# SO, you just got a new DSLR.



## radiorickm (Oct 23, 2011)

Well here is a top 10 list of things I wish someone would have told me when I started out.

#10 IF you are truly a newbie, this is going to hurt: Your new modern DSLR camera is a heck of a lot smarter than you are at this point. Over a hundred years of knowledge has been programmed into your camera. You need to spend (several) years to gain as much knowledge as it has.

#9 Ferraris are great cars; you just dont see to many farmers hauling hay in them.
Everything has a designed purpose. Your DSLR camera and Kit lens, are CAPABLE of taking great photographs; if they werent, they wouldnt be selling them. Really. Dont begin your career by believing that you are already limited and need better equipment. Until you begin taking specialized types of photos, your equipment is probably going to do just fine (once YOU learn how to use it to the best of its abilities).

#8 Until YOUR skill level outperforms your equipment, there is no real reason to upgrade. Now, if  you only have a 18-55mm kit zoom and you decide to add a 55-250mm zoom, that is SUPPLEMENTING your capabilities, not upgrading. Ask your self this: What is it that I am capable of doing, that my equipment is not capable of?  Rushing out and buying a $1,500.00 PRO lens is not going to make you a better photographer.

#7 You need to LEARN the rules, to know when its ok to BREAK the rules.

#6 You, as a modern day photographer have a wealth of TOOLS at your disposal to use; Auto-focus, Auto-exposure, Auto-bracketing, adjustable ISO, Image stabilization, just to name a few. Learn to take advantage of these tools; and just as importantly learn when NOT to.

#5 There is more to photography than the exposure triangle. We get stuck on Aperture/Shutter settings a lot, but there are many things as equally important, such as composition and perspective. First off, take lots of pictures. But also read lots of books, watch you-tube tutorial, do what ever you can to gain knowledge about all aspects of the hobby.

#4 Photography, as is any art, is very subjective. Each and every person has their views about it. You are always going to get the why didnt you do this question. Truth be told, if you get super-critical, you can nit pick anyones photos and find faults. But ultimately you have to decide if the photo met YOUR expectation, and if it didnt, figure out how to make it better next time. Of course, over time your expectations (especially of your own work) will become higher and you will work harder to achieve your goals.

#3 The IQ (Image Quality) is proportional to the amount of time used to create it. If you grab your camera and take a picture, you have a snapshot. If you take your time, set up the shot, compose carefully, follow the rules, then you are going to have a chance of having a photograph as a piece of art.

#2 GO SHOOT SOMETHING. In the days of old (film days) when you shot, you had to wait to get the film developed to see the results. It was in some cases a very time consuming adventure, and could become frustrating.  With digital, and the EXIF information, you can see exactly what you did immediately and learn more effectively from your mistakes. PLUS it costs noting to delete a bad picture and try again. So take advantage of this, and have fun shooting lots of pictures. 

#1. This is the single most important thing you can learn about photography:
                It is the PHOTOGRAPHER that produces great images; not the equipment.


----------



## EIngerson (Oct 23, 2011)

Well said.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 23, 2011)

Agreed, well said.  Many may have different opinions on #1 though....

My opinion on gear is this:  The gear needed for your photography is directly related to your clients needs.  If your client has no specific needs than use anything you want to create a product that satisfies your clients needs.


----------



## KmH (Oct 23, 2011)

That would make a great 'Sticky'. :thumbup:


----------



## tirediron (Oct 23, 2011)

Brilliant!  Agree - this should be a sticky!


----------



## Overread (Oct 23, 2011)

And it's sticky!

Well half sticky - I've added it to the beginners main sticky thread here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rum-photo-gallery/123160-tutorial-thread.html


----------



## dots (Oct 23, 2011)

Sound!  Quality post!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Oct 23, 2011)

LOL at #1.  I just gave some advice on another forum about her impending lawsuit regarding shooting a wedding ceremony with a D90 and a 18-200.  It can be done, but it requires a lot more skill to shoot with sub-standard equpment than it does to shoot with the proper equipment.  Ideally, a profesional photographer has a combination of both.


----------



## Patrice (Oct 23, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> LOL at #1.  I just gave some advice on another forum about her impending lawsuit regarding shooting a wedding ceremony with a D90 and a 18-200.  It can be done, but it requires a lot more skill to shoot with sub-standard equpment than it does to shoot with the proper equipment.  Ideally, a profesional photographer has a combination of both.





True enough, but I don't think this thread is aimed at the beginner pro, but at the beginner in photography. Not the same animal at all.


----------



## dolph22 (Mar 27, 2012)

This was my first read on this forum as a newb. Thanks for your advice. It is very helpful for someone like myself who is just beginning to learn how to take good photographs.


----------



## scorpion_tyr (Mar 27, 2012)

Very well said! Do you mind if I copy it and share on another forum?


----------



## ahmedmutshar (Sep 10, 2012)

Great


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 10, 2012)

radiorickm said:


> ...
> #8  Rushing out and buying a $1,500.00 PRO lens is not going to make you a better photographer.





No, but a HUGE obnoxious watermark will.


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 10, 2012)

radiorickm said:


> #8 Until YOUR skill level outperforms your equipment, there is no real reason to upgrade.


 This is a very popular saying, but the more I think about it, the less I can get hands and feets to it.

A better camera will simply allow you to make pictures faster, easier, control the parameters better, have more opportunities to make pictures, and last not least of course produce better picture quality. In some cases it might even better automatics, though thats usually rather a question of the competence of the camera producer, than a question of the price tag of the camera.

When is it time to get a better camera ? In retrospect, I wished I had gotten a DSLR when I first started to do photography. I would have used all the auto modes in the beginning, but I would have had a camera to learn stuff for real from the very start. DSLRs, after all, also have AUTO modes to do everything.

For the same reason, if I would get, say, a D800 now, I would probably not make as good pictures with it as other people with the same camera, but I would be able to learn using it.

So what exactly is this "skill level" mentioned there ? Its not THAT hard to understand cameras, really. There is simply no clear criteria given what is supposed to happen to justify me buying another camera.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 10, 2012)

#2 is still true for many photographers including myself. I actually dont mind waiting on my photos to get back from the lab. In this day and age of instant gratification its nice to be able to wait for something.

Anyway i agree it is a slow process trying new techniques, but hey, im married! Plus i pretty much have my exposure formula the way i like it.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 10, 2012)

I agree that this is a good list and a good sticky, however I would suggest an 11th addition.

*R.T.F.M.  *And then read it again.   You can save much time and grief for yourself and others if you understand the basic operation of the gear you bought.


----------



## JonathanElvester (Sep 12, 2012)

Cool! This was helpful!


----------



## fractionofasecond (Sep 12, 2012)

I'm a newbie just bought a DSLR.  I agree with you completely that's why I came here to learn.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 12, 2012)

This post is moronic and I can't believe people are still reading it.

Skill has nothing to do with this hobby/profession.  If you hand me a pro camera, a fast lens, and a good flash, I can make magic in a dark reception hall.  If you hand me a mid level body and a kit lens in the same circumstances, I might as well go home.

I don't know why photographers get so egotistical as to assume that they are the deciding factor.  They simply aren't.  

On many occasions, I have loaned out my camera to somebody else.  I ask them what kind of circumstances they will be shooting in, and then I set the camera up for them.  The only thing they are responsible for is pushing the shutter release.

Honestly, it isn't that complicated.


----------



## Forkie (Sep 13, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> This post is moronic and I can't believe people are still reading it.
> 
> Skill has nothing to do with this hobby/profession.  If you hand me a pro camera, a fast lens, and a good flash, I can make magic in a dark reception hall.  If you hand me a mid level body and a kit lens in the same circumstances, I might as well go home.
> 
> ...



This is ridiculous.  Half the skill is knowing how to set up the camera in the first place in order to take the best shots.  Next time you loan your camera to someone don't set it up for their circumstances, then see how well they do.  Then come back and tell us there's no skill involved.

You can get just as good images with a mid-range camera as any other camera in the dark reception hall you mentioned if you properly learn how to use the camera and the lighting.


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 13, 2012)

Whow, so you claim that it doesnt matter how bad your camera is, you can always make any picture you want, you just need more "skill" ?


----------



## Compaq (Sep 13, 2012)

The correct way of looking at this is that of course a better photographer will produce better images than a noob 90% of the time. But then there are those situations that REQUIRE certain types of equipment to be able to take photos there. In dark rooms a f/1.2 lens has a better potential for good than a slower f/4 lens.

A pro can't take a close up portrait of a bird with a 50mm, the pro will have to crop as much as the noob. 

Gear is absolutely necessary to achieve certain shots. A pro is able to use the gear efficiently, and noobs aren't. It's not about the gear itself, but how to use them. That's not the same as saying that pros can do magic with 50mm on a football field. They may get great shots with it, but they won't get close cup action. 

Not all gear is able to get all the shots.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 13, 2012)

radiorickm said:


> Well here is a top 10 list of things I wish someone would have told me when I started out.
> 
> #10 IF you are truly a newbie, this is going to hurt: Your new modern DSLR camera is a heck of a lot smarter than you are at this point. Over a hundred years of knowledge has been programmed into your camera. You need to spend (several) years to gain as much knowledge as it has.



With the right training and direction, it won't take that long. Plus, some cameras like the entry levels ones used to be would not spot meter and would only do scene, which can be tricky with high dynamic range scenes. Knowing how to appropriately meter and being smarter than the camera is a necessity for a good photographer.



radiorickm said:


> #9 Ferraris are great cars; you just dont see to many farmers hauling hay in them.
> Everything has a designed purpose. Your DSLR camera and Kit lens, are CAPABLE of taking great photographs; if they werent, they wouldnt be selling them. Really. Dont begin your career by believing that you are already limited and need better equipment. Until you begin taking specialized types of photos, your equipment is probably going to do just fine (once YOU learn how to use it to the best of its abilities).



I started with an entry level Canon Rebel 300D. I personally would never recommend a rebel. They just don't handle well (unless they've fixed this in the new ones). Having to press in a button and use the shutter speed to adjust the aperture is a lot less intuitive for me than having two separate controls. Certain equipment has features that make life easier and that's why I'd recommend a good used mid ranged camera over an entry level any day of the week.



radiorickm said:


> #8 Until YOUR skill level outperforms your equipment, there is no real reason to upgrade. Now, if  you only have a 18-55mm kit zoom and you decide to add a 55-250mm zoom, that is SUPPLEMENTING your capabilities, not upgrading. Ask your self this: What is it that I am capable of doing, that my equipment is not capable of?  Rushing out and buying a $1,500.00 PRO lens is not going to make you a better photographer.



This is true to a point, but kit lens quality is notoriously bad when compared to better lenses. I'd say everyone likes sharp photos and they're easier to get with better quality glass as long as the images aren't fuzzy because of other factors. A $1,500 pro lens may not be needed, but an upgraded third party would be welcomed by most compared to a stock kit.



radiorickm said:


> #3 The IQ (Image Quality) is proportional to the amount of time used to create it. If you grab your camera and take a picture, you have a snapshot. If you take your time, set up the shot, compose carefully, follow the rules, then you are going to have a chance of having a photograph as a piece of art.



This is not true. People have got amazing photos from what you would have considered a snapshot. There are photographers out there that can show up, set up a few flashes in less than five minutes, take the photo they need, and go home. Not everything has to be a big production and big productions don't always produce the best work. It depends totally on the photographer and their knowledge. I'm sure most of us have seen photos where a photographer has set up lights and took their time to take an amazing photo just to end up with a flop because they don't know what they're doing. 



radiorickm said:


> #1. This is the single most important thing you can learn about photography:
> It is the PHOTOGRAPHER that produces great images; not the equipment.



This has been argued on this forum previously. Hand a nood a camera and they're completely less likely to take a better photo than a *pro photogorapher with the same setup. Hand a pro photographer a bottom of the barrel entry level camera with three cheap flashes and a kit lens and they could take a good photo. Hand a pro photographer a high end medium format digital camera with some professional grade lighting and modifiers and they can make a great photo. It's not a simple equation of "it's the gear not the photographer or it's the photographer not the gear", it's a mixture of both.

*pro assume they're a good photographer. Not all professional photographer put out work that would be deemed remotely good. Marketing can be an amazing tool.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 13, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> This post is moronic and I can't believe people are still reading it.
> 
> Skill has nothing to do with this hobby/profession.  If you hand me a pro camera, a fast lens, and a good flash, I can make magic in a dark reception hall.  If you hand me a mid level body and a kit lens in the same circumstances, I might as well go home.
> 
> ...



So what you're getting at is that if someone gave you an entry level rebel, a fast cheap prime, and three flashes with a kit that's under $1000, you'd shoot worse photos than someone who just picked up a camera for the first time that has a FF DSLR, a suite of top of the line lenses, and $10,000 in professional lighting equipment? If that's the case, I wouldn't pay you to shoot anything.

You can be pretty dense some times.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> So what you're getting at is that if someone gave you an entry level rebel, a fast cheap prime, and three flashes with a kit that's under $1000, you'd shoot worse photos than someone who just picked up a camera for the first time that has a FF DSLR, a suite of top of the line lenses, and $10,000 in professional lighting equipment? If that's the case, I wouldn't pay you to shoot anything.
> 
> You can be pretty dense some times.




I think... we finally agree on something.


----------



## Raizahblade (Sep 13, 2012)

fractionofasecond said:


> I'm a newbie just bought a DSLR. I agree with you completely that's why I came here to learn.



I feel you here!  I don't even have DSLR yet, still doing research but I wanted to learn some terms, basics, and insight into this world from the people that are living in it!


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 13, 2012)

I think its pretty simple actually. Photography is an artform. ANY form of art is always split into two parts:

a) The tools, the basics, the technique - thats the uncreative, technical base. If you're great at this, you're an excellent craftsman - yet you wont be really an artist.
b) Creativity, expression, composition - no matter what kind of control you have over the respective artform, art itself is created by inspiration, not by mechanically executing some techniques. Techniques only give you the ability to express yourself better.

So yeah, getting better tools (i.e. cameras, flashes, studio equipment etc) and getting better at using these tools gives you more possibilities to create art, but that alone wont give you the inspiration and power to actually express anything original thats worthwhile to show to the world.


----------



## Forkie (Sep 13, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> Whow, so you claim that it doesnt matter how bad your camera is, you can always make any picture you want, you just need more "skill" ?



More or less, yes.


----------



## Furashu (Sep 13, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> This post is moronic and I can't believe people are still reading it.
> 
> Skill has nothing to do with this hobby/profession.  If you hand me a pro camera, a fast lens, and a good flash, I can make magic in a dark reception hall.  If you hand me a mid level body and a kit lens in the same circumstances, I might as well go home.
> 
> ...



I'm still new(got my DSLR like 2 weeks ago), but the thought process of a seasoned pro vs someone like me is completely different. The way you approach the shot in your mind, the setup of the camera, what perspective, how to expose the photo, what changes to make in post processing, uh isn't that the skill? 

To have the knowledge and equipment is one thing, but to understand and capture a great photograph does in fact require skill.

So... based on your logic I would be able to give my 15 year old cousin a canon mark 5d iii with the best lens against you(same equipment) and his photos would be of equal quality and greatness? 

"If you hand me a mid level body and a kit lens in the same circumstances, I might as well go home."

So... there have never been great photos taken by a kit lens EVER? You sir have blown my mind, i might as well throw my t3i and kit lens in the trash as Ill never take great photos because i cant afford a mark 5d. Good bye all!!!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 13, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > This post is moronic and I can't believe people are still reading it.
> ...


Perhaps I overstated it a bit, but then again your choice of gear was very telling.  In your scenario, I have three lights and a prime.  With three lights and a prime, I can do almost anything.  In the scenario I was basing my statement on, it was a mid level body and a kit lens in a dark reception hall.  The point is, a piece of gear makes all the difference.  The lighting is essential.  Without it, no amount of skill is going to change the fact that it is dark or that you need light to make a photograph.  As was said earlier, there are certain types of shots that a specific set of gear is required.  No amount of skill is going to turn an 18-55 kit lens into a 300mm 2.8.




Furashu said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > This post is moronic and I can't believe people are still reading it.
> ...



Sure, there have been a lot of graet photos taken with a kit lens.  Just not in a dark reception hall.  The gear requirements for an outdoor shot in good light is much different than your living room at dusk.

Yes, there is skill required in setting up your camera to achieve what you want it to do, but honestly, that's relatively easy, and in digital, you can always take a look at the lcd and reshoot it.

But the first skill, and perhaps one of the hardest to learn, is knowing what equipment you need to make consistent photos in a certain environment.  

The biggest limitation on a new photographers development is that they don't know why there shots aren't turning out and they don't know what equipment they need to change their results.  Instead, they keep trying the same thing over and over again.  Then they go on some online forum and they will be told to buy a prime lens.  A few months later, they will have improved, but still can't figure out how to take the next step.  Then they will be advised to buy a flash to which they will argue that they 'hate the flashed look'.  Then someday the light will click on and they will have figured out that they hate direct flash, but a directional flash can be magical.

Some time after that, they will finally have gotten to where they thought they were going to be when they bought their first DSLR...and all it took was a better lens, a flash, and a little bit of experimenting.

The hammer doesn't build the house, but it sure is hard for a Carpenter to get those nails in the wood without a hammer.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 13, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Perhaps I overstated it a bit


No, actually, you leaped whole-heartedly off the tallest Fail Cliff you could find while rocketing at full throttle and clinging to an anvil like Wile E. Coyote, and now you're trying to justify it, which is nothing more than the tiny *POOF!* of dust at the end of that cartoon sketch.

Yes, it was comical.  Ignorant, but comical.  Thank you for the laughs.  :thumbup:


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 13, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I overstated it a bit
> ...



I'm not trying to justify anything, and I couldn't give a rat's behind about your opinion.

Put simply, and I'll try to use small words this time...you need the right equipment to perform a certain task.  Whether that is a hammer, a flash, or a lens, there are certain jobs that cannot be done unless you have the appropriate tools.  And yes, Sherlock, you have to know how to use those tools also.

But, in a battle between inadequate tools and inadequate experience, I will take the guy with the right tools and an instruction manual over the guy who knows exactly how to do the job but doesn't have the right tools to do it.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 13, 2012)

LOL!  More laughs!

You should put a whole comedy act together and book yourself at Photokina type events.  You could be the Larry the Cable guy of photographer audiences!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 13, 2012)

Buckster said:


> LOL!  More laughs!
> 
> You should put a whole comedy act together and book yourself at Photokina type events.  You could be the Larry the Cable guy of photographer audiences!



I haven't been around much lately, and my memory may be a bit fuzzy, but don't you shoot with a Hassy and some medium format stuff?  

Wasn't sure, so I looked it up.
Here is your profile...


> My Cameras:Canon 5DMKII, Canon 7D, Canon 40D, Mamiya RB67 Pro S, Mamiya 645, Mamiya C330, Hasselblad 500C, Nikon F, Canon IIS2, Yashica FX-7, and a bunch of other antique cameras on the shelves that don't see much action anymore.



Yeah, sure, equipment doesn't matter...


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 13, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



I think you may have some reading comprehension problems.  Nowhere did the OP say that equipment doesn't matter.  In fact, points 8 and 9 state nearly the opposite.  Not every beginner will be shooting people in a dark reception hall.  And if you you were referring to point no 1, you've clearly missed it as the point wasnt that equipment doesn't matter, rather, the photographer does.  A beginner can have the very best equipment available and still produce crap photos with it.  You can give me the best hammer available, even a nail gun, but that still doesnt mean I can build beautiful furniture.  Get your head out of your a*s


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 14, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> So what you're getting at is that if someone gave you an entry level rebel, a fast cheap prime, and three flashes with a kit that's under $1000, you'd shoot worse photos than someone who just picked up a camera for the first time that has a FF DSLR, a suite of top of the line lenses, and $10,000 in professional lighting equipment? If that's the case, I wouldn't pay you to shoot anything.
> 
> You can be pretty dense some times.





Kerbouchard said:


> Perhaps I overstated it a bit, but then again your choice of gear was very telling.  In your scenario, I have three lights and a prime.  With three lights and a prime, I can do almost anything.  In the scenario I was basing my statement on, it was a mid level body and a kit lens in a dark reception hall.  The point is, a piece of gear makes all the difference.  The lighting is essential.  Without it, no amount of skill is going to change the fact that it is dark or that you need light to make a photograph.  As was said earlier, there are certain types of shots that a specific set of gear is required.  No amount of skill is going to turn an 18-55 kit lens into a 300mm 2.8.



The above still stands. Same set of gear shooting the same model in a studio. Is the noob going to shoot better that you because of the better gear?

The point is it's a mixture of both. A person with no skill and excellent gear may suck just as bad as someone with skill and a crappy point and shoot. Pair a master photographer with excellent gear and what do you get? Art.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 14, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> I think you may have some reading comprehension problems.  Nowhere did the OP say that equipment doesn't matter.  In fact, points 8 and 9 state nearly the opposite.  Not every beginner will be shooting people in a dark reception hall.  And if you you were referring to point no 1, you've clearly missed it as the point wasnt that equipment doesn't matter, rather, the photographer does.  A beginner can have the very best equipment available and still produce crap photos with it.  You can give me the best hammer available, even a nail gun, but that still doesnt mean I can build beautiful furniture.  Get your head out of your a*s



Right. A beginner cabinet maker with a router can probably do some neat stuff they find in a book but I bet some of the amazing sculpture like stuff will elude them. A master craftsman with the right hand tools may not be able to churn out mediocre work as quickly, but they can still do some beautiful work because of all the knowledge and experience they have.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 14, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!  More laughs!
> ...


I shoot a lot of different gear because I'm a gear nut and antique camera collector and someone who's been shooting and collecting for more than 40 years now.  My first "real" camera, the one I learned my first basic photography on, was and is my 1962 Nikon F Photomic, so it has sentimental value for me when I pick it up or even when I just think about it; A flood of photographic outings and memories and lessons learned flood into my mind at the mere mention of it.  Most of the cameras in my collection have at least some of that associated with them, which is the main reason I still pick them up and load them and shoot them from time to time.

So, I don't shoot the Hassy or the rest of the MF cameras and 35mm antiques because I get so much better results with them than with my digital gear, but because of the tactile and mental satisfaction I get from shooting that older gear and taking trips with it down memory lane.

For the best results, equipment matters a LOT less than photographic experience and ability, IMHO.  Others have already explained that to you, and you simply don't accept it, so I won't even try.  You've already established that it's a pointless excercise.  You have your opinion, you can't or won't budge on it, and that's that.  Fine with me.

Yes, there are things that can't be done, or can't be done as well, without the proper equipment to do it.  We've all conceded that such is the case.  But in the end, it _*ALWAYS *_requires the knowledge, experience and ability of the photographer to work the equipment properly for the best results.  For _*MOST*_ everyday shooting situations, the gear really doesn't matter at all; In the hands of a noob, you generally get noob shots.  In the hands of a pro, you generally get pro shots.  Therein lies the _*real *_difference.

All that's left then is to chuckle when you take your views that few would agree with and run off a cliff with them like you did a few posts ago in this thread.  And you really, _REALLY_ did that, adding much entertainment value to the thread in the process, whether you realize it or not.  

Yeah, we disagree on this gear vs. experience subject, which many here disagree with you on.  Que Sera - no big deal. Live long and prosper.  :thumbup:


----------



## sovietdoc (Sep 14, 2012)

Well said, well said.  My number 1 would be different though.

1.  Canon is better.

/troll


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 14, 2012)

Whatever makes you sleep at night. 

We dont want you to be sleepless because you're wondering if Nikon, Leica, Fuji, Sony or some other company would have been the better choice, do we ?


----------



## djdelite (Sep 14, 2012)

thanks found the read as a newbie good info..lol


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 18, 2012)

This list is for the most part, nonsense. I was told most of these things as a beginner, and I'm sorry I was. Because most of it is simply not true. 

It doesn't take years to be proficient at a DSLR camera. Takes weeks to learn about composition and proper exposure. 
If you can afford the better camera, get it. Especially if you know you are going to make it a real hobby.
Upgrading before you outperform your equipment, is better than reaching a limitation. There's no reason why you should wait.    
The equipment matters, greatly. Yes the knowledge of the photographer matters as well, but the equipment makes it possible to achieve your vision. I'd love to see sports photographers get that game winning TD shot with a disposable camera.


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> But, in a battle between inadequate tools and inadequate experience, I will take the guy with the right tools and an instruction manual over the guy who knows exactly how to do the job but doesn't have the right tools to do it.



I agree with this. But there's so much room for what ifs that reasonable lines have to be drawn. The argument that someone with 0 experience with the best equipment will not do better than a pro with cheap equipment. But match the experience level with the equipment.

0 experience vs 0 equipment.

It's a hypothetical and ridiculous argument, but the fact of the matter is, without a camera, a photographer is nothing.

Now take someone who does know how to use a camera and knows a bit about composition, but is still new. 
Hand them a D3s with a 24-70mm 2.8 in poor light conditions and let them take pictures.
Now, hand that same person a D3000 with an 18-55mm in the same poorly lit environment. 

Are you guys saying that the pictures will look exactly the same? The quality will be equal because the equipment doesn't matter?


----------



## Buckster (Sep 18, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > But, in a battle between inadequate tools and inadequate experience, I will take the guy with the right tools and an instruction manual over the guy who knows exactly how to do the job but doesn't have the right tools to do it.
> ...


Your point that there are things that can't be done, or can't be done as well, without the proper equipment to do it is well understood.  There's no question about that.  But in the end, it _*ALWAYS *_requires the knowledge, experience and ability of the photographer to work the equipment properly for the _*BEST*_ results, regardless of the gear and the environment you put it in.

If you want to make comparisons, then make it apples to apples, instead of the apples to chocolate cake comparisons you usually come up with in these discussions.  Using your own latest scenarios, try this on for size:

Put the "D3s with a 24-70mm 2.8 in poor light conditions" in the hands of a noob and in the hands of a pro.  Who will make the better images?

Put the "D3000 with an 18-55mm in the same poorly lit environment" in the hands of a noob and in the hands of a pro.  Who will make the better images?

Bottom line in either case: In the hands of a noob, you generally get noob shots.  In the hands of a pro, you generally get pro shots.  Therein lies the _*real *_difference: The shooter's knowledge and experience, regardless of the equipment they're BOTH using.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 18, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> This list is for the most part, nonsense. I was told most of these things as a beginner, and I'm sorry I was. Because most of it is simply not true.
> 
> It doesn't take years to be proficient at a DSLR camera. Takes weeks to learn about composition and proper exposure.


And yet, 9 months after joining this forum, 2 months after you started shooting a DSLR, and while _*IN*_ a photography course in college, you started the following thread, providing a perfect example of why you're flat out wrong:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...07-just-handed-my-first-class-assignment.html

I think it's fair to mention that even today, years later, you're _*STILL*_ learning it.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 18, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Takes weeks to learn about composition...



 ...and years to master it.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


Yes.  You have to know how to spin a dial and push a button....Heck, in complicated cases, you might even have to spin two dials.  In a worst case scenario, you might even have to push an extra button with flash compensation.  But then, you get to look at the picture and see if you adjusted the right dials and pushed the right buttons.  If you didn't, you get a chance to do it over again.

Get over yourself.  It's not that complicated.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2012)

*"Three lights and a prime"*. And a bottle of tequila. That's all a guy needs. Oh, and a pair of high-class hookers...errrr.... I mean *skinny models*. And a Benz. And a computer. And $1,000 in software.


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 18, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Takes weeks to learn about composition...
> ...



Composition, or the art element of photography is so subjective that it can be argued that it would be impossible to master. But it wouldn't take even months to be extremely versed and very good at composition.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2012)

Nonsense. It takes 10,000 hours of practice just to become "good" at almost any skill. If it did not take literally YEARS to master complete skill sets, *I would ALREADY be,among other things, *a master baker/pastry chef; welder; carpenter; plumber; painter; auto mechanic; fighter jet pilot; surgeon; dentist; racecar driver; novelist; and of course, fine art painter. Don't confuse apprentice/journeyman/master/grand master levels of competence...


