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

  • Thread starter PhotographyBuff
  • Start date
See, I think this is where people are possibly taking the question a little too literally. My own interpretation on the question and therefore the 'answer' is that photographers using the same equipment [and the 'right' equipment] for the job, the final results will always come down to the skill and artistry of the photographer [and indeed their post processing art too, whether we refer back to the days of yore and darkroom skills, or the modern photoshopping] The photographers skill & vision will always outweigh the fact they have great kit at their disposal. I doubt any of us would dispute that someone with an iphone, no matter how brilliant they are as a photographer, will never get those beautiful astronomy pictures that photographers with the full scope set ups get [sorry Sara, not aimed at you specifically, it's just a convenient subject matter as I know its one of the things you do so well] It is also a pointless exercise comparing the two as far as I can see. Let's spin it round, if you want do an amazing and arty handheld selfie, you are probably very ill equipped with your 600mm mounted on its gimbal head and attached to a D4 - get your smart phone out and start having some fun because your 10K of kit is useless for such a job.

However, having said all that, I do know our OP likes to start threads that inspire thought, discussion and debate [and it is Friday afterall], so I guess the vagueness of the question and the various interpretations in the answers on this thread are what was desired anyway, so I repeat, it is only my opinion that I think he is asking about when sensible equipment for the job is involved. Not necessarily identical, but at least appropriate. ;)
 
Yv said:
My own interpretation on the question and therefore the 'answer' is that photographers using the same equipment [and the 'right' equipment] for the job, the final results will always come down to the skill and artistry of the photographer [and indeed their post processing art too, whether we refer back to the days of yore and darkroom skills, or the modern photoshopping] The photographers skill & vision will always outweigh the fact they have great kit at their disposal. ;)
Click to expand...

Yvonne, just taken a section of what you said,

but I think that is obvious, not only in photography but in many other activities ……. same equipment - the person with the more skill and vision will prevail

Is that what the OP wanted discussing, simple as that?

(PS - unless you bought an Olympus Trip 35 some 40 years ago, then according to the ad we can all taken "pictures" like David Bailey was it))
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
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
Click to expand...
Oh yes I agree, hence; "
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'...."


Certain lenses can give a good indication of what that individual is trying to achieve. Therefore giving a hint towards their creativity, but in no way indicates skill level.

My question at the end wasn't rhetorical, I believe it is quite obvious to anybody with an interest in photography that I intend to do some macro and daytime long exposure shots, because the kit is (pretty) subject/activity specific. I might be crap at using both, but my creative intentions are pretty clear just from peeking in my kit bag.
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You don't need technology to deal with the technical aspects, you can use competence instead. And the days of film are still here!

BillN_33 said:
in film days the image could well have been missed forever
Click to expand...

Most modern conveniences of photography such as auto focus, aperture or shutter priority auto exposure, programme modes, multiple shots per second are available in film cameras too.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Yvonne, just taken a section of what you said,

but I think that is obvious, not only in photography but in many other activities ……. same equipment - the person with the more skill and vision will prevail

Is that what the OP wanted discussing, simple as that?
Click to expand...

Yes, actually, I do think that - because, as I said, phrased deliberately so that the actual discussion is what it has been... to reiterate, I doubt the OP would think that you can compare an iphone or even a Leica fitted with a 35mm lens, to 600mm of lengthy goodness when you want a nice close up of that bird in the next field. Pointless.

But ok, happy to be a bit more vague. Lets take a different look at it, lets assume for a minute we are talking about more general scenarios, where very specific equipment does not need be a significant factor in the end output.

Soooo.... street photography perhaps, or [can't beleive I am about to type this TBH, shoot me] general candid photography at a wedding or event, that kind of thing, where pretty much any general photography equipment [from your iphone to your Panasonic compact to your D600 to your Leica] can realistically take a photo. This is where I agree with many of the posters in the thread, the resulting image will rely almost totally on the mushy mess behind the viewfinder. Yes, the camera might make a lot of the technical decisions, or might not depending the practical skill levels of aforementioned mushy mess, but the composition and appeal of the final image will all come down to the photographer. I am fairly certain I can name photographers around here that can produce far more artistically pleasing photos from an iPad than I could produce from my D700 but by the same token, I have met umpteen people that have spent far money on kit than I have but wouldn't know how to make a decent photo if Pookeyhead himself set it up for them.

