| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/02/2004 02:08:11 PM · #1 |
Your Camera Does Not Matter
I happen to be a fan of Kens photography and found this link on another site I visit. I think it makes some good points. Be sure to check out his gallery too. :)
Message edited by author 2004-01-02 14:08:59.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 02:20:07 PM · #2 |
I agree - to a certain extent - with what Ken says here. Unfortunately, he seems to be exaggerating for effect. A lot of what he says is clearly wrong - you can't definitively say, for example, that 'Your equipment does not affect the quality of your image'. Of course it does, and to make a facile claim like that is nonsense. I've seen very early generation digital cameras which produce consistently awful images - bad color balance, poor focus etc. etc. Another classic example is direct v. bounce flash - don't you think that equipment matters there?
All in all, Ken's premise is sound. A better way to think about equipment however, is to take the reverse approach to most digital afficionados. Figure out what you want to achieve from your photography, then gather the equipment together which will allow you to achieve that goal. Unfortunately a lot of people gather equipment first, because making purchases is easier than making art.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 02:23:03 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by ronners:
I agree - to a certain extent - with what Ken says here. Unfortunately, he seems to be exaggerating for effect. A lot of what he says is clearly wrong - you can't definitively say, for example, that 'Your equipment does not affect the quality of your image'. Of course it does, and to make a facile claim like that is nonsense. |
That would all depend on how you define quality, would it not?
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 02:31:11 PM · #4 |
Scab, that's a good post and I'll follow it up with this Mike Johnston article:
Can't See the Picture for the Pixels
This also reaffirms my feeling that photographers can't see photographs :)
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 02:48:02 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
That would all depend on how you define quality, would it not? |
Quite often I'm inspired by the work of others. A poor quality shot is one that I know could have been better.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 03:19:50 PM · #6 |
Here's my take on this thread.
I read both those articles and I totally agree but one thing that neither of them seemed to cover was my desire. Sure, whatever my particular taste or flavor or voice is when it comes to photography has everything to do with me and my expression; conversely it has nothing to do with my equipment. The place where my equipment makes a difference is that I want the shiny new tricycle or the brand new car or whatever it is that I just happen to want. Now when it comes to photography I've never once quibbled over what enables John or Gary or Jacko or Angel or Sonja (ad nauseum) to create the impressive images they seem to consistently produce. I've never believed it was because someone else shot a D-SLR or because they had "L" glass. I firmly believe that its because someone either has a gift for seeing a photo and composing it in their mind before they ever depress the shutter release or because the photog in question has spent years perfecting her craft and thus has trained herself to see the photo and notice the beauty or poignance that many others look over time after time. I'm completely satisfied that a guy who shoots medium format everyday in his studio with a steady stream of folks coming in his front door is going to always be more versed in capturing portraits than am I. But none of that makes much difference when it comes to just wanting one thing that I can afford and choose to spend my money on. That's my hangup. Kinda like you want chocolate or rocky roads ice cream and I want cherry. Who needs 11.1 megapixels? Probably no one. Can I make a valid argument for wanting something that packed with pixels (probably not logically when you consider people who don't have enough to eat around my own home town). But sometimes its nice to take a break and just buy something as a splurge item. For me its camera equipment.
Who needs a Porsche to drive? Probably no one. But if you have a choice and it matters to you, then why not?
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 03:28:04 PM · #7 |
What it all boils down to is that a photograph is good in the eye of the viewer. Some viewers look for technicals and others look for colors and others look for monochromes and others look for emotions and others look for whatever you can come up with. It doesn't really matter what camera made the photo.
There are certain hardware requirements for certain types of photograph though. You aren't likely gonna shoot much product photography with a point and shoot digital... heck.. most digitals for that matter. You don't need 5 megapixels for family album work.
The photographer, on the other hand, needs to be happy with his/her equipment. It makes most photographers feel better about what they are doing if they have high end stuff :)
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 06:04:31 PM · #8 |
I understand that a lot of the article is exaggerated but I absolutely agree with the general idea. If you are serious about photography it is important to define your goals and to try to get the right equipment for how you shoot. What I agree with the most is that you should really strive to fully understand what your camera and equipment are capable of. Usually it is capable of much more than you realize. I'm constantly reading in forums how someone is unable to take a particular type of shot with their camera and I know full-well that it can be done. It just might take some creativity and a little more work. I've succombed to the realization that I will be using my current F707 for a long time and I have put more emaphasis on getting the most out of my photos. Some shots, like action photos, are going to be more difficult but I can usually make it work. Fortunately the kind of photgraphs I like to take which are landscapes, portraits, and still-lifes, it does a nice job with. I've come up with a workflow and editing techniques that work well for me so by combining that with my understanding of the cameras strenghs and limitations I can focus much more on the images themselves. I can't enlarge all my photos as big as I would like but I like to think that a good photos is still good regardless of its print size.
T
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 06:12:20 PM · #9 |
i would say it makes most photographers feel better about themselves having high end equipment
than
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It makes most photographers feel better about what they are doing if they have high end stuff :)
|
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 06:19:03 PM · #10 |
I've progressed fairly quickly from a very low-end camera, through an A70, to my shiny new 300D.. Has my photography improved that much? No. Quality wise, however - I'd say there is a difference, and DPC scoring does take that into consideration, I think.
For me, each time I upgraded it offered new possibilities and new pitfalls. With my A70 I had more control, and hence more chance to screw it up. Again, with my 300D, I've got even more control, but that's at the cost of the learning curve continuing upwards.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 07:01:34 PM · #11 |
| I think anyone can take good pictures (sometimes even great ones) with any camera. It is the eye of the photographer. Better (equated with most as more costly) equipment for me means that I am able to do some of the things that I couldn't with a cheaper camera. Fortunately I was lucky and received my 10D as a gift. I have no desire to look for something else (when it comes out) and I am happy with what I have and not just because it is a 10D but because it enables me to shoot the way I want. However, on the same note I work at a job where plenty of people make a ton of money and I see them buy all sorts of cameras just because they can. Then they come to me with their "problems" and can't figure out why they can't take a great picture because they have a great camera. Needless to say they just don't get it. I have taken pictures with disposable cameras that have been gorgeous and then I have taken many with my 10D that stink. |
|
|
|
01/02/2004 07:54:43 PM · #12 |
| I get a rush from purchasing newer and better equipment like most people, and wish I could do more of it! I also get a rush when I know I've taken a great photo....when I see a photo in my mind, and when I see the same photo on that memory card ( does not always happen). It is a good thing the second type of rush happens more often than the purchasing type of rush or I would probably have to give up photography! Yet, I do love to window-shop and dream...it is fun. I also wish to improve my skills and be able to capture more frequently what I know I see, and have others see it too! |
|
|
|
01/02/2004 11:06:47 PM · #13 |
This is a similar argument to what I see in the woodworking newsgroups. You can build fine furniture with hand tools, but a tablesaw, router and some other powertools make it much easier to achieve quality results.
Better tools make it easier to achieve the results you want. If you can't precisely define how your current camera/equipment is limiting your photography, you probably will not see any improvement with a "better" camera.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2004 11:43:13 PM · #14 |
i think Ken was talking more about film cameras.
...
why would that matter? because, with film, a disposable camera and a high end 35mm camera both have the same 'sensor'. it's only the other amenities that vary.
unlike with the pricing structure of digital.
Message edited by author 2004-01-02 23:44:38.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/09/2025 11:48:55 PM EDT.