----------



## amolitor (Sep 18, 2012)

Much as I dislike jumping in to what is basically a pissing match, I will offer this:

Some people are naturals at composition, and some people seem to never be able to get it. Most people fall somewhere in between. Saying 'it takes <X> to master composition' fails to take into account the person making the attempt, and fails to define what "master composition" could even mean.

What does it even mean to "master" composition? You can teach someone how to pose a half a dozen of the standard wedding shots in an afternoon, and they can get pretty good at them in a couple of sessions if they pay attention. That's not "mastery of composition"  to me, but it might be to a guy who just wants to shoot some weddings. Does "mastery of composition" mean being able to instinctively nail a perfect echoing of shapes, tones, and mood in a street photograph, consistently day in and day out? That's mastery, in my book, and also completely unattainable for most people.

This thread, like all such threads, is pretty much all about people choosing to use different definitions of words and phrases so they can continue to yell at each other. Welcome to the Internet. Sometimes, it sucks and is stupid.


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 18, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



Rarely, if ever, do I make comparisons or analogies. So for you to say that I _usually _come up with uneven comparisons is flat out bs. 

Your argument, is the age old argument and a broken one.

Why give 2 different people, 2 different sets of gear? Because it's a rhetorical,unreasonable, immeasurable cop out question and it's a one way street. 
Who will take better pictures? A newbie with a nikon coolpix? Or a cup of coffee with 2 sugars?  

That's why I said reasonable lines need to be drawn. I make better pictures, with better gear. It's really that cut and dry.

I now have the honor to use a hasselblad in class, and was instructed to take comparison pictures with my gear, and the hasselblad. I promise you, that I stopped using my camera after 11 shots.
I can supply the images if you don't believe me.


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 18, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Nonsense. It takes 10,000 hours of practice just to become "good" at almost any skill. If it did not take literally YEARS to master complete skill sets, *I would ALREADY be,among other things, *a master baker/pastry chef; welder; carpenter; plumber; painter; auto mechanic; fighter jet pilot; surgeon; dentist; racecar driver; novelist; and of course, fine art painter. Don't confuse apprentice/journeyman/master/grand master levels of competence...



Takes 5000 hours to become a master plumber in NY. 

Edit: I guess it's 6-8000 now


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

Sorry about all the fuss, guys.  I think many of you who have been around a while know I will play Devil's Advocate when allowed to.  This debate just happens to be one of my favorites.

When I was starting out, I read every book I could find and every forum post I could find to try to get better.  I understood the concepts.  The problem was that I was limited by my equipment.  Perhaps that is why I take this stance now.  

Yes, maybe that is not the typical route people take, but having 3 flashes, a prime, and a bottle of Tequila would have greatly reduced my learning curve.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Sorry about all the fuss, guys.  I think many of you who have been around a while know I will play Devil's Advocate when allowed to.  This debate just happens to be one of my favorites.
> 
> When I was starting out, I read every book I could find and every forum post I could find to try to get better.  I understood the concepts.  *The problem was that I was limited by my equipment.  Perhaps that is why I take this stance now*.
> 
> Yes, maybe that is not the typical route people take, but having 3 flashes, a prime, and a bottle of Tequila would have greatly reduced my learning curve.



I will reiterate...



mjhoward said:


> I think you may have some reading comprehension problems.  Nowhere did the OP say that equipment doesn't matter.  In fact, points 8 and 9 state nearly the opposite.  Not every beginner will be shooting people in a dark reception hall.  And if you you were referring to point no 1, you've clearly missed it as the point wasnt that equipment doesn't matter, rather, the photographer does.  A beginner can have the very best equipment available and still produce crap photos with it.  You can give me the best hammer available, even a nail gun, but that still doesnt mean I can build beautiful furniture.  Get your head out of your a*s


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry about all the fuss, guys.  I think many of you who have been around a while know I will play Devil's Advocate when allowed to.  This debate just happens to be one of my favorites.
> ...




My reading comprehension is fine.  The OP just made an absurd claim.


> #9 Ferrari&#8217;s are great cars; you just don&#8217;t see to many farmers hauling hay in them.
> Everything has a designed purpose. Your DSLR camera and Kit lens, are CAPABLE of taking great photographs; if they weren&#8217;t, they wouldn&#8217;t be selling them. Really. Don&#8217;t begin your career by believing that you are already limited and need better equipment. Until you begin taking specialized types of photos, your equipment is probably going to do just fine (once YOU learn how to use it to the best of its abilities).



Every photographer needs a flash...period.  Without one, a photographer is limited and it has nothing to do with specialized types of photos, whatever that means.  And saying a kit lens is sufficient is borderline moronic.

A kit lens is not sufficient, and not having a flash will limit any new photographer.  Honestly, if you can't understand that, I don't think we can have an intelligent conversation.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 18, 2012)

Yup, still deliberately deciding to talk about different things while pretending to be talking about the same things, purely in order to keep the yelling going.

Hurrah for the internet.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Yup, still deliberately deciding to talk about different things while pretending to be talking about the same things, purely in order to keep the yelling going.
> 
> Hurrah for the internet.



How so? Do you think a kit lens is sufficient or that a photographer does not need a flash?  Because that is what the OP says.  And that is the part that I disagree with.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 18, 2012)

The OP says you can make fine images with the kit lens and no flash. He's right. Nowhere does he say that every single image, and every single style of photography can be executed with the kit lens, that would be absurd. He says only that fine work can be done.

For example, let us say that I do pictorialist style landscapes. I don't need a flash. In fact, what on earth would I use a flash FOR? I actually have to soften the kit lens for the work, it's not too lousy, it's too sharp. I can do excellent work with the kit lens and no flash whatsoever.

You apparently think that every photographer needs a flash, which is such an absurd remark that I cannot imagine you think it's true. You are clearly just pretending to think this ridiculous thing because you love fighting.

Fine, fight away. You and all the people you're fighting with deserve one another.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

amolitor said:


> The OP says you can make fine images with the kit lens and no flash. He's right. Nowhere does he say that every single image, and every single style of photography can be executed with the kit lens, that would be absurd. He says only that fine work can be done.
> 
> For example, let us say that I do pictorialist style landscapes. I don't need a flash. In fact, what on earth would I use a flash FOR? I actually have to soften the kit lens for the work, it's not too lousy, it's too sharp. I can do excellent work with the kit lens and no flash whatsoever.
> 
> ...



Actually, I do love fighting.  But then again, I agree with everything you said so it makes it a difficult fight.  I'll give it a shot anyway. ;-)

Point #9 didn't say that great shots can be made with a DSLR and a kit lens.  If it did, I would not argue.  I firmly believe great shots can indeed be made with a base DSLR and a kit lens.  The problem is he went out of his way to say that a photographer would not be limited by a base DSLR and a kit lens.  In that, he is wrong.

Again, here is the quote.



> #9 Ferrari&#8217;s are great cars; you just don&#8217;t see to many farmers hauling hay in them.
> Everything has a designed purpose. Your DSLR camera and Kit lens, are CAPABLE of taking great photographs; if they weren&#8217;t, they wouldn&#8217;t be selling them. *Really. Don&#8217;t begin your career by believing that you are already limited and need better equipment. Until you begin taking specialized types of photos, your equipment is probably going to do just fine* (once YOU learn how to use it to the best of its abilities).



