Comments on: Sometimes a Bad Image Isn’t the Camera’s Fault — It’s Yours http://rising.blackstar.com/sometimes-a-bad-image-isnt-the-cameras-fault-its-yours.html Professional Photography Blog Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:56:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Carlhttp://rising.blackstar.com/sometimes-a-bad-image-isnt-the-cameras-fault-its-yours.html/comment-page-1#comment-15789 Carl Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:35:02 +0000 #comment-15789 unless you have some really defective glass, all lenses at f8 and at the correct working distance will give you exactly the same image. if that were not true, photography would be really difficult. that said the biggest and maybe the only, variable is lighting. photography is painting with light after all. unless you have some really defective glass, all lenses at f8 and at the correct working distance will give you exactly the same image. if that were not true, photography would be really difficult. that said the biggest and maybe the only, variable is lighting. photography is painting with light after all.

]]> By: pogohttp://rising.blackstar.com/sometimes-a-bad-image-isnt-the-cameras-fault-its-yours.html/comment-page-1#comment-1403 pogo Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:09:19 +0000 #comment-1403 Sometimes the equipment does make all the difference-- there's nothing more frustrating than a lens that does the gigue and will not settle to focus until the subject has flown off. And to be very honest, I can't see myself reading lots of technical explanations or looking at DOF charts-- but workign with a group of lenses with a specific problem can be enlightening because each lens seems to have its own temperament and capabilities which it does best and without seriously studying how that lens responds to a given problem, there can be no realistic expectations. I don't have a single "professional" or "L" lens. I have secondhand lenses that were once considered the best Canon had to offer. My 50mm 2.5 is an original, making it some 20years old, but what this lens can do is amazing. I just have to know how to use it and the situation in which it works best. However, I know that my camera has gross limitations. It has glitches that are inexplicable, such as when I wish to use full manual, why it is impossible to change the shutter speed without the exposure being altered. However, every technical or mechanical thing in this world is imperfect and it's the problem of the person using an instrument to find out the assets and limitations and work within them. There's never going to be a perfect lens or camera. And it's the problem of every photographer to understand his assets and limitations and to work within them.as for PROGRAM-- seriously I don';t know because I never used a preset program, not even on a pocket 4MP--It's not so much a slr opr program or going digital, but the mentality. Each moment is unique and each situation is unique. Light is not stable. All you have to do is spend one day in your kitchen working at a table in natural light to find out how difficult it is to do beautiful still life or a simple wineglass or a ladybug. Nut since few people keep ladybugs in their refrigerators, try the wineglass and make a study between 4-5 lenses... 28-105 (35-105 mine metal casing) 28-135 (35-135 mine/ metal casing) 24-85 70-300 50 1.8 100mm 2.8and it really doesn't take so long to find out that they respond very differently. Actually with a little practice it is possible to recognize which lens made the resulting images. The lenses respond differently to morning, high noon, afternoon and evening light.The 70-300 and 100mm 2.8 will do the Canon jitterbug in low light.the 50 1.8 loves bright light and half light, it loves silver, gold and high enameled objects like cloissonne...the 24-85 is very very flexible, but you have to take a lot of time in your layout. It can give outstanding color depth and shadows.but the one that has the richest color and bring out the deepest shadows, is actually the 70-300, but it has some trade-offs. It can slide and you need space. It will never give the crispness of the 100mm 2.8 or the 50 1.8, but it will give you images that are reminiscent of Corot or Chardin still life.and if you want really nice detail, then there is the very old 50mm 2.5and it does the very best work on dragonfly wings. up close and intimate as can be.Sometimes yes it is the equipment, but sometimes a person doesn't take time to study and compare the response of a lens to a given problem and compare results.and sometimes, perhaps people get lazy and think photoshop is an answer with post editing. It depends. I set rules when I began with a pocket 4MP that I would only use natural light and images had to be straight which meant that I had to work a great deal harder to come up with an image with zero overexposure or technical errors coming straight out of the camera.So they aren't the newest lenses, but it's the application and discipline that brings good results. Sometimes the equipment does make all the difference-- there's nothing more frustrating than a lens that does the gigue and will not settle to focus until the subject has flown off. And to be very honest, I can't see myself reading lots of technical explanations or looking at DOF charts-- but workign with a group of lenses with a specific problem can be enlightening because each lens seems to have its own temperament and capabilities which it does best and without seriously studying how that lens responds to a given problem, there can be no realistic expectations. I don't have a single "professional" or "L" lens. I have secondhand lenses that were once considered the best Canon had to offer. My 50mm 2.5 is an original, making it some 20years old, but what this lens can do is amazing. I just have to know how to use it and the situation in which it works best. However, I know that my camera has gross limitations. It has glitches that are inexplicable, such as when I wish to use full manual, why it is impossible to change the shutter speed without the exposure being altered. However, every technical or mechanical thing in this world is imperfect and it's the problem of the person using an instrument to find out the assets and limitations and work within them. There's never going to be a perfect lens or camera. And it's the problem of every photographer to understand his assets and limitations and to work within them.

