|
On March 24 2010 09:22 tRi[T]oN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on + Show Spoiler [pic] +and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..) + Show Spoiler [pic] +I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet... probably looks more like this + Show Spoiler + actually more like this + Show Spoiler +while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke  Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above.
Yes, a point well made, but there is a reason why all the pros have good cameras.
In sports photography especially, you are basically useless without high-tech equipment.
Other fields like portraits or urban scenery or whatever may be more indulging on the technical side, but you won't get amazing landscapes (most of the times) without your filters/tripod/high dynamic range and you certainly won't be able to get good shots of professional athletes in low lighting condition without a decent camera and lens
|
On March 24 2010 09:22 tRi[T]oN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on + Show Spoiler [pic] +and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..) + Show Spoiler [pic] +I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet... probably looks more like this + Show Spoiler + actually more like this + Show Spoiler +while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above.
no one said it's the equipment that defines the photo
stop putting words on people's mouths
but even the most skilled artists need the proper equipment to maximize their potential
sure the pianist can play an upright yamaha pretty well but it would be more inspiring if he played on a bosendorfer imperial
it's all about minimizing the technical limitations of the medium so that the artist can express himself fully and freely
unforunately, usually the more expensive the equipment, more technically unrestricting it tends to be
having said that, i don't think this photographer needs a canon 1d mark iii with this type of .. art. a nikon d40 should suffice really
|
On March 24 2010 09:29 phosphorylation wrote:
having said that, i don't think this photographer needs a canon 1d mark iii with this type of .. art. a nikon d40 should suffice really
I agree that those particular photos could have been made with the D40, however I was just making a point. Also why not use the opportunity to link a kickass picture of the Mark II, it's so freaking awesome
|
On March 24 2010 09:26 minus_human wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 09:22 tRi[T]oN wrote:On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on + Show Spoiler [pic] +and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..) + Show Spoiler [pic] +I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet... probably looks more like this + Show Spoiler + actually more like this + Show Spoiler +while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above. Yes, a point well made, but there is a reason why all the pros have good cameras. In sports photography especially, you are basically useless without high-tech equipment. Other fields like portraits or urban scenery or whatever may be more indulging on the technical side, but you won't get amazing landscapes without your filters/tripod/high dynamic range and you certainly won't be able to get good shots of professional athletes in low lighting condition without a decent camera
Its often the lens that is more important than the camera but yes, obviously for sports shots you have to have a camera that is capable of a high frame rate. As far as dynamic range is concerned there isnt much difference in a lot of those cameras, its even less important when all you have to do is bracket the shot and use HDR in PS or similar program. People complaining about blurring stuff for no reason are just not really aware that not every photo is meant to be perfectly sharp everywhere, thats why there is shallow/deep depth of focus. everyone has their own unique style, or at least something they would like to thing is unique to them.
|
5D markii FTW
Although, if I really had endless funds, I would buy a Leica M9.
|
On March 24 2010 09:29 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 09:22 tRi[T]oN wrote:On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on + Show Spoiler [pic] +and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..) + Show Spoiler [pic] +I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet... probably looks more like this + Show Spoiler + actually more like this + Show Spoiler +while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above. no one said it's the equipment that defines the photo stop putting words on people's mouths
while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke
That was said by minus_human above, the fact that someone would consider something a joke in their profession would imply that they would not use it in order to create a decent photograph therefore he IMPLIED that the camera makes the photo. so please shhh.
|
umm that's a pretty big logical leap that uve made
|
On March 24 2010 09:32 tRi[T]oN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 09:26 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 09:22 tRi[T]oN wrote:On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on + Show Spoiler [pic] +and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..) + Show Spoiler [pic] +I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet... probably looks more like this + Show Spoiler + actually more like this + Show Spoiler +while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above. Yes, a point well made, but there is a reason why all the pros have good cameras. In sports photography especially, you are basically useless without high-tech equipment. Other fields like portraits or urban scenery or whatever may be more indulging on the technical side, but you won't get amazing landscapes without your filters/tripod/high dynamic range and you certainly won't be able to get good shots of professional athletes in low lighting condition without a decent camera Its often the lens that is more important than the camera but yes, obviously for sports shots you have to have a camera that is capable of a high frame rate. As far as dynamic range is concerned there isnt much difference in a lot of those cameras, its even less important when all you have to do is bracket the shot and use HDR in PS or similar program. People complaining about blurring stuff for no reason are just not really aware that not every photo is meant to be perfectly sharp everywhere, thats why there is shallow/deep depth of focus. everyone has their own unique style, or at least something they would like to thing is unique to them.
