Discussion: Good equipment vs Good Photographer

[arthurking83]

I hope the chicken soup is one of those thick, rich and hearty broth types!!

... otherwise I've made a grave(y) error of judgement!

[draco]

i voted 40/60... although better gear (and post processing) helps.. a "better" photographer will know the rules (of thirds?) and will surely have better composition, framing, subject, background, etc...

given that a newbie and a pro have the same gear, but they wouldn't have the same "eye"..

[redders64]

I voted 60/40 as I believe my camera makes me look better than I am, the difference in my shots since changing cameras has been fairly dramatic in my opinion, although it helps to hang around APers a lot to . I think a good camera can be a bit more forgiving when you stuff up.

[CAP]

I voted "all photographer"
Why?????
I think the is a definite advantage in having "good equipment" but you still need to know how to fully utilise it.

I have stood beside or near others with much better gear than I have and "to my mind at least" taken some better images.
On the other hand I have also compared pics with others with far less gear than I was shooting at the time and their result were much more appealing than mine.
At the end of the day there are way too many variables in what costitutes a "good photo"
No point in having an amazingly sharp pic if the composition, balance, DOF, lighting, tones etc of the pic are out the back.
Personally I would prefer to view a well composed image of less IQ.

Agree with others that it is basically genre specific as well.
On 2nd thoughts maybe should have gone 20% gear 80% tog.

[David]

This newbie after 1 year speaks only for hisself in saying I reckon its 80 percent tog and 20 percent gear.

I dont count what happens to the image after the shutter goes off (post processing) as photography because you add another element to the mix Photographer, camera/gear and the a computer with software.

I say gear is important because, for example, I know my 75-300MM kit lens is going to struggle to produce a sharp, clean wildlife image beyond a certain focal length no matter how much I know about my camera and its nuances and that of the particular lens I have been pushing the boundaries/limits of for a whole year (most misses, a couple of hits).

So I put that genre or photography on the 'to do later' list and wait for a much better telefoto lens (Sigma that can go to 400MM) before I feel confident in my lens producing good quality action and wildlife images. Same goes for macro images of flowers/fungi etc, I know the limitations of my 18-55MM kit lens will be soft (mostly misses, few hits) cf other lenses, but I persist with both lenses and will take those action and macro images anyway, trying to squeeze every ounce of capability out of the camera occassionally while i focus on 'anyone can (almost) take a seascape/landscape/rainforest image and it looks good tourist genre work whilst Im learning the trade.

Meantime I have got to know my basics of photography THEORY and my Canon 400D very well and focus alot of my attention on composition and exposure, knowing these kit lenses can be very good but are more often than not inferior to the lenses other people use.

I have begun collecting 'better lenses' now I THINK I have the basics of photography THEORY stored away and have moved on to CONSCIOUSS INCOMPETENCE - knowing what is wrong with my images and