What is Digg?90 Comments
- pr0t3st, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This was suprisingly a good read and a great find.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Both can produce art so . . . yes.
I'd be the first to say that a SLR with a fast lens is more flexible, so you can create art under more circumstances and with a wider range of techniques but in many cases that just complicates your life. I shoot a lot with a Holga (a $16 plastic lens medium format camera with light leaks) and have a great time while my Nikon gathers dust.
I'll also add that a SLR and a bag full of lenses is a pain to haul around. Camera Phones are always there. - gohoos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9There is SO MUCH that most of us amature photographers could learn from Ken.
"Your Camera does not matter" will drive some folks crazy - the same people who drop $1000 on a DSLR and then can't understand why they aren't taking photos like National Geographic. The simple fact is that a great photographer can make a great photo with a disposable camera, and and joe off the street can make a boring photo with the best pro camera. - MrMighty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Brillaince doesn't work on a schedule."
Brillaint :-) - DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think the photographer in this case was talking about art, not a photo-shoot. There is a difference when using a camera as an instrument to do a job for someone, versus creating an artistic piece of work. In otherwords, you don't bring a camera phone to a basketball game if your job is a sports photographer. It will get you fired. You don't bring a cheap point-and-shoot digital camera to a wedding reception that your getting paid to shoot. You bring proper tools of the trade.
However, even with a cheap digital point-and-shoot camera, set in auto, you could possibly get some good shots. You just have to wait for the right situation. Like the newlyweds dancing slowly in front of a stained glass window, and you set the exposure based on the light of the window, which would cause your subjects to be silhouettes. It would be 'artistic' and a great photo, but you will miss the majority of the shots that your client will be paying you for, the action shots like the drunk father dancing on the buffet table.
In your case, if your allowed, increase the light on your subjects, either with a bounced flash, or turn on more lights, or set up a cheap clip on light with a reflector aimed where there will be the most activity. If your camera has an aperature priority mode, set it to maximum (just watch your DOF). If your being paid for this photo-shoot as a pro, you should be more care full about the camera you bring, though. If you are doing this as a favor to the family, then explain about the limitations of your camera (no motion shots, occasional flashes, have to open the drapes on the windows, etc.) - student69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Ken Rockwell is a very good photographer and knows his stuff. This is a very good read. Also for Nikon SLR users he has a extensive list of lens reviews that are always a good read.
- immure, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7As EssPii says, take what he says with a grain of salt - yes, the rule of three is made to be broken, but its not made to be ignored either. Looking through his gallery, I can't say that I particuarly like his uses of colour or composition, but that may just be personal taste.
He also seems to concentrate on film photography, with little mention of the effects that can be achieved in the digital darkroom. Although there is huge debate on whether a photoshopped photo is a 'true photo', it's this diggers opinion that if people like what you make, then it doesn't matter on the methods.
Still, stuff to think about in the article, but as he is ready to ignore most of the laws and guidelines in photography, feel free to ignore him! - EdShroomhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ansel Adams once said, "I'd rather see a fuzzy image of a sharp concept, than a sharp image of a fuzzy one."
On the other hand, he also said to buy the very best equipment you can afford. Fuzzy images of sharp concepts are nice and all, but sharp images of the same sharp concept are so much better. - tgraham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ken Rockwell's site is excellent- and invaluable resource.
- avazquez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, if you if use your point-and-shoot digicam to take the *same* shots as the SLR owner, of course your results can be worse. That's precisely a scenario where the more expensive camera will have the advantage.
I think you can get great shots, even better than those taken with the SLR, if you compete on creativity and oportunity awareness, not "let's portrait the same thing and compare the results" - SuperJason, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So, if this is true, I have an honest, real world situation I would like advice on.
I want to be able to take low light motion shots at a wedding reception. Typically, I would want a higher ISO setting, and my camera only has an ISO setting of 400. How am I supposed to take that shot? This Ken guy says to use a tripod, but that doesn't help in this situation, because it's NOT the camera that is moving.
That last wedding reception I went to, I took photos along side the photographer that paid $1000 more on his camera than I did. We took the same shots, and his looked better. What am I supposed to do in that situation.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this guy in every case, but there are a lot of times that the equipment can really help. I'm sure Ansel had a decent camera, even by todays standards. - weezerrock86, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I dont understand how Rockwell says that the photographer makes the great photo not the technology. Though he obviously uses settings or editing to make his pictures EXTREMLY saturated in a way that looks un-natural. But of course it sounds like his hero is Ansle Adams, who was a master of manipulating a photo so much that it hardley resembled the original shot.
