What opinions of yours have changed over time? Technique, equipment, etc

Meaning your post was insightful and contains substance that can elighten my mind. If you were already exposing to the right with film then it must be true that there is nothing new with new DSLRs. Visionaries are always right!

yogestee wrote in post #9036860
Meaning??

luigis wrote in post #9037842
Meaning your post was insightful and contains substance that can elighten my mind. If you were already exposing to the right with film then it must be true that there is nothing new with new DSLRs. Visionaries are always right!

Hmmm.

Old saying: With negatives, expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. With transparencies, expose for the highlights, and the shadows end up where they end up. Digital has characteristics of each--more of the range of negative material but more of the need to nail the highlight exposure of transparencies. Exposing to the right derives from those old principles.

What I have learned:

1. The most important thing about a picture is what is in front of the camera when the button is pushed. Everything about the camera and the process either supports or detracts from that subject and timing.

2. The most important setting on the camera is the aperture. It profoundly affects how the image looks (i.e., whether the background is sharp or fuzzy).

3. The more you do in the camera, the less you have to do in the computer. And the less you have to do in the computer, the less likely the result will end up looking like something other than a photograph. In any case, we should know what we want the final image to look like before making any decisions, even before deciding to make the picture.

4. If you want a painting, buy paints and brushes. Cameras are for making photographs.

5. Format is king. I keep saying it, but I also keep learning it all over again. The easiest way to make a quantum leap in image quality is to go to a larger format. Yes, that usually means film. We can spend tens of thousands on the best lenses conceived for 24x36 digital cameras, but we will never overcome the fact that we have only 864 square millimeters of image. Even with L glass, I can't make images I feel like I can walk into larger than about 13x19 from my 5D. I had to see some gallery images that were substantially larger to realize this afresh. The image may be sharp at larger sizes, but it still looks like too little butter spread over too much bread.

6. The difference between high-end lenses and good old lenses nearly always has a far smaller effect than any of the above points.

7. The camera is ultimately unimportant, despite it's central role in photography. I play tuba, and the most famous (to tuba players) tuba teacher of all time played an instrument for the Chicago Symphony that now has mythical status. He described it as "just a hunk of brass". He also described it as "the Stradivarius of the tuba." Joshua Bell, the famous violinist, was interviewed this morning on the Diane Rehm show. She asked him what made his sound so sweet, and his response was that the sound in his head was far more important than the sound of his violin. This is also a principle I have known for decades but have to relearn at regular intervals.

Rick "it's not about the camera" Denney

Au contraire mon frere...for those of us that are not sufficiency blessed with a properly developed right brain, it is about the camera, for how else could we express our limited vision.

I learned to watch all of the viewfinder, and the more time I have in a shot the more time I spend studying the image in the viewfinder. When I returned to SLR photography from the LCD composing wasteland of early digital I had serious tunnel vision.

I started acquiring zooms and told myself, the zooms are all I'll ever need! Well, I've been slowly replacing them with primes now... just love fast glass.

I also was not a big fan of LiveView, but since getting a camera with it, I am totally convinced it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Yep same happened to me with LiveView, I thought it was a gadget now I can't live without it.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #9039224
I started acquiring zooms and told myself, the zooms are all I'll ever need! Well, I've been slowly replacing them with primes now... just love fast glass.

I also was not a big fan of LiveView, but since getting a camera with it, I am totally convinced it's the best thing since sliced bread.

I used to think I needed better camera to take good pictures, then I needed the lenses to be able to take good picures, then I needed a flash to take good pictures.

Now, I have realized I am to blame for pretty much all my poor photos.

Rick,,could this be translate to photography?? The vision I have in my head is the vision I want on my computer screen or print..

If one truly can accomplish this then one is truly a master..

Thanks Luigis,,I'll send you a cheque!!

The biggest epiphany for me was that the less gear I have on me, the better my images are. My initial mindset was that I needed to carry equipment to cover every scenario so I don't miss anything, but I was missing stuff anyway because I was bogged down with kit.

Business-wise, I learned that shifting my focus from the money to the client experience brings the money anyway. Financial aspects are the last thing I talk about.

As far as the client experience goes, I learned that a smile goes a long way.

yogestee wrote in post #9039981
Rick,,could this be translate to photography?? The vision I have in my head is the vision I want on my computer screen or print..

If one truly can accomplish this then one is truly a master..

