Saying a Camera takes Nice Pictures is like Saying a Guitar Plays Nice Melodies
The following was left as a comment on a previous post by one of our readers – Angelino Pan y Vino (no link given). I thought it was a great story and one that might encourage readers who might feel they have lower quality cameras and gear.
Image by colodio
“Saying a camera takes nice pictures is like saying a guitar plays nice melodies.”
You may quote me on that.
This goes to both amateur photographers, who don’t have top-notch equipment, as well as those ‘professional’ photographers, who like to compensate in gear what they lack in skill (ie: buying 10+ studio lights, 4-5 different cameras, with countless lenses and props).
You can spend all your money in professional equipment, but if you don’t have the skill to use it, it’s pretty much worthless. Likewise, even if your equipment isn’t top notch, you can still accomplish wonderful things, as long as you know what it is capable of.
The Dominican photographer Wilfredo García, when going on photography trips with his students, and clubs, always came back with the best picture. He was known for having a huge collection of cameras, going well over a hundred.
During one of these trips, a student challenged him, saying he would obviously bring back the best photograph, as he had the fanciest cameras. He replied “So why don’t you choose a camera for me, for the next trip?”
He went with a disposable film camera, and still bought back the best picture.
As long as you know the limitations of your equipment, and how to overcome them, it is possible to take gorgeous photographs, even if you don’t have a fortune to spend on your gear.
Note from Darren: I‘m interested to hear your thoughts on Angelino’s comments! While I’m someone who has spent his fair share of money on different photography gear – I’m amazed how often I come back to the most basic lenses when taking my best shots. What do you think?
130 Responses to “Saying a Camera takes Nice Pictures is like Saying a Guitar Plays Nice Melodies” - Add Yours
October 12th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Although you can be limited by your equipment, limits can also increase your creativity. And 90% of the picture is in the composition and subject:)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adhe55/
October 12th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Well, I prefer “saying a camera takes nice pictures is like saying a kitchen makes tasty dishes”
October 12th, 2009 at 1:36 am
great article. this is one of the reasons why i abandon my local camera clubs. they spend too much time doing the “geeky” stuff about, “oh, there is some pixelation here” or “gee, i see some light fall off here,” etc. they do not spend enough time asking the questions, “am i engaged with this image?” or, “do i find myself wanting to spend time looking at this picture?” so many of the great photos from the 20th centruy would not have made it pass these people who have all the gear in the world except “vision.”
October 12th, 2009 at 1:46 am
I think Angelino makes a great point. All too often, I see/read of people that only seem to invest in the most expensive equipment but not take enough time to understand the functions in their camera. Admittedly, I was in this camp too before I started photography as a serious hobby.
Even accomplished professionals like Ken Rockwell say the same thing — photography is more about the photographer and his/her skills while being less about the equipment. It’s been said before and it’s worth repeating — the best camera is the one you have on you!
Another pet peeve is the automatic reliance on software to make the photograph a great one. That’s another discussion for another day!
October 12th, 2009 at 1:57 am
I completely agree with the article. I live in Carnoustie in Scotland and the town is synonimois with Golf and hosting the British Open Championships. THe point is that this kind of thing is seen in all hobbies/professions. I can stand at the 1st tee and watch hordes of golfers (tourists not locals) walking up to take tere shot with 100s and sometimes 1,000s of Dollars/Pounds of the best gear money can buy then slicing there bal into the water etc. Good equipment has its merits and will certainly help with contrast, sharpness etc but at the end of the day if the image lacks punch or makes you not want to look at it again then all is lost.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:05 am
I totally agree. It’s like having the fastest, most expensive and beautiful car, but what good is it if you don’t know how to drive? You can’t buy talent, experience or an “artistic eye”.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:12 am
I don’t agree at all. Mainly because the header is wrong. Instead of calling it “Saying a Camera takes Nice Pictures is like Saying a Guitar Plays Nice Melodies”
it should be
“Saying a Camera takes Nice Pictures is like Saying a Guitar Plays BETTER SOUND”.
As the difference between a let’s say Nikon D700 and a D40 is clearly to see in the pictures you take, the difference between a cheap piano from China and a Steinway grand piano is clearly to hear.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:16 am
I totally agree with it. Some people have said to me that I take good pictures because I have a SLR camera. NO! it’s not that! they don’t see the hours I’ve spent reading and researching, touching bottons in the camera and playing with PS.
Nowadays I tend to go back to basics using my cheap 50mm and I’d kill for a Lomo camera, what looks pretty simple and easy to use.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:26 am
I couldn’t agree more. From my own experience, I’ve (unintentionally) fooled a lot of people into thinking I had a DSLR way before I actually bought my first and only. I’m not the best photographer and i don’t claim to be, but composing a good picture is worth more than expensive equipment. And I really can’t remember how many friends/coworkers I’ve pissed off at one point in time for telling them either not to get a “pro camera” or that they wasted their money because they take really bad pictures.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:27 am
Under the right circumstances I agree totally. However, there are times when a disposable just wont take the shot you want no matter how good your skill set is! Saying otherwise is a bit of an over generalization isn’t it?
I own a full frame DSLR camera and some nice fast lenses and don’t think I’m compensating for anything!! I’ve taken some great shots with a cheap point and shoot but couldn’t make do with only having that in my camera bag. Every situation has it’s optimum tool.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:41 am
all i have to say is HOLGA
October 12th, 2009 at 2:43 am
I agree, but not completely. You need good lens to get good pics. but the thing which you are trying to say , i think, is the fact that with the lens i have with me at the moment .. i am not using it to the best possible level. so with my cam .. someone with better skills will get better pic. but that doesnt mean , as many will think , that spending on lens, gears is waste.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Guitar doesn’t play nice melodies. But a guitar can sound good … or not so good.
Same with cameras. Camera doesn’t take nice photos. Photographer does. But proper equipment will make a difference in quality and in whether (sometimes) the picture can be taken at all. A good photographer however will be able to stretch the use of every piece of equipment to it’s very limit (and beyond). And (more importantly) create content.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Ditto odyn
There’s a reason why we splurge on nice equipment– it makes a difference. I remember being blown away with the first pictures I took with my DSLR. I constantly see forum posts of photogs who are amazed by the higher quality of the new camera or lens they just bought.
No, having a fancy camera alone won’t get you amazing pictures (at least not consistently).
But having a good eye/talent alone won’t get you those always, either. Otherwise why would we spend money upgrading?
