My daughter composes great photos using an E-M10 mk iv. Her preferred lens is the 14-150mm f/4-5.6 (non-pro) lens. She does not like complicated tech. Shoots jpeg only. She shoots film, too. She uses a Kodak i60 point-shoot -- all plastic, even the lens. Her photos are wonderful. She takes her time and doesn't stress over gear.
Thank you Brian, I completely agree. The camera is a tool and nothing more. Nobody asks, which brush Picasso used, the viewer sees the creativity and inspiration!
Brian, when we were kids we would see a sign "wet paint" but we had to touch it to be sure. As adults we gullibly believe anything. With digital cameras experimentation is essentially costless. Kit lenses get a bad rap, but they are intended to be budget friendly and versatile.
I have four kit lenses that routinely make beautiful images: sharp enough, pleasing colours and really nice rendering. One even has near mid-tier prime levels of sharpness and microcontrast (perhaps not in the corners). Some kit lenses are nasty, but most are quite decent in most ways that really matter.
I am glad to see you looking happier. Your info on photography myths are very informative and true, I definitely agree about costly equipment not making the better photo. When I was about 6 I was given a kids camera when we were going on holiday, more of my photos turned out than my mum’s ( and she had a big SLR). You are also right about the editing piece too. I went to a show at MoMa about 12 years ago entitled Photoshop Before Photoshop. It was interesting, it showed examples from the early days of photography through to the digital age and how they were “photoshopped”. I knew that photoshopping existed before the photoshop program both because of by fine arts photography courses at University as well my nan being a professional photo retoucher and colourist in a photo studio.
Great video Brian. In the nicest way though, please could you turn the music down as I found it difficult to hear you. Thanks pal and keep up the great work
All I hear are the gear pushers. Then I read the comments. It's like groupthink. They are all smiles after dumping over 5k in the latest wonder camera.🙂
During the time I was in the service of the navy, in Vietnam, I took 600 rolls of film per year in BW photographs. We called all my work, documentaries. No edits, no coloring, and no second chances to get a better shot; l did not want to be the next target. Today, I use the minimum amount edits to get the shot I wanted. Yes, I could make a masterpiece, but hey, it is just for me. So, edit or not to edit depends on the situation and who is the customer.😅
Brian -- great list, yep -- the gear is an extension of our brains/eyes/hands -- all play a part, and often the equipment features (regardless of bargain to the cost of a mortgage) help greatly but don't do it on their own! But you forgot Bonus Myth #2 -- that coffee is better than tea!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@aengusmacnaughton1375 as I read this it 1 am, I’m sitting in my car in a service station and the people outside are looking at me as though I’m mad because I’m laughing out loud at this.
Another great video Brian! As usual, you’re spot on. Just to add to your point about lenses - it drives me mad when people say “this lens is so sharp” or “this lens is soft wide open”. All lenses are sharp - you just need to know their quirks and how to get the best from them. It’s a very rare (and very expensive) lens that is as sharp wide open as it is stopped down a few clicks.
I was looking at some photos today that I took when I first got my GX9, using the 12-32 it came with. I can't really fault it even pixel peeping and checking out the corners like a real peeper 😃 It's a great kit lens
1: Better cameras can give clearer and higher quality images, though a photograph is down to the person taking the image. Agreed. 2: pro ver amateur - I was amateur and managed a front cover image on the Amateur Photographer (1995) because I came in second place (runner-up they called it) for Amateur photographer of the year 1995, (should have been 1st!) did newspapers from time to time too. Agreed. 3: editing has been done in the darkroom for decades, it's not cheating, but very helpful both in the darkroom and computer, agreed. 4: Manual or auto.. manual on wet, and some auto modes on digital, agreed, saves having to think too hard when you need to be quick. 5: raw ver jpg, jpg fine unless you want posters! Saves space too. Agreed. 6: bonus.. some kit lenses are very good, others not so much, esp in the early years, i think the kit lenses have come on leaps and bounds. Agreed (as long as Zeiss hahahaha well in the early days) my bonus 7... filter lenses today are total crap btw, not optically perfect, best look for the ones made in the 90's as a tip for ya, you'll know you've got a crap one if you wobble the lens in front of your eye, the image will "wobble" with crap ones. enjoyed this one!
