Us equipment junkies can learn a lesson from Lara Jade...

[JohnnyRebel]

Lara Jade is a terrific artist. She does all her work with a 5D and four lenses. Her only "L" lens is her only zoom, which she only uses in her studio. There's something to be said for keeping it simple, mastering your media, and taking great shots instead of focusing on the tools...

JR

http://www.larajade.co.uk/

“I’m more creative than technically-minded,” Lara concludes. “I know a bit, but I’m not one of those people who knows everything there is to know about the camera. I think people can be one or the other – they can know everything about film, the camera and lighting, but they’re not that good at photography, and then you get the other side which concentrates on creativity. I tend to pride myself on knowing about the creative side and experimenting.” - Lara Jade

Lara Jade's equipment:
Cameras:
EOS 5D
Lenses:
EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF35mm f/2.0
EF50mm f/1.4 USM
EF85mm f/1.8 USM
Accessories:
Bowens flash lighting kits
Bowens reflectors
Lastolite reflectors
Lowepro camera bags

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/whats_in_your_kitbag_lara_jade.do

 

[xchangx]

It's all about what you need for the type of shot you want to get. For the most part, she could get away with manual focus lenses or even the 50 1.8.

For studio shots, you can even get away with the kit lens since you'll be shooting at f8 with appropriate lighting.

With what I shoot those lens won't cut it. The 18-300 lenses have auto-focuses that are way too slow and the aperture too slow as well.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

It's all about what you need for the type of shot you want to get. For the most part, she could get away with manual focus lenses or even the 50 1.8.

For studio shots, you can even get away with the kit lens since you'll be shooting at f8 with appropriate lighting.

With what I shoot those lens won't cut it. The 18-300 lenses have auto-focuses that are way too slow and the aperture too slow as well.

Maybe it's just me...

JR

 

[Sp12]

I hate her post processing. Nice makeup and clothing direction though.

 

[iGas]

My old Mamiyaflex C2 TLR, 65mm, 80mm, and 135mm lenses from the 60s still produce more than good enough result for me with 120 film.

 

[foghorn67]

Yep. I upgrade/downgrade as my needs change. I'm not sure what she is addressing. Photography is subject to opinion. I'm not blown away by her work.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

It's about being an artist rather than a technician....

JR

 

[finbarqs]

to me, all L lenses are really just to show off, or if you want the best quality straight out of camera. Once you get into Post work, you'll notice immediately that L glass has "less" processing to do to get the specific "feel" you want to achieve.

However, to each his own: somebody MAY want to spend the time in post to get the image exactly what his/her vision exactly represents! I've shot one of my favorite pictures on my first DSLR, Digital Rebel XTi with the factory kit 18-55 3.5-5.6 lens. The cheapest combo a student can afford!

her style (seems somewhat cross processed) i like, but you don't need to jump into expensive glass to achieve our visions. In fact, people will always say "the glass will make your photo". But in all actuality, it's the photog.

 

[foghorn67]

to me, all L lenses are really just to show off, or if you want the best quality straight out of camera. Once you get into Post work, you'll notice immediately that L glass has "less" processing to do to get the specific "feel" you want to achieve.

However, to each his own: somebody MAY want to spend the time in post to get the image exactly what his/her vision exactly represents! I've shot one of my favorite pictures on my first DSLR, Digital Rebel XTi with the factory kit 18-55 3.5-5.6 lens. The cheapest combo a student can afford!

her style (seems somewhat cross processed) i like, but you don't need to jump into expensive glass to achieve our visions. In fact, people will always say "the glass will make your photo". But in all actuality, it's the photog.

