I't not the camera it's the photographer that counts
Nov 5, 2013 11:30:59 #
Let me challenge that a bit.
First off if you have a good, even excellent cook, how can (s)he display all his skills if he does have an adequate furnace?
If a good mechanic does not have the proper tools how can he perform repairs that are reliable?
Then WHY do we say that it's not the camera but the photographer? Is it because photography is subjective or is it because we want to pass for good photographer while using imperfect if not shitty cameras?
When will we finally admit that a good photographer will produce better work using the proper tools as with every other professionals?
The only thing that is true: Give the best tools to an idiot and you will have idiotic results. Is the statement more the reflection of 'camera' envy' than anything else?
While I hope for sensible answers I am not holding my breath, I value my life.
First off if you have a good, even excellent cook, how can (s)he display all his skills if he does have an adequate furnace?
If a good mechanic does not have the proper tools how can he perform repairs that are reliable?
Then WHY do we say that it's not the camera but the photographer? Is it because photography is subjective or is it because we want to pass for good photographer while using imperfect if not shitty cameras?
When will we finally admit that a good photographer will produce better work using the proper tools as with every other professionals?
The only thing that is true: Give the best tools to an idiot and you will have idiotic results. Is the statement more the reflection of 'camera' envy' than anything else?
While I hope for sensible answers I am not holding my breath, I value my life.
Nov 5, 2013 11:37:10 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Let me challenge that a bit. br br First off if y... (show quote)
Well said, and now you no longer have to hold your breath. :lol:
Nov 5, 2013 11:48:20 #
A good photographer will produce better results with poor equipment than a poor photographer with good equipment.
I think this thread is stupid.
I think this thread is stupid.
Nov 5, 2013 11:57:21 #
photoman022
Loc: Manchester CT USA
I used to buy into the "it's not the camera..." until I took a point and shoot on a bike ride. I'll admit that it wasn't the latest and greatest p&s. When I tried to enlarge the photos, I didn't get the results I get from the DSLR. I bought a bridge camera that my wife fell in love with, so now I take my DSLR because ... (well you get the pickle)
Nov 5, 2013 11:57:53 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Let me challenge that a bit. br br First off if y... (show quote)
There is the misconception that a top of the line camera is going to all of a sudden turn Joe Mediocre photographer into Joe Marveouls photographer ( whom has limited if any prior photographer experiance to start)
Give me the latest D7100 and I will become Joe Befudled photographer even though I have the basics and some limited abilities with my camera (stepping out of my comfort zone so to speak )
Say I walk into ABC garage and see all the latest and fancy Snap On Tools, I ask the mechanic how much to replace the muffler bearing on my 7 yr old truck and he runs to the phone and calls the parts store to find out the cost of the bearing before giving me a price on parts and labor .
Do the tools alone make a master mechanic ?
Does just buying the tools make him a better mechanic ?
Again the key word here is misconception .
Nov 5, 2013 12:48:45 #
Delderby wrote:
A good photographer will produce better results with poor equipment than a poor photographer with good equipment.
I think this thread is stupid.
I think this thread is stupid.
Then you are missing the point. A 'better' result is not a 'good' result.
Nov 5, 2013 12:53:22 #
Delderby wrote:
A good photographer will produce better results with poor equipment than a poor photographer with good equipment.
I think this thread is stupid.
I think this thread is stupid.
Then why are you bothering to read it let alone respond ?
Nov 5, 2013 13:13:16 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Then WHY do we say that it's not the camera but the photographer? Is it because photography is subjective or is it because we want to pass for good photographer while using imperfect if not shitty cameras?
What exactly are these "imperfect if not shitty cameras" that you are referring to? Holga-like plastic toy cameras? Homemade cameras out of cardboard?
Digital cameras that are produced today, even the least expensive, are not really imperfect. Limited functionality compared to the more expensive models, but manufactured and assembled with nearly the same technical, robotic precision. And often using the very same components as well.
When a photographer complains about a camera being imperfect and shitty, most likely he/she simply hasn't taken the time to read the camera's manual and learn how to operate the camera.
Nov 5, 2013 13:23:17 #
Nov 5, 2013 13:39:49 #
When was the last time anybody seen a professional photographer shooting a classy wedding with a Kodak point & shoot?
Nov 5, 2013 13:41:11 #
Delderby wrote:
If you think it's stupid then why are you reading it?A good photographer will produce better results with poor equipment than a poor photographer with good equipment.
I think this thread is stupid.
I think this thread is stupid.
Nov 5, 2013 13:45:37 #
cjkorb wrote:
When was the last time anybody seen a professional photographer shooting a classy wedding with a Kodak point & shoot?
Me, 3 weeks ago, Ironically. Just because its a crap tool, doesn't mean in the hands of a skilled person, its gonna give crap results.
I wont shoot friends or families weddings because I want to enjoy the event with them. I will however take candids/photojounalism styled event photos, and at times I will use a Fuji Superia disposable because the look of film, is for some folks, nice.
Again its going to come down to skill level. A lesser skilled person will probably give the same results on any camera. Dollar signs on gear will never equal skill, just more tool options.
Nov 5, 2013 14:28:58 #
The final result is always image quality.Photography is a subjective medium...a great looking photo means different things to different people, A lesser skilled photographer can always get lucky with a good camera and shoot scenes where everything falls perfectly into place. A skilled photographer shooting with a $150.00 point & shoot will always take pictures with great composition but if the image quality isn't there, what good is it? I have yet to meet a professional photographer who can wave a magic wand and make a bad camera take great looking pictures. Just because you once seen a pro shooting a wedding with a crappy camera, do you think that's always the norm?
Nov 5, 2013 14:40:50 #
Delderby wrote:
A good photographer will produce better results with poor equipment than a poor photographer with good equipment.
I think this thread is stupid.
I think this thread is stupid.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Nov 5, 2013 15:11:18 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Let me challenge that a bit. br br First off if y... (show quote)
There is intelligent life here after all.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.