Yes you could have. It might not have been fun but its still possible. Especially pending your settings and how much light your flash is giving you in terms of creating DoF.

A technically better looking image doesnt mean its a good image. And it doesnt non-photographer is suddenly a pro. Thats where the "artist" comes in.

 

Bingo

 

First, I would never try doing that, because that is a waste of brainpower. Maybe, for a special project, I could try it for a night. But doing it on a weekly basis, hell no. And, remember I am interested in reliability. I have to deliver these shots. Not to mention, I can't be fiddling with controls when I have people in front of me, in the dark, at a club on their night out, waiting for a photo, and hope the focus comes out ok. That is complete foolishness. I have to nail these photos. Also, I change up my shots, I am not out there taking identical shots every night - I don't have a pattern of how close I am to subjects. Lots of time, I am not even looking in the viewfinder - I have the camera outstretched to get a certain angle.

A camera with better AF makes me a better photographer, because it makes me and my photos more reliable.

 

this is fine for certain applications - and certainly doable. but for a weekly assignment involving people at a public place, no, it is not a reasonable thing to rely on.

 

Thats just making an excuse. If you've been shooting in a club for year...you have a general idea of its layout and over that time you can get good ideas of distance. Practice reduces the need for in the moment brain power, its like any other muscle. If this was 10-20 years ago...this is exactly what you'd be doing.

Having better AF doesn't make you a better photographer. Its a tool that lets you achieve greater success. You can still get those shots with your 5Dc...even if you don't get as many of them.

You could give your 5D 3 to some stranger in the club and he could shoot 1000 images that night...and barely have 1 worth a damn...why, he isnt a photographer.

 

again, I disagree. I need the help from my gear, on a weekly basis. I am not going to try to use my skills to MF every shot every night. (I do know how to use MF). If I can get considerably more keepers from a certain camera over another one, using identical skill and technique, then that camera does directly make me a better photographer.

I think the MF point is moot. Why would I use MF when I have the technology I need to use AF? The only reason I would is if I wanted a real challenge one night and wanted to see how many keepers I could get using MF. I have no desire to do that, for a paying gig, on a weekly basis. I need dependable results.

 

You miss the point entirely because your blinded to hold to your POV.

Sometimes the best technology is the old fashioned. And without a knowledge of the history, its really hard to progress to the future no matter how many features get added.

If you're picking a specific camera (tool) over another while using the same skill, technique, whatever and you're just getting MORE of the same good shots you'd be getting with the other tool...than the camera is NOT making you a better photographer.

Like I said, its just giving you greater success.

The tool does NOT make the artist.

 

Now we're arguing the definition of a photographer. To you, it is purely about art. To me, it's a mixture of artistic vision and reliability. You can be the Picasso of photography but if you are not reliable, you are not useful to clients. And, you are thusly not a good photographer, as a business.

 

My argument hasn't changed. Its the same thing Ive been saying since my very first post.

If you're not a good photographer to begin with...then it doesn't matter what you're shooting with...you wont be useful or reliable to being with.

 

I agree with that. And that is why I said I think we are talking about different things. I am saying, if you are a good photographer, then your gear can make you a better or worse photographer.

 

I still don't agree with that. I think better gear can allow a good photographer to achieve greater success or get results they've always wanted but otherwise couldn't due to a lack in the technology available. But they always have had the ability to utilize that newer gear.

 

I think you have helped clarify the distinction in our arguments here. You are saying a good photographer knows how to take photos and can thusly use any kind of gear to make good photos, whether its a disposable camera or a Phase One. And, I agree with that. I am talking of the definition of a 'good photographer' from a business perspective. That is, in terms of appeal to clients. You can't exactly market yourself as having the ability to shoot high-end cameras - you are only as good as the gear you actually have in your possession, in terms of the technical side of it. You could argue that a client could rent you a Phase One or something of that nature if they wanted to, and the surely, being a good photographer, you could step in and operate that piece of machinery. Having been in a similar scenario myself, I can tell you this is not exactly a good position to be in, to basically learn and get accustomed to a camera you've never used before, on the fly, for a client. Every camera has its own personality, quirks, and features, and the fact is the more you use and get accustomed to a camera, the better you get at using it. It's a simple matter of experience, given that you are a good photographer and know how to use cameras, generally speaking.

 

Yes and no.

I come from an industry where 95% of the cameras and lenses are rented. And there are SEVERAL different cameras, formats, systems, interfaces, and what have you out there. And that has only increased as these new technologies rapidly deploy. It's in my business to be able to pick up a foreign piece of gear and be able to use it fairly quick. I might not master it the first time out, but enough to do the job as required by the clients.

I'm very comfortable being in that position.

 

personal differences

 

I still stand by my belief. Doesn't matter if its personal, art, or business. It all applies.

 

Tyler just get lightroom installed on your new macbook and start playing with it.

Now that i've been using it I can spot a vignette everytime i see one haha.



I will show you the difference between out of the camera and a highly adjusted photo in lightroom.. It just depends on the viewer as to which one they prefer. Personally there are tons of things that I would want to improve with this image. First things i would do would be to use my Sb600 and 910 off the camera and use better glass. It's not nearly as crisp as I prefer, but again others might love the way it looks as is.

 

I like both of those pictures A LOT (in fact they're on my Ferrari blog).

The way I see it is this...the photographer takes the picture and edits the way he pleases, he may see the photo as perfect and shares it, but as the world is...there is always someone who has different views on something (like yourself) so the picture doesn't appeal to you as much as others.

For me, it really depends on the overall photo. Some pictures I see and I think they're great with the post-processing, others I see and they're WAY too overdone, such as heavy HDRs.

