Camera vs. Photographer

[melinda_gaus]

<p>Just throwing this out for general discussion/debate... (I hope it's in the right forum).</p>

<p>How much of "good" photography or a "good" photograph can be attributed to the camera and how much to the photographer?</p>

<p>I am prompted to ask this, as I read many of the other debates on these forums. Obviously one of the biggest being Canon vs. Nikon. I am also prompted by the fact that Nikon just came out with the D90 and I am now the proud owner of an "outdated" D80.</p>

<p>But, how much can be attributed to the camera? Do we sometimes get too bogged down in those debates? Don't get me wrong, a camera can make a huge difference, but so can a photographer that knows how to control his/her equipment.</p>

<p>I took a photography course about a year ago. Everyone in my class had a brand new DSLR. Canons and Nikons alike. Cameras that had more controls than I had ever seen in my life! Dials, buttons, zooms, interchangeable lenses, multiple flashes! I came in with a Sony Point and Shoot. Oh, it had some gadgets to it, but not near what my counterparts had.</p>

<p>Once I had control of my camera and actually understood some basic concepts (shutter speed, etc.) I was able to fiddle around and produce some cool images. Another girl in my class was so overwhelmed by her DSLR that she never produced a single photo for the class...and I think dropped out.</p>

<p>I'm not meaning to boast (really, I'm not), but I had one particular photo that stood out. A photo of my cat drinking out of the bathtub. I used the shutter speed to put some stop action on the water and produced a really cool effect of the water dripping into my cat's mouth.</p>

<p>My teacher seemed to reference this photo in almost every class. He seemed really impressed. I wished I had a DSLR and a waterfall, but I had a semi-fancy point and shoot and a bathtub.</p>

<p>So, what makes a photo? The camera or the photographer?</p>

<p>In my opinion, of course it is some mix, but I think an excellent photographer with a "dumbed down" camera can produce a lot better photos than someone with the "latest and greatest" but without a clue.</p>

<p>(or maybe I'm just trying to convince myself not to run out and buy that D90. :) )</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Talent and vision trump hardware every time, but hardware that can't actually <em>do</em> what's needed (no matter how much talent is available) to achieve the vision rather puts a stop to the process.<br /><br />I spent yesterday shooting a litter of prized gun dog puppies for the breeder. Sounds terribly vanilla, I know. I could have produced acceptable results, no problem, with any number of combinations of lights, camera, lens, and media. But because I was using good quality strobes and light modifiers, and because I was using good lenses on good camera bodies, I was able to work more quickly and have more headroom in the process. And that allowed the creative work to have fewer boundaries, and allowed me to get it all done in afternoon instead of a whole weekend.<br /><br />Yes, it's a mix of photographer and photographic equipment. One's priorities and subject matter dictate whether and how much it matters. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>How much of "good" photography or a "good" photograph can be attributed to the camera and how much to the photographer?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>All credit belongs to the photographer although , to paraphrase Ansel Adams, if you have something to say to the world with a photograph and you have good photographic tools and you know how to use them, it makes it easier for you to say what you have to say more powerfully, more effectively, and to reach more people.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Another girl in my class was so overwhelmed by her DSLR that she never produced a single photo for the class...and I think dropped out.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe subconsciously she realized she really had nothing to say or felt she had nothing worthwhile to say and that blocked her from learning the basics so she gave up?<br /> People have and always will find external justifications for the things they internally want to do or more often not do. There are many, many excellent photographers (and this is not just limited to photography) who are not technical masters of their tools but feel so passionately about what it is that they must say to the world that they find ways around or through the technical issues and other road blocks.<br /> Despite your demurrals, you are bragging. That's okay because bragging is allowed. But now see if you can go out and make a nother photo that is as good as the one you describe. And then make another one after that. And then another one after that, etc. Talent and vision are important but equally important is hard work. Don't be afraid to flail and to fail. And don't settle for mediocrity.<br /> Ellis Vener<br />

 

ADMIN NOTE: Website link removed as per photo.net policy. We are aware that some members may not have seen this announcementt: Please see this link:

 

http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00QbV5

[tonmestrom]

