"all you need is a good camera"

KIPAX said:
haha I always tell everyone I wouldn't have anywhere near this quality of kit if I wasn't doing it for a living... I am regularly in situations where my iso starts at 25600 and previous cameras that only went up to 3200 or 6400 just wouldnt have got anything usable..

Its a thin line.. I just don't agree with the myth that a good photographer can take a pic with any camera :)
Click to expand...
It's not a myth.
Its subject and situation dependant.

So what you call 'acceptable working conditions where you have to get the shot, many of us would call unacceptable conditions because the shot won't be 'good enough' for our purpose so we need to break out other technical solutions.

The fact remains, the vast majority of commercial photographs don't require exotic equipment, there are some niche areas that are the exception to the rule. Let's not pretend that 'your world' is typical.

<namedrop> Salgado explains that he doesn't have a need for exotic lenses as he shoots for max DoF and fast lenses offer him no advantage at all. </namedrop>

The vast majority of my work has been shot to take advantage of the gear available at the time, yours the same. Your keeper rate might have improved, but you were shooting the same events with inferior kit and delivering, the same as the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
did you know your where insulting people or just too thick skinned to realise? Why do you think me or anyone else is just trying to take the same pics everyone else is taking.. maybe i have the equipment so i can take pics others cant take... also there is the point that when your being paid you ahve to take the pics the customer wants?
Click to expand...
You clearly aren't thick skinned. :LOL:
 
KIPAX said:
Why do you think me or anyone else is just trying to take the same pics everyone else is taking.. maybe i have the equipment so i can take pics others cant take...
Click to expand...

This links to the old question of "why take a photo here, it's been done by loads of others" or at an event "why take photos on your camera, they'll be loads of others?"
When you visit places that are frequented by loads of tourists, some may wonder why you bother taking the "same shots" as the tourists. But as a photographer you may have a better idea of how to make the shot look better, how to capture the sky better than someone with just a point and shoot or even someone with a DSLR in auto mode. And whilst you may be stood in the same place, you may be picking something different as a focal point, you may have zoomed in or out wider to change the composition entirely, and yes you may have some bit of kit they don't (tilt-shift lens to correct the verticals perhaps) which will give you a different shot to them.

Yes kit plays a role, but you do need to know how to get the best of what you have, whether that's a 10 year old crop sensor DSLR or the very latest Nikon D5/Canon 1DX2.
 
The choice of tool can influence the outcome & it is the handling of the tool that controls the finished product.

Point in case for myself ~ we needed to trim the bottom off of door because of some new flooring we had laid. I am rubbish when it comes to handling a panel saw but quite proficient when it comes to power tools.......I bought a power planer and did the job to my very self critical standards in a timely manner.

Now that power planer will likely not get used too much but then again neither does my panel saw ~ right tool for/in my hands to get best acceptable result with no cussing ;)
 
Great website and Work Lindsay.

Offer the person a camera phone challenge that should shut them up.
 
Most of us end up with the kit that does what we want, in the way that we want.
It is probably no-ones "Best possible" camera. But it suits us and what we are trying to achieve.
The image is definitely more important than the camera.

I found it interesting that on the OP's site, he included some technically less than perfect shots, these were just as interesting as the more technical perfect ones.

People are often too ready to discard shots for technical or compositional reasons, when they are actually needed for the flow of a series.... not every shot has to be perfect as a stand alone image.
 
KIPAX said:
I just don't agree with the myth that a good photographer can take a pic with any camera :)
Click to expand...

Even a poor non photographer can take a pic with any camera. Harder for them to take a half decent photograph though! Decent kit just makes it easier (or even possible) in some situations. One of my favourite own shots was taken using a Kodak plastic fantastic instamatic and a crap pair of shades as an ND filter since I was shooting straight into the sun. Pretty sure I could get a better shot now with the kit I have now but not 100% sure the public still have access to the spot I shot it from.

