| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
It's the gear and the software, isn't it???
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 11:51 AM on 12.04.09 |
->> Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love camera gear and cool gadgets and killer software and so on...but honestly, it sometimes seems that so many photographers seem to think that this piece of gear or that piece of software are magically going to make that much of a difference to their creative output.
For example, I'm sure you've all seen the "Fly Me Away" Kindle Stop-Action animation commercial by now. This was recorded and produced, originally, in GarageBand and iMovie–not Premiere or Final Cut...iMovie. Check out the creative process here:
http://www.adorama.com/alc/blogarticle/TechTock-Podcast-30-Angela-Kohler-an...
And this equally amazing stop action video, "Sorry I'm Late" was captured on a Canon EOS 40D with the 17-85mm kit lens:
http://www.vimeo.com/4862670
My point, I guess, is this: we should always strive to make the most of what you've got with you, and at the end of the day, it is creativity that is most crucial piece of 'gear' you need to keep in your kit... |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 3:18 PM on 12.04.09 |
->> Jack,
Knowing the bulk of the talent base here, I think most everyone DOES rely on their talent to produce the passion they have. I started off rocking and bopping with my Pentax K-1000 and, at times, miss the simplicity of that camera. But I am a gea rhead. I love watching technology evolve and I love–like a Star Trek Borg–assimilating new stuff into my being.
There are photographers that are happy with a shoebox and strip of film to make a cool picture, and a photog with D3x's slaved to robots with iphones as triggers to capture the stop motion of a tooth flying out of a man's mouth as its hit with a nine iron. It's all good and as long as it keeps us happy and shooting, so what? |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 9:22 AM on 12.05.09 |
->> So it is easier to get good action with faster glass yes??
And it is easier to stop the action with a camera that has higher iso capability yes??
And longer tele's like the 400 2.8vr certainly give you and advantage in field sports coverage yes??
So to just dismiss gear as an aid to the creation of great sports photos is simply turning a blind eye to the truth.
There certainly is a point of diminishing returns....but I can do stuff with my current gear that was simply not possible with the gear I had 18 months ago. No matter how creative I wanted to get....it wasnt gonna give me a nice crisp face on a player at midfield during a night game..... |
|
Wally Nell, Photographer
 |
CAIRO | EG | EGYPT | Posted: 9:41 AM on 12.05.09 |
->> I agree with Jack here. If your aim is to get a crisp face, you can do that using many ways. It is only your vision that keeps you from reaching your goal. If the aim is a crisp face and that is all, then using lights is an option. We all did just fine with our old 1D cameras with added flash. However if the aim is not just a crisp face, but the action and the sense of being there, this opens your options even further.
At the same time, I agree that we need good equipment, but no way do I believe I am limited to me having to have the latest equipment. One learns to understand the limitations of your equipment and then you work around that.
Having said that, having the latest equipment gives one even more options. BUT you are not limited to having it. And it is also nice not to HAVE TO work around the limitations of your older equipment.
Having the right bokeh because of the f2.8, or having amazing sharpness because of the optics of the lens; counts as nothing if THE moment is not captured. You can have a great crisp shot of a player, but if the background sucks, it would not matter if you used the latest 400 f2.8 or a pirate make 400 f5.6.
In my career, first in South Africa during the Apartheid years, and after that as well; I have seen many photographers with 'inferior' equipment make amazing images, winning awards (including a Pulitzer), doing work for National Geographic and other magazines. They all overcame the idea that their equipment (or lack thereof) kept them from achieving greatness.
I do agree though that having the latest equipment makes it easier for us, so I will leave it at that and start saving for that DS Mk4 when it comes out... |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 10:03 AM on 12.05.09 |
| ->> Brad - I think you're looking at Jack's comments a little narrow-sighted. Of course Jack wasn't implying you could get tight faces of football players and a shallow DOF at an NFL or NCAA game with a dinky kit zoom lens. Rather, I think he was trying to convey that really cool things are possible with the bare minimum of equipment, and that fancy software and expensive gear often are no substitute for genuine creativity and resourcefullness. |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
|
Kokomo | IN | | Posted: 12:18 PM on 12.05.09 |
->> The only problem I have with this idea/discussion is that it's great in theory, but in reality no one ever approaches the subject with an open mind.
I remember asking someone who was in video (won't mention any names but they were a pro with lots of video experience) how I could start shooting video on the cheap. Maybe $500-600 to get me into a camera. I wanted to start learning, didn't have the money to go to one of the workshops that is always talked up. I explained my situation with having no experience, limited funds, couldn't do the workshop route etc. The response I got was that it couldn't be done.
I was told I "needed" a camera of a certain caliber (the $2000 range or so) and I just needed to go to my boss/company and tell them they had to send me to a workshop or ELSE! I knew none of this was the case, I was just looking for some direction from someone with more experience to give me some camera options. Of course they couldn't be bothered. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:51 PM on 12.05.09 |
->> Erik - along those lines, I remember having a print made of one of my images. When I went to pick it up, the counter lady's comment was, "That's a beautiful photo. You must have a nice camera!"
The irony is that the image could've been made with just about any consumer-level digital SLR, but the techniques used took me quite some time to get the hang of. |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 10:41 PM on 12.06.09 |
->> Bradly,
I understood clearly what he meant. But you simply cant do some of what we do unless you have atleast a certain level of gear. Thats all I was saying. Sure in bright sunny weather you "could" get an acceptable shot of baseball or golf or something...but indoors with kit level glass...you simply dont have the shutter speed needed to accomplish a non blurry image.
Software...mostly thats a time saver, as you could go using PS 5 and work on every image and still make them presentable....but it would take longer. A lot longer.
I get the whole "its the gun not the shooter" thing...heck I teach/preach it to my students all the time. Thats totally not what I'm saying. But to disregard technology and quality equipment is equally misguided....for example....a hightly skilled photographer, can/will get more out of any given situation by using todays top equipment. If not then we are all bloody fools for the amt of kit we have sitting here...hahahahahh
Ask yourself this. You have to shoot a high school football game tomorrow nite, would you be able to do the job just as well/easily using the equipment and software available 2001??? No...clearly not. The higher iso capability alone has changed the game. Af improvements have changed the game....PP improvements have changed the game.
To suggest none of that benefits us...well, that just isnt reality. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
 |
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 5:44 AM on 12.07.09 |
->> I would re-phrase that question as follows:
Are photos that were printed in 2001 just as effective as those taken today? If you put them side by side, in the same format, could the average public tell which was which, based on the image quality (not the people involved)?
I think that to the viewing public, the answer would be that there isn't all that much difference. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|