# 5 Things We need to Forget About as Photographers (by Jay Goodrich)



## mackguyver (Jan 16, 2015)

I just read this article by Jay Goodrich and agree with majority of what he has to say:
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/blog/jay-goodrich/2015/01/5-things-we-need-to-forget-about-as-photographers.html#.VLlWTCwvWQk


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 19, 2015)

I don't care for his writing style. A little less emotion and more facts would be an improvement.


----------



## martti (Jan 19, 2015)

_I don’t have to sit in front of a computer to try and make things look weird._

All you have to do to achieve that is to get NG as your client.
Simple.

PS. I do like the way he writes.


----------



## Besisika (Jan 19, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I just read this article by Jay Goodrich and agree with majority of what he has to say:
> http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/blog/jay-goodrich/2015/01/5-things-we-need-to-forget-about-as-photographers.html#.VLlWTCwvWQk



For all respect to his success, I *disagree* with the majority of what he says.
The reason is simple, he puts everybody in his own shoes. 
But, we all know that there are so many shoes on this planet. The fact that cheap tools work for him doesn't mean that it works for all of us "photographers".
1 - Laboratory sensors ... He assumed that all photographers are new photographers. Actually, photographers who deserve the title are experienced photographers, not snapshooters. And I find it an insult to all pro photographers that some guy assumes that with an iPhone you will be able to shoot an NHL game for the photo to be on the front page of a news paper every single night game. You need the right tool to do the right job. No fantasy hear.
2 - Software plugins ... The fact that you work for National Geographic and 95% of your work doesn't need Photoshop didn't give you the right to categorize all Photoshop users idiots. Some people actually do beauty shots, for example. There is no way for you to be competitive not using advanced tools.
3 Diffraction ... If you ever have shot macro you would understand what is the meaning of that word. People wake up early to be able to shot tens or even hundreds of shots in order to stack them
4 HDR ... You said it yourself, it is about vision. The fact that people have different vision than yours don't give you the right to treat them as inferior.
5 - "If all you own is the phone in your pocket and you have a zest for creating, you WILL succeed."
Wake up, your Matrix is not for real. Get back to reality.

If the title was "5 Things We can ignore to become Photographers" then I would agree with him. Some photographers don't need all the bells and whistles. 
But there are out there those who need to spend in order to succeed. 
Especially, those whose success depends on repetitiveness at all time and conditions and not one/two, by mistake, state of the art.
The key is balance between need and want. And the name of the game is "repetitiveness and competition".

The only thing, really, I agree with him is: "So stop reading and go out and give it a try"

Sometimes, when someone is successful, he thinks he is the only one smart person on earth. Many dictators of this planet have the same mentality.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 19, 2015)

Great food for thought and I'm digesting it right now as I contemplate why my 6D isn't good enough when actually it is great! To illustrate I'll repost a shot from yesterday that got my amateur heart beating since I was thinking that only a high speed fast focus camera would get me this. Well with careful thought about my "handicap" I now know I can do it and with a 6D and $$ still in my pocket.

Jack


----------



## Xyclopx (Jan 19, 2015)

Besisika said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I just read this article by Jay Goodrich and agree with majority of what he has to say:
> ...


That pretty much sums it up. 

Sure if u think national geographic is where all good photographs belong I guess he's right. But if u believe photography is an art, then it's all about a person's expression. Then sky is the limit. Can't think of anything more liberating than true freedom.


----------



## slclick (Jan 19, 2015)

I'm not going to nitpick at the finer points but the big picture is: 

Develop your own vision. Your mind's eye is the first and best tool you have in creating an image. Rely on your eyes, feet, vantage point and perspective more so than your gear.


----------



## PhotoCat (Jan 19, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Great food for thought and I'm digesting it right now as I contemplate why my 6D isn't good enough when actually it is great! To illustrate I'll repost a shot from yesterday that got my amateur heart beating since I was thinking that only a high speed fast focus camera would get me this. Well with careful thought about my "handicap" I now know I can do it and with a 6D and $$ still in my pocket.
> 
> Jack



Lovely capture Jack! Pls share your focusing technique with a 6D! My 5D2's focusing is even worse LOL! Tks!


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 19, 2015)

Besisika said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I just read this article by Jay Goodrich and agree with majority of what he has to say:
> ...



Yes! Maybe he could title it, 5 ways to become a National Geographic Photographer?


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 19, 2015)

I agree with everything he says.

I don't care about DxOMark! An 8x10 print tells me all I need to know about a sensor or lens. *"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."* – Henri Cartier Bresson 

I learned photography shooting 'Cromes (slide film) that has NO exposure latitude. I learned to get-it-right-in-camera. I don't own PhotoShop, but my Retoucher does, she can use whatever she likes.

I shoot a lot at f/16, even though I use a Tilt & Shift lens. I've never noticed any softness on the printed page.

I've never used HDR, so no comments from my experience. But I do see a lot of fugley-fotos that use HDR 

*#camera-doesn't-matter* There are things I like about Canon cameras, there are thing I don't like about Nikon cameras ... but I can take the same picture with either make.

BTW *"Does that mean I have overnight repair support ..."* is a BFD. Another BFD is that I can rent Canon, Nikon and Profoto anywhere in the world. I own a Sony NEX 5n and the quickest and cheapest Sony repair is to buy a NEW camera


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 19, 2015)

I still think it's funny when people debate the definition of "good" photography.
It's either wholly and entirely subjective or it's not.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I still think it's funny when people debate the definition of "good" photography.
> It's either wholly and entirely subjective or it's not.



Just look at the comments in the photo galleries of this forum....

