What Really Matters?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Agree 100%. 80% of a good image comes from 4 inches behind the viewfinder. However, at the same time I don't think technical and artistic l proficiency are mutually exclusive either. There's a balance to be struck.

Also, a personal note on the blog, videos, etc that are all about gear - there's a reason for that. Technique and artistic technique posts often don't see the same traffic as gear posts. I personally prefer to do videos about how to use gear, field techniques, that sort of thing. However, and by far, my most frequent requests are for gear comparisons and review related topics (despite that I don't do those videos very often anymore). So, creators tend to put energy into the topics that generate the most attention.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Good point made in video. Too many people want the newest and best camera and lens when nearly all existing equipment is better than the 20th Century film cameras & lens that produced thousands of outstanding photos. On the upside: those who always buy the latest equipment at least provide incentives to the manuafacturers to keep making improvements.
 
Member's gallery
I have had strange looks, saying a Df is a most capable choice of camera for almost all wildlife subjects IF one knows how to use it efficiently! I learnt never to underestimate its D4 sensor :) And many of us know which classic MF lenses dovetail very well with a Df (eg 105 f2.5AIS etc, 28-105 AFD). Every camera or lens has its quirks including deficiencies. Obviously the newest and latest make live a great deal easier IF you are proficient with capturing the artistic opportunities around one ;) ;)

I often see stunning images taken with older gear, including optics of 30yr vintage and older: eg D3 wth 80-200 f2.8AFD ED

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
Agree 100%. 80% of a good image comes from 4 inches behind the viewfinder. However, at the same time I don't think technical and artistic l proficiency are mutually exclusive either. There's a balance to be struck.

Also, a personal note on the blog, videos, etc that are all about gear - there's a reason for that. Technique and artistic technique posts often don't see the same traffic as gear posts. I personally prefer to do videos about how to use gear, field techniques, that sort of thing. However, and by far, my most frequent requests are for gear comparisons and review related topics (despite that I don't do those videos very often anymore). So, creators tend to put energy into the topics that generate the most attention.
Click to expand...
Technique videos are great!!
 
Member's gallery
Whaaaat? No way... Does this mean that getting the latest Canikony ARZ159 won't make me the world greatest photographer? Does this mean the camera manufacturers are lying to me?

What next? I'm gonna find out that women won't be attracted to me if I use Axe (Lynx) body spray? That drinking Heineken beer doesn't make you cool? :p

Joking aside, I was reading these past weeks a book about the winners in the WPY history and two things jumped at me:

1) Most of them were using high-end gear that they had time to familiarize themselves with.
2) They were shooting the same subjects for years on end, putting a lot of work, of trial and error in their shots.
 
Member's gallery
I agree - we do put too much emphasis on gear and tools. But at the margin, tools can allow us to make new or different types of images. I bought a Nikon 16-35 lens over the sharper 14-24 because of VR (for use in a canoe after sundown) - and knowing that sharpness was adequate. It was also because of the easier use of filters for stream photography. I originally planned to use the 24-70 f/4 for landscapes over the 24-70 f/2.8 G because of corner performance for panoramas. I have the 200-500 for wildlife because I can handhold it in a canoe - but my preferred lens is my 600 f/4. I replaced my DX camera with an FX camera because of depth of field differences I observed shooting an elk side by side with another photographer. Each one of these choices was a "gear" decision - but in each case, it was the image I could make with the gear that drove the choice.

For over 150 years innovations in gear and processing have allowed photographers to create new types of images. Cartier-Bresson's image of a man jumping over a puddle was enabled by gear. Ansel Adams Group 64 - and his landscapes - were enabled by gear. Wildlife photographers rarely make action images below ISO 800 - something unheard of in the days of film or early digital imaging. Focus stacking, HDR, and other software innovations have created new creative options. It's all about the photo - but some times the gear is a very important tool to help realize your vision or push a boundary.
 
Member's gallery
StefanSC said:
1) Most of them were using high-end gear that they had time to familiarize themselves with.
2) They were shooting the same subjects for years on end, putting a lot of work, of trial and error in their shots.
Click to expand...

Well, I must admit, that being an engineer it is almost natural behaviour that technology attracts my attention. Yes, have been blamed for putting a lot of attention (not too much though ;)) on equipment, but as always the truth is somewhere in the middle. On the one hand you have to learn a lot first to be able to use the gear you have and once you learned as time and shots went by, you reach the point where you can actually get a positive effect from stepping up with the equipment . On the other hand there really are things are things that you can only learn if you have other gear !

