You've spent thousands on photography equipment. Justify your purchase by showing us your recent images that were made possible with modern gear and cutting-edge features.
In February, we asked to see your best images taken with older cameras to prove that good photographs don't require the newest, most expensive equipment. For our May contest, we want the opposite. We want to see images taken with modern equipment that would not have been possible to capture with older gear.
Maybe your 100mp sensor allowed you to crop in to the perfect composition or your 120fps camera allowed you to capture the perfect moment. Maybe modern autofocus allowed you to capture a fast-moving subject, or your camera's incredible ISO performance allowed you to capture an image in almost total darkness. Perhaps the editing software you used allowed you to save an image by upscalling it, removing noise, or extending the frame. We want to see images that would not have been possible to capture just a few years ago.
Prizes
1st Prize
For this contest, the first-place winner will receive the entire "Road Runner" Collection of bags by Polar Pro. These lightweight bags have been designed by professionals to meet the most demanding needs of traveling photographers and videographers. These bags come in five different sizes but the winner won't have to choose between them because they'll get them all. Due to shipping costs and trade wars, these bags must be mailed within the United States.
2nd and 3rd Prize
For this contest, the 2nd and 3rd place winner will get their choice of any tutorial in the Fstoppers Store.
Rules
Each photographer is allowed to upload up to three different images. We will choose 10 images to feature in our critique based on the description the photographer uploads and how relevant the image and story is to the theme of "modern photography." Obviously, images without a description will be disqualified, but images with poor descriptions will also be ignored. Community ratings will not affect our choice in any way so your score doesn't matter, so it's not worth complaining about.
Extra Deal
For all of May, we are discounting our tutorial with Pye Jirsa titled Master Adobe Lightroom to just $49. If you're looking to not only master post processing, but learn to do it as quickly as possible, in a single piece of affordable software, this is the tutorial for you. Obviously Lightroom is the first choice of volume photographers everywhere, but this tutorial will open the eyes of even the most casual shooters.
As with all of our tutorials, if you don't like it, just let us know and we will give you all of your money back. You have absolutely nothing to lose.
These things and the appurtenant critiques are interesting. We shouldn't let the unsolicited critiques matter too much. I was in a print critique one time and some ne-er-do-well had snuck an Ansel Adams print in. And it was not an unknown image. The print judges scored it as a 65 out of a possible 100. 95.9% of the time the ones doing the critique are just loudmouths with an opinion.
Let me guess, the critique on the Ansel Adams print was, "Trying to be too much like Ansel Adams?" Lol
I don't recall the critique, only the score. But probably.
I think it also speaks to the fact that Adam's work just doesn't hold up if viewed from a modern perspective. If you look at Adam's work with full context of what he accomplished and more importantly how he accomplished it, its very impressive. But if you just take a single Adams image without any context and just evaluate it as "any other black/white" landscape I'd say 65% is about right.
Even here on Fstoppers, years ago Lee did a community poll to rate a bunch photos and he snuck a few Adams images into the poll to see how they faired. The audience didn't rate them terribly well. Imo its because Adams work, taken out of context, just doesn't hold up.
That said, I agree, the ratings on these contests tend to skew extremely harsh. If you take an image and post it in the "community" on Fstoppers it will typically score 1-2 whole points higher than it would score in one of these critique contests. I genuinely think there are some people who just go through and rate every photo a 1 under the false belief that it will help push their entries up higher. I also think there are lots of people who are extremely critical of all but a few very specific niche styles who tend to flock towards these sorts of contests.
Two months ago, the competition theme was "Images Taken on an Older Camera." In looking through the images posted for this "Modern [Gear] Photos" contest, I'm wondering whether collectively they're any better than those in the older camera contest. Of course, the new gear and software advocates are gonna cite features like auto focusing or generative fill that make photography easier, or produce more wildlife or action photo keepers. But from the viewer's perspective, it all looks the same to me as it always has. Great pictures are conceived in the mind and executed by skilled photographers. The camera gear and software are merely behind-the-scenes tools, and improvements have yet to prove they can turn a bad composition into a good one, or that they could do anything more than a skilled photographer could have done without them.
The thing that you need to take into account often is that it is less about whether taking a great photo is possible. Taking great photos has been possible for over a century. It is unlikely that you would see a massive variation in quality between "favorite" images taken with older gear compared to newer gear, especially at web resolution.