Someone posts a series of pictures.... post 8 pictures and you get 8 opinions as to which is the best picture..... post a dark image and one person will say it should have been brightened up in post, one will launch a diatribe on technology, and another will say "I like it dark, it sets the mood"....


----------



## PhotographerJim (Jan 19, 2015)

Good read, I learned on film myself so I think modern digital imaging is fantastic! Although I still like shooting & then developing my own film best, something is different about it. Somehow more satisfying or something..


----------



## Khnnielsen (Jan 19, 2015)

I am getting a little tired of the mantra, that the camera doesn't matter. Of course it does.

A camera is a tool, and all tools aren't equal. Some tools are better suited for certain tasks and circumstances. It also very good to know your tools and how to get the most of it, where camera/sensor tests can sometimes be helpful.

Sometime I hear people claiming that photography used to be more "pure" and today there is too much obsession over noise, DR, megapixels, etc. . I am sure there is/was a bunch of film guys who obsess over film development techniques, push/pull processing, film types, grain structures, reciprocal failure, etc.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 19, 2015)

Great article. Agree with it all. Sensor differences between all DSLRs is negligible. Post processing is way overdone in so many cases. Composition, subject, and contrast are the backbones of art - and have been for centuries. Any DSLR is technically capable to produce the results you need 99% of the time. The pics I take with my SL1 are almost indistinguishable from those taken with my 6D. The techno hype is so overdone it's almost laughable.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2015)

Khnnielsen said:


> I am getting a little tired of the mantra, that the camera doesn't matter. Of course it does.
> 
> A camera is a tool, and all tools aren't equal. Some tools are better suited for certain tasks and circumstances. It also very good to know your tools and how to get the most of it, where camera/sensor tests can sometimes be helpful.
> 
> Sometime I hear people claiming that photography used to be more "pure" and today there is too much obsession over noise, DR, megapixels, etc. . I am sure there is/was a bunch of film guys who obsess over film development techniques, push/pull processing, film types, grain structures, reciprocal failure, etc.


You are too young to remember the almost religious wars over favourite films... Fuji... Kodak... Slide... Print... B+W... Colour...  Real photographers shot B+W with glass plates and an 8x10 camera, because if it was good enough for Ansel Adams, then it was good enough for you...


----------



## nc0b (Jan 19, 2015)

Jack. I am not surprised you get good BIF pictures with your 6D. My 6D and 400mm f/5.6 have captured some nice raptor shots. I, too, started with film, usually Plux-X and a bulk loader, and eventually a pair of Nikon F2s. One for B&W and one with color film. The best thing I did to improve things was get a grain focusing tool and realizing I needed to improve my focusing. If the grain was sharp and the picture wasn't, I couldn't blame it on the enlarger. The other thing I did was quit diluting Microdol-X 3:1. My brother said quit doing that and your contrast will really improve. He was correct.


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 19, 2015)

Another point the author makes which is actually rather inaccurate: HDR and merged exposures are fake...

Just wait ten years, when someone comes out with a 20 stop DR camera. National Geographic will take its raws and call them reality... But not two frames merged to 15-16 stops. This is madness.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 19, 2015)

His second point (software plugins/Photoshop) completely contradicts his other comments. 

Sure, everything I do with Silver Efex I can do without it, but it's faster and simpler. And, most everything I do in Photoshop I could do in Lightroom, but I prefer the Photoshop interface and I know the tools much better in Photoshop.

If it's the results that matter and not the camera you use, then why should it matter what software you use? Isn't it the results that matter there too? 

The entire column could have been summed up in a few sentences: It's the vision and the execution that matter. If you don't have that vision and don't know how to execute it, all the technology in the world won't make you a great photographer. If you have the vision and know how to execute it, you can create great images with almost any tools.


----------



## benperrin (Jan 19, 2015)

Khnnielsen said:


> I am getting a little tired of the mantra, that the camera doesn't matter. Of course it does.
> 
> A camera is a tool, and all tools aren't equal. Some tools are better suited for certain tasks and circumstances. It also very good to know your tools and how to get the most of it, where camera/sensor tests can sometimes be helpful.



I agree. A tool certainly can't make an artistic decision for you, but it can certainly make your life easier and help to produce a better final result. If they didn't we'd all be either using our phones or cameras made out of lego.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 19, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Khnnielsen said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting a little tired of the mantra, that the camera doesn't matter. Of course it does.
> ...



Without going into a lot of detail, I recently made a career change that requires that I do some photography for clients. It's made me very appreciative of my 5DIII as a tool. I am frequently taking pictures in situations where the light is poor and the need to be unobtrusive is extremely important. 

My clients don't care about art. They want usable pictures. This is a case where the tool makes all the difference in the world. The silent shutter feature and the high ISO performance of the 5DIII are totally dependent on the tool.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 20, 2015)

can you accoplish taking a great image with simple gear? Of course you can... but to say the tool doesn't matter...i mean hell, my feet are pretty good tools too, they can get me from point A to point B - but if your traveling from lets say Maine to California, what will do the job quicker? Your feet? Or a car? Or train, or bus, or plane? 

Yes, if I want to take a bath i could chop down a tree, cure the wood, split the wood, then gather water from rain and - once I have enough light the fire and heat the water...yes that will make a bath happen, but, wouldn't it just be easier to turn the water on and let the tub fill?

Yes, I could also use a rock as a hammer, a nail file as a saw, or any number of different ways to accomplish a goal - but isn't the better tool always gonna make the job somewhat easier?


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Jan 20, 2015)

Practice vs. Gear - Agree
Learn how to get what you see (your vision) to be "on the sensor" or on the film. - See Practice One typically learns how the gear "sees" the environment, limitations, AND how to get your vision to line up w/ the physics of gear/software/film that is available.

