The more I read about different photographers

[The Dude]

what they use and how they use it the better picture I get about the whole lens thing. Sure that 18-200 VR lens sure is sweet but... Not that sharp, great for travel and day to day things however the 17-55 F2.8 is way much better (at twice the price and no reach to speak of...)

The 85mm 1.4 is a little wonder and well so is the 50mm 1.8 ...

And Ken Rockwell's web site is where I would get all my info before on lenses but... but... Yea he is a professional photographer to the level that JBH "The Second" is a professional watch reviewer and writer... Ken Rockwell writes good camera and lens reviews and takes a good picture but ... But I take better car pictures than he does, I look at his pictures - and they sure are nice but they lack one thing, there is no magic, no wow factor, they lack soul. This said, they are good pictures and he makes a living at it.

A pro who uses a 18-200 VR and a 12-24mm for 99% of his work is just lazy - he just doesn't want to carry too many lenses.

I am impressed at the level of knowledge and the sole guy who uses strickly what Ken Rockwell uses on a couple of Nikon forums. Why stick with one recommendation - One guy just loves prime lenses. So do I but that's because for a certain type of image they are great. Zoom lenses have their place, depends on what you are shooting.

What to do for the next lens? Well if money was not object I'd get a 18-200 VR and a 12-24mm and and 85mm 1.5 and a 35mm and a 17-55 F2.8 and a 70-200 F2.8 VR and a... But alas I am only limited by my means... One thing at a time one thing at a time.

Just that I should have known better. Ken Rockwell takes good soulless pictures, too much photoshop in there the colors are too vivid (He might as well be using a Canon camera...) I look at younger photographer or older ones who still shoot film or are "professional" amateurs and want to learn how to take better portraits of their grand child and there is some oomph - there is soul in the pictures, for them it is not a pay check, for them it is not just another assignment - For them it is a passion and a love for what they do, and that passion is reflected in the images they share with others.

The more I read about different photographers the more I look at their pictures the more I appreciate pictures at the amateur level who are not so stuck in their ways and technique.

No photography class, no course, only a D70s with a $100 lens on it and a speed light, that my friend is, to me, soul - this is what I call a picture with "Oomph" - I am just a guy who loves a good person image, this is a level above a snapshot. Using Nikon Capture to convert it to B&W and tweak it a little, dark tones, sharpness and all. But that's pretty much it.

[gforce]

damn bro, i want to buy a D70 now..

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by gforce

damn bro, i want to buy a D70 now..

Actually if I were you I'd go with a D50, it performs better at high ISO and has better images right out of the camera and is way cheaper at the moment - go to a camera store and handle both but the D50 has better in camera image processing - D70 is great too! It is not the equipment you use - it is how you use it and finding what works for you which counts.

[Rockrolex]

Normally I use a D70 with a 28-300 VR lens. I find that's the best all around lens for me -and you're right, Patrick, it's because I hate carrying a bunch of different lenses.

Right now the D70 is in the shop - the speedlight quit on me. So this weekend I was using my Canon Powershot S400. Here's one of the pics I took with it.



I'll post some more when I get some time.

[roadcarver]

I only have the kit lens for my D70 and it works great. I had to change the built in curve to a custom one from ToneUp S3.

Compared to my CP5700, I noticed that I had to do some PP with a D70, but after using the custom curves, its better right out of the camera.

Here's a shot with the kit lens using program mode(sport) + custom curve on a cloudy day this past weekend.

[Uncle-AJ]

I have an 18-200 VR but I've always been lazy.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by Uncle-AJ

I have an 18-200 VR but I've always been lazy.

Maybe I need to go and revise my post... Since I posted it in a few places - I had different feedback. And my whole point was it doesn't matter with what you shoot, the camera the lenses in the end your passion will show through in your pictures, Ken Rockwell has found something which works for him, heck I want an 18-200 VR as it would be great for Street Photography but I'll probably buy - I don't know what first - an 85mm F1.4 or a 17-55 F2.8, in the end I might just go with a 18-200 VR as it is a great versatile lens.

My whole point was not yea - he is maybe perhaps lazy or just mainly very practical, what do I know, he says he hates carrying heavy lenses. I don't mind carrying them, not a bunch but I am trying to find a few I can carry around.

Just that at times, professional photographers even with the best possible equipment their pictures may not have any soul because the passion isn't there. I should have slept on that one or wrote it better.

It is just that I even surprise myself at the images I get out of my camera and I used a D70s, which is a great body with a 50mm F1.8 which is like a $100 Lens... And I went wow... Even my old point and shoot at times I went "wow" with the images I was able to capture.