Again. Subjective. And misinformed.
You can't duplicate bokeh or the contrast of some pro primes. You can try. But it's not close.
You can't photoshop higher shutter speeds. NR can only fix so much. Nor focal length. Also try sharpening your OOF photos because your lens sucks at AF.
They are tools. Tools selected by pros for the right job.
It's not the photographers fault some blowhard makes too much money and talks tech and buys the same lens.
I don't care what other people shoot with. I dont have the capacity to worry about what others think while on assignment. "oh he's using a big white "L". He has too much money and doesn't know what he is doing."
"oh he's shooting with a plastic, tiny lens. He's poor and he doesn't know what he's doing."
You can't win with head games.

 

[Munky]

Creative vision is more important than equipment. I thought this was common knowledge.

 

[finbarqs]

Again. Subjective. And misinformed.
You can't duplicate bokeh or the contrast of some pro primes. You can try. But it's not close.
You can't photoshop higher shutter speeds. NR can only fix so much. Nor focal length. Also try sharpening your OOF photos because your lens sucks at AF.
They are tools. Tools selected by pros for the right job.
It's not the photographers fault some blowhard makes too much money and talks tech and buys the same lens.
I don't care what other people shoot with. I dont have the capacity to worry about what others think while on assignment. "oh he's using a big white "L". He has too much money and doesn't know what he is doing."
"oh he's shooting with a plastic, tiny lens. He's poor and he doesn't know what he's doing."
You can't win with head games.

so are we talking about the same thing, but different ways about going at one objective? gear is only a tool for our vision. If you want to replica bokeh, there are software out there that can replicate it. Contrast? Sure, L glass has great contrast. Primes have great contrast as well. But you know what? Contrast can be handled in post.

I agree, you cannot photoshop higher shutter speeds. It's just not possible! But you can make a composite into looking like it's shot at a high shutter speed. But guess what? it'll take you hours to do so, and to look naturally! When all you need is a fast prime, a planned shot, and a good eye!

L glass has shitty AF too. A lot of lenses has AF issues. my 24-70 f/2.8L had to be adjusted because it was back and front focusing quite a bit. In the end, you gotta find a nice medium between the tech/physical science and art.

So the big secret behind photography is that it's subjective! We make money by subjecting our clients into our work, through our ability as sales people!

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Creative vision is more important than equipment. I thought this was common knowledge.

It is common knowledge. Perhaps even universally understood...and yet like many of us my love of photography equipment overshadows my photography: in action even if not in what I say online...

JR

 

[foghorn67]

so are we talking about the same thing, but different ways about going at one objective? gear is only a tool for our vision. If you want to replica bokeh, there are software out there that can replicate it. Contrast? Sure, L glass has great contrast. Primes have great contrast as well. But you know what? Contrast can be handled in post.

I agree, you cannot photoshop higher shutter speeds. It's just not possible! But you can make a composite into looking like it's shot at a high shutter speed. But guess what? it'll take you hours to do so, and to look naturally! When all you need is a fast prime, a planned shot, and a good eye!

L glass has shitty AF too. A lot of lenses has AF issues. my 24-70 f/2.8L had to be adjusted because it was back and front focusing quite a bit. In the end, you gotta find a nice medium between the tech/physical science and art.

So the big secret behind photography is that it's subjective! We make money by subjecting our clients into our work, through our ability as sales people!

First advice given by Photoshop masters. Don't shoot thinking Photoshop will fix that.
Sorry. If you are were correct, everyone would be shooting with a point and shoot.
Plus it never really replicates it. It just looks like Photoshop in the end. Want the look of a nice lens. Buy it.

 

[corkyg]

Her work shows a lot of artistic talent - and, it also shows that she works in a confined area - a studio. Her equipment would not always be suitable for nature/plein air work/wildlife.

I like to see good photography with zero PhotoShopping.

 

[xchangx]

to me, all L lenses are really just to show off, or if you want the best quality straight out of camera. Once you get into Post work, you'll notice immediately that L glass has "less" processing to do to get the specific "feel" you want to achieve.

