- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not it won't - if they are completely useless and clueless, they'll be s***, as Pookey has proven with that D4 image. There will be no hope.
Last edited:
and the site receives a small commission
Distinguishing the great skill and creativity from the quality of the equipment of a photographer
Not it won't - if they are completely useless and clueless, they'll be s***, as Pookey has proven with that D4 image. There will be no hope.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Finally
I take the point, but they have to be completely useless and not have even a modicum of ability to benefit from a camera over a phone.
How many people are there out there like that?
I also worry someone with a D4 actually took that. Seriously....I've learned something and its worried me.
- Messages
- 12,681
- Edit My Images
- No
I wish I could take the following consistantly with a camera phone …. it certainly flatters my ability and with lesser equipment would save me lots of cash ……. but I do not have the great skill and knowledge of some on here, so maybe they could:
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,298
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Nice shot!I wish I could take the following with a camera phone …. it certainly flatters my ability and would lesser equipment would save me lots of cash ……. but I do not have the great skill and knowledge of some on here that I am reminded of:
Still irrelevant though
- Messages
- 12,681
- Edit My Images
- No
Nice shot!
Still irrelevant though
I have posted arguments from BOTH sides ……….. but the very nature of some on here is that they cannot agree with either
This would have been difficult with a camera phone
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wish I could take the following consistantly with a camera phone …. it certainly flatters my ability and with lesser equipment would save me lots of cash ……. but I do not have the great skill and knowledge of some on here, so maybe they could:
There is no way that could be replicated with an iPhone. I strongly doubt it.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think decent gear nutures talent, where crap gear will inhibit it. I'd concede a crap photographer is a crap photographer, but a decent one would work better with better gear.
Its like someone who can't drive. Put them in a Porsche, they won't be able to move it.
Put Lewis hamilton in a corsa, it will go slow but as well as it can go, put him in the Porsche, he'd make it go as fast as it could possibly go.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Why? You assume merely having a D4 makes you somehow better, and therefore have trouble believing someone took a crap image with it? All you have to do is walk into a shop and buy one. Requires no skill.
Great images can be taken with anything, and even at surprisingly good quality.
Nikia Lumia 1020
How could this be improved with a better camera?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why? You assume merely having a D4 makes you somehow better, and therefore have trouble believing someone took a crap image with it? All you have to do is walk into a shot and buy one. Requires no skill.
Great images can be taken with anything, and even at surprisingly good quality.
Nikia Lumia 1020
How could this be improved with a better camera?
Slightly shorter lens might have meant the hat wasn't cut off (or the tog could have moved back), and a lens with a wider aperature and bigger sensor in the body would give a shallower DoF so he'd stand out a bit more but yeah, its a good image.
Given a D4 costs as much as a small second hand car, I wonder why anyone would buy one unless they had an ability to begin with. Its my misunderstanding of human nature. Someone with a D4 ought to take decent images and have the desire to. Otherwise, why not shoot with a phone or smaller cheaper camera.
- Messages
- 12,681
- Edit My Images
- No
A D4 and 200 400mm lens would allow you to (physically) take BIF shots ……. and one of them may be amazing even if you are talentless and "spray and pray" The result could be regarded as a great shot
Try that with lessor equipment and you won't get started no-matter what your ability
I have just bought a 600mm Nikon - will it allow me to be a "better" photographer and take "better" bird images - it probably will, I certainly hope so - I will learn more about my hobby by using it and I may get a shot that I would never could have got near ………. or should I just send it back?
Try that with lessor equipment and you won't get started no-matter what your ability
I have just bought a 600mm Nikon - will it allow me to be a "better" photographer and take "better" bird images - it probably will, I certainly hope so - I will learn more about my hobby by using it and I may get a shot that I would never could have got near ………. or should I just send it back?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You know, I am going camping this weekend in the highlands. I'll junk the Nikons and use my iPhone 5s in HDR mode....on second thoughts I might run a phone vs camera case just in case...
- Messages
- 25,298
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Why?
There are thousands of top quality cameras in the world owned by people who literally have no clue. Likewise there are millions of killer images produced by talented people using equipment the gearheads on forums believe to be only good for the skip.
It's a forum mindset that has nothing whatsoever to do with the real world. If I had a pound for every time a piece of my gear has been deemed unsuitable for image making on forums, I'd be able to replace it all with 'suitable' gear (at a cost of thousands). In a bizarre twist of reality though, none of my customers ever thought it an issue
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Hat's irrelevant, and the DOF is just enough to allow you to see the direction of the gaze from the others. This is a very engaging image, and I can only imagine the full res version, while not quite having the sparkle of a full frame DSLR image, would hold well at A3. This is just a very strong, powerful image with a strong narrative and some subtle socio-political overtones.