As for the point made in the OP, I've had that comment aimed at me (as I expect most of us have) and replied that her pots must be OK.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
People are often too ready to discard shots for technical or compositional reasons, when they are actually needed for the flow of a series.... not every shot has to be perfect as a stand alone image.
Click to expand...

Some of my favourite pictures are ones which I nearly deleted, sometimes it takes time to appreciate them.
 
ABTog said:
Yeah, but interesting to hear different opinions and for the OP who only joined in recent days, it maybe the first time they've heard them.
Click to expand...

That's certainly true: I guess this is a good insight into the happily argumentative world of photography. ;)
 
I wouldnt pay to much attention to anyone who says you only take good photos because of your chosen camera, or editing is fake, do what you need to get by, and treat your camera as a partner, and editing as an option.
 
wallyboy said:
I wouldnt pay to much attention to anyone who says you only take good photos because of your chosen camera, or editing is fake, do what you need to get by, and treat your camera as a partner, and editing as an option.
Click to expand...
On the issue of editing ... one thing I would say it (and this is my personal opinion) is that post processing should be minimised. If you look at a photo (at location) and think "oh don't worry will fix that in post" then you perhaps should take another picture. Thats not saying post processing is bad, but getting it right in the first place is better. Again I emphasise this is personal opinion ... but where possible you should think about the background - not think you can replace it later; think about if you need to bracket the exposure if the lighting is tricky; move the bit of hair if you notice it (and many more things I can't think of).

Now once you get to the computer, you can improve the image in post processing, but try to get the best you can straight out of camera.
 
Eloise said:
On the issue of editing ... one thing I would say it (and this is my personal opinion) is that post processing should be minimised. If you look at a photo (at location) and think "oh don't worry will fix that in post" then you perhaps should take another picture. Thats not saying post processing is bad, but getting it right in the first place is better. Again I emphasise this is personal opinion ... but where possible you should think about the background - not think you can replace it later; think about if you need to bracket the exposure if the lighting is tricky; move the bit of hair if you notice it (and many more things I can't think of).

Now once you get to the computer, you can improve the image in post processing, but try to get the best you can straight out of camera.
Click to expand...

I have an alternative perspective on post processing:)

As a digital black and white photographer, post processing is an essential part of my photography. The raw file is just the starting point for image creation in the same way that a negative is in a darkroom. Using dodging, burning, multiple layers, etc, I end up with an interpretation of the scene that the camera recorded, rather than just a copy. Nothing wrong with the latter of course, photography is a broad church:)
 
viewfromthenorth said:
I have an alternative perspective on post processing:)

As a digital black and white photographer, post processing is an essential part of my photography. The raw file is just the starting point for image creation in the same way that a negative is in a darkroom. Using dodging, burning, multiple layers, etc, I end up with an interpretation of the scene that the camera recorded, rather than just a copy. Nothing wrong with the latter of course, photography is a broad church:)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I would say thats an alternative perspective (from mine) or at least its not an alternative to what I think though perhaps might be alternative to what I said (sometimes what I write and what I mean are not entirely the same).

Post processing as an analogy for the dark room is different from post processing as a way to create something which didn't exist. Raw as the negative would sum it up completely and would gel with my thinking. You say you "end up with an interpretation of the scene that the camera recorded" but from looking quickly at your images on your website I would say you get "the scene as YOU see it"; you aren't creating something which wasn't there in the first place - perhaps a fine line definition but we all know when we see a photo which is a montage or over processed.

Of course there is the alternative side or post processing when the whole intention is to create something new; but that is more akin to painting than photography (IMO as always).
 
Eloise said:
I'm not sure I would say thats an alternative perspective (from mine) or at least its not an alternative to what I think though perhaps might be alternative to what I said (sometimes what I write and what I mean are not entirely the same).

