chiron
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 GFX100 II --- What do owners think? | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
chiron wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
^^^
I'm sensing a bit of GAS...
I'm not saying that one would never use a GFX for photographing the kids, but I'm thinking that the non-professional (and even professional) situations in which such gear would make a difference with that subject are... limited.
I think you're being just a bit dismissive of the process of making photographs of one's family. Whether medium format is appropriate very much depends on the kind of image you are trying to make. Sally Mann used an 8X10 view camera for most of her family images. Some of Alfred Stieglitz's greatest images were large format images of his lover and wife, Georgia O'Keeffe. There are many other examples (e.g., Harry Callahan and Eleanor; Emmet Gowin, Edith, and their family), and there are also great examples of wonderful photographs of family members made with smaller format cameras, e.g., those made by Elliott Erwitt or by Jessica Harper…
I’m not being generically dismissive of that. I’m acknowledging that most people making pictures of the kids are not doing work like that of the people you mention. (I’m quite familiar with most of it, and I’ve seen it actual prints of some of it.)
Now, if that is where our OP is coming from — an extremely talented, experienced, and dedicated photographer working to produce great art with the family as the subject — I acknowledge that possibility, and there's room to read my post without offense.
But even if that is true, there’s a valid argument that the GFX system is not the ideal one for that kind of family photography in all but a subset of even those cases, particularly when smaller, less expensive systems today can produce utterly first rate image quality of this subject. Even looking at what we might call “serious photographers” (a shorthand description, lacking a better short one), many would get better photographs using something else — a DSLR with greater lens options, a smaller and lighter system that would be readily available in more situations, etc. And any of these alternatives can — as the history of photographic art proves — produce great photography.
And all of that aside, the question remains: is our OP this sort of photographer, a person like those you named, whose primary occupation and objective in professional life is, in fact, photography?
Or is it possible that this is a person who wants to make some fine photographs of family activities and wants them to be pretty good photos, a person for whom photography is not their professional focus but more of an ancillary one. And what about this person’s photography of the kids rises to the level where something like the GFX system will a) be the best option and b) even make a difference?
I think it is fair — and even helpful for the OP — to ask this question. There is a (small) chance that this person (whose photography knowledge does seem at least somewhat less that that of the photographers you mentioned) has a notion that the “very best camera” is necessary for making family pictures. Most often that’s not true — or perhaps, more accurately, the "very best camera" is not such an expensive and large and (in some ways) limited one. It could be useful to the OP to hear this and think seriously about what they are trying to do and how to do it. (And even when it is true, “the very best camera” is not always the one with the largest format available, particularly for this subject.)
In the end, the answer to the question by someone (who seems perhaps less that photographic advanced), “Should I buy this extremely expensive and sophisticated thing now for what I plan to do?” Is not alnays “YES!” In fact, more often than not, the better answer leads to “not really,” and “perhaps this other thing would be a better choice for you.”
Dan
It depends on what you are trying to do. Not being Sally Mann has nothing to do with it--that's just condescension. To my mind, it is actually silly to argue that you shouldn't use medium format for pictures of family. You may prefer not to, but so what?
|
