Okay, let me get in my £0.02 since I haven't properly contributed to this thread, mainly because of it's massive length.
Let me first off said that I was one of those who thought Langzi's original post was fairly harmless. I thought it was Camera1001 who first stirred the pot, and I made that known to several people last night (my time) when I didn't have the time to crash through the thread properly and post a sensible reply.
Since then, the thread has degenerated even further. To be honest, I tend to agree that a lot of people do not need the equipment they own. In the sense that most people could get by with a basic camera setup. When I was just starting out I will admit to a good bit of jealousy. I had a basic setup, and I would encounter clowns who owned expensive gear and didn't know half what I knew about photography. In fact they hardly knew anything, so it would be a lot less than half! (Don't worry, it's not anyone here). And I was fed up because I thought, they were so lucky. But I kept it to myself and just plugged away taking good pictures. A few lucky breaks later combined with at least decent photographs, and I was able to afford the same equipment those people had.
Well, I'm lucky enough to have made enough money from my photography to be able to afford the best kit now. From the manual stuff borrowed from dad, to my F90x, to an F5 and now to fantastic cameras from every major format. Streetshoot has the point that a lot of the pics I've posted cannot be taken with cheap equipment. That's very true, for those kinds of shots. But they are a necessary requirement (although not as necessary as some might believe as I pointed out). But not everyone with my equipment can take those kinds of pictures I take, at least not straightaway.
Some specific points:
Give someone 20 outings with a disposable camera, he will probably be able to produce some better shots compated to a person with 1 roll of film, an F5 and some expensive lens. Ruey Loon's point
Point taken, but I believe it also depends on who the people are. I would like to think (although I might well be wrong!) that I can take a better set of pictures with the latter equipment than a complete beginner with 20 disposable cameras.
i am glad that some of you,except a few, support me that some photographers have a 600mm f/4 lens and shot a few pics of birdies and then they call them self wildlife photographers. well, i've shot for newspaper b4, so does that makes me a photojournalist? Langzi's point
I agree with the first point. There is a lot more to wildlife photography than going to the zoo. But the question I have is, do the means matter to the ends? In the same way that I argue that it shouldn't matter how easy an effect is to achieve with Photoshop if the end result is correct, I believe if a shot taken of a captive animal looks the part, then it shouldn't matter. Otherwise painters would all frown upon photography as a rubbish art form. But as above, there is more to getting a good wildlife photograph than just turning up at a zoo with a 600/4. But the difference is the photographer and the type of images he creates, not whether he has or hasn't expensive equipment, or whether he has or has not been out in the field to shoot truly wild, life.
You don't need to have shot for a newspaper to be a photojournalist. Anyone who takes photographs to tell a story qualifies as a photojournalist. And to be a good photojournalist doesn't depend on whether you've shot for a newspaper or not. It depends on the quality of your work. Always had, always will, in any field, be it wildlife or pj work or anything else.
i haven't seen alot about life... working in a renowned magazine scene and used to shoot simple pics for newspapers.. Langzi's point
Langzi, you're keen to stress your experience. Working for your renown pro (previous digital/conventional thread), now a renown magazine scene, and shooting pics for your newspapers. Unfortunately, in the same way that, as per your own reasoning, better equipment does not necessarily equal better pics, better exposure and experience does not necessarily equate better pics, or more rational statements.
Admittedly, I am inclined to put more weight into your statements if you have been gathering the experience you claim to be. Unfortunately, as from the last thread, I have already decided your experiences need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Main reason was that after speaking with such authority on digital, and quoting your renown pro, several weeks later you were asking for basic help with scanning and for explanations about resolution. How can you bring yourself to credibly criticise something without first understanding it? This is a life thing again, and I am trying to help again (so don't anybody come out and say that those "pretending" to help him are being the most damning). If you speak out against something you know very little about, you are asking for it. This applies to photography, but also to anything else you might come across in life.
right..im a computer idoit...tel me how to post pics and i'll post...teach me leh...... Langzi's point
In the last post, your excuse was because you didn't have a scanner. But to be honest, the main reason why I'm bringing this up is because it really makes me scratch my head how you could sling mud at digital, as this just demonstrates further your lack of experience with it, and as above, you really should leave well alone if you don't know enough about something.
since the rest think i cannot shoot and my views on photography is bad Langzi's point
I don't think any of us know for sure that you cannot shoot. And I for one have never said that you can't, because I don't believe in judging until I have seen the work itself. Similarly, you should not judge on digital v conventional until you know what either is capable of. Which you did in your previous thread. Nor should you judge on all those people questing for new equipment, since you can't possibly say that you've seen all their work as well.
I have no problem with your views on photography. My problem is that your views are made without being fully informed. If you are in full possession of the facts and make your conclusions, then that's fair enough. At the moment, it seems to myself, and many here, that you have some of the facts and unfortunately presume them to be enough to cast judgment on the subject.
you think you can make in big in the commercial scene w/o being a apprentice for some photographer first? go ahead lah, and we'll see how u fare. and also i didnt say what studio im working at and you ppl immediately assume it''s one og those lowly studio. Langzi's point
You're missing the point. Nobody's saying you don't need to work as a PA before you can make it in the commercial scene. The point is that being a PA doesn't make you an expert in the commercial scene, which you are trying to be. The truth is, it's possible to make it, but it's very hard, and the main reasons are networking (nothing to do with photography directly whatsoever), and also because in this society we live in, unfortunately, name dropping is a very important thing. Already touched upon in another thread about Fine Art... As mentioned, neither of these points are photographically related.
And as for your studio, I don't really care. That is another example of name dropping, and frankly, as before, it doesn't matter how big your studio is, how expensive your equipment or how difficult your Photoshop actions were. It's the end result that counts.
Ahaha, if you want to know, I'll tell it to you on ICQ, this thread is OT as it is already!