# Your camera is better than Ansel Adams'



## Peeb (Sep 29, 2019)

Just bought a new camera- replacing a perfectly good camera that made outstanding images.  It made me happy and I do not regret it at all, BUT, then there is this....


----------



## PJM (Sep 29, 2019)

Great perspective.  I'm still using an entry level DSLR I bought about a year and a half ago.  And so far I've never blamed the camera for any of the images I've rejected.  What I'm saving up for is a super-tele or faster lens to get the shots I want.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 29, 2019)

I totally agree.
It is the photographer that makes the photo.
The camera and lens are just the photographers tools, just like a carpenter or mechanic has a tool box of tools.

This was put into my face in high school, when we with the SLRs were outclassed by a couple students with "Instamatics" (Kodak's box camera of the day).  It was the eye and skill of the photographer, not the equipment that made the prize winning images.  We just did not have the "eye" that those two students did.

Even today, there are those with a great eye, who can look at a scene and in 15 seconds, get a great shot.
Whereas I have to look and study the scene for a LONG time "trying" to figure out how to get a good shot.  I freely admit that I do not have that eye.  So while I can do it, it takes me much longer and a lot more work to do.  And I likely am still be behind the person with the good eye.

However, as he said, like a carpenter, you need the right tools to do the tasks.  So it is with camera gear.

Adams did not shoot football with a 11 x 14 view camera, like I do with a dSLR.  The big view camera is just the wrong tool.

You can't use a 18-55 and crop DEEP, when you really need a 300mm lens, and still have to crop.
When I shoot volleyball in the gym.  The autofocus update of a 1970s technology 50/1.8 prime work just as well today as a 50/1.8 did back then.  And it beats the pants off a slow 18-55/3.5-5.6 that you have to shoot at ISO 25600.  The old saying of the past, is just as true today as it was back then, "in low light FAST glass wins."
Pick the right tool for the job, and the job is easier to do.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 29, 2019)

After having seen this video, there is a rumor that Ford plans to compete in Formula 1 racing with a highly modified Ford Pinto, a 1975 version with a normally-aspirated 4-banger. The equipment doesn't matter, right? A PhaseOne 101 megapixel camera is equal to a pinhole camera ! I love Hyperbole and b******t!

As soon as Vegas opens a line on it, I plan to bet $2,000 on Ford and the pinto in the upcoming Formula 1 series.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Oct 21, 2019)

I believe the point is, an Ansel Adams photo of a football game, shot with an 11 x 14 view camera, would still be a great photo.

It may not be a typical "football" shot; but it would capture the moment of whatever football game image he envisioned.


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 22, 2019)

I tend agree with post 3
in clubs and sadly mostly men is the  mine is bigger/better than yours.
Yes sometimes a canon l series on a hi end camera will give better results, but as said it’s having that eye for the image.
As I have said here in the past my images are out of the box and or marmite pics. To me the worst Cc is 
It’s technically perfect...... 
I much rather a person look at my image  and feel that they could almost be there at that moment.
Yes if you are doing detailed tech work /imaging then be technically perfect but for me a pic has to have...I want to be there, I can almost taste the sail of that sea scape! Oh the sailing pic makes me feel I am out there miles from land
But as said I am doing this as a hobby, long ago!my teen years, I decided not to photograph to please the comp judge or other people  I photograph for me if people like what I do that good if not oh well I don’t like rum. That’s why my  I have a rep for Marmite photography  love or hate it lol


----------



## Braineack (Oct 22, 2019)

Imagine if @DanOstergren upgraded to a mark iv....


----------



## RVT1K (Oct 22, 2019)

We all hope to achieve different things with our photography and take different paths to get there. 

And photography, like all art forms, speak differently to each of us. I was given a book of Adams' photos. Some take my breath away and some make me go "meh".


----------



## Derrel (Oct 22, 2019)

I have a simple question. What is marmite photography?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 22, 2019)

C'mon Derrel, didn't ya know it means photos taken by marmites that have been trained to push buttons on cameras??

