[BigMackCam]

Actually it's a false narrative that has some holes large enough to sail a cruise ship through. I will leave it at that. I can agree to disagree.

Honesty, I don't see anything false... I just see Norm's personal opinions and references. He and I don't always agree (right, Norm? ), but much of what he said in that post resonates with me. Vive la difference, I guess

[Wheatfield]

Honesty, I don't see anything false... I just see Norm's personal opinions and references. He and I don't always agree (right, Norm? ), but much of what he said in that post resonates with me. Vive la difference, I guess

Perhaps it's the dismissive tone towards anyone who strives to get past mediocre.

[BigMackCam]

Perhaps it's the dismissive tone towards anyone who strives to get past mediocre.

Interesting... I didn't read that from Norm's posts at all, but maybe I'm just used to taking the salient points from Norm's forthright delivery

Anyway, as you say, we can all of us agree to disagree

[SSGGeezer]

---------- Post added 07-03-18 at 12:43 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Perhaps it's the dismissive tone towards anyone who strives to get past mediocre.

Some of us strive for mediocrity! It is an improvement over flailing like a salmon in the jaws of a Brown bear.

[reh321]

I keep hearing 'big" - and I will agree that we have too much focus on MP. That has never been an issue with me, because before I went digital from slides, I convinced myself that 6 MP would be enough to deliver what I needed. In recent years, though, I've become aware of how dark my world really is; I spend enough time at a computer anyway {even when I'm not trying to run up large "number of posts" days} so I really don't want to depend on PP to "fix" what I don't believe should need fixing {like noise} - and that is where Pentax has been speaking to me. I first realized that in April 2014 when my wife and I visited our daughter who lived in San Diego. When I wanted to photograph outdoors, I used the Canon Rebel which was my primary camera then, but when I wanted to take a photo inside a {dark} church, invariably I reached for my new Pentax Q-7, because on that trip is when I became convinced that Pentax IBIS could do lots of things for me; I took pictures at 1/8 second with the Q-7 that I wouldn't have trusted the Rebel with at 1/30.

And that, today, is why I talk so much about the KP. I believe it's high ISO will bring the biggest revolution to my bag since digital.

[UncleVanya]

Honesty, I don't see anything false... I just see Norm's personal opinions and references. He and I don't always agree (right, Norm? ), but much of what he said in that post resonates with me. Vive la difference, I guess

Count me in the resonating group too.

[BigMackCam]

I keep hearing 'big" - and I will agree that we have too much focus on MP. That has never been an issue with me, because before I went digital from slides, I convinced myself that 6 MP would be enough to deliver what I needed. In recent years, though, I've become aware of how dark my world really is; I spend enough time at a computer anyway {even when I'm not trying to run up large "number of posts" days} so I really don't want to depend on PP to "fix" what I don't believe should need fixing {like noise} - and that is where Pentax has been speaking to me. I first realized that in April 2014 when my wife and I visited our daughter who lived in San Diego. When I wanted to photograph outdoors, I used the Canon Rebel which was my primary camera then, but when I wanted to take a photo inside a {dark} church, invariably I reached for my new Pentax Q-7, because on that trip is when I became convinced that Pentax IBIS could do lots of things for me; I took pictures at 1/8 second with the Q-7 that I wouldn't have trusted the Rebel with at 1/30.

And that, today, is why I talk so much about the KP. I believe it's high ISO will bring the biggest revolution to my bag since digital.

I think this is one area where modern (which doesn't have to mean "the latest and greatest") kit has a big advantage. Living where I do, shooting what I shoot and when, good high ISO performance can be a real advantage. Much as I love my GX-10's, they can't shoot at ISO 12,800. My K-3 and K-3II - plus judicious post-processing - allow me to shoot at ISO 12,800... even higher... and get usable - even quite decent - photos. A KP would be even better, of course.