as for PROGRAM-- seriously I don';t know because I never used a preset program, not even on a pocket 4MP--

It's not so much a slr opr program or going digital, but the mentality. Each moment is unique and each situation is unique. Light is not stable. All you have to do is spend one day in your kitchen working at a table in natural light to find out how difficult it is to do beautiful still life or a simple wineglass or a ladybug. Nut since few people keep ladybugs in their refrigerators, try the wineglass and make a study between 4-5 lenses...
28-105 (35-105 mine metal casing)
28-135 (35-135 mine/ metal casing)
24-85
70-300
50 1.8
100mm 2.8

and it really doesn't take so long to find out that they respond very differently. Actually with a little practice it is possible to recognize which lens made the resulting images. The lenses respond differently to morning, high noon, afternoon and evening light.

The 70-300 and 100mm 2.8 will do the Canon jitterbug in low light.

the 50 1.8 loves bright light and half light, it loves silver, gold and high enameled objects like cloissonne...

the 24-85 is very very flexible, but you have to take a lot of time in your layout. It can give outstanding color depth and shadows.

but the one that has the richest color and bring out the deepest shadows, is actually the 70-300, but it has some trade-offs. It can slide and you need space. It will never give the crispness of the 100mm 2.8 or the 50 1.8, but it will give you images that are reminiscent of Corot or Chardin still life.

and if you want really nice detail, then there is the very old 50mm 2.5

and it does the very best work on dragonfly wings. up close and intimate as can be.

Sometimes yes it is the equipment, but sometimes a person doesn't take time to study and compare the response of a lens to a given problem and compare results.

and sometimes, perhaps people get lazy and think photoshop is an answer with post editing. It depends. I set rules when I began with a pocket 4MP that I would only use natural light and images had to be straight which meant that I had to work a great deal harder to come up with an image with zero overexposure or technical errors coming straight out of the camera.

So they aren't the newest lenses, but it's the application and discipline that brings good results.

]]> By: ian campbellhttp://rising.blackstar.com/sometimes-a-bad-image-isnt-the-cameras-fault-its-yours.html/comment-page-1#comment-580 ian campbell Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:59:53 +0000 #comment-580 The oldest editorial rule in the book, for photojournalists, was "F8 and be there." To an extent, I still work with that, even now, with medium format cameras and organisable point and shoots, like my old XA. Even have the digitals set that way, as much as I can. The oldest editorial rule in the book, for photojournalists, was "F8 and be there."
To an extent, I still work with that, even now, with medium format cameras and organisable point and shoots, like my old XA. Even have the digitals set that way, as much as I can.

]]> By: Pat Bloomfieldhttp://rising.blackstar.com/sometimes-a-bad-image-isnt-the-cameras-fault-its-yours.html/comment-page-1#comment-579 Pat Bloomfield Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:41:30 +0000 #comment-579 Thank you for this Peter it is refreshing to see an honest article like this. The number of people I know who fit your description here is just uncanny.Taking control of your camera and understand the effects each control has on your image and how to use that to create your desired results. This along with learning to see and use light are really the fundamentals that people need to know if they want to achieve a good standard in photography.Pat www.patb-photography.co.uk Thank you for this Peter it is refreshing to see an honest article like this. The number of people I know who fit your description here is just uncanny.

Taking control of your camera and understand the effects each control has on your image and how to use that to create your desired results. This along with learning to see and use light are really the fundamentals that people need to know if they want to achieve a good standard in photography.

Pat
http://www.patb-photography.co.uk

]]>