Does that make more sense?
 
Good photographers shoot the most interesting subjects, in the best light, have the most appropriate equipment (usually expensive) - and use it well.

Saying it's all about just this or that aspect is too simplistic.
 
BBR said:
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.
Click to expand...


How exactly? Define better. :)

robj20 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Define better.


robj20 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's because they're idiots.
 
Last edited:
Joeturner11 said:
Its a 50/50 situation you need a good photographer to capture the image, and the right gear to capture it.
Click to expand...


Only certain subjects require specialist gear. Most don't.
 
If I posted 4 images on here, 3 taken with a phone, and one taken with a D4, who here reckons they'd be able to tell which was which?
 
I wonder if anyone would take up my challenge in post #51 :)
 
Phil V said:
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
Click to expand...

Isn't that were we all start though.

I've been through the 1st and 2nd stage and I believe I'm at the 3rd stage. But I doubt I would have gotten to stage 3 as quick if I hadn't barged may way through the other stages

I came out of the 2nd stage with a D810. 14-24, 24-70 and a 70-200, 105mm and a 50 1.8:naughty:
 
mattyg said:
Isn't that were we all start though.

I've been through the 1st and 2nd stage and I believe I'm at the 3rd stage. But I doubt I would have gotten to stage 3 as quick if I hadn't barged may way through the other stages

I came out of the 2nd stage with a D810. 14-24, 24-70 and a 70-200, 105mm and a 50 1.8:naughty:
Click to expand...


That's all fine if they are the appropriate tools for what you do. Your images are no better for having that gear though.
 
droj said:
So many images are being captured these days that the image zoos are overflowing ...
Click to expand...

That's the same in all areas and it's a product of the digital age, the accessibility of good equipment at reasonable prices and the fact that the "hobby" is available to more and more people throughout the world
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's all fine if they are the appropriate tools for what you do. Your images are no better for having that gear though.
Click to expand...
That I'm not convinced about. I've taken a much better shot of the milky way with the D810 and the 14-24 than I did with the D7000 and a 12-24. However I'll admit that, that is probably using the equipment at the edge of what they are capable of. But you are correct my "eye" hasn't improved just because of the gear.
 
Joeturner11 said:
Its a 50/50 situation you need a good photographer to capture the image, and the right gear to capture it.
Click to expand...

Agree, I mainly do landscapes. If I went out with my iPhone and tried to shoot my scenes, it would blow out the skies. Yes the skill comes from seeing the scene and getting the light, but the gear plays a huge part in determining how well you expose (dynamic range, ETTR etc) and the amount of resolution/sharpness in. An iPhone, even held still, just isn't sharp, it doesn't have the dynamic range of a D800, the resolution and the abolity to take a nice sharp zeiss lens.

Go on my site, see my galleries, try taking those with a f*****g iPhone
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Agree, I mainly do landscapes. If I went out with my iPhone and tried to shoot my scenes, it would blow out the skies. Yes the skill comes from seeing the scene and getting the light, but the gear plays a huge part in determining how well you expose (dynamic range, ETTR etc) and the amount of resolution/sharpness in. An iPhone, even held still, just isn't sharp, it doesn't have the dynamic range of a D800, the resolution and the abolity to take a nice sharp zeiss lens.
Click to expand...

Yes, but unless you are viewing those pictures quite big, who is really going to know? I have an 'HDR' app on my android that takes 3 images of a scene and merges them and whilst it is never going to match a dslr if you examine them, it does a surprisingly good job of balancing bright skies with land mass without looking particularly like an HDR photo and giving a far greater dynamic range than even a top end dslr could manage in a single frame. Sadly, when it comes to landscapes, it would be leaning on the side of generous to say I can construct an 'competent' picture, it simply isn't my thing, I really don't feel I have the eye for it, which is why I rarely do them on my 'proper' kit. Yes, of course better kit in the hands of a good photographer is going to give better image quality than cheaper kit in the same hands, but those hands can make an aesthetically [I love typing that word, mainly because I can never get my tongue around saying it properly ;) ] pleasing picture whatever the kit, regardless of quality - or to use Matt's words, your eye doesn't change just because the kit is better.
 
