Distinguishing the great skill and creativity from the quality of the equipment of a photographer

  • Thread starter PhotographyBuff
  • Start date
P

PhotographyBuff

Guest
In what consist the skill and creativity/art in photography as distinguished from the great equipment a photographer has at their disposal?
 
Really you'd need details and / or specifics. But as a general rule, the gear has very little to do with it.

There's an old saying:
Beginners think it's all about cameras
Enthusiasts think it's all about lenses
Photographers know it's all about the light

A more 'realistic' answer though, last year I challenged myself to a days shooting with my iPhone, resulting in a decent set of photos (IMHO).

BUT: I was using that camera in good light and at the focal length it was designed to be used at (and I have a great app for choosing the correct exposure). So I can take a decent picture with my phone (in the right circumstances) but with 7 cameras 10 lenses 4 speedlights, and a bunch of studio lighting I can get a decent picture anywhere anytime. Which again has nothing to do with the fact I own the gear and everything to do with the fact I know how to use it!

The most important piece of equipment at your disposal is the 10" of squishy stuff behind the viewfinder.

I suppose I ought to add, none of the gear I own would be on anyone's wish list in the gear forums (no matter how attractive it looks to the man in the street)
 
Last edited:
In what consist the skill and creativity/art in photography as distinguished from the great equipment a photographer has at their disposal?


Think logically. Who takes the photograph, the camera or the person holding it?

Of course... the person holding it.

Would they have taken the same photograph regardless of what camera they were holding?

Yes, or course they would.

Equipment has nothing to do with it.

In certain circumstances equipment can give a TECHNICAL advantage... for instance, the zillion frames a second from a D4 would increase your chances of catching that exact moment when the wheel comes off the F1 car or something, but this has nothing to do with creativity or art does it? Of course it doesn't.


Phil is right above.. it's about light. However.. it's also about subject. A boring photograph is just as often boring because it's a boring subject. Again, this has nothing to do with the camera you're holding. YOU decide what to point it at.


A great photographer can use anything you place in their hands, and still create great images... because great photographers have something to say and know how to say it visually. Great photographers are not about equipment... they just have a drive to use the medium to speak. Does a great word processor turn you into a great writer? Of course not. A great writer could create a great book with a Bic disposable and pad of A4.


The other beginner mistake is to think that you "take" a photograph, whereas a great photographer knows that you "make" a photograph.

This isn't helped by the recent, digital era increase in the phrase "capture" as if the camera's only purpose is as a simple recording device that has no bearing on the aesthetic, contextual or narrative qualities of the image... or it's relevance. It also promotes the also recent beginner obsession with post processing... because if you think that a camera is just a recording device, then you're obviously going to think that the greatness must come from processing.... which in actuality has sod all to do with a great photograph. Careful and well planned processing can add the finishing touches and make a great photo sing, but you need to start with a great photo: Garbage in, garbage out. No matter how you process an image, if it was sh1t to start with, it will be sh1t at the other end too.

Great photographers take great images because they're great photographers, not because they have great equipment.
 
Last edited:
I think a camera can help you take a great photo, for instance before i moved to a mirrorless camera the dslr mostly got left at home as it was too bulky or heavy. Now my number of photos has shot through the roof as i take it everywhere with me.
So i see it as a partnership the camera can have a big impact on the quality and number of photos you take. I'm a big gadget nerd so part of the fun for me is having a nice camera.
 
I think a camera can help you take a great photo, for instance before i moved to a mirrorless camera the dslr mostly got left at home as it was too bulky or heavy. Now my number of photos has shot through the roof as i take it everywhere with me.
So i see it as a partnership the camera can have a big impact on the quality and number of photos you take. I'm a big gadget nerd so part of the fun for me is having a nice camera.


A great photo is a great photo. Whether you get enjoyment from a nice camera has nothing to do with it. It makes you happy, sure, but it doesn't help your images to be more engaging or interesting. All you've done is chose a "type" of camera more convenient for your style of shooting. No one's saying that you don't use appropriate gear for what you're doing, but whether you use cheap mirrorless gear, or the best possible mirrorless gear has no bearing upon how good your images are.
 
If that were true the same photo taken with a phone as with say a dslr would be the same. Fair enough if we rule out AF, WB and all other things we let the camera decide, but a good camera is much better at choosing the correct settings.

For instance say we use a phone and a dslr both set to full auto so all the user has to do is frame and press the shutter. Which is likely to come out best?
When i see people commenting on photos its mostly things like, nice and sharp, good colours, nice dof these are al things a better camera allows.
 
Last edited:
If that were true the same photo taken with a phone as with say a dslr would be the same. Fair enough if we rule out AF, WB and all other things we let the camera decide, but a good camera is much better at choosing the correct settings.

