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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhotographyBuff
  • Start date Start date
simonblue said:
This argument has been going on since the dawn of photography,sometimes I think it's just down to how some photographer want to be perceived,as artist rather than photographer.
Click to expand...

I'm an art photographer. :D

FUJI0756.jpg
 
I thought I knew what this thread was about, and it wasn't "post pics you like". Shows how soon I lose the plot :(

From what I've seen recently in this thread, it appears that those who don't think that photography can be artistic/don't want to produce art regard equipment as the most important thing; but that's sidestepping the question entirely unless affirming that creativity/art has no place in photography constitutes an answer. Even then, it doesn't answer how much the equipment matters when you're producing images for Farcebook or to display on a web page and you don't need a long lens. All cameras have limitations, but if you work within them (from choice or necessity) it won't show in the print. Whether having to be technically creative to work within the limitations could be advanced as an argument that equipment does matter, and better quality eqipment stifles creativity isn't one I care to argue.

I haven't seen anything to make me change my opinion of how to distinguish expressed earlier in a couple of posts.
 
The thread has turned into Flickr.
 
SORRY! GONE BACK AND DELETED MY PHOTOS.

I'll stick to words instead.

A word is worth a thousand pictures.
 
Last edited:
it's all about the image

no words needed


"Streetshooter" taught me that
 
Last edited:
it's all very nice and cuddly and friendly to say that equipment doesn't matter.

but it's also crap.

Anyone can take a nice photo of their kitten or a sunset with a kit lens. In the right hands, iphones take some BEAUTIFUL portraits.

You can't professionally and reliably take photos or make the kinds of images that many types of client require without tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of equipment (not an exaggeration). The latitude, the noise, the flare handling, the autofocus just isn't there on cheaper cameras, and don't even get me started on frankly most lenses available for 35mm cameras, especially stopped wider open than about f5.6 (when you see phase / 'blad files up close, you find a definition of 'sharp' that simply doesn't really exist in 35mm)

If you could, it would mean I could spend less on kit and more on holidays, hookers and blow. So I dearly wish that it didn't matter. But alas, I'm stuck spending on one single battery powered light, what my brother paid for his last car.
 
Last edited:
mossienet said:
Sorry, bit of a telling off for including some of my images. Couldn't think of anything funny to say :(
Click to expand...

and therein lies a problem, maybe the problem … but "problem" will be jumped on as a word

there really is no hope (for many or some - chose what suits you) … well there is - it's called realisation and it applies to many things in life, but I knew that anyway

a great pity, but that's life ….. and informative

Take all my (single) words and rearrange them in any order that you want to mean what you want to say …. it can make you happy and satisfied
 
Last edited:
itsdavedotnet said:
it's all very nice and cuddly and friendly to say that equipment doesn't matter.

but it's also crap.

Anyone can take a nice photo of their kitten or a sunset with a kit lens. In the right hands, iphones take some BEAUTIFUL portraits.

You can't professionally and reliably take photos or make the kinds of images that many types of client require without tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of equipment (not an exaggeration). The latitude, the noise, the flare handling, the autofocus just isn't there on cheaper cameras, and don't even get me started on frankly most lenses available for 35mm cameras, especially stopped wider open than about f5.6 (when you see phase / 'blad files up close, you find a definition of 'sharp' that simply doesn't really exist in 35mm)

If you could, it would mean I could spend less on kit and more on holidays, hookers and blow. So I dearly wish that it didn't matter. But alas, I'm stuck spending on one single battery powered light, what my brother paid for his last car.
Click to expand...

There is not much cuddly about this thread, though it has remained relatively friendly compared to the way some go. However, I think you are missing the point Dave, you are talking about commercial photography, usually with a specific client brief and a desired outcome that will by it's nature have boundaries - and those have already been covered in this thread and pretty much agreed, even by those that prefer the art over the kit, that you need specific and usually expensive equipment for that brief and to be within those defined boundaries.
 
