UKC

am I missing something?

lots of the photography threads on here seem to be obsessed by the equipment, rather than just getting on and taking photos. Is this just a blokey gadget-fiend thing? (there never seem to be many women on the photo threads).

Surely, as with most things in life, it's about getting on with it not, as the saying goes, having 'all the gear but no idea'.

anyway.

In reply to CJD:

But it has to be set up PERFECTLY before you even think about taking a photo, there's just no point otherwise...

In reply to CJD: yup, it's the photographer that takes the picture not the camera...

if I buy a Steinway will I be able to play like Beethoven?

In reply to CJD: My photography consists of me waiting for as long as it takes with my old SLR until something cool happens and i snap it. I also have a small digital camera which is hardly top spec. I don't care about the equipment you're looking to show images not cameras.

In reply to Ian Hill:

it would appear that a lot of the blokes on here think that the spirit of Ansell Adams lurks within them.

In reply to CJD: am I missing something?

a penis?

a mild form of autism?

In reply to CJD:

>spirit of Ansell Adams lurks within them.

did he drink malt whisky as well?

In reply to CJD: i am Ansell Adams :P

In reply to CJD: You are right. Though Lemming's thread about photographing fireworks was a refreshing change - technique rather than gear was discussed.

In reply to Kenny:

this sort of thread is the sort of thing I'm thinking of - all sounds a bit (I hate this phrase) willy waving to me

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=204136&v=1

In reply to CJD: Lots of male jewellery discussed here, thats for sure. I'm as guilty as anyone tho'- shiny things!

In reply to Rhoddy Stewart:

male jewellery - nice term! my dad refers to climbing gear as 'technical jewellery'

In reply to CJD: You can always tell when a guy starts a technical thread because it's all abreivated. " Yea my DLV for the PWM is OTT for BBL".

I think that photography is getting a bit lost in all the technical rubbish. All you need to know is how to take a good shot. The equipment, although might make some difference, is minimal.

In reply to CJD:

Thought it might be.
Mind you I've been known to "pontificate" a bit about equipment innit.

In reply to Rebus:

exactly. You've either got an eye or you haven't but if you haven't a bit of practice can train you into something like.

I really like your profile pic btw.

In reply to Kenny:

but you're a bloke

lol

and also, for some of the pontificators, the pontification doesn't seem justified when compared with the quality (or not) of their shots.

or at least the ones that are presented for public consumption.

put up or shut up, that's what I say

In reply to CJD:

Sounds like me

I blame my scanner

In reply to Kenny:

bollocks to the scanner, you can ignore bits of dust etc if the image itself is any good.

In reply to CJD: ok, ok so I may have created a new thread recently on which lense for which shot etc. But since then the info I got from it and a couple of books and internet sites have give me inspiration to try a couple of different angles and shots - also they've given a greater knowledge of how my camera works (something I did not profess to understand before completly).

So I am sorry if I've contributed to the i've got this yada yada yada feel but I have been snapping away quite happily since!!

I'll say one further thing though - i've no doubt that the images i've taken so far will be utterly crap - but it's all in the learning curve!!

dave

In reply to CJD: Yea i agree if you compare an experienced photographer with a dodgy SLR and a beginner with the best Digital money can buy there would be no contest. People learn about photogrpahy by takeing photos not looking through magazines for the best stuff.

PS. Cheers CJD

In reply to gingerdave13: Can i see some of your shots some time mate? Always interested in new photographers.

In reply to Rebus: you can when they get processed - but there of nowt interesting yet. just getting to know the camera again and playing with depth of field, tipod ohh and maybe flash (can you sense the excitment)!

also the current ones loaded on here are all on the crappy digital which i must confess look utterly shite but like i said all in the learning curve!

In reply to Rebus: p.s and it will always be good to have some hints/tips on what's going wrong,, or hopefully going right!!