I  think what was actually meant was having something that you love, taking photos enough to get in lots of practice and getting good at it, etc. and specializing in it.

Ron that was done the last winter Olympics, a photographer used some big wooden view camera to take pictures.

edit - We are talking about these furry critters... 






... not this brown goo, right?


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 22, 2019)

I don't get all this stuff... Use what you want.


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 23, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I have a simple question. What is marmite photography?


In my case, 
Marmite photography either you love the photo or you hate it.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 23, 2019)

Marmite.... is it like Australia's Vegemite?


----------



## BillM (Oct 23, 2019)

Bottom line is, and yes I didn't bother to watch the video, is if you give Kris in CT one of those cardboard Kodak disposable cameras they sell at CVS he still going to take better bird photos than me with any of my fancy cameras and lenses. But I'm ok with that


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Oct 24, 2019)

Again, I think the point of the video was. Do not spend your time worrying about what you cannot do with your  camera, until you understand all that it can do. 

It helps develop your photography skills and keeps you from endlessly pursuing yet another magic bullet camera.


----------



## chuasam (Nov 2, 2019)

Yeah but imagine what he could have gotten if he had modern gear.


----------



## stapo49 (Nov 2, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Marmite.... is it like Australia's Vegemite?


Yep. But less salty.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## stapo49 (Nov 2, 2019)

That's an interesting point. I wonder with all the technological wizardy available today if his images would not be as good because he would not have to work as hard or get his hands dirty, so to speak, to create the image?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## dennyr (Nov 3, 2019)

It is the same question with all Hobbies/Professions.

Listen to "classic"  Blues/Rock of the 1960's and 1970's. 
It was "all" played on a 4 string bass. They did not need more strings.

Look at all the photo books, with photos from circa 1920 - 1980.
"All" of those famous -
Landscape
Fashion
Street
War
photos were taken on rather simple  (by today's standards)  film cameras.
When "You"  can take pictures like -
Garry Winogramd
Berenice Abbott
Robert Doisneau
Lee Miller
Margaret White
Lillian Bassman
Etc etc etc
.......Then you can start to worry about needing a new camera or lens.

Needing the latest technology to be profitable in your business is a VERY Different Scenario.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Nov 3, 2019)

stapo49 said:


> wonder with all the technological wizardy available today if his images would not be as good because he would not have to work as hard or get his hands dirty, so to speak, to create the image?



This is a *very* interesting question. But the answer is that we simply don't know because there are no Ansel Adams digital images out there. They're all on film and so the opinion is highly subjective. And what I see is that many photographers *invent* this scenario where Ansel Adams would've blitzed the board with digital because of it's technical supremacy. But I think most of them invent this opinion because they wish to believe their cameras are better and therefore take better photos.

But if we actually look at the photos rather than the cameras we find that very little has actually changed. We are still taking images on the whole that are very similar because it is us as humans that the photograph appeals to and we have not changed. Camera technology has changed the way we take photographs and the ease by which we can now do it. But the appeal of the photographs is still controlled by human understanding. It is not dictated by what basically amounts to the implementation of automation and the ever increasing *higher specification numbers* game...

If you look at the facts then the biggest change in content and the way we take and use images has been social media, and it is done on phone screens with phone cameras rather than the latest high IQ tech.

I still take B&W photos with a camera similar to the one AA used alongside a D600 and to be completely honest nobody really cares or has even asked which images are film and which digital.


----------



## stapo49 (Nov 4, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> stapo49 said:
> 
> 
> > wonder with all the technological wizardy available today if his images would not be as good because he would not have to work as hard or get his hands dirty, so to speak, to create the image?
> ...


I love reading your comments. Even if sometimes I have to read them three times  slowly to understand them [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## NGH (Nov 4, 2019)

chuasam said:


> Yeah but imagine what he could have gotten if he had modern gear.



I suspect that his images may have been worse.  I say that because he learned skills the hard way precisely because the equipment was primitive.  For example; when he shot Moon rise over Hernandez, he looked at the moon knew what lux (or whatever) it was putting out and quickly (as he had just spotted the potential shot as he was  driving down the road) set up his camera, set the exposure framed it and took the shot.  I would argue that had he had modern equipment he wouldn't have been so quick as to decide there was a shot and got the exposure right first time.

But as was already said there's no real way of knowing


----------



## Derrel (Nov 4, 2019)

In many ways the cameras that were used a long time ago were actually better than what we have today. A camera with even basic movements like a little bit of lens tilt and a little bit of lens rise and a little bit of lens shift is very useful in many real-world picture taking situations. Cameras that have movements allow the photographer to do a lot. My oldest camera is a 1938 Baby Speed Graphic, and it has both a focal plane shutter and a leaf shutter, and it has ground glass viewing, a rangefinder, a viewfinder window, and a pop-up wire Sports finder. So my oldest camera has three ways to compose a picture, and a supremely accurate Kalart rangefinder which is coupled to the lens , which has a built-in Leaf shutter which can take flash pictures at up to 1/400 second, and has the capability to use lenses from perhaps 50 different manufacturers, and it also has the capability to use a 120 roll film back, as well as sheet film. The idea that monorail view and  flat bed view and press cameras are inferior tools is completely and totally erroneous, and in fact they are better tools for many types of Photography than any modern digital single-lens reflex. Why? Because these old cameras use a system that allows for movement of the lens and the film plane and typically some or a lot of rear standard or film plane movement/adjustment .


By carefully using the Scheimpflug principle we can achieve incredible depth of field at relatively wide apertures, or we can use tilt and shift to an extreme degree to throw the focus out in a way which is impossible with a fixed body camera. Or we can swing  the front standard  to get depth of field which runs in a diagonal  across the picture plane . The idea that a modern fixed-body digital single-lens reflex is the height of camera technology is frankly wrong. Yes, digital sensors are very good, but the camera bodies themselves today are no better than the press and view cameras which were used so much from the 1890s to the 1950s.

 The idea that a modern digital camera is somehow a better Image Maker than a 4 x 5, 5 x7, or an 8x10 View Camera is dumb, and there's not much in the way of tilt-shift lenses, and there is nothing in the way of tilt or rise or fall in backs in any digital camera that I know of. The ability to move the back of the camera allows you to distort willfully or to correct for what would normally be situations that a fixed camera cannot deal with, and Photoshop has a fairly Limited range of Correction that even a simple and cheap 1940s View Camera could easily handle.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 4, 2019)

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 4, 2019)

Derrel, 

That is my favorite quote when it comes to sheer speculation.

No one knows if modern post processing would have been a benefit or disaster to any past artist. But it is safe to say, they new the medium they worked in very well.


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 5, 2019)

I think it’s safe to say these sort of conversations happen in every sport/aspect of life.
Is what we have now better and what would the old timers been able to do with it.
As I have said digital allows me to push the limits of my ability.
Much the same as sailing. I hold RYA yacht masters, VHF/DSc radio and other sailing qls. But had I had to learn and be acumplished in the old communications eg morse code, signal flags, I would not have got my qls.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 5, 2019)

Katomi,

You are correct, the question of new technology use by old masters will be an ever present speculation.

I enjoy the work of others and am the first to admit digital enhancement creates great photos, however my bias towards "as shot" limits what I wish to do. I enjoy tinkering in the dark room, rather than sitting in front of a computer screen.

However, whether you are a film fan or a post processing addict, I believe to OPs point was, learn how to use what you have before you move on.


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 5, 2019)

Agree my policy before upgrading is that I will use what I have until I cant do what I want to do or find a way round the limitation.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2019)

I have always felt that about 16 Angels could dance on the head of the average sewing pin.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2019)

In the early days of the digital SLR era each new generation of cameras was significantly better than the one prior, but since about 2009 new models are just a little bit better than the previous generation.


