 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
663 online
Server Time:
2024-05-12 14:04:10
|
|
|
 Andy "Not Dice" Dice
  
Location: We can live in dumpsters if we have to, MA
Gender: Male
UE'ing is for pussies, bro.
 |  |  |  | Hey, I'm just curious,
< on 5/29/2006 6:55 AM >
|  | | | Why does everybody always ask what people are shooting with?
I mean. It doesn't really offer a whole lot of insight into the person's photos, and there isn't a whole lot that it will tell you that you can't infer from the photo itself.
Like...I could understand if you're some kind of crazy camera enthusiast who's going to go out and purchase a camera just because he liked the photos that somebody else took with it, but I doubt that a lot of you are doing that. Maybe you are. Who knows.
Just a thought.
--- 456.photo.to --- |
|
Starman
  
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Gender: Male
| | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 1 on 5/29/2006 12:55 PM >
| | | | Posted by Andy "Not Dice" Dice
Why does everybody always ask what people are shooting with?
I mean. It doesn't really offer a whole lot of insight into the person's photos, and there isn't a whole lot that it will tell you that you can't infer from the photo itself.
Like...I could understand if you're some kind of crazy camera enthusiast who's going to go out and purchase a camera just because he liked the photos that somebody else took with it, but I doubt that a lot of you are doing that. Maybe you are. Who knows.
Just a thought.
|
That's what I kinda think it is. A lot of people have the misconception that it's the camera, not the photographer that takes great pictures.
|
|
Hi/Po
 
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
| | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 2 on 5/29/2006 1:26 PM >
|  | | | Posted by Starman
That's what I kinda think it is. A lot of people have the misconception that it's the camera, not the photographer that takes great pictures.
|
The thing with critiques is someone usually is looking for a way to improve their photos, it helps to know what their camera is capable of (that and what kind of lens they're using).
This is especially important with film cameras, where camera types/capabilities vary dramatically (nevermind the actual film).
|
|
Myelin
Location: The End of Canada
Gender: Male
| | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 3 on 5/29/2006 1:37 PM >
| | | | I am sometimes curious about what equipment was used, mainly because I am impressed with what some people accomplish with a minimalist setup. When I'm looking at film photography, I sometimes want to know details on the film used and processing technique, either out of curiousity or because the author has achieved some effect that I'm looking for myself.
The one thing I do hate is the classic "exposure unrecorded" comment that usually accompanies photo contest entries (ie. Pop Photo's monthly Boring Shot Contest). Why not just say the camera is left on Full Auto Program-AE and you have no f'n clue how that your images came to be except the fact that you pointed it and pressed the shutter release? I do like to know exposure data, along with what film was used, etc. It's all part of the self-education process, going by others' experiencies (good bad or otherwise).
|
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 4 on 5/29/2006 4:29 PM >
| | | | Because equipment matters, and digital has only made that more true. Equipment can't make a bad photographer good, but it does make a difference when you are putting out pictures that are sharp, properly exposed, lack any CA, etc.
|
|
Andy "Not Dice" Dice
Location: We can live in dumpsters if we have to, MA
Gender: Male
UE'ing is for pussies, bro.
| | | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 5 on 5/29/2006 6:55 PM >
| | | | Posted by Starman
That's what I kinda think it is. A lot of people have the misconception that it's the camera, not the photographer that takes great pictures.
|
That's what I was getting at but Myelin brought up a reasonable argument that set me straight.
However, Myelin is obviously a dedicated photographer who spends a good deal of time and effort reading up on different cameras and films. Not to say that most other people who ask about equipment and setup AREN'T but...yah.
Posted by Desmet
Because equipment matters, and digital has only made that more true. Equipment can't make a bad photographer good, but it does make a difference when you are putting out pictures that are sharp, properly exposed, lack any CA, etc. |
See, this is where I disagree. Equipment does not make a difference when putting out pictures that are sharp and properly exposed. And I'm getting a little bit PERTURBED with people saying things like "I like the photos you take, what kind of camera are you using?" which implies that they think getting a better camera with better autofocus and better AE will automatically make them take better photos.
Yeh. Maybe you could say that I'm trolling. But I know for a fact that these people exist.
--- 456.photo.to --- |
|
43rdstreet
Location: Bowmanville, Ontario
Gender: Male
| | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 6 on 5/29/2006 7:06 PM >
| | | | Posted by desmet
Because equipment matters, and digital has only made that more true. Equipment can't make a bad photographer good, but it does make a difference when you are putting out pictures that are sharp, properly exposed, lack any CA, etc.
|
I have to agree with this, I always like to see the camera(s) the photographer is using and it's a good recommendation of what lenses or filters are available.
http://www.flickr....hotos/sigurdurham/ |
|
Starman
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Gender: Male
| | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 7 on 5/29/2006 7:35 PM >
| | | | Posted by desmet
Because equipment matters, and digital has only made that more true. Equipment can't make a bad photographer good, but it does make a difference when you are putting out pictures that are sharp, properly exposed, lack any CA, etc.
|
It does, but only to a point. Same with having a good eye for photos, if you cant compose a picture, having a 1Ds MII isnt going to matter.
|
|
newenglandkid
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Gender: Male
| | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 8 on 5/29/2006 8:03 PM >
| | | | Posted by Starman
It does, but only to a point. Same with having a good eye for photos, if you cant compose a picture, having a 1Ds MII isnt going to matter.
|
exactly!
|
|
JonnyVpa
Location: Atlanta, GA and Scranton, PA (Hometown)
Gender: Male
ROTTEN FUCK!!!
| |  | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 9 on 5/29/2006 8:54 PM >
| | | | its really not the camera that makes the difference.... ive taken pictures with my Pentax K1000 that blow away some pictures ive seen taken with say an EOS 3
it really depends on your knowledge of how to use a camera to its fullest potential and your artistic view on what your shooting.... but then again comes the phrase "One mans Garbage is another mans treasure" so i mean the way you shoot is even sometimes your personality.... but from what ive noticed since ive been in Japan and Hawaii is all these fuckin tourists.... they have these Rebel XT's and theyre big lenses and cant even hold the damn camera correctly... so i just kinda sit there and laugh when the front of the camera weighs down on theyre hands and falls
AMAZING
People need to start reading and learning before using (in most cases)
This is not against anyone on this forum.... most of you know what your doing
If I had a Rocket Launcher, some son of a bitch will die - Bruce Cockburn |
|
Myelin
Location: The End of Canada
Gender: Male
| | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 10 on 5/30/2006 1:04 PM >
| | | | Posted by Andy "Not Dice" Dice
See, this is where I disagree. Equipment does not make a difference when putting out pictures that are sharp and properly exposed. And I'm getting a little bit PERTURBED with people saying things like "I like the photos you take, what kind of camera are you using?" which implies that they think getting a better camera with better autofocus and better AE will automatically make them take better photos.
|
I'm still not sure that asking that question by itself implies anything. After all, no one likes to read the author bragging about his new $3,000 DSLR. But speaking for myself, I LOVE to see stuff like, "I found this Olympus Trip 35 in the trash. So I cleaned it up and replaced the light seals and went out shooting with it today....yada yada"
Just like with any other hobby, there is going to be some fascination with the gear itself, not just the artistic end of thing.
And I agree, AE and autofocus don't make better pictures. Sometimes they'll mean the difference between a quick picture and no picture at all, but I'm sure most of us shoot in semi-automatic mode for creative control on our serious shoots.
|
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 11 on 5/30/2006 1:24 PM >
| | | | Posted by Andy "Not Dice" Dice
See, this is where I disagree. Equipment does not make a difference when putting out pictures that are sharp and properly exposed. And I'm getting a little bit PERTURBED with people saying things like "I like the photos you take, what kind of camera are you using?" which implies that they think getting a better camera with better autofocus and better AE will automatically make them take better photos.