So the equipment doesn't matter - the person handling does and do not listen to people's recommendation, just take it into account. What works with one person may not work for another. Find your own feet, be your own person, develop your own style and when the passion leaves you, move on to other things and let the passionate one take over.

[Uncle-AJ]

Originally Posted by The Dude

So the equipment doesn't matter - the person handling does and do not listen to people's recommendation, just take it into account. What works with one person may not work for another. Find your own feet, be your own person, develop your own style and when the passion leaves you, move on to other things and let the passionate one take over.

I wouldn't entirely agree with this Patrick. I've found that since I've upgraded to a D200 and D2Xs (with prime lens) my pictures have improved dramatically. In my opinion, the equipment you use matters one hell of a lot. Then again, the guy on the end of the shutter release has a big part to play as well.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by Uncle-AJ

I wouldn't entirely agree with this Patrick. I've found that since I've upgraded to a D200 and D2Xs (with prime lens) my pictures have improved dramatically. In my opinion, the equipment you use matters one hell of a lot. Then again, the guy on the end of the shutter release has a big part to play as well.

Now you are killing me! Perhaps I should just skip to a D2Xs which would be an excess for me! Hummm back to the drawing board but... Wait, you are an excellent photographer to start with!

[Earl]

Ed this time of the year the tree colors are so vivid the reds and oranges POP when you look at them and to get that feeling transfered to camera is very very difficult! I too have the D70s the wife loves it as she is the one who uses it the most. I on the other hand use pretty much the 885 (nikon) in my wonderings and shooting my watches.

[BruceS]

I agree with some of what Patrick has been saying here. One of the best people photographers I know shot all her stuff for years with an inexpensive point n shoot. Her work is amazing. She's had a local university publish a book of her work, she sold numerous prints, and has had one or two shown in a gallery. All with a simple point n shoot.

Recently, she's upgraded to a DSLR. Her work is even better now! Equipment does matter, but where it matters most is in print. You won't see any difference on the internet, well not much. When you start trying to sell stuff to publishers, they want BIG files, just like they used to demand medium format film, and some still prefer it.

The problem is, at least with Canon, once you go up to pro level cameras with L series pro lenses, there's like NO margin for error. They are quite unforgiving. The assumption is that the photographer has all the skills for exposure control, etc. Take the same pic with a prosumer camera with kit lens and it may well look better out of the camera in jpg. What the pro stuff does offer is the "potential for" better print quality work at full page or two page spreads. Just an edit here: that last sentence is assuming more megapixels. More megapixels, however, doesn't necessarily equate to better quality. The pro camera bodies also offer water and dust tightness, and the pro lenses have the same seals. So, you can stand out in pretty much a driving rain storm taking pics if you have to and not worry about your equipment. As for dust, think photo journalist in Iraq!

I know Patrick is a people photographer. He's got a passion for it and an eye for what interests others. You do have to have passion for people to get those kind of shots. All the best photo journalist have it. Landscape and wildlife work is a different ball game. The passion still has to be there, but maybe it's applied differently with a different set of skills. Btw, if you read Ken Rockwell's site carefully, he still shoots most of his landscape stuff with a large format film camera, and I believe Fuji Velvia film :)
Just my thoughts,
Bruce

[SLRdude]

I agree with a lot of things that Patrick is saying.

I have always said that unless you print huge images, what kind of camera you have does not really matter. What kind of lens you use does not really matter.

Sure... a wide angle f1.8 lens will be better for shooting weddings or stuff in low light. Sure.... a fast telephoto with VR might be better at taking pictures of wildlife, and yeah... a 1:1 macro lens will be better at taking a watch picture.

But at the end, if your picture does not move others, then it is not a good picture. It might be technically perfect, but nobody cares with the exception of your publisher (if you got one) and perhaps the photographer himself.

Show the camera an image worth seeing and nobody will ever care what you use and how much you spent on it. It's that simple.

It really is an art, and I am a strong believer that it requires that the shooter has that special something that is needed to create a strong picture.

Patrick has it when it comes to shooting people. He just has a gift at it and personally I could not care less if he was using a camera phone. The message is still there, and it moves me in a certain way.

I decided that I wanted to learn photography around April of this year, and since then, just like Patrick, I have been studying lots and lots of images, and reading lots of sites. Including Ken Rockwell. (and just like Patrick, I think that his pics are boring, even if they might be technically correct)

We all know that I am almost incapable of posting an image that hasn't been photoshopped in some way or another. Sometimes that is not a bad thing, but sometimes it is. (I am a fan of vivid, saturated colours though)

I had the opportunity to shoot two weddings over the past few months, and I did it for people I know, at rock bottom prices. I have studies lots of wedding photographers that charge over 1500 dollars, and I was amazed at how crappy some of their pictures were!! And I found some that had a picture that you just could not take your eyes off!
Maybe some photographers spend so much time worrying about the rule of thirds, and about ISO, and F and this and that, that they forget about the true meaning of photography. Capturing the moment.