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 6, 2019)

Derrel, hiya. I know what you are saying, there used to be huge leaps in camera advances now it seems to be tweaks or one up on rival companies. The canon 90d can take 10fps. I rem the old film motor drivers, get much beyond 3fps and they would tear the film to shreads. Not the a role of 36 exp would last long at that rate.


----------



## RVT1K (Nov 6, 2019)

Way back when I got my first DSLR, I took a beginner's class for digital photography and the instructor said something that always stuck with me....

"I can teach you how to use your camera but I can't teach you to be a photographer". 

I see lots and lots of examples of where someone used their camera properly but still managed to take a bad and/or uninteresting photo. Having a better camera will not change that.


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 6, 2019)

You see that in all walks of life.
Gives me a real laugh when the kid with the cheap .....whatever.... does a better job than the loud mouth boasting that they have the latest and best.
I was once the person fishing with the old rod that I had since I was 5 and a mix of old naff hooks etc. If I caught something I was pleased.
Seen the same in the photography world, I did the point and shoot, the bridge camera. The canon 1100d basic entry level, seen the loud mouth in the pub after a shoot, placing his latest ff canon on the table in the pub amoungst the drinks with no lens or body cap. 
He tried the (when you get a real camera) speak on me....  I asked if he was going to buy it for me..... suddenly it got very quiet.... and no he never did 
Sometimes you have to /see/ the image and then use what kit you have to try and capture it


----------



## Michael Smith 12 (Nov 13, 2019)

This is the truth. Even technically speaking, camera lenses, lighting and composition is going to play a bigger role in your photo than the camera body.
Generally speaking, the only thing that matters is your years of expertise, practice and sweat that you put into learning and perfecting your art.


----------



## star camera company (Nov 21, 2019)

That’s a really good overview, and truthful.  There is only ONE way to capture the Perfect image, and that’s with a Stereo Realist, slide film and a viewer.  I guarantee if you took the same image with every camera ever made (2D) and then took that image in 3D........it’s a whole different and so much more visually captivating sensation.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 21, 2019)

Hasn't anyone ever thought of this,

Ansel Adams made both good and bad photos, but he didn't need a 3,000 dollar digital camera to do so.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 29, 2019)

What I really find annoying, is to have processed the perfect image on my computer screen and not be able to reproduce it in another medium. I have sent digital copies to numerous labs for prints, tried different home printers and even when I send it to another computer, it does not look as good. The image I like is locked forever in my hard drive.

I know that there are various ways to calibrate your gear to a standard model and there is some fine high dollar gear top be had. But the best advise I received was "Enjoy the photo in the media it is presented in." 

One cannot expect a photograph, viewed by reflected light to look the same as a back lit monitor. The differences are mostly in your minds eye.  So again know the variables of your gear.


----------



## Destin (Nov 29, 2019)

I spent the better part of a decade chasing better and better gear. I started with a used Nikon D40 and kit lens, and progressed all the way to a D810+D500 combo with a full complement of professional grade lenses.. and I owned almost every Nikon produced in between along the way. 

Only once I reached the “pinnacle” did I realize how much money I had blown and how much it didn’t matter. I was chasing pixels and full frame sensors because I was told its what I had to do. I just had to have that holy trinity of lenses and have every focal length covered with no gaps. 

I sold off my entire Nikon kit for the Fuji X system a while back because it’s smaller, lighter, and more pleasurable to use. I’ve been entirely happy, and other than wanting some different lenses along the way, I’ve not thought about the quality of my camera once. I would have turned my nose up at a crop sensor mirrorless camera 5 years ago, but nobody cares what my photos are shot on... including me. 

Shoot with what puts a smile on your face while allowing you to get the images you want.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 29, 2019)

W


Grandpa Ron said:


> What I really find annoying, is to have processed the perfect image on my computer screen and not be able to reproduce it in another medium. I have sent digital copies to numerous labs for prints, tried different home printers and even when I send it to another computer, it does not look as good. The image I like is locked forever in my hard drive.
> 
> I know that there are various ways to calibrate your gear to a standard model and there is some fine high dollar gear top be had. But the best advise I received was "Enjoy the photo in the media it is presented in."
> 
> One cannot expect a photograph, viewed by reflected light to look the same as a back lit monitor. The differences are mostly in your minds eye.  So again know the variables of your gear.



Why does the "perfect image" require post processing?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2019)

I had the perfect beef steak about 10 years ago . I ate it cooked, medium well,not raw. Image processing has been part of photography for well over 100 years, and it has changed a bit over time of course, but there is seldom any image which is perfect right out of the camera.

I shot 35 mm color slide film for more than 20 years, and I cannot tell you how many times images fell short of perfection due what would be minor flaws that could be corrected in 5 minutes or so in an image editing program.

Those who are opposed to post processing are really barking up the wrong tree in this forum and in most knowledgeable photography forums around the world. It has been quite well established that Photoshop and other image editing programs can greatly improve well-taken photos.

 Any and all attempts to discredit post-processing as part of modern photographic technique are looked at askance by most people who have spent more than a few years in digital imaging, or who have any background whatsoever in image processing.

For people like me who have been interested in photography for 45 years or more, we understand how magical post-processing is. We have no romantic notions about it, many of us having read accounts about how Ansel Adams and other darkroom masters spent hours and hours creating the perfect print. Today what used to take hours in the darkroom combined with years of knowledge, can be done in minutes and with perfect repeatability. You can create a master print file today and can custom tailor it to your printer. I would not want to trade the quote-unquote digital darkroom for the old fashioned wet dark room.

I can take straight out of camera jpeg images and adjust only the curves and in just five to 10 seconds per image, and make an image look markedly better in about 95% of cases. Back in the bad old days,what now takes two minutes or less used to take an half an hour or so. The fact of the matter is that in digital imaging if you have to do only one correction you can do the curves adjustment in seconds and can make the picture look tremendously better. But if you want a great photo at the end you have to start with something quite good.

Most skilled photographers use post processing as a way to make images perfected. Post-processing is about perfecting things , and not as you have recently stated about taking a bad image and making a great one out of it. You can take a ball of dung and round it and smooth it and polish it and it is still a bunch of s***. Post-processing  is not about turd-polishing. If you want to see a great show about turd- polishing, then search on YouTube for the episode of Mythbusters, where they take clumps of dung and turn them into round,shiny balls.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2019)




----------



## dennyr (Nov 30, 2019)

I understand the  "Hatred"  of digital photography. It certainly made a lot of  "Things"  a lot easier to do for a lot of photographers that would not have or could not have done so in The Darkroom.

But where does it all start and stop.?
Imagine if photographers, circa 1900, had mass produced ASA 400 film.?
Might that seem like  "cheating"  to them, might they think a real photog had to battle everything with a tripod.?
What about 35mm film.?....... that (and those tiny little camera) was just for pussies.

What about RC paper.?  Talk about being a puss. You only need to develop that stuff for 60 seconds, wash it for 5 seconds, and it dries flat as aboard.!

Ansel Adams gets mentioned a lot. If anybody ever saw the straight negative of  "Moon Rise"  ...... they would think that the print was a product of Lightroom/Photoshop.

Not sure if it is true, but you often hear of a quote being attributed to Henri Bresson.  When asked about Group f/64, he reportedly said...... "Jesus, with all that is going on in the world ...(Spanish civil war and all that was coning)... those guys are taking pictures of F'ing rocks and trees". 
Even within contemporaneous photography, there is argument about what is or is not worthwhile pictures.

   As i say, i am a bona fide Film-Snob, but i totally get Digital Photography. 
That is how modern day photography (in the huge majority) is accomplished.
Lightroom and Photoshop are simply the advancements of the day.
Creative manipulation is just that.  Nobody is saying that photography, digital or otherwise, (necessarily) mimics  "Real Life"

Photojournalism is always the exception. Then again, NOBODY is a proponent  of photo-shopping a uniformed soldier of Country ABC slitting the throat of a civilian from Country XYZ.  Nobody of any worth would push that narrative. 

