It's not you, it's the camera!.. Is it you?

[Sime™]

I'm exploring the regularly used phrase "It's not the camera, it's the photographer"



GO HERE to view the images associated

but make sure you come back... :-)

[Saralonde]

You think you'll know in 1 week?

Interesting idea.

[luckymama]

Funny I was only talking to someone about this today.
yes,the camera does play a good part in taking great photos.
However,the person taking the photo has a better"psychi"(as u mentioned)
Some people have an eye for detail,
and others well...they're good at playing sport,or knitting.
I can't do either of those two things.
Although I think I have a different perception of things
so then everyone goes,"wow,great photo"
it makes me then think
was it me or the camera.
It takes two to tango,so yes both are required.?

[PhotoJunky]

In answer to the question of photographer or equipment; I believe it requires the melding of the photographers education, training, skill, and desire with that of the equipment photographer selects. The photographer has created that particular mental vision and then attempts to impart that vision upon his selected media method. In times past, photography required a camera device to capture/create a document, now software can compile and create photographic compositions in multiple media methods.

Will equipment, create better images? It depends upon what the mental vision of the photographer/ creator is. As DPS has written about numerous photographic methods of photography; Holga, Pinhole, large format, etc.. For as many photographers as there are in the world, I think that is the amount of styles of photography. And that is not taking into account those that create photography on a computer or without any camera or recording equipment.

[chojuan]

Come on fellows, let's face it. Euphemisms are not necessary here. I've been always wondering about the same issue and I always get onto the same wall. If it weren`t the camera, nobody would ever buy a Nixon D3 or D3x (as the man in the video refers to Nikon), a Camon 1Ds Mark III or 1D Mark IV (sorry, I meant Canon) or worse than those; a Hasselblad (any of them). Obviously, being creative is something that a device cannot give you; but the versatility of a good machine, sometimes, can simulate a talent which doesn't really exist.

What I really like about this kind of discussions is that it is always those photographers who've got the best gear the ones who try to encourage people to believe that better machines aren't necessary.

Anyway, this topic will last forever. At least, until everybody has the same kind of gear.

[CaptainNH]

Originally Posted by chojuan

If it weren`t the camera, nobody would ever buy a Nixon D3 or D3x............

I agree with Chojuan to a point, but then I think about it some more and realise that I can get photos that are just as good with my 2002 (or was it 03?) 10D as I can from my 5D2 (as long as the light's good ). I just can't print them as big

IMHO, the best shots come from a combination of a creative and technically competent photographer and good glass

[Martymarty]

Better equipment can help the photographer bring his inner vision into reality.
It is only a tool. The photographer has to know how to use the equipment/software. And first he has to have the mind, imagination, talent, whatever you call it, to "see" the image that he wants to capture or create.
I'm a better photographer with my Pentax 100D than I was with my Pentax k1000 (which I still have, by the way, they're indestructible) simply because I can immediately see what effect a change in aperture, white balance, etc. does, instead of shooting, making notes and then trying to match with prints days or weeks later.

[yrot.tory]

i think the equipment does matter, but it's the photographer that really matters most. like if you didn't have the photographer in the first place, then there wouldn't be a camera.

[villafane928]

My take on this is that it is the photographers skill in composing, shooting with the correct settings, and these days post work that really gets the nice image. I started of with a Nikon coolpix 2.3 or something, then got my first ever DSLR (the D40) then the Nikon D300. Although my skills grew through experience I found I am just as good at creating the images i liked with either the D40 or the D300. When I got the 300 though it seemed to make my post work alot easier to manipulate and create. In other words I believe working with the larger image cut down on time to get the image where I wanted if that makes any sense. As far as software like PS or Aperture, I have both CS4 in PS and Aperture2 which are unbelievable tools to have. But do you know what I use to process 99% of my images, the picnik program in flickr for $25 a year the premium edition! It gives me all I need at this time believe it or not. My good freind and fellow photographer gave me the PS and the Aperture programs and he is dumfounded that I still use picnik. I will say I get alot of work and I dont think its because of my $1800 camera or my $25 editting software.

[naco]

Better equipment CAN (but not necessarily WILL) help the photographer turn his/her inner vision into a better image. As far as selling an image taken with a phone camera or of that sort to a stock agency I will say that 9.9 out of 10 the image will be turned down due to technical issues, regardless of who the photographer is– unless the photo shows something that nobody else captured and it would make the news worldwide anyway due to the shocking nature of the image.

NACO Photography