Schmoo, I think a 24-105 F4 IS L ought to work superb for street shooting for you, whether on a full frame 5DMkii, or an APS based 40D. You might want something wider at times, but a 135 f2 would also be a very nice lens to carry for your 5dMk ii. But a 50mm f1.4 might be all you really need.:D
Mmmmm... ya know, B.D, we already had a little "adjustment" to that philosophy over a rainy wedding...
I put it to you that it's somewhat ingenuous to talk about dslrs and hammers, paintbrushes, knives in the same breath. These latter are technology which is pretty much in stasis. Digital imaging on the other hand has just been born and has a whole lifetime of development in front of it.
Basic tools like those you mention quite likely are inextricable from our evolution as humans. I expect digital technology will also take us to new ways of being in far more emphatic ways.
My point is, that our tools create us, they are part of what make our future. I cannot be the same person with a Box Browny as I am with my 40D, state-of-the-art lenses, my computer and PS and the internet which includes this very discussion!
I think it doesn't help, in fact is counterproductive, to relegate photo technology to the inconsequential. It wasn't so in the "olden days" and it is more definitely not so today.
And, yes, I too am happy you are here!
Best.
Neil
Hi, Neil - Thanks for being pleasant, even kind, as you rip me a new one.
Of course technology in photography is evolving at a pace never before experienced. And of course our choices of equipment are extremely important, because what we select to some degree controls what we are able to do as photographers.
However...That degree of control is greatly over emphasized. Far too many people believe that if they don't have this camera or that camera - Nikon? Canon? LEICA! - they can't be good photographers. Conversely, they believe that using, say, a Leica, will turn their crappy snapshots into great art.
Sure, I have particular equipment I like - but I can produce good images with what ever you give me.
I'd argue that this is one of the best images I've ever shot, or ever will shoot...
As I recall, I shot that with a Honeywell Pentax - not even a Spotmatic ;-) - and a Vivitar 28mm f 3.5 lens on old Tri-X. Tell me how my having shot it with a Nikon F, or SP, with a Nikor lens, or a Leica M3 with a Summicron, would have made it better.
I do most of my shooting now not with the latest Canon or Nikon, but with an Olympus E-3, with a 4/3 sensor. That means I'm shooting with a, what, 10.5? 11? mgp sensor when everyone else is shooting with 14s and up? Hell, I also use the E-330 with its 7.5mgp sensor. So what? I can uprez to any size I need or clients need, and if I can there are some commercial outfits that can turn 5mgp images into giant commercial displays or museum quality prints. Will I be 0
Sure equipment's important - it's important to work with the equipment that's right for you . Beyond that though? Equipment discussions tend to detract from discussions of images.
If he thought sharpness was a bourgeois concept, I can't imagine he could have found the words for PS!:ivar
Well, obviously he had a sense of humor! But he got out just when one was really needed!D
Keep in mind that the lenses HCB used through most of his career were Coke bottle-bottoms compared to the latest generation of Leica M aspherical lenses. Some of the 'dreamy quality' some people oooo and ah over in images from the 30s, 40s - even into the 60s - is simply the result of seeing the world through crummy glass.
Keep in mind that the lenses HCB used through most of his career were Coke bottle-bottoms compared to the latest generation of Leica M aspherical lenses. Some of the 'dreamy quality' some people oooo and ah over in images from the 30s, 40s - even into the 60s - is simply the result of seeing the world through crummy glass.
But it could be sharp enough when that's what he wanted, even in the 30s. If you have Henri Cartier-Bresson, Photographer, look at the pictures and try to correlate sharpness with when the shot was taken. They did get less grainy as film improved, but he could get sharpness early on and that "dreamy quality" in the 50s and 60s. And, really, it doesn't matter in his shots because the composition and message is always so strong that sharpness or lack of sharpness is really just a detail.
Hi, Neil - Thanks for being pleasant, even kind, as you rip me a new one.
Of course technology in photography is evolving at a pace never before experienced. And of course our choices of equipment are extremely important, because what we select to some degree controls what we are able to do as photographers.
However...That degree of control is greatly over emphasized. Far too many people believe that if they don't have this camera or that camera - Nikon? Canon? LEICA! - they can't be good photographers. Conversely, they believe that using, say, a Leica, will turn their crappy snapshots into great art.
Sure, I have particular equipment I like - but I can produce good images with what ever you give me.
I'd argue that this is one of the best images I've ever shot, or ever will shoot...
As I recall, I shot that with a Honeywell Pentax - not even a Spotmatic ;-) - and a Vivitar 28mm f 3.5 lens on old Tri-X. Tell me how my having shot it with a Nikon F, or SP, with a Nikor lens, or a Leica M3 with a Summicron, would have made it better.
I do most of my shooting now not with the latest Canon or Nikon, but with an Olympus E-3, with a 4/3 sensor. That means I'm shooting with a, what, 10.5? 11? mgp sensor when everyone else is shooting with 14s and up? Hell, I also use the E-330 with its 7.5mgp sensor. So what? I can uprez to any size I need or clients need, and if I can there are some commercial outfits that can turn 5mgp images into giant commercial displays or museum quality prints. Will I be 0
Sure equipment's important - it's important to work with the equipment that's right for you . Beyond that though? Equipment discussions tend to detract from discussions of images.