I used to work in sales and marketing - not for photography gear but other technical stuff involving a lot of hardware, and I know how easy it is to push people in the reight direction by communicating the right data in the right context and the right "light" - to stay a bit closer to the topic. But I deliberately used the word "data" ...
  • The quantity of data that is available to us is constantly growing, far faster than we can keep up, and the point from where it became too much to process without pre-selecting and filtering is long time ago.
  • The problem becomes worse, because the quality of the data goes down at the same time.
  • As a consequence there is a trend to compensate this by developping the bad habit of taking decisions based on data without extracting the good quality part first and then transferring it to information.
  • The thing is decisions shoould be taken based on information, not data.
  • The difference is interpretation. Data means nothing until it is interpreted in relation to the context in which you need to take a decision.
Looking at the question, what really matters, the answer to it is different for everybody here and around the world.

Does it help to buy a camera that can shoot 30 fps almost continuously ?
If I shoot landscapes or brick walls to make designer wall paper, no, If I shoot world class table tennis, may be yes.

How sharp is sharp ? Do it need a lens being worth a good second hand car ?
Probably not, even if I shoot wildlife, but with a 16, 20 or even 24 MPixel camera I wouldn't see the difference to using a previous generation lens that I get for a third of the price or even less. Oohh, and don't forget the format. This answer might even be different if you shoot 24 Mpixel DX.

The list of examples could be endless.

Bottom line:

If we are honest against others - and ourselves - about what we are capable of, what we want to be capable of and what we are willing to do to achieve it, it is the first step towards becoming capable of interpreting data to make it become information for our decision process and at the time enabling others to help with this transformation process. This forum is one of the best places I know to get this help.

StefanSC said:
1) Most of them were using high-end gear that they had time to familiarize themselves with.
2) They were shooting the same subjects for years on end, putting a lot of work, of trial and error in their shots.
Click to expand...

Item 1 is something I would underline. As a hobbyist being intrigued by technology AND the beauty of images AND the joy of making them myself I often thought about whether it would be worth the amount of money I pay for a peice of equipment considering that I am doing it just for fun. But I think if you can't do it as often as you would like you should - within a reasonable range - get high quality equipment. I agree that ...
Steve said:
80% of a good image comes from 4 inches behind the viewfinder.
Click to expand...
... but especially if you suffer from too rare opportunities it is even worse if you know you could have get something better if you jsut had another lens or another body.

Buying the right gear is just as important as learning to use it properly. Something I realized that the joy of getting a good shot is already great. But this in combination with the satisfaction to be able to master the equipment I needed for it and having the feeling that I chose the right bits and pieces because I managed to find the right data and transfer it into valid information for this decision makes it even better. Every time I shoot my 500 f4 and I get a good photo, I also have this good feelinig to have done the right thing some years ago and if others have helped me with learning how to get this, but also having this equipment today, increases the good feeling and I try to share it with them - one way or another.

There is also an aspect to me that may sound weird, but there is something I would call "obligating pride".
When I bought this 500 f4 from my friend (nature pro) and I knew the photos he made with exactly this lens, I felt (and I still do feel proud of being able call it mine today and shoot with it. At the same time it made me really keen on becoming better with my photography because I still think I have to deserve to shoot this lens. Same with the pro body. It took me five years to allow me to get one of these single digit beasts, after my friend had told me about and shown me the benfits of it. Part of all this I only learned to understand step by step anyway, but foremost I had to get the feeling that I am worth it to have this machine and are allowed to use it.

Sounds bit pathetic, but it helps me keeping my feet on the ground when thinking of equipment. If I am making up my mind to swap my D750 and D720 against a D850 it is simply because I took a decision - that was supported by @Steve, who kind of confirmed that my thoughts in my decison process were right - and I have the feeling that today I have reached a level where I think I can use a D850 to an extent that is o.k. to get one.

Item 2 I find hard as a hobbyist not being eable to go shooting on a regular basis. It is more like grabbing the opportunity and trying to be open. I think it is obvious and I have just to accept that with this approach I cannot expect to play on the same level as people with more chance to practice or having the opportunity to pick a topic or animal and just decide to concentrate on this for as long as it takes. It still feels good, as long as you can become a little better everytime or discover new ways of doing it just by accident.
 
