Its not the camera, its the photographer

Its not the camera, its the photographer...correct. But isn't this just an argument that constantly gets churned up again and again and is very obvious?

It's like this in almost anything and everything we do today:

e.g. - just because you own a £200 pair of running trainer's, it does not make you an elite athlete.

e.g. - just because you have the most fantastically engineered set of golf clubs, it does not make you good at golf.

e.g. - just because you have a very fast and powerful car, it does not make you a good driver.

The list goes on and on, these are just 3 that came straight into my head when writing this. Technology is a fantastic thing, but forever natural talent will divide the best from the worst at something. It's what makes us human :)

So in short, the article doesn't really develop anything new.
 
I'm only in partial agreement with this. Some equipment has developed because of the photographers needs. Things like motordrives, macro lenses, even long lenses for things like wildlife.

Yes, you still need to see the shot, but equipment related to what you're doing IS important.
 
i would have thought its bleedin' obvious!!!!! If we all took awesome pictures with good quality gear we would all be making money at it. A camera is a tool, the person using it has to make that tool do what they want it to do, anyone who thinks that an expensive camera is going to make them take great pics is deluded!
 
TomWilko said:
So in short, the article doesn't really develop anything new.
Click to expand...

It really does. How often do people say "great shot, what camera?" or worry over a D70 or 350D. There are plenty of people who just don't realise these things. Sure it might not give someone who's heard it all before any new info, but then as you pointed out if you've heard it all before, you've heard it all before :p I too know that the photographer makes the shot, but the article was a real wake up call. I've always said that a good sunset was created by nature and that I just pushed a button. I've never really been one to believe that I was a good photographer. However, reading this article and looking over my recent shoots its really opened my eyes. To quote The Matrix, "There's knowing the path and walking the path. I can only show you the door Neo, you're the one that has to walk through it." Sure people can tell me I'm a good photographer, but its only now that I'm starting to believe that I am. Its knowing that I can make my equipement take a good photo. Thats me setting the options on the camera and knowing when to press the button.


dod said:
I'm only in partial agreement with this. Some equipment has developed because of the photographers needs. Things like motordrives, macro lenses, even long lenses for things like wildlife.

Yes, you still need to see the shot, but equipment related to what you're doing IS important.
Click to expand...

Very true. I couldn't do certain things without my equipment, but at the same time its me who knows how to do them.
 
you have to be able to 'see' the shot Pete, thats the defining thing for me, if 20 people were given the same thing to shoot, the ones who could see the image they want the way they would want to see it in print will get the shot, even with cheap camera. The SLR will allow them to develop that skill into something outstanding, and really create a shot far more easily than they would with a P&S camera
 
matty said:
you have to be able to 'see' the shot Pete, thats the defining thing for me, if 20 people were given the same thing to shoot, the ones who could see the image they want the way they would want to see it in print will get the shot, even with cheap camera. The SLR will allow them to develop that skill into something outstanding, and really create a shot far more easily than they would with a P&S camera
Click to expand...

Oh yer, don't get me wrong. An SLR is a better camera than a P&S. Manual focus is nicer, noise management is better, its quicker to focus and write times are faster. I agree with what that guy said though. After 20 years of buying and selling lenses, swapping bodies and desperately trying to afford silly "pro" lenses because your heroes own them, he realised that it was him taking the good shots.

You finally realize that the right gear you've spent so much time accumulating just makes it easier to get your sound or your look or your moves, but that you could get them, albeit with a little more effort, on the same garbage with which you started. You realize the most important thing for the gear to do is just get out of your way. You then also realize that if you had spent all the time you wasted worrying about acquiring better gear woodshedding, making photos or catching more rides that you would have gotten where you wanted to be much sooner.
Click to expand...

I could be using a 20D today, with some f/1.8 primes. Yet I'm getting good shots with the equipment I have now. To quote B5, "...it let me do more, but what I needed to do was better." Thats how I feel now. I could rush out and buy new lenses, or I could just go out and practice with what I have.
 
Interesting article.

He has a good point - people with no idea go and buy £2-3000 worth of kit and then have one hell of a learning curve ahead of them and will for a while, produce a majority of crap while learning.

I used to have a SLR - and to be fair I produced the occasional good image and a reasonably large amount of crap. Probably because I was young and didn't understand what half the stuff did. :D

Now I've gone to a Digital P&S and I'm doing much better as I don't have to wait for developing and the like before I can see if I like how it has come out. It allows me to see any mistakes and correct them before movign on.

It's also teaching me how to use the modes and improvise - when at Autosport I found that Portrait mode gave me the control I needed as opposed to running fully manual mode.

As it's a lot smaller I tend to carry it around more as well and if I see something I like I'll take a picture there and then - rather than having to remember and hope that it it's still there when I go back with my old SLR.

I'm now starting to hit the limits of what I can do with my A80 in some ways - I've bought a wide angle and telephoto extension lens for it to help me out but I reckon that I'll soon have to go for a DSLR - purely for the versatility of it.

I'm expecting that when I go for the DSLR I'll have a large learning curve of taking more shots to get a single good one out again and will probably still take my A80 with me at the same time as it's such a nice size to use and I can get shots with that more easily.