Best
No wonder you have to get close, 10.5 - 11, ouch...
What we have here is ; old school vs new school...
And just to weigh in on the side of "it isn't the quality of the tool itself but that of the person using it," I share this gallery from Chase Jarvis's blog today: http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/mobile_photo/ He ran a quick contest challenging everyone to submit photos taken with their cell phones, the prize being his old iPhone. Not every shot in there is my cup of tea, but quite a few really struck a cord with me.
And thanks for the pic, B.D. - it's penetrating, both in what it shows, and how it affects me. It looks good too!
I too feel the need sometimes to dive beneath the surface and penetrate a bit, without
splashing anybody too much, I hope. That's the value of your pic, isn't it. I guess you have to hope
that nobody whose face appears there says, "Hang on, you can't publish my photo...!"
It would be stupid for anybody to argue that your photo could have been better with different gear.
However, you yourself readily recognise that it is what it is partly because of the equipment that
you did use. Same with H C-B, and all the rest. We don't try to separate the photographer and their
photographs from their gear. I doubt that all those guys would take quite as indifferent an attitude to
gear as you seem to if they were here now. Does anybody believe that if H C-B were reborn he would search out
his old Leicas and shoot the same stuff?
So, we should definitely not separate ourselves from our gear. How we imagine, approach, capture
and present an image - the photographic possibilities in a situation - are in a very real way dependent on the gear we have available.. It's not that something good cannot be got, but that other possible good things might be out of reach. We don't think of cycling to the moon because we know a pushbike will never get us there. Those higher ingredients in photography, of imagination, revelation, penetration, values - all the things we recognise make photography worthwhile and which we all agree don't come from the gear we use - can yet have no way to happen without enabling technology.
The past has achieved what it has with what it had. The future of photography is in how much our gear can enable our limitless imaginations, our visions, our values. We will never get to the moon on pushbikes, no matter how good those pushbikes are or how servicable they have been here on earth. Don't trivialise the issue with Canon vs Nikon etc. To weekend jaunters it might really not matter a damn. Otherwise, though, equipment is central in a very deep way.
Not really, you have to look at the whole picture.
Being older than dirt I lived "old school", for you it's an academic exercise. There's a segment of old school thought that thinks, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I adhere to some of that and most oldsters I know do also.
Personally I embrace digital photography. But when one alters what the eye see's, using technology; that begins to step into artistic expression.
Nothing wrong with that, but it seems to me that's outside the bounds of the photography craft. I look at those images differently.
For those that think photography is art, well that's a good subject for another thread.
But it begs the question, "What were you old school guys doing, I mean really doing?" I suspect, not just exercising your index finger for the local rag. That would make you robots.
It would be enlightening to us both, maybe, if you could penetrate that question.
But it begs the question, "What were you old school guys doing, I mean really doing?" I suspect, not just exercising your index finger for the local rag. That would make you robots.
It would be enlightening to us both, maybe, if you could penetrate that question.
--0--
A couple of thoughts:
First off, in response to Rutt's Ramblings about HCB and his lenses -
HCB was an artistic genius. But his lenses sucked. Lousy glass is lousy glass. Yes, some early images are sharper than others. But I contend he was simply shooting what he shot, and 'dreaminess' is an effect of soft glass, not something he sought.
----
I do not agree with the contention that all the greats would jump to use all today's latest technology. In fact, many of the older-still-shooting greats are still using film and their old standby equipment as often as assignments allow. They know what works for them. Period.
As to Canon/Nikon blah blah blah. To coin a phrase, love the one you're with. Because if you don't, you're going to be switching entire outfits every two to five years because the companies are going to keep leapfrogging over one another as the technological developments unfold. There's no question Canon had the edge over Nikon for a number of years. But - I would argue - the latest Nikon pro monster appears to now have a real advantage over Canon in some areas. Will Canon catch up, and leap over Nikon again, sure. But so what? In these days of rapid technology development it is incredibly easy to confuse improved technology with improved photos and photography.
Okay, I am not a high-tech guy, but I appreciate technology. At the same time, however, I believe that anyone who thinks that at this point in the digital revolution they need to keep upgrading constantly is deluding themselves and their bank account. The quality being produced by the current, and even past several, generations of DSLRs blows 35 mm - and in some cases - even 2 1/4 - film out of the water. The pixel count has devolved into a 'mine's bigger than yours' argument. Okay, size counts - but as any woman would tell you, only to a point - and that point was passed long ago.
----
Where Neil and I really disagree is here:
Don't trivialise the issue with Canon vs Nikon etc. To weekend jaunters it might really not matter a damn. Otherwise, though, equipment is central in a very deep way.
Weekend jaunters are fixated on brand - pros should know enough not to be.
I am the first to say that when last I regularly shot film, I used Leica M6s. I did so for one reason, and one reason only: I like rangefinders for close work, and Leica was the last rangefinder manufacturer standing. However, to this day Leica has not produced a film rangefinder body with as many useful features as the Nikon SP. And at the time Leica was still competing with Zeiss, Nikon, and Canon in the rangefinder market, Nikon was making better bodies, and Zeiss and Nikon were making better glass - but Leica had the cache. Yes, Leica eventually came out with mindblowingly good glass for the M cameras - infinitely better than anything anyone else produces for DSLRs. But it is too damn expensive and too damn late.