What the newer gear mostly is allowing for is the creation of specific images that were impossible before due to technical limitations or were impractical due to cost.
For example on gear from 15 years ago, you could take a beautiful shot of a fox as it climbs out of its den during blue hour but because of ISO limitations that shot had to be taken with something like a 400 2.8 which just wasn't a lens most photographers ever can expect to afford. Today, you can make that shot with a 5.6 or 6.3 that is accessible to nearly everyone. The newer tech doesn't make the shot better, but it does bring the shot into reach for a wider variety of photographers.
I could provide tons of examples of situations like this. Nothing is stopping you from taking great images with old gear, in a general sense. But old gear often gets in the way of taking specific shots under specific conditions that push the tech to its limits. Older gear also has a narrower margin for error and is much more prone to failure under extreme circumstances. A contest like this will never show that the old camera has a 10% hit rate while the new one has a 90% hit rate. You just never see the situations where it failed.
Some of my favorite images in my portfolio were taken on my old D800. They turned out great, but I can also remember countless situations with that camera where making the image I "wanted" to make was just not possible but would be possible with my Z8. The Z8 is cleaner at ISO 10,000 than the D800 was at like ISO 800. The possibilities that opens up are just incredible.
Another great example is "Daniel Viñé": 'Vietnamese rice terraces", the only way I could duplicate an image like that with my older gear is with panos and/or stacking, as he pointed out in his comments about the single image. One can also argue that the software that produces panos/stacking is also improving with AI and getting easier to manage, but that's a different discussion.
Or the shots underwater with added colorliquid.
To nail the focus and get the "good" image without too much noise while having maybe 3-5 shots?
I can´t reshoot this setting without refilling an huge watertank. (which not only cost much money but takes hours) for that, the eyefocus and fast camera is such a win.
For still portraits it mostly doesn´t matter if we use a canon AE1 analog, a 5dm3 or the new models.
So it´s up to the job i guess?
This is such a tied, dismissive and frankly insulting argument. The knowledge it takes to know where to be, when to be there, how to position yourself for the best opportunity and then actually put the subject in frame isn't a determined by the camera being used. The modern camera reduces the uncontrollable variables far more than older cameras do in being able to capturing The Moment.
Its very strange to me how these new model cameras have more and more gadgets to help with images every year, when all you need is about 6. That is why the more expensive cameras have less crap and cost more. I remember teaching a class a few times and bumping a button on accident and the whole camera changed. Had to read the manual to find out how to fix it. As far as looking at images on a digital device, its hard to tell what is better, because of software. Now if you put a medium or large format print from the darkroom up against a digital print, their is a definite difference. The traditional is so much better in person. Most will never see this comparison though.
I'm not sure that follows, the flagship pro cameras from the top makers all have way more features than the cheaper ones. For example, My Z8 has WAY more features than my Z7ii does.
Sure there are hyper expensive cameras like what Leica makes that seem pretty feature devoid but those cameras aren't designed for pros, they are designed for wealthy hobbyists who care more about the logo on their gear than what it can do.
And I disagree in regards to the old film prints. Which is fine, I'm not suggesting one is better or the other, its just about personal preference but to to imply the older equipment is better is just factually incorrect.
Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, and Garry Winogrand to name a few Leica users. Leica has the image quality that the lesser brands can't match. There is simply no comparison to the image quality of a Leica. doesn't make you better if you have one, that part you need to learn on your own.
You are naming photographers who are all dead because they made their body of work more than half a century ago. All of whom had a body of work that, while considered quite good in certain circles, was far from "image quality driven". They were capturing emotion and moments. How many top tier commercial photographers who's work is mainly about image quality are rocking Leica's today? No many. The photographers in that realm are shooting GFX, Phase, or Hasselblad for the most part or if they don't have the budget to work with medium format, they are shooting Nikon, Sony, or Canon. Leica's market is hobbyists, the odd journalist, and the odd rich guy like Brooklyn Beckham.
I get it, you live in the realm of "its old so must be better" but the Leica of today is not the Leica of the 1950s. The competition has caught up and Leica hasn't innovated. Leica used to be an industry leader designed for pros. Now most pros wouldn't touch a Leica because it's a crappy professional tool.
The Leica name is a placebo effect. If we were to take a photo with a Leica camera, a Hassleblad, a Nikon, and a Canon, edit them all with the same process, then put them in front of you. you wouldn't have the slightest clue which brand camera made which image. But hey, if you want to spend twice as much for a camera that is half as capable, that's totally up to you.
