[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Photography rant (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 4/2/2009 2:56:12 PM EDT
|
Photography has been my hobby on and off ever since I was a kid. I remember split image rangefinders and match needle SLR's. Several years ago I spent good money on a pretty nice film camera just before digital became affordable and decent quality. I didn't use it much because, well it costs money everytime you trigger the shutter. For a long time I refused to jump on the digital bandwagon. Then my "roomate" got a digital P&S. It didnt' take ansel adams quality still lifes but taking decent snapshots was easy and fun. So I got my own. Then I got another.
[rant mode on] So I frequently get compliments on my pics and snapshots. Oh wait, it's not me, it's because "you must have a good camera". When they take their car to the mechanic to they say, "wow, it works great now, you must have nice wrenches" But my cool bug shot has nothing to do with me and everything to do with my fucking camera!?!?! My "roommate" claimed my camera took better pics than hers. Wierd, cause when I use it it works just as well as mine. BECAUSE I DON'T SET THE FUCKING COMPRESSION TO HIGH AND THE SIZE SMALL!!!! IF YOU TURN THE FUCKING KNOBS AND READ THE GODDAMN BOOK YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!!! I was showing my doggie videos to my coworkers and they couldn't believe it took such good videos, they were going to get one that did that too. I ask them what kind they have. IT TAKES FUCKING VIDEOS AS WELL BUT IF YOU DONT' READ THE GODDAMN BOOK I GUESS YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT!!11 Another one went out and got one like mine (canon sx100is the bottom feeder of that lineup) and STILL DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO USE ANY FEATURES! So my "roommate" comes back from italy with MY camera that I gave her to use because mine is supposably "better", and I'm nice like that. So we look at the pics when she comes back. Too dark, too blurry, too washed out . . So I ask "why didn't you fiddle with the exposure compensation, why didn't you use the self timer" IF YOU'RE GOING TO LEAVE A FUCKING CAMERA ON AUTOMATIC GET A FUCKING INSTAMATIC!!! In sum I am sick and tired of my camera getting the credit for my cool pics. I like it but it's not really that great, pretty basic actually. But I did go out and get a better one with my tax extortion return, because I wanted wide angle. I got a canon sx10IS. It's pretty cook, has super macro and I like bug pics so that will be fun. I also ordered photoshop elements 7. I had ADC because it was cheaper and I read some reviews that said it was easier but I find it to be useless. I love digital photography. I love taking snapshots. I take pics of everything. In the past I only took artsy fartsy pics and as a result I DON'T HAVE ANY GODDAMN PICS OF WHERE WE LIVED IN ALA!!! I will not make that mistake again! |
|
I know exactly what you are talking about. I actually take great pride in the fact that I can take some pretty dang good udnerwater photos, even though I use incredibly cheap equipment compared to what most underwater phographers use. For most of my shots, my whole rig costs less than $500 (it's just a five-year old Sony Cybershop and a cheap underwater housing) and I often end up with pictures as good as those by people who have $3000 systems. 
Quoted:
... I was showing my doggie videos to my coworkers and they couldn't believe it took such good videos, they were going to get one that did that too. I ask them what kind they have. IT TAKES FUCKING VIDEOS AS WELL BUT IF YOU DONT' READ THE GODDAMN BOOK I GUESS YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT!!11 Much to my embarassment, I have been guilty of that myself. I was actually on a night dive, trying to get good shots of some mantas rays that were feeding, and it was impossible because the flash would light up all the particles/plankton in the water, and looked terrible. So while I was sitting on the bottom and fiddling with the settings on the camera, I realized that the camera had a video feature!!   
The videos ended up being really cool, but I sure felt stupid not realizing before then that my camera actually had this capability! |
|
i'm getting married and my fiance's aunt wants her sister-in-law to take our pictures because "she has a really nice camera, like thousands of dollars". she took pictures for my fiance's cousin's wedding and they might as well have been shot on a disposable. i will gladly pay the professional photographer friend of my best man $500 for something that's not boring as hell to look at. |
|
I like to browse photography forums and see what's in the gallery. Everyone that takes up photography as a hobby sort of goes through the same thing, they try to imitate the clishayed (can't . . . spell . . . ) shots they have seen in the magazines. I went though the same thing. When the attempt fails it looks just as bad taken with a nice SLR as with a p&s. The good thing though is after looking at a lot of bad pics I don't take as many (bad pics) myself.