Post processing as an analogy for the dark room is different from post processing as a way to create something which didn't exist. Raw as the negative would sum it up completely and would gel with my thinking. You say you "end up with an interpretation of the scene that the camera recorded" but from looking quickly at your images on your website I would say you get "the scene as YOU see it"; you aren't creating something which wasn't there in the first place - perhaps a fine line definition but we all know when we see a photo which is a montage or over processed.

Of course there is the alternative side or post processing when the whole intention is to create something new; but that is more akin to painting than photography (IMO as always).
Click to expand...

Well, I can only comment on what you said rather than what you were thinking......

By using post processing in the darkroom or computer to create a "scene as I saw it" is by definition an interpretation of what was actually there, surely?

I wrote this blog post a few years ago, I've moved on a bit since then, but the Ansel Adams quotes and my pictures give you an idea of what I'm talking about, although I think we are in broad agreement.

https://blog.mechanicallandscapes.c...er-articulating-your-vision-photographically/
 
There may be a subtle difference between "I'll fix it in post" and "I'll photograph it like this so that I can adjust it in post". And as Andy almost says, cameras don't see a scene anything like the way we do, so adjusting stuff in post is pretty much mandatory to get anything like a sensible image most of the time.
 
ancient_mariner said:
There may be a subtle difference between "I'll fix it in post" and "I'll photograph it like this so that I can adjust it in post". And as Andy almost says, cameras don't see a scene anything like the way we do, so adjusting stuff in post is pretty much mandatory to get anything like a sensible image most of the time.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure I agree with that Toni, More and more over the last few years I've gravitated towards "get it right in camera" and most of my shots have just had levels and crop done to them, also a lot have been jpg's rather than raw's I've worked on, even the B&W's have been shot using the camera's B&W mode/style/filter.
In fact a B&W image I shot last year as jpg that just had levels & a crop won both readers choice and editors awards on ephotozine.

I think its horses for courses, you don't have to shoot raw and do a load of processing to get a good image just as back in the old days you didn't have to dodge & burn etc to get a good image.
But then I'm a nostalgic kind of guy and love shooting as I used too, I enjoy the limitations it places on me and find it forces me to be more creative, spend more time on a shot to get it right.

I realise its not for everyone and some would say I'm being silly, though I do still shoot raw+jpg for important shots and sometimes I will work up a raw just to keep my eye in so to speak.
 
Get it right in camera is a laudable goal if you want that to be your finished article. Ok, you may finesse it with a litle sharpening or recovering a little highlight detail, and I personally do that on a lot of images. But what is one persons endpoint could be another persons starting point - be it for an elaborately dodged and burned black and white, or raw material for a mutli layer composite drawing in elemnts from many other images.
There are parallels with film photography - for slides you have to get it right in camera as you are producing a finished product (OK, you can manipulate but it's difficult), but with negative you can either print as is or use it as a starting point for interpretation using different developers, filters, dodging, burning, masking, etc, etc.
 
magicaxeman said:
I'm not so sure I agree with that Toni, More and more over the last few years I've gravitated towards "get it right in camera" and most of my shots have just had levels and crop done to them, also a lot have been jpg's rather than raw's I've worked on, even the B&W's have been shot using the camera's B&W mode/style/filter.
In fact a B&W image I shot last year as jpg that just had levels & a crop won both readers choice and editors awards on ephotozine.

I think its horses for courses, you don't have to shoot raw and do a load of processing to get a good image just as back in the old days you didn't have to dodge & burn etc to get a good image.
But then I'm a nostalgic kind of guy and love shooting as I used too, I enjoy the limitations it places on me and find it forces me to be more creative, spend more time on a shot to get it right.

I realise its not for everyone and some would say I'm being silly, though I do still shoot raw+jpg for important shots and sometimes I will work up a raw just to keep my eye in so to speak.
Click to expand...

An example of shooting with a plan to adjust in post could be taking a typical landscape with parts that stick up. I could bodge the picture trying to 'get it right in camera' using graduated filters that will affect the parts on the land side that stick up into the sky, or I could work the image properly in post so that those parts looked natural instead of being darkened artificially. I appreciate the much greater degree of control and ease of adjustment now working digitally compared to the days of darkroom printing.