I've got several shots with my A80 that tbh would have been much harder with a full size DSLR - physically due to the size of it. However - I love the twisty screen on the A80 - it's fantastic. :D

Any DSLR's with one of them? *as an aside ;)*

With digital editing as well I find that there is now a blurring between photo and creation - as you can do so much in Photoshop that the image you start with may be almost completely different to what you end up with. I try not to fart around that much - adjust the colours a little and maybe sharpen or blur a little, but I try to keep the photo as close to how I took it as possible.

But if you don't know what you want in a picture - no matter how good the kit you have is or how good you are at photoshop then it's going to make very little difference.

Simon/~Flibster
 
Flibster said:
Interesting article.



I've got several shots with my A80 that tbh would have been much harder with a full size DSLR - physically due to the size of it. However - I love the twisty screen on the A80 - it's fantastic. :D

Any DSLR's with one of them? *as an aside ;)*

Simon/~Flibster
Click to expand...

No DSLR has a twisty screen, for it to be useful anyway, you would need live-preview...which no DSLR has at present. To do live-preview, you would probably need to get rid of the mirror...I say probably as some whacky ideas have been put forward on how you might do live-preview even with a mirror. Now one of the rumours is that Sony may do a dSLR (and by dSLR, I mean a camera with exchangeable lenses) with no mirror, hence allowing live preview; whether it would sell is another matter altogether as it might also have an EVF and there aren't that many enthusiasts who really believe that an EVF can YET replace an OVF as it is too coarse-grained to do really good manual focus.

But if you simply want to take pictures from waist level etc, all you need is an Angle-Finder; you can even get a digital one called a Zigview; all this does is display what you would see in the view-finder....it does not do live-preview such as a live histogram, which is what a lot of people would like.
 
Puz said:
I remember bringing this up a few years back on here and I was shot to pieces by everyone saying I was jealous of their equipment ;). I've always stood by the argument that it's the Photographer and not the equipment. I'm constantly amazed and how many bad shots I see with 2 grand cameras and how many good ones I see with a cheapo nasty one. Granted it can help in many situations with a good camera but if you don't know the basics of composition, have a good eye and some basic understanding of light then your camera isn't going to help you much ...
Click to expand...


I believe I had the same feelings too, it was the time when people were buying the 10D/20D and then asking how to use it. Lot of amatures thinks because the camera is expensive will = Magazine quality shots. Well, it would be if they know what makes a photo good. People also have this idea that Sharpness must = a Good camera/Photo, and a 8mega pixel camera is better than a 5mega pixel one.

Photography is an Art, not a Science.
 
I bought the 20D last year but knew from the off it was going to be a long learning process but it was something i was willing to do. Plus i am the important part as without an eye for a shot the cameras end product will not be as good as it would be with someone who knows what to look for.

SCM
 
think the major thing now that turns a poor shot into a good shot is digital editing. I often think that its a factor that seperates an average 'modern' photographer and a good 'modern' photographer....

just look at the thread earlier on here for proof...the one with a shot of cardiff station. The original was pretty dull...the final shot was a real talking point that had impact. now I would say that it was the photographers skilll creating the shot digtially that made the difference there.

I would also say that I have been saved many many times by photoshop. I am constantly learning new tricks that helps me and transforms poor shots to good ones.

onto the main debate....its not the camera, its the photographer....i would say true to an extent, but good equipment aids an accelerated learning curve and definately helps a photographer technically to get the shot.

Composition and vision is a skill definately, and has to be learned by studying other photographers and reading book after book.

Cykey, I would say that you are spot on about not needing to upgrade your kit, but in your case I think it is your fluidity with photoshot, coupled with your good compositional skills that often helps you to create a great final shot.

I think many of us, definately myself, would struggle with film, and our output in terms of final quality wouldnt be a patch on what our digital gear gives us. Sure the composition would be the same but in terms of a finished image I think impact and exposure would be a real issue.
 
morgan said:
think the major thing now that turns a poor shot into a good shot is digital editing. I often think that its a factor that seperates an average 'modern' photographer and a good 'modern' photographer....

just look at the thread earlier on here for proof...the one with a shot of cardiff station. The original was pretty dull...the final shot was a real talking point that had impact. now I would say that it was the photographers skilll creating the shot digtially that made the difference there.

I would also say that I have been saved many many times by photoshop. I am constantly learning new tricks that helps me and transforms poor shots to good ones.

onto the main debate....its not the camera, its the photographer....i would say true to an extent, but good equipment aids an accelerated learning curve and definately helps a photographer technically to get the shot.

Composition and vision is a skill definately, and has to be learned by studying other photographers and reading book after book.

Cykey, I would say that you are spot on about not needing to upgrade your kit, but in your case I think it is your fluidity with photoshot, coupled with your good compositional skills that often helps you to create a great final shot.

I think many of us, definately myself, would struggle with film, and our output in terms of final quality wouldnt be a patch on what our digital gear gives us. Sure the composition would be the same but in terms of a finished image I think impact and exposure would be a real issue.
Click to expand...

It's kind of a recipe. If you start with bad eggs, your cake isn't going to be that great no matter now much icing you put on it. :)
 
Well I've been lucky enough to be in a family that's always been artistic, be it painting, design or photography. In 32 years the one thing I've seen over and over is always the same, and that is the simple fact that talent is all that's needed for anything. It just requires patience and practice to develop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom