Can you claim to be a great photographer when using modern high tech gear ?

Phil V said:
It took me ten minutes to teach a mate who’d never used a camera before to ‘see’ the light.

I’ve had long conversations with some ‘photographers’ who refuse to accept the concept, who prefer to believe that other photographers have some inbuilt magic ability that they don’t possess.

It’s like feeling the balance of a car, once you recognise it, it becomes instinctive.
Click to expand...

Say for example this pic I took Phil:

JD 2-099 by Fraser White, on Flickr

It's very 'average' and is what any 'hobbyist' could achieve, but give 'photograph a bottle' task to a pro and they make it special. When it is described to me how they have done it it makes perfect sense but having the 'creativity' to envisage the outcome and set it up before the shoot starts is tough for me.

(I don't think I'm explaining myself very well!)
 
Phil V said:
It took me ten minutes to teach a mate who’d never used a camera before to ‘see’ the light.
Click to expand...

Any chance of teaching me, Phil. Coz I ain't got a clue what you're on about when you say 'it's about the light'. It sounds a bit 'rule of thirds' to me. :LOL:
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
A random question really but if using the modern high tech camera with all it auto functions do you feel you can claim to have taken a great photo when the camera has done the work for you ? Is photography now just down to composition ? Would you say a photographer achieving a great result using a vintage film or glass plate camera is a better photographer as he has to judge light thus shutter speed aperture and focus ?

No shouting please
Click to expand...

I've added "likes" to the posts that I particularly agreed with, and that pretty much sum up my thoughts.

But just to add the personal bits that only I can supply...

I think of myself as a film photographer; for the subjects that I particularly relate to (landscape and architecture) I find that the best camera for me is a large format one, or a Mamiya RZ67. This type of camera fits my way of working better than a camera that has to be used at eye level.

On the other hand, a camera is just a tool; and some types of photography that I also do are better suited to digital - I then use a Sony a7r2. This camera does better if I want high ISO settings, multiple images taken in quick succession and, dare I say it, when I want a quick and easy way of getting a photograph for publication (I normally have an article each month in a local magazine which requires illustration(s)).

I use the Sony in automatic mode, and let it set the exposure for me; on the rare occasions when I know it will get it wrong, I use the exposure compensation dial. With the film cameras, I'm normally using a tripod, setting the aperture to f/16 or thereabouts and using my light meter to give me the shutter speed - though I can usually estimate the exposure to a half stop based on experience and the lack of variables as I only ever use two speeds of film. I can't see the difference between letting an automatic camera set the exposure for me, and using a light meter to give essentially the same settings, provided that in both cases I'm aware of when I need to override those settings.

With both types of camera, I still feel that I'm doing the important work - twiddling an aperture ring, shutter speed dial and focusing collar on a lens (or racking out bellows) aren't really any more difficult than taking the camera out of a bag.

In my opinion, I think that those who regard the ability to see an image as innate have failed to appreciate just how far it's possible to teach it; and perhaps have been looking in the wrong places. I'd always recommend "art" rather than "photography" books, because most photography books are either purely technical (valuable in its way and place) or consist of tips to take the photograph that the author has just presented. My top three recommendations for reading for someone who wants to progress in photography (of the type I do, anyway) do not have a single photography book amongst them. The first question I always ask myself when something catches my eye is "why do I want to photograph this?" and let the answer determine what I include, what I exclude, and how I arrange the visual elements in the photograph by adjusting my viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
It's very 'average' and is what any 'hobbyist' could achieve,
Click to expand...
I think it’s far from ‘average’ and I disagree that any hobbyist could achieve that.

Fraser Euan White said:
but give 'photograph a bottle' task to a pro and they make it special. When it is described to me how they have done it it makes perfect sense but having the 'creativity' to envisage the outcome and set it up before the shoot starts is tough for me.

(I don't think I'm explaining myself very well!)
Click to expand...