The fact is, with a D4, you'd have never have taken it. You can't just shove a D4 in someone's face.
Right tools for the job.
Who cares what it's taken with. A great image.....
...is a great image.
Also, most people with DSLRs don't even print their stuff, so quality isn't even important for the vast majority of people.
- Messages
- 25,298
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Nope, great gear is just great gear - and bears no actual relationship to the person using it (other than the fact they chose and paid for it)
Absolutely! But to compare with your previous point - do you believe that only crap drivers buy Corsa's and only great ones buy Porsche's?
Have you noticed that the people who spend the most money on fancy loud stereo's for their car have no flipping musical taste?
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hat's irrelevant, and the DOF is just enough to allow you to see the direction of the gaze from the others. This is a very engaging image, and I can only imagine the full res version, while not quite having the sparkle of a full frame DSLR image, would hold well at A3. This is just a very strong, powerful image with a strong narrative and some subtle socio-political overtones.
The fact is, with a D4, you'd have never have taken it. You can't just shove a D4 in someone's face.
Right tools for the job.
Who cares what it's taken with. A great image.....
...is a great image.
Also, most people with DSLRs don't even print their stuff, so quality isn't even important for the vast majority of people.
It's just a picture of a dude in a hat stood in an tube station. I don't see any of the "strong narrative and some subtle socio-political overtones". Sorry.
Some do print, I know I have a few A3 sized ones of mine kicking about. Helps decorate the walls...
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd like to think so, but point noted. My point being is a good driver would get more out of the Porsche than they would out of a Corsa. A bad driver in a Porsche...a good photographer would surely see better quality work from their slr than an iPhone
I get the point. I won't assume when I see another guy with decent gear, they might be able to use it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
(shrug)
Maybe you aren't very good at reading images critically. Either way, critting the image is irrelevant. No one would disagree that it's not a powerful image, and no one would ever guess it was taken on a phone.
Cameras are cameras. If you're a sh1t photographer, you'll still be a sh1t photographer no matter how much cash you throw at it.
I wish I could take the following consistantly with a camera phone …. it certainly flatters my ability and with lesser equipment would save me lots of cash ……. but I do not have the great skill and knowledge of some on here, so maybe they could:
You can do bugs on twigs on a phone if you want.
- Messages
- 12,681
- Edit My Images
- No
Is the question, Does better equipment make a better photographer and can the best equipment make a photographer great (er)?
I believe that equipment is important and that better equipment will make you a better photographer and that a nearly great photographer could become great if he has the best equipment, I also believe that a great photographer can benefit from the best equipment.
Maybe the following is not valid for some, BUT
Compare Vettel v Hamiliton in 2013 and Hamilton v Vettel in 2014
I believe that equipment is important and that better equipment will make you a better photographer and that a nearly great photographer could become great if he has the best equipment, I also believe that a great photographer can benefit from the best equipment.
Maybe the following is not valid for some, BUT
Compare Vettel v Hamiliton in 2013 and Hamilton v Vettel in 2014
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
You're so wrong. If you took boring, irrelevant, clichéd crap with a crap camera, you'd still take boring, irrelevant, clichéd crap with a great camera, so your images would still be boring, irrelevant, clichéd crap.
The boring, irrelevant, clichéd crapness comes from YOU, not the camera.
- Messages
- 12,681
- Edit My Images
- No
(shrug)
Maybe you aren't very good at reading images critically. Either way, critting the image is irrelevant. No one would disagree that it's not a powerful image, and no one would ever guess it was taken on a phone.
Cameras are cameras. If you're a sh1t photographer, you'll still be a sh1t photographer no matter how much cash you throw at it.
You can do bugs on twigs on a phone if you want.
