Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

If your photography sucks you need better gear
Old 02-26-2019   #1
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,615
If your photography sucks you need better gear

Just read steve huff’s test on Sony’s latest lens:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/0...he-money-lens/

This quote of his stuck out for me:

“When I was shooting with the lens I kept thinking…Sony is making it too easy. I mean, with an A9 and this lens? Anyone can take an amazing professional quality image.”

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #2
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,888
Professional looking, these days, seems to mean a photo with bokeh!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #3
Ambro51
Registered User
 
Ambro51's Avatar
 
Ambro51 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 126
You could make a career using a Diana Camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #4
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,101
“If your photos aren’t good enough, you’re not wide open enough”
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #5
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,611
If you believe that you need a new modern lens then you haven't tried the really superior very old lenses from the 1930's and 1940's.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #6
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
 
p.giannakis's Avatar
 
p.giannakis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stafford - UK
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Professional looking, these days, seems to mean a photo with bokeh!

I know - I don't get many 'Likes' by using f/5.6...
__________________
Regards,
Pan


The Monochrome Archives
Instagram



  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #7
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,298
Any one who is trying to question the guy who is selling ghost busting device should correct thier expectations.
We are dealing with adult carrying child brain. At one side he belives in ghosts at another side he thinks what he knows what professional photography is.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #8
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,615
I was looking at portraits taken by Arbus, Meier, Liebovitz, Bailey, Hardan, Avedon, Karsh, Penn, Ritts, Seliger, Ellen Mark, McCurry...

None used that Sony lens. And none only had an eyelash in focus. Obviously those photographers had no idea what they were doing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #9
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,669
Folks, when are you going to smarten up and stop reading his blog? It's all clickbait.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #10
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,681
He did say it is "the money lens".
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #11
Beemermark
Registered User
 
Beemermark's Avatar
 
Beemermark is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,687
Many years (decades) ago I owned a book titled "the Amateur Photographer's Handbook" by Aaron Sussman. Not sure when it was published but I bought it around 1970, used. Probably did more to teach me my style of photography than any thing else. In one chapter titled what lens do I buy he studied hundreds (forget the exact number) of award winning photos in publications of the day plus going to various clubs that had photo contests and found that over 90% were taken with a normal lens with an aperture /5.6 or /8. That's always stuck with me and I think some of my best photographs fit that formula. I often wonder why I keep buying fast lenses -
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #12
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Folks, when are you going to smarten up and stop reading his blog? It's all clickbait.
Who I noticed being out of the limelight for a couple years already is Ken Rockwell. I guess he makes the most nowadays from referring sales from his site.



Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
If you believe that you need a new modern lens then you haven't tried the really superior very old lenses from the 1930's and 1940's.

I used to say to a friend that "in imperfection lies expression". Ironically, cinematographers do seek imperfect lenses for that very reason. But on the point of lens qualities, those lenses can be up there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #13
stevierose
Ann Arbor, Michigan
 
stevierose is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 131
I long ago concluded that any problems I have with my photographs have nothing to do with my cameras or lenses. Every camera I have ever owned was capable of taking a world class photograph in the right hands. This is equally transferable to other avocations. I am a dedicated fly fisherman. New top of the line fly rods now sell for nearly a thousand dollars plus the cost of the reel and line. I've seen the very best casters attach a line to a broom stick and cast the whole thing out in one stroke. I stopped buying new fly rods long ago. Same with golf clubs, etc. etc.. Or, as they used to say about another sort of endowment, "It ain't the meat! It's the motion!!" =)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #14
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,507
"If your photography sucks you need better gear"

Damn! I knew there was a reason.

Honey, sell the kids and mortgage the house. I need an M10.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #15
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,533
Hi Pete,

Your flickr photographs are looking great!
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #16
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Clark View Post
Hi Pete,

Your flickr photographs are looking great!
Imagine how much better they would be if he had that new Sony lens!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #17
LCSmith
arbiter elegentiae
 
LCSmith's Avatar
 
LCSmith is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post

“When I was shooting with the lens I kept thinking…Sony is making it too easy. I mean, with an A9 and this lens? Anyone can take an amazing professional quality image.”
This quote interests me for a number of reasons. Let's get the obvious out of the way -- Mr. Huff's comment sounds like an advertising pitch. You too can take professional quality images!

In a way, he's right. When the A7R2 first came out, I bought in along with most of the lenses available at the time. I shot them all wide open and lathered my retinas in buttery bokeh baths. The 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 in particular.

But there is an aesthetic homogeneity which begins to happen with those cameras and lenses. I did not like it.

Isn't it interesting how we have moved, in general, from talking about good photographs, and now we talk about good "images"? What makes a good image? Is it different from what makes a good photograph? The phrase "professional quality images" is really interesting to me.