Editing is cheating!? ... ask Ansel Adams, the Zone System included significant print manipulation; or look at George Hurrell (sp?) who did many of the most famous Hollywood stars of the Golden Age...his special skill was artistic re-touching of the final prints! All the best Brian, thanks.
Agree that other than tidying up a photo or cropping, editing in some instances is wrong not all, how can you encourage people to take up photography, I wont enter competitions as whats the point I cant win, my pics are honest
There’s a lot of snobbery in every activity. You get the purists who poopoo anything that first got their narrative. I think you hit the nail on the head here. It’s like musicians, a great guitarist will sound great on a £99 guitar, but a bad one couldn’t make a £10k instrument sound good.
@@BevThorogood you’ve heard me play many times so you can confirm, I have several very expensive top range guitars and I have an innate ability to make them all sound bloody awful lol
Brian, There is one (very important, and which harks back to your previous video)) myth that needs to debunked IMO. Myth being that photographing with a smaller camera makes you inconspicuous and less likely to be approached, and that the use of a tripod and a larger camera will attract unwanted attention. Yes there are parts of London where tripods are not allowed, also bodies like the National Trust can be officious when it comes to using tripods. Of course there is the counter argument about bulk and weight, which I agree with. But the thing is, the general public and officials in general are not stupid, they know who's a serious photographer when they see one - looking through a viewfinder is usually the give away . I would argue that the stream of abuse you received from that girl wouldn't have happened if you had been using a tripod, cable release and a medium format camera to photograph the war memorial. Not that you should have to change what you do of course, but I'm just trying to make a point. 'Street' photography is a contentious issue and maybe something that shouldn't be encouraged. I follow Kyle McDougall and his approach of a large camera, tripod etc.. allows him access to areas because he looks the part. Sorry to remind you of an unpleasant experience but I think trying to blend in to the crowds is sometimes counterproductive.
1) Cameras can render differently, but the photographer makes a photo. 2) A professional is a paid photographer, and quality will vary. 3) Editing is perfecting an image, is part of a process within an art. It is your view of how an photo should look. In street photography it has certain limits, as it should not be staged or altered to be fraudulent. 4) If a Pro prefers shooting in manual mode, it is irrelevant in every way. The outcome is important, and also refer to #2. How you achieved the outcome, matters none, as the proof is in the pudding. 5) The last time I shot in the RAW, I was arrested for indecent exposure. 😲 Seriously, I shoot in RAW (B&W) + JPG, but used to shoot only JPG. Bonus) Some kit lens are good enough ---- Sony, not so much IMO. But then again, I don't own any Sony, preferring to use a friendly camera. 🤓 Loren Schwiderski -- street photography
@@lorenschwiderski hi Loren, haven’t seen you here for a while, good to see a comment from you again. Even better to have a comment which made me laugh out loud.
While we are on the subject of G100D flash. I've found that I can use the Pop up for fill in, if I set the ISO to Lo100, in S mode 1/50th , it will ramp up the F no to about F16 or so according to the light but. at least it's useable. Hopefully Panasonic might give us a more useful sync speed via a firmware upgrade. By the way Brian I'm very happy for you to use any of my ideas how you see fit. I live Buckinghamshire. Regards John
@@MultiMarooned you fire away, that’s the reason I do the videos, partly to give my view but also to open discussion. I rarely claim to be right, indeed I’m often wrong but others opinions can often open up a different way of thinking. All I ever ask is that it’s done in a constructive way that I and others can enjoy and possibly learn from.
Try a thumbnail with a look of shock and dread as if arrested with bars. I’m studying thumbnail effects. I haven’t been able to record a single video since I lost my billing job. I’m trying to get motivated.
@@AprilClayton just let it flow, if you’re not particularly motivated then just wait until it comes back, which it will in its own time. Maybe just make a video for you and you alone, not to be uploaded to YT but just for you to sit and watch. I’ve done that a couple of times and it’s worked well.
Hi Brian, regarding the Manual mode myth. I find that since I got my G9 and G100D I shoot Manual mode most of the time because Auto ISO makes it so versatile. I cloud comes over, up goes the ISO how good is that. Any way well done with your videos, very interesting.
When are you going to do a video about High Speed Sync especially regarding the G100/D I'm sure loads would find it useful as it's a subject that gets very little coverage as far as I know.
