What do you say as a working photog to people who say its the photog, not the gear?

TaoMaas · 05-18-2010, 02:48 PM

Hmmm....but sometimes it IS the photographer and not the gear. Granted, it's video, not still photography, but I have to share gear with another photog. Those days when one of us out-shoots the other, it pretty much never has anything to do with the gear. It mostly boils down to the particular assignment and how connected we feel to it.

casil403 · 05-18-2010, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

Hmmm....but sometimes it IS the photographer and not the gear. Granted, it's video, not still photography, but I have to share gear with another photog. Those days when one of us out-shoots the other, it pretty much never has anything to do with the gear. It mostly boils down to the particular assignment and how connected we feel to it.

I couldn't agree more.

johnmflores · 05-18-2010, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by mel

But if I used Roger Federer's non-Walmart racket, I still couldn't win at Wimbeldon. Both are important.

For sure. The way that motorcycle enthusiasts compare motorcycle racing to automobile racing is as follows:

In automobile racing like Formula 1, victory is 70% due to the car and 30% due to the driver.**

In motorcycle racing like MotoGP, victory is 70% due to the rider and 30% due to the bike.

In other words, in motorcycle racing, the rider plays a much greater role in success. You could take the best rider, place him on the second-best bike and he still has a good chance of winning. On the contrary, in car racing, if you take the best driver and put him in the second best car, his chances of winning are much slimmer.

Other possible comparisons:

In running, it's 99% the runner and 1% the shoes.
In cycling, it 95% the cyclist and 5% the bike.
In making a good cup of tea, it's 80% the tea and 20% the person

So....for good photography, how much is dependent upon the photographer and how much is dependent upon the gear? It probably depends upon the subject. For example:

Macro: 50% photographer, 50% gear?
Portrait: 70% photographer, 30% gear?
Landscape: 60% photographer, 40% gear?
Photojournalism: 80% photographer, 20% gear?
Sports: 40% photographer, 60% gear?

Any thoughts on this idea and what the percentages are?

** F1 fans, let's not turn this into a motorsports thread, these numbers are for demonstration purposes only. No F1 drivers have been hurt in the creation of this post.

Blue · 05-18-2010, 08:01 PM

Listening to some of you guys, Time, National Geographic, etc. could have saved a mint if they had just passed out their crews disposable cameras instead of investing in all those Leica, Nikon etc.

Blue · 05-18-2010, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

F
Macro: 50% photographer, 50% gear?

This is misleading if we are talking about professionals. For example, if an entomologist is taking an image of an insect there is a technical aspect to it. A scientific journal isn't going to publish an unknown insect, nor is a scientist going to use it in a scientific presentation.

SpecialK · 05-18-2010, 08:57 PM

Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a good meal?

Blue · 05-18-2010, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Yeah, but having rebuilt more than one engine in my youth, I can say that if all you need is a half-inch socket, and you don't pull an engine every day, the Sears version works just fine. The problem comes when you start showing off the shop, rather than the work.

I'm no working pro, either, but I do get that to shoot a hockey game or an executive portrait on site, you need proper and specialized equipment. As a working pro, you need a level of reliability that is far and above the use by an amateur. However, most tyros like me do need to fight the urge to get hung up on getting equipment to do those special jobs when we mostly take the kind of photos for which cameras have been made for a century, and instead concentrate on trying to bring something that remotely approximates skill or creativity to the subject. When I hear the level at which some folks turn up their nose at a lens, I do hope that the work that their results really justify the scrutiny.

A lot of the people around here are doing more than just vacation snapshots. Some of us actually are using Pentax for more specialized applications. There are also those of us who are collectors of working vintage gear and actually use the gear on dSLR and film. Otherwise Pentax forum would just be about he K-x and the 18-55mm WR and 50-200mm WR.

BTW, I don't think I've ever heard anyone tell their mechanic that the wrench or 1/2 inch socket they were using to repair or "soup up" their vehicle was too good.

Also, if all you have is a 1/2 socket, you aren't much of a gear-head (in the mechanical sense of the word) and you won't even be doing basic oil changes.

Originally posted by SpecialK

Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a good meal?

EyeSpy · 05-18-2010, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a good meal?

Out of all of the above I like yours the best! I shall record same on my photog. notes folder.

Reportage · 05-18-2010, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a good meal?

depends on the appetites of the clientele?

you dont need five star chef and five star ingredients for a fast food joint but if intend to charge five star prices and offer five star packages, definitely need five star chef and five star ingredients.

JohnBee · 05-18-2010, 10:49 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Reportage

For me, i tell them to shoot hockey.

