When it is about photography, not the camera.

liquidhands wrote in post #5389003
bleh, it wasn't out of context. You're basically saying ppl are stupid for putting blowers in their gear list... then you say you're not judging. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your assessment, just disagreeing with your delivery.

not everyone has a contact at sandisk, so those ppl that don't might find it informative and helpful to see that nicksan has some. (same with the blower by the way).

The tool is very important in any hobby, or occupation.

Don't think you should put anything in your sig... looks fine.

the elitist attitide that I saw was...paraphrasing.... its silly to put gear in your sigs.... you're not sill, just the things you do and your need to show everyone your stuff.
have a nice day.

See now you took things out of context. I'm the one with contacts at Sandisk, he told me that something like that should be on my sig. I think it would be silly for me to say/ publish people I know on my sig...In any case these are my contacts I can share to whom I want to share with right?

Okay, one more time...Putting a rocket blower in a gearlist, in my opinion is silly. Having a gearlist, I won't judge you if you do or not I merely made a quick observation. Even if I thought having a gearlist is stupid, that would be my issue and there is really no need to have a debate about that since it is MY opinion, I'm not saying it is a fact.

Again we are detaching from the main point of the thread. I've apologized amply to anyone who I admittedly while sharing my opinion of gearlist may have offended. That was my bad...but you don't need to crucify me for it since the crime doesn't fit the punishment!

The main point of this thread, I am the OP, is that I came to a realization, in my pursuit to be a better photographer that my previous emphasis on what gear I needed to have to improve upon my pictures were in error. I realized that most importantly, it is about Photography as a whole, not just my gear.

I don't know how to make this any clearer so that people will quit misunderstanding my position and purpose in starting this thread.

00silvergt wrote in post #5389077
See now you took things out of context. I'm the one with contacts at Sandisk, he told me that something like that should be on my sig. I think it would be silly for me to say/ publish people I know on my sig...In any case these are my contacts I can share to whom I want to share with right?

I am not sure where you got that impression. All I said was most of us don't have contacts at Sandisk. In response to my sandisk EXAMPLE, you brought up the fact that you have contacts at Sandisk. I just thought that was rather interesting. YOU DO have that benefit. The rest of us may not. That is why for the rest of us, it wouldn't be totally "silly" to put the types of CF cards we own on our gearlists so that those of us without the benefit of special contacts at Sandisk can discuss with eachother the merits and/or demerits of certain models.

Certainly, you would bring an added benefit to such discussion being that you do in fact have contacts at Sandisk, however I never asked nor insinuated that you put up contact information. That indeed would be silly, as you put it.

Your title "When it is about photography, not the camera." is a provocative one as you can clearly see! IMO, it is about both. Yes, the end result is the photo, and at least for me it always have been, and I suspect it always will be, however in this technological age, gear plays a big part of the equation.

Can you deny that?

nicksan wrote in post #5390042
I am not sure where you got that impression. All I said was most of us don't have contacts at Sandisk. In response to my sandisk EXAMPLE, you brought up the fact that you have contacts at Sandisk. I just thought that was rather interesting. YOU DO have that benefit. The rest of us may not. That is why for the rest of us, it wouldn't be totally "silly" to put the types of CF cards we own on our gearlists so that those of us without the benefit of special contacts at Sandisk can discuss with eachother the merits and/or demerits of certain models.

Certainly, you would bring an added benefit to such discussion being that you do in fact have contacts at Sandisk, however I never asked nor insinuated that you put up contact information. That indeed would be silly, as you put it.

Your title "When it is about photography, not the camera." is a provocative one as you can clearly see! IMO, it is about both. Yes, the end result is the photo, and at least for me it always have been, and I suspect it always will be, however in this technological age, gear plays a big part of the equation.

Can you deny that?

Ok, I apologize I'm the one who misread your post. Sorry multitasking at work, and like they say, multitasking makes you stupid. LOL

We are actually agree more than we disagree Nicksan...I guess we can leave at that? Again, I was speaking of my personal realization about the hobby which was inspired mostly by the post about the 40D and 5D thing.