You’re right, some pros would produce something spectacular, but most wouldn’t do so.

And if you think your level of expertise somehow supports Brads assertion that cameras produce great work, you’re mistaken. No camera could produce that image.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Any chance of teaching me, Phil. Coz I ain't got a clue what you're on about when you say 'it's about the light'. It sounds a bit 'rule of thirds' to me. :LOL:
Click to expand...
I’m fairly certain I couldn’t teach you anything Dave.
 
Phil V said:
I think it’s far from ‘average’ and I disagree that any hobbyist could achieve that.



You’re right, some pros would produce something spectacular, but most wouldn’t do so.

And if you think your level of expertise somehow supports Brads assertion that cameras produce great work, you’re mistaken. No camera could produce that image.
Click to expand...

Making me blush now Phil!

No - I don't agree with Brad's initially comments - I think modern cameras make it easier to produce good images (by this I mean correct exposure, in focus etc) but the photographer 'creates' the final image which is it's content (light/mood/composition etc).............and no amount of tech can do that.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Making me blush now Phil!

No - I don't agree with Brad's initially comments - I think modern cameras make it easier to produce good images (by this I mean correct exposure, in focus etc) but the photographer 'creates' the final image which is it's content (light/mood/composition etc).............and no amount of tech can do that.
Click to expand...
And as you kind of said further up the thread (at least I think it was you) correctly exposed, in focus photos have become the "average", it's knowing when to mess with the exposure, DoF etc. that makes the difference.
 
If you're fed up with your camera choosing the settings for you, and feel that you have lost some sense of achievement because of it, why not change your mode dial to manual. Then you will get to choose your own values for each shot.
Mine lives on manual all the time, for no other reason than I like shooting that way, and I'm learning what works or not, for the way I like to shoot.
I have never taken a masterpiece of a shot
But I like what I produce, if some one else likes it too then better still.
I have a few af lenses and a few mf, sometimes I'll even shoot the af ones in manual :)
My camera has bells and whistles that I have never used, just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it.

So to answer your original question
No I don't believe the gear makes the shot at all

Been an interesting read though. (y)
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
Say for example this pic I took Phil:

JD 2-099 by Fraser White, on Flickr

It's very 'average' and is what any 'hobbyist' could achieve, but give 'photograph a bottle' task to a pro and they make it special. When it is described to me how they have done it it makes perfect sense but having the 'creativity' to envisage the outcome and set it up before the shoot starts is tough for me.

(I don't think I'm explaining myself very well!)
Click to expand...

It seems like a well above average picture of a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey to me. It could even be considered as art, if you were Andy Warhol (though I doubt he would have the splashing water), possibly not for most other people, baring alcoholics.
I think the photo confirms that you are into the technology of photography, but have little interest in the art.
Still, in this age of alternative truth and perception is reality, etc, it is just as valid a position as any other, particularly on this forum.
Does that sound cynical? It isn't meant to be. People (including me) like to talk about their hobby, even when they have nothing to say, so why not?
 
Lots to agree - and disagree! - with in the last 3 pages but one thing which hasn't been mentioned:

The camera can help with some of the technical stuff but good photographs usually require effort.

e.g.
 
Last edited:
Ste_S said:
Yeah absolutely. As someone who has a mild photobook addiction it disappoints me that most of the discussion surrounding photography seems to be around gear rather than actual photographs.
Click to expand...

Many people who buy cameras like the technical side and enjoy the tools of the process - I'm sure that's how many came to be 'photographers' on TP, and is certainly true for me (plus a desire to record places I'd visited and things I'd seen in better detail than was possible with 1970s snapshot cameras). Photobooks are likely aimed at a commercial market, and many will struggle with the idea of needing the right light compared to the instant satisfaction of knowing they need 125th of a second to get decent blur on the blades of a prop-driven aeroplane at the airshow.
 
