UKC

are we all in danger of being too focussed on the gear and not the photo? Judging by some submissions to the photo gallery (ducks for cover)

I'm as guilty as anyone not having taken any decent pics yet with my lovely new K10D.

In reply to kevin stephens:

i've been saying this for aaaages about the camera threads, that they're becoming gear obsessed rather than about people taking really inspiring/exciting/good pics.

that said, i'm still saving up for a dslr (nearly there!)

how come you haven't taken any decent pics with yours yet?

I am definitely guilty of hoping a new camera will somehow magically make me a better photographer.

For the record, I am very happy with my k10d as well except for 1 instance where the shutter release wouldnt work but I suspect the battery had become too cold.

In reply to CJD:

Too busy skiing, climbing, cycling, working; activities which I was worried about damaging it. If I was a more competent skiier I would have loved to have taken it down the Valle Blance with me.

Anyway the light's not been quite right

In reply to radson:

having a new camera won't - taking more photographs perhaps will... surely that's the magic of digital, that you can take loads of photos with it without worrying about it consuming film, or running out of film at that crucial moment...?

haha, I can never be accused of not taking enough photos. I will never be a great photograper. I will just continue to shotgun something that likes nice and will occasionally get a nice pic. The Pentax's easier spot focusing system certainly helps though in taking some clearer pics.

In reply to CJD:

So what are you thinking of buying?

Doh! - sorry!

In reply to kevin stephens:

ha ha, hijacking your own thread! lol

i'm going to get a canon eos 350d as they're cheap enough for me to be able to afford (apparently i now need one for an event in may...) and the extra lens I'm going to get with it will bring my old film canon back to life for me.

so that's nice.

but I was talking to a friend about this recently, who said that since he got a digi slr he seems to use his manual slr even more. ha ha.

I think I'll miss the whole 'manual'ness of it all. but we shall see.

In reply to CJD:

I do miss film and I get out my old mechanical manual Pentax MX sometimes, but prive of film and procesing, plus delay makes this and expensive romanic gesture. I still use my film GR1 compact a lot

Anyway, yo dont want to get a crappy eos 350d, what you really need is......

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

In reply to kevin stephens:

i currently use a very scabby 20 year old yashica which seems to work fine!

i quite like the 'having to wait for pics' thing but because I'm a pedantic arse who mostly uses B&W, and I don't have developing facilities at home, it's getting ever more expensive.

I swapped over fromd 350d to k10d for the image stabilisation and certain other features.

In reply to radson:

but does it really make that much difference?

were people doing the same about, say, the new generation of canon EOS manual cameras when they came out, when a load of similar-looking cameras came out? surely at the end of the day it's about the pics you take, and at an amateur level, which let's face it most of us are at, does it really make that much difference?

In reply to kevin stephens: Having been guilty of starting a gear thread recently I do agree that there may be a bit to much gear talk, having said that there is some good advice on here. CJD when are you going to put some photos up here? whos going to start a topic that discusses the merit of photos any takers?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

i don't take climbing photos, really, so can't put mine on here, but they're here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/c_j_d/ which is linked to on my profile!

In reply to kevin stephens: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=237459 allready started.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

and I should say that I'm as much of a rank amateur as the next man/woman, I'm just anti-'oo I've got 19 lenses and three filters and I did this in photoshop and that in photoshop' - (yes but it's still a shit picture, ha haa!)

In reply to CJD: I have had a look at them before and I was impressed, I do like your style of photography (I am sure I have mentioned this before)

In reply to kevin stephens:

So, what are the best jumars and atachment system for getting good climbing pics?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

thank you.

I should take more - I seem to take less than a film a month at the moment, which is a bit slack, and which hopefully a digi slr might address. The light at the crag today was amazing but I'd been too lazy to carry my camera up there.

