Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Your Camera Does Not Matter"  
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5371 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Hi Guys,

Came across this webpage which has/makes some interesting points.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

However, this should not be taken as a license to shoot airliners with cellphone cameras and try to get them on here.  Wink

I quote:

"A camera catches your imagination. No imagination, no photo - just crap. The word "image" comes from the word "imagination." It doesn't come come from "lens sharpness" or "noise levels."


World Wide Aerospace Photography
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5358 times:

A camera is a tool.

Giving a hairdresser a scalpel will not make him a brain surgeon.

The most important part of the camera is the eye behind it.

P.S. Ken Rockwell is always interesting.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2929 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5339 times:

I would totally agree. A camera is just the means by which to capture an image, the rest is up to the person using it. A good camera will just give you a quality advantage. You can take a great photo with pretty much anything, but the end results quality wise is determined by the camera / lens being used.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5331 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

True but of course there are limits. You can't take far away 600mm shots with just some toy camera, you need expensive equipment. That's not to say that a very talented photographer will not make a different more interesting picture from the same spot.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6452 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5320 times:



Quoting Dazbo5 (Reply 2):

Some artistic photographers use disposables to create an effect. Even pinhole cameras. Lomography too. They capture the moment. These are cameras, yes, but not exactly suited for high quality, sharp images that we as aviation photographers are after. (lol sorry Darren, this is just in addition to your post, seemed better to just include the quote in here)



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4880 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5303 times:

I'd suggest for the article author to look in the Nikon D3x brochure at the night image of the Giugiaro Mustang (taken with D3x and 200mm F/2 at F/2.0)- and seriously tell me that the camera and lens combination does not matter. I'll give Ken Rockwell my iPhone 3G and let him take the same photo.


The article is an attention grabbing ploy designed to grab visitors, which is exactly what it has done. While we all agree with the idea that you must know how to operate the camera properly and frame photos correctly (along with other creative elements) - the article falls apart if we consider what we do.

A lot of photos we get can not be achieved with anything less than 300mm or 500mm lenses. We take large images at often great distances, and sometimes in tricky conditions.

If the camera/lens doesn't matter, then so many people here wouldn't be using Canon 100-400L glass, they'd be using the $100 kit lens on the cheapest camera they could find. Or they might even use a cheap reflex lens.

[Edited 2009-07-01 02:25:20]

User currently offlineRaedervision From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 63 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5292 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The best advice I ever heard was back in the day of film. "Don't buy equipment, buy film". Forever true. Work with what you have, not with what you wish you had. Doesn't mean you should quit dreaming.  Smile

User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5278 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With every piece of equipment upgrade, especially with lenses, I gained new creative possibilities. Now that I have a super wide-angle lens, I can do things I couldn't do before and so on. So I believe the camera + lens combo does make a difference. Every piece of equipment has it's limitations. The key is knowing your equipment, knowing the limitations, and knowing how to make the best of what you have.

Many of my own personal favorites, and some of my more popular shots (referring mostly to non-aviation stuff) were taken with my old point-and-shoots, or my first DSLR with the cheap kit lens.

[Edited 2009-07-01 03:11:50]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5270 times:



Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 7):
Every piece of equipment has it's limitations. The key is knowing your equipment, knowing the limitations, and knowing how to make the best of what you have.

Exactly right.

Most of my best photos - the ones I frame and exhibit - are taken with my simple Zeiss Ikon rangefinder camera - manual focus, manual exposure, manual film wind - using slide film.

My D700 is nice, but I prefer the Zeiss.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 1 day ago) and read 5133 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR



Quoting Cpd (Reply 5):
the article falls apart if we consider what we do.

A lot of photos we get can not be achieved with anything less than 300mm or 500mm lenses. We take large images at often great distances, and sometimes in tricky conditions.

valid points! However, there is certain amount of truth here because the camera does not "make" the photographer.



World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 5113 times:



Quoting Cpd (Reply 5):
A lot of photos we get can not be achieved with anything less than 300mm or 500mm lenses

So, the lens matters.

Rockwell was talking about the camera ...



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineMidEx216 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 651 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 5069 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 1):
Giving a hairdresser a scalpel will not make him a brain surgeon.



Quoting Eksath (Thread starter):
It doesn't come come from "lens sharpness" or "noise levels."

I totally agree here, but there are also arguments. Sure, giving a hairdresser a scalpel will not make him a brain surgeon, but a brain surgeon with a katana is a lot less likely to be successful as well.



"Cue the Circus Music!"
User currently offlineJeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 845 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 5027 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 10):
So, the lens matters.

Rockwell was talking about the camera ...