In reply to gingerdave13: Let me know when they are developed it's always hard getting used to a new camera which is why i never have

Give me my old SLR any day. My e-mail is:

Warped_level@hotmail.com

send em to me when they are done.

Keep snapping!

In reply to Rebus: I've always thought that you should learn the basics with a manual camera- if you understand the basics then everything else should fall into place. After all- it's all to do with the relationship between shutter speed and aperture- really not much more to it than that, when you think about it, film or digital.

In reply to CJD: no it's not that - it's that it doesn't focus (being a flatbed) - think it's a matter of luck whether your slide/neg is JUST the right height. I did a thread about this a while back.

I'm getting this;

http://blue-straggler.net/SummerSundae2006/delay.jpg

kind of soft result from slides I know to be pin sharp, and it's put me off scanning in a load of mountain / climbing pics!

Hope you appreciate the subversive hijack of an anti-equipment-pontification thread, Ha haa

In reply to Rhoddy Stewart:

or, even more simply, just messing around and getting on with it. I'm pretty technically clueless but some of my photos turn out alright. I'm more interested in capturing the image than in what settings my camera's on. My only concession is that I know that once I get down to 1/15 there's something of a risk of camera shake.

In reply to Kenny:

don't you bloody dare!

In reply to Rebus: will do thanks!

it's the same old camera. but before I think all i could understand was that the needle needed to be in the middle otherwise the shot i was taking came out wrong!

now with a little bit of age and understading i can 'get' how to creat different effects - it's just a matter of making them work!

In reply to CJD:

Hey, I did cameras and all that photography stuff last year ... overrated, I reckon ..

Now, I am trying to decide whether the new Van Den Hul Premium low nitrogen index cables (a snip at only £1849.99) that I have just fitted to my Naim/Mark Levinson/Audio Research/Dalquist audio system puts as much 'air' around the soloists as this magazine said they would.

I can definitely hear more 'air' when I listen to Now That's What I Call Music 44, but switching to Now That's What I Call Music 61, I'm not so sure... It might have more 'prescence', though, but I haven't quite worked out what that sounds like yet. The magazines say it's a good thing to have, though ..

Maybe I should get the new Now That's What I Call Music 65, that will have lots of it, I imagine....

Cosmic John.

In reply to CJD:

1/15?? Steady hands or wide lens?

In reply to Rhoddy Stewart: Yea i agree probably best to learn on a film first.

The basics of camera work are shutter speed, pose, lighting, aperture and skill. Oh and a film is useful!

In reply to Rid Skwerr:

steady hands I guess. it's just got the lens on that I bought it with. and it's quite heavy. Normally I stop at the 1/30 light.

In reply to Anonymous:

ha haaaaaa, exactly!

In reply to CJD: Nothing wrong with that rule of thumb!

In reply to CJD: i just go to nice places, easy to take good pictures then, the quality is in the subject not the photo.

A technically perfect photo can still be crap if it's boring

In reply to CJD:

Here's a shot I like, which I took with my cheapo digital in a "Oooo look at that!" moment:

http://picasaweb.google.com/KeithWWaddell/ChamonixSept06/photo#497836480792...

In reply to Rhoddy Stewart:

as I say, it seems to work. No amount of trickery can make up for just taking a decent picture in the first place. Seems obvious to me.

In reply to ebygomm:

Yes! hurrah for people knowing what I'm on about.

but anyway you're female so you're bound to be more straightforward about these things and some of your pics are proper ace!

In reply to CJD:

you cant polish a turd

In reply to doz generale:

even more eloquently put!

In reply to KeithW: Great shot mate. Proves the point of the thread entirely!

In reply to CJD:

Snap! Well to the first bit at least. But I'm getting to the stage that I'm thinking if I paid a bit more attention to settings etc then maybe some more would turn out alright...

In reply to CJD:

Doesn't Jane Bown take virtually all her photos with the same aperture and speed on an old Olympus? Doesn't seem to have held her back.