I'm not sure it (technology) plays any more a part than it did 30 year ago. Its different and its a part but its the photographer that makes all the desisions or should be making all the decisions. What camera to use in what situation, what lens to use, what ISO to use, what if any filter to use, what type of PP to use to get that great final print, how to frame the shot and what exposure, fstop, shutter speed will best suit the final image.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5390133
I'm not sure it (technology) plays any more a part than it did 30 year ago. Its different but and its a part but its the photographer that makes all the desisions or should be making all the decisions. What camera to use in waht situation, what lens to use, what ISO to use, what if any filter to use, what type of PP to use to get that great final print, how to frame the shot and what exposure, fstop, shutter speed will best suit the final image.

Yes, the underlying basics of photography has been unchanged by technology since its inception. Exposure depends on the same basic principles as it did with the Deguerretype. With all its complex circuitry, expensive glass, composite materials, sophisticated meters, the camera is still only a lightproof box which captures light let in by a shutter or hole which exposes a light-sensitive medium.

What I gather from their rationalization is that technology seemingly has allowed more of the masses to pickup the hobby with little or no knowledge of the basics of the principles of photography. I believe that this is a fallacy and may be an over generalization of the actual facts.

Technology to a certain extent opened the doors to many people who has not learned the ideas of Aperture, Shutter Speed, Sensitivity, Depth of Field, etc. With innovations such as Aperture Value (Aperture Priority) and Time Value (Shutter Priority) and full Auto and P modes, it eases the introduction to the hobby.

However, as many of us has stated, these principles can not be avoided if one wishes to escalate their photographic prowess. So eventually one will have to learn how to control exposure, composition and depth of field, to name a few in order to become a more accomplished and effective photographer.

Wisdom dictates that the beginning of Wisdom or learning starts with the admission of ignorance. I am now at that point or believe I am. I am now willing to accept or admit that what I had previously thought was not necessary to become a great photographer is indeed mandatory learning. I have come to the point where it can no longer be ignored or avoided.

I think many initiates to the hobby feel that technology can somewhat compensate for what they lack in personal knowledge. I feel fortunate enough to have taken photo classes to identify what it is I don't know. This is a learning hobby and like most things worth doing, it takes a lot of time and learning. I don't think there are shortcuts to this road and if there were; they may actually lead the initiate towards the wrong path.

Perhaps there is some sort of security granted to the beginner from the various features that modern cameras present. I will submit however, that perhaps these conveniences were not added to compensate for the lack of certainty, (of course P mode and the Basic zones and full auto are certainly there for that purpose) but are merely tools to enhance the ability of the user with the basic knowledge.

I will use the analogy of Microsoft Word. Word 2003, to many they believe this allows them to somehow bypass the step of learning the basics of word processing or composition. However, when Word is used as a "typewriter" with the convenience of quickly editing for correction and creating copies. Word is not used to its full potential and most of its features are wasted. Word is a powerful word processing program which if used correctly, utilizing its tools can aid the learned professional on how to quickly and correctly create documents.

The AV and TV zones I believe are present to enhance, but not compensate for the abilities of the Photographer.

Oh yeah...that one is a doozy...oh boy!

00silvergt wrote in post #5390102
Ok, I apologize I'm the one who misread your post. Sorry multitasking at work, and like they say, multitasking makes you stupid. LOL

We are actually agree more than we disagree Nicksan...I guess we can leave at that? Again, I was speaking of my personal realization about the hobby which was inspired mostly by the post about the 40D and 5D thing.

nicksan wrote in post #5391314
Oh yeah...that one is a doozy...oh boy!

The funny thing is that it could have easily been finished, I mean logically, it should have been a closed subject with one or two posts. But for some reason, I guess many here think that a 40D was not "sufficient" for a beginner and what a 5D is??? Dude, I still can't get heads or tails of it.