No, he was talking about lenses too:

Another San Diego pro, Kirsten Gallon earns her living using Nikon's two very cheapest lenses, the 18-55 and 70-300 G.

Nice photos, but the low light shots do have a lot of grain, e.g.,:

http://www.kirstengallon.com/gallery...5131561_WKGKz#293057794_FLJwH-A-LB

=======

When I first got into DSLR photography I asked some photographer friends what lenses I should buy. Several of them responded with another question, "What kinds of pictures do you want to take?"

I think that was the best advice I could get because I sure as hell can't get the low light, wildlife, or sports photographs (not to mention aviation--duh) I want out of my Canon SD1000, even though it's a great little camera. Those $15 Holgas Rockwell makes such a big deal about aren't going to cut it for what I want to do.

However, I do understand his point. I said as much to EUROBUS after he pooh-poohed his Nikon F60 in this thread:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...tion_photography/read.main/334585/

Nice work, Eurobus. It goes to show that even with a simple camera, you can have excellent composition with great results. It's all in the eye and how you frame things.

BTW, his shots are definitely worth a look.

But does that mean I would trade my two 5Ds for a point & click? Hell no! But I use my point & click enthusiastically when I don't want to haul around all my camera gear and get the results I desire:



So, yes, my cameras matter to me but I understand that good shots are all in the eye.


User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 16 hours ago) and read 5014 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

So after mulling around the issue. I thought i would try to illustrate what I think is the issue.

If the blue line is the progression of a photographer's skill vresus quality, then the limitations imposed by his/her camera are:



At each level of equipment he/she runs the risk of being limited or reaching a fixed level as opposed to developing further. Does this graph work?



World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineUnitedJumboJet From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 16 hours ago) and read 4995 times:

I think Rockwell specifically means things like composition, etc. are more important than the camera in general.

Image quality is a whole 'nother animal.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4761 times:

I'll make my opinion simple here...

Of course the camera (and more importantly the lens) matters, but perhaps not as much as the eye behind it. Let's face it - both matter. Photography is an art; a self-expression. Good photography doesn't and shouldn't fall foul of the criteria set here, on A.net, for aircraft photography. We know this because of the relaxation of the 'creative' rules. Things like blur, grain and softness can enhance an image, rather than be to its detriment all the time.

Having said this, David Bailey is going to get a better (quality-wise anyway) image with his 1Ds III than with a disposable Kodak fun-camera. Putting all the onus on the skills of the photographer is a bit ridiculous - Michael Schumacher is the best F1 driver the world has yet seen but give him a Citroen 2CV and he isn't going to perform is he?

The 'it's who's behind the camera that matters the most' is sometimes a null and void argument.

Karl


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4745 times:



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
Michael Schumacher is the best F1 driver the world has yet seen

Debatable. Fangio knew how to drive ...



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineAlberto Riva From United States of America, joined May 2002, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4709 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 16):
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
Michael Schumacher is the best F1 driver the world has yet seen

Debatable. Fangio knew how to drive ...

True. But I'd argue for the late Ayrton Senna, king of the rain.

Back to cameras: Rockwell is who he is and his take is willingly provocative. However, he does have a very good point when he says that it's dumb to buy a new digital SLR every year, unless you're a pro. Camera makers have people salivating on their new D-whatever, which they'll buy for say $2000 and sell the following year for $900, all the while wondering why their photos suck and expecting that they'll become great images when shot with a fancier camera. We know it doesn't work that way.

Digital has democratized the field somehow, opening up opportunities for people who would have been excluded before, but it also has made the better photographers stand out even more from a sea of decent, serviceable, easy-with-digital but uninspired images. Are those better photographers all shooting the D3 or the Mk III? No, they're not. In other words: their cameras count, but not as much as the non-initiated think. It's still about being there and pressing the shutter at the right moment.

Now aviation photography is a different animal, and none of us would want to shoot an airshow with an ancient 10D or bring a D40 for the ride of a lifetime in the backseat of an F15. But if push came to shove, would the best among us get a few good frames even with those relatively crappy or old cameras? Yes they would.

So: your camera *does* matter, but up to a point. That point may be along the line in the graph Suresh posted above, or somewhere else depending on your talent, but photography is still an art. People go to galleries to see the artist's product, not his tools.


User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2810 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4704 times:

Ok, I'm going to use Mark Garfinkel's amazing moon shot photo to illustrate my point. Mark was the originator of this genre of aircraft images. Why? Because of his camera equipment? Well partially, but there are thousands of people with identical equipment or better and not one of them had the CREATIVE IDEA in his mind to say "what if" and then put the shot together.

Many of us have tried to duplicate Mark's work, some with great success, some with poor success. But Mark THOUGHT OF IT FIRST, which is the creative aspect of being a photographer. He likely saw the image in his mind long before he got into position to push the shutter.

