Are Camera Enthusiast Overly Worried About Equipment Over Content?

J

Jonathan_Taylor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
Jonathan taylor
Edit My Images
No
Surely if a photograph has the ability to infuse an emotional response from the viewer, even if it is a negative one, its worth far out weights the merits of any post production used or the equipment it was taken with?

But maybe you feel the two have equal merit?

Or maybe even the technical excellence of the image is where the resonance of the image gets its strength from for you?
 
Interesting question. Possibly controversial question.
Content is all in my book. Only processing I ever do is RAW. Camera bodies I use are cheapos, lenses I use have left me hopping and balancing with one arm.
I don't know but I get the impression that the equipment obsession that appears now is a direct result of the inception of digital photography. Is it the extreme variety and range of equipment and software now available? Why the obsession with Photoshop for processing digital files? I don't know. I do not have photoshop. I didn't have it when I used film and still apply the same principals now as then. (Took me ages to stop breaking open CF cards and dropping them in trays of developer)
Really keen to read some forum regulars opinions/thoughts in this thread.
 
I often feel that there are too many questions regarding equipment and technique on most photography forums, and not enough effort spent on the emotional side of photography.
Technical excellence to me often means dullness. A member here showed me some of his wedding pictures (he was not the main photographer) and they were all shot from the hip, most slightly blurred or out of focus, but so many had real impact, and got the atmosphere of the day so much better than many of the official type of pictures could have ever done.
A good topic, andf one I want to see run a while

Slightly off topic, but all 3 people to be involved in this thread are from 'abroad'...
 
I, for one, am very glad indeed that there are people who appear to value the latest developments in technology - after all they make it possible for me to get into the field at very low cost whilst using equipment that used to be considered top of the range. If the images produced by the technology were good enough 3 years ago then they are good enough now, especially for my level of skill.

The other thing the gadget obsessives do is push fund the R&D so the camera companies keep on innovating, which is good for everyone. This applies in lost of fields not just photography... I find the balance between cost and extra advantage the latest tech. allows to be too small to bother with, your mileage may vary of course :)

So for me the picture matters more than the device used to capture it. If I can get the picture right in my 30D, I don't have to learn Photoshop, the Gimp or whatever and being a lazy person that suits me fine. Currently my best picture ever was captured on the Olympus C4040-Z; I have a long way to go with the 30D before I capture another of the same impact.

B.
 
Content is what counts. Otherwise there's no point.

BUT, as a photographer, I think it's quite natural to want to know how a shot was achieved. If I see a shot that I really like, then I'll wonder whether I'd be capable of doing something like it. (I probably won't be, but I can dream.) Or a good shot might spark off some sort of inspiration. But either way, knowing how the image was made could be helpful. That could be about the technique, it could be about the equipmnt, or t could be both.
 
Technically perfect shot of a match.

Slightly underexposed, softish shot of a father running from a war zone carrying his injured child (ok, slightly extreme, but work with me here!).

I know which I'd wager would be the 'better' photograph.

As with any of the visual arts, there is a certain amount of personal interpretation undertaken by the viewer but, generally speaking, an emotive or powerful shot that lacks a little technical refinement will always outshine a dull shot that is technically perfect IMO.

For me it's all about evoking something in the viewer that results in a 'good' photograph. It doesn't matter whether they recognise that it was exposed with -0.3ev or was lit from three sides using two softboxes.

If it stirs something inside them, it's a job well done.
 
I don't know about enthusiasm for equipment over the actual photos themselves, but I can tell you there is always a lot more enthusiasm about the actual subject matter than the photo as a piece of photography... well, certainly in the motorsport section!

But anyway, on the original point, people on internet forums tend to gravitate towards only asking/answering things which are simple questions for a number of reasons.

Questions like "what size screw on filter fits my lens?" is a far easier question to ask (or answer!) than "My photo was taken with these factors in mind and what do you think?".

I quite often get depressed about the lack of truly constructive crit :(
 
I think since photography has become amalgamated with the computer world to many have become like the stereotypical computer geek and unnecessarily obsess over equipment. ;):D

As to technical excellence (which can be obtained with even the most basic DSLR) over content, well technical excellence without content just results in a sterile image, content on its own with bad technique is rarely enough except in that one in a million shot..but both..ahh thats the holy grail.;)
 
Jonathan_Taylor said:
Surely if a photograph has the ability to infuse an emotional response from the viewer, even if it is a negative one, its worth far out weights the merits of any post production used or the equipment it was taken with?
Click to expand...


a few years ago I entered a photograph into a club competition... it was printed A3 and to this day probably one of the most colourfull pictures I have taken... Around 20 life size football furry mascots all falling over a race start line...

