Bit of a Rant , The Cost of Photography

DG Phototraining said:
Nobody wants to do that though do they :D

Dave
Click to expand...

Nope.... don't I know it!

Student pays to learn.... student argues with those teaching them because they've read some dumb ass article on Petapixel... LOL


Been there... bashed my head on that wall which is why I no longer do it. [edit].. well, that and the fact that education is just a business that doesn't give a crap about actual education any more.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
An expensive way of removing the reason though. It's way cheaper to just listen to those who know what they're talking about, and actually believing them.
Click to expand...
That is much hard though. And for many not necessarily the best way. Talking from experience; until you finally figure it out yourself it is no good hearing someone say it. It takes time to get comfortable with your own style and what you actually require for that. Take my journey with the 70-200 f2.8 for example, I've been around all the cheap options and in the process spend so much more money than if I went straight for the Nikon VR version. Technically it really made a difference with 4 in hindsight expensive intermediate steps. However I kept on asking the wrong question in pursuing the best; it never should have been about the best lens, but what photograph do I actually want to achieve that requires that? I mean I don't take photographs to satisfy test shots and hang them on the wall or where ever.

Everyone is different, but to me it is just about the time it takes to get to that place of know what it actually is you want.

I'm staying out of the equipment threads these days as I recognise many just going down the same path. I don't think I've bought a camera or lens in over two years now. They don't all of a sudden get bad as such.
 
frod said:
I'd rather look at photos by someone who has spent 10,000 hours rather than £10,000.
Click to expand...

Sorry but Nope. I understand what you are trying to say but time, cost nothng else comes into it other than the image. The image, or series of images, need to stand on their own. It doesn't matter what it's taken on, by who, or how much they spent, it's the image.
 
Byker28i said:
Sorry but Nope. I understand what you are trying to say but time, cost nothng else comes into it other than the image. The image, or series of images, need to stand on their own. It doesn't matter what it's taken on, by who, or how much they spent, it's the image.
Click to expand...


Agreed, which is why someone studying photography as an academic subject is more likely to take more engaging images than someone who has undergone photographic training with the gear.

I've seen crap images from people who's "practiced" for decades, yet seen awesome images from people who've been doing it for weeks.. merely because they get what photography is about.

You need to know your gear, just as a sculptor needs to know how to use their gear, but the gear doesn't make the work, the sculptor does.
 
dejongj said:
Talking from experience; until you finally figure it out yourself it is no good hearing someone say it.
Click to expand...

Only if you chose to not believe them
 
Without those buying expensive kit R&D would suffer and the improvements that brings. These features trickle down to the lower end kit which ultimately benefits all

Another plus is the amount of gear that reaches the secondhand market from those wantng the latest greatest.
 
Photography isn't an expensive hobby. Compare it to shooting, RC flying there is virtually zero post layout cost. Secondhand market is flooded with everything you need and amazon has a mass of very good accessories. You can pick up a very good pro-amateur body and lens for less than £500 (D300S + 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f1.8).
 
Pookeyhead said:
Vote Corbin... stop education being a business with recruitment and retention targets!


Sorry.... carry on :)
Click to expand...

I think it's more about the income these days. My individual modules went up 300% in 4 years, making it unaffordable. Then they introduced time limits, so getting the courses through quicker, upping the hours required to about 20 hours a week, which is unrealistic for me whilst working full time.

It's a shame as I was really enjoying it, the introduction to new thoughts, disciplines, history, other artists not just photographers. A whole new appreciation. I may return to it later in life, for now I'll now do my own research and reading.
 
I've always taken the stance that you have to learn to do the job properly with the gear that you can afford ,I also try to pass on my knowledge to others where possible ( free of charge) and have helped lots of people and made good friends along the way ,by teaching field-craft-iness ,computer p.p ,setting up of cameras,micro adjusting cameras and lenses.
I don't own the best gear but I strive to get the best results from it ,none of us are here forever and if we can pass along our skills to others then it's not a waste of time ,that's my take on it anyway
 
Byker28i said:
I think it's more about the income these days.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's pure business now. I've sat on so many meetings where managers don't even talk about education... just targets and profits and income. That's all they care about.

Any way.. sorry for the thread diversion.

Back on topic.

Gear doesn't matter. You can do good photography with minimal gear. Photography is cheap, not expensive. It's only expensive when you fall into the trap.
 
