Photography Instructor Bans Kit Lenses: Discuss

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19265669
That is purely subjective and isn't any kind of guideline. A photo with no DOF control of all is boring and bland, and I personally find that photo interesting, and it definitely puts the attention on the stands.

Also whether this was disrespectful or not is up to the skater to decide, not us. That again is subjective.

Your points may be valid, but for you and some others, they may not be for others. There is no definition of a "good media shot", instead it is about creativity and story telling, correct? Those tell stories for sure, despite how it makes you personally feel about the technical merits of the shots. This is what keeps photography interesting.

You feel the shots shouldn't be used, I feel like they are pretty cool and tell a story. You think you are right, I think I am right... there is no right or wrong in those shots since there aren't any globally accepted views on what makes a shot good.

In context the photo doesn't make sense. The article is about Annie Guglia being called up as an alternate not spectator attendance. The photo doesn't jive with the text. It's just a random shot to fill space.

Getty has a couple images of Annie Guglia from June. The Globe could have used one of those.

It's junk journalism.

I still think Smith's photo is useless. Once is a mistake, twice (or 5 times in Smith's case) is jazz. You don't need tack sharp seats at the expense of a foreground element to prove the venue's empty.

If the Globe insists on publishing an image of Funa Nakayama, Ezra Shaw captured a good wide shot of her and the venue. Not perfect but much better than Smith's for the purpose of the article.

https://www.gettyimage​s.ca …ard-news-photo/1329795211

Edit:
here's another one from Patrick Smith. Decent panning shot. It's artsy, conveys motion, captures empty seats and doesn't look like an amateur mistake:

https://www.gettyimage​s.ca …ens-news-photo/1329794463

Let's agree to disagree and go back to sparring over the 18-55.

The ping pong shots in that series are fabulous. I am sure they were captured with an 18-55.... because the quality of the glass doesn't matter... focus speed.... a luxury

The funny thing is stuff like this was a regular occurance with the old 20D. It was like 'hey,contrast lines, lets focus on those".

That said, this is a horrific image. Im not much into criticizing other peoples work.... but if this was intentional, the editor should be sacked,

Never claimed any sense would, but I've used a lot of lenses that do take their time focusing....

. so I am guessing that is the sense most of the students had, and that there was no in class discussion about equipment. I will assume the professor has seen the output of more people, not just the photoshopped variant we get here, than just about most people on this forum.

So what we are saying is if you are spending $25,000 on an education, in say automechanics, whom ever is teaching is going to not give advice that buying harbor freight tools is probably no the best way to start your career out, and that snap-on will probably serve you better. Having to stop and get another socket when the cheap one strips will cost you money. Having the right professional tools matters - in you productivity. Yes, you can rebuild a car with cheap tools... it will just be a bit more frustrating.

Team.... I still stand by my thoughts in that post. To me there is a huge difference between being an active hobbyist, and pursuing photography as a career to support yourself and others. The pressures and skills needed are different. As a hobbyist, if you have a bad day and come back with nothing, its not career limiting. You can take as many images as you want until you get that desired keeper. As a pro though you are put into positions where you have 2 minutes to get the shot needed. And if you don't get it, you go back empty handed or turning in something sub par. People taking this class are there not to become better hobbyist, but professionals.

How I shot today would never work for a career photographer on deadlines. I shot Sony body's with metaboned Canon L glass. Sometimes the combo just has a bad day. I went on one shoot to take photos of a church that has been converted to a Trump memorabilia store... tried to use my Canon 28 with a metabones adaptor, focused well, but exposure was all over the place. Had to slow way down and set exposure manually for each exposure. Way slower. For what I do now.... its fine. A few years ago, a risky proposition. I enjoyed the challenge. Had I been on a deadline....would have been a frustrating day.

I stand by if you want to be a professional, you acquire professional tools. If you are a hobbyist, spend the money on doing rather than buying.

"Team.... I still stand by my thoughts in that post. To me there is a huge difference between being an active hobbyist, and pursuing photography as a career to support yourself and others. "


Two points:

- These aren't the only two scenarios, there are levels between.
- Using kit lenses, like the 18-55 STM IS, doesn't mean you are one or the other, it is just a tool just like any other part of the photographic assembly line.

Also in our photo classes here, the emphasis is more about perspective, and drama, and creativity, and whether a lens was included with the purchase of the camera or not (as is the definition of a kit lens) NEVER comes into play. There is one constraint, you cannot use a digital camera until the last few weeks of the courses.

There have been so many good lenses included with camera purchases, like the 28-135, 24-105L, and others. There have been some duds like the early years of the 18-55, but latter versions are now sharper than some commonly used primes, and are very good tools these days. So using a kit lens no more defines your level of photography than does the color of your lens, or brand of camera, or type of flash... etc.

90% of photography is universal. Light, exposure, perspective, etc. The 10% at the margins is very important to a pro. A pro should know how to use gear to solve problems.

But not all photo problems are gear problems. Most are squarely in the 90%. A pro should also know how to solve problems without throwing gear at it.

Would you trust a mechanic who would only use 12-point Snap-on box ends and sneer at the idea of ever turning a nut with a crescent wrench? Most mechanics I know would be fine with that if it was the only thing handy. And they'd use it more deftly than I ever could.

