No Heart

Hand_Of_Steel

After reading over the kit thread I came to the conclusion that people on here don't seem to care about the art of photography, rather they are obsessed with the technology.
There are constant claims that only the newest body will do.
New lenses are being bought as soon as some spare cash comes up.
Only top of the scale equipment will do.
Is it just a case of keeing up with the Jones'?
Do people ever make any money from their investments?
Do you find yourself using you gear so much, that you require 20 different lenses to fully caputre the ideal picture you are after?
I just don't understand why people are spending so much money.
The greatest photos I've seen are from old 35mm with a 50mm lense.
Honestly, unless you are a professional that demands instant results, I don't see the point of spending ~€2000-€300 on a lense/lenses/body you might use once a week.

311

Good for you ,why buy a lottery ticket if your never going to win.

Roen

I like gear porn.

Valentia

Hand_Of_Steel wrote:

The greatest photos I've seen are from old 35mm with a 50mm lense.

Yeah Leicas with Zeiss lenses FFS.

Jeez talk of penis envy. Every lens I have has been used in situations where no other lens could have done. A puffin at 400 meters comes out very small on a 12mm lens, likewise it's very difficult to capture a wide panorama of the ballroom in Charleville Castle with a 400mm.

I agree though that there s little point in filling a bag with gear that you don't know how to use but for some reason your post seems a little less tolerant and understanding and more verging on jealously and lack of knowledge (ignorance is the word but it seems a little harsh)

Have you used Canon L lenses. I have got a few recently and the quality is just amazing compared to most other lenses. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best tools for the job. How many plumbers have you seen using Black and Decker??

As for making money, what the hell has that got to do with anything????? We do care about "our art" so making money doesn't come into it. Read your first sentence again and please try to be a little bit more consistent with your arguement!

sineadw

I have a POS 35 film with POS lenses, all of which have cost me a grand total of 200 quid so far, and I do love. I've never felt I had to keep up with anyone here, and all I've ever seen here are people who love to take photos and help others out. If I had to money to buy that 24 grand Hasselblad I bloody-well would though. And why not? Everyone has their thing.

Gear porn - lol

Valentia

Oh and another thing. If you feel that I , or anyone else here, has no heart please have a look at our galleries on Flickr or wherever and come back and say that. You wont, because you'll find that that is not the case.

elven

Ok, why don't you read over the 'why I take pictures' thread now and see if you still feel the same way.... it's a thread about gear! Duh! People are going to buy what they can because it's their hobby, something they love doing, and buying lenses that will enable them to do stuff they otherwise couldn't is fun! Sheesh. You think I'd not take a 70-200 2.8 L lens instead of my 70-200 might-as-well-just paint-the-glass-black zoom,if I got the chance - because it would allow me to take a lot of pictures that I'm currently physically not able to... no of course not, THAT would just be silly.

Now go troll somewhere else and don't come back until you have something useful/thoughtful/relevant to say.

mikeanywhere

I just like collecting lenses myself :eek:

Rojo

Hand_Of_Steel wrote:

After reading over the kit thread I came to the conclusion that people on here don't seem to care about the art of photography, rather they are obsessed with the technology.
There are constant claims that only the newest body will do.
New lenses are being bought as soon as some spare cash comes up.
Only top of the scale equipment will do.
Is it just a case of keeing up with the Jones'?
Do people ever make any money from their investments?
Do you find yourself using you gear so much, that you require 20 different lenses to fully caputre the ideal picture you are after?
I just don't understand why people are spending so much money.
The greatest photos I've seen are from old 35mm with a 50mm lense.
Honestly, unless you are a professional that demands instant results, I don't see the point of spending ~€2000-€300 on a lense/lenses/body you might use once a week.

complete and utter bollox...


the spending is justified through the fruits of the labour, in my opinion. Such a stupid statement...

Roen

Well you have a point H_O_S, I'm a little guilty of spending a lot and not using my gear as much as the initial expense would warrant.
It's not a simple matter though, I don't use it a lot simply because I have a lot of hobbies. I love to travel, walk, climb and camp (I adore the outdoors). I love going to the gym, playing squash, going to the cinema*. I am a bit of a tech head as well and can while away hours surfing the net. Add in all the usual stuff like reading and so on and I am kept pretty busy.

I don't think that I lack heart at all, if anything I try to spread myself too much over too many hobbies. There just isn't the hours in the week.

















*girls take note

gandalf

Very poor troll, 2/10 try harder next time

paudie

I hate photography I just figure its the quickest professional route to early retirement

kuroino

> I don't see the point of spending ~€2000-€3000 on a lense/lenses/body

Budget amateur digital SLR body - 700 euro, very basic even non-native flash unit - 200 euro, main budget lense - 300 euro, fixed bright lense (e.g. 50/1.8) - 100 euro, very cheap telephoto - 150 euro, UV filters for all of that and one budget polarizer - 50 euro, reasonably inexpensive bag for all of that - 50 euro, inexpensive tripod - 50 euro. Flash cards - 50 euro. 1650 euro in total, not that far from your 2000 euro. And that's the exact minimum of equipment for any amateur digital photographer now, I think.

Of course I support you on the general point, that there is no reason to spend too much on the equipment. But 2000 euro is simply not too much. It is not much at all in fact.

Fajitas!

Best gear for the job tbh. And not just for making money. I want to get what I want to see, and I'll get the gear that suits that. I'm studying fine art, and have had a few exhibitions, so it's not exactly a case of no heart.

And I have to agree with Valentia - The kit with the 35mm film and 50mm lenses...were all 2000 for the camera and 1000 for the lens. Besides, if they're the best you're seeing, you're not looking very far.

311

Is it not experience that allows photographers to know , they'll only need one lens for a certain job.

Calina

Hand_Of_Steel wrote:

After reading over the kit thread I came to the conclusion that people on here don't seem to care about the art of photography, rather they are obsessed with the technology.
There are constant claims that only the newest body will do.
New lenses are being bought as soon as some spare cash comes up.
Only top of the scale equipment will do.
Is it just a case of keeing up with the Jones'?
Do people ever make any money from their investments?
Do you find yourself using you gear so much, that you require 20 different lenses to fully caputre the ideal picture you are after?
I just don't understand why people are spending so much money.
The greatest photos I've seen are from old 35mm with a 50mm lense.
Honestly, unless you are a professional that demands instant results, I don't see the point of spending ~€2000-€300 on a lense/lenses/body you might use once a week.

Personally I don't see the point in spending 5.60E on a pint of Guinness since you'll only go the toilet half an hour later. But you'd be surprised the number of people who don't agree with me.

After reading this I came to the conclusion that you've a simplistic outlook on life.

The greatest photograph I have ever taken I took with a 350D costing 700E and a Sigma 300mm zoom lens costing 200E. Boohoo. I recently coughed up 1200E for a 500mm zoom lens because - get this - I needed the extra reach. Jesus I don't like needing it; it weighs a tonne; but have you ever tried to take photographs of kitesurfers with a 50mm prime? I have. The results are not exactly over whelming. The second greatest photograph I have taken was taken with the 350D and the 500mm zoom. I couldn't put a converter on the 300mm zoom because a converter won't fit it.

What is it to you that people use all their spare cash to buy new lenses? I mean - let's face it, it's not your money they are spending - it's their own, it's what they do. Yeah, some of them are gear nerds and that's fine - it is their money. I really don't care apart from the fact that I got to borrow someone's wideangle at an outing once....which was groovy.

I've spent around two grand on equipment in the last year with a shopping list of around five grand to come at least. It could be worse. I could spend my life gambling the fruits of my labour away in one of those super casinos that are getting built in the UK. Or I could, like just about everyone else according to the Indo a few weeks ago, waste it on cocaine. Or, I could buy a newer and bigger car. Or I could stash it in a bank and have no life whatsoever.

Ansel Adams is my favourite photographer of all time. Philippe Plisson is my favourite living photographer. I like Peter Lik. I like Vincent Munier. These guys use the very, very best equipment they can get for the job and their photographs are the richer for it. Do you think there's any shame in trying to take the very best photograph you can?

Heart is not a quantifiable commodity when it comes to photographs. AlisonB, whom I haven't seen for a while, takes superb fashion shots. I can see how technically great they are. But they don't talk to my heart because my own interest is so different - you could equally say where's the heart in watersports photography? What it boils down to is this: where you may see no heart, it could be because your own heart is closed to it. In the meantime, a lot of people here spend a lot of time and money on photography which can be an expensive or cheap hobby - because they love it, and they don't see it as a waste of money.

If you look at the kit list I put up you'll see I said I wanted a 30D. Why do I want that? Simple: it has a bigger fps. It's not a big thing - but get this - I spent as much money as I could afford on a body at the time I bought a 350D. Would I prefer to have the money?

No. You mightn't see the value in some of my photographs - but I can. I got benefits out of taking those photographs - even the bad ones - in terms of the human return I get from people I photograph.

I know a lot of people who have a load of photographic equipment and no money but they have lives - rich lives and they see beauty all around them. I know people who don't bother with spending money on anything. I don't envy them. They have money but they have very little else.

We have interests. We follow them. And we strive to do the best, and get the best we can get. Me, I'd have a pile of L lenses in the morning if I could afford it and it wouldn't be just to impress rymus.

Fajitas!

Calina puts it very well

Calina

Roen wrote:

.... going to the cinema*.











*girls take note

you trying to get hooked up here, Roen?

Roen

Always trying....never succeeding

Calina

I was just wondering if we should organise boards.ie/photography speed dating or something that's all, maybe at the end of the next meet. make the photographic results a photo challenge or something.

maybe yez should have tried it at Charleville Castle...although I missed that.

Rojo

Calina wrote:

I was just wondering if we should organise boards.ie/photography speed dating or something that's all, maybe at the end of the next meet. make the photographic results a photo challenge or something.

maybe yez should have tried it at Charleville Castle...although I missed that.

I think if we did that, it'd be 10% hetero couples and the rest homo.. :P

Calina

Rojo wrote:

I think if we did that, it'd be 10% hetero couples and the rest homo.. :P

I'm trying to do the maths and I know that the weekend of the trip to the Donadea there were a load of good looking men plus elven, trilo and me with our pick...was it that disproportionate in Charleville as well?

damn...roen you're finished then. we women have our pick by the sounds of things...

Roen

Ahhh I'll struggle on.....

Fajitas!

440hz kind of counts as a girl...

Calina

Kind of? I would have said there was no doubt about it the last time I met her which was down at the Kerry shoot where the only who travelled from Dublin was me...

(nice intimate one that was, me 440Hz, Fionn and Rymus. 50:50 split).

Fajitas!

Ah I dunno now.

I have my doubts

Calina

Ah Fajitas, you're just spoiling for fistycuffs now.

Fajitas!

Only men resort to fistycuffs...

Calina

Obviously. But you're a man...just because I don't resort to fistycuffs doesn't mean I don't notice when you do...

magicbastarder

i must say, that if what HOS said was off the mark, he did seem to touch a raw nerve.
that said, i have seen comments on here (not that common) where people will say "why bother with such a filter/photographic technique when i can just photoshop it".
comments like that make my teeth itch.

Valentia

magicbastarder wrote:

i must say, that if what HOS said was off the mark, he did seem to touch a raw nerve.
that said, i have seen comments on here (not that common) where people will say "why bother with such a filter/photographic technique when i can just photoshop it".
comments like that make my teeth itch.

Holy sweet jazus we have another one. Trolls are breeding folks, watch out. Raw nerve me ar$e. Get a life FFS. Do you know the first thing about photography????????????????

It's crap like this that makes me wish I was a Mod here! Itch away, you should be busy for awhile.

magicbastarder

what i meant by the raw nerve comment was that people seemed to be overreacting to what he said. i wasn't agreeing with him in a very broad sense; i'm not generalising from occasional posts which he seems to be.

and the comment about being a mod - would you really wish to ban or censor someone for having what you perceive to be an opinion which differs from yours?

Valentia

Fair enough and no. But your comment was extremely ill informed and, maybe, as has been said here, you should have researched a few of the other posts mentioned. Then you might have understood why people reacted to the wan*er like we did.

Oh and your PS comment is just nonsense. What is the difference in filtering after the event?? I have been doing that in the lab for decades. Long before I discovered PS.

magicbastarder

well, i have seen from *some* people (not just here, it must be said) an attitude where you don't have to bother trying too hard in getting the shot, cos any deficiencies can be accounted for in photoshop. which i think is lazy. if you want good photos, you bust your balls at all stages of the process.
i'm not claiming this attitude is endemic to here, lest there be any confusion.

i've seen the "ansel adams dodged and burned in the darkroom, so it's ok to photoshop" argument commonly used - which i've no truck with, as long as people realise that ansel adam's preparation in getting the original shot was painstaking and often arduous.

Backtoblack

Roen wrote:

Ahhh I'll struggle on.....

Ahhhh Roen has a heart!

melekalikimaka

Rojo wrote:

I think if we did that, it'd be 10% hetero couples and the rest homo.. :P

boards mods get first picks ...hetero/homo....hummm the whole nikon/canon emotions are all coming back to me

melekalikimaka

magicbastarder wrote:

would you really wish to ban or censor someone for having what you perceive to be an opinion which differs from yours?

not so much his but of the general masses, its seems to be anyway, it was a stab at a number of members, especially after the 'kit' thread<cough>lenisterman<cough>....and ya'd get away with one or two 'personal vendetta' removals anyway. forums need to be ruled with an iron fist!

Roen

I seem to miss all the action...or maybe I'm not reading between the lines at all. All the negative stuff seems to pass over my ahead, although this thread (and one other notable one) other did end up a bit heated.

Fora should be places of debate and learning, as they were in Roman times. If anyone sees something they disagree with they should interject in such a way as to teach the original poster and others involved in that particular debate. If they themselves are wrong, they should be prepared to learn.

There's no point in keeping quiet until you eventually get so pissed off that you end up posting something based on a negative feeling.

BUT....the trouble with photography is that is so subjective and open to opinion. Now, while there are certain technical facts that are incontrovertible, the rest is pretty much up for debate. If some people see things differently, well and good, difference is what makes life worth living.
But lets at least respect the differences of opinion that exist, and not rail against them.

As regards the use of technology...does anyone here who objects to PS or other software imaging techniques honestly believe that if Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier Bresson, Robert Capa, or whoever else you could mention from the long list of old masters were alive today that they would refuse to use modern technology to create images?

These people used what was 'state of the art' in their own time. They used the best they could get their hands on and mastered it. They had a desire to make stunning images. I do believe that the end result was what counted to these people.

If Scott or Shackleton had the use of today's technology in their expeditions to the pole would they have refused it? I don't think they enjoyed frostbite and being covered in dog shite. They had a burning desire and used the best available technology to try to fulfil that desire. Much like any of the photographers mentioned above, they worked with what they had.

If Adams could have devoted time he spent toiling in the darkroom toiling over dodging and burning elsewhere it's my belief he would have done so. If he could have gotten results as good digitally then I believe he would have availed of the techniques that a lot of purists decry. All my opinions of course, maybe he loved dark rooms.

leinsterman

Will you ever catch on to yourself ?

Did it ever occur to you that some of us are into more than just photography ... ?

I'd be the first to admit I'm no pro ... but I get a kick from taking pictures ... and bland and all as the majority of mine are ... too hell with you and your self rightousness!!

I'll buy what kit I want with MY money ... you mind YOUR own business ... and don't question MY heart and passion ... you don't know me ... how dare you!!

I love fiddling with technology ... I'm an electronic engineer by profession ... If you knew anything you'd understand the motiviation of early adopters is being on the cutting edge ... not some ego trip ... Its a form of experimentation that costs me a fortune of my own hard earned cash and none of your business what I spend my money on ... I can afford it ... YOU should get over it!

Valentia is right ... good gear helps a talented photographers get better results ... if you can afford it then buy it ... if you can't then make the most with what you can afford ... and to hell with begrudgers like you ...

I don't need to measure myself by the work of others in this forum .... just be inspired by them and hope I can strive to learn from the high standard being set here...

The fact of the matter is I love gadgets ... photography is only one of my hobbies ... technology another ... digital photography allows me to marry the two ... I have many more interests... what's it to YOU?

440Hz

Fajitas! wrote:

440hz kind of counts as a girl...

WAHHEY!!! what did I miss...


i agree with al though, im no girl!!!

actually, I cant lie, too many ppl here have met me now, although... they might agree with al too hehehe!!

440Hz

Calina wrote:

Kind of? I would have said there was no doubt about it the last time I met her which was down at the Kerry shoot where the only who travelled from Dublin was me...

(nice intimate one that was, me 440Hz, Fionn and Rymus. 50:50 split).

hehehe! That seems so long ago now! Twas a great day out, pity you had to head early, but at least you missed getting soaked in Dingle!! Fun was had though, happy days eh

Shiny

hehe I'm nearly an Electronic Engineer...1 year left:cool:.

Every photographic item has its use. In my case I spent
extra money to get f2.8 lenses.
Yes I could have got cheaper ones, but then if i went to
a gig, the pictures would have been blurred, high ISO etc..

Photography is a hobby and can be expensive but I feel its
better to spend your money on something worthwhile than
pissing away all your money on drink and fags like a lot of
people I know.

In terms of photoshop use in photos, think of it this way;
What category is this forum in?
Arts > Photography

Every photo a person takes is a form of Art. If they use photoshop,
filters, wide angle lens's, fuki velvia film, etc ....that is no problem
as those steps are necessary in producing the final result with
their creativity, style, imagination and personality.

leinsterman

Valentia wrote:

Fair enough and no. But your comment was extremely ill informed and, maybe, as has been said here, you should have researched a few of the other posts mentioned. Then you might have understood why people reacted to the wan*er like we did.

Oh and your PS comment is just nonsense. What is the difference in filtering after the event?? I have been doing that in the lab for decades. Long before I discovered PS.

It may interest you to know I also spend €1,250 on a photography course at NCAD which I have had to write off ... that's heart!! ... why ?

Because it was supposed to be digital but the attitude of the tutor to the use of photoshop just peed me off to the point where I could not sit in the classes and listen to her continued rubbish about it being cheating ... she didn't even understand RAW format and she set herself up to be our digital tutor ... this while she allows us to push, over/underexpose, crop, dodge and burn etc in the darkroom ... IMO she does not understand that digital is a new medium for some of us ... a relative of film but not totally the same ... if others see exploration of the medium as a continued process of trying to make their work look like analogue film then fine .. that is their choice and I'm sure they will produce amazing results ... IMO they are missing the point a bit ... if you want film then use film ...

Shiny

leinsterman wrote:

... her continued rubbish about it being cheating ...

I think it is fine using photoshop once people dont start taking the
piss.

ie
replacing an entire sky and claiming its an original

When used tastefully, PS almost always adds to a photograph.

Roen

Backtoblack wrote:

Ahhhh Roen has a heart!

Don't quite know what to say!

B0rG

Oh, I missed such a good argument he-he. But it wasn't Friday thou.

And I was thinking recently that all the gear I have is bulky and expensive and lying around most of the time. 'cause I'm just too lazy to carry it all the time... So one thing I wanted - some kind of digital rangefinder small, fast, cheap and inconspicous, but unfortunately they don't make them...

magicbastarder

Roen wrote:

If Adams could have devoted time he spent toiling in the darkroom toiling over dodging and burning elsewhere it's my belief he would have done so. If he could have gotten results as good digitally then I believe he would have availed of the techniques that a lot of purists decry. All my opinions of course, maybe he loved dark rooms.

unfortunately he's not around to answer that question. but his founding of the f/64 group would imply that he would have probably found some digital darkroom techniques to be not to his taste.

Fajitas!

magicbastarder wrote:

unfortunately he's not around to answer that question. but his founding of the f/64 group would imply that he would have probably found some digital darkroom techniques to be not to his taste.

"The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself."

From the F/64 Manifesto...

The group refer to photography as an art form and a form of expression.

I'll argue this more when I'm not in a lecture.

magicbastarder

also from their manifesto:
"Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts."

Fajitas!

magicbastarder wrote:

also from their manifesto:
"Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods

Wouldn't digital darkroom suites be a pure photographic method?

How else do we do all the dodging, burning, sharpening etc the F/64's did...

magicbastarder

as i've said, i've no issue with such techniques, i've used them myself. my point is that they shouldn't be used as a panacea for all ills. you've still got to do your level best at the taking stage.