Do you worry about how good your camera is?

[WebmasterAlex]

Do you think you could take better pictures if you had the "right" equipment?
I have to admit to being guilty of that at times.
I found this article though..and it makes tons of sense:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

(link is with permission from the author)

 

[jann1033]

some very good points in here...

i was thinking along those similar lines about editing stuff..think i would rather learn how to take a good picture than edit one to make it a good one, jmho....

 

[Kelly Grannell]

up to a certain point yes, beyond that no.

That goes back to my lesson in choosing a camera.

1. find what you want
2. find what you need
3. if budget permits buy what you want, but never settle less than what you need.

The more you need to edit your picture, the less of a photographer you are.

 

[manning]

Amen!!!

Ansel Adams knew how to overcome the handicaps of the day. He knew his equipment and how to use it!!

At one time I got caught up in the hype of the better the camera the better the picture and photographer I would be. Not so.

You know the best picture I ever took was a mountain scene while standing in a mountain stream on rocks (the water at the time was gentle).

The camera, believe it or not, was a ............Kodak........Brownie!! (yesterday's point and shoot).

_________________________________

An outstanding picture equals 5% equipment and 95% photographer. Know it like the back of your hand and know how to use it ! An outstanding photographer will take outstanding pictures, no matter what kind of equipment he has!!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

this picture, for example: Fuji A345. At the time, there is no camera (with lens cover)cheaper than that (well, other than Kodak P&S that doesn't have lens cover)

Not the greatest picture, but for a camera that cost (at the time) US$160 before taxes (don't forget Canadian prices tend to be 30% to 50% higher than in the US.

 

[OCSurfCity]

I have stuck with Canon since 1978 and have progressed through their cameras over that time period. With Canon, they designed their cameras with functions almost exactly in the same spot as their prior models so that part of the deal was great.

My camera is an extention of me. I can operate it blindfolded and that is how a camera should be viewed.

I tell people to get familiar with your camera and play and experience using the controls to better understand the 'personality' of your camera.

 

[boBQuincy]

If editing a photo means less of a photographer then Ansel Adams was not much of a photographer at all. Adams spent hours, even days in the darkroom manipulating his negatives into a fine print. One of his quotes "You don't take a photograph, you make it." tells how he thought about photography. Adams compared the negative to a musical score (he was an accomplished pianist) and the print to the interpretation of that score. Interpretation, not literal duplication.

The predominant feeling on this board is you should only accept a photo as delivered by the camera (edited by a program written by an engineer at the camera manufacturer). For all the adulation heaped upon Ansel Adams by those who know little about what he really did, his photographs and his methods of photography would not be welcome on this board.

Fortunately for photography, there are a few, although very few, who really care enough to read and to learn for themselves about how to look at a scene and capture the image as they felt it, not as how a gray card saw it.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

tee hee, I for one am not a fan of Ansel Adams. A big fan of his artistry, but not his photographic skills.

 

[Laura]

Well, I have a relatively inexpensive camera, but I have to say it allows me to take nice shots and learn some things about exposure. I have a measure of control over it that I never had with the most basic point-and-shoot film cameras I had in the past, because my A620 allows me to make some decisions instead of always telling me what to do. I wish I could go on my honeymoon again and take close-up shots of all the flowers I saw in Hawaii; that's how awful my cheapo film camera was. I have great shots of the scenery, but not the beautiful flora that abounds there. The camera just didn't do macro and close-up shots.

If I bought an expensive dSLR, I could take pictures with very little or no light and no tripod, take more shots in rapid succession, and have better image quality at higher ISO. I'd have to spend quite a bit of money, though, buying lenses and CF cards (if I were to stay with Canon, anyway) and batteries and a nice bag. I think I'll do it eventually and my A620 will be the backup camera, but right now I'm happy with the pictures I can take with it.

Oh, and I've never been a huge fan of Ansel Adams myself. His photos never did much for me. But I'm not familiar with the "who's who" of photographers and couldn't give a list of who I do like.

 

[fitzperry]

While I agree that the person behind the camera is more important than the equipment, better gear does give you more options. I mean you don't see Ken Rockwell or the other pros he talks about trading in their 1Ds for Holgas. A Holga or a brownie might be fun to play with, and if you use your imagination, you might come up with some compelling shots, but it's not going to become your primary camera, so it seems a bit disingenuous to say that "your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image." It does. My p&s had virtually no manual controls, so there were plenty of images I just couldn't capture the way I wanted to. Anyway, it seems a bit arrogant to go out and acquire the best equipment that money can buy and then say 'oh it's never been about the equipment, it's all me!' In reality, it's some of both.

 

[RadioNate]

I agree with fitzperry. Sure it isn't ALL equipment but up to a certain level having 'better' equipment helps. I can take shots with my S2IS that I could never have gotten with my old Sony P&S. I took shots with my Sony that I'm sure my mom's Kodak C310 couldn't get. I'm sure dSLR users get shots that my S2IS can't get.

Sure overediting can be a problem but photographers have been manipulating photos in a darkroom for ages. Photoshop is just a digital darkroom.

Like boBQuincy pointed out, why should the people at Canon writing the jpeg setting really get to decide what my photo looks like. That program, their default settings are different that Kodak's or Nikon's or Sony's. Sure we should all strive for minimum editing but many of the great photographers of the past manipulated photos in the darkroom.