When it was produced to the audience of around 30.. you could hear the little gasps and the oohh aaahs and the reaction was great.. I looked around everyone was smiling.. a few whispering to each other.. It wasn't a fantastic response. no standing ovation haha... but you knew everyone in the room liked it AT FIRST GLANCE

however the judges found enough wrong with it to point out to everyone who just nodded in agreement and for it to not win anything :(

Surely if the whole room had an instant reaction of liking the picture then its a good picture? Does anything else matter?
 
KIPAX said:
however the judges found enough wrong with it to point out to everyone who just nodded in agreement and for it to not win anything :(

Surely if the whole room had an instant reaction of liking the picture then its a good picture? Does anything else matter?
Click to expand...

Surely if you liked it and were proud of it, nothing else does? Win or no win.
 
Great thread! :)

I do lean more towards the artistic and although I like to understand the technicalities, it's only so I can harness that knowledge so I can get what I want artistically.

None of my cameras are current models, two digitals 2-3 years old and two MF 20 and 32 years old!

I often quote motorsport as an example of technically superb photography that just leaves me completely cold. One pic of a car zooming along is the same as another to me (and I'm a car fan!) I can appreciate it's technical merits but if it was on a wall, I'd just walk past it.

The current fascination for "street" is another one. Again, a lot of technical merit in them but out of all the pics I've seen on TP so far only a very few "speak" to me.
 
TerryO said:
I get the impression that the equipment obsession that appears now is a direct result of the inception of digital photography.
Click to expand...

I was quite heavily into photography as a gawky teen half a lifetime ago and then took a break of about a decade until I got a DSLR.

Back in the day the equipment obsession was even more serious - not just between Canon v Nikon v the rest & which lens and software but SLR, TLR, 35mm, medium format, large format, rangefinder, then lenses then flashguns then this, that and every other bloody thing. And then you got on to pages and pages and how many more sodding pages of which ISO64 film was best when it was sunny in the afternoon but with the chance of rain later.

It's better now. People take pictures.
 
Simmotino said:
Surely if you liked it and were proud of it, nothing else does? Win or no win.
Click to expand...

Whooosh :)

My point is...How can a room full of people like a picture. then to be told by experts that its technically poor and then change there mind.. My point is.. If you like a picture then its a good picture.. no matter what anyone else tells you...
 
I'm still new to photography, about 15 months in, and hardly ever used a camera when I was younger so the technology is all I know. However, I am beginning to realise that a picture that is technically good, produced by modern equipment is nothing without some story or emotional content. As a recent thread(s) on here illustrated some people are only interested in the story and do not care for technical critique and others want the image to be as perfect as possible but I think that both are important and a balance of the 2, however difficult to achieve, is what I aim for.
Not managed it yet though.
Good thread by the way.
Andy
 
I would answer this question by saying there are alot of people out there with bags full of very expensive equipment producing not very much at all while at the same time others with much lesser equipment are producing outstanding results. Some people focus on the equipment and see upgrades as the way to improve others get out there and take pictures and improve. It's often easier to blame your shortfalls on the standard of equipment you have rather than accept that you may not have the skill, plus my credit card can fix any eqipment shortfall where as time and effort are required to fix my lack of skills.

I'm sure my camera and lenses are all defective as other people get much better results with the same kit, or maybe it's just that they live in more photogenic places.
 
KIPAX said:
Whooosh :)

My point is...How can a room full of people like a picture. then to be told by experts that its technically poor and then change there mind.. My point is.. If you like a picture then its a good picture.. no matter what anyone else tells you...
Click to expand...
Straight back atcha! :D

My point was, do you really need a room of people to tell you it's a good picture? If you like it, then surely it's a good picture already, irrespective of what others think?
 
Simmotino said:
Straight back atcha! :D

My point was, do you really need a room of people to tell you it's a good picture? If you like it, then surely it's a good picture already, irrespective of what others think?
Click to expand...

So no one should ever enter a competition? Thats taking it a bit far surely?
 
KIPAX said:
So no one should ever enter a competition? Thats taking it a bit far surely?
Click to expand...

No because a competition would be to decide who's picture is best not which ones are good. When ever I enter a competition I use what I think is a good picture sadly the judges don't always agree.

EDIT: Not quite sure what all this ahs to do with the OP's eqipment over content debate!
 