However, to each his own: somebody MAY want to spend the time in post to get the image exactly what his/her vision exactly represents! I've shot one of my favorite pictures on my first DSLR, Digital Rebel XTi with the factory kit 18-55 3.5-5.6 lens. The cheapest combo a student can afford!

her style (seems somewhat cross processed) i like, but you don't need to jump into expensive glass to achieve our visions. In fact, people will always say "the glass will make your photo". But in all actuality, it's the photog.

Right and wrong. Yes, L lenses are used to get the best quality straight out of camera. Remember the saying garbage in/garbage out? Photoshopping is fine for some things, but why wouldn't you want the best quality initially?

You are also right that you can get good pictures with a kit lens. Which I think was the whole point of the original post. An 85mm @ f8 will probably look the same from the 85 1.8, 85 1.4 or the 70-200 2.8 @ 85. Same with the 50 1.8

However, one of the main reasons I decided to focus on sports is because no 18-300 or super zoom lens is going to get me images like my 400 2.8.

I've used a wide range of lenses on the football field (70-200, Sigma 120-300, 300 2.8, 400 2.8) and the expensive pro lenses blow the others out of the sky. Why? Well for one thing AF. I can guarantee your 18-55 kit lens can't keep a football player in focus with them running at you full speed. There are reasons why those lenses are expensive.

The other thing is separation. Shooting @ 400 2.8 gives you a sweet bokeh that separates the player for everything else.

For example

 

[finbarqs]

First advice given by Photoshop masters. Don't shoot thinking Photoshop will fix that.
Sorry. If you are were correct, everyone would be shooting with a point and shoot.
Plus it never really replicates it. It just looks like Photoshop in the end. Want the look of a nice lens. Buy it.

Again, I'm not talking about shooting something to think "photoshop will fix it". In fact, if that were the case, post will literally take forever. You might as well start using images that aren't even your own.

What i'm saying is Photoshop, like cameras and lenses, are tools. They are the language in which photographers use to express their vision.

"Want the look of a nice lens. Buy it." That statement insinuates the fact that the lens will take the photo for you. I'm reiterated the fact that the lens only helps us capture our vision as photographers. It is up to our imagination, our vision, and our ability to portray what we see. 99% of what I've shot, you've shot, and anyone else have shot has been done some where some how, but better. What differentiates our image for their's? our vision. Our style. You know as well as I know that RAW images come down in one single way: flat. You need some sort of post software to make it "proper". whether if it needs less contrast, more dynamic range, more contrast, or auto balance is off, raw images will not give you what tried to capture. JPEGs or TIFF's with in camera processing will give you closer to what you envisioned.

If you're so against post work, then let the pro's do the post work for you! Heck shoot film, find a great lab that'll give you incredible images (given the right film and development, and the proper film). Digital photography is a new era for photographers. It gives us the freedom of control, the freedom of our true vision. The job is not done when you have properly composed your image, and snapped the shutter. It's done when WE say it's done.

Digital photography IS more convenient, but it is a lot more work. No longer do we have labs to make our slides or negs look outstanding: We are our own lab!

 

[finbarqs]

Right and wrong. Yes, L lenses are used to get the best quality straight out of camera. Remember the saying garbage in/garbage out? Photoshopping is fine for some things, but why wouldn't you want the best quality initially?

You are also right that you can get good pictures with a kit lens. Which I think was the whole point of the original post. An 85mm @ f8 will probably look the same from the 85 1.8, 85 1.4 or the 70-200 2.8 @ 85. Same with the 50 1.8

However, one of the main reasons I decided to focus on sports is because no 18-300 or super zoom lens is going to get me images like my 400 2.8.

I've used a wide range of lenses on the football field (70-200, Sigma 120-300, 300 2.8, 400 2.8) and the expensive pro lenses blow the others out of the sky. Why? Well for one thing AF. I can guarantee your 18-55 kit lens can't keep a football player in focus with them running at you full speed. There are reasons why those lenses are expensive.

The other thing is separation. Shooting @ 400 2.8 gives you a sweet bokeh that separates the player for everything else.

