DSLRUsers.com

I was reading some of recent posts drooling over new equipment, lenses, flashes, carbon tripods etc when a saw a thread on the other forum:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=11412378

http://www.2how.com/webboard/show.php?Category=alldata&No=12343



So I started looking at some of this guy's work. He has truly amazing pictures and is clearly very talented. In one post someone asks him what flash he uses and he says that he didn't have a flash yet, was still saving, so that is why so many of his shots are without flash.

Looking through his shots again I actually think not using flash has been a benefit to him - the colours are so interesting and the use of light excellent.

So here is this guy, without heaps of dough, minimal equipment (D70, kit lens, 12-24 and a 60mm Macro) who does most of his work handheld with no flash turning out some of the best work I've seen in a long time.

I love the toys but do you think sometimes with all this lust in the air we forget about what really makes a good photograph.

When asked how he gets such great shots of people the photographer says:

- he always smiles as he walks around
- sometimes he talks for up to 3 hours with the subject before taking the picture
- he asks permission

Food for thought....

I’m with you 100% on this one Jonesy - give a person a paint brush and it does not make them a Picasso. . .

Chris

That photographer certainly has a nice style. Would it be considered candids? Most of his subjects are smiling or at least posing for the camera. Maybe its more documentary. I keep thinking of national geographics magazine type work...

That is Beautifull! Even nicer as they say yes...

Sigh... what country is he from?

Onyx wrote:That photographer certainly has a nice style. Would it be considered candids? Most of his subjects are smiling or at least posing for the camera. Maybe its more documentary. I keep thinking of national geographics magazine type work...

I suppose that by defining candid as informal or natural these shots are more doco and would sit very well in National Geographic. Personally I think this approach is marvellous as the photographer, by getting to know his subject, is bringing out a natural look in his photographs.

Cheers

Chris

sirhc55 wrote:I’m with you 100% on this one Jonesy - give a person a paint brush and it does not make them a Picasso. . .

Chris

But don't give a person a paintbrush, and they definitely won't be a Picasso.

For me, photography is a hobby, and I love gadgets and gizmos. If I wanted to get really basic, I would have a pinhole camera (although I would insist on having a VR pinhole )

Of course, you are right Jonesy, but we don't want to just have good photography if it means we can't buy more stuff.

Yeah, he has some wonderful photos. Really like his style.

MHD wrote:That is Beautifull! Even nicer as they say yes...

Sigh... what country is he from?

He's from Thailand I believe.

It comes up almost every day on forums that tend to the tech toys and threads that go off on equipment debates. People read books on photography and how it isn't the camera it is the photographer, then find forums debating tech stuff, then chastise them for not focusing on the photo. Whenever I write anything about camera stuff on here or anywhere else, it is assuming that everyone agrees that the photos are the most important thing, and all else is secondary. The toys and stuff is all about the photographic experience (a big point, but not the main goal ie. the photo itself). For example, one of my reasons for not going with Canon is that I didn't like where the on off switch was. Would this have affected any of my photos? Probably not, but it affects my personal experience in taking the photo and that is what I talk about when I engage in a discussion about stuff. IT goes likewise when we talk about digital versus film, flashes, VR, etc. Sometimes we are in love with the stuff as well as the photo, sometimes just the photo, sometimes just the stuff, which is all fine.

Where your love is, there your treasure will be also (spoken like Yoda for effect).

The master of all Cartier Bresson (sp?) took pictures with the most rudimentary of instruments, and succeeded beyond any of our wildest dreams.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing the luddite's case here or trying to say that technology doesn't help and that we should just be using old pinhole cameras with 100% focus on the image.

We obviously all love our gadgets and I'm sure that even "howhow" (the photographer in my thread above) would love a SB-800.

But sometimes I find myself thinking, 'if I buy that SB-800 and that 50mm 1.4 then my photos will be that much better'. It's guys like howhow that make me realise that the technology helps but ultimately its only hard work and learning that counts.

Off topic point here but similar theme. I heard on the news last night that there is now an expensive diet pill that means that people can become thin without doing any exercise or changing their eating habits. I could draw an analogy with the thought process, "if I buy this expensive piece of equipment my photos will immediately be better".

We all love our gadgets (that's why we have D70s) but thinking that each new gadget is the difference between average and excellent photos is flawed logic that I (and possibly many of us) are guilty of.

ajo43 wrote:Snip Snip...

"if I buy this expensive piece of equipment my photos will immediately be better".

We all love our gadgets (that's why we have D70s) but thinking that each new gadget is the difference between average and excellent photos is flawed logic that I (and possibly many of us) are guilty of.

This is the reason I bought the 70-300G lens rather than anything more expensive. I love technology (being a computer nerd gives me that), but I thought, if I go and spend thousands on a lens and my photos don't look remarkable I'll be bitterly dissapointed. So I bought the cheap lens and am learning to use it and the camera to try and get what I want and learn it's limitations (I already know the limits of the silly bugger behind the camera).

