I completely agree with this statement as I am sure most of you will too. Yet, when it comes to street and candid photography, it seems that there are many different views about how to do this. I’ll explain more on that later.
You may call this article an essay, an opinion, or a rant. I hesitated to post this on Photograph IO because this article is probably way too biased for the blog (sorry Nikon owners). Don’t say you haven’t been warned. 😛
Why do some companies flourish (Fuji) while others went bankrupt (Kodak)? How important is market share when it comes to brand equity and customer retention, if at all? These are all questions that I asked myself following the whole Nikon D600 scandal that was finally resolved recently.
When the Nikon D600 was initially released to the public, tests done on the sensor of the camera model revealed that there was a dust/oil problem with the shutter and sensor. Despite many complaints from users, Nikon did nothing at all to help existing D600 owners, telling them instad to clean with a “rocket blower” and never acknowledged officially the problem. Instead, Nikon quietly released a newer model, the D610, a year only after the release of the D600 that magically fixed the problem and added a meager 0.5 FPS increase from 5.5 FPS to 6 FPS. Unusual? Indeed. Of course, they justified that the D610 was made because their customers wanted a “faster burst rate”. Sure, the D610 is an excellent camera on its own, but they way Nikon acted is very disrespectful of existing D600 owners. As one of world’s largest camera companies, this is utterly disappointing. The folks over at Nikon thought they could get away with the issue by covering it up and totally ignoring ethics and customer service. What a joke.
Ever since I took up photography a bit more seriously, the issue of digital processing and manipulation keeps popping up more and more often. And strangely, most of the time, the people that bring it up have nothing to do with photography and have little knowledge of the subject. Most of those times, I don’t even bother to counter-argue, but during the last month I’ve been forced to defend my views quite a few times, so I decided to sit down, put my thoughts into an order and try to document and communicate them with you, in an attempt to be heard and understood.
Editor’s note : This is a syndicated article by Fotis Athanasopoulos that originally appeared on his blog Through the Looking Glass. It is used here with permission.
The Internet is truly amazing. Not even a day after writing an article on why your kit lens is an excellent lens, the article made the front page of Reddit photography and got over 10 000 views and counting overnight and nearly crashed my shared hosting server with that massive amount of bandwidth, haha. But apart from the views, I’ve also seen quite a few interesting comments and questions (both good and bad) over at Reddit and I thought I might give my take on a few of them.
As the saying goes, quality lenses are a lot more important than good bodies when it comes to investing in camera gear. They last longer, retain their value more, and have more utility overall than, say, buying the latest DSLR that will become obsolete in 3 to 5 years. But if you are into photography for the first time, you’ll likely buy an entry level camera that comes bundled with an inferior, even crappy, kit lens. Or is it? Do you really need quality gear to take good pictures? Spend thousands of dollars on red/golden rings lenses?
With today’s technological revolution and an ever-increasing amount of people having a smartphone or any other camera-enabled device, it is no wonder that society has grown wary of photography in public.
In most major cities across the developed world (some Central European and Asian cities being the exception), what used to be a form of art in the times of Henri-Cartier Bresson is now being frowned upon the few photographers still willing to document life in the streets.