Rongnongno wrote:
Take it however you wish but yes, it is the guy behind it.
This does not say much. Most of the folks who want to reduce photography to the guy behind the camera are absolutely right.
You have folks who have talents. You have who not have much and then you have quite a few, for what Is see that have nothing.
When I type nothing I mean nothing. Non entities, folks with no drive to learn anything who question nothing and are just happy to stay that way. These folks are the one derailing every thread, one after the other making inane generic statements in order to fell 'important' or more likely to get out of the 'nothingness' that is their natural state.
These folks are both behind their cameras and behind their computer screens. So when I read: It is not about the camera but the guy behind it, I and answer 'Right'.
Now you know what I mean and the sense of my answer to this statement.
Photography is much more than then the guy behind the camera like it or not same as medicine is much more than a doctor. A talented doctor is the same as a talented photographer: Someone who has a natural instinct and aptitude for something and works, learn and keep current to whatever is in the field. Someone who select the best tool for a job related to his field and lastly someone who cross pollinates his knowledge in order to apply what he learned, if needed, to not only benefit himself from the greater knowledge but also make other benefit from it.
So the guy behind the camera? Yup, that's the guy too.
How do you tell the difference? One asks for proof, does not do any research but ask for proof. The other does not say a word and keeps learning, sharing conclusions even modifying them when a valid objection is levied because the second is flexible and verifies what is being said.
So, What type of behind the camera guy are you?
.
Take it however you wish but yes, it is the guy be... (
show quote)
My take on the issue is somewhat different. My interest is in photography as art (including the technical/realistic and the highly abstract). Broadly, there are two elements: the artist; image rendering gear, materials and process. For photography, there is the photographer, the camera and lens (and sometimes other items such as lighting units and more), and the post-camera image rendering process. How the technical quality of any of the material elements figures into the quality of the end result is more a matter of "floor" than "ceiling;" in other words, the quality of those parts has to be adequate to fully accomplish the photographer's objective (in each case). Once that condition is met, higher quality of elements (camera, lens, etc.) does not matter. (Having said that, let us bear in mind that the "floor" can be very different from one image-creating event to another! The photographer needs to know the difference.)