Posted by Pat Warfield on December 19, 2007 at 2:02 PM
About 2 years ago I began trying to solve issues with Digitally created images. Since I am a career photographer who switched to digital about 5 years ago I had good technique. After getting over being amazed at 'any' captured image & how easy it is to process, I began being critical again. The biggest culprit I found is consumer grade lenses. I replaced all lenses with Canon's 'L' series - 3 out of 4 are stabilized - the macro 180 does not have stabilization. Wonder why, this lens is often used 'hand held' chasing bugs & flowers.
I also shoot Raw + Small Jpeg. In compromised lighting situations we can almost 'reshoot' the image with editing in Raw. Raw images are 'almost' always sharper & more brilliant than their companion Jpegs. Notice that I use 'ALMOST' when I qualify my comments now. Ha!
I have been editing several images to give to family for Christmas. These are family events throughout the year & were not shot for professional use. But, almost every 'snapshot'is a beauty in sharpness, color & detail. I mostly use the Jpegs but if image is lesser quality, I pull up the Raw and get a good 50% more improved image.
How many photographers spend big bucks to go to beautiful places to shoot, but settle for amateur equipment that will never give superior results. The lenses I use most are the 24-105L Stabilized & the 100-400L Stabilized (big, but a good general focal length for sports, hikes & vacations.) The beautiful 70-200 2.8L Stabilized mostly gets used for low light situations since it is neither wide nor long.
Hope this helps others who are perplexed by the performance of their newest & greatest camera. Obviously, we need the best camera we can afford, but I think it is only 1/2 of the solution.
These are not the only improvements to my photography & technique, but the more outstanding on the camera side.
I love this forum. It's the only one I participate in.
I agree, with lenses most times you get what you pay for.
Not sure about this comment though:
How many photographers spend big bucks to go to beautiful places to shoot, but settle for amateur equipment that will never give superior results.
In my opinion the opposite happens more often: people spend big money on high-end gear but don't go out enough. Having to choose between a beautiful outdoor experience with "amateur" gear vs. having the greatest camera and lenses but nowhere exciting to take them, I'll go with the former.
Guy
Posted by Pat Warfield on December 19, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Hi Guy, you are right as usual. By all means get out there & shoot & enjoy the outdoor experience. However, if we do shoot a lot, but have numerous shots that are flawed or lack-luster we need to try to solve some issues in technique or equipment.
My comment about spending big buck on trips & using inferior gear comes from experience. Too many times I have left my bulky 'Pro' equipment (even my guitar) home in deference to a companion or family. I missed some great shots or got the shots but not the quality. Needless to say I didn't enjoy the trip as much without my guitar - I need a back packer guitar but thats another subject.
By the way! How many of you photographers are also musicians - I know several.
Pat
Posted by David Bostedo on December 19, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Pat - I think you should start a new thread about that last question. Could be interesting...
Pat, I believe that most people who pursue a vocational hobby or profession will purchase equipment that possesses the highest quality they can best afford, and then strive to make the most of it. In some instances, like wood working or climbing, to site two very different examples, low quality tools may be hazardous to life or limb; so one would buy and learn how to use these tools to the absolute best of their ability.
I find myself in total agreement with Guy: Having the best gear and not getting out to use it and enjoy the experience of being 'out there' seems uneconomical and (for lack of a better term) wasteful. Personally, I go out to experience the world, either alone or with my friends, and photography is merely icing on the spice cake of life.
ps: I'm a long-time guitar flat-picker, and my music is as much a part of me as photography, and perhaps more-so.
-PB
Posted by Richard Wong on December 19, 2007 at 7:59 PM
I don't have what anything that is considered to be top of the line. I don't buy crap either though. I make the most of what I can afford. More important to me is am I getting the most bang for my buck? I believe so. I rarely have photos rejected by stock agencies due to technical problems so it goes to show if you know how to use your gear properly and know the limitations then anything is possible.
Case in point about the shooting v.s. buying gear, I've needed to replace my camera for five months now since it took a swim in the ocean and lost my manual exposure mode but opted to spend my money on two photo trips instead.