Yv said:
There is not much cuddly about this thread, though it has remained relatively friendly compared to the way some go. However, I think you are missing the point Dave, you are talking about commercial photography, usually with a specific client brief and a desired outcome that will by it's nature have boundaries - and those have already been covered in this thread and pretty much agreed, even by those that prefer the art over the kit, that you need specific and usually expensive equipment for that brief and to be within those defined boundaries.
Click to expand...

As a ex pro,yes I had to work within defined boundaries as the job require,but it's also gave me the income to do my own personal work.

:)
 
simonblue said:
As a ex pro,yes I had to work within defined boundaries as the job require,but it's also gave me the income to do my own personal work.

:)
Click to expand...

Indeed and I guess it's that work that is what this thread is about from the pro perspective. Yes, if you are pro and you have the expensive kit, chances are you are going to use it for personal stuff too, but it isn't the be all and end all. I have also talked to/read/seen lots of pro's getting really excited because they get to 'dump the lump' of big kit and use something different, something small and exciting maybe [remember the almost mass hysteria when the Fuji X100 launched] or unusual, more challenging, such as a good old fashioned film camera, or whatever. In other words, they use the time they have for personal work to take it right away from their day to day stuff.
 
Yv said:
Indeed and I guess it's that work that is what this thread is about from the pro perspective. Yes, if you are pro and you have the expensive kit, chances are you are going to use it for personal stuff too, but it isn't the be all and end all. I have also talked to/read/seen lots of pro's getting really excited because they get to 'dump the lump' of big kit and use something different, something small and exciting maybe [remember the almost mass hysteria when the Fuji X100 launched] or unusual, more challenging, such as a good old fashioned film camera, or whatever. In other words, they use the time they have for personal work to take it right away from their day to day stuff.
Click to expand...

Ok not the cheap end of the market,but I carry around an Leica M6,but before I could afford it used to carry around an little Pentax MX,which after buying the Leica I went back to,just couldn't get on with rangefinder focussing.

But it was nice to let go of the big pro stuff Nikons,when a job had Finnish and have look at coming from a different angle with an small body and one lens.

:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yv
itsdavedotnet said:
it's all very nice and cuddly and friendly to say that equipment doesn't matter.

but it's also crap.

Anyone can take a nice photo of their kitten or a sunset with a kit lens. In the right hands, iphones take some BEAUTIFUL portraits.

You can't professionally and reliably take photos or make the kinds of images that many types of client require without tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of equipment (not an exaggeration). The latitude, the noise, the flare handling, the autofocus just isn't there on cheaper cameras, and don't even get me started on frankly most lenses available for 35mm cameras, especially stopped wider open than about f5.6 (when you see phase / 'blad files up close, you find a definition of 'sharp' that simply doesn't really exist in 35mm)

If you could, it would mean I could spend less on kit and more on holidays, hookers and blow. So I dearly wish that it didn't matter. But alas, I'm stuck spending on one single battery powered light, what my brother paid for his last car.
Click to expand...


I disagree.

I have access to a Mamyia/leaf system with a IQ180 back any time I like. I hardly ever use it. Why do you think THAT is? Which of your clients insist that you use MF gear? And if they do... why are you not using it? Why do the images on your website taken with a D200 look pretty much the same as any of the others? Which of the images on your website required battery powered lighting that costs more than a car? Why you using that? Why not just a set of Bowens or Elinchrom lights with battery packs? Which single light costs £12K (average car price... so assuming that's what you meant)? Can you please tell us which of the images on your website required £20k cameras and high end lighting please? I had a look and I can see nothing on there that would warrant such expense.

Don't get me wrong.. some nice work on there, but nothing that couldn't be shot with pretty much anything.