This is silly. With a base DSLR and a kit lens of course you are limited.  Can you make great shots with those...sure, but that doesn't mean you aren't limited.


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, still deliberately deciding to talk about different things while pretending to be talking about the same things, purely in order to keep the yelling going.
> ...





But the OP isn't talking about a photographer, he's talking about a beginner. 
You've average person just starting and not really going for the job at the end of the week. For the average beginner just getting started the kit lens is sufficient and they've enough to learn about with regard to exposure without confusing things with flash (and heck most entry level camera bodies have a flash in them anyway).


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

Overread said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



You can't be serious?  The built in flash doesn't count.  The built in flash is crap and you know it.  Now I am starting to wonder who is playing Devil's Advocate...


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2012)

Couple a built in flash with a snoot and you've got a fairly capable flash for macro work - and heck the head on that is about the same size as the one on my macro Twinflash. 

But honestly as a beginner did I need a flash? Maybe, but heck if you gave me one back then it wouldn't have improved much. I'd have made exactly the same mistakes as I did with the popup flash. Yeah after some time, after getting to know the camera and getting used to it - then I was more ready to be able to advance to adding a new controlling light source into my scenes and to start balancing that with the exposures. 

You seem convinced that anyone can pick up the camera - master it in a week and be ready for anything two weeks later (ok time frames exaggerated). Different people learn at different rates and heck most people here are hobbyists - learning in the short gaps of free time that they get through the week. They might miss out a whole week of learning to shoot (and just snapping if they take any shots at all). You're a fast learner - but not everyone is.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

Overread said:


> Couple a built in flash with a snoot and you've got a fairly capable flash for macro work - and heck the head on that is about the same size as the one on my macro Twinflash.
> 
> But honestly as a beginner did I need a flash? Maybe, but heck if you gave me one back then it wouldn't have improved much. I'd have made exactly the same mistakes as I did with the popup flash. Yeah after some time, after getting to know the camera and getting used to it - then I was more ready to be able to advance to adding a new controlling light source into my scenes and to start balancing that with the exposures.
> 
> You seem convinced that anyone can pick up the camera - master it in a week and be ready for anything two weeks later (ok time frames exaggerated). Different people learn at different rates and heck most people here are hobbyists - learning in the short gaps of free time that they get through the week. They might miss out a whole week of learning to shoot (and just snapping if they take any shots at all). You're a fast learner - but not everyone is.



There is just one adjustment on a flash that matters, and that is exposure compensation.  Other than that, you put the camera in manual and let the flash figure out the rest.  If it's not right, you adjust exposure compensation, rinse, and repeat.  Dude, I know we have had our disagreements, but honestly, this isn't complicated.

You get to look at every shot after you take it.  If it's too bright, adjust exposure compensation.  If it's too dark, adjust exposure compensation.  If the flash can't do it, adjust shutter speed or ISO.  Heck, maybe even throw in an aperture adjustment.

You have 4 settings...ISO, aperture, Shutter Speed, and exposure/flash compensation.  You also have the added benefit of getting to see every shot after you take it.

Honestly, 4 variables with instant verification...it's not that complicated.  Take into account that several of those variables are determined by the conditions and it becomes even less complicated.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> This is silly. With a base DSLR and a kit lens of course you are limited.  Can you make great shots with those...sure, but that doesn't mean you aren't limited.



It doesn't mean you ARE limited either.  I don't know of many landscape photographers that require a flash.  I've also never seen any beginners comming to the forum complaining that their photos look like crap and decide to spring for a flash.... No they spend money on a faster more expensive lens and still wonder why their photos look like crap, which was precisely the OP's point.  THOSE beginners WEREN'T limited by their equipment, they were limited by their lack of knowledge and experience.  For some reason, you keep arguing against non-existent comments.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > This is silly. With a base DSLR and a kit lens of course you are limited.  Can you make great shots with those...sure, but that doesn't mean you aren't limited.
> ...



Okay, fine.  You want to talk about landscape photographers.  You are saying a tripod or filters don't extend their options?  Don't be silly.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> There is just one adjustment on a flash that matters, and that is exposure compensation.  Other than that, you put the camera in manual and let the flash figure out the rest.  If it's not right, you adjust exposure compensation, rinse, and repeat.  Dude, I know we have had our disagreements, but honestly, this isn't complicated.
> 
> You get to look at every shot after you take it.  If it's too bright, adjust exposure compensation.  If it's too dark, adjust exposure compensation.  If the flash can't do it, adjust shutter speed or ISO.  Heck, maybe even throw in an aperture adjustment.
> 
> ...



You keep describing the most basic shooting scenarios with the most basic, single flash setup in which the flash is the main light source.  I'm very curious to see what kind of photographs that a self proclaimed master of photography such as yourself has produced.  Care to share your portfolio?


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2012)

It is a lot easier to work and balance with 3 variables than it is with 4. Heck most beginners start out balancing only 2 variables and mostly leaving the ISO alone (ie leaving it on a low setting typically). You have to start out small otherwise you've got 4 variables - each one you could adjust to correct what is purely an exposure problem. Each one has its own effect on the final result and its not until you learn the ins and outs of them all that you'll know which is the better to adjust in any one given situation for the shot you want (unless you honestly don't care, but then at that point you'd be in full auto).

Also exposure compensation on the flash is only part of the battle with flash. It works most of the time until you're in a lighting situation where the exposure readings are somewhat variable, the light might be fairly constant, but the subjects might be shifting around from dark to bright and thus fooling the flash meter- meaning that between two shots the flash power, without any compensation, might not be equal. Fit learning aperture, ISO and shutter speed in there too and you've a recipe for confusion. 

Honestly you seem to have forgotten what it was like to learn - that or you had more preliminary research or influence before you took it seriously. Remember there are many (and heck I hold my hands I was one) who head out and the first camera they've ever used is a DSLR (well the first one they pay attention to beyond point and click).


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Okay, fine.  You want to talk about landscape photographers.  You are saying a tripod or filters don't extend their options?  Don't be silly.



We are not saying that. What we are saying is that beginners - rank entry level just picked up the camera beginners. Only need a certain level of gear. They don't need to get bogged down with all the specifics because, at their point in understanding they are not yet ready to make the proper choices. 

They need the experiences - heck they need to feel limited by the gear before they can really start to understand "YES this is when I need the ND filter - no wait actually I need the polarizer for its light stopping and reflection countering". 

This is without even going into the debate of investing further - you can buy a lot of cheap stuff and bad ND filters bought very cheaply (or rubbishy flash units) can easily make a newbie disillusioned with them (and I can assure you very few are going to rush out and buy a £100 ND filter after just spending a massive £400!! on just a camera!")


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > There is just one adjustment on a flash that matters, and that is exposure compensation.  Other than that, you put the camera in manual and let the flash figure out the rest.  If it's not right, you adjust exposure compensation, rinse, and repeat.  Dude, I know we have had our disagreements, but honestly, this isn't complicated.
> ...



You can easily check my posting history.  Here is a hint, the threads I started are the majority of the ones I shared pictures in.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

Overread said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, fine.  You want to talk about landscape photographers.  You are saying a tripod or filters don't extend their options?  Don't be silly.
> ...



