Gadgets or Image - which is more important to us?
- Thread starter Fraser Euan White
- Start date
- Messages
- 16,746
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Just an observation...
Look at posts on Talk Equipment, vs posts on Talk Photography.
I recently had critique on an image where the opening line was, "I've looked at the exif and..."
I
There's still a lot more posts between the photo-critique section and Talk photography combined than the equipment section. In fact the photo section has a lot more by itself it's just split up.
- Messages
- 3,133
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
I’m in the equipment is a means to an end camp. I’m more excited about the creative process (ie researching, planning, photographing, processing, printing, exhibiting/ presenting / publishing photographs) than the equipment. To enable me to get the photos I want I buy equipment based on the capabilities I need for the projects I do. Consequently I swap and chop lenses more often than cameras - my last DSLR I had for about 7 years. Yes I’ve had full frame cameras since 2009, but working handheld in low light, often in wet or dirty conditions means that I prefer the build and capabilities of high end cameras.
Beyond that, the equipment is more of a passing interest - I’ve just received a new lens today and I haven’t opened the parcel yet as it’s not something I’m massively excited about. But if it had been a new photobook, I’d have been busy flicking through the pages right now rather than typing this.
Beyond that, the equipment is more of a passing interest - I’ve just received a new lens today and I haven’t opened the parcel yet as it’s not something I’m massively excited about. But if it had been a new photobook, I’d have been busy flicking through the pages right now rather than typing this.
- Messages
- 5,001
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There was, they were shooting full frame film
Back in the day (my day !) there was no such thing as full frame film - 24x36mm was called 35mm - and the other main size was 6x6mm, what we called 2 1/4 square.
.
- Messages
- 5,001
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I used to work for Kodak at Harrow Weald for 5 years after leaving school, and was there when they invented the Instamatic.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 697
- Name
- GC
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Then there was the 'full-strength' 6x9 size negative, that came 8 to the roll on medium format film! Can you imagine most of today's DSLR 'keen amateurs' trying to cope with just 8 shots for a day's photography? Or perhaps 24 or 48 shots for a two week holiday abroad? They'd probably take more shots than that just checking the depth of field was what they wanted!
- Messages
- 7,909
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The aim of photography is the final image.
However Cameras, and all the gadgets and technicalites are fun.
These days of my retirement I like to maximise the fun, which includes making images to please myself.
So I buy a new or old camera every so often, as part of that fun.
That fun has extended to computers and software....
However Cameras, and all the gadgets and technicalites are fun.
These days of my retirement I like to maximise the fun, which includes making images to please myself.
So I buy a new or old camera every so often, as part of that fun.
That fun has extended to computers and software....
- Messages
- 5,001
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Then there was the 'full-strength' 6x9 size negative, that came 8 to the roll on medium format film! Can you imagine most of today's DSLR 'keen amateurs' trying to cope with just 8 shots for a day's photography? Or perhaps 24 or 48 shots for a two week holiday abroad? They'd probably take more shots than that just checking the depth of field was what they wanted!
Or coping with being a ship's photographer photographing the passengers then spending hours in the darkroom developing and printing them (colour).
On a 2 weeks cruise we could usually take about 2000+ photographs!
There were usually 2 photographers and we were armed (!) with Bronicas taking 12 shots per roll - and at the Captain's cocktail party we could easily take 3-400 shots or more in 1/2 hour as the passengers were presented to the Captain!
The toll on the cameras was such that every 2 weeks in New York our first job was to take the cameras that had packed up to the camera repairers and bring back the repaired ones from the previous trip!
And don't talk about the Passenger's Talent show - or lack of!
.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
How many of the posts on talk photography are about gear though?
Likewise beginners
The lighting section
Etc.
- Messages
- 16,746
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Sadly I’m a bit anal:I wouldn't know, I get trapped in here too
I’m constantly frustrated that posts aren’t correctly ‘categorised’
I report images posted in discussion sections, but beyond that I just have to live with the sloppy posting habits of others.
