So it's not the lens, it's not the camera.. It's the 'phtotographer'??? (Page 2): Good comeback!

RonNH Loc: New Hampshire

chaman wrote:

When you get the great camera comment just say, "yeah, and you now all those great classic paintings? Those guys must have had some awesome brushes!" They will get the message!

Good comeback!

CHASEPLACEMAIL Loc: Ct,Fla

What's the Point? If a person enjoys taking pictures, good or bad in the eyes of "critics" here, what's the harm?
Hardly seems worth the type on the screen.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Rongnongno wrote:

Not so fast here

First off a photographer is not a push button critter. It is a trained individual that knows his field, his subject and his equipment. That individual can use any camera and get good results but that same trained individual given a choice will select the best tool for the job.

A naturalist or wild life photographer will need to be aware of his surroundings, know his prey and basically become the prey in order to get THE picture. If an individual does not have the intimate knowledge needed to capture the image mentioned, forget it. Any amount of equipment will be wasted. By the same token if the equipment is ridiculous (like using a wide angle to take a close up of a tit on a branch 50 feet away) there is no point even with a FF mega pixel camera.

A wedding photographer needs to know his equipment first in order to react to the chaos surrounding such an event. He also needs some people skill and understanding to catch the fugitive expressions in folks face as this is a highly emotional event for a few guests. Attention to details, quick reflexes and control is paramount. Here again the equipment is key and knowing how to use it efficiently a must.

A portrait photographer is a dying beast. Not only does he need to know what he is doing and his subject he also must be able to transcend the person onion like personality in order to reveal the 'true person' in front of his camera.

(Any)scape photographer worth his salt knows that a tripod is a must and use filters more than any other photographer. He also has to be patient to wait for the 'ultimate light'.

All this to say that Photographers* are highly trained individuals who have learned technical and other intangible talents enhancement (awkward phrasing here) in order to produce Photographs*, not mere snap-shots. These same individuals are well aware that post processing is a must in order to create the best output from the best possible Photograph that reflect their vision and talent.

These Photographers are few and far between.

IWACs** are not photographers, just pale pretenders who want to believe 'it is the guy with the camera' because THEY are behind it.

-----
* Capital 'P' to denote the professionalism and quality
** Idiot With A Camera

Not so fast here br br First off a photographer i... (show quote)

Spare me the philosophy or any approach to be philosophical or to have any particular insight into the art of photography. You are neither credentialed, have a supported body of work, could never be published, or even have enough experience to delve into this subject matter. It is not the camera, and you are not the photographer though you may think so.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Mr PC wrote:

Right on, Ron. I've taken some pretty amazing pho... (show quote)

:thumbup:

However, a long telephoto lens can be a big help when you stalk that bird or bride.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Rongnongno wrote:

... These Photographers are few and far between.
IWACs** are not photographers ... ** Idiot With A Camera

You were on a roll - a perfectly rational and lucid commentary until you spoiled it all with your final reference denigrating anyone who does not meet the standard for "Photographer" as an idiot. By that measure, those who don't achieve the ultimate level of skill are "idiots", including yourself.

All of us are somewhere on the scale between beginner and expert. It does not require training, formal or otherwise, to achieve excellence. It only takes curiosity, learning, practice, effort, an open mind and honest self-assessment.

And, of course, the better we get the more likely we are to acquire the right equipment to achieve our objectives.

So it's all three - the photographer first and then the equipment.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Mark7829 wrote:

Spare me the philosophy or any approach to be philosophical or to have any particular insight into the art of photography. You are neither credentialed, have a supported body of work, could never be published, or even have enough experience to delve into this subject matter. It is not the camera, and you are not the photographer though you may think so.

It is possible for most to express disagreement without attempting to belittle the other person. Just a point for you to consider -- civility.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

RonNH wrote:

Good comeback!

Or, that food was great! You must have a really nice stove.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Rongnongno wrote:

Not so fast here

First off a photographer is not a push button critter. It is a trained individual that knows his field, his subject and his equipment. That individual can use any camera and get good results but that same trained individual given a choice will select the best tool for the job.

A naturalist or wild life photographer will need to be aware of his surroundings, know his prey and basically become the prey in order to get THE picture. If an individual does not have the intimate knowledge needed to capture the image mentioned, forget it. Any amount of equipment will be wasted. By the same token if the equipment is ridiculous (like using a wide angle to take a close up of a tit on a branch 50 feet away) there is no point even with a FF mega pixel camera.