Yeah, film will produce a better quality pic but I'm not ansel adams, I overlook a little noise to get a shot. Like a concert in the dark for instance. Cranking the iso up to 1600 makes for a grainy image but the alternative is no image at all. I have been taking more people shots than I used to, and paying attention to other things that make a good shot, like composition. I think PP photo editing kind of goes hand in hand with digital. And good luck trying to get a shot of a bug in flight with film. |
|
Quoted:
you ever try film ? thats all i use and turn it to cd!! That's all I used to use. I resisted the move to digital but now that I have tried it I will never go back to film. I'm thinking that it won't be long before there will be no film for smaller formats. There is still a place, for now, for film in larger format professional photography but I'm thinking it's only a matter of time there as well. |
|
"Owning a Stradivarius does not make one a concert violinist."
I freely admit that I suck at taking photos, even after two classes at the local community college. So I leave mine on Auto, but at least I know how to use most of the features on my P&S. I buy P&S cameras only because most of my photos are taken when hiking, climbing or camping –– so space and weight are at a premium, not to mention adverse weather conditions can really kill a DSLR. Any thoughts on the Canon SD970IS? I am going to China in a few weeks and want to have a nice little P&S that can take good pics and HD video. |
|
Quoted:
I like to browse photography forums and see what's in the gallery. Everyone that takes up photography as a hobby sort of goes through the same thing, they try to imitate the clishayed (can't . . . spell . . . ) shots they have seen in the magazines. I went though the same thing. When the attempt fails it looks just as bad taken with a nice SLR as with a p&s. The good thing though is after looking at a lot of bad pics I don't take as many (bad pics) myself. Yeah, film will produce a better quality pic but I'm not ansel adams, I overlook a little noise to get a shot. Like a concert in the dark for instance. Cranking the iso up to 1600 makes for a grainy image but the alternative is no image at all. I have been taking more people shots than I used to, and paying attention to other things that make a good shot, like composition. I think PP photo editing kind of goes hand in hand with digital. And good luck trying to get a shot of a bug in flight with film. You can get rid of that noise with a decent photo program. I use Photo Explosion. Simple to use and you can tweak the histogram to eliminate most, if not all of the noise. Only thing is, it's a HUGE program and needs a LOT of hard drive space and memory. There are probably better ones out there, but I bought it a few years ago and well.....I figure that I might as well get something out of the money I spent for it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like to browse photography forums and see what's in the gallery. Everyone that takes up photography as a hobby sort of goes through the same thing, they try to imitate the clishayed (can't . . . spell . . . ) shots they have seen in the magazines. I went though the same thing. When the attempt fails it looks just as bad taken with a nice SLR as with a p&s. The good thing though is after looking at a lot of bad pics I don't take as many (bad pics) myself. Yeah, film will produce a better quality pic but I'm not ansel adams, I overlook a little noise to get a shot. Like a concert in the dark for instance. Cranking the iso up to 1600 makes for a grainy image but the alternative is no image at all. I have been taking more people shots than I used to, and paying attention to other things that make a good shot, like composition. I think PP photo editing kind of goes hand in hand with digital. And good luck trying to get a shot of a bug in flight with film. You can get rid of that noise with a decent photo program. I use Photo Explosion. Simple to use and you can tweak the histogram to eliminate most, if not all of the noise. Only thing is, it's a HUGE program and needs a LOT of hard drive space and memory. There are probably better ones out there, but I bought it a few years ago and well.....I figure that I might as well get something out of the money I spent for it. That is one thing about digital photography, capturing the image is half the battle for a lot of folks, the computer fixes all the imperfections in the image. |
|
Lots of filmmakers work in Super8.
Artistic photographers use Lomo's, Holga's, Polaroid 600 and all kinds of low-end gear and formats to achieve expression. Some of the finest photography I've ever seen was shot with a Quaker Oats box. Good gear and fine materials are but tools. Sometimes it makes a huge difference, particularly in durability. I'll never make an argument against quality glass or premium media for professional use. I support your argument, it does come down to the operator. I make my living gathering images, I could do a bad job with good gear and plenty of mooks do. I can overcome bad gear and deliver quality product to the limits of what is afforded. Give me premium tools and the quality of the image will reflect that. But again, I made it that way and I possess skills and knowledge that do not engage on the "auto" setting. Technique is very important, so is experience. It's how I justify my rate. |
|
Here are a couple shots from this weekend. I cannot get photoshop elements editing to load for some reason so I attempted editing with my old crappy program.
I bring to you . . . THE MOON!! It was not as easy as pressing the button. I had to fiddle with the IS, fiddle with the settings because exposing -2 stops was not low enough, I went into shutter priority mode and picked the shutter speed which would underexpose it to my satisfaction. Then I had to lay there and take some shots. Then I cropped. 
