|
Bojanglesworth posted:The guy who I met with today to buy a new body brought his bag of gear and had at least seven or eight L series lenses and not just a 1D Mark IV, but also TWO 5d mk2's. What type of photography does he do you may ask? Hobbyist bird photographer. I just don't get it. No idea why he'd want a 70-200 nikon and then a 100-400 canon with another 300 2.8 though 
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 11:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Maybe he's shooting for more than one outlet?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 11:52
|
|
|
Ric posted:
I had no idea that you could get your buffer upgraded. That's kind of cool http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15997/~/d3-digital-slr-camera-buffer-memory-expansion-service And photovests should only ever be worn when getting your camera equipment onto a plane whilst bypassing the handcarry weight restrictions
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 12:01
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:I'm sorry but that is just the type of person who pisses me off. There is no need to have that much gear strapped around your neck, especially not for a "dog surfing event." At the end of the day, who cares? So he spends more money on cameras? So what? How does that impact you at all? Do you curse out guys who drive fancy cars or who travel a lot? For someone with a lot of money, investing in expensive cameras is actually a pretty inexpensive hobby, when compared to something like play golf every weekend or owning a boat. It's all relative and it's silly to get bent up about what other people own.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 14:52
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:At the end of the day, who cares? So he spends more money on cameras? So what? How does that impact you at all? Do you curse out guys who drive fancy cars or who travel a lot? For someone with a lot of money, investing in expensive cameras is actually a pretty inexpensive hobby, when compared to something like play golf every weekend or owning a boat. It's all relative and it's silly to get bent up about what other people own. I would hardly say I get bent out of shape by it. All I said is I dont get it. The same way I don't get people who drive super expensive cars to sit in traffic to go to work. I'm not jealous, I just don't understand why people do the things they do.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 14:58
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:I would hardly say I get bent out of shape by it. All I said is I dont get it. The same way I don't get people who drive super expensive cars to sit in traffic to go to work. I'm not jealous, I just don't understand why people do the things they do.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 16:47
|
|
|
Nondo posted:Saw these on Flickr. The guy was shooting some dog surfing event.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 18:06
|
|
|
I don't know what sort of crazy lives you guys lead that a loving dog surfing event is something dull that doesn't warrant much photographic effort.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:The guy who I met with today to buy a new body brought his bag of gear and had at least seven or eight L series lenses and not just a 1D Mark IV, but also TWO 5d mk2's. What type of photography does he do you may ask? Hobbyist bird photographer. I just don't get it. I don't know why, but some people just really love to take pictures of birds. Nothing is more important to them than getting the next good photo of a bird, so thousands of dollars spent on getting that photo are spent wisely. Speed and reach are never enough so something like a 7D and a 300/2.8 would be an "okay" setup. I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the more active posters in the bird thread are this type and literally never use their camera for anything but photos of birds.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
Those guys are a really interesting example of a modern vernacular use of photography. Kind of like Victorian dead baby photos and calling cards.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 22:08
|
|
|
If only photography gear was allocated to people based on their talent and skill, rather than how much money they have.  I'd be given a Powershot and quickly be told to gently caress off
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I don't know why, but some people just really love to take pictures of birds. Nothing is more important to them than getting the next good photo of a bird, so thousands of dollars spent on getting that photo are spent wisely. Speed and reach are never enough so something like a 7D and a 300/2.8 would be an "okay" setup. I don't see what's the problem here? You guys do understand that while it's possible to make a brilliant portrait with a 50/1.8 mounted on an entry level camera, some shots of small, easily frightened birds that only appear at dawn aren't possible with anything less than a 400/2.8 + TC and a 'clean high ISO' camera? I don't even take pictures of birds, but if there's one thing I dislike more than stupid brand wars, it's "my prefered type of photography is the only REAL PHOTOGRAPHY, what you photograph is below my noble art" elitism.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
Met Art photography is simply the best type of photography.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
seravid posted:I don't see what's the problem here?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
notlodar posted:He's saying that the scope of their photography is very limited -or specialized, depending on how you look at it. Ok, but I still don't see the issue... Why is specializing bad? If shooting birds is what they really like to do, why should they photograph museums or dog surf instead of perfecting their art? While I mostly shoot macro, I also enjoy portrait and landscape so I get the appeal of diversifying, but I also understand how someone can like only one facet of photography... and that doesn't make them worse photographers for it. Pros certainly do it, you don't often see a fashion photographer doing wildlife stuff. Anyway, I didn't mean to make a big deal out of this, I'm just confused by what was said, though it's possible I might have misinterpreted (english not being my native language). ease posted:Met Art photography is simply the best type of photography. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
Bird photography has more in common with bird-watching than art, it's only associated by technology.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
What if the only photos of birds you take are well composed and interesting? You can also enjoy other photography as well. I don't know anything about birds at all, but it's still fun to do.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
If you define what you do as Bird Photography (explicitly or by convention), then you are self-segregating from art.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
seravid posted:Ok, but I still don't see the issue... Why is specializing bad? If shooting birds is what they really like to do, why should they photograph museums or dog surf instead of perfecting their art? While I mostly shoot macro, I also enjoy portrait and landscape so I get the appeal of diversifying, but I also understand how someone can like only one facet of photography... and that doesn't make them worse photographers for it. Pros certainly do it, you don't often see a fashion photographer doing wildlife stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Bird photography has more in common with bird-watching than art, it's only associated by technology. One of the guys at my office is a bird watcher. He's late 50's, upper management, shirt and tie, clean cut, squared off, 90 degree angles, stock parts, and making much much much more money than I for doing work that amounts to walking around and asking what everyone else is doing. He's also unmarried, lives alone with a large dog in his parents old house (read: free), drives a modest car, and just sinks incredible amounts of time and money in to bird watching. He won't talk about much else, but if you point out a bird he's suddenly got a dozen pairs of binoculars and this worn out, ratty rear end notebook ready. "Oh, that's just a Green Cocked Coastal Swallower" So, its pretty fun to get him worked up, just to find out its only a pigeon. Anyway, a couple of months ago he drops a huge catalog on my desk and says "Squidflakes, the club is now requiring photographic proof of sightings, so I need a camera that's really good at seeing birds." The catalog was some birdwatchers thing, and there was a whole section on gently caress-off huge long primes, telephotoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos, and just a few bodies to stick them to. High end "professional cameras", of course. Having never taken a picture with anything other than a P&S he wanted something "easy" but "powerful" and "not too loud". I pointed out a couple of primes, a couple of zooms, sent him the Canon route because they had more selection, and didn't think much more about it. A month later he's on vacation for four days and comes back all eager and giddy, which is weird and gross. I could give a poo poo about his bird pictures, they were as expected, but god drat.. 5DmkII 70-200 f/2.8 L series with the 2X teleconverter 300mm f2.8 L series with its own rifle mount 600mm f4 L series with its own rifle mount He had a couple of hilariously too close shots with the 600 where the bird's head is taking up 3/4 of the frame and only the background is in focus. Then I realized he spent about my yearly salary on that camera set-up and trip to take terrible loving pictures of birds.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 03:19
|
|
|
seravid posted:I don't see what's the problem here? There's nothing wrong with it, I just think (as notlodar says) it's weird. Bird photography is photography, of course, but most of the people I've met who really get into it are more interested in the "collecting" aspect than the photographic process or the art. The attitude isn't as much "what is the purpose of this shot" but "I still need to get a shot of that one." I will admit that it does make me a bit jealous to see birders out with $20,000 of gear, in just the same way as it does to see my dentist with his 1Ds and some super-fast macro lens which he only uses to take close-up pictures of teeth. I just see the potential for doing so many more creative things being wasted on something that seems almost...autistic.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:One of the guys at my office is a bird watcher. He's late 50's, upper management, shirt and tie, clean cut, squared off, 90 degree angles, stock parts, and making much much much more money than I for doing work that amounts to walking around and asking what everyone else is doing. Too much money, not enough brains. That is pretty much the official moto of where I live (Washington, DC area.) The last wedding I shot was a Korean (read: rich people) wedding, as I am just hanging out waiting for the ceremony to start a guy wanders over to me to ask me what type of camera I have, then proceeds to show me his 1d mkIV and 24-70 L, but admits he doesnt know how to use it, and THEN asks me if he can borrow my flash for a bit because he doesn't own one. I wish I had money to blow one whatever I wanted regardless of cost.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
orange lime posted:There's nothing wrong with it, I just think (as notlodar says) it's weird. Bird photography is photography, of course, but most of the people I've met who really get into it are more interested in the "collecting" aspect than the photographic process or the art. The attitude isn't as much "what is the purpose of this shot" but "I still need to get a shot of that one." Oh, you've been hanging with the wrong crowd, then. You're talking about spotters, I'm talking about people that love birds, but also love photography. http://galerie.alphadxd.fr/main.php?g2_itemId=710 http://galerie.alphadxd.fr/main.php?g2_itemId=883 http://galerie.alphadxd.fr/main.php?g2_itemId=855 http://galerie.alphadxd.fr/main.php?g2_itemId=601
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 04:20
|
|
|
Well why don't you show us their stuff instead?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 04:22
|
|
|
I... did? Four links, at the end of my post?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Well why don't you show us their stuff instead? If you don't see those as art, there's pretty much no help for you.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Well why don't you show us their stuff instead? http://www.birdbook.org/
