Do You Really Believe Its The Photographer And Not The Equipment
Oct 11, 2019 11:58:20 #
Ched49 wrote:
People who say..."It's not the equipment, it's the photographer" are people trying to sound more intelligent than they really are. Of coarse skill and equipment does matter when doing anything the right way.
Really? So you think a person who has no artistic vision at all can take a Nikon 850 out to Nevada and come back with images superior to what a real photographer will bring back from the same place armed only with a point and shoot? Ha! You gearheads will never understand!
Oct 11, 2019 11:58:31 #
joer wrote:
Mostly what one hears from photographers, i.e., pro, enthusiast and neophytes, is that the equipment doesn't matter; its the photographer.
Then one has to ask, how many cameras, lenses, flashes, accessories, etc., do you have? Or what cameras or equipment do you lust after?
I think the evidence suggests that gear does matter, although it may not be most important. A skilled lumberjack with an axe will not compete with a man/woman who knows how to use a chain saw.
Then one has to ask, how many cameras, lenses, flashes, accessories, etc., do you have? Or what cameras or equipment do you lust after?
I think the evidence suggests that gear does matter, although it may not be most important. A skilled lumberjack with an axe will not compete with a man/woman who knows how to use a chain saw.
Why is this even argued any longer? Is this click bait? (Okay, I'll take it...)
YES, equipment is important. We have to have some to do our work. I'm even a big believer in using the right tools for the job.
At 12, I watched my infuriated father throw a redneck "carpenter" out of our house for driving wood screws with a hammer. I never saw Dad snap like that, before or after. It drove home the "use the right stuff" point. It was also a glorious lesson in how to use profanity creatively, and simultaneously, it was an objective statement about professionalism.
That said, good doses of education, instructional knowledge, training, and practical experience ALWAYS make the biggest difference. A truly seasoned photographer will know how to make BOTH the finest equipment AND some minimal equipment perform to its maximum advantage.
A half-drunk, unkempt illiterate with no photographic training or experience will likely generate garbage when handed a Nikon D500 and the latest 70-200mm f/2.8 Nikon lens. A knowledgeable veteran pro or enthusiast who is used to using that same setup can be given a low-end used DX camera with a used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 and bring home some pretty incredible images. Could the latter photographer do better with the better equipment? Maybe… probably marginally better and with more regularity. But the random guy with no experience or knowledge would likely generate the same crappy bird cage liners with both setups.
A room full of monkeys with typewriters MIGHT write a story in their collective lifetimes. More likely, they'd just poop in them.
Oct 11, 2019 12:02:05 #
Oct 11, 2019 12:03:59 #
burkphoto wrote:
A room full of monkeys with typewriters MIGHT write a story in their collective lifetimes. More likely, they'd just poop in them.
A room full of monkeys with typewriters MIGHT write a story in their collective lifetimes. More likely, they'd just poop in them.
ROF! Burk you never disappoint!
Oct 11, 2019 12:12:58 #
Notorious T.O.D. wrote:
There is a difference between shooting fairly static subjects vs shooting action that can kill you in an instant. Not everyone has the desire or ability to stand and shoot a race car passing 15 feet from you at 150mph separated by a 30” high barrier. That’s about capturing a different sort of moment.
I don't consider racecars suitable photographic subjects. Machines are not objects with any emotional content. Creatures, Nature. people, even architecture - these are things of beauty. I would rather try and photograph a wild boar coming at me. Same danger to life and limb, same equipment would be advantageous.
Oct 11, 2019 12:37:13 #
As we’ve all heard many many times before “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, that being said I do feel that it’s more the photographer than the equipment. If two people have the identical equipment and know how to use it and shoot the same subject matter, you’ll get two really different pictures usually one a much better capture than the other. But there again the end result is subjective.
Oct 11, 2019 12:42:28 #
Oct 11, 2019 12:44:49 #
je13quincy wrote:
As we’ve all heard many many times before “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, that being said I do feel that it’s more the photographer than the equipment. If two people have the identical equipment and know how to use it and shoot the same subject matter, you’ll get two really different pictures usually one a much better capture than the other. But there again the end result is subjective.
Not really! "beauty" is a transcendental. Like "truth" it is NOT subjective. Humans all recognize symmetry, color balance. Even small children concur about what is beautiful and what is discordant or ugly. This idea that everything is subjective is a modern and quite erroneous idea. If everything were subjective we would not have art museums.
Oct 11, 2019 12:53:58 #
CatMarley wrote:
Nonsense. Most people don't know how to see things. They can go to the desert and not see anything but a wasteland. A PHOTOGRAPHER will go to the desert and bring back images of great beauty. And it won't matter what camera he has with him.
Cat, I love you..
Oct 11, 2019 13:05:39 #
CatMarley wrote:
Nonsense. Most people don't know how to see things. They can go to the desert and not see anything but a wasteland. A PHOTOGRAPHER will go to the desert and bring back images of great beauty. And it won't matter what camera he has with him.
Arizona Highways magazine, anyone?
Oct 11, 2019 13:07:11 #
When I admire the wonders of a sunset or the beauty of the moon, my soul expands knowing I captured it with a full-frame camera.
Oct 11, 2019 13:08:52 #
CatMarley wrote:
ROF! Burk you never disappoint!
Thanks. I read too much P.J. O’Rourke, National Lampoon, Dave Barry, and Hunter S. Thompson in my youth...
Oct 11, 2019 13:22:56 #
I know machines that evoke more emotional response than a herd of wild boars could. Maybe not for you but for plenty of others.
CatMarley wrote:
I don't consider racecars suitable photographic subjects. Machines are not objects with any emotional content. Creatures, Nature. people, even architecture - these are things of beauty. I would rather try and photograph a wild boar coming at me. Same danger to life and limb, same equipment would be advantageous.
Oct 11, 2019 13:46:28 #
smf85
Loc: Freeport, IL
le boecere wrote:
Of course we don't. If we did we'd practice what we preach and keep using our 50-year-old cameras.
I still have and use a Nikon F purchased in 1971. Before that a fixed lens rangefinder camera. After that I purchased a D200, and then after that a D850 & Z7. A whole bunch of lenses too. I've taken many great photographs with all of them.
Oct 11, 2019 14:02:51 #
smf85
Loc: Freeport, IL
CatMarley wrote:
Not really! "beauty" is a transcendental. Like "truth" it is NOT subjective. Humans all recognize symmetry, color balance. Even small children concur about what is beautiful and what is discordant or ugly. This idea that everything is subjective is a modern and quite erroneous idea. If everything were subjective we would not have art museums.
It's also absolute in the sense that underlying the things that are found beautiful there are mathematical formula which describe the beauty. Even the human face. The math is sometimes simple, sometimes complex, and occasionally very strange.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.