What's helpful / non-helpful advice

J

jamesev

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,216
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
I see lots of posts, not necessarily here about "i am doing such and such type of photography and am thinking about upgrading my camera / lens from.... to" To which a common response is not to get as hung up on kit as understanding of solving the photographic problem or techniques. This in turn gets quite snide comments back that the response isn't helpful.

Thoughts?
 
People have different opinions. End of.
 
That response seems ok.
Controversial response I would expect negative replies to would be,

grow up and do your own research, there are tons of reviews and in-depth info out there.
stop trying to get others to hold your hand and make choices for you and grow a pair and make your own decision based on your own research.
 
Photographers with the skills and experience know their gear and what they need. They usually don't need to ask these questions leaving behind us less skilled and less experienced for whom practice, knowledge, practice and even more of those is more useful than even the most high-end camera gear. Also some seem to think only the best for X aplication can do what they want. Anything less will lead to failure. I think that's the reasons for the "unhelpful" advises.
 
Not everyone comes here to be helpful.
If I was considering a specific lens for, say, a certain type of landscape work, I would hope to get some helpful thoughts from landscape photographers who had used the lens but there will always be those who just see the question as an opportunity to belittle the one asking it.
 
It's a case of what suits the individual and their needs, buying better more expensive gear won't automatically make
you a better photographer, I've see some fantastic pictures taken on low end gear and some real rubbish taken
with top end gear
I personally couldn't use anything too heavy my max is the Sigma 150-600 which has become my walk about lens for birds/wildlife
and after a lot of practice I am happy with the results, but have heard others say it is soft, slow to focus etc.
I loaned my to someone in a hide once, same camera body as mine, helped them with settings for it and they couldn't
get a decent result, moaned about they must have a problem with the camera, just couldn't accept that it could be user
error and with practice they would get used to it
So yes we could tell people to go out a spend a fortune but it may not be any advantage to them
 
gramps said:
Not everyone comes here to be helpful.
If I was considering a specific lens for, say, a certain type of landscape work, I would hope to get some helpful thoughts from landscape photographers who had used the lens but there will always be those who just see the question as an opportunity to belittle the one asking it.
Click to expand...
True, as per the answer below your post it is easy to replicate the kit owned and used by the landscape photographers who have that lens and yet still produce low quality photos because they do not know how to optimise its capability. Yes its very difficult to quantify what % the kit makes and what % the knowledge and experience brings.
 
jamesev said:
I see lots of posts, not necessarily here about "i am doing such and such type of photography and am thinking about upgrading my camera / lens from.... to" To which a common response is not to get as hung up on kit as understanding of solving the photographic problem or techniques. This in turn gets quite snide comments back that the response isn't helpful.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

as with lots of things, the answer is "it depends"

for certain styles/genres of photography, the kit does have a massive impact - long, fast glass and quick accurate AF is a massive benefit for sports and wildlife photography - not having the latest and greatest kit doesn't necessarily preclude getting the shot - and as Ingrid has said, it's also down to the photographers physical limitations - no point in getting a Nikon 600mm lens if you're unable to lift the damned thing to your eye - but - everything else being equal, better kit just gets the limitations of the kit higher than the limitations of the photographer. Same with macro shooting - it sometimes needs fairly specialised kit, or adaptations at the very least (either add-on lenses, reversing rings, extension rings, bellows, ringflash or other lighting kit that's away from the mainstream.

But, when someone is simply talking about "general photography" - a bit of landscape, a few shots of the family, the odd shot to support their hobbies - then really, the best advice can be "don't spend anything until you begin to hit a specific issue that you can't overcome with your existing kit".

Of course, for some people, the kit IS the hobby, and taking photographs using the kit is just an excuse to research, discuss and buy the next toy.

Hey - we're a broad church here, everyone's welcome - and welcome to express their opinions - if it ever degenerates to abuse, then give the staff a pointer to it, and let us take care of it :)
 
The specific instance was regarding upgrading the camera to a body that would increase the FPS by a couple of FPS to enable higher probability of capturing some high speed action (not sports).
 
frame rate's been "an issue" since film era... most of the "pro" level 35mm systems had motor-drives as an add-on, which for the sports and press crowd were pretty much de-rigeur. Even my beloved EOS3 and EOS1V had the PB-E2 Power Booster which speeded up the inbuilt power winding and boosted the battery life...

And even then, there would be people bemoaning "machine-gunning" (with 36 frames, it's not QUITE the same as digital) and saying you should just wait for the "decisive moment" - forgetting that pre-motor winds, press photography used to be a case of heading out with your 5x4 camera, and employing the tactic of "f8 and be there" - and the reason that there'd be a scrum of 40-50 photographers was that maybe 1 might get the "decisive moment" and everyone else would be a millisecond off...

My comment above wasn't intended as a definitive list of "when kit matters" - just a couple of common sense examples...
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
frame rate's been "an issue" since film era... most of the "pro" level 35mm systems had motor-drives as an add-on, which for the sports and press crowd were pretty much de-rigeur. Even my beloved EOS3 and EOS1V had the PB-E2 Power Booster which speeded up the inbuilt power winding and boosted the battery life...

And even then, there would be people bemoaning "machine-gunning" (with 36 frames, it's not QUITE the same as digital) and saying you should just wait for the "decisive moment" - forgetting that pre-motor winds, press photography used to be a case of heading out with your 5x4 camera, and employing the tactic of "f8 and be there" - and the reason that there'd be a scrum of 40-50 photographers was that maybe 1 might get the "decisive moment" and everyone else would be a millisecond off...

My comment above wasn't intended as a definitive list of "when kit matters" - just a couple of common sense examples...
Click to expand...
Well machine-gunning is a whole other debate with, on one hand getting the shot that earns to money if you are in a competitive press world vs the skill of decisive moment
 
Nostromo said:
I'm more of a semi automatic kind of shooter,
Click to expand...
I just find the more you shoot the more you have to add time in the workflow to work out which is "the shot". Plus a lot of potentially wasted shutter actuations, which is not as much of an issue if your business is funding equipment replacement when the shutter dies.
 
Helpful advice helps the recipient. Unhelpful advice doesn't help the recipient. There's really no other measure. So some advice will be helpful for some people and unhelpful for others.

There's advice which isn't relevant, which often tends to be unhelpful (I've got a Canon, what's the best lens, it's the Nikkor 50mm is irrelevant advice, for example). For some people in some situations different kit will help, for other people in the same situation it might not, so there's no immediate connection between the question and the value of the advice.
 
EightBitTony said:
Helpful advice helps the recipient. Unhelpful advice doesn't help the recipient. There's really no other measure. So some advice will be helpful for some people and unhelpful for others.

There's advice which isn't relevant, which often tends to be unhelpful (I've got a Canon, what's the best lens, it's the Nikkor 50mm is irrelevant advice, for example). For some people in some situations different kit will help, for other people in the same situation it might not, so there's no immediate connection between the question and the value of the advice.
Click to expand...
Agree with all of this. However if the question being asked is about upgrading a camera where there is no recognition by the asker that its not necessarily the camera thats the bottle neck in improving the output that of course could be construed as unhelpful. Plus the asker doesn't always ask the right question.
 
With the exception of specialist stuff like macro kit, tilt and shift lenses, etc. a reasonable quality modern(ish) camera should give the user good results in most usual lighting conditions, and learnt skill, patience and effort should improve the results further as the photographer gains experience. Buying top quality kit but not knowing how to use it will not usually produce better photographs. The exposure and detail may be slightly better, but the framing, composition and subject matter will still be lacking.

Kit does matter, but only if it's necessary for the purpose, and the person using it knows how to get the best out of it and how to take good photographs. As a comparison, give a beginner a 'custom shop' Fender Stratocaster guitar and an expensive valve-driven amplifier and all that will happen is the bum notes they play will sound slightly clearer and smoother. It won't make them a better guitar player, that only comes with time, practice, effort and (unfortunately) aptitude and ability.

However, give that guitar and amp to a great player and you'll hear the difference between that and budget kit... but the great player will still sound good on the budget kit, as they'll soon find its strengths and weaknesses and either stay within those limits or use them to gain additional effects.

I think the trick is to grow with your kit, don't change it until it's definitely holding you back and you are certain an upgrade will pay dividends. Honesty comes into play here, will 'better' kit improve my photography, or will it just make poor or average looking photos look a bit clearer?

I think the 'snide comments' tend to occur because someone is perhaps misunderstanding the truth of the matter (or doesn't want to hear it), or because some people have been quite blunt (or even rude) in expressing their opinions, or because someone is just parroting an opinion they heard or read without it actually applying (fully or partially) in that specific instance. Before you know it there's an argument going on, hairs are being spit and names being called. Unfortunately, as entertaining as this may be to some, it doesn't usually help anyone, or change the truth.
 
Last edited:
A few random thoughts on this

Photography is a single word for a large field of endeavour and my photography might not be the same as yours but this often seems to get lost in these debates

The equipment ALWAYS matters, you can't shoot pinhole photos if you don't have a pinhole modified camera and it is very difficult to shoot birds in flight without a long lens and fast/accurate AF. That said IT DOES NOT mean that you cannot produce a good photo with whatever camera you have to hand but you cannot have it both ways, you either modify you style to your gear or you get the gear for the shot you want.

There seem to be a lot of painting-by-numbers photographers who think that if someone tells them which gear, which location, which settings, which time of day they will produce great photographs.

There seem to be a lot of people who are happy to offer lots of advice but never share a photo. Personally I would put far more weight on advice from someone who shares decent photos than from someone who is happy to spout off about technicalities but never shows any examples of their work.
 
sirch said:
A few random thoughts on this

Photography is a single word for a large field of endeavour and my photography might not be the same as yours but this often seems to get lost in these debates

The equipment ALWAYS matters, you can't shoot pinhole photos if you don't have a pinhole modified camera and it is very difficult to shoot birds in flight without a long lens and fast/accurate AF. That said IT DOES NOT mean that you cannot produce a good photo with whatever camera you have to hand but you cannot have it both ways, you either modify you style to your gear or you get the gear for the shot you want.
Click to expand...

Agree with this.

sirch said:
There seem to be a lot of painting-by-numbers photographers who think that if someone tells them which gear, which location, which settings, which time of day they will produce great photographs.
Click to expand...

I think that's true of pretty much all activities, especially those with an artistic or crafting slant.

sirch said:
There seem to be a lot of people who are happy to offer lots of advice but never share a photo. Personally I would put far more weight on advice from someone who shares decent photos than from someone who is happy to spout off about technicalities but never shows any examples of their work.
Click to expand...

I'd even prefer advice from people who share terrible photos over advice from people who never share any work. Firstly, terrible is sometimes subjective and so terrible to one person isn't to another, and secondly, at least you have something to measure the advice against.
 
EightBitTony said:
I'd even prefer advice from people who share terrible photos over advice from people who never share any work. Firstly, terrible is sometimes subjective and so terrible to one person isn't to another, and secondly, at least you have something to measure the advice against.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree.
 
EightBitTony said:
I'd even prefer advice from people who share terrible photos over advice from people who never share any work. Firstly, terrible is sometimes subjective and so terrible to one person isn't to another, and secondly, at least you have something to measure the advice against.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that many did share photos and were criticised in an insensitive way so decided sharing was not for them.
 
Where as I agree with @sirch to a point, but you can have good advice from mediocre photographers. As an analogy, David leadbetter is /was a great golf instructor (he coached Faldo), but was never a great player, the same can be said of a lot of football managers. Some people know a lot about the gear and how it performs, what would be more suitable for someone, but they're not taking the photo, only the person taking the photo can decide if the light is right, the composition is right and the camera settings are right for the situation.
So yes there is good advice and bad advice, it's up to the person asking the question to pick the what from the chaff.
There are only a few regular members on here that I will take note of, with regards to equipment/gear, some of them never or very rarely post photos and that doesn't bother me, they give sensible advice, most of the time straight forward and to the point (which may not be to everyone's taste).
At the end of the day, if you've got the money and you want to buy something new, then buy it.
 
GTG said:
You have to remember that many did share photos and were criticised in an insensitive way so decided sharing was not for them.
Click to expand...
I don't criticise other peoples' pictures. I do "like" the pictures that please me and I suppose by extension I'm saying I "don't like" the rest. Perhaps a "dislike" button would be helpful but then there'd probably be complaints that it was being misused. :thinking:
 
jamesev said:
I see lots of posts, not necessarily here about "i am doing such and such type of photography and am thinking about upgrading my camera / lens from.... to" To which a common response is not to get as hung up on kit as understanding of solving the photographic problem or techniques. This in turn gets quite snide comments back that the response isn't helpful.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Frustration can be caused when someone doesn't listen to good advice given to them.
Case in point where a member wanted to get better photos of birds and they were using a Canon 55-250IS lens and they thought they could improve their photos if they used a newer body with a higher pixel count.
The thread went on and on trying to explain that first they needed to consider the focal length of the lens and that even a something as old as a 40D with a decent lens will produce excellent results.
Over the years via various meet ups from here and good advice, I've found some people to be fantastic at sharing tips and good advice.
However, no matter which internet forum it is, there will always be the elite bunch who are so far up their own a**** it's unreal.
 
Last edited:
Nostromo said:
So yes there is good advice and bad advice, it's up to the person asking the question to pick the what from the chaff.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that good advice can come from people who are not necessarily the best in their field and similarly the best practitioners don't always make the best teachers. However how does the person asking for advice, often a relative newcomer to the forum, know who is handing out wheat and who chaff? A short cut route to making that decision, for me at least, is to have a look at their photos and see if they are producing the sort of image that I am aiming to achieve.
 
hashcake said:
Frustration can be caused when someone doesn't listen to good advice given to them.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that in itself can be subjective, some have the habit of setting themselves up as the authority on matters when that is entirely questionable.
 
Agree very much with the general direction of the replies here. I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Gary Player. He was asked how was it that he was such a great golfer. He said, "I suppose I'm just lucky and the more I practice, the luckier I get".

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top