Please forgive me for using an ad-hominem argument, but I don't think you are very familiar with landscape photography.
I remember following Andy Mumford's journal on deviantart, and when he bought a Nikon D3 he was astonished by the fact that it was ages ahead of his previous D80 in terms of dynamic range. He posted a few photos taked on the spot, including one of a very sunny beach and the sky + sand. This is the picture, and while it's not perfect, it is not edited at all.
![[image loading]](http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs38/f/2008/333/b/e/Nikkor_17_35_test_by_AndyMumford.jpg)
I'm pretty sure I could never get such a photo on my EOS 400D or on a nikon d80 or whatever without filters/editing.
Also the noise levels on iso 1600 and up is just ridiculously small on the professional cameras compared to ones which cost under $1000.
|
|
|
On March 24 2010 09:35 tRi[T]oN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 09:29 phosphorylation wrote:On March 24 2010 09:22 tRi[T]oN wrote:On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on + Show Spoiler [pic] +and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..) + Show Spoiler [pic] +I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet... probably looks more like this + Show Spoiler + actually more like this + Show Spoiler +while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above. no one said it's the equipment that defines the photo stop putting words on people's mouths while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke That was said by minus_human above, the fact that someone would consider something a joke in their profession would imply that they would not use it in order to create a decent photograph therefore he IMPLIED that the camera makes the photo. so please shhh.
I don't understand your logic. The most expensive cameras have a DEFINITE edge over cheaper ones, it's how life works. A photographer who is a professional would use the best gear available/affordable (excluding sentimental affiliations to certain brands/products which although not rare, still are an exception).
It would feel for them as it would feel for me to pick up a $200 dollars point-and-shoot after 2 years of using the Canon Rebel XTi.
Also for your knowledge, lone professional photographers who use really low-tech equipment are a definite exception, most people remove as much of the technical limits as possible.
It's not that the camera makes the photo, it's that people who make good photos prefer good cameras. Good photos CAN be made with cheap cameras, but those are rarities and there certainly are FIELDS of photography where no matter how good you are, without the technology, your talent cannot materialize into art.
|
On March 24 2010 09:49 minus_human wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 09:35 tRi[T]oN wrote:On March 24 2010 09:29 phosphorylation wrote:On March 24 2010 09:22 tRi[T]oN wrote:On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on + Show Spoiler [pic] +and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..) + Show Spoiler [pic] +I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet... probably looks more like this + Show Spoiler + actually more like this + Show Spoiler +while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above. no one said it's the equipment that defines the photo stop putting words on people's mouths while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke That was said by minus_human above, the fact that someone would consider something a joke in their profession would imply that they would not use it in order to create a decent photograph therefore he IMPLIED that the camera makes the photo. so please shhh. I don't understand your logic. The most expensive cameras have a DEFINITE edge over cheaper ones, it's how life works. A photographer who is a professional would use the best gear available/affordable (excluding sentimental affiliations to certain brands/products which although not rare, still are an exception). It would feel for them as it would feel for me to pick up a $200 dollars point-and-shoot after 2 years of using the Canon Rebel XTi. Also for your knowledge, lone professional photographers who use really low-tech equipment are a definite exception, most people remove as much of the technical limits as possible. It's not that the camera makes the photo, it's that people who make good photos prefer good cameras. Good photos CAN be made with cheap cameras, but those are rarities and there certainly are FIELDS of photography where no matter how good you are, without the technology, your talent cannot materialize into art.
