It's not the camera; it's the photographer! Or is it?

**BigDave** · 01-19-2011, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Ira

That's me!!!

Ira, Which one, the photographer with all the good equipment or the one with the vision? LOL

You don't need to answer!

Wheatfield · 01-19-2011, 05:16 PM

I've always thought the equipment has more to do with the final result than people give credence to.

Gashog · 01-19-2011, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I've always thought the equipment has more to do with the final result than people give credence to.

Which is why I don't own a range finder or a 6"X17".....or a neutral density filter.
Different tools for different jobs....right?
Someone said earlier that they wouldn't be able to make a living with their pinhole camera.
There's gotta be someone doing it. They're not shooting high school basket ball games though!

clockwork247 · 01-19-2011, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I've always thought the equipment has more to do with the final result than people give credence to.

exactly lol, most people like to think they're "all that", but really most of it is the gear... nothing more, it's not hard to press a button, with today's tech of cropping and editing it even take less of a "brain" to produce ok image.

i also do some stuff with audio recording, and similarly, you don't even need someone to know how to sing or be on key or even open their mouth at all to create a musical track... it's quite a shame really.

Gashog · 01-19-2011, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by clockwork247

exactly lol, most people like to think they're "all that", but really most of it is the gear... nothing more, it's not hard to press a button,

Nah. Mostly the person using the gear. It took me a looong time to get a good picture out of my S2 Pro.

eddie1960 · 01-20-2011, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I've always thought the equipment has more to do with the final result than people give credence to.

Wheat your one sarcastic SOB
But I will agree the right gear for the right use. I wouldn't grab my 645 and go shoot a concert. I may have it if I'm shooting an interview though but not likely turnaround is too slow.

But the ability to visualize a good shot (composition exposure etc) than implement the vision that is the photographer not the tool.

BTW I believe Peter Lik frequently shoots 617, but pretty sure the image has more to do with his vision than the camera. that big ass neg though allows him to implement it. Selling it for 1 million dollars though has way more to do with marketing than talent in the end

Ron Kruger · 01-20-2011, 07:23 AM - **1 Like**

I've been shooting professionally for well over three decades, and for most of that time there was a wide gulf between pro and amateur, even between pro and enthusiast, but with the technological advances of digital, that gulf has turned into a ditch that even a beginner can leap across with a rapid-fire, full-auto approach.
One no longer needs to know much about photography, or have a lot of experience dancing with the light, to get quality pictures these days, and that's all equipment. The more one knows the more consistently they will produce good shots, and the aspects of composition, lighting and shutter timing are still important, but the gulf, nonetheless, has become a ditch.

eddie1960 · 01-20-2011, 07:41 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Ron Kruger

I've been shooting professionally for well over three decades, and for most of that time there was a wide gulf between pro and amateur, even between pro and enthusiast, but with the technological advances of digital, that gulf has turned into a ditch that even a beginner can leap across with a rapid-fire, full-auto approach.
One no longer needs to know much about photography, or have a lot of experience dancing with the light, to get quality pictures these days, and that's all equipment. The more one knows the more consistently they will produce good shots, and the aspects of composition, lighting and shutter timing are still important, but the gulf, nonetheless, has become a ditch.

This i would tend to agree with. the tools have gotten very sophisticated allowing results that someone could not achieve previously. If it comes down to shooting events like say a sporting event with a big enough zoom and a good enough camera anyone can spray and pray and capture a really astounding image by pure luck on their part. the difference is a pro will capture that image consistently and be able to replicate results. nothing left to chance. that is why you pay a pro guaranteed results.

johnmflores · 01-20-2011, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Ron Kruger

I've been shooting professionally for well over three decades, and for most of that time there was a wide gulf between pro and amateur, even between pro and enthusiast, but with the technological advances of digital, that gulf has turned into a ditch that even a beginner can leap across with a rapid-fire, full-auto approach.
One no longer needs to know much about photography, or have a lot of experience dancing with the light, to get quality pictures these days, and that's all equipment. The more one knows the more consistently they will produce good shots, and the aspects of composition, lighting and shutter timing are still important, but the gulf, nonetheless, has become a ditch.