But in saying that I'd love a 70-200VR, a 24-120VR and a 200-400VR as well, but that won't make me a better photographer, just give me a heavy bag

Cheers
Brett

ajo43 wrote:Off topic point here but similar theme. I heard on the news last night that there is now an expensive diet pill that means that people can become thin without doing any exercise or changing their eating habits. I could draw an analogy with the thought process, "if I buy this expensive piece of equipment my photos will immediately be better".

Actually, that would be a very poor analogy. My body ejoys a very lazy metabolism, and doesn't seem to generate seratonin when it's supposed to. No matter what I try to do to lose weight, I basically cannot; I can maintain my weight on an 800/day calorie diet.

Something that can boost my body's metabolism would be of significant benefit to people like me.

Getting back to the point: the camera, the lenses, the accessories ... they're only tools that help us to get the end result. How good a job we do is still a matter of perception and skill on the part of the craftsman.

But a coke bottle is still a coke bottle, and no matter how good a lensman you might be, I challenge you to get a sharp image through one.


Dooda's observation regarding Cartier Bresson is almost correct; I'm not sure that I'd call a Leica " the most rudimentary of instruments"; Leica glass is legendary for its quality and its qualities, and the features of the cameras, even in those days, gave a master such as Cartier Bresson all of the control I expect he felt he needed.

Gary, my analogy wasn't trying to say people who have a medical/physological need for the drug shouldn't have it. Apologies for any lack of consideration on my part.

I was trying to say that society is often very focused on the quick fix. Ie, take a pill rather than diet and exercise (or buy a VR lens to take better pictures). This obviously doesn't apply to everyone as I expect that some people can't do anyting about weight not matter what they eat or how active they are.

I understand what you are saying about a coke bottle won't take good pics. But a D70 with a Kit Lens probably will (as it does for howhow). The question is not whether there are better lenses but whether the focusing on acquiring gadgets distracts us from the end game.

Next on my lust list is the SB-800. Having said this I know that it probably won't get a huge amount of use. I've noted with interest a number of people posting that they have the SB-800 but it spends most of the time in their bag.

Do you think if we just were happy with what we had (or couldn't afford any more) we would actually take better pics with just a d70 and a kit lens than constantly reaching for the right flash, VR or prime?

I think it can also be having the roght equipment for the job though.

Besides Birddog most people on this forum (that I have meet) seem to buy new gear to allow them to shoot any image at any time.

For example I have the kit lens and have just purchased the 24 - 120VR. The main reason why i got this lens was not becouse of the VR functionality (even though it helps) but becouse I constantly found myself wanting more zoom from the kit lens. I think the new lens at 120 will give me that.

I don't expect my photography to improve JUST becouse of the lens however I do hope I will take a better range of images due to the new lens (and therefore hoping that my base photography skills improve).

I also intend to sell the kit lens as the new lens will cover all the focal distance I can achieve from the kit lens. My next purchase might be a bigger zoom lens so that I can expand on my equipment.

Anyway - I think everyone agrees that the equipment does not MAKE you a better photographe, but it doesn't hurt either

W00DY

In some cases, equipment can make you a better photographer but not necesseraly better equipment.
Some of the best photos I've ever taken where with a Mamiya ZE-X 35mm camera. I loved that camera, I knew it back to front and everything was second nature to me. I later upgraded to a Minolta 7xi which by all accounts should have been a big improvement but I found myself fiddling with controls rather the concentrating on the photos. I could never really come to grips with it.

ajo43 wrote:Do you think if we just were happy with what we had (or couldn't afford any more) we would actually take better pics with just a d70 and a kit lens than constantly reaching for the right flash, VR or prime?

Let me try to address this question in a different way. Many of us live in a modern society, with a whole host of conveniences available to us. Most also live in the city, with the features, benefits and disadvantages that city living provides.

I know there are people who live simpler lives than I do; less expenses, no travel, less "mod cons", whatever. They seem satisfied with their lives, but yet that sort of life doesn't fit comfortably with me; I need more.

I can't be satisfied, for instance, on a cruise ship; too boring for me.

What does all of this say about me? Quite a bit, I'd imagine.

Coming back to the point, my photographic needs include being able to take photos of F1 cars under race conditions. We're talking very fast cars -if you've not experienced the dynamics of F1, then it's difficult to describe, but even in the support Lamborghini trophy race (a few years back) tha Lambos were painfully slow by comparison. The only way to safely get these photos is at a distance, and the kit lens is simply not able to that job.

So, at the very least, one needs to have the basic set of tools that permits them to get the job done. Whether that's a kit lens, or a 50mm f1.4, or whatever ... if my shots come out like crap, it's nothing to do with my equipment: it's all down to my incompetence.