- Messages
- 16,746
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Sadly I’m a bit anal:
I’m constantly frustrated that posts aren’t correctly ‘categorised’
Reporting images on a photography site seems odd
I don't think I have ever reported anything on here, - wait, no, I did a little while back, some guy came telling others to go top themselves and other nasty stuff, he didn't last too long - But there's nobody in my ignore list - I would lay a bet I'm in quite a few though
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,521
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Full frame is really 10" X 8", and 35mm (24mm X 36mm) is a miniature format.
Photography is a combination of technology and creativity, and probably all of us like (or liked, if we do it for a living) the technology side to some degree. There's no virtue in using the same camera for 10 years, and familiarisation and cost aside, there's nothing really wrong with changing bodies & lenses every 6 months. But if the ONLY thing you're interested in is the final image then you you should probably get some pencils or a graphics package.
I would suggest there's a balance to be found. I like tech, and it's fantastic when the kit you have does what you bought it to do when you're using it - I was thinking that today about a recently acquired ultra-wide zoom lens (10 YO Sigma) and how it was so good for the scenes I had in front of me compared to my older, less wide lens. But when I get home I don't hold my camera in my hands and think about how wonderful it was to use during that walk in the woods or as the sun set over the coast. No, the first thing I'll do is pop the memory card in the computer and then look through the pictures I've taken to see if any have met my hopes and expectations as a starting point for the other half of the photographic process.
Photography is a combination of technology and creativity, and probably all of us like (or liked, if we do it for a living) the technology side to some degree. There's no virtue in using the same camera for 10 years, and familiarisation and cost aside, there's nothing really wrong with changing bodies & lenses every 6 months. But if the ONLY thing you're interested in is the final image then you you should probably get some pencils or a graphics package.
I would suggest there's a balance to be found. I like tech, and it's fantastic when the kit you have does what you bought it to do when you're using it - I was thinking that today about a recently acquired ultra-wide zoom lens (10 YO Sigma) and how it was so good for the scenes I had in front of me compared to my older, less wide lens. But when I get home I don't hold my camera in my hands and think about how wonderful it was to use during that walk in the woods or as the sun set over the coast. No, the first thing I'll do is pop the memory card in the computer and then look through the pictures I've taken to see if any have met my hopes and expectations as a starting point for the other half of the photographic process.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,521
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe not screams, but when people dance or wave their arms in the air when you're playing it feels pretty darn good. But guitars aren't like cameras, and each tends to sound and feel different, where as every D750 should be exactly the same. Sadly I can't afford £2500 for a historic LP.
- Messages
- 9,590
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Are you sure that wasn’t Jonny in disguiseReporting images on a photography site seems odd
- Messages
- 9,590
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Interesting concept,I remember when I was a teen some older guy at work who had been for a dump said it was better than sex,I didn’t agree with him at the time but now I’m older an wiser .........
- Messages
- 16,746
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Interesting concept,I remember when I was a teen some older guy at work who had been for a dump said it was better than sex,I didn’t agree with him at the time but now I’m older an wiser .........
- Messages
- 7,909
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Full frame is really 10" X 8", and 35mm (24mm X 36mm) is a miniature format.
Photography is a combination of technology and creativity, and probably all of us like (or liked, if we do it for a living) the technology side to some degree. There's no virtue in using the same camera for 10 years, and familiarisation and cost aside, there's nothing really wrong with changing bodies & lenses every 6 months. But if the ONLY thing you're interested in is the final image then you you should probably get some pencils or a graphics package.
I would suggest there's a balance to be found. I like tech, and it's fantastic when the kit you have does what you bought it to do when you're using it - I was thinking that today about a recently acquired ultra-wide zoom lens (10 YO Sigma) and how it was so good for the scenes I had in front of me compared to my older, less wide lens. But when I get home I don't hold my camera in my hands and think about how wonderful it was to use during that walk in the woods or as the sun set over the coast. No, the first thing I'll do is pop the memory card in the computer and then look through the pictures I've taken to see if any have met my hopes and expectations as a starting point for the other half of the photographic process.