Originally posted by eddie1960

This i would tend to agree with. the tools have gotten very sophisticated allowing results that someone could not achieve previously. If it comes down to shooting events like say a sporting event with a big enough zoom and a good enough camera anyone can spray and pray and capture a really astounding image by pure luck on their part. the difference is a pro will capture that image consistently and be able to replicate results. nothing left to chance. that is why you pay a pro guaranteed results.

Great points here. Good photographers need to up their creative game and rethink their value proposition in this new age. Anyone with a Rebel can take a sharp, well-exposed photo these days. That alone is no longer sufficient. The bar is raised.

cabstar · 01-21-2011, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Great points here. Good photographers need to up their creative game and rethink their value proposition in this new age. Anyone with a Rebel can take a sharp, well-exposed photo these days. That alone is no longer sufficient. The bar is raised.

Which is why the photographer's skills are far more important than the equipment.

RioRico · 01-21-2011, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by cabstar

Which is why the photographer's skills are far more important than the equipment.

Indeed. Modern cameras allow anyone to rather easily capture a rather accurate record of what's in front of them, and have since the days of the Brownie #1. Vision and skill are needed to display what isn't so readily apparent.

A snapshooter grabs a Kodak Moment shot of their friends standing/cavorting in front of the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty or Sydney Opera House or whatever. A photographer searches for angles & settings & lighting that make subjects in such photon-depletion zones look fresh. Another photographer stages a parody of that snapshot using phony sets and backdrops. Another photographer blends many such shots into (sur)realistic animations. Vision and experience and skill lead to creative approaches beyond merely recording something at any moment.

And those approaches may include using quite dated low-tech tools: oatmeal-box pinhole cams, fisheye Holgas, analog camcorders, 1mpx digicams, cyanotype paper for solargrams, etc. A hand-tuned samurai blade is an ultimate cutting tool, but a pocketknife blade does many jobs too. (That's a metaphor.) A superb tool in unskilled hands is wasted. Vision and skill can help you whittle a masterpiece with a paring knife.

And skillfully-shot images that are incompetently displayed are also wasted. Capturing an image isn't the end of the process. It *must* be processed to make it look like you want it to look, and presented so that what you want to be seen is visible. You don't need a Hassy for thumbnail shots. A great Hassy shot won't be seen if it's relegated to a dark corner. Displayed small or far-away enough, flaws and grain won't be noticed. And if the image is compelling, flaws and noise are irrelevant. Vision and skill frame the presentation as well as the capture.

The camera is a hammer. The subject is a nail. Pound away till you're happy.

RioRico · 01-21-2011, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Therein you have the main issue why an old VGA camera will not suffice for creating any decent imagery. The sensors are minuscule and have hopelessly little dynamic range.

So don't use a VGA camera for single-frame poster shots (although it's been done). Instead, capture a matrix or sequence of shots that you edit together, whether stitched or overlaid or animated or whatever. Or process a shot so its limitations are irrelevant. Many Andy Warhol prints have lousy resolution and quite tiny dynamic range -- so what? What's important is the treatment of the subject, not every mole and hair of their face.

From my first digicam, a 1.1mpx Sony DSC-P20 (ca. 2001) whose largest image size is 912x1216 pixels, I've blown-up processed shots to 18x24 inches. Yes, they look like posters, not like photos, and that's the point: Not everything that emerges from a shoot need look photographic! The camera is just another graphic tool. I've also made 6x9cm prints from other P20 shots, hung next to contact prints from a 6x9cm film camera, and they are indistinguishable without a magnifier. Displayed small or far-away enough, almost anything can look good.

I still use that P20. It still does stuff I can't readily do with other cameras. Set into VGA mode, it's just as lousy as my TracFone cam, but I can still do interesting stuff with it. I just don't use it for landscape calendars -- well, weird landscapes, maybe...

01-19-2011, 03:19 PM	#46
BigDave Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,626	Which One? Originally posted by Ira That's me!!! Ira, Which one, the photographer with all the good equipment or the one with the vision? LOL You don't need to answer!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature im not a photographer. playing with the wifes camera	asianred3	Post Your Photos!	13	11-10-2010 10:54 AM
Who is the photographer?	LowVoltage	Photographic Technique	4	06-07-2010 11:23 PM
Photographer Photographs Photographer	codiac2600	Post Your Photos!	8	02-13-2009 10:46 AM
Hello, New Photographer.	tankgirl32	Welcomes and Introductions	4	12-04-2007 06:25 AM
Photographer Runs Marathon With His Camera!?!?!!!	Henry Scott	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	05-18-2007 05:00 PM

01-19-2011, 05:16 PM	#47
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,986	I've always thought the equipment has more to do with the final result than people give credence to.