I'd like to add just a little bit to this discussion.

'The camera is an artistic tool, not a gadget.'

It is a way to an end, that end being satisfaction that we did our best to capture an image. If that image didn't work out the way our mind thought it would, then have another go. Sometimes a sensational image will appear without you even thinking about it. No thinking about composition, lighting, ISOs, shutters, apertures or anything else, just a great shot.

That's why i like photography. It's unpredicatable. It's art and it's a way i can express myself.

I can't paint or draw to save my life but i reckon i can take good photos when i try, with whatever camera i have in my hand, even a pinhole.

(I'm not sure i followed this thread... )

Well said Gary & Killa

I believe that lust can get hold of some people & take over there lives.
I think buying all the latest gadgets is all good & well but some people do this & never spend the time to get to know what the hell the thing will do other than what it dose in Auto mode.

I don’t thing this applies to any of the members of this forum they have lust in a big way but only to help get the ultimate image they are after.

I’m lusting for the 80-400 VR because I know that lens will provide me with the reach I’m after for what I like doing the most in photography “up close & personal”
The VR part is just a bonus.

My thoughts  PS: now I have RSI after typing all that garbage!!!!!!

Cheers
Ray

Ajo43,

Couldn't agree with you more. We live in a consuming world of Must Have Want Want Want, I find myself falling all the time for my Tec Gadgets.

I like the way you can go through life thinking you are learning heaps and know a lot ( You Think ) then along comes a little Indian Boy and nails some pretty basic stuff ( without complicating the F%#*(K out of it )

I love his Black Frames around his images as well ( Off to do some more Frame Actions I think for me )

Thanks for posting it, it has given me some inspiration to keeping it simple stupid. Stick to the basics and enjoy a little Technology.

( YIN / YANG ) Everything in balance.

Thanks,

Mic.

A camera is a tool...like a fine pen. It can be used to write a masterpiece....or rubbish. It must be used with artistry in order to produce fine work. A stradorvarius violin will not make you a better musician....on the contrary...it will emphasise your faults. I have know a couple of people who purchased Hasselblad cameras....and then sold them within 12 months because they didn't produce fine photography.

Now...Gimme a 70-200VR and f/1.4 85mm and a f2.8 180mm and a...etc etc

gstark wrote:

ajo43 wrote:
Dooda's observation regarding Cartier Bresson is almost correct; I'm not sure that I'd call a Leica " the most rudimentary of instruments"; Leica glass is legendary for its quality and its qualities, and the features of the cameras, even in those days, gave a master such as Cartier Bresson all of the control I expect he felt he needed.

Yes, I did read recently after his death however that he was also known for taking some photos with a homemade camera. I don't remember the details, and to be honest I don't trust my own memory much as a rule. So in rudimentary I wasn't referring to the leica.

dooda wrote: So in rudimentary I wasn't referring to the leica.

Thanx for the clarification.

Killakoala wrote:I'd like to add just a little bit to this discussion.

'The camera is an artistic tool, not a gadget.'

As fearful as I am to disagree with anyone who's nom-de-forum is Killa.....

"gadget

(noun) a mechanical contrivance or device; any ingenious article"

I reckon a camera is (among other things) a gadget.

I'm glad this thread stimulated a bit of debate. I know people on this forum love photography first and toys second. There is no doubt that there is joy in buying a new tool to help improve our photography, reading the manual, talking to others etc.

Lust is such a good word to describe the feeling of wanting something you don't/can't have.

I have found myself increasingly lustfull [is that a word] lately and then I came accross howhow's photographs and it was a bit of a breath of fresh air. Great photographs, limited tools and I loved his philosophy of understanding his subject.

Clearly if he was photographing motor racing or sport his equipment would not be sufficient. But he knew what he could afford and worked with what he had to produce work that I can only dream of emulating (I must admit to being a real sucker for the National Geographic style).

So for those of us that don't have a VR lens or an SB-800 or a Gitzo tripod and will never afford [or more importantly get approval from the wife to buy one] - there is hope - we can be happy with what is a bloody good camera and kit lens.

This is not to say that am not totally excited about my first visit to Birddog's place to play with some of his toys - bring it on - I'll just have to remember howhow's photos to try and keep the lust monster in check...

Well put Jonesy.


I think the thing to remember is that the Dslr is the merging of two technologies and on the computer side we are all conditioned to more memory, faster processor, etc, etc and some of that carries over. Buy yourself a 2GB card and suddenly a USB2 reader is needed instead of a USB1 reader, etc

a mechanical contrivance or device

NNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! I will never think of the D70 as a mere 'contrivance.' it is SO much more than that.

Killakoala's dictionary defines the following terms;
A contrivance = nail clippers, a chainsaw, a clock, HG Wells's Time machine.
Artistic Tool = a brush, a spatula, fingers, The D70...