Hacker News Reader

> One thing I've noticed in the Valley is engineers with super-expensive DSLRs, taking pictures of the most mundane things, mainly birthday parties and pictures of wine glasses. I guess it's like any other hobby, and I guess the belief that the best technology out there will result in the best output, and that's what makes Silicon Valley what it is.

It's really a shame that photographers are not out-there on the streets taking photos of places and people that do matter, documenting every day life.

For example I bought this photo (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L3tT3HbZcsU/TeAwqf6XyxI/AAAAAAAAAf...) for 15 Euros a couple of months ago from an antique bookstore. It was taken in Bucharest in the late 1930s' in front of a night asylum, by Jewish photographer Teddy Brauner (the brother of the better known Victor Brauner), using a normal Kodak camera and probably not thinking too much about aperture or light or any things like that. He just knew to be at the right place and to catch the right moment.

I cannot see this kind of work being done by today's photographers in America. I mean, I'm sure that there are people out-there documenting the worst recession in the last 80 years, but judging by what gets promoted on Google+ as being "state of the art photography" it seems like America's problems would be solved by taking photos of nice sunsets and beautiful mountains. There's a great opportunity for us people who like to take photos to help the others around us make sense of what's happening, but it seems we're more interested in technicalities and in kitsch photo-art.

(if anyone's interested to learn more about Teddy Brauner, I could only find this NY Times article about his later work: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/05/arts/photography-review-an.... He was not allowed to take photos anymore in Bucharest when the right-wing came to power, but he managed to escape to Palestina in 1942 or so).

A more expensive camera will get you a bigger sweet spot in order for you to take more pictures in different light conditions, but it's like tennis rackets with a bigger sweet spot, it's allows beginners to pretend they actually know what they're doing.

What's wrong with that? If a person's goal is to get nice-looking photos of moments that are important to them, what's wrong with using a camera with a bigger sweet spot? If it means spending less time fiddling with the camera to get all the settings just right, that's more time spent actually participating in life instead of behind a camera.

Why does everyone taking photos have to be expressing themselves artistically? What's wrong with people who just want to capture a moment where someone they love has a sparkle in their eye?

> Why does everyone taking photos have to be expressing themselves artistically? What's wrong with people who just want to capture a moment where someone they love has a sparkle in their eye?

This is a brilliant reason to use a camera. Almost any camera is good enough for this; using a prosumer DSLR will usually be a hinderance (they're big and bulky and have many buttons and switches and levers) and using a little digital compact is cheaper and easier.

A little digital compact is not able to shoot at ISO 3200 with low noise, so you'll end up using flash for indoor shooting which ruins the mood. It will not be able to shoot at 5 FPS, which is the only way (in my experience) to consistently get candid shots with magical looks on people's faces instead of closed eyes or momentary grimaces. And it won't be able to shoot with a narrow depth of field, which makes portraits way more beautiful.

If you take a nice DSLR, put it on aperture-priority with the lens all the way open at high ISO, turn the flash off, and shoot at 5 FPS while interesting things are happening to people (preferably from a bit of a distance so things are more candid), you'll get shots that people beg you for copies of. When I do this at weddings, I've have two different couples (friends/family) tell me that they liked my pictures better than the pro who they hired, and I'm not really that talented.

In your first paragraph, you're assuming that there are predetermined rules for what a good photo represents. You even mention a mysterious "mood."

In the second, you hit the nail on the head. The only thing that truly matters is whether the photographer likes their own photos, and if the people important to him like their photos.

If this doesn't happen, in the first case, they will seek to improve their images, and will naturally come by the same information that you and me consider defines "good" photos.

In the second, they may either care that others dislike their images (in which case, see above), or they may disregard their opinions and keep taking the same quality of photos (which we may subjectively judge as "good" or "bad," among other nuances).

     You can get amazing photos from point and shoots
     or even your iPhone

When you capture rare moments, the best camera in the world is the one you have with you.

However, I do not agree with the statement above. Expensive cameras with expensive lenses allow for more composition freedom that you just can't get with a cheap camera. For instance, I'm pretty sure that if your friend would take pictures of sports events or pictures of landscapes, or macros, she would use more expensive gear.

However your friend is also a professional. Good professionals are using the cheapest equipment they can get away with. A cheap DSLR can be replaced every month. You can also have a backup with you in case accidents happen (and in case of events like weddings, you really have to be prepared for everything). Plus, a cheap DSLR is more practical - for instance I love my Nikon D3000 - people bitch about how it isn't ergonomic because of its size, but I like how easy it is to carry with you, while also have the advantages of a DSLR. As I said, the best camera in the world, is the one you have with you.

And I don't agree with you. I took all the photos with your average digital camera of the time:

http://boston.conman.org/2003/07/04/p100059.jpg http://boston.conman.org/2003/07/04/p100049.jpg http://boston.conman.org/2002/12/17/movement.02.jpg http://boston.conman.org/2002/12/12/turnpike.3.jpg http://boston.conman.org/2011/07/04 http://boston.conman.org/2003/08/13/clouds.1.jpg

It's less the equipment (although nice equipment certainly makes it easier---I found it vastly easier to take pictures of lightening with a 35mm camera than a digital one, but it's not impossible as you can see) and more what you do with what you have.