Kayaker and I were having this thread type of conversation this weekend while shooting in Merritt Island Wildlife Sanctuary. Bottom line neither of us were shooting as much as we wanted and that it was time to shift priorities from the investment in gear to time shooting and transportation to locations (S.W. US, etc). We would rather buy a trip to some place very interesting than buy another uber body. 

For example, on a limited budget, I would rather take a 5dII to Antelope Canyon, Moab, N/S Coyote Butte and/or Zion than buy a 1dx or the next 5d(?) body. These all could be separate trips w/ the price differential.

The next realization - after we got done shooting - was that almost everywhere can be interesting. He is from New Hampshire with has some very interesting places, and was marveling at the bird selection, etc. We didn't go black water highly reflective river or middle earth tree roots aka cypress and water oaks shooting - though we could have. Waterfalls are a bit tough to find in Florida but that doesn't mean we don't have interesting water.

Examples of "middle earth tree roots" etc can be found here https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 20, 2015)

Interesting read. If you ignore the whole "you must shoot in the Nat Geography School of Photography" style for your photos to be worthwhile, there's not much to disagree with: -

1. DxOMark is just one of many factors to consider when choosing a camera. And if you shoot Fuji or Canon, you are best off just ignoring it.

2. How many of us have spent time and money on photography software only to come back to LR + PS? Still, I do like my Silver Efex, Color Efex, Pictures to Exe etc etc.

3. Personally, I'm starting to prefer photostacking to using the smallest possible apertures, but that might also just be saying something about my lenses. But as anyone who shoots the occasional macro photo knows, diffraction isn't as bad as what many people believe.

4. Your views on HDR probably align with your views on whether Nat Geo/documentary style of photography is the only permissible style or whether you think that one day, maybe one day not too far away, photography might become a legitimate art form in its own right. OK, "art" might be pushing it. Perhaps "craft".

5. Not smart enough to fully understand The Matrix, but the fact that we're not all toting 1Dx's with 600/4 lenses and many of us seem to get by ok suggests that learning to use your current gear to the fullest is enough. As Bob the Builder says, "Don't go blaming your toolbox".


----------



## sanj (Jan 20, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Great food for thought and I'm digesting it right now as I contemplate why my 6D isn't good enough when actually it is great! To illustrate I'll repost a shot from yesterday that got my amateur heart beating since I was thinking that only a high speed fast focus camera would get me this. Well with careful thought about my "handicap" I now know I can do it and with a 6D and $$ still in my pocket.
> 
> Jack



Well done and yes it is possible with your camera! But if you think you can do this will the consistency and reliability of a 1dx then you are deluding yourself.


----------



## sanj (Jan 20, 2015)

Besisika said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I just read this article by Jay Goodrich and agree with majority of what he has to say:
> ...



I agree with you. Well written.


----------



## sanj (Jan 20, 2015)

dak723 said:


> Great article. Agree with it all. Sensor differences between all DSLRs is negligible. Post processing is way overdone in so many cases. Composition, subject, and contrast are the backbones of art - and have been for centuries. Any DSLR is technically capable to produce the results you need 99% of the time. The pics I take with my SL1 are almost indistinguishable from those taken with my 6D. The techno hype is so overdone it's almost laughable.



You are right in your thinking except the _negligible_ you mention becomes _huge_ in very many many critical situation - where the light drops too much, where you get one chance only to get the focus right, where the burst and buffer can't fail you, etc etc. Those are the moments for which people buy expensive equipment - When they need to be ready for adverse situations. For normal stuff what you saying is correct.


----------



## sanj (Jan 20, 2015)

slclick said:


> I'm not going to nitpick at the finer points but the big picture is:
> 
> Develop your own vision. Your mind's eye is the first and best tool you have in creating an image. Rely on your eyes, feet, vantage point and perspective more so than your gear.



Of course! But why not have the best gear that you can afford as well? And why stop enhancing things in PS if you can?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 20, 2015)

sanj said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to nitpick at the finer points but the big picture is:
> ...



Definitely use the right tool, or at least the best one you can use...

The following pictures are Venus at sunset... one with a 7D2, the other with an iPhone.... tools do make a difference. (no sharpening or noise reduction on either)


----------



## sanj (Jan 20, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



A point so lucidly made!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 20, 2015)

PhotoCat, as sanj stated the 1Dx is a far more capable camera, assuming you're not tired from carrying it all day up the mountainside. I'm not at all deluded, in fact I have a very capable brain and yes I don't have the BIF capability that others do. That I presently live with although I do get some.

So, back to our reality - you improvise and if you can, go for a set-up with the common birds that can be attracted in one way or another. That gets you some super nice shots if you're persistent and patient. As jrista suggested for me a long time back, you can be creative with props - what they are and how you position them. 

For my chickadee I have sunflower seeds to the right and a limb where they feel confident to the left. I go fully manual but first see what the camera needs roughly for ISO 1250, 4000th sec. and consider if I can get enough DOF. It was sunny and I was able to get a slightly underexposed shot at F8. The off camera flash was set up with HSS and positioned to bounce up off some stainless tin so it filled above and in the front of the bird. Then some experimenting with manual focus and encouragement given to the models and fire away. 1 hour gave me about 60 shots (could have taken many more but the flash batteries were half dead before I started) with about 10 of them being what most folk would be very proud of.

Now back to this post. None of us who appreciate the restraint that this blog suggests are extremists. We all know that good tools are desirable and great ones are better but often not necessary other than satisfying our lust. I happen to have bought a used 1D2 to see if I'd be happy with the bulk and weight and I'm not. Maybe a 7D2 or a 5D3, but maybe nothing after being influenced by this article. I sure love the expensive camera lenses though ..... The 300 2.8 with extenders will never be regretted.

