Good, Better, Best (Or are we just chasing our tail)

I shot this image yesterday with the magical Rx1. This wasn't a image I intended to share, I didn't care about composition or anything really..... I just wanted to capture a memory..

This is my twin turbo GTO, Maybellene, she misses her sister, Chantilly Lace, which is the red 630rwhp Whipple supercharge Camaro seen in the background..

I love how this image has 3d pop and how it is rendered, one of those Rx1 moments to me.....

1016-1.jpg



Between my girls there is over 1200hp....... That's what I like, big power....

Rx1, big power (full frame)....A7r, big power coming in that 36mp sensor....




The magic of the Rx1...



1011-23.jpg




I will make magic with the A7r........ can't wait....
 
I confess I'm not beyond enjoying the thrill of using a specific piece of gear. I once had a 150mm Schneider Componon S enlarging lens for my 4x5 negatives. When I did not have a home darkroom and needed some cash, I sold it to a lab I was working for -- and regretted it. I made damned sure to be first in line to buy it back when that lab went out of business. After making a ton of money with it on a contract job, it is now sitting unused, as I don't have a large enough space to put up my large format enlarger. BUT I will never sell it again. It's one of those pieces of glass that is better than its specs, a fortunate variable in the manufacturing process. I have never met another enlarging lens with such breathtaking sharpness -- corner to corner, wide open, without the excessive contrast of certain "sharp" optics.

And there are cameras I find a joy to use, while others, which may be better, are for me just "usable". The physical act of using a certain camera can be very much part of enjoying the craft, I think. I love my E-M5, love using it, love its control, love what it lets me do. But I find the Sigmas, though in many respects less capable, certainly less versatile, are just the thing for wandering with a camera in this sunny land of the low iso shot, where they excel. They are less versatile, perhaps, but if I have one with me all the time instead of the bigger camera, the notion of "versatility changes. That's why I am determined to get a DP2 Merrill, though I will not sell my PL 25mm to help finance it, as I had contemplated. That, too, is a bit of gear that it is a joy for me to shoot with.

So I don't know if bigger, better, faster, brighter is exactly what I care about. But what I have in my hand to shoot with matters. Some manual focus lenses are a joy to use, with tactile feedback that cannot be described with a word less than "thrilling." At the end of it, there is the primary importance of the photograph, but getting a kick from using one's tools is no sin. And yes, I sometimes shoot just to use the machine, which gives me pleasure.

Sorry for the ramble. The sedatives from this morning's medical procedure are still with me. And perhaps I am making no sense at all.
 
I confess I'm not beyond enjoying the thrill of using a specific piece of gear. I once had a 150mm Schneider Componon S enlarging lens for my 4x5 negatives. When I did not have a home darkroom and needed some cash, I sold it to a lab I was working for -- and regretted it. I made damned sure to be first in line to buy it back when that lab went out of business. After making a ton of money with it on a contract job, it is now sitting unused, as I don't have a large enough space to put up my large format enlarger. BUT I will never sell it again. It's one of those pieces of glass that is better than its specs, a fortunate variable in the manufacturing process. I have never met another enlarging lens with such breathtaking sharpness -- corner to corner, wide open, without the excessive contrast of certain "sharp" optics.

And there are cameras I find a joy to use, while others, which may be better, are for me just "usable". The physical act of using a certain camera can be very much part of enjoying the craft, I think. I love my E-M5, love using it, love its control, love what it lets me do. But I find the Sigmas, though in many respects less capable, certainly less versatile, are just the thing for wandering with a camera in this sunny land of the low iso shot, where they excel. They are less versatile, perhaps, but if I have one with me all the time instead of the bigger camera, the notion of "versatility changes. That's why I am determined to get a DP2 Merrill, though I will not sell my PL 25mm to help finance it, as I had contemplated. That, too, is a bit of gear that it is a joy for me to shoot with.

