What is a Stop Worth, and the Meaning of Life

[Gary]

There are collectors, those who are more concerned with resale value than image quality and more concerned being seen with an expensive camera than using an expensive camera. There are photographers, who's primary and often sole concern is image quality and image impact.  There are people with a foot in both camps with various degrees of concern for resale and image quality/image impact.

   

[Ron Scubadiver]

There are collectors, those who are more concerned with resale value than image quality and more concerned being seen with an expensive camera than using an expensive camera. There are photographers, who's primary and often sole concern is image quality and image impact.  There are people with a foot in both camps with various degrees of concern for resale and image quality/image impact.

Some lenses increase in value, but not many. IQ and impact are important, but one must reach a level of expertise where the magic of certain lenses can be fully extracted.  Anyone who wants to be seen with an expensive camera and can't utilize its inherent qualities is lame.  I can't tell you how many pro and fine art photographers are out there earning a living and satisfying customers with gear that is obsolete or regarded as junk in many photo forums.  There is no substitute for talent.  In particular, photographing people is a special thing and IQ often means nothing.

[Gary]

Some lenses increase in value, but not many. IQ and impact are important, but one must reach a level of expertise where the magic of certain lenses can be fully extracted.  Anyone who wants to be seen with an expensive camera and can't utilize its inherent qualities is lame.  I can't tell you how many pro and fine art photographers are out there earning a living and satisfying customers with gear that is obsolete or regarded as junk in many photo forums.  There is no substitute for talent.  In particular, photographing people is a special thing and IQ often means nothing.

Conversely, I suspect that most professional photographers use equipment that is relatively up-to-date. For pros, the only thing that matters is the final image. Economics notwithstanding, if a more expensive piece of equipment would deliver a better IQ or increase the Image Impact or make it easier to capture the desired photograph (elevate consistency/higher keeper rate), most pros I know would opt for the better hardware in a heartbeat.

Yes, there isn't a substitute for talent ... skill and experience. I suspect, (again), that most pros with 'obsolete' equipment can outshoot a collector with newest, shiney, top-of-the-line gear.

When I was shooting news (back in the film-only days), nearly all my assignments were to photograph stories of people. IQ has an importance in all images. But the significance of IQ varies by each subject. Generally, and in my opinion, the greater the Image Impact ... the less IQ is required for the photo to be successful and vice versa.  Nick Ut's Vietnam War image of the screaming, naked little girl, escaping a naplam attack, has horrible IQ, it is unsharp, muddy and grainy. If the image was sharp, less grainy with better contrast would the image improve? Certainly, but not significantly. Eddie Adams image of the South Vietnamese general shooting a communist suspect on the streets of Saigon, is in focus, not grainy with good contrast.  Would his photo be less successful if it had similar IQ as Ut's photo? Yes, but not significantly.  And, there are always exceptions to all general statements.

My point is, as a former pro people shooter, I much rather capture my people images with a high IQ than a lower IQ. IQ always matters in varying degrees.

[Ron Scubadiver]

"Rather".  A lot of my friends children are getting married.  I see what wedding photographers are using and it is definitely not the latest and greatest.  I travel a lot and see what other travelers are using. Full frame 135 gear is relatively rare.  I go to art galleries showing photography and see rarely are these photographers using the latest and greatest gear.  We worry far too much about that last bit of sharpness and detail.  I know some very successful photographers who shoot mostly blurry images.  Exact renditions are not as creative as those which are off by just the right amount.  Many of the best images of the 20th century are a bit off.

[elsa hoffmann]

Gary:
...the greater the Image Impact ... the less IQ is required for the photo to be successful...
IQ always matters in varying degrees...

Sums it up nicely Gary - it's all relative.

In the end we take images so others can look at it. And we want an emotional response to our images. The bigger the impact - the more successful the image. And we will do anything to maximise that impact. If that means gear will give us the edge - gear shopping it will be.

[Gary]

But ... The pros I know are always striving for perfection. Ut does wish that his photo was in-focus, properly exposed and without grain. But we all build upon our experiences, so next time Ut shoots a recently napalmed village he be ready to get it right.

Seriously, my point is that the pros I know, would much prefer a properly exposed, properly composed (no cropping), in-focus image over one that has any imperfections, even if both images are equally successful. A properly exposed, in-focus, successful image, projects a greater level of photographic skill over a successful image with imperfections.

[Jukka L]

The biggest difference between a pro and an amateur is (at least here in Scandinavia) that the amateur has better equipment. The pro gets what he needs and can afford. The amateur gets what he wants even if he could not afford it or even if he could not use it. I'm not a pro...

[Jakov Minić]

May I go the Shakespeare-Mongo way by saying:
What's in a name?
What's in a 3rd person?
and
What's in a perfect image?
 

[Jacques Pochoy]

May I go the Shakespeare-Mongo way by saying:
What's in a name?
What's in a 3rd person?
and
What's in a perfect image?
 

LOL... :-)

[Ron Scubadiver]

The biggest difference between a pro and an amateur is (at least here in Scandinavia) that the amateur has better equipment. The pro gets what he needs and can afford. The amateur gets what he wants even if he could not afford it or even if he could not use it. I'm not a pro...

It's like that everywhere.  Some folks get a fix by buying expensive things.  There are some things a pro just must have like a 70200 f/2.8 for shooting wedding ceremonies without flash.  It isn't cheap, but it isn't insanely expensive like the exotics.  I find it hard to think of a situation where an f/1.4 prime will make a critical difference over an f/1.8 prime of the same focal length unless someone around here thinks shooting portraits where the ears are OOF is the way to go.  If my 50mm f/1.4 G fell in the ocean (not unlikely the way I live) I would replace it with the 1.8G even though the price difference is only about $200 just to get a lighter lens..