That is exactly what you are saying.  I defy anyone with any level of skill to take a photo of a milky waterfall without an ND filter and a tripod.  I challenge anyone to take a photo of the perfect moment in a dark reception hall without a flash.  I challenge anyone to produce a photo of the pollen on a bee in flight without a macro lens.

Look, it's simple, the reason I have thousands of dollars in gear is because I needed it.  If I could have taken the same shots without that gear, I wouldn't have bought it.


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Look, it's simple, the reason I have thousands of dollars in gear is because I needed it.  If I could have taken the same shots without that gear, I wouldn't have bought it.



We are NOT talking about YOU.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

Overread said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Look, it's simple, the reason I have thousands of dollars in gear is because I needed it.  If I could have taken the same shots without that gear, I wouldn't have bought it.
> ...



But I want to...


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2012)

The weird thing is, the Original Post has like "23 Likes"...which is in my experience, the MOST likes I have ever seen here for a single post...

Not sure why this post was resurrected...when it was made, it got good responses, but now it has strayed, devolved, and anarchy and gunfire in the streets after dark seems like the next step in this pathetic, downward spiral.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

Derrel said:


> The weird thing is, the Original Post has like "23 Likes"...which is in my experience, the MOST likes I have ever seen here for a single post...
> 
> Not sure why this post was resurrected...when it was made, it got good responses, but now it has strayed, devolved, and anarchy and gunfire in the streets after dark seems like the next step in this pathetic, downward spiral.



This thread has been fun.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard is now as dense as skeiur... Congratulations.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Kerbouchard is now as dense as skeiur... Congratulations.



Last time I was tested, my IQ test came back at 168...  If you want to call that dense, that is up to you.  Most people probably wouldn't.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> Last time I was tested, my IQ test came back at 168...  If you want to call that dense, that is up to you.  Most people probably wouldn't.



You are a part of Mensa then I assume?

My uncle is part of them but he's also a college professor so he's poor as hell. Ha.

I think my IQ is something like 115 lol


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard is now as dense as skeiur... Congratulations.
> ...



Congrats, I too have a high IQ.  The problem with IQ tests is that they do not test or score RATIONAL thought, which is what your arguments lack.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was a few years ago.  I didn't keep up my dues.  I'll probably rejoin at some point since I enjoyed the tanks, but it wasn't an expense I could justify at the time.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



IMO, my argument is entirely rational.  The OP makes overly broad statements which are easily disproven...which is what I did.

Yes, I took the statements in the OP literal and called them out as false, which they were.  For me, there never really has been a grey area.

It's always been fact or fiction.  This OP happened to be fiction.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 18, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



A rational person would realize that nearly everything falls within some sort of gray area.  If this weren't the case, then AI wouldn't focus so heavily on fuzzy logic.  Just something to think about.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 18, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



I never said that I was completely rational...just that I was right.

Yes, I took an overly broad post at it's word, disproved it, and then perhaps even made fun of it a bit.

This isn't about being rational...The post is just stupid.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 19, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> *Every photographer needs a flash...period. * Without one, a photographer is limited and it has nothing to do with specialized types of photos, whatever that means.  And saying a kit lens is sufficient is borderline moronic.
> 
> A kit lens is not sufficient, and not having a flash will limit any new photographer.  Honestly, if you can't understand that, I don't think we can have an intelligent conversation.



Even those damn landscape photographers?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 19, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > *Every photographer needs a flash...period. * Without one, a photographer is limited and it has nothing to do with specialized types of photos, whatever that means.  And saying a kit lens is sufficient is borderline moronic.
> ...



I think some landscape photographers can benefit from a flash, but all of them benefit from a tripod and filters.  They also greatly benefit from lenses that are wider or longer than a traditional kit lens.


----------



## sofiamc (Sep 20, 2012)

great sticky


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 20, 2012)

Heny Cartier-Bresson never used a flash, or so I've been told. He thought thats impolite.


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 20, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



If you are new to photography, and you see this list as a sticky, wouldn't the rational thing to do be look at this list as a straight forward guide and not a "sometimes this may be true" list?
The OP isn't even true most of the time.


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 20, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> Heny Cartier-Bresson never used a flash, or so I've been told. He thought thats impolite.



LeicaMagazines.com - Leica Fotografie 1 1953 Henri Cartier-Bresson Macro Photography Flash


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 20, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



But insisting that skill has nothing to do with is and gear has everything to do with it is wrong. It's a mixture of both. A better skilled photographer can usually get away with using gear that isn't as good or doesn't have the features. Do you really need a Canon 5D MKIII to do HDR photos since it has a feature that does it in camera? Kerby's argument would state yes. If that's the case, how come people have been doing HDR photos for a far longer period of time than cameras with built in features have been out. Just like someone that has a bit of skill doesn't necessarily need a tripod for long exposure shots. They can most likely find something else to steady the camera with. Gear does make a difference. Skill also makes a difference. A skilled photographer with better gear that knows about posing and keeping their subjects comfortable will do better with portraiture than a noob that has $30,000 in gear and no prior experience shooting people.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 20, 2012)

Is there a way to stick thread to the very bottom of the list on the last page of threads? Cuz if so, I vote for making this one sticky as well.


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 20, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



I'm not insisting that skill is irrelevant. In fact I said that skill matters. But the fact of the matter is, the OP's is taking credit away from better gear. 

I'm not a newb, I'm not a pro. I don't know what to classify me as. But better gear makes learning so much easier for me. And I take better pictures with better gear. 
The argument shouldn't be newb vs pro, because that's too easy. The argument should be newb vs newb, or pro vs pro each comparison being the same person. Makes the equipment much more relevant and it gives the more realistic message: Yeah, learning the ropes is important, but so is the gear.

If you turn your nose up at someone for buying high end equipment with low end skill, just remember, skill can be refined and improved. The cheap POS lenses and body that you insisted they buy first can not be.


----------



## timor (Sep 20, 2012)

Very funny tread. Why someone with high IQ instead of bragging about it just make a better guide ? Or is this tread revolving around the fact, that nine out of ten photographers think the tenth photographer is an idiot ?


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 20, 2012)

IQ tests aren't accurate or consistent...


----------



## timor (Sep 20, 2012)

prodigy2k7 said:


> IQ tests aren't accurate or consistent...


I see...


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 21, 2012)

> The IQ (Image Quality) is proportional to the amount of time used to create it. If you grab your camera and take a picture, you have a snapshot. If you take your time, set up the shot, compose carefully, follow the rules, then you are going to have a chance of having a photograph as a piece of art.



I completely overlooked this. Oy vey. How is this a sticky?


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 21, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



Exactly, and in the CONTEXT of this post, it wasn't intended to be from a newbie to a pro.  It was written as a newbie to other UNSKILLED newbies.   Regardless of how much money an UNSKILLED newbie that just picked up his/her DSLR throws at it, he/she will be just as capable of producing CRAP becuase they will still be UNSKILLED.  I'm not saying that 100% of the information in the post was accurate, but from one UNSKILLED newbie to another UNSKILLED newbie, it is a good starting point for what they, an UNSKILLED person, should expect.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 21, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> > The IQ (Image Quality) is proportional to the amount of time used to create it. If you grab your camera and take a picture, you have a snapshot. If you take your time, set up the shot, compose carefully, follow the rules, then you are going to have a chance of having a photograph as a piece of art.
> 
> 
> 
> I completely overlooked this. Oy vey. How is this a sticky?



