I read an article on photography tips for the autumn (in Finnish here), containing among other things the advice "take a step closer to take a better photograph". Of course, if you follow this advice to the logical conclusion, you take only macro photographs. But otherwise, this is good advice, essentially the same as the classical "if the photograph is not good, you were not close enough".
However, what made me think twice was the suggestion that having a camera with you always is a bad thing. "If you always walk with a camera, you end up in a visual mode, and don't experience other things, such as the autumn smell and fresh wind, because your other senses are not working. Eyes, nose and ears are a good camera also."
I'm not sure whether this is true or not. I suspect it is. But I'm reluctant not to take a camera with me on the walks.
Update: Haven't yet had a look at these, but there are reviews of the Panasonic LX5 appearing. DCRP has one, and TrustedReviews another. At least the Canon S95 puts up a really good performance, so the LX5 is by no means the undisputed king of the hill.
And even the LX3 seems to keep up with the LX5, at least when comparing the jpeg results: "When it comes to image noise control, I have to say I'm a little bit disappointed. At 80 to 400 ISO the results are pretty much the same as the LX3, with excellent clarity and no noise at the lowest settings. However at 800 ISO upwards the results are surprisingly somewhat worse than the LX3, with a lot of noise and lost detail at 1600 ISO, while the new lower resolution 6400 and 12800 ISO settings produce very poor results."
Monday, September 20, 2010
Is it dangerous to have a camera with you always?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Juha,
Nice post. I agree that when you're out with the camera you tend to have a heightened awareness of your surroundings. But for me even when I go out without my camera I'm always on the lookout for good shots - then I'll see one and, bam!, no camera. Sure, I'll make a mental note to return, but it's never quite the same.
So I'm taking mine with me more often and if I miss something non-visual, well, how will I know? I'll just have to take my chances.
Incidentally - I just started my own blog (a whole two entries so far!). www.jstrongphotos.com/VSBlog
Take a peak if you get a chance...
John
Check itttt... http://dysfunctionalbeginnings.com/
Humorous literary, nonfiction, fiction, etc. about growing up, and beginnings in general.
Why some people are so reluctant about the LX5? My LX5 is arriving from NY tomorrow (I live in Brazil) and I'm absolutely excited about it. I know some really good photographers who had the LX3 and upgraded to the LX5 - they are absolutely happy about it.
When you say "At least the Canon S95 puts up a really good performance, so the LX5 is by no means the undisputed king of the hill" it sounds almost childish, really.
For me it seems like you love your LX3 so much that you're afraid it won't be "the best compact in the world" anymore. Stop looking at the LX5 as a menace, please.
When I walk with a camera I'm in a sensory heightened mode. Admittedly seeing is the primary sense but if I see some textured object I'll want to touch it, if I see warm light I'll want to feel it on my face, if I see birds I'll listen to their call, if I see flowers I'll smell their perfume. Then I'll take a photo (if I remember that I have a camera in my hand ;-) )
In other words I'm not sure I would agree with that suggestion but every one is different. As far as I am concerned I'll continue to take a camera with me.
@John and Jessice: Thanks for the links to the blogs.
@Ana: I had to think about this a bit, and finally I wrote a new posting on this topic.
@Cedric: Perhaps a photograph may even generate feelings in the other senses - smell, touch, taste...
Post a Comment