If any photographer wishes some image had been more in focus that is likely not a function of having a top of the line pro lens as opposed to the less expensive slower version, or shooting with a D4 instead of a D750.  It was because things were happening very fast while bullets were streaking by and the photographer did not have the luxury of time, a tripod and precise manual focus.  I actually think some of these technical deficiencies add to the image. 

[Airy]

Using and old, deprecated, obsolete MF Lens is a good way to tell "interesting" apart from "perfect". I happen to use the old 50/1.4 no-Ai SC (1974 vintage) equally often as the Zeiss 50/2 which is not perfect either, despite the higher price. They are - different. I manage to shoot junk pics and good pics with both, at about the same rate (90% junk). But again, the good ones are different. That's the only reason for me to collect +/- 50mm primes (I think I have 10 of them, in the 40-58 range). Not sure I'd be able to tell them apart in a blind test, but you should also look the other way round : different tools will *lead* the worker towards different results. Same as with a piano or pipe organ. Even my worst lens (28/3.5 PC) was precious in teaching me "slow shooting", and yielded a nice percentage of keepers.

[Fons Baerken]

I have family in USA so I can relate to the issues raised here and I find it worrying... Ron you raise some very interesting points! Below follows my thoughts on this but with no direct one to one connection...
 
Here is the situation in my case in the tiny country called Denmark.
I'm a single father of three boys and a semi pro I work for a big company where I shoot about 15% of my working days and I have a small one man photography company on the side as well as shooting voluntarily for the boy scouts when needed.
Makes for a good opportunity to shoot the kids growing up - I feel lucky about that and I fully enjoyed shooting kids playing football with a 300mm 2.8...
In Denmark we have free education like in Norway...
My boys have been brought up to work for their 'own' money they need for themselves, now the two above 18 take care of themselves for apartment, furniture's and food etc. the one turning 16 is in a boarding school I pay for, as well as I pay for cloths etc.

And then I came to think about this;

Here in Denmark we have something called Janteloven, here follows some excerpts from Wikipedia:

The Jante Law as a concept was created by the Dano-Norwegian author Aksel Sandemose;
Generally used colloquially in Denmark and the rest of the Nordic countries as a sociological term to negatively describe a condescending attitude towards individuality and success, the term refers to a mentality that de-emphasises individual effort and places all emphasis on the collective, while discouraging those who stand out as achievers.

The ten rules state:
1.You're not to think you are anything special.
2.You're not to think you are as good as we are.
3.You're not to think you are smarter than we are.
4.You're not to convince yourself that you are better than we are.
5.You're not to think you know more than we do.
6.You're not to think you are more important than we are.
7.You're not to think you are good at anything.
8.You're not to laugh at us.
9.You're not to think anyone cares about you.
10.You're not to think you can teach us anything.
These ten principles or commandments are often claimed to form the "Jante's Shield" of the Scandinavian people.
In the book, the Janters who transgress this unwritten 'law' are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against the town's communal desire to preserve harmony, social stability and uniformity.
An eleventh rule recognised in the novel as 'the penal code of Jante' is:
11.Perhaps you don't think we know a few things about you?

It actually applies to a Forum like this as well... A small community where we know each other quite well...

Just a heads up from Denmark

A Royal Affair (2012)
"En kongelig affære" (original title)


Recommended film to see

[Erik Lund]

But ... The pros I know are always striving for perfection. Ut does wish that his photo was in-focus, properly exposed and without grain. But we all build upon our experiences, so next time Ut shoots a recently napalmed village he be ready to get it right.

Seriously, my point is that the pros I know, would much prefer a properly exposed, properly composed (no cropping), in-focus image over one that has any imperfections, even if both images are equally successful. A properly exposed, in-focus, successful image, projects a greater level of photographic skill over a successful image with imperfections.

I agree

[Erik Lund]

The biggest difference between a pro and an amateur is (at least here in Scandinavia) that the amateur has better equipment. The pro gets what he needs and can afford. The amateur gets what he wants even if he could not afford it or even if he could not use it. I'm not a pro...

Strange, newer seen this here in Denmark...

[Erik Lund]

It's like that everywhere.  Some folks get a fix by buying expensive things.  There are some things a pro just must have like a 70200 f/2.8 for shooting wedding ceremonies without flash.  It isn't cheap, but it isn't insanely expensive like the exotics.  I find it hard to think of a situation where an f/1.4 prime will make a critical difference over an f/1.8 prime of the same focal length unless someone around here thinks shooting portraits where the ears are OOF is the way to go.  If my 50mm f/1.4 G fell in the ocean (not unlikely the way I live) I would replace it with the 1.8G even though the price difference is only about $200 just to get a lighter lens..

If any photographer wishes some image had been more in focus that is likely not a function of having a top of the line pro lens as opposed to the less expensive slower version, or shooting with a D4 instead of a D750.  It was because things were happening very fast while bullets were streaking by and the photographer did not have the luxury of time, a tripod and precise manual focus.  I actually think some of these technical deficiencies add to the image.

Your wrong in you basic way of approaching this IMHO.

A Pro photographer shoots with what is in his hand at the moment of action or if time permits he chooses his tools that suits the job best. Just like any craftsman.

It's a lot about being prepared for whats going to happen.

For fast paced action you use the fast AFS lenses like 24-70 or 70-200 2.8 etc. you don't have a chance to catch any action with a 24mm 1.4 G up close, no way!

For low light dreamy shots he chooses 1.4 or 1.8 doesn't really matter since it is about how you use the 1.4 or 1.8 that makes the whole difference.

Only advantage for 1.4G is the better, in some cases, Nano coatings. In some cases it's a nuisance but what the heck...

Please let us have our 1.4 lenses with being poked at.