This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I don't believe him about every digital camera today beating film -- film / slides is a whole different world -- apples and oranges. UNLESS, you scan and digitize, then it's another different world and you're back to digital anyway. Although, it's unlikely anyone can tell the difference in a print -- unless you're trained to see those differences. And you cannot manipulate slides or film like you can manipulate digital either, which makes a huge difference in your end print too.
The "don't touch it" order of National Geographic is standard throughout the journalism industry. NO news media allows anything but minor adjustments in a photo - recently, a war journalist in Afghanistan (I think I'm correct here, the location) was fired because he removed the tip of a video box out of a war scene. He said it made the scene "more realistic" ... well, realistic is "what is now" -- he changed that 'realistic', and it cost him his job. So, why is the fact Nat Geo will not allow changes a surprise here?
What I do agree with is the premise that you MUST find your images in your camera, not in your computer. Just because you CAN manipulate doesn't mean you SHOULD. If you do ad copy or experimental work, fine - go for it. But the primary focus for all photographers should be: Learn your camera but know your heart. Learn the rules - then break those rules creatively to capture the image that appears in your soul. But capture it in your camera because manipulation will always be manipulation, and the scene you create will be a fantasy not a reality. But, if you want fantasy, manipulate away, and label it fantasy not reality. Either one is fine, and both can be done professionally. My 2 cents !
The major problem with the article, he promotes "ME" as a point of view for the work of all. Too much I and not enough how. Anytime a writer writes with an [apparent] 'ego' larger than the 'self' will come off pompous, which he does without question.
Folks have a tendency to give less credibility to that writing style, as it allows no choice. In a case like he presents, readers need a choice to believe him or not, and to use what each professional says to incorporate part or all into our system as we decide, not him decide for us. The way this is written implies that if you do it any other way, you are wrong. That's moronic and insulting, and damages the advancement of his concept.
The better slant would have been: This is 'how and why I do what I do', instead of 'do it my way or get out of town'. And the second style is not very engaging.
I just read this article by Jay Goodrich and agree with majority of what he has to say:
For all respect to his success, I disagree with the majority of what he says.
The reason is simple, he puts everybody in his own shoes.
But, we all know that there are so many shoes on this planet. The fact that cheap tools work for him doesn't mean that it works for all of us "photographers".
1 - Laboratory sensors ... He assumed that all photographers are new photographers. Actually, photographers who deserve the title are experienced photographers, not snapshooters. And I find it an insult to all pro photographers that some guy assumes that with an iPhone you will be able to shoot an NHL game for the photo to be on the front page of a news paper every single night game. You need the right tool to do the right job. No fantasy hear.
2 - Software plugins ... The fact that you work for National Geographic and 95% of your work doesn't need Photoshop didn't give you the right to categorize all Photoshop users idiots. Some people actually do beauty shots, for example. There is no way for you to be competitive not using advanced tools.
3 Diffraction ... If you ever have shot macro you would understand what is the meaning of that word. People wake up early to be able to shot tens or even hundreds of shots in order to stack them
4 HDR ... You said it yourself, it is about vision. The fact that people have different vision than yours don't give you the right to treat them as inferior.
5 - "If all you own is the phone in your pocket and you have a zest for creating, you WILL succeed."
Wake up, your Matrix is not for real. Get back to reality.
If the title was "5 Things We can ignore to become Photographers" then I would agree with him. Some photographers don't need all the bells and whistles.
But there are out there those who need to spend in order to succeed.
Especially, those whose success depends on repetitiveness at all time and conditions and not one/two, by mistake, state of the art.
The key is balance between need and want. And the name of the game is "repetitiveness and competition".
The only thing, really, I agree with him is: "So stop reading and go out and give it a try"
Sometimes, when someone is successful, he thinks he is the only one smart person on earth. Many dictators of this planet have the same mentality.
Long live film
I'm of two minds concerning this. I experienced the film days when I was in school, they had a b/w lab there. It was the time when I bought my slr gear (a Canon 620 with a "golden ring" usm lens: listen, no af noise!) which felt like space age gear in comparison to a viewfinder camera. You can actually look through the lens :-)
Psychology has it that people look upon the past with pink eyeglasses because they forget the problems. However, with film development I don't: It was expensive, you had to use the chemicals or you had to dump them and the quality of our school gear was mediocre at best.
It was fun working with color filters, pushing the exposure and fanning the light and shaking the development tank. But I'm still happy that time is past, the wildlife photography I'm doing today was unthinkable back then. Esp. since I just experienced what an "old-school" approach does to the keeper rate :->
Craft and passion beats out expense and convenience anyday imo
maybe some little boxing-glove icons could be added in there too, for adversarial and combative posters.
We had a Karma system for that. Then adversarial people would go through and click all of your posts negative.
Saying something nice about Apple was an immediate penalty.
Funny, I am seeing quite a lot fulltime wedding, portrait and landscape photographers in my vincity, who use 5D mk2 bodies with 17-40, 24-70 mk1 and 70-200 mk1 lenses, while making a living and creating spectacular images. I guess somebody should tell them the wrong of their ways
All of these photographers are obviously living under a rock because the 5D Mark III is so much better than the 5D2 that everyone should upgrade - just ask our leading commentator, neuro, who goes on incessantly about how the 5D3 is worth every penny of the markup over the 5D2.
Just because an upgraded model is significantly better in many/most respects doesn't mean the model it replaces suddenly stops taking the same pictures it's been taking all along. But I wouldn't bother asking our leading miscommentator, dilbert, who once mistook a lens for a camera but never admitted his mistake.
I received my 7D2 last Thursday and immediately set out for wildlife to photograph. My primary interest is wildlife photography and I spend one hour in a park every day before going to work. I currently use a 5D3 with a 200-400/1.4x and a 6D as my backup body (mainly for landscapes).
Going in I expected ISO 1600 on the 7D2 to be roughly the same as ISO 3200 on my 5D3. On my 5D3 at ISO 1600 I can still count the feathers on a bird, while at ISO 3200 the feather detail begins to break down but the image is still usable for most purposes.
What I found was that on the 7D2 there was still a noticeable lack of detail at ISO 1600 compared to ISO 3200 on my 5D3. Even worse, when I went down to ISO 800 there was still noticeable noise, though the images were certainly usable. This morning I spent some time photographing identical subjects with the two, and I came to the conclusion that the 7D2 simply would not work for me.
I am glad I bought it at unique photo - who said they'll take it back as long as the box is in good condition. I had hoped this would give me a bit more extra reach, but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors. Instead I intend to wait and see what Canon does with the 1Dx2.
Unfortunately my sample images are not up, but you can get an idea from this one (ISO 400).
Predator by CalevPhoto, on Flickr