Member's gallery
My objective is always to make my art (whether it's with a camera or a guitar) for ME. If I shut out what other people might think about my stuff, I get what makes me happy, and if someone else likes it...great. The hardest thing for me...in both realms...being original. How do I take a picture of a particular subject that hasn't been taken a million times? Same with music. The players I listen to...I can tell it's them in a note or two. Me...I'm good at sounding like them (well...some of them), but sounding like ME...that's tough. Gear is a tool...it's fun...but that's all it is. I keep dragging this story "out of the garage," but one of my most purchased prints (and one that I'm incredibly fond of) was taken with an inexpensive Minolta with a cheap consumer zoom that had been rolling around on the floor of my truck for months. Beat to c**p! It's what I had with me so...I did what I could. I'm glad that I have better gear, but I always keep that story in my head.
 
Member's gallery
The bottom line is the artistic product...or is it? How many are into photography for the "gear head" aspects of the equipment. My brother and I are polar opposites in life with our primary common interest being photography. He's totally obsessed with the product that today's cameras turn out at high ISO's and how cameras work. Then you look at his compositions, his use of rule of thirds, and post processing and his product is lacking. He still likes photography. Hey, he was an engineer and I was the legal business guy. I'm more into the artistic aspects of an image because I want to enlarge my work and put it on the wall.

I would venture a guess that 90% plus of photographer's spend more money on photography than they make from it. Even the one's making money from photography primarily make their money on other aspects of photography besides the selling of their images. I would bet a minute percentage of photographers actually support themselves strictly from image sales. Yet, we keep spending the money on it. If you are in it for the artistic side or the technical side (or any other reason for that matter), all that really matters is that it makes you happy and you enjoy it.
 
Member's gallery
The only trend in photography worse than some photographers caring too much about gear and technology is other photographers judging what some photographers care about. 😜

Enjoy collecting cool gear? Awesome! As long you recognize owning a piano doesn’t make you a pianist.

Enjoy pixel peeping? Awesome! As long as you recognize that’s not how your photos will be experienced by others.

Enjoy learning about camera technology? Awesome! As long as you recognize your book smarts can only go so far in the field, and practiced muscle memory and experience are much more valuable when out taking pictures.

Dan's video started out with an open-minded attitude. But then it devolved into statements like:

"because that's not what photography is all about"
"and if it is, maybe you're doing it for the wrong reason"
"or else you're a little bit confused"
"worrying too much about this stuff won't make you a better photographer. It's only going to confuse you"

Wow, that's pretty arrogant. And he doesn't seem to think much of his viewers.

Sometimes photography is about creating art. Great!
Sometimes photography is about capturing memories. Great!
Sometimes photography is about recording history. Great!
Sometimes photography is about documenting an animal sighting. Great!
Sometimes photography is about improving one's skill at a craft. Great!
Sometimes photography is about the experience of using a camera while capturing candid moments of strangers. Great!
Sometimes photography is about simply learning how to use a camera. Great!
Sometimes photography is about learning the technology underpinning modern cameras so you don't fall prey to misinformation and make bad decisions. Great!
Sometimes photography is about all of the above. Great!
Sometimes photography is about 1000 other aspects I haven't listed. Great!
And yes, sometimes photography is all about the final image. Great!
And yes, sometimes photography is more about the process of the craft and less about the final image. Great!

The only thing I can be certain of, is Dan Bailey is 100% wrong in thinking he gets to define photography for anyone but himself.
 
Member's gallery
This video just popped up in my YouTube subscription feed:


Wow, that was timely. These two handle the gear angle of this topic in a much more inclusive and dryly humorous way, all while acknowledging their biases and taking care not to lecture nor (seriously) judge anyone.
 
Member's gallery
It's an interesting topic. In my opinion in the end it really comes down to individuals. For some it's all about the art regardless of how it's captured. For others it's about making money in the most efficient way possible. For some it's about the techiness of the industry. For some it might even come down to ego. I don't think there is one correct answer. I say to each his own.

I believe there are those who can have the latest greatest and most expensive gear and still not make a good image. Then there are others who can use 10 or 20 year old gear and blow you away. You'll see awesome pictures taken with a cell phone by people who don't know the difference between aperture and shutter speed and alternatively awful shots taken by someone who can tell you every hyperfocal distance and recite the dynamic range for every lens ever made.