Jack


----------



## thelebaron (Jan 20, 2015)

jeez guys, forest for the trees. : this is the general gist of what hes saying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E


----------



## nda (Jan 20, 2015)

"Photography was invented circa 1725"


----------



## sanj (Jan 20, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> PhotoCat, as sanj stated the 1Dx is a far more capable camera, assuming you're not tired from carrying it all day up the mountainside. I'm not at all deluded, in fact I have a very capable brain and yes I don't have the BIF capability that others do. That I presently live with although I do get some.
> 
> So, back to our reality - you improvise and if you can, go for a set-up with the common birds that can be attracted in one way or another. That gets you some super nice shots if you're persistent and patient. As jrista suggested for me a long time back, you can be creative with props - what they are and how you position them.
> 
> ...



Jack apologies if you thought I was being condescending. Did not mean to. I guess 'delusional' was too strong and inappropriate. Peace.


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 20, 2015)

I don't believe him about every digital camera today beating film -- film / slides is a whole different world -- apples and oranges. UNLESS, you scan and digitize, then it's another different world and you're back to digital anyway. Although, it's unlikely anyone can tell the difference in a print -- unless you're trained to see those differences. And you cannot manipulate slides or film like you can manipulate digital either, which makes a huge difference in your end print too.

The "don't touch it" order of National Geographic is standard throughout the journalism industry. NO news media allows anything but minor adjustments in a photo - recently, a war journalist in Afghanistan (I think I'm correct here, the location) was fired because he removed the tip of a video box out of a war scene. He said it made the scene "more realistic" ... well, realistic is "what is now" -- he changed that 'realistic', and it cost him his job. So, why is the fact Nat Geo will not allow changes a surprise here?

What I do agree with is the premise that you MUST find your images in your camera, not in your computer. Just because you CAN manipulate doesn't mean you SHOULD. If you do ad copy or experimental work, fine - go for it. But the primary focus for all photographers should be: Learn your camera but know your heart. Learn the rules - then break those rules creatively to capture the image that appears in your soul. But capture it in your camera because manipulation will always be manipulation, and the scene you create will be a fantasy not a reality. But, if you want fantasy, manipulate away, and label it fantasy not reality. Either one is fine, and both can be done professionally. My 2 cents !  

The major problem with the article, he promotes "ME" as a point of view for the work of all. Too much I and not enough how. Anytime a writer writes with an [apparent] 'ego' larger than the 'self' will come off pompous, which he does without question. 

Folks have a tendency to give less credibility to that writing style, as it allows no choice. In a case like he presents, readers need a choice to believe him or not, and to use what each professional says to incorporate part or all into our system as we decide, not him decide for us. The way this is written implies that if you do it any other way, you are wrong. That's moronic and insulting, and damages the advancement of his concept. 

The better slant would have been: This is 'how and why I do what I do', instead of 'do it my way or get out of town'. And the second style is not very engaging.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 20, 2015)

A fix for G.A.S.: I was staring rather intently at the 600mm f/4L no-IS sitting in the used lens area of the store, at a reasonable price. Then I thought about how much it weighs. 13# Fuggedaboutit. No occasional hand-held shots with this one! I will take 560mm at 3 pounds, even if it is a bit dim in the viewfinder (400 f/5.6L plus 1.4x TC).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 20, 2015)

Not to worry Sanj, I just gave you a good natured poke back.  It is too strong a word but all of us need to have thicker skins. Mine is pretty thick.

I come to CR for the humor - yeah, OK, I have a weird sense of humor.  

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 20, 2015)

Yes, NancyP.

But now there is the 400 DO and 2X with F8 camera ....ooooh 

Jack


----------



## martti (Jan 20, 2015)

I absolutely love the way a very gifted and hard working person delivers his point of view: "Cut the crap and get working". Basically, we should all know that we personally are the rate limiting step in the process of getting award-winning shots. Me, personally was just about to learn the way to take decent pictures on the 5DII when I broke it and upgraded to 5 D III. It seemed so easy, I got keepers at a much higher rate than before.
Surprise: A couple of L primes made me reconsider what I know about the 5DIII autofocus. 
Not much. I did not know it at all. Now I am reading everything I can find about it and I practice on everything that moves. I know nothing.
Jay Goodrich delivered his point a bit bluntly. Unfortunately he is right in more than one way.
First, the pro grade equipment around there is largely 'good enough'.
Second, there are preciously few professionals who actually master ALL the equipment that is out there. 
Third: So what. If you have a vision in your head and you know enough about technology to make it real, that's all you need.
Fourth: The bizarre...there is a misconception that a weird landscape is somehow creative. It is not. It is different, machine different. Now, there are the East European guys who use their Wacom brushes to enhance landscapes to surrealism but they are Artists. something else that people with time on their hands who have read the manuals.
Fifth: the Beliefs....NG does not want Photoshop. This is a religious attitude. There are others who want ONLY see the out-of-camera RAW's. Or people who do not want the photographer to tell his subjects how they should position themselves etc. -the fundamentalists seldom bring anything to a field of art, They are the police.

Unfortunately, art is a very non-democratic field of human activity.
People either are born with an aesthetic sense or then they are not. People are born with an eye-hand connection which turns their visual experience to an artistic representation. You are born with it or you are not. If you are born with a little of it and you work a lot...you might just make it. But life is not fair.

Then there are people who just sort of make everything they touch elegant and beautiful...they shine in art schools and they are embarrassed when people ask them ho they do it..."Is there another way" they ask.