It takes BOTH talent AND the right tools to truly maximize your potential.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:59 am
Give an amateur a cheap point-and-shoot camera, let him take a picture and then give him a DSLR and let him take a picture. Even if he has no idea what he’s doing, the DSLR-shot will propably look better. Sometimes you just need the proper equipment. No matter how good a photographer you are, your equipment does limit your potential to unfold your creativity. If the natural lighting just isn’t sufficient, you do need a good light source, be it a flash gun or a studio light. If you don’t, you can crank up your ISO, get a crappy shot or just don’t shoot at all. It’s not only skill, equipment IS a factor.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:43 am
I agree with the article and all the points that have been given by other readers. It is the photographer that makes an image pop and engages the viewer not the camera. However the lesser or cheaper the camera the more pixelation will be visible no matter how well you know the camera. I think there needs to be the understanding of your own present camera equipment before you go out and buy the big expensive gear thinking you are going to get a much better image. I have a friend that has bought into the idea of the big expensive gear will get you the better image however her images always come off with poor lighting, blurriness where it shouldn’t be, and graininess. I like what ODYN stated,
“A good photographer however will be able to stretch the use of every piece of equipment to it’s very limit (and beyond). And (more importantly) create content.”
When you have stretched your equipment to the very limit, for myself, I think that is the time when I move on to the next equipment level.
Two examples of some of my favorite work.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3186133825_844e7c8d05_b.jpg
I have always loved this image. I took it with my canon point and shoot and did some adjustments through photoshop.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3439/3304580159_c1490b32ac_o.jpg
This image was taken with my new DSLR. I love this photo and think this came out much more crisp than the previous image because of the better quality of equipment. I also did not have to adjust very much in photoshop. However I think with my experience they both turned out to be great images.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:46 am
It’s quite true. For example, I found my old pictures (with a compact camera) much more original and actrative that most of the pictures that I took with my new DSLR.
It’s right when people say that with a good camera the results are better, but ok… but photography isn’t only a super tech skill result… but also a very creative game and… when people with “a stupid” camera do beauty things it’s because they have that potential… if we don’t have the equipment, than we found another turn!
October 12th, 2009 at 3:50 am
To date, one of my favorite shots ever was taken with a point-and-shoot film camera about ten years ago. I’ve taken many good shots since, with newer and better equipment, but that shot will always be on my wall.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:57 am
I’ve always thought that a skilled photographer can take better photos with whatever is available than an unskilled one with the latest and greatest new gear. Whenever a new camera comes out people lament the “piece of crap” they now own even though it is more than capable. I’ve taken some great pictures with an Instamatic camera.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:33 am
Good article !
I think it’s pretty true: photography (and music !) is first sensibility and talent, more than technique and equipment. I’ve just experienced that: I was taking pictures for a friend’s wedding with an other photographer who kept saying he had a better camera than mine and it turns out the friend liked my pictures better, even if they weren’t technically perfect…
I think In the end, it’s all about sensibility and the idea of a “good” picture…
October 12th, 2009 at 4:38 am
There’s a tendency to “make” photos with Photoshop and the likes. It seems people are not able anymore to use their camera properly to make great photos. For me it’s still de guy (or girl) behind the camera how makes a great picture. A great photographer is able to make good pictures, even with a disposible camera.
October 12th, 2009 at 4:40 am
It was good to read this point of view echoed. I have a standing joke with a couple of my colleagues about using “the camera that takes the good pictures”. As if to prove the point that it’s not the gear that matters, my most popular image was taken with a sub-$200 digital compact. What matters is what you see, how you see it and having some way of capturing the image.
This also brings to mind one of my favourite Ansel Adams quotes – “The most important part of a camera is the 12 inches behind the viewfinder.”
October 12th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Great point and it’s really true!
I have a friend with a really fancy dSLR camera, several lenses and flashes, and when I look at her pictures, I’m never really engaged by them. Sure, they are technically very well done and very sharp, but the content is just boring to me.
I’m in no way a great photographer, but I’m learning and trying to become better. I am a student, so really can’t afford a super nice camera. But I’m learning and trying to get better shots with the one I have.
I had the chance to use my friend’s Canon 5d Mark II the other day, and it was obviously way better than mine and I could do more thing with it than mine. One day I do plan to get an SLR, but until then I have plenty of chances to learn and try to get the best shots with what I do have
October 12th, 2009 at 4:56 am
I completely disagree…..I used to have a Kodak P&S and a D70 and would take awesome shots with both of them. Then I showed my friends and they said “Wow! You must have an awesome camera!”…Well I knew the cameras were low end cameras and if they ever found out, I would have to deal with being called a good photographer. So I went and bought a D300 just to say that they were right and that I had an awesome camera. :D
YES! I am being sarcastic. :)
October 12th, 2009 at 5:51 am
I disagree. There’s just something about holding a DSLR close to your eye that sparks the creative juices in me. Plus the difference in technical quality can not be overlooked after you’ve once realised it (yes, I’m one of those people who cringes at chromatic aberration).
October 12th, 2009 at 6:07 am
It is like the old saying “It is not the pencil you write with but how you write with it”
October 12th, 2009 at 6:23 am
I Agree with the article. Recently My Best Friend Give Temporally his old pictbridge camera Hi bought a cool Nikon the best but not always He take the best pic, more material more options more menus not always is synonymous of a good photo, have less cameras but understand them can give more best shots.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:23 am
100% agree. More like one million percent but whatever. A camera is a tool just like anything else. We have a joke around the office (design & web dev firm) that people think that Macs come with a graphic design degree. And command + a = ad, command + w = web site, and so forth.
Get a great photo takes skill, time, patience, and sometimes even a fair amount of luck.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:28 am
I agree with the author. there are many people in Poland who have a DSLR – of course most have switch on AUTO, or else do not know how to make pictures.
I have a hybrid,it’s old but still good.
I found that I can not afford the DSLR.
Before I learn to take pictures good enough for me – and still I’ve it ;)
if you have time I invite you to my flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didmyself/
October 12th, 2009 at 6:37 am
You’ve heard of the Stradivarius violin, right? I’d say a Strad plays much sweeter music than a $150 violin bought at a local music shop and I believe I’d be right, but how would that same Strad sound in the hands of an unskilled amateur? Clearly not as good as a pro could make it sound.
I believe the same to be true in photography. You cannot make me believe the picture taken with a Brownie Hawkeye would have the same quality as one taken with a Hasselblad no matter how good the photographer is who’s taking the pictures.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:41 am
When I worked as a photographer and photo editor, I noticed that photographers who liked to talk ad nauseam about the quantity and quality of their equipment tended to be insecure about themselves and their work. It’s much more common with amateurs than professionals. I agree with marc, gary, reena, et al. in that I’d rather talk about the image than the equipment, not that the latter isn’t important or doesn’t interest me.
This quote hits on the irritation that most photogs feel when their creative work is reduced to the quality of the camera they used to capture the image. It’s incredibly common and quite insulting, though not intended to be, so there’s not much to say in response but to shrug it off.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:05 am
It really depends on the kind of person you are. Some will always be more fascinated by the technical aspects of a photograph. Others will be drawn more to the emotional impact it has. Which person are you? Neither is more right than the other, and both are equally valid. Learn to appreciate ‘the other side’ and you’ll be better for it.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:08 am
I agree with this article. Sometimes people will say to me, “Wow, you must have a really great camera!” I don’t consider that a compliment. I think the equipment is helpful but the real power of the art is the person behind the lens or the hands encircling the strings. The art begins inside the artist’s soul. The equipment is there to assist the artist in revealing it to those willing to partake.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:15 am
I agree with the author, to a point. If you know how to compose a shot, it makes a huge difference, but there are certain shots (like those that I take with my Canon 85 1.2L lens) that you can not duplicate with a p&s camera. However I think I did quite well with my iPhone, and captured lots of cool shots, on a recent flight to Vermont: http://hollysissonphotography.com/blog/2009/10/01/plane-to-vermont-iphone-photos/
The best camera is the one you have with you, I’m sure you’ve heard that one before. ;-)
October 12th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Of course its always a combination. The difference is getting the most out of what you have. My uncle has been a sailer almost all his life and one weekend went sailing in his boat with a friend who was a world class sailor. He was shocked/scared at how fast she sailed his boat. Same boat, same ocean but she could “see” the wind better. 2 years ago I went to a professional driving school. After a week i could do things with my car I thought were impossible. Same car, same road. I think the biggest advantage of a DSLR/better equipment is that it expands the space between the limits – limits of skill and limits of equipment. I can get better indoor/low light pictures because I have a f/1.4 lens. But that only gives me more light to work with, not better composition.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:31 am
“But having a good eye/talent alone won’t get you those always, either. Otherwise why would we spend money upgrading?”
People upgrade because they have converted ‘want’ to ‘need’ in their mind. No one needs expensive equipment; most purchases seem to be driven by people (who are almost always exclusively men) buying for the satisfaction of having expensive equipment.
I think we all know what they say about a fool and their money………
October 12th, 2009 at 8:06 am
While there is truth that it is not the camera but the photographer that makes a good shot, there is also another saying that goes ‘you need the right tools for the job’.
Of course skill counts for a lot but there is a reason why some people pay more for their camera than they did for their car. I am still a photograpy beginner but I can tell the difference between something done on a cheap p&s and the latest 20+mp dslr, and the difference really is quite a lot.
However it is also true that a bad photographer can not hide behind good gear ;)
October 12th, 2009 at 9:20 am
I use both a Canon PowerShot A590 and a Canon 40D. In all honesty, I don’t think there’s a single shot out of the P&S that’s better than any of my shots from the 40D. Your example of Wilfredo García compares his skills against those of his students. I’d be interested in seeing a comparison instead of his photos from the disposable against those from his best camera. In other words, the only variable would be the photographer, not the cameras, photographers, and their individual skill levels. As others have pointed out, it’s a combination. If not, then why would any professional photographer spend the money on high-end equipment if a disposable is good enough?
October 12th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I agree with most of this article as it does really matter the skill you convey through your own photography. But the context for which these photographs appear often relies on the kind of gear you’re working with. For example: sports photography. I’d love to see a seasoned professional go out with a 8mp point and shoot, getting great shots on skill alone. Can you imagine?
I think it’s important to strike a reasonable compromise for how your gear stacks up to the kinds of photography you’re trying to execute. Analogy: would you run off into a 3-day war with a single 9mm pistol? Probably not. Why would you do the same in photography? Have you ever tried capturing action shots in low-light without flash on a point and shoot or a disposable? Sure, on an off chance you might capture a great shot, but how many would have you taken to get to there?
I think it’s important to choose your gear wisely, especially those who are just beginning. I bought a Canon XSi when I wasn’t ready for it at all. But it allows me to do things and expose shots in ways that my little point and shoot just didn’t allow. All in all, I’m saying let’s not downplay the importance of proper gear. Sometimes it is the difference between a good and bad shot.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:10 am
AMEN! Thanks so much for this post! I hear this all the time at weddings…my choice comeback is always. “Awww….thanks! But what if you invited me over for dinner next week and when your delicious meal was done I turned to you and said, WOW, that was an amazing meal, what kind of pans are you using?” I would much prefer someone to ask for the recipe instead of the “type” of pan!!
October 12th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I completely agree! I play a very nice guitar. But I don’t always play the nicest melodies! ;-)
October 12th, 2009 at 10:43 am
I think, you just have to see photography as 50% art and 50% craftsmanship. Your equipment is not relevant for the art, the person behind the camera is. For the mere craftsmanship though, tech is relevant. No matter what profession you’re in, you need good tools. My girlfriend is a chef and she could go on and on about how important the quality of her knives is for her work. It’s just the same. Cheap gear is just a handicap you gotta find workarounds for that waste time and energy. If the gear wasn’t important, then why do all the pros have cameras and lenses for thousands of dollars? Cause they’re all pretentious clowns? Some of them most certainly are, but most of them just know about the importance especially of good glass. What good is the greatest shot with awesome composition when chromatic aberrations are ruining everything or if your aperture is too big to get a decent shutter speed so that you have blurred results. Gear does matter. The end.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:03 am
An expensive pen won’t automatically t make you into a Pulitzer winning writer. So why is the opposite always assumed in photography? :)
October 12th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
You need both talent and the right equipment.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Agreed. The person is the one creating the beautiful photographs, not the equipment.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I love the comment – “Saying a camera takes nice pictures is like saying a guitar plays nice melodies.” It brings to mind a quote from Theodore Roosevelt – “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”…I agree 100%
October 12th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I do agree its the image that really counts but part of the joy of photography for me is using quality equipment (as best as I can afford anyhow) that I know I can rely on to properly record that image in the best possible way.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Absolutley true :)
October 12th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I posted some pictures I recently took with my new Canon SX 110 IS camera, and I have had a lot of comments on it, mostly positive. I am not even good enough to call myself an amateur, but this camera is so good it makes me look better than I really am!
http://digitalseller.tblog.com/post/1970096778
Anyway, I have owned other kinds of cameras before, but never had one that has so many variables as this one for the money. I love using it, and it truly makes me look good. I just am not that good at taking pictures, but I do consider the subject matter as I take pictures now, and that is some of the difference.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I completely agree. I’ve been asked so many times which camera and lenses I use, but no one asks me how long it took me to be happy with the majority of the photos I’ve taken. It’s taken me months to learn how to use my camera creatively and I’m still learning (I’ve had my D40 for nearly a year now, and you should’ve seen the photos I was taking when I first go it – they were rubbish!). I don’t use expensive lenses either; my two favourite lenses are 50mm f1.8 AI and 35mm f2.5 AIS E Series manual focus lenses, which cost me around £50 each on ebay. Other than these, I use the 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit lenses, which aren’t particularly expensive either!