Try printing or even reviewing on a reasonable size screen. Phone images usually look pants, even with HDR mode on.

An SLR user can also blend, use grads, etc. Yep, you need an eye for light and conditions, and know how to work the thing, but give 2 devent photographers a phone or a proper camera, the camera will give the better results.

I use istagram and flickr for my photography social media. Istagram is biased towards phone users, flickr towards camera.

There's a lot of dross on both, but even more on instagram.
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
That's a little unfair to the guy and you have been selective on the equipment that he has used
Click to expand...

I think i was trying to displace myth,not having a go at him but it does come across this framer take very good photos,on simple stuff but at the time he brought them they were some of the best kit out their.

:)
 
Steve Smith said:
Low dynamic range is going to show regardless of size.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Only to other photographers who have half an idea what they are looking at.

ETA: Possibly also people in the graphics and related industries, before anyone jumps on that, but generally, most people wouldn't notice, as we have so often discussed round here when discussing how mediocre photos get rave reviews, even on flickr, never mind facebook, instagram, etc
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
Only to other photographers who have half an idea what they are looking at.

ETA: Possibly also people in the graphics and related industries, before anyone jumps on that, but generally, most people wouldn't notice, as we have so often discussed round here when discussing how mediocre photos get rave reviews, even on flickr, never mind facebook, instagram, etc
Click to expand...

But I want my images to look good to me, and as such there is no way a phone would meet my needs and wants. I hate blown bits, dark and faded colours you get for crap cameras.
 
ST4 said:
...

An SLR user can also blend, use grads, etc. Yep, you need an eye for light and conditions, and know how to work the thing, but give 2 devent photographers a phone or a proper camera, the camera will give the better results.

...
Click to expand...
But again, that's missing the point by a mile :tumbleweed:

Give a crap photographer the best kit and a talented photographer 'ordinary' kit and who will produce the 'best pictures' not the sharpest or the greatest dynamic range or the wonderful tonal graduations. The BEST picture? Which is the point of the question. And if the answer isn't obvious to you...

Well keep buying gear in the hope that you'll eventually get 'better' pictures.
 
ST4 said:
But I want my images to look good to me, and as such there is no way a phone would meet my needs and wants. I hate blown bits, dark and faded colours you get for crap cameras.
Click to expand...

:LOL: which entirely misses the point! Of course we all want the best quality possible, no way am I going to try and shoot a wedding with an iPad [and I often wish guests wouldn't either] but the point is that having the best kit isn't going to make you a great photographer, it simply serves to provide better technical image quality and in some circumstances, more appropriate tools for the job - it won't help you spot that magical moment, it won't help you see the light better, it won't make your compositional skills any better.


I wonder if its time to organise another disposable camera challenge? :naughty:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Phil V said:
But again, that's missing the point by a mile :tumbleweed:

Give a crap photographer the best kit and a talented photographer 'ordinary' kit and who will produce the 'best pictures' not the sharpest or the greatest dynamic range or the wonderful tonal graduations. The BEST picture? Which is the point of the question. And if the answer isn't obvious to you...

Well keep buying gear in the hope that you'll eventually get 'better' pictures.
Click to expand...

If you give Joe Cornish an iPhone 3 with a camera to take a landscape picture at sunset, on an average guy with a knowldge of exposure and some grad filters, a D800 with a 24-70F2.8 and tripod , they take the photo at the same spot at the same time, who will leave with the better image?

How rigged do you want this to be? That's my understanding of the thread
 
Yv said:
t won't help you see the light better, it won't make your compositional skills any better.
Click to expand...