Chances are the next time i see them, they be carrying even bigger and faster lenses then i do.

A Pro knows the limits of the gear at hand and knows when to switch/upgrade as and when necessary because if dont get the shots, dont get the dough to pay the bills.

Telling people to shoot hockey is more effective imo compared to saying things people do not want to hear.

I have left my camera setup and ready to fire for weeks on end in our studio.
And it has yet to take even a single shot on its own.

The next step will be taking photo's with my bear hands.
I'll let you know how that goes as soon as I get results

wlachan · 05-18-2010, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a good meal?

Pans & pots obviously; everything photographer should keep this in mind when asked.

rhodopsin · 05-19-2010, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

I have left my camera setup and ready to fire for weeks on end in our studio.
And it has yet to take even a single shot on its own.

The next step will be taking photo's with my bear hands.
I'll let you know how that goes as soon as I get results

Dip those bear hands in Liquid Light Photo Emulsion first (avoid the claws!)

TaoMaas · 05-19-2010, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Blue

Listening to some of you guys, Time, National Geographic, etc. could have saved a mint if they had just passed out their crews disposable cameras instead of investing in all those Leica, Nikon etc.

But, if saving money was their goal (and knowing that labor costs are the biggest piece of the pie), wouldn't it make more sense to buy great gear, hire the cheapest people you can, and let the equipment do the work?

The problem here is that this thread is a totally bogus argument. For every example where gear makes a difference, someone can come up with an example where specific gear is not crucial. The truth is that the photographer and the equipment are BOTH important and whether one or the other is the difference maker changes from situation to situation. Someone asked, "Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a great meal?" I've shot interviews with a million chefs and the first thing they always say is, "It's important to start out with the freshest ingredients you can find." I don't take that to mean that they think that it's all about the ingredients and they have no input into how the meal turns out. Just the opposite....I think they're saying, "Give me good things to work with, then stand back and let me show you what I can do!" If I were to ask one of these chefs, "Yes, but is it you or the ingredients? Can you make a good meal out of rancid meat and moldy bread? Or could I, when put into your kitchen and using your ingredients, create just as good of a meal as you?", they'd think I was an idiot for even asking the question because they'd know that the answer is, "You need skill AND good ingredients."

Blue · 05-19-2010, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

. . . For every example where gear makes a difference, someone can come up with an example where specific gear is not crucial. The truth is that the photographer and the equipment are BOTH important and whether one or the other is the difference maker changes from situation to situation. . . .

That is the point I have been trying to make.

Ratmagiclady · 05-19-2010, 11:25 AM

I think it's really pretty simple: a photographer can buy and use high-performance gear, but high-performance gear can't buy a good photographer.

I've been held back plenty often by just not having gear in good enough quality or condition for what I do, but then again, what I do doesn't generally require technology that 'pushes the envelope,'
either.

For some things, like AF, or any other automation, if it's going to be there and I have to rely on it, it better be as good as obtainable, ...to me in my teens and twenties it'd never be as fast as physical controls I could set by feel before even bringing the camera to eye, but yeah. In reality, stuff like that can matter. Especially the way things are done now.

A lot of the things that used to be little advantages for me no longer are. (Or would be. I used to be a lot faster reloading a film camera than a lot of people, for instance. I could have film out of a storebought box and can and into a camera with a little flurry of one-handed juggling that is now just kind of a cute trick I sometimes do to amuse friends when the arthritis allows. I call it the 'Ginsu Chef reload.' And when the cost of a roll of film is a big deal, and the hurry isn't real, you bet I'll do it over a couch or something if I do it at all.

)

Technology changes, some stuff's obsolete, or relatively-so. Some things, the tech has taken over, and expectations have changed with it. All kind of depends what you're doing and what the stakes are, really.

For some, they'll never need what high-performance gear can do, and for some, it's the difference between getting paid or not...

It's OK. I could do 90-95 percent of what I do to my own standards with a brace of Limiteds, and a digital and a couple of film bodies. . Taking more jobs might mean more stuff suited to those jobs.

Someone with more money might enjoy having fancier gear than I need... Well, I guess that's OK, too.

Measurebating is a fun hobby for some, too, I guess. That's nice. I might get a sharper lens out of the deal once in a while. Sok.

