| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. Good photography or easy image making
Asked by Ray Heath
(K=4559) on 4/21/2003
|
Are we missing the obvious fact that good photography is not easy?
Do we realley believe that having the latest and greatest camera, printer, program, whatever will make us a good photographer?
Do we actually believe that taking many images quickly and then fixing them in PS makes us a talented photographic artist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Betsy Hern
(K=12872) - Comment Date 4/21/2003
|
Digital = Easy image making? I think not. The most talented (highly paid) photographer in the world has set up the perfect shot with just the right lighting and the best film for the subject only to find, when developing the film, that the camera misfired, the film was bad, the flash went off to soon or not soon enough, the person blinked, a cow wandered into the landscape, etc. It's not about the equipment. A camera can be a top of the line digital or a throwaway $5 film camera and can take the same picture if the right person is behind the lens. Depends on your definition of "good photography." Many consider photos taken with the $12 Holga cameras which, by the way, have plastic lenses to be excellent photography. Good photography is good photography, digital or not, and is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/21/2003
|
>Are we missing the obvious fact that good photography is >not easy?
Some people do indeed. And marketting divisions from some large corporations in the field are trying their hardest to make people think that it is.
>Do we realley believe that having the latest and greatest >camera, printer, program, whatever will make us a good >photographer?
See above. Said marketting divisions are basically telling you that if your photos suck your equipment is by definition at fault and not your talent or your technique employing it.
And in this highly materialistic age people are falling for it because it sounds so natural. Same way that people are falling for diet foods, instead of changing their eating habbits.
>Do we actually believe that taking many images quickly and >then fixing them in PS makes us a talented photographic >artist?
Yes, that's the idea. A big selling point for digital cameras is that you can just shoot and shoot and shoot some more until you have something you like and then change that to make it look better. No more composition and exposure control needed, just do it all afterwards on your PC.
That's the way an entire generation of photographers is being spoonfed by magazines, TV ads, teachers, and store clerks all over the world.
Mind that not everyone is falling for it. If everyone was the predictions by the Canon marketeers that film would be dead by 2002 would have come to pass.
|
|
|
|
Alan Smith
(K=167) - Comment Date 4/21/2003
|
I think taking the time to take a good photograph beats fixing it later in Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
Eric Mendoza
(K=1204) - Comment Date 4/21/2003
|
No! Taking a good photograph requires a lot of work, initiative, composition, patience and yes, good luck.
All the modern gimmicks we have just make the process
a little "faster" to make a well exposed photo but that
does not mean a good picture. I started about 25 yrs ago
with manual FE and FM and about 5 prime lenses. Although,
I was trying to learn, I've made some good photo slides.
Now with a modern F100, I realized that having the latest
machine does not translate to immediate good pictures. I
have to slow down and focus on basic techniques.
|
|
|
|
gerard welford
(K=648) - Comment Date 4/21/2003
|
This afternoon I went for my usual walk and took with me my latest acquisition, a digital camera about the size of a cigarette packet but capable of producing an image with 3.2 megapixels. I was thinking of the famous picture by Cartier Bresson, the one where the chap is jumping over a puddle and all the other elements in the picture. I though this little digital camera would be just the thing for that type of photography. After all the resolution in that photo is not all that hot and the digital image woul be just as good.
Then I thought it is not the resolution that makes that picture, it is all the elements of the picture coming together at that specific moment in time.
So I agree it is not the equipment that makes a good photographer although in certain circumstances it helps. It is the eye for an image that counts.
Cheers........Gerard
|
|
|
|
Quinn Jacobson
(K=199) - Comment Date 4/22/2003
|
The question to ask is, "What is good photography?" It's all very subjective. Sometimes we speak in terms that make it seem like it's as definitive as gravity.
Each person (photographer) has to determine what they like and why. Once you've established that, what it's made with is irrevelant.
|
|
|
|
Brendan Bhagan
(K=531) - Comment Date 4/23/2003
|
I for one don't do anything in PS that I can not do under an enlarger, my prints look like my web images ( spot pens vs the clone stamp tho ). I see way to many wonderful images on the web, but no longer as many good prints and far too many photographers give me photoshop advise to improve my images, no longer shooting techniques. I had one tell me to go all digital just so I can never have a bad shot, they are all deleted. I have nothing against digital and see it as a tool, one I may move to once the prices level out but should you now call your self a digital artist rather than a photographer at some point?
|
|
|
|
João Figueiredo
(K=7674) - Comment Date 4/24/2003
|
Don't see the point here... some "Good Photogaphy" are easy to made, other don't!
