I've heard it said over and over again...

H

hulagirl

Member
It's not the camera, it's the photographer behind the camera. ; But I wonder if it's just become the cool photographer's phrase, in some respects, because I was thinking this morning (dangerous prospect) that there is more than one way to look at that.

I'm a great cook. ; I love to cook and I have alot of tools in order to accomplish what I want to in the kitchen. ; While it is true that having all of those wonderful things at my fingertips does not make me a better cook, it most certainly makes the job part of cooking a heck of a lot easier and more of a pleasure. ; My very sharp Henckle knives for instance, make cutting things a breeze, and that does, I think...free me up to be more creative. ; That's just one simple example, but I think it gets the point across.

Do you think it's sort of the same with a camera...or am I way out there? ; For those of you who have upgraded your camera...or your lenses...does it free up the creative process even more? ; Or is there no relationship?

Just wondering.
 
I absolutely believe its the photographer and not the camera.

Look at Jeff Fillmore's photos, he uses old "out of date" cameras with "old out of date" film, $10.00 cameras, and top end cameras, and all of his photos are awesome.
Same with Tom Bricker, he used a d40 and got pictures that many couldnt get no matter what camera they had!

I upgraded from the d80 to the d300 and do not feel that my pictures got any better, but I do enjoy the ergonomics of the d300 much more! I love having dials and buttons over having to dive into menus to make changes.
 
Yes, Jeff and Tom's photographs both fascinate me and I absolutely have noticed what cameras they are using.

But if the job can be done perfectly beautifully with a d40 or a $10.00 camera...why does anyone ever spend so much money to upgrade?

(this is the great debate in my head...still...with upgrading lenses and/or camera body.)
 
It's definitely the photographer...but the tool can make a good photographer have an easier time of it, or possibly even allow him to show what he can do better...while a bad photographer will be a bad photographer even with the most expensive cameras and lenses made.

Like you with cooking - your German knives and your best pans and a great gas range can all help you, a good cook, perform even better than you would without those tools. ; But would any of those knives, pans, or ranges make a bad cook any better? ; Probably not.

As for why anyone spends more for better equipment - well that answer has many layers. ; One would be to expand the capabilities - you may have become an excellent photographer, but cannot take photographs in some situations because of the limitations of the tool - such as action sports, nature photography, etc. ; So getting the better tool allows the good photographer to expand their catalog of photographs into new areas that their lesser camera restricted them from, or at least made significantly harder. ; Again...it still takes the good photographer to begin with. ; Another possibility is that some people are just technology addicts and always feel the need to have the top model or the newest model...they didn't need it, and it may not even help them do anything differently than before or change their photography...but it satisfied their constant lust for shiny new toys. ; And a third possibility is that some folks are just rich, and they have no reason not to throw around big bucks at whatever is reported to be the 'best'. ; They don't need it, won't really use it, won't learn from it...but they will only buy whatever's at the top of any premium price list - cars, boats, houses, cameras, watches, etc.

In the end, the tool matters, as it can help a good photographer use all of their skills and vision without technology restrictions. ; But the best tool doesn't make a bad photographer anything other than a bad photographer with a nicer tool. ; Photography is a blend of the technological abilities with artistic skills or visions. ; Technology lives within the tool, and can be upgraded and changed from model to model, and more money can buy more technology. ; But the artistic skill and vision can only live within the person using the camera.
 