But it begs the question, "What were you old school guys doing, I mean really doing?" I suspect, not just exercising your index finger for the local rag. That would make you robots.
It would be enlightening to us both, maybe, if you could penetrate that question.
Me? I was chasing women and driving fast cars and motorcycles... really....:D
First off, in response to Rutt's Ramblings about HCB and his lenses -
HCB was an artistic genius. But his lenses sucked. Lousy glass is lousy glass. Yes, some early images are sharper than others. But I contend he was simply shooting what he shot, and 'dreaminess' is an effect of soft glass, not something he sought.
That quotation has been on my mind since I dug it up in February. His point, I think, is that if the composition and message are strong enough, sharpness won't make or break an image. So, it wasn't top on the list of things to worry about. In fact, he made that choice very deliberately at the beginning of his career when he chose 35mm over larger formats. A modern Magnum photographer who has made the very same sort of choice is Alex Majoli who opts for point and shoot cameras and takes amazing pictures. If you don't know his work, check it out.
Me? I was chasing women and driving fast cars and motorcycles... really....:D
Rags
Glad to hear you did not have a wasted youth, torags! I hope you have not left such things behind.
But you let us down by not having the courage of your convictions about what photography really means to you. You say you take photographs. That means nothing. So does the ATM security camera.
And this is where, B.D., you go wrong, in my opinion.
You appear to be stuck with the idea that a good image of any and all subjects is capturable by a human with enough skills whatever camera he happens to have in hand. This is the same as saying any security system given good software can with any camera produce good photographs. You say improving the camera is not relevant in the first case, and everyone recognises it is irrelevant in the second.
I agree a better camera is not relevant in the second case. But there is a critical difference in the first case. Give the human a better tool and they will do something NEW with it, something quite unpredictable and unprecedented and previously impossible. Rocket propulsion began with fireworks and it has now taken humans to the moon. Photography began with the camera obscura, and is now allowing surgeons to operate inside the body without opening it.
Gear must be central to any discussion of images and photography. It always has been. New photographers need to be educated in new technology at the same time they are educated in photographic aesthetics (your chosen role here with us), because both are interdependent. We all see as time goes by, as imaging technology develops, images which are new, unpredicted, unprecedented and previously impossible. If the attitude that gear is irrelevant doesn't get in the way, the show hasn't ended yet!
... In fact, he made that choice very deliberately at the beginning of his career when he chose 35mm over larger formats. A modern Magnum photographer who has made the very same sort of choice is Alex Majoli who opts for point and shoot cameras and takes amazing pictures. If you don't know his work, check it out.
What, me ramble?
Both fine points which prove my argument that gear is indeed very relevant to photography aesthetics.
H C-B likely meant that sharpness in images had become "correct" for images, and the bourgeoisie are obsessed with correctness. He likely meant that anything unsharp was potentially revolutionary. To give his words the social and political context of the word "bourgeois" which he consciously used.
You appear to be stuck with the idea that a good image of any and all subjects is capturable by a human with enough skills whatever camera he happens to have in hand.
Cameras are tools. In the right hands, a carpenter can create beautifully detailed work with nothing more than a good set of hand tools. However, modern CNC tools for building precision stairs will not make me a better carpenter.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Cameras are tools. In the right hands, a carpenter can create beautifully detailed work with nothing more than a good set of hand tools. However, modern CNC tools for building precision stairs will not make me a better carpenter.
"Glad to hear you did not have a wasted youth, torags! I hope you have not left such things behind."
I try not to, but every time I begin a chase I trip over my walker.....
"But you let us down by not having the courage of your convictions about what photography really means to you. You say you take photographs. That means nothing. So does the ATM security camera."
Well your thoughtful words deserves a frank answer. Photography is simply a recent hobby of mine to capture pleasing images. There are other means to capture pleasing images; paint is one and hybridization is another. I'm not an adherent to the "religion" of photography.
This might be of interest. Original hanging wall art is becoming unsustainably expensive. I'm an entrepreneur and I threw a few bucks at an idea that involved photographs (I didn't own a camera).
Believing that sports fans immortalized some individuals, I felt they would be willing to purchase pictures of them for their walls. Being a high profit margin guy, photographs weren't expensive enough, but paintings could be.
I got a few excellent photographs from Sports Illustrated, had them put on 2X3 canvas and brought them to a local art teacher who paints (I don't, I sculpt)
His assignment was to make the photographs more painterly so the giclees would more resemble original art and command a higher price. Using someone elses photograph as an armature for a painting precludes copywrite infringement issues.
Unfortunately, the heros began moving between teams as a result of compensation issues, thereby changing uniforms and making our product obsolete.
The concept is still valid, but that application is not.
Another quick story. When I was in my military training in Oklahoma, I was bored at night and discovered they had a rec center (that nobody seemed to attend). They had a dark room, the chap showed me how to use it. Interesting, but I didn't own a camera. Hmmm, I need a partner with a camera. I got one with a cam, he took the pix & I developed them and we sold pictures of the soldiers standing next to their Howitzers to send home.
So you can say I was a pro before I owned a camera.
To conclude : to me it's the image, a faulty capture of a great event is fine, unsharp faces with clear skin is fine, overly pp'd man that looks like he was sprayed with high gloss enamel is fine if it works.