Bokeh is the new bourgeois concept.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #18
nickthetasmaniac
Registered User
 
nickthetasmaniac is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,173
It is Steve Huff... He's not exactly known for subtly and nuance.
__________________
Ricoh GRII | Pentax SV, SP-F, MX & LX | Leica M2 | Olympus Pen F + 35RD | Minolta Autocord | Hasselblad 500cm + SWC/m

Instagram @other_strange_creatures
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #19
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Clark View Post
Hi Pete,

Your flickr photographs are looking great!
Thanks I appreciate it. Just don't tell my wife.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #20
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Folks, when are you going to smarten up and stop reading his blog? It's all clickbait.
Can’t stop, we need to feel superior to somebody.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #21
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCSmith View Post
Isn't it interesting how we have moved, in general, from talking about good photographs, and now we talk about good "images"? What makes a good image? Is it different from what makes a good photograph? The phrase "professional quality images" is really interesting to me.

Bokeh is the new bourgeois concept.
"Image" is a generic term, of which a photograph is a subset. For example, I make images of specimens using X-ray fluorescence microscopy at work. They're not photographs. A photograph is type of image, an image is not a type of photograph. Many photographs can be arranged/composited to make an image, but the reverse is not true.

"Bokeh is the new bourgeois concept", provided it's razor sharp in the focal plane!
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #22
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCSmith View Post
Isn't it interesting how we have moved, in general, from talking about good photographs, and now we talk about good "images"? What makes a good image? Is it different from what makes a good photograph? The phrase "professional quality images" is really interesting to me.
We have been forced into it by film aficionados who maintain that digital images aren't technically photographs.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #23
LCSmith
arbiter elegentiae
 
LCSmith's Avatar
 
LCSmith is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
"Image" is a generic term, of which a photograph is a subset. For example, I make images of specimens using X-ray fluorescence microscopy at work. They're not photographs. A photograph is type of image, an image is not a type of photograph. Many photographs can be arranged/composited to make an image, but the reverse is not true.
Yes, I take your point. That is the general meaning; but notice how cleverly the language has evolved. If we may speak of images, we may also speak of image quality -- and it is only a very small squeak of rationale to equate image quality with the quality of an image. In other words, the quality of an image (in this case, a professional quality image) may be "consumed" by purchasing a lens/camera/sensor which produces higher "image quality". And so, in the mind of the consumer, the end of the photographic endeavor or pursuit is higher or better or more dynamic (I love this word also) image quality, not quality of image -- or maybe the distinction has been "blurred" (pun intended).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #24
Mcary
Registered User
 
Mcary is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia USA
Age: 58
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Just read steve huff’s test on Sony’s latest lens:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/0...he-money-lens/

This quote of his stuck out for me:

“When I was shooting with the lens I kept thinking…Sony is making it too easy. I mean, with an A9 and this lens? Anyone can take an amazing professional quality image.”


No more worrying about learning to see light, or learning about composition just get an A9 and this lens and you're the next HCB, Ansel Adams or Irving Penn.
__________________
M. Cary
Trying to see something new whither I'm visiting someplace new or a place that I've visited many a time before.


  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #25
LCSmith
arbiter elegentiae
 
LCSmith's Avatar
 
LCSmith is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
We have been forced into it by film aficionados who maintain that digital images aren't technically photographs.
No one is forcing anyone, friend; although it is certainly interesting, the abilities of sensors these days not just to write light but to create light, in a way. There may be a few small minded "aficionados" (as you put it) or luddites who may mistakenly argue that good photographs or photographic art cannot be created with a digital camera. I am not one of those. My interest is in how language can shape our thinking about the craft. I think it was Bertrand Russell who put it this way, "Language serves not only to express thoughts, but to make possible thoughts which could not exist without it."
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #26
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCSmith View Post
Yes, I take your point. That is the general meaning; but notice how cleverly the language has evolved. If we may speak of images, we may also speak of image quality -- and it is only a very small squeak of rationale to equate image quality with the quality of an image. In other words, the quality of an image (in this case, a professional quality image) may be "consumed" by purchasing a lens/camera/sensor which produces higher "image quality". And so, in the mind of the consumer, the end of the photographic endeavor or pursuit is higher or better or more dynamic (I love this word also) image quality, not quality of image -- or maybe the distinction has been "blurred" (pun intended).
That’s a worthwhile distinction.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #27
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,703
Huss on Huff!
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #28
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCSmith View Post
Yes, I take your point. That is the general meaning; but notice how cleverly the language has evolved. If we may speak of images, we may also speak of image quality -- and it is only a very small squeak of rationale to equate image quality with the quality of an image. In other words, the quality of an image (in this case, a professional quality image) may be "consumed" by purchasing a lens/camera/sensor which produces higher "image quality". And so, in the mind of the consumer, the end of the photographic endeavor or pursuit is higher or better or more dynamic (I love this word also) image quality, not quality of image -- or maybe the distinction has been "blurred" (pun intended).
This is really two seperate issues.

