|
Post Ur Pictars Thread VI (pg. 544)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| iammesol |
| Those are some sick mountain pix, Rose. Makes me want to go back to my mountain abode. :) |
|
|
| squirrelly |
lololol Scott :stongue:
No I mean, ok - so you buy some huge expensive camera - take 250 pictures, and end up with 5 "good" ones, and then call yourself a photographer.
WTF, where's the talent? That's just luck.
Be trained on a FILM camera, when film was expensive, and be told you have ONE roll, and out of 36 shots, 35 have to be PERFECT, and you'll know what it's like. I don't need to take 250 pictures to get a few good ones. I was trained to take the correct shot, on the first try, every time.
And I can develop my own , too.
so yea.
//rant
ediiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit (this was not to rose fyi) |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
lololol Scott :stongue:
No I mean, ok - so you buy some huge expensive camera - take 250 pictures, and end up with 5 "good" ones, and then call yourself a photographer.
WTF, where's the talent? That's just luck.
Be trained on a FILM camera, when film was expensive, and be told you have ONE roll, and out of 36 shots, 35 have to be PERFECT, and you'll know what it's like. I don't need to take 250 pictures to get a few good ones. I was trained to take the correct shot, on the first try, every time.
And I can develop my own , too.
so yea.
//rant
ediiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit (this was not to rose fyi) |
I feel you, but I also have a problem with this line of thought. Just because you were taught with different tools, does not mean that someone taught with newer tools, less bull, etc, makes them less of a professional. ANYTHING touched by the wonders of computers and digital technology make things insanely easier for idiots to get into whatever it is. I wish this wasn't the case in some aspects, but really, it is for the best. The will still be , and the awesome will still be awesome. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
lololol Scott :stongue:
No I mean, ok - so you buy some huge expensive camera - take 250 pictures, and end up with 5 "good" ones, and then call yourself a photographer.
WTF, where's the talent? That's just luck.
Be trained on a FILM camera, when film was expensive, and be told you have ONE roll, and out of 36 shots, 35 have to be PERFECT, and you'll know what it's like. I don't need to take 250 pictures to get a few good ones. I was trained to take the correct shot, on the first try, every time.
And I can develop my own , too.
so yea.
//rant
ediiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit (this was not to rose fyi) |
ya but its not expensive anymore. Stop living in the past you dinosaur. :p |
|
|
| squirrelly |
ok, that is not the point. the point is, taking a few hundred shots with your fancy digital camera, and spitting out a handful of good ones - is not impressive.
Neither is editing it to look neat on photoshop. Don't get me wrong, I love photoshop, but it's much more impressive when you can take a pimp shot on the FIRST try, and NOT have to use photoshop to edit it. |
|
|
| squirrelly |
| oh, and taking pictures at clubs/concerts of djs/bands, where the lighting is already all set up for you, does NOT count. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| sounds like someone is stuck in 1998. |
|
|
| squirrelly |
| no, someone's stuck on talent vs repetitiveness & manipulation. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| I have to agree with Squirrelly on this one. Most people take photographs... photographers MAKE photographs. The difference between the two being that a photographer plans angles, lighting, camera settings, staging, etc. in order to create the exact shot they want as opposed to just taking a bunch of photos and keeping the best of what they happen to get. |
|
|
| elFreak |
when hollywood shot on film, the cost assured they had to have a good ratio of usable material vs unusable to cut costs.
now they can shoot as much as they want to get the quality they deem acceptable.
the bottom line is the final product and quality.
your argument is like saying that people who have high def television suck, because they don't deserve it as much as people who had to mess around with rabbit ears.
bitter bus.
some of the greatest accomplishments in human history were accidents.
look at me.:p |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
ok, that is not the point. the point is, taking a few hundred shots with your fancy digital camera, and spitting out a handful of good ones - is not impressive.
Neither is editing it to look neat on photoshop. Don't get me wrong, I love photoshop, but it's much more impressive when you can take a pimp shot on the FIRST try, and NOT have to use photoshop to edit it. |
Even great photographers don't get every shot on their first try.
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
oh, and taking pictures at clubs/concerts of djs/bands, where the lighting is already all set up for you, does NOT count. |
I don't even own a camera, but the thought that the lighting is setup for you at a venue is idiocy. The lighting is usually NOT conducive to the shots of the photos. This is the biggest crock of ever. The lighting is made to work for the crowd not photographers. Period. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Most people take photographs... photographers MAKE photographs. |
Your right...but equipment learned on has no effect on this. As I said earlier, is still , and awesome is still awesome. |
|
|
|
|