So I don't know if bigger, better, faster, brighter is exactly what I care about. But what I have in my hand to shoot with matters. Some manual focus lenses are a joy to use, with tactile feedback that cannot be described with a word less than "thrilling." At the end of it, there is the primary importance of the photograph, but getting a kick from using one's tools is no sin. And yes, I sometimes shoot just to use the machine, which gives me pleasure.

Sorry for the ramble. The sedatives from this morning's medical procedure are still with me. And perhaps I am making no sense at all.

Larry baby, you always make sense to the HepKitty!
 
Pdh,

Thanks for bringing this topic forward.

I made that remark about "the camera of the month club" because I am a total sucker for new stuff. For several years, I wrote a column called "The Gadget Guy" for a magazine. It was all about cool, new, neato stuff. It is really easy for me to get tempted: gee, if I just had the fiddly-wah-diddly 51J mirrorless, I'd be a better photographer . . . NOT!

Ultimately, I think, photographs are all about content. Show me compelling content, and I won't even notice the technical shortcomings.

For me, anyway, I'm trying to ignore gear lust and concentrate on looking, seeing, feeling, and taking pictures that move me.

Cheers, Jock
 
Thank Luke not me, Jock! He split my and Ray's posts off to form the thread.

It just seems to me it's good to examine why one says or does things. And why one says why one does things. When I see people saying "oh I only ever buy a camera based on specification and IQ" I just think "Pants on fire!!!" ...


And Laurence - not a ramble at all, all makes sense to me. The physical pleasure of using my om1n is rather considerable. Whether that means I make better photographs with it rather than my bessa because I'm more comfortable with it is up for discussion, but I certainly couldn't distinguish by looking which camera made what photo.
 
When I take personal photos. I take them for me. I dont show a pair of 10x8's to random strangers to see if they notice a difference. If I notice a difference it's there. If someone sees something in a particular file then that's fine, even if I dont see it. I beleive that people do see a look in some gear that others don't see.

Secondly, for me, photographybis as much the process of taking the image as the image itself. In many cases more so than the end result. I have plenty of crap photos where the process of taking them was wonderful. Gear is a big part of that. Carrying it. Setting it up. The tactility of a camera. I love cameras that feel mechanical, and those that are beautiful.

Thirdly gear allows me to go to new places or revisit new places with a new eye. It's amazing how a simple change of lens can get me to see a place I see every day, differently. If I get a new toy I'll push it to see what it can do, just for fun. I mostly hang 20x16 prints. But with the a7r I'll definately make a 60 or 80 inch print, just to push the camera and myself.

I'm not doing this to make a statement or to leave a legacy. I'm just having fun. If people like the pictures fine. Same if they don't. Im not thinking about the kids looking at faded prints. For me photography is fun. Gear is fun. And photography is a great excuse to go to interesting places and play. For me, the Sony A7r will enhace that. BIG files in a pack I'm prepared to carry. Sure the EM1 is a fine camera but I want to shoot my landscapes on something better suited. Just like I wont be shooting weddings with the A7r.

Finally, maybe, it's notup to me to let others know what they need or want. I only have my motivations and experiences. People have their own reasons for taking pictures. 99% of those are not about the actual image itself but what the images represents or makes them feel. Or the process of getting it.

Gordon
 
Seems like the question is whether escalating camera performance specs can help one wind up with overall better images, and the answer is "yes, but not on their own."

Good thing I saw this before I posted, it saved me a lot of typing :tongue:

I completely agree that "right place, right time" is more important than IQ. My best photos are always because I was somewhere interesting at an interesting time, after all!

There are also two caveats that often get tossed out the window when people start talking about IQ being less important than the photo itself:

1) How many great photos are missed due to technical reasons - focus failures, not enough light, etc. Ray alluded to this in one of his posts, but I think it's worth reiterating. Having a camera with better high ISO, more dynamic range, more resolution etc. doesn't make a junk photo better... but it does increase your chances of getting a good one, and make it easier to nail "the moment". Better photographer + better gear = best chances for success.

