Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7000
Today's iso performance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="spb_stan" data-source="post: 617655" data-attributes="member: 43545"><p>It is telling as well as interesting to visit photo galleries. It is amazing how many of the photos awarded and praised were shot with D200s, D40s and equivel and Canon cameras. Are they really that good? No, but good enough to win awards. The shooter has an advantage, by shooting with the same camera for 15 years it is no longer anything but an automatic extension of ones eyes and hand. Nothing in that award winning image depended on high res or 14 stops of DR. It NEVER does. Forget on-line galleries, visit physical curated galleries, either for photos or paintings and your whole view of image arts becomes better informed. A great painting and a great photo is so for the same reason. Only art historians are interested in what the resolution of Rembrandt's brushes. Neither is an photo gallery curator interested in anything but who did it, date possibly, and title. It needs to stand on its own without any external information.</p><p>I was in the music business as recording engineer/producer and studio owner for 25 years and everyday people wanted me to hear the songs they wrote and begin by telling me what is about. Any song that needs background info is a poor song. It has to stand on its own merits. Photos are the same. It communicates its own message, or doesn't, in case of the later, it is not a good photo no matter how sharp or 16 gigapixels and 120 db DR shot with a bus sized sensor. I never once heard a song presented to me that way that was suitable for the artists looking for new material. It was a great way to meet girls however, every songwriter girl wanted to get next to me;>) since we were doing top selling albums with household name artists. The most money I ever made from an album as studio owner was black and white snap shots in the studio of artists relaxing or taking a break to discuss something. One photo license on the back of an album, moody dark capture with film with a face half in shadows earned enough to buy a vacation home on Maui;>), all it needed being put on the back of a 3,000,000 copy sales album. The old adage "the best camera is the one with you" is absolutely true. My old Canon A1 was with me every day all over the world, 90 countries so far, and my first digital was a D90 when it was released and it had 130,000 frames before my GF started hording it as her own. Still cranking out great photos, she has a natural eye for perspective and points of view.I have over 100k on my D7000 and about the same on the D800 but the kit got too big so I seldom carry it when out walking around the city, being probably the most beautiful large city in the world. Doing a wedding or a theater shoot, with a 70-200 2.8 on the D7000 and 24-70 2.8, 85 1.4 or 1.8 or 24 1.4g on the D800, the photos are presented in the same catalog for the venue and no one every said "ewww, a 16mpx image, yuck"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="spb_stan, post: 617655, member: 43545"] It is telling as well as interesting to visit photo galleries. It is amazing how many of the photos awarded and praised were shot with D200s, D40s and equivel and Canon cameras. Are they really that good? No, but good enough to win awards. The shooter has an advantage, by shooting with the same camera for 15 years it is no longer anything but an automatic extension of ones eyes and hand. Nothing in that award winning image depended on high res or 14 stops of DR. It NEVER does. Forget on-line galleries, visit physical curated galleries, either for photos or paintings and your whole view of image arts becomes better informed. A great painting and a great photo is so for the same reason. Only art historians are interested in what the resolution of Rembrandt's brushes. Neither is an photo gallery curator interested in anything but who did it, date possibly, and title. It needs to stand on its own without any external information. I was in the music business as recording engineer/producer and studio owner for 25 years and everyday people wanted me to hear the songs they wrote and begin by telling me what is about. Any song that needs background info is a poor song. It has to stand on its own merits. Photos are the same. It communicates its own message, or doesn't, in case of the later, it is not a good photo no matter how sharp or 16 gigapixels and 120 db DR shot with a bus sized sensor. I never once heard a song presented to me that way that was suitable for the artists looking for new material. It was a great way to meet girls however, every songwriter girl wanted to get next to me;>) since we were doing top selling albums with household name artists. The most money I ever made from an album as studio owner was black and white snap shots in the studio of artists relaxing or taking a break to discuss something. One photo license on the back of an album, moody dark capture with film with a face half in shadows earned enough to buy a vacation home on Maui;>), all it needed being put on the back of a 3,000,000 copy sales album. The old adage "the best camera is the one with you" is absolutely true. My old Canon A1 was with me every day all over the world, 90 countries so far, and my first digital was a D90 when it was released and it had 130,000 frames before my GF started hording it as her own. Still cranking out great photos, she has a natural eye for perspective and points of view.I have over 100k on my D7000 and about the same on the D800 but the kit got too big so I seldom carry it when out walking around the city, being probably the most beautiful large city in the world. Doing a wedding or a theater shoot, with a 70-200 2.8 on the D7000 and 24-70 2.8, 85 1.4 or 1.8 or 24 1.4g on the D800, the photos are presented in the same catalog for the venue and no one every said "ewww, a 16mpx image, yuck" [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7000
Today's iso performance
Top