I don't plan on buying another camera for several years - probably not until my K-3 gives up. But when that happens, I imagine I'll buy the expected K-3II replacement... by which time it should be available used, or at a discount from the launch price. Who knows? It might even be on close-out I'd guess I'll still shoot a GX-10 in preference when the situation allows - gotta love that CCD sensor - but the high ISO performance of the K-3II replacement will be invaluable for certain situations and shots

[normhead]

Perhaps it's the dismissive tone towards anyone who strives to get past mediocre.

Or the dismissive tone towards people who think just getting more MP makes you better than mediocre?
The big picture is can you be better than mediocre without having the highest resolution, the sharpest lenses etc.

Back in the days of Photo Extract, there were images done by artists shooting K-5s and relatively inexpensive lenses that were better than anything I've seen on the forum using K-1s, because of the vision and preparation of the artist.

Personally I find images. My work can be quite pale beside the work of those who are good at planning and preparing for images. Costumes, amazing backgrounds, photogenic props, tightly controlled light, there are whole realms of photography as almost theatre that the gear heads on the forum just don't even try. The images are excellent and almost primal in impact, the gear used is peripheral to the end product. Photography is a visual/technical art. Gear heads get lost in the technical, and tend to be really weak on preparing for the visual part.

The answer to "How do I create more visual impact?" is not " Buy a better lens."

Far from encouraging mediocrity, I'm asking people to look past their gear and learn to create excellent images. To me, spending an inordinate amount of time thinking about gear is what keeps most from advancing past the mediocre.

A mediocre image taken with a 51 MP sensor and $2000 lens is still a mediocre picture. There's nothing special about it. Except for the guy who spent $7000 for his kit. He thinks it's special. Spending that kind of money on kit can make you delusional. "I spent so much money it has to be good, right?"

The only question is "Is 12 MP mediocre better than 51 MP mediocre." Because of lots of uncontrolled , messy extraneous detail, 51 MP mediocre can be considerabley worse.

[BigMackCam]

... can you be better than mediocre without having the highest resolution, the sharpest lenses etc.

...

My work can be quite pale beside the work of those who are good at planning and preparing for images. Costumes, amazing backgrounds, photogenic props, tightly controlled light, there are whole realms of photography as almost theatre that the gear heads on the forum just don't even try.

...

Photography is a visual/technical art. Gear heads get lost in the technical, and tend to be really weak on preparing for the visual part.

The answer to "How do I create more visual impact?" is not " Buy a better lens."

Far from encouraging mediocrity, I'm asking people to look past their gear and learn to create excellent images. To me, spending an inordinate amount of time thinking about gear is what keeps most from advancing past the mediocre.

A mediocre image taken with a 51 MP sensor and $2000 lens is still mediocre picture. There's nothing special about it.

Again, this resonates with me.

Something I'm absolutely terrible at is planning and spending the necessary time preparing for a shoot. Heck, even calling one of my sessions "a shoot" makes it sound more professional than it ever is. Most of the time, I take my camera and one or more lenses with me wherever I'm going, whatever time of day or night that may be, and shoot what I find interesting, with - at best - a vague idea of what that might be. Only occasionally do I have a very specific notion of what I want to photograph, and how I'll do it...

... and that's what holds me back from better photos. Not my equipment. If I planned properly, waited for the right weather, got to my location at the right time of day etc. I could take even my 6MP Samsung GX-1L and DA35/2.4 plastic fantastic and produce great (by my standards, at least) photos. But that wouldn't fit in with the rest of my life... at least, not if I did it regularly.

My problem (if in fact I really have one, as this is primarily meant to be a fun pursuit for me) isn't kit, nor is it my technical know-how (which, I'd hazard to say, is a little beyond mediocre these days)... it's all the artistic prep over and above good composition and basic technique that would make the biggest difference in my photography. "Better" cameras and lenses wouldn't solve that. And I think I'm far from alone in that respect... perhaps I might even be in the majority?

[monochrome]

LOL - I take your thought one step further. Having a great kit might actually generate performance anxiety - insert internal dialogue here "I can't take an exceptional memorable meaningful photo with what I have - what to do" .....

