31
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:57:31 PM »Arguments don't matter, they're only an inconvenience.+1 Ha! Good one!
May 25, 2013, 10:19:08 AM
Show Posts
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.
32
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:55:42 PM »Wading up close to a Western Grebe?? Ya, that's not going to happen... no matter how inconvenient..."I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"
That's the whole point right there but gear makes the job more convenient.
No, that's not the point. It was never anyone's point. Its been YOUR point, but you've been ignoring everyone elses' point.
I'll try one last time. Lets see whether you succeed or fail at this test.
You see a Western Grebe off the sandy shore you are standing on. You are standing right at the waters edge. The Grebe some 65 feet off shore. The water out there is 10 feet deep. You have at your disposal a supercheap $109 Canon PowerShot A1400, and a 5D III with a 600mm f/4 L lens. Which camera will take the better photo?
And I don't mean something that is more convenient. I mean, BETTER PHOTO. Sharper detail. Less noise. Thinner DOF. Brighter exposure. No blur from camera shake. BETTER FRIKKIN PHOTO!! Which camera?
Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.
33
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:25:42 PM »Indeed, yet it doesn't negate the fact that gear matters... Cave drawings are quite artistic as well, yet the same drawing may look better when rendered with colored pencil than chisels... Although it certainly wouldn't survive the ages!Agreed, it is a matter of convenience and we can all say, "give me a camera and I'll get something out of it". The difference is that getting something out of it and getting something great out of it may be two different things, no? So I agree that gear is a matter of convenience, yet I also would be inclined to say "gear matters" for a myriad of other reasons as well, such as quality of your images, which isn't so much of a convenience as it is a benefit...What about an insinuation that drools with repetition? Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.
Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
Touché.
Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one). Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5? Because...gear matters.
It would be more convenient to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more convenient.
Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just be more In-convenient to do so.
Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.
So for me, "gear matters" and it is a "matter" of convenience as well...You are both correct!
Ah ha! Let's say we have a brownie box cam, virtually no controls, with enough fore-thought could you take the presidential portrait with it? I would bet yes, and would wager that it would even be pretty cool.
I started with pretty lousy equipment but when I look back, Some of my favorite shots are with that lousy equipment.
34
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:22:54 PM »I'll buy that, so it combines both genres, is it Artography?All that is done before the shutter is closed, thus is taken as photography.
So it's okay to change the background before the shutter is pressed ("Please step over hear for a better background to this shot") but not after? What is so magic about closing the shutter?
Don't get me wrong or take me as too antagonistic--I get what you're saying, I'm just challenging the idea that there is something magical about pushing the button to capture an image. If you're shooting a portrait in front of the Eiffel tower, you can buy plane tickets and fly over there and do it "for real" or use an Eiffel tower backdrop or green screen and composite it. The only difference in the net result (if well done) is the cost of flying to Paris. It's hard to get past the emotional push of the "true" or "pure" photograph, but again, if there is no discernible difference in the resulting photo, what is the justification for the hassle and expense?
The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
Compositing Images into a new image is Digital Art. It just as valid and can be more awe-inspiring but it's not photography.
IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.
36
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:16:35 PM »Agreed, it is a matter of convenience and we can all say, "give me a camera and I'll get something out of it". The difference is that getting something out of it and getting something great out of it may be two different things, no? So I agree that gear is a matter of convenience, yet I also would be inclined to say "gear matters" for a myriad of other reasons as well, such as quality of your images, which isn't so much of a convenience as it is a benefit...What about an insinuation that drools with repetition? Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.
Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
Touché.
Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one). Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5? Because...gear matters.
It would be more convenient to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more convenient.
Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just be more In-convenient to do so.
Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.
So for me, "gear matters" and it is a "matter" of convenience as well...
You are both correct!
37
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 03:10:08 PM »That being said, I think gear matters. If not, I'd be shooting with my Xsi or my 7D as much as ever. The fact is however I don't, the XSi is long sold and my 7D sits in solitude not seeing much action these days as the acquisition of my 5D Mk III has moved into a place of more relevance, not as a matter of convenience, as a matter of the gear made a notable difference, hence, the gear matters. In my instance anyway!
