Canon 5d Question
- Started
- Last post
- 42 Responses
- version30
funny that you say digi loses depth when the lens is responsible for that and most are interchangeable from film to digi camera
- kezza_20
Its odd that anyone thinks they are a photographer because they can buy a camera...
maybe im getting old but it strikes me that as cameras have become cheaper and digital more prevalent people think they have what it takes. A good eye and all that. Seems I suppose to be the most easy of the arts to get into...
If you cant pick up a 30 year old camera, fix it, clean it, light a room process your own prints you are not a photographer.
Decent photographs are the green fees for being an amateur, a professional level photographer needs to understand everything from how film is made to how lighting works to processing film and everything in between...
I've worked with some pretty big name photographers and its a science and art...
I'd love to do it, but I think it would be easier to retrain as an architect.
- formed0
Think of it like this:
If I drove a Formula 1 car on a track it wouldn't make much difference than if I was driving an average sports car. I am just an average driver that doesn't understand the nuances of that power and technology, and simply does not have experience or skills to even begin to be productive with a piece of equipment at that level.
If a Formula 1 driver had a Honda Civic, he'd still kick my ass if I was driving a Ferrari, just because he does know how to utilize the tools in his hand.
Technology and equipment is powerful stuff in the right hands, but in the average persons hands they are overly complex tools, possibly dangerous too.
It is the skill and talent that excels, not the tool.
- If most people drove a formula 1 car, then an average sports car - they'd probably kill themselves before they got a chance to test the second.lukus_W
- chance to try the second.lukus_W
- I see your point though... even if a 5d isn't going to prove fatal :)lukus_W
- not knowing how to use a 5d could prove disastrous thoughversion3
- pr20
There is something to be said about Formula 1 cars at Honda Civic prices though...
- version30
photographers seem to specialize, they find something they excel at or enjoy then refine their techniques/methods over time
- garretttt0
digital is shit... no depth. trys to emulate film but fails...
film is dead to those who dont appreciate it
and resolution isnt shit if you cant shoot a camera...
turn auto off and shoot manual
- mydo0
taking a good photo with a good camera isn't hard. I've kinda given up photography as a hobby. it was all a bit easy. you take a nice photo because you went somewhere a took a lot of photos.
however. I think there is a big difference between a nice photo, or even a stunning photo (this is just practise) and a great photographer.
- Machuse0
understood , and thats the art of it - and I concur with that.
but I think your saying what I'm thinking - the practicals of making a professional looking picture...is all in the technology. If its going to be something people want to put in the Smithsonian is another question....but....i digress for further input- let's hope not. i find photography exhibitions lack grandure since flickr.mydo
- Tungsten0
Haha,
I've heard that the more expensive your computer is the better your flash banners turn out. Is this true?- no, nor does it compare to this argument - although people do say when they buy ssd's their productivity skyrocketsMachuse
- I wouldn't call this an argument,Tungsten
- If you have a cheap computer you won't even render a movie in after effectsPixter
- I would. this is an argument.mydo
- totally relativeversion3
- lvl_130
there is something to be said about getting your hands dirty with the whole process of actually developing film with chemicals. it just feels a bit more accomplished... although in actuality, the average viewer can't tell the damn difference.
i now only shoot digital (amateur of course) because of the ease of printing and the ridiculous amount of cheap printing websites out there. plus, i no longer have access or personal space to use a darkroom/lab.
i still miss it though. there is something very satisfying about creating a nice print sans photoshop.
- beautiful , thats what i thought; even for the romantic idea that this would make me a more pure photographerMachuse
- Darkroom printing is still such a rewarding (and frustrating) experience, something alot of people don't appreciate anymore.Tungsten
- totally agree tungsten. it's almost like letterpress. you just can't replicate it unless you are using the equipment.lvl_13
- mydo0
i guess it will raise the bar for the "professional" photographers.
you're not going to get away with taking stuff like this and telling the world you're an amazing photographer.
thinking about it, i'm kinda happy about this. I did photography at university 10 years ago, our lecturer was all about doing everything in the most complicated long winded way possible. knowledge is power and he made sure we knew that he knew more than we would ever know! nice to know a 4 year old can now point and shoot and take a better light metered shot than him.
- mydo0
it's also worth noting, since the birth of digital, the standard of photography has gone through the roof. just look at wildlife photography from the 80's. it's piss poor in comparison
I for one am looking forward to super high iso cameras that will allow low light action shots. something that (as far as i'm aware) has never been possible with any format. this is the future.
