What's limiting your photography?

[roypanos]

<p><strong><em>"2) I grew up being told that there is no limit in what I can do and I believe it."</em> </strong></p>

<p>This assertion is perhaps the most spectacular piece of idiocy I have ever read on a forum of any kind: and that's a very competitive category.</p>

<p>Interesting though, as it's an increasingly familiar refrain - in pop songs and also in "agony aunt" discussions in the media, for example. The "all must have prizes" syndrome. If life teaches us anything worthwhile, the lesson must surely include the ability to live with one's limitations. This doesn't preclude trying to get better at something.</p>

<p>On the OP, I find that my own laziness and inertia are a huge limitation. I saw a comment somewhere in which a photographer replied to a question about the value of different photographic equipment by saying that the most valuable item he'd ever bought was an alarm clock; how many mornings of beautiful light, of which there are relatively few in a European winter day, have I missed through laziness? Of course alarm clocks also have "off" buttons, which reduces their effectiveness a bit.</p>

[h._cremers]

<p>Hi Roman,<br>

I think it's a good question and you may find some good advise in all the replies.</p>

<p>I actually think nothing is limiting me, just challenging. I sometimes challenge myself by choosing a lens that i wouldn't normally take to the targeted situation. It makes you think differently.<br>

In your case you may consider to enjoy the walking with your dogs inside the forest and shooting pictures of them outside the forest, or adding some flash, or give panning a shot. Just some thoughts.<br>

Anyway, enjoy it !</p>

[rob_shooter]

<p>Time !</p>

<p>Other hobbies - golf, football, bringing up 2 young children (possible to combine photog + some of these but not my passion which is landscape)</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"2) I grew up being told that there is no limit in what I can do and I believe it."</em> </strong><br>

This assertion is perhaps the most spectacular piece of idiocy I have ever read on a forum of any kind: and that's a very competitive category.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no need to be so harsh. Everyone has limitations that they CANNOT overcome. If you're 5'2" you're not going to play in the NFL. If you're 6'6" you're not going to be a professional jockey. It's unrealistic to think otherwise.</p>

<p>That said, I believe that the spirit of the "no limits" idea (quoted above) is that we should not place artificial limits on ourselves. It's very easy to talk yourself out of attempting to reach a goal or let yourself be talked out of your ambitions by heeding the unnecessarily critical comments of others.</p>

<p>There was a story on NPR today about an 83-year-old woman who just learned to fly an airplane. She could have accepted that she was too old to try something so challenging and adventurous, but she didn't listen to those negative opinions, and now she's just enjoyed the thrill of taking her first solo flight. There are plenty of things that this lady CANNOT do, but thanks to her determination, flying a plane isn't one of them.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>Sleep..too little of it. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz</p>

[michael_smigaj]

<p>Mr. Glen Flower was possibly the only one that said it, "the best camera is the one you've got with you." I just bought the Canon S90 about 2 weeks ago and I keep that sucker on my side, on my belt with the help of the Lowepro Rezo 30 where-ever I go. I own a Nikon D50 that has taken over 80,000 shots and plenty of lenses and equipment for more serious stuff. But, there have been MANY times that I wish I had a camera with me in order to 'get that shot'. The S90 is possibly the best quality point-and-shoot camera , of it's type, currently. Whether I'm on the way home (while in the car) I've taken some cool looking night-time shots. Or maybe happen to see a nice sunset and I'll even take shots while driving. Including powerlines and automobiles in the shot gives it a very realistic 'like I'm there' look. Don't get stressed-out over having the right equipment. Get a point-and-shoot and keep it with you, wherever you go. </p><div></div>

[philippartridge]

<p>What a good response, bravo. Turned out to be an interesting range of opinion.<br>

Lots of things limit my photography: time, though I am spoilt compared to most; very often, the wrong light and/or weather; fatigue in long treks; lack of belief in my ability to get the shot I see; buses passing through grade 10 country that don't stop. <br>

But the one you are interested in is equipment. I dislike using cameras that don't deliver the desired look. I think with digital it is more the 'sensor/lens system' characteristics rather than ergonomics or menus, etc. With film they are all lovely to use in their own sweet ways and the range of films is wonderful. <br>