I’ve seen some mediocre photos taken with cameras such as the D90, D300 and D700, and whilst I’d love any of those cameras, I’d rather have real photographic talent!
October 12th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Technique and knowing the limitations of your kit and overcoming those limitations are more important than expensive kit. Think with your eyes and you’ll become a better photographer.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
There was a pretty interesting article on this subject on another photography blog about one week ago:
http://photonaturalist.net/wow-you-must-have-a-really-good-camera/
October 12th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I agree with Arik and also with Joan. The outcome of the photos that you take with whatever camera you have relies mostly on your own personal creativity and the way you see things. It also relies on camera skills. In online photo contests I’ve seen the most beautiful photos taken with point and shoot cameras as well as winners taken with the most expensive of the lot. If you don’t have the need or the money to get the fanciest and newest gear, the bottom line is: learn to use what you have and use it well.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
The points made in the article are trite and certainly not original. Of course there is skill required to see the opportunity for a great photograph and then capture it in a unique and powerful way. Who would deny that? Any serious photographer is humble enough to realize how much study and practice is required to create consistently good pictures.
On the other hand, the value of good equipment is equally obvious to anyone who has used graduated to it after using inferior gear. Ask a capable photographer (for example, the one referenced in the story) to take two pictures of the same scene, especially in challenging conditions. Give him/her a disposable camera for one, and a SLR for the second. The second picture will be far superior to the first technically, and thus artistically.
I am fortunate enough to be able to use good gear. I do so with two core beliefs – first, that failed pictures are inevitably my responsibility, and secondly, that an obligation has been imposed upon me to learn as much as I possibly can about photography to make my work worthy of the money I put into equipment.
I love the DPS organization, but I think it was a significant error to elevate this comment to the status of an article. It was really nothing but reverse snobbery posing as wisdom.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
A good photo can be taken with any camera but printing it out bigger then 4 x 6 might be an issue depending on the camera.
Cathy
October 13th, 2009 at 12:10 am
A camera and lenses are just tools for the photographer, the same way a hammer and saw are tools for a carpenter. I can build the same house with the same tools as a professional carpenter and the house that they build would be much better then the house i built. Given the same tools its about the skill in using them.
That having been said i can guarantee that the pros tend to use better gear because of wear and tear and the ability to do things that nonpros wouldn’t even think or consider to do.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Gotta say I agree with the point of this article. Maybe not the fine details like others were pointing out, but I do feel that other photographers who have been doing this professionally for longer than I have look down on me because I’m doing it so far natural light only because I don’t have a studio space or lighting equipment. Just because I’m not using an incredible fast lens (I’m in love with my 28-105mm 3.5/4.5) doesn’t mean I can’t produce awesome results – or at least photographs that I am really happy with, feel have improved, etc. Yes, I hope I’m much better 5 years from now, but with all the experience & practice I’m getting now, I’m not worrying about it. Just enjoying it and knowing I’m getting better.
Anyway, HOWEVER since I got my DSLR last May, I have not touched my point & shoot which wasn’t a bad camera. And I really don’t want to. :) Because even in my 1st month using it on Auto, I got better pictures than I ever had before. There was no going back. :)
October 13th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Absolutely! Anyone can take a snapshot but not everyone can take what exists and make it a piece of art.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:52 am
A couple of weeks ago, I spent a week in Yellowstone around Mammoth Hot Springs. I thought I had things pretty nailed as far as the ability to take ‘good’ images I was satisfied with. Boy, was I wrong. In a place like Mammoth, there are a thousand and one challenges I have never encountered anywhere else. Go to Tower Falls and there another group of challenges, et cetera.
And it wasn’t the two cameras that hung off me that limited me, (although a Super-telephoto might have been nice, I doubt it would have made most of the images better). It was my abilities. Talk about frustrating. I came home with, at least, 15GB of images. The ones that were within my level of knowledge and experience were good to great, (IMHO). With rest of them, I felt and they looked like I had never picked up a camera before. it was pretty humbling… But, a good learning experience…
I also learned that you don’t take good pictures after you’ve flogged yourself up and down a couple of mountains, having gotten up at 4:30AM for the light, but that’s for another posting… LOL
October 13th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Interesting article! I just graduated from a good point-and-shoot (Fuji 1000S) to my very first DSLR (Nikon D60) which I’m still learning to use. I’m very proud of many of my shots on the Fuji and hope that I will be able to learn the technical aspects of the Nikon well enough to get as good results.
Cheers!
- Ariana
October 13th, 2009 at 2:00 am
I think that a better camera (and kit) makes it easier to take difficult shots. I don’t have a fancy kit at all but I think that my photos are pretty OK for my rather elementary photography skills. Here’s my post about why I chose the camera and kit I did: http://www.shutteria.com/2009/07/deciding-on-my-kitt.html
October 13th, 2009 at 2:25 am
I only signed to a photography workshop, got so disappointed that the whole workshop was how to use the camera but not how to take pictures (nothing on composition, lighting, etc…). I never tried another since then and decided to learn the hard way on my on.
i think this article goes to the point, people focus too much on equipment and too little on photography. I bought a nikon d40 (my first DSLR) just when it was discontinued, so it was cheap! I don;t see how a more expensive camera would help me, and have no problem using it in P (which sort of an auto mode) or even full auto, as it does the same thing I would do manually. this way i can focus on taking the picture rather than adjusting the camera. And when I want to do something different, say longer shutter speed or limited depth of field, then I switch to A, S or full manual.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Reading all the responses, it looks like most people agree with the author. I do as well. You definitely do not need fancy equipment to get a great shot. My example – I got my D40X in December 2007. I knew I wanted to take my creative skills to the next level, by finally jumping on the digital wagon. (My Canon Elan 7 was my world, and it really took alot to get to the digital side for me.) I had digitals p&s prior, but I would use both the Canon and digital because I was comparing. It took me 3 years to make the DSLR decision. So, I was all excited when we were going on vacation last year. I was going to take crisper pictures in Universal & Islands of Adventure. I live for theme parks! The colors were going to POP! Well, the first morning there, the camera dropped on the bathroom floor. (Do not ever put your camera on the closed toilet seat – it WILL fall off!) I was totally devistated! All I could think about was the angles, and lighting situations that would be better with my D40x. I of course had a backup. A Kodak Z612. It is only a 6.1mp camera, but I decided that I was going to use it the same way I would use my Nikon. With no flash. I was pleasantly surprised. It made me realize, that it was my eye that made the difference, and not the equipment. (Although that Kodak had such nice crisp pictures! It had a Zeiss lens, which probably accounted for the crispness) Since then, I have looked at photography differently. I have started to finally use my manual features, just have purchased a 35 prime to go with my kit lens. I hope this lens takes my creative skills to an all new level!