In reply to CJD:

I agree with Jethro. There is a lot more to photography than climbing, and many of us forget this

In reply to kevin stephens:

you agree with jethro about what?

surely climbing photography's just a genre of photography like motorsport photograohy or portraiture or taking pics with out of date polaroid film (examples of which on flickr are totally rocking my world at the moment, and hurrah of hurrahs I've found some out of date polaroid film at home to play with)

In reply to CJD

about your flickr gallery, which goes to show that if buying a flashy new dslr, one should get the most out of it by not just taking climbing pictures

In reply to kevin stephens:

http://www.aarnpacks.com/products/index.html

I use a load limo pack now with front pockets to carry a dSLR and lens. It means I have almost instantaneous access to my camera without having to take the pack off and it is damm comfortable to boot.

In reply to kevin stephens:

oh ta - and yeah, surely having a camera is about recording all sorts of things about life, of which climbing is only one aspect.

In reply to CJD:



Hold on, you've just admitted you only take a roll of film a month !!!

You can't moan about people going on about gear because you surmise that they are not actually out taking photos, especially when you are only shooting 36 images a month, (which you admit is slack).

In reply to kevin stephens:

Grigri

In reply to ChrisJD:

oh arse, that came out wrong... people seem to go on and on aand on about gear but dont' seem to spend as much time posting links to pics that are exciting them is probably what I meant.

and that's just my bugbear.

i know I should take more pics but a) I need to feel inspired, and taking photos of climbing doesn't inspire me very often, and I'd rather be climbing than standing watching other people doing it (but that's just me, not knocking anyone else)

and b) isnt' everyone allowed to play devil's advocate every once in a while?

oh and c) I'm a very shy photographer, which might sound strange but I don't often like getting my camera out in case the pics are rubbish or whatever.

sad but true.

and d) film all costs money which I don't have much of at the moment as I'm saving up for a digi slr...

In reply to kevin stephens: I use rope access kit, croll jammer stop and a big comfy harness all petzel stuff. More gear talk, its like a big topic magnet.

In reply to CJD:

oh, and forgot to mention quality control - I'm quite picky about what I like and don't like of what I've taken, and there's no point in taking a pic that's just for the sake of it, and i don't do all that bracketing malarkey as I don't really understand it. Maybe I'm too frugal with my film.

In reply to CJD: Lets see if your restraint survives digital will be interesting to hear how you deal with it, something I am still getting my head round having been a relativly frugal film user.

In reply to ChrisJD:

*annnnd* - surely with digital people can take loads of pics that they can get excited about, and that's part of the point of digital, to be able to take loads of pics?


I'm going to have to go and ponder this point.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Stacking images in Lightroom has saved me from being swamped. And using the delete button.

In reply to CJD: Its that whole quantity quality thing and finding a balance that suits you. Your pictures are quite thoughtful pictures and thats a style that suits a manual film camera. It is possible to be swamped by *good* pics sometime making it hard to find the *ace* pic when shooting on digital.

In reply to ChrisJD:

I have that lurking around here somewhere - guess I should see what it does

In reply to nz Cragrat:

Hmmm .... it does nothing

Expired beta Version...

In reply to kevin stephens: Just seen Don Mcullin in Darfour on the bbc news a timely reminder of what someone can do with a camera.

In reply to ChrisJD: Just orderd lightroom cant put it off any longer, nikon software is shit.

In reply to CJD:

Do you think that this would make for interesting thread discussions?

Or are you just after links to good pictures?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Good luck

Its a great bit of software.

Learn the short cuts as it speeds things up: full list here (not in manuls or listed in software!)

http://lightroom-extra.com/

LR Extras FAQ, General Info - Keyboard Shortcuts. Click on the appropriate PDF icon.


I also found this video tutorial helpful (though it's a bit painful to watch at times):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&...

In reply to CJD:

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

In reply to Ian Hill:

Can you play like Beethoven on a Casio Keyboard?

G

In reply to Graham:

if you're Beethoven, yes...the point is it's the user that provides the magic not the equipment...

In reply to Ian Hill:

I think Graham's point was that if you can produce great results from "low end" or "basic" equipment, then you might reasonably expect to produce even greater results with "high-end" or "sophisticated/refined" equipment.
This could apply to Casio vs Steinway, Opel vs. Aston Martin, or Chinon vs Leica

In reply to Ian Hill:

I think I might have understood that.

:-S

G

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I thangewe.

G

The irony...