Another thing that limits me is often the aspect ratio of any camera if it is wrong for the image I want. This feeling led me to Sony as I need to crop and therefore need high resolution to cope with my cropping disorder.</p>

 

[jim_rendant]

<p>Equipment. If it were in my budget a Hasselblad H4 with a 64MP back + 3-4 Lenses. Carl Ziess lense capture the detail and Hasselblad captures the image.<br>

The Dynamic color ranges of todays cameras suffer. The noise produced by 35MM 16mp camera's is too common.<br>

After all doesn't a great images start with the ability to capture the moment in it's richest form, color & clarity.<br>

I think better of knowledge of where I can take a picture in photoshop. When I envision a photograph, I would like to know what tools are availble to take a great pricture and make it an excellent one.<br>

It one thing to have the tools to accomplish the task but how to use them. I don't believe one will ever know the infinte possibilities when using a tool like photoshop but to have the knowledge of 1/2 - 3/4 of it's ability would be great. This also lead to having time to shoot, work in the darkroom (photoshop) then print the final product.<br>

Inspiration is all around you. All you have to do is stop and absorb it. Envision what your goals of the image are and what tools are available to achieve those goal.</p><div></div>

[uspandey]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Time, money, talent - limits everything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What else?</p>

 

[User_1855600]

<p>Roman- your post struck a chord with me. I don't know what type of photography you do, so I'm not sure why you want or need a wide prime- I can only share my thoughts why I think the absence of a fast wide prime limits my ability to deliver unique images. I also will talk about why you might want to stay put with your Nikon system.</p>

<p>I have been making my living over the past 15 years photographing weddings The context of my thoughts are from this perspective. I recently left Canon, (and their amazing primes including the 24 1.4), for Nikon. There were two extremely important reasons for my decision: 1) Focus accuracy. 2) High quality files under poor lighting, (ie. high ISO). When the Canon 5D 'hit' focus just right, life was good- but when there were focusing issues...... Lets just say that in the privacy of my office late at night while inspecting wedding images on a 24" monitor from a 10-12 hour day only to find my best images of once-in-a-lifetime moments were OOF- I swore like a drunken sailor. To a wedding photographer, nothing is more upsetting than being in the right place, at the right time, at the right angle, with the right lens, with the subject against the right background,....only to have the camera's auto focus hunt and search and miss. A soft, out of focus image is useless and the moment is forever lost. It's crushing. However, to capture a beautiful image of a married couple dancing in dramatic ambient lighting @ f1.4, (or 1.6,1.8), in sharp focus is without comparison. The contrast of a razor-sharp rendered subject, floating in a sea of wonderfully soft out-of-focus shapes and orbs of light is simply gorgeous. The difference between 1.4 and 2.8, in this situation is night and day. A background at f1.4 is impressionistic and at f2.8 it is not. Even the difference between f2.0 and 2.8 is significant.</p>

<p>The problem with my former setup, (a couple of 5D's and a large assortment of L primes and zooms), is that focus accuracy under low light, (and even decent light), was very, inconsistent. I was missing many great images because of this limitation. I looked closely at Nikon's D700 and the reviews consistently praised focusing accuracy and great high ISO files... just what I needed so I took the plunge, (emotionally and financially), and switched to Nikon and I'm glad I did. Yes, I'm able to produce wonderfully sharp images at 2.8 with my 24-70G much more consistently than I could ever dream of with my 5D and 24-70EF.</p>

<p>I do miss my 24 1.4. If Nikon comes out with one, I'll be one of the first in line. Roman, I would think about selling your D300 and picking up a used D700 and 35 1.8. The 35mm 1.8 AFS can be used FF on the D700 and will vignette in the corners...... but not too badly. Post processing and a little cropping can solve this issue. Many times when focused at 10' or less with this lens, vignetting is virtually a non-issue. The 35 1.8 is very sharp and inexpensive. This is the best combination I have found for my current dilemma. (it's a great 'street' set-up too). Let's hope that in the not too distant future, Nikon delivers a 24 1.4 AFS, (or something close to it).</p>

<p>Like other posters have said, the obvious and most notable limitation resides a few inches behind the camera.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Equipment is definitely limiting my photography. I need a clean images at ISO ISO 819200 and a full array of f/0.5 lenses to fulfill my true vision as a photographer. Only then will my compositions be perfect and the light sublime.</p>