Yeh. Maybe you could say that I'm trolling. But I know for a fact that these people exist.
|
Of course it makes a difference, especially in the "sharp" category. I know people here like to say it doesn't matter because there are so many broke-ass motherfuckers on here, but the truth is it definitely does matter. Of COURSE a good camera won't make a shitty photographer better, but it WILL make a good photographer produce much better results and enable them to get those results much more easily. There are quantifiable differences between camera's image quality and controls and that stuff definitely contributes to making good images. No quesiton about it.
|
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 12 on 5/30/2006 1:27 PM >
| | | | Posted by Starman
It does, but only to a point. Same with having a good eye for photos, if you cant compose a picture, having a 1Ds MII isnt going to matter.
|
Of course. The truth is that every part of the process matters from the photographer to the camera to the post processing, etc.
|
|
the_doctor
Location: Boston area
Gender: Male
It's probably dangerous
| | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 13 on 5/30/2006 2:44 PM >
| | | | The camera helps make an image, but it is the artist that matters. If you suck at photography and you use a nice camera guess what, your photos will still suck. If you are a good photographer with medio-core equipment, your shots will be good but not at full potential, you need to realize what your abilities are and get camera equipment that is best suited towards your personal ability, it is not the camera that makes the artist.
|
|
tron_2.0
Location: Ohio
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 14 on 5/31/2006 12:14 AM >
| | | | Posted by desmet
Because equipment matters, and digital has only made that more true. Equipment can't make a bad photographer good, but it does make a difference when you are putting out pictures that are sharp, properly exposed, lack any CA, etc.
|
I dunno dude, not to burn you, but my 50 dollar kiev puts out better pictures than my 300D. The cheapo 50mm arsat lens is wayy sharper and has much less ghosting than my 100 dollar kit lens.
However, I would agree with that statement if it was directed towards the different films. Cant get much out of cheap ass films.
[quote][i]Posted by yokes[/i]
I find your lack of coziness.... disturbing.
[/quote] |
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 15 on 5/31/2006 2:19 AM >
| | | | Posted by tron_2.0
I dunno dude, not to burn you, but my 50 dollar kiev puts out better pictures than my 300D. The cheapo 50mm arsat lens is wayy sharper and has much less ghosting than my 100 dollar kit lens.
However, I would agree with that statement if it was directed towards the different films. Cant get much out of cheap ass films.
|
I know 0 about the Kiev so I can't really comment other than to say that the kit lenses that Canon puts on their cameras are dogshit. Even the 17-85 is not very good. The L lenses are, IMHO, the only lenses Canon makes which are worth buying. I always thought the 17-40L was a ripoff until I bought my 16-35 and realized just how much better L glass really is.
You're also comparing prime to zoom, new to old, film to digital, etc. I'd say that the quality of nightshots out of my K1000 with a cheap Takumar zoom blows away the ones coming from my 20D with L glass but how can you even make that comparison? My enlarger never went high enough for a 100% crop.
Remember that we're talking about any comparison too...like a Canon A80 vs. a 20D with an L lens. The difference there is night and day.
[last edit 5/31/2006 2:21 AM by desmet - edited 1 times]
|
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 16 on 5/31/2006 6:03 AM >
| | | | Posted by desmet
Of course it makes a difference, especially in the "sharp" category. I know people here like to say it doesn't matter because there are so many broke-ass motherfuckers on here, but the truth is it definitely does matter. Of COURSE a good camera won't make a shitty photographer better, but it WILL make a good photographer produce much better results and enable them to get those results much more easily. There are quantifiable differences between camera's image quality and controls and that stuff definitely contributes to making good images. No quesiton about it.
|
It sure does make a difference. It won't compose the shot for you, but you will be able the crop the hell out of a sharp, hi-res shot and still have a great pic. With a high quality f/ 2.8 lens or >, coupled with a high end camera's autofocus it will beat your own eye. You have more to work with, but you still need to know what it can, and can not do. Good flare control on both the lens, and sensor means you can aim right into bright light, and not have flaring obscuring the shot. Better controls, faster boot times, faster/more accurate autofocus mean faster set-up, longer battery life, better CF card usage, and less shots lost.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
dev
Passed away September 23rd, 2006.
| | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 17 on 5/31/2006 7:31 AM >
| | | | i've only been really concerned with images that were produced on cheap or vintage gear.
it's interesting to know if an image was culled from a camera that cost $5 today or $100... in 1950.
on the other end, there's the digital gear hounds that geek out on that shit, but that's okay, because there's shit like this:
A.