And this is independent of high quality equipment, computer, software...
In works i almost don't used software to change the image, but using sofware is not a default for me, is equivalent with the use of dark room work, or chemicals. There are new ways of make/transform images, so let's use then if we want!
Regards,
João
|
|
|
|
catarina costa cabral
(K=372) - Comment Date 4/24/2003
|
this question has already two difficult defenitions;good photography, and easy...
as a professional there are some photos wich are both good, and easy to take, for me...
there are sometimes some apparently simple photos wich are not at all easy to make.
maybe the thing comes from behind, somethings may become easy with time, but as I believe that as an artist ( trying to create more and new( to oneself , anyway ) images, languages, etc.. It always requires a lot of thinking, experiencing, and work..
cameras and lens quality matter, but any device capable of capturing image is valid to create good and strong images, it all depends on the purpose intended.
|
|
|
|
David Doler
(K=467) - Comment Date 4/24/2003
|
Well, is photography always art? Is journalistic photography art? Is a kid with a point & shoot taking pictures of the dog an artist? I take a pocket camera everywhere I go. I grab quick shots of interesting street scenes that are certainly not well thought out or composed and the lighting is usually bad, but I see something and shoot it.
Whats good, bad or indifferent in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=1973) - Comment Date 4/25/2003
|
>>Do we actually believe that taking many images quickly and then fixing them in PS makes us a talented photographic artist?
How is this any different than the photographer who shoots tons of photos on film and uses the darkroom to fix poor negatives? This has been a common way of shooting for years, it's nothing new, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with whether or not someone is using PS.
Anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in the darkroom knows how much alteration can take place...
www.spirer.com
|
|
|
|
Kurt Kneller
(K=85) - Comment Date 4/26/2003
|
Hi all,
I am relatively new to serious photography. I have always enjoyed taking pictures but over the last year I have been striving to become a better photographer. By all means it is not easy. I still love it nonetheless. As far as using software like PS, what is the big deal? As long as you strive for the best shot, prior to modification, and then have to touch it up, how is that any different than what goes on in a darkroom? For some of us who don't have our own darkroom, what other choice is there? I mean, if all you are doing is slight exposure mod's (dodge and burn), posibly enhancing colors (realistically) and not creating something that was not there to begin with, why does that make you any less of a photographer? Don't professionals alter the images in a darkroom, airbrush after etc? I think if you learn from your mistakes, try to improve, strive for a technical/artistic level higher than were you currently are and the images are pleasing (to yourself and others), and if you happen to use a method post processing you should not be looked ill upon. Photography is art, is self expression and captures the moment as you see it.
|
|
|
|
Todd Broadbent
(K=2204) - Comment Date 4/28/2003
|
I agree with Jeroen's comments, but I'd also like to add that, to me, art's primary objective is to produce an emotional response. Therefore, the ends justify the means. I still admire unmanipulated photos best, and I'm not promoting digital manipulation, but being a graphic designer, I know that you are not an artist because you own a copy of photoshop. People mistakenly believe that computers are "magical" tools. Technique and expertise are earned the same way in the traditional dark room as in the digital dark room - through time and experience. Is digital editing easy? Not if you've dealt with some of the images I get to clean up! Times and tools will always change. Nonetheless, it takes more than tools to make an artist. It takes imagination, creativity, and talent. Things that I'm still trying to achieve in all mediums.
|
|
|
|
Scott Kitchens
(K=22) - Comment Date 4/28/2003
|
I don't think that anyone really belives for longer than a few days (that is until they see the reults) that a new camera or new lens makes them a better photographer. They might buy it thinking and hoping that owning a particular camera might refine their vision, or even give them one.
But, they find that the pictures are the same as always... maybe the purchase of the knick knack will eventually lead to the camera becoming more transparent in the photographic process due to ergonomics or whatever. Transparency of the camera is key to seeing what is in front of you... if preoccupied with the camera etc, you'll miss something, but when your camera is second nature then you can see.
Now to the point that i really wanted to make: I think too much time is spent blabbing about how a camera doesn't make a bit of differece (I contributed) and knocking collectors or equipment junkies. Thats their thing and let them do it... you won't change thier mind. The same thing gets rehashed over and over, and over and over... even this statement.