Andy's comment about slides is good - you have to choose what your compromises are when the only place you can adjust exposure is in camera.
 
Last edited:
Great photos! Good site, tiny typo on the "like to have will (I.e small w in name Will) around". PP and PS skills are great, you defo have the eye and IMO are on a path to greatness with your photography! Good luck to you.
 
KIPAX said:
haha I always tell everyone I wouldn't have anywhere near this quality of kit if I wasn't doing it for a living... I am regularly in situations where my iso starts at 25600 and previous cameras that only went up to 3200 or 6400 just wouldnt have got anything usable..

Its a thin line.. I just don't agree with the myth that a good photographer can take a pic with any camera :)
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on what you are photographing, if it is a bird which is flying fast then you need a decent camera and lens, maybe not true for a portrait of someone (not that I know as I don't take portrait photos).
To the OP great photos
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Most of us end up with the kit that does what we want, in the way that we want.
It is probably no-ones "Best possible" camera. But it suits us and what we are trying to achieve.
The image is definitely more important than the camera.

I found it interesting that on the OP's site, he included some technically less than perfect shots, these were just as interesting as the more technical perfect ones.

People are often too ready to discard shots for technical or compositional reasons, when they are actually needed for the flow of a series.... not every shot has to be perfect as a stand alone image.
Click to expand...

This is an awsome comment what do you mean by technically wrong shots. Like a bit under exposed or compositional issues.

I agree I think far to. Mant people pixel peep to much on images. Could you Illaborate on what you ment?

LPP
 
ABTog said:
Yeah, but interesting to hear different opinions and for the OP who only joined in recent days, it maybe the first time they've heard them.
Click to expand...
Yeah I am new to here and as a young creative building my brand, its intresting to see differnt points of view

Lindsayperezphoto.co.uk
 
viewfromthenorth said:
I have an alternative perspective on post processing:)

As a digital black and white photographer, post processing is an essential part of my photography. The raw file is just the starting point for image creation in the same way that a negative is in a darkroom. Using dodging, burning, multiple layers, etc, I end up with an interpretation of the scene that the camera recorded, rather than just a copy. Nothing wrong with the latter of course, photography is a broad church:)
Click to expand...
Awsome style!
Eloise said:
I'm not sure I would say thats an alternative perspective (from mine) or at least its not an alternative to what I think though perhaps might be alternative to what I said (sometimes what I write and what I mean are not entirely the same).

Post processing as an analogy for the dark room is different from post processing as a way to create something which didn't exist. Raw as the negative would sum it up completely and would gel with my thinking. You say you "end up with an interpretation of the scene that the camera recorded" but from looking quickly at your images on your website I would say you get "the scene as YOU see it"; you aren't creating something which wasn't there in the first place - perhaps a fine line definition but we all know when we see a photo which is a montage or over processed.

Of course there is the alternative side or post processing when the whole intention is to create something new; but that is more akin to painting than photography (IMO as always).
Click to expand...
 
arthurbikemad said:
Great photos! Good site, tiny typo on the "like to have will (I.e small w in name Will) around". PP and PS skills are great, you defo have the eye and IMO are on a path to greatness with your photography! Good luck to you.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate!! I'll have a look and sort those typos no excuse for those. Thanks for the kind words it means a lot.

Lindsayperezphoto.co.uk
 
lindsayperezphotography said:
Yeah I am new to here and as a young creative building my brand, its intresting to see differnt points of view

Lindsayperezphoto.co.uk
Click to expand...