Last edited:
andythilo said:
Photography isn't an expensive hobby. Compare it to shooting, RC flying there is virtually zero post layout cost. Secondhand market is flooded with everything you need and amazon has a mass of very good accessories. You can pick up a very good pro-amateur body and lens for less than £500 (D300S + 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f1.8).
Click to expand...
I don't agree, shooting is one of my hobbies and I have a number of rifles that certainly weren't cheap. However, my photography hobby is still far more expensive :)
 
My tuppence worth. I've been into photography for 40 years starting off with Zorki 4K, Zenit B then a Canon A1 which I had for many years. Then I went digital and used some cheap point and shoot cameras, i.e Canon A70. I then progressed to a Nikon D3000, then back to Canon with a 650D, then Canon 5d, 5d2 then 5d3. I recently sold off all my Canon gear and moved to Fuji, I'm now using the X Pro 2 and I have some nice lenses. I've honed my technical skills through the years, so I can take technically proficient photos, but I'm an engineer by trade, so my pictures are not great artistically. I believe people are born with an artists eye, it's not something that can be learned.
I've thousands of photos taken over many years, I love them, they're for my and my family's pleasure. They'll never win any awards, but that's not the point, I love my hobby and I'm now in that time of my life where I don't have a mortgage or any significant expenditure, so I do indulge myself in the newest and expensive photographic gear. They don't make me a better photographer, but they do help make better photos easier to achieve e'g lowlight shots.
As an engineer I love owning new technically advanced gadgets, and the fact that they can also produce nice photos is a bonus.
Sometimes when I see what some togs are producing it knocks the heart out of me, but at the end of the day they have the talent, I don't, but I'm happy doing what I do.
 
Byker28i said:
It's a shame as I was really enjoying it, the introduction to new thoughts, disciplines, history, other artists not just photographers. A whole new appreciation. I may return to it later in life, for now I'll now do my own research and reading.
Click to expand...

That is the most valuable thing you can get from a degree course (in my experience) - the ability to look into things and think for yourself, and be self-motivated in creative fields. One reason people on here often moan about being stuck for ideas of what to photograph is because they have never had the educational experience of learning how to come up with ideas on their own.

I'm beginning to ramble...
 
Pookeyhead said:
Only if you chose to not believe them
Click to expand...
But how is a beginner supposed to figure that out? I mean take a look at the GAS centric advice being provided on this forum every single day. Why would anyone not believe them but do believe someone else? I do think you are over simplifying it. Or perhaps it is my Montessori educational background sticking ;)
 
If a person wants to spend cash on a hobby or whatever why not.

I build superbikes for customers from all walks, if I person wants to spend £30,000.00-£50,000.00 (or even £160,000.00+ for Honda's new road going GP rep) on a superbike to go to the cafe on and pose their hard earned then why not, they don't have to win the BSB on it, however many think like that, "why have it, he can't ride it".. an attitude that shows green eyes in many imo.

People take great photo's with phones, perhaps the envy could be viewed from the other side, person stood with his high end camera views photos that go viral taken with a mobile.

Whatever someone does with their money is up to them, I don't think a person has to meet a certain skill level to qualify to buy a certain level of camera gear, they may make the learning curve harder but thats up to them, tbh I can not deal with these low end camera with food modes, facebook and more, I can not even get a simple picture from one haha
 
dejongj said:
But how is a beginner supposed to figure that out?
Click to expand...

By knowing that they're receiving advice from someone experienced, who is qualified, and can prove it.

dejongj said:
I mean take a look at the GAS centric advice being provided on this forum every single day. Why would anyone not believe them but do believe someone else?
Click to expand...

Because they're just other amateurs on a forum. I'm sorry, but if you just blindly accept anything anyone tells you on a forum, then that's your problem :) Check people out... how qualified are they to give advice... how good are they? How long they been doing what they're doing? Are they professional and qualified, or just another amateur. I'm sorry, but if you were seeking advice on your pension, or your car, or anything else, you'd do exactly that, but when it comes to photography people just automatically assume that everything they read in a forum is true. You see this time and time again in the "beginners" forum on here... SO much terrible advice given to beginners. I actually think you should be vetted before you're allowed to respond to posts in there, because so many beginners are led down this path of gear and post processing, and never have a ****ing clue about what actually makes a good photographer in the first place it's shameful.

dejongj said:
I do think you are over simplifying it.
Click to expand...

Of course I am - because it is simple. Check out the person giving advice is actually a k******d who knows nothing or not, just like you would if you were seeking advice on whether it was safe to take a certain drug... you'd ask your doctor, because he's qualified to give you correct advice. If you just accept something some bloke on a forum tells you, and become ill, then that's just Darwinism in action if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
arthurbikemad said:
If a person wants to spend cash on a hobby or whatever why not.

I build superbikes for customers from all walks, if I person wants to spend £30,000.00-£50,000.00 (or even £160,000.00+ for Honda's new road going GP rep) on a superbike to go to the cafe on and pose their hard earned then why not, they don't have to win the BSB on it, however many think like that, "why have it, he can't ride it".. an attitude that shows green eyes in many imo.