I myself like to get the true colors of the scene, sometimes I have to heavily edit those pictures because my camera fails to capture it, either because they're under/over exposed or the colors are very dull.

On to your OP, I feel like PS is being heavily used nowadays to manipulate a photo more than it needs to be. I was taught in school to take the best picture possible because you can only edit it so much before it's just a mess. To me, the real art is taking the photo and leaving it alone because it's that damn good, or editing it to make it look real, like you're seeing that scene with your own eyes, these photos that look like computer generated posters are just over the top.

Don't get me wrong, I love those two photos, but I do believe they could use a little less saturation.

 

Eric, I personally love your edited photo, the original is just too washed out (the sky especially), however I think it could be lightened up a little.

But, like you said, it's all in personal preference.

 

Holy moly this thread has blown up! I appreciate everyone's input. Like I stated before, in no way am I trying to insult anyone.

Lots of good points, observations, and opinions so far. Continue

 

I saw you were the OP and was like, 2 pages...in the photo section? When the hell did he make this thread? -click- Yesterday!?

 

Thanks man. haha this photo was one of the first that i messed with and i admit i went a little HAM on the sliders in LR lol. I noticed the photos appear lighter in LR and when i export them they are darker. Next time around I will be easier on the adjustments for sure.

 

Could be my screen too so many different variables.

 

 

Hmm...I have an example...



Here's an image of mine...

Actually two I merged two together, reason being, I can't properly expose my black car and the bright sky. I took a photo properly exposing my car and then another with the sky, same placement, didn't move the camera at all. I merged the two photos then erased the sky around my car, revealing the nice purple/blue sky.

I rarely do this technique but when I have two extremes, it's a must.

 

Very cool Austin

 

This starts to get us off topic.

But there are several ways to have accomplished this image.

1) By doing just what you did (which by the way...it was rare but people did do this in the time of negative...splicing and merging negatives together)

2) You could have done an HDR. And donr while still achieving this look. HDR got popular for its hyper-realist/almost fake qualities when pushed to the extremes (which I usually hate) but its real use is for these very high contrast scenes in order to help balance the image.

3) Done all of this in one single exposure if you were using a camera with a latitude and understand how exposure and the like work. Just because you dont always see the detail doesn't mean it isn't there.

4) shot using graduated filters, exposing for the car and letting grad ND filters knock the sky back down...old school.

I dont shoot HDR, in fact, I dont do 1, 2 or 3...but a lot of people think I do because of how I expose and then process to retain the greatest amount of information and then extract it with processing

And that is an example of having better gear vs knowing how to use existing or better gear. i.e.: what makes you better...you or the gear.

 

I'm not a pro dude, I'm 19 with a Canon XS and a couple fancy lenses

I don't have ND filters (but I need them). And I don't know how to get my camera (if it will even do so) to make a single picture with multiple exposures.

I did it the long way because that's how I know to do it. The HDR thing in CS5 is weird to me, doesn't help me very much.

 

I didnt say you were a pro...

but at the same time I just taught you something.

There is more than one way to skin a cat based on the tools you have at hand. You did what you know how to do and thats perfectly OK.

You took what you had and did something 90% of the people in your shoes wouldn't have thought to do. And you did so rather than running out and buying the latest and greatest because you thought it might make you "better"

Yeah..youre 19 and might not have them means to run out and drop money anyway...but that is the best time to learn.

I always say learn how to do more with less...Its serves you better in the long run.

 

Thanks

I agree. Learn what I can now and use my available tools in the best way possible.

 

Austin keep up the good work man. When i was 19, let's see... I didn't know what a DSLR was, and I didn't even learn how to post an image on a forum until I was 21. lol. So you're good. And just until last year I never shot in manual mode. That's how far ahead in the learning curve you are than i was.

I'm about to take an image of a sunset that i took and install it into one of my TL/s2000 photos. Mostly because i've always wanted a sunset background with a car, but the sunsets are so tricky they're hard to catch.

 

You better post it here! Can't wait to see it!

And thanks having a photo class helped a lot and I appreciate everything my teacher taught me, it really helps even though I don't shoot as often as I'd like to.

 

IMO, to answer the original question, yes, proficiency in photo editing software can overcome some shortcomings in photography technique. But many times it can even help a pro photographer get a useful shot out of an otherwise throwaway straight out of the camera due to imperfect lighting, composition, etc. And many times it can turn a useful shot straight out of the camera to an award winning shot. Does that mean that people shouldn't learn the basics and always be trying to improve their technique? Of course not. The people who are truly into photography will do this inherently.

I'd rather see someones work and creativity even if they used PP than not see it because they can't get the shots SOC.

Lastly, I consider photography to be an art form, plain and simple. In art, you have the freedom to create what you want to create in whatever way you want to create it. If someone painted a picture of you but used more vibrant colors than what he sees in real life, does that make his work less important? No

 

Well put 100% agree.

 

Sorry for the threadjack. I feel like splitting that stuff into a separate thread...

 

How was that a threadjack? It was all prevalent to the topic at hand.

 

I just thought it got a little too drawn out. But if you're cool with it being in here, I am ok with it.

 

i thought it was the most non-aggresive debate we've had.

 

 

This image did not look like this to begin with lol.

 

^ that image was derived from these two photos which were taken about 15 minutes apart. I had no idea the sunset was about to be immense. It was fucking unreal. I didn't turn up the saturation on the sky at all...it really looked like that. It was bothering me that we had relocated to the mall and had missed a great opportunity for a sunset background, so with lightroom and PS it was possible to make the two photos come together.