Another video with the idea that photographic equipment sometimes not important at all... Broken no-name STAR-D MC 1: 2.8 f = 135mm lens turned out to be in some ways more interesting than TOP Sigma 135mm 1: 1.8 DG HSM Art.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Huh! Intrigued by the name of the video (and how can an unnamed lens be more interesting than a brand modern sigma lens?) I climbed to watch the video, but in fact it turned out that from a Korean CAM FRAME seemed a little more curious to users of 500px than frames from sigma)))
Thus, the iPhone can be more interesting than sigma in something :-D
Exactly
This is all obvious, but I always believed that the site is still more about the technical features of a particular equipment, rather than about luck or the skills of a particular individual))
Arkady. So what about the malicious link? Beginning to annoy!
Only yesterday it seemed to be fixed and here again
about that and the article. you can at least collect a ton of objectively and buy a large-format DSLR, or you can create a smartphone
“... sometimes photographic equipment is not important at all,” wrote Arkady. And the fact that you like Sigma more, then maybe it's just fetishism? :)
I thought now that expensive branded lenses are not least predictability. Perhaps there will not be a masterpiece for centuries, but the client will not get to the bottom of it.
Art photography and commercial photography are still different spheres.
If a photographer girl renting a studio is not able to lie on the floor so as not to shoot her moronic angles from 3/4 from above, then the most branded technique will not help her. Now the new year will begin and such girls (and boys) will take their hackneyed stamped pictures “a fat, cheerful family is enjoying the New Year, imitating, instead of sleeping in Olivier, a meeting of Christmas in an American family”. But even this dozen hackneyed cliches will be implemented at the "fuck off" level. No technique will fix it.
This is already a matter of artistry and aesthetics. Clients will not get to the bottom, because they themselves shoot. Although I had a case when, even with good technique, the "girl" managed to screw up at a corporate party so that even the ignorant frowned))
This is not a question of aesthetics, it is a question of professionalism. For some reason, the builder can be presented with crooked tiles, poorly processed corners and other trash. A representative of the type of “creative” profession as a photographer or (God forbid) a hairdresser is not allowed, there will be a hundred excuses right away. You work for the flow, you are obliged to make your ten hackneyed angles in about the same way as a painter-plasterer should leave behind smooth and even walls. But no. What super framing lens is needed for framing?
Because flat walls are now needed by the people and crooked tiles do not roll (they used to roll), and “even” photos are not needed
I had the opportunity to watch how the owner of a chain of barber shops recruits craftsmen. Believe me, “curved corners” won't work there. A bad haircut may not be visible for the first couple of days, but then all the blemishes will grow along with the hair.
Returning to the photograph: I do not mean the “girls” holding a Canon penny on outstretched arms and looking at the small screen. I mean that, for example, if I were shooting a reportage from the signing of some important contract, I would not take, say, Tokina 2.8 / 28-70 - because her famous "software" in this case will not be "artistic features ”, but marriage.
That is why I believe that commercial and artistic photography are different areas of application of photographic equipment. For example, you can draw a beautiful miniature with ink and pen, or a woman's portrait with charcoal, but they are not suitable for a sign on a store.
Although I agree that an artist should also know his instrument. If the lens is soft and catches hares, then the artist's task is to use these properties to create the desired effect.
for work, the predictable result is much better, and therefore good lenses with stable behavior are quite justified for commerce. I support your ideas.
And for creativity - the flight of technology and imagination is not limited.
My wife is a hairdresser and I watch this whole kitchen from the inside. From “the sun will help your hair” to “this is your pigment”, “this is how your hair grows” and that's all. And how young boys work only from the school, who only know how to cut with a typewriter and in general it is not clear why they are there, except perhaps to trade in faces. It is especially funny when she comes to some salon and asks to do something that is in the order of things for her and she herself, for example, has been painted this way more than once, but the “master” declares (considering that she is just a client), that it is impossible in principle. The idea of the comment is that in case of failure of the master, the client is still to blame, and purely technical issues can be attributed to creativity and “I see it that way”. And the client, even if he understands that something is wrong, he cannot explain what exactly is wrong and is content with what they give.
In the case of the reportage and soft Tokina, I will still insist on the secondary nature of the instrument. All corporate parties of our company are accompanied by extremely dull photographs - both in processing, in framing and in plots, no matter how cool the photographer's equipment may be. This is the inability to catch a frame, a moment, an angle, to evaluate how the light falls somewhere, where something interesting is happening, to play with plans - this is not. Confused by the impeccable sharpness of sad horror. Well, as it were, it is implied that a photographer who knows how to shoot will not stupidly choose a soft lens for himself as a reporter in principle.
Even remembering that photography is stamps, and where a bad photographer has ten of them, a good one has a thousand, you often see that even with the implementation of ten there are problems.
At the same time, even representatives of the “fat, cheerful family” have the right to enjoy life. And if they are satisfied with the pictures of girls, then why not. The main thing is that everyone is good. Not everyone should be without exception - dull, philosophizing on every occasion, vegans that aim and appear in front of the camera in one unique way they know from time to time.
So this is it - one way. Convenient for the photographer. Who with his fullframe, irrigated with liters of saliva in the forum battles about “dxomark gives one tenth more here,” believes that one tenth will replace technology. A technique that is a shooting technique (like a drawing technique or a dance technique).
Yes, those old days have already passed and ff in bulk at flea markets for every taste, need and wallet.
But in order not to crawl on the floor, you need to do a normal rotary screen in the cameras.
No swivel screen - lie down, don't be lazy. Use your phone to remove. This is the base, this is the minimum. Why argue before hoarseness about professional flashes and the number of cat bristles on some lens model in order to shoot this cat like a student on an iPhone - with protruding lips and fingers in a half squat. A three-quarter angle is the most disadvantageous for both children and animals - it reduces their height and distorts the proportions, especially when shooting wide. Although, to the credit of the Instagrammers, they use their iPhones more confidently than whole pros.
and you thump into the legs of the cat and take off his balls?
And you do not be lazy someday to remove a child, dog or cat from the level of THEIR growth, and not your own. Be very surprised at the result. If you are shooting trivial things, choose an angle from which an ordinary person cannot see the subject. Climb a tree, into the pool, shoot the reflection at the edge of the puddle. These are not even masterpieces, these are the basics of mastery.
From my "artistic" childhood I got used to the fact that the three-quarters angle is such a turn of the head of the subject, which is almost full-face, but slightly turned to the side. Googled - this is the meaning that surfaced ... What do you mean by this term? A snapshot from 3/4 of a person's height?
Conditionally yes. A small subject - a child, an animal, people sitting or lying on the floor - is fashionable in the studio for family shooting, from a height of a person's height or from the chest at an angle, not from above and not parallel to the frontal plane. Before the massive appearance of phones and LiveView, it was not customary to shoot, after all, the owners of cameras had some kind of experience, circles.
It is possible that pictures taken from heights other than those at which a person's eyes are located are of interest primarily to those who view a lot of photographs. People, apparently, need what they are used to. If you have children and adults in the frame, then they try for the customer - an adult, if you shoot him from below, then just his (her) proportions will be distorted - the hips will become wider, the head will decrease. If you take a photo from a stepladder, then the photographs will have to lift their heads or contemplate bald spots in the photographs, and the children will look completely strange.
Everything can be solved by choosing the correct focal lens and location.
If you are photographing from the floor or from a "stepladder", a special choice among "focal" ones will not work without the involvement of construction equipment. Plus, the laws of perspective cannot be canceled with any lens, unless, of course, we discard the extreme creation of a photograph of a family of burghers on a fisheye from the floor :)