- outofstep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4what he is trying to say is that most people on the internet are talking about how great certain kinds of cameras are. The best way to learn to shoot is to take thousands of pictures.
- bannonto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4All I was thinking about while reading this article was the SMUG episode of South Park. I think that there are a lot of valid points about the artistic importance of photography verses the technology. However, the technology in a better (usually more expensive) camera can help with creative expression in still shots.
- flashmaster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8putting a link to your site is SPAM
- Amything, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was going to dismiss it when I saw something about "take photograph alone blah blah" but upon further reading this is actually really cool stuff.
- outofstep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why don't you go look?
- Hiker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Geterix... no offence dude but that's a ***** comment. NO pro thinks spending wads of cash is the reason they'll take great photographs. The mere fact you think $1,200.00 is a lot of money for setup shows you don't really quite know what you're talking about.
- weezerrock86, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"To get the right light on a mountain you may need to wait for the right season, the right weather and the right time of day. This is how Ansel Adams was able to create such masterful works"
No Ansel Adams used many dark room techniques such as dodging and burning, etc, to manipulate his photos to extreme levels. For most negatives hes printed he would write extensive notes on how long to dodge and area and how much to burn another so as to make another print. He didn't just go out "WAIT FOR THE RIGHT LIGHT" shoot come back and print. He was a master of manipulation and understand technical and dark room skills more than being a good photographer. - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7...Not again. EssPea, will you just go die already? We know your blog exists, great. Wonderful. Now stop spamming it in your comments.
Anyways, it's a somewhat interesting read, but for a long article about photography, it sure is lacking photographs. - egorgry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I equate the camera phone as the digital version of a holga. Horrible results if down wrong but if you work with the medium then it can produce some very unique results. I try to take photos that make you look at something in a way you didn't before. If you don't know what aholga is I'd recommend checking out the images they produce. It's really cool.
Why mod someone down when they ask a question? This is one of many quandaries of the digg experience. - culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Creativity is nice, but all because something is creative does not make it art. When a baby reaches into his diaper and paints the wall with what he finds there, it is a very creative act, but it is not art." - article
NOW he tells me! I'm never going to THAT gallery again! - lls8ll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's kind'a funny to read this guy talking so much about the *uselessness* of gear and see him with this ENORMOUS telephoto tube on the front page :)
The read is actually very nice, though he did not astound me with his shots. I expected something more experimental/less conservative when I was reading... - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I've actually seen some damn good photographs taken with a cameraphone. Sure, they could have been made better with an SLR, but they were still awesome...
- phildo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Great find, great read. I've seen far too many folks get so wrapped up dropping dollars on the latest uber-megapixel whatever, and waste so much time trying to turn poor shots into poor shots with a higher dynamic range. Photography's not all that different from trying to learn an instrument - just because you bought a Stradivarius doesn't mean you're gonna sound like Joshua Bell.
I gotta disagree with his contention, though, that shooting on full auto is liberating. In certain instances I can see how this might be true, but far too often you're ceding creative control over how your final image, that story you're telling, is rendered. Just my $0.02. - kufurex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I found the articles a bit silly. At one point he talks about the obsoleteness of knowing the fundamentals of photography. If you want to be a monkey and just take photograph after photograph to eventually produce a decent one, then this is a good tutorial, otherwise, if you want to know why a picture looks the way it looks, and how you can make it look the way 'you' want it to, then you do need to know what an f-stop is, and what film speed is (even if you are using a digital camera).
And yes the camera doesn't matter if you know about composition, or are lucky enough to be at Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, as almost any picture you take will be a good one. But the camera does matter if you would like to make a good quality picture. A crappy phone camera wont take a good enough quality picture so you can get a print from it, but an SLR will give you quality. And if you do have an SLR, and actually did take some classes, or just bought a book and learned about f-stop, film speed, etc then you'll be able to take good quality pictures, and make them look exactly like you want them, and not just rely on luck. - jeliel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4There are competitions that are speed trials, where the photographer has 30 minutes with a model in an empty space (like an old factory) and a cheap disposable camera to work with.
