On Oct 11, 2008, at 7:24 AM, Edwin Blenkinsopp wrote:
Isn't it the case that the best craftsman achieve the best that there
tools can deliver?
Yes, but that doesn't mean rushing out to buy the latest and greatest
thing to hit the market. There's a lot to be said for familiarity
with the equipment at hand. A Formula 1 car may be able to do great
things with an experienced driver at the wheel, but a novice would
likely stall it before leaving the start/finish line or spin out on
the first curve. In other words, buying a race car doesn't make you
a better driver.
Isn't also the case that less good craftsman can also do something
better with better equipment?
Yes, see above. I think most equipment sold as "new and improved" is
more of a marketing gimmick than a statement of actual quality or
performance. I own a Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8 which has been superseded
by several lenses since it came out, but my lens is still sharper
than most/all of them. The newer ones have ultrasonic motors and
things like image stabilization, but mine is sharper and suits my
needs. The sharpest lens I've ever owned is over 50 years old, as is
the camera to which it's attached.
I think having the 'latest' definitely gives an edge and giving a good
photographer the most superb equipment one could expect to see
comparable results
An edge over what? Someone used to making happy snaps with their
subject smiling in the middle of the frame is going to make the same
photos whether they use a cheap point-and-shoot or a top-of-the-line
Hasselblad digital camera. Someone who doesn't pay attention to the
whole frame with a cheap camera isn't going to do so with an
expensive one. Someone who photographs dull landscapes in the
noonday sun is going to do the same thing with whatever gear they own.
I really wish more people would put the effort into thinking about
what makes a photograph good than the type of equipment used to make
it. A carpenter would probably tell you that it's much more
important to know where to make a cut than the brand and type of saw
used to make it.
Cheers,
Rich
Edwin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Mason
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:32 AM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: Ok so everyone seems to want lively debate (not flame
wars)
Mark,
I wish photographers starting out would only be allowed to have one
camera with a fixed focal length lens for the first five years. Then
they would be told to go out and see the world. No zooms. No ultra
wide angles. No super telephotos. No 50 frame-per-second bodies.
The only permitted accessories would be a tripod and cable/remote
release. If more photographers did this and spent their time looking
and seeing rather than fiddling with equipment and pining over what
they don't have, they would become better photographers.
I agree that a good photographer can make a good picture with almost
any properly functioning piece of equipment. That's because the most
important elements of a photograph aren't reliant on the gear one
uses--composition, content and the quality of the light. Gimmickry
rarely adds anything, but, rather, detracts from the skills of a good
image maker.
A few years back I did a slide show for a local camera club. I
projected three 80-picture trays which represented 5 or 6 years of my
work as a photojournalist. The only questions I received at the end
of the show were along the lines of "what kind of equipment do you
use?" I promised myself never again would I waste my time doing that.
Cheers,
Rich
On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:51 AM, Mark Blackwell wrote:
Ok I will throw out some stink bait. I am often amazed at how many
people think that they MUST have the latest and greatest new
equipment. They have great stuff but no idea of what to do with
it. Others take junk and excel which begs the question, "Just how
much of a part of the total success is the tool, and how much of it
is the person running the tool?"
I use some old stuff. I have an old Voigtlander that was bought in
the 50s that I still use. I have an old 4x5 view camera that is
probably about that old. Both still work well, with some
limitations.
Lenses are another long term investment. Do you upgrade every time
a new lens appears? Who buys used lenses?? How used??? grin Zoom
or primes??? Oh the choices.
Digital with its short life expectancy is a much tougher choice.
It's not a mature industry, at least not yet but it seems to be
getting closer. Not that long ago for what you would spend for a
5D you could get the D30 that was a 3.3 MP and the state of the
art. Each new model does bring improvements, but when is the
improvement enough to justify the new investment? It's not like
the old one quits working. All tough decisions.
Its all part of the overall product. IF money is no object, you
always get new stuff. Still that rarely is the case. So it brings
us back to how much of a great photo is tool, and how much is
between the ears of the person running it?
