It's not WHAT you use but HOW you use it??

440Hz

<cut> cos I dont seem to have said what I was trying to say, so... nevermind </cut>

FreeAnd..

cool, i have a guy like that too...we call him Bob, he's great..his pictures are amazing and he doesnt even use a camera..which debate is this again though? Post processing vs non post processed? Kit lens vs New Lens or Photographer vs Photographer? I do get confused..

rymus

they do all kinda meld into one mass frenzy after a while.. Luckily there are several master debators on here..

elven

*stops herself making a joke about a cunning linguist*

ahem...

The reason we are all so surprised is because we spend a lot of time deciding which kit will work best for us, rather than how to use it. Someone was talking recently about technology being the new religion of the west, and it's true.

It'd be quite nice to talk about the 'how' instead of the 'what with' for a change... it's not like you get artists talking about which make of paintbrushes are best. Maybe.

Morlar

elven wrote:

.. it's not like you get artists talking about which make of paintbrushes are best. Maybe.

Before anyone else says otherwise those nikon brushes are crap.

magicbastarder

i'm just surprised that surprise should enter into it.

440Hz

elven wrote:

it's not like you get artists talking about which make of paintbrushes are best. Maybe.

but they do!!

fair point though. Natural talent I think is the key. Like anything in life.

FreeAnd..

so what did we decide again? im finding it hard to keep up..

magicbastarder

that photoshoppers are womanisers?

Oriel

How did you "check up" on his not using post processing?

Glowing

I hate when you take a nice photo and people say 'but it's only cos you have a nice camera'

prox

Well, if you have one nice photo and 99 crap ones then they're probably right. Infinite monkeys and all that.

FreeAnd..

How did you "check up" on his not using post processing?

is it not obvious? immediately after leaving the office he wipped out his kit lens and shot a master piece that he printed straight from the camera (poster size mind you) to display (for friends only) on a wall around the corner...this is what my guy bob would have done..obviously - thus proving the use of only the kit lens with no post processing...If it was my bob he would have also shot in digital (with a film camera)...he does that sometimes

Oriel

FreeAnd.. wrote:

is it not obvious? immediately after leaving the office he wipped out his kit lens and shot a master piece that he printed straight from the camera (poster size mind you) to display (for friends only) on a wall around the corner...this is what my guy bob would have done..obviously - thus proving the use of only the kit lens with no post processing...If it was my bob he would have also shot in digital (with a film camera)...he does that sometimes

Glowing

prox wrote:

Well, if you have one nice photo and 99 crap ones then they're probably right. Infinite monkeys and all that.

Gee, shall I take that as a compliment?

Calina

Alright. I'll bite.

Perfection is, at the end of the day, still subjective. So it is entirely possible that I could go to this person's collection of photographs and be very underwhelmed. That needs to be born in mind.

Natural talent, however, will only get you so far. You still need to learn to use the tools at your disposal. The difference is in the choice of tools, sometimes, and that is not the technical side of things. It doesn't surprise me that someone will get stuff out of a basic set up - because ultimately, what matters is what you can see. That's why people are recommending books like "Learn to See Creatively", for example.

It has always been said that a bad workman blames his tools. It's never been about the tools, it's always been about how you use them. If you lose sight of that, the issue is yours.

I'm surprised to read the surprise in your post about this. For me it is self evident that a good photographer can produce a good photograph irrespective of the equipment concerned.

Glowing

Calina wrote:

For me it is self evident that a good photographer can produce a good photograph irrespective of the equipment concerned.

Wholeheartedly agree.

magicbastarder

the type of kit i've invested in would have a marginal difference in the type of shot this guy would be able to take; however, i'd be able to take shots he wouldn't be able to take, e.g. stuff with macro lenses, etc.

Valentia

I agree wholeheartedly with everything that has been said so far. I'm completely screwed though. I didn't get a kit lens with my camera:(.

rymus

magicbastarder wrote:

that photoshoppers are womanisers?

If only I was as good a photoshopper as I am a womaniser...

Spyral

Anyway, its an old debate, and honestly until a few hours ago I never really had a strong opinion on it, but after seeing those shots I really do believe its whats behind the camera that counts!

didnt we already know that?

digitalbeginner

440Hz wrote:

<cut> cos I dont seem to have said what I was trying to say, so... nevermind </cut>

I'm confused. Having reverse engineered this post I think I can figure out what the original entry was:

Nikon brushes are not the best but when used in Photoshop at the largest size can bring you a lot of female friends

Really though, the eyes have it, always did and always will. To photograph a gnat, sure, I need special lenses to get in that close, but it still has to be framed properly or it fails on every level. No camera can do that for you, and probably never will. My students have cameras ranging from the cheapest Aldi Digital right up to 5D's, I speak to each of them on the same level, that of training the eye to see a good picture and firing the shutter when you come upon it,

Dave

Morlar

You could argue that it IS what you have and it IS how you use it.

Neither on their own will do. Expensive gear on its own wont save a bad photographer, and the best photographer with an entry level camera and crap lens will struggle producing work for the higher end, A1 printing & magazine work and so on.

I think people should use the gear they are comfortable with and can afford.

I think these discussions a lot of the time amount to people making excuses for why they are not getting the results they are aiming at (workmen blaming their tools and all that), as in I need the most expensive camera and that will improve my work, then they get the camera and its a lens they need. If you gave them a mark II and the full L range there would be something else to acquire before the results start appearing.

At the same time a lot of people with lower end cameras say that higher end ones are completely unnecessary and redundant I would suspect that they would not say no to a mark II or hasselblad or whatever.

prox

How common is A1 printing? That sounds gargantuan.

311

What IS a good photo ?

elven

Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh, noooooooo!

*must...not...begin...discussing subjectivity in art*

rymus

thank crunchie it's almost friday. Maybe I'll save the rant I had planned for my blog instead

prox

Post it - nothing wrong with a good Friday rant.

I reckon there are reasonable and objective analyses that can be applied to art. No good work springs from or exists in a vacuum.

mikeanywhere

rymus wrote:

If only I was as good a photoshopper as I am a womaniser...

Sandy, care to confirm or deny that?? :eek:

Fajitas!

You know, painters argue about paintbrushes, paint brands, canvases, wood, prep washes. Some argue if you want the best, you buy the best, others say you can paint with anything be it mud & a stick or piss & a wall.

Different strokes and all that (Begging the pun)

prox

Fajitas! wrote:

You know, painters argue about paintbrushes, paint brands, canvases, wood, prep washes.

Painters might argue, artists less often.

Fajitas!

Lol.

You'll troll for an argument at any chance you get.