[Otis]

Originally Posted by BruceS

Btw, if you read Ken Rockwell's site carefully, he still shoots most of his landscape stuff with a large format film camera, and I believe Fuji Velvia film :)
Just my thoughts,
Bruce

Velvia is mana from the heavens!

It's great (but not cheap) as a learning tool - it's rather unforgiving and exposes mistakes well (mental note: don't over-polarise everything!)

[BruceS]

The interesting thing is that it's ALWAYS been the person behind the lens that makes the picture. If there's no vision there's no picture worth looking at. The other thing that's interesting to me is in the film days, the pros always said it's not the camera body that matters, it's the lens. Spend your money on good glass. The body is just a place for the film to go. Times have changed with digital because the film is the image sensor and so much processing goes on in the camera. Funny thing is, sometimes I think I took better pics with my "old" Canon 300D (the original Digital Rebel), with a kit lens. Now I've got all these expensive cameras and lenses and I sometimes struggle with them. It can be damn frustrating. My FIL has a Canon EOS 3 film camera that he bought for him and I to play with. I'm gonna get some good old fashion b/w film and go take some landscapes with the good lenses. It'll all be down to me and not how someone programmed an image sensor. I'm looking forward to it

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by Otis

Velvia is mana from the heavens!

It's great (but not cheap) as a learning tool - it's rather unforgiving and exposes mistakes well (mental note: don't over-polarise everything!)

Yeah some guys won't even use a polarizer with Velvia!

[Otis]

Originally Posted by BruceS

Yeah some guys won't even use a polarizer with Velvia!

That's what I've been told, but since when do I listen?
bloody colour profiles on browsers don't help either







I'll try next time without one, it ought to help the slightly underexposed nature too. A lot of guys recommend rating it at 40 instead of 50. It's fun to experiment though.

[BruceS]

That one image reminded me of this one


This was digital and with a 3 x neutral density grad filter. The sky is a bit over done, IMO, but like you, I kinda like that I was right up on those rocks at 24mm.
Cheers,
Bruce

[Otis]

Nice! I like how the sky contrasts with the grass, just seems to 'pop' out.

I'm the type to put a vignette or grad over pretty much most things, it's how I like it and I yam what I yam
I can't get over how sharp things are with digital, how much detail there is in the image. Very cool

[BruceS]

Thanks Otis. A lot of why I've been struggling lately is that I'm experimenting so much with filters. I'll get so much technical garbage in my head that I loose the vision sometimes, lol. That was a good day though, climbing up a pretty high Tor on Dartmoor. I shot everything on a tripod that day at f22 and all with the same grad filter. Was probably around 1400 and I'd guess the wind was a pretty constant 30 mph. Not the best time of day or conditions to be taking pics!

I was pretty happy with this one too


I enjoyed looking at your film pics, btw! It's been several years now since I've shot film. I'm looking forward to doing it again. Actually, I really want a medium format film camera. It's just such an expensive proposition all the way around.
Cheers,
Bruce

[Otis]

Another nice one there Bruce
The cloud shadow (I think?) in the fore on the ground is a nice touch.

Yeah film is good, but it's the reason why I don't do as much as I'd like. Pay $18 for a roll and another $10 for development....ouch.
I think I'm going to get a dslr soon, just so I can get more confident with the manual functions and experiment a bit, which will hopefully translate to shooting less film but better results. Any tips on landscapes?

[BruceS]

It is the expense of it all that's kept me from investing in medium format equipment. Now, even a lot of the landscape pros are using a Canon 1Ds Mark II at 16 megapixels. It's a hell of a lot of money, but compare that to a digital back for a medium format camera. Bloody hell, you gotta be making a lot of money in photography or somewhere else to afford that!!

Tips? I'm not sure I'm the guy to ask.

This is where I go to learn: http://luminous-landscape.com/ although I don't follow him to the letter (for instance, he no longer uses neutral density grads, he takes multiple pics and blends them).

