new tog
Aug 24, 2018 21:15:53 #
Hi, I'm Carl from Maryland.
For some years I've owned a Leica D-Lux 6 and recently decided to learn about it, and make proper use of it.
One of my first experiments was to compare with the iPhone (6). I was thinking, is a phone sufficient? Does the camera offer an advantage? So I went around the neighborhood taking scenes with the D-Lux and with the phone, and when I loaded the D-Lux pictures into Lightroom (5.6), I found the clear answer: camera pictures have far more data in them, so they are more flexible as pictures. Seems obvious now.
In my first readings about photography I have often come across the idea that the gear is not the most important thing. Some go so far as to reassure aspiring togs that the phone can be a 'great' instrument. I read the comparison with early smaller film and smaller cameras (advent of 35mm) and reactions then, that it would be too small to capture anything: yet it ushered in an era of portability and changed photography and what could be captured. But, I don't think phones will make cameras obsolete by any means, and I find that reassuring because I have always felt the camera was an attractive instrument.
So I am reading about composition, the exposure triangle, and the variable settings available; and I do experiments every day. Mostly I shoot in M to encourage myself to develop an instinct for aperture, shutter, and ISO. When I feel I have learned a lot, I will probably spring for a modern camera--the D-Lux 6 is about 6 years old.
I feel strongly inclined to the view that it is the photographer and not the equipment that creates the impact. So I probably will never succumb to what you call GAS! :)
Also: I am disinclined to become a photoshopper: that is, I don't think I will want to take bracketed images and assemble bits. Instead I will probably want to frame my image in such a way that it shows what I want, and then just in Lightroom, tweak the shadows or the highlights just a tad to make the image show what the eye saw. So many pictures are beautiful that people show, but ultimately they just aren't quite real somehow. Roiling clouds, dazzling color zones in a sunset, yes it's beautiful but it's almost too much somehow. I want my pictures to show what I saw, not necessarily more than what I saw. Some pictures have to be tweaked because the camera captures less than what we are able to process mentally. But! Photography is an art. So maybe part of the art is to show what Could Be. Just thinking out loud, sharing where I am with this.
Nice forum, thank you!
For some years I've owned a Leica D-Lux 6 and recently decided to learn about it, and make proper use of it.
One of my first experiments was to compare with the iPhone (6). I was thinking, is a phone sufficient? Does the camera offer an advantage? So I went around the neighborhood taking scenes with the D-Lux and with the phone, and when I loaded the D-Lux pictures into Lightroom (5.6), I found the clear answer: camera pictures have far more data in them, so they are more flexible as pictures. Seems obvious now.
In my first readings about photography I have often come across the idea that the gear is not the most important thing. Some go so far as to reassure aspiring togs that the phone can be a 'great' instrument. I read the comparison with early smaller film and smaller cameras (advent of 35mm) and reactions then, that it would be too small to capture anything: yet it ushered in an era of portability and changed photography and what could be captured. But, I don't think phones will make cameras obsolete by any means, and I find that reassuring because I have always felt the camera was an attractive instrument.
So I am reading about composition, the exposure triangle, and the variable settings available; and I do experiments every day. Mostly I shoot in M to encourage myself to develop an instinct for aperture, shutter, and ISO. When I feel I have learned a lot, I will probably spring for a modern camera--the D-Lux 6 is about 6 years old.
I feel strongly inclined to the view that it is the photographer and not the equipment that creates the impact. So I probably will never succumb to what you call GAS! :)
Also: I am disinclined to become a photoshopper: that is, I don't think I will want to take bracketed images and assemble bits. Instead I will probably want to frame my image in such a way that it shows what I want, and then just in Lightroom, tweak the shadows or the highlights just a tad to make the image show what the eye saw. So many pictures are beautiful that people show, but ultimately they just aren't quite real somehow. Roiling clouds, dazzling color zones in a sunset, yes it's beautiful but it's almost too much somehow. I want my pictures to show what I saw, not necessarily more than what I saw. Some pictures have to be tweaked because the camera captures less than what we are able to process mentally. But! Photography is an art. So maybe part of the art is to show what Could Be. Just thinking out loud, sharing where I am with this.
Nice forum, thank you!
Aug 24, 2018 21:19:15 #
Aug 24, 2018 21:26:01 #
Very well expressed, Carl. The best digital images, as were the best film images, are those that don't show obvious signs of darkroom manipulation. Subtle development and digital "printing" are as important today as they were to AA. Just remember, the greats of the past weren't afraid of darkroom work as an essential part of creating the image they visualized in the viewfinder or on the groundglass, but couldn't achieve "SOOC" due to the limits of their tools and materials. You shouldn't be either!
Welcome!
Andy
Welcome!
Andy
Aug 24, 2018 22:56:48 #
Welcome Carl, glad to have you onboard and feel free to post some of you photos here. chase
Aug 25, 2018 00:05:25 #
I will post some, thanks!
Just came across this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/entertainment-arts-45011397/renowned-film-director-wim-wenders-hits-out-at-phone-photography
Wim Wenders (I haven't heard of him before) would like a new word for this sort of modern 'photography', characterized by ubiquity of cell phone pictures and photoshop manipulation.
cr1218 wrote:
I was thinking, is a phone sufficient? Does the camera offer an advantage?
Just came across this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/entertainment-arts-45011397/renowned-film-director-wim-wenders-hits-out-at-phone-photography
Wim Wenders (I haven't heard of him before) would like a new word for this sort of modern 'photography', characterized by ubiquity of cell phone pictures and photoshop manipulation.
Aug 25, 2018 05:10:32 #
Aug 25, 2018 06:38:26 #
Being a photographer for almost 50 years I come to the realization long ago that the most important
feature in photography is composition. You can have the best camera in the world, but if you
don't have an eye for composition you have wasted your money. On the other hand, I've taken some
great shots with a Kodak Pony 135, a 60 year old film camera.
Captain Al
feature in photography is composition. You can have the best camera in the world, but if you
don't have an eye for composition you have wasted your money. On the other hand, I've taken some
great shots with a Kodak Pony 135, a 60 year old film camera.
Captain Al
Aug 25, 2018 07:00:45 #
Aug 25, 2018 08:04:29 #
Aug 25, 2018 09:06:23 #
Aug 25, 2018 11:44:33 #
Aug 25, 2018 12:20:06 #
Aug 25, 2018 13:13:20 #
Aug 25, 2018 13:42:28 #
Aug 25, 2018 14:10:36 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.