The only major difference is, unlike the others, the Leica camera is dumbed into a body designed to be more nostalgic than useful.
I'm not saying the Leica sensor is bad. Its not. I'm not saying Leica Glass is bad, it's still world-class. I'm just saying its not better. You pay double for no actual improvement and give up half the features to do it.
You justified my last answer. Less is more. To make an argument like that is like a leica owner telling anyone who owns a Nicon, Canon and such needs all the extras to make a good image. Leica has always been the rich hobbyist camera because of the price and quality (bragging rights). So is a ferrari and private jet, so what. Hasselblad, Phase One are in the same class as far as more expensive with less crap. Annie Leibovitz and Steve McCurry use Leica along with many other present day well known professionals. In the last portrait contest, many pics were copying Steves famous (Afghan Girl) style portraits. The premise of my reply was not quality of ones images, but the less dumb extra settings on the more expensive camera systems. .
Phase and Hasselblad are both feature rich for the types of photography they are designed for. They are not intentionally feature starved like a Leica. Completely different thing.
Also, Afghan Girl wasn't shot on a Leica... It was shot on a Nikon FM2. Though, why are we still talking about ancient work? Afghan Girl was shot 41 years ago. The debate about whether Leica was ahead in the 80s is a very different debate than if they are ahead now. In the 80s, yes, the German brands still had an edge, mostly due to superior optics. (Yes, I know McCurry also shot on Leica)
And no, everyone who takes a headshot of a Muslim women isn't copying McCurry. That shot had big cultural impact and it happened to go hyper viral, but its not some revolutionary image that gets credit for every headshot taken since. It is a good image but that would be like saying anyone who shoots a black and white landscape is just copying Ansel Adams. Which is just simply not true. I just looked through that last portrait contest and I couldn't find a single image that could be considered a "copy" of Afghan Girl but there were 900 entries, so maybe I missed one..
You look at someone like Joe McNally is a world class master photographer who has made a career shooting only Nikon. He uses all the "dumb" features to maximize the creative possibilities of his gear and has created one of the most impressive portfolios in history.
Its not about the camera brand. Leica is a good quality camera. It is not better than a Nikon, Canon, or Sony. It is, however, much more expensive. People don't buy Leica because its better, just as people don't buy Ferraris because a Ferrari is a better tool. They buy them because of a logo and their perception of the status it brings. That said, the placebo effect is very real and I 100% believe that after spending a ridiculous amount of money on a Leica that many Leica user's convince themselves that it has elevated their work.
You seem angry bud. I didn't say Steve used a Leica for Afghan Girl if you read that. I said he uses one now (present day). I'm not here to argue with you or listen to your rants or racism remarks. We disagree - Good Day.
Angry about what? I'm debating in good faith. And nothing I said above was racist.
Ed wanted me to reply to you because he is enjoying it. Since its way off topic now, I will just end with this for debate purposes. Joe McNally was known for his (lighting techniques), not as much about his camera techniques, I do have to admit, I never heard of him before, so this it what they say about him when I looked him up. his work doesn't impress me, but we all like what we like.. Now, I need to get back to work. Best
Kevin... please don't be so dismissive. I've enjoyed the discussion up to now, and absolutely nothing Ryan said was racist. Nor does he seem angry to me. And there's nothing that irritates me more than being accused of going off on a rant when I'm merely expressing an opinion. Lastly, if you're not here to argue, you've certainly fooled me.
It is what it is. :) I've run into this type so many times. They have convinced themselves that "old" is the only true and pure form of photography and try to crap on anything new but really never debate on substance. Even his last update above. I had given 5 paragraphs of substantiative argument and his reply was merely to try to diminish McNally's work. My point wasn't even that McNally is the best or something like that. I was merely pointing out the one of the most accomplished photographers in history, in the modern era, has built his entire career on Nikon.
I really only engage in these discussions because I worry about this "mentality" taking the wind out of the sails of young photographers who run headlong into a wall of elitist mentality right out of the gate.
I hate the idea of some 16 year old just starting their passion losing it all before it even builds because some old guard gatekeeper convinces them that using any "new" settings are "dumb" or that a camera like a Leica is the true proper tool. My mantra is use the tool that works for you in the way that brings creative excitement to you and don't let anyone else convince you that your way is "wrong" . I have nothing against Leica users. I do, however, have something against Leica users who act like they are better than everyone else "because" they are Leica users.