Yv said:
However, I think you are missing the point Dave, you are talking about commercial photography, usually with a specific client brief and a desired outcome that will by it's nature have boundaries - and those have already been covered in this thread and pretty much agreed, even by those that prefer the art over the kit, that you need specific and usually expensive equipment for that brief and to be within those defined boundaries.
Click to expand...

Over 20 year's worth of experience shooting commercial photography, and I see nothing on that site that would require such extremes. There's a range of gear used there that I can see... D200, D300, D3, D800... with nothing visible differentiating one from another. A mix of lighting on show but nothing that couldn't be done with relatively simple studio flash gear, some battery packs and cheap radio slaves.

The post misses the point of the entire thread any way, which is... are the images better as a result of the gear? Is anyone a better photographer as a result of the gear? I'd suggest not: The images taken with relatively modest gear on his site are not really any better than those taken with more expensive gear, so unless the client has incredibly stringent needs (and not many do in my experience), there's not really any need for it.

Good, solid, perfectly professional commercial work on the site Dave.. I'm not suggesting anything else... it's as good as any other commercial work you could find anywhere else.... You're in the right place, clearly networking with who you need to network with, and I'm confident that you will have a fine, and prosperous career.. of that I am certain... this is not in any way meant to be negative towards you. Of all the people on here, you're clearly one of the few that actually does good commercial work, so please don't get all personal... that's not professional. There's just nothing there that can't be created with fairly modest gear, and that is NOT meant to be a disparaging comment about your work. Your work is solid because you're a good photographer, not because you use fantastic gear.

High end MF gear is lovely, and an investment if you have a steady, high income from photography, but it's not necessary in the vast majority of commercial jobs. Also, you talk of things such as noise, and AF performance... both of which are not as good on any MF digital gear I've used. Appropriate tools for the job an all that... but it doesn't make your photography any better.
 
Last edited:
What if you just like pretty pictures of the countryside and cars to look at. What if that's the level of your artistic thinking. I've seen some if the so called great artistic work and it's not floating my boat, it's not the sort of photography I'd enjoy looking at or doing.

If that makes me narrow minded/a bad photographer/ a bit superficial so be it.
 
pjm1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think we should ignore the pro vs. amateur/hobbyist distinction as there are both good and bad in both camps.


Steve.
 
Worth dropping a link to Julian Calverley's book of landscapes shot only using an iPhone: http://www.juliancalverley.com/books/#IPHONEONLY

Excellent book, the results of his work are pretty astonishing.

Your gear probably doesn't matter quite as much as you think it does, in general. That doesn't mean it's not useful in getting what you want to achieve, or getting the maximum visual quality you can. I regularly shoot with a 5D3 and 50 year old film camera. Are my 5D3 shots more creative or artistic than my film shots? No. However, the additional flexibility it gives me allows me to persue some types of shots that could be considered more artistic.

At the end of the day they're just tools. Sometimes getting newer/better tools will inspire people to try and be more creative, or try things they thought they couldn't do before. But still, that's not equipment that's making you more artistic - it's just a process of thought.
 
I think that maybe I did miss the point slightly. A 6 hour bank holiday drive followed rapidly by a couple of bank holiday cocktails may not have helped that...

Pookeyhead makes a very good point that perhaps I ignore too often to myself - there are pictures on my site from so many stages of my career so far. Hell I think there might even be one from a D40. Cripes. But my point still stands that *today*, in the current market, I couldn't do a professional job that my level of clients demand, or to my style, with (say) a D200 and anything slower than f2.8.

As for the cost of cars... let's say my brother wasn't exactly buying new... But profoto gear isn't cheap, but is simply the best.

I was referring more to some of the shoots that I've worked on when I was digital operator or lighting assistant, rather than my own work - hence the reference to medium format in my post above. That level of advertising, the clients, or at least in order to provide adequate information for the retouch, they DO often require medium format images. My work is of a different nature and budget level at the moment.