Pixel peeking has been both a blessing and a curse. We all do it to some extent but some take it to an extreme and wind up judging other photographers based on whether or not it fits their personal sharpness criteria. In a small part it has ruined the used lens market. Suddenly used big primes are junk because they're not crazy sharp wide open. Hint, they never were. Try to tell that to someone however looking for 600 f4 E performance at a 600 f4 D price.

One thing I'll add is that I've sold a lot of work to a lot of different customers over the years. Ad agencies, magazines, tourism groups, private buyers ect. Not once, not ever was I asked about sharpness and not once not ever was I even asked about what gear I used. For them it always came down to the final product. For some it doesn't even come down to just that. It also comes down to the pure enjoyment of shooting. The cool locations, the experience, who was there, and what did you see. What's on the card might not even matter. I get that.
 
Member's gallery
kimball said:
This video just popped up in my YouTube subscription feed:
Click to expand...

That brings it to the point for me. Full stop.

BTW, thanks for posting it. I am still one of these social-media- and youtube-search-ophobic dinosaurs and thus appreciate this kind of support :D via an old school channel like a "classic" forum :D.
 
Member's gallery
We all are involved in photography for many different reasons and get our enjoyment out of it in many different ways. Being confident in the fact that what you are doing is giving you enjoyment no matter what direction you take it or how you choose to pursue it is important in todays social media influenced world.

I will say that I believe what makes a really great photographer is the ability to master all aspects of the craft.
 
Member's gallery
After sleeping on these questions (art vs technology) the thought occurs: that the crux of the question is to try and find the best tool for the job. Artists experiment with novel media, pigments and instruments etc - including any kind of alternative to high rag paper or canvas; and all manner of materials can be sculpted and molded etc

Studio photography is often unavoidably technical - demanding all kinds of the best tools to paint with light. All in all, Instrumentation can be critical in photography, and the correct imaging instruments can help one get on with what really matters: - this Composition including perfecting the lighting of the subject, its framing.. Gestures et al.

However, saying all this one does often enjoy some freedom (latitude / tolerances) to image many subjects. This is where and when almost all modern ILC gear works rather well.

Stanley Kubrick stands out as a perfectionist in obtaining the correct tools for the images he envisaged. He went beyond the extreme in his efforts and no expense was spared: eg in shooting Barry Lyndon, Kubrick bought and modified the infamous super fast Zeiss f0.7 primes to shoot key scenes under candlelight only:





Very few of these Zeiss lenses were ever made. NASA had commissioned the design specially to shoot the dark side of the moon on the Apollo missions. The Zeiss 50mm f0.7 lenses and other unique photographic instruments have been exhibited in a museum display, and are still in the family's ownership. Mentioned in this documentary:

 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I think both are important. Which one depends on the photographer and subject matter. I find myself drooling over the latest tech specs, but then I check the price and have to return to reality. Yes it would be wonderful to track a bird's eye while in flight, but for me the joy is being there, and then playing in post. I do get photos I love, but the good to bad ratio has plenty of room for improvement. I need to improve my technique with what I currently own, but that doesn't stop me from running the numbers. :)
 
Member's gallery
My weak link is that I LOVE sitting in my kayak or in the woods for hours alone watching the world (I'm a biologist/teacher):cool:...and I HATE sitting in front of a computer at least equally:sick: . Don't know if there are any jazzers here but my post-processing tech. is like Coltrane...or probably Ornette Coleman (I'm working on being better about it):confused:.
I have a lot of incentive to get it right in the camera! Technical knowledge and gear can certainly help toward that end...no guarantees there for sure!
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for sharing. I hope his message resonates with those like me who are left brained and need to work on artistry and creativity to be a more complete photographer.
 
Member's gallery
StefanSC said:
Whaaaat? No way... Does this mean that getting the latest Canikony ARZ159 won't make me the world greatest photographer? Does this mean the camera manufacturers are lying to me?

What next? I'm gonna find out that women won't be attracted to me if I use Axe (Lynx) body spray? That drinking Heineken beer doesn't make you cool? :p

Joking aside, I was reading these past weeks a book about the winners in the WPY history and two things jumped at me:

1) Most of them were using high-end gear that they had time to familiarize themselves with.
2) They were shooting the same subjects for years on end, putting a lot of work, of trial and error in their shots.
Click to expand...
Santa is questionable too!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top