More Americans Becoming Serious Photographers

[john_h.1]

<p>http://whattheduck.net/strip/625</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I think that for many people just the willingness to shell out a lot of money for an DSLR shows that

they want better quality photos than they are getting from their P&S or cell phone.

 

I think that many people who upgrade from a lesser camera, shelling out money for a dSLR, believe they

will become a better photographer as a result.

 

 

That is is very debatable. There's a huge difference between making "photographs with better image quality" and making "better photographs."

[MichaelChang]

<p>It's interesting that this type of discussion never occurs in the amateur/professional astronomy community. </p>

<p>People do things for their own reasons and their quest for knowledge and betterment should always be encouraged regardless of experience, budget, age, approach, or rate of progress. </p>

[KyleE]

<p>I don't think there is anything wrong with the premise of the article, I just find the writing in the article to be very poor. There were several things that irritated me about how uninformed the writer of that article is. First the idea that SLR type cameras are the sign of a 'serious' photographer or that it has been the standard. I don't think the type of camera is important rather the photos produced and the effort put into the craft. Not only that but the author is completely ignoring rangefinder, TLR, and large format style cameras. All of those have been and currently are used to produce amazing work. </p>

<p>Second the idea that primes are 'obscure'. I am not that old and I remember that the inclusion of zoom lenses as a kit lens is a relatively (to the age of photography) a recent development. Primes were the standard for a long time, everyone remembers the days of the nifty fifty. </p>

<p>The article is interesting and the shift from casual to enthusiast is interesting. I do think as others have mentioned that there might be a correlation between people willing to spend more money on photography and an increased interest in getting good results and being more enthusiastic about photography. Though there is not a direct connection between better photograph = more enthusiastic. In our increasingly consumeristic and status driven society there are more and more people who buy a better camera just because. </p>

<p>I would be interested to see if there is also an increased amount of people attending photography workshops or taking photography classes at schools. That would be a more accurate measure of weather or not more people are beginning to be more serious about their photography. </p>

<p>The end result is that this article feels like it isn't written for an uninformed enthusiast as much as a 15 year old who hasn't done any research into photography and has no recollection of what photography was like before digital. </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Photography comes and goes as a popular hobby. I remember when the Canon AE-1 came out and everyone had to have one. Later the Canon Elph became very popular. Then digital P&S's became very popular. Now DSLR's are very popular. I see a lot of young parents photographing their children with DSLR's. They like them because they have virtually no shutter lag or next picture lag. These parents are tired of missing shots of their active children because of those lags. Even if they put their DSLR's on full auto they'll get fewer missed pictures.</p>

<p>Living in NYC I see lots of tourists and many of them are using DSLR's. Does that make them more serious about photography? It probably makes many of them more serious. Some just put them on full auto and hope for the best, but I'm sure that many of them put in the time to learn how to use them and to learn more about photography in general. Most may never become as serious about photography as most of us are, but they don't have to.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Lowly evolved but serious photography.</p><div></div>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think there is anything wrong with the premise of the article, <strong>I just find the writing in the article to be very poor</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sums it up. GiGo (Garbage in garbage out). You aren't going to be able to draw any insightful conclusions from something that says, "The mark of 'serious' photography, going back to the film days, has always been the single-lens reflex, or SLR, camera." By this metric Ansel Adams for most of his career was not "serious." Why people spend any time reading beyond a sentence like that let alone searching for meaning within it I will never know.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's interesting that this type of discussion never occurs in the amateur/professional astronomy community.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Astronomy is blessed to be a field that started off <em>in modern times</em> as a science. If you go to a local star party and start talking about the Hubble Telescope no one is going to get angry and call you a pixel peeper. No self respecting astronomer would get on the internet and berate people because they think a pro using an iphone 4s as their sole tool to do astrophotography is a bit hackish and gimmicky. But "artists" know better I guess. You can speak objectively about optical equipment with astronomers and no one gets offended like they are the sole shareholder of Apple. Try that with an "artist." Frankly I'm glad there are "pixel peepers" at NASA.</p>

<p>I've attached the Hubble deep field picture. The "pixel peepers" at NASA spent billions on the Hubble telescope. Then they pointed it to an "empty" patch of deep space and took a picture with a ten day exposure. Great equipment. Wonderful technique. Terrible composition. What were they thinking? It's a shame they obsessed so much about equipment. If they were true "artists" and used an iphone there is no telling what they would have accomplished. Instead they got a picture where every point of light, save for one, represents a galaxy. I wish they had been more "artistic" and come up with an awe inspiring image that has "impact" and fundamentally changes our view of our universe. It's a shame. [/sarcasm]</p><p><b>Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post photos that you did not take.</b></p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>the author is completely ignoring rangefinder, TLR, and large format style cameras. All of those have been and currently are used<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The short article discusses trends of what Americans are doing in general. These things are generally irrelevant and a waste of real estate to that issue. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>First the idea that SLR type cameras are the sign of a 'serious' photographer or that it has been the standard.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most 'serious photographers' use SLR/DSLR cameras. It may not be indicative that someone using one is serious but it is arguably the workhorse standard of pros and advanced amateurs even though other cameras are used.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Second the idea that primes are 'obscure'... ...Primes were the standard for a long time</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If they were not standard, they were obscure to some extent. Again the article is not about us. Its about what people, in general, are doing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You aren't going to be able to draw any insightful conclusions from something that says, "The mark of 'serious' photography, going back to the film days, has always been the single-lens reflex, or SLR, camera." By this metric Ansel Adams for most of his career was not "serious."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the most part, it was the SLR being used and recognizing that is not, itself, a claim that other photography was not serious.</p>

<p>Yes the article is flawed but, you guys are reading way to far in to it.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>If they were not standard, they were obscure to some extent. Again the article is not about us. Its about what people, in general, are doing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you go back to your parents' house and rummage around in the closet you will find a prime lens. I grew up in the old days... 1980s and the only lenses my dad owned growing up were primes. He couldn't afford zooms. As someone else previously stated someone from the Justin Bieber generation wrote this article from a perspective of extreme ignorance and then made some absurd generalizations. It was a poorly researched and written article and it can be safely ignored.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Old Days! 1839 was the Old Days. Anything written <strong>here</strong> can be safely ignored. What's a "Just and Beaver" sonny?<br /> When my dad retired, way back when, he bought an AE1 with a nice tele, prime, and other accessories He took a couple of rolls threw it in the closet and forgot about it. I recently gave all to a young photo student with a large tattoo on her back. Didn't know what TX meant. Never got a look at the whole tatoo.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Old Days!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Calling the 1980s "the old days" was a bit of humor to show the absurdity of the article. Primes are not some archeological relic from the distant past. Anyone that says that identifies themselves to me as a Justin Bieber aficionado that can't see two inches beyond their nose... because there is an iphone blocking the view.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Anything written <strong>here</strong> can be safely ignored.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess the question is why do you read what's posted here... and then respond? As with any gaggle of primates some will have a clue and some won't. I've gleaned a lot of information from the primates here that have a clue.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>If you go back to your parents' house and rummage around in the closet you will find a prime lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Acknowledging that rummaging though closets of parents homes may be needed to find any prime lenses isn't exactly conducive to to your argument that prime lenses are commonplace fixtures for most consumers.</p>