What I've done is: Invest in a set of neutral density grads, shoot at as small an aperature as possible for dof, and use a tripod. I used to hate carrying a tripod around, until I invested in a carbon fiber model. Not that I enjoy carrying it around, but I can't hold a camera steady at f22, and rarely can I well at f16. I just used to think I could, lol. The other thing I did was to invest in a good hand held light meter. Kinda back to the old ways of film. I bought a great book on exposure. Can't remember who wrote it now, but he's a medium format photog. He went on and on about how you can bracket exposure, but he hates to waste film, and would rather get it right the first time. Honestly, I'm still learning how to use it. Sometimes it's great and sometimes the in camera meter reads it better, but I think that's just cause I didn't read it right with the hand held meter

I'm just a few miles from Bodmin Moor now. I've not been up there to take pics yet, but it's one of the best natural landscapes in the UK. I can see the hills from my house. This thread is inspiring me. Now I really must go to bed
Cheers,
Bruce

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by BruceS

I agree with some of what Patrick has been saying here. One of the best people photographers I know shot all her stuff for years with an inexpensive point n shoot. Her work is amazing. She's had a local university publish a book of her work, she sold numerous prints, and has had one or two shown in a gallery. All with a simple point n shoot.

Recently, she's upgraded to a DSLR. Her work is even better now! Equipment does matter, but where it matters most is in print. You won't see any difference on the internet, well not much. When you start trying to sell stuff to publishers, they want BIG files, just like they used to demand medium format film, and some still prefer it.

The problem is, at least with Canon, once you go up to pro level cameras with L series pro lenses, there's like NO margin for error. They are quite unforgiving. The assumption is that the photographer has all the skills for exposure control, etc. Take the same pic with a prosumer camera with kit lens and it may well look better out of the camera in jpg. What the pro stuff does offer is the "potential for" better print quality work at full page or two page spreads. Just an edit here: that last sentence is assuming more megapixels. More megapixels, however, doesn't necessarily equate to better quality. The pro camera bodies also offer water and dust tightness, and the pro lenses have the same seals. So, you can stand out in pretty much a driving rain storm taking pics if you have to and not worry about your equipment. As for dust, think photo journalist in Iraq!

I know Patrick is a people photographer. He's got a passion for it and an eye for what interests others. You do have to have passion for people to get those kind of shots. All the best photo journalist have it. Landscape and wildlife work is a different ball game. The passion still has to be there, but maybe it's applied differently with a different set of skills. Btw, if you read Ken Rockwell's site carefully, he still shoots most of his landscape stuff with a large format film camera, and I believe Fuji Velvia film :)
Just my thoughts,
Bruce

Thank you Bruce.

I have an eye for people and I don't know how I do it. My nexty lens will be an 85mm/f1.4 and then a 17-55mm/f2.8 then a D2Xs... A few more lenses and that's it.

I love photography and want to get to do it full time eventually - I am not there yet - working on it.

The equipment plays a part in and yet without the passion the equipement is for nothing.

[Otis]

Originally Posted by The Dude

The equipment plays a part in and yet without the passion the equipement is for nothing.

Bingo. Buy a car and you're a driver. Buy a flute, and you have a flute.

or something like that

BTW Patrick, you've inspired me with your pics! Tomorrow I'm going to head off to the beach. All I'll be taking is my 50mm, 1 roll of film and I'm going to stay on manual all the way! Look out....

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by Otis

Bingo. Buy a car and you're a driver. Buy a flute, and you have a flute.

or something like that

BTW Patrick, you've inspired me with your pics! Tomorrow I'm going to head off to the beach. All I'll be taking is my 50mm, 1 roll of film and I'm going to stay on manual all the way! Look out....

Yea yea yea sure sure - blame for everything!

It is nice to try a new lens and a prime one at that as well as play with it. Can't wait to see your pics.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by BruceS

Thanks Otis. A lot of why I've been struggling lately is that I'm experimenting so much with filters. I'll get so much technical garbage in my head that I loose the vision sometimes, lol.

This is one thing I don't want to get into so much - so as not to lose the vision however I think it is important to be able to take the best possible picture the first time as such yea... technical garbage is helpful but I find practice more rewarding. Once I get a D2Xs I'll have to get a tad technical...

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by comatox

I have always said that unless you print huge images, what kind of camera you have does not really matter. What kind of lens you use does not really matter.

But at the end, if your picture does not move others, then it is not a good picture. It might be technically perfect, but nobody cares with the exception of your publisher (if you got one) and perhaps the photographer himself.

Show the camera an image worth seeing and nobody will ever care what you use and how much you spent on it. It's that simple.

It really is an art, and I am a strong believer that it requires that the shooter has that special something that is needed to create a strong picture.

Patrick has it when it comes to shooting people. He just has a gift at it and personally I could not care less if he was using a camera phone. The message is still there, and it moves me in a certain way.

