Tag Archives: Equipment

Commentary, Equipment, Ideas

Photography and Gear Fetishes (Another Adapted Forum Post)

10 Comments

Earlier this week I dropped in on a photography forum in which the OP (original poster) suggested that the causal correlation between buying Really Expensive Gear and producing better photographs was weak. Oh, yeah!

Here is a slightly adapted version of my contribution to that discussion:

I’ve thought quite a bit about why so many “photography enthusiasts” seem to be much more interested in acquiring photography gear than in making photographs. Reasons might include:

1. Equipment is necessary in order to make photographs, so acquiring some is not unimportant.
2. Because it is, frankly, easier to write about gear in definitive (or seemingly definitive) ways than to write competently about photographs, there is much more written about gear – and newbies should be forgiven for having a false impression that the gear one has is more important than the photographs one makes.
3. Almost all of us do find the equipment fascinating to some extent. Some grow past this, but for some it ends up being more about possessing expensive and supposedly high-end stuff than anything else. (Photography is not the only area where this occurs.)
4. Because people more often encounter photographers when they are operating cameras than when they are exhibiting photographs, they associate the gear with the activity more than they associate photographs with it.
5. Some want to look like (what they imagine) professional photographers (look like).
6. Some are told, before they have enough experience to question it, that they must have “the best” gear if they are going to make photographs. I’ve actually seen rank beginners struggling with $6000 bodies and sets of L primes or big white telephotos… for their family vacations.
7. Some love to shop.

[The OP’s] notion that the causal correlation between expensive gear and photographic skill or quality is weak is one that I would agree with.

I think that a “cure” for the counter-productive obsession with gear at the expense of photographs may be to do everything in your power to focus on photographs – not photography, not cameras, not lenses, etc. If you are not or do not become passionate about producing photographs, then you might want to consider a different hobby. :-)

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter (follow me) | Facebook (“Like” my page) | LinkedIn | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Photographs: Northern California, Photographs: San Francisco, Photographs: Structures and Objects, Photographs: Urban/Street

Construction Lift, Building Interior

2 Comments
Construction Lift, Building Interior
Construction Lift, Building Interior

Construction Lift, Building Interior. San Francisco, California. July 12, 2010. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.

I suppose that posting this photograph is the web site equivalent of switching channels – this might be a bit jarring after weeks of Death Valley and other landscape/nature subjects.

I did not quite complete my end-of-year task of going through all of last year’s raw files back in December, so I have been returning to the task bit by bit over the past few weeks. I’m currently working with some photographs from San Francisco, made back in July 2010 when I did some street photography. In old-school style I stuck a 50mm prime on my full frame DSLR and headed out.

At one point I was exploring some waterfront areas of The City and poking my nose into windows of some buildings that were undergoing renovations. Among a few other scenes from this location, I found this one featuring… wait for it!… a piece of construction equipment, posing fetchingly in front of some nice, diffused light coming in from a window out of the frame to the left. I’m still not quite sure why, but I like this image. (Is it perhaps the R2D2-like quality of the orange lift?)

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter (follow me) | Facebook (“Like” my page) | LinkedIn | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Commentary, Equipment

The Economics of DSLR “Protective” Filters

1 Comment

The subject of whether or not to get so-called “protective” UV filters for DSLR lenses comes up a lot. I used to respond to the question frequently – so frequently that I eventually gave up and just wrote a post on the subject that I could refer people to when they ask.

However, during a recent weak moment I wrote a new response to the notion that ‘protective’ filters provide good value for all photographers. As I do from time to time, I’m sharing it here:

Someone wrote: … would you rather pay $150 on a filter that *might* compromise your shot or spend $150 on replacing the front element and have *no* possible risk of image degradation from the extra piece of glass?

I replied: This is essentially an insurance question. Obviously, if we knew that our lens would certainly be destroyed in a way that was 100% preventable by using a filter we would almost certainly get a filter. But that is an imaginary scenario that is far from reality.

Most lenses will never be damaged in any serious way. My hunch is that this is actually the fate of a very small percentage of lenses – probably far less than 10%, and I would bet closer to 1%.

Of those that are damaged, only some will suffer a blow to the front element. There are many other modes of failure – a dropped lens that breaks the mechanism, something crashing into the side of the lens, water damage, etc.

Of those that suffer a blow to the front of the lens structure, only some will result in contact with the front element. Of those in which contact with the front element occurs, some would not cause any damage or any significant damage. Some would damage the front element, but would be violent enough that the filter would not have prevented the damage. A few that might not have damaged the front element will send glass shards from the broken filter into the front element and damage it. In some subset of cases, all of the variables might line up just right and prevent damage.

At this point the user would have to replace the broken high quality filter at a cost that varies depending on a number of factors. Let’s use a figure if $100 for an expensive L zoom. The owner has now invested something on the order of $200… which is not much different from the cost of replacing a front element, as I understand it.

In terms of the probability of damage, the cost of the filter, the likelihood that the filter would save the day… the filter is probably one of the worst insurance investments you could make.

Am I unalterably and completely opposed to the use of ‘protective’ filters? Almost, but not quite. While I do not think that it makes sense to automatically stick such a filter on every lens for general use – see the link above for more on this topic – I can think of one sort of situation in which I might use one. I would consider a filter if I were shooting a sealed-body camera (such as a Canon 1-series) and was working in conditions that were truly dangerous to my equipment (and not just a bit of mist or ocean spray) and I was using of the small number of L lenses that become sealed (and not all do) with the addition of a filter.

Other than that? No.

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Photographs: Nature, Photographs: Northern California

Bird, Flooded Fields

4 Comments
Bird, Flooded Fields
Bird, Flooded Fields

Bird, Flooded Fields. Central Valley, California. January 23, 2011. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.

A bird wades in a flooded Central Valley winter field in front of a receding line of power poles and some farm buildings on a levee.

This is (yet another!) photograph of the flooded fields along a country road near the Cosumnes River in California’s Central Valley. I was shooting almost directly into the sun through remaining fog and haze near the middle of a winter day. The building sits on a levee between the fields and the bird was kind enough to pose for me while I made the photograph.

Given one of the subjects subject that I’ve been discussing at the blog during the past few days, it seems reasonable to point out that this image involved significant work during the post-processing phase – what we used to refer to as “the darkroom,” but which we now refer to as “photoshop.” I used a variety of techniques to push this image towards what I had in mind – a very high key interpretation that I hope evokes the sensation of looking into a backlit hazy atmosphere that is so bright that you can barely look at it. (In fact, it was very much like this when I made the photograph – as you can see it required a 1/1000 second exposure at f/8 and ISO 100. That’s bright!) In general I brought the overall brightness up to nearly pure white in the lightest portions of the image, and I employed some other techniques to lower the amount of contrast in the sky yet keep the building, the poles, and the levee fairly dark. Although all of this was accomplished in the “digital darkroom,” all of the processes are equivalent to those that might have been applied by photographers working in the traditional darkroom.

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.