Yeah, Jay. You are one of the chosen. I do not envy you, I feel good that you are so good in what you do.
Your pics are absolutely fantastic, No matter how long I will live, I will never ever get any shots you make like 50000 a year.
One thing you are right about: Once the camera is good enough, you have no excuses.
I will sell mine.


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 20, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> I don't believe him about every digital camera today beating film -- film / slides is a whole different world -- apples and oranges. UNLESS, you scan and digitize, then it's another different world and you're back to digital anyway. Although, it's unlikely anyone can tell the difference in a print -- unless you're trained to see those differences. And you cannot manipulate slides or film like you can manipulate digital either, which makes a huge difference in your end print too.
> 
> The "don't touch it" order of National Geographic is standard throughout the journalism industry. NO news media allows anything but minor adjustments in a photo - recently, a war journalist in Afghanistan (I think I'm correct here, the location) was fired because he removed the tip of a video box out of a war scene. He said it made the scene "more realistic" ... well, realistic is "what is now" -- he changed that 'realistic', and it cost him his job. So, why is the fact Nat Geo will not allow changes a surprise here?
> 
> ...



Actually, film can be manipulated like crazy, right down even to cloning things out. Google about Stalin or Hitler and people disappearing fro images. Stuff can be added, dodged, burned, etc...

Film is not some untouchable purity NG dreams it to be...

Oh, and ND Grads? That's cheating too. It's HDR 1.0 (the betamode).


----------



## martti (Jan 20, 2015)

Whatever the subject, after thirteen posts there will always be somebody throwing in the Hitler card. 
dull...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 20, 2015)

martti, seems you are gifted with common sense and a sharp brain/thinking skills and the ability to express yourself in print. Good job!

I can't paint a picture that would compete with a grade 2 student but I'm a critical thinker who can scheme how to make the technical do what I want and then the camera does the rest. That's why I never wince when someone says "that camera takes great pictures", I just say "you got that right" and smile. For the price, I simply love my crippled 6D cause it takes great pictures for me; that's ME personally and that's who needs to be pleased. However, complements are coming and I am improving and so I guess, as martti says with hard work I can be so so good or at least OK. Regardless, I'm HAPPY    and thanks to this thread I'll be spending my limited cash more effectively.  Good wakeup for ME.

Jack


----------



## martti (Jan 20, 2015)

Isn't it strange how the cameras actually get better and better the more pictures you take with them.
Lenses do the same. Even models –the wicked women with great looks and questionable morals– the more time you spend with them, the prettier they get. F the _lense_...light, flirt and flatter make up for a 500 dollar difference in the price on the _lense_. My love only wants her picture to be taken with the* 85mm** L*. She rewrites the rule book. That's normal. She is...oh, yeah...and she cooks as well.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 20, 2015)

Hey martti, too bad I didn't have you to advise me when I was young! 

Old retired Jack


----------



## martti (Jan 20, 2015)

8) keep cool, will'ya!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 20, 2015)

NancyP said:


> A fix for G.A.S.: I was staring rather intently at the 600mm f/4L no-IS sitting in the used lens area of the store, at a reasonable price. Then I thought about how much it weighs. 13# Fuggedaboutit. No occasional hand-held shots with this one! I will take 560mm at 3 pounds, even if it is a bit dim in the viewfinder (400 f/5.6L plus 1.4x TC).



My friend, about 5'6 and 120 pounds, used to lug around an 8x10 camera, plates, and tripod. I don't dare complain how heavy my gear is as I will get no sympathy from her  My canoeing friends complain that my pelican case weighs more than a canoe... (It doesn't, but it does make a good complaint)... and last year I hauled an 8" telescope into Algonquin park... For some reason, the gear never seems to get lighter...

I'm hoping that Canon comes out with a series II 400F5.6. I would jump for that lens!


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jan 20, 2015)

Sorry, but I find this article pretentious.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 20, 2015)

AprilForever said:


> Another point the author makes which is actually rather inaccurate: HDR and merged exposures are fake...
> 
> Just wait ten years, when someone comes out with a 20 stop DR camera. National Geographic will take its raws and call them reality... But not two frames merged to 15-16 stops. This is madness.



+1

If the title suggests a list, "Five or 11 Reasons to Not Whatever," I know the content will be shallow nonsense.

Good way to start a revealing thread, though.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 20, 2015)

Khnnielsen said:


> I am getting a little tired of the mantra, that the camera doesn't matter. Of course it does.
> 
> A camera is a tool, and all tools aren't equal. Some tools are better suited for certain tasks and circumstances. It also very good to know your tools and how to get the most of it, where camera/sensor tests can sometimes be helpful.
> 
> Sometime I hear people claiming that photography used to be more "pure" and today there is too much obsession over noise, DR, megapixels, etc. . I am sure there is/was a bunch of film guys who obsess over film development techniques, push/pull processing, film types, grain structures, reciprocal failure, etc.



The key word is *Obsession.* There is too much *obsession* over things that don't really matter. What's important is that the photo satisfies you or your client, nothing else really matters.

Film wasn't more *"pure."* It is/was just different. Sometime I find film useful because I can get the effect I want, i*n camera*, with NO post processing needed. Other times Digital works better for me.

Too many people today *obsess* over the fact that others do it differently


----------



## martti (Jan 20, 2015)

If a guy takes 50 000 pix a year for NG he might be a bit obsessed.
I mean, I would be very very surprised if he weren't.
He has his opinions and his formulas and he is world renowned.
I shut up and I listen. Never regretted when I've done that.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 20, 2015)

AprilForever said:


> Oh, and ND Grads? That's cheating too. It's HDR 1.0 (the betamode).



Grads (both color and ND) are just tools to get-it-right in-camera. I was using Grads long before HDR software was available, should I destroy all the "cheated" Chromes from the 1970s ???


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 20, 2015)

AprilForever said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe him about every digital camera today beating film -- film / slides is a whole different world -- apples and oranges. UNLESS, you scan and digitize, then it's another different world and you're back to digital anyway. Although, it's unlikely anyone can tell the difference in a print -- unless you're trained to see those differences. And you cannot manipulate slides or film like you can manipulate digital either, which makes a huge difference in your end print too.
> ...



Maybe so, but it takes a lot of training to manipulate film, and most of it is 'acceptable darkroom processing' such as contrast, dodge, burn etc. while anyone with a PC, a program, and fingers can manipulate digital data, and often do, then claim it a 'great photo' ... 

My artistic side agrees, 'great art' [well, sometimes  ], but my journalist side says 'not truth' ... and we fight amongst ourselves in my brain a lot. Personally, I'd never manipulate a photo and sell it as 'news media', but I play with my images a lot, both on the PC and in the darkroom, just for the fun of it, the pure joy of the art part.


----------



## slclick (Jan 20, 2015)

Maybe so, but it takes a lot of training to manipulate film, and most of it is 'acceptable darkroom processing' such as contrast, dodge, burn etc. while anyone with a PC, a program, and fingers can manipulate digital data, and often do, then claim it a 'great photo' ... 

My artistic side agrees, 'great art' [well, sometimes  ], but my journalist side says 'not truth' ... and we fight amongst ourselves in my brain a lot. Personally, I'd never manipulate a photo and sell it as 'news media', but I play with my images a lot, both on the PC and in the darkroom, just for the fun of it, the pure joy of the art part.    
[/quote]

Well said


----------



## benperrin (Jan 20, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> Maybe so, but it takes a lot of training to manipulate film, and most of it is 'acceptable darkroom processing' such as contrast, dodge, burn etc. while anyone with a PC, a program, and fingers can manipulate digital data, and often do, then claim it a 'great photo' ...
> 
> My artistic side agrees, 'great art' [well, sometimes  ], but my journalist side says 'not truth' ... and we fight amongst ourselves in my brain a lot. Personally, I'd never manipulate a photo and sell it as 'news media', but I play with my images a lot, both on the PC and in the darkroom, just for the fun of it, the pure joy of the art part.



Just because images are easier to manipulate now digitally doesn't mean they shouldn't be. There is no degree of difficulty a photographer must endure to earn the right to edit a photo. The truth is photography for me is art and expression. Sometimes I want to express myself through the way I saw a scene in my mind, or the feeling I get from the scene. Photography is art, not religion. There is not only one path to truth.

The thing I find is that people make up all these rules that they say the masters would use years and years ago and forget that these masters were often making their own path, not following the crowd at the time. It's time we as photographers stopped quoting Ansel Adams. I have much respect for him but he had his own path and we have ours. There are no boundaries in Art, only the ones we impose on ourselves.

I know that you aren't against the art part as you stated but don't peg all photography into the same category. And yes, I agree with you that photojournalism shouldn't involve heavy edits and should try to maintain purity. There are other scenes that should remain less retouched as well. I believe that we shouldn't tell others that they can't use photoshop because you can't in your photography. We are all unique and have our own path.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm having a go at you either because I'm not. Hopefully a smiley face will convince you of that 

I suppose that's the whole issue I have with this photographers list. Tell people that "this is the way I do it" and "this is the way I have found works best." Don't make a list acting like there is only one way to work.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2015)

I think we have to look no further than one of our forum members, Jon Rista, and his astrophotography photos. Look at one of his base images, and they are boring... but the thing is, his eye is not on a single frame, it is on capturing hundreds of frames, blending them together, and editing the h**l out of them. The end result is certainly worth it!

Editing is not a bad thing, it is part of the creative process. Just pointing your camera one way and not the other is editing. Zooming is editing. Picking the time of day (or season) is editing. Deciding where you stand is editing. Deciding to pick up that 1DX or the iPhone is editing. And yes, whatever you do in Photoshop is editing... You can't say that some is good and other is bad, it is part of the creative expression.

Even documentation work is editing.... you are deciding what slice of reality to represent.... deciding what to capture... and then manipulating the images to show the information that you are trying to get across.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 21, 2015)

I get your point Don, and I think it's valid to a great extent but you're being overly broad in the use of the word edit.

"Editing, the process of correcting or revising text, images, or sound"

When you cut your grass you're not editing your lawn - well maybe you are. 

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> I get your point Don, and I think it's valid to a great extent but you're being overly broad in the use of the word edit.
> 
> "Editing, the process of correcting or revising text, images, or sound"
> 
> ...


I know.... but sometimes we get lost in the details and need to step back and look at the broad picture. At least to my mind, there are three big steps: decide what it is we wish to capture, how to capture, and what to do with the capture. Each step influences the others.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 21, 2015)

Don, this discussion kind of revolves around N G and their restrictions on editing and some of us objecting to that, but in fairness I don't think they have overly harsh restrictions on how you go about creating your photo. Personally, when I view N G material I prefer not to see creations that are excessively doctored when viewing N G. There are lots of other sites that accommodate that. Regardless, it's interesting to see just what N G is striving for - here's a partial quote, and I think it's pretty reasonable.

Jack

Quote from NG site:


Your Shot Photo Guidelines

We allow and encourage all types of photography. We love to see new photography and watch our members experiment with creative styles and techniques. We are device agnostic, happy to see images from full-frame DSLRs, film cameras, smartphones, and others. Our biggest ask is that the photos stay true to your personal vision and to what you saw. Please avoid heavy-handed processing. *We want to see the world through your eyes, not through the excessive use of editing tools. *If the photograph is manipulated, please describe your process in the caption. Below are some basic photo guidelines.