In reply to tony:

Exactly!

it's not about the equipment! or the technical jiggery pokery!

In reply to Kenny: Yea your exonerated

In reply to tony: Yes. To be fair she does take them in very similar situations every time as well though
Actually most of my concert pics are done this way - same camera and lens and aperture and film, occasional variation in shutter speed but not much.

In reply to CJD:
One of my favourite pics is a of a wee boy before the Scotland v Morocco game in St.Etienne. Great shot on a disposable, would have been even better on a better camera.

You can get great photos on any gear and it's a case of learning what isn't and is a good image and doing it yourself, the gear kind of follows on from there. In saying that you have to master the technical side as well as the artistic side if you are to be really good.

In reply to Removed User:

agreed.


do you think that's always true? I'm not convinced.

In reply to CJD:

If you intuitively know your way around your gear, film etc then you aren't mucking about with settings missing the shot. A wee example would be photograhing my boy, I tend to automatically open up the aperature without thinking too much because I want the expression on his face and throw the back ground out of focus, when he is charging about I intuitively get myself as big a shutterspeed as possible, landscapes get as small an aperature as possible. Things I know from learning what makes the piture and what I need to do on the kit to make it happen.

In reply to Removed User:

I guess I know my way round my camera but probably couldn't tell you what I was doing in terms of it not really being a conscious thing.

I can only use one camera, it seems, and am a happy snapper rather than 'really good'.

In reply to Removed User:

why to both of these? why should he always be frozen with a fast shutter speed? why not show the fun he's having by using a bit of movement blur? why should a landscape always have great DoF?

don't set yourself rules, think outside the box...

In reply to CJD:



doesn't that depend to an extent on what you're taking pictures of? you don't see many sports action photographers with cheap compacts...

In reply to chris_s:

true, but are there many sports action photographers amongst the amateur chatterers on here?

In reply to Ian Hill:

and *don't* let this thread descend into a technique/gear thread!

In reply to CJD: yes there are

In reply to CJD:



I suppose its what blokes do, talk about the technical side of things, I have asked lots of questions recently and the lads have come up trumps with advice. I have now got a wonderful setup to take landscapes with, and I am going out most days to take pics. I started on a fine art printing course yesterday, so once thats done will dare to show my pics to the public at large.

In reply to CJD:
If we were all very good there would be threads about us!!
My old fella taught me the whole aperature shutter speed thing when I was young as we both had manual cameras. HP5, f2 and 1/30th for bands will always be etched on my mind!! Now where ARE those Marillion negs....

I've had a wee peek at your pics and you are a bit beyond happy snapper.

In reply to Ian Hill:

yes but not *many*. Most of the people on the threads are enthusiastic amateurs (much as on the climbing threads )

In reply to Removed User:

no I'm definitely a happy snapper.

In reply to Ian Hill:

?

Ach the joys of trying to quickly get a point across when the boss isnae looking!!

In reply to CJD:

I had a go a few times. I wangled a press pass for an American footbal match at Murrayfield. I made the telly narrowly avoiding gettting thumped by a charging mountain. Christ, you get fast when you are frightened!!

In reply to CJD:


I agree. Over half of my images in my gallery, 23 to be precise, were taken with a simple cannon point and click 35mm camera and the 6 by 4 images were scanned using a £40 scanner. When I scanned the images I had no idea how to use photoshop to improve them but I still went ahead and I'm more than pleased with the results.

However since getting my point and click digital camera 5 years ago I decided to buy an entery level DSLR, which cost less than the point and click digital, and I have been greatly impressed with the image quality. But I don't think that spending a few hundred pounds extra on top of what I payed for my entry level DSLR would have made any greater improvement in my ability to take pictures.

I feel it is more about being in the right place at the right time with whatever camera that you have in your hand at the time than choosing the biggest and best camera in the hope that it will produce award winning images. For me, that's never going to happen because I am not a professional and I accept my limitations.