I also do have some friends that have DSLR’s and they just – point and shoot. They do not use the camera creatively at all. I think most people go for the low end DSLR’s because they like to take a lot of pictures, and they will get a crisper picture, and because of the fast shutter speed to catch the kids moving. This mostly goes for my friends that have children. This is absolutely fine – for what they want. But when the person says OH, I have this and this, but they take craptacular shots… (the worst is blown out pics) – it irks me to no end.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:51 am
Absolutely. Whenever I get equipment envy and look in my empty wallet, I remind myself that the key to becoming a better photographer has nothing to do with getting better equipment but developing a better eye and better technique. My photos won’t magically improve simply because I am now using a better camera.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:42 am
A very good anology, indeed. very true……But I see that many seem to have misunderstood the absoluteness of the concept. What I mean is that a beautiful picture is a picture is a picture is a picture. It is a beautiful picture……taken with coolpix or D40, D60, D90, D300 or a D700 or even a D3. Noise performance, focus speeed, white balance etc etc are details…….Now you are walking across a village on the suburbs of Machu Pitchu……an old lady with a goat and a haystack on her head walks by…….you take a shot in just a few seconds. And she is gone……..may be a coolpix will work better here……even if the lighting situation was challenging. Most beautiful moments are fleeting. Yea, you had a studio, with great lighting, and a willing model…and time to tweak it all…..thats a different scenario……some cant see the best shot even then.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But without a little bit of ideas from the devil behind it, the camera doesnt matter. Putting it in order, Eye, understanding, creativity and skill (to make the best with the least). Lastly photographic equipment.
Dont you think so?
October 13th, 2009 at 4:46 am
love this post. it’s not all in the equipment. while right about overcoming the limits of your equipment, i’m more inline with what the first commenter said about creativity within the limits of your equipment (the houdini solution?).
October 13th, 2009 at 7:46 am
HI,
Bryan Petterson expresses it in the difference between a correct exposure and an artistic exposure.
It is a combination of science and art
October 13th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Great article! I couldn’t agree more! One of the main reasons I started PWOB – to highlight those with the talent behind the lens, not the photoshop skills behind the mouse. :-)
October 13th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Eric O’Donnell, thank you for your post at 11:22. You spoke for me far better than I could have done myself.
A personal observation: I have noticed that those who espouse such a philosophy as stated in this article, whether in music or photography (or other), are most often those who have access to the equipment they want to marginalize.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I agree with the original poster. So true indeed. YOu don’t really need fancy gears or whatever SLR’s to get magnificent pictures. I have a digital cameras and the pictures i’ve taken are often nicer than expected.
“As long as you know the limitations of your equipment, and how to overcome them, it is possible to take gorgeous photographs, even if you don’t have a fortune to spend on your gear”
The above is so true. good statement
October 14th, 2009 at 12:32 am
I recently blogged about this at http://server.ericsbinaryworld.com/blog/2009/10/02/actually-size-does-matter/
and to recap, basically you can take good photos with a crappy cellphone camera as I show in the post. But better cameras definitely give the photographer the ability to be more in control of the shot. (eg control the f-stop and, therefore, how much of the scene is in focus)
October 14th, 2009 at 1:38 am
I agree with the fundamentals, yet I also disagree: some niches can’t be done with just any camera. You can’t do underwater photography without a waterproof camera. You can’t do sports photography without a fast DSLRs. You can’t shoot birds without long telephotos. And there’s a reason why serious landscape photographers use digital 35mm FF or Digital Medium Format: skill being equal, they’re the best tool for the job.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I totally agree with author.
10 years ago I’d gotten my first film camera. ZENIT-E from 1972. I even don’t remember what the lens was. But I had only one lens. It’s all manual camera.
Today I’ve got Nikon D80 with 4 lenses.
And you know what… Sometimes I go back to my photos from 10, 9, 8 years ago, and I am speechless how beautiful they are.
That camer taught me how to be a great observer for good shot, and hot to adjust the perfect settings.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Amend your photos with your photo editing software and then choose your favorites.
You can then check http://www.photoproductions.com to order your Professional Photo Book.
Premium Photobooks, Not Premium prices
October 15th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Great article! I agree with the original poster. It’s a common misconception among hobbyist and amaetur photographers. Most believe that professional photographers are “professional” just because they can afford more expsensive photography gear, while that isn’t the case at all. I believe that being a good photographer is more about creativity and skill which is hard to overcome by just getting better gear.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Good article! I’m no pro, but I think its a balance of investing in the right equipment that suits individual needs (not necessarily the most expensive), knowing how to use the equipment properly (and to its greatest extent), PLUS the knowledge, creativity, and skill that goes into composing a beautiful shot – which carries the most weight and comes naturally to some, while others have to work hard and practice at it.
It is interesting to do a google search of your local pro photographers…I’m sure you’ll find dozens that shoot beautiful photos, while others are just not at the same level. As well, I know many amateurs who haven’t invested much in their equipment but take amazing shots; and then others who buy into all the bells and whistles but their photos are bland.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am
This is my second post on this subject. I think Steffie makes a great point in her 1st paragraph and says much better what I wanted to say in my 1st post which is that superior equipment makes for superior results in many cases, but not exclusively. Good equipment, however, can turn a very good photo into a superior photo. For instance, in my 1st post I used the difference between a Hasselblad and a Brownie Hawkeye to make my point. Some years ago I took a picture of two white Lilies with a pure black background which I accomplished with DOF and which earned me a blue ribbon at my county fair. I couldn’t have got that same picture with a Brownie Hawkeye. However, I may have gottten an equal result from any camera that has DOF capabilities.
Equipment makes a difference.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Well Said!
