Question for the Pros
- Thread starter Retro
- Start date
Todays photographic world is split between the "talkers" and the "doers" - you can often see the talkers walking around at events with cameras in pristine condition and a lens cap on for the whole day, they can engage in technical conversation about photography that will make the most patient person scream but, and this is the critical part - they cannot show a good image that matches their ability to talk the subject!
I spent 20+ yrs earning my living as firstly a PJ in West Berlin up until 2yrs after the wall came down, then back in the UK until I changed careers - I have been lucky enough to shoot everything from 8x10" down to 35mm with all formats in between and now do photography as a hobby with occasional paid work - I meet many of these talkers at events carrying nice equipment in expensive bags bristling with a brace of lenses yet very rarely if ever seen taking photos, (I still carry my kit of choice for the day in a 2nd world war canvas gas mask case that is well worn - it does not draw attention!!!).
I am not having a go at these "talkers" and do not feel envious of their equipment (well maybe a little at times), but feel sorry that they feel the need to display their equipment as a badge yet many cannot endorse it with results.
I was always taught that it is the person behind the camera that matters and the camera is the tool used to interpret their vison rather than being a badge to define them by.
There are also many working pro's (some working for Magnum) who apply the basic principles of the Sunny f16 Rule and variants of, they do not concern themselves with the intricacies of a cameras dynamic range / chromatic aberation etc but they know how to deliver the goods.
Finally, I do worry about those in forums who make a habit of criticising other photographers work but cannot demonstrate their skill through genuine images they have taken.
Here endeth my epistle and the saying "never judge a book by its cover" has never been truer!
I spent 20+ yrs earning my living as firstly a PJ in West Berlin up until 2yrs after the wall came down, then back in the UK until I changed careers - I have been lucky enough to shoot everything from 8x10" down to 35mm with all formats in between and now do photography as a hobby with occasional paid work - I meet many of these talkers at events carrying nice equipment in expensive bags bristling with a brace of lenses yet very rarely if ever seen taking photos, (I still carry my kit of choice for the day in a 2nd world war canvas gas mask case that is well worn - it does not draw attention!!!).
I am not having a go at these "talkers" and do not feel envious of their equipment (well maybe a little at times), but feel sorry that they feel the need to display their equipment as a badge yet many cannot endorse it with results.
I was always taught that it is the person behind the camera that matters and the camera is the tool used to interpret their vison rather than being a badge to define them by.
There are also many working pro's (some working for Magnum) who apply the basic principles of the Sunny f16 Rule and variants of, they do not concern themselves with the intricacies of a cameras dynamic range / chromatic aberation etc but they know how to deliver the goods.
Finally, I do worry about those in forums who make a habit of criticising other photographers work but cannot demonstrate their skill through genuine images they have taken.
Here endeth my epistle and the saying "never judge a book by its cover" has never been truer!
Last edited:
rocketman122
Senior Member
A d800 isnt an impressive camera IMO. its a camera. I dont care what the camera is. I can tell a persons level just by standing and watching him/her work 2-3 minutes.
now this is going to sting DX shooter, but if I see a "semi/pro" shooting with a DX camera, I lose respect for them. sorry, but I feel that if youre a semi/pro, you should be using FX cameras. and ti goes without saying no variable aperture lenses. im still on the fence on how I feel about F/4 gear. but its not leaning towards positive.
Last edited:
Your answers are very helpful to me, Iansky and Rocketman. This helps me determine what my focus should be in what I learn and aim for.
From what you're saying, it sounds like part of being a pro is recognizing when you can't get a shot, and admitting that to someone who wants the shot taken. With only fixed aperture lenses in your bag, there will be some scenes you would like to get, but it's after 6pm and it's a no-go, right? Or can you just change your iso, lens and shutter speed and get any shot?
I learned on an OM-10 with a zoom lens, so there's a lot I don't know.
From what you're saying, it sounds like part of being a pro is recognizing when you can't get a shot, and admitting that to someone who wants the shot taken. With only fixed aperture lenses in your bag, there will be some scenes you would like to get, but it's after 6pm and it's a no-go, right? Or can you just change your iso, lens and shutter speed and get any shot?
I learned on an OM-10 with a zoom lens, so there's a lot I don't know.
Here's the one time I disagree with the Rocketman. It doesn't matter if the camera is DX or FX or a friggin' Brownie!. It's the results that matter! I know many pro and semi pro shooters that use both, because it's always about the results.
The only reason I shoot DX is because of cost. I just can't afford an FX camera and it's accompanying expensive FX lenses. I'm quite happy shooting with what I have, and my clients have always been happy with the results. That's all that's important to me.....the results! I fully agree with Iansky, too.
The only reason I shoot DX is because of cost. I just can't afford an FX camera and it's accompanying expensive FX lenses. I'm quite happy shooting with what I have, and my clients have always been happy with the results. That's all that's important to me.....the results! I fully agree with Iansky, too.