I may be reading it wrong but I think you've actually hit on exactly Rick's point re: the violin.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what we hear him play (or see what you photographed) but rather, is it what he expects to hear (or you expect to see) that matters.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9039992
I may be reading it wrong but I think you've actually hit on exactly Rick's point re: the violin.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what we hear him play (or see what you photographed) but rather, is it what he expects to hear (or you expect to see) that matters.

I see your point Jay..

When we take a photograph and process it, our interpretations could be vastly different to what others see..

This is why art is so wonderful..

yogestee wrote in post #9040014
I see your point Jay..

When we take a photograph and process it, our interpretations could be vastly different to what others see..

This is why art is so wonderful..

Exactly...

Deeply personal IMO.

yogestee wrote in post #9039981
Rick,,could this be translate to photography?? The vision I have in my head is the vision I want on my computer screen or print..

If one truly can accomplish this then one is truly a master..

Arnold Jacobs (the tuba player I mentioned) played a York grand orchestral tuba that is now probably the most revered orchestral tuba in existence. It is now owned by the Chicago Symphony and I know its current operator, Gene Pokorny. When I listen to Gene play the York, he sounds like...Gene. That instrument is exceptional in many ways, but its qualities are subtleties compared to the gross effects of technique, musicianship, communication, story, emotion, and all the other things that make music, well, musical. I own a Holton model 345 tuba, which is an early and excellent imitation of the big York. Holton 345's are used by many orchestra professionals, and I'm really quite lucky to own one. And while I feel fortunate, I know that when I play it, I sound like me. (Unfortunately.) Gene could play a POS plastic sousaphone and still sound like the world-class musician that he is, while I can play my world-class Holton and sound like the second-rate amateur that I am. That's why Jacobs called it a hunk of brass--compared to the sound in his head, the instrument is unimportant. But having that sound in his head, and having his transparent command of technique, he was able to explore the full potential of such an instrument, and that potential gave him a lot of room to explore. That's why he called it the "Stradivarius of the tuba."

Joshua Bell, despite having said this morning that the sweetness of his sound is governed by the sound in his head far more than by his instrument, he still has a real Strad for which he probably paid millions. I doubt that we'd know it, though, if he gave a recital on a cheap but competent modern violin.

So, it's easy to give equipment the most important role, because it is important. But compared to what we might do with the equipment, it is unimportant.

That's how it translates to photography.

Yes, the vision in my head is what I want to see on the screen and print. My technique contributes to achieving that goal, and so does the camera. I have spent years developing technique. I am deeply concerned about using equipment that achieves my technical standards. Neither is anywhere near as important as what that vision includes. Achieving my vision is a matter of technique, having a vision worthy of all that trouble is a matter of art. When we use up all our brain cells thinking about equipment, we have too few left to devote to technique, and none to devote to what is really important, the image content--what feeling we want to evoke, what tonal values might evoke that feeling, what subject relationships support that feeling, and so on.

So, what opinions of mine have changed over time? The relative value I give to equipment versus artistic intention.

Despite having what is probably pretty reliable technique (an outgrowth, as with you but on a much smaller scale, of having done it professionally), when I look at my prints in hopes of finding artistic expression, I realize that I suck. Well-crafted images of crap, in most cases.

But at least now I'm trying to think better thoughts about photography, and I long ago abandoned buying equipment with the expectation that it will make me a better photographer. It won't. It's just fun to collect equipment for its own sake--sort of like an engineering hobby. What I've learned is to not confuse that with true photographic accomplishment.

If I understood it better, I could explain it better. But then I wouldn't keep needing to remind myself of it.

Rick "talking to himself; you guys are just in the way" Denney

I have learned that "I'll fix it in post" is an attitude that ultimately comes back to haunt me...

I have learned other things as well, for sure, but that one's by far the most poignant.

rdenney wrote in post #9040509
.

But at least now I'm trying to think better thoughts about photography, and I long ago abandoned buying equipment with the expectation that it will make me a better photographer. It won't. It's just fun to collect equipment for its own sake--sort of like an engineering hobby. What I've learned is to not confuse that with true photographic accomplishment.

If I understood it better, I could explain it better. But then I wouldn't keep needing to remind myself of it.

Rick "talking to himself; you guys are just in the way" Denney

well said. I have come to the same unstateable conclusions about so many things in life....faster motorcycles, nicer guitars, the best tools, its all the same. Its all just a means to an end and if the end isn't what you had aimed for, was it worth the effort to acquire the means you thought you needed? maybe the end is where you were headed all along, or maybe the tools allowed you to get a little closer to the aim than you would have with lesser stock. It sure is fun trying out the faster horses, even if the race almost always goes to the most dedicated rider.