I would suggest full frame was originally the 'whole plate' 6 1/2 x 8 1/2. Hovever there were plates sizes both much larger and smaller than that. The most popular amateur glass plate size was perhaps 1/4 plate 3 1/4 × 4 1/4. When cut film came along 5x4 was by far the most used by amateur and professional alike.
Continental sizes were not much used in the UK nor the USA.
It was only after Ww2 that 120 (620) settled down as the most popular film size but 127 still held a place in smaller cameras. other sizes came and went.
By the 60's the domination of 35mm ( 35) for amature use was almost complete.
Full frame only really referred to what had originally been called double frame 24 x36 on 36mm wide perforated cine stock.
. What we now call half frame was the original cine frame size, with the film stock running vertically through the cine camera. 24x36 was never a cine size.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
When some mistakenly posts a portrait image to share in ‘talk people and portraits’ instead of the appropriate photo sharing section, the correct etiquette would be to have the post moved to the correct place.Reporting images on a photography site seems odd
‘Report’ sounds wrong but it’s the way to get the situation resolved.
I have no one on my ignore list either, but I know for a fact I’m on at least one members
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
I thought 120 became the most popular size from around the 1930s, with 127 beginning to fizzle out from then onwards? I still have an old Agfa folding camera which used 116 (a larger version of 120 roll film), which apparently could still be bought until the early 1980s. Shame as I'd always fancied trying that camera and 116 film for sheer negative size (2 1/2 inch x 4 1/4 inch) alone. I know I could get a converter kit for it to use 120, but it was the size of the negative I wanted to see.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 16,746
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I've caught a few people out on the ignore thing. I've had it thrown at me a few times, that I was going on their naughty list, later on they couldn't resist responding to one of my posts. I think it kills them not knowing
The camera model specific threads are full of images, I'd hate that to change, it's what keeps them ticking. Now, I get annoyed if someone posts images from a completely different make in these threads, unless there's some valid context that they explain.
I guess I was pretty strict on rules at one point, I ran a B&W D800/E group on Flickr [I still do in fact, made another member a Co-Admin but never did remove myself], and would do daily sweeps of any colour images that were 'mistakenly' chucked in there, I banned a number of repeat offenders. But they were obvious hit and runners, they never took part in the group and clearly never read the description, just added the group as another dumping ground for likes.
I have checked in on that group just now out of curiosity, and removed over 30 colour images before giving up
I don't even have that camera anymore, I should remove myself from it .....but I like power!
Last edited:
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 2,616
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Played to an audience in Stockport a few years ago and during the second set folks were dancing on the tables and singing along to every song, it was quite a night.Maybe not screams, but when people dance or wave their arms in the air when you're playing it feels pretty darn good. But guitars aren't like cameras, and each tends to sound and feel different, where as every D750 should be exactly the same. Sadly I can't afford £2500 for a historic LP.
BTW a new Les Paul Historic is £3500 these days, even the Les Paul Traditional is over £2k..
I like the technology side of things, but technology is a means to an end.
My favourite guitars are a Gibson Les Paul, Fender Strat and Telecaster. All of them designed in the 50's (not built then unfortunately). There have been a number of technical innovations in guitar since then, but I like these three classic designs.
My favourite amp is a handwired clone of an 18W Marshall. It is all valves, resistors and capacitors and has no printed circuit boards, silicone chips or semiconductors in it and sounds fantastic when played at a gig or in rehearsal. BUT, it's much too loud for home use, so I use a more modern amp (Blackstar HT40 or Marshall DSL) that have some more modern technology inside that help to deliver the right sound at lower volume.