ETHICS: National Geographic supports ethical photography that accurately represents cultures, ecosystems, and wildlife. We expect that the welfare of people, animals, and their environments take precedence over photography. In other words, don’t harm or manipulate the subject or its environment for the sake of creating an image.

CAPTION: We insist on truth in captioning and expect full disclosure in the story behind the photo. The description should be complete and accurate. Not only does this establish trust and lend greater credibility to your photo, but it also increases the engagement of the viewer.

BURNING AND DODGING: Brightening or darkening specific areas in an image is allowed but should be kept to a minimum and not done to the point where it is obvious. Your goal in using digital darkroom techniques should only be to adjust the dynamic tonal range and color balance of an image so that it more closely resembles what you saw and communicates the mood of the scene.

CROPPING: Cropping is allowed, but composing the image in-camera is always ideal.

BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY: Converting your color photos to black and white is acceptable.

STITCHED PANORAMAS: These are allowed only if the segments were all made within the same time frame. Don't create panoramas with sections made at significantly different times. Do not change focal length while creating a stitched image. Do not stretch the meaning of panorama to include elements that weren't in the scene as you saw it. If your photo is a stitched image, please indicate so in the caption.

COMPOSITE OR HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE (HDR): These shots are allowed only if the combined parts are made at the same time. Don't submit final images where the foreground was shot at noon and the sky at sunset. If your photo is an HDR image, please indicate this in the caption.

FILTERS: We allow filters on photographs. We ask that you please include a description of how the style was achieved and which filter or technique was used. Use discretion, however, as overprocessing can often make the photo look cartoonish.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2015)

The thing is, NG isn't quite innocent themselves... The big one everyone knows is moving the pyramids to get a better looking cover photo, but there have been numerous other instances.... perhaps this code is a way of addressing past wrongdoings....

And of course, we have the problem of tame animals being passed off as wild. ( note the big clients at http://www.bartthebear.com/credits/ ). It makes it hard to claim to be ethical one place while you are not in another.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 21, 2015)

Don like so many things it's easy to tell the left from the right but it gets muddy in the middle. N G is in business and they aren't saints but I appreciate that they are at least trying to keep photos out that have been seriously doctored because they'd self destruct if they didn't. Guess we've strayed off topic! 

Here's a shot that it is not edited, it's illuminated by prism light. Unnatural for sure but not edited and it's OK by N G standards.

Jack


----------



## sanj (Jan 21, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Don like so many things it's easy to tell the left from the right but it gets muddy in the middle. N G is in business and they aren't saints but I appreciate that they are at least trying to keep photos out that have been seriously doctored because they'd self destruct if they didn't. Guess we've strayed off topic!
> 
> Here's a shot that it is not edited, it's illuminated by prism light. Unnatural for sure but not edited and it's OK by N G standards.
> 
> Jack



Beautiful photo.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 21, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I just read this article by Jay Goodrich and agree with majority of what he has to say:
> http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/blog/jay-goodrich/2015/01/5-things-we-need-to-forget-about-as-photographers.html#.VLlWTCwvWQk


Too much wording to say that the most important is the user behind the camera and his/her vision.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 21, 2015)

Thanks Sanj. It was the first time I tried anything like that and I wondered if it was objectionable for a nice white lily to be altered in that way but then I said why not it's a free country. I know, I'm too self conscious being new to the world of photography. 

Jack


----------



## Roo (Jan 21, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks Sanj. It was the first time I tried anything like that and I wondered if it was objectionable for a nice white lily to be altered in that way but then I said why not it's a free country. I know, I'm too self conscious being new to the world of photography.
> 
> Jack



Congrats on hitting 1000 Jack!


----------



## sanj (Jan 21, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks Sanj. It was the first time I tried anything like that and I wondered if it was objectionable for a nice white lily to be altered in that way but then I said why not it's a free country. I know, I'm too self conscious being new to the world of photography.
> 
> Jack



I wanted to add: it does not matter to me if it was done in camera or post. But did not.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 21, 2015)

Wow, I got a 1Dx. I can't say exactly why but it matters to me as a shooter, given I don't use any post processing software. I do use DPP 4 of late but that's it. Guess that's my shortcoming but since I'm a beginner it's probably OK to focus more on the camera side of things.

I've learned a lot in 2 years on CR - thanks to all contributors!

I'm going to slip a question in here. My 600 EX eats batteries faster than I'd like and I'm wondering about the external pack that takes 8 AA that's a Canon clone and fairly cheap - OK or a waste??

Jack


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 21, 2015)

I think the article was intentionally controversial to make people step back and think about what is or is not important, and this thread is indeed indicative of that. This site understandably is focused more on gear talk, but the members have grown it into a community which discusses far more, which is why i personally still visit.

Ultimately, everyone needs to decide what works best for them, based on what they're trying to achieve with the time and budget they have. I think the article is good as it provokes discussion and personal reflection. But just like my post, it's just someone's personal view....

Thank to OP for posting, and for everyone else's views.


----------



## feanolas (Jan 21, 2015)

Wondering how many of his NG published pictures where taken with a phone !
;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 21, 2015)

feanolas said:


> Wondering how many of his NG published pictures where taken with a phone !
> ;D



Interesting question. If a phone was all there was at a given critical moment, a phone picture is infinitely better than no picture so my guess is, more than we'd suspect but I have no clue. 

Yes, personal opinions. And they are good to hear, i.e. my ears prick up, when it's someone who obviously deserves listening to, but like most on this forum I try to carefully digest it but reject what I can't stomach.