It definitely does with my Nissins i40 and i60 but not all Godox apparently .I have the 100 D .I have had 1/500th flash shots which I believe is the mechanical shutter top speed.
Editing? Depends on the genre, wedding, portraits, product fashion and glamour, edit away I have no issue, but wildlife, landscape and the natural world need little editing. I once saw a fantastic picture of Wastwater at sunset, it had came third in a competition, being from West Cumbria, I realised something was wrong. The photo had the sun dropping behind Kirk Fell and Great Gable perfectly reflected in Wastwater, the sun in Cumbria sets in the West NOT as depicted in the East, that was a masterpiece of editing it was not a photograph, I feel sorry for the entrants who had not cheated. Tweaking a photo in post editing I accept as we’ve all had great photos ruined by something we didnt see, or the sudden appearance of a body part in the background, I dont post edit other than crop, the red squirrels don’t need colours enhanced, the heather on the fells is already purple. There is ‘editing’ and ‘cheating’. Brian, a lot of people start photography produce brilliant photos, but when they compare with a edited photo it knocks confidence and they pack in. Its expensive enough without having to pay a subscription for editing software, HD screens, and I want to spend my time photographing things, once I feel the need to enhance a red squirrel, or Ennerdale Water, or the sunsets over the Irish Sea and Solway Firth, I’ll sell up until then what you see is what I saw, “warts an all”, I am a amateur snapper not a graphic designer
My daughter composes great photos using an E-M10 mk iv. Her preferred lens is the 14-150mm f/4-5.6 (non-pro) lens. She does not like complicated tech. Shoots jpeg only. She shoots film, too. She uses a Kodak i60 point-shoot -- all plastic, even the lens. Her photos are wonderful. She takes her time and doesn't stress over gear.
Nice to see you back to your cheery old self Brian.
@@ljwaugh1 thank you
Thank you Brian, I completely agree. The camera is a tool and nothing more. Nobody asks, which brush Picasso used, the viewer sees the creativity and inspiration!
@@wolfganghnida-eichenlaub2537 great example
@@ronmurray7349 that’s a fun fact to know
Yes! Short turn around times pretty much require jpegs. Great vid, Brian.
Brian, when we were kids we would see a sign "wet paint" but we had to touch it to be sure. As adults we gullibly believe anything. With digital cameras experimentation is essentially costless. Kit lenses get a bad rap, but they are intended to be budget friendly and versatile.
I have four kit lenses that routinely make beautiful images: sharp enough, pleasing colours and really nice rendering. One even has near mid-tier prime levels of sharpness and microcontrast (perhaps not in the corners). Some kit lenses are nasty, but most are quite decent in most ways that really matter.
I am glad to see you looking happier. Your info on photography myths are very informative and true,
I definitely agree about costly equipment not making the better photo. When I was about 6 I was given a kids camera when we were going on holiday, more of my photos turned out than my mum’s ( and she had a big SLR).
You are also right about the editing piece too. I went to a show at MoMa about 12 years ago entitled Photoshop Before Photoshop. It was interesting, it showed examples from the early days of photography through to the digital age and how they were “photoshopped”. I knew that photoshopping existed before the photoshop program both because of by fine arts photography courses at University as well my nan being a professional photo retoucher and colourist in a photo studio.
Enjoyed that one Brian! Bang on.
@@martinmoseley128 thanks
Great video Brian. In the nicest way though, please could you turn the music down as I found it difficult to hear you. Thanks pal and keep up the great work
Great list Brian! Couldn’t agree more with everything you said.
Much appreciated!
All I hear are the gear pushers. Then I read the comments. It's like groupthink. They are all smiles after dumping over 5k in the latest wonder camera.🙂
@@FlatWaterFilms The Emperor's New Clothes springs to mind. The "all the gear and no idea" folks.
During the time I was in the service of the navy, in Vietnam, I took 600 rolls of film per year in BW photographs. We called all my work, documentaries. No edits, no coloring, and no second chances to get a better shot; l did not want to be the next target. Today, I use the minimum amount edits to get the shot I wanted. Yes, I could make a masterpiece, but hey, it is just for me. So, edit or not to edit depends on the situation and who is the customer.😅
Agree
Brian -- great list, yep -- the gear is an extension of our brains/eyes/hands -- all play a part, and often the equipment features (regardless of bargain to the cost of a mortgage) help greatly but don't do it on their own! But you forgot Bonus Myth #2 -- that coffee is better than tea!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@aengusmacnaughton1375 as I read this it 1 am, I’m sitting in my car in a service station and the people outside are looking at me as though I’m mad because I’m laughing out loud at this.