But that has always been a risk with photography. 
Pictures, regardless of the medium, can never be assumed to represent the  "Truth".


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Nov 30, 2019)

I just don't get this idea that you can just point a camera at something and press a button for it to capture that *reality* in glorious accuracy, then all you need to do is just display it on a screen or 10"x 8" print to be able to see that reality in glorious detail...

Anybody who doesn't realise that the fundamental nature of of what you see in the real world is quite different to what you see on a screen or in print doesn't really understand photography.

An image on screen is 2D and not 3D, relationships don't change when you move around it as they would with a real object, they contain a different range of brightness than the real object and so contrasts and perceptions of colours are quite different to the real world, they are viewed as a rectangle rather than *all encompassing vision* in an environment and lighting often quite different to that in which they are shot.

Film doesn't capture any objective reality as in it captures an exact record of light and when you print that you see that light correctly. It's mainly silver halide chemistry modified with dyes that works on a tri-colour system that when printed on paper that also has three layers of colour only looks the same as the real world simply because our human eyes also work on a tri-colour system.

A computer screen displays a whole image with just narrow bands of red green and blue, you really can't get much more different than reality with it's full spectrum of reflected light. The modification, or difference, between the light entering the camera and that emitted by the screen is immense!

All imagery is like this, it is all highly modified so it looks the same under different conditions and with different contrasts and light intensities. With digital that conversion is largely automatic, but still done with a perceptual intent rather than as an absolute measurement, with film it is designed into the structure of the film and the processing/printing.

No photographic image is the exact capture and exact re-transmission of light, it is all highly modified. The whole argument of precision capture and display is flawed because the photographic process does neither. But if you modify that information in the correct way you can use only narrow bands of red, green and blue to produce a 2D image that looks the same as the real scene. Quite an achievement...

And yet because it looks the same we glance and assume that we've captured and objective reality with the camera and displayed that unchanged on screen or in print. And because we haven't moved any slider ourselves we assume the data is untouched and somehow pristine and reflects a truer reality...


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 30, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> Why does the "perfect image" require post processing?



Because Mother Nature's offering does not always match the finished image I want.
That is the ART part.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 30, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> pocketshaver said:
> 
> 
> > Why does the "perfect image" require post processing?
> ...


then be a painter, the painting isn't supposed to be realistic.

But if the say, sunset in front of you doesn't meet your ideals of a sunset, why waste time taking photos of it that youll need to doctor up to meet those standards you have..


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 30, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > pocketshaver said:
> ...



You aren't even a good troll.


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 30, 2019)

Destin said:


> I spent the better part of a decade chasing better and better gear. I started with a used Nikon D40 and kit lens, and progressed all the way to a D810+D500 combo with a full complement of professional grade lenses.. and I owned almost every Nikon produced in between along the way.
> 
> Only once I reached the “pinnacle” did I realize how much money I had blown and how much it didn’t matter. I was chasing pixels and full frame sensors because I was told its what I had to do. I just had to have that holy trinity of lenses and have every focal length covered with no gaps.
> 
> ...



The first sentence sums up a lot of photographers, they chase the kit.

Upgrade one thing the you will notice something else is suddenly lacking.
I have changed my kit at the point where I wanted to do more than I t would allow and I was unable to find a workaround.
I am at that stage where the camera, lens(s) laptop, printer and my skill level are all on a balance. 
All the time I can do what I want to do and am pleased with the results what does it matter that I have a printer canon Pixma ix 6550 that is so old it’s no longer in the reviews, most of my lenses are EF  from film days, the cameras are canon 600d,60d,7d. And me the fossil who,s ability to even walk is limited.
Yes you can chase the kit, but if it’s sat in the drawer at home not being used.... what good is it