People take great photo's with phones, perhaps the envy could be viewed from the other side, person stood with his high end camera views photos that go viral taken with a mobile.

Whatever someone does with their money is up to them, I don't think a person has to meet a certain skill level to qualify to buy a certain level of camera gear, they may make the learning curve harder but thats up to them, tbh I can not deal with these low end camera with food modes, facebook and more, I can not even get a simple picture from one haha
Click to expand...


No one's saying people can't spend their money on what they want in this thread... well I'm not any way. We're talking about why people feel they need better gear, and having better gear will improve their photographic skill. The guy on the 160,000 quid bike KNOWS it doesn't make him a better rider... that's the difference. Half the idiots in here actually do feel they're a better photographer for having better gear.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
By knowing that they're receiving advice from someone experienced, who is qualified, and can prove it.



Because they're just other amateurs on a forum. I'm sorry, but if you just blindly accept anything anyone tells you on a forum, then that's your problem :) Check people out... how qualified are they to give advice... how good are they? How long they been doing what they're doing? Are they professional and qualified, or just another amateur. I'm sorry, but if you were seeking advice on your pension, or your car, or anything else, you'd do exactly that, but when it comes to photography people just automatically assume that everything they read in a forum is true. You see this time and time again in the "beginners" forum on here... SO much terrible advice given to beginners. I actually think you should be vetted before you're allowed to respond to posts in there, because so many beginners are led down this path of gear and post processing, and never have a ****ing clue about what actually makes a good photographer in the first place it's shameful.



Of course I am - because it is simple. Check out the person giving advice is actually a k******d who knows nothing or not, just like you would if you were seeking advice on whether it was safe to take a certain drug... you'd ask your doctor, because he's qualified to give you correct advice. If you just accept something some bloke on a forum tells you, and become ill, then that's just Darwinism in action if you ask me.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO As I said; as a beginner how are you supposed to figure that out ;)
 
Many years ago when when I earned a living from photography i had a rule that I would not buy new kit unless it would pay for itself, however I did find that good kit, which in those days meant a Hasselblad, did pay for itself in terms of quality and reliability ( remember there was no checking the screen to confirm a good shot). I fully appreciate that you shouldn't get into debt for a hobby but as another poster mentioned photography is much cheaper now with no film and processing costs. I am now fully retired and in the fortunate position of being able to afford very nice equipment, I think of it not so much as an expense more of a reduction in my kids inheritance! Does it make me a better photographer - no, but it does make me a very happy one!
 
dejongj said:
ROFLMAO As I said; as a beginner how are you supposed to figure that out ;)
Click to expand...

Ask? Look at their website? Look at their work? (if someone giving you advice does crap work, there's a clue right there).

This is not difficult :)
 
Fordsabroad said:
Many years ago when when I earned a living from photography i had a rule that I would not buy new kit unless it would pay for itself,
Click to expand...

Most professionals would have this train of thought.. because they're tools to do a job, not objects of desire to give you more cred at the camera club. If it ain't gonna earn you more money, then you don't need it. Simple as that.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No one's saying people can't spend their money on what they want in this thread... well I'm not any way. We're talking about why people feel they need better gear, and having better gear will improve their photographic skill. The guy on the 160,000 quid bike KNOWS it doesn't make him a better rider... that's the difference. Half the idiots in here actually do feel they're a better photographer for having better gear.
Click to expand...
It begs the question, why do you participate in a forum where half the contributors are, in your estimation "idiots" ? This is predominantly a forum for hobbyists, pure and simple.
 
Wayne Els said:
And if you can't do it well enjoy doing it badly. So long a you're enjoying it who gives a **** ;)
Click to expand...
Exactly. My feeling is I've worked hard for 40 plus years, raised a family, paid a mortgage off. If I want to spent a couple of grand on a nice camera and lens just do it, it makes me happier than having the money sitting in a bank account earning 0.25% interest !
remember there are no pockets in a shroud !
p.s just don't tell the wife :rolleyes:
 
jimgallaher said:
It begs the question, why do you participate in a forum where half the contributors are, in your estimation "idiots" ? This is predominantly a forum for hobbyists, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Because half are not.


[edit]

Duh!

I don't care if anyone is a hobbyist or not... just whether they're idiots.
 
Last edited:
Photography is cheaper than it ever.
If we were all using film we would be paying around £10 for every 36 shots taken wirh still expensive kit.

1000 shots on decent fìlm would cost maybe £280.

This is just material costs not the kit used. Kit is not that expensive either.

I recall a manual focus 300mm f2.8 costing £3000 back in the 1980s. A decent wideangle lens was way beyond my reach costing more than my camera. Remember back 36 falied shots still cost you that £10 with film.
 