- mydo0
that or higher quality lolcats.
- MrOneHundred0
Expensive cameras don’t take great photos – great photographers take great photos.
- Tungsten0
I agree that technology is allowing more people to produce better quality images, but quality is subjective. My unkle Reggie can now easily shoot tack sharp images at iso 12,000 of the shed he just built in his backyard, but I wouldn't exactly call it great photography. I think it's great that the ease of digital has encouraged more people to pick photography up as a hobby, but for professionals it just means providing your clients with a product more quickly and at a lower cost. I'm sure the volume of bad images has increased at the same rate as the volume of good ones in the last ten years. We're just seeing a lot more of everything these days.
- Machuse0
I'm not actually speaking of great photo's - or the artistic merit of photo's produced from expensive cameras. Obviously that is only the product of a good photographer.
What I'm speaking about is the easy of creating profesional looking quality material.
example: circa 10 years ago
Compare what a 1000$ consumer/prosumer camcorder could produce video-wise compared to what the news was producing, again in 1995.Compare what your mom's photos looked like compared to what the studio photographer could create just 10 years ago
Compare what local dealership commercials look like compared to the main brand commercials for the cars they sell
in all of these examples we see a clear disparition in quality - artistic merit notwithstanding - between what the professionals could do - and someone with half a months pay in video equipment could produce.
Now compare what the canon 5d does and it rivals motion pictures...probably looks better than whats on the news - and is easily accessible by anyone with 3grand - just point and shoot - dont need lighting just go outside and produce.
go outside - no lights needed, no studio setup - just a good lens and 5d -
- version30
quite simply, a poor craftsman blames his tools... i felt more inspired taking random photography with my rebel than i do with my 5d because the 5d only reminds me of work. photography is having an eye for composition combined with the skill to present that "eye" via the photographs development/processing for others to experience
- DoTheMacarena0
This is something apparent in every creative genre (music, design, film...) . As technology progresses, the quality of the material that is able to be produced increases, while the ease and overall cost decreases. The average consumer can now record an album, or design a web page or print magazine, or shoot a movie; each for under $5k of equipment and materials.
Now, this does not mean that little cousin Jerry will be able to pick up a 5D and be Ansel Adams or Darren Aronofsky. What it does mean, is that the drivel that they DO produce, will have more pixels, and probably be exposed correctly. If you take photos with any really high end camera equipment, digital or not, it can make mediocre shots not look as mediocre. Grab a Hasselblad, good film, a light meter, and a 10 minute crash course, and you will have some great looking shots, this is nothing new. What you won't have are amazing pieces of art. As mentioned before, all this does is raise the bar of excellence.
In the past, what separated the average consumer from the professional was not only skill, but equipment. Now that equipment gap is closing, and we are left with what we do with it. It IS exciting, because we will see art and creativity from people whom wouldn't have previously had access to quality items. Now the genius kid can actually produce a concerto in his bedroom, or fields like editing and compositing can be preformed from home. Does this threaten the low to mid-level working professional? Yes. People can now provide services for a fraction of the cost, but a true quality product will always remain at a premium. So what does that mean? Embrace it, learn it, expand your skillset, and work your ass off, and you can still get your optimal day rate.
- Machuse0
I understand and agree.
Especially where your talking about the genius kid down the street not having the limitations on equipment.
Where I somewhat deviate, is talking about the average consumer, I feel like we put some pride of place on art - as if its something that most people cant achieve or understand. I think, if we gave 5d's to 1000 average highschoolers (and told them to throw away everything they did for the first month) - once they got into it , there would be little difference to what Ansel adamn and Darren Aronofsky. At the end of the day, art is just expression of the human psyche / experience or thought. If any part of photography is up for discussion, interpretation or if any part comes natural...its the art part. I feel , in a way its always been the equipment that discourages...and now that is gone. The budding artist - sees the crappy result due to a cheap lens, holds it up to a professional and says ... I cant do that. Now all he has to work on his/her framing, reference, storytelling etc. But we do that everyday in everything we do ... it would just need to be applied to photogrpahy
i think where the problem lies, is the photographer that has nothing to do with art - the freelancer without a cult following. The guy who takes shots of clothes, or buildings, they guy who takes photo's of models to express a new fashion line. Yes there is always art involved, but espically in the fashion industry, its all thoughts and feelings - and anyone can produce that - anyone who cares about their work will take their work to that artistic level; and try to find interesting angles, and interplays of material - concepts and piggybacking off of client requests with their own experiences.