5 Things We need to Forget About as Photographers (by Jay Goodrich)

[unfocused]

I am getting a little tired of the mantra, that the camera doesn't matter. Of course it does.

A camera is a tool, and all tools aren't equal. Some tools are better suited for certain tasks and circumstances. It also very good to know your tools and how to get the most of it, where camera/sensor tests can sometimes be helpful.

I agree. A tool certainly can't make an artistic decision for you, but it can certainly make your life easier and help to produce a better final result. If they didn't we'd all be either using our phones or cameras made out of lego.

Without going into a lot of detail, I recently made a career change that requires that I do some photography for clients. It's made me very appreciative of my 5DIII as a tool. I am frequently taking pictures in situations where the light is poor and the need to be unobtrusive is extremely important.

My clients don't care about art. They want usable pictures. This is a case where the tool makes all the difference in the world. The silent shutter feature and the high ISO performance of the 5DIII are totally dependent on the tool.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

can you accoplish taking a great image with simple gear? Of course you can... but to say the tool doesn't matter...i mean hell, my feet are pretty good tools too, they can get me from point A to point B - but if your traveling from lets say Maine to California, what will do the job quicker? Your feet? Or a car? Or train, or bus, or plane?

Yes, if I want to take a bath i could chop down a tree, cure the wood, split the wood, then gather water from rain and - once I have enough light the fire and heat the water...yes that will make a bath happen, but, wouldn't it just be easier to turn the water on and let the tub fill?

Yes, I could also use a rock as a hammer, a nail file as a saw, or any number of different ways to accomplish a goal - but isn't the better tool always gonna make the job somewhat easier?

 

[Busted Knuckles]

Practice vs. Gear - Agree
Learn how to get what you see (your vision) to be "on the sensor" or on the film. - See Practice One typically learns how the gear "sees" the environment, limitations, AND how to get your vision to line up w/ the physics of gear/software/film that is available.

Kayaker and I were having this thread type of conversation this weekend while shooting in Merritt Island Wildlife Sanctuary. Bottom line neither of us were shooting as much as we wanted and that it was time to shift priorities from the investment in gear to time shooting and transportation to locations (S.W. US, etc). We would rather buy a trip to some place very interesting than buy another uber body.

For example, on a limited budget, I would rather take a 5dII to Antelope Canyon, Moab, N/S Coyote Butte and/or Zion than buy a 1dx or the next 5d(?) body. These all could be separate trips w/ the price differential.

The next realization - after we got done shooting - was that almost everywhere can be interesting. He is from New Hampshire with has some very interesting places, and was marveling at the bird selection, etc. We didn't go black water highly reflective river or middle earth tree roots aka cypress and water oaks shooting - though we could have. Waterfalls are a bit tough to find in Florida but that doesn't mean we don't have interesting water.

Examples of "middle earth tree roots" etc can be found here https://www.flickr.com/photos/77760916@N05/

 

[Hillsilly]

Interesting read. If you ignore the whole "you must shoot in the Nat Geography School of Photography" style for your photos to be worthwhile, there's not much to disagree with: -

1. DxOMark is just one of many factors to consider when choosing a camera. And if you shoot Fuji or Canon, you are best off just ignoring it.

2. How many of us have spent time and money on photography software only to come back to LR + PS? Still, I do like my Silver Efex, Color Efex, Pictures to Exe etc etc.

3. Personally, I'm starting to prefer photostacking to using the smallest possible apertures, but that might also just be saying something about my lenses. But as anyone who shoots the occasional macro photo knows, diffraction isn't as bad as what many people believe.

4. Your views on HDR probably align with your views on whether Nat Geo/documentary style of photography is the only permissible style or whether you think that one day, maybe one day not too far away, photography might become a legitimate art form in its own right. OK, "art" might be pushing it. Perhaps "craft".

5. Not smart enough to fully understand The Matrix, but the fact that we're not all toting 1Dx's with 600/4 lenses and many of us seem to get by ok suggests that learning to use your current gear to the fullest is enough. As Bob the Builder says, "Don't go blaming your toolbox".

 

[sanj]

Great food for thought and I'm digesting it right now as I contemplate why my 6D isn't good enough when actually it is great! To illustrate I'll repost a shot from yesterday that got my amateur heart beating since I was thinking that only a high speed fast focus camera would get me this. Well with careful thought about my "handicap" I now know I can do it and with a 6D and $$ still in my pocket.