For instance say we use a phone and a dslr both set to full auto so all the user has to do is frame and press the shutter. Which is likely to come out best?
When i see people commenting on photos its mostly things like, nice and sharp, good colours, nice dof these are al things a better camera allows.
But that's the answer to the question 'is a good camera a better photographer than a crap camera?' My cameras are making no artistic decisions for me. So they're not responsible for the quality of my output.

Which isn't the question on the table, which is about the skill of the photographer vs the quality of the gear.

And as above, creating the image has nothing to do with the camera, which is simply a device for capturing the photographers vision.
 
It's all about making pictures. Pictures are ideas. Good ideas make good pictures. Photographers just happen to be using cameras to help make them.

Try forgetting about the means of production and think about the pictures - that's what people respond to.

Think about subject, colour, gesture, framing, timing and so on, not how sharp your lenses are.
 
They will, mine has a mode that auto composes a shot and crops the image accordingly.
 
Nice edit. Actually doesn't do too bad of a job for the average shooter.

 
It took me a long time to realise what David and Phil put so succinctly, i think that was the point i became a Photographer.
 
Think logically. Who takes the photograph, the camera or the person holding it?

Of course... the person holding it.

Would they have taken the same photograph regardless of what camera they were holding?

Yes, or course they would.

Equipment has nothing to do with it.

In certain circumstances equipment can give a TECHNICAL advantage... for instance, the zillion frames a second from a D4 would increase your chances of catching that exact moment when the wheel comes off the F1 car or something, but this has nothing to do with creativity or art does it? Of course it doesn't.


Phil is right above.. it's about light. However.. it's also about subject. A boring photograph is just as often boring because it's a boring subject. Again, this has nothing to do with the camera you're holding. YOU decide what to point it at.


A great photographer can use anything you place in their hands, and still create great images... because great photographers have something to say and know how to say it visually. Great photographers are not about equipment... they just have a drive to use the medium to speak. Does a great word processor turn you into a great writer? Of course not. A great writer could create a great book with a Bic disposable and pad of A4.


The other beginner mistake is to think that you "take" a photograph, whereas a great photographer knows that you "make" a photograph.

This isn't helped by the recent, digital era increase in the phrase "capture" as if the camera's only purpose is as a simple recording device that has no bearing on the aesthetic, contextual or narrative qualities of the image... or it's relevance. It also promotes the also recent beginner obsession with post processing... because if you think that a camera is just a recording device, then you're obviously going to think that the greatness must come from processing.... which in actuality has sod all to do with a great photograph. Careful and well planned processing can add the finishing touches and make a great photo sing, but you need to start with a great photo: Garbage in, garbage out. No matter how you process an image, if it was sh1t to start with, it will be sh1t at the other end too.

Great photographers take great images because they're great photographers, not because they have great equipment.

I can't really disagree with the above, but it does beg the question why spend £2 -4k on a DSLR when you can get one for a couple of hundred quid? I think the answer is a good camera will not necessarily take a great image, that does rely on the skill and creativity of the photographer, however it can make a good image even better.
 
Next time I'm out shooting small birds in the field I'll take my camera phone then

there are lots of times when you need both, the right equipment to even get near a subject to practice any creative flair that you may have
 
Last edited:
I can't really disagree with the above, but it does beg the question why spend £2 -4k on a DSLR when you can get one for a couple of hundred quid? I think the answer is a good camera will not necessarily take a great image, that does rely on the skill and creativity of the photographer, however it can make a good image even better.
It simply makes a good image easier to achieve if you know what you're doing.

Or if we're talking about 'image quality' then the sensor and the lens are very important. But a high quality image isn't necessarily a good photograph. Again it's a digression from the OP.
 
poppycock!

try using a pocket camera on half the jobs I do and you can't ... equipment does count sometimes... better equipment does = better pictures in certain circumstances... that is a FACT!
 
Modern equipment has transformed the ability and enjoyment of most photographers ……….

Speaking personally there is no way that I could have achieved the same results with my Canon A1 and MF glass in the 1970's that I achieve now with the modern Nikon gear and latest equipment, either at the long or short end……. plus digital processing

Most of my improvement is due to the equipment ……. my ability has probably remained very much the same

but I suppose that I have not answered the question as I have no-where near "great skill" ……….
 
poppycock!

try using a pocket camera on half the jobs I do and you can't ... equipment does count sometimes... better equipment does = better pictures in certain circumstances... that is a FACT!
It's a perfectly good fact too, But it has nothing to do with the original question. :tumbleweed:
 
Next time I'm out shooting small birds in the field I'll take my camera phone then
...
Next time you go out to shoot small birds in the field, set up your camera on it's tripod, with your mahoosive lens pointed into the bushes.

