laurent_jaussi

<p>Why is it so important what people consider themselves...photographer, artist, both ?<br>

<br /> I just hope anyone could have faith in themselves, do their best, progress & enjoy, and be realistic about one's work. It does'nt take long when looking at master's work (that are available everywhere now) to see the difference with your work for quality, consistency and expression...<br>

<br /> I have difficulty to understand why it is so important for people to ask others to self judge their own work...It could be easier and more direct to say "show me your images and I will see for myself if you're a photographer, an artist or both"....</p>

<p>I vote for lens or a very different body....what's the need to collect equivalent bodies, you can only use one body at a time (and one pair of shoes and one trouser)...</p>

<p>Harry Gruyaert or Alex Webb</p>

<p>If you put the lens in "MF" and the camera is not in an automatic mode....I think it should fire independently of the focussed subject, you can have everything blurry if your choice is such...am I wrong ?</p>

you bought an excellent macro lens.

A quote I like very much in that respect:

 

Elliott Erwitt

"It's about reacting to what you see, hopefully without preconception. You can find pictures anywhere. It's simply a matter of

noticing things and organizing them."

Lens Armstrong is the sportiest Lens I know....

 

(you got very sensed answer, mine was just a small wink)...

<p><strong>> Do our photos in</strong> <strong>Photo.net portfolios measure/support our wor</strong><strong>ds about photography?</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br /> yes and no, I like Fred's take on it...<br>

<br /> You don't have to be a photographer (or show your photographs) to have a valid articulated opinion about photography in general or about a particular picture...often the best essay about photography have been made by non photographers who benefit from the freedom offered by the non-making position...<br /> On the other hand, when someone deliberatly articulate an opinion as a photographer, then I would like to know who is this photographer, what kind of picture he likes and present...in this case I think the images can lower the credibility of the words if they do not support or worse contradict them...<br>

<br /> I do tend to like clear facts...if you claim to make comment as a photographer, if you are a photographer you show pictures (here or elsewhere it is your choice)...if you're not claiming to comment as a a photographer you benefit from the non-making freedom...but not both...<br>

<br /> A specific example...if someone says: "my experience as a photographer tells me this is right or wrong", then I'd like to know what kind of experience/picture....if the same pwerson would have said...in my personal opinion this is right or wrong for these reasons, then I would not want to see the pictures....</p>

<p>was it cold outside ?</p>

<p>no I don't think it's needed...but could be nice to have...</p>

not knowing the place I can't really help...it depends what subject you want to do (street, people, landscape, etc...)....but I think the

photogaphic journey starts in your immediate neighborhood...I you can't take good pictures in your immediate neighborhood you won't

anywhere....alternatively and paraphrasing...if you can make it there you'll make anywhere....

<p>no (but I still do like photography).</p>

<p>I have a 17-85 and I am happy with it...a very good walkaround lens...I don't have a 17-40 so I cannot compare...for me the quality of light makes a much larger difference than quality of the lens...what I miss maybe is the constant aperture and the internal zooming, the 17-85 zoom moves when the camera is moved which is a bit annoying for fast prefocussed street type of shooting...</p>

<p>not only in photography...</p>

<p>Steve, that's a wonderful quote about photography...</p>

yes , my answer is yes....

<p>you make the half empty bottle version...let's stay optimistic Sacrebleu !</p>

<p>popular = popular<br>

good = good<br>

popular can be good<br>

good can be popular</p>

<p>I saw an interview of Quincy Jones...he had a small story in the same vein:<br />"Put a Piano and one million dollar in bank notes next to each other and you still don't have a good melody as they don't talk to each other"....<br>

<br />It's the same in every field, you need people and their curiosity and skills to produce something...tools are OK and have consequences in that it shapes to some extent the work you can do with them...but you can have curiosity & creativity with any tools...</p>

<p>isn't it professionalism not to do something you're not sure to do well or something your're sure not to make a living with ?</p>

<p>I guess you meant PS editing......in most cases a good photo is already good before PS editing...editing make it even better...more and more, serious photojournalism contests require photographer to show their raw file...if it's cheating or not depends who judges...<br />When it's not about documentary or journalism people do what they want...and often it can be superb...<br />Now if people heavily modify images they present as "documentary or photojournalism type" to impress their friends, family and/or a bunch of PN'ers, then who really cares ?...</p>

<p>For me hobby photography is the same as someone's fishing on weekends...a hobbist photographer is about the same as a hobbyist fisher...a fish is a fish and when on the plate it makes no difference who catched it...for image it is pretty much the same....after a while with some practice and sensibility an excellent image can be captured by virtually anybody with a camera...the difference with professional is intention, consistency, dedidation, assigments and serving the need of the customer...<br />But just like fish on the plate...at the end an image is an image and hobbyist can proudly see themselves as the photographer of those images just like uncle Bernie was the proud fisherman of those fishes...nothing more and nothing less for me...<br>

<br />So in reponse to Linda (very interesting thread by the way)...I would say I am the photographer of my images but I don't feel being a photographer as it would mean nothing true to me saying I am a photographer...just like uncle Bernie is not a fisherman however good he is at catching fishes...</p>

I am not sure pixel peepers needed defense...if people like endless discussion about pixels there is really nothing wrong...some people

(especially on the net) like endless discussions about gears (this one is better than this and so on...) which is also fine when you like it...and

finally some people simply like images...it's much more difficult and involving to talk about images (and eventually emotions), it takes much more time

and you need to give some of your personality...it's sometimes much safer to speak about pixels and gears...

 

When I open a photo book I don't care at all about pixels, films vs digital & gears...I look at the photographs and text...it amazes me and

sometimes amuses me a lot to see the discussions about pixels...to be true it's even worse, I find some pleasure to follow nonsense

discussions about pixels...it's part of the fun of the net for me...

 

As an example, advertising images are often pixel peeped to perfection...and often perfectly sterile...

I would buy a book or 2 from a master I like the style and study the images carefully....and no equipment....

<p>As a hobby, for me photography is no different than fishing or sport....and satisfying images are like little trophies of the picture finding process...what you make of these images is something different depending on your intent and ambition...since you ask I guess you're looking for ideas....why not start to show your images to a wider audience like here or elsewere...and then you'll start to see the reactions and exchanges...</p>