Rags, you need to "upgrade" that walker, man. You're being held back by old tech!
And what did I say?... your stories... unpredicted, unprecedented and previously impossible! That's what happens when you develop new opportunities, like this thread! clap
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited June 26, 2009
B.D. Colen
Welcome to dgrin fellow AIR
I am thrilled to meet you through this thread and hope we can swap stories and photos as time goes on. The best part of this can be surprising, although you have probably heard it all by now There are so many wonderful and creative folks here and even more discovering each day. Your shooting exercise is brilliant as are your images, and I agree what is most important is what is going on in the photographers head
... what is most important is what is going on in the photographers head
Whole other topic, Marc.
We've been discussing the relevance of gear in educating people in photography technique, and not the most important factor in the success of a photograph.
The most important factor in the success of H C-B's photographs is H C-B, no doubt, but is it worth studying what gear he used and its effect on his technique and results?
I do believe so. Do you not?
When I say the consideration of technology must be central, I am not saying that it's the only thing that is central. I am saying that its relevance is critical.
In any case, I can't imagine that "what is going on in the photographer's head" doesn't include the possibilities and limitations of the gear in their hand. Right?
We've been discussing the relevance of gear in educating people in photography technique, and not the most important factor in the success of a photograph.
In any case, I can't imagine that "what is going on in the photographer's head" doesn't include the possibilities and limitations of the gear in their hand. Right?
First of all, welcome B.D.
Good discussion Neil, but I think you are jumping to a conclusion about my reference.
Yes I am referring to the very same topic and what a person is thinking ( what is in their head ) is core to their development as a photographer. If they have a vision, the process of learning the gear and work flow is just time consuming, anyone can learn it.
Some participants in my workshops get this sooner than others. At first the topic is all gear, than following a few walks through the woods, the tide turns and their real interests emerge. I have seen it over and over!
Getting to this sooner than later is why I believe B.D.'s exercise is brilliant
Dewitt Jones also discusses the importance of this in many of his stories about creativity.
Good discussion Neil, but I think you are jumping to a conclusion about my reference.
Yes I am referring to the very same topic and what a person is thinking ( what is in their head ) is core to their development as a photographer. If they have a vision, the process of learning the gear and work flow is just time consuming, anyone can learn it.
Some participants in my workshops get this sooner than others. At first the topic is all gear, than following a few walks through the woods, the tide turns and their real interests emerge. I have seen it over and over!
Getting to this sooner than later is why I believe B.D.'s exercise is brilliant
Dewitt Jones also discusses the importance of this in many of his stories about creativity.
Sure.
Personally, I am not comfortable using the word "creativity". I would rather critique a real born image than try to talk about its inaccessible misty conception. Indeed, I believe that the viewer has a role in "creating" an image they are viewing. But that's another "whole other topic"!
What I do understand is that creativity does not exist separately from the technology that expresses it.
I think it's typically the case that only when a photographer picks up their camera does creativity in photography become possible. Painters need their brushes and paints, writers need their pens, composers need their instruments. "Creativity" emerges from the dialog between a person and their instrument. The photographer isn't creative independent of their camera, rather it's the photographer-camera combination which makes creativity possible.
Up to a point we, and B.D., are in agreement. What I thought was very wrong was the proposition that the camera had to be left out of photographic techniques and aesthetics education - the words, "gear is irrelevant".
On the contrary, I have been arguing that not only does the gear decide what is possible and impossible to "create", but it also leads our creativity. Take camera tech like flash sync, 2nd curtain shutter, neutral density filters, predictive automatic focus, etc, etc - think about this - when you pick up gear with potential, or more potential, what does it do for "creativity"? The answer is clear, I think.
There is so much evidence in these very forums of people's excitement over discovering that they can be more "creative" with new technology. And the evidence is out there in the world of unpredicted, unprecedented and previously impossible images. Isn't new tech an important part of the reason why the number of people taking photographs, and the number of stunning images to be seen, has increased so phenomenally?
I say, the gear is the message, with apologies to Marshall.
Ask not what you can do with a camera, but why you can't do without your camera, with apologies to JFK. Can you feel the difference?
So, I would rephrase B.D.'s challenge - not "how many ways can you frame your subject without moving your feet", but rather "how many ways does your camera make it possible for you to see, even "create", your subject without moving your feet".
Can you feel the difference?
The second challenge is a real photographic challenge which opens the riches of the camera for your creativity, the first is a challenge how to overcome an impediment to you, without any reference to the camera, so not a photographic challenge at all.
I say this not to be obnoxious, but in the context of this discussion, to try to remedy the mistake that I see in the original statement that "gear is irrelevant".
Hmm, so if you can take a bad picture with a good camera, and make a great photograph with a point and shoot, what is the message?
Okay, so gear plays a part certainly but many, many forums and classes focus on gear, or photoshop technique, rather than on actual "seeing" or message or moment or development of style or being both a mirror and a window, etc ...
The workshops I have taken with a couple of the greats have had zero discussion on gear or photoshop technique but rather a focus on who you really are as a person and a photographer, what gets you going and inspires a passion in your work, what you have to communicate, how to conquer your fears and break through ... and these were workshops for photojournalists, documentary, and fine art photographers in the same classroom.