<p>A camera is just a tool, that's all. Of course it helps to have good quality equipment, in this case a good camera and lens(es) but if you don't know and apply the necesarry skill no camera, however good, will get you what you want.</p>

<p><em>"Talent and vision are important but equally important is hard work" </em></p>

<p>that's a spot-on comment and one that a lot of people fail to grasp.</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>Is it the carpenter or his tools that make great cabinets?</p>

<p>Obviously, without decent tools a cabinet maker will have problems. Obviously, without the skilled carpenter, a room full of the best woodworking tools will produce nothing of value.</p>

<p>Is it the golf clubs that make Tiger what he is? Do you think it was the shoes that made M. Jordan what he was? Is it the brushes that made Picasso an artist?</p>

<p>Why is it that anyone would think there is any difference when it comes to photography?</p>

[starvy]

<p>any community thrives on debate. the absence of debate leads to stagnation and the ultimate moral and cultural decline. i subscrive to neither the canon nor the nikon debates, however, it is fun to observe how seriously the issues are fought over in the respected internet corridor called forums!<br>

my personal observation as an amateur photography enthusiast who takes a keen interest in the arts is that a good photographer is capable of taking excellent pictures with a not so good lighttight box, as long as he/she is perfectly familiar with their equipment. a not so good photographer would not be getting good pictures with a not so good camera. however, they are able to capture good images through a better camera, as long as they know how that camera works. a very good photographer, unhampered by the burdens of rubbish equipment should take excellent publishable images with top of the line photographic instruments.<br>

personally, i was rubbish to start of with. i used perfectly good mechanical bodies but not so good lenses and the results were dire. overnight, after reading up on techniques, i started getting much better pictures by using better film and better lenses. i started taking acceptable pictures, from a composition perspective only after looking at thousands of images here and reading the forums religiously. the nikon and canon debate might well take away photo opportunities for some, however, often in the heat of debate, one or other of the contributors might come up with a piece of advice, observation or information that would help me in improving what i do. i realise that such debates are seen as waste of bandwidth to some, however, if i can pick up one useful hint on something or other (i have picked up many in my learning process), i don't wish to add to the usefulness of such debates.<br>

a few months ago i posed a question about talent and hand work in the forum. it is interesting to see that ton, matt and ellis had summed up that thread very succintly above. poor equipment makes you work a little harder. better equipment would allow one to utilise the vision is such a way that more effort could be spent on something more useful, leaving time for more photo opportunities. in an age when the consumer is printing less and uploading more, many debates over larger print output from respective cameras are strictly of relevance to the professional photographer or artist.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>It's interesting watching all the threads here inquiring about and needing to have <em>the best</em>. Whether it's the best dSLR, best and sharpest lens, best strap, best bag, best computer, best printer, best paper, and on and on. And you look at their photos and they don't say anything interesting. It's like developing vision and interpretation skills over time can be side-stepped and instead be conferred through use of a credit card and <em>purchasing the best</em>.</p>

<p> </p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p >You seem to understand it pretty well. The photographer’s talent is a big part of the equation. When is it time to upgrade? I think it is when you feel you have reached the limits of the camera and can not achieve the results you want. Do the upgrade when the camera is holding you back. As far as upgrading from a D80 to a D90…will the D90 allow you to accomplish what you want that you can not do with the D80? Remember the D90 will also be replaced by the next generation camera. I wouldn’t upgrade just to have the latest camera because you will be playing that game every year or two. Sure there may be more resolution, but how big are you printing your photos, is it worth the money for what you are doing. If you find there are features you must have because your D80 just can’t do the job, then go for it. If you think your D80 is a good camera and with this tool and your talent you can make photos you are happy with, keep what you have and save the money. When you feel the camera is holding you back, move on. If you wait another year or two, that D90 will cost less and there will be the new D## next generation. From what you wrote, you get it, a good photographer and a decent camera can accomplish great results. </p>

[melinda_gaus]

<p>Thanks Mark.</p>

<p>Trust me, the crystal ball (and my wallet) says to stick with the D80. I'm only really now starting to learn all I can do with it. :)</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Photography isn't unlike soapstone carving, you need a vision and the skills to do it. A stone carver's hand tools are very simple compared to a photographers. All you need are the vision and skills to remove the excess material from the lump of rock to reveal the polar bear, seal or wolf hiding in there.</p>

 

[steven_moseley1]

<p>If you gave an F1 car to every PN member, how many would be as good as Michael Schumacher?.....NONE.</p>

<p>If every PN member bought a Nikon D3, how many would produce Jay Maisel quality photos?....</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Melinda, have a look at <a href="http://photocritic.org/amazing-iphone-photos/">100 Amazing iPhone Photos</a> which might help you toward forming a point of view.</p>

[pnital]

<table id="INCREDIMAINTABLE" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td id="INCREDITEXTREGION" dir="ltr" width="100%">Good equipment is good, but what is very important is to develop your observation,and looking. Learn how to use your tools in the best way and than work hard and steady in order to develop your vision. It is not this or this ,it is all the components together.</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

[mageproductions]

<p>Taking it to the basement - the lowest level I can attain - rejecting that which matters little, if at all, and dealing with what is left... WHAT IS GOOD?<br>

What is a good... car? photograph? song? lover? cat? <br>

There were five construction workers that car-pooled. On their way home they got railroaded. Looking off to his left, one of them said, "Hey, is that an old state police car for sale, over there in that yard?" It was.<br>

The next morning one of them said, "I think I'll buy that old cop car. It should be good for a laugh!"<br>

The next guy said, "He77, I couldn't drive that car... like, how would you get the SMELL out of it? Cruisin' down the road, chokin' on that barnyard odor - UGH!"<br>

The next one said, "That thing's a Ford. I hate a Ford. Every time I ever had a Ford, I had to walk home!"<br>

The next one said, "Why buy it? With gas like it is, you can't afford to drive it."<br>

The last one said, "I might check it out. Big block motors are getting very hard to find. Maybe I can pull the motor, junk the rest and make a buck."<br>

So... was there one car, or five? "Reality" is subjective. There is as many cars as there are people, that see the car.<br>

And so it is with photographs, songs, lovers and yes, even cats.<br>

It would follow that if most people like your photographs (or whatever), all that makes you is bourgious?</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>The first Dune movie was nice, special effects typical of the era. The second Dune movie the effects were much better. I expect the third movie to be much more in line as to what one envisions as one reads the books. Equipment makes a difference for some things.</p>

[musings]

<p>Melinda -- there are some great posts on here by PN members who are outstanding photographers in their own right. Cameras are simply tools for the creativity and vision of those who wield them. Your D80 is not outdated, nor is the F100 that is in someone's closet. As I have said in other threads, in the era of auto-everything, I find myself going back to the basics. Flashes on manual, light meter in hand -- that kind of thing. It forces me to think more about my shots, and, to be honest, I couldn't be happier.</p>

<p><em>“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.” -- Ansel Adams</em></p>

 

[SCL]

<p>A craftsman and his tools, a cook and her utensels. A craftsman needs to understand the capabilities of his tools and a cook needs to understand the nuances of recipes, how the ingredients work together and the proper utensels to process the ingredients. I don't see differences in your question...it takes both a knowledgable photographer with an understanding of his craft and appropriate gear to produce outstanding pictures. Nuff said.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>There are TWO movies made from the DUNE books?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Larry asks why photography is different? It's a good question. </p>

<p>Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, and Picasso would probably do a pretty excellent job in their fields no matter what their equipment. I'm sure Jordan, in black socks and wingtip shoes would be better even on a broken up cement schoolyard than most others would be in the best basketball shoes playing in Madison Square Garden. Picasso could probably do amazing work with his fingers and paint bought at Wal-Mart on construction paper. </p>

<p>"Photography" (that is, taking pictures) has become a pretty mass-marketed commodity. Especially since the digital revolution, everyone and their sister is a photographer. And Madison Avenue has many convinced that equipment matters. Well, as has been said, of course it does. But probably not to the extent that it is obsessed upon by some. Certainly not to the extent of the amount of money and energy people are spending on it. </p>

<p>As for the uniqueness of photography, I see lots of my family's and friend's vacation pictures and children's pictures. I actually enjoy looking at that stuff. And I think the quality of most people using cameras has gone way up depending on the equipment they use. That's likely because that's mostly what's there, technicality. They get decent colors. Their automatic settings tend to do better and better with exposure and focus. I don't really see vision, just good memories, and often those memories are now decent enough quality to go into family photo albums and be preserved. I think the nature of photographic equipment is different from the nature of the tools of many other media and arts. I think good paint brushes and canvases will make a refined difference depending on the skill of the painter. But paints and paintbrushes will not compensate for a lack of understanding or skill in painting even the simplest or humblest of paintings the way automatic settings will to get decent-looking snapshots of the kids.</p>

[link]

<blockquote>

<p>How much of "good" photography or a "good" photograph can be attributed to the camera and how much to the photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, about 0% can be attributed to the camera, but the camera was still necessary to take the good photograph.</p>

<p>Now that I think of it, it's a lot like golf: The golfer picks the club and aims and swings. The photographer picks the body, lens, film (if needed:) ) and makes the photograph. Will you play golf like Tiger Woods if you use his clubs? (I won't even answer that one).</p>

<p>That said, there is reason for some discussion about equipment, especially as there has been quite an equipment revolution in the last decade. For example, I used the same 35mm Canon SLR from 1972 to 2008 without any issues. Last year I had a project come up the required the use of a digital SLR camera. My old Canon lenses won't work on new digital bodies, so I was building a system from scratch. Suddenly, Nikon vs. Canon was relevant for me!</p>

<p>But now that I've got my camera kit, the equipment discussions are not so important anymore. At least until there is a technological advance that really matters, like a camera that can shoot 17 stops of dynamic range and shoot with low noise in the moonlight:)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Nah, I'm very sure that it's the camera, because everytime I show off some of my favorite shots to people, they always say<br>

"What nice pictures. You must have a very fine camera!"</p>

<p>[<em>Okay, somebody had to say it since the rest of you slacked off here</em> .]</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>It's 90% or so the photographer I believe. Two things I would point out:</p>

<p>1. Go look at Holga shooters on Flickr. Some of the most beautiful photography I've seen, though it's not my thing. I like fine optics and cameras that are dependable. But I also use old cameras for the sake of testing my skill and vision.</p>

<p>2. Most hobbiests concentrate on the camera, but artists on their vision and images. Think about that.</p>

<p>To put the two together, each camera has its own look. Learn how to use that camera to satisfy your artistic soul.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

> "There are TWO movies made from the DUNE books?" < The original Dune movie was directed by David Lynch, and while being not a

too bad film, from a David Lynch fan point of view, it kinda "sucked". There where also Dune series being made long after the Lynch film.

Staying to the topic, David Lynch filmed his last feature film ' Inland Empire ' with a consumer Sony digital videocamera, whereas before he

had used professional film camera's. Inland Empire is a great movie, maybe the most ' Lynchian ' to date, regardless of the camera being

used. But I was a bit annoyed by it's sometimes very noticeable low-fi digital aesthetic compared to the more organic film aesthetic in

Lynch's previous films, an aesthetic which somehow seems to fit David Lynch's style more, even though the tools to achieve it may not fit the directors creative

workflow anymore.

[john schroeder]

<p>Good tools help. It's still the artist that makes it art.</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>Read on here once that Jack London was getting a portrait taken in a San Francisco studio When he commented to the photographer that he must have a great camera for he took great pictures, the photographer only replied, "you must have a great type writer, your stories are great"... Cant vouch for its validity, but i think it gets the point across.<br>

Maybe i take things too personal, but i once had someone compliment me on one of my pictures hanging up in the room. He then saw my camera and said "no wonder you take great pictures, you have an expensive camera... Rather insulting methinks.<br>

I wouldnt want to skimp on equipment, but there is a time and place for everything. Some photos rely on the optics and equipment being as good as they can. Others, rely on the subject matter and composition. Knowing when each applies could be extrapolated to being attributed to the photographer's skill in choosing their equipment...</p>