Anyone aware of any good Internet sources explaining light with regard to photography ?
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Anyone aware of any good Internet sources explaining light with regard to photography ?
Click to expand...
As has been mentioned many times round here; the big problem with learning about photography is that talking about cameras and settings is easy, and critique often consists of ‘nice sharp image’.

Whereas discussing the important stuff - the art, is exceedingly difficult. Search for any art discussions on here and you’ll find they quickly descend into ridiculous.

Have a read through the recent ‘discussion of Talk Photography’ thread as a taster of just this issue.

The first thing to consider is that you are never ‘taking a photo of...’ whatever your subject is. But what you are actually doing is recording the light that is reflected off... whatever your subject is, the nature of the light falling on it is just as important as the subject itself.

To photograph is to use reflected light to create an image of whatever your subject is. You don’t get postcard pretty images* by turning up in Whitby at midday and pointing your camera at the harbour, those pictures are made at the blue hour or golden hour, even better at times of the year when there’s no one about during those hours. So even taking something as simple as a postcard scene of the familiar requires some planning and patience.

*and that’s the bare minimum you should aim for
 
Phil V said:
You don’t get postcard pretty images* by turning up in Whitby at midday and pointing your camera at the harbour, those pictures are made at the blue hour or golden hour, even better at times of the year when there’s no one about during those hours. So even taking something as simple as a postcard scene of the familiar requires some planning and patience.

*and that’s the bare minimum you should aim for
Click to expand...

Hmm. Well. Not everyone wants to make pretty postcard pictures.:exit:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdaxV2ieZgY
 
Phil V said:
*and that’s the bare minimum you should aim for
Click to expand...

Maybe as a starting point.

Although I appreciate some people never want or need to see beyond that. Just as some are happy catching lots of tiddlers while others get their buzz from chasing elusive monster fish.
 
Just today I moved from a nikon d5200 to a Sony A7iii. I've not had chance to use it yet as it's charging. But, I don't think it's going to make me a better photographer but will produce a better quality image, weather is a good photo or not. I know that the auto focus system is going to help me get more keepers out of a shoot. And the dynamic range may just rescue the odd photo I messed up the exposure on. But the overall photo, composition and lighting ect.. That's up to me.
 
DG Phototraining said:
I really found that interesting Ed, and the chap focused my mind on some of my 'pretty' issues too - of course I didn't agree with all of it, but I guess he wouldn't expect that anyway - and thanks for sharing :)

Dave
Click to expand...
Glad you found it interesting. It's a change from Fro and the Northrops!
 
I like his presentation style. Intelligent without being overly academic. I wish I could find more stuff like his on Youtube.

Ted Forbes has done some similar stuff on his Art of Photography channel, but recently he sold his soul and does gear reviews. I guess it's tough to make a living from Youtube without doing the kind of stuff teh masses want to see.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
Hmm. Well. Not everyone wants to make pretty postcard pictures.:exit:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdaxV2ieZgY
Click to expand...
Well that was a good watch! I liked his measured, hard-hitting but thoughtful tone. Looking at the stuff he liked was a bit like looking at the material on my photo bookshelves. I didn't find him provocative because I'm already there. Pity he didn't seem to mention Tom Wood in the landscape connection.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Hmm. Well. Not everyone wants to make pretty postcard pictures.:exit:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdaxV2ieZgY
Click to expand...

Since this was a sort of instructional video, I wanted to make notes as thoughts hit me while watching
---------------------------------

Bitter much?

The images he *does* like do have a certain timeless quality, although the Raymond Moore shots remind me of a Les Dawson piano part, so intentionally bad that they are almost good.

The Raymond Depardon shot is quite different, and does just what he said on the tin.

Michael Kanna is apparently not allowed to produce polished photographs. The speaker doesn't like moody, dark and manipulative mono images of concentration camps, but shows a picture of railway tracks that is none of those things. It also seems that 'not getting' art isn't unique to us non-artists. (sigh)

Faye Godwin gets a pass, possibly because she shot in a different age and produced work characteristic of that time.