For example

not arguing obtaining the shallow DOF with a huge 400 f/2.8 lens will be useless! Sometimes, you NEED a specific lens to do specific things! For example, sports/action shots require really fast primes, and often, multi cameras with different lenses mounted.

my 18-55 kit lens will not even REACH the players in the field, unless I told them to hold still for me for 2 seconds, while i snap their photo. I'll loose that "natural" pose only achieved by ACTUALLY doing it!

I'm not a pro photographer, nor am I a complete novice. I'm just a guy with a vision and a camera.

 

[foghorn67]

Again, I'm not talking about shooting something to think "photoshop will fix it". In fact, if that were the case, post will literally take forever. You might as well start using images that aren't even your own.

What i'm saying is Photoshop, like cameras and lenses, are tools. They are the language in which photographers use to express their vision.

"Want the look of a nice lens. Buy it." That statement insinuates the fact that the lens will take the photo for you. I'm reiterated the fact that the lens only helps us capture our vision as photographers. It is up to our imagination, our vision, and our ability to portray what we see. 99% of what I've shot, you've shot, and anyone else have shot has been done some where some how, but better. What differentiates our image for their's? our vision. Our style. You know as well as I know that RAW images come down in one single way: flat. You need some sort of post software to make it "proper". whether if it needs less contrast, more dynamic range, more contrast, or auto balance is off, raw images will not give you what tried to capture. JPEGs or TIFF's with in camera processing will give you closer to what you envisioned.

If you're so against post work, then let the pro's do the post work for you! Heck shoot film, find a great lab that'll give you incredible images (given the right film and development, and the proper film). Digital photography is a new era for photographers. It gives us the freedom of control, the freedom of our true vision. The job is not done when you have properly composed your image, and snapped the shutter. It's done when WE say it's done.

Digital photography IS more convenient, but it is a lot more work. No longer do we have labs to make our slides or negs look outstanding: We are our own lab!

Huh? You are going off on a tangent. I do post work a lot. I mean a ton. But it's never to fix a dull image or to fix OOF or softness.
Until you have clients I'm not sure if you ready to assume or guess why I need the lenses I need.
Since you're putting words in my mouth, let me play too.
You always shoot daylight.
You never print on any large medium.
You never spent time putting together an album.
You never shot indoors.
You never shot action or anything that moves.
You're keeper ratio sucks.
You assume telephotos are only used for sports. And any other use for them, Photoshop will fix.
You don't compete with other photogs for the same client.
I could go on.

 

[996GT2]

Lara Jade is a terrific artist. She does all her work with a 5D and four lenses. Her only "L" lens is her only zoom, which she only uses in her studio. There's something to be said for keeping it simple, mastering your media, and taking great shots instead of focusing on the tools...

JR

http://www.larajade.co.uk/

“I’m more creative than technically-minded,” Lara concludes. “I know a bit, but I’m not one of those people who knows everything there is to know about the camera. I think people can be one or the other – they can know everything about film, the camera and lighting, but they’re not that good at photography, and then you get the other side which concentrates on creativity. I tend to pride myself on knowing about the creative side and experimenting.” - Lara Jade

Lara Jade's equipment:
Cameras:
EOS 5D
Lenses:
EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF35mm f/2.0
EF50mm f/1.4 USM
EF85mm f/1.8 USM
Accessories:
Bowens flash lighting kits
Bowens reflectors
Lastolite reflectors
Lowepro camera bags

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/whats_in_your_kitbag_lara_jade.do

Hey, a fellow 5D shooter! Her gear setup is actually somewhat similar to mine. She's got a 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8, while I went for the Sigma 50 1.4 and Canon 100 Macro.

