Can you tell the photographers from the picture takers?

[YesDear]

I had a really intersting experience on my last trip to WDW. DS and I wanted to get to AK early for the tigers and gorilla's. We did not care about the safari and had just done the sunrise safari in September.

So we went to Asia and tried to get some shots. As you know that is very hit and miss. We then went to Gorilla's and came back again. That is when I had a really neat thing happen.

I am at the lower area where the ruins are and the glass is on either side. The tigers were basically sleeping and there were all this picture takers oooing and ahhhing over the picture of the tiger's rear they got while the tiger snoozed. I was standing off to the side when this mature gentleman shows up and starts taking pictures. But he was looking up and all around the ruins for architectural things to shoot. If you have never looked around it is really interesting. What I noticed about the man was at first here are about 20 people and kids crowding all the glass and here was this man oblivious to there even being tigers there.

I then noticed, actually fairly quickly, that he had a Leica 35mm film camera, rare today, and a Nikon D700 on his shoulder. He took probably 10-15 shots of the structures, then noticed there were animals, but when he saw they were asleep, he dismissed them quickly. I had to talk to him.

Turns out he was at 30+ year photographer. We talked cameras and stuff for a while and digital vs film. Interestingly he still shot slide film fairly with the Leica and really liked the feel of the image. How long has it been by you old folks like me since you heard of someone shooting ektachrome?

it just really struck me that you can really spot the photographers by what they are shooting pictures of more so than what they are shooting with.

I know this may have rambled some, but I thought a good topic for discussion here.

[jann1033]

I had a really intersting experience on my last trip to WDW. DS and I wanted to get to AK early for the tigers and gorilla's. We did not care about the safari and had just done the sunrise safari in September.

So we went to Asia and tried to get some shots. As you know that is very hit and miss. We then went to Gorilla's and came back again. That is when I had a really neat thing happen.

I am at the lower area where the ruins are and the glass is on either side. The tigers were basically sleeping and there were all this picture takers oooing and ahhhing over the picture of the tiger's rear they got while the tiger snoozed. I was standing off to the side when this mature gentleman shows up and starts taking pictures. But he was looking up and all around the ruins for architectural things to shoot. If you have never looked around it is really interesting. What I noticed about the man was at first here are about 20 people and kids crowding all the glass and here was this man oblivious to there even being tigers there.

I then noticed, actually fairly quickly, that he had a Leica 35mm film camera, rare today, and a Nikon D700 on his shoulder. He took probably 10-15 shots of the structures, then noticed there were animals, but when he saw they were asleep, he dismissed them quickly. I had to talk to him.

Turns out he was at 30+ year photographer. We talked cameras and stuff for a while and digital vs film. Interestingly he still shot slide film fairly with the Leica and really liked the feel of the image. How long has it been by you old folks like me since you heard of someone shooting ektachrome?

it just really struck me that you can really spot the photographers by what they are shooting pictures of more so than what they are shooting with.

I know this may have rambled some, but I thought a good topic for discussion here.

isn't the nikon d700 $2000+ and some leica films are even more $$$? so in other words, not your average p&s or even dslr/slrs. if so i'd think "both":lmao: but i understand what you are saying, after 30yrs he probably has plenty of sleeping tiger shots. i still don't think you can get as nice a b&w shot with digital( at least i can't) so i can definitely see the advantage of film( and why i just went digital a few yrs ago) but my film slr is broken and i don't have $4000 lying around the house for a leica . as far as the look of color film goes, that's what i have alien skin exposure for ;)

i have to say i think of this a lot at our zoo when you see people taking picture after picture, flash on, inside part of the zoo that has glass on the exhibits. i can't image they have much but reflections when they get home but guess they don't care. so i have a tendency to think of someone 10 ft in front of a glass exhibit, flash on, looking at an lcd with their arms straight out as a "picture taker";)

[MICKEY88]

i have to say i think of this a lot at our zoo when you see people taking picture after picture, flash on, inside part of the zoo that has glass on the exhibits. i can't image they have much but reflections when they get home but guess they don't care. so i have a tendency to think of someone 10 ft in front of a glass exhibit, flash on, looking at an lcd with their arms straight out as a "picture taker";)

hmmm I use my flash all the time at the zoo...

of course it's in wireless mode, pressed right up agaainst the glass..

that reminds me of the guy I saw last year at the PA REnn Fairre, nice DSLR, nice flash..pointed straight up bouncing it off of the clouds...

[jann1033]

hmmm I use my flash all the time at the zoo...

of course it's in wireless mode, pressed righ up agaainst the glass..

that reminds me of the guy I saw last year at the PA REnn Fairre, nice DSLR, nice flash..pointed straight up bouncing it off of the clouds...
now that must be a really nice flash:lmao: i use a flash too but not 1/2 way across the aisle ( hence the "10ft in front of the exhibit",although maybe they are being nice don't want to wake the animal ;)

[YesDear]

I tried to express, which I probably did poorly, that it was what he was doing that caught my eye. Yes, I quickly noticed the equipment, but it was really almost strange to see a large group of people doing one thing and a single person doing totally different.

I have seen a lot of people with very expensive camera stuff at Disney that if you watch them you can tell they have much more money that skill. Not a criticism, just an observation.

We see a lot of people on this board that are convinced it is the camera that takes the great picture not the person operating the camera. If they only could afford a better camera they could take a better picture. We also see some people with that great natural eye who can take a really good picture with an inexpensive p&s.

[MarkBarbieri]

I have seen a lot of people with very expensive camera stuff at Disney that if you watch them you can tell they have much more money that skill.
Please leave me out of this.

[YesDear]

Mark, it could not have been you.... I have never seen you at Disney!

[MICKEY88]

I tried to express, which I probably did poorly, that it was what he was doing that caught my eye. Yes, I quickly noticed the equipment, but it was really almost strange to see a large group of people doing one thing and a single person doing totally different.





you explained it very well,

it wasn't the guy equipment that caught my eye, it was what he was doing...

bouncing the flash off of the clouds

[boBQuincy]

I have seen a lot of people with very expensive camera stuff at Disney that if you watch them you can tell they have much more money that skill.

I'm with Mark! ;) If I am lacking in skill I can always make it up by buying more equipment! :)

One of the things to look for is someone who lines up a shot, then moves maybe 5 feet to one side, lines it up again, moves 10 feet back the other direction, and so on... all this before actually taking the photo.

[jann1033]

I tried to express, which I probably did poorly, that it was what he was doing that caught my eye. Yes, I quickly noticed the equipment, but it was really almost strange to see a large group of people doing one thing and a single person doing totally different.

I have seen a lot of people with very expensive camera stuff at Disney that if you watch them you can tell they have much more money that skill. Not a criticism, just an observation.

We see a lot of people on this board that are convinced it is the camera that takes the great picture not the person operating the camera. If they only could afford a better camera they could take a better picture. We also see some people with that great natural eye who can take a really good picture with an inexpensive p&s.

hey is this a trick way to further the "it doesn't matter what camera you have" argument? :rotfl: ;)
imo the better camera you have the better your chances are to take a better photo. my thinking is maybe those people with inexpensive equipment would take more better photos with better equipment ie one that has good focus, sharp glass, higher less noisy exposures etc. imo there is a reason it 's more expensive ,(usually, unless it's signed by Paris Hilton or something, oh wait that would make a Hassleblad worthless but i digress) IE because it does have better focus systems, better glass, faster speeds etc...composition aside, you pretty much are assured of getting a better shot even if you do set it on auto if you use a top of the line camera than if you use a cheap $29 Kmart special( well maybe not if you bounce off clouds :rotfl2: ....)sometimes it would be impossible to get a shot with a cheap camera you can get with a better one ( ie lowlight, high speed)so i don't think you can really separate the two.

plus i don't think you can really make a decision on what they "are" by what subject they are taking a shot of unless you saw the photo. someone interested in nature is naturally going to gravitate to that subject and you can't really say what they were taking, maybe they were taking a creative photo of the tiger even if everyone around them wasn't, who knows. some one interested in the details in Disney would take the surroundings and not the tiger and maybe take a boring shot....that's why i said both

however someone walking around just kind of blindly taking photos and not really caring if they turn out or not, i think that says more than the equipment or subject.

[jann1033]

Please leave me out of this.
:lmao: :sad2: :rolleyes:

[dipin]

I think a nicer way of framing this argument is that sometimes people should invest time or money in educating themselves about photography as opposed to investing on hardware.

At disney, I always see people trying to take pictures of fireworks using flash. Even here at the DIS Ive seen people defending the use of flash when trying to capture fireworks. A better camera and faster lens of course would help these people, but learning how to take a picture using anything other than the Auto mode would improve their pictures a lot more.

My favorite examples of "people with more money than knowledge" at disney:

- On the safari ride on AK, after the driver tells people to use the "sports or action setting" on their camera, a guy tells his wife that he cant find that setting on his, so I turn back and the guy is using the Nikon d300. (my favorite)

- of course, as mentioned above, the flash pictures of fireworks with dslrs.

- A guy sitting on the same row as me on soarin trying to take a flash picture of the screen using flash.

People using point and shoot cameras, I'd understand making these mistakes. But a dslr...

On this other forum I post in, there is a "what camera should I buy" section, and every other week someone comes along asking if a ridiculously expensive camera is any good, and then gets lost in the discussion as soon as anyone mentions noise, depth of field and so on.

Of course, everyone can spend as much as they want on whatever camera they want, but I think its funny, especially when these people come back later talking about how disappointed they were and how they had a horrible discussion with the salesman afterwards when they tried to return it.

[MICKEY88]

I think a nicer way of framing this argument is that sometimes people should invest time or money in educating themselves about photography as opposed to investing on hardware.

At disney, I always see people trying to take pictures of fireworks using flash. Even here at the DIS Ive seen people defending the use of flash when trying to capture fireworks. A better camera and faster lens of course would help these people, but learning how to take a picture using anything other than the Auto mode would improve their pictures a lot more.

My favorite examples of "people with more money than knowledge" at disney:

- On the safari ride on AK, after the driver tells people to use the "sports or action setting" on their camera, a guy tells his wife that he cant find that setting on his, so I turn back and the guy is using the Nikon d300. (my favorite)

- of course, as mentioned above, the flash pictures of fireworks with dslrs.

- A guy sitting on the same row as me on soarin trying to take a flash picture of the screen using flash.

People using point and shoot cameras, I'd understand making these mistakes. But a dslr...

On this other forum I post in, there is a "what camera should I buy" section, and every other week someone comes along asking if a ridiculously expensive camera is any good, and then gets lost in the discussion as soon as anyone mentions noise, depth of field and so on.

Of course, everyone can spend as much as they want on whatever camera they want, but I think its funny, especially when these people come back later talking about how disappointed they were and how they had a horrible discussion with the salesman afterwards when they tried to return it.



I don't think this is an arguement, just a simple discussion, on an observation by the OP..

as for flash and fireworks, that's a good combination if you're trying to get a picture of family in the foreground with fireworks behind them..

[dipin]

I don't think this is an arguement, just a simple discussion, on an observation by the OP..

as for flash and fireworks, that's a good combination if you're trying to get a picture of family in the foreground with fireworks behind them..

Of course. But I mean the "holding the camera over your head" type of pics, or the straight fireworks pics. No foreground points of interest.

[AndrewWG]

I agree with the OP in that someone taking a pic of something other than the "obvious subject" (in this case, the tigers) most likely has an eye for a photographic opportunity that they dont want to pass up. In this case, I would bet that most, if not all, of the people were taking pics of the sleeping tigers. Boring. I did it. I know. :lmao: I got some great pics of the tigers, but I should have been spending time looking for other subjects. The person that the OP is talking about did just that. I also think that this is a sign of a photographer and not your average tourist.

Equipment arguments? Well, sure, a better camera can most likely get a better looking photo, but taking composition, lighting and other "rules" of photography into account is what makes any photo from any camera better. I have a friend who uses a p&s Canon and her photos are MUCH better than mine with my DSLR, I think. Sure, she has limitations (low light photos etc) but her eye for the photo is much better than mine.

[zackiedawg]

I've bumped into those same types of people, taking detail shots slightly off the main path and opposite the mass crowd...invariably, they are photographers as opposed to snapshooters, and most are more than willing to strike up a conversation on the subject. This is one of many signs you're dealing with a photographer looking for the art and not the documentation (documentary photographers can be good too - but even those who shoot documentary photos ina particularly successful or poignant way do so because they are shooting it as a form of art as well). Though my own skill may not match those of some of these folks I run into, I can at least say my heart is in it with the same purpose as theirs...I love photography - the whole practice of it...composition, lighting, angle, depth, subject, style, color, and feel. I've spent time in out-of-the-way alcoves at Disney World photographing a stone in a wall or a leaf macro...not always successfully or with any special results...and at least once or twice a trip, another photographer will come along so wrapped up in the same type of pursuit to almost not notice me. I'll usually break the ice with a comment about their equipment, or something particularly nice about the shooting (eg: great light right now, huh?)...and we'll have a fun conversation about our equipment, different lenses, what shots we're each taking, other places to shoot, etc.

Sure...there are some unfriendly ones too...either just too wrapped up in their work to deal with anyone, naturally anti-social which is why they got into photography to hide behind the lens and avoid people, or just elitist and rude because they are obviously superior to lowly little you and they clearly have much better equipment than you...you peon. But in general, photography is a great social club, and members are usually open and willing to share. Whether I'm at a wildlife preserve, bird sanctuary, Caribbean island, or Disney, I run into fellow photographers who strike up a conversation and compare notes. And they don't always have DSLRs - I've run into quite a few folks with various levels of P&S cameras who know how to control them, get the most out of them, and have a marvelous eye for the shot.

I'm always keeping my eyes peeled for the people checking out the angels in the architecture while the tigers sleep under the eyes of the masses.

[ford91exploder]

hmmm I use my flash all the time at the zoo...

of course it's in wireless mode, pressed right up agaainst the glass..

that reminds me of the guy I saw last year at the PA REnn Fairre, nice DSLR, nice flash..pointed straight up bouncing it off of the clouds...

Did this guy have one of the white diffusers mounted on the flash? If so he was using a technique called 'Bare Bulb' which gives soft shadowless fill light which would be just right for capturing the fine details of those elaborate costumes without burnt out highlights.

It looks weird but it works really well in both event and studio photography

[Matt71]

I'm not sure about this. I take pictures of all sorts of things that I think are artsy or cool, but I wouldn't call myself a photographer. I've never had a knack for setting aperture or focal length and I'm only now getting a handle on ISO settings.

Then again, I take all the photographs for my company (I'm technically a graphic designer), so maybe I am a photographer and just don't realize it. I'm just not a particularly good one. My technique for getting a good shot usually involves semi-randomly adjusting the settings repeatedly and taking 1000 shots a day in the hopes that I get a dozen or so really good ones.

What's the difference between a photographer and someone who likes taking pictures anyway? I always thought you had to be paid to be a photographer or at least be trained.

[jann1033]

I'm not sure about this. I take pictures of all sorts of things that I think are artsy or cool, but I wouldn't call myself a photographer. I've never had a knack for setting aperture or focal length and I'm only now getting a handle on ISO settings.

Then again, I take all the photographs for my company (I'm technically a graphic designer), so maybe I am a photographer and just don't realize it. I'm just not a particularly good one. My technique for getting a good shot usually involves semi-randomly adjusting the settings repeatedly and taking 1000 shots a day in the hopes that I get a dozen or so really good ones.

What's the difference between a photographer and someone who likes taking pictures anyway? I always thought you had to be paid to be a photographer or at least be trained.
well here's what that bastion of accuracy wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographer
so according to this there is no difference :rotfl2:
Merriam Webster sort of agrees , heavy on the "sort of " http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photographer

[DVC Jen]

that reminds me of the guy I saw last year at the PA REnn Fairre, nice DSLR, nice flash..pointed straight up bouncing it off of the clouds...

Wow I want a flash like that!


I notice things like that as well and always find in interesting to see what they are taking photos of - gives me ideas. ;) AND - to flip the coin a bit - I get some really strange looks at times for what I am taking photos of.

[Groucho]

What's the difference between a photographer and someone who likes taking pictures anyway? I always thought you had to be paid to be a photographer or at least be trained.
I think you're thinking of "professional" vs "amateur" - as soon as you're paid, you're a professional no matter what skill level you are at.

I find the dichotomy in this thread kind of amusing. On the one hand, we have the "it's the photographer, not the equipment" line of thought, but on the other hand, obviously this example shows that it is the equipment, too; as this guy had shouldered his cutting-edge slice-'em-dice-'em D700 in favor of an old fashioned rangefinger. No autofocus, probably manual metering, one frame per second if you're lucky... but a different feel and, by all accounts, some of the finest lenses you'll ever see (certainly on a different plane than most modern lenses.) They also have some very fast lenses if you're after low-light - how about F0.95? But be prepared to spend some very serious bucks.

Some folks like using Leica lenses on DSLRs via an adapter; I believe Canon and Olympus are the only ones that really give you the proper room. I recently watched an eBay auction for a Leica lens designed for use from an airplane, which had been converted to M42 mount, but it went higher than I was willing to go; that was the only time I can remember seeing one set up that way. Actually, the old lenses use an M39 mount which can be adapted to M42 easily but you won't be able to focus very far. I haven't paid much attention as I just don't have the money to look into such things. I do have an acquaintance with a Leica that I don't think he uses any more and I keep telling him to keep me in mind if he wants to part with it!

To sum up... IMHO - it's the photographer and the equipment. And by equipment, this does not automatically mean the latest and greatest with a zillion FPS and 100,000 ISO and lens that weighs 12 lbs and is painted bright orange with pink polka dots. It means both the equipment that will 1) produce the photo that the photographer is after and 2) inspire the photographer to take more interesting photos.

[jann1033]

I think you're thinking of "professional" vs "amateur" - as soon as you're paid, you're a professional no matter what skill level you are at.

I find the dichotomy in this thread kind of amusing. On the one hand, we have the "it's the photographer, not the equipment" line of thought, but on the other hand, obviously this example shows that it is the equipment, too; as this guy had shouldered his cutting-edge slice-'em-dice-'em D700 in favor of an old fashioned rangefinger. No autofocus, probably manual metering, one frame per second if you're lucky... but a different feel and, by all accounts, some of the finest lenses you'll ever see (certainly on a different plane than most modern lenses.) They also have some very fast lenses if you're after low-light - how about F0.95? But be prepared to spend some very serious bucks.

Some folks like using Leica lenses on DSLRs via an adapter; I believe Canon and Olympus are the only ones that really give you the proper room. I recently watched an eBay auction for a Leica lens designed for use from an airplane, which had been converted to M42 mount, but it went higher than I was willing to go; that was the only time I can remember seeing one set up that way. Actually, the old lenses use an M39 mount which can be adapted to M42 easily but you won't be able to focus very far. I haven't paid much attention as I just don't have the money to look into such things. I do have an acquaintance with a Leica that I don't think he uses any more and I keep telling him to keep me in mind if he wants to part with it!

To sum up... IMHO - it's the photographer and the equipment. And by equipment, this does not automatically mean the latest and greatest with a zillion FPS and 100,000 ISO and lens that weighs 12 lbs and is painted bright orange with pink polka dots. It means both the equipment that will 1) produce the photo that the photographer is after and 2) inspire the photographer to take more interesting photos.

finally someone who agrees with me so i figured i'd post it again:rotfl2:

[luvthemouse71]

Ok, I'll be purchasing a DSLR later this year...I I want to educate myself more on photography basics before I take the plunge...I'd like to be fairly comfortable with it come September...

Any recommendations on books, courses, websites etc?

[GrumpyOne]

Any recommendations on books, courses, websites etc?

A lot of people will recommend "Understanding Exposure" by Brian Peterson. The current edition is a revised version of what he did as people were making the transition from digital to film though, and it shows in some areas.

My preference for a beginning text is "The Betterphoto Guide to Digital Photography" by Jim Miotke. I feel it's laid out better and there aren't nearly as many pages that "celebrate" the author.

The problem with web sites is that they frequently go from beginner to advanced pretty quickly. They'll cover a lot of topics and may confuse beginners. I'll point you to http://photo.net/learn/ and strongly suggest that you avoid very specific topics until you have a handle on the basics of exposure.

[jann1033]

Ok, I'll be purchasing a DSLR later this year...I I want to educate myself more on photography basics before I take the plunge...I'd like to be fairly comfortable with it come September...

Any recommendations on books, courses, websites etc?
it's not real basic although there is an understanding dof and understanding exposure in in the "understanding series" on this site but i find this author easy to understand maybe when you have some more basics under your belt
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/briots_view.shtml
and imo one of the best things to do is once you get your camera study the manual that comes with it with your camera in hand so you are fully aware of what the settings do. sometimes it has really good pointers on what to use for what situation, not only for auto settings but also for the partial manual settings.