Mark's great image......

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Garfinkel



Now some may argue that without a long lens that shot would be impossible. Correct, but that's a technical limitation which only comes AFTER the inspirational limitation. And far too many "photographers" are limited by inspiration, yet blame the equipment as the problem.

It's not the camera..... it's the photographer. Arguing otherwise is simply arguing for a lack of inspiration.

respectfully.
Steve


User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4695 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR



Quoting Photopilot (Reply 18):
It's not the camera..... it's the photographer. Arguing otherwise is simply arguing for a lack of inspiration.


Indeed.

The most inane first question from a viewer is:

"What kind of camera did you use?"



World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4880 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4675 times:



Quoting Photopilot (Reply 18):

Mark's great image......

And it would probably be rejected for grain, blurry these days. Now, it's not so much a lack of inspiration, but that it is simply easier to go for "safe" photos that won't have difficulties with motive.

Quoting Alberto Riva (Reply 17):
Are those better photographers all shooting the D3 or the Mk III?

May I mention Jasin Boland:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q98nzc3Vduw

You might not have heard his name, but you'll know his images. And be surprised at the gear he uses. (Including a D90).


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4654 times:



Quoting Eksath (Reply 19):
The most inane first question from a viewer is:

"What kind of camera did you use?"

Or in its other form after a viewer sees a shot of mine: " You must have a very good camera!".

Drives me crazy.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4632 times:

I went digital some 8 or 9 years ago with a D30 and was doing fine at ISO 100.
Now with a 1Dmk3 I am doing fine at ISO 1600.
The switch didn't made me a better photographer but it sure as hell made life a lot easier.

On the other hand I am still using a 20D and 50D with great pleasure to.
The camera I got the most pleasure from is my "new" 1972 AE1 though  Wink



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4631 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cpd (Reply 20):
And it would probably be rejected for grain, blurry these days. Now, it's not so much a lack of inspiration, but that it is simply easier to go for "safe" photos that won't have difficulties with motive.

And with all due respect to mark and the good image, with current technology that shot should come out better these days.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4614 times:

[topic off]

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 18):
But Mark THOUGHT OF IT FIRST, which is the creative aspect of being a photographer. He likely saw the image in his mind long before he got into position to push the shutter.

How do you know he was first ?
The fact that he got it on a.net first doesn't say much.
I am not trying to argue whether he was first or not but there are billions and billions of photos taken of which we don't know their existence.
There is just no way of knowing, other then asking him I suppose.
[topic on]

Think we are talking 2 different idea's of "good".
A "good" composition is independent of the camera used.
A technical "good" image in terms of exposure, sharpness and noise depends from little to quit a lot on the hardware used.

One might have the smartest idea of the world but if the used hardware fails to deliver it will fall apart after all.
To sum it up:
Top hardware will give a Top chance to fulfill the craziest idea one might have.
Anything less then top will decrease those chances in one way or another.
And were someone draws the line is just a personal thing based items price/quality for example.
A good story on this subject:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/quality-vs-value.shtml


The sun has finally disappeared and I see some nice clouds coming which means: I am off to AMS  Silly


Cheers.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
25 Post contains links and images Photopilot : What a non-sensical answer. Safe images, or just photographers with no sense of imagination and creativity who simply can't "see" a better image if i
26 Gunna64 : In the end it seems to matter more about noise, sharpness and digital manipulation - it's no longer about the image. Even with a decent prosumer camer
27 Cpd : Not really. You need to get the best image to start with, and then maybe do some minor edits. The best photos don't need much editing at all. Good eq
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Does This "Artistic" Stand A Chance? posted Mon Jan 2 2006 18:47:19 by Sleekjet
Why Not A "Best In Category" Page? posted Wed Sep 14 2005 14:19:16 by Bell407
Definitely Not "badpeople"! posted Tue Feb 3 2004 22:54:58 by Fly-K
How Do You Take Care Of Your Camera? posted Tue Jan 27 2009 21:11:51 by FLY2HMO
Lets See Your Camera 2 posted Sun Mar 11 2007 06:34:54 by Md11fan
ZRH Spotters: Does Size Matter? posted Wed Feb 21 2007 14:56:55 by AC773
Does Subject Matter Affect Approvals? posted Wed Jan 31 2007 16:54:52 by YOWza
Unbelievable, Boeing Does Not Pay Me.. posted Thu Jan 11 2007 00:05:17 by Volare
Your Camera Lifespan posted Tue Dec 19 2006 21:20:50 by PictureThis
Let's See Your Camera Bag(s)! posted Fri Jun 16 2006 18:06:21 by Aero145