In reply to kevin stephens:

Discussion wise, here's a refreshing rarity - no mention of gear at all
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=237465&v=1

Is the worst insult to a photographer, showing you a good picture, to ask them, as your first response, "wow, what camera do you have?"
Happened to me last year, I was rather disappointed.
She should have asked about film and lens

In reply to kevin stephens: I don't think we spend that much time talking about the gear do we? I will give my two pence worth if someone asks a question about a item, and will mention the purchase of some new gear when relevent, in the year I have been Dslring I have taken close to 8,000 images, admitidly many are just arsing around practising certain techniques, and I maybe taking this the wrong way but whats wrong with saying I used thus filter and that filter and did this or that in photoshop? surely no different to explaining how you did something in the darkroom?

In reply to ICE:

You are confusing Kevin's OP with CJD's thread.

Kevin's not talking about there being too much discussion about gear on here. He's saying that people are getting their nice shiny new gear but not bothering to think about their photographs, and then uploading some lacklustre stuff anyway (perhaps kidding themselves that "it MUST be good, cos dpreview.com gave the camera a good review")

In reply to Blue Straggler: I wasn't responding to any thread by CJD, but she makes a comment in this one which got me wondering, but yes, take your point ref the OP.

In reply to CJD:
oh, which one are you going to get?

In reply to John Wood:

lol, a canon eos 350 thingy 'cos a) it's what I can afford, and b) a lens I want to get for it (just a 50mm 1.8) will bring a film camera back into use.

not very thrilling, I know, but I'm excited anyway.

but I'm still thinking about ChrisJD's comment about not taking very many pictures. My head tends to switch into 'picture taking' mode and I see pictures everywhere, but day-to-day I'm not looking at the world as intently as I could.

In reply to CJD:



Taking any notice of idiots like me could get you into trouble.

In reply to ChrisJD:

you made a good point though.

In reply to CJD:


I was lucky !

In reply to ChrisJD: Oh, it's tempting...

8^)

Anyway, I don't want a new one, ta. What I've got now will serve until it dies, and that should be a GOOD long time...

Enjoy choosing new toys, folks.

TTG

In reply to Ian Hill:


a good user will often be made better, a crap one will remain crap (unless the equipment does auto corrections).

Which is a good thing in my eyes, since recognising this allows me to keep my costs down.

As for kit in general, I would guess there is more discussion going on since there is so much more to talk about and plus its electronic gadgetery. I would suspect though it has just shifted the focus slightly from lenses and filters and the like.

In reply to dissonance: Its interesting, since digital has come in my photography skills have taken a nose dive while most people's have gone on an 'up'.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it isn't, the democratisation of any art form is clearly a good thing, I'm only sad that I have been left behind, at 60 it is hard for some of us old dogs to learn new tricks.
I still like the concept of grubbing about in the dark room and wallowing in the alchemiac practices that eventually result in a photographic print.
I , personally think /thought far more about an image than in todays 'shoot, no its crap, erase it' philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the progress offered by digital, just occaisionally I lament the discipline needed in the old days and my personal inability to have moved with the times.

In reply to CJD:

oh exciting,

Ordered a D40 last week (I may have mentioned this a few times before) and so far the interweb has brought m

1. A Uv Filter
2. A Memory card
3. No camera

and now feel like the boy who has to wait for boxing day for his pressies...

In reply to Al Evans:

a curious side issue is that with digital and the relative ease of destroying an image that in the future there could be less archive material.

with film and slides even if you didnt like them they were still there for posterity, to be viewed in later years and retain a significance.

now with people deleting images that potential archive will diminish if people only keep the 'perfect image'.

I have slides and prints I didnt rate at the time but as time moves on they have now taken on a different value, just a thought.

In reply to Al Evans: hmm - i remember reading an article by a national geographic photographer years ag o now - he reckoned that he would take about 400 rolls of film on a shoot, that maybe one shot on a roll would be any good and that he'd pick the half a dozen or so he needed from those 400

i guess digital gives more people the chance to do that but i guess the difference is that most of the one's my article writing guy took were actually pretty good or at least attempts to be pretty good

thread-wise i'm starting to really like the idea of a digital slr to 'take proper pictures' again - i can't get on with my old digital compact at all and i can't really see me getting manual slrs out of their bag and winding films through them either

i'm sure i had a point when i started this post . . .