The first one is the term "image". When I think of image qualities, they are really things that can apply to any image, from example a microscope image or an X-ray image. Both have contrast, sharpness, etc. The language has evolved from photograph to image when we started to process photographs through more generic image processing software (photoshop is not really a photo editing software, it's an image manipulation software).

The second point, that we can "consume" professional image quality is not new. Every product segment has this phenomena, we are told we can buy into a persona, be it a professional photographer, or a professional cyclist for example (I can buy the bike, shirt, knicks, shoes, etc that Chris Froome won the TdF on, but I'll still be an overweight middle aged amateur - marketing wants me to think otherwise).

Anyway, that's just my 2c.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #29
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,932
"The 50mm lens and metaphysical doubt"

Look it up.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #30
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,516
Gear? I just use my mind palace...
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #31
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko85 View Post
Alternatively, you can add links into the text so we can just click them!
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #32
Pentode
Registered User
 
Pentode's Avatar
 
Pentode is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 189
When my photography sucks I just lower my standards. Works every time.
My photos from 10 years ago are MUCH better than they used to be!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #33
kuuan
loves old lenses
 
kuuan's Avatar
 
kuuan is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,566
The specular out-of-focus highlights, specially behind the curly hair lady, look rather ugly and disturbing to me. Strong and weird shaped double even triple outlines, strongly pointed lemon shape a bit disturbing too.
Thank you, I'll stay with my Takumars & Co


....
when as teenager I had bought my first SLR, Minolta XG1 in the late 70s that already had "A" mode, my older brother explained to me: close the aperture until exposure time hits between 1/100 to 1/60 sec., not longer. Wasn't all that bad of an advice, for a newbie ( got my fill of "bokeh play" later, rather recently, when I got into using old manual lenses on digital )
__________________
my photos on flickr: : https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #34
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,249
Sweeney told me to get a fast fifty and worry about the rest later. My photography still sucks but what sage advice
__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2019   #35
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.giannakis View Post
I know - I don't get many 'Likes' by using f/5.6...
Hmm. Some of my most "liked" photos were made at f/16. What am I doing wrong?

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #36
pgk
Registered User
 
pgk is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 232
Technical excellence is merely a prerequisite, not an end in itself, for professional photography.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #37
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,461
LLLCSmith "That is the general meaning; but notice how cleverly the language has evolved."


I don't think it evolves so much, the word "evolved" implies a gradual and natural change.

Most of the time it is deliberately changed to make us feel silly or on the wrong foot. Salvation lying, of course, in buying something. I mean, who'd buy an apple pie when they could have tarte au pomme? Especially if it came with crème anglaise?

Note the use of a foreign language to add a certain glamour. Ooops, I mean a certain Je ne sais quoi...

The same thing happens with computers, every now and then I realise that I was doing that in the 60's only we didn't call it that.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #38
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,268
I can think of any number of instances where I was unable to take decent (by my standards) images given the limitations of the camera. The early 2000s digital cameras were pretty bad for low light and fast action, and it wasn't until I got better gear that I was able to get the kinds of images I wanted. Sure, under some conditions like bright light, slow moving or immobile subjects, I could get decent pictures with the Canon S45 or S70, but outside of that it was pretty hit and miss.

All gear has limitations which govern its optimal performance range. 'Better' gear has a wider performance envelope and therefore makes it easier to create good images under suboptimal circumstances. I'm at a point where my expectations for imagery match the performance of the gear I'm using, but it took a long time and a lot of gear to get there. As my skill increased, I was able to wring more and more performance out of a given camera, but still hit a wall when it reached its limits.

Steve Huff is, however, shilling for Sony gear. His claim is that with this camera and lens, anyone can take a professional looking image. Yeah, no.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #39
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 2,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Note the use of a foreign language to add a certain glamour. Ooops, I mean a certain Je ne sais quoi...
I might borrow that quote at a future date. In the mean time, I'm more of an apple pie with a small scoop of vanilla ice cream type of person.

Translation: My photography will have to get by with what I already have.
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus an Oly 35RD and a Voigtlander Vito II
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2019   #40
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archiver View Post
Steve Huff is, however, shilling for Sony gear. His claim is that with this camera and lens, anyone can take a professional looking image. Yeah, no.
Well, certainly anyone CAN take a professional looking image with this lens (and with some skill of course)... but maybe it was implied that everyone WILL take a professional looking image if they have this lens (and not anything else). Just point it at anything and it makes a magical image.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:46.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.