And 'sharpness' is seriously overrated anyway, the picture on my homepage certainly isn't ;)
 
itsdavedotnet said:
A 6 hour bank holiday drive followed rapidly by a couple of bank holiday cocktails may not have helped that...
Click to expand...

'nowt wrong with that :) Be honest though... they weren't cocktails... and it wasn't a couple :)
 
I know someone who doesn't even need to think, just see's it shoots it, I hate her....lol

She shoots a 35 film or digital compact, the camera takes care of exposure or not as the case maybe, but her pictures are so engaging that technicalities of exposure and construction are completely irrelevant.

I made her take and shoot my D200 on holiday for a week last June, not high end gear but a capable shooter, she came back with 44....yeah 44 on a 16g card.......nothing pictures.
She reckons the gear is a distraction, she doesn't see the same thing with a big lump of technical knobs and buttons in her hands, even the AF focussing as she looks through the finder destroys whatever it was she saw.

I dunno what to say about that....
 
When non-photographers look at landscape photographs, they often say, “you must have a good camera”; “what a lovely scene”; “nice”; “lovely place” or similar.

Now it is good for people to like your photographs, but nearly everyone misses the key point about landscape photography. For every one of those “wow, nice” photographs, there is a pile of pain and disappointment!

After talking to many non-photographers, I have found that 90% or more of them really think landscape photography is easy; get into a beautiful location and take a photograph – even to the point that if they went there they would be able to “snap” that photograph. In fact I think this is why lots of people are interested in the actual location it was taken, so they can go and get their own version of that photograph.

I remember being in a gallery looking at some excellent local landscape work when I overheard a small group admiring one photograph; when one of them said to another “I’m not paying that, ask where it was taken and you can go and take one for me”.

It is this sort of thinking that has devalued landscape photographs; the non-photographers think it is easy and therefore it has had little artistic/technical investment by the photographer – therefore why should they pay for something they feel they can do it themselves.

Well they are welcome to go and try, as long as they too are willing to suffer the disappointment that a landscape photographer goes through to get one of those “easy” photographs.

So what does a landscape photographer actually go through to get one of these photographs: -

1 - First he (or she) has to do the research and find the location

2 - Then he has to work out the best time of the day and the year to be there

These two steps are usually done out on location, so involve lots of miles travelling, walking and looking.

3 - Then he has to study the weather forecasts and tide tables (if it’s a coastal shot)

4 - Once the weather is looking promising he needs to travel to the location. Rarely the location he wants is on the doorstep, so time is required to get there and may even involve sleeping in the car/tent/hotel to be there for the right time of day.

5 - When he arrives at the location he needs to find a composition – often working in the dark if he is there for a sunrise – and then set the camera up.

6 - Then he waits for the light and conditions he wants. For example: how the shadows are falling across the scene; how the sunset is lighting up the clouds; the position of the clouds above the mountains; and many other variations.

Very often (i.e., nearly always), after waiting for a few hours he decides the light and conditions are just not going to happen (or didn’t happen if there for sunrise/sunset) and he packs up and goes home. Then it is back to repeating steps 3 to 6 until he does get the light and conditions that are needed for the photograph he wants. He can be doing this many, many times until luck helps and it all comes together.

Then when he has captured that photograph (or I should call it an image, as it is not yet a finished photograph), he needs to develop and process the image in the “darkroom”.

Again, non-photographers appreciate the darkroom; someone working in a dark room with chemicals and lots of “magic” to produce a photographic print. This has value to them. But today, the use of the computer has “made this all too easy”; anyone with the right software can do it now can’t they! Again no perceived artistic/technical value, so not worth paying that price that is being asked.

But for the photographer, after spending a few hours (or more) in the computer “darkroom” developing and shaping the image to his artistic vision, it is not always a successful conclusion and the results are disappointing.

Even though he has completed steps 1 to 6 above, the captured image isn’t exactly what he wanted to produce; maybe the light or conditions didn’t really come together how he thought they should, or he made a mistake with the composition, or didn’t notice the discarded crisp packet in the scene.

