Great pictures?!?!
Okay, let's try this one...
What makes great pictures, Camera, or the Photographer??
The answer might be obvious, but with the new technologies, i.e. Digital Cameras, and photoshop are constantly improving..which might win out over us .. poor starving Photographers..
Live well my friends..
What makes great pictures, Camera, or the Photographer??
The answer might be obvious, but with the new technologies, i.e. Digital Cameras, and photoshop are constantly improving..which might win out over us .. poor starving Photographers..
Live well my friends..
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Beverley Pohlner on -
The photographer is the one who makes great pictures, because it with his eye that he sees. Of course he need a camera to capture what his eye sees, but he decides the composition, the time if day etc and those who are great have patience, and can see what many others will trip over!
-
Permalink Reply by Carole Meeter on -
ditto this
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Needham on -
It depends. The importance of the tools varies by task and photographer. There are some jobs/projects/situations where certain tools may be more suitable than others. Different people also place more or less importance in the tools. Some photographers have more experience with particular gear/processes, or they may just enjoy using certain gear, or they may have belief/faith that certain gear and processes have special properties. Whether other folks notice the special properties or not doesn't matter in the face of true faith. Some people place more emphasis in their judgment of quality on technical precision, and others on creative content. One thing I know for sure; never tell the guy holding the $10,000+ camera that the gear doesn't matter. ;)
My own view is that the gear doesn't matter much, at least when the weaknesses of the gear are compared to the weaknesses of the gear operator. :) There are always work-arounds for any obstacle. I'd rather see a small, interesting print with flaws than a huge, technically perfect, yet boring print. That said I have photographed weddings using a 4x5 Speed Graphic, Rolleiflex TLR, Nikon FM2n, etc..., and I know I'm doing a better job and enjoying it more using my DSLRs. I think I could shoot a wedding and make the couple happy using only Olympus Stylus Epic 35mm point-n-shoots or old 6x6 folders, but if I get to choose my tools I want 35mm DSLRs and fast zoom lenses.
To me the important ways that digital has made things easier is in it's flexibility and precision. I am no longer as limited by the intrinsic characteristics of the materials that are available (films, chems, papers, etc...). If I can imagine a look then it's only a matter of figuring out the PS techniques necessary. When it comes to control I used to use previsualization and the zone system, and did all of my own BW processing and printing. I spent a lot of time and energy testing and coming up with development/printing plans so that after all that time working blind and in the dark I got what I wanted. Now I just look at the photo, and adjust to taste. My eyes and mind effortlessly assess the visual aspects of the photograph, and no processing decision is irreversible. I can change my mind. Yeah, it's a lot easier. It also emphasizes creativity and the ideas of the photographer over their ability to do technical calculations. When the completely idiot-proof camera is introduced then the only thing that will distinguish photographers from one another is their creativity and ideas. I place more value on that than technical prowess.
On the other hand I know plenty of photogs who are only into the gear, process, and technical results. They like cameras and photography, and art does not concern them much. They are just as much serious photographers as I am. Different strokes....
-
Permalink Reply by Sean on -
Photographer-light-lens-camera in that order. Though I have to admit I am lured by cameras all the time. More so than lenses. I started with a $15 pawnshop camera and got some great shots from that thing back when I was in college. That being said I bought a 50d yesterday because I needed better low light captures.
-
Permalink Reply by Jesse Plummer on
-
A camera is a useless box without the photographer. The photographer without his camera is just some guy or gal standing there looking at something wishing he/she had their camera.
Together, the camera and photographer work to create. The camera is like a hammer to a builder, it is the tool of choice, designed for the specific task at hand. It is the eye of the photographer that composes, decides time of day, angle of light, flash or no, and all the other thousands of decisions brought into the creative process to create the image.
I have a DSLR, my wife has a simple DPnS. We both have taken images of the same thing and they both come out identical. We shared an artistic or photographic eye. The tools, the cameras, one was supposed to be for serious amateurs and costs a lot more and the other is designed for snapshooters and cost around $100 and yet they both produced similar images.
-
Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on -
Modern, advancing technologies only make it easier to make a really bad picture or a very average mediocre picture (redundancy intended) and we see new and more startling evidence of that daily. The thing I rail against at every possible opportunity is the notion that a new camera will allow someone to make a better picture, it only makes it more convenient.
The discouraging thing is that the American public is being steadily dumbed down and now accept bad technique because some call it creativity. It is obvious that it is the photographer that makes great photographs. I have photo students who have taken stunningly beautiful photographs using a pin-hole camera; the complete antithesis of high technology.
-
Permalink Reply by nikki on -
actually i believe its what your photographing is what makes the picture.
as i say "photography (to me) is the beauty of nature allowing you to capture it" ~nikki
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan on -
I think the photographer is the main factor. A great camera without a good photographer behind it won't produce great photos. But a good photographer with a not-so-good camera can create great photos, I think. Photoshop? Well, that's just for support...
-
Permalink Reply by Dennis Mulder on
-
Good point. Technology makes the lazy photographer happy, but it will keep the real mccoys sharp to improve and stay in focus. I always keep in mind that my equipment are tools and are meant to help me to reach my goals. I'm not depending on a new technique.
My clients take me as photographer, because they see where my quality is. The whole package: a good relation between the client and me (trust), good work (technique) and professional attitude.
-
Permalink Reply by Benjamin Kennedy on
-
I think that the photographer must have an eye When I shoot people I tell them that they are the ones who hold the magic and as a photographer it is up to me to SEE it and capture it.I think that anyone can be taught to shoot with the right teaching but you either have an eye or you don't that can't be taught No matter what kind of equipment you have.You must have an EYE.
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Reardon on -
I personally feel that the most important is the photographer, buuuuuuttttttt........ I also feel like the gear is incredibly important also. If you disagree then take a portrait with your kit lens and then take a portrait with a higher end portrait lens such as a 70-200 f2.8L . I am blown away by that lens and the sharpness and control it gives me. There is no comparaison between the captures I get with that lens and a less quality lens. But then again, the lens can only help capture what I set it up to do... I also have an issue with people that feel an image is less of an image because it has been manipulated. One of the best photos I have ever shot in 40 years is a photo of a koi pond in the fall with a wooden asian style bridge and a general aisan garfen setting. The photo was amazing out of the camera, everything was beautiful except the water in the pond looked to be dirtyish from lack of circulation and accumulation of water moss.. I reworked the shot in photoshop and cleaned up the water.. It is 10 times more beautiful with clean looking water and a few koi barely visible.. The shot was a success before the manipulation, but it was an amazing shot after. I feel it is the end result when someone looks at a photo and says WOW !!!! not how the shot got to that point.
New! - Trick Photography 2.0
Latest Activity
Badge
Free Photography Tips
We offer free daily photography tips for all experience levels. Click Here to Subscribe Now!.
© 2012 Created by PictureSocial.com.