October 16th, 2009 at 10:51 am
I do agree with the article. I have a Canon powershot SIS3. Had it for two years now.I am still discovering its potential. I upgraded from a Sony cybershot, basic point and shoot which I had for about 4 years. I got the canon when I had completely and utterly exhausted all my sony cam options :)
October 16th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I used to be known as a bad photographer. Then I bought an SLR (a cheapo bottom shelf SLR) and I instantly became a better photographer. I believe that equipment helps a lot, to a point. After that it’s just vision. My main question about this story is why does this Wilfredo Garcia feel the need to show up his students? And how old are these kids anyway? Is he trying to validate himself? Show off? I checked his site. It’s not that good. Like at all. Seriously.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Cameras can be best friends full of fun ,easy to enjoy, no complications and always there when you need them
October 16th, 2009 at 11:41 am
There’s a bottom limit to how cheap the equipment can be, but I agree with the point. I recently found some pictures I took in 1968 with an instamatic of a rock concert, and by golly, they still hold up as decent rock photography today. I was trying out my ability to take artistic rock photos with the cheapo box that I had. I posted them on my redbubble site, if anyone wants to see.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Let’s not get carried away with our purity here….. whilst I think we all know what the “quoter” means, it is pretty damned hard to make a technically impressive image with equipment that does not have the range to capture it. Sure, a brilliant image has a lot to do with its creator, but don’t be silly and naive – good quipment helps a lot too.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:45 am
While I agree that better equipment makes picture look better, without the skill to know when to hit the shutter button, you’ve got nothing but a picture.
I was shooting my son’s sporting event when another mom came up to me to tell me about how our sons played together years before, she scrapbooked and had used my pictures (which I gave her), and the photos were great. Then came the camera about how I am lucky to have a nice camera to use, I just want to mention that the pictures she had were taken with my Sony point and shoot.
The following week she brought the scrapbook to show me. “It’s beautiful” I said, “you must have great scissors.”
The point I am trying to make is without the skill, the equipment is just a small bonus, this is true for everything from photography to sex, just my opinion!
October 16th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I’ve been thinking about this topic as I’ve read all the comments. The conclusion I reached is that better equipment will make you a better photographer but, the best equipment in the world can’t make you the best photographer in the world. In other words better equipment will make the skills you have shine more but even the best equipment can’t give you talent. A great photographer is a matter of talent, training, and the right equipment.
I was talking with a friend of mine about photography and we concluded that it is much easier in these days of digital photography to have a great portfolio, take 200 photos (film) vs 20,000 (digital) and you’re bound to have more photos that look good. I learned to shot in film and she learned in the digital age and until she bought a 85mm 1.4 manual lens for her dSLR (that darn cost thing) t I shot a lot less photos then she did and more of mine turned out. I think it was because I learned in the days of film where you tended to be more reluctant to press the shutter until you at least thought the shot was going to be good. Back in my days of shooting film if I shot 200 photos in a day I was taking pictures at the Olympics! Now if I take 2,000 in a day I whine a bit about the time to go through them all but, I don’t have to take out a loan or spend weeks in the darkroom.
Cathy
October 16th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Is she looking through the viewfinder or through the flash?
by the way… its not the camera but the shooter.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Very true. I use a Canon EOS 30D but I have made some of my best pictures with my old Canon G3 camera. Check out the site of Nitsa -
http://www.nonphotography.com/selfp.html and http://www.skylightweb.com/Nitsaontheweb.html
Read about her approach to photography. Very interesting.
Greetings,
Julian
http://xrl.us/bekdw2
October 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I agree. There are these girls on flickr who are around 16 who also own canon rebels (amateur gear as they say) who take pictures that look like they belong in vogue or some high fashion magazine. They have a 50mm 1.8 lens which cost about 90 bucks and their pictures and composition and style and tiniest little details are just gorgeous and they do all this without spending 3 grand on camera gear. I wish i was as good as them and I’m 28 with the same camera but my ideas are no where near as artistic as theirs. So yeah good gear can help but people with this wonderful artist eye do not need expensive equipment. They can make art from anything.
October 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Funnily enough I made a photo book recently, entitled, “It’s not the camera”.
I love using my Canon Powershot SX 110 IS but I also have a Canon EOS 40D and 350D.
However, my P&S is wonderful on family days out because it is light and fits nicely in my pocket.
Here are a couple of pictures I have taken on family days out to the park …
… and to the library.
And a still life, simply placed on my worktop in my kitchen, by a window :o)
October 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I never seem to get links to images correct in here :o(
Here’s the still life …
October 16th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Still Life
October 16th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Ughhh I will get there in the end!
Summer Fruit
October 16th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
A guitar which is not in tune, will never be able to produce excellent music, no matter how good the musician is.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Definitely true. It’s really the photographer’s eye that matters. While it can be learnt, some people just have a natural eye for a good photo. I wish I did.
But never forget that GEAR IS FUN!
October 16th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
My response to this is, have a look at the story I have on the front page of my wen site – http://www.justjohnimages.com
Thanks for the article.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
How wonderful! I always have camera envy whenever I see other photographers. I will learn to appreciate my little camera a bit more.
Futhermore, a recent reader letter in Practical Photography magazine had this story to tell, which was apparently told to him by another professional photographer:
The photographer held a dinner party at his house. During the evening, he was asked by some of the guests if they could see some of his work. He was delighted to show them.
At the end of the evening, as the guests were leaving, one of the ladies thanked him for the dinner and added, “I thought your photographs were wonderful. You must have a very good camera”
A few weeks later this same lady had a dinner party of her own and the photographer was invited. After the meal, as he left he expressed his appreciation of her meal and said “You must have a very good cooker”.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I totally agree with the statement!
@Marc, that is so so true…i also quit my local club for the exact same reason!
October 16th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
People often ask me about what equipment I use, how much it all costs and how I manage to get such good (sometimes!) pictures.
My reply is always the same: The best, and most precious, two bits of photo gear I possess are my eyes. It’s here where the whole process begins.
If you can’t ’see’ an image before you pick up the camera then no amount of money or expensive gear will get you that special shot.
It’s people and their imaginations that make great pictures, not expensive camera gear.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I think it’s true, definitely …. and not just in photography.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Very true, Darren. I was showing my cousin some recent pics I took of Stonehenge (link below), and he commented, “I know you have a decent camera (D40X) and lens (Nikkor 18-200 VR), but to take a pic like this it takes vision. It would never have occurred to me that the clouds in this picture were worth photographing.” I thought that was a very insightful comment, especially since he doesn’t even own a camera, and I’m not just saying so because he thought it was a good pic!
http://picasaweb.google.com/sharsidd/StonehengeAndOldSarum#5391110634485222706
October 16th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I shot weddings, portraits and everything else, for 28 years with a Mamiya twin lens reflex (with only the normal lens). I’ve never owned a Hasselblad. My 35mm cameras were all manual.
I’m not bragging about that, just saying that I was taught by my mentors to equip yourself with basic equipment that will last, and take sharp, clear images. Then use your wits and creativity to come back with good pictures.
My college photography professor, Suzanne Camp Crosby, studied under Jerry Ulsman, and she shot with an ancient old Rollie that didn’t even HAVE interchangeable lenses! And she won competitions everywhere.
I finally bought a digital camera, a Canon 20D and a couple of good zooms. I’m having fun with them, but I find myself getting sloppy, assuming that I can “fix it later”. If you have to “fix it later”, you didn’t do your job on site!
October 16th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
One more note – being a guitarist, as well as a photographer, I can say that an old guitar that has been cared for, can sound beautiful in the right hands. The same for an old camera.
BUT, a CHEAP guitar, that is not well made, can never sound good. Same for a cheap camera.
Get the best you can afford, then PRACTICE until you can use it well.
That to me is the greatest advantage of digital – you can practice all you want, without having to pay for film and processing!
October 16th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Indeed, the article is spot on. I like the comparison.
Another I heard somewhere (a bit like one mentioned above), “that was a delicious meal, you must have some really nice pans!” : D
Thanks to all for sharing their ways of looking at it; it helps the rest of us fine tune our perspectives.
As this shows, it is a very personal thing; for many a good P&S is plenty to realize their vision while others need more options.
No one can really say except for themselves what is a valid limiting factor in the process. I followed a thread where someone asked if the readers thought it was a good time to upgrade to a particular model of camera. Someone responded by telling them that from the looks of their photos their gear was not the limiting factor; which they had not ask for an opinion of. Anyway, they upgraded and indeed their photos did improve, who can say why, probably the better viewfinder was a factor, but I also think that getting what was to him a “serious” camera made him more serious about his photography. I think also getting a quality piece of gear that works predictably, can remove concerns from the process and allow one to focus more on seeing and creating. A new piece of kit can also spark interest and work in a way as to open up ideas one may not have thought of, otherwise.
A lot of what I was after with a DSLR was not only control over more aspects of the process, but easy access to those controls was even more important.
For me it is a fine line between having gear of sufficient quality and going too far. Admittedly, sometimes it is hard to know what is enough.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I tend to agree with this statement as it is the composer not the camera. The better camera and lens just allows you more or better options. For example, getting the sharper image with a good lens. Taking a less noisy picture with higher ISO . After years of shooting, I am still inclined to believe that nothing beats Composition and exposure
October 17th, 2009 at 12:16 am
I will say that some of my better photos came from the cheaper cameras I used to own, I think alot of it had to do with the fact that all I had to think about was just to take the dang picture. I didn’t have to worry about aperture, shutter, ISO, exposure, etc. HOWEVER, it wasn’t until after I bought an entry-level DSLR and using RAW that I started to play around and being creative with editing photos.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:23 am
I too am a photographer and guitarist and I chose the best tools that I could afford to accomplish the ultimate goals of both genera’s, which of course are completely different and in my opinion shouldn’t be equated.
A great photographer has a better chance of creating a good image (under ideal conditions) with an inexpensive camera than a guitarist has at sounding good on a cheap guitar.
Having said that, a good camera with better lenses, better menus, dedicated buttons and switches, lower light capability, faster shutter speeds etc,etc, gives you the means to more easily take your craft to a much higher level. The same with guitars….more expensive usually means, easier to play, perfect intonation,quality of construction,and in general makes the hours and hours of practice required to become proficient more enjoyable.
Use what you have of course but never lose sight of the fact that an inferior tool can keep you from reaching your full potential.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:26 am
When someone says, “wow, you must have a great camera”, to a photographer it’s like a backwards insult. However, if you look past that, and help the person understand that your camera is a tool, you may just be helping them find their creativity.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:52 am
I would say that it’s about you and your relationship with your Camera.
You gave a good example of Garcia getting the best shots with a disposable camera.
I’ll say give him a better camera and the photos will be even better.
It’s about the person having the skill first and being able to use their camera properly.
There always a learning curve with every new camera you pick up.
I have taken photos since I was a kid with a Kodak 127 (film, hand wound camera) and I noticed that my photos got better with time.
Every time I got a new camera, my quality would initial drop to below those of the best from my previous camera, but then as I understood my camera better the quality would rise and eventually exceed the previous camera.
I went through this with my first DSLR ( I got over a year ago) and I have noticed the quality improving as i learnt the camera.
Example
One of the earliest a year ago
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rahsoft/2699685724/
One of the latest a year after the previous
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rahsoft/3782131979/
October 17th, 2009 at 2:56 am
Quality of a photo may depend on camera, of course. I mean, SOME photos that are made with expensive D-SLR camera may have more clarity, sharpness etc.
BUT, you just can’t buy the qualities and skills of a photographer himself. There’s no use buying expensive camera, lenses and other equipment, if you make photos that are not interesting, innovative, well composed, with good subject, story, “mood” – whatever you consider a fine artistic photo has to contain.
So, I completely agree with the quote when it comes to the skills of a photographer. But I also agree with “Copyrat” in some way, when it comes to quality of an image itself.
Hope you understood me, English is not my native language. :))
October 17th, 2009 at 3:21 am
I understand what Angelino and Darren mean but I cannot agree with them. Sure, if you know your camera’s limitations you can take good pictures – but *only* within its range. Like shooting your golden retriever in your back yard. What happens if you want to take a picture in conditions that your camera just cannot cope with? No knowledge will save your pictures when, for example, you try to shoot a bicycle race in a forest on a cloudy morning, using anything less than a passable DSLR.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Old saying, the equipment should match the skills. There has to be a balance.
Thanks, Kris
October 17th, 2009 at 4:10 am
I have noticed that although I have bought a DSLR camera the same rules of composition, light, being in the right place, and the artistic ability to see what is good in what you are looking at and using it still apply. I take snaps a lot but now and then when I have really looked at what I am doing I realise that as my knowledge increases and I begin to understand more about the art of taking photographs as well as the technical ability with the camera the better I use the camera I have. I have a 35mm Chinon SLR that I have used and discovered that I can take some good photos with it (and some dreadful ones too) and an Olympus pocket 35mm that requires a simple point and shoot – same result. The Fuji I use for school photo’s – on trips out and for places where I don’t want to lug the Canon, I get good photos too. With the Canon I can make some awful shots as well as some I am satisfied with. that feeling of taking the picture you wanted to take. Great stuff.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:51 am
When I’m shooting an event (wedding, bar or bat miztvah), I’ll occasionally show a subject the shot I just took of them to see if they like it. When they do — typical comment, “That’s a really good camera!”
