Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
There are probably several reasons......![]()
Some believe its of no concequence what equipment was used to take the image.....![]()
Fair enough I suppose.....![]()
Some don't like to admit they have a less than top of the range camera.....![]()
Whatever....![]()
Some probably put the top of the range model DSLR, Whilst really shooting with a compact.....![]()
Yeah! I know they are easy to spot......
LOL.
Some as " Rick " has mentioned can't be arsed.......![]()
I think its best left the way it is, A personal choice, Some do some don't, Though in truth it hardly matters as so many images get mangled to hell in post processing, It would be very misleading to believe that a particular camera/lens was responsible for taking it.........![]()
Does not bother me if members don't put camera/lens information on an image, But I do find it a tad annoying when some put absolutely sod all, In the way of a comment or description of what the image is supposed to be etc etc, Especially if they do truly and honestly want some form of sensible feedback or crit.
![]()
Surely much more impressive to take an excellent picture with a cheap compact, than a mediocre one with an SLR? It's like claiming you're 35 when you're 40 and everyone thinking you look a bit old for your age.... better to state your age proudly and have everyone thing wow you only look 37...
I do find it a tad annoying when some put absolutely sod all, In the way of a comment or description of what the image is supposed to be
Quote:
I'd go along with that and it's nice to know what gear was used - gives me some kind of hope "if he/she can do that I should be able to also"....!
Bit like Ebay though innit - you skim over the blurry, crap background, skimpy info images/descriptions in favour of lots of information and plentiful, informative pictures...
Hands up to those who know what make canvas & paint & brushes the likes of Leonardo DA Vinci, Michelangelo, Monet, Van Gogh etc used?
I upload my camera make but it really makes no difference.
The image on view is the result and not the tools.
I've yet to see an image on EPZ where it states what brand of computer, how much saturation was used or in most cases what brand of software was used?
If you don't comment on an excellent image because you are not told what makes are being used you appear to be missing the point of photography.
Ken
Quote: I've yet to see an image on EPZ where it states what brand of computer, how much saturation was used or in most cases what brand of software was used?
Ken
Spot on, right or wrong the camera is now probably the least important component in the 'tool chain' required to create the images in the ePz gallery
I'd rank tham as:
1st human (using the Mk1 visual detection system)
2nd editing software
3rd lens (I realise P&S will be built in)
4th PC, screen, processor etc
5th camera body
(not including printer in the list as its for the purpose of online viewing but if I did it would knowck the camera body down to 6th)
I won't prentend the order of the list pleases me but thats the way it appears to be now!
I've stopped listing my Nikons simply because I object to having a link pop up next to it linking to a Nikon Ad or something or other. That said, one can still tell by reading the lens used ![]()
Yes. it is infuriating, but even worse when you buy a book and they don't tell us.
Yesterday, I bought a s/h copy of John Swannell's "Still Standing". Brilliant portraits but not a mention of the camera and lighting equipment he used. How can we possibly take the same pictures if the rotter doesn't share those vital pieces of information?![]()
![]()
![]()
Whenever I do a presentation to a Camera Club, the first question is always about camera equipment and at least one member always questions the wisdom of my choice. But when giving a seminar to professionals, there's always one delegate that asks how much I charge for a 10x8 inch print - professionals can be so vulgar!
Maybe all records by guitarists, violinists, trumpeters etc should tell you on the notes what make of instrument they used. How about if David Hockney had to tell us the make of brush he used?
It's always been an oddity that photographers think their equipment is what makes the picture. No one would ever think that if they bought a Fender Stratocaster they would play like Eric Clapton (for arguments sake).
If I buy a Leica, should I imagine that I will take pictures like Cartier-Bresson? Photography will only truly become a mature art form when photographers realise that they make pictures, not their cameras.
If the camera and lens used mattered, you'd be able to tell the difference between them anyway, wouldn't you?
I do agree with adding your Camera and Lens to the photo you have uploaded but I personally dont agree with adding shooting info etc.....The uploader will have worked hard to achieve thier image and probably doesnt want it copied...That also begs the question why would anyone want to copy what someone else has done....Surely its better to create your own style over time and be recognised for that?![]()
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.


