We need to concentrate on seeing, good photography happens when you see. Remember that the darkroom or photoshop is not a substitute for taking pictures. Photography happens when you record stuff, printing happens when you put it on paper.
|
|
|
|
Lany Costa
(K=787) - Comment Date 4/29/2003
|
Photografier c'est mettre sur la meme ligne de mire l'oeil, la tête et le coeur" Henri Cartier Bresson.
Making a photo is putting in the same line of vision the eye, the head and the heart".
IMHO is's a creative process, in wich the material as a place but where the important is the Photographer.
A camera does not make pictures, a person does.
A cheap camera with good lens is much better than what you often see, (F5 or EOS 1 with cheap zooms, or with "bottle bottoms" as we say in french).
The photograph as to see and to "think" what he sees in the viewfinder. He has to catch the light, the geometry.
Then all the rest (lab or PS) is just small adjustments.
It's better to spend time with a cheap camera and a GOOD 28mm or 50MM, finding the light and the angle, than spending hours in Photoshop.
The same goes for lab, a bad BW neg, will give in 99% of the cases a bad Positive, even if you are a lab champ.
Another thing: New comers to photo should buy a manual non auto and non AF 35mm, and a good 35mm lens, instead of following the "advises" of some so called specialists (specially in some shops or magazines)and buy a "super auto AF matrix exposure and multi program" with a lousy 28-200 4.5, 5.6.
|
|
|
|
Carolyn Lee
(K=1389) - Comment Date 4/30/2003
|
Making consistentley good images involves lots of work and time. The same with developing the personal vision. Photography is not unlike any other skill or art that requires learning and dedication if you want to be seriously good at it. One quality that sets good photographers from the rest is that the good ones knows how to see light as film would.
I think using good, reliable, sturdy equipment is required for any serious photographer. It doesn't matter if it's old, new, auto or manual, there are good reliable cameras and accessories out there that are affordable. This and photoshop are mere helpful tools. If you don't have the skills and intention to use them, it doesn't make you any better. Just as, buying a pair of expensive high end running shoes will not make me into a boston marthon runner overnight. Marketing has its own agenda to sell for its own gain and they will pull anything out of their behinds to convince the average joe/jane to buy their products. We're all humans here with brains and hearts as our greatest assets. They are the most infinitely powerful, most upgradable tools in making good images.
|
|
|
|
Ray Heath
(K=4559) - Comment Date 4/30/2003
|
Thank you Carolyn, a great response, I concur absolutely.
|
|
|
|
Zarazka Zarazkovich
(K=1510) - Comment Date 5/2/2003
|
It does not matter how the image is done / edited, it's the final composition / emotional value that matters. If you don't know what you want from the photo you have taken, no matter what tools you use, you will never make it attractive. In the eyes of spectators - unedited photo ro darkroom manipulations or digital editing it is only a way to anticipated result.
|
|
|
|
Guy Dube
(K=6932) - Comment Date 5/14/2003
|
Photography is like painting. For me, the most important thing is to take pleasure using my camera. It is not a competition. Look in the Forties, Fifties, thousand of photographies were super. And people that time didn't have a computer to fix it. Photography is like our signature, it is a part of us, the way we deal with the light. It is to be there at the right moment for the light, the clouds, etc... We have to enjoy it. When photography does not enjoy us anymore, it is time to stop. That's the way I see it.
|
|
|
|
karen barnett
(K=4237) - Comment Date 7/16/2003
|
There is a place for Photoshop in good photography. But the resulting image should be clearly a photograph, not a digitalized art. Too many times I see photographs that have been "corrected" to the point of boredom. A talented photographer can see the picture BEFORE it is taken..... and manages by skill, experience, and his all-seeing EYE to capture it on some form of "preservative".... be it film or digital.
The single most important tool a photographer owns is his eye, his viewpoint, his perception of what will make a good photo or not. After that it becomes a matter of choice for recording devices, and manipulation of the recorded image.I prefer as little manipulation as possible, but I will utilize any and all tools at my disposal to achieve the results I "see" in my mind. Manipulated photos should ALWAYS be identified as such.
|
|
|
|
Sarah Hansegard
(K=4332) - Comment Date 8/21/2003
|
Maybe this is simplistic, maybe even slightly idealistic! What I feel makes a good photograph is the person behind the camera-knowing how to frame the shot and focus! If more people would take those extra couple seconds to set up their photo,there would be a lot less bad photos in the world.
As for using Photoshop, expensive cameras and film "the best"-well, that's just the icing on the cake.