05-18-2010, 09:15 PM	#23
EyeSpy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 663	"It Takes Two Baby" Originally posted by SpecialK Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a good meal? Out of all of the above I like yours the best! I shall record same on my photog. notes folder.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Photog Fun	branphlake	Post Your Photos!	2	06-29-2009 09:51 AM
New Photog from ... Nebraska.	Chwisch87	Welcomes and Introductions	4	01-03-2009 03:29 AM
1 very sexy photog!	rmtagg	Post Your Photos!	29	08-18-2008 01:50 AM
Photog jobs	roentarre	General Talk	2	10-09-2007 04:10 AM
The reviews in Photog magazines ...	roentarre	General Talk	5	04-29-2007 02:22 PM

05-18-2010, 02:48 PM	#16
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Hmmm....but sometimes it IS the photographer and not the gear. Granted, it's video, not still photography, but I have to share gear with another photog. Those days when one of us out-shoots the other, it pretty much never has anything to do with the gear. It mostly boils down to the particular assignment and how connected we feel to it.

05-18-2010, 07:21 PM	#17
casil403 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Calgary AB Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,170	Originally posted by TaoMaas Hmmm....but sometimes it IS the photographer and not the gear. Granted, it's video, not still photography, but I have to share gear with another photog. Those days when one of us out-shoots the other, it pretty much never has anything to do with the gear. It mostly boils down to the particular assignment and how connected we feel to it. I couldn't agree more.

05-18-2010, 07:40 PM	#18
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by mel But if I used Roger Federer's non-Walmart racket, I still couldn't win at Wimbeldon. Both are important. For sure. The way that motorcycle enthusiasts compare motorcycle racing to automobile racing is as follows: In automobile racing like Formula 1, victory is 70% due to the car and 30% due to the driver. In motorcycle racing like MotoGP, victory is 70% due to the rider and 30% due to the bike. In other words, in motorcycle racing, the rider plays a much greater role in success. You could take the best rider, place him on the second-best bike and he still has a good chance of winning. On the contrary, in car racing, if you take the best driver and put him in the second best car, his chances of winning are much slimmer. Other possible comparisons: In running, it's 99% the runner and 1% the shoes. In cycling, it 95% the cyclist and 5% the bike. In making a good cup of tea, it's 80% the tea and 20% the person So....for good photography, how much is dependent upon the photographer and how much is dependent upon the gear? It probably depends upon the subject. For example: Macro: 50% photographer, 50% gear? Portrait: 70% photographer, 30% gear? Landscape: 60% photographer, 40% gear? Photojournalism: 80% photographer, 20% gear? Sports: 40% photographer, 60% gear? Any thoughts on this idea and what the percentages are? F1 fans, let's not turn this into a motorsports thread, these numbers are for demonstration purposes only. No F1 drivers have been hurt in the creation of this post.

05-18-2010, 08:01 PM	#19
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Listening to some of you guys, Time, National Geographic, etc. could have saved a mint if they had just passed out their crews disposable cameras instead of investing in all those Leica, Nikon etc.

05-18-2010, 08:04 PM	#20
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by johnmflores F Macro: 50% photographer, 50% gear? This is misleading if we are talking about professionals. For example, if an entomologist is taking an image of an insect there is a technical aspect to it. A scientific journal isn't going to publish an unknown insect, nor is a scientist going to use it in a scientific presentation.

05-18-2010, 08:57 PM	#21
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a good meal?

05-18-2010, 09:09 PM	#22
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by GeneV Yeah, but having rebuilt more than one engine in my youth, I can say that if all you need is a half-inch socket, and you don't pull an engine every day, the Sears version works just fine. The problem comes when you start showing off the shop, rather than the work. I'm no working pro, either, but I do get that to shoot a hockey game or an executive portrait on site, you need proper and specialized equipment. As a working pro, you need a level of reliability that is far and above the use by an amateur. However, most tyros like me do need to fight the urge to get hung up on getting equipment to do those special jobs when we mostly take the kind of photos for which cameras have been made for a century, and instead concentrate on trying to bring something that remotely approximates skill or creativity to the subject. When I hear the level at which some folks turn up their nose at a lens, I do hope that the work that their results really justify the scrutiny. A lot of the people around here are doing more than just vacation snapshots. Some of us actually are using Pentax for more specialized applications. There are also those of us who are collectors of working vintage gear and actually use the gear on dSLR and film. Otherwise Pentax forum would just be about he K-x and the 18-55mm WR and 50-200mm WR. BTW, I don't think I've ever heard anyone tell their mechanic that the wrench or 1/2 inch socket they were using to repair or "soup up" their vehicle was *too good*. Also, if all you have is a 1/2 socket, you aren't much of a gear-head (in the mechanical sense of the word) and you won't even be doing basic oil changes. Originally posted by SpecialK Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a good meal?

05-18-2010, 09:38 PM	#24
Reportage Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 739 Original Poster	Originally posted by SpecialK Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a good meal? depends on the appetites of the clientele? you dont need five star chef and five star ingredients for a fast food joint but if intend to charge five star prices and offer five star packages, definitely need five star chef and five star ingredients.

