Author | Thread |
|
01/22/2008 01:05:42 PM · #1 |
I'm sure this topic has been discussed to death, but I have to rant! Yesterday two women from my church were over visiting and they noticed my digital photo frame that scrolls through several photos I've taken of our family. One of them commented that all the photos look professional, and I said, yeah, that's because I'm a photographer. Then she said "I'm a really bad photographer. I keep trying to get good pictures of the kids, but I'm just not good at it. I think I need a nicer camera." and the other woman chimes in with "yeah, it's all about the camera." Argh! Why is that statement like fingernails on a chalkboard to me? People make comments like that to me all the time. I've spent the last two years studying photography every single day, taking classes, reading books, researching composition, lighting, different techniques, learning Photoshop, etc. to do what I do and I'm STILL not an expert at it. I'm proud of my work because I know how much blood, sweat and tears I put into it, and I hate to be told that I'm only a good photographer because I have a nice camera. It's like telling an artist that you could paint just like them if only you had a nicer paintbrush. I just smiled and changed the subject but it really irritates me. I wanted to hand her my 40D and say "here you go, give it a shot!" Just ONCE I would love to hear someone say "wow, nice photos, you have talent!" instead of "wow, nice photos, you must have a nice camera!" |
|
|
01/22/2008 01:11:07 PM · #2 |
I'd just reply along the line of "Well, in my photography classes it always seemed it was those who were most familiar with how to use their camera who took the best pictures, regardless of what kind of camera they had."
That is, if you want the politely insulting form of response. Otherwise, a stunned silence might suffice. ;-) |
|
|
01/22/2008 01:42:05 PM · #3 |
and Lance Armstrong is a really good cyclist because he has a good bike.
and Stevie Ray Vaughn was a good musician because he had a good guitar.
and on and on and on.
i get that comment alot, especially at the little league football games. to date, i've only been able to smile and nod. :/ |
|
|
01/22/2008 01:46:43 PM · #4 |
I feel my photography has improved massively since I got my DSLR, BUT I think thats down to the fact that i've been a lot more motivated. I have since proved to myself that 'better camera' doesn't = 'better pictures', I have a ton of horrible ones ;) I've been really impressed by some pictures taken with a matchbox pinhole!
In short, I agree completely- its committment and passion that makes great photos. |
|
|
01/22/2008 01:54:35 PM · #5 |
|
|
01/22/2008 02:11:13 PM · #6 |
Hmmmmm.....
137 images with the 300D scored higher than the best from the 1Ds Mark III.
Imagine that.....
It's funny, I have actually been given that same drill about my D70s from people wondering when I'm going to upgrade.
I have yet to see a camera I like the all around feel and features of that would make me even consider giving up my D70s.
Mostly, I suppose, I like it so much I'm just not interested in even looking for anything else.
Message edited by author 2008-01-22 14:14:04. |
|
|
01/22/2008 02:16:59 PM · #7 |
The cameras that I gave sample and the one you have are very good cameras. That proves that camera is important, but person who takes the pictures and process them more important in my opinion. |
|
|
01/22/2008 02:32:11 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb: 137 images with the 300D scored higher than the best from the 1Ds Mark III.
|
Though with the 300D having about 40 times as many owners (and thus probably entries), the
chances of higher scores seem to be in favour of that camera.
The camera does matter for a lot of shots. I think that's maybe why photographers get so
defensive about it. Chefs do spend a lot of time picking the best knives and pots. Painters
do spend a lot of time considering brush materials. Tools matter. Particularly in photography. |
|
|
01/22/2008 03:04:20 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Gordon: Originally posted by NikonJeb: 137 images with the 300D scored higher than the best from the 1Ds Mark III.
|
Though with the 300D having about 40 times as many owners (and thus probably entries), the
chances of higher scores seem to be in favour of that camera.
The camera does matter for a lot of shots. I think that's maybe why photographers get so
defensive about it. Chefs do spend a lot of time picking the best knives and pots. Painters
do spend a lot of time considering brush materials. Tools matter. Particularly in photography. |
The do matter, but not to the extent that some people think. In OP's situation, and similar ones that I've been in, they honestly think the only reason I "got the shot" was because of the equipment I had. This was particularly true when I was shooting with the 70-200L. Granted, that lens let me get some shots I normally couldn't have, but there were some of them I could've gotten with my kit lens.
As per my earlier analogy. Stevie Ray Vaughn could outplay me on a ukelele. Equipment matters, but it is not the exclusive element in good photography. |
|
|
01/22/2008 03:23:40 PM · #10 |
It's kind of self-perpetuating; to get great images you need to be motivated at a lot of levels. And the more motivated you get, the more involved you get, the more you begin to invest in better gear. Take the chef analogy; the more you get into cooking, the more you realize just how limiting cheap knives are, and you start sinking money into better and better knives. Someone comes along and compliments the paper-thin slices of Carpaccio you are presenting, and says "You must have a really good knife!" Well, yeah, I do; because it matters to me. But the best knife in the world won't let you make consistent, paper-thin slices until you practice your heart out. You kind of grow into these knives as your skills increase and the limitations of your tools become obvious.
R.
|
|
|
01/22/2008 03:49:51 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music: It's kind of self-perpetuating; to get great images you need to be motivated at a lot of levels. And the more motivated you get, the more involved you get, the more you begin to invest in better gear. Take the chef analogy; the more you get into cooking, the more you realize just how limiting cheap knives are, and you start sinking money into better and better knives. Someone comes along and compliments the paper-thin slices of Carpaccio you are presenting, and says "You must have a really good knife!" Well, yeah, I do; because it matters to me. But the best knife in the world won't let you make consistent, paper-thin slices until you practice your heart out. You kind of grow into these knives as your skills increase and the limitations of your tools become obvious.
R. |
boy, that is really well said... |
|
|
01/22/2008 03:54:04 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by karmat: The do matter, but not to the extent that some people think. |
That is true. But they also matter a lot more than most photographers would like to admit, it often seems. Hard work, inspiration, education all matter. But you won't get a great, telephoto shot of someone scoring the goal, crisp, sharp, perfectly timed, with a shallow depth of field, creamy blur, great contrast with a little 3x zoom point and shoot, ever.
Robt. describes something of the more zen like approach that needs to be taken. Yes equipment matters, yes better equipment matters. yes, you do take great pictures because you are using the best equipment available to you, or that you can afford. Accept that, don't fight it. Let it go. Then eventually, the equipment will stop mattering.
Camera geeks obsess about cameras more than anyone else, yet we all want to delude ourselves that they aren't that important.
There's a disconnect there somewhere - bridge that gap, accept you need to use the tool to achieve any images. Learn the limitations of the equipment and you'll take better pictures. Argue that it isn't the camera that matters and you are still in that mindset of you and the camera as distinct elements in making the images. They need to be combined for best results.
Message edited by author 2008-01-22 15:58:22. |
|
|
01/22/2008 04:27:40 PM · #13 |
Oh, I definitely agree that the equipment matters to some extent. If it didn't we'd all stop shelling out thousands of dollars for high end equipment and just shoot with $200 point and shoots. I just upgraded from a Rebel to a 40D because my Rebel wasn't doing everything I wanted it to do, and I'm getting better photos now. But that's because my 40D has more advanced settings that give me more control over my photos, which would do me no good if I didn't have any idea what aperature, white balance, ISO, etc. was. My 40D can still take crappy photos if the settings are all wrong for the shot, and auto mode can only get you so far.
But I think some people that don't know anything about photography think that it really is just as simple as buying a nice camera and then they can have professional looking photos on day one. I had my Rebel for a year before I started to get consistantly great photos, and that's because I finally got brave enough to take it off auto and really learn how to use it. And even if you know how to use the camera settings, there's still so much you have to know about lighting and composition and things like that.
And aside from all that, I think that some people just have the creativity and natural talent to get shots that no one else could get even with all the technical skills. I know how to take a good photo, but I don't have even a quarter of the creativity that some people on this site have. I think some of that can't be learned, it's just a natural skill that some people have. You can get some really nice snapshots with a good SLR in auto mode, but if you want to learn how to shoot artistic photography or professional portrait photography, it takes a lot more than a good camera. |
|
|
01/22/2008 04:30:49 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Camera geeks obsess about cameras more than anyone else, yet we all want to delude ourselves that they aren't that important.
There's a disconnect there somewhere - bridge that gap, accept you need to use the tool to achieve any images. Learn the limitations of the equipment and you'll take better pictures. Argue that it isn't the camera that matters and you are still in that mindset of you and the camera as distinct elements in making the images. They need to be combined for best results. |
Well spoken, Sir Gordon :-)
Eliminate the disconnect! Don't buy into it! Move at the pace your skills dictate. Focus on the internal component.
R.
|
|
|
01/22/2008 04:33:27 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Wenders11: I think that some people just have the creativity and natural talent to get shots that no one else could get even with all the technical skills. I know how to take a good photo, but I don't have even a quarter of the creativity that some people on this site have. I think some of that can't be learned, it's just a natural skill that some people have. You can get some really nice snapshots with a good SLR in auto mode, but if you want to learn how to shoot artistic photography or professional portrait photography, it takes a lot more than a good camera. |
No kidding. I see myself as VERY limited; I can't even BEGIN to do what Scalvert does, for example. I beat myself up trying, and it hurts. I do one thing very well (landscape shots) and a few things pretty well, but I have my limits and (at age 61) I have learned to live with them.
R.
|
|
|
01/22/2008 04:35:31 PM · #16 |
silly kids. everyone knows it has nothing to do with the camera or the photographer.
It's all about photoshop.
Message edited by author 2008-01-22 16:35:58. |
|
|
01/22/2008 04:37:22 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by karmat: silly kids. everyone knows it has nothing to do with the camera or the photographer.
It's all about photoshop.
|
What? "Photographers" don't use Photoshop? Jejeje⢠I am SO busted...
R.
|
|
|
01/22/2008 05:03:30 PM · #18 |
"That camera sure must have a lot of megapixels to take good pictures like that." |
|
|
01/22/2008 05:06:56 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music: Originally posted by karmat: silly kids. everyone knows it has nothing to do with the camera or the photographer.
It's all about photoshop.
|
What? "Photographers" don't use Photoshop? Jejeje⢠I am SO busted...
R. |
No, "real" photographers make their own light sensitive materials and develop them over pots of boiling mercury...
|
|
|
01/22/2008 05:33:02 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99: No, "real" photographers make their own light sensitive materials and develop them over pots of boiling mercury... |
I used to do that, but instead of boiling mercury I used my (now) ex-wife's crocodile tears.
Ba-da-bum!
R.
|
|
|
01/22/2008 05:58:03 PM · #21 |
Yeah, i can't stand it when people are like that. I know some people who act like they know about photography and say stuff such as when i told someone that i needed to use a higher iso, but my image quality would drop, here is the response i got: "well its ok you have six megapixels, you can drop the iso and still have like 4 or 5 megapixels, so go ahead and bump up the iso to 1600." I just nodded my head like he knew what he was talking about. I've also got the ever so famous: "I bet you can see the moon with that thing" and if i recall it was about my 12-24, I'm not positive but i think so.
Non-photographers think that photography is all about the equipment, and in all reality i can kind of see where they are coming from. They have a cheapo crappy camera and they are bad photographers, making a terrible combination, giving them awful photos. When they see our "not-cheapo" amazing camera and we have good photos, they assume it is their camera causing them problems.
In all honesty, I got a lot better with my slr, maybe because when i did i got motivated to learn more. I used to have a fuji s5100 and i was awful with that thing, i don't have a single picture with it that is even worth putting in my portfolio and i had it for like a year or so. Now, at this point I may be able to take a decent picture with it because i have learned so much more. So in some regards the camera does play into it, but mostly it is the camera type (crap, point and shoot, evf, and SLR) Now of course you can get better Image quality with a D3 than you can with a D50, but i certainly wouldn't tell someone that has a D3 with a good picture that the only reason its good is because they have a D3.
It's just something that us photographers are going to have to deal with. People are always going to be ignorant about a lot of stuff, and the best thing to do, well, really the only thing to do is to make fun of them in the DPChallenge Forums. lol, gotta love ignorant people.
Message edited by author 2008-01-22 17:58:26.
|
|
|
01/22/2008 06:36:18 PM · #22 |
I was once given a very high-quality stethoscope. Therefore, I am now a world-class cardiologist. Who would like to be my first patient?
|
|
|
01/22/2008 06:41:21 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99: ... "real" photographers make their own light sensitive materials and develop them over pots of boiling mercury... |
Roman Photography? |
|
|
01/22/2008 07:03:31 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Wenders11: ...Just ONCE I would love to hear someone say "wow, nice photos, you have talent!" instead of "wow, nice photos, you must have a nice camera!" |
I had my first-ever photo sale just before Christmas and I was at Walmart making some prints for it (yes, Walmart, I know, but that's another story). The woman at the next machine looked over at the screen and said, "Wow! Those are beautiful!"
That, coming unsolicited from a complete stranger, felt sooooo good! :) |
|
|
01/22/2008 07:34:25 PM · #25 |
HAHA!! This thread reminds me of a situation at the aquarium the other day...
I am roaming with the DPCers from the GTG, with my 70-300 on my cam and a woman walks up to me with her exact same cam and says, "Hey, that's a nice camera! I have the same one! I wanted to get good photos of my kids and stuff... What kind of lens is that?" A quick glance at the camera shows me she is in an auto mode.
So, I tell her its a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens. Her eyes glaze over (because she has NO idea what I am talking about) and she murmers, "Yeah, I am wanting a different lens for mine. What would you get if you were me?" Well, Bebe was standing behind me with her L Glass on her camera...
I couldn't help myself, I turned around and pointed at it and rattled off what it was...
Gosh, I hope she buys it :) |
|