@@ThatMicro43Guy *LOL* -- I'm glad that I can help out with your interactions with the public -- at least they are not accosting you!!! Cheers!
Thanks Brian that was a really enjoyable topic.
Another great video Brian! As usual, you’re spot on. Just to add to your point about lenses - it drives me mad when people say “this lens is so sharp” or “this lens is soft wide open”. All lenses are sharp - you just need to know their quirks and how to get the best from them. It’s a very rare (and very expensive) lens that is as sharp wide open as it is stopped down a few clicks.
@@paularger2841 absolutely
Thanks
@@williamsiviter8760 thank you for your kind support of the channel
Well said sir!
I was looking at some photos today that I took when I first got my GX9, using the 12-32 it came with.
I can't really fault it even pixel peeping and checking out the corners like a real peeper 😃
It's a great kit lens
1: Better cameras can give clearer and higher quality images, though a photograph is down to the person taking the image.
Agreed.
2: pro ver amateur - I was amateur and managed a front cover image on the Amateur Photographer (1995) because I came in second place (runner-up they called it) for Amateur photographer of the year 1995, (should have been 1st!) did newspapers from time to time too. Agreed.
3: editing has been done in the darkroom for decades, it's not cheating, but very helpful both in the darkroom and computer, agreed.
4: Manual or auto.. manual on wet, and some auto modes on digital, agreed, saves having to think too hard when you need to be quick.
5: raw ver jpg, jpg fine unless you want posters! Saves space too. Agreed.
6: bonus.. some kit lenses are very good, others not so much, esp in the early years, i think the kit lenses have come on leaps and bounds. Agreed (as long as Zeiss hahahaha well in the early days)
my bonus
7... filter lenses today are total crap btw, not optically perfect, best look for the ones made in the 90's as a tip for ya, you'll know you've got a crap one if you wobble the lens in front of your eye, the image will "wobble" with crap ones.
enjoyed this one!
Editing is cheating!? ... ask Ansel Adams, the Zone System included significant print manipulation; or look at George Hurrell (sp?) who did many of the most famous Hollywood stars of the Golden Age...his special skill was artistic re-touching of the final prints! All the best Brian, thanks.
Agree that other than tidying up a photo or cropping, editing in some instances is wrong not all, how can you encourage people to take up photography, I wont enter competitions as whats the point I cant win, my pics are honest
There’s a lot of snobbery in every activity. You get the purists who poopoo anything that first got their narrative. I think you hit the nail on the head here. It’s like musicians, a great guitarist will sound great on a £99 guitar, but a bad one couldn’t make a £10k instrument sound good.
@@BevThorogood you’ve heard me play many times so you can confirm, I have several very expensive top range guitars and I have an innate ability to make them all sound bloody awful lol
@@ThatMicro43Guy you know that is so not true.
Brian, There is one (very important, and which harks back to your previous video)) myth that needs to debunked IMO. Myth being that photographing with a smaller camera makes you inconspicuous and less likely to be approached, and that the use of a tripod and a larger camera will attract unwanted attention. Yes there are parts of London where tripods are not allowed, also bodies like the National Trust can be officious when it comes to using tripods. Of course there is the counter argument about bulk and weight, which I agree with.
But the thing is, the general public and officials in general are not stupid, they know who's a serious photographer when they see one - looking through a viewfinder is usually the give away .
I would argue that the stream of abuse you received from that girl wouldn't have happened if you had been using a tripod, cable release and a medium format camera to photograph the war memorial. Not that you should have to change what you do of course, but I'm just trying to make a point. 'Street' photography is a contentious issue and maybe something that shouldn't be encouraged. I follow Kyle McDougall and his approach of a large camera, tripod etc.. allows him access to areas because he looks the part. Sorry to remind you of an unpleasant experience but I think trying to blend in to the crowds is sometimes counterproductive.
Thanks!