On the photography side; when I was a kid, my parents were interested in photography and Dad used a TLR with 120 roll film and we had a darkroom in the loft. I was given a 35mm Agfa when I was about 10, so we got into processing that. It was a lot of fun, but also a lot of work. Today using a DSLR, with LR and PSE, the technology makes the photography process easier without (for me) removing the enjoyment.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,590
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jay I bought a pre CBS tele in '64,blond,loved it but let it go in '69 when I left the band Marshall valve 4x12 cab,,wish I still had it.my main guitar now days as per my avatar Gibson Hummingbird which is mellowing nicely after 3 yearsPlayed to an audience in Stockport a few years ago and during the second set folks were dancing on the tables and singing along to every song, it was quite a night.
BTW a new Les Paul Historic is £3500 these days, even the Les Paul Traditional is over £2k..
I like the technology side of things, but technology is a means to an end.
My favourite guitars are a Gibson Les Paul, Fender Strat and Telecaster. All of them designed in the 50's (not built then unfortunately). There have been a number of technical innovations in guitar since then, but I like these three classic designs.
My favourite amp is a handwired clone of an 18W Marshall. It is all valves, resistors and capacitors and has no printed circuit boards, silicone chips or semiconductors in it and sounds fantastic when played at a gig or in rehearsal. BUT, it's much too loud for home use, so I use a more modern amp (Blackstar HT40 or Marshall DSL) that have some more modern technology inside that help to deliver the right sound at lower volume.
On the photography side; when I was a kid, my parents were interested in photography and Dad used a TLR with 120 roll film and we had a darkroom in the loft. I was given a 35mm Agfa when I was about 10, so we got into processing that. It was a lot of fun, but also a lot of work. Today using a DSLR, with LR and PSE, the technology makes the photography process easier without (for me) removing the enjoyment.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Absolutely, but that’s a completely different issue.
- Messages
- 791
- Name
- Sohail
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Exactly in the same boat here my friend, picked up on it rather late. That's why I started to stay away from certain forums of mine. I instead started evening classes to pick up a few tips etc. I guess spending a few hundred on classes is more worthy than buying that lens that you will never use.!!
Stay strong and just carry on practising. I've seen a lot of people come on here as completely amateurs/newbies who's photography now is absolutely stunning.
- Messages
- 6,737
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
I've fond memories of shooting about six weddings in/around the mid/late 1980's using a Mamiya C330S (twin lens reflex) using three dedicated Mamiya lenses (55/80/135) along with a Minolta Autometer IV and a Manfrotto tripod.
I used Fuji Pro160S 120 film (or 400asa Fuji film for duller weather on the day), the results were fantastic, rich colours and used to have a few 30x20 enlargements ordered often.
The actual image is the most important thing to me personally.
Those were the days....
I used Fuji Pro160S 120 film (or 400asa Fuji film for duller weather on the day), the results were fantastic, rich colours and used to have a few 30x20 enlargements ordered often.
The actual image is the most important thing to me personally.
Those were the days....
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The image is more important than the gear for me. I shot on a EOS 40D from 2009 to 2017 and was perfectly happy with the images I got from it. I only bought an 80D as my 40D was starting to show its age and feel rather leggy. I've owned my Sigma 120-400mm lens for ten years now, and am fully aware that it isn't the greatest lens out there. In fact I enjoy the challenge of working around its limitations and getting what I think are quite decent quality images from less than stellar equipment. I didn't see a huge jump in image quality going from a 40D to an 80D, although the extra resolution of the newer camera lets me crop a lot more if I need to.
Would my images be better if I went and dropped several thousand pounds on a new 1DX Mk II body and a lot of white lenses? Yes they would but it wouldn't change the process of me actually getting the image, or the enjoyment I get from that process.
Would my images be better if I went and dropped several thousand pounds on a new 1DX Mk II body and a lot of white lenses? Yes they would but it wouldn't change the process of me actually getting the image, or the enjoyment I get from that process.