Also most of the more well known current day photographers admit to using photoshop.

I agree that a $400 lens v a $4000 lens won't help an average photographer become great but to say that equipment doesn't matter at all isn't true. I'd like to see some of the best sports photographers in the world try to shoot a NBA or NHL game with a $200 P&S, they might get a few lucky shots but nothing like they'll get with their dSLR equipment.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

I think Ken was thinking of landscape photography specifically when he wrote that article. He has another article where he tells the story of how sports photographers switched from Nikon to Canon because the Nikon autofocus was origninally too slow.

Obviously in "speciality" situations it does make a difference.

 

[DebºoºS]

The more you need to edit your picture, the less of a photographer you are.

The ideal photograph to me captures the moment. That split second when all the planets line up. I call that feeling a Kodak moment. You can have it with an SLR, P&S, DSLR or whatever takes a pic. Heavy handed editing ruins that Kodak moment. Then it's just a pic. Some people take good pics but they're not photographers.

 

[Charade]

If this were a "hard core" photo board, this could get ugly. Ken Rockwell is not highly thought of in some circles.

I read the article and agree and disagree with it's premise. In film cameras, the lens is the most important piece of the equipment. If you can get the film to stay flat, proper exposure and a good lens will produce a good image (notice I didn't say photograph).

Digital has it's own issues. The image sensor, the lens, the image processor/processing software all must be of good quality to produce a good image (again, not a photograph).

I agree that it's the person behind the camera that makes a photograph. But you won't get me to agree that an accomplished artist can make technically good art using inferior equipment.

Interestingly enough, on the one photo board I hang out on the talk is almost always about the newest, latest and greatest thing coming over the horizon that they NEED to get. The new D80 is an example. People are rushing to get this to upgrade (from what, I don't know).

I do know that I got some great pics from my 5 year old Olympus C2100 but my D70 takes much better images. The eye behind the camera didn't change (I did get a little better as I've been told), the equipment changed. I can do stuff with the D70 that I couldn't do with the C2100. They both took good images, but there is no denying the D70 takes much better images with all other things being equal. The one site I like to use to compare cameras is Steve's. He usually takes pictures of the same things. That's the best way (IMO) to compare one camera to another.

 

[aunt kelly]

I think photography is such an interesting hobby for me because it forces me to use the artistic side of my brain as well as the technical. Recognizing a "kodak moment" and being able to achieve great composition is so important when taking photos. To me, this represents the "fun" side of photography, which is the artistic side of photography.

However, I've decided that if I don't understand how my camera works, a lot of great photo ops will be lost forever because I don't set my camera on the right settings. I might as well be shooting w/ a disposable camera! (For example, I have taken hundreds of photos of the gorgeous sunsets from the deck of our lake cabin and not one has ever turned out decent because I can't figure out the right combination of settings.) I have never had a "technical" mind and I just hate reading instruction booklets and that kind of thing. However, I've decided that if I ever want to be a decent amuateur photographer, I have got to do my homework and really understand the technical aspects of my camera.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying I think that nothing can replace a "good eye" when taking photographs, but you also need to have decent equipment and understand how it works to get really great shots.

 

[Goofyish]

I love monochrome photography and have admired Ansell Adam's work for years. I've spend many a long night in my old darkroom practicing the zone system and experimenting with multigrade papers, dodging and buring etc.

Now I can do the same thing sitting at my PC in jest a few hours; no horrid red light, not fumes!

There is nothing wrong with using the latest technology to improve your photos but first master the basics. My first camera was a fully manual Yashica FX3 - very basic but it taught me all about exposures, composition, depth of field etc.

 

[mabas9395]

To answer the OP's question "Do I worry about how good my camera is?"

I worry about it all the time. I worry that it might to be good for my skill level.

But having Kelly's photo equipment won't make my photo's look like Kelly's any more than having Julia Child's pots and pans will make my dinner tast like hers.

 

[handicap18]

I don't think I worry that my camera isn't good enough. If anything its how I use it is good enough. Knowing exposure and how to use light, what settings. Basically how to manipulate the equipment to get the image I see with my eye. I do think that some of my lenses aren't good enough. I think, at least for SLR users, thats the biggest thing to worry about being good enough. I know the camera is good, but am I using good enough lenses to go with it.

 

[jann1033]

I don't think I worry that my camera isn't good enough. If anything its how I use it is good enough. Knowing exposure and how to use light, what settings. Basically how to manipulate the equipment to get the image I see with my eye. I do think that some of my lenses aren't good enough. I think, at least for SLR users, thats the biggest thing to worry about being good enough. I know the camera is good, but am I using good enough lenses to go with it.

totally agree with this ...a crummy lens is a crummy lens, although i did see a website where they made a macro lens out of a pringles can....didn't notice the end result. not that a "great" lens="great" pics but a stinko lens=stinko pics

as far as editing goes, imo making it "art" isn't "editing" even though techically it is( ie Bob Q's stuff which... not to swell any heads but i usually really like). i meant more the "crop it to death, fix the exposure , get rid of color cast"....the things i didn't "need " to do on my film camera to make it a salvagable shot that i feel like i am constantly doing with my digital due to my lack of understanding the equipment more than the equipment itself