Could high-tech, high-brow equipment be failing us

A few threads below mine is a large discussion about where the street
photographers are. I Since this is a system board, it came to me that
maybe, perhaps people don't photograph candidly as much is because with
each new high tech advance (micro lenses, super zoom lenses, manual
settings, flash attachements...) photographers are expected to come up
with technically adept shots.

These types of shots take time to set up (not to mention have some
sophisticated equipment) such as those silky streams, glowing flower
petals, and the veins within leaves.

Candid shots can be less technically adept (Cindy Sherman was no master
of technicalities); but her shots were artful, thought provoking if not
downright bizarre.

Look up Dorthea Lange on the Internet and practically no one talks
about what type of camera she used, yet her feelings about the era in
which she lived--the struggles of everyday people created a hauntingly
"could-it-happen-to-us" syndrome.

Yes, equipment is important; but I have to remember that there's a
consumer trap that has me often buying more than I need.

There's nothing sweeter than a child licking a lollypop with the candy
larger than the child or the cable car ringer shaking his bell.

 

The equipment has never failed us at all in the past nor in the present.
Most people who buy cameras buy them for snapshots even if they have
some intention to get better at it in all respects at some time in the
future.

A photographer can make a competent or better photo with a cheap P&S
digital or recyclable film camera; a snapshooter cannot make a great
photo with the best equipment except by fluke.

Of course it's so easy to abandon the KISS principle...

Cheers,
Alan

 

I disagree with the question posed by the title. I'm a long time
landscape photographer who usually takes 30 to 45 minutes to
set up a shot with a large format view camera. I did the
occasional wildlife photo with 35mm. Then I started becoming
more intrigued with wildlife (late 1990s). The reason: you
must make split second decisions on focus, composition, f/stop,
and exposure. Then as cameras improved, and image stabilization lenses
came along, the camera could do more (autofocus, focus tracking on
moving subjects), and new possibilities opened up. Digital
opened up more possibilities with higher ISOs with no loss
of color, and (in the higher end cameras) lower noise. Wildlife
action as well as sports photography have reached a new heights
never before possible. I often find that I am the limit
to what can be done, not the camera (e.g. I'm not fast enough
to follow that diving eagle when is fills the frame).
So technology has improved the ability to get images not possible
15 years ago. Now, I'm replacing
large format film with digital mosaics, and improving spatial
resolution, dynamic range, and signal-to-noise. See:
Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Then there is low light photography. Digital is enabling
new heights to be scaled there too. A small telescope and DSLR
achieves lower light astrophotos than were possible with
much larger telescopes and film.

That along with fast action wildlife photography, I'm having
a lot of fun and making images that were impossible 15 years
ago. Technology has opened new possibilities to get better
images faster.

Fortunately, I am at a place in my career that
I can afford some of that technology ;-).

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

 

I think you missed the point, Matt was commenting on the lack of
meaningful social commentary. Something different from being ARAT
photographer.

 

You'd be happier reading Lenswork instead of this NG

 

& Yet: being perceived as a good photographer in part is elimination of
the chaff "being a good editor as well", perhaps taking lots and lots of
images and boiling them down. Think Gary Winogrand. Never the less the
good photographer hopefully becomes adept at that Pointing, shooting
and editing.

 

I get much better candied shots with my DSLR then I ever did with my
SLR. The reason it pretty simple, people act differently when you are
taking their photo, they want to look at the camera and smile. But
with the DSLR I take hundreds of photos and people soon ignore me and
then is when I can start to get the truly candied shots.

And because each shot is not costing my money I don't worry if each
shot is perfect, and in the end many of the not so perfect shots end up
being the most satisfying.

 

Not to exclude
Editing, pointing and shooting or
Pointing, editing and shooting.

 

& Yet: even when applying the most considered composition and most
carefully applied technique, even an accomplished photographer will have
many, many, many images to cull to yield the best. A photographer will
experiment and try and explore and in doing so will inevitably fail at
images. A fauxtographer will occasionally stumble upon a great phot.

And equipment still has nothing to do with it anymore than fine cooking
is the result of the battery of pots and pans, knives and ladles.

Cheers,
Alan.

 

I agree, although sometimes having the right stuff makes the journey
more enjoyable.

 

You know what's funny is often I'll see a unique scene, grab a quick
shot then knowing it's special, I'll mess around with different framing
& apertures but when I get home the keeper is usually the first grab.
Ha! Well I guess I shouldn't complain, occasionally I'll improve on it,
just pisses me off to have wasted time & go back to the original. An I
the only one who does this? Somehow it's just unnatural for me to take
time setting up a shot. I do make adjustments before that first snap as
part of adjusting to conditions but often before I raise the camera to
my eye.

 

I call it controlled destiny, your see the scene, you have a camera and
your skilled enough to get the shot. You know from that point the image
is worth something. I have won several contests because of these
circumstances.

 

Usually when I do studio shots, that's exactly what happens. A lot of
care oges into the very first one, and the others are foooling around,
so the first one (or few) are useful and the rest get dumped. But the
fun is in exploring other things, trying, and occasionally discovering
something new. Actually as we already know digital (boo, hiss) lends
itself to exploring much more than film.

 

Exactly: Familiarity breeds contempt. I use this trick too: Shoot and
shoot and shoot, until everybody gets fed up and ignores you; then, you
can concentrate on getting what you want.

 

OK I'll count those as valuable learning for the next shot!

 

I agree. Matt http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com
Alan Browne wrote:
recyclable film camera; a snapshooter cannot make a great

 

It's Matt--my title referred to candid photography. But I agree that
the equipment has created some amazing sports and landscape
photography. My point was that you can't get candid shots with long set
up times, or you'll miss the action.
http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com

 

EXACTLY!! Matt http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com

 

And my point was that with modern technology, the equipment
is so fast and accurate you can do candid photos much easier,
than ever before. Technology frees the photographer to concentrate
more on composition, and telling the story they want to tell,
and less on the technology of getting the shot.

Roger