Always apply common sense because "the experts" can get it wrong - it's happening every day on our planet and it's good to debate these things.  

Jack

Jack


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 21, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Don like so many things it's easy to tell the left from the right but it gets muddy in the middle. N G is in business and they aren't saints but I appreciate that they are at least trying to keep photos out that have been seriously doctored because they'd self destruct if they didn't. Guess we've strayed off topic!
> 
> Here's a shot that it is not edited, it's illuminated by prism light. Unnatural for sure but not edited and it's OK by N G standards.
> 
> Jack



Nice one Jack, and definitely 'ethical'


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 22, 2015)

Thanks Sporgon, it's a confidence builder getting complements from those that are far beyond my level. Kind of sad that I ignored photography for so many years when it really is in my blood but now I'm retired ...... what fun. Sure helps with truly seeing what is in the world and how engaging and challenging it can be.

Jack


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 22, 2015)

Besisika said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I just read this article by Jay Goodrich and agree with majority of what he has to say:
> ...


totally agree here alot of this stuff does have its place when used properly


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 22, 2015)

Besisika said:


> For all respect to his success, I *disagree* with the majority of what he says.
> The reason is simple, he puts everybody in his own shoes.
> (CUT)
> 
> 2 - Software plugins ... The fact that you work for National Geographic and 95% of your work doesn't need Photoshop didn't give you the right to categorize all Photoshop users idiots. Some people actually do beauty shots, for example. There is no way for you to be competitive not using advanced tools.



I use Photoshop heavily at work. I get paid for it. That makes me a "pro" photographer. 

For anyone who does technical or documentation photography, mucking around with sliders in photoshop is a must. Ever take pictures of a bad weld... scratches on a bearing... stress cracks on a support... you have to really doctor those shots to make the pertinent details stand out. 

You can't represent your work/preferences/restrictions as typical. We are all different.


----------



## Northbird (Jan 22, 2015)

slclick said:


> I'm not going to nitpick at the finer points but the big picture is:
> 
> Develop your own vision. Your mind's eye is the first and best tool you have in creating an image. Rely on your eyes, feet, vantage point and perspective more so than your gear.



Well said, completely agree.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 22, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> I think the article was intentionally controversial to make people step back and think about what is or is not important, and this thread is indeed indicative of that.


My thoughts exactly, and this thread has been an interesting read. Thanks to all who have and continue to reply.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 3, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Great food for thought and I'm digesting it right now as I contemplate why my 6D isn't good enough when actually it is great! To illustrate I'll repost a shot from yesterday that got my amateur heart beating since I was thinking that only a high speed fast focus camera would get me this. Well with careful thought about my "handicap" I now know I can do it and with a 6D and $$ still in my pocket.
> 
> Jack


That is a fantastically wonderful shot!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 3, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Great food for thought and I'm digesting it right now as I contemplate why my 6D isn't good enough when actually it is great! To illustrate I'll repost a shot from yesterday that got my amateur heart beating since I was thinking that only a high speed fast focus camera would get me this. Well with careful thought about my "handicap" I now know I can do it and with a 6D and $$ still in my pocket.
> ...



Thanks, glad you're inspired by it. I've tried to replicate it with more mm but luck is no longer on my side. Guess I need to find the same model again.  DOF is so thin. But in the depths of winter it helps relieve the boredom!

Jack


----------



## NancyP (Feb 5, 2015)

Every time I think that I would like a fancier camera, I look at my first camera, a 1968 all-manual Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000 135-format SLR, with that amazing newfangled TTL selenium meter in both "spot" (5%) and average, chosen via a toggle switch. (Camera still works - why wouldn't it, everything is mechanical). Then I look at my 60D and think it is pretty f***ing amazing! 

I still get gear lust, but what I really need is a brain upgrade - I will take that 8 PetaNeuron DIMM please...


----------



## martti (Feb 5, 2015)

"Why wouldn't it, everything is mechanical"...well, for instance the rubberized shutter cloth can disintegrate.
There can be corrosion and metal fatigue. Springs can lose their tension and cogs can be definitely glued in place with a mixture of sut and dried lubricant. Glue dries up, plastic coatings and sealings disintegrate etc. There can be mold growing inside of your lenses...

Lots of things can go wrong with mechanical. But of course, the more you concentrate technology and the more functions you have, the more there are things that can go wrong. And a bit of nostalgia never hurts.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

I think some of these points are particularly relevant given the 5Ds/R announcements. It's 90% the same as the current 5DIII with a bigger sensor and a handful of things added (from 7D II / 1D X) and taken away (video/high ISO).

If you print very large, have clients who need huge files, or really like to crop all the time, these bodies may be a big deal. For most people, however, they're more likely to cause headaches in terms of huge files, slow post-processing, and disappointing results when anything less than perfect technique is used.

It's important to ask yourself if you need those extra megapixels...


----------



## martti (Feb 7, 2015)

A friend of mine just got himself a second hand McLaren 3.8L twin turbo from Dubai.
Does he NEED 592 horsepower? Does anybody outside a race track need that kind of performance?
He says it is nice to have it. Like megapixels, I guess.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 7, 2015)

martti said:


> A friend of mine just got himself a second hand McLaren 3.8L twin turbo from Dubai.
> Does he NEED 592 horsepower? Does anybody outside a race track need that kind of performance?
> He says it is nice to have it. Like megapixels, I guess.


We all have things we don't need, but want to have and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. I'd love that car, too, and the 5Ds may be an indulgence as well for many people. Everything in moderation, including moderation


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 8, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> It's important to ask yourself if you need those extra megapixels...



That sounds just like the question my wife asks when I buy any photography gear.  I use the "capturing family" memories tactic and all is good.


----------

