Gear vs Skill

[Ezookiel]

Speaking of, do we have an PP before and after posts so beginners can actually see examples of where and how PP goes into an image?

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...fter-CHALLENGE

[ameerat42]

Speaking of, do we have an PP before and after posts so beginners can actually see examples of where and how PP goes into an image?

People occasionally do this. I did way over a year ago... somewhere...
Am.

[zollo]

I'm going to ask the Devil's Advocate question here because I referred to this in another thread.

There are very few photographs published on this site which haven't been through some sort of PP software. It seems almost mandatory. If it is about skill, or gear, or some combination of both, why isn't post processing the exception rather than the rule?

what you are referring to may be called a "workflow"
it starts with a concept, idea, or just a conscious or sub conscious motive to take a photo
you need the gear to start with, then apply your skill in using your gear to get the photo you have as a concept - and this is where many beginners (i did) struggle, getting the photo they had in their minds to begin with.
further to the basics that Kym outlined, I then pp because i have a certain "look" that i want in my photographs. i think processing photographs and applying creativity makes my photographs look better and completes the concept i began with.

and you are totally correct for asking whether pp skill should be included in the discussion and i would definitely say yes, skill in pp is another separate skill that takes a long time to get right and some photographers actually hire editors rather than bother to learn it themselves

[Bear Dale]

Unboxing new gear takes skill

The trouble some people go to on YouTube taking a video of them unboxing a new shiny toy is incredible!

[Granville]

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...Part_1_by_dtoh

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...sed_general_PP

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...Specific_Index

I have Dylans tutorial bookmarked but unfortunately most of the links to the photos are broken now. I also have some lightroom tutorials at another site boolmarked. I'll slowly get there.

Thanks Kym and Ezookiel

[Steve Axford]

Gear vs Skill? That's like comparing nature vs nuture. Both are required and they cannot be compared. I hear "skill wins", but without equipment, skill means nothing. Just as without a skilled operator, equipment means nothing.
i.e. silly question.

[andylo]

I feel either of the gear and skill is overrated.

IMO the most important thing - is the image creator's vision.

In my book, gear is just hardware, may it be a pro camera + pro lens, iPhone, or even pencil + a piece of paper.

Skill - to me: it is the ability of using the hardware, to re-create the vision one has in mind.

A good photographer (or in my interpretation, a image creator) is someone who has a good vision, who has the skill to operate the hardware and re-create the vision he/she has in mind. Then in this case: better the hardware (with assumption the knowledge of skill operating the hardware is competent as well), the better the result.

Vice versa, an individual can be using best gears possible with competent skill operating it - but without the good vision in mind, the likelihood of producing good quality image is very unlikely.... unless with some good freak luck.

So I am pretty much agree with Steve, gear vs skill is not really comparable. It's like comparing an Engine with a set of Tyres

IMO some people naturally born with a good, artistic vision, it's up to that gifted individual will, to put an effort to 1) acquire the gears and 2) master the skill - which would make a good photographer. (or image creator)

Vision can be improve: by reading reference book/info, by ever changing life experiences, by looking at other people's vision (I mean image) and in AP forum's case, by constructively C&C other people's image.... just to name a few (there are many, many ways to help enhance "Vision")

Again it is up to any individual, to put an effort/willingness to improve his/her own vision.

Just my 2c

[arthurking83]

......

A good photographer (or in my interpretation, a image creator) is someone who has a good vision, who has the skill to operate the hardware and re-create the vision he/she has in mind. Then in this case: better the hardware (with assumption the knowledge of skill operating the hardware is competent as well), the better the result .......

What then of the graphic designer?

A major assumption in this discussion is that the skill is in reference to the skill in operating the camera .. it's fully conceivable that a 'photo' can be easily generated by an 'image maker'(ie. graphics designer) without the use of a camera at all.

That's the problem with using a terms such as "image creator".

The term photographer assumes that the person is going to capture the image with a camera. the term image maker does not.

I, for one, instantly assume graphic designer with this term.

[andylo]

Maybe it be graphic designer, painter, drawer, photographer -> the end result/end product is an image. It may be on different medium but it is always a image.

If you find a camera or painter pen, press a button and it has a cup of coffee coming out from the other end, please let me know

To me this people are image creator and terms like photog/painter etc, are just merely also describe how/what they use to create an image.

I am just trying to point out that IMO gear/skill are 1) not comparable 2) it's not as big as some people perceive 3) better vision goes a long way, and one can work hard to get better vision.

[Mark L]

Finally had the time to read this thread. Good discussion.
Marthy and MissionMan mentioned lenses. Don't matter my skill, if I had better lenses, whatever photos I take would look even better.

[Kym]

Finally had the time to read this thread. Good discussion.
Marthy and MissionMan mentioned lenses. Don't matter my skill, if I had better lenses, whatever photos I take would look even better.

