You are not logged in
Login
Register
Home
Advertise here
Shop @ Photojojo!
Magnetic Photo Rope - $12
8 so-tiny-yet-so-mighty neodymium magnets hold your photos to a thin steel cable you can hang just about anywhere. Now in 5 colors! More →
|
Chuck
878 days ago
|
|
There is no such thing as bad photos, just bad angles!!
Someone said that, can't remember who...
|
alicia954
878 days ago
|
|
It's like nature versus nurture for cameras! I'm sure each side could be argued, and it probably comes down to a combination. I used to use a really cheap hand-held digital camera of my boyfriend's and would get compliments on the photos like, "Wow, where did you buy those?" (after they were framed....) I'm also not professionally trained in photography, but have been doing the rule of thirds, and taking pics at dusk, for a long time now without being instructed. Only recently did I realize those were already suggestions in many how-to's of taking pictures.
If you have a fancy camera, like I do now, it matters too that you know how to use it to some extent. I'm not a fan of all the extra settings and figuring out how to take the best possible picture because I favor spontaneity. I don't like the computer editting programs as much as I liked processing my own film, tweaking those "settings" because that actually involved some skills.
|
Chronicole
878 days ago
|
|
Alicia,
Nature versus nuture, exactly!
You bring up a good point about the editing tools. When I got into photography it was film and then scanned on a HUGE Kodak scanner to mess with in Photoshop 1.0. It wasn't until I taught a photography class a couple of years ago and saw someone's digital prints that I felt the cameras had caught up.
|
greentheor
y
877 days ago
|
|
I feel like it's a combination of the two. I think a good photographer can make a great photo using pretty much any tool, from a dinky holga to a giant 8x10 camera - however the results will be different coming from each camera. So ultimately, the great photographer is one who is able to use any tool they want (which is to say they are skilled enough to work all the cameras they have access to) but is able to recognize the picture that they want to take, and choose the right camera to make that picture accordingly. 
|
mercutiojb
877 days ago
|
|
You may have to change the way you shoot / what you shoot / how you shoot with different equipment.
But it's always the photographer.
A bad photo is a bad photo, whether it's a child's toy or a 1D Mark III
|
mom320
876 days ago
|
|
and don't you so not love it when someone looks at your photos and says "wow! you must have a really wonderful camera!" duh.
|
acy
876 days ago
|
|
i think it has more to do with the photographer rather than the camera--but the two need to coexist for professional-looking photos. composition, subject matter, ect. should be coupled with decent equipment to result in photos that have proper colour/lighting balance, pixel quality, etc. the grade of equipment must, of course, be matched by the skill of the photographer to correctly use the settings; the photos will be carp otherwise.
the scepter of power must be welded by a knowledgable, competent person.
|
alicia954
876 days ago
|
|
That's really funny, mom320! But so true, as if the camera did all the work itself. I still can't decide if I'd rather fumble with the camera's settings a little more and get the "perfect" picture, or spontaneously shoot without caring. I guess it depends on what I'm shooting, and if I'm doing it more for the art of it, or just to record a moment or place in time.
|
superdewa
873 days ago
|
|
I don't have a fancy camera, just an old Olympus Camedia point & shoot, and I feel like I have pushed what I have as far as I can go. I'd really like to go further, but I can't afford it now. There's a lot I can't do, and the lag time is particularly frustrating. I'm sure once I get my hands on a decent DSLR, I'll be able to highlight all the other faults in my current camera.
|
rekanize
872 days ago
|
|
In almost any creative field where technology plays an integral role, the uninitiated will always assume that, with enough money, you can create wonderful things with the push of a button and no experience/training/aptitude/etc is required.
Any camera can yield great results, providing that the user understands the limitations of the device, and works within those constraints (certain lighting conditions or subject matter), or uses the limitations for an appropriate effect (such as a light-leaky body, chromatic aberration, etc)
A lot of this can be intuitive, though, and won't necessarily require any formal training. It just depends on the person, I suppose.
|
all taken
868 days ago
|
|
rekanize hit it... I've seen plenty of really bad pictures from really great equipment, and I've seen amazing images from Holga, Polaroid, and disposable cameras. So I've got to say it's how you use it.
|
BPphoto
760 days ago
|
|
It's kind of like a painter- a true artist can paint a masterpiece with oils on a canvas- an amateur *could* paint a picture with the same medium, but it wouldn't be a masterpiece... give the artist a box of crayons and he could produce an incredible piece of art, and the amateur would produce a drawing with the same medium... The artists work would reflect his training, tallent and years of experience, where the amateurs would reflect lack of training, tallent and experience.
In the same vein, the artists work done in the more advanced medium would be "better" or more finnished than the crayon drawing- a tallented photographer takes incredible photographs with their "good" equipment, but would produce good quality work with a p&s too... because of the training, tallent and experience- all the knowledge the photographer has.
SO- while great equipment is necessary for a photographer to reach their full potential, it's not the only requirement. Plus, the more advanced equippment is more complicated to use- and you have to be able to utilize all it's functions and understand how the equippment works to be able to take great photos with it.
To me, the photographer is the most important part of the equation, and the equippment plays a part in it all. Maybe I'm just sick of hearing "if I had a camera like that I could take pics like you do".... yah, the 10+years of learning about photography and art have NOTHING to do with it.
|
belleariel
paris
760 days ago
|
|
The equipment is only a tool that captures what is in the mind, eye, history and hand of the photographer. Getting a more sophisticated piece of equipment (i.e. more manual controls, better lens, etc.), and then learning how to use it, may help to capture that moment...but it's still all up to the photographer.
Here's a quote from one of the photographers in the "India" exhibit at the Newark Museum:
Raghu Rai said: "I believe that a photographer's job is to cut a frame-size slice out of the world around him so faithfully and hontestly that if he were to put it back in life the world would begin to move without a stutter." How's that for a goal to aspire to?
Having said all that, like "superdewa" I want to upgrade to a DSLR from the Sony & Nikon point-and-shoot cameras I'm using. The problem is....which one? and at what cost?
|
sandinmysh
oes
759 days ago
|
|
i think it's a little bit of both.
i don't know much about anything -i too only have a point and shoot but i am trying to learn more and hope that one day i can also afford a good camera. but, how good can it get if i probably wouldn't know what to do with it?
like acy said above--they both need to coexist.
|
9785
Home
Page generated in 1258795957.4843 seconds
|
Re-stickable Decal Photo Frames - $20
8 retro wall decal frames that leave no mark on your walls and are a cinch to remove and reapply. More →
Keyboard Shortcut Skins - $30
Become a whiz at Photoshop, Aperture, FCP, Pro Tools, and Logic with these pre-printed keyboard skins. More →
Photo Time Capsule
Flickr
Twitter
Facebook
