I've read this entire thread, and my brain hurts. I've noticed that if someone does not include all this information, someone, or several, will ask for it. I agree that brands of equipment are not really necessary. Camera body and/or lens info is a toss up. ISO, shutter speed, aperture info to me would indicate a starting point. Of course reading the info in the viewfinder at full auto will also give me a starting point. Usually. I have learned on the forum to use 10-13 second exposures for fireworks, and start with 10-15 minute exposures to capture the Milky Way. Did I write all this down? No. I know where you look it up now. Do I expect some one else's settings to work for me? No. But it gives me some where to start. On my last trip to Disney, I tried almost every night to photograph the fireworks. Wrong! Next time I think I might have a chance. But the bottom line, having a decent knowledge of exposure, understanding that the meter can be fooled, learning to expose for highlights or shadows, and having that chimp screen, I will try, try, and try again till I get an acceptable image, then try some more. I'm not afraid to experiment, not afraid to twist the knobs, not afraid vto take a bad photo. And, using the best image I can capture, I also now know that PP will help me get there too.
So, if someone gives that info, ok. If they don't, that's ok too. I have seen some beautiful, magical photos on this forum. Some were taken with inexpensive point and shoots. Can I do it? I don't know. Will I try? Given the opportunity, yes, if I get there. Will I buy other people's work to decorate my walls? Yes. Because I'm no Rembrant nor Ansel Adams, and probably too old to hike to some of those locations.
I enjoy learning, and I enjoy a challenge. And photography gives me both.
I like to know what cain of info you like to find in a PHOTOGRAPHY magazine? I bet you like PLAYBOY for the articles, don't You?
Frank G. wrote:
This editorial observation is not directed at any posts on this site, but rather most photography magazines. I have to laugh when I see the technical info about photographs in some magazines. Do I really have to know what model tripod, or Gimbal head was used to hold up the camera that was used to take a picture ? Or is that just pretentious bragging about the photographers expensive equipment ? I also have to wonder about ISO, aperture opening, and shutter speed info.I know you can prioritize or program settings but I'm guessing [of course] that a lot of photographers shooting birds or other unpredictable moving subjects shoot first and look up info later. So it's not like the photographer knew what the camera was shooting at when taking a picture. Like I said this is just my opinion and some might think I don't know what I'm talking about. By the way in addition to my more expensive camera which in keeping with my theme I won't mention I've taken some outstanding photos ,if I do say so myself with a $100 Canon ELF. I used my left hand to hold the camera and my right index finger to click the shutter. Not that you needed to know that technical information.
Hmmm, I wonder what kind of brushes Picasso used.
This editorial observation is not directed at any ... (
show quote)
I must agree with you that the settings are not important. All a good photographer needs to do is to get the exposure " in the ball park" changing the original settings in LR editing... So what do the settings wind up to be???
The added info some starting photographers desire to know because they suppose that settings made the photograph. Settings play a part of course, but the experienced photographer adjusts settings to reflect conditions and subject. So knowing the settings for a particular photograph only provides documentation, not really a useful template.
The same for camera and lens and accessories. Listing gear used in doing photography more plays to sellers of photography equipment. Time and again we read experienced photographers telling us that camera skill not camera gear makes the difference in doing worthy photography.
Yet the listing of gear will induce the starting photographer to presume he needs this or that piece of gear to do photography for best results.
So he comes to believe that "creative" tripod will do the trick to elevate his photography at last. The magazine ad that appears in later pages confirms his impulse to buy that "creative" tripod even though expensive because he reads the word "creative" associated with it several times.
In any event, in support of your $100 ELPH camera theory, I say to do well in photography, study composition, exposure, along with the importance of subject. Your photography will improve significantly.
Frank G. wrote:
This editorial observation is not directed at any posts on this site, but rather most photography magazines. I have to laugh when I see the technical info about photographs in some magazines. Do I really have to know what model tripod, or Gimbal head was used to hold up the camera that was used to take a picture ? Or is that just pretentious bragging about the photographers expensive equipment ? I also have to wonder about ISO, aperture opening, and shutter speed info.I know you can prioritize or program settings but I'm guessing [of course] that a lot of photographers shooting birds or other unpredictable moving subjects shoot first and look up info later. So it's not like the photographer knew what the camera was shooting at when taking a picture. Like I said this is just my opinion and some might think I don't know what I'm talking about. By the way in addition to my more expensive camera which in keeping with my theme I won't mention I've taken some outstanding photos ,if I do say so myself with a $100 Canon ELF. I used my left hand to hold the camera and my right index finger to click the shutter. Not that you needed to know that technical information.
Hmmm, I wonder what kind of brushes Picasso used.
This editorial observation is not directed at any ... (
show quote)
I appreciate this site for its educational exchange. Just looking at others' photos is lovely, like at a gallery, but not informative. I appreciate the "back story" of the members' images including setting and processing. That's how I learn. Otherwise, it's just snap shots.
The amount of ink spilt over this discussion has astounded me. It would seem to me a very non controversial subject. If you're interested in the info, read; if not, ignore. I look forward to discussions on whether water is wet.
On a less flippant note, I would like to know if others have done street photography and how they feel how comfortable they are with taking strangers photos. Street photography intrigues me, it's an area that have not engaged in but I have a hesitation about taking photos of people that I don't know without their permission. I would like to know other people's opinions on the subject
Your opinion is valid if you are happy with the results. I would not be happy with the results for my bird photography with your approach. I have progressed and increased my knowledge and gear purchases to get a better result. A $6,500.00 camera on a cheap tripod will result in expensive repairs. Also on long bike to get an exotic bird the weight will become an issue. Fast glass is important for fast moving subject to freeze the action without adding gain and noise to the image. As you get further into the art your needs might change but there is a reason for all the gear out there.
Frank G. wrote:
This editorial observation is not directed at any posts on this site, but rather most photography magazines. I have to laugh when I see the technical info about photographs in some magazines. Do I really have to know what model tripod, or Gimbal head was used to hold up the camera that was used to take a picture ? Or is that just pretentious bragging about the photographers expensive equipment ? I also have to wonder about ISO, aperture opening, and shutter speed info.I know you can prioritize or program settings but I'm guessing [of course] that a lot of photographers shooting birds or other unpredictable moving subjects shoot first and look up info later. So it's not like the photographer knew what the camera was shooting at when taking a picture. Like I said this is just my opinion and some might think I don't know what I'm talking about. By the way in addition to my more expensive camera which in keeping with my theme I won't mention I've taken some outstanding photos ,if I do say so myself with a $100 Canon ELF. I used my left hand to hold the camera and my right index finger to click the shutter. Not that you needed to know that technical information.
Hmmm, I wonder what kind of brushes Picasso used.
This editorial observation is not directed at any ... (
show quote)
I really don't have to go to Chit-Chat to get a good laugh.
canon Lee wrote:
I must agree with you that the settings are not important. All a good photographer needs to do is to get the exposure " in the ball park" changing the original settings in LR editing... So what do the settings wind up to be???
Well, if you screwed up the shutter speed or the f-stop all the fiddling in LR or PS won't help you a bit. It's not always about exposure - there is also depth of field and motion. Even exposure I would rather take 2 seconds to get it right than sit at my computer for who knows how long to fix it.
Ha Ha, Frank! Well, that is what makes " the world go around," isn't it??!
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
canon Lee wrote:
I must agree with you that the settings are not important. All a good photographer needs to do is to get the exposure " in the ball park" changing the original settings in LR editing... So what do the settings wind up to be???
You may remove noise in PP, and may even "expand" color depth and dynamic range.
You will not stop motion in post - shutter speed does that.
Most likely, you will not change DOF much in post - aperture does that.
People are so hung up about the "exposure triangle" that they forget that shutter speed and aperture have another function. That is what I'm looking at.
My current interest in high ISO started when I noticed images that had much more DOF than I expected
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-380030-1.html
rplain1 wrote:
C'mon - everyone knows Microsoft keyboards and mouses are better.
I'm living on the EDGE here!!!
Frank G. wrote:
This editorial observation is not directed at any posts on this site, but rather most photography magazines. I have to laugh when I see the technical info about photographs in some magazines. Do I really have to know what model tripod, or Gimbal head was used to hold up the camera that was used to take a picture ? Or is that just pretentious bragging about the photographers expensive equipment ? I also have to wonder about ISO, aperture opening, and shutter speed info.I know you can prioritize or program settings but I'm guessing [of course] that a lot of photographers shooting birds or other unpredictable moving subjects shoot first and look up info later. So it's not like the photographer knew what the camera was shooting at when taking a picture. Like I said this is just my opinion and some might think I don't know what I'm talking about. By the way in addition to my more expensive camera which in keeping with my theme I won't mention I've taken some outstanding photos ,if I do say so myself with a $100 Canon ELF. I used my left hand to hold the camera and my right index finger to click the shutter. Not that you needed to know that technical information.
Hmmm, I wonder what kind of brushes Picasso used.
This editorial observation is not directed at any ... (
show quote)
Well, there are only so many ways to learn, and sharing technical information is one way to acquire knowledge and vicarious experience. I find it very useful as an educational tool and confirmation of my own experiences or lack thereof.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.