Is photography only for the rich.?

normhead · 02-17-2015, 02:15 PM - **1 Like**

Check it our here. Many have proved endlessly in photos etc. that more expensive cameras are better. It's a crock. How appropriate a camera is for a given job is not determined by it's price.

Is photography meant only for the rich? - Quora

enoeske · 02-17-2015, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Is photography meant only for the rich?

No, its not

**UncleVanya** · 02-17-2015, 02:29 PM - **4 Likes**

The question isn't one that web resolution photos can answer. However anyone with a camera (including phones) is rich compared to the masses of truly poor people in the world.

**blackcloudbrew** · 02-17-2015, 02:30 PM

Would agree that it is not. I've seen what a pro can do with a cheap camera and I've also seen what a beginner can do with really great gear. Cost of the equipment aside, it matters more where you point it, a lot more.

VoiceOfReason · 02-17-2015, 02:39 PM

Heh, I do it and am far from rich.

**wtlwdwgn** · 02-17-2015, 02:41 PM

Yes it is. At least a rich person can take up photography before becoming poor afterwards.

Of course there are the techies who have to have the latest and greatest so they can complain about spending so much money for their stuff and can't get a good shot to save their, uh, selves.

No, of course not. Photography is in the eye of the shooter not in what he shoots with.

mikeSF · 02-17-2015, 02:45 PM - **6 Likes**

no matter what you start with, photography can quickly make you poor.

mohb · 02-17-2015, 02:47 PM - **1 Like**

It's a hobby/pastime for the affluent - an iphone may take 'good' pictures but they cost more than many people's yearly income.

Joel B · 02-17-2015, 02:53 PM - **1 Like**

Trick to cheap is buy the the previous model. I bought all my cameras and equipment used and behind one generation at a fraction of the retail price for new. Now if you make your living at this that's a different deal. But since it's only fun for me, I can be very happy on a budget!

Which also helps out relations with the wife!

**THoog** · 02-17-2015, 03:24 PM

I think the gear itself is less important than:

1. The eye to see/find the image worth capturing ("talent")
2. The knowledge and ingenuity to use the gear correctly for the situation ("skill")
3. A subject worth shooting (location and/or opportunity)

None of this requires money so much as patience, determination, and access to the necessary information. Coincidentally, those three things are just as important in shopping for cheap gear!

tvdtvdtvd · 02-17-2015, 03:28 PM - **1 Like**

The gear trap isn't unique to photography, but of all the 'arts' it's probably the most prone.

Reminds me of what a record label owner once told me.
He said:

"You wouldn't believe the crappy stereo I own. I just can't ever save enough for something better,
I spend all my money on the music." Paraphrased from memory of a conversation we had over a
decade ago.

Dartmoor Dave · 02-17-2015, 03:31 PM - **4 Likes**

I'm disabled, and financially very poor within the context of my relatively affluent country. But I'm still able to enjoy photography using carefully chosen older equipment, and I have a computer and broadband to type this post with, so to many people in the world today I would seem impossibly wealthy. Before I became disabled, I was lucky enough to enjoy an elite education and a successful career in the travel industry, so I remain culturally rich even though I'm financially poor. As a poor person in a technological 21st Century society, I enjoy luxuries that even the richest few could never have imagined only a century ago.

**monochrome** · 02-17-2015, 03:49 PM - **1 Like**

Wealth is relative.

Generalizations being what they are (there will always be someone to contradict them, and take offense) if you have the money and leisure to read this you are wealthy. That being said, I would sell my K10D and A35~105/3.5 for the equivalent of a month or two of cigarettes, so good .jpg files need not require expensive equipment.

The problem is, how does a poor person turn good .jpg files into viewable images? Whatever he uses to uppload it so it can be viewed costs MONEY - and a monthly subscription. Don't even begin to ask about .dng files. What about cheap film cameras? How does a poor person turn good film exposures into good prints?

Over time, whether anaolg or digital, processing and consumables are where the expense lies.

normhead · 02-17-2015, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by mikeSF

no matter what you start with, photography can quickly make you poor.

If I ever win a lottery, I'll just keep shooting until the money is all gone.

rawr · 02-17-2015, 04:06 PM

The more money you spend on something doesn't guarantee better outcomes, or greater happiness. For photography or anything else.

02-17-2015, 02:15 PM - 1 Like	#1
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Is photography only for the rich.? Check it our here. Many have proved endlessly in photos etc. that more expensive cameras are better. It's a crock. How appropriate a camera is for a given job is not determined by it's price. Is photography meant only for the rich? - Quora

02-17-2015, 03:49 PM - 1 Like	#13
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Wealth is relative. Generalizations being what they are (there will always be someone to contradict them, and take offense) if you have the money and leisure to read this you are wealthy. That being said, I would sell my K10D and A35~105/3.5 for the equivalent of a month or two of cigarettes, so good .jpg files need not require expensive equipment. The problem is, how does a poor person turn good .jpg files into viewable images? Whatever he uses to uppload it so it can be viewed costs MONEY - and a monthly subscription. Don't even begin to ask about .dng files. What about cheap film cameras? How does a poor person turn good film exposures into good prints? Over time, whether anaolg or digital, processing and consumables are where the expense lies. Last edited by monochrome; 02-18-2015 at 06:33 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is the pentax k-30 suitable for infrared photography?	13thmurder	Pentax K-30 & K-50	24	04-13-2014 09:21 AM
Why DoF is only a target value for the knowledge-free	beholder3	Photographic Technique	32	08-11-2013 05:47 PM
A rich person: the rich do NOT create jobs	Nesster	General Talk	62	12-29-2011 05:19 AM
Please Read: This forum is only for discussion of photography	Adam	Photographic Technique	2	10-23-2011 11:48 PM
6x7 for Street Photography - am I the only one here?	Rense	Pentax Medium Format	20	11-18-2010 12:21 AM

02-17-2015, 02:22 PM	#2
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	Originally posted by normhead Is photography meant only for the rich? No, its not

02-17-2015, 02:29 PM - 4 Likes	#3
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,400	The question isn't one that web resolution photos can answer. However anyone with a camera (including phones) is rich compared to the masses of truly poor people in the world.

02-17-2015, 02:30 PM	#4
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	Would agree that it is not. I've seen what a pro can do with a cheap camera and I've also seen what a beginner can do with really great gear. Cost of the equipment aside, it matters more where you point it, a lot more.

02-17-2015, 02:39 PM	#5
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Heh, I do it and am far from rich.

02-17-2015, 02:41 PM	#6
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,838	Yes it is. At least a rich person can take up photography before becoming poor afterwards. Of course there are the techies who have to have the latest and greatest so they can complain about spending so much money for their stuff and can't get a good shot to save their, uh, selves. No, of course not. Photography is in the eye of the shooter not in what he shoots with.

02-17-2015, 02:45 PM - 6 Likes	#7
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	no matter what you start with, photography can quickly make you poor.

02-17-2015, 02:47 PM - 1 Like	#8
mohb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,912	It's a hobby/pastime for the affluent - an iphone may take 'good' pictures but they cost more than many people's yearly income.

02-17-2015, 02:53 PM - 1 Like	#9
Joel B Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Barnett MO. Photos: Albums Posts: 2,336	Trick to cheap is buy the the previous model. I bought all my cameras and equipment used and behind one generation at a fraction of the retail price for new. Now if you make your living at this that's a different deal. But since it's only fun for me, I can be very happy on a budget! Which also helps out relations with the wife!

02-17-2015, 03:24 PM	#10
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	I think the gear itself is less important than: 1. The eye to see/find the image worth capturing ("talent") 2. The knowledge and ingenuity to use the gear correctly for the situation ("skill") 3. A subject worth shooting (location and/or opportunity) None of this requires money so much as patience, determination, and access to the necessary information. Coincidentally, those three things are just as important in shopping for cheap gear!

02-17-2015, 03:28 PM - 1 Like	#11
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	The gear trap isn't unique to photography, but of all the 'arts' it's probably the most prone. Reminds me of what a record label owner once told me. He said: "You wouldn't believe the crappy stereo I own. I just can't ever save enough for something better, I spend all my money on the music." Paraphrased from memory of a conversation we had over a decade ago.

02-17-2015, 03:31 PM - 4 Likes	#12
Dartmoor Dave Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Dartmoor, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,882	I'm disabled, and financially very poor within the context of my relatively affluent country. But I'm still able to enjoy photography using carefully chosen older equipment, and I have a computer and broadband to type this post with, so to many people in the world today I would seem impossibly wealthy. Before I became disabled, I was lucky enough to enjoy an elite education and a successful career in the travel industry, so I remain culturally rich even though I'm financially poor. As a poor person in a technological 21st Century society, I enjoy luxuries that even the richest few could never have imagined only a century ago.

02-17-2015, 03:52 PM	#14
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by mikeSF no matter what you start with, photography can quickly make you poor. If I ever win a lottery, I'll just keep shooting until the money is all gone.

02-17-2015, 04:06 PM	#15
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	The more money you spend on something doesn't guarantee better outcomes, or greater happiness. For photography or anything else.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search