01-19-2011, 05:45 PM	#48
Gashog Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: NY Photos: Albums Posts: 523	Originally posted by Wheatfield I've always thought the equipment has more to do with the final result than people give credence to. Which is why I don't own a range finder or a 6"X17".....or a neutral density filter. Different tools for different jobs....right? Someone said earlier that they wouldn't be able to make a living with their pinhole camera. There's gotta be someone doing it. They're not shooting high school basket ball games though!

01-19-2011, 07:17 PM	#49
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	Originally posted by Wheatfield I've always thought the equipment has more to do with the final result than people give credence to. exactly lol, most people like to think they're "all that", but really most of it is the gear... nothing more, it's not hard to press a button, with today's tech of cropping and editing it even take less of a "brain" to produce ok image. i also do some stuff with audio recording, and similarly, you don't even need someone to know how to sing or be on key or even open their mouth at all to create a musical track... it's quite a shame really.

01-19-2011, 07:57 PM	#50
Gashog Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: NY Photos: Albums Posts: 523	Originally posted by clockwork247 exactly lol, most people like to think they're "all that", but really most of it is the gear... nothing more, it's not hard to press a button, Nah. Mostly the person using the gear. It took me a looong time to get a good picture out of my S2 Pro.

01-20-2011, 06:24 AM	#51
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,667	Originally posted by Wheatfield I've always thought the equipment has more to do with the final result than people give credence to. Wheat your one sarcastic SOB But I will agree the right gear for the right use. I wouldn't grab my 645 and go shoot a concert. I may have it if I'm shooting an interview though but not likely turnaround is too slow. But the ability to visualize a good shot (composition exposure etc) than implement the vision that is the photographer not the tool. BTW I believe Peter Lik frequently shoots 617, but pretty sure the image has more to do with his vision than the camera. that big ass neg though allows him to implement it. Selling it for 1 million dollars though has way more to do with marketing than talent in the end

01-20-2011, 07:23 AM - 1 Like	#52
Ron Kruger Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 534	I've been shooting professionally for well over three decades, and for most of that time there was a wide gulf between pro and amateur, even between pro and enthusiast, but with the technological advances of digital, that gulf has turned into a ditch that even a beginner can leap across with a rapid-fire, full-auto approach. One no longer needs to know much about photography, or have a lot of experience dancing with the light, to get quality pictures these days, and that's all equipment. The more one knows the more consistently they will produce good shots, and the aspects of composition, lighting and shutter timing are still important, but the gulf, nonetheless, has become a ditch.

01-20-2011, 07:41 AM - 1 Like	#53
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,667	Originally posted by Ron Kruger I've been shooting professionally for well over three decades, and for most of that time there was a wide gulf between pro and amateur, even between pro and enthusiast, but with the technological advances of digital, that gulf has turned into a ditch that even a beginner can leap across with a rapid-fire, full-auto approach. One no longer needs to know much about photography, or have a lot of experience dancing with the light, to get quality pictures these days, and that's all equipment. The more one knows the more consistently they will produce good shots, and the aspects of composition, lighting and shutter timing are still important, but the gulf, nonetheless, has become a ditch. This i would tend to agree with. the tools have gotten very sophisticated allowing results that someone could not achieve previously. If it comes down to shooting events like say a sporting event with a big enough zoom and a good enough camera anyone can spray and pray and capture a really astounding image by pure luck on their part. the difference is a pro will capture that image consistently and be able to replicate results. nothing left to chance. that is why you pay a pro guaranteed results.