I was a pretty good saxophone player through college, and played in my university jazz bands / wrote tunes for our group. I had a lot of pent-up aggression back then so I took it out on the music. I played on an indie film track once. I dropped it a few years ago though due to lack of time. I've also played guitar for 13 years but I suck at it beyond power chords and some scales.
Posted by Vandit Kalia on December 20, 2007 at 2:15 AM
I used to go through a phase of obsessing about getting the best quality lens. Now I have a simple mantra: stick to fixed-aperture zooms, or failing that, the "pro" line of most manufacturers (EX for Sigma, L for Canon, ATX for Tokina, and so on). Beyond that, I do not really bother looking for minute differences between lenses.
My 2 beliefs that lead to this approach:
1/ Difference in optical quality between various optics manufacturers is small (build quality and AF speed do vary significantly, however - and pro grade lenses are better here). I dont shoot test charts. In the real world, there are many other factors which affect final sharpness, and so minor differences in sharpness tend to disappear in this greater variance.
2/ Small differences in sharpness are irrelevant in the real world. Whenever I have had a compelling image, no one has ever said "well, it lacks a little in critical sharpness." And if I have an image lacking in artistic merit, all the sharpness in the world isnt going to make it worthy of attention. Most lenses today, if used properly, are capable of delivering adequate sharpness - even the consumer zooms. The pro lenses are even better. One of my best shots was taken with a 28-105/3.5-4.5 consumer zoom. And you wont believe how many lousy - but sharp - shots I have taken with my 500/4.
My personal opinion... different people obviously feel differently and more power to them.
Vandit
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 20, 2007 at 1:20 PM
One of my best shots was taken with a 28-105/3.5-4.5 consumer zoom
That lens has great bang for the buck. Very nice little lens for the money.
I'm with Vandit and Richard. The highest quality equipment can make the work easier, but practice, vision and artistry go much further.
Posted by Michael Ginex on December 20, 2007 at 1:51 PM
I agree with Vandit. I used to hold the opinion that the better the gear the better the chances for success...but today the field has changed dramatically with digital. Even my wifey's digital point-and-shoot can deliver fabulously sharp, contrasty and color accurate photos. Of course if you're trying to freeze a sharpshinned hawk closing in at 45 MPH, or time expose a waterfall you probably need more help gear-wise.
I think too much emphasis is placed on sharpness anyway. IMO sometimes a little softness can add to the sensual beauty of a subject...even birds.
Now, as far as guitars go, it is such a personal instrument that the choice of which to own has to be based on how it feels in your hands and ultimately the quality of the sound. Unfortunately, that eventually leads one down the road to the high end custom mades. And believe me, as owner of a James L. D'Aquisto masterpiece, I can safely attest that there IS a difference.
Posted by RL Potts on December 20, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Amen, Vandit. On the other hand, for some folks, the technical aspects of imaging are more appealing than the aesthetic.
Posted by Pat Warfield on December 21, 2007 at 4:40 PM
I am an artist as well as a technician in visual arts & music. For me, there is no difference in an individual finding the right guitar for their playing style & expertise and finding the right camera gear for their level of photographic skills & applications. I first played finger-style traditional/folk, then began learning to play classical. My classical skills improved dramatically when I found the right guitar for my size & skill & tastes. Good equipment doesn't take the place of hours & hours of work or practice, it augments the results.
After solving several problems in digital capture, my digital photographs are now (mostly) on a par with my former medium format film camera output. I like the color of digital better, although I may borrow a film camera & shoot with my selection of 'L' lenses to see how current 35mm film compares to current digital.
Discussion
10 repliesI also shoot Raw + Small Jpeg. In compromised lighting situations we can almost 'reshoot' the image with editing in Raw. Raw images are 'almost' always sharper & more brilliant than their companion Jpegs. Notice that I use 'ALMOST' when I qualify my comments now. Ha!