B.
taken months apart, under very different lighting conditions (one was yesterday, with bright sunny fun time, and the other was taken months ago, in the winter, with nice even grey sky)
and one was produced with a 20D, the other with my $300 hand-me-down prosumer.
at web resolution, it's all the same.
unless you're printing > 8x10.... who cares, unless there's something really cool going on.
PS: one photo is credit to camerakid, the other is mine.
[last edit 5/31/2006 7:36 AM by dev - edited 2 times]
|
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 18 on 5/31/2006 11:35 AM >
| | | | Posted by dev
i've only been really concerned with images that were produced on cheap or vintage gear.
it's interesting to know if an image was culled from a camera that cost $5 today or $100... in 1950.
on the other end, there's the digital gear hounds that geek out on that shit, but that's okay, because there's shit like this:
A.
B.
taken months apart, under very different lighting conditions (one was yesterday, with bright sunny fun time, and the other was taken months ago, in the winter, with nice even grey sky)
and one was produced with a 20D, the other with my $300 hand-me-down prosumer.
at web resolution, it's all the same.
unless you're printing > 8x10.... who cares, unless there's something really cool going on.
PS: one photo is credit to camerakid, the other is mine.
|
8 by 10s is what I do print, but it goes far beyond that. If I had a pic I with a face I wanted to crop, I have the sharpness, and resolution to do so. I can punch up to a high iso setting and still have exceptable noise levels. A moving shot such as this capture a 7 PM, is usable; this has been cropped from the original pic.
[last edit 5/31/2006 12:43 PM by blackhawk - edited 2 times]
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| | | | Re: Hey, I'm just curious,
<Reply # 19 on 5/31/2006 1:18 PM >
| | | | Posted by dev
taken months apart, under very different lighting conditions (one was yesterday, with bright sunny fun time, and the other was taken months ago, in the winter, with nice even grey sky) |
Are these 100% crops? What lenses? What settings? This comparison isn't really worth anything because they're under completely different conditions and you don't give any data about what aperature they were taken at or anything. I can hand you an image from my 20D with L glass that looks like shit if I shoot it zoomed all the way out at f22 and ISO 3200, but how is that a valid comparison against a shot from a 300D at f8, in the middle of the zoom range at ISO 100?
I'm 100% fine if people don't care about gear and don't think it's an important part of their work. I'm not trying to convince anyone to go out and spend a lot of money at all. However, if we're going to talk about gear and start posting comparisons, you have to be rigorous and give a fair comparison. I freely admit that I really like gear, but it's also because I care about the craftsmanship of my images. I researched a lot when I bought the camera and the lenses and to just say "bah it all looks the same" based on a comparison which really doesn't prove anything at all is kind of silly, I think.
Honestly, they BOTH look soft to me...
Posted by devand one was produced with a 20D, the other with my $300 hand-me-down prosumer.
at web resolution, it's all the same. |
Disagree. I saw a dramatic increase in sharpness and a MASSIVE reduction in CA when I switched to L glass. When I was shooting with the 17-85 it used to piss me off when I'd look at photoblogs like cornershots and chromasia and see how much sharper their images were. Blackhawk's point about f2.8 is also a good one.
| Posted by devunless you're printing > 8x10.... who cares, unless there's something really cool going on. |
I don't know about you, but I take pictures to print, not just to put up on the web.
In addition what BH was saying about cropping is also true. If you start out with a larger, sharper image with less CA you're going to be able to crop it much more aggressively and still have the pixels to be able to print at normal sizes. Even for the web you're still going to be able to do much more cropping on a larger image.
[last edit 5/31/2006 1:18 PM by desmet - edited 1 times]
|
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 140 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741466258 pages have been generated.
|
|