05-18-2010, 10:49 PM - 1 Like	#25
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by Reportage For me, i tell them to shoot hockey. Chances are the next time i see them, they be carrying even bigger and faster lenses then i do. A Pro knows the limits of the gear at hand and knows when to switch/upgrade as and when necessary because if dont get the shots, dont get the dough to pay the bills. Telling people to shoot hockey is more effective imo compared to saying things people do not want to hear. I have left my camera setup and ready to fire for weeks on end in our studio. And it has yet to take even a single shot on its own. The next step will be taking photo's with my bear hands. I'll let you know how that goes as soon as I get results

05-18-2010, 11:05 PM	#26
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by SpecialK Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a good meal? Pans & pots obviously; everything photographer should keep this in mind when asked.

05-19-2010, 07:29 AM	#27
rhodopsin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Deep Forest Posts: 643	Originally posted by JohnBee I have left my camera setup and ready to fire for weeks on end in our studio. And it has yet to take even a single shot on its own. The next step will be taking photo's with my bear hands. I'll let you know how that goes as soon as I get results Dip those bear hands in Liquid Light Photo Emulsion first (avoid the claws!)

05-19-2010, 07:45 AM	#28
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by Blue Listening to some of you guys, Time, National Geographic, etc. could have saved a mint if they had just passed out their crews disposable cameras instead of investing in all those Leica, Nikon etc. But, if saving money was their goal (and knowing that labor costs are the biggest piece of the pie), wouldn't it make more sense to buy great gear, hire the cheapest people you can, and let the equipment do the work? The problem here is that this thread is a totally bogus argument. For every example where gear makes a difference, someone can come up with an example where specific gear is not crucial. The truth is that the photographer and the equipment are BOTH important and whether one or the other is the difference maker changes from situation to situation. Someone asked, "Is it the chef or the ingredients that makes a great meal?" I've shot interviews with a million chefs and the first thing they always say is, "It's important to start out with the freshest ingredients you can find." I don't take that to mean that they think that it's all about the ingredients and they have no input into how the meal turns out. Just the opposite....I think they're saying, "Give me good things to work with, then stand back and let me show you what I can do!" If I were to ask one of these chefs, "Yes, but is it you or the ingredients? Can you make a good meal out of rancid meat and moldy bread? Or could I, when put into your kitchen and using your ingredients, create just as good of a meal as you?", they'd think I was an idiot for even asking the question because they'd know that the answer is, "You need skill AND good ingredients."

05-19-2010, 08:15 AM	#29
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by TaoMaas . . . For every example where gear makes a difference, someone can come up with an example where specific gear is not crucial. The truth is that the photographer and the equipment are BOTH important and whether one or the other is the difference maker changes from situation to situation. . . . That is the point I have been trying to make.

05-19-2010, 11:25 AM	#30
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	I think it's really pretty simple: a photographer can buy and use high-performance gear, but high-performance gear can't buy a good photographer. I've been held back plenty often by just not having gear in good enough quality or condition for what I do, but then again, what I do doesn't generally require technology that 'pushes the envelope,' either. For some things, like AF, or any other automation, if it's going to be there and I have to rely on it, it better be as good as obtainable, ...to me in my teens and twenties it'd never be as fast as physical controls I could set by feel before even bringing the camera to eye, but yeah. In reality, stuff like that can matter. Especially the way things are done now. A lot of the things that used to be little advantages for me no longer are. (Or would be. I used to be a lot faster reloading a film camera than a lot of people, for instance. I could have film out of a storebought box and can and into a camera with a little flurry of one-handed juggling that is now just kind of a cute trick I sometimes do to amuse friends when the arthritis allows. I call it the 'Ginsu Chef reload.' And when the cost of a roll of film is a big deal, and the hurry isn't real, you bet I'll do it over a couch or something if I do it at all. ) Technology changes, some stuff's obsolete, or relatively-so. Some things, the tech has taken over, and expectations have changed with it. All kind of depends what you're doing and what the stakes are, really. For some, they'll never need what high-performance gear can do, and for some, it's the difference between getting paid or not... It's OK. I could do 90-95 percent of what I do to my own standards with a brace of Limiteds, and a digital and a couple of film bodies. . Taking more jobs might mean more stuff suited to those jobs. Someone with more money might enjoy having fancier gear than I need... Well, I guess that's OK, too. Measurebating is a fun hobby for some, too, I guess. That's nice. I might get a sharper lens out of the deal once in a while. Sok.