In reply to Al Evans:

that's a really interesting point - one thing I notice with my pics is that sometimes, things that i initially don't much like, really grow on me later, whereas if I'd deleted them instantly I wouldn't have had that moment of going 'oh actually I really like that' later.

In reply to Removed User:

oo yes, good point - and sometimes it's what's in the background, or random pics that you shoot to finish off films, that add context to a time or whatever. My degree show work was about my family and how nobody took photos of people when I was growing up, they only took photos of cars - but my stepdad can tell you, from the picture of the car, exactly what we were doing life-wise at that time.

I've become my family's 'archivist' and my dad's about to launch a box of about 5000 slides at me, of his childhood and my grandparents life. It's good to have these things, I think.

In reply to rich:

but with manual SLRs I quite like the fact that there's a physical object, the film, and that light's burned onto that to create an image... and the lovely 'clunk' noise, and the action of having to wind on - a friend took a photo using my camera recently, and looked mildly baffled by the notion of having to wind the film on. I like all that process.

In reply to CJD: oh absolutely - i think i meant that there is something a bit seductive (in the 'too easy' sense) with digital

i have a half-baked theory that digital is a stepping stone between taking film pictures and not taking any pictures - i think it's something about the sharing - if you went somewhere, when you got he pictures back you'd often take them round next time you saw the family or whatever - taking a memory stick round (or whatever) doesn't seem to happen - i guess there are actually more opportunities for sharing (flickr et al) but harder to share in a social context maybe (i don't include passing round the little screen on the back of one's compact)

so, unless you've established an identity as a photographic artist (or something) there somehow seems less point

something like that - i did say half-baked right . . ?

In reply to rich:

interesting - I do wonder about the thing of printing out pics, and how many people do it in a routine way. I like the fact that my friend can print out multiple copies of pics of her kids to send me, it's nice and easy and cheap, but I suppose with digital you don't print out 'everything' as a matter of course, so you don't get to have pics lying around that you can reassess the quality/interestingness of later (as one of my earlier posts on the thread mentioned). You also don't end up with boxes and boxes of sodding prints... so maybe there's an upside!

In reply to Removed User:


This one is not over convincing, since you can store thousands of photos on a dvd or on a back up hard drive. Certainly far more than standard photos could be stored. Although there is the risk of it being binned not sure this is any higher than just binning slides and the like when moving house.
The unique risks are medium breakdown (lifespan of dvds and the like are up in the air) and not being able to read the format in future both hardware especially true for removable mediums, possibly less so for harddrives and the like and software, no longer being able to recognise the format. This is probably fairly low for Jpegs and the like although higher with some of the custom RAW formats.

In reply to CJD: it's in the back of my head as one of those 'things to look into' but there seems to me to be a real (cognitive?) difference between 'interpeting material' on a screen and on paper - my clearest example is editing documents which i can't do on screen but have to do on a printed copy - photos might be similar

In reply to dissonance:

ooo, good point - like those huge 12" laser discs that they put the new version of the Domesday book on, that can no longer be read 20 years later, unlike the original domesday book which can still be read 1000 years later.

eek.

that's the cool thing about manual photography, that glass plates created over 100 years ago can still be used to create images now.

In reply to rich:

definitely! something about photo-as-object... and do people display digital photos in their homes as frequently as manual ones? I'm not talking about big blown up prints, but the snapshots of friends and family sort of thing?

In reply to dissonance: point taken, I agree about the storage issue.

In reply to CJD: indeed - those 'this is my life this is' cluttered photo boards that often grace student bedrooms and the like for example

personally, i have never printed a digital photograph in my life (only experimentally, not very succesfully and disposed of straightaway)

In reply to CJD:


digital photo "frames" are becoming increasingly common and will probably increase as the price drops.
Use of pics as screen savers and the like.
That and easier ways of printing them out.

In reply to rich:

but instead you have flickr and the like?


yeah on a standard printer it dont work to well. However the technology is improving and the home printers now are pretty impressive (although expensive runnings costs and long term print survivable is debatable).
Then again the ability to print out in shops and onlines is increasing.