I majored in Computer Science, but I did take two semesters of photography in college (this was back in the early 90s, so no digital cameras). The first semester was all about the technical aspects of photography, the relationship between aperture, shutter speed and film speed, along with guidelines on how to compose the shots (The Rule of Thirds, etc.).

While some of the stuff I learned there is no longer applicable (such as developing film and photographs), much of it still is (aperture, shutter speed, the simulated film speed, composure). And one other thing---the first semester he had us use just about every feature of our cameras. And that's something I still do to this day---whenever I get a new digital camera, I play around with all the settings, and take notes of what settings were in play for what pictures. That way, I can concentrate on getting the shot. And yes, playing around with night shots on a digital camera allowed me to shoot fireworks.

Regarding your last point, there's a series of videos on YouTube where pro photographers are challenged to take the best pictures they can with 'subpar/cheap' gear; the results are pretty incredible.

Here's the first in that series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUkKtkEZNjs

Yeah, and one funny thing I'll point out is, a lot of the most talented photographers I've met could care less about learning about what a Bayer filter is, the differences between a CCD and a CMOS, or even how to use curves properly in photoshop. Hell, some can barely turn on a strobe pack by themselves.

Technology definitely isn't the deciding factor in taking a good photo, but having that "bigger sweet spot" doesn't hurt.

And the market for high-end camera gear has expanded down from pros to prosumer, it hasn't been created for engineers with lots of free money; many pros use that kit too, just like pros use the most high tech tennis rackets with their large sweet spots.

Edit: grammar.

You do not need a $2000 camera to take your 2 year old daughter's birthday party photos. PERIOD.

You do not need a Porsche to commute to work. You do not need a steak for dinner. You do not need air conditioning. You do not need toilet paper.

The 5D is a wonderful piece of technology. A person should feel no shame about owning one, nor for excitedly talking about it.

People understand that. People [generally, and I talk to a lot of them due to being a photographer and having lots of friends who want to get into photo] do not understand that you don't need a $2000 camera to take good photos.

The guys running around with $5000 worth of gear producing mediocre pictures make people that don't know what they're doing throw their hands in the air and say:

"Well if he can't do it with $5000 worth of gear that is NO WAY I'm going to do it with $300 worth!"

This is, of course, nonsense.

You do not need a Porsche to commute to work. You do not need a steak for dinner. You do not need air conditioning. You do not need toilet paper.

And yet, I think there's something obnoxious about people who buy Porches to sit in urban traffic and show girls they can spend money, I'm also irritated by those who constantly eat at Nobu to validate their status, and as for AC, well I love AC, but I'm sure someone else finds it obnoxious.

It's a big world out there, and a lot of us get on each other's nerves. Welcome to the human condition.

Even in urban traffic, a porsche is a far more exciting ride than a run-of-the-mill car.

During the dotcom boom I worked at a small company that had already IPOed a year or two previously. In the parking lot, I saw a silver Ferrari, and being new to the Valley, I was completely amazed and intimidated.

But after a few months, I actually went to the car to look inside, and in front seat was a baby seat, and it was littered in garbage, McDonald's wrappers, magazine, etc. It looked like someone who really wanted an Accord (a very nice car, I had one for 10+ years), got too big for their britches, didn't understand his-or-her situation, and spent money on a Ferrari instead, and had to live with the consequences. It's the same for the person who buys a Porsche just to get stuck in 101 rush hour traffic every day, they didn't understand their situation.

This is exactly what it is when engineers buy Mark II's to take photos of birthday parties. Sure, people are allowed to do whatever they want, but they look like posers, and more often than not, they don't know what they're doing. Instead they think that throwing money at the problem and getting the best technology will result in the best output, and will vault their level of success instantly. Sure the Mark II will be more forgiving, as will the assortment of lens that you can get for it, but more often than not, they'll still take mundane photos that could have been taken with a point-and-shoot.

I don't see what lead you to believe this:

> looked like someone who really wanted an Accord (a very nice car, I had one for 10+ years), got too big for their britches, didn't understand his-or-her situation,

Are accord owners supposed to liter their cars with garbage? Or is it that Ferrari owners aren't supposed to ride with babies? Or what? I'm completely confused as to your reasoning.

Also, as the owner of a fairly pricey car I've always said that these cars are built to drive, and are a thrill to do so in. If simply lock it away in a garage, and avoid using it in your real life--then what's the point?

It looked like someone who really wanted an Accord (a very nice car, I had one for 10+ years), got too big for their britches, didn't understand his-or-her situation, and spent money on a Ferrari instead, and had to live with the consequences.

It sounds like someone who is really passionate about cars, and Ferraris specifically, and who has made the car fit his or her life.

If the person can afford a Ferrari, I'm going to go out on a limb and say there is probably little obstacle to also owning a commuter box, if that person were so inclined.

they look like posers

That is entirely in your own head. If you go around judging people that much, how can you possibly feel about yourself?

You're better than this. Stop searching for reasons to look down on others.

"they look like posers

That is entirely in your own head. If you go around judging people that much, how can you possibly feel about yourself?"

Also, why should you live your life based on how someone else perceives you? Surely the poster above you feels that this is wrong.