I have been editing several images to give to family for Christmas. These are family events throughout the year & were not shot for professional use. But, almost every 'snapshot'is a beauty in sharpness, color & detail. I mostly use the Jpegs but if image is lesser quality, I pull up the Raw and get a good 50% more improved image.
How many photographers spend big bucks to go to beautiful places to shoot, but settle for amateur equipment that will never give superior results. The lenses I use most are the 24-105L Stabilized & the 100-400L Stabilized (big, but a good general focal length for sports, hikes & vacations.) The beautiful 70-200 2.8L Stabilized mostly gets used for low light situations since it is neither wide nor long.
Hope this helps others who are perplexed by the performance of their newest & greatest camera. Obviously, we need the best camera we can afford, but I think it is only 1/2 of the solution.
These are not the only improvements to my photography & technique, but the more outstanding on the camera side.
I love this forum. It's the only one I participate in.
Regards to all this lovely Holiday Season
Pat Warfield
Cleo Springs, OK
Not sure about this comment though:
In my opinion the opposite happens more often: people spend big money on high-end gear but don't go out enough. Having to choose between a beautiful outdoor experience with "amateur" gear vs. having the greatest camera and lenses but nowhere exciting to take them, I'll go with the former.
Guy
My comment about spending big buck on trips & using inferior gear comes from experience. Too many times I have left my bulky 'Pro' equipment (even my guitar) home in deference to a companion or family. I missed some great shots or got the shots but not the quality. Needless to say I didn't enjoy the trip as much without my guitar - I need a back packer guitar but thats another subject.
By the way! How many of you photographers are also musicians - I know several.
Pat
I find myself in total agreement with Guy: Having the best gear and not getting out to use it and enjoy the experience of being 'out there' seems uneconomical and (for lack of a better term) wasteful. Personally, I go out to experience the world, either alone or with my friends, and photography is merely icing on the spice cake of life.
ps: I'm a long-time guitar flat-picker, and my music is as much a part of me as photography, and perhaps more-so.
-PB
Case in point about the shooting v.s. buying gear, I've needed to replace my camera for five months now since it took a swim in the ocean and lost my manual exposure mode but opted to spend my money on two photo trips instead.
I was a pretty good saxophone player through college, and played in my university jazz bands / wrote tunes for our group. I had a lot of pent-up aggression back then so I took it out on the music.
My 2 beliefs that lead to this approach:
1/ Difference in optical quality between various optics manufacturers is small (build quality and AF speed do vary significantly, however - and pro grade lenses are better here). I dont shoot test charts. In the real world, there are many other factors which affect final sharpness, and so minor differences in sharpness tend to disappear in this greater variance.
2/ Small differences in sharpness are irrelevant in the real world. Whenever I have had a compelling image, no one has ever said "well, it lacks a little in critical sharpness." And if I have an image lacking in artistic merit, all the sharpness in the world isnt going to make it worthy of attention. Most lenses today, if used properly, are capable of delivering adequate sharpness - even the consumer zooms. The pro lenses are even better. One of my best shots was taken with a 28-105/3.5-4.5 consumer zoom. And you wont believe how many lousy - but sharp - shots I have taken with my 500/4.
My personal opinion... different people obviously feel differently and more power to them.
Vandit
That lens has great bang for the buck. Very nice little lens for the money.
I'm with Vandit and Richard. The highest quality equipment can make the work easier, but practice, vision and artistry go much further.
I think too much emphasis is placed on sharpness anyway. IMO sometimes a little softness can add to the sensual beauty of a subject...even birds.
Now, as far as guitars go, it is such a personal instrument that the choice of which to own has to be based on how it feels in your hands and ultimately the quality of the sound. Unfortunately, that eventually leads one down the road to the high end custom mades. And believe me, as owner of a James L. D'Aquisto masterpiece, I can safely attest that there IS a difference.
After solving several problems in digital capture, my digital photographs are now (mostly) on a par with my former medium format film camera output. I like the color of digital better, although I may borrow a film camera & shoot with my selection of 'L' lenses to see how current 35mm film compares to current digital.
Pat