I disagree with most everyone posting all angry saying that your camera makes your pictures so much better. I know lots of people with perfectly wonderful cameras that take horrible pictures and I've seen amazing pictures come from a 1950s Minolta camera by someone who wasn't a professional but just had an eye for what looked good. I've also seen really well done artistic pictures that were done using pine-hole cameras. I disagree that Rockwell's photos are bad. I think some of them were incredible, especially the black-and-whites that he took with his "$3 box camera" that I would not be able to reproduce given the best camera currently made.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
I don't intend to start a flame war.... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Yelvertoft
- Start date
Gramayr
Slightly barking..
Horses for courses realy. If you feel more confident with a more expensive camera, then you will feel like you can take better pictures - even if the only difference is they come out sharper and better exposed. A camera can't compose your images, thats up to you.
When I did my photography degree, I used an old Pentax spotmatic (about a tenner) with screw thread lenses (fiver each) attached to a bellows unit (given). I also loved using old cameras, favorite was an old Zeiss Ikon folding camera - medium format in your pocket.
I couldn't be bothered reading everything, except to say I always carry a bagfull of equipment with me incase I need something. And also carry a tripod and monopod (not at the same time tho')
I could've taken these holliday snaps on anything - doesn't realy matter what, I like them and thats the only thing that matters to me..
When I did my photography degree, I used an old Pentax spotmatic (about a tenner) with screw thread lenses (fiver each) attached to a bellows unit (given). I also loved using old cameras, favorite was an old Zeiss Ikon folding camera - medium format in your pocket.
I couldn't be bothered reading everything, except to say I always carry a bagfull of equipment with me incase I need something. And also carry a tripod and monopod (not at the same time tho')
I could've taken these holliday snaps on anything - doesn't realy matter what, I like them and thats the only thing that matters to me..
Attachments
From the website www.johnshawphoto.com.
But be careful. Let me quote my friend Jack Dykinga: "Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul."
I do have to say I enjoyed John Shaw's photographs more than Ken Rockwell's, but found this statement very pertinent to this thread.
But be careful. Let me quote my friend Jack Dykinga: "Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul."
I do have to say I enjoyed John Shaw's photographs more than Ken Rockwell's, but found this statement very pertinent to this thread.
robski
Well-known member
Because of the expense of quality photographic equipment I should think that most of us purchase equipment to overcome limitations with our existing equipment. In some cases it's a long road though inferior, mediocrity, happy enough and the bank balance says NO !. Each step of the way a learning curve.
Sure a lucky few can afford to go straight to the top of the tree. Some of these don't have a clue and others have taken the pain to learn and develop. The question is who is the better photographer the one who took the short cut or the one who took the long route ?
There are many factors beyond the control of the photographer when it come to a "good photo". If the photographer tries to predict an event or massage the scene that may not guarantee good results. Often it's a case of capturing a scene when the brain says that will make a good photo as you pass through life. The photographic eye always on the lookout for such events. ( but stupid brain forgot to tell the body to bring the camera along).
Coming from an electronics background I often tire of the debate of analogue vs digital and valves(tubes) vs transistors in sound reproduction. In theory a transistor circuit can emulate a valve(tube) amplifier but not the other way around.
So extending this idea a modern camera should be able to emulate old manual cameras where as the old manual will find it impossible to produce some of the shots capable with new technology.
If I recall the originator of this thread posted a photo taken with one of his old manual camera it will interesting to see if he can get the same effect and pleasure with his latest camera.
Robert
Sure a lucky few can afford to go straight to the top of the tree. Some of these don't have a clue and others have taken the pain to learn and develop. The question is who is the better photographer the one who took the short cut or the one who took the long route ?
There are many factors beyond the control of the photographer when it come to a "good photo". If the photographer tries to predict an event or massage the scene that may not guarantee good results. Often it's a case of capturing a scene when the brain says that will make a good photo as you pass through life. The photographic eye always on the lookout for such events. ( but stupid brain forgot to tell the body to bring the camera along).
Coming from an electronics background I often tire of the debate of analogue vs digital and valves(tubes) vs transistors in sound reproduction. In theory a transistor circuit can emulate a valve(tube) amplifier but not the other way around.
So extending this idea a modern camera should be able to emulate old manual cameras where as the old manual will find it impossible to produce some of the shots capable with new technology.
If I recall the originator of this thread posted a photo taken with one of his old manual camera it will interesting to see if he can get the same effect and pleasure with his latest camera.
Robert
Last edited:
Yelvertoft
Rabbit Fan
I saw the first couple of highly sensible replies to my original post and thought "whew, there's common sense after all", thinking this thread would die quickly. I'm amazed it's still living, of sorts.
My own personal opinion is that a bad photographer will produce bad photos regardless of equipment. The stuff you are using will not help your composition skills or assessment of what you are seeing in the viewfinder. If you have good photographic skill, then good equipment will help further. As for "throw away your tripod", chairman Ken has his point in as much as it won't help in particular situations, but he's talking rubbish where you have the time and the space to use one to good effect.
Robski says:
"If I recall the originator of this thread posted a photo taken with one of his old manual camera it will interesting to see if he can get the same effect and pleasure with his latest camera."
I've just bought a dSLR and the answer is yes, I'm enjoying using it, just as I enjoy using my P&S digital. As for getting the same effect, I doubt it. Using my old Rollei is very much an enforced relaxation. If I'm lucky, I'll get one really good shot out of the 12 on on a reel of 120. The digital age pushes you the other way, you take umpteen shots and figure that some will be good. It's a very different pace of photography. Regardless of the "hit rate", I enjoy taking the Rollei out for a spin now and again, it's a good way to relax, forcing you to slow down and think about things other than whatever stresses are bothering you at the time.
The digital camera gives me a broadly similar hit rate (1 in 12 if I'm lucky), but it frees your mind from the constraints of D&P costs. You try a shot just to see if it will work, encouraging experimentation. There's no significant consequence of taking a duff shot. Will I get the same effect and pleasure? Absolutely not. It's a very different pleasure taking digital compared to vintage analogue, but it's different, not better, or worse.
Duncan.
My own personal opinion is that a bad photographer will produce bad photos regardless of equipment. The stuff you are using will not help your composition skills or assessment of what you are seeing in the viewfinder. If you have good photographic skill, then good equipment will help further. As for "throw away your tripod", chairman Ken has his point in as much as it won't help in particular situations, but he's talking rubbish where you have the time and the space to use one to good effect.
Robski says:
"If I recall the originator of this thread posted a photo taken with one of his old manual camera it will interesting to see if he can get the same effect and pleasure with his latest camera."
I've just bought a dSLR and the answer is yes, I'm enjoying using it, just as I enjoy using my P&S digital. As for getting the same effect, I doubt it. Using my old Rollei is very much an enforced relaxation. If I'm lucky, I'll get one really good shot out of the 12 on on a reel of 120. The digital age pushes you the other way, you take umpteen shots and figure that some will be good. It's a very different pace of photography. Regardless of the "hit rate", I enjoy taking the Rollei out for a spin now and again, it's a good way to relax, forcing you to slow down and think about things other than whatever stresses are bothering you at the time.
The digital camera gives me a broadly similar hit rate (1 in 12 if I'm lucky), but it frees your mind from the constraints of D&P costs. You try a shot just to see if it will work, encouraging experimentation. There's no significant consequence of taking a duff shot. Will I get the same effect and pleasure? Absolutely not. It's a very different pleasure taking digital compared to vintage analogue, but it's different, not better, or worse.
Duncan.
Last edited:
This really doesn't have a lot to do with this thread I imagine but think it might be of interest. I once read an article in National Geographic I do believe about a photographer who felt he had gotten away from the love of photography (ie he would shoot hundreds of photos a day and then pick the couple that looked the best) so he spent an entire summer going out every day and taking one picture. He would walk around some place and when he saw "the picture" he would take it. It didn't matter if he saw a better picture later that day or if the picture turned out poorly, he would just take one picture. A lot of them turned out amazingly and he said it was a really enjoyable exercise to get back to composing his shots. I wish I could remember the photographer's name or the magazine it was in. Thought some might find that story interesting.
Ranger James
Well-known member
Just out of interest, as I have never heard of this chap before - what are his pictures like?