The classes you are referring to, are they university (for credit classes) who are targeted to rising professional photographers? Either editorial/photojournal​ist types? Just wondering. These courses are not taught by the art department or a continuing education department but by the UNC School of Media and Journalism.

students are sent on assignment, like here is an example of work done by one student who was sent to Puerto Rico after the last hurricane. We can debate the photo skills, but it gives you all an example of the work that is expected.

https://aftermath.unc.​edu/pages/power

I get the issue if the class in question were a "you and your camera 101" type class. But that is not what there are. Anyway...

Croasdail wrote in post #19266753
The classes you are referring to, are they university (for credit classes) who are targeted to rising professional photographers? Either editorial/photojournal​ist types? Just wondering. These courses are not taught by the art department or a continuing education department but by the UNC School of Media and Journalism.

students are sent on assignment, like here is an example of work done by one student who was sent to Puerto Rico after the last hurricane. We can debate the photo skills, but it gives you all an example of the work that is expected.

https://aftermath.unc.​edu/pages/power

I get the issue if the class in question were a "you and your camera 101" type class. But that is not what there are. Anyway...

Would you please point out those that couldn't have taken by a kit lens in that link, and explain why? Towards the middle of the link, there is a grid of photographs, 3 across and 3 or 4 tall. You may refer to the columns as A,B,C; and number the rows as is in in a spread sheet. For example, the person in the water retrieving tools is B-4.

What level of lens is needed? And camera?

I could not.... very few photos can you do that without knowing the history of the image. You can make nearly every lens known to man look sharp if you do a center from. And show them at Instgram sizes. For that sake, just use your phone. Your kinda missing the point. Most images here on this site could be taken with just about any camera and lens. But to factors about editorial photography.... someone is paying a lot of money to have that image produced. Second, in editorial photography you are not allowed to do photoshop work to them. It is supposed to be right from camera, no corrections, no cloning, other than minor color correction and crop. If you were comfortable enough to rely on paying your mortgage on a kit lens.... more power to you. Because that is what is at sake for these budding students. Their livelihood. Their ability to provide for themselves and those they care for. I would love to see samples of editorial work done by a professional with a kit camera and kit lens. In my 35 years plus shooting sports, never seen a professional with "kit" gear on the sidelines. Lots of hobbyist. But their house payment doesn't depend on absolutely having to get the image that sales.

But I am willing to trust that you know such people. That pay for their livelyhood using kit gear. They are undoubtably very accomplished in their craft. My former 5D came with an L lens as its kit lens. Such is life. If you feel comfortable enough to charge a student $4500 in tuition and fees per semester, and tell them a kit lens will do the job.... I tip my hat to you. You a master of the art.

I shot this picture when I was in high school. I was an aspiring pro then and shooting with a Konica Autoreflex T, a Honeywell strobe and a Hexanon zoom lens, I believe. Probably the 18-55 of its day. But the lens does not matter to this shot.

I learned how to work the gear I had with confidence. I did my homework. I got there early. Figured out a spot where I hoped I could plop myself in front of the President of the United States. I got one chance at this distance and I was ready. Gear didn't matter. Not when I was 17. Too much other stuff to learn.

awesome....

Great shot. Now the question is, was that the best shot taken that day? Maybe it was. But you got to know each and every day not was your shot good, was it the best. If not, some freelancer will be right their to take you next job/assignment. Are your shots constantly top 5 percent of all the shots taken?

drsilver wrote in post #19259284
It's her class. She can teach it any way she wants. And if it's an advanced class, students should expect prerequisites. There are biology and economics textbooks that cost more than a used 24-105.

That being said, if it was my class, I'd have an exercise called '7 days with a kit lens.' More than anything else, kit lenses will amplify mistakes and force a good photographer to really pay attention to the basics before pressing the shutter. If you can learn to make a kit lens sing, learn to shoot through its constraints, then better glass will make everything easier.

Beat me to it. I was going to say a good used 24-105 can be had at a reasonable price.

I actually would. Just like my view of a statistician would be different if they used tools like R and SAS versus someone who uses google sheets. It point to understand what tools are most efficient at getting a job done. Could you use any of the above more many projects. Most likely. But one project we did was to caculate the net present value of all oil production globally every 5 minutes. A lot of tools could not have done the job in the time allowed. If time was not a factor, you could even use excel. But to do the job in the time needed, we needed to leverage in memory data stores, and analytics. The transfer of data from on environment would have been too costly.

Same applies for photo gear. The right gear sometimes really makes all the difference. There is a reason why when you watched the olympics when you saw the well of photographers and equipment, they were largely all the same. For a lot of the shots it didn't matter. But for those who really wanted to separate themselves in a highly competitive field, the gear gave them the confidence it was up to the task.

Last year I stopped shooting NCAA events - not because of covid - but to be competitive, to produce output that would earn me a few thousand dollars for my effort, I was going to have to invest about 20K in new equipment. Not because I can't shoot without it... but I can't compete without it.

For most people here who are weekend shooters, if you don't have that one shot that someone will buy... it makes no difference. You just go out next weekend For a pro, it means not being competitive translates into not bing able to pay your mortgage I once had an opportunity to shoot a shuttle lounge. At the time, I used my 600 f4 L.. a 10,000 plus dollar lens. It wasn't good enough. Those with the 800 had better images. Gear matters professionally. As a hobbyist, it doesn't. Not that one is right, the other is wrong, but gear does impact the final image. Having to crop less, matters. Being able to shoot with a faster lens, matters. Maybe you all can get that shuttle shot at 4 am with a kit lens.. more power to ya. I couldn't get a competitive shot with a $10,000 L lens. Competitive is the key word. Every day, every shoot. Its got to be competitive Cheers all!