Also and I forget his name, but this photographer went on a road trip in the US with a camera phone and it's unbelievable the pictures he took with it. - DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the point of the article is valid, once you learn your camera, try ignoring the technology, and look at the image in the viewfinder. Its the image that counts, not what f-stop or iso your using. I can't tell you how many times friends have said they took a 'amazing shot of a sunset' while on vacation or whatever, and they are excited about it and wanted me to see it. What I see, however, is a boring under lit foreground, with the horizon right in the middle of the frame, with overexposed hot spots in the sky, and some blow outs reflecting off random objects (windows, cars, cans on the sidewalk). The person taking this shot remembers how this scene looked in real-life, and he thinks I see what he saw. I don't. I just see a boring picture. Just by angling the camera slightly, this shot would have been a thousand times better. Even if the guy knew how to adjust the camera settings properly, chance are he would have shot the exact same scene, just with fewer blowouts. Its pretty difficult teaching someone to downplay the camera settings, and imagine what your seeing thru the viewfinder printed out and hanging on a wall. Do they really think that particular shot will look good? If not, look for another shot, another angle, get some interest in the foreground, get the hot spots out of the lens (unless that's what you are going for), get something of interest in the frame instead of just horizon and sky. We need scale, composition, shadow, light, etc. And then, when you think you have the perfect shot in frame, take LOTS of pictures, keep the best one, fiddle with the camera settings in between shots to get different exposures and depth of fields.
- EssPii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4If the right light isn't there to begin with, dodging and burning isn't going to help a thing.
There is probably 10 - 20 minutes of the 'right' light in a day. - rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You two are talking past each other. Just because the clients of professional photographers want the kinds of pictures taken with big expensive DSLRs doesn't mean that good photos can't be taken with lesser equipment.
But go right ahead if you're just looking for a pissing match. Who's gonna be the first to cite features of particular models of camera? - FotoMalo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You are correct. The tool is important but it should not detract from the art. Having a camera that "fits" your bill when taking shots for a particular situation is important. For example, taking a Canon 5D to a low light wedding will product better results than say taking a Nikon D200 simply for the fact that you can easily push the 5D to ISO3200 and produce excellent results with little to no need for post processing.
The camera is the tool. True photographers know the tool so well that they don't "think" about it. They just shoot. A couple of pro's I have worked with carry 3 to 4 boddies to a shoot and each is used for a particular situation. - EdShroomhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Dodging and burning will only get you so far. That's why Ansel developed and used the "Zone System," so that he could have the best possible exposed negatives that would be much easier to develop and print once they got to the darkroom. Ansel was a great photographer. He also happened to be a master of the technical aspects of it. On the other hand, Edward Weston wasn't interested so much in the technical, but was a great photographer nonetheless. Is either one better? Of course, that's subjective. I'm a fan of both, but greatly appreciate Ansel's added technical prowess. Advanced knowledge of technique in any field will never hurt you. And it doesn't make you any less of an "artist" either.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I should create an autofocus image detector just like that fake scientific essay detector. That'll show them.
- Haplo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The reason magazines suggest expensive cameras is to weed out the wanna-bes."
The most stupid reasoning I have read this year, maybe even in my life. - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No what he is saying is to ignore learning anything about technical aspects of photography (like what light does) and just trust the "P" mode on your camera. Ignoring what light does is a great way to make a lot of mediocre shots, even if your framing is awesome.
- jbdesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ken Rockwell is well-known as a blowhard who just writes stuff to get a reaction. And for those who like his lens reviews, he's a great source for specifications but the reviews almost always start out with "I've never actually used this lens, but...."
I don't know how much I'd trust a guy who writes five-page reviews based on a glance at the spec sheet and no real hands-on experience with the lens itself. - mindtrap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What everyone is missing is that yes, you can take amazing pictures with camera phones. But these days everyone and their grand mother thinks they're artists and are amazing photographers because they have the ability to take a zillion pictures with their camera phones.
The reason magazines suggest expensive cameras is to weed out the wanna-bes. But if you do manage to take amazing pictures with a $200 camera, doesn't mean that the magazines will turn you away. I have taken amazing pictures with a $1.99 film camera. Nothing worth selling, but something I'd definitely look into. As for digital. Anything less than 6MP is not worth it, the quality just isn't there and does't event match film.
The way you need to think of a photograph is like looking through a dirty window. If the photograph is so compelling that it allows you to look beyond the inferior equipment, then you've got a great picture.
And BTW, the article isn't that great. Just a lot of fluff. And way too many book suggestions. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The reality is that true great photographers have a real special talent and they never frequent sites like his, dpreview or others. I have worked with some great photographers and I am always in constant amazement of what they *see*. The vision they posses is unique."
But did they just come to that on their own? They may have taken classes, read tons of books, and may have taken many lousy pictures in the process. No great photographer has ever started great, they just destroy the bad photos before you see them, so it just looks that way. - Haplo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The grasshopper picture on http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2006/05/04/arachnids-coyolillo-1.html is one I couldn't have made with my old Philips EPS60 camera. I might have been able to get a bettter close up picture, but not this one :-)
- Haplo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Look at photo's you like, and check out if they have EXIF info.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I think the point of the article is valid, once you learn your camera, try ignoring the technology, and look at the image in the viewfinder. Its the image that counts, not what f-stop or iso your using. I can't tell you how many times friends have said they took a 'amazing shot of a sunset' while on vacation or whatever, and they are excited about it and wanted me to see it. What I see, however, is a boring under lit foreground, with the horizon right in the middle of the frame, with overexposed hot spots in the sky, and some blow outs reflecting off random objects (windows, cars, cans on the sidewalk)."
But your quote shows exactly why Rockwell is so wrong at the heart of what he talks about. Chances are your friend took that picture using automatic settings just as Rockwell would dictate, and as you noted the result is a mess even if the original scene looked fantastic. You've got to be able to see a scene through your camera, and then understand what the camera is going to do to that scene - and to understand that, even to understand what auto mode will do, means you need some tecnical details of how a camera captures light. Otherwise you're just one monkey in many staring at an LCD and trying shot after shot but not understanding what to change to make things better. Eventually you might ge the phtographic equivilent of shakespere, but it's more likley you'll get monkey dung. - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I don't know how much I'd trust a guy who writes five-page reviews based on a glance at the spec sheet and no real hands-on experience with the lens itself."
I do - not at all. And why stop there? Not beliving anything else he says about anything can serve you pretty well.
There are plenty of photographic resources around the web with accurate information, no need to visit Rockwell's site. - jun0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ken is good at typical composition of images. He doesn't really have a unique tale on stuff.
And jesus. His pictures can be summed up in one word: oversaturated. - mindtrap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You could use the crapiest camera with the most scratched up lens, if the composition is perfect and you know how to take advantage of the equipment you have, then you have art. Simple as that.
- Yimmy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This guy is an idiot. As I try to wade through his writeup get some interesting tips on photography, I am constant bombarded by insults on the technical folk. Give me a break, an engineer can't be a photographer? I'm sorry I do cry when I take pictures.
FYI, don't be stupid. You need a good camera to take high quality pictures. - brandonking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wait, I'm confused. So I don't need fancy equipment to take amazing photos, so why do I need these reviews?
(Yes, that's sarcasm. I think this pat everyone on the back and tell them they're capable BS is, well, BS.) - jun0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The bottom line is this: if you do not have natural talent for photography, you are never going to be a good photographer. People seem to think that if they buy the best gear, the best books and go to seminars that they will magically become awesome photographers.
Edit:
One last note. I'm 17 and I probably could have told you all the stuff in that article, and more. It's not like his ideas are revolutionary. To a photographer, they are common sense.
flickr.com/photos/hlg/ - tunafizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Try The Nikon School, which really is just a day-long slide show that costs $100 when I took it in 2001. It covers more in the very first hour more than most photo courses teach in a semester"
Sorry but no. C'mon think about it, who is going to take better photographs; someone who has taken at least 2 years of classes with hands on experience in a darkroom/ with photoshop, or somebody that took a weekend workshop. Let's not be stupid here.
And if you shoot in auto the whole time you're actually losing creative control. Letting a camera decide the depth of field and ISO is good if your just shootin around but if you need to do any other work, then you'll want control to be happier with your photographs.
"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can sp...." While it is true that you can't expect for mindblowing photo's to happen just because you have a brand new Canon 5D, equipment DOES affect the quality of your image, let's not be stupid. A one megapixel camera you got in the dollar bin that just drowns out highlights and thinks shadows=black vs. a 1,200 DSLR.... or a 5.99 drugstore rangefinder that uses piss-poor c-41 machine processing vs a medium format Hassleblad... - MateyO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@immure
See, that's the problem, you don't like his 'color composition'. The internet is FULL of pompous photographer types. (which is what teh article is partially about) It's flat impossible to say 'I don't like the picture'. It's gotta be something like 'I'd use a different emulsion to bring out the violets.', or 'I would have framed it better.'
That kind of sanctimonius crap scares off hobbiests. It's not constructive. - Haplo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"First and foremost your camera has NOTHING to do with making great photos. "
Now that's why I see everybody making great photos with a Casio LV-10. I understand what the author is trying to say, but you can't make a good point with a ***** line. Artists *do* use good material, because it helps them producing better art. Calling this a myth is making up a myth yourself. -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is