- Messages
- 1,369
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When you're listening to orgasmic noises in a public toilet the critical test is whether the last groan or shriek is followed by a splash.Interesting concept,I remember when I was a teen some older guy at work who had been for a dump said it was better than sex,I didn’t agree with him at the time but now I’m older an wiser .........
- Messages
- 9,590
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 23,521
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Played to an audience in Stockport a few years ago and during the second set folks were dancing on the tables and singing along to every song, it was quite a night.
BTW a new Les Paul Historic is £3500 these days, even the Les Paul Traditional is over £2k..
I like the technology side of things, but technology is a means to an end.
My favourite guitars are a Gibson Les Paul, Fender Strat and Telecaster. All of them designed in the 50's (not built then unfortunately). There have been a number of technical innovations in guitar since then, but I like these three classic designs.
My favourite amp is a handwired clone of an 18W Marshall. It is all valves, resistors and capacitors and has no printed circuit boards, silicone chips or semiconductors in it and sounds fantastic when played at a gig or in rehearsal. BUT, it's much too loud for home use, so I use a more modern amp (Blackstar HT40 or Marshall DSL) that have some more modern technology inside that help to deliver the right sound at lower volume.
Thought you'd understand. Conversely the most miserable thing I witnessed was when a Thin Lizzy cover band were giving it their all (and they were good) at a bike show in a marquee, to about 20 people, none of whom were showing the least bit of interest.
My favourite guitars are all Japanese, apart from my JJ goldtop (English): MIJ Strat, Tokai Love Rock, Washburn A20 - I like both the classic and the avante gard (used to regularly use a Godin xtSA with a Roland GR33 synth unit - I can do a great sax solo!). I have a Ceriatone 18watt trem clone, but as you say, they are quite loud. I also used to build amps (part of that search for the perfect tone) and have a bunch of kit kicking around including an AC30. At some stage it would be nice to acquire a Yamaha THR10. I can be a bit pedally too, but they all have their place if you need some versatility and have a one-sound amp.
- Messages
- 9,590
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Toni,is your Avatar a selfie,for whatever reason I’ve always took it as you,just wondered.
- Messages
- 23,521
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
It's a small section of a picture commissioned by Readers Digest called Classic Rock, chosen because it could have been my portrait.
https://itorganization2017.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/classic-rock.jpg
I'm on the far left in the Gospel Bell group shot at the top of the band web page, and near the centre of the group shot at the bottom of the page: http://gospelbell.com/
- Messages
- 509
- Name
- Kev
- Edit My Images
- Yes
some people won't be happy until they can shoot the milky way from a moving car. With wafer thin DoF.
Images that are only achievable through significant expense in other words.
thus fulfilling the old "nice picture, your camera must be expensive" trope, and then getting annoyed by it.
Images that are only achievable through significant expense in other words.
thus fulfilling the old "nice picture, your camera must be expensive" trope, and then getting annoyed by it.
- Messages
- 1,502
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've come to the decision that as an amateur/enthusiast with no earnings coming from photography if one wishes to either invest in the latest gear or swap systems and indulge some money into there hobby why should anyone say otherwise. Got to treat yourself sometimes.
- Messages
- 9,590
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nice one
- Messages
- 7,597
- Name
- Riz
- Edit My Images
- No
For me, it’s both about the gadget aspects and the final images.
Features like EVF’s, Silent Shutters, Blackout free EVF’s, Eye-AF, High Speed & Deep Buffers etc are a must. Makes life easier, however some may argue it takes the fun out of photography. Each to their own.
Everybody is unique and look for different functions/features on bodies / systems so there is no right or wrong system.
It’s all good harmless fun
Features like EVF’s, Silent Shutters, Blackout free EVF’s, Eye-AF, High Speed & Deep Buffers etc are a must. Makes life easier, however some may argue it takes the fun out of photography. Each to their own.
Everybody is unique and look for different functions/features on bodies / systems so there is no right or wrong system.
It’s all good harmless fun