Sheer ignorance or mob mentality.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 22, 2012)

We'll try one more time.  We will even keep it with consumer gear and newbies for the sake of comparison. 

Let's say you hand one newbie a D3000 with an 18-55.  Let's say you hand another newbie a D3000 with a 70-300.  We will also say these two people are shooting the same subjects.  For the sake of argument, we will put the camera into (P)rofessional Mode.

Will the pictures look the same?


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 22, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> We'll try one more time.  We will even keep it with consumer gear and newbies for the sake of comparison.
> 
> Let's say you hand one newbie a D3000 with an 18-55.  Let's say you hand another newbie a D3000 with a 70-300.  We will also say these two people are shooting the same subjects.  For the sake of argument, we will put the camera into (P)rofessional Mode.
> 
> Will the pictures look the same?



Clearly, you still don't get it.  The point was not that the photos may look the same, because obviously there would be differences in DOF, distortion, etc. , but the point was both "setups" are capable of producing the same average crap snap shot  With SKILL and EXPERIENCE, however, you could use either of these tools and produce something very pleasing.


----------



## Ballistics (Sep 22, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Post 92.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 23, 2012)

Everybody on here should know that this argument, and the original post, is meaningless.  Perhaps, I played the Devil's Advocate too hard.

My take on this is perhaps different than others.  I primarily shoot weddings.  A guest can walk up to me anytime and ask me why they aren't getting good shots.  I set their camera for them, maybe let them borrow a flash, and they are off and away.  At the end of the night, they come up to me and thank me.

No, they might not have mastered the rule of thirds or leading lines, but at least they were able to get some good shots of an event that they found important to them.

Other times, a guest hands me a point and shoot and asks me if I can take a photo of them.  You know what?  I do it...every time.  And everytime it looks like a shot from a P&S.

I don't have a problem with that.  If a guest asks me to take a photo with their camera, I'll do it, fully knowing that the results won't even be similiar if it was taken with my camera.

So, basically, you have the same photographer, in the same situation, with different equipment.  The exact premise that this post is based on.  In one circumstance, I take a good photo.  In the other, I take a sub-par photo.

Same photographer, same situation, different equipment...and yet you still wonder if equipment matters?


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 24, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Everybody on here should know that this argument, and the original post, is meaningless.  Perhaps, I played the Devil's Advocate too hard.
> 
> My take on this is perhaps different than others.  I primarily shoot weddings.  A guest can walk up to me anytime and ask me why they aren't getting good shots.  I set their camera for them, maybe let them borrow a flash, and they are off and away.  At the end of the night, they come up to me and thank me.
> 
> ...



No one is saying it doesn't. You're insisting that it does entirely and you're arguing against your self.



Kerbouchard said:


> My take on this is perhaps different than others.  I primarily shoot weddings.  A guest can walk up to me anytime and ask me why they aren't getting good shots.  I set their camera for them, maybe let them borrow a flash, and they are off and away.  At the end of the night, they come up to me and thank me.



This is a total arguement against everything you've been trying to state. Why are they happy? Some one with some skill and knowledge provided them with the correct settings on their camera that they would have otherwise not known how to set.

Give them a $3000 camera, $2000 lens and a flash and sure, the photos may look better, but if they have crap settings they're going to have the same issue.


----------



## Claudillama (Jun 10, 2015)

Great list!! I been doing photography for 3 years now, and I wish I learned these steps in my first year! My first and only camera is a Nikon D3100 and it was the perfect camera for me to start learning photography!! I recommend it to anyone!! Pretty cheap for a DSLR.  Learning ISO, Shutter speed, and F/stop is def the first thing to learn, the foundation of photography!! It can be confusing at first to figure it out, but after a while of experimenting and practicing it is easy to work with them... Also I only been using my 50mm 1.8g lens instead of my kit lens. WORKS WONDERS!!! love it and great to buy as your first lens.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 1, 2015)

Addendum -
Photographers should seek to capture life and communicate virtually and not try to replicate someone else's work.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 1, 2015)

radiorickm said:


> #10 IF you are truly a newbie, this is going to hurt: Your new modern DSLR camera is a heck of a lot smarter than you are at this point. Over a hundred years of knowledge has been programmed into your camera.


 Newsflash: the fastest computer in the world has the compting power of, I dunno, maybe an earthworm ?

Your camera ? Forget it. Its absolutely dumb.

Even less DSLRs. Compact cameras, some of them have quite nifty automatic modes. DSLRs ? Not the point of that camera to do the thinking for you, so their AUTO modes arent that great anyway.

And all that a camera has to decide about is four variables: aperture, shutter speed, and sensor speed, plus the focus throw. Theres a couple more variables in post processing, for creating the JPEG or TIFF or whatever, such as white balance, but those four variables are really all that has to be decided before taking the picture. Except special circumstances, like flash.

Also, knowledge of a hundred years ? Give me a break. We have computers in cameras for 20 years now, tops. Thats the maximum time people had to optimize their algorithms.






> Dont begin your career by believing that you are already limited and need better equipment.





> #8 Until YOUR skill level outperforms your equipment, there is no real reason to upgrade.


 I used my D5100 for a 3/4 year before switching to full frame and never looked back. I dont care if I maybe still might not even match my D5100 in skill; photographing with my D600 is simply so much better, the image quality substantly increased, and the system much closer to my personal needs.

I buy new hardware whenever I see the need for it.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 1, 2015)




----------



## SCraig (Jul 1, 2015)

Since we are dredging up a thread that hasn't been posted in for 3 years I'd like to point out one thing:

People managed to take excellent photographs for decades without the benefit of autofocus, image stabilization, automatic exposure calculation, dozens of autofocus points, 36mp digital sensors, or any of the other bells and whistles that we enjoy these days.  They managed to take photographs of everything from portraits and landscapes to motorsports and rockets launching, and everything in between.  And they managed to do so quite well.

The way in which they managed to do this is very, very simple:  They learned to use their camera.  They didn't try to throw a Bandaid on the problem of poor photographs by running out and purchasing the latest whizz-bang new camera on the market, they LEARNED.

I see people here whining about their autofocus not being fast enough or accurate enough or their meter not compensating properly or their lens not focusing sharp enough and I'm here to tell you for an absolute fact that the majority of the time it is purely and simply because they don't know how to use what they have.  I see everything in the world packed into a camera body these days but the one thing I have never seen a camera come with is ability on the part of the photographer.

Think about that the next time the urge for a new lens or body or something-or-other hits.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 1, 2015)

Oh I don't know. An absolute newbie doesn't know anything about exposure compensation or meter bias. In that sense, yeah, AE program is 'smarter' than a newbie in the same sense that a calculator is smarter than I am at division to the 8th precision.

That's not saying much, as I can do a lot more with division and multiplication than it can. So yeah, a DSLR is "smarter" in the sense that it will compensate an exposure accurately every time (where I might skip f/5.6 - because I almost always do). But that's where it stops - what it does with the exposure it's totally clueless.


----------