Does anyone have a cure for GAS? If so please feel free to send it to me, my problem is I love to take photos and buy the gear haha
 
arthurbikemad said:
Does anyone have a cure for GAS? If so please feel free to send it to me, my problem is I love to take photos and buy the gear haha
Click to expand...

But you're clearly happy to do this, unlike the OP, so you don't have a problem.
 
dancook said:
Whenever someone offers you advice, you need to ask them how they are qualified to offer that advice and ask them for proof.
Click to expand...
:) That will go down well fantastically on the forum.

Pookeyhead said:
Ask? Look at their website? Look at their work? (if someone giving you advice does crap work, there's a clue right there).

This is not difficult :)
Click to expand...
I'm going to subscribe to the business section and order a big supply of popcorn. Seriously though I think you've just totally missed the point that I made in the post that I put up.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Gear doesn't matter. You can do good photography with minimal gear. Photography is cheap, not expensive. It's only expensive when you fall into the trap.
Click to expand...
Gear does matter. It obviously matters more to those who don't have it too. This thread isn't a moral crusade - it's the politics of envy.

I'm probably the nemesis of any anti gear-head and have more kit than a lot of the pro's. So what? I do my kind of photography almost every day (for pleasure) and the results with better gear are significantly better.

Anyone who tells you that a bird on a stick 20m away looks just as good with a 1000D/kit lens versus a 1Dxii and L-glass is seriously deluded. What I choose to practise my craft with is my business. End of.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Most professionals would have this train of thought.. because they're tools to do a job, not objects of desire to give you more cred at the camera club. If it ain't gonna earn you more money, then you don't need it. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
It's horses for courses. I could choose to buy a multimeter from Maplins for £50 but for my job I choose to spend £600 for a Fluke meter. Same for professional togs I suppose.
 
jimgallaher said:
It's horses for courses. I could choose to buy a multimeter from Maplins for £50 but for my job I choose to spend £600 for a Fluke meter. Same for professional togs I suppose.
Click to expand...


You suppose? Maybe... but if these are tools to do a job, you obviously buy good quality gear (buy cheap, buy twice and all that) but you'd not spend money recklessly on stuff that's not going to actually earn you any money... unless you're just crap at running a business.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You suppose? Maybe... but if these are tools to do a job, you obviously buy good quality gear (buy cheap, buy twice and all that) but you'd not spend money recklessly on stuff that's not going to actually earn you any money... unless you're just crap at running a business.
Click to expand...
LOL , brilliant ! I wish I'd taken this picture, I didn't but I'll post it anyway, I think it's relevant.

Troll.jpg
 
There's quite pronounced noise, probably taken with a crappy non professional camera, not very sharp either, probably a "kit" lens :rolleyes:
 
molly said:
I started taking photos about 10years ago with my camera Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18, the colours it produces are wonderful, the camera itself is as light as a feather. Love it.:)
Click to expand...

I have that Camera in my bag, carry it with me all the time ... I also have in my bag the FZ20 which is even better!!!
 
FourRingCircus said:
Gear does matter. It obviously matters more to those who don't have it too. This thread isn't a moral crusade - it's the politics of envy.

I'm probably the nemesis of any anti gear-head and have more kit than a lot of the pro's. So what? I do my kind of photography almost every day (for pleasure) and the results with better gear are significantly better.

Anyone who tells you that a bird on a stick 20m away looks just as good with a 1000D/kit lens versus a 1Dxii and L-glass is seriously deluded. What I choose to practise my craft with is my business. End of.
Click to expand...


Like said in my first post in this thread... Sports, wildlife, macro etc... are all gear oriented types of photography that have certain minimum entry requirements: Fast AF, long, fast lenses. Without those you're at a disadvantage.

Why you so defensive? LOL

Spend your cash on what you want.. no one cares Pal. The OP however, was clearly having issues of a different sort.

Landscape, portraits, studio product shots, documentary, fashion, advertising imagery... all manner of imagery can, and is taken with surprisingly modest equipment.

I hate to say it, but some genres of the medium require more creative input than they do technical prowess and for those (actually the majority) gear is nowhere near as important as you think it is.

Gear may matter to you, but I doubt very much it matters to the OP as much as she thinks it does. Having said that, you CAN enjoy wildlife photography with cheaper lenses. I've no interest in the genre whatsoever, but despite that, and no practice whatsoever, I still got a nice pic of a Chiff Chaff with f5.6 300mm zoom lens that was £150 off Ebay. Why I Was shooting images of wrens is another story, but it was something I had to do for someone, and I did it... with what you would deem to be crap gear. Maybe this wildlife malarky isn't as difficult as some make it out to be. :) ...if only I had the gear... LOL



_DSC6466.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top