Here are a few strawberry blossoms. I was unable to get rid of the fringing and they are not sharp enough but I think the softness adds to the overall quality. When I tweaked it the little stamens really popped out which I liked. The one pedal is actually touching the lens. It was hard to get that close and not cast a shadow. I see a teleconverter in my future. (I ordered an aftermarket adapter for my camera that will enable me to attach filters!) 
this one is a little desaturated. The bokah is about as good as I have been able to get with a camera of this small sensor. I can't control DOF like I would be able to with an SLR so I have to pay more attention to compostion and background. 
Here is a little tomato bud out of my garden. It's cropped from a larger pic. Since I cannot control DOF as well as I would like I take macro shots to compensate. The larger pic would have been awesome if I HAD A BETTER CAMERA! HA HA 
Can ye see it? I'm not sure if it's a harvestman or a daddy long legs. I had no luck in my attempts to get a good shot isolating the critter but I think the lines in the background and the lines of the legs compliment each other. 
So there a a couple of mine. It's as good as I am able to get WITHOUT A BETTER FUCKING CAMERA!!! I wish I knew what was wrong with my photoshop elements 7. It will open the organizer but not the editor. I was afraid something like this would happen. Oh well, it's a learning curve. I probably should have gotten photoshop elements 6, it seemed to have less complaints. |
|
supposably  
Photography is all about the singer, not the song. My dad used to shoot weddings in the early 70s with some other semi-pros as a sideline for extra cash... Even then it never ceased to amaze them that Joe Schmoe would go buy a semi-pro (or pro) level camera and expect to get the same results my dad and his friends did. Nothing has changed - in fact it might be even worse, because so many people can afford a pro level camera now, but they have NO idea that photography is about composition as well as technical skill. You can get nice pics from a high end DSLR on point-and-shoot mode but you can get SO much more once you learn at least the basics of photography. |
|
Ken Rockwell on cameras vs. artists
I learned this awhile back when I was talking with a buddy of mine who does serious underwater stuff off the California coast. (website here) I asked the usual "what kind of camera do you use" questions, and then he introduced me to the idea that the camera does not matter –– the only thing that matters is the artist behind it. The camera's job is to get out of your way so that you can take the shot. The more expensive cameras tend to make getting the shot easier (more ergonomic controls and such), but you can still take good shots with cheap cameras. A great photographer can take great photos with a shitty camera. A bad photographer might never be able to take a masterpiece with the world's best camera. I do some basic underwater shots as well; unfortunately I couldn't afford a dSLR for underwater use (housings are ~$1,000+, not including strobes) so I have a Canon A570IS point and shoot and an Ikelite housing, with no strobes. |
|
While your rant was ok...
the pics (other than the moon shot) are not that great, I realize you say you are using a point and shoot, and if yours are getting rave reviews from your "roomate" then her's must be really bad. Not trying to be mean, but from your rant and self-praise I was expecting a lot more. Scott |
|
I did not say they were that great. But my friends coworkers and associates (not neccasarily my "roommate") always ask what kind of camera I have because apparently their shots are crappier.
I never said I took works of art, I said I take nice snapshots. Taking nice snapshots is all I aspire to do. |
|
Quoted:
Here are a couple shots from this weekend. I cannot get photoshop elements editing to load for some reason so I attempted editing with my old crappy program. I bring to you . . . THE MOON!! It was not as easy as pressing the button. I had to fiddle with the IS, fiddle with the settings because exposing -2 stops was not low enough, I went into shutter priority mode and picked the shutter speed which would underexpose it to my satisfaction. Then I had to lay there and take some shots. Then I cropped. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3414256471_b4916beb28_b.jpg Here are a few strawberry blossoms. I was unable to get rid of the fringing and they are not sharp enough but I think the softness adds to the overall quality. When I tweaked it the little stamens really popped out which I liked. The one pedal is actually touching the lens. It was hard to get that close and not cast a shadow. I see a teleconverter in my future. (I ordered an aftermarket adapter for my camera that will enable me to attach filters!) http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3092/3411967354_51da62e144_o.jpg this one is a little desaturated. The bokah is about as good as I have been able to get with a camera of this small sensor. I can't control DOF like I would be able to with an SLR so I have to pay more attention to compostion and background. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3628/3410792982_563502b0ac_b.jpg Here is a little tomato bud out of my garden. It's cropped from a larger pic. Since I cannot control DOF as well as I would like I take macro shots to compensate. The larger pic would have been awesome if I HAD A BETTER CAMERA! HA HA http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3551/3409922731_125ce3baac_o.jpg Can ye see it? I'm not sure if it's a harvestman or a daddy long legs. I had no luck in my attempts to get a good shot isolating the critter but I think the lines in the background and the lines of the legs compliment each other. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3595/3407898253_a9273601a4_b.jpg So there a a couple of mine. It's as good as I am able to get WITHOUT A BETTER FUCKING CAMERA!!! I wish I knew what was wrong with my photoshop elements 7. It will open the organizer but not the editor. I was afraid something like this would happen. Oh well, it's a learning curve. I probably should have gotten photoshop elements 6, it seemed to have less complaints. How were you able to get so much crater detail on the moon pic? Nikon D200 with 300mm F4 lens. (borrowed only hehe) Best I can come up with. has mondo cropping and increase sharpening 
Thanks 
Edit I like these ones
|
|
You must explain to people that you use your camera to take photographs while they use their cameras to take "pictures." The reason why your pictures turn out so good is becuase a good photograph is 100% about composition and exposure control and the only prerequisite that you need to take a "picture" is the person rleasing the shutter needs be breathing.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do you put quotes around the word "roommate"? Because "lesbian partner" would be too offensive for the ar15.com crowd and makes me sound like a liberal. Ok. Pics?  http://l.yimg.com/l/tv/us/img/site/02/20/0000030220_20060924052346.jpg That picture must have been taken with one of these "really good" cameras 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How were you able to get so much crater detail on the moon pic? I had to fiddle with the IS, it can actually make things worse if you are too still. I can't remember which setting gave the best results. I also underexposed quite a bit. Using the compensation setting did't work because it is limited to -2. Then there was the problem of focusing. I used manual focus and set it to infinity. I was laying on my back trying to hold still as I did not have my tripod with me. I tweeked it a little in ACDsee using the shadows and highlights button mostly. when I tried to denoise and speckle it only made matters worse. I took the pic on the highest pixels so I could crop to make it look big. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How were you able to get so much crater detail on the moon pic? I had to fiddle with the IS, it can actually make things worse if you are too still. I can't remember which setting gave the best results. I also underexposed quite a bit. Using the compensation setting did't work because it is limited to -2. Then there was the problem of focusing. I used manual focus and set it to infinity. I was laying on my back trying to hold still as I did not have my tripod with me. I tweeked it a little in ACDsee using the shadows and highlights button mostly. when I tried to denoise and speckle it only made matters worse. I took the pic on the highest pixels so I could crop to make it look big. IS? As in Image Stabilizer? I think the tip of timing makes sense, will try taking a picture again when the sky is clear (cloudy lately) And would you like to send me the moon picture raw from the camera? I have Picture Project that show the shooting data. Thanks again :) |
|
I wouldn't know what to do with raw, although it is possible for my camera I havn't updated it. I doubt I will.
Mostly for me it was a problem of getting a sharp pic to begin with. They all looked sharp when small. I would take a batch of pics, then hit the telephoto knob when reviewing which enlarges it. Most of them I could tell right away. Then on the computer I was able to eliminate the others. I also shot the same moon during the day but it wasn't as sharp, although it looks kind of cool all blue and all. I think it was do to the atmoshere, it was hazy yesterday. Later on when we went to a friends house I saw the moon at night and made another attempt. It was harder because of the brightness. That's when I had to fiddle to get it to underexpose. |
|
I know nothing about photography or cameras in general, but I noticed a lot of people in college who would go out, buy an expensive camera, take a few artsy fartsy looking pictures, then next thing you know they are advertising their "photography business" and wanting to "go pro". I have a friend who actually does earn a living taking pictures for weddings and other stuff, and he has way more skill than any of these jokers I've seen.
I agree, its not the camera, its the guy taking the pictures. I dont know anything about the subject, but it annoys me when I see these amateur photographers thinking they are the next ansel adams or something. |
|
Oh, I do alright. I, too, get pissed at the "boy that camera takes GREAT pictures" comments, but oh well. I've handed my 5D to people and say "here...YOU take a good picture with it. Since it's doing all the work, it shouldn't be a problem" Here's a few of mine.        Yeaaahhhh....my camera does good work, I suppose. |
|
I've shot college sports for about 10 years now. You get used to the "wow, you must have a really nice camera" remarks.
To prove to myself I still could, I shot a half of football with an FTb and a 50mm f1.4, of course I mainly shot sideline and reaction shots. I still got the "Wow, I wish I had a camera nice as yours".
|