White Rhinos are not domesticated creatures, they can run at 30 mph and weight 3 tonnes ……… I would not want to creep up behind one and shove a cameraphone up it's arse and I do not think even the more proficient and skilled wildlife photographer would ………. without the best kit his images for the most would be ordinary …….. you can take an image with a camera phone or DSLR with a 50mm lens … and maybe a great photographer would produce a few good images with a DSLR/50mm but he will have far greater success with the correct equipment
To illustrate, the contrary to what I have just said, the following image was taken with a Nikon short zoom, ……………. not my image but a wildlife photographer, Keith in S Africa whom I have met, he was under a 4 x 4 but has more "balls" than most …… and he uses a D300 and Nikon pro lenses
Last edited:
Yv
TPer Emerita
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
totally invalid imo - the ability of the cars doesn't make them better or worse as racing drivers. There are drivers driving their arses off with huge skill & ability down the back end of the grid, and there are drivers like Damon Hill [who I was a fan of btw], who were, in F1 terms pretty average drivers but had bloody good cars - didn't make him a better driver. The difference is that motor racing has a very defined criteria based on absolute results which can be down in great part to the equipment [though not entirely, look at some of the recent team mates of those two, or Alonso, etc, same equipment, not nearly as good], its nothing to do with an emotional response or an undefinable something that applies with photography and other art forms.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,681
- Edit My Images
- No
Hat's irrelevant, and the DOF is just enough to allow you to see the direction of the gaze from the others. This is a very engaging image, and I can only imagine the full res version, while not quite having the sparkle of a full frame DSLR image, would hold well at A3. This is just a very strong, powerful image with a strong narrative and some subtle socio-political overtones.
The fact is, with a D4, you'd have never have taken it. You can't just shove a D4 in someone's face.
Right tools for the job.
Who cares what it's taken with. A great image.....
...is a great image.
Also, most people with DSLRs don't even print their stuff, so quality isn't even important for the vast majority of people.
just checking the horizon on that one
Yv
TPer Emerita
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes... rhinos and elephants are dangerous, but whether you get near one is up to you and how much courage (or foolhardiness) you have.
You can take an interesting image with large dangerous creatures with anything.
I think they're ****ing stupid. A great image is a great image, who gives a toss what it was taken on? Just gear snobbery at it's rampant worst.
Amateurs and hobbyists hate threads like this because inevitably, no matter what they post to prove a point, someone will post something better taken with a piece of crap. It undermines the superiority they feel, and also yet again rams home the fact that all hobbyists hate: Great photographers will always embarrass you with even the most rudimentary gear. Talent can not be bought.
You can take an interesting image with large dangerous creatures with anything.
I think they're ****ing stupid. A great image is a great image, who gives a toss what it was taken on? Just gear snobbery at it's rampant worst.
Amateurs and hobbyists hate threads like this because inevitably, no matter what they post to prove a point, someone will post something better taken with a piece of crap. It undermines the superiority they feel, and also yet again rams home the fact that all hobbyists hate: Great photographers will always embarrass you with even the most rudimentary gear. Talent can not be bought.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,681
- Edit My Images
- No
So the simple answer is you can have great camera and still take crap photos,and you can have a great camera and take great shots,plus you can crap camera and take great shots and have a crap camera and take crap shots
No, you have missed the point, only an inspirational artist with imagination and (great) talent can be a great photographer ……. it is an art not a science …… the equipment makes little difference
But, if you are such you should not be on here debating the subject …………...
- Messages
- 4,182
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, this is a fun thread
Aren't we missing another factor as well? How many shots to get a good one? A poor photographer may well take 10,000 and find there are one or two which look good - quite by accident and simply because of the number of shots taken. If (s)he took those shots with a great bit of kit, it's quite possible they could look better than a pro's shot (perhaps one of their poorer ones, admittedly) taken because of circumstances with an entry level SLR / bridge /compact camera.
Conversely, give a good pro a 1GB memory card to fill up and a basic camera and I'd expect the average shot quality to be way higher.
Give all-the-gear-no-idea the same and I'd be shocked if, on average (s)he outperformed the pro. It's possible, though, that one picture may be a "wow" shot, but not particularly likely.
Aren't we missing another factor as well? How many shots to get a good one? A poor photographer may well take 10,000 and find there are one or two which look good - quite by accident and simply because of the number of shots taken. If (s)he took those shots with a great bit of kit, it's quite possible they could look better than a pro's shot (perhaps one of their poorer ones, admittedly) taken because of circumstances with an entry level SLR / bridge /compact camera.
Conversely, give a good pro a 1GB memory card to fill up and a basic camera and I'd expect the average shot quality to be way higher.
Give all-the-gear-no-idea the same and I'd be shocked if, on average (s)he outperformed the pro. It's possible, though, that one picture may be a "wow" shot, but not particularly likely.
- Messages
- 12,681
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry Pookey, really great Butterfly shot taken with the camera phone ........ it's great, best i've seen ...... I love it, I'll try to get to your standard ......... or should I throw my stuff away and retire
superiority, who me?
I don't hate threads likes this, they are more interesting than some of the images that I have seen!