And to try to get back on subject, I shoot with a 60D. I am thinking VERY hard about upgrading to a 7D2 when it comes out. The 7D is better, but not enough so as to tempt me to buy one. For me, the two big things that would (hopefully) help me are better AF system and higher burst rate, but there are a lot of little things I would not turn my nose up at. I'd like to have it NOW!!!!, but that's just not going to happen. Realistically, I had expected to see it in stores by Christmas.... so a few month's more won't hurt. After all, if you are into wildlife photography, patience may well be the most important skill of all.
I think the 7D2 will certainly have an upgraded AF system, which will be great! Burst rate on the 7D is great but I'm with you, if it was a bit more that would be great, if not, I'm okay with 8fps. I like so many others would love to see a dramatic difference in the high ISO area though...
38
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 02:57:53 PM »
Well said and agreed. It would be like saying that if in someone else's opinion you take it too far, then perhaps we should ban digital photography all together and simply shoot film. Although as you aptly put, those of us that worked with film, pushed the processing in film as well...
Is there a line which creates a dichotomy between photographer and artist? Perhaps some are "Artographers". If so, perhaps it is all subject to the Artographer's vision?
I'm not offended or dismayed by anyone's vision of what they did with their photos. It's "theirs" not mine, whether I like it or not...
Is there a line which creates a dichotomy between photographer and artist? Perhaps some are "Artographers". If so, perhaps it is all subject to the Artographer's vision?
I'm not offended or dismayed by anyone's vision of what they did with their photos. It's "theirs" not mine, whether I like it or not...
In my humble opinion (which is often wrong - not the humble part), unless you are taking photos to go into a newspaper or photos that are intended to prove a point (i.e. polar bears swimming and drowning in iceless water etc. - no need to debate the example I chose) there is no such thing as ethics.
Any line that anyone choses to stand on is simply aesthetics and preference. There is no absolute. Photography and art are supposed to be interpretations of reality. Now, if you tell me your photo is pure reality and it isn’t that’d be cheating. If you just ask me if I like it, the fact that it is a composite is not relevant.
The idea that great photos are created in the camera is a myth. True, some great photos are created in the camera alone. I won’t argue that. However, Adams was notorious for spending hours in the darkroom in order to push his negatives and prints to replicate what he saw, his interpretation of reality. Take a look at how dark half-dome is in some of his most well-known photos. Take a look at the cemetery stones glowing in moon rise. Then watch a few documentaries or read a few books about him (not by him) and see what people say about the time he spent in the darkroom on those photos alone. The idea that beauty is created when the shutter is pressed isn’t fair, nor is it reality.
Reflecting reality the way you see it is just that, reflecting reality. It isn’t reality in and of itself. We don’t have to get into a philosophical debate and start citing Kant. But art is, I assume, wildly recognized as reflecting. You can choose to reflect it anyway you want. Some may think that it is bad art, but it is still art.
I’m often reminded of one of my favorite long-running best-friend adversarial relationships. Wordsworth and Coleridge. Wordsworth represented that his poetry was written on the fly, that something struck him and this beautiful complicated language rolled out of his head and on to his page. He even started to name poems in a way to imply this “Lines composed a few miles above Tinturn Abbey”. Excuse my butchering of his title. Coleridge, suffering from addiction and a raft of other social problems tried so hard to replicate Wordsworth’s easy-going technique. He suffered so much trying to let the words just flow. Instead he suffered, he wrote for hours on end, locked himself away for months to get the right rhyme or pattern. He did write some of the best Romantic poetry ever written – Ancient Mariner, Kubla Kahn. But he suffered. Funny thing is Wordsworth was having him on. He worked just as hard. The poetry didn’t spill out of him, he agonized over it, just like Coleridge. Difference is he never let on.