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
diarrhea for girls posted:http://www.birdbook.org/ Interesting stuff, Zuckerman approaches birds in a very similar style to his portraits. This is what I was trying to get at before, these are photographs of birds, but they are not bird photography, which is a different animal.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 04:50
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Interesting stuff, Zuckerman approaches birds in a very similar style to his portraits. This is what I was trying to get at before, these are photographs of birds, but they are not bird photography, which is a different animal. Yeah, I see where you're coming from now, okay, how about this guy's stuff? Granted not every shot is jaw dropping but he does manage to pull off some awesome scenes in the wild every now and then. http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnfish/ I particularly like this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnfish/4290957336/ edit: Also, I think one of the things that kind of makes bird photography a good subject for overspending on gear rants is just that most of the people who do it are older in age and a large amount are retired, so they drop quite a bit of cash on gear without really knowing how to use it. It also kind of turns into an obsession of sorts not unlike audiophiles, where everything expensive obviously has to be better than the cheaper option. PREYING MANTITS fucked around with this message at 05:35 on May 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
I feel physically ill looking at those.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 05:41
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I feel physically ill looking at those. Then I'm sorry it's not your cup of tea. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 05:42
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I feel physically ill looking at those. I'm with you man.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
diarrhea for girls posted:I particularly like this one: I've never seen a photo added to so many groups!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 06:27
|
|
|
slearch posted:I've never seen a photo added to so many groups! Yeah, no kidding. I think they pretty much accept every group invite in the comments. I guess they were featured on flickr's front page awhile back and it has just multiplied from there.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 06:36
|
|
|
I don't think there's much of an argument-- "bird photography" is bird watchers using technology for their pursuit, just like that dentist uses a camera for his professional pursuit. I think it's cool that these guys have found a way to expand their hobby, and who cares if they use the same tools as art or journalistic or whatever photographers. I think we lend too much similarity to the device that we use. It's a little like calling everyone who used a typewriter a novelist. I think the fact that a camera is a tool that is somewhat difficult to master tends to disguise these differences, because you can't just pick up a camera and have its use down in 5 minutes (like you can a typewriter). Perhaps a more apt distinction might be between a stone mason and a sculptor.
TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 07:16 on May 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
"Bird photographers" are making images for reasons other than making images. The difference is in intent not subject matter. This is why Zuckerman can make interesting pictures of birds and yet another guy playing the real life version of Pokemon can't.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 08:34
|
|
|
Watching birds through a 720p hdmi-out onto a laptop via tethering with the 5d2 and 10x on-screen magnification while using a 600mm lens is probably the ultimate birding.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 11:25
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:Too much money, not enough brains. That is pretty much the official moto of where I live (Washington, DC area.) The last wedding I shot was a Korean (read: rich people) wedding, as I am just hanging out waiting for the ceremony to start a guy wanders over to me to ask me what type of camera I have, then proceeds to show me his 1d mkIV and 24-70 L, but admits he doesnt know how to use it, and THEN asks me if he can borrow my flash for a bit because he doesn't own one. I wish I had money to blow one whatever I wanted regardless of cost. Eh who cares. Its not your money. Honestly may as well spend your money whilst you have it. Besides they might eventually learn to use it....its a hobby. Its really no different to all the old men who drop a few grand on the newest golf clubs each year and still shoot +40. So what. They are enjoying themselves (well golf is a oval office of a sport to enjoy) but whatever. Or people who drop 10 grand on scuba diving equipment Or people who spend thousands of dollars on model trains Or spending a 20 grand on a bunch of pinball machines and pool table in their games room. Its all relative. My dad was buying a new car a few years back and was tossing up between the sporty BMW or to just get a corolla and I said get the BMW because he may as well enjoy one car in his life before he gets too old and its not like he has a mortgage to pay off or anything. If I had the money I would probably buy a 600mm and 1DmkIV and I would say I'm not ready for that. But gently caress it. Would be awesome fun.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 13:01
|
|
|
I think it's normal & reasonable to react negatively to the reckless or careless spending of money, especially if you have a less fortunate socioeconomic background. It speaks of some pretty wild economic privilege to be able to say "so what" to dropping thousands of dollars on something a person knows next to nothing about. Though it seems most of this is simple professional (or at least earnest) vs amateur outrage.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Fists Up posted:
Get too in to underwater photography and 10 grand suddenly becomes "a good beginner's set-up" Those cats are all crazy
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 19:03
|
|