Comments on: Experience and camera gear http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2008/05/26/experience-and-camera-gear/ notes, photos, and other collectible fragments Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:54:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Andreas http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2008/05/26/experience-and-camera-gear/#comment-175038 Andreas Tue, 27 May 2008 18:43:25 +0000 http://www.richardsnotes.org/?p=3760#comment-175038 Richard and Gary, both of you utter interesting views on the topic. I am still undecided on which standpoint to adopt. I understand that photographic vision, experimentation and creativity are of utmost importance. They cannot be replaced by the best possible equipment. Though I wonder, if one should refer to photographers like Alex Majoli, because his decision for point and shoot cameras rather than SLRs is certainly motivated by the external factors and is not an artistic choice. Still he produces very good photos, because he probably knows to compensate for some of the limitations of his equipment. On the other hand I feel that a camera does matter. Recently I started using my 24mm tilt and shift lens, which I did not use for a while with my EOS 20D as a result of the camera's non-full frame sensor. Even though the lens is not as wide on a 20D as on a full frame camera, the photos look better than when I emulate the tilt and shift capabilities in Photoshop. Still I sometimes have to resort to my EF-S wide angle lens when I do architectural photography and correct converging lines in the software. Michael Reichmann seems to have uttered a similar perspective in his essay "Your Camera Does Matter" (http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml). Not sure if you are aware of his article or whether the discussion on Flickr has been triggered by it (apparently some of his article caused a bit of a stir in the past). My take on the topic: I usually try to get a camera that I enjoy using and which I won't outgrow too quickly without straining my budget and taking into account that I'm not a professional. Since I'm enjoy using it and it allows me to experiment, I might be able to improve my skills, because for instance I can experiment with manual exposure settings. Though I'm also quite fascinated by the "rough" look of the Lomo cameras that present an antithesis to the "perfection" of digital photography (i.e. the software trickery of point and shoot cameras that even allow inexperienced photographers to take decently exposed photos). I am also wondering whether all this trickery (i.e. smile detection) makes people unresponsive to candid situations. Sometimes observation allows one to anticipate "snapshots", which might not be technically perfect but convey emotion or a special moment. Richard and Gary, both of you utter interesting views on the topic. I am still undecided on which standpoint to adopt. I understand that photographic vision, experimentation and creativity are of utmost importance. They cannot be replaced by the best possible equipment. Though I wonder, if one should refer to photographers like Alex Majoli, because his decision for point and shoot cameras rather than SLRs is certainly motivated by the external factors and is not an artistic choice. Still he produces very good photos, because he probably knows to compensate for some of the limitations of his equipment. On the other hand I feel that a camera does matter. Recently I started using my 24mm tilt and shift lens, which I did not use for a while with my EOS 20D as a result of the camera’s non-full frame sensor. Even though the lens is not as wide on a 20D as on a full frame camera, the photos look better than when I emulate the tilt and shift capabilities in Photoshop. Still I sometimes have to resort to my EF-S wide angle lens when I do architectural photography and correct converging lines in the software. Michael Reichmann seems to have uttered a similar perspective in his essay “Your Camera Does Matter” (http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml). Not sure if you are aware of his article or whether the discussion on Flickr has been triggered by it (apparently some of his article caused a bit of a stir in the past).

My take on the topic: I usually try to get a camera that I enjoy using and which I won’t outgrow too quickly without straining my budget and taking into account that I’m not a professional. Since I’m enjoy using it and it allows me to experiment, I might be able to improve my skills, because for instance I can experiment with manual exposure settings. Though I’m also quite fascinated by the “rough” look of the Lomo cameras that present an antithesis to the “perfection” of digital photography (i.e. the software trickery of point and shoot cameras that even allow inexperienced photographers to take decently exposed photos).

I am also wondering whether all this trickery (i.e. smile detection) makes people unresponsive to candid situations. Sometimes observation allows one to anticipate “snapshots”, which might not be technically perfect but convey emotion or a special moment.

]]> By: Richard http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2008/05/26/experience-and-camera-gear/#comment-175031 Richard Tue, 27 May 2008 05:14:26 +0000 http://www.richardsnotes.org/?p=3760#comment-175031 Gary, right, Alex came up in the thread, but unfortunately, the people making that claim are immature and inexperienced enough so that they have no overview, only a small-minded view of the idea. I think the entire conjecture is both awful and fascinating at the same time. I'm drawn to it like a moth to a flame. Gary, right, Alex came up in the thread, but unfortunately, the people making that claim are immature and inexperienced enough so that they have no overview, only a small-minded view of the idea.

I think the entire conjecture is both awful and fascinating at the same time. I’m drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

]]> By: Gary http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2008/05/26/experience-and-camera-gear/#comment-175027 Gary Tue, 27 May 2008 00:32:12 +0000 http://www.richardsnotes.org/?p=3760#comment-175027 Richard, you know, of course, that I couldn't agree more, and your koan is perfect. Historically, lots of famous photographs were taken with fairly simple equipment. Some contemporary photographers do amazing work with point and shoots, and Magnum photojournalist <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5nj4jz" rel="nofollow">Alex Majoli</a> is a fine example of the less is more approach to taking pictures. He covers wars and other events with only 2 or 3 Olympus digital point and shoot cameras. Out of his body of work has emerged two fine books and several exhibitions. Richard, you know, of course, that I couldn’t agree more, and your koan is perfect. Historically, lots of famous photographs were taken with fairly simple equipment. Some contemporary photographers do amazing work with point and shoots, and Magnum photojournalist Alex Majoli is a fine example of the less is more approach to taking pictures. He covers wars and other events with only 2 or 3 Olympus digital point and shoot cameras. Out of his body of work has emerged two fine books and several exhibitions.

]]>