Yua

Hello I’m Yua, this is a bit awkward to say but, I honestly thought I was pretty good at photography- until I was admitted to an top tier school where I met people who were so talented I immediately wanted to crawl into a hole and die. Not to mention that I’m also an avid character designer- where I constantly get roasted about being interested in photography. According to artsy folk - photography is a skill entirely based on equipment “if u have a good camera ur basically a professional “. Which I think I’m starting to agree with more and more, making me highly unmotivated and really depressed. Needless to say this school opened my eyes- I now more than ever realize that studying and frequent practice are the only thing that will make me better. And trust me, I want to improve. - this entire thing was a side tangent- Holy shit that’s unpleasant

Brokenland

Incorrect, Photography is not about the equipment. It's about how you use it or how you manipulated light, shadows and the subjects around these elements. As Yoda said "you must unlearn what you have learn"

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee, WA

Sort of like cooking. If you have a great stove and a great set of pots and pans will that make you a great cook? It doesn't hurt to have the best tools but the tools alone will not make you a great cook.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Those photographers you think are so talented may have great equipment, but it's the talent (and probably hard work) that makes their work so good, not the equipment. The equipment just gives them more capabilities, which they make good use of.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Let's see how many pages of argument this generates, shall we?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

no reason for any arguing .... everyone has agreed so far.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Key words being "so far".
Let's just say that I have faith in the membership's ability to turn any subject into an argument!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Let neither of us be the person to throw the first participle.

Bill_de Loc: US

I disagree!


----

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

As a character designer you are working in graphic design. Your aim is to portray emotional triggers so that people can associate 'goodies and baddie's at a glance.
In photography we also use emotional triggers - but they are more subtle. Composition, Negative space, leading lines etc. The use of colour or the blurring of boundaries.

You, no doubt spent quite a while studying Character Design. It didn't just come complete 'in a box'. Photography doesn't either. Photography is about finding your own particular niche or subject - then researching how best to create the images 'as you want to portray them '. Yes you can also learn how to take better images in general too. As a graphic designer you probably have a head start in how to post process, fix, add and remove unwanted clutter - use those skills!!!
Contrary to popular belief - no one is born an artist (its a general excuse for those who haven't learned the skills) No one is born a great Photographer it is also a learned skill.

Explore what 'fusion' of reality, photography and Characterization made Disney great....he used real actors and actresses and then redrew them into his characters. He used cinifilm of dancers to 'create' the movements so that the drawn image 'moved' correctly. Explore how a camera can help you 'do what you do' better.Most have video...

Do not be put off photography by your peers - or intimidated by your Teachers. When you go out 'photographing' it is generally a solo occupation - you get time to contemplate away from the hub-bub of work. That in itself can be a reason (Excuse) to trek into the wilds of your neighborhood, - in search of inspiration.

Being creative.....is a good thing

Have fun

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The most important equipment in photography is the eye and brain behind the viewfinder. While better equipment may improve the quality of the output, the most important factor is the skill and talent possessed by the photographer. The statement made to you that a professional camera is all one needs for professional results is an ignorant and bizarre idea. Anyone who makes such an assertion should safely be ignored. I know plenty of artists, and not one of them espouses the opinion about photography that you were told.

BebuLamar

I think your post is a clickbait although I did fell into your clickbait.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Welcome to your photography forum.
Way back when I was in High School (1976) I started to learn photography. My teacher at the time said and I quote, "The camera does 1% of the work. The remaining 99% is because of the nut in the viewfinder." Many people thing the hefty price tag on some cameras will produce outstanding photos. That is so far from truth. You need to learn the real basics of photography. You could take a book out from the library. You can take a course either on line or in a classroom. You can post some photos and let the Hoggers have at it. Some of my photographs have been critiqued by fellow Hoggers. My goal is to make my next photograph better than my last.

Keep learning!
Happy Shooting!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I read an issue of Popular Photograhy Magazine back in 1957 where the cover story was "IS PHOTOGRAPHY REALLY ART"? Many years later I found that issue in a back-dated magazine shop and purchased it as a souvenir. Come on folks, it's been 62 years since that issue and this "question", I am sure, predated that! Come on folks haven't y'all figured it out yet!

It borders on a ridiculous question. In 1962, I quit college and decided to take up my photography in a rather prestigious ART SCHOOL. It was a nightmare- the fine arts faculty, mostly the students thought of the photography department as a "bunch of mechanics" and what's worse, many of the fine art photography students called the commercial photography students a "pack of prostitutes" Did a year and ran out of there like my hair was on fire and enlisted in the army! Unmitigated foolishness, and snobbery! Seems some of the professors kinda reinforced theses concepts and didn't do much about dispelling this nonsense.

No doubt that art such as painting is more labor-intensive than photography and requires specialized talents and skill sets. To paint a masterful portrait, still, life or landscape may take many weeks, months or even years of painstaking manual work, perhaps layers upon layers of carefully applied paints, pigments, and varnishes whereas a photograph of similar qualities can be produced in a relatively shorter time -the necessary techniques and equipment differ greatly. in terms of artfulness, there is a log list of attributes that are completely parallel some of which is composition, line, texture, the visualization of light, dimension, mood, artistic interpretation, color usage, and lots more- I can write a book!

I once sat in on a lecture on portrait painting where the "prof" pontificated that making a photographic portrait is tantamount to sticking your face in a Xerox machine! That and a whole bunch of other stupidity sent me right off the recruiting station! I needed a break!

The answer to the question is that photography is an art in and of itself, that is, if the photographer has the heart and mind and eye of an artist and the technical skill to materialize his or her imagination

Painters have their brushes and palette knives, sculptors have chisels, clay,and welding torches, etchers have tools and acid, and we photographers - well- we do have a heck of a lot more hardware. Our gear does not make us into a bunch of insensitive automatons unless we allow it to. And... there are photographers who are not artists and never intended to be and they to have the right to enjoy their craft and the gear and what it can help them to produce.

If the "artsy" folks that the OP mentioned have nothing better to do than deridie folks who practice their art or craft in a different medium other than their own, they surely have something antithetical to artfulness in their personality and would better spend their time and energy creating and teaching their own specialties and encouraging others in different aspects of visual art by inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness. It's called sharing and inspiring!

"Clickbait" nah- it just an old and tired questions and y'all know the answer! It's worth writing about for the new folks! I hoped this form is more that a place to start unpleasant arguments, play head games and analyze silliness to find out how long it takes for a thread to deteriorate.
I'm gonna be disappointed- ya think!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

It is easy to over-simplify this question. Back when I was in college, academic were trying to decide whether my future profession - Computer Science - is a branch of Math or of Engineering; I am retired now, and although I got my degree in Math, many of my jobs came with the title "Software Engineer" .... it is actually a combination of the two.

Likewise, photography is a tool - some of those who use those tools {like Ansel Adams} are/were artists, and some {like Nick Ut} are/were not artists.