Long way to say, I think that this type of mentality, that beauty just spills out, particularly when there are dozens of tools in photography, and there always has been, to manipulate the raw negative, is way-of-base.
If Adams, Man Ray and their buddies can manipulate an image to reflect the reality they wanted, then so be it. It’s their art. It’s still a photo.
I do think that photos will suffer when pushed to far. I do like your image, but if you look at the fur, it just doesn’t look at good in the manipulated version. It suffers from the electronic manipulation. Noise, degradation. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be art though.
39
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 02:47:31 PM »What about an insinuation that drools with repetition? Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.
Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
That being said, I think gear matters. If not, I'd be shooting with my Xsi or my 7D as much as ever. The fact is however I don't, the XSi is long sold and my 7D sits in solitude not seeing much action these days as the acquisition of my 5D Mk III has moved into a place of more relevance, not as a matter of convenience, as a matter of the gear made a notable difference, hence, the gear matters. In my instance anyway!
40
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 01:57:37 PM »One would assume, however the one wasn't allowed anywhere at anytime... for who knows why. I agree with you though!Could very well depend on their skill level...I love being devil's advocate.
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience. That's how I feel about equipment.
Fine, but a proper devil's advocate should present a cogent argument...otherwise, you're merely being contrary and argumentative.
Sure, Let's imagine that at said Olympics, your allowed to be anywhere at anytime but the catch is that your only had a 50mm and a 5Dc. Nothing more or less...
Who would get the better shots? The photographer standing in the convienent photo pit with $$$$$ in gear or the photog allowed anywhere at anytime? I'd put my money on the latter.
I'm assuming that photog's allowed into the olympics have good skill sets.
41
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 01:56:26 PM »I think that kind of editing is fine - but you should disclose what edits youve made to those interested. I think something looks wrong with the horizon of the edited pic. Its too soft, though i may not have came to that conclusion if i didnt see the original.If you're referring to my quick edit, I did use some selective sharpening and unsharpening... Think I mentioned that though...
42
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 01:38:19 PM »Could very well depend on their skill level...I love being devil's advocate.
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience. That's how I feel about equipment.
Fine, but a proper devil's advocate should present a cogent argument...otherwise, you're merely being contrary and argumentative.
Sure, Let's imagine that at said Olympics, your allowed to be anywhere at anytime but the catch is that your only had a 50mm and a 5Dc. Nothing more or less...
Who would get the better shots? The photographer standing in the convienent photo pit with $$$$$ in gear or the photog allowed anywhere at anytime? I'd put my money on the latter.
43
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 01:36:22 PM »On to your second invalid point, who cares HOW I got the shot? Secondly, today I am getting far more shots than I did with previous models. I'm printing way more 8x10's and printing way cleaner files. Why is this so hard to understand?Indeed...
I have not met a client who cares HOW I got the shot. They care that I got the shot. Do I spray and pray sometimes? Heck yes I do, because I get more great shots and sell more photos and make more money. I haven't heard a client go "well your shot is better but you used the spray and pray method and your competitor used 5 fps and used care and patience so we're buying his shot even though it's not quite as good." I agree with you that you should be skilled in composition and timing, however.
Being a smart photographer is also one who uses equipment that he/she knows how to use to help him/her get the highest quality shots that they can and even the MOST shots that they can. I bought a 1Dx because I knew it would give me cleaner files and a lot more of them. Yes I agree I need to know how to use the gear, and have the skill to use the gear, but all else equal (composition, creativity, etc.) it is nothing but the gear that is increasing my quality at this point. Maybe that will change, but that is the only thing in the last year.
44
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 09, 2013, 01:34:14 PM »hard to believe the implications here that becuse someone sprays they are also "just praying", as if a high fps was a crutch that real togs dont' need.+1 Agreed!
45
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 01:29:24 PM »
I hope this was okay I just wanted to see the difference if adjustments were made as suggested. I only took about 4 or 5 minutes so I just copied the original and tried adding some global adjustments as suggested, just for giggles...
Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk... Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting... I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.
Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk... Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting... I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.