But, if I do win the lottery I'm going to buy the biggest and best toys on the block just so that I can say that I own one. Willey waving at it's best

Kenny, thank you for your kind words on my photographing fireworks thread.

In reply to CJD: The prosecution rests m'lud....
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=203839
(the links at the bottom)

In reply to CJD: I put meself in the 'Advanced snapper' category. The thing is, I do SO many different things with the kit, I NEED to have an idea of what I'm doing, and why...
http://www.catmangler.smugmug.com/ for examples of SOME of what I do. Many of these I really could not do with anything less than the kit I have.

I learned on 35mm OM1. All manual, using B&W film that I devved and printed myself. If the image is shite, I have NO ONE to blame but me... Vlad did the same, so has my son. Then you can play with something all singing all dancing.

TTG

In reply to Rebus:

I'm Ansell Adams and so's my wife!

In reply to O Mighty Tim:

how do you define 'advanced snapper'?

In reply to Anonymous: so luckily you're not the photographer Ansel Adams then?

In reply to CJD:

Mind you don't drag your own thread down into semantics.

In reply to Kenny:

no - but I'm curious about why someone would describe himself thus.

In reply to Ian Hill:


No, he's been dead for some 22 years and would find posting on an internet forum slightly difficult.

In reply to CJD:

Neck-on-the-block honesty vs. self-deprecating insincere modesty? Hmmm

In reply to Kenny:

interesting.

you've got mail.

In reply to CJD:


interesting!

In reply to CJD:


after an interesting exchange with Kenny, I'd like to modify this to 'I am more competent than I sometimes like to make out. But I still know stuff all about the technical side. But have better things to do with my time than find out.'

In reply to Kenny: dammit! these of the forum discussions sound - well - interesting!

In reply to CJD:

With respect I think that's big cheesy balls

Photographic evidence indicates that you know about focal lengths, apertures, shutter speeds and film speeds.
iirc you know how to print from a neg.

That's about as much as most people NEED surely?

In reply to gingerdave13: there were violins and woe!

In reply to Kenny:

I know how to print from a neg. I know to always use the most contrasty filter (cos I like it). I don't know about focal lengths - shutter speeds and stuff are invariably just adjusted to what will let me take the pic (i.e. what the light meter in the camera says). I only know that faster speed is grainier and that my favourite film (paterson 800) is no longer made

I genuinely really don't know more than that.

In reply to Kenny: smallest ones in the world no doubt!

In reply to CJD:

Getting back to the ORIGINAL point of your thread, and giving a useful contribution for once...I remember recently looking through the first few sets of photos I'd taken upon getting my SLR (which was, effectively, my first camera). Expecting some incompetence, I was surprised to see a variety of offbeat and interesting pictures....because at that time I was "just getting on with it". It was kind of sad in a way.
This point has been raised in letters in a few photo mags too. I wonder if it's a case of "the more we learn, the less we play"?

In reply to gingerdave13:

Er no, that's to do with tips (Steve Buscemi, Reservoir Dogs)

In reply to Kenny:

blinded by technology rather than science?

In reply to Kenny: that has just proven to me that I need to watch that film again,, either that or my memory is getting seriously affected by alcohol!

In reply to CJD:


Not in my example. I meant more "restricted by learning rules and conventions and deciding, before taking the shot, that it won't be a good shot"

(I'm guilty of the latter, I mean I was at a wedding on Saturday, many lovely people around, and I came back with about 10 pictures. And I had my digital! D'oh)

In reply to Kenny:

Absolutely!!

In reply to Kenny:


I do that sort of thing lots too. I came back from the alps with about 15 shots... lol.