I can go many places to discuss gear but gear has little nothing to do with why I am compelled to make pictures. My vote is always to focus on the latter, not the former, at least not here and not with someone who knows how to see. Seeing is everything, and difficult. You have to think.
Hmm, so if you can take a bad picture with a good camera, and make a great photograph with a point and shoot, what is the message?
Okay, so gear plays a part certainly but many, many forums and classes focus on gear, or photoshop technique, rather than on actual "seeing" or message or moment or development of style or being both a mirror and a window, etc ...
The workshops I have taken with a couple of the greats have had zero discussion on gear or photoshop technique but rather a focus on who you really are as a person and a photographer, what gets you going and inspires a passion in your work, what you have to communicate, how to conquer your fears and break through ... and these were workshops for photojournalists, documentary, and fine art photographers in the same classroom.
I can go many places to discuss gear but gear has little to do with why I am compelled to make pictures. My vote is always to focus on the latter, not the former, at least not here and not with someone who knows how to see. Seeing is everything, and difficult. You have to think.
Yes, I have nothing to say against any of this in general.
However, don't overlook my stated intention. I did not set out to say gear should be emphasised at the expense of things such as you have mentioned. What I have said is that gear is essential to achieving them. We are here to do photography, specifically. Many of the things you mention apply in a generic way to many other kinds of activities.
Others here, like yourself apparently, want to separate gear from these good things you mention. Not a good idea, I think. After all, to see you need eyes, seeing and eyes are inextricable. So are cameras and photography. Don't artificially separate them, is what I say. Too much is lost by doing that, to the very things that you mention here as being so important, I believe. I have shown by rephrasing B.D's challenge how subtle but deep the difference is of working in a photographic (the camera is relevant) way, and working in a non-photographic ("gear is irrelevant") way.
I did not say B.D. should be teaching the mechanics of using gear, software etc, as you suggest here I did. Not at all!
Nor am I attempting to somehow downgrade what B.D. has to offer us. So please don't insinuate that I am, as you do here.
I didn't say technology produces great photography!
I have an issue with the proposition that gear is irrelevant. That's it!
So, please, don't argue against what I did not say.
I really think this discussion is too important and interesting for us to be taking sides with one person or an other, rather than looking at the arguments. It's not a popularity quest. Hopefully we will all shake hands at the end with an increased respect for one another.
I was not: debating, implying, overlooking, arguing, insinuating, taking sides, or trying to win a popularity contest ... I think I may have missed one ;-))
I am: relating, suggesting, voting, expounding, and indeed yes, separating based on my viewpoint and experience. There it lies, my opinion, just as it is. It is what it is, nothing more. Peace brother.
I was not: debating, implying, overlooking, arguing, insinuating, taking sides, or trying to win a popularity contest ... I think I may have missed one ;-))
I am: relating, suggesting, voting, expounding, and indeed yes, separating based on my viewpoint and experience. There it lies, my opinion, just as it is. It is what it is, nothing more. Peace brother.
That quotation has been on my mind since I dug it up in February. His point, I think, is that if the composition and message are strong enough, sharpness won't make or break an image. ... A modern Magnum photographer who has made the very same sort of choice is Alex Majoli who opts for point and shoot cameras and takes amazing pictures. If you don't know his work, check it out.
What, me ramble?
We agree completely on the HCB comment. As a friend of mine put it a few years ago - "exposure and focus are greatly overrated." As an example...
There is a wonderful photo book called Early Dylan, with photos of Bob Dylan from, DOH!, early in his career by several photographers. My favorite is this one, which is a Daniel Kramer photo...
Why do I love the photo so? It perfectly captures a moment in a career, two lives, a moment in time. And it wouldn't be nearly as evocative if it were technically perfect.
Comments
Have fun - I will look forward to your images!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
If he thought sharpness was a bourgeois concept, I can't imagine he could have found the words for PS!:ivar
Well, obviously he had a sense of humor!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Hi, Neil - Thanks for being pleasant, even kind, as you rip me a new one.
Of course technology in photography is evolving at a pace never before experienced. And of course our choices of equipment are extremely important, because what we select to some degree controls what we are able to do as photographers.
However...That degree of control is greatly over emphasized. Far too many people believe that if they don't have this camera or that camera - Nikon? Canon? LEICA! - they can't be good photographers. Conversely, they believe that using, say, a Leica, will turn their crappy snapshots into great art.
Sure, I have particular equipment I like - but I can produce good images with what ever you give me.
I'd argue that this is one of the best images I've ever shot, or ever will shoot...
As I recall, I shot that with a Honeywell Pentax - not even a Spotmatic ;-) - and a Vivitar 28mm f 3.5 lens on old Tri-X. Tell me how my having shot it with a Nikon F, or SP, with a Nikor lens, or a Leica M3 with a Summicron, would have made it better.
I do most of my shooting now not with the latest Canon or Nikon, but with an Olympus E-3, with a 4/3 sensor. That means I'm shooting with a, what, 10.5? 11? mgp sensor when everyone else is shooting with 14s and up? Hell, I also use the E-330 with its 7.5mgp sensor. So what? I can uprez to any size I need or clients need, and if I can there are some commercial outfits that can turn 5mgp images into giant commercial displays or museum quality prints. Will I be 0
Sure equipment's important - it's important to work with the equipment that's right for you . Beyond that though? Equipment discussions tend to detract from discussions of images.
