Sejanus.Aelianus
Mentor
Before going much further, could some kind person provide objective definitions for the terms "good lens", "good photograph", "bad lens", "bad photograph"?
"because I/some critic/this book says so", is not classified as objective in this context...
:angel:
"because I/some critic/this book says so", is not classified as objective in this context...
:angel:
--s
-
...what opens the door to discussions about life, the universe and everything.
is it necessary to think of "good" or "bad" in the field of photography? why do so many people have this competitive attitude?
Sejanus.Aelianus
Mentor
If you ever find out please tell me.
daveleo
what?
I spent my life with engineers. If you tell an engineer about an idea that you have in mind, no matter what it is, he is positively certain to have a better idea than yours.
I'm finding out that photographers can be like that too.
Mcary
Well-known
No its not necessary at all! If a person is happy with the pictures they're taking and has no desire to improve then they should keeping doing what they're doing.
On the other hand if a person want to become the best photographer they can be then competing/comparing their work with other people's work as well as their own past work is an important part of the process.
Personally I feel that rather then taking away from the experience working to improve adds to the whole experience.
thejameskendall
Established
Very few lenses are going to be the quality bottle neck for me so I've decided to stop worrying about them and concentrate on taking more photos.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
"Helped" is not a word I would use. :O He did use a lot of different cameras over his career though, which may say something about it being the photographer and not the camera.
While I agree we can objectively judge which equipment is technically superior, it's really up to us an individuals to consider whether or not that is important at all. So if one holds that a person can still take "good photos" with something like a box camera, I don't think I could argue with them. If they're a good photographer, then of course they can. Even pullitzer winners have used box cameras, although that may be because any camera is better than no camera.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Mentor
But what is a good photographer? Someone who gets paid a lot? Someone who wins a popularity contest?
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Simply somebody who makes interesting photographs. To whom they're interesting is a different issue.
bobbyrab
Well-known
What do you expect anyone to say to this, have you a definition? if you haven't does that mean all photographers are equal in your eyes, that no one can say with any authority that one image is better than another?
Where would you stop, is Predator Vs Alien part 3 equal to Lawrence of Arabia. Obviously not, so what criterion do you use to asses the quality of any non measurable work.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Mentor
To your first question, my answer is that I have no expectations. To your second question, my answer is "no". To your third question, my answer is "yes". To your fourth question, my answer is "yes" (and I would add, I think I would prefer PVA3, which I haven't seen, to Lean and Spiegal's interminable offering, which I have). To your fifth question, that is exactly what I am asking everyone.
bobbyrab
Well-known
Actually i think you'll find that it's this sort of pedantry that is the threads subject. Where could you begin a discussion with someone unable, or unwilling to make any distinctions.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Mentor
Pedantry? Where does pedantry enter into it?
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Then again, what 'good' photo would illustrate the simple truth that some lenses are sharper, more contrasty, etc., than others? It's comparatively easy to choose a 'good' picture made with an 'inferior' lens:I've attached one of my favourites, made with a 1936 uncoated 5cm Elmar: Hill and Moon, wales, shot almost 40 years ago. But how will a 'good' lens show up on a screen? The other pic, 'Attic', was taken with (as far as I recall) either a 105mm Apo-Lanthar or a 100mm Apo-Symmar on 6x7cm. See a real print and it's both technically 'better' and better suited to the subject matter.
There's also the point that 'good' is subjective. I think I'm a pretty fair photographer, but I have fans who think I'm brilliant (i.e. far better than I think I am) and detractors who think I'm awful (i.e. far worse than I think I am). I have the cynical suspicion that the detractors wouldn't admit to liking my pictures even if they did. If you wish to make up your own mind, take a look at my site. Even the index http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/photo school index.html -- should give you an idea, but there's lots more. On the index page, seven of the pictures are mine (eight if you include the picture of the camera) and four are by my wife Frances.
You might however be amused by "Gurus and why to avoid them," http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps ignore gurus.html
Cheers,
R.
Attachments
Roger Hicks
Mentor
As a definition of a good photographer, this seems unanswerable to me.
There's also the point that a good teacher -- someone who makes you think, helps you learn, challenges your preconceptions, and makes fundamental contributions in other areas -- needn't necessarily be a great photographer: the late Geoffrey Crawley springs to mind.
Cheers,
R.
I ask: where among us are these fools you speak of that deny the self-evident?
Does this thread really need to exist?
Does this thread really need to exist?
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Another way of looking at the original post:
When asked to recommend a lens, many will say, in effect, "I have taken at least one good picture with this lens, therefore I recommend it."
There are few if any lenses in the world that are so useless that one photographer, once, somewhere, has not taken a good picture with them. Likewise cameras. But how much use is this to someone who is seeking a reasonably versatile, readily available lens?
At least if someone says "This is a great lens" and then posts a picture of the sort of thing we never shoot, while at the same time underwhelming us with its technical quality, we know what not to buy. Is that the same as saying it's a bad picture? No. just that it is of absolutely no interest to us.
Cheers,
R.
When asked to recommend a lens, many will say, in effect, "I have taken at least one good picture with this lens, therefore I recommend it."
There are few if any lenses in the world that are so useless that one photographer, once, somewhere, has not taken a good picture with them. Likewise cameras. But how much use is this to someone who is seeking a reasonably versatile, readily available lens?
At least if someone says "This is a great lens" and then posts a picture of the sort of thing we never shoot, while at the same time underwhelming us with its technical quality, we know what not to buy. Is that the same as saying it's a bad picture? No. just that it is of absolutely no interest to us.
Cheers,
R.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
At least a lens can be tested objectively against measurable standards.
A photographer is appreciated (or not) objectively. A moving target.
A photographer is appreciated (or not) objectively. A moving target.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
First sentence: to name them would almost certainly lead them to throw tantrums, and to indulge in personal attacks against those who disagree with them. They are not numerous, but nor are they impossible to find.
Second sentence: the thread would not need to exist if they did not.
And the thread has also provoked some interesting reactions. At least, I find them so. I found Godfrey's arguments especially interesting, for example.
Cheers,
R.
leica M2 fan
Mentor
Roger, so very well stated in your original post. Very logical
and reasonable. I enjoy reading your writing and thinking.
and reasonable. I enjoy reading your writing and thinking.