In reply to CJD:
Really? 15 exposures in total, as opposed to 15 "great shots" (well with you that's one and the same thing anyway, ha haa!).
I remember running out of film at the top of a little Alp, when these goats were virtually dancing for us (and I have this image stuck in my head, of what would have been a GREAT picture). I think this was the start of my reining-in the shot count. Well, that and the mounting bills when I used to get carried away at gigs and shoot a whole roll when, really, ten pics would suffice (note to self...try to scan those Emiliana Torrini pics from 6 years ago....)

In reply to CJD:

Perhaps the people "just taking photos" don't need to post on a website about it? Only the ones who have a question re equipment?

In reply to Kenny:

lol, no, 15 in total. I only liked three of them (still not sure about one of those) - that's why there's only 3 on my flickr site.

with me being a luddite I have to be a bit thoughtful as film and processing costs money. I'd think more about digital but it would all just descend into technical waffling when I tried to work out what to buy.

In reply to AliceW:

okay...

so a topic is started, chatters about a picture etc for about three or four posts, then 9 times out of 10 descends into a debate about 'ooo well I've got this lens and this and that and yada yada'...

so what's that about?

the photography forum here isn't dedicated to equipment questions, is it?

In reply to CJD:

Funnily enough I can haul an SLR up and down a mountain and take perhaps six to ten photographs in a day, but stick me at the front of a gig - 30 in an hour. On film.

In reply to AliceW:

here you are - here's the Forum description.

"Photography - This is the place for all discussions relating to cameras and outdoor photography. Discuss the latest digital camera or have long discussions over the merits of one of the many thousands of photographs in the UKC Photo Galleries."

no mention of it just being about equipment.

but it seems that most of the discussions are.

In reply to CJD:
If you ever buy a digi SLR then just ignore most of the digi stuff. File size, put it on max res and ignore, white balance;put it on auto. After that you can pretty much treat it the same as your usual SLR, though you can change ASA without changing the film. If I was near you I'd give you it for a week!!

In reply to CJD:


christ, you never seem to stop talking about your "equipment"

In reply to Removed User:

a digital SLR is on my 'when I'm rich' list, behind a new stereo and a rear section of exhaust for my car I have four film SLRs at home and only ever use one of them. (two of them were old freebies, one was my 21st birthday present and one is the one I use all the time). I would be worried a new camera would meet the same fate of sitting on the side whilst I still used my first camera.

In reply to Removed User: Well said, that's exactly my attitude (currently exacerbated by the fact that I currently mostly use a non-CPU lens, rendering most of the "fancy" stuff dead!)

In reply to Kenny:

I'm getting worried now. I was on the beach the other day photographing Kite surfers and I took 6 gig worth of images. I'm glad I ditched film years ago because I would never have been able to afford developing well over 1,000 photos in an afternoon.

In reply to Removed User:

Wouldn't Mrs Bhoy have something to say about that?

In reply to CJD:

That was my concern too! I use them about the same amount. Despite having a digi SLR I still take it less "seriously" than the 35mm! Though I was a good boy and used it lots in Wales without being all precious about it.

In reply to CJD:

Why not get a cheap point and click digital compact?

Fit in your pocket and does all the exposure thinking for you.

In reply to heather monkey:

I guess the thread was needing a mucky mare.

In reply to The Lemming:

we got one for work and I just can't use it. I don't know what's wrong with me. It's a nice camera but just... no.

In reply to Kenny:

>Not in my example. I meant more "restricted by learning rules and conventions and deciding, before taking the shot, that it won't be a good shot"

Exactly, give a kid a camera with auto exposure and see how good a couple of pictures will be. so a lot will be rubbish, but they have not been taught about golden mean, rule of thirds, they just get on with it.

In the photography club a new meber would produce a lot of mediocre pictures and half a dozen stunning ones, once they learned all the rules they end up talking mostly competent ones, till they go on a trip and use some of the techniques but learn to ignore them for that cracking shot.

In reply to The Lemming:

Good God. Were you shooting RAW (please say yes! cos that's TOO many jpgs!)? where do you get the time and inclination to sort through them all?