October 17th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Beautiful and inspiring post. I want to thank you whole heartedly, from an aspiring photographer who has always used “hand-me-down” equipment.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:29 am
I definitely agree with this article. The posters here that are reminding us of the fact that a DSLR takes better quality images in terms of it’s pixels are only stating the obvious, we know that people, that’s why DSLR’s & fast lenses cost so much!
The best images I have ever seen are not perfect in terms of noise, blur, clarity, colour or whatever but have used these apparent elements of ‘imperfection’ to their advantage, almost featuring them. These images capture the viewer, it’s all about good content, the imagination, you can throw as much money as you like at gear but if you don’t have that little spark in your head then fancy gear and deep pockets won’t help your photos.
A good photographer can pre-visualise, take a shot in advance, minutes, hours, days, months or even years before they press that shutter button or even own a camera….
Billy.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:36 am
wow great thread , i love it , i agree with him , you can even take shots with a camera phone and they’d still look nice!
October 17th, 2009 at 11:39 am
“it is not the arrow, it is the indian”
October 18th, 2009 at 6:02 am
Yes better quality improves the picture, but give any craftsman average tools they will do better work that an average person with the best tools. I know my picture reflect my skill not my camera
October 18th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
The limitation is inside of our mind, Camera and technique are nothing unless photographer use them with creativity… Any Limitation outside can’t stop us to have good picture… I have lots of nice photos with my D450 Canon but Now I bought Nikon D700 full frame camera around 3 months and I stop go for shooting… In art its good we be free and best equipments giving us reponsibility, I dont accept any responsibility for art
October 18th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Thank you for this article. I have been preaching this for quite a while now. It is never about the camera, but about the eye behind it!
October 19th, 2009 at 12:35 am
I am so glad you wrote about this. Just starting in Digital Photography I always wondered if I had the right equipment or if I had a better lens would it make a difference? I came to the conclusion that I needed to learn all I could about what I had before I bought something else.
Good article thanks for giving me back my confidence.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:41 am
I agree, its not the camera, its the photograhper. I have had all kinds of camera, some for the 40’s an 50’s, and istant disposels. 35 mil. camera, I like the film, but have gone to digtal. I have been ask when doing weddings, Make Me Look Good. ,,,,,,, I just see what I want to see. and the camera takes what i see.I have won lots of county fairs here, I use a Olympus FE-170 point an shoot. well it does very well. Got 3 1st, a 1st, best of class and Best of Show this year. so fancy eq. is not for me. the cheap or fancy money ones. its your choice what one want. to me It in the eyes and artistic one sees.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
It is basically a chicken and egg thing. Without the basic equipment, one would never know the limitations of one’s skills and the limitation of the equipment. Usually with the help of better equipment it will allow the photographer to capture the moment much more easier than with the basic equipment. The worst attitude to have towards photography is “Oh, I can photoshop the image later”
My experience. I have a F2.8 lens in a dimly lit restaurant situated in Kathmandu that happens to have a cultural dance show for the patrons. No matter what the camera can dish out, the dance moves and the low light, just wouldn’ allow good images to be captured. Furthermore, flash is not an option. So it takes skills to make full use of whatever the equipment can do and the appreciation of the environment that allows one to take a picture. (i made full use of the small halogen lights that throws small lighted space as my light source and wait for the dancers to move into those light to take my shot)
So it goes to show that having all the equipment in the world, if one do not how to use them won’t allow good images to be captured. And to capture an image beautifully is the result of good composition that no equipment can teach.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:50 am
This is so inspiring….as I went to the park yesterday with my kids to get some pictures of them and the fall leaves. I saw MANY people there with the same idea, as well as some hired photographers doing family portraits and engagement shoots. (I have started my own business for the same thing). And I was feeling down on myself, since I only have basic studio gear, and a Rebel with the stock lens and a 50mm 1.8. They had the umbrellas, and big fancy flashes, and huge expensive lenses. I thought maybe I should just give up till I win the lottery.
I’ve always had the premis of this article in the back of my mind, but today was a good day to read it again and bring back some inspiration to keep going! Thanks for sharing!!
October 20th, 2009 at 8:19 am
I guess it’s true that few can accomplish so much with so little gear or a basic point and shoot camera. However, am thinking, once someone plays with the DSLRs or one of those ‘expensive’ cameras that offer a lot of flexibility with settings/ clarity/ zoom (nifty 50 is worth mentioning, for clarity and DoF though), then they will be able to get the best out of basic ones too, as they understand the knack of it. Of course, the ‘expensive’ ones are priced at that range for a reason, huh?
But, I’ve seen wonderful shots come out of iPhone too, so can’t take sides here but that’s my thought.
Viv.
Canon S5 IS.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:55 am
I have a saying that I use too “Telling me my camera takes good pictures is like me telling you your stove cooks good food”.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I agree with that 110%
Soo often ill be taking a photograph and say to my self “if only i had this, or had that” Then i realise i don’t have “this or that” and i still want to (even need to) take the photograph.
For example. I once had to photograph my aunt who was applying for a job, and needed some photos, one full body shot, another shoulders up. When she got to my place it was thick cloud, nearing sunset. I have a slow lens (f/3.5-5.6) and didn’t have a speedlight at that stage, yet i still got a killer shot. I knew i was unable to retain a fast shutter speed and get the correct exposure, so i set the ISO up a little, had what was left of the sun over my shoulder (in her face) and i took the photo in RAW. Once on the computer, the photo was a little underexposed but sharp. I decided to create a high contrast partly black and white image, and a little vigneeting. The overall result was stunning.. probably a better result then if i had of had that flash and fast lens i was cursing not owning.
Live with what you own. =]*
October 24th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Yes, I agree in 100% with all that was said in the article. First comes the photographers vision and idea for the picture. That’s the most important part. The camera (gear) and all the accessories are just the tools that should help to make that vision come true.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:09 am
A guitar produces tones, a camera produces pictures.
You can play a melody without a guitar, but good luck taking a picture without a camera.
The phrase is appropriate.
Don’t misunderstand me it’s a good article, and an important point is made, but I like to nitpick sometimes.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Boy oh boy does the guitar make a difference! A luthier-built properly ‘tuned’ instrument when the wood has opened up can really ’sing’. A crappy foreign factory build instrument can sound very dead and dull – if you are lucky. And the strings matter, do – a great deal.
Bad analogy.
A good camera can definitely reduce the amount of noise on your image. I don’t think anyone would argue that all you need is the camera on your cell phone to shoot for Arizona Highways, for instance. But the difference in acoustic instruments is even greater.
Leave a Reply