  • justin nailed it, and a lot more eloquently than i am capable of. i up grade when i feel the new camera gets me enough additional flexibility, does the new camera ever make me a better photographer, NO, but it can make it easier to try for that vision in my head. HOWEVER, once again i must state my very strongly held opinion, GOOD GLASS IS GOOD GLASS, TAKEN CARE OF IT HOLDS VALUE AND LASTS A LONG TIME. in other words, you don't need a body upgrade until you just cannot create your vision with your current technology, on the other hand, save those dollars and get that L glass, you'll never regret having the best optics available for your camera type. there is a real difference, many times easily visible between 2 shots, same body, identical settings, one top of the line lens, the other a starter grade lens, guess which one wins out all the time.
  • you can pretty much figure out where i stand on this issue
 
It's the photographer. ; A good photographer knows how to get the most out of their equipment. ; To go along with Craig's comments about Jeff and Tom, I would add Justin to that list as well. ; He has amazing shots that were taken with a P&S that many people can't get with a high end dslr. ; All three of them have figured out how to get the most out of the tools that they have. ;

Better tools allow good photographers to be more creative and/or more efficient. ; But like Gary, I believe in buying quality equipment when you know it will last a long time.
 
You all make some wonderful, thought provoking points. ; I have been constantly amazed at photos I am finding on flickr, taken with even point and shoot cameras and some of the photos I pulled off my own iPhone, rival the ones I have taken with the XSi.

In cooking, it is so straightforward to me. ; You cook something and put it in front of someone and they goble it down or they push it away. ; You get instant feedback, and it's easy to tell if people are telling the truth (unless you are Brad Paisley, whose wife bakes him a cake and he lies about it so she won't cry. Youtube - Little Moments if you are scratching your head in confusion) :D ; Easy to justify buying the tools I need to keep creating things people love to eat.

Photography's a bit more ambiguous. ; Who's to say my photography is any good and a new lens purchase isn't a waste of money? ; Some people are gonna chew it up and love it and others are gonna spit it out in disgust, no doubt. ; I can already hear people saying, "It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, Roni...it only matters how you feel about it." ; But would your photography mean as much to you, if other people didn't love it and want to see more?

I don't know. ; Just questions rattling around in my head today...
 
"hulagirl" said:
; Easy to justify buying the tools I need to keep creating things people love to eat.
Click to expand...

As long as it's not a unitasker. ; There is only one unitasker that should be in a kitchen. [nb]And I'm not referring to a utilikilt.[/nb]
 
I started out my side business last June with two kit lenses and a Canon XS. About 75% of all the photos on my website were taken with the XS, kit lens and the cheap 50mm 1.8 and I've gotten a lot of compliments on the photos. Last May while in Disney I was taking a long exposure shot in EPCOT when a guy walked by and said to his wife "that shot's never going to come out, it's too dark". Well he saw the image on my view finder and asked me how I did it. He had a Nikon D90 and I had to show him how to use his camera's settings to get the same image, I even let him use my tripod.
So IMHO it is definitely the photographer and not the camera...but having good glass is always a good thing to have!


BTW I've since sold all the kit lenses and the XS and got a 24-105L, 50mm 1.4 and a 50D. :)
 
:D ; You do have a way of making light shine on a thing, Roger. :star: ; Thanks for always making me laugh. ;

James, I find your portrait photography to be so beautiful and I'm delighted that you shot the lion's share of them with the XS. ; And as an aside, I love the music on your site. ; I'm completely intrigued by how your real estate photos came out too. ; Don't know if you can share them, but I hope if you can...you will.

I really do get the fact that a better camera will not make a bad photographer, good. ; But, I do sincerely think a better camera makes a good photographer's photos even better. ; I sincerely thank all of you for your comments.
 
"hulagirl" said:
I can already hear people saying, "It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, Roni...it only matters how you feel about it." ; But would your photography mean as much to you, if other people didn't love it and want to see more?
Click to expand...

That depends on who you are making the photographs for. ; If you are a commercial photographer and getting paid to shoot something then yeah, your client's opinion matters, but you still need to be happy with the photo. ; If its a hobby and your primary goal is to create images that make you happy, then the only person's opinion who really matters is you. ; I mostly fall into the second category. ; Of course I enjoy hearing compliments on my work, but I'm shooting for me first and foremost.
 
That's an interesting point, Michael. ; I guess I kinda liken it in my mind to writing a journal or writing a novel. ; A journal is more of a personal journey, while a novel is a creation meant to be shared.

I never really looked at photography that way though. ; A visual representation of something seems to call out for the viewing, not just by me, but by others as well. ; But maybe it's like the difference between personal family albums and gallery shots. ; One is purely for my enjoyment and those closest to me. ; The other is for all the world to see.

It's another prism in my prism filled day. :)
 
I tend to agree that photography seems more appropriate to share, to have others view besides yourself. ; Of course, that's because I love photography, and it would seem selfish to me if someone had a great shot and didn't share it with me and the world. ; ;)

But I agree with the idea that photography, when it gets right down to it, needs to satisfy YOU above all...then, once you are satisfied with it, you can share it with others and see what they think. ; Whether they like it or not shouldn't matter at this point - you took it, you liked it, and when you showed it, it was the same shot you already decided you liked. ; That's where I separate photography from a photography job. ; A photography job doesn't necessarily have to satisfy me, just the buyer...so those folks who make a career from photography might have to take that into consideration. ; Or not. ; For me, photography remains a self-satisfying pursuit, something that brings me great joy, challenges me constantly, makes me strive to always try to improve, makes me want to try new things. ; I will always first view my photos for me and only me, and once I make my decision on what I like and decide to share them with the world, however small or large an audience, that photograph is ME, and my vision. ; If you like it...cool, so do I! ; If not...OK fine, but I still do. ; If I put it out there and ask for critique, I'll accept it, and consider whether I could improve the result or want to take advice offered next time I shoot.

That goes for all my photos - family or otherwise. ; I keep the family stuff between me and my family, but I still put the same thought or passion into it as I would any other, and it still must satisfy me alone.

I've been fortunate to make some side income from photography - be it selling prints from my office, getting hired for a few shoots, or a request from an agency for publication. ; I couldn't make a living from what I bring in, but it pays for the equipment. ; Could I possibly make a full career out of it, if I really devoted myself to it? ; I don't know - but to be honest, I don't really want to know. ; I never want photography to just become a job, a means to an end, a task I have to complete. ; Because I never want to lose the fun and joy and relaxation and travel and expression it currently provides me.
 
"zackiedawg" said:
I tend to agree that photography seems more appropriate to share, to have others view besides yourself. ; Of course, that's because I love photography, and it would seem selfish to me if someone had a great shot and didn't share it with me and the world. ; ;)

But I agree with the idea that photography, when it gets right down to it, needs to satisfy YOU above all...then, once you are satisfied with it, you can share it with others and see what they think. ; Whether they like it or not shouldn't matter at this point - you took it, you liked it, and when you showed it, it was the same shot you already decided you liked. ;
Click to expand...

That exactly what I was trying to say in my post above but couldn't quite find the words[nb]Michael shouldn't post when sleep deprived...[/nb]
 
Whether they like it or not shouldn't matter at this point - you took it, you liked it, and when you showed it, it was the same shot you already decided you liked.
Click to expand...

Maybe it shouldn't matter, Justin....but it does. ; It so does.

It's a place of vulnerability that's a little bit frightening to me sometimes. ;

Just trying to keep it real, I guess. ; I'd like to be one, for whom it doesn't matter...

but I'm not sure I ever will be.
 
I like to think about a golf analogy on this one. I absolutely stink at golf and can do very little with the clubs in the garage. But if I gave those clubs to Phil Mickelson he would be able to shoot an amazing game of golf. At the same time, the clubs that Phil uses in a tournament are specifically designed for him to give him the best possible chance to win.

So the golfer (or photographer) who has the skill to play golf well can perform even with the basic tools, and can excel with the right tools.

As far as whether or not people like my shots, for me it is important. I have read that many photographers have developed an ability to detach from their images. They take them and send the good ones off to whoever they're shooting for, or sell them to whoever will buy them and then move on to the next job without giving it a thought.

I'm just not wired that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top