john_frie Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I read so many times that one camera is better than the other or you can't do this with this camera but can do it with another blah blah blah. For one of the first times on these forums I stumbled across this person's portfolio and was so impressed with his creative ability over all. I am a trained commercial/fashion photographer and have see some of the greatest work to the worst.I was so fortunate to have some of the finest portrait, commercial and makeup artists teach me for many years. This person shows that you don't need the flagship cameras to get beautiful results. He shot all of the things I saw with the EOS 300D. Check it out. http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=2328099 J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_worth Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Very nice chiaroscuro, I'll say. :-) --Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I completely agree. Heck, some of my best pictures are with my old rebel XT / 50 1.8 combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken munn Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 A 350D and the kit lens on the ones I looked at. Not high-end maybe, but it's still good kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finkphoto Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 As always, its not the tools but how you use them that counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Is the photographer more important than the gear? Yes. If you are a great photographer, does it matter which gear you use? Yes. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shannonholm Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 yes....great photos....but the impressive effect of those pictures seems more due to over processed HDR imaging techniques, not the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I agree -- takes LOTS of time for the special effects you see in the referenced portfolio by the OP. Lots of time to set up the shots, light them, take them, and the post processing. Given better tools any given good photographer will produce better results. The photog is more important than the gear and it does matter what gear you use, as YP just wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_frie Posted May 9, 2008 Author Share Posted May 9, 2008 "it does matter what gear you use, as YP just wrote." Don't get me wrong everyone. I'm as much of a toy lover as the next person and believe me I have a lot of toys. However with all of the cameras and experience I find myself picking up my wife's Sony Cybershot H2 more than my own cameras for the convenience. I have gotten some really beautiful 16 x 20 enlargements from this camera. My point is you can have great tools but if you don't have the creative abilities all you'll get are really high quality bad shots. You can have the best woodworking tools money can buy but without the creative ability to make great woodworking all you really have are great tools. Don't get hung up so much on the equipment. Bottom line is you can walk out into your backyard and with very basic tools, spend the rest of your life finding great photos there. The requirements are creative imagination, the ability to previsualize and the knowledge to properly use the tools you have to get what you see. Post manipulation is now the term used replacing the darkroom. 80% of the great photos were manipulated in the darkroom. Don't forget that your creativity extends beyond the camera and well into the darkroom. Ok I'm stepping off my box now. :-) j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drubene Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Extremely impressive! Nice blend of art and photo skills combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken munn Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Post manipulation? To me, that would mean something that happened after manipulation! And just to repeat, although the guy referred to by the OP wasn't using absolutely top dollar equipment, what he is using comes pretty far up the scale of good equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_frie Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 Yeah you''re right Ken. It shouldn't be post manipulation. Good catch. But I bet you got my meaning. which was manipulation after the shot. I guess one of my points is sometimes, listening to the talk, the only thing that's justifiable as a good camera is something $2000 and above. Just soooo not true. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 "I guess one of my points is sometimes, listening to the talk, the only thing that's justifiable as a good camera is something $2000 and above. Just soooo not true. " Who said that? Not in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
songtsen Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 <p>Yakim linked to <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml">an article</a> whose author was <i>"quite annoyed, and so decided to write this rebuttal"</i> to <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm">this article</a> which says<i> " the artists whose works you admire tend to use fancy, expensive tools"</i> because</p> <p><i>"1.) Good tools just get out of the way and make it easier to get the results you want. Lesser tools may take more work.</p> <p>2.) They add durability for people who use these tools hard all day, every day.</p> <p>3.) Advanced users may find some of the minor extra features convenient. These conveniences make the photographer's life easier, but they don't make the photos any better.</p> <p>4.) Hey, there's nothing wrong with the best tools, and if you have the money to blow why not? Just don't ever start thinking that the fancy tools are what created the work."</i></p> <p>Rockwell's arguments don't sound all that unreasonable. Am I missing something here?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_frie Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 I think Rockwell's article is well done and justifies much of what I believe.. I read many comments in this forum from some very good photographers who try to inspire using the equipment you have and not thinking the more of it you buy the better your pics will be. My experience has taught me not to let the equipment become an obstacle to creative expression. The author of the article Yakim linked to seems to be a very annoyed person. After reading his first couple of paragraphs, which were loaded with insults and contradictions, you knew immediately where the rest was going. I can't help but think he found some truths about himself from Rockwells article to be so annoyed. Ken, I wasn't quoting anyone in this thread. j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 >> Good tools just get out of the way and make it easier to get the results you want. Lesser tools may take more work. That may be true in very limited way but it can limit you and your creativity in so many ways. What if you have a slow lens and need a shallow DoF? What if you have a camera with 3MP (e.g. Canon D30) and need to print a poster where only a 39MP digital back would do? What if you have a 3 FPS camera and need 8 or 10 FPS? What if you have a slow focusing lens (e.g. non-USM) and need to shoot sports? What if you want to shoot birds and only have a short lens? The list goes on and on. He later adds about cars: Even a good driver in a crummy car like a Geo Metro can escape from multi-car police chases in broad daylight. It's the driver, not the car. Read that one here. That is: If you found one case which is true than all must be true, right? Oh, yeah... Look, while I don't agree with anything MR wrights, most people (myself included) thinks that KR is not a guy to be taken seriously. He once compared a 5D and an L lens to a P&S and concluded that the P&S was almost as good. My suggestion to you is to search about KR. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now