At the end of the day it doesn't matter what camera or equipment one uses. Photography is all smoke and mirrors anyway. Listing every spec of equipment one has in every thread one posts to doesn't help anyone. In fact, I find it to me more of a distraction than anything. And it makes searching impossible.
One of the most humorous examples of this is when you show a great photo and instead of asking how it was taken, people ask what camera was used, as if that had the overriding influence on the outcome.
Another one is, same scenario, but the question instead is what settings were used, like there is one magic setting combo that will yield great photos (like computer game cheat codes).
To all the beginners out there, the sooner you can learn that it's not the equipment that makes the shot, its the person behind the camera, the sooner you will make progress in your own photography. Getting caught up in the equipment list is a distraction that slows you down. Spend your energy on composition, lighting, and understanding exposure. That is the meat and potatoes of the photographic meal. The equipment used is only the utensils used to eat the meal.
If you must procalim to the world how much crap you have, put it in your profile.
Well said, Shay.
I have been impressed with photos from all different types of cameras. The lighting and composition are really responsible for the appearance of most photos.
Having said that, I'm still saving my pennies for a D2x
While I generally agree
..., sometimes it *does* make sense to ask about equipment/settings.
While not being a "pro" I know enough of the whole process to understand that sometimes a shot is taken under technically challenging conditions, so my natural question is what the author did to overcome them.
It would not mean any kind of disrespect for the composition, postprocessing or artisitc sense, only a desire to learn from the master and, if similar conditions will present themselves for myself, know about possible technical "gotchas".
Example: "Shoot for the skies".
Many novice photographers ruine their ""creek on the forest glade" type of shots simply because they have their camera to read exposure setting off the middle of the trees, or, even worse, their darkest roots. This gets the upper part of the shot totally washed out, and no PS magic can get it back.
What they don't realize is that if they "shoot for the skies" (half-press - fix the exposure - reframe - shoot) the picture (while being originally dark) would contain enough information to restore the bottom, darker bart in the post processing, even without shooting in RAW.
Would it be a legitimate question to ask "how did you get your shot properly exposed" in this case?
Same goes about the equipment. If I learn from the answer, that a - again, technically challenging - shot was taken with 20D at ISO3200 f/1.8 1/30s, I probably recognize the fact, that my Sony 828 (which, unfortunately, gets very "noisy" above ISO200) simply would not be able to do this without additional lighting or at least a tripod and super-long exposure...
After all, it's all about learning... (and, FOOD, too:-)
To all the beginners out there, the sooner you can learn that it's not the equipment that makes the shot, its the person behind the camera, the sooner you will make progress in your own photography. Getting caught up in the equipment list is a distraction that slows you down. Spend your energy on composition, lighting, and understanding exposure. That is the meat and potatoes of the photographic meal. The equipment used is only the utensils used to eat the meal.
If you must procalim to the world how much crap you have, put it in your profile.
Thanks, Shay Yep, equipment used shouldn't be the first question anyway, unless it's about filters used mebbe (like neutral density and grad nd's as an alternative speaking to Nik's q.)
When I see a list like that, I just think to myself "...I'd like one of THOSE and maybe THAT" sometimes, it's a list of what might be nice to have and what might be worth saving for.
I think the "little Johnson" idea might be perfectly valid.
Your example is a good one, but it is not the norm. Your questions here are how was that photo taken. My examples were illustrating people who don't want that info, but instead are seeking quick fixes to their lack of skill and knowledge.
My example (standard portrait of person in plenty of light):
Wow great shot what camera was used.
Wow great shot what settings were used.
Those are general questions showing no understanding. They think the camera makes the shot or some secret scene mode setting. I don't enjoy responding to people like this. They just don't understand yet, and the explanations usually go over their head anyway.
Your example (challenging situations:Low light, high dynamic range):
Wow great shot, what camera did you use to get a low light action shot like that?
Wow great shot, what settings did you use to not blow out the sky?
These are specific questions to specific challenging issues that show that the person asking the question understands what they are talking about. I love responding to people like that :-)
Would it be a legitimate question to ask "how did you get your shot properly exposed" in this case?
Same goes about the equipment. If I learn from the answer, that a - again, technically challenging - shot was taken with 20D at ISO3200 f/1.8 1/30s, I probably recognize the fact, that my Sony 828 (which, unfortunately, gets very "noisy" above ISO200) simply would not be able to do this without additional lighting or at least a tripod and super-long exposure...
Creator of Dgrin's "Last Photographer Standing" contest
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Those are general questions showing no understanding. They think the camera makes the shot or some secret scene mode setting. I don't enjoy responding to people like this. They just don't understand yet, and the explanations usually go over their head anyway.
Sounds very familiar. :-) Even me, being only a photo hobbyist, not a pro, have to deal with them a lot. I take it, with your exposure to a general public, you have quite a percentage of Type1 over Type2:-).