He really doesn't like Thomas Heaton.

He really really doesn't like Michael K, having almost been fooled into liking him before he was wise

"A lot of people will find this very condescending and pretentious" (but because I'm so serious about this I can justify it to myself).
---------------------------------

It was interesting, and yes, there's a difference between a modern polished landscape shot that is intended to catch and please the eye and photographs that are intentionally designed not to do that.

I find it saddening that the 'art' world can't help but pour scorn on the non-art world that simply wants to produce pictures that make people happy. Perhaps it's jealousy, that others can make money and get recognition for climing a mountain in freezing conditions to shoot a sunrise at 5am, rather than for taking snaps of rubbish on a verge (yes, this is sarcasm - I am assuming the images he showed weren't snaps). Perhaps there's no way for those who feel they belong to the group of people that call themselves 'artists' to live in peace with others that approach their ground?

FWIW I had no idea what he was going to say, and went into this with, as much as is reasonably possible, an open mind.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I find it saddening that the 'art' world can't help but pour scorn on the non-art world that simply wants to produce pictures that make people happy. Perhaps it's jealousy, that others can make money and get recognition for climing a mountain in freezing conditions to shoot a sunrise at 5am, rather than for taking snaps of rubbish on a verge (yes, this is sarcasm - I am assuming the images he showed weren't snaps). Perhaps there's no way for those who feel they belong to the group of people that call themselves 'artists' to live in peace with others that approach their ground
Click to expand...
I haven't watched it yet, but I can assure you that there people who like Art who have got no objection to other people making photographs for others to enjoy. As in most situations, it is those on either end of the spectrum that cause most of the issues. It would be wonderful to be able to discuss photography as art here with others who are willing to discuss it, but invariably there are those who won't allow it to happen. Those discussions always end up with certain people dismissing Art as nonsense because they don't like it and shouting down the others. I don't remember seeing the reverse, where those who do want to see photography as art gong in and rubbishing the "pretty" images* for spurious reasons.

+pretty images are fine, and I am perfectly happy to have them on the wall. However, I also like to talk about pictures that have meaning even if I wouldn't have them on my wall.
 
I thought his statements generally had integrity. There are many sorts of photography, but he was dealing with one of the things that I try to bang on about sometimes, which is meaning.

Toni, I'm glad you're not in charge of my bookshelf. Not only does it have Polaroids and iPhone images on it - but also quite a bit of Raymond Moore!
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I find it saddening that the 'art' world can't help but pour scorn on the non-art world that simply wants to produce pictures that make people happy. Perhaps it's jealousy, that others can make money and get recognition for climing a mountain in freezing conditions to shoot a sunrise at 5am, rather than for taking snaps of rubbish on a verge (yes, this is sarcasm - I am assuming the images he showed weren't snaps). Perhaps there's no way for those who feel they belong to the group of people that call themselves 'artists' to live in peace with others that approach their ground?

FWIW I had no idea what he was going to say, and went into this with, as much as is reasonably possible, an open mind.
Click to expand...

I've just watched the video again and thought he tried to temper any condescension. He does say that if you are already on one 'side' you'll probably have certain reactions to his opinions.

Which 'side' you are on depends, I think, on how your picture viewing has developed with time. When I started taking photographs I thought the stuff I saw in Amateur Photographer and Practical Photography was the epitome of photographic excellence. Then I got this book.

DSC_0831.jpg


I went on to look at the photographs of Cartier-Bresson and especially Kertész (I also have memories of seeing pictures by Diane Arbus and Eugene Smith in the Sunday Times supplement long before I picked up a camera - powerful pictures which entered my subconscious as a child) and the journey started. The ordinary and commonplace was visually interesting and could be the subject for making photographs.

'Stunning' pictures do just that. Stun me. They rely entirely on initial impact. 'Boring' pictures (of rubbish...) make me look at them for longer, or return to them, because I want to find out if I can see why the photographer took the picture and thought it worth showing to others. The more I look at these sort of pictures the more I appreciate them.
 
Curiously, his (Justin Jones') own photos that I've managed to access seem to be a bit 'snapshoty' ...

A couple of books relevant to how this thread is currently developing are 'Ways of Seeing' by the late John Berger (available in Penguin) (or anything else by him), and 'Photography - a very short introduction', by Steve Edwards (Oxford).

We have to think about what we do, surely? We have to position ourselves in the spectrum of what's possible. It's not about good versus bad. It's about self-awareness.

Someone I can think of does immaculate commercial studio work (product photography), and his personal work (mostly outdoors) is equally discplined but quite different.
 
Last edited:
I see what he's getting at ! Although I must admit to looking at various landscape images and Blogs and thinking how fantastic they are I now realize to stand out you need to produce something different that makes you think a little more or feel an emotion or memory rather than just technical excellence ! Great
 
droj said:
A couple of books relevant to how this thread is currently developing are 'Ways of Seeing' by the late John Berger (available in Penguin) (or anything else by him), and 'Photography - a very short introduction', by Steve Edwards (Oxford). We have to think about what we do, surely?
Click to expand...

The Edwards book is possibly the easier read.

The Photographer's Eye by John Szarkowski (not the Michael Freeman one) made me think. I still look at it from time to time.
 
droj said:
Toni, I'm glad you're not in charge of my bookshelf. Not only does it have Polaroids and iPhone images on it - but also quite a bit of Raymond Moore!
Click to expand...

Me too - I would not want to restrict you in any way!

Ed Sutton said:
I've just watched the video again and thought he tried to temper any condescension. He does say that if you are already on one 'side' you'll probably have certain reactions to his opinions.
Click to expand...

And that's interesting of itself, and suggests to me that you are very careful about the manner in which you express your thoughts. (y)

I recognise the picture on the cover of that book, though I could not have told you who took it. I discovered Man Ray around the time I was also getting paid for weddings & portraits. Then in the mid 90s the library in Abingdon had a section full of fascinating book by a range of photographers, most of whose names I forget, although Bill Brandt and Cecil Beaton were among them, but I happily devoured them. I'm not really art-averse, and if anything the opposite, but loathe the way *some* people on the one side seem to want to build higher and higher barriers, rather than just ignoring the stuff that they don't like (I have no interest in animal pictures, but I'm happy for those that like them to get all the pleasure they can.

Quite seriously, Justin came across as really bitter and angry in that video, struggling to hold back the contempt and distaste he felt. It could have been second hand cars or growing roses - the subject wouldn't have mattered.

I guess that *for me* photography just doesn't matter enough to make me feel that strongly about other people's pictures.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
And that's interesting of itself, and suggests to me that you are very careful about the manner in which you express your thoughts. (y)
Click to expand...

Thank you.

The trouble with the internet is that giving considered, precise, and concise responses is difficult as people expect immediate replies. Sometimes I fail.

Speaking as someone decidedly in the 'art' camp I think there can be a frustration that 'outsiders' don't seem to be willing or able to grasp what 'art' is all about, because to the insiders it is perfectly normal. I have always tried to draw people in to experiencing art (sometime provocatively, I admit) because I genuinely believe everyone should be exposed to it as that is the only way to appreciate and understand it, even if you don't like it all.

Art should be democratic, but the art world has a frustrating a tendency to alienate people by being abstruse - and using unusual words such as 'abstruse'!
 
Ed Sutton said:
the art world has a frustrating a tendency to alienate people by being abstruse - and using unusual words such as 'abstruse'!
Click to expand...

This is all too often my problem with arty folk, I have a decent command of English and often know what their words mean individually, but not once strung together in what I can only see as gobbledook

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