I decided that I wanted to learn photography around April of this year, and since then, just like Patrick, I have been studying lots and lots of images, and reading lots of sites. Including Ken Rockwell. (and just like Patrick, I think that his pics are boring, even if they might be technically correct)

Maybe some photographers spend so much time worrying about the rule of thirds, and about ISO, and F and this and that, that they forget about the true meaning of photography. Capturing the moment.

Thanks,

Well first I'd like to say that I did not study too many sites but did peruse a few and last week I started reading on two sites and participating on one NikonCafe.com, this is where I went whoa! Ken Rockwell isn't right about everything afterall some of these folks can take a wicked pictures and they are from all ages and background.

I like a good picture right out of the camera, I do not like photoshopped pictures which lose their warmth.

I am starting to believe I may have a talent to take pictures of people after this thread.

I don't have to worry about the technique - I like having one or two settings in my camera and going with it -making that one or two setting work for me as opposed to resetting the camera all the time due to whatever condition I find myself in, this as served me real well so far.

I'd rather play with different lenses than photoshop and/or the camera settings to get the results I want. Less technique more creativity. A couple of prime lenses and two zoom lenses and I am set (yea right! How many watches again....) ;-)

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by The Dude

This is one thing I don't want to get into so much - so as not to lose the vision however I think it is important to be able to take the best possible picture the first time as such yea... technical garbage is helpful but I find practice more rewarding. Once I get a D2Xs I'll have to get a tad technical...

I liken it to golf Patrick. You have to learn how to swing a club correctly. You have to learn proper alignment, etc, etc. Problem is, you can't go out on the course and play well with all that crap racing around in your head! I think another similarity between golf and photography is that no matter how much you know technically, or even how much you can execute technically, you'll never be as good as someone with as much technical knowledge and more natural ability, or vision/creativity as it were in art.

The good people/documentary photographers I know don't really do much technical at all. They just whack the camera on program mode and fire away, unless they're up to something artistic with dof or something. I'm not talking about portrait or wedding photogs, but ones who take pics like you do. I'd call it documentary or photo journalism.

I think the good landscape photographers have to factor in a few more things though, but they usually have a lot of time to do it. The scene isn't usually changing quickly. If you have a sky that's 4 f stops brighter than the foreground, you're not going to get a good picture unless you consider that and do something "technical" about it. You might use a 3 x ND grad, or maybe you take a pic of the sky and a pic of the foreground and blend them in PS. Regardless of the technique, there's a technical consideration to be made that goes beyond framing and choice of lens. I think the art or vision in it is seeing the picture you want in your mind and then using the tools you have to capture it. You have to understand the tools to do that though, and to me, that's the technical part.
Cheers,
Bruce

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by BruceS

I liken it to golf Patrick. You have to learn how to swing a club correctly. You have to learn proper alignment, etc, etc. Problem is, you can't go out on the course and play well with all that crap racing around in your head! I think another similarity between golf and photography is that no matter how much you know technically, or even how much you can execute technically, you'll never be as good as someone with as much technical knowledge and more natural ability, or vision/creativity as it were in art.

The good people/documentary photographers I know don't really do much technical at all. They just whack the camera on program mode and fire away, unless they're up to something artistic with dof or something. I'm not talking about portrait or wedding photogs, but ones who take pics like you do. I'd call it documentary or photo journalism.

I think the good landscape photographers have to factor in a few more things though, but they usually have a lot of time to do it. The scene isn't usually changing quickly. If you have a sky that's 4 f stops brighter than the foreground, you're not going to get a good picture unless you consider that and do something "technical" about it. You might use a 3 x ND grad, or maybe you take a pic of the sky and a pic of the foreground and blend them in PS. Regardless of the technique, there's a technical consideration to be made that goes beyond framing and choice of lens. I think the art or vision in it is seeing the picture you want in your mind and then using the tools you have to capture it. You have to understand the tools to do that though, and to me, that's the technical part.
Cheers,
Bruce

And this is why I am interested in taking a photography course in order to capture better images.

[BruceS]

Originally Posted by The Dude

And this is why I am interested in taking a photography course in order to capture better images.

You know Patrick, you'll be unstoppable You have more raw talent than anyone I've seen in a long time. Give your life to it mate.
Cheers,
Bruce

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by BruceS

You know Patrick, you'll be unstoppable You have more raw talent than anyone I've seen in a long time. Give your life to it mate.
Cheers,
Bruce

Thanks Bruce,

Check out this guy, lotsa of talent and he went to University for photography

His work is very impressive.

http://www.benjaminkrain.com/