Tony Northrup: "Yes, the gear does matter."
May 4, 2019 13:26:56 #
saxman71 wrote:
I was just joking of course Mr. Burk. We're on page 11 now. Anything serious that needs to be said as long since been said.
I know. I’m just being reflective. Smartphones and social media killed my former employer’s business, too.
May 4, 2019 13:32:18 #
78.65 percent of statistics are made up...😎
DeanS wrote:
Methinks you are 97.375% correct.😎
May 4, 2019 13:46:18 #
Notorious T.O.D. wrote:
78.65 percent of statistics are made up...😎
My Dad used to say, “Figures don’t lie, but piers do figure...”.
May 4, 2019 20:57:23 #
May 5, 2019 02:04:48 #
I will say this, however. My dad was a photog back before there was any digital stuff...darkroom and film and all that. And even with all the "gear" I've got, many of his photographs were better than anything I can ever hope to shoot. Composition. Lighting. An "eye" for a good photo.
May 5, 2019 08:08:21 #
johnbhome2 wrote:
Come on, it has always been about the glass and always will be. The latest and greatest camera with a crappy lens will always be the latest and greatest with a crap lens. Comparing a Kodak Brownie to today's latest and greatest is ludacris at best.
Not sure what a rapper has to do with this post. I think the word you were searching for was ludicrous, it fits better.
May 5, 2019 10:04:55 #
Got to disagree with the comment that Ansel Adams photos are only average 35mm photos. Wow. I wish i was that average.
May 5, 2019 10:42:28 #
DaveyDitzer
Loc: Western PA
molsen3831 wrote:
Got to disagree with the comment that Ansel Adams photos are only average 35mm photos. Wow. I wish i was that average.
I loved Ansel's book. Maybe the person who thinks they are average would care to share his or her book?
May 5, 2019 10:49:42 #
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I loved Ansel's book. Maybe the person who thinks they are average would care to share his or her book?
I saw Ansel Adams prints in an exhibition a number of years back. There is no way anyone can do the same with 35mm.
May 5, 2019 11:22:50 #
DaveyDitzer
Loc: Western PA
BebuLamar wrote:
I saw Ansel Adams prints in an exhibition a number of years back. There is no way anyone can do the same with 35mm.
So size (sensor) does matter!
May 5, 2019 12:08:03 #
BebuLamar wrote:
All I know for sure you have no photo without a camera. You can have photo with a camera and a monkey.
You can have a photograph without a camera. The only requirement to create a photograph is light sensitive material.
As far as the discussion, "does gear matter?"; it does matter, however, it is relative to the desires of the photographer.
May 5, 2019 12:09:44 #
4x5, 8x10 still tough to beat. As well, the secret recipes for developers helped. The biggest difference was Ansel, though.
May 5, 2019 13:00:24 #
DaveyDitzer wrote:
So size (sensor) does matter!
Sure "Gear does matter". You don't see Adams' BIF pictures do you? Not that he cared to take them but he would have extremely hard time to do it. And while I doubt that Tony has any pictures that is the same caliber as Adams' but he does have a lot of BIF pictures.
May 5, 2019 15:15:05 #
May 5, 2019 17:04:16 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
So, you didn't have to use a tripod.
Could someone have gotten this with
technology circa 1970? I say "yes."
Mike
So, you didn't have to use a tripod.
Could someone have gotten this with
technology circa 1970? I say "yes."
Mike
Acoarst you are correct.
Well rendered shot but not unique,
IOW we've seen these for decades,
which confirms that some old gear
would also be equally capable.
But to get specific ... would a D300
and kit lens be suitable old gear ?
For conversation, let's say that the
D300 and kit lens would fall short.
OK, so a certain semi-obsolete item
falls short. One narrowly sampled
factoid does not justify generalizing
that only current high end gear will
enable such results.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.