No, it will not, but a crap gear will limit your ability to work with what you see. Decent gear will help you make the most of the scene. A scenario I was caught out on, I saw the perfect image on the clyde of the Perch at port glasgow, I had my iPhone. I took the image and wept, I knew if I had the Nikon, the Ziess, the grad filters I'd have a killer image, not a grainy mess
 
Last edited:
mattyg said:
That I'm not convinced about. I've taken a much better shot of the milky way with the D810 and the 14-24 than I did with the D7000 and a 12-24. However I'll admit that, that is probably using the equipment at the edge of what they are capable of. But you are correct my "eye" hasn't improved just because of the gear.
Click to expand...


They're technically better in some respects, but you're not a better photographer, nor do you take better photographs as a result of having better gear... which is the point of the thread.
 
ST4 said:
If you give Joe Cornish an iPhone 3 with a camera to take a landscape picture at sunset, on an average guy with a knowldge of exposure and some grad filters, a D800 with a 24-70F2.8 and tripod , they take the photo at the same spot at the same time, who will leave with the better image?

How rigged do you want this to be? That's my understanding of the thread
Click to expand...
The nature of the beast I suppose...

but could you please return to the beginning of the thread, read the question, digest, then come back and have another go?
 
PhotographyBuff said:
In what consist the skill and creativity/art in photography as distinguished from the great equipment a photographer has at their disposal?
Click to expand...

I'd say to that there is a limiting factor and that depends person to person. Either the gear will hold back the photographer from reaching their potential with the scene, or the photographer won't have enough ability to use what they have to compose, light (in some cases) and expose the scene. Whereas others will know what they want, how they will get it, and find they cannot achieve it as the camera/lens/flash etc isn't upto the job.
Phil V said:
The nature of the beast I suppose...

but could you please return to the beginning of the thread, read the question, digest, then come back and have another go?
Click to expand...

I've answered, now you have a pop. Jo Amerature with top gear and kit, vs Jo Cornish with an iphone 3 shooting a sunset as a landscape image and the same time and place.
 
ST4 said:
If you give Joe Cornish an iPhone 3 with a camera to take a landscape picture at sunset, on an average guy with a knowldge of exposure and some grad filters, a D800 with a 24-70F2.8 and tripod , they take the photo at the same spot at the same time, who will leave with the better image?

How rigged do you want this to be? That's my understanding of the thread
Click to expand...

Phone or camera...

Vote.

NE9vdSG.jpg



All metadata has been hosed.. so don't bother wasting your time. It's also been extensively reverse image searched too... so again, save your time.
 
ST4 said:
PWhats with the dark bit at the top. Looks like a grad filter line or something in PP.
Click to expand...

No idea.. not my image. I don't have the full res,
 
Pookeyhead said:
No idea.. not my image. I don't have the full res,
Click to expand...

Normally I'd say its a hard edge grad filter had me initially leaning me to camera although why you'd stick one there beats me and why do it in post, beats me. It looks s***. Therefore the taker was clueless. Its quite grainy, I suspect a phone HDR snap although not seeing it full res any downscaling, its harder to tell. Theres some odd colouration on the LHS too about a 3rd up. WTF has happened here.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
...
I've answered, now you have a pop. Jo Amerature with top gear and kit, vs Jo Cornish with an iphone 3 shooting a sunset as a landscape image and the same time and place.
Click to expand...
It's not a pop, I genuinely believe you haven't understood the question :)

Whilst the fact that you can't distinguish the image above is amusing, it's a diversion. The actual question isn't about iphone snaps it's about whether buying great gear can make up for having no talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yv
ST4 said:
Normally I'd say its a hard edge grad filter had me initially leaning me to camera although why you'd stick one there beats me and why do it in post, beats me. It looks s***.
Click to expand...

Whether it's a great image or not is imaterial... which is the point of this thread really. The point is, can you tell what it was taken with?

ST4 said:
Therefore the taker was clueless. Its quite grainy, I suspect a phone HDR snap although not seeing it full res any downscaling, its harder to tell. Theres some odd colouration on the LHS too about a 3rd up. WTF has happened here.
Click to expand...

Nikon D4

How about this?

pRtjrmV.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top