Best
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Keep in mind that the lenses HCB used through most of his career were Coke bottle-bottoms compared to the latest generation of Leica M aspherical lenses. Some of the 'dreamy quality' some people oooo and ah over in images from the 30s, 40s - even into the 60s - is simply the result of seeing the world through crummy glass.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
But it could be sharp enough when that's what he wanted, even in the 30s. If you have Henri Cartier-Bresson, Photographer, look at the pictures and try to correlate sharpness with when the shot was taken. They did get less grainy as film improved, but he could get sharpness early on and that "dreamy quality" in the 50s and 60s. And, really, it doesn't matter in his shots because the composition and message is always so strong that sharpness or lack of sharpness is really just a detail.
No wonder you have to get close, 10.5 - 11, ouch...
What we have here is ; old school vs new school...
A good discussion and being kept civil...
I think you're missing the point entirely.
EDIT: referring to old school vs. new school
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
And thanks for the pic, B.D. - it's penetrating, both in what it shows, and how it affects me. It looks good too!
I too feel the need sometimes to dive beneath the surface and penetrate a bit, without
splashing anybody too much, I hope. That's the value of your pic, isn't it. I guess you have to hope
that nobody whose face appears there says, "Hang on, you can't publish my photo...!"
It would be stupid for anybody to argue that your photo could have been better with different gear.
However, you yourself readily recognise that it is what it is partly because of the equipment that
you did use. Same with H C-B, and all the rest. We don't try to separate the photographer and their
photographs from their gear. I doubt that all those guys would take quite as indifferent an attitude to
gear as you seem to if they were here now. Does anybody believe that if H C-B were reborn he would search out
his old Leicas and shoot the same stuff?
So, we should definitely not separate ourselves from our gear. How we imagine, approach, capture
and present an image - the photographic possibilities in a situation - are in a very real way dependent on the gear we have available.. It's not that something good cannot be got, but that other possible good things might be out of reach. We don't think of cycling to the moon because we know a pushbike will never get us there. Those higher ingredients in photography, of imagination, revelation, penetration, values - all the things we recognise make photography worthwhile and which we all agree don't come from the gear we use - can yet have no way to happen without enabling technology.
The past has achieved what it has with what it had. The future of photography is in how much our gear can enable our limitless imaginations, our visions, our values. We will never get to the moon on pushbikes, no matter how good those pushbikes are or how servicable they have been here on earth. Don't trivialise the issue with Canon vs Nikon etc. To weekend jaunters it might really not matter a damn. Otherwise, though, equipment is central in a very deep way.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Not really, you have to look at the whole picture.
Being older than dirt I lived "old school", for you it's an academic exercise. There's a segment of old school thought that thinks, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I adhere to some of that and most oldsters I know do also.
Personally I embrace digital photography. But when one alters what the eye see's, using technology; that begins to step into artistic expression.
Nothing wrong with that, but it seems to me that's outside the bounds of the photography craft. I look at those images differently.
For those that think photography is art, well that's a good subject for another thread.
But it begs the question, "What were you old school guys doing, I mean really doing?" I suspect, not just exercising your index finger for the local rag. That would make you robots.
It would be enlightening to us both, maybe, if you could penetrate that question.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
--0--
A couple of thoughts:
First off, in response to Rutt's Ramblings about HCB and his lenses -
HCB was an artistic genius. But his lenses sucked. Lousy glass is lousy glass. Yes, some early images are sharper than others. But I contend he was simply shooting what he shot, and 'dreaminess' is an effect of soft glass, not something he sought.
----
I do not agree with the contention that all the greats would jump to use all today's latest technology. In fact, many of the older-still-shooting greats are still using film and their old standby equipment as often as assignments allow. They know what works for them. Period.
As to Canon/Nikon blah blah blah. To coin a phrase, love the one you're with. Because if you don't, you're going to be switching entire outfits every two to five years because the companies are going to keep leapfrogging over one another as the technological developments unfold. There's no question Canon had the edge over Nikon for a number of years. But - I would argue - the latest Nikon pro monster appears to now have a real advantage over Canon in some areas. Will Canon catch up, and leap over Nikon again, sure. But so what? In these days of rapid technology development it is incredibly easy to confuse improved technology with improved photos and photography.
Okay, I am not a high-tech guy, but I appreciate technology. At the same time, however, I believe that anyone who thinks that at this point in the digital revolution they need to keep upgrading constantly is deluding themselves and their bank account. The quality being produced by the current, and even past several, generations of DSLRs blows 35 mm - and in some cases - even 2 1/4 - film out of the water. The pixel count has devolved into a 'mine's bigger than yours' argument. Okay, size counts
----
Where Neil and I really disagree is here:
Don't trivialise the issue with Canon vs Nikon etc. To weekend jaunters it might really not matter a damn. Otherwise, though, equipment is central in a very deep way.
Weekend jaunters are fixated on brand - pros should know enough not to be.
I am the first to say that when last I regularly shot film, I used Leica M6s. I did so for one reason, and one reason only: I like rangefinders for close work, and Leica was the last rangefinder manufacturer standing. However, to this day Leica has not produced a film rangefinder body with as many useful features as the Nikon SP. And at the time Leica was still competing with Zeiss, Nikon, and Canon in the rangefinder market, Nikon was making better bodies, and Zeiss and Nikon were making better glass - but Leica had the cache. Yes, Leica eventually came out with mindblowingly good glass for the M cameras - infinitely better than anything anyone else produces for DSLRs. But it is too damn expensive and too damn late.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Me? I was chasing women and driving fast cars and motorcycles... really....:D
Rags
That quotation has been on my mind since I dug it up in February. His point, I think, is that if the composition and message are strong enough, sharpness won't make or break an image. So, it wasn't top on the list of things to worry about. In fact, he made that choice very deliberately at the beginning of his career when he chose 35mm over larger formats. A modern Magnum photographer who has made the very same sort of choice is Alex Majoli who opts for point and shoot cameras and takes amazing pictures. If you don't know his work, check it out.
What, me ramble?
Glad to hear you did not have a wasted youth, torags! I hope you have not left such things behind.
But you let us down by not having the courage of your convictions about what photography really means to you. You say you take photographs. That means nothing. So does the ATM security camera.
And this is where, B.D., you go wrong, in my opinion.
You appear to be stuck with the idea that a good image of any and all subjects is capturable by a human with enough skills whatever camera he happens to have in hand. This is the same as saying any security system given good software can with any camera produce good photographs. You say improving the camera is not relevant in the first case, and everyone recognises it is irrelevant in the second.
I agree a better camera is not relevant in the second case. But there is a critical difference in the first case. Give the human a better tool and they will do something NEW with it, something quite unpredictable and unprecedented and previously impossible. Rocket propulsion began with fireworks and it has now taken humans to the moon. Photography began with the camera obscura, and is now allowing surgeons to operate inside the body without opening it.
Gear must be central to any discussion of images and photography. It always has been. New photographers need to be educated in new technology at the same time they are educated in photographic aesthetics (your chosen role here with us), because both are interdependent. We all see as time goes by, as imaging technology develops, images which are new, unpredicted, unprecedented and previously impossible. If the attitude that gear is irrelevant doesn't get in the way, the show hasn't ended yet!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Both fine points which prove my argument that gear is indeed very relevant to photography aesthetics.
H C-B likely meant that sharpness in images had become "correct" for images, and the bourgeoisie are obsessed with correctness. He likely meant that anything unsharp was potentially revolutionary. To give his words the social and political context of the word "bourgeois" which he consciously used.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Cameras are tools. In the right hands, a carpenter can create beautifully detailed work with nothing more than a good set of hand tools. However, modern CNC tools for building precision stairs will not make me a better carpenter.
How so?
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I try not to, but every time I begin a chase I trip over my walker.....
"But you let us down by not having the courage of your convictions about what photography really means to you. You say you take photographs. That means nothing. So does the ATM security camera."
Well your thoughtful words deserves a frank answer. Photography is simply a recent hobby of mine to capture pleasing images. There are other means to capture pleasing images; paint is one and hybridization is another. I'm not an adherent to the "religion" of photography.
This might be of interest. Original hanging wall art is becoming unsustainably expensive. I'm an entrepreneur and I threw a few bucks at an idea that involved photographs (I didn't own a camera).
Believing that sports fans immortalized some individuals, I felt they would be willing to purchase pictures of them for their walls. Being a high profit margin guy, photographs weren't expensive enough, but paintings could be.
I got a few excellent photographs from Sports Illustrated, had them put on 2X3 canvas and brought them to a local art teacher who paints (I don't, I sculpt)
His assignment was to make the photographs more painterly so the giclees would more resemble original art and command a higher price. Using someone elses photograph as an armature for a painting precludes copywrite infringement issues.
Unfortunately, the heros began moving between teams as a result of compensation issues, thereby changing uniforms and making our product obsolete.
The concept is still valid, but that application is not.
Another quick story. When I was in my military training in Oklahoma, I was bored at night and discovered they had a rec center (that nobody seemed to attend). They had a dark room, the chap showed me how to use it. Interesting, but I didn't own a camera. Hmmm, I need a partner with a camera. I got one with a cam, he took the pix & I developed them and we sold pictures of the soldiers standing next to their Howitzers to send home.
So you can say I was a pro before I owned a camera.
To conclude : to me it's the image, a faulty capture of a great event is fine, unsharp faces with clear skin is fine, overly pp'd man that looks like he was sprayed with high gloss enamel is fine if it works.
Sorry about the ramble....
And what did I say?... your stories... unpredicted, unprecedented and previously impossible! That's what happens when you develop new opportunities, like this thread!
Thanks a lot for your history. Most entertaining!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Welcome to dgrin fellow AIR
I am thrilled to meet you through this thread and hope we can swap stories and photos as time goes on. The best part of this can be surprising, although you have probably heard it all by now
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Whole other topic, Marc.
We've been discussing the relevance of gear in educating people in photography technique, and not the most important factor in the success of a photograph.
The most important factor in the success of H C-B's photographs is H C-B, no doubt, but is it worth studying what gear he used and its effect on his technique and results?
I do believe so. Do you not?
When I say the consideration of technology must be central, I am not saying that it's the only thing that is central. I am saying that its relevance is critical.
In any case, I can't imagine that "what is going on in the photographer's head" doesn't include the possibilities and limitations of the gear in their hand. Right?
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
First of all, welcome B.D.
Good discussion Neil, but I think you are jumping to a conclusion about my reference.
