pros vs amateurs - the intangible difference?

[peterjclarke]

Originally Posted by andyc123

Hi Peter,

Sorry, perhaps a poor choice of words there. I have tried taking shots of flowers and whole heartedly agree that they are not easy subjects. My point was more that they are pretty static (wind aside) and you generally have plenty of time to choose your subject, carefully consider your composition and often have some lighting control - yet it is still very hard to produce a quality image rather than a record shot.

No worries I know where your coming from. Funnily enough I looked at your site and thought hey I know these photographs, but could not work out where I knew them from. Then I saw they were Laurie's photos. The penny dropped! I'll have a good read through your site when I get the chance.

Peter

[Steve S]

As a people watcher, I've noticed that folk often seem to think that it's easier to take a different type of photograph than the one's that they do (mammals, plants, birds, landscape, studio, travel etc.). The fact of the matter is that to take a top class photograph of any genre takes dedication and hard work, and sometimes a little bit of luck.

Steve.

[GerryNick2]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Well I can't speak from experience and I'm fully prepared to be shot down in flames here, but from what I've read it's one of the features of top spec, professional lenses. They are not just sharper and faster than the budget models but I'm told that they also produce better and more accurate colours. I know there are one or two WAB members using pro lenses so maybe they can confirm or deny this.

Dave P.

Youre quite right Dave, the contrast reproduction capability and resolving power (sharpness) can vary quite considerably between lenses. This can be seen from the MTF chart wich most manufacturers now publish with the lens specification. In the case of Canon lenses you need to visit the USA site to see the charts, I have always made a point of studying these charts before coming to a decision about which lens to purchase. I have now accumulated several Canon 'L Class' lens and it is surprising how the resolution and sharpness varies from one lens to the other.

I would not necessarily assume budget lenses or entry level lenses are inferior to professional class lens. Again a close look at the Canon MTF,s will show that some of their lower priced lenses in optical capability terms are very close to or on a par with their L class lenses.

Yes there is a big difference in price between budget lenses and a L class lens but this does not always mean that there is a big gap in optical quality. Build quality and the addition of image stabilization can add a lot to the price of a lense, just including a tripod mounting collar can add £80 to the price of a Canon lens.

Gerry

[geordie graham]

I think what also needs mentioning is especially with wildlife/bird shots how many of the pro shots were taken in the WILD and how many were staged.I have taken shots of Red Kites in the wild where I live using a Bigma at 500mm and have got fairly good shots.I don`t know how a pro could get any better with a 300 f2.8/f4 as the said bird is still 80/100 foot up and would need to be cropped.I Have watched a excellent video on a website where a pro photographer took photos of Tawny Owl which was tame and placed on a tree stump so the jessies? were not visible and he used a 200 f2.8 and stood about 5 ft away.Were the photo`s to be published would the aforementioned information be also published.Perhaps if I was able to that close then maybe I could get a damn good photo of a Tawny Owl then tell everyone it just happened to be stood on tree when I was out walking. I have seen some great photos of Red Kite taken at Gigrin where they are fed but I would rather take photos of them in more natural circumstances.

Graham

[jimmer]

Hello my friend I know a professional wildlife photographer and he takes wonderful pictures of birds and the like because, he has a 500mm f4 lens and he has spent up to 18 hours in a hide waiting for a picture. I think really the long lens that he can afford is the only thing that would set him apart from say me. I use my lens in manual all the time the long lens makes a difference and the luck plus the patience and good post work in the software and your screen made to match your printer keep trying and trying and trying kind regards Jimmer Keep enjoying it believe in your work I am starting to

[geordie graham]

Originally Posted by jimmer

Hello my friend I know a professional wildlife photographer and he takes wonderful pictures of birds and the like because, he has a 500mm f4 lens and he has spent up to 18 hours in a hide waiting for a picture. I think really the long lens that he can afford is the only thing that would set him apart from say me. I use my lens in manual all the time the long lens makes a difference and the luck plus the patience and good post work in the software and your screen made to match your printer keep trying and trying and trying kind regards Jimmer Keep enjoying it believe in your work I am starting to

Hi Jimmer, I wasn`t implying that all pro photo`s were staged.I have also seen some stunning work on wildlife programmes only to be told that some of the close up shots were not filmed in situ.I totally agree when you say believe in your work and getting out into the wonderful countryside that this country has to offer makes it all worth while.If photography was so easy we would soon get bored.Physical mobility problems means I can`t sit around for too long but finding photography has made problems easier too deal with and hopefully one day I may get a decent f4 lens.If you can prise any good tips from your professional photographer please pass them on.good luck and have fun.

Graham

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by geordie graham

I think what also needs mentioning is especially with wildlife/bird shots how many of the pro shots were taken in the WILD and how many were staged.I have taken shots of Red Kites in the wild where I live using a Bigma at 500mm and have got fairly good shots.I don`t know how a pro could get any better with a 300 f2.8/f4 as the said bird is still 80/100 foot up and would need to be cropped.I Have watched a excellent video on a website where a pro photographer took photos of Tawny Owl which was tame and placed on a tree stump so the jessies? were not visible and he used a 200 f2.8 and stood about 5 ft away.Were the photo`s to be published would the aforementioned information be also published.Perhaps if I was able to that close then maybe I could get a damn good photo of a Tawny Owl then tell everyone it just happened to be stood on tree when I was out walking. I have seen some great photos of Red Kite taken at Gigrin where they are fed but I would rather take photos of them in more natural circumstances.

Graham

a good pro normally makes a differentiation between shots taken in captivity and those taken in the wild when selling shots - not least because not doing so gets you condemnation from your peers when you get caught.

of course the pro then has little control over what information is included when the shot is published as this is largely down to the client.

that said there have been incidents where pros have been less honest - one well known wildlife photographer got himself into a lot of hot water by publishing a very good shot of a puma jumping in a river taken with a 28mm lens and claiming it was wild - however another well known pro spotted that this was actually the "rent a puma" available at colarado game farm and blew the first guys cover in the photo press.

shots taken at places like gigrin are a bit more of a grey area because the birds are actually wild and it is arguably no different to using bait to bring your subject closer to your hide which is accepted practice in wildlife photography.

the answer to how a prpo can get a better shot with a 300mm f2.8 is that the max ap f2.8 lens lets in twice as much light as you f5.6 allowing the tracking Auto focus to work better, pro spec lenses are also made of better quality glass which makes for better pictures - also in this situation the pro would probably be using an 500 f4, and would also have either found a way of bringing the kite closer to the camera , or found a location where he could get closer to it.