Photography?

[DigiFreak]

My 2 cents' worth:

I think there are 2 main groups of photographers: Those that relish control over every nitty gritty technical details in getting the photo and those who are just interested in the results and have no interest in the technicalities. The majority of us are probably in the latter category.

Photography is an art. Just like any other art forms, it is subjective to a large extent. My photos may look like crap to you but hey, as long as I like them, who cares? In fact your technically perfect photos taken with pro-equipment and processed from your darkroom may look like crap to me as well! Who is to say who is right or wrong?

The thing is, who are you taking photos for? I'm taking photos for myself and as long as the digicam can give me results I am happy with, my SLR will continue to collect dust...

 

[StreetShooter]

Cut the cord. Burn your bridges. Sell your SLR!

 

[Jed]

There is a third group of photographers. Those who relish the nitty gritty but have little regard for the photo, if they are honest with themselves. Technophiles who are preoccupied with the equipment and not the photo. Sure they may use the camera to take some pics, but they aren't really interested in taking better pics save with a better lens, a better ccd, a better frame rate, a better...

 

[DigiFreak]

Originally posted by Jed
There is a third group of photographers. Those who relish the nitty gritty but have little regard for the photo, if they are honest with themselves. Technophiles who are preoccupied with the equipment and not the photo. Sure they may use the camera to take some pics, but they aren't really interested in taking better pics save with a better lens, a better ccd, a better frame rate, a better...

You're so right Jed. It's the same with all other hobbies. I know of some friends who have guitars worth thousands of dollars but they can only play a few chords!! A few years back I met this guy who converted his HDB flat room into a sound proof room where he puts his Mark Levinson hifi set (worth about $100K!) and every day he only listens to a selection of about 5 CDs that are recorded to Audiophile standard!

 

[Wai]

Originally posted by Klause


Actually I don't agree with what you said.... Although I love to migrate to SLR once I've got the money(I am using digital now), I still think Digital is a good way to learn.

i agree, newbie prefer digital, i feel that it is better to learn with digital camera first becos you can see what u have taken immediately on the screen..

in fact, some of the member here are migrating from Digital to SLR....

if i got the $$ to buy expensive lens and $$ for the film and prints

i will go for SLR too

 

[Bluestrike]

To each his own........

 

[Adam Goi]

Aiya...just go and shoot lor

 

[ckiang]

Hi,

There is one thing I must mention - "digital" does not mean your consumer digital cameras like the G1/2, Coolpixes, etc. And SLRs does not just refer to things like Nikon F100, Canon EOS 3, etc. So, it will be good to make a differentiation between the consumer digital cameras, film SLRs and digital SLRs (like EOS D30, Nikon D1 etc).

The apparent migration from consumer digital to film SLR is simple, the consumer digital cameras simply do not offer enough control, and digital SLRs are just too expensive. So using a film SLR and scanning film is probably a good bridge.

Digital is just a medium, just like the vast choices of film we have in our conventional film cameras. Which is better has been debated to death in several forums, and there is no point in continuing that debate as it will never end. There is also no absolutely fair way to compare the two properly.

At the end of the day, what matters is the output, which is a good photography. Barring technical limitations, the medium should not be a factor at all.

As to using auto exposure modes, like some people like to say, (though I don't quite agree), "why spend so much on a camera with such an advanced metering system and use it in manual mode?" and "why use MF on an AF camera?". I feel there is nothing wrong, as long as the photographer gets the results he wants. Advanced photographers know when to override automation as an when necessary. And the are also photographers who produce winning shots on something like the "lowly" Olympus mju II.


Regards
CK

 

[ckiang]

Hi,

Originally posted by DigiFreak


You're so right Jed. It's the same with all other hobbies. I know of some friends who have guitars worth thousands of dollars but they can only play a few chords!! A few years back I met this guy who converted his HDB flat room into a sound proof room where he puts his Mark Levinson hifi set (worth about $100K!) and every day he only listens to a selection of about 5 CDs that are recorded to Audiophile standard!

I can't call those people "photographers". They are just equipment freaks. The same kind of people who buy camera after camera just so because the new one is more advanced.

And the example of the audiophile belongs to the equipment freak type as well. They don't listen to music, they listen to equipment. All they do is to change cable, play the same music, change speaker, change amp, etc. It never ends. There are also the other kind of audiophile who's more critical about the music than the equipment.

Regards
CK

 

[sonix]

Originally posted by ckiang
Hi,

There is one thing I must mention - "digital" does not mean your consumer digital cameras like the G1/2, Coolpixes, etc. And SLRs does not just refer to things like Nikon F100, Canon EOS 3, etc. So, it will be good to make a differentiation between the consumer digital cameras, film SLRs and digital SLRs (like EOS D30, Nikon D1 etc).

The apparent migration from consumer digital to film SLR is simple, the consumer digital cameras simply do not offer enough control, and digital SLRs are just too expensive. So using a film SLR and scanning film is probably a good bridge.

Digital is just a medium, just like the vast choices of film we have in our conventional film cameras. Which is better has been debated to death in several forums, and there is no point in continuing that debate as it will never end. There is also no absolutely fair way to compare the two properly.

At the end of the day, what matters is the output, which is a good photography. Barring technical limitations, the medium should not be a factor at all.

As to using auto exposure modes, like some people like to say, (though I don't quite agree), "why spend so much on a camera with such an advanced metering system and use it in manual mode?" and "why use MF on an AF camera?". I feel there is nothing wrong, as long as the photographer gets the results he wants. Advanced photographers know when to override automation as an when necessary. And the are also photographers who produce winning shots on something like the "lowly" Olympus mju II.


Regards
CK

:thumbsup:

 

[sonix]

Originally posted by AdamGoi
Aiya...just go and shoot lor

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Why we have to discuss all this things... the main purpose of this forum is to help each other, source of information and sources of making friends.

Time to take my camera a walk to shot some chio charbo


Cheers

 

[rueyloon]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
stick to Photoshop, thanks. I heard the chemicals are quite stinky as well. Do they also make you high when inhaled, Jed? Is that the joy you refer to? Oh yeah, you don't inhale, right?

one sign of spending enough time in the dark room is that you'll get so used to the smell that you can't detect it anymore.

When I was in KEVII, I've slept in the dark room before because there is a air-con there

for most people, they will think the dark room is very smelly...

 

[langzi]

thank you all for the warm reply, and i accept them accordingly, as i know that all of us have different opinions.

Jed, i think that you might have misunderstood what i said. when i said that the photographer i am working with takes the pic on digital first, it is to let the client see and after they say they like it, then he'll use this setting and take the pic. anyway, thanks for your opinion.

IMHO, photography is a pure form of art, whereby one pic will say nothing, but say everything at once. the impact it can bring is great. but, before you take a pic, do you know what are you taking? why are you taking this pic? what are you trying to convey with this pic? i think that these few question is essentially important, if not no matter how beautiful the pic is, ppl will just see it and say, 'oh, nice pic. what's next?' they will not go further into the pic, what is the pic trying to convey. look at successful pics. they are the ones who leave you staring at it for more then 30 secs, then pondering bout the msg it conveyed.

iMHO, i think this is what makes a good pic.

cheers,
leonard

 

[Tweek]

I've always wondered about art, it is such an abstract and arbitrary thing. There are lots of art pieces which I do not make sense of, but "professionals" hail praises of them. There are art pieces which do not battle the eyelids of most people, but are worth thousands once a loaded admirer sets his eye on them.

If photography is likened to an artform (which I wholeheartedly agree with), then there shouldn't be a case of wanting to make sure others understand and accept the meaning the photographer is trying to convey, cos not everyone will appreciate it the same way the photographer does. I think the top priority of a photography is usually self-satisfaction by finding his own opinion of beauty and meaning in the pictures he takes. The secondary purpose would be to share the pictures with like-minded people, to share the beauty and meaning, and not be afraid of people who don't appreciate it. That's how I feel anyway.

The statement about some people taking brainless pictures is kindof harsh too. From my observation, I think I can assume that most people who bother to participate in this forum are ready to learn. Brainless pictures are just initial products of the learning process. Perhaps people with flair will produce well-composed pictures at first trials, but not everyone has the flair. But as long as there is a fervent interest and determination, one who takes "brainless" pictures will learn and eventually improve and produce better pictures that they will like. I have seen many such examples, since the earlier days at HWZ forum, even til now.

As a closing statement, yeah, I am kinda prejudiced against "equipment freaks" as termed by ckiang. Think they are missing the finer aspects of photography.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by langzi
thank you all for the warm reply, and i accept them accordingly, as i know that all of us have different opinions.

IMHO, photography is a pure form of art, whereby one pic will say nothing, but say everything at once. the impact it can bring is great. but, before you take a pic, do you know what are you taking? why are you taking this pic? what are you trying to convey with this pic? i think that these few question is essentially important, if not no matter how beautiful the pic is, ppl will just see it and say, 'oh, nice pic. what's next?' they will not go further into the pic, what is the pic trying to convey. look at successful pics. they are the ones who leave you staring at it for more then 30 secs, then pondering bout the msg it conveyed.

If this was your original argument, that one should be thinking before one makes a shot, then there's little to dispute about - in general, planning does pay off when taking a photo.

But u've done a complete twist on your own original points - your original "thesis" completely ripped the digital photography genre apart by (arrogantly) accusing everyone involved with the medium of reckless shooting, brainless operation of automatic cameras and stubborn refusal to learn the art of photography. You ended off with the highly presumptious statement that "digital has killed photography".

let me state categorically from reading what you have said, (perhaps being equally presumptious!) that you don't know what u're talking about and u're not qualified to talk about the points u're trying to raise here, not least cos i doubt u have actually tried digital photography yourself apart from your assistant gig.

PLEASE think carefully about what you say in future - at best the things you say may serve no more than just another troll bait to be jumped upon; the worst thing you can do is to mislead the public on the nature of digital photography and misguiding the potential digital photographer enthusiast. That would be a REALLY BAD THING (TM)

i would really like to give u the benefit of the doubt for your own agenda for belittling the many digital point and shooters we have here. I sincerely hope that you are just one of the stubborn die-hards of old technology making the stand as the last bastion of manual shooters (how romantic), the same diehards that exist in many other disciplines.

I also hope to see some of your pictures / works that illustrate the wonders you can achieve with fully manual cameras. Who knows, maybe i'll be converted!

PS: nothing personal okay? i just think u're being way too presumptious and slightly arrogant

 

[Jed]

What part of uses his digital cam to check the lighting b4 taking it with his manual SLR did I not understand?
My apologies on brainless pictures. It wasn't with specific reference to anybody on this group, or at this group at all (everything was conditional on 'if'). Like I said, I've seen some very good work on this forum, and generally people are inquisitive as you point out. And I try to help out when I can.

I'm not sure I've seen too many posts from Leonard though.

 

[rueyloon]

ok guys, this topic is getting more "chim" and exciting... but please keep the "temperature" down... ok ?

 

[Jed]

REALLY BAD THING (TM)

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[Adam Goi]

Photography, just like any art, is open. No one owns it and sure there'll be many schools of thought but no one can 'dictate' that it has to be like 'this' or 'that' ...

As long one enjoys the experience, who cares about equipment and medium?

 

[langzi]

dear ppl,

as you all wld have kown by now, i am a die hard manual user. therefore, i wld not have pics in digital form, cos i dont have a scanner too. i intend get one soon, probably by the end of this mth.

i wld like to clarify that i am not condemning digital cam, but if a good piece of equipment were to be put into good use, then yes, it is good.

with reference to someone who said that i never used a digital cam before, i wld like to state that these are the few digital cams i've played with:
1) Canon PowerShot G1
2) Canon PowerShot S40
3) Canon EOS 1N+ Kodak Digital pack DCS 2000
4) Nikon F5+ Kodak Digital pack DCS 760

i've tried them out, and yes, they were good, but to a certain extent. with regards to the last 2, i wld love to say that they are the best digital cam i've used, as compared to the first 2.

yes, i've been flamed, and i accept and read your comment with a slight dose of humour injected into your comments. when i've got my scanner, hopefully i wld have a chance to show you ppl my works and hear your comments.

thank you.

cheers,
leonard