Yes, Its true to say if you like the product of what you snap, then who cares? But this bloke is specifically talking about great photography, which is a finite descritpion. the difference between a great image, a good photograph and a snap you're fond of is vast.
I agree with most people in this thread, a great photographer is an artist with good kit. While at the same time, and this is prevelent throughout birding, you can have all the gear, and no idea.
Ken sounds a bit of a jabbering, foaming-mouthed, self-taught, it-was-better-in-my-day, kind of guy.
Nice thumbnails btw.
Jim
Yes, Its true to say if you like the product of what you snap, then who cares? But this bloke is specifically talking about great photography, which is a finite descritpion. the difference between a great image, a good photograph and a snap you're fond of is vast.
I agree with most people in this thread, a great photographer is an artist with good kit. While at the same time, and this is prevelent throughout birding, you can have all the gear, and no idea.
Ken sounds a bit of a jabbering, foaming-mouthed, self-taught, it-was-better-in-my-day, kind of guy.
Nice thumbnails btw.
Jim
rka
ttbirds
I'm very very much a learning amateur but based on this thread went ahead and read some more of Mr. Rockwell's articles on his website. The articles read ok but then he seems to go to the extreme at times to get his point across, or within a pretty good article makes a statement that leaves you scratching your head thinking ... Is that true?
For example, on his article on photographing birds, quite a lot of what he says is well known and makes sense. But then he says something like:
"With digital you can use much less expensive lenses, so much less expensive that you can pay for the DSLR with the money you don't have to spend on a huge lens"
... Is that true?
For example, on his article on photographing birds, quite a lot of what he says is well known and makes sense. But then he says something like:
"With digital you can use much less expensive lenses, so much less expensive that you can pay for the DSLR with the money you don't have to spend on a huge lens"
... Is that true?
Adey Baker
Member
rka said:
Presumably, he's inferring that digital cameras don't have the resolving power to match the best lenses - those with something like a Canon 1Ds Mk11 might not agree!
And if you have got more 'extra' resolution in the lens then you can add a good quality tele-convertor with no apparent loss of detail.
Blackstart
Saxophonus pinus
I got back from a trip to the Alps recently, where I took a lot of pics of landscapes and flowers with my Coolpix 4500.
Every one of these pictures is absolute crap.
These week I found a Web site with many photos of flowers and landscapes in the Alps. The pictures are great. "I wonder what camera those came from," I thought to myself.
You guessed it, a Coolpix.
What's my point? That it's what and how you see that matters the most.
But this Rockwell guy is still a colossal no-talent.
-Adam
Every one of these pictures is absolute crap.
These week I found a Web site with many photos of flowers and landscapes in the Alps. The pictures are great. "I wonder what camera those came from," I thought to myself.
You guessed it, a Coolpix.
What's my point? That it's what and how you see that matters the most.
But this Rockwell guy is still a colossal no-talent.
-Adam
Ranger James said:
Check out his site. You can then judge for yourself. Advice: Take a clothes peg.
Ranger James said:
Do you know how much he charges for personal 'tuition'? $180 per hour. Yes, that's right, $180 per hour (*). No that's not a typo. Yes some people do take him up. Maybe there's a lot of in-breeding in his neck of the woods. Or psycho-active drugs. You can get tuition from highly respected and published UK photographers for much less than that. In fact I reckon the best of them would be queueing up to teach you were you to wave around that sort of money. So, your choice is a) tuition from someone respected as one of the best or b) tuition from someone who says he is one of the best, but with no evidence to support the fact.
(*) Here's the quote: "Rates are just $180/hour. People have remarked that I'm more than worth it for how much they learned so quickly."
Leif
Ranger James
Well-known member
Leif said:
I suppose its not what you know when you're selling yourself to someone who knows less. Poor people.
You have got to admit that there is something to be said about a guy who can give a name to the type of light caused by volcanic ash in the stratosphere and then copyright that name and use it to describe his "unique" photos which could have been made using a pink filter! I'm referring to his Mono Lake photograph which can be pulled up from the Rockwell website listed in the 1st thread of this discussion. According to Rockwell an Ansel Adams print in a Los Angeles gallery was removed to make room to display this photo.
What would you like to say about him?
What would you like to say about him?
Last edited:
