[newarts]

...The greats don't list what gear they used to capture the great images. They had what they had and they got the photo...

Baloney. They had gear sufficient for the the images they captured.

Much of the technical talk here is devoted to identifying what equipment is sufficient for a particular photographic challenge; how to photograph high school basketball comes to mind.

You think it best to answer such queries with a squishy answer that skips critical technical equipment requirements? Pshaa!

Dave

[CWyatt]

Baloney. They had gear sufficient for the the images they captured.

Dave

Original post did say: Of course the tool matters, if you need that to capture the moment - and good gear Can help - but the emphasis should be very much on what you shoot.

So I did say the tool matters, but to keep focussing on that (including very minute technical differences between similar lenses) when you know what you need is pointless.

However the point is taken on using technical discussion forums.

[newarts]

Original post did say: Of course the tool matters, if you need that to capture the moment - and good gear Can help - but the emphasis should be very much on what you shoot.

So I did say the tool matters, but to keep focussing on that (including very minute technical differences between similar lenses) when you know what you need is pointless.
....

Thanks for your comment.... I was pushing things a bit with my comment at your expense & I apologize.

But I'd really love to see more technical (even semi-quantitative) talk about tools and techniques to accomplish qualitative (artistic?) goals.

Like "how can I evoke emotional warmth in a viewer regarding a photo's subject?"

Like "how can HDR methods be used to increase the impression of realism in a nature scene?"

Like "what level of technical equipment quality is sufficient for superb image quality on electronic displays?"*

Dave

*this is directly to your point on obsession over details like lens resolution at levels which have absolutely no observable effect on a normally displayed photo.

[CWyatt]

Ah, now I think those 'semi-quantitative' points you raised would be valid discussion for many people - a fair mix of technical knowledge to achieve an effective image.

[newarts]

Ah, now I think those 'semi-quantitative' points you raised would be valid discussion for many people - a fair mix of technical knowledge to achieve an effective image.

Here's an example I just now stumbled on. It is amazing!
One of these faces looks female, the other male:


But these are the same computer generated face! The one on the left has more contrast than the one one on the right. That is the only difference!

see: Why Cosmetics Work: More Depth To Facial Differences Between Men And Women Than Presumed

Yikes!

In another article in the same publication it is shown that androgynous faces in the center of the visual field are likely to be perceived as male, but moved to the periphery of the field they appear female (this may not apply to photographs because the experiments used briefly displayed images.)

Dave

nb: I checked the images and only about a 15% contrast enhancement applied to the 'male' image creates the 'female' image (I just multiplied all brightnesses by 1.15); however, the lips on the 'female' are darker than those of the simply contrast enhanced 'male' image - they cheated a little.

[CWyatt]

Reply I made somewhere else on this issue:

Sorry I've been away so haven't been able to reply to this thread since starting it. To clarify, I'm not saying gear doesn't matter. I'm not saying go out with a phone cam or a point and shoot and expect great results. I was referring more to gear taking priority from a photographer's viewpoint. An example was obsessing over minor differences in sharpness. What this does, in my opinion, is put you on the road to mediocrity. If you spend more time discussing lenses than using them, perhaps the priorities are wrong. What I was saying is: use the gear that works for you, but really USE it. And using it means using the six inches behind the camera more than anything else.

[TaoMaas]

What I was saying is: use the gear that works for you, but really USE it. And using it means using the six inches behind the camera more than anything else.

"It matters little how much equipment we use; it matters much that we be masters of all we do use." - Sam Abell

[RioRico]

As mentioned, we talk gear because it's easier to talk gear than to talk aesthetics. I can crawl out of bed, and slump before my keyboard before sucking a cup of depresso, and participate in gear talk, and even be intelligible. But for aesthetics discussions, I must actually be awake. [In political terms: before coffee, I'm a Republican; after 1 cup of coffee, I'm a Democrat; after 2 cups of coffee, I'm a Green. It takes a bit to trigger the higher brain functions. But I digress.] Gear is hard-edged and numerable, suitable for the TA (Transactional Analysis) Game of GM ("My car is bigger than yours"). Thus the eternal heated debates over the qualities of various generations of 50/1.4 glass, or kit-lens alternatives, or even camera bags. Ay yi yi.

And to deal with aesthetics, we need to actually post or link to some images, a process that takes time and effort. Spinning words at the keyboard is much easier. On another forum, I posted a piece about adapting Exakta-mount lenses to Pentax by modifying a cheap M42-PK adapter. The mod took about 15 minutes total. Writing about it took another 15 minutes. Shooting and shooping and posting the illustrative photos occupied the better part of an hour. And that didn't even involve art criticism!

No, the gear doesn't matter and yes, the gear matters. Galen Rowell used an Instamatic for some of his famous mountain shots. (A very good Instamatic; I sold one just like it for a very nice price.) Important photos have been shot with trash gear. Yes, the order of importance of factors in making a photo are: 1) photographer; 2) subject; 3) light; 4 lens; 5) camera. No, a better fountain pen doesn't make me a better writer, and a Leica doesn't make me a better photographer. Yes, I've accumulated a huge pile of Nifty Fifty's even though I could probably squeeze-by with my original FA50/1.4. Gear is fun. Aesthetics is boring (just ask Steve Martin). Let's flog the horse again, eh?

[Coeurdechene]

On another forum, I posted a piece about adapting Exakta-mount lenses to Pentax by modifying a cheap M42-PK adapter

Please post a link! or repost it here

[In political terms: before coffee, I'm a Republican; after 1 cup of coffee, I'm a Democrat; after 2 cups of coffee, I'm a Green

XD just like a guy i live with!

Then i must say
i posted before defending gear talk but i was starting to agree with the way CWyatt and Newarts were taking the question...i really would like to see posts with the questions Newarts posted.

Like "how can I evoke emotional warmth in a viewer regarding a photo's subject?" Like "how can HDR methods be used to increase the impression of realism in a nature scene?" Like "what level of technical equipment quality is sufficient for superb image quality on electronic displays?"*

More now than ever that i am starting to explore HDR as a way to recreate my city in the way,sometimes, i see it: dark, sinister,hellish XD.

[Class A]

however, the lips on the 'female' are darker than those of the simply contrast enhanced 'male' image - they cheated a little.

To be fair they didn't claim they only one global contrast increase. Their statement is compatible with increasing contrast locally in different amounts.

Anyhow, thanks for sharing this!

Regarding the OP, I'd love to talk more about visual design but it seems this seems to be much more difficult than talking about technical details. Whether the area as such is not that well explored or only a few know about it, I don't know. Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye" is the only book I know that attempts to talk about visual design in a systematic manner and I feel he only scratches at the alphabet level and barely starts putting words together, let alone sentences.

Does anyone know books/reading material about visual design?

[clark]

"It matters little how much equipment we use; it matters much that we be masters of all we do use." - Sam Abell

the difference is that the 'masters', and 'pro's' use undoubedly good equipment, where as us amateurs will fret over which offers the best 'value for money', the pro's will just lay down £5k for a 1ds and an 85mm 1.2, while i'll spend 3 weeks on a forum trying to decide whether the vivitar 85mm is sharper than the pentax m 85mm


if you buy the 'best', as in what has been proven to give results, then you can distance yourself from gear discussion as you don't have to consider the trade-offs that the other options afford you

also, I think it's really shallow minded to say equipment doesn't matter- i'd like to see your face if you hired someone to shoot your wedding, and this guy turned up

[CWyatt]

the difference is that the 'masters', and 'pro's' use undoubedly good equipment

Indeed, most of them do use good equipment. However I strongly disagree that this is 'the difference'.

also, I think it's really shallow minded to say equipment doesn't matter

In fact I said of course the tool matters.

[clark]

Indeed, most of them do use good equipment. However I strongly disagree that this is 'the difference'.



In fact I said of course the tool matters.

1. by 'the difference' I don't mean that they're 'pro' because of their equipment, but because when you buy the best equipment, you no longer have to spend your time on a gear discussion forum; a technique forum, or an art critique forum (as has been mentioned already) is somewhere you will pick up tips that will genuinely enhance your photography, but with gear- once you have the best there really isn't that much need to compare it against other people's gear

but yes half the fun of the forum is gear comparison, useless product knowledge, and the idiosyncrasies of equipment. Which is the reason I often use my helios instead of my 50mm 1.4- because I like the 'character', and the history of the lens

If I was pro i'd buy a top spec camera, and top spec lenses to go with it- but because I don't have the need (or an infinite pot of money) I have to spend hours of my life mulling over which lenses to buy


2. Yes I was referring to the statement in general, it wasn't aimed at you at all

[JonPB]

clark mentioned an important issue: value.

Frankly, most of the time I'm on here I'm killing time. Relaxing. Not doing anything important. Photography is enjoyable for me, but it takes effort; and after a stressful day, I want to do something that doesn't take effort. Looking at lenses and cameras is enjoyable and doesn't take much effort at all. And when I do decide to exchange some of that stress for camera equipment, by way of money, I like to make a worthwhile purchase.

But why purchase equipment at all?

My answer is this: one time, I found myself in a beautiful moment. I took a picture that I still rather adore. I used an enthusiast's compact camera. The aesthetics are wonderful, but would be much better if the bits allowed just a little more post-processing and quite a bit more enlargement. Which is why I bought a DSLR in the first place: so that when I find myself in "the moment," accidentally or intentionally, I have equipment to capture it that doesn't harbor regret. When I found myself in "the moment," and took the picture, I had the best equipment I could afford, and I don't regret that. But, now that I can afford better, I don't want to be without the right gear--next time, I'll have more room to manipulate and print. The difference between, say, a DA35/2.4 and an FA35/2.0 wouldn't matter to me if I had one in hand; but when they're in the bush, and I'm trying to decide which one to use, and I'm going to be killing time anyway, I may as well kill time to help me make a decision.

To me, anyone who gets worked up about the minor distinctions between one lens and another has their priorities wrong. I happily ignore rants on such issues. You should too. But, to me, window shopping for camera equipment is relaxing. I suspect that I don't describe a crowd of one.

In summary: yes, if I were out taking pictures (and reflecting critically on my process) for all the time I spent on here, I'd be a better photographer, and more able to capture "the moment," not to mention find and identify moments; but I enjoy shop talk for its own sake, and so long as it isn't taken too seriously that's a perfectly fine hobby alongside actual photography, and it even contributes (if only a tiny bit) to the hobby of photography.

But, yes, let's not confuse "what do I need to be a photographer" questions, "what equipment do I need to feel good about myself" questions, "for the hell of it--what equipment makes you smile" questions, and "what pictures make you smile" questions. They can blend together, but it can help to distinguish them.

[RioRico]

On another forum, I posted a piece about adapting Exakta-mount lenses to Pentax by modifying a cheap M42-PK adapter.

Please post a link! or repost it here

Yo! Here it is! ANNOUNCING: Easy cheap non-destructive Exakta-Pentax adapter!

But about gear. Gear is easy, for gearheads. Art is easy too, for artheads. But rarely the twain shall meet. Cf. CP Snow's THE TWO CULTURES. Note that Gerry Uelsmann, whose work predated shooping by decades, primarily shot with an Argus C3. He produced memorable images with minimal gear. Well, lots of enlargers too, but that's another story...

Good (expensive) gear may not signal professionalism. Pros want gear that works, that delivers. When photography was my job, I used cheap gear, and I delivered. I didn't fret that my Oly Pen-FT wasn't a Nikon F, nor that my YashicaMat 124G wasn't a Hassy. Whatever it takes to deliver an image, that's what a pro needs and uses.

My bro-in-law, richer than I, has been a pro fotog of weddings, schools, company gatherings, etc. He can afford whatever he damn well wants. In film days, that was Bronica. Now it's Sony. He chooses gear that suits him and his work. And then he doesn't fret about it. Oh yeah, you should see his view-cam collection...

Gear matters, because you can't shoot without it. Gear doesn't matter, because if you know how to shoot, you can use almost anything. Most of us chattering here don't have to make our livings by shooting. So we can chatter on about gear instead. Sure is entertaining, eh?