only i got my used xti for 220 dollars
|
On March 24 2010 09:55 phosphorylation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 09:49 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 09:35 tRi[T]oN wrote:On March 24 2010 09:29 phosphorylation wrote:On March 24 2010 09:22 tRi[T]oN wrote:On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on + Show Spoiler [pic] +and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..) + Show Spoiler [pic] +I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet... probably looks more like this + Show Spoiler + actually more like this + Show Spoiler +while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke Any real photographer knows that it isnt the camera that defines the photo its the photographer. Give someone like david la chapelle a fucking phone cam and he will stomp you even if u do have the above. no one said it's the equipment that defines the photo stop putting words on people's mouths while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke That was said by minus_human above, the fact that someone would consider something a joke in their profession would imply that they would not use it in order to create a decent photograph therefore he IMPLIED that the camera makes the photo. so please shhh. I don't understand your logic. The most expensive cameras have a DEFINITE edge over cheaper ones, it's how life works. A photographer who is a professional would use the best gear available/affordable (excluding sentimental affiliations to certain brands/products which although not rare, still are an exception). It would feel for them as it would feel for me to pick up a $200 dollars point-and-shoot after 2 years of using the Canon Rebel XTi. Also for your knowledge, lone professional photographers who use really low-tech equipment are a definite exception, most people remove as much of the technical limits as possible. It's not that the camera makes the photo, it's that people who make good photos prefer good cameras. Good photos CAN be made with cheap cameras, but those are rarities and there certainly are FIELDS of photography where no matter how good you are, without the technology, your talent cannot materialize into art. only i got my used xti for 220 dollars
I think more and more that that's what I should have done, because ever since I spent what felt like a fortune on my new XTi, I can't save enough for a decent lens to save my life
|
|
|
How are people still awed by photos with somewhat unusual angles and sepia/polariod filter. It's as if they can't tell what is RAW and what is post.
Also, high end camera bodies do make a major difference. A great photographer could take great photos with bad gear but thats an exception to the rule.
Anyone have any idea what OP is shooting on? Or is it a 5dMk2 w/ 70-200/18-55/50 Prime like most people these days? I can't seem to pull any exif data.
|
Phosphorylation where is your portfolio and who do you work for?
I smell jealousy in lethal amounts. It is when people are jealous that they criticize a photographer for "sensationalist" photos, even after they know that these shots were taken for an extreme sports magazine which needs its front page to be flashy as fuck.
When you consider what the guy was hired for he was doing his job perfectly. This is not for a gallery and even then I still proclaim that those photos are beautiful. You'd have to be pretty blind not to be visually attracted to those photos.
Also people saying that "camera isn't that important blahblah" people know you need skill, but frankly it can't be bad to have a better camera.
|
Oh and the reason I said genius is to attract viewers lol, but I really like this guy's eye and his ridic work ethic.
|
NeverGG
United Kingdom5399 Posts
On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on + Show Spoiler [pic] +and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..) + Show Spoiler [pic] +I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet... probably looks more like this + Show Spoiler + actually more like this while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke
LOL I did most of my early photography for eSports using a D40X and some of my more recent concert photos. The EOS5D blows it away in terms of coping with low lighting and allowing me to edit my photos using massive/HQ raws.
I'd punch someone's granny for a 1D Mark II though :/
|
Also to the people who were talking about stylistic blur, move your hand closer to your face.
|
On March 24 2010 11:51 NeverGG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:17 minus_human wrote:On March 24 2010 04:57 iSiN wrote:On March 24 2010 04:52 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:film camera: the old school ones, require film on which the photos are printed on + Show Spoiler [pic] +and the digital, the new-type ones. each photo is basically a 010101101 type combination (i'm guessing..) + Show Spoiler [pic] +I know shit about photography actually, but I guess this is a very newbie question :p You're right but the digital camera you posted is a cheap point and shoot camera he's using something a bit more expensive I'd bet... probably looks more like this + Show Spoiler + actually more like this while the D40 is not a bad camera, it is entry level and I'm sure any professional photographer considers it a joke LOL I did most of my early photography for eSports using a D40X and some of my more recent concert photos. The EOS5D blows it away in terms of coping with low lighting and allowing me to edit my photos using massive/HQ raws. I'd punch someone's granny for a 1D Mark II though :/
LOL I know, hope your not offended
love your photos btw
|
On March 24 2010 11:40 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Phosphorylation where is your portfolio and who do you work for?
I smell jealousy in lethal amounts. It is when people are jealous that they criticize a photographer for "sensationalist" photos, even after they know that these shots were taken for an extreme sports magazine which needs its front page to be flashy as fuck.
When you consider what the guy was hired for he was doing his job perfectly. This is not for a gallery and even then I still proclaim that those photos are beautiful. You'd have to be pretty blind not to be visually attracted to those photos.
Also people saying that "camera isn't that important blahblah" people know you need skill, but frankly it can't be bad to have a better camera.
OK, but I still would not have put 'genius' in the thread title with caps lock. Not by a long shot
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://retrothing.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/canonae1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/Sony-DSC-W90-digital-camera.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.photoshopsupport.com/photoshop-blog/06/11/ib/nikon-d40-digital-camera.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Pic/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-II-N-Digital-Camera.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i42.tinypic.com/2hxv9ev.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i39.tinypic.com/s3kfv4.jpg)
