[*isteve]

Both those effects could easily have been created with Photoshop. You would find it very hard to tell the difference.

There are as many times when I struggle to get foreground and background both in sharp focus. Most landscapes and macros.

One of the most ubiquitous adages among photographers is variations of "It's not
the camera, it's the person behind it" and the like.

My recent favorite was in a forum poster's signature line: "Nice Pen. I bet you write
great stories with it."

And this idea can be strongly supported by the fact that a bit of searching turns up
startlingly good pictures taken on pretty nearly every camera ever produced.

And of course, "the best camera is the one one you have with you" is also an important
part of this. If you left your huge FF DLSR at home, but you have a P&S in your pocket,
rather than feeling sorry for yourself, you should obviously pull out the P&S and make
the best of things.

However I feel it should be honestly noted that does not mean that there is no price
to pay for having a particular tool with you as opposed to another.

Although any camera, in any situation, can be used (by a skilled photographer) to capture
stunning pictures, they will be very different pictures depending on the camera used.

I know this seems like banal truism, but allow me to ponder it for a moment...

Lets take this random photograph as an example:

(Taken by "travelight" on flickr)

<SNIP>


I know of no P&S that could have made this photograph.
This level of pleasing OOF background can only be achieved with the the narrow DOF caused
by high f numbers not found on (any?) P&S cameras.

So, what would the photographer have done if he found himself in the same situation while
carrying a P&S? Taken a different picture, of course. It might even have been a BETTER picture,
due to the creativity forced upon him by the limitations, but we can say for a certainty it
would bear very little resemblance to the photo that was in fact made.

Same thing with this photo:

(from our very own "rburgoss")

<SNIP>

This is a photo that could ONLY have been created using a rather long,
rather fast, rather high quality lens. Exactly the sort of lens that many
amateur photographers are unlikely to be able to either afford, or lug
around with them at all times.

So, what is a poor and lazy photographer to do? Well, first of all I am going to
painfully covet a new DSLR with long fast glass, and then I am going to feel sorry
for myself, and then I am going to start to do the math and casting dark and
menacing glances at the guitars hanging on my wall...

And then I am going to grab my vastly inferior tools, and get out and there
and start finding pictures.

(well, metaphorically... what I am actually going to do is watch the latest
episode of Battlestar Galactica and then eat some pizza)

Because while I can never make pictures like these with my current gear,
there are plenty of other pictures out there to go around, and all the time
in the world spent on ebay won't find them for us.

Now if you will excuse me, I have an ebay auction to check.



[kurt]

[shuttervox]

Both those effects could easily have been created with Photoshop. You would find it very hard to tell the difference.

Hmm... the girl in the first one has tousled hair overlapping a blurred background.
How would you blur the background without blurring the thin little wisps of hair?

I have seen various high f stop simulation tutorials, and have not been impressed or
convinced with the results shown. Do you have an example where you feel PP Bokah
is as effective as the "real thing"?

As for the close-up of the Macaw, the only "photoshop" trick I could think of would
be cropping and sharpening, and even the best sharpening cannot add feather
detail where there is none.

Of course, as MP count goes up, crop options increase, but at the moment any
camera that is high enough MP to allow severe cropping is going to be a DSLR,
right?





[kurt]

[heatherslightbox]

So, I totally agree with "its not the camera, its about who's behind it".

and BTW, thank God for your post. It instantly cured a severe LBA attack I was going through

For the last week or so, I've had a poll going in the Lens section asking if the extra cost of the Pentax 17-70 over the Sigma 17-70 is worth it. I've agonized over the decision and this post helped me clarify some things. I have to keep in mind that this is a hobby and to have the most expensive professional glass in my possession isn't necessary to get great pics. I've seen some great pics from the kit lenses--obviously, there is a skilled photographer behind those pics. I've seen some cr@ppy pics taken with expensive glass. Unless the lens itself has a defect, then it's safe to assume that the not-so-great pics were a result of operator error. Even with cheap glass, a good photographer will be able to work around it's faults, whether by choice of camera settings, using a flash, or in PP.

If it weren't an overcast rainy day, I might very well have gone out this afternoon with the camera--oh well.

I've come to the realization that too much focus on the gear takes the fun out of shooting. This is a hobby and it's supposed to be fun!

Heather

[shuttervox]

It instantly cured a severe LBA attack I was going through

Oh no! What have I done to the economy! No, we must do our part...

It IS all about glass! Now get out there and start stimulating the old market.

O this one, with my also beloved Pentax IQ zoom 90WR:

Lovely grain.

I think it quite adds to the picture, giving it a
really nice gritty apocalyptic feel.

Did you do any chroma noise reduction on it after scanning?
( Pentax IQ zoom 90WR is a film camera, right?)
What was the film/shutter on this?