In reply to Removed User:
Sorry!
Blame it on JoH & her experience thread, my mind doesn't normally work like that! Honest!

As for the digital versus film debate, I'm actually planning going the other way & getting back to my old film SLR (I haven't used it in so long I can't even remember what it is!) & trying to re-teach myself the basics over the winter.

In reply to Kenny:

Yep they were RAW and I have too much time on my hands

I've got 20,000 images on my hard drive. No kidding

However this year I have decided to ditch a lot of them and so far I have got rid of 15,000 so-so shots. I'm of the oppinion that if you don't buy a ticket you don't win a prize. However since I got my DSLR I have began to force myself to take less images but it's lke a drug. I just love hearing the shutter go off.

In reply to CJD: Been looking at the pics I've posted. I can't actually recall setting any of them up- they all just "happened" to start appearing in front of me, and I was lucky to have a camera handy enough or easy enough to get to quickly to grab the shot. The one at the top of the gully on Udlaidh for example- Neil Morrison had come up behind me, passed the belay and walked over- onto the plateau- I turned- and he was just standing there, as the pic shows-with the sun behind him, all lit up- I shouted to him to stand still- pulled out the FM which happened to have a 35mm wide on it, did a quick meter off his jacket and got 1 shot off before he got fed up and moved, and the scene changed totally. There was no real thought involved, the shot just semed to come together, and the trick is to anticipate it. The one of Ian Duckworth abseiling off Grovel wall was similar- the shot just started coming together, and again I had a camera round my neck so could grab it. He wasn't hanging about posing to let me take more. The one on Tarmachan ridge- again I could see the climber moving along the ridge, about to get into the shot- just got the camera up to my eye and 1 frame off, and as he moved along the ridge it changed the scene completely. Maybe it's luck too, but I wasn't thinking technicalities in those, just desperately reying to capture what I was seeing in front of me. I think the trick is in the anticipation of what could work, seeing a pic just before it happens, and having a camera- any camera- ready to capture it. I'd love a digi uber monster, and I'm sure I'll have one soon, but I'm convinced the pics wouldn't be any better or different with a D200 than with a FM, or even Rollei 35.

So- agreed-just get on with it!

In reply to Rhoddy Stewart: Ooh- the ice axe murder one is actually posed- it's not real

In reply to heather monkey: get back on it, i've just turned back too, and am enjoying having all the control back again - it makes for longer shots at the moment but it's still great fun!

In reply to Rhoddy Stewart: really - i was concerned and thinking about phoning the police on that one,,,, imagine the headlines

'ice axe wielding yeti found on mountain top'

In reply to CJD: I make little or no claim to talent (I wish), but have an interest in improving, and understanding WHY images fail.
Unlike a lot of 'happy snappers' who bang any old rubbish up and then claim to be the next David Bailey...

It's a major hobby, and has serious money spent on it. I buy decent kit to allow me to do what I want to do, and to keep on doing it, rain or shine.

Hope that makes sense?

TTG

In reply to O Mighty Tim:

ah, that's interesting and a very good point!


yes. I think. er...

yep

In reply to The Lemming: All I know is currently I have 90+GB stored, and the first E-1 shutter count is over 20K.
I was at Donington LMES race, a couple of weeks back.
900+ images in a shade under 6 hours.

The majority are, as usual, utter rubbish, but one or two have really, really, paid off.

TTG

In reply to CJD: i just stick to me old camera and my large format camera, i use the uni digital stuff when i need it, i makes images nrly every day but because of my choice of format it does tend to limit taking too many without thinking carefully about what im taking.

most of the people i know who make images tend to not to be hung up about equipment, more image quality and format.

In reply to Removed User:

you can tell you're a fine art photography type, you use the term 'making images' makes me happy! it's ace.