AliB said:
None of my cameras are current models, two digitals 2-3 years old and two MF 20 and 32 years old!
Click to expand...

New Technology is good and there is a need for the latest equipment.. I take pictures under ligthing that couldnt be done without the latets equipment... the old "how did they used to do it" .. well they didnt in certain circumstances that I can now :)

AliB said:
The current fascination for "street" is another one. Again, a lot of technical merit in them but out of all the pics I've seen on TP so far only a very few "speak" to me.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt know what makes a good landscape.. I dont understand how anyone likes a landscape picture let alone fawns over them.. I guess its a million miles away from what i do ....
 
a1ex2001 said:
EDIT: Not quite sure what all this ahs to do with the OP's eqipment over content debate!
Click to expand...

Its exactly what he is talking about... he said process as well as equipment.. so someone liking a picture for what it is...good.. but then to take it apart because of technique....how does that make it suddenly not a good picture..

Bang on subject :)
 
If a photograph hits the emotional triggers of the audience it is intended for, then surely it must, by definition, be a "good" picture?
 
The answer is in the question.

A camera enthusiast is over obsessed with the equipment.

A photography enthusiast should be more concerned with the image.


As said though - a knowledge of how the equipment works will help a photographer catch better images.
 
KIPAX said:
Its exactly what he is talking about... he said process as well as equipment.. so someone liking a picture for what it is...good.. but then to take it apart because of technique....how does that make it suddenly not a good picture..

Bang on subject :)
Click to expand...

Quite right, I hadn't interpreted it that way and wasn't having a dig at anyone.

One thing we do get an awful lot of these days is complaints over sharpness amd I'm sure thats down to the technology I never view my pictures at 100% and don't really care if they are so sharp I can cut myself on them. Some of the greatest photo's of all time are hardly even in focus by todays standards.

Guess I'm agreeing with you a good picture isn't necesarily technically perfect and a technically perfect picture isn't necesarily any good and as long as you kit allows you to take the picture you want then it's good enough.
 
who? said:
The answer is in the question.

A camera enthusiast is over obsessed with the equipment.

A photography enthusiast should be more concerned with the image.


As said though - a knowledge of how the equipment works will help a photographer catch better images.
Click to expand...
Plus to me the post production comes into A, personally I like pictures that are pretty much just RAW with marginal sharpening, which goes against what the vast majority of people like to see and would consider any good. One of my favorites I cannot remember which lens took it and the only pp it had was clone and sharpen, nothing else was touched, so a lot depends on who the final user and how they see things. I have got the equipment set up that works for me and although I know others could do more with it than I can it does not matter to me as all I want to do is enjoy myself, no point obsessing over it all :)
 
The picture is what counts, just ask the proverbial bride’s mother!
So long as she thinks it’s a good picture she won’t care a jot how you took it (so long as you did it quickly without disturbing the big day too much and at a minimal cost to her!).

That said if you are a photographer reading a forum such as this you may well have an interest in the how. If you see a picture you like which uses a technique you don’t understand (which could be anything from simple panning to HDR), you will be curious to know how to emulate the style. Equipment can play a part in this.

Where things go wrong is where people fail to take a good “normal” (by which I mean a ‘photo that is within the technical scope of their current gear) shot and are then fooled into thinking or believing they can buy their way into a better shot with more gear. That way madness lies!

So the picture is what counts but some types of picture need specialist kit but the kit alone won’t make you a good photographer.
 
who? said:
The answer is in the question.

A camera enthusiast is over obsessed with the equipment.

A photography enthusiast should be more concerned with the image.


As said though - a knowledge of how the equipment works will help a photographer catch better images.
Click to expand...

Why is a camera enthusiast "over" obsessed but a photography enthusiast not over obsessed. Surely peoples area of interest is allowed to swing one way or the other?
Personnaly, I am a technical person and not the least bit artistic. That fact shouldn't make it an assumption that I am over obsessed....simply that my interest doesn't match that of others.

Bob
 
Jonathan_Taylor said:
Surely if a photograph has the ability to infuse an emotional response from the viewer, even if it is a negative one, its worth far out weights the merits of any post production used or the equipment it was taken with?

But maybe you feel the two have equal merit?

Or maybe even the technical excellence of the image is where the resonance of the image gets its strength from for you?
Click to expand...


The finished article is all that matters, and I am a self confessed gear junkie.

Gary.
 
KIPAX said:
My point is...How can a room full of people like a picture. then to be told by experts that its technically poor and then change there mind.. My point is.. If you like a picture then its a good picture.. no matter what anyone else tells you...
Click to expand...