Talking of creating a brand, have you thought about your name? Not meaning to sound mean, but Lindsayperezphoto sounds like it's likely to be a woman called Miss Lindsay Perez, rather than a guy called Will Lindsay-Perez.
There's a well known female photographer called Lindsay Adler who's website is www.lindsayadlerphotography.com (worth checking out, she does some good tutorial stuff on Creative Live), so that adds to the confusion.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thought that. It was only when reading your website that I realised you were a guy. It's obviously tricky with a double-barrelled name like that, but I'm sure there are ways around it. But when you're centering your brand around your name, you need to be clear with it.
If you stuck your first name and a photo in your profile here, at least we'd know ;)
 
ABTog said:
Talking of creating a brand, have you thought about your name? Not meaning to sound mean, but Lindsayperezphoto sounds like it's likely to be a woman called Miss Lindsay Perez, rather than a guy called Will Lindsay-Perez.
There's a well known female photographer called Lindsay Adler who's website is www.lindsayadlerphotography.com (worth checking out, she does some good tutorial stuff on Creative Live), so that adds to the confusion.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thought that. It was only when reading your website that I realised you were a guy. It's obviously tricky with a double-barrelled name like that, but I'm sure there are ways around it. But when you're centering your brand around your name, you need to be clear with it.
If you stuck your first name and a photo in your profile here, at least we'd know ;)
Click to expand...
ABTog

Awsome point man I've never thought about that yes.

I mean it is tricky with a double barrled name which dosent exactly roll of the young [emoji23][emoji21]

Yes I want to have a think especially for the future however what could you suggest? My name is Will Lindsay-Perez and I'll have a think as to how I could bran myself.

On my buisness cards and website it does say my name (Will) but I can see why it may be confusing

LPP
 
The thing is you're young - so without reading all the comments I'd guess the people who said this to you are young also? If so, that's all you really need to know: they don't have the maturity or social confidence to say anything else. It's much easier for people to bring someone down than it is to build them up.

I only took a ten second look at your site and you've got some solid work there already. Keep it up.
 
lindsayperezphotography said:
ABTog

Awsome point man I've never thought about that yes.

I mean it is tricky with a double barrled name which dosent exactly roll of the young [emoji23][emoji21]

Yes I want to have a think especially for the future however what could you suggest? My name is Will Lindsay-Perez and I'll have a think as to how I could bran myself.

On my buisness cards and website it does say my name (Will) but I can see why it may be confusing

LPP
Click to expand...

If I had a name like Will Lindsay-Perez that's what I'd brand myself as. Don't feel the need to put "photography" after your name.
 
ABTog said:
Talking of creating a brand, have you thought about your name? Not meaning to sound mean, but Lindsayperezphoto sounds like it's likely to be a woman called Miss Lindsay Perez, rather than a guy called Will Lindsay-Perez.
There's a well known female photographer called Lindsay Adler who's website is www.lindsayadlerphotography.com (worth checking out, she does some good tutorial stuff on Creative Live), so that adds to the confusion.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thought that. It was only when reading your website that I realised you were a guy. It's obviously tricky with a double-barrelled name like that, but I'm sure there are ways around it. But when you're centering your brand around your name, you need to be clear with it.
If you stuck your first name and a photo in your profile here, at least we'd know ;)
Click to expand...

I just thought it was a Spanish style of naming. Will, his first name.... Lindsay, his fathers name... and Perez, his mothers family name. but these days you just have to take things at face value. His name is what it is.

I agree with @UaeExile about dropping the "Photography" suffix. who knows what other artistic/ communication interests you will take up in the future. your name by itself covers everything and anything..
 
lindsayperezphotography said:
This is an awsome comment what do you mean by technically wrong shots. Like a bit under exposed or compositional issues.

I agree I think far to. Mant people pixel peep to much on images. Could you Illaborate on what you ment?

LPP
Click to expand...

I said technically less than perfect shots... not technically wrong.
I was referring to misplaced focus, and perhaps placing the point of interest in weak positions compositionally, though only in a graphic sense can Composition be thought of as technical. as it is mainly instinctive / artistic in nature.
In these digital days, exposure is hard to define as wrong or right, as it very much depends on what you are trying to achieve.
In film days there were definite cut off points both in highlights but more so in shadows. and the contrast of an entire set of negatives was largely set by the development.