In reply to dissonance:

I suppose it's just about a 'cultural shift' - rather than the consumer handing the film canister to someone in a shop and having a packet of prints and negatives handed back, the onus is on them to take their memory stick to the shop and choose the pictures they want to have printed.

In reply to dissonance: i know i know

the fact that i'm even 'discussing' it on here means that i'm clearly missing a trick somehow with the photo thing - i think i need to think about it a bit more (or possibly less)

In reply to rich: my clearest example is editing documents which i can't do on screen but have to do on a printed copy

I'm the same, I HAVE to to the final check on a paper copy, else I miss typos, poor sentences etc.


For me, this digital thing is ALL about printing the best images and sharing the better ones electronically (screen, email, pdf, website).

In reply to CJD:


Stick ? shop?. YOu upload them and they pich up the next morning.

Not read the whole thread, but for me the biggest difference is the experimentation and review on the PC almost immediately, the learning curve has went through the roof. I really don't miss the early eighties when it took nearly a week, they came back, were shite, and I couldn't remember what I'd done properly.And it cost a bomb. A lot of the knob twiddling malarkey just get's in the way of keeping an eye out for the shot, very important when your shooting a two year old!!

In reply to Removed User:

i was thinking about the people who use those scary looking machines in boots or jessops, but again, good point.

don't shoot your two year old. it sounds so cruel! I'm sure LittleJustaBhoy will respond better to firm reprimands than bloodshed

In reply to Removed User: Another really great advantage of digital is the ability if shooting in Raw to change colour balance and exposure later on your PC, rather than having to think about these factors at the time of shooting. Use the camera histogram to get a reasonable exposure, then fine tune it later at your leisure.

In reply to ChrisJD: a friend of mine is doing a PhD on digital imaging and printing also marrying up papers and inks for optimum quality, I pointed out a few of your images / links in the past to him as what he is doing appears close to what your aiming towards.

In reply to John2: I find this comment quite amazing...
I NEVER felt the need to adjust Colour Temperature when shooting slides, apart from something 80 or 82 to filter indoor lighting.
As to messing with histograms? Puhleease! I shot SKIDES for 20+ years, and just apply th esame rules to digital, effortlessly. Some initial thought, and I can snap away, happy that I know what the camera's going to do.

TTG

In reply to O Mighty Tim:


<raises hand>

what are SKIDES, please?

In reply to O Mighty Tim: The only way you can adjust colour temperature when shooting slides is by changing film.
My point is that no initial thought is necessary with digital - you can experiment at a later stage to see the effect of changing various parameters. There is no longer any need to bracket.

In reply to CJD:

>what are SKIDES, please?

shitty slides?

In reply to CJD: A well known spekking mistale...

8^P

In reply to John2: WRONG! I have a full set of 80, 82, blue filters for warming, and 81 and 85 orangey series cooling.
I could also adjust colour balance by changing film, but that involved switching mid roll... PITA!
I still have Kodak and Fuji sitting in the freezer, so I can keep going for a while yet.

TTG

In reply to CJD: P.S. I could have said it's a Technical Term, and you'd have complained I wasn't talking 'pictures'...

8^)

In reply to John Wood:

DHL have just delivered an empty box with the security tape and top ripped off.

Who delivers an empty box. "Here is what's left of your stolen goods. Please sign so I can get on to ebay.

Phoned dixons. "Well We'll send you some labels in the second class post so you can send the empty box back and when we've got it, we'll send out another camera".... had a few words about that!

In reply to John Wood:

Sorry, rant over

In reply to John Wood:

>Phoned dixons. "Well We'll send you some labels in the second class post so you can send the empty box back and when we've got it, we'll send out another camera".... had a few words about that!

Piss off, that is surely a Monty Python sketch in the making.

Still laughing.

Why did you sign for an empty box anyway, did you expect a lion or giraffe to be in it?

http://www.monologues.co.uk/Sketches/Box_Sketch.htm

In reply to O Mighty Tim:


That approach might to go against most accepted thought on how to best exposoe for digtial RAW images. You MAY not be getting the most out of your RAWs, though would need to see the RAW histograms to know for sure.