It helps it-butI don't feel it's required.
A little talent helps too... ;)
|
|
|
|
Mark Beltran
(K=32612) - Comment Date 8/22/2003
|
Easier? Hardly! I used to, but now I no longer miss developing tanks. What digital has done is allow you to see the results faster. When you're able to see your photographs even before they're printed, I'm inclined to believe that it will make the learning process (for some) quicker. In the past, I waited till I got at least four rolls of 35mm film before I even started mixing up the D-76. Good photography is not easy. Just look at all the used cameras for sale. They were bought by people who thought those cameras would make a difference.
|
|
|
|
Karen Nichols
(K=613) - Comment Date 8/28/2003
|
>>Do we realley believe that having the latest and greatest camera, printer, program, whatever will make us a good photographer?Do we actually believe that taking many images quickly and then fixing them in PS makes us a talented photographic artist?There is a place for Photoshop in good photography. But the resulting image should be clearly a photograph, not a digitalized art. Too many times I see photographs that have been "corrected" to the point of boredom.
|
|
|
|
Karen Nichols
(K=613) - Comment Date 8/28/2003
|
(I'm having trouble posting this - it's being truncated - so I'm trying again.-kmn)
I know several people who have upgraded to cameras like the Canon 10D and sprung big bucks for the top-of-the-line IS lenses. I'm sure that they assumed when they purchased the camera - poof - a magic wand would suddenly enable them to take amazing photographs. However, their photos continue to be, for the most part, as unremarkable as they were when they owned a much less expensive camera. Much of the artistry of photography is something that lives within the soul of the photographer. Some of it - like the rules of composition - can be taught and mastered. Much of it, though, comes from within, and differentiates the snapshot-taker from the photographic artist. Better equipment will usually produce better technical results, but if you don't have an artist's eye and vision, you'll end up with photos that are technically proficient but lacking in soul.
>>Do we actually believe that taking many images quickly and then fixing them in PS makes us a talented photographic artist?
|
|
|
|
Karen Nichols
(K=613) - Comment Date 8/28/2003
|
The process of producing a photograph consists both of the capturing of the image and the processing of it in a darkroom (be it a traditional darkroom or a digital darkroom like Photoshop). Two of Ansel Adams' best quotes on the subject are: "The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance," and "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
The time I spend capturing a photograph and post-processing it can vary dramatically. Sometimes the photo needs no post- processing work; sometimes it needs a lot. But the fact that a photo needs post-processing work does not necessarily mean that I am a bad photographer and need to Photoshop it to salvage it --- quite the opposite. As I've become more adept with the camera, I spend more time in post-processing because I'm pushing the limits of the camera more --- just as a good film photographer pushes the limits of what the film and available light can do in order to produce extraordinary images.
For example, most of the time I underexpose, then nudge the image toward perfection by adjusting levels and brightness in Photoshop. I commonly use the dodge and burn tools, just as Ansel Adams did in his darkroom. If necessary, I'll clone out people and telephone poles because they don't exist in my idealized version of the landscape I'm portraying. (In the rare instances that I take portraits, I put on my plastic surgeon's cap and smooth wrinkles, zap zits and perform a bit of digital liposuction.) In short, I'll do whatever I need to do to fulfill my artistic vision of what the image should be. I don't take snapshots; I'm not a documentarian. I'm trying to produce art.
I often sense an undercurrent of feeling that those of us who post- process are somehow "cheating," or have not yet mastered the art of taking a good photograph and need to use image editing tools to rescue sub-optimal images. Although I agree that you need to start with a good image capture, I think that only gets you part way toward a great image. In some cases, post-processing may not be needed, but in many cases, availing yourself of the tools in the digital darkroom can transform a good image into a great one. After all, Ansel Adams didn't drop off his film at 1-hour photo for processing.
|
|
|
|
Iain Burgess
(K=97) - Comment Date 8/28/2003
|
I have both a Mamiya RB67 and a Minolta 9xi. As to which takes better photos, it is impossible to say, there are big differences in the methods I use for each, and there are different subjects I choose for each. The Minolta's metering is exceptional, and I often us it as a light meter to set up the RB, or at least the basis for the settings. The key is to know you equipment, and no it's not easy. I know the Minolta well, have had then for 15 years, but I just bought the RB67 last year and have a long way to go to mater it.
