Your camera is better than Ansel Adams'...

Yep. I was in the "wedding business" for about 2 years. Used (primarily) a Mamiya 645, Always liked that medium format babe. Made good money - hell, excellent money. However, lugging the lights, backdrops and all the other sundries got to be a bit of a drag. Not to mention the Bride and her Mother.....Lordy...I never met a Bride that wasn't hiding a monster under that wedding dress. :evilsmile:

 

Then, you had to factor in the lab, the proof books, the albums....the reprints. and no matter who the customer was, they always acted as though they were being ripped off. One day I just said "enough". Quit shooting weddings and lost a bunch of major headaches. ;)

Yep don’t miss them.

I found medium format a bit cumbersome for weddings, other than a few set piece shots.

Many years ago I made a living with a camera. It was frequent at weddings in particular that I’d be told “oh I’ve got a better camera than that”, at that stage I shot with three Canon AE-1s, why? Because I wanted the same camera, two with colour for film changes and one with b&w, last thing I needed was to worry about where a control was on each body, sure I could have used F-1s or something but the AEcdid the job for a lot less $$$

I used the same bodies, for the same reasons. Bought 2 in pawn shops at Ft. Knox. Wanted to have different films and interchange the lenses. Haven't touched a film camera for years. Don't miss them, but won't get rid of them.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I read an article a while back titled "do you need the latest and greatest new DSLR", I wish I could find it again to read through it.

I found an article titled "No, You Don't Need a DSLR Camera for Christmas." I'm not sure whether it's the same article you were thinking of, but it seems to make similar points.

The writer made a point that made me think "is a new camera going to make you a better photographer, or is overcoming the limitations of your current gear going to make you a better photographer?"

Similarly the author of this article stated:

"Your pictures will not magically get better when you buy a DSLR. ​Yes, a DSLR is capable of taking a great picture. Your laptop is also capable of writing a great book. Until computers are able to automatically churn out the next literary masterpiece, your camera will still require a photographer to work. If you are consistently underwhelmed with your photography, it's not your cameras fault."

He made several other points that explain my lack of enthusiasm for DSLRs.

1. DSLRs aren't convenient to use.

2. Owning a DSLR camera won't seem like a good idea when I stop using it altogether, because it's too inconvenient to travel with.

3. I'm paying for features I won't use.

4. The price of camera lenses can get out of hand faster than the price of cameras.

5. If I spend more time learning about (and practicing with) lighting, exposure, composition, and post processing, my photography will improve, no matter what camera I own.

But the author does touch upon one pet peeve of mine when it comes to photographic advice....

"90% of the time, lighting alone makes or breaks a photograph. Why don't your landscapes look good? You were there at the wrong time of day."

I agree with what he says. But I usually hear it offered as a critique (by amateur photographers) of my vacation photos. I take the photos when I'm at that location. I use whatever light is available. The sun and clouds won't rearrange themselves to my convenience. Since I'm traveling and taking pictures for most of the day, most of the pictures won't be taken during the golden hour.

I genuinely feel that most of this "advice" is intended to make the person offering it appear knowledgeable, rather than to convey valuable information to the recipient.

My brother-in-law: "This picture of the Duomo would have looked much better if you had waited until the sun was on it, rather than taking the picture when it was back-lit by the sun."

Me: "True, but our tour was only in Piazza dei Miracoli for 20 minutes, and the sun seemed disinclined to move that quickly. I also tried turning the Duomo around, so the front entrance would face the sun, but the congregation objected, since they were in the middle of Sunday services."

My brother-in-law: "Did you try taking a picture of the other side?"

Me: "I have a fantastic picture of the other side. But the two sides aren't identical. There are some details on this side that I wanted to catch as well."

I found an article titled "No, You Don't Need a DSLR Camera for Christmas." I'm not sure whether it's the same article you were thinking of, but it seems to make similar points.

 

 

Similarly the author of this article stated:

"Your pictures will not magically get better when you buy a DSLR. ​Yes, a DSLR is capable of taking a great picture. Your laptop is also capable of writing a great book. Until computers are able to automatically churn out the next literary masterpiece, your camera will still require a photographer to work. If you are consistently underwhelmed with your photography, it's not your cameras fault."

 

 

I think my pictures DID get much better when I bought the Sony A6000. They were finally better focused and had better depth, even better light than ever before. I was finally taking the pictures that I always thought I was taking before. So, while I understand the sentiment, yes, the camera can make a significant difference to the final product.

Vic

Yep don’t miss them.

 

I found medium format a bit cumbersome for weddings, other than a few set piece shots.

Indeed. The Nikons were used for the "action" shots. The Mamiya for the "set ups" before and after the ceremony. Used to have to hustle to get the lights set up, flowers just right, taking meter readings. Then the Bride and Groom and the party came in. Mom and Dad on both sides - you know the deal/

Then out came the Nikons for the Reception and the take off for the honeymoon. Then off to the lab with all the film.

I think my pictures DID get much better when I bought the Sony A6000. They were finally better focused and had better depth, even better light than ever before. I was finally taking the pictures that I always thought I was taking before. So, while I understand the sentiment, yes, the camera can make a significant difference to the final product.

 

Vic

Respectfully differ. All the improvements you mentioned were correctable by you. Except for focus, all the improvements you mentioned could have been post-processed to bring out the details of your composition. What the A6000 did was make it easier to capture what inspired you to take the picture. Less worry about exposure and fiddling with focus and all the other things needed to wrest a decent image out of lesser gear means more time and attention available to the part of the image that is separate from the gear itself, namely you.

You got a great new tool and it made you pay more attention to the image. The A6000 made it easier. You made it better.

Dave

Respectfully differ. All the improvements you mentioned were correctable by you.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, we don't know how bad Victress' previous camera was. My first camera was a Kodak EasyShare C180. I don't know if it was just my camera, or the model in general, but the LCD was so dim that composing a shot was extremely challenging. If I was taking pictures in direct sunlight, I was literally shooting blind. Even if it was overcast, composing the shot was partially guesswork.

And if I messed up a shot (due to focus, overexposure, or underexposure), I wouldn't realize it until I could see the LCD screen in dim lighting ... when it was too late to retake the shot.

Except for focus, all the improvements you mentioned could have been post-processed to bring out the details of your composition.

I was testing the post-processing capabilities of the Olympus Viewer 3 this weekend. I pulled out that first batch of EasyShare C180 shots to work with. There were no shortage of messed up shots to practice on. I felt a certain degree of triumph when an eight-year-old photo went from "bad" to "quite good" with just a few adjustments.

Interestingly, a friend of mine (who uses several thousand dollars worth of camera equipment) said he doesn't bother trying to fix his old photos. He just gets rid of them, because he's a much better photographer than he was when he first began. The difference between his attitude and mine may be due to the difference in our preferred subject matter. He largely does local bird photography. He will see the same species of bird again. I'm mostly doing vacation photography. I'm not going to return to Castle Urquhart just to get a better picture of it.