Ryan... you might be mistaken about the person (Kevin) to whom you're lumping into "this type" of antiquated photographer, who hasn't stepped out of a darkroom in decades, or who believes in only one form of pure old-fashioned photography. Have you looked at Kevin's portfolio? Did you go to his website? Holy shit... this guy has leap-frogged digital camera technology and landed in AI generated imaging. And you're worried about guys like him snuffing out the creative spirit of a teenager? Read it before you draw conclusions...
https://www.francisoconnell.com/statement
If you're not inclined to click the link, here are the highlights of his artist statement:
"My artistic foundation is rooted in the traditional methods of photography, where film and the darkroom were my trusted companions, and medium to large format cameras became my instruments of choice. Embracing the realm of digital technology was a gradual evolution for me, but with the Nikon D810, I discovered a powerful tool that breathed new life into my vision. In 2022, I encountered the emerging world of AI-generated images, sparking my curiosity and prompting a deep dive into this innovative medium. While initially captivated, I found that traditional AI lacked the creative input I craved. However, my artistic path took a transformative turn when I discovered Midjourney, which allowed me to merge my photographic legacy with AI capabilities. This fusion led to the creation of my Otherworldly art pieces, where my award-winning photographs are reimagined and redefined. The thrill of experimentation has driven me to push the boundaries of my craft." - Kevin Francis O'Connell
Does that really sound to you like someone stuck in the past? I don't think so. I think it's amazing that one person can effectively bridge the differences of film, digital, and AI. Most people will apply themselves to maybe two out of the three (I'm only good for one), but few embrace all three stages of photography.
For what it's worth, I find myself defending older technology as I did in my opening comment. I'm not critical of new camera features though, and don't blame anyone for using them to expand the scope and quality of their work; however, I believe it's better for beginners in photography to get a sound education in the basics, before getting enamored with all the automated features.
Ryan, you are so far off, its laughable. You don't know me in the least, although in your mind you have me pegged. Your debate style is passive aggressive and all over the place. It just leads to arguing and talking down others that you don't think are like you. My initial comment was about all the extras on cameras, and the reason (I) dont like them. It happened to me twice while teaching night workshops. I bumped a button that made my camera turn on auto ISO. Made the rest of my workshop incredibly difficult. Had to read my manual when I got home both times to see how it happened and how to turn it off. Yes I should have read that gigantic manual, but just couldn't.
I never said that anyone with a camera that has all that extra crap isn't a good photographer or to young to be good at photography, like you have insinuated. the Muslim girl comment was a little much don't you think. You could have said female portraits, but you were on a roll to discredit me and anyone that uses photography equipment you don't like. The Leica comments are old, same as people that call photoshop cheating.
I have always loved the darkroom and creative photography straight out of the camera. Not so much commercial or fashion, not my thing. but can appreciate a quality made image The traditional print from a darkroom on the style of photography I like blows aways digital prints. This is my opinion, not anyone elses consensus.
Last comment before I finish. I received an email from a young man that asked if I would mentor him years ago. We emailed back and fourth for a while so I could get to know him and his photography expectations. This seemed wonderful, because I started with a mentor in 1978. Best thing I ever did. Our final email was after I set up a time and place to meet during one of my workshops, and he asked how much per hour I was going to pay him.
Unlike your disdain for older photographers and photography, I love to help out young and beginner photographers. Some of their new style of work is incredible. I also notice a huge population of young photographers getting into medium and large format film, and getting lost in the darkroom, witch is amazing to see.
In regards to prints, I think better would be subjective to what you seek to accomplish. In many cases, you're not going to shoot a fortune 500 marketing campaign on film, but if you're in the fine art space it I've seen shooting on film lends itself to be more "credible" than digital when trying to get into galleries or shows.
Ive been a street photographer for many years, so i'm a little biased in that respect.
Allow me to rephrase that. Paul Strand was quoted as saying, "isn't in interesting that our equipment has gotten better and our photographs haven't". There are some things that very modern cameras have improved, but the basic things are in your head and imagination. I have been building a portfolio the last few days to send to a gallery, at their request, and I just realized that each image I have put in it was created using my old 4x5 camera with film. I didn't purposely leave any out. The ones selected all originated using large format film.