Abandoned at the Alter, Again

[kennykodak]

it's the eye and the skill behind it that creates the masterpeice not the latest model of something. none of the old masters had a MK V and i doubt that Monet had a red stripe around the handle of his brushes.

 

[drummstikk]

I need to upgrade, BADLY. A 5DII is not a sports camera and that's currently what I am stuck shooting with.

This is the kind of comment that brings out the old fart in me.

Within my lifetime (OK, I would have been, like, 6) the Nikon F was considered a "sports camera." The F had a blazing 3 fps firing rate. Oh, but wait! You could squeeze out 4 fps if you could shoot blind with the mirror locked up!

And think of the poor Graflex guys. (Take a single shot. Put the darkslide back in. Turn over the film holder. Pull out the other darkslide. Re-cock the shutter. Replace the flash bulb. Take another single shot three plays later. . . )

If you're shooting for Reuters or Sports Illustrated (a situation of which I, unfortunately, can only dream), yes, you probably owe it your prestigious client to acquire a top-line high-speed camera. But assuming you are shooting for the Beaver County Times or the equivalent, shooting at 3fps, or even, heaven forfend, SINGLE FRAME, would be a very good skill to learn. 10fps does not completely obviate the need for a good sense of timing in sports photography.

You might throw in some manual focusing practice while your at it, because even the best AF systems will screw up several different common sports situations (such as focusing on the big, contrasty number on the defensive tackle's back instead of the running back's face).

 

[thepancakeman]

drummstikk--you're arguments are valid to a point, but not everyone's needs are the same. I am shooting cyclists going by at 30mph, and the more I can capture individual athletes the more shots I sell. I'm not shooting for a masterpiece or even a cover photo, I'm selling to the individuals, and everyone that I miss is a lost sales opportunity.

An old school way to do this is pick your spot, set your focus and capture them as they go by. Except when they go by in groups, this doesn't work. Old world there was nothing you could do about it. With the latest and greatest I can refocus (or at least a good AF can; I doubt it's humanly possible, certainly not for me!) and recompose the shot multiple times in the span of 10 seconds and capture a whole lot more of what I'm trying to shoot.

 

[drummstikk]

drummstikk--you're arguments are valid to a point, but not everyone's needs are the same. I am shooting cyclists going by at 30mph, and the more I can capture individual athletes the more shots I sell.

Sure. And about 5 times a year I shoot a diving competition and less then 8fps leaves me in the dust. I'm definitely not saying there is never a call to take advantage of the latest technology. But if more people would actually learn to drive their Chevettes before they demand that Daddy buy them that new Porsche 911, there might be more actual PHOTOGRAPHERS out there and fewer mere "camera operators."

I guess I shouldn't complain. The more shooters that are out there with substandard skills, the better off I am.

Sometimes the pickin's are too easy. Last May, I saw a guy obviously struggling to take decent groups and portraits ahead of a college commencement with with a 5D II and range of "L" glass he'd probably just put on his VISA card. I was able to figure out who his client was and handed them my business card "in case things didn't work out their photographer." Three weeks later I had a shiny new one-year contract with a University Alumni association.

 

[thepancakeman]

I guess I shouldn't complain. The more shooters that are out there with substandard skills, the better off I am.

Sometimes the pickin's are too easy. Last May, I saw a guy obviously struggling to take decent groups and portraits ahead of a college commencement with with a 5D II and range of "L" glass he'd probably just put on his VISA card. I was able to figure out who his client was and handed them my business card "in case things didn't work out their photographer." Three weeks later I had a shiny new one-year contract with a University Alumni association.

Nice! I find myself starting to do the same thing at triathlons.

It makes me wonder, though. I mean, I've been at this all of since May with no experience or background. I know how much I don't know (which is A LOT!) And yet after doing one cycling series and one triathlon I've recieved multiple comments--from people I've never met--that "these are the best event photos (or photos of me) that I've ever seen."

So what are all those other "photographers" doing?! And how do we find their clients? 8)

 

[Edwin Herdman]

it's the eye and the skill behind it that creates the masterpeice not the latest model of something. none of the old masters had a MK V and i doubt that Monet had a red stripe around the handle of his brushes.

That's funny, but the specs absolutely do matter. Colleges of fine art may make students take a freehand drawing course (or equivalent) before taking a photography class but the two artforms are fundamentally different. Compositional skills are the same, but one is transferring images from your eye to the viewfinder, the other is looking for scenes that are already out there (even staged photos are limited by the "real world" and in this the tech specs matter).

Actually, I would go as far to say that there is one thing they have in common - the tools really do matter. Somebody working with modern paint applications and a wacom tablet can make fine gradients or perfectly smooth lines effortlessly. Classic painting basically forces the painter to do everything - which can always be great in its results but you are limited in output as a result, especially when you go big. Somebody can make perfect cel-shaded spheres all day long, and we shouldn't knock that ability translating into not just quicker but possibly more accurately rendered representations of their internal vision. We're not at the point where you can just transfer images by thought but not having to deal with the characteristics of physical brushes, pens, pencils, crayons and charcoal rubs and the rest can be very liberating. That it is so often used by people with little skill is no matter...they're still probably making better art than they would have otherwise. (Though I think that the pen tablets still aren't close to the pencil and paper experience, or even the experience of a real brush whose bristles you can see).

Today, I think that all the possibilities have made the artist's experience much more open than in the past. Nobody has taken paints away - we've just added a whole lot more possibilities. To me, that's what progress is all about.

 

[bycostello]

Just more bells and whistles for the gear hounds/ not necessarily photographers.

THIS.

+1

 

[Eagle Eye]

drummstikk--you're arguments are valid to a point, but not everyone's needs are the same. I am shooting cyclists going by at 30mph, and the more I can capture individual athletes the more shots I sell. I'm not shooting for a masterpiece or even a cover photo, I'm selling to the individuals, and everyone that I miss is a lost sales opportunity.

An old school way to do this is pick your spot, set your focus and capture them as they go by. Except when they go by in groups, this doesn't work. Old world there was nothing you could do about it. With the latest and greatest I can refocus (or at least a good AF can; I doubt it's humanly possible, certainly not for me!) and recompose the shot multiple times in the span of 10 seconds and capture a whole lot more of what I'm trying to shoot.

But you're shooting with a 40d and not crying for a 1D IV. I shoot cycling, too...with a 5d Mark II and a 20d at 5fps. If someone can't find a 1d Mark IV and for some reason the 5d Mark II is so inferior, buy a 7d as someone else had mentioned. There are LOADS of full-time photographers that don't use the 1-series. National Geographic for years sent their photographers on assignment with EOS 5d's (they may still; I don't know anyone there anymore). I've seen 7d's and 5d's carried by photographers on the field at NFL games. It is a lot of fun to see a new camera body get announced with new technology, but let's all try to get a grip and realize that our pictures are not going to magically get better with this new technology. No doubt the jump from film to our modern digital cameras has improved the quality of pro photographs, but now that we're (almost) all using digital, the returns are minimal on new bodies. Is the 1d III so outdated that people can't use it for pro work? REALLY? C'mon. I plan on keeping my bodies until it's more cost effective to replace than repair. A person who makes their living off of photography shouldn't be buying a new pro body every time it's released; that's just bad financial planning for a business. There is no way they'd be increasing their business so much by the "upgrade" to recoup that loss.

 

[skitron]

...but let's all try to get a grip and realize that our pictures are not going to magically get better with this new technology...

I agree. Between stellar glass and stellar RAW processing on the desktop a decent body should be able to get a lot of mileage. Only substantial gains in low light/noise performance interest me much (as long as I remain rationale and don't fall into GAS).

 

[nesarajah]

Once again, we've been led to the alter, only to be abandoned there.

kinda hoping they don't . Just ended buying a 7D. I hate technology. Why can't we all be single ?