I find that photography is like bicycling -- it's a journey that one can do and enjoy even if others have done that same journey, too, and even if others have done that journey far faster on more expensive bicycles.

Maybe lots of others have taken the best possible picture of _______ but they aren't my own picture of it with my own vision of it. Moreover, the world creates new pictures every day with every sunrise, sunset, blooming flower, buzzing bee, and the bustle of the humanity. There are always new things to take pictures of and new compositions and juxtapositions waiting to be photographed.

I agree that it's a bit too easy to focus on the kit because it's the easiest thing to measure and change. Overall, great kit helps make great images just like a great bicycle helps make a great ride. But great cameras and great bicycles are neither necessary nor sufficient for a great journey. Whether with a camera or on a bike, it's just nice to be out seeing the world.

My wife’s standard comment when I show her an image is, “Already been done.” My standard response is, “Not by me.”

‘Not by me’ is what this is about (since I don’t need to sell prints to put food on the table). I go thorough phases of trying things to see what I can do. Typically my subject matter and composition are unimaginative, but so what? I’m trying to see what I can do with a K lens and an LX, or K-1, or whatever gear strikes my fancy for a while.

Sometimes I want to try color, or exposure, or night, or Astro or Moon - and I can go through various combinations of cameras and lenses for the fun of it because I have so many of both.

Lately though I think it is time to move on from having 35 cameras and 90 lenses. I honestly seem to get some pleasure out of thumbing my nose at DPR and the rest of the industry and buying NEW Pentax equipment - I mean, I can sell gear so I have money and I can support them, so why not? The stuff will work until I die if they go away next year (and they won’t).

What I’m really saying is, my kit is what it is. I experiment with it and to a degree play with it and often change it. To a degree the final image doesn’t matter because the experience of using the lens is more important than the perfect final image. That isn’t to say I just go shoot junk - I want good exposures and colors and compositions and subject. I just don’t get all worked up if I don’t get them as long as I had fun.

It’s like fly fishing, Catching fish doesn’t matter as much as getting out on the river with a rod I hand-built and flies I hand tied, and making a perfect cast where there should be a fish. If I raise a fish - great!! If not, I was still out on a river, casting with my gear and I made THAT cast . . . .

Gear is gear. Just have the gear you want or can have and let the angst go. Peter Zach once told me, “Shoot with what you have, not with what you dream about.”

Enjoy shooting!!

[BigMackCam]

My wife’s standard comment when I show her an image is, “Already been done.” My standard response is, “Not by me.”
...

Gear is gear. Just have the gear you want or can have and let the angst go. Peter Zach once told me, “Shoot with what you have, not with what you dream about.”

Great post, Paul. I couldn't agree more... especially the "not by me" thing. I can comfortably, and quite happily, say that I'm highly unlikely to break new ground with my photography - at least, not so far as the wider community is concerned. But I like to learn new techniques and find new places to shoot. It doesn't matter to me if it's been done before. I don't even think about that... Perhaps I'm selfish in this regard, but I only care if what I'm doing matters to me...

[reh321]

Again, this resonates with me.

Something I'm absolutely terrible at is planning and spending the necessary time preparing for a shoot. Heck, even calling one of my sessions "a shoot" makes it sound more professional than it ever is. Most of the time, I take my camera and one or more lenses with me wherever I'm going, whatever time of day or night that may be, and shoot what I find interesting, with - at best - a vague idea of what that might be. Only occasionally do I have a very specific notion of what I want to photograph, and how I'll do it...

... and that's what holds me back from better photos. Not my equipment. If I planned properly, waited for the right weather, got to my location at the right time of day etc. I could take even my 6MP Samsung GX-1L and DA35/2.4 plastic fantastic and produce great (by my standards, at least) photos. But that wouldn't fit in with the rest of my life... at least, not if I did it regularly.