2) Poorer IQ can be distracting, even in powerful photos. A strong photo of an emotionally resonant or historically important moment can still be affected by the overall quality. Of course the content is always most important, but excessive grain/ISO noise or missed focus can still rob impact.

So yes, photographers worry overly about IQ and quality when what really matters is just a great moment or capture. But at the same time, I think we obsess over that at least partially because we want to squeeze every bit of help we can out of the gear, to make those moments come more often :)
 
1) How many great photos are missed due to technical reasons - focus failures, not enough light, etc.

None. The photograph doesn't exist independently. How many great meals did I miss eat by not going into a restaurant ?

... but it does increase your chances of getting a good one, and make it easier to nail "the moment". Better photographer + better gear = best chances for success.

I still can't fathom what "better" or "success" means in this context, and to be honest it sounds more like marketing spiel from a camera company.

Let's say that rather than use my OM-1n, I sell a kidney and buy a "better" camera - let's say an RX1; Now lets have a look at my Flickr stream. Which of my last 100 photographs would have been more "successful"; what would it have been about that RX1 which enabled me to make the photographs I recently posted here at Greenburrow, 2013 "better" ?

Poorer IQ can be distracting, even in powerful photos. A strong photo of an emotionally resonant or historically important moment can still be affected by the overall quality. Of course the content is always most important, but excessive grain/ISO noise or missed focus can still rob impact.

Poorer than what? Would Robert Eppridge's pictures of Robert Kennedy's assassination have been "better" or had "more impact" if they had been less technically rotten, less grainy, less underexposed, less smooshy photographs?
Missed focus can certainly wreck a photo, but if you hand control over to the machine for a function like that, well you must expect some failures. You must expect some failures from manual focusing as well, of course.

Why must we expect the result of every shutter actuation to be "perfect"?

It's like expecting simultaneous orgasm every time you have sex - a recipe for unceasing disappointment ...
 
Let's say that rather than use my OM-1n, I sell a kidney and buy a "better" camera - let's say an RX1; Now lets have a look at my Flickr stream. Which of my last 100 photographs would have been more "successful"

The point is there may well be some that DIDN'T make your Flickr stream that might well have with a different camera. This happens to me a lot, particularly with street shooting. As I said before, a much higher number of keepers due specifically to gear with different capabilities. So if you look at my Flickr stream of NYC shots from last weekend, you'll see shots that you simply wouldn't have seen if I'd still been shooting with the same gear I was shooting with three years ago. The ones that got away don't often get away any more. And I already showed you a photo that I was able to get to a state I was happy with from my RX1 that I seriously doubt I'd have been able to with the EP2 - another one you might not have seen at all with lesser gear.

Why must we expect the result of every shutter actuation to be "perfect"?

We don't. We just improve the odds of more shots being CLOSER to perfect, and thus, more end up being 'good enough'.

It's like expecting simultaneous orgasm every time you have sex - a recipe for unceasing disappointment ...

Well, I don't expect that, but if I could learn some new way of doing something (I'll leave aside the question of "gear" here!) that would increase the odds, and thus the frequency, I'd damn straight be in line for THAT... :D

-Ray
 
None. The photograph doesn't exist independently. How many great meals did I miss eat by not going into a restaurant ?

Sorry, I didn't realize we were going into existentialist discussion :tongue:

I still can't fathom what "better" or "success" means in this context, and to be honest it sounds more like marketing spiel from a camera company.

Let's say that rather than use my OM-1n, I sell a kidney and buy a "better" camera - let's say an RX1; Now lets have a look at my Flickr stream. Which of my last 100 photographs would have been more "successful"; what would it have been about that RX1 which enabled me to make the photographs I recently posted here at Greenburrow, 2013 "better" ?