My primary camera for the paid work I do is a full frame so that I can get the best image quality possible.
Having said that, I have shot paid work with my Olympus OMD EM1 Micro four thirds camera and the 45mm lens and the results I have got have been more than satisfactory - link is here: 571 Photography: Hair & makeup
These were very much quick shots as I only had a max of 5 min for each shot as they were on a time limit waiting to go out - they were very happy with the results though.
I have also put a link below to some other images from an event I covered again with the EM1 - a great little camera for this work.
571 Photography: Toddington Steam Railway and vintage cars
Having said that, I have shot paid work with my Olympus OMD EM1 Micro four thirds camera and the 45mm lens and the results I have got have been more than satisfactory - link is here: 571 Photography: Hair & makeup
These were very much quick shots as I only had a max of 5 min for each shot as they were on a time limit waiting to go out - they were very happy with the results though.
I have also put a link below to some other images from an event I covered again with the EM1 - a great little camera for this work.
571 Photography: Toddington Steam Railway and vintage cars
Last edited:
AC016
Senior Member
It does not sting, just a load of cods wallop. There are plenty of semi-pros and pros, who shoot with something other then FX. If you care to take the time, you may want to convey your message to the following people and see how they react:
Kevin Mullins
Zack Arias
David Hobby
Bert Stephani
Benjamin Kanarek
Ian Cameron
Bill Gekas
Chase Jarvis
Ming Thein
Mark Hoffer.....
...... the list can go on. Seriously, if you measure yourself by your equipment, i feel somewhat sorry for you. Output/content is what matters the most.
A the end of the day, I don't give two hoots what someone uses. What matters is if they got the shot they wanted.
Does anyone care, when they look at a painting, get all hot and bothered by whether the artist used cheap brushes from the Dollar Store down on the corner, or top-end brushes from some fancy-schmancy snobbish art store?
When you hire a carpenter to build your deck, do you care if he uses a Skil Mag-77 to cut a 2x4 or a Black & Decker from Wal-Mart?
Why not get all bent out of shape if someone uses a hand-me-down 10-year-old laptop to edit on rather than the hottest, whiz-bang top-end Apple running PhotoShop from the cloud?
"You took that with a 10-stop ND filter? Well, before I pass judgement on the image, I gotta know one thing. Did you buy it off ebay for $25 and it was shipped from China, or is it a Singh-Ray SloMo thin that you forked over $380 for?"
Does anyone care, when they look at a painting, get all hot and bothered by whether the artist used cheap brushes from the Dollar Store down on the corner, or top-end brushes from some fancy-schmancy snobbish art store?
When you hire a carpenter to build your deck, do you care if he uses a Skil Mag-77 to cut a 2x4 or a Black & Decker from Wal-Mart?
Why not get all bent out of shape if someone uses a hand-me-down 10-year-old laptop to edit on rather than the hottest, whiz-bang top-end Apple running PhotoShop from the cloud?
"You took that with a 10-stop ND filter? Well, before I pass judgement on the image, I gotta know one thing. Did you buy it off ebay for $25 and it was shipped from China, or is it a Singh-Ray SloMo thin that you forked over $380 for?"
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
Fixed aperture, with f/4 being the widest aperture available for the lens.
Most of the "pro" lenses are f/2.8 or faster for flexibility in lower lighting. The trilogy of lenses being something like the 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, and 70-200mm f/2.8.
It really depends on your subject. If I was shooting people (weddings/portraits) for money, I'd shoot Fx. I've shot 6 different formats and leveled off at M43rds for my primary body. To me it's the best of all worlds, to each his own. Gear is only as good as the shooter.
Last edited:
The term "pro" is bandied about pretty loosely nowadays. They're called pro lenses because pros tend to prefer them to shoot with because of their superior construction, light gathering abilities, and sharpness of detail. FX cameras are considered "pro" because of their larger sensor, mimicking the old school 35mm format of film cameras. Having said that, anyone with deep enough pockets can buy him or herself a pro lens or pro camera.....doesn't turn them into a pro, though!
I was rummaging through my old gear yesterday and came across a 1986 version of the Kodak Professional PhotoGuide. It has a nomagraph to find the equivalent focal length, field angle and magnification of lens across the various formats of the day.
The baby of the "professional" formats in 1986 was 35mm and it reminded me that we occasionally got frowned upon when shooting weddings using the inferior 35mm format.
So this thread would have been different 20-30 years ago and I figure a few years from now, it will be the Micro 4/3's frowning on the 1/2.3 format, while having the same discussion.
The baby of the "professional" formats in 1986 was 35mm and it reminded me that we occasionally got frowned upon when shooting weddings using the inferior 35mm format.
So this thread would have been different 20-30 years ago and I figure a few years from now, it will be the Micro 4/3's frowning on the 1/2.3 format, while having the same discussion.