My problem (if in fact I really have one, as this is primarily meant to be a fun pursuit for me) isn't kit, nor is it my technical know-how (which, I'd hazard to say, is a little beyond mediocre these days)... it's all the artistic prep over and above good composition and basic technique that would make the biggest difference in my photography. "Better" cameras and lenses wouldn't solve that. And I think I'm far from alone in that respect... perhaps I might even be in the majority?

But in some sense Norm is selling himself short. He, and others I won't embarrass by identifying by name, make certain preparations and then go looking for situations. They recognize a good photo when they see it, before they've pressed the shutter - there is more to "f/8 and be there" than just "f/8" .... "Weegee" Fellig got his nickname because people figured he must have a 'ouiji board" that got him to where news was going to happen; not sitting around in the office was probably a good start. Being open to situations may be just as valuable as an hour of setup.

[BigMackCam]

But in some sense Norm is selling himself short. He, and others I won't embarrass by identifying by name, make certain preparations and then go looking for situations. They recognize a good photo when they see it, before they've pressed the shutter - there is more to "f/8 and be there" than just "f/8" .... "Weegee" Fellig got his nickname because people figured he must have a 'ouiji board" that got him to where news was going to happen; not sitting around in the office was probably a good start. Being open to situations may be just as valuable as an hour of setup.

Sure, I agree

I probably sell myself short, too. It's not that I never think about what and when I'm going to shoot... but I don't, as a general rule, check weather predictions very often, get up at 4am to be somewhere for sunrise, wait for precisely the right break-through of sun from the clouds, re-visit the same location several times in a week for just the right conditions, etc.

I do know that Norm goes out for walks with his camera and, on the spur of the moment, takes shots of a lake, or forest, or his dogs, that are just as appealing as the bird shots from his hide (where I'm sure he does, in fact, wait for just the right moments). Other members of ours do similar things too. Much of their achievement is down to a photographic "eye" and capturing a scene as it happens, rather than hours of planning for it - as you rightly suggest.

So, yeah - I agree... Being open to situations and being able to spot them is hugely valuable. Often more so than, say, a camera and lens upgrade...

[clackers]

Or the dismissive tone towards people who think just getting more MP makes you better than mediocre?
The big picture is can you be better than mediocre without having the highest resolution, the sharpest lenses etc.

Back in the days of Photo Extract, there were images done by artists shooting K-5s and relatively inexpensive lenses that were better than anything I've seen on the forum using K-1s, because of the vision and preparation of the artist.

Personally I find images. My work can be quite pale beside the work of those who are good at planning and preparing for images. Costumes, amazing backgrounds, photogenic props, tightly controlled light, there are whole realms of photography as almost theatre that the gear heads on the forum just don't even try. The images are excellent and almost primal in impact, the gear used is peripheral to the end product. Photography is a visual/technical art. Gear heads get lost in the technical, and tend to be really weak on preparing for the visual part.

The answer to "How do I create more visual impact?" is not " Buy a better lens."

Far from encouraging mediocrity, I'm asking people to look past their gear and learn to create excellent images. To me, spending an inordinate amount of time thinking about gear is what keeps most from advancing past the mediocre.

A mediocre image taken with a 51 MP sensor and $2000 lens is still a mediocre picture. There's nothing special about it. Except for the guy who spent $7000 for his kit. He thinks it's special. Spending that kind of money on kit can make you delusional. "I spent so much money it has to be good, right?"

The only question is "Is 12 MP mediocre better than 51 MP mediocre." Because of lots of uncontrolled , messy extraneous detail, 51 MP mediocre can be considerabley worse.

Wonderful post.

[aaacb]

but I find fewer and fewer pictures on Flickr (I don't operate on instagram or others) that actually hold my attention.

Not to side step the excellent discussion about tech vs vision
But I think it's also about the medium. I find that a lot of social media photos are converging to the same old because people are trying to get as many likes as possible. And this means boring "stunning" pictures of iconic things (think wanaka tree) which are more likely to be searched and are optimized to look good in a thumbnail. My thought is that new stuff that's really new is probably better suited for a smaller audience with time on their hands if one's looking for ways to improve.