I think you missed my point; as Ray was saying it's not about improving the ones you did get, it's increasing the *number* of good photos you get, i.e. the frequency or quantity. I'm not implying that every photo needs to be technically perfect or that content is less important than quality. Clearly that's not true, and I think every person in this thread has agreed with that.


Poorer than what? Would Robert Eppridge's pictures of Robert Kennedy's assassination have been "better" or had "more impact" if they had been less technically rotten, less grainy, less underexposed, less smooshy photographs?
Missed focus can certainly wreck a photo, but if you hand control over to the machine for a function like that, well you must expect some failures. You must expect some failures from manual focusing as well, of course.

Why must we expect the result of every shutter actuation to be "perfect"?

Again, I don't think that's the expectation at all, nor was that what I was suggesting either. Here, I'll try to pick a more concrete example: let's say I have a camera that can shoot clean ISO 6400 instead of ISO 1600.

The gist of the hypothesis seems to be that the extra speed or cleaner output isn't necessary if I have a strong enough composition. To a certain degree that's true, but those 2 extra stops could easily mean a faster shutter speed for example, or more DoF. That's easily the difference between a striking photo of someone's expression in the moment, and an image of a blurry blob that gets chucked in the trash ;)

The point isn't that every photo needs to be perfect; it's that more headroom means more chances for success. I'm all about giving myself more chances for successful captures - both because I make mistakes a lot, and because those moments are what makes photography most rewarding. :2thumbs:
 
9824702956_ae4ea58860_b.jpg

Bratislava by Briar34, on Flickr

I have a friend who loves shoes. One could argue that she need only one pair of shoes. She could wear them until they wear out and then she could buy a new pair. But she wouldn't do that. She sees shoes and she wants to buy them. She has so many that some get forgotten at the back of the wardrobe still in their boxes. Me, I have been wearing the same Clark shoes for years. They are comfy and functional. That's fine. My friend doesn't get me. Why I don't get excited by shoes.

Now cameras, I get a buzz for new cameras. My friend, nah, she doesn't get that.
 
There are also two caveats that often get tossed out the window when people start talking about IQ being less important than the photo itself:

1) How many great photos are missed due to technical reasons - focus failures, not enough light, etc. Ray alluded to this in one of his posts, but I think it's worth reiterating. Having a camera with better high ISO, more dynamic range, more resolution etc. doesn't make a junk photo better... but it does increase your chances of getting a good one, and make it easier to nail "the moment". Better photographer + better gear = best chances for success.

2) Poorer IQ can be distracting, even in powerful photos. A strong photo of an emotionally resonant or historically important moment can still be affected by the overall quality. Of course the content is always most important, but excessive grain/ISO noise or missed focus can still rob impact.

100% agreement Jay. Speaking of technical reasons, there's nothing worse than a SD card going sour!! All cameras should have dual SD card slots!!
 
I just bought a pair of UGGs boots. And no, I didn't click on the spammer's links (in FujiXspot)!

Great boots!! Waterproof, warm and comfortable. Perfect for the upcoming Paris/Rome trip.
 
my problem is I like shoes AND I like cameras. Getting better cameras doesn't help me take better photos.....maybe I should try some different shoes and see if that helps.

My problem is I like camerashoes -- you know, like James Bond's telephone shoe, which in the age of cellular, would, I suppose, have a 42 mp camera installed.

So.... never mind. I was going to say they don't make 'em like they use to.
 
I shot this image yesterday with the magical Rx1. This wasn't a image I intended to share, I didn't care about composition or anything really..... I just wanted to capture a memory..

This is my twin turbo GTO, Maybellene, she misses her sister, Chantilly Lace, which is the red 630rwhp Whipple supercharge Camaro seen in the background..

I love how this image has 3d pop and how it is rendered, one of those Rx1 moments to me.....

1016-1.jpg



Between my girls there is over 1200hp....... That's what I like, big power....

Pontiac GTO. Proudly Australian....

Gordon
 
Back
Top