----------



## Original katomi (Nov 30, 2019)

Re post 43.
Added to all that was said there, we all see things different. Colour blindness, how our minds sees things, even down to our history and upbringing. 
I am here in the UK, and I have seen images on the site that members have raved about, but because the image has captured something that is local/reagonal or relevant to the country of the OP it has not had th e same wow factor for me because I don’t know or have the same connection 
I knew a chap who had canon 5dmk3 and only shot B+W why he was colour blind and got fed up of comments that his colour pics were not true to life.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 30, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > I spent the better part of a decade chasing better and better gear. I started with a used Nikon D40 and kit lens, and progressed all the way to a D810+D500 combo with a full complement of professional grade lenses.. and I owned almost every Nikon produced in between along the way.
> ...



If you take 100 photos in the field to get 1 photo that's worthy of being put into photo shop, are you really doing something worth while?

Are you learning anything when you toss those 99 photos into the delete bin?


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 1, 2019)

If you take 100 shots and throw 99 away you have learned an awful lot. You have expanded your horizons to try an unusual shooting position, or angle, or you have manage to capture the exact moment you were looking for; not the second before or the second after. You have taken those chances that you would never take with film. You can also chuckle at what a stupid idea it was.   There is no remorse.

Why? Because digital pictures are practically free. How many shots do you think it took my grandson to catch this "shot"?


----------



## Original katomi (Dec 2, 2019)

That is the advantage with digital. I can try out ideas knowing that if it does not work I will not have to spend ages in a darkroom or spend huge amounts on developing .


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 2, 2019)

katomi,

You are absolutely correct. Digital provides a lot of freedom. 

As much as I like "as shot" with minimal Post Processing, others are equally fascinated by the ability of post processing to capture the moment as they remember it.  Still other find the beauty that was captured in the photo and extract it or enhance it in post processing.  There is no right or wrong way to process a photo, only personal taste and opinion.

These days film is a niche market. It is use mostly by those folks who enjoy dabbling in the dark room and like the technology of old, or those folks who are seeking a certain "look" or other nuance, that cannot be delivered  by digital methods.

I am not going to give up my digital camera anytime soon. Nor am I going to stop using my muzzle loading rifles, wood and canvas canoe or my film camera. Each was it time and place.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 2, 2019)

If you don’t like a thread, there’s no need to respond.   If you don’t care for a certain member you can use the ignore button.  If you find a troll, don’t feed it and it will starve and fade away.   

Personal attacks are not allowed.


----------



## Original katomi (Dec 2, 2019)

Er what... if my post has been taken as a personal attack then I am most sorry.


----------



## limr (Dec 2, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Er what... if my post has been taken as a personal attack then I am most sorry.



No worries, that wasn't directed at you but rather at a post that has already been deleted.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 2, 2019)




----------



## RVT1K (Dec 3, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> Original katomi said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...




I think its called learning from your mistakes. Its what intelligent people do.


----------



## Tinstafl (Dec 5, 2019)

A friend of mine started a project to shoot 72 or so images that Adams shot on the same day, time and location. He us using an 8x10 view camera and his pentex 645z as well. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this project and it will answer the OP question


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 5, 2019)

Derrel said:


> View attachment 183177


I was thinking some of my cameras are worse than Ansel's in every photographic way, but it seems one of those I was initially thinking of is actually the same model he started with.
It seems it's only the miniature 110 model (camera only the size of a 35mm film till you add the film cartridge) is my only chance of being sure of the claim. No variation of shutter speed or focal length or aperture, a very poor quality lens (plastic monocle) & far too small 'sensor' area. Both are of course far more portable than Ansel's field camera.


----------



## patrickt (Dec 10, 2019)

After years of buying equipment and then having to tote it I switched and started shooting with a cell phone camera. It works for me and now I'm having a ball with a Huawei P30 Pro. My cameras and lens are in a closet and the next time one of my children visit the equipment will go back to the U.S.


----------