In reply to Removed User:

I think Clare's OP lumped "image quality and format" together with "equipment" (to some extent), in a kind of "technical" vs "aesthetic/spiritual/spontaneous" kind of way

In reply to CJD: Seriously no offence to yourself or Simon, but I bristle when I read about people "making images" Even though that is exactly what they are doing. But then I am not a fine art photography type, ha haa.

In reply to Kenny:

nah, Simon doesn't count in a 'technical more than spiritual way' at all - his camera is just an amazing amazing thing.

In reply to O Mighty Tim:
Funny you should mention Bailey. Quite often he would get the sitter in bash three or four frames and the job was a good'un. Happy snapper? good prep? technical perfection first time? Getting away with it?

Also read he would only shoot women with lipstick or eye make up, never both.....opinions ladies?

In reply to Kenny:

Well you are in effect a snapshotter, you cannot be anything else with live groups but Simon will set up a picture to get exactly what he wants in the picture so he is making images, much as a painter does.

In reply to Kenny: none taken but reading your post i'm in a no win situation ; )

however making images for me is about what i have in my head and then translaing that concept into its final ouput, be it paper, screen etc, hows that different from a film maker making moving images ?

surely films have technical competence to varying degrees and can still be aesthetc, spontaneous etc ?

In reply to Removed User:

I dunno if this holds any water with you but I think of conceptual photography, as with a lot of other conceptual art, as 'delivery of an idea' rather than 'recording a moment'. Dunno if that makes any sense. Trying to write a rationale for our creative programme at the moment and it's sounding like a load of potatoes

In reply to Removed User: Ah disregard that post, I was being silly! Bit of a flashback to some pretentious former flatmate, really.

In reply to CJD: yeah thats about it, although for some the idea may be just a record of a moment ; )

heeh trying to finish a proposal for a site specific work atm and i hate writing these things, too much info and you box yourself in, too little and they dont get your ideas.

hehe no worries Kenny, i have those moments as well

In reply to Kenny:

No, there is skill in capturing a set moment in time, at a concert, motor race, football match etc. Of course there is a bit of luck getting that perfect shot, I got one of Pat Hennen clipping a kerb three feet from me while the shutter mirror was up and did not see how close he was till I got the film back, and it was at the end of his record breaking lap, only for him to crash on the next lap.

In reply to CJD:

well you are using this sort of thing I suppose;
http://www.thestoryboardartist.com/

In reply to sutty:

er, no, sorry, being vague - the term programme is a bit misleading - I'm planning what we're going to be exhibiting, and why

it's a wonderful world of excel spreadsheets

In reply to The Lemming:

Duran Duran's 'Girls on Film'going round my head incessantly now - sparked off by Kenny's "On film", and now unstoppable...

In reply to CJD:

<this sort of thread is the sort of thing I'm thinking of - all sounds a bit (I hate this phrase) willy waving to me >

Aye.

CAMERA CLUB!!!

In reply to Rhoddy Stewart:


absolutely...whatever camera is in your hands it's really about capturing the image that you've seen in your head

I often use my 'digi monster' in full manual mode as the easiest way to get the images I want

it's just a means of recording what you see, your results are far more important than how they are produced

and it's not about how many shots you take on a given day...

In reply to Hannah m:

Wossat then?

In reply to Kenny:

This.

In reply to Ian Hill:

YES!


guffaw!

In reply to CJD: my brother does lots of photography and is quite good at it as well.

http://www.leefrost.co.uk/

Dave

In reply to CJD: I just dont follow this 'you can take great photos with any gear' rubbish. Ye you can probably take some good photos, but you are pretty limited in the good photos you can take.....I'd challenge ANYONE to swap their 400mm zoom lens and 20D with my disposable and see who got the best picture of a hawk in flight. So yes I think gear is important, but I'm not really into analysing it all too much.

In reply to dave frost: Yeah, I ve got one of your brothers books.
cool.