Jack

Well done and yes it is possible with your camera! But if you think you can do this will the consistency and reliability of a 1dx then you are deluding yourself.

 

[sanj]

I just read this article by Jay Goodrich and agree with majority of what he has to say:
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/blog/jay-goodrich/2015/01/5-things-we-need-to-forget-about-as-photographers.html#.VLlWTCwvWQk

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.

I agree with you. Well written.

 

[sanj]

Great article. Agree with it all. Sensor differences between all DSLRs is negligible. Post processing is way overdone in so many cases. Composition, subject, and contrast are the backbones of art - and have been for centuries. Any DSLR is technically capable to produce the results you need 99% of the time. The pics I take with my SL1 are almost indistinguishable from those taken with my 6D. The techno hype is so overdone it's almost laughable.

You are right in your thinking except the negligible you mention becomes huge in very many many critical situation - where the light drops too much, where you get one chance only to get the focus right, where the burst and buffer can't fail you, etc etc. Those are the moments for which people buy expensive equipment - When they need to be ready for adverse situations. For normal stuff what you saying is correct.

 

[sanj]

I'm not going to nitpick at the finer points but the big picture is:

Develop your own vision. Your mind's eye is the first and best tool you have in creating an image. Rely on your eyes, feet, vantage point and perspective more so than your gear.

Of course! But why not have the best gear that you can afford as well? And why stop enhancing things in PS if you can?

 

[Don Haines]

I'm not going to nitpick at the finer points but the big picture is:

Develop your own vision. Your mind's eye is the first and best tool you have in creating an image. Rely on your eyes, feet, vantage point and perspective more so than your gear.

Of course! But why not have the best gear that you can afford as well? And why stop enhancing things in PS if you can?

Definitely use the right tool, or at least the best one you can use...

The following pictures are Venus at sunset... one with a 7D2, the other with an iPhone.... tools do make a difference. (no sharpening or noise reduction on either)

 

[sanj]

I'm not going to nitpick at the finer points but the big picture is:

Develop your own vision. Your mind's eye is the first and best tool you have in creating an image. Rely on your eyes, feet, vantage point and perspective more so than your gear.

Of course! But why not have the best gear that you can afford as well? And why stop enhancing things in PS if you can?

Definitely use the right tool, or at least the best one you can use...

The following pictures are Venus at sunset... one with a 7D2, the other with an iPhone.... tools do make a difference. (no sharpening or noise reduction on either)

A point so lucidly made!

 

[Jack Douglas]

PhotoCat, as sanj stated the 1Dx is a far more capable camera, assuming you're not tired from carrying it all day up the mountainside. I'm not at all deluded, in fact I have a very capable brain and yes I don't have the BIF capability that others do. That I presently live with although I do get some.

So, back to our reality - you improvise and if you can, go for a set-up with the common birds that can be attracted in one way or another. That gets you some super nice shots if you're persistent and patient. As jrista suggested for me a long time back, you can be creative with props - what they are and how you position them.

For my chickadee I have sunflower seeds to the right and a limb where they feel confident to the left. I go fully manual but first see what the camera needs roughly for ISO 1250, 4000th sec. and consider if I can get enough DOF. It was sunny and I was able to get a slightly underexposed shot at F8. The off camera flash was set up with HSS and positioned to bounce up off some stainless tin so it filled above and in the front of the bird. Then some experimenting with manual focus and encouragement given to the models and fire away. 1 hour gave me about 60 shots (could have taken many more but the flash batteries were half dead before I started) with about 10 of them being what most folk would be very proud of.

Now back to this post. None of us who appreciate the restraint that this blog suggests are extremists. We all know that good tools are desirable and great ones are better but often not necessary other than satisfying our lust. I happen to have bought a used 1D2 to see if I'd be happy with the bulk and weight and I'm not. Maybe a 7D2 or a 5D3, but maybe nothing after being influenced by this article. I sure love the expensive camera lenses though ..... The 300 2.8 with extenders will never be regretted.

Jack

 

[thelebaron]

jeez guys, forest for the trees. : this is the general gist of what hes saying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E

 

[nda]

"Photography was invented circa 1725"

 

[sanj]

PhotoCat, as sanj stated the 1Dx is a far more capable camera, assuming you're not tired from carrying it all day up the mountainside. I'm not at all deluded, in fact I have a very capable brain and yes I don't have the BIF capability that others do. That I presently live with although I do get some.

So, back to our reality - you improvise and if you can, go for a set-up with the common birds that can be attracted in one way or another. That gets you some super nice shots if you're persistent and patient. As jrista suggested for me a long time back, you can be creative with props - what they are and how you position them.

For my chickadee I have sunflower seeds to the right and a limb where they feel confident to the left. I go fully manual but first see what the camera needs roughly for ISO 1250, 4000th sec. and consider if I can get enough DOF. It was sunny and I was able to get a slightly underexposed shot at F8. The off camera flash was set up with HSS and positioned to bounce up off some stainless tin so it filled above and in the front of the bird. Then some experimenting with manual focus and encouragement given to the models and fire away. 1 hour gave me about 60 shots (could have taken many more but the flash batteries were half dead before I started) with about 10 of them being what most folk would be very proud of.

Now back to this post. None of us who appreciate the restraint that this blog suggests are extremists. We all know that good tools are desirable and great ones are better but often not necessary other than satisfying our lust. I happen to have bought a used 1D2 to see if I'd be happy with the bulk and weight and I'm not. Maybe a 7D2 or a 5D3, but maybe nothing after being influenced by this article. I sure love the expensive camera lenses though ..... The 300 2.8 with extenders will never be regretted.

Jack

Jack apologies if you thought I was being condescending. Did not mean to. I guess 'delusional' was too strong and inappropriate. Peace.

 

[monkey44]

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.

 

[NancyP]

A fix for G.A.S.: I was staring rather intently at the 600mm f/4L no-IS sitting in the used lens area of the store, at a reasonable price. Then I thought about how much it weighs. 13# Fuggedaboutit. No occasional hand-held shots with this one! I will take 560mm at 3 pounds, even if it is a bit dim in the viewfinder (400 f/5.6L plus 1.4x TC).

 

[Jack Douglas]

Not to worry Sanj, I just gave you a good natured poke back. It is too strong a word but all of us need to have thicker skins. Mine is pretty thick.

I come to CR for the humor - yeah, OK, I have a weird sense of humor.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

Yes, NancyP.

But now there is the 400 DO and 2X with F8 camera ....ooooh

Jack

 

[martti]

I absolutely love the way a very gifted and hard working person delivers his point of view: "Cut the crap and get working". Basically, we should all know that we personally are the rate limiting step in the process of getting award-winning shots. Me, personally was just about to learn the way to take decent pictures on the 5DII when I broke it and upgraded to 5 D III. It seemed so easy, I got keepers at a much higher rate than before.
Surprise: A couple of L primes made me reconsider what I know about the 5DIII autofocus.
Not much. I did not know it at all. Now I am reading everything I can find about it and I practice on everything that moves. I know nothing.
Jay Goodrich delivered his point a bit bluntly. Unfortunately he is right in more than one way.
First, the pro grade equipment around there is largely 'good enough'.
Second, there are preciously few professionals who actually master ALL the equipment that is out there.
Third: So what. If you have a vision in your head and you know enough about technology to make it real, that's all you need.
Fourth: The bizarre...there is a misconception that a weird landscape is somehow creative. It is not. It is different, machine different. Now, there are the East European guys who use their Wacom brushes to enhance landscapes to surrealism but they are Artists. something else that people with time on their hands who have read the manuals.
Fifth: the Beliefs....NG does not want Photoshop. This is a religious attitude. There are others who want ONLY see the out-of-camera RAW's. Or people who do not want the photographer to tell his subjects how they should position themselves etc. -the fundamentalists seldom bring anything to a field of art, They are the police.

Unfortunately, art is a very non-democratic field of human activity.
People either are born with an aesthetic sense or then they are not. People are born with an eye-hand connection which turns their visual experience to an artistic representation. You are born with it or you are not. If you are born with a little of it and you work a lot...you might just make it. But life is not fair.

Then there are people who just sort of make everything they touch elegant and beautiful...they shine in art schools and they are embarrassed when people ask them ho they do it..."Is there another way" they ask.

Yeah, Jay. You are one of the chosen. I do not envy you, I feel good that you are so good in what you do.
Your pics are absolutely fantastic, No matter how long I will live, I will never ever get any shots you make like 50000 a year.
One thing you are right about: Once the camera is good enough, you have no excuses.
I will sell mine.

 

[AprilForever]

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.

Actually, film can be manipulated like crazy, right down even to cloning things out. Google about Stalin or Hitler and people disappearing fro images. Stuff can be added, dodged, burned, etc...

Film is not some untouchable purity NG dreams it to be...

Oh, and ND Grads? That's cheating too. It's HDR 1.0 (the betamode).