Yes I am referring to the very same topic and what a person is thinking ( what is in their head ) is core to their development as a photographer. If they have a vision, the process of learning the gear and work flow is just time consuming, anyone can learn it.
Some participants in my workshops get this sooner than others. At first the topic is all gear, than following a few walks through the woods, the tide turns and their real interests emerge. I have seen it over and over!
Getting to this sooner than later is why I believe B.D.'s exercise is brilliant
Dewitt Jones also discusses the importance of this in many of his stories about creativity.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Sure.
Personally, I am not comfortable using the word "creativity". I would rather critique a real born image than try to talk about its inaccessible misty conception. Indeed, I believe that the viewer has a role in "creating" an image they are viewing. But that's another "whole other topic"!
What I do understand is that creativity does not exist separately from the technology that expresses it.
I think it's typically the case that only when a photographer picks up their camera does creativity in photography become possible. Painters need their brushes and paints, writers need their pens, composers need their instruments. "Creativity" emerges from the dialog between a person and their instrument. The photographer isn't creative independent of their camera, rather it's the photographer-camera combination which makes creativity possible.
Up to a point we, and B.D., are in agreement. What I thought was very wrong was the proposition that the camera had to be left out of photographic techniques and aesthetics education - the words, "gear is irrelevant".
On the contrary, I have been arguing that not only does the gear decide what is possible and impossible to "create", but it also leads our creativity. Take camera tech like flash sync, 2nd curtain shutter, neutral density filters, predictive automatic focus, etc, etc - think about this - when you pick up gear with potential, or more potential, what does it do for "creativity"? The answer is clear, I think.
There is so much evidence in these very forums of people's excitement over discovering that they can be more "creative" with new technology. And the evidence is out there in the world of unpredicted, unprecedented and previously impossible images. Isn't new tech an important part of the reason why the number of people taking photographs, and the number of stunning images to be seen, has increased so phenomenally?
I say, the gear is the message, with apologies to Marshall.
Ask not what you can do with a camera, but why you can't do without your camera, with apologies to JFK. Can you feel the difference?
So, I would rephrase B.D.'s challenge - not "how many ways can you frame your subject without moving your feet", but rather "how many ways does your camera make it possible for you to see, even "create", your subject without moving your feet".
Can you feel the difference?
The second challenge is a real photographic challenge which opens the riches of the camera for your creativity, the first is a challenge how to overcome an impediment to you, without any reference to the camera, so not a photographic challenge at all.
I say this not to be obnoxious, but in the context of this discussion, to try to remedy the mistake that I see in the original statement that "gear is irrelevant".
So don't blame me!
But you can quote me, if you like! :ivar
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Okay, so gear plays a part certainly but many, many forums and classes focus on gear, or photoshop technique, rather than on actual "seeing" or message or moment or development of style or being both a mirror and a window, etc ...
The workshops I have taken with a couple of the greats have had zero discussion on gear or photoshop technique but rather a focus on who you really are as a person and a photographer, what gets you going and inspires a passion in your work, what you have to communicate, how to conquer your fears and break through ... and these were workshops for photojournalists, documentary, and fine art photographers in the same classroom.
I can go many places to discuss gear but gear has little nothing to do with why I am compelled to make pictures. My vote is always to focus on the latter, not the former, at least not here and not with someone who knows how to see. Seeing is everything, and difficult. You have to think.
Yes, I have nothing to say against any of this in general.
However, don't overlook my stated intention. I did not set out to say gear should be emphasised at the expense of things such as you have mentioned. What I have said is that gear is essential to achieving them. We are here to do photography, specifically. Many of the things you mention apply in a generic way to many other kinds of activities.
Others here, like yourself apparently, want to separate gear from these good things you mention. Not a good idea, I think. After all, to see you need eyes, seeing and eyes are inextricable. So are cameras and photography. Don't artificially separate them, is what I say. Too much is lost by doing that, to the very things that you mention here as being so important, I believe. I have shown by rephrasing B.D's challenge how subtle but deep the difference is of working in a photographic (the camera is relevant) way, and working in a non-photographic ("gear is irrelevant") way.
I did not say B.D. should be teaching the mechanics of using gear, software etc, as you suggest here I did. Not at all!
Nor am I attempting to somehow downgrade what B.D. has to offer us. So please don't insinuate that I am, as you do here.
I didn't say technology produces great photography!
I have an issue with the proposition that gear is irrelevant. That's it!
So, please, don't argue against what I did not say.
I really think this discussion is too important and interesting for us to be taking sides with one person or an other, rather than looking at the arguments. It's not a popularity quest. Hopefully we will all shake hands at the end with an increased respect for one another.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I am: relating, suggesting, voting, expounding, and indeed yes, separating based on my viewpoint and experience. There it lies, my opinion, just as it is. It is what it is, nothing more. Peace brother.
Peace back!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
We agree completely on the HCB comment. As a friend of mine put it a few years ago - "exposure and focus are greatly overrated." As an example...
There is a wonderful photo book called Early Dylan, with photos of Bob Dylan from, DOH!, early in his career by several photographers. My favorite is this one, which is a Daniel Kramer photo...
Why do I love the photo so? It perfectly captures a moment in a career, two lives, a moment in time. And it wouldn't be nearly as evocative if it were technically perfect.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed