47greyfox wrote:
Now that expectations have been deemed irrelevant, the need for improvement has been dashed.
Improvement begins with I, not $.
Cany143 wrote:
Yes (everybody)! Let's get mired in the weeds of what a raw file is (and is not)! Right after we declare (our learned opinion) that the PRIMARY evils that exist in this world lies in the "over-sharpening" and "over-saturation" of otherwise perfectly lovely forensic photographs. And let's ALL be sure NOT to leave out what Ansel Adams did! I mean, egads, folks.
Instead, let's break with tradition and attempt to address the OP's Title and lead-off sentence! ('Sokay to dismiss that business about somebody/anybody having --or not having--"The Eye" since EVERYBody no's the fact that (the) BOOTY is in the Yiiii! of the be-holder [as opposed to the one --or ones-- whose booty is being 'beheld']!!!1!
In short, let's dig even more deeply, and let's look at Jane herself! Can't say for absolute certain, but there may be reason(s) why Jane is 'Crazy', and one or more of those might be why her home locale is listed as Limbo.
On the other hand..........
<p.s. --and 'edited' for the sake of the opacity of full disclosure> Sadly, I was not born with 'The Eye'. Instead, 'The Eye' was foisted off on me (like a curse, or like a string of curse words, way back when I was a kid) by the warty-looking lady who lived in the creepy house down the street, and who everybody called 'Ol Lady Crone', after which I became a newt. It took years and countless thousands of dollars for me to finally get cured from that curse, but today I'm a lot happier for it. Being a lizard is WAY better than being a newt, don'tcha know!
Yes (everybody)! Let's get mired in the weeds of ... (
show quote)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ansel Adams work is thrown around a lot. While it is true he obviously had an "eye" for an interesting image and we have seen many of those images, we don't however have them in our homes today because many of us in this forum have or are learning to have just as good an eye. With a good eye today and even low cost equipment available today we can out perform Ansel Adams without breaking a sweat. We are not limited to a 50mm lens, we are not limited to the grain of low speed black and white film. I can take dramatic pictures that hold your attention with deep colors even in the shadows. I'm convinced that if Ansel Adams could be here today he would have a high priced digital camera as his workhorse.
Part of the allure of Ansel Adams was his venturing into the Great wide open American spaces in the west. If one of us were to post a picture identical to one of his we would be laughed off the site. Many of us have taken images from the same vantage point as the great Ansel Adams and have much more spectacular images, images that we are proud to display on the walls of our homes.
Photography has come a long way since Ansel Adams took the trouble to lug his equipment into the wilderness and show us what was there.
It is a little silly to not be impressed with what our modern photography equipment can do. Today anybody with even a modicum of talent for selecting a good photographic subject can create a memorable image using relatively inexpensive equipment that Ansel Adams would love to have had.
Josephakraig wrote:
Ansel Adams work is thrown around a lot. While it is true he obviously had an "eye" for an interesting image and we have seen many of those images, we don't however have them in our homes today because many of us in this forum have or are learning to have just as good an eye. With a good eye today and even low cost equipment available today we can out perform Ansel Adams without breaking a sweat. We are not limited to a 50mm lens, we are not limited to the grain of low speed black and white film. I can take dramatic pictures that hold your attention with deep colors even in the shadows. I'm convinced that if Ansel Adams could be here today he would have a high priced digital camera as his workhorse.
Part of the allure of Ansel Adams was his venturing into the Great wide open American spaces in the west. If one of us were to post a picture identical to one of his we would be laughed off the site. Many of us have taken images from the same vantage point as the great Ansel Adams and have much more spectacular images, images that we are proud to display on the walls of our homes.
Photography has come a long way since Ansel Adams took the trouble to lug his equipment into the wilderness and show us what was there.
It is a little silly to not be impressed with what our modern photography equipment can do. Today anybody with even a modicum of talent for selecting a good photographic subject can create a memorable image using relatively inexpensive equipment that Ansel Adams would love to have had.
Ansel Adams work is thrown around a lot. While it... (
show quote)
LOL - I think you're over-subscribing the physical abilities of the UHH community and a willingness to get out and away from the parking lot to captures such landscape images as Adams is known for. The reality is that anything within 500 meters of the car is rarely worth even turning on the camera.
CHG_CANON wrote:
LOL - I think you're over-subscribing the physical abilities of the UHH community and a willingness to get out and away from the parking lot to captures such landscape images as Adams is known for. The reality is that anything within 500 meters of the car is rarely worth even turning on the camera.
But Adams often shoot from the top of his car too. He didn't always use his burro.
Ysarex wrote:
Rubbish and nonsense. Gear is not irrelevant -- a fact so easy to validate with the most cursory of looks at the behavior of artists that it's hard to conceive that anyone could miss it.
For example; here's an up and coming young guitarist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZhr41hL0-4He bought that guitar at Walmart because gear is irrelevant -- Oh wait a minute he's really playing one of these:
https://www.alhambraguitarras.com/en/guitarsCeramicists fuss over the clay they use and they don't use a Lazy Susan from Home Goods when they need a wheel.
Painters don't buy their paints from the Crayola Co. and they obsess over brushes.
I'm sure Rafael Aguirre would make his very best effort if he had to play a Walmart guitar. I'm also sure that we'd all be able to hear the difference and it would matter.
All the arts require gear to mediate the artist's expression. That gear either facilitates and enhances the artist's expression, or it detracts and so either way it matters.
Rubbish and nonsense. Gear is not irrelevant -- a ... (
show quote)
Interesting examples. But do be aware Eddie Van Halen preferred cheap homemade guitars that were not considered very good by other guitarists. But he got the sound he wanted.
CHG_CANON wrote:
So much time is wasted talking about better cameras rather than creating better images. But, that's what UHH is really for, right?
Yes, otherwise it would only be a photo gallery.
Part of what she says makes sense. Gear can definitely make a difference, BUT, the eye is part of the equation as well. There is the rare individual who can take almost any photo with almost any camera and it come it comes out very well because that individual has a great eye for a great photo op. Some can have the best equipment and have a so-so picture. Somewhere there is the sweet spot between “how much is it due to the eye and how much to the equipment”. I do not profess to be a great judge of photos, but I have seen judges rave about a particular photo & I just don’t get it, or I do. It’s a combination of a good eye, good equipment, and a good eye for what makes a good photo. Just my thoughts.
whatdat wrote:
Part of what she says makes sense. Gear can definitely make a difference, BUT, the eye is part of the equation as well. There is the rare individual who can take almost any photo with almost any camera and it come it comes out very well because that individual has a great eye for a great photo op. Some can have the best equipment and have a so-so picture. Somewhere there is the sweet spot between “how much is it due to the eye and how much to the equipment”. I do not profess to be a great judge of photos, but I have seen judges rave about a particular photo & I just don’t get it, or I do. It’s a combination of a good eye, good equipment, and a good eye for what makes a good photo. Just my thoughts.
Part of what she says makes sense. Gear can defin... (
show quote)
Have you ever looked at an out of focus image and thought, "too bad, they really screwed that one up?"
CrazyJane wrote:
And sharpness is overrated. The most important of all tools in photography is the eye. If you don't have an eye for it, there's nothing can help. And it's pretty easy to see who does and who doesn't, don't you think?
I get what you’re saying, but it’s an oversimplification. Even if you have a great eye, not all gear is capable of achieving your vision.
whatdat wrote:
Part of what she says makes sense. Gear can definitely make a difference, BUT, the eye is part of the equation as well. There is the rare individual who can take almost any photo with almost any camera and it come it comes out very well because that individual has a great eye for a great photo op. Some can have the best equipment and have a so-so picture. Somewhere there is the sweet spot between “how much is it due to the eye and how much to the equipment”. I do not profess to be a great judge of photos, but I have seen judges rave about a particular photo & I just don’t get it, or I do. It’s a combination of a good eye, good equipment, and a good eye for what makes a good photo. Just my thoughts.
Part of what she says makes sense. Gear can defin... (
show quote)
There is also a matter of learning good technique. A good eye and good equipment are not enough unless you learn to get the best from the equipment.
Delderby wrote:
There are thse who will create a better picture with a box brownie than some with a D850!
Few and very far between...a statistical anomaly is not realistic.
Gear can definitely limit you...
If you don't care about doing your best...don't spend the coin...pretty simple.
But don't fool yourself into believing it doesn't make it more difficult.
You could still use a 486 computer...and some folks out there still do...but they aren't competing with that hardware either.
R.G. wrote:
What are you trying to do - trigger an attack of GAS!?
For that a burrito would work just as well.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Yep. Those who lack the best equipment never lack for excuses.
It is, and never was necessary to use the “best” equipment to make fantastic, memorable images. And it never will be.
The whole point of owning a camera with the most megapixels is that you don’t have to explain things with words.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.