01-20-2011, 07:53 AM	#54
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by Ron Kruger I've been shooting professionally for well over three decades, and for most of that time there was a wide gulf between pro and amateur, even between pro and enthusiast, but with the technological advances of digital, that gulf has turned into a ditch that even a beginner can leap across with a rapid-fire, full-auto approach. One no longer needs to know much about photography, or have a lot of experience dancing with the light, to get quality pictures these days, and that's all equipment. The more one knows the more consistently they will produce good shots, and the aspects of composition, lighting and shutter timing are still important, but the gulf, nonetheless, has become a ditch. Originally posted by eddie1960 This i would tend to agree with. the tools have gotten very sophisticated allowing results that someone could not achieve previously. If it comes down to shooting events like say a sporting event with a big enough zoom and a good enough camera anyone can spray and pray and capture a really astounding image by pure luck on their part. the difference is a pro will capture that image consistently and be able to replicate results. nothing left to chance. that is why you pay a pro guaranteed results. Great points here. Good photographers need to up their creative game and rethink their value proposition in this new age. Anyone with a Rebel can take a sharp, well-exposed photo these days. That alone is no longer sufficient. The bar is raised.

01-21-2011, 01:25 PM	#55
cabstar Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Grimsby UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 224	Originally posted by johnmflores Great points here. Good photographers need to up their creative game and rethink their value proposition in this new age. Anyone with a Rebel can take a sharp, well-exposed photo these days. That alone is no longer sufficient. The bar is raised. Which is why the photographer's skills are far more important than the equipment.

01-21-2011, 02:11 PM	#56
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by cabstar Which is why the photographer's skills are far more important than the equipment. Indeed. Modern cameras allow anyone to rather easily capture a rather accurate record of what's in front of them, and have since the days of the Brownie #1. Vision and skill are needed to display what isn't so readily apparent. A snapshooter grabs a Kodak Moment shot of their friends standing/cavorting in front of the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty or Sydney Opera House or whatever. A photographer searches for angles & settings & lighting that make subjects in such photon-depletion zones look fresh. Another photographer stages a parody of that snapshot using phony sets and backdrops. Another photographer blends many such shots into (sur)realistic animations. Vision and experience and skill lead to creative approaches beyond merely recording something at any moment. And those approaches may include using quite dated low-tech tools: oatmeal-box pinhole cams, fisheye Holgas, analog camcorders, 1mpx digicams, cyanotype paper for solargrams, etc. A hand-tuned samurai blade is an ultimate cutting tool, but a pocketknife blade does many jobs too. (That's a metaphor.) A superb tool in unskilled hands is wasted. Vision and skill can help you whittle a masterpiece with a paring knife. And skillfully-shot images that are incompetently displayed are also wasted. Capturing an image isn't the end of the process. It must be processed to make it look like you want it to look, and presented so that what you want to be seen is visible. You don't need a Hassy for thumbnail shots. A great Hassy shot won't be seen if it's relegated to a dark corner. Displayed small or far-away enough, flaws and grain won't be noticed. And if the image is compelling, flaws and noise are irrelevant. Vision and skill frame the presentation as well as the capture. The camera is a hammer. The subject is a nail. Pound away till you're happy.

01-21-2011, 02:40 PM	#57
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Ash Therein you have the main issue why an old VGA camera will not suffice for creating any decent imagery. The sensors are minuscule and have hopelessly little dynamic range. So don't use a VGA camera for single-frame poster shots (although it's been done). Instead, capture a matrix or sequence of shots that you edit together, whether stitched or overlaid or animated or whatever. Or process a shot so its limitations are irrelevant. Many Andy Warhol prints have lousy resolution and quite tiny dynamic range -- so what? What's important is the treatment of the subject, not every mole and hair of their face. From my first digicam, a 1.1mpx Sony DSC-P20 (ca. 2001) whose largest image size is 912x1216 pixels, I've blown-up processed shots to 18x24 inches. Yes, they look like posters, not like photos, and that's the point: Not everything that emerges from a shoot need look photographic! The camera is just another graphic tool. I've also made 6x9cm prints from other P20 shots, hung next to contact prints from a 6x9cm film camera, and they are indistinguishable without a magnifier. Displayed small or far-away enough, almost anything can look good. I still use that P20. It still does stuff I can't readily do with other cameras. Set into VGA mode, it's just as lousy as my TracFone cam, but I can still do interesting stuff with it. I just don't use it for landscape calendars -- well, weird landscapes, maybe...