I think a good photographer will always be limited by his equipment, sure you can take photos with plastic lens cameras, but if you are looking for to create something, as opposed to record something, you need to have the right tools. For some a Holga is the right tool, and you just cannot get the same photos with a modern AF camera. Similarly you don't get the same effect with a 50mm lens as you do with a 250mm lens, no matter how good a photographer you are.
You will not get the precise control of depth of field with an F4.5 zoom as you do with and F1.4 prime lens.However, you can achieve the same image by using PS if you know how, and it's that know-how, be it in the use of your equipment, the darkroom or PS that creates the completed image.
"Fixing them in Photoshop" just does not happen easily, sure it's a lot easier for web publication, but when you want to make a print it takes many hours of patience and knowledge so blend things so that the re-touching is not obvious. In a recent shoot, the expression on the models face is perfect, whilst her posture is not, I have another photos where her expression is just a tiny bit wrong but the posture is perfect. The best image is to combine the two which will take me quite a lot of patience and skill to do properly. Yes there are those that say I should have shot the "right" image first time out, but knowing what is "right" only comes for looking at the static image, and not from looking at the ever changing face and pose of the model during the shoot. I see nothing wrong in using whatever equipment I have to try an make the best image I possibly can, and if I have a gadget or program that makes it easier, then I'll use them.
|
|
|
|
Meryl Arbing
(K=321) - Comment Date 8/31/2003
|
Whenever you ask a question like this you can tell from the replies whether the responder places his 'control point' before or after the shutter is clicked.
I agree that the photographer's art happens before the shutter is clicked and that act of exposing the film serves to capture that split second of reality forever. To accomplish this, the photographer must not only be master of the skills of composition, observation and anticipation but also must be master of the technicalities of his gear. How can I make the unfeeling camera record not only what I see but what I feel? And how can I make others feel what I feel when I look at this shot?
Those who believe that creativity happens only AFTER the shutter is released advocate for Photoshop. They will claim that 'Photohop is no different from what you do in a darkroom and so, anything goes!' but that is of course, nonsense. How many of us have a darkroom in our homes? How many have the technical skills to make all the manipulations that are possible? Not so, with Photoshop which every user (by hook or by crook)seems to have a copy of and which takes little or no skill to apply a cheesy 'effect' and imagine that they have exercised some great degree of creativity and 'self expression'. In short, the master of the darkroom need to have training and talent and the owner of Photoshop needs only to have a credit card!
So, the question is, "When do the skills of the photographer come into play, before the shutter is clicked or after?" I hold that it is before.
|
|
|
|
Andrew Barker
(K=282) - Comment Date 9/3/2003
|
Eloquently stated Meryl.
What attracts me to photography is the ability to capture something that exists in reality and through the photograph, is elevated to the sublime. There is a sense of awe when I see a wonderful photograph, and I admire that the photographer had enough passion for his/her craft that they took the time to be in the right place/time, and get the right exposure/composition. I just can't look at a digitally manipulated photograph and get the same sense of awe. When "reality" is manipulated into the "ideal," it becomes nothing more than a cheap fabrication.
As a graphic designer, I know the value of digital post-production, but when I want to look at a photo only for the sake of enjoying it, I prefer one that has been produced traditionally.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=1973) - Comment Date 9/3/2003
|
Sorry, but it's just nonsense, pure and simple. It reeks of a lack of training in and study of photography.
Every great print that is in galleries and museums took a lot of effort and manipulation in the printing stage. This is graphically demonstrated in Avedon's book "Evidence", where Avedon's printing instructions show thirty or forty localized tonal modifications on one image.
Every great photographer learned to print and to manipulate while printing. Saying that most people don't have darkrooms and haven't learned about darkroom work (although Photoshop allows the same types of manipulations) is an assertion that ignorance is a good thing. It's hard to believe that a lack of experience is considered a good thing.
The results of printing without an understanding can be seen in the results of drugstore prints. Lacking in depth and life, they just sit, especially the black and white (from C41 b/w film) prints.
Great photography comes from work before and after clicking the shutter. Without good source material, you can't make a great print. Without the ability to see what makes a great print, and either do it oneself or work with a master printer, the source material is useless.
There is an easy analogy with music, for anyone that has ever been involved in recording. You can go in the studio with the greatest musicians in the world, work from great scores, and record them well. If you just put that on a CD and try to sell it, you will be lucky to get more than friends and family to purchase it, although it's unlikely they will listen to it. If you work the production and editing end, you can end up with a great recording that people can enjoy.
Once again, it's really unfortunate that ignorance is being advertised. A good Photo 1 class will go a long way to get beyond these simplistic notions about how photographs happen.
|
|
|
|
GP Merfeld
(K=14396) - Comment Date 9/4/2003
|
Thank you Jeff! Thank you thank you thank you. You have saved me alot of words with your eloquence, and hopefully opened some eyes as well. You have also saved me alot of time, as I was just about to go back and change the signature on all of my work to "Visa" or "Mastercard." ;-))
|
|
|
|
Vincent K. Tylor
(K=7863) - Comment Date 9/6/2003
|
I can tell all of you this from experience, HARD WORK is the most important element (as well as the most significant difference) separating a good photographer from a very good one, and a very good from a great one. How early are you willing to get up in the morning to catch that sunrise?? How much are you willing to sweat by jumping all around the place at a particular location trying every possible angle and focal length?? How many times are you willing to go back to that same location under different conditions at different times of the year?? How much gear are you willing to carry with you to that special location?? How many different filters and lenses are you willing to pull out of your bag to get THE BEST possible capture on just one shoot?? And friends, this is ONLY a portion of the first step. (On a side note: I went to shoot a seascape tonight way out at a secluded location, stayed so late that I could not see my way back, my dog fell into the stream and I literally had to save him from being swept away, then fell in mud myself, lost my hood, then had to take another shower to go out to a dinner, and I showered just before going to the shoot) Point is, this is "the stuff" what we must be willing to do.
Next step is on the lightbox. How long are you willing to labor over an image with only slight differences?? How many loops will you use to choose the sharpest image?? Perhaps the one with the foreground is better, maybe the one with more sky. The one with three flowers in the scene is more vibrant, but the one with two is simpler and a bit more subtle....hmmmm. I have labored for hours in the editing room. Often even reversing the slide in hopes of getting a different view. I have many times felt blinded by so much time on the lightbox. But to truly pick the best of the best there is no other way. I would sometimes rather lay bricks then look at another slide. The brain gets fried after about two hours of serious concentration. That is only step two.
Step three is post production. Ever spent half a day editing one single image in photoshop?? Are you willing to do that?? My latest upload called the "Last light" took OVER six hours to get it just right so that I was satisfied. That is only one image. Do you add that point of green or not? Crop out the tree or keep it? Is 20 points of unsharp mask too much...lets try 15 hmmmm?? Just like editing on the lightbox, the mind gets fried easily from so much deep concentration in Photoshop. But honestly, there is no other way if you wish to be one of the more successful photographers in this business.
How about the prints now. They NEVER look exactly like the monitor. I have sent some prints back to the lab for adjustments sometimes over 15 different times. (My lab loves that because they charge for proofs). But the one that settles or takes the easy way out is only hurting him or herself. One more point of density should do it, or one more point of green should finish it, a couple more points of contrast. And when you are done, Lets go to the next one....never ends!
How about the mat colors to match the print?? Once again very tedious and laborious. You can literally spend one hour choosing between the three final choices and getting anybody that dares walk in the room to share their opinion because you cannot tell which is green and which is blue. (True, not exaggerating either). It's like matching a tie with a suit...the right one looks great and makes you "The Man" the wrong one can make you look like a disaster!
What I hope to share with my fellow photographers is that the equipment here is only a tool. And yes some are a bit more efficient than others...but only slightly. There is no substitute for hard, serious, continuous work. But how satisfying it is once you have nailed it down. From the capturing the image on film, to the editing of those images, to post production and any other thing that will be needed afterwards.....you simply must be willing to do the time needed to be successful. Hard work is the most important factor, has always been the most important factor and will always remain the most important factor!
|
|
|
|
Martin Rohrmann
(K=587) - Comment Date 9/19/2003
|
well, i have only one camera and two lenses.
you find the results on:
www.martinrohrmann.de
what i want to say is, that a huge equipment disturbs
you to concentrate on the motif. Sure, if I want, I can buy lenses more and more. But in my opinion, then I will have
more problems than now with my two zoom-lenses.
i know photgraphers who use only one lens, for example
a 50mm lens. their pictures are great. Suprise?
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gangi
(K=566) - Comment Date 9/21/2003
|
Nothing worth doing is ever easy. Some people can just make it look that way, after years of practice. You can no more save a bad photograph in Photoshop any more than you could save it under the enlarger. You have to start with something. Otherwise, its "garbage in = garbage out" no matter what method is used.
|
|
|
|
|