That is the situation with Jack Vettriano paintings. The experts slate them as technically poor and amateurish, although in his case the great unwashed buy prints of them by the truck load, so the "experts" opinions don't really seem to count for much....
 
WooHoo!

I just became an art expert! (Shame about D. Hurst though)
 
Canon Bob said:
Why is a camera enthusiast "over" obsessed but a photography enthusiast not over obsessed. Surely peoples area of interest is allowed to swing one way or the other?
Personnaly, I am a technical person and not the least bit artistic. That fact shouldn't make it an assumption that I am over obsessed....simply that my interest doesn't match that of others.

Bob
Click to expand...


By definition, a camera enthusiast is interested in the physical device, not the result.

Do you enjoy capturing images? If so then you are not over obsessed. Rather stay at home playing with the buttons and pixel peeping test card images....?
 
EdinburghGary said:
I am a self confessed gear junkie.
Click to expand...

Really? You hide it so well;)

Reading through this thread the general consesus seems to be that the image is paramount and likeing it yourself is also key to it being a good photo. Gear seems to be secondary to most people as long as it is sufficient to get the desired shot in the conditions. Pretty sensible advice really, since when did threads on TP start going this smoothly?
 
who? said:
By definition, a camera enthusiast is interested in the physical device, not the result.

Do you enjoy capturing images? If so then you are not over obsessed. Rather stay at home playing with the buttons and pixel peeping test card images....?
Click to expand...
I was more questioning your statement that it was an "over obsession" if the interest was equipment based but merely an obsession if it was results based.
And yes, I'm quite happy to try different setups at home or elsewhere even if the end result is not an image worthy of display.

Bob :geek:
 
That was just me being my usual reasoned and tolerant self, always ready to see both sides (even the one thats wrong)

;)
 
I think one reason why forums are heavy on the gear/technology is because it's a lot easier to discuss questions that have a definitive answer than those that don't.

It's much easier to discuss the technical merits of a shot than the artistic ones. For me shots generally fall into 3 boxes, like, dislike, indifference and I'll struggle to tell you why I like one and not another but it is an emotional response and I'm sure that everyone else here would disagree with my choices. That's as it should be, otherwise the world would be a very boring place ;)
 
hi all

steveinspain kindly mentioned me (not by name)... 3rd post in this thread. I thought I'd post a link to the images he mentioned...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29669956@N00/sets/72157604318258083/

the brides father is my best mate, so my wife and I were there for the day to enjoy ourselves... I took along my little ricoh gr digital, slammed it into iso 1600, switched off RAW (just highest quality jpg) and fixed it to f2.4... also took off the hot shoe eyepiece and switched off the back screen and shot 'til my fingers bled (there's a song in there somewhere).

the wedding was in march this year, fortunately there was a 'pro' there with a very nice medium format mamiya (shooting film too... wow) so there was no pressure on me!!!
 
pxl8 said:
I think one reason why forums are heavy on the gear/technology is because it's a lot easier to discuss questions that have a definitive answer than those that don't.
Click to expand...

That's what I said on page 1 :thumbs:
 
I think in any hobby there will always be those who want the latest and greatest to have bragging rights over fellow enthusiasts. As a member of 'several' tog forums i have seen reviewers verbally attacked because they dared to find fault with the latest camera that everyone had already bought, we also see 'fanboys' go to extreme lengths to defend the equipment they use. I don't think it is easier to ask a question about equipment than technique, just less embarrassing and more comfortable than asking about an image that we have produced.

In my opinion it is the final image that is important, to achieve a great image we must know our equipment, but more importantly we must have knowledge of photography.

Just my opinion.
 
"Are Camera Enthusiast Overly Worried About Equipment Over Content?"

Only the ones who aren't very good ;)
 
Jonathan_Taylor said:
Surely if a photograph has the ability to infuse an emotional response from the viewer, even if it is a negative one, its worth far out weights the merits of any post production used or the equipment it was taken with?

But maybe you feel the two have equal merit?

Or maybe even the technical excellence of the image is where the resonance of the image gets its strength from for you?
Click to expand...

Not read the whole thread, but I really don't think it matters how you get your kicks. If you're lucky, photography operates on three levels:

1) It's an 'art' which evokes emotions. Even the humblest of snaps can do that.
2) It's a craft, a skill, that requires knowledge and good technique.
3) It uses some pretty cool gadget gear, which is great to play with.

I'm lucky in that I enjoy all three aspects, but anybody that gets off on just one or two is fine by me :)

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