One story I saw somewhere at stf/dpr always comes to mind when talking abouyt Type1:
A photographer was invited over to a dinner at friends' house. He brought some shots from his portfolio to share. Looking though the pictures, a hostess made a comment: "Nice shots, you must have had a pretty good camera".
When the dinner was over and everybody was leaving, he said his goodbyes and told the hostess: "The food was delicious, you must have had pretty good pots and pans".:):
World peace keeps me busy, but when I get a break, this sig business really gets my attention.
How about diverting your efforts toward boiling the ocean?
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
My examples were illustrating people who don't want that info, but instead are seeking quick fixes to their lack of skill and knowledge.
Wow Shay, that's a great idea. What keyboard did you use to type that on?
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Sounds very familiar. :-) Even me, being only a photo hobbyist, not a pro, have to deal with them a lot. I take it, with your exposure to a general public, you have quite a percentage of Type1 over Type2:-).
One story I saw somewhere at stf/dpr always comes to mind when talking abouyt Type1:
A photographer was invited over to a dinner at friends' house. He brought some shots from his portfolio to share. Looking though the pictures, a hostess made a comment: "Nice shots, you must have had a pretty good camera".
When the dinner was over and everybody was leaving, he said his goodbyes and told the hostess: "The food was delicious, you must have had pretty good pots and pans".:):
Cheers!
That's a good one Nik. I always smile at the questioner and say, "It's not the camera..." (and shut up, to see if they're clueless or not.)
With the advent of dSLRs, everyone thinks they can take great horse photos...until they try.
Comments
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
yes, i had david_s85 cobble together a vbulletin->dgrin->apple g5 hotwire, so i hear about any and all foodstuffs within picoseconds of being posted.
carry on
or, better yet,
carrion
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
now *that* is hilarious. i want it. really.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
yabbut
we have an equipment field here at dgrin, under profile, for the same thing
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I have been impressed with photos from all different types of cameras. The lighting and composition are really responsible for the appearance of most photos.
Having said that, I'm still saving my pennies for a D2x
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
..., sometimes it *does* make sense to ask about equipment/settings.
While not being a "pro" I know enough of the whole process to understand that sometimes a shot is taken under technically challenging conditions, so my natural question is what the author did to overcome them.
It would not mean any kind of disrespect for the composition, postprocessing or artisitc sense, only a desire to learn from the master and, if similar conditions will present themselves for myself, know about possible technical "gotchas".
Example: "Shoot for the skies".
Many novice photographers ruine their ""creek on the forest glade" type of shots simply because they have their camera to read exposure setting off the middle of the trees, or, even worse, their darkest roots. This gets the upper part of the shot totally washed out, and no PS magic can get it back.
What they don't realize is that if they "shoot for the skies" (half-press - fix the exposure - reframe - shoot) the picture (while being originally dark) would contain enough information to restore the bottom, darker bart in the post processing, even without shooting in RAW.
Would it be a legitimate question to ask "how did you get your shot properly exposed" in this case?
Same goes about the equipment. If I learn from the answer, that a - again, technically challenging - shot was taken with 20D at ISO3200 f/1.8 1/30s, I probably recognize the fact, that my Sony 828 (which, unfortunately, gets very "noisy" above ISO200) simply would not be able to do this without additional lighting or at least a tripod and super-long exposure...
After all, it's all about learning... (and, FOOD, too:-)
Cheers!
Thanks, Shay
When I see a list like that, I just think to myself "...I'd like one of THOSE and maybe THAT" sometimes, it's a list of what might be nice to have and what might be worth saving for.
I think the "little Johnson" idea might be perfectly valid.
Galleries here Upcoming Ranch/Horse Workshop
My example (standard portrait of person in plenty of light):
Wow great shot what camera was used.
Wow great shot what settings were used.
Those are general questions showing no understanding. They think the camera makes the shot or some secret scene mode setting. I don't enjoy responding to people like this. They just don't understand yet, and the explanations usually go over their head anyway.
Your example (challenging situations:Low light, high dynamic range):
Wow great shot, what camera did you use to get a low light action shot like that?
Wow great shot, what settings did you use to not blow out the sky?
These are specific questions to specific challenging issues that show that the person asking the question understands what they are talking about. I love responding to people like that :-)
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Sounds very familiar. :-) Even me, being only a photo hobbyist, not a pro, have to deal with them a lot. I take it, with your exposure to a general public, you have quite a percentage of Type1 over Type2:-).
One story I saw somewhere at stf/dpr always comes to mind when talking abouyt Type1:
A photographer was invited over to a dinner at friends' house. He brought some shots from his portfolio to share. Looking though the pictures, a hostess made a comment: "Nice shots, you must have had a pretty good camera".
When the dinner was over and everybody was leaving, he said his goodbyes and told the hostess: "The food was delicious, you must have had pretty good pots and pans".:):
Cheers!
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
That's a good one Nik. I always smile at the questioner and say, "It's not the camera..." (and shut up, to see if they're clueless or not.)
With the advent of dSLRs, everyone thinks they can take great horse photos...until they try.
Galleries here Upcoming Ranch/Horse Workshop