Then it is back to step 3 and repeat it all again, and again, and again...

Piles of disappointment, piles of self questioning about why he bothers, piles of questioning his choice of location – loads of pain. Yes, lots of enjoyment at being out in the landscape enjoying the open spaces and scenery, but still driving home he is thinking “if only…”

But sometimes it comes together, it could be after the 15th visit, but it does come together. Out of that computer “darkroom” comes a photograph that he is proud of. One that communicates what he wanted it to and shows the scene how he saw and felt it. A work of art!

Then he has to print it after choosing the right paper to print it on and then frame it; again after choosing the right frame to use.

So, those non-photographers are welcome to go and snap the photograph for themselves and they may be pleased with the result. But it will not be as good as the one produced by the person that has gone through all the pain and disappointments to get the photograph they wanted – and who has then experienced the joy of producing a work of art that someone wants to go and try to copy; good luck to them.

Words of fellow photographer and friend Phil Corley, Felt is was right place and time to share
 
Last edited:
joxby said:
I know someone who doesn't even need to think, just see's it shoots it, I hate her....lol

She shoots a 35 film or digital compact, the camera takes care of exposure or not as the case maybe, but her pictures are so engaging that technicalities of exposure and construction are completely irrelevant.

I made her take and shoot my D200 on holiday for a week last June, not high end gear but a capable shooter, she came back with 44....yeah 44 on a 16g card.......nothing pictures.
She reckons the gear is a distraction, she doesn't see the same thing with a big lump of technical knobs and buttons in her hands, even the AF focussing as she looks through the finder destroys whatever it was she saw.

I dunno what to say about that....
Click to expand...

My analogy.

When you first get a new car, you concentrate more on the controls. Where's the indicator etc etc, too hot how do you turn the hear down. After a few hours, miles, days depending on the individual the car becomes just an extension of your brain. You then just concentrate on the road ahead.....as you should.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
My analogy.

When you first get a new car, you concentrate more on the controls. Where's the indicator etc etc, too hot how do you turn the hear down. After a few hours, miles, days depending on the individual the car becomes just an extension of your brain. You then just concentrate on the road ahead.....as you should.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I reckon she just doesn't work that way. She sees the image in her mind, and a simple, small camera allows her to just get the image quickly and intuitively. Some people are like that. Some people hate cameras and think they're a necessary evil. Some people just can't imagine that, as most hobbyists love cameras. We all work differently. You can't judge, or disagree. The images are what matters. If the images are good, who cares how they were produced? I mean really... if you love an image, and found out it was taken on a phone, would you stop liking it as much? I doubt it. If you did stop liking it as much, then there's something weird going on in our head.
 
My ideal camera is the one that puts the fewest obstacles in my way to achieving the result I want. From bitter experience, I've found that the more automation, the more difficult it becomes. I had to constantly fight autofocus until I stopped using it. My own experience is that a camera designed to be used with the eye positioned at a viewfinder gives me the worst results (for reasons I can explain, but won't bother to). It's not a matter of becoming accustomed to eye level operation, because I worked that way for years (probably decades) before switching.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
A camera is a box with a hole in one side. I like to think that 3.6 billion years of biological evolution makes that fat grey organ housed in my skull, more important.
Click to expand...

Maybe for photography but the way the world going not to sure about other things
 
XA2inmypocket said:
A camera is a box with a hole in one side. I like to think that 3.6 billion years of biological evolution makes that fat grey organ housed in my skull, more important.
Click to expand...

I admire Joseph Nicéphore and his contribution to the photographic arena However, it can't be ignored that things have moved on since 1826/7. There have been a few people using their own cerebrum do develop the camera, even beyond 1980 the XA2 surpisringly !
 
Having the hole in one side of the box is an interesting development. The hole in my box is in the front.
 
Take a look at the photographer of 2014 section, some quite modest cameras in there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top