[kurt]

---

Last edited by shuttervox; 02-15-2009 at 09:54 PM.

[rburgoss]

Lovely grain.

I think it quite adds to the picture, giving it a
really nice gritty apocalyptic feel.

Did you do any chroma noise reduction on it after scanning?
( Pentax IQ zoom 90WR is a film camera, right?)
What was the film/shutter on this?

[kurt]

For sure, I cant remember aperture since this is an IQ90WR, so that means no aperture or shutter information is given, but about shutter speed, I used the B (bulb) setting. Since I had no tripod in hand, I used a sweater to place camera on top of my car's hood. Used the IQ90WR's infrared remote to trigger.

Since the volcano was giving its show at about 20 minute intervals, I stayed there for about three eruptions (about 1 and half hourse). Shutter speed was about 20 seconds.

Film was Kodak Max 800.

Interesting thing about this picture, is that no matter how it was printed (by regular methods), there was no way to get the bluish sky. It was only after scanning the negative, that all the magic showed.

BTW, the bluish/purplish sky, is from overcast clouds lit by the moon.

[arbutusq]

I'm an artist so I like to use an artistic analogy. Oil paintings look different than acrylics, and pastels look better than watercolors, but all are capable of creating great results in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. You can't make a watercolor look like an oil painting but you can still create art.

There are some shots you can only get with a FF DSLR but conversly there are some you can only get with a P&S, but they can all be great shots. The equipment sets the constraints but the artist/photographer creates the image.

[Jodokast96]

The equipment sets the constraints but the artist/photographer creates the image.

Excellent!

[arbutusq]

Excellent!

Please don't feed my ego....

[Jodokast96]

Please don't feed my ego....

Fine then. Rubish!

[shuttervox]

Since the volcano was giving its show at about 20 minute intervals,

I forgot to ask the most obvious question... When and how did you get the
opportunity to shoot an active volcano up this close?


[kurt]

[rburgoss]

I forgot to ask the most obvious question... When and how did you get the
opportunity to shoot an active volcano up this close?


[kurt]

That's easy (at least for me), since I live in Costa Rica and this is Arenal Volcano, which has been active since 1968 (before that, it was "mount Arenal"). This volcano shoots between 10 and 20 eruptions per day (like the one in the picture) and at least a big one every two or three months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arenal_Volcano

The hard part is not getting an eruption, but is getting it on a clear day or night, since its almost always covered with clouds. Interesting fact though, the best time to photograph this volcano, is whenever there is a hurricane in the mid Caribbean (south of Cuba), because hurricanes act as a vaccumm over Costa Rica, sucking all clouds and giving us clear skies (on the north and Caribbean side of Costa Rica) during those days.

BTW, this volcano has been featured in several hollywood movies, like "Congo".

[christinelandon]

Camera minus photographer = no photo. Photographer minus camera = no photo. Camera plus photographer = photo which may be great, mediocre, or awful, depending on what photographer does with camera.

Most complex phenomena, in my experience, have interaction effects which may be more important than the effects due to any single element or aspect of the phenomenon.

So, humble cameras (even Holgas!) can be used by a photographer with the necessary intention and skill to produce satisfying photographs. So can K20Ds with Limited lenses. Or Hasselblads...but put these fine tools in the hands of someone with limited technical skill and/or compositional sense, and what you'll usually get are less-than-great photos, maybe even not as satisfying as those made with that Holga by a skilled and imaginative shooter.

IMO, of course.

[Class A]

The person using a tool can turn the limitations of the tool into an advantage. Fine.

But if you have a certain idea and the tool is not capable of realising it, then it is not "the person behind the camera making the image" it is the "camera in front of the person preventing the image".

Say, I have this idea of eating a bowl of soup. And all I have is a fork. Great.

P.S.: The image by Trojan_Llama is awesome. While it was only a bridge camera, it allowed the shot to come out as it is. There are a lot of (older) cameras which would have delivered a lesser image.

[Tom S.]

As an apprentice die maker nearly 40 years ago, I was taught "A poor workman blames his tools".

It's true for many things, including cameras. For instance, on occasions my K20D has problems focusing in low light when using a slow lens. However, since I know of this limitation, it's my fault if I don't switch to manual and do the focusing myself.

Would it be nice if the camera didn't have this limitation? Yes. It would also be nice if my truck got 50 mpg, my 401K wasn't currently a 101K, and I had hair.

[Class A]

A poor workman blames his tools".

That's true as long the tools are appropriate.
But don't try to repair a mechanical Swiss clock with a hammer.

You can do a lot of great things with a hammer and the more creative the "person behind the hammer" the more impressive the results will be, but there are limitations as to what you can do with a hammer.

I'd say "A poor workman doesn't use the right tools".