In reply to sutty:

It was delivered to my office, don't know whether it was signed for or not (I hope that it wasn't signed for without annotation)

After a few brief words they decided that they didn't need the box after all and that they would just send me a new camera.

In reply to CJD: I'm having a clear out of some old photographic kit including an enlarger, developing tanks etc. Would you be interested?

In reply to monkey92:

i would love to, but I'm not sure how I'd black out my bathroom.

where are you? and how much kit is there?

In reply to CJD: There is some blacking out foil that I use at work. Its very easy to use and with a roll of gaffer tape you can't go wrong! I'm in Bristol and there is a box full. I'll go through it but I think it should be a complete kit bar some chemicals.

In reply to Removed User:

Yes! Agree 100% (and yet I actually delete digi pics "in situ", though only when I can see they are technically beyond salvage - blown-out or blurred concert pics for example).

I think now is a timely occasion for a few of you to watch Stephen Poliakoff's masterful drama "Shooting the Past", about efforts to save a photographic archive. One of the greatest things I've seen on the BBC. The power of at-the-time "mundane" images, really comes through.

The magazine 'Practical Classics' features an old photograph of a town centre each month, and discusses the interesting points of some old cars visible there. The photos have no artistic merit and are just the sort of thing we'd simply delete today. Yet they hold a lot of interest for thousands of people.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
have you read this book at all, very interesting points and discussion in it. used it for my dissertation and i suspect i'll be using it again in sept, I'll have a look at the film you mentioned.

http://www.reaktionbooks.com/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/99/reaktion/165350.ctl

In reply to monkey92: What you got? I may just be interested, and may be dropping into Brizzle shortly for a bike for my son (bless/curse ebay!)

TTG

In reply to ChrisJD: I can send you something to have a nose at if you wanted, Chris?

Thing is, I underexpose deliberately, then bring it up in CS2 as required, using Levels, and watch the histogram.

I may, or may not, do some preliminary messing in a RAW converter first.

TTG

In reply to O Mighty Tim:


Basically that is the wrong approach with digital RAW (if you want to get the most out of an image).

It's considered best to expose to the right (in RAW), so that hightlights are just starting to clip (blow). You then sort out during RAW conversion. All explained here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

I shoot in manual 90% of the time, ignore the meter reading (except for ball park) and go with the histogram.

In reply to O Mighty Tim:

You got evidence other than this outstanding coolection, http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=623, that you can actually take photos and not just witter on endlessly about adjusting this level and that button......?

In reply to Narya:

There is a link on his profile page.

In reply to Narya: aye he has, who are you to ask?

In reply to all:

Does anybody here know anything about scanning?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=237640

:-/

G

In reply to Graham: I guess you do, do you always make a practice of missing the point?

In reply to Al Evans:

Shut your arse, Al, and try speaking through your mouth for a change.

G

In reply to O Mighty Tim: Its a Durst colour enlarger. There is an easel, developing tank, chemical baths, timer (home made but does the job!) and pretty much everything else you need really.

In reply to Narya: I have circa 25K slides and negs from near 30 years of picture taking, plus approaching 30K digital images.
No, most aren't 'published', I have a life and don't have the time to do all the PP I'd really like to!

Once the house gets extended, and I get a pukka darkroom/PC study, I may get to upload more.

Meantime, feel free to critique ANYTHING on the Smugmug site linked in my profile.

OK, I've shown you mine, where's yours?

8^)

TTG

In reply to ChrisJD: OK, I'll have a play with that, see how it works out.
I have to say the Kodak CCD in the E-1 doesn't like highlights clipping, hence my tending to go left, and adjust the other way...

Always prepared to listen to you on images, Chris, just not on the camera to take 'em!

8^)

TTG

In reply to O Mighty Tim:

In theory, what it should do is open up shadow areas and decrease noise in shadows to mid tones.

Its also is amazing what highlights can be recovered by RAW conversion.

Have fun.

In reply to ChrisJD: Is there any particular way to recover highlights that on first inspection appear blown?, I have tried this meter to the right thingy, but unless I am going to far, am not able to get the detail back.

In reply to ICE: If you shoot in raw then you can reduce the exposure.

In reply to ICE:

What RAW convertor are you using?