In reply to Dr Avid: you can take great photos with any gear...you obviously have to adapt the photos you take to the gear available though

you don't take telephoto shots if you only have a wide angle lens, but you can still take great wide angle shots

In reply to dave frost: Your Lee has an impressive gallery all pretty landscapes , but what's he done on Grit?.

In reply to Ian Hill: ye but that being true...you can take more great shots the more gear you have

It just pisses me off poeple telling me what great shots I can take with no gear while they are sitting on a pile of 2.8 telephotos and ultra wides....

In reply to Barry Chocolate: Is it any good ? im in a few of them, never got paid for my modeling !

Dave

In reply to Sean Kelly: He's missed out that sort of thing for some reason, maybe ill trya dn educate him to the beauty of gritstone .... form, texture, colour etc etc etc

im sure it wont work though i never win these conversations, i didnt pick up any of his skill.

Dave

In reply to dave frost: Got the book of my tutor when studying at college and never returned it (I wasnt the pet), just looked it out though, got a picture of a brother called Steve??.Nice window lit B&W.Your bro knows the right end of a camera though, has a superb eye and how to make pictures work for themselves.
Respect.

In reply to Barry Chocolate:

Lee Frost is pretty well known as he is (was?) a regular contributor to Practical Photography.

In reply to Kenny: Practical Masturbation??

Ahhhh, I remember that mag

10 tips on how to 'do the perfect nude' every month..

Respectable porn for our older camera club members..

In reply to Barry Chocolate:

Yes that's the one. Sue Townsend made the same observation about the (now respectable?) "Amateur Photographer" way back in 1984 in the first Adrian Mole diary

The nipple count in Practical Photography has diminished massively in the last 8 years, I'd say.

In reply to CJD:

Exactly. I'm joining CJD's movement.

Less Pontificating (TM), and more action.

And I reckon some people would do well to apply that to their climbing too.

In reply to Dr Avid:

but my point was more about the fact that you can still compose a great picture, even with a disposable. It's more about looking at what you're photographing than trying to think 'oooo I've got a great big zoom lens, better use that' just for the sake of it.

some of the best pics on here have been taken with little point-and-click cameras, like Olympus Mjus.

In reply to Dr Avid:

Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm lens for most of his photos, with the occasional telephoto for long shots. He was quite good.

In reply to CJD:

I agree with you up to a point. There are great shots taken with cheap cameras and poor shots taken with expensive cameras. But for my snaps there was a relationship between average vote and price of camera, as follows:
20 quid: 2.5
60 quid: 3
100 quid: 3.5
(this can't be seen now as I deleted some of them)

A pro photographer I know has a camera worth thousands plus he carries a 'cheapo digi' worth aout 200. The latter is used in an emergency as it clearly produces inferior results on average, although he's still had pics from it published.

In reply to Witkacy:

but still, underneath it all, is seeing the image and recording the image, and if you've got an eye for that then the equipment will probably be put to better use... if you've got no eye for rhythm and composition and all those things then all the gear in the world won't help...

but yes, as my original point said, there's a lot to be said for just getting on with it.

In reply to CJD:


Yes, that must be true. I imagine patience helps as well.

In reply to CJD:

I doubt many of the pictures taken on routes in the alps were taken with expensive SLRs, you just do not carry them when the going gets hard unless you are a pro doing a shoot as there is no time for faffing changing lenses etc. Better a camera you can use one handed and some poor pictures than an SLR that doesn't get used on the route at all.

just about sums it all up:
http://www.thelightandtheland.com/pages/Misc/thoughts.html

In reply to tony: Aye, but his negatives are apparently a right b*stard to print, as he NEVER metered. So they can be over exposed, under exposed, who knows what!

Now Ansel Adams was an artist with a sound technical understanding... Mmmm, 10x8 contact prints, projected. Wow.

Yes, a good PG can produce something, whatever you give him, but you also find you get better results, whatever your level, if you use better kit.

Think climbing, and what grade would you climb if using the same PAs as Joe Brown in the 50s?

TTG