No problem! Thank you for supporting the channel, most appreciated
1) Cameras can render differently, but the photographer makes a photo. 2) A professional is a paid photographer, and quality will vary. 3) Editing is perfecting an image, is part of a process within an art. It is your view of how an photo should look. In street photography it has certain limits, as it should not be staged or altered to be fraudulent. 4) If a Pro prefers shooting in manual mode, it is irrelevant in every way. The outcome is important, and also refer to #2. How you achieved the outcome, matters none, as the proof is in the pudding. 5) The last time I shot in the RAW, I was arrested for indecent exposure. 😲 Seriously, I shoot in RAW (B&W) + JPG, but used to shoot only JPG. Bonus) Some kit lens are good enough ---- Sony, not so much IMO. But then again, I don't own any Sony, preferring to use a friendly camera. 🤓 Loren Schwiderski -- street photography
@@lorenschwiderski hi Loren, haven’t seen you here for a while, good to see a comment from you again. Even better to have a comment which made me laugh out loud.
Editing……… agree, about perfecting a photo, not dramatically changing it,
While we are on the subject of G100D flash. I've found that I can use the Pop up for fill in, if I set the ISO to Lo100, in S mode 1/50th , it will ramp up the F no to about F16 or so according to the light but. at least it's useable. Hopefully Panasonic might give us a more useful sync speed via a firmware upgrade. By the way Brian I'm very happy for you to use any of my ideas how you see fit. I live Buckinghamshire.
Regards
John
@@toxophillus72 thank you. I’ve also used the pop up flash to trigger external strobes
Nice to see you've cheered up - sorry, I disagree with a few of your 'busted myths' - but, it's only a personal opinion !!!!!
@@MultiMarooned you fire away, that’s the reason I do the videos, partly to give my view but also to open discussion. I rarely claim to be right, indeed I’m often wrong but others opinions can often open up a different way of thinking. All I ever ask is that it’s done in a constructive way that I and others can enjoy and possibly learn from.
Try a thumbnail with a look of shock and dread as if arrested with bars. I’m studying thumbnail effects. I haven’t been able to record a single video since I lost my billing job. I’m trying to get motivated.
@@AprilClayton just let it flow, if you’re not particularly motivated then just wait until it comes back, which it will in its own time. Maybe just make a video for you and you alone, not to be uploaded to YT but just for you to sit and watch. I’ve done that a couple of times and it’s worked well.
Hi Brian, regarding the Manual mode myth. I find that since I got my G9 and G100D I shoot Manual mode most of the time because Auto ISO makes it so versatile. I cloud comes over, up goes the ISO how good is that. Any way well done with your videos, very interesting.
@@toxophillus72 good point. Thanks for the compliment
When are you going to do a video about High Speed Sync especially regarding the G100/D I'm sure loads would find it useful as it's a subject that gets very little coverage as far as I know.
@@toxophillus72 I’m not sure HSS will work with the G100 or G100D as it is an electronic only shutter. Let me look into it
It definitely does with my Nissins i40 and i60 but not all Godox apparently .I have the 100 D
.I have had 1/500th flash shots which I believe is the mechanical shutter top speed.
Editing? Depends on the genre, wedding, portraits, product fashion and glamour, edit away I have no issue, but wildlife, landscape and the natural world need little editing. I once saw a fantastic picture of Wastwater at sunset, it had came third in a competition, being from West Cumbria, I realised something was wrong. The photo had the sun dropping behind Kirk Fell and Great Gable perfectly reflected in Wastwater, the sun in Cumbria sets in the West NOT as depicted in the East, that was a masterpiece of editing it was not a photograph, I feel sorry for the entrants who had not cheated. Tweaking a photo in post editing I accept as we’ve all had great photos ruined by something we didnt see, or the sudden appearance of a body part in the background, I dont post edit other than crop, the red squirrels don’t need colours enhanced, the heather on the fells is already purple. There is ‘editing’ and ‘cheating’. Brian, a lot of people start photography produce brilliant photos, but when they compare with a edited photo it knocks confidence and they pack in. Its expensive enough without having to pay a subscription for editing software, HD screens, and I want to spend my time photographing things, once I feel the need to enhance a red squirrel, or Ennerdale Water, or the sunsets over the Irish Sea and Solway Firth, I’ll sell up until then what you see is what I saw, “warts an all”, I am a amateur snapper not a graphic designer
@@andirutherford2615 excellent points