I'm never embarrassed by a Great photographer, maybe I'm too old, …… I get real pleasure from looking at their work
I suppose some can get frustrated when looking at images posted by others when comparing these to their own, (but I have not seen anything on here to worry anyone - apart from in the wildlife, nature and Birds sections**&!!!)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not my shot. You can apologise whenever you like. You really think I'd take bugs on twigs? The point was, while not being the best bug on twig shot I've ever seen it is perfectly possible to focus close enough, and have the resolution. All other qualities of the image come from YOU, not the camera.
- Messages
- 4,182
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What a truly sorry view of the world that quote implies. Do you realise that some people don't have an inferiority complex? I can only speak for myself but I'm sure there are others who are also quite comfortable in knowing that we're not particularly good at our hobby. I'd like to think I'm self aware enough to realise I'm still fairly crap at photography but I enjoy doing it and I also get a sense of satisfaction from improving, no matter how slowly. The only superiority I feel is when I compare the pictures I take now compared with ones I took 6 months...
I very much respect your opinions on photography - and you clearly have a significant amount of knowledge and experience in a wide range of photography-related fields. But I genuinely feel sorry for you if your quote above is actually reflective of what you really think and live your life. I suspect, however, it was just a hasty response penned on an anonymous internet forum with little regard to how it was likely to be read. In which case, as you were.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,682
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
A lot of really good pictures of the past were taken with what today we'd think of as crap gear basically just a box of wood/metal with a lens we'd laugh at if it was made in a jungle clearing for 10p today.
If you want to print the size of a barn, pixel peep at 100%+ or take pictures of humming birds at night you'll need to think about gear but if you're aim is a really good picture, maybe a lot smaller than A4, and you're interested in emotion, impact and things that can't necessarily be measured and tabulated then I'd imagine that it's the shooter not the gear that'll get the job done.
My GF shoots like crazy with her ipone and sometimes if you look really closely the technical quality is frankly, crap, but she has a good eye and if you're not looking for technical faults as if they're ebola coming to get you they're good pictures that clearly show she's got a good eye for a shot that's worth looking at.
PS. I was talking to someone recently, not a full time pro photographer but someone who has and still does occasionally shoot for money and who gets asked to do so and I showed them a shot I'd taken, my first attempt at Brenizer method, and we talked about it and I'm pleased that they liked it and were going to give it a go, anyway... I suggested that they should look at some (better) examples on line from other people and the reply was "I never look at other people's shots." This may be right or it may be wrong but I was impressed by the thought that they just shot how they wanted to Relevance to this thread is does anything matter if we're happy
basically just a box of wood/metal with a lens we'd laugh at if it was made in a jungle clearing for 10p today.If you want to print the size of a barn, pixel peep at 100%+ or take pictures of humming birds at night you'll need to think about gear but if you're aim is a really good picture, maybe a lot smaller than A4, and you're interested in emotion, impact and things that can't necessarily be measured and tabulated then I'd imagine that it's the shooter not the gear that'll get the job done.
My GF shoots like crazy with her ipone and sometimes if you look really closely the technical quality is frankly, crap, but she has a good eye and if you're not looking for technical faults as if they're ebola coming to get you they're good pictures that clearly show she's got a good eye for a shot that's worth looking at.
PS. I was talking to someone recently, not a full time pro photographer but someone who has and still does occasionally shoot for money and who gets asked to do so and I showed them a shot I'd taken, my first attempt at Brenizer method, and we talked about it and I'm pleased that they liked it and were going to give it a go, anyway... I suggested that they should look at some (better) examples on line from other people and the reply was "I never look at other people's shots." This may be right or it may be wrong but I was impressed by the thought that they just shot how they wanted to
Relevance to this thread is does anything matter if we're happy
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
A lot of really good pictures of the past were taken with what today we'd think of as crap gear
Exactly... far too much gear snobbery around. You judge an image on the strength of the image, nothing else.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
A bit like something I heard many years ago "Stirling Moss in a mini is still going to be faster than you in a Ferrari".
Steve.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
A lot of really good pictures of the past were taken with what today we'd think of as crap gear
If you want to print the size of a barn, pixel peep at 100%+ or take pictures of humming birds at night you'll need to think about gear
If you want to print the size of a barn, a wood and metal box camera is going to be better than the latest and greatest offerings.
Steve.
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree with this statement, shoot the same subject with a medium format camera and it would still be crap. However, the resulting image quality and resolution would be 'higher quality' crap.
- Messages
- 25,298
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
FFS Steve, do you not realise that if we can't look at it 100% on our computer screens and point to an MTF chart then it's simply not photography.