To day while some highlight recovery is certainly possible, it is easy to open up shadows by several stops. And contrast, both locally and overall, can be controlled, at any stage by the use of curves.
To a quite large extent control of exposure and contrast of the final image, is passing to the PP stage.
In the camera, exposure is more a matter of capturing the necessary tones that you need to work with.... especially without clipping the highlights. The SOC image may look quite unpromising, but could have captured everything needed to create that perfect image.

All that said, I prefer to see an interesting image than a perfect but sterile one.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Well, I can only comment on what you said rather than what you were thinking......

By using post processing in the darkroom or computer to create a "scene as I saw it" is by definition an interpretation of what was actually there, surely?

I wrote this blog post a few years ago, I've moved on a bit since then, but the Ansel Adams quotes and my pictures give you an idea of what I'm talking about, although I think we are in broad agreement.

https://blog.mechanicallandscapes.c...er-articulating-your-vision-photographically/
Click to expand...


Ansel Adams is an excellent example of a photographer using a massive amount of Post Processing to achieve the Images he had visualised. His original negatives and the finished image were as different as chalk and cheese. But he went to great lengths to ensure he captured all the tones that he would need to work with. His images were neither chance nor a salvage job.

However those results would have been far easier for him to have produced digitally.
An artist or photographer works with what he has at his disposal, he is not restricted by them.
 
lindsayperezphotography said:
What would say to someone who says " your photos are only good because of your camera" "all you need is a good camera"

Or

"why do you edit your photos thats just fake and it'd easy to take photos if you can edit them? "

Just a thought! I'm a young 15 year old photographer here is a link to my work lindsayperezphoto.co.uk I hope you guys like it!
Click to expand...
A great set of images, you do not need to worry what anyone says about your camera. You work speak for its self. My I say reading your web I would change this line.
"I first picked up a camera 2 years ago," and put in a year, the reason is this is an out of date statement as soon as you publish it.
Also not sure you need to put when you was born, I would put something like a young photographer.
Well done for all your achievements.
Oh!one other thing I did not see it if it is there but I do not see on your web where you are? the web covers the world and some idea where you are is good.
 
Last edited:
lindsayperezphotography said:
Just a thought! I'm a young 15 year old photographer here is a link to my work lindsayperezphoto.co.uk I hope you guys like it!
Click to expand...

I like it very much indeed.

You've got the eye for it, you'll do!

You've also got the tools and the knowhow, but that secondary.
 
Chaz Photos said:
A great set of images, you do not need to worry what anyone says about your camera. You work speak for its self. My I say reading your web I would change this line.
"I first picked up a camera 2 years ago," and put in a year, the reason is this is an out of date statement as soon as you publish it.
Also not sure you need to put when you was born, I would put something like a young photographer.
Well done for all your achievements.
Oh!one other thing I did not see it if it is there but I do not see on your web where you are? the web covers the world and some idea where you are is good.
Click to expand...
Good point yes I agree the stamens is out of date and irrelevant. I agree that she can put certain people off
Chaz Photos said:
A great set of images, you do not need to worry what anyone says about your camera. You work speak for its self. My I say reading your web I would change this line.
"I first picked up a camera 2 years ago," and put in a year, the reason is this is an out of date statement as soon as you publish it.
Also not sure you need to put when you was born, I would put something like a young photographer.
Well done for all your achievements.
Oh!one other thing I did not see it if it is there but I do not see on your web where you are? the web covers the world and some idea where you are is good.
Click to expand...
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I just thought it was a Spanish style of naming. Will, his first name.... Lindsay, his fathers name... and Perez, his mothers family name. but these days you just have to take things at face value. His name is what it is.

I agree with @UaeExile about dropping the "Photography" suffix. who knows what other artistic/ communication interests you will take up in the future. your name by itself covers everything and anything..
Click to expand...
Thanks man!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top