 

[finbarqs]

Huh? You are going off on a tangent. I do post work a lot. I mean a ton. But it's never to fix a dull image or to fix OOF or softness.
Until you have clients I'm not sure if you ready to assume or guess why I need the lenses I need.
Since you're putting words in my mouth, let me play too.
You always shoot daylight.
You never print on any large medium.
You never spent time putting together an album.
You never shot indoors.
You never shot action or anything that moves.
You're keeper ratio sucks.
You assume telephotos are only used for sports. And any other use for them, Photoshop will fix.
You don't compete with other photogs for the same client.
I could go on.

I'm just trying to communicate to you where I'm coming from. I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth. To be fair, I have no idea what your background is in photography, and it was wrong of me to assume you "hate" post work.

I've defended the use of photoshop in an image several times to people who do not understand the difference of "fixing an OOF image" and "using photoshop as a tool to help you achieve the image you captured in your mind". And of course, by that, I do not mean "fix a mistake".

I am trying speak objectively in regards to photography. And again, there are MANY many categories of photography.

I mentioned that I don't shoot so photoshop will fix my mistakes later. I said I would use it as a tool to help me create my vision.

I've shot daylight, I've shot in doors, I've shot night time, I've done commercial work, I've done weddings, I've done events, I've done mostly every type of photography. I've put together albums, and the largest print I made is a 55x30".

I'll say it again. I'm NOT a PROFESSIONAL photographer. but I'm far from a beginner. Seriously, take a seat and really try to see where we are coming from. I'm trying to make peace here, from what photographer to another.

I'm a student photographer who has competed with another photog to shoot exclusively for an event. Whether it's my prices, my work, or my personality, I try to make things work for my clients -- that aren't teachers

 

[spikespiegal]

We have this debate all the time over on Dpreview, and it get's old.

(1) Making broad judgements such as the OP does referencing somebody elses work is a bit ridiculous and annoying. I'm tired of hearing about what some other photographer does. Show me something you did and why it worked.

(2) Web Rez images prove next to nothing about image quality, and are forgotten about a few hours later. Note I didn't say 'technique'.

(3) If your goal is to make 8x10's under controlled lighting you can use about anything, including micro 4/3s, and with proper processing get a pristine image.

(4) Portraits are rarely an inflection of gear anyways. Never have - never will. I shot sports for yeasr with a local paper and it was all about gear. Without a top notch 300mm or 400mm prime, go home. You won't get the shot and won't make money. For indoor sports you can maybe get away with a 200mm 2.8.

I've been shooting and selling a lot of Metal prints lately of landscapes and macro, and the macros especially require top glass and sensors. Even with my new 60D I have to upscale, and I'm right at the edge of decently sharp in big prints. No abundance of technique on the part of the shooter using a significantly lower MP camera will produce an image that looks as good for the same reason 645 looks better than 35mm and 4x5 looks better than 6x7.

The good news is we no longer require chemical labs to think for us and introduce excessive variables. As per what he said above, with digital we are under control of our own destiny and performance of our aquisition tools. That's why film hold-outs hate digital. They want random number generators.

 

[finbarqs]

I saw this one photographer in Fredmiranda, which i thought was outstanding. He does mostly studio work, but his photoshop skills has enable him to achieve something incredible!

http://aurumlight.wordpress.com/

there we go! Though I'm not a compositor, that is just speechless (to me)

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Making broad judgements such as the OP does referencing somebody elses work is a bit ridiculous and annoying

Sez You!

And yet here you are posting. Methinks thou protests too much.

BTW, I don't do work that I would post in order to teach you about photography. I am a paid-by-the-hour corporate hack who shoots a lot of boring stuff every week.

In no way was I suggesting that you do your work with her equipment. That is not the point...

JR

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Her work shows a lot of artistic talent - and, it also shows that she works in a confined area - a studio. Her equipment would not always be suitable for nature/plein air work/wildlife.

I like to see good photography with zero PhotoShopping.

She does a lot of natural light photography. For example, here she is shooting outside with her shiny new 5D Mk II:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSO6xo407Lg

JR

 

[finbarqs]

one thing is for certain: I do want to sleep with lara jade! She's a traditional manual focus person!