The term possible, as used here, is meant in a way that includes within my budget as part of the definition of "possible."
The term possible, as used here, is meant in a way that includes within my budget as part of the definition of "possible."
SLM, Jason is annoyed because you keep insulting legit artists, like he and I, intentional or not. Your intent is not relevant.
The quality of an artists work is not measured by their tools.
Yeah it's pretty easy to see why Jason is upset. You're treating art like engineering, where better tools/materials will often make a better finished product. Art and creative processes just don't work that way. You can practice and get better or develop new skills, but purchasing new gear won't help you at all outside of a very small set of specific circumstances, especially in photography. (Full frame sensors for low light admittedly being one of them.)
I used to be the same way to a lesser extent. It will pass.
Step 1) Realize that you're being a know-it-all-that-knows-very-litte
Step 2) Ask more questions than you answer
Get that weak shit off my track
I just found a photographer in Detroit that is so good that I feel like there's no point in me even taking pictures anymore. Anything I could possibly take photos of, he's probably already taken a better one of the same thing. It's sad to have spent a lot of time doing something and feeling like you're getting to be pretty good at it, and then realizing that you're just not even close to good.
Just because you think someone is better than you at something doesn't mean you shouldn't bother doing it. Do you actually enjoy photography?
Get that weak shit off my track
Hi, I'm troubled again... I took some beautiful photos this weekend of the milky way and the northern lights. In a few photos, both of them were in the same frame. However, when editing them after the fact, I'm torn between the urge to make them look as amazing as possible, and stay somewhat true to reality. After seeing so many cool milky way photos online and wanting to go somewhere where I could take my own like that, I've come to a realization... I don't think there's any place on earth where the milky way actually looks as amazing to the eye as it does in the vast majority of photos of it. I feel like it's somewhat disingenuous to take these 20 second long photos at ISOs far higher than any film ever made, and then show off the photos as if it's anything close to real life. I mean, it's not. The northern lights were cool, and while admittedly I'm sure they're better on some nights than what I saw, they are definitely not the life changing experience you think you'd have when you see them based on the thousands of photos of them plastered online. They simply don't look like that.
Images do not have to replicate reality.
also a lot of the better landscape astro pics are not single frames, but 20-30mins worth of 20sec exposures and shot from black sites
Surely the question is: "Who cares?"