, he will retalliate and that usually results in a heated argument that is off topic, wasting everyboy's time, wasting forum resources, and prompting the moderators to close the thread.
Last edited by roygoh; 21st September 2004 at 02:10 AM.
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.
I thought that we are sharing experiences as to what we have found useful. By no means we are defining/demanding that to be creative means you have to use Brand X, Focal Length Y, Lens Type Z, Camera Type W, Film Type A So we are all in accord there.Originally Posted by roygoh
Each person is at a different level of development. A 16 yr old, looks at an 8 yr old's work and think it is "so easy" and brand's it dumb. The questions are of course easy for the 16 yr old, but the 8 yr old still needs someone to help them with answering their questions. If you choose not to share when a "what have you discovered" question is asked that is fine, but I feel that one should not stop other people from asking, questioning, and exploring.
Just my 2 cents of what I have discovered.
maybe 3 lenses should get most things done.
17-55 DX f/2.8 approx 750g
70-200 VR f/2.8 approx 1.3KG
120-300 f/2.8 - sigma one is 2.6Kg
1.4x TC - 200g - for even longer reach for the 120-300 and 70-200 and covers the 55-70mm gap when used with 17-55 lens @ f4.
D70 body 700g approx
all in the bag these equipment weight around 6Kg and costs roughly 10-11K.
I prefer f/2.8 lenses. do you need wide/portrait/tele primes in this case? This combo could easily reach 26-630mm (35mm equiv), all in a bag of weight less than 10kg (assuming you also carry laptop (2.5Kg) in bag(1kg)).
my 2 cts
Last edited by kfeng; 21st September 2004 at 05:04 AM.
Thanks for all the generous resonance/anti-resonance. I started this thread to see if it is normal (of myself) to react in the way described in the original thread and now I found that I am NOT alone. I'm more or less settled in the style and tools that I need.
Many many thanks.
Better close this thread before we see the first blood drawn.