A wedding photographer needs to know his equipment first in order to react to the chaos surrounding such an event. He also needs some people skill and understanding to catch the fugitive expressions in folks face as this is a highly emotional event for a few guests. Attention to details, quick reflexes and control is paramount. Here again the equipment is key and knowing how to use it efficiently a must.

A portrait photographer is a dying beast. Not only does he need to know what he is doing and his subject he also must be able to transcend the person onion like personality in order to reveal the 'true person' in front of his camera.

(Any)scape photographer worth his salt knows that a tripod is a must and use filters more than any other photographer. He also has to be patient to wait for the 'ultimate light'.

All this to say that Photographers* are highly trained individuals who have learned technical and other intangible talents enhancement (awkward phrasing here) in order to produce Photographs*, not mere snap-shots. These same individuals are well aware that post processing is a must in order to create the best output from the best possible Photograph that reflect their vision and talent.

These Photographers are few and far between.

IWACs** are not photographers, just pale pretenders who want to believe 'it is the guy with the camera' because THEY are behind it.

-----
* Capital 'P' to denote the professionalism and quality
** Idiot With A Camera

Not so fast here br br First off a photographer i... (show quote)

i enjoyed your comments in regard to photographers who know their subject matter and work hard to master the requirements in order to produce work of excellent quality.

my domestic specialties are wolves and portraits. and i can tell you, said wolf is a lot easier to photograph. when doing so, i usually use a leica m4 with the 50mm summilux. i'm able to get close as i understand and become familiar with their territorial habits.

as for portraits, man, that seems to involve knowing your subject as a person and attempting to delve into their character in the final photograph. it takes me time, sometimes months, before even getting to the first exposures. portrait is an art. human beings are the most complex subject one can attempt.

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

chaman wrote:

When you get the great camera comment just say, "yeah, and you now all those great classic paintings? Those guys must have had some awesome brushes!" They will get the message!

-------------
Combining this comment & Quixdraw's, who is the judge. Some of those multi-multi million dollar paintings I don't
think are that great, regardless of their brushes.

Wilsondl3

dcampbell52 wrote:

Or, that food was great! You must have a really nice stove.

Wither a carpenter, painter (house or fine art) cook, Cellist (I know about this would you believe a somewhat good bow cost $1200 25 years ago) use the best tools they can because they can do a better job with better tools. Not only do good tools help you do a better job the make the job easier. Dave

Yooper 2 Loc: Ironwood, MI

quixdraw wrote:

Not into porn -- just reluctant to judge learners by others standards. The IWAC is a stage through which Every Photographer passes, or doesn't. That he / she gets enjoyment from what they do, and may advance in skill, or not, gives me pleasure. No closed doors!

I don't think the OP meant IWAC as pertaining to all newbies. I see IWAC as photographers of any ability moving in front of my range of view when I'm trying to get a shot, or the ones who climb over a safety fence to get a better view, or stand in the water to get a better angle of a falls and ruin the view for other photographers. Or in-your-face tragedy shooters. Also the group photographers who block access to a view. Then stand around and discuss their results. And yes I am judgemental about them. They are lack courtesy and common sense. The worst offender in my area is a group that hogs the scene while the leader lectures. They block access with their equipment and won't budge if someone tries to get through. A polite request to allow me access was rebuffed because they couldn't move their vehicles or equipment as it was set up to be used after the lecture. In the middle of a road?

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Is this a trolling post?

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

John_F wrote:

Is this a trolling post?

Some parts of it sorta smell that way :|

chaman

CHASEPLACEMAIL wrote:

What's the Point? If a person enjoys taking pictures, good or bad in the eyes of "critics" here, what's the harm?
Hardly seems worth the type on the screen.

Of course there is nothing wrong. What bothers a lot, including me, is when a mediocre photographer starts to judge, critique, correct and give his/her expertise to others when they obviously lack the basics. You have seen them, they post these 3 miles long essays full of technical babble that they can recite by memory, only to avoid posting any of their images or formulating a lot of excuses not too post any of them. More than a few times when you have access to their work you find it to be below average, poorly composed, poorly focused, badly exposed and fill with images contaminated by so many digital filters that they end up hurting your eyes.

Yooper 2 Loc: Ironwood, MI

Chaman wrote:"Of course there is nothing wrong. What bothers a lot, including me, is when a mediocre photographer starts to judge, critique, correct and give his/her expertise to others when they obviously lack the basics."

I fully agree with you. What also bothers me is when someone gives good advice to newbies and they continue to go on and on about their problems like it just went over their heads. Which it probably did. Ask for clarification if you don't understand something.