Better lenses only help a bit.
Eg: the cheapo 18-50 kit lens at 50mm and f/8 or f/11 is not going to be notiicably better than a really nice expensive 50mm prime at the same aperture.
Where the good lens comes into play is wide open (and the fact you can usually open it more) - basically at the extremes.

A cheaper lens at its sweet spot (zoom and aperture) is going to be more than ok.

But, the expensive glass gives you more room to play with.

[MissionMan]

Better lenses only help a bit.
Eg: the cheapo 18-50 kit lens at 50mm and f/8 or f/11 is not going to be notiicably better than a really nice expensive 50mm prime at the same aperture.
Where the good lens comes into play is wide open (and the fact you can usually open it more) - basically at the extremes.

A cheaper lens at its sweet spot (zoom and aperture) is going to be more than ok.

But, the expensive glass gives you more room to play with.

True. A good photographer will learn to work within the confines of his equipment and make the best of them, but better lenses, as you mentioned, always allow more flexibility. The other advantage of good lenses (and bodies) is focus speed, assuming the photo in question requires it.

When I first shifted from my D50 (with kit lens and 50 f/1.8) to my D700 with (24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8), the vast majority of friends told me they saw a marked improvement in my photography without actually knowing I had upgraded my gear. Whilst my skill may have improved, I don't believe I suddenly became a better photographer, or at least not to the degree that the gear has allowed me to be although the new gear may have provided a renewed enthusiasm towards photography.

In saying that, a friend of my wife who is just moved into professional photography (with a 7D and 50 f/1.4) did a shoot with us to help fill his portfolio and his photos were far better than the majority of mine (I say majority because once in a blue moon I actually get it right, and the combination of getting it right with the right gear obviously helps). This is largely because his composition is impeccable and his creative insight is well beyond mine. I.e. he see's photos where I don't see them. I do believe he is more talented than me (not to take away his hard work). I believe some people have a natural eye for what makes a good photo, in the same manner as some people naturally have the ability to paint or play sports.

[welly]

Interesting discussion. I think there are good points either way (gear vs skill). Fully agree with MissionMan above - a talented photographer can work within the limitations of cheap/limited gear. While I don't fully agree with the "gear doesn't matter" argument, there's a lot to be said for shooting with a high quality equipment if only that the final output is going to be of higher quality (sharper, better colour resolution, lower noise at high iso etc.).

[Bear Dale]

Here's an interesting question.

Finally all those meat pies, sausage rolls and French fries have caught up with you and you're going into have a quadruple bypass (got a tightness in my chest just writing that!) and you have the top surgeon in Australia (we lead with heart ops in Oz don't we????) and he says he can do it for $5,000 using 1980's surgical instruments or $10,000 using the most ultra modern surgical instruments.

Are you going to pay for skill AND gear ...... or just skill?

With the cr#p I've eaten in the last 50 years......I'm going for the skill and gear option.

[I @ M]

With the cr#p I've eaten in the last 50 years......I'm going for the skill and gear option.

Is there an option to go "grey market" to get the best surgeon and top gear for $4999.00?

[Bear Dale]

Is there an option to go "grey market" to get the best surgeon and top gear for $4999.00?

ROFLMAO

[MissionMan]

Is there an option to go "grey market" to get the best surgeon and top gear for $4999.00?

Yeah, it's called improving your photoshop skills. Photoshop is great, you can lose weight, get rid of acne, get a nose job etc.

[Ezookiel]

Surely better glass also makes for clearer sharper photos? A great photo as far as exposure, composition, etc etc is surely going to look better if it's also sharp and clear.
There's a time for a soft photo, but it's nice to be able to choose when you want soft, without having to put up with everything being soft through cheap glass.

[welly]

Surely better glass also makes for clearer sharper photos? A great photo as far as exposure, composition, etc etc is surely going to look better if it's also sharp and clear.
There's a time for a soft photo, but it's nice to be able to choose when you want soft, without having to put up with everything being soft through cheap glass.

As someone once said, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"!

[kanesmadness]

Ive got a slightly different take on this.

Despite my "intermediate" label i still think of myself as a beginner. I started off with and olympus E3 with 2 kit lens's but dident really get much into photography...during most of the time i had the E3 i think it left auto twice. When i moved to Arnhem Land i got a D7000 and decided rather then buying crap glass i would buy the best i could afford and then this followed on with flashes and other bits. When i made the choice to accept the D4 over getting paid cash i wasent so much thinking "awesome i now have heaps of top of the line gear...my photos are going to get way better." It was more "ok shaun...you now have top of the range gear...you cant blame that on crap photos anymore"

Every now and then while going through lightroom i do think if only i had better gear that photo would look great...then i remember the original thought and look at what i did wrong.

Since getting my new computer ive signed up with a few courses and downloaded a stack of photoshop and lightroom videos and i think its really helping alot of things.