Too much money today?

[tom_rittenhouse1]

<p>Do people have too much money these days?</p>

<p>What I mean is back when I first got into photography, someone with one camera and three 10" photo floods thought they were well equipped to do portraits. Now we seem to need six monolights, eighteen backdrops, and umpteen million light modifiers, not to mention several cameras and a trunk full of lenses.</p>

<p>Oh sure photographers have always been gageteers, but I remember a buddy's dad was heavy into photography. He had a Leica IIIf with 35mm 50mm and 90mm lenses + those three 10" floods and a sheet tacked to the basement wall. He also had a pretty nice darkroom for the era.</p>

<p>So, I am wondering, do we really need all this stuff? I mean, back in my pro days, I did portraits with a Rolleiflex, tripod, Honeywell Strobonair, an umbrella and a reflector. My customers were happy with my work. I am asking this when, I personally have just spent more than a thousand dollars on used studio equipment and still have a couple of softboxes on my "to get" list.</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>The audience has become much more visually sophisticated, even if they can't always articulate what they like/dislike in what they see. Brides want to look like whatever is showing up in Vogue ads this month. Parents of young atheletes want to see crystal-clear, frozen-action, non-grainy shots of junior blocking a kick (at a night game!) ... on a 40-inch print. Which isn't to say that fresh, contemporary, beautiful portraiture can't be done with a single bare light bulb and a couple reflectors... but it's harder to compete while being a one-trick pony.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>A Leica IIIf cost about $275 in the early 1950's. That's about $2,200 in today's dollars. So perhaps thins weren't so inexpensive in 'the good ole days'.</p>

[gene_gross]

<p>Too much money... or not enough skill. All the bells and whistles of sophisticated gadgetry will not make up for the understanding of what photography is, (defined as the measurement of light), technical competence and a good eye for composition.</p>

 

[brucecahn]

<p>I must say that the photographic skills of the general public, as well as the professionals, have improved quite a lot since the good old days.</p>

[allen_friday]

<p>I disagree with Bruce Cahn. <br>

I don't think the photographic skills of the general public have improved at all. What has gotten "better" is the automation and the public's ability to buy higher quality cameras because of the automation. Years ago the general public shot a Kodak Brownie, "You press the button, we do the rest." The general public moved on to instamatic cameras, but they were still a PHD camera--press here dummy. Today, the general public shoots digital point and shoots or digital SLRs. But how many general photographers know how to shoot in any thing other than program mode? The only thing most general photographers knows how to do is to point, press the button half way to focus and then press the button to expose. A sophisticated member of the general public may even turn the dial a bit to a flower for close ups or a running figure for sports photography. Does turning the dial really add up to improved photographic skills? </p>

<p>Give a member of the general public a manual camera and see if they can make a good exposure. Most general photographers don't know an aperture from the shutter speed. As long as the results look pretty good, they're happy. Ask the general public to shoot with a shallow depth of field and how many would have a clue how to do that? </p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Allen, I think you and Bruce both have good points, but I would say the public <em>is </em> more skilled, in part because there is far more information available, such as the internet, and Pnet, in particular. In the old days, you could experiment until the cows come home and still never dial in a process. Now, you just go to a forum and ask a pro how they do something. There are plenty of really amateur photographers who dabble in medium and large format photography, even though I question whether they have the skill to even do small format digital photography. But I give them credit that they have the tenacity to give it a go.</p>

<p>As for giving someone a camera and not knowing how to use it, I've been at this for 40 years, and I learn new stuff just about every day. Obviously we (me in particular) don't have to know everything to get a good image, but we sure know how to find out how to.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>What I'm amazed by is that consumer-level photographers -- not even serious amateuers -- who would never have considered spending more than maybe $200 tops on a "good camera" today are rushing out to spend $500 to $1,000 on a DSLR with kit lens and then using it the same as a $50 point and shoot to make snapshots. Where are they getting the money and how are they so easily falling prey to the marketing? On the business end, as recently as 10 or so years ago, the most a photographer could spend on a basic camera (not including his/her collection of lenses, studio strobes etc.) was maybe $2500 to $3,000 and that bought a Hasselblad with WLF, lens and magazine that would last 30 years. Today it buys a mid-level digital camera that will be obsolete next year.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Come now, Craig. $2,500 a decade ago is not $2,500 today. Close to $3,600. Quite a bit more (as it relates to camera buying) if you take into account recent substantial adjustments on goods shipping in from Japanese manufacturers. That $2,500 spent on a camera body in 1999 would pretty much get you a D3x today.<br /></p>

[tom_rittenhouse1]

<p>Yep, Matt, and the average wage is probably less today than it was 10 years ago. D3X = $8K last time I looked.</p>

<p>However, I as not thinking of the changes in the economy, but the "If I buy that I will be a better photographer" idea that seems to be prevalent today. Oh, there has always been that, "I wish I had a better camera, so I could take photos like yours". But in the past I figured that they knew that was just and excuse, not that they really believed it. Nowadays, it seems like they do.</p>

<p>The real answer is "A bit of study and lots of practice". That is the real answer about everything we humans do.</p>

<p>The time to buy a new tool is when we start repeatedly coming up against limits of the tool. As an example, I use a venerable Olympus C-5050z I am going to have to upgrade from. Why am I going to have to upgrade? Because the manual focus on it is a joke. In every other way it still serves my needs admirably. Therefore, upgrading the camera is not going to make me a better photographer, it would just make that one thing easier to do.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>We're on the same page, Tom. There's a reason I didn't buy a factory new D300 to replace my D200. I still use the D200 every week, and got a swell deal on a refurbed D300 for more challenging action and lower light work. I'm not feeling any need, any time soon for another camera body. Now, <em>glass</em> on the other hand... ! But I only buy that for the long run.</p>

[rainbowphotography]

<p>I can't agree many statements here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>to need six monolights, eighteen backdrops, and umpteen million light modifiers, not to mention several cameras and a trunk full of lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can have professional quality portraits with one camera body plus a suitable lenses, a light (event a hotshoe flash), one umbrella, a few lightstands and reflector panels if you know how to use them properly. Yesterday, I read online someone had a digital point-n-shot camera Canon G11 to make good portrait shoots(http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=33630860).<br>

I, however, do agree that the DSLR camera bodies cost too much.</p>

<p> </p>