Leave it there while you take out a camera phone or compact, go off and shoot for an hour and see whether you've got better images than your camera got left to it's own devices.;)
 
It's a perfectly good fact too, But it has nothing to do with the original question. :tumbleweed:

and ? I was commenting on other peoples comments.. why just single me out?
 
Last edited:
How about "suitable (rather than necessarily great) equipment will give you a technically great photograph whereas the skill of the photographer will give you something worth spending time looking at (unless the technical side of photography is all that interests you"
 
I suppose that we can go through specifics

But

Question: Surely a skilled photographer can never become a great wildlife photographer without the necessary equipment and such equipment is miles ahead of what was available 20 years ago and maybe a wildlife photographer with limited skills can improve his work considerably with the latest gear…….. and therefore you cannot have one without the other ……. plus digital processing?
 
I notice that the people that are disputing it is always the photographer, not the gear, are those that habitually use longer lenses in their chosen favourite areas of shooting, and in truth, it can't be argued that in certain circumstances [not just the long lens brigade I hasten to add], such as the bird in the next postcode, better, more specific equipment will give better results. However, lets assume you give that same great gear to someone that has no clue how to use it or what makes a great photo, to another someone that has full technical understanding of it, and just for a giggle, to someone that also has full technical understanding AND some [for want of a better description, don't hang me] artistic flare. Of the 3, the most likely to produce the great photo is that third person. Which brings us back to the magnificence of kit doesn't matter, it is mainly all about who is holding it - which is what I think the OP was asking.
 
Surely there were great wildlife photographers 20/30/40/50 years ago.


Steve.

Yes there were but I tried to say that modern equipment can elevate some wildlife photographers to another level that may not have been possible in the film and MF days.
Modern equipment does allow the photographer to concentrate on the subject and his creativity as it takes away many of the technical aspects of photography that were necessary in the days of film.
Modern equipment is now more affordable for all

To give one example - exposure and focusing - for those "once in a lifetime" shots, you can now quickly review and adjust in real time and take many more images…….. in film days the image could well have been missed forever
 
Last edited:
poppycock!

try using a pocket camera on half the jobs I do and you can't ... equipment does count sometimes... better equipment does = better pictures in certain circumstances... that is a FACT!

I agree, it is when you have to earn a living from it,get the best camera and lens to do the job.
 
I can agree with alot written in this thread. But my interpretation of the OP is slightly different.

In what consist the skill and creativity/art in photography as distinguished from the great equipment a photographer has at their disposal?

Whilst I may not be able to determine skill (how well they can control their cameras settings, knowing what they do and how to use them), I think glancing at what's hanging around someone's neck gives a good idea of their 'creativity', I'd see a big difference in a fish eye equipped togger, and a tilt & shift equipped togger, both quite obviously using specific equipment for specific creative reasons.

Seeing someone with a 50/1.8 and not even a bag tells me that they enjoy the challenge of a fixed focal length, and probably enjoy low light stuff.

Same goes for a super travel zoom (18-200 etc), they enjoy a good photo, but prefer the flexibility of the huge focal length range over outright IQ.

Yesterday I bought some extension tubes and a ND grad filter, have a guess at my creative intentions....
 
Some of this debate has largely to do with the subject matter I am sure.

For example, in my field of interest better equipment DOES lead to better images - Fact. But, someone with a lot of skill in processing could still make an image look better than someone with all the gear and no idea.
 
I can agree with alot written in this thread. But my interpretation of the OP is slightly different.



Whilst I may not be able to determine skill (how well they can control their cameras settings, knowing what they do and how to use them), I think glancing at what's hanging around someone's neck gives a good idea of their 'creativity', I'd see a big difference in a fish eye equipped togger, and a tilt & shift equipped togger, both quite obviously using specific equipment for specific creative reasons.

Seeing someone with a 50/1.8 and not even a bag tells me that they enjoy the challenge of a fixed focal length, and probably enjoy low light stuff.

Same goes for a super travel zoom (18-200 etc), they enjoy a good photo, but prefer the flexibility of the huge focal length range over outright IQ.

Yesterday I bought some extension tubes and a ND grad filter, have a guess at my creative intentions....

I have a Leica M8 and M6 and it proves nothing when I go out with a 35mm Summarit, or 50mm ……. and all it proves is that I like Cameras and have spent (too) much money on them ………. and I may take a few shots

If I go out with a long lens on a heavy tripod and stalk around a nature reserve all afternoon with my Bins and kit over my shoulder it indicates that I am serious and an enthusiast

But I believe both set ups have allowed me to take better images than otherwise …. the equipment is far better than my skill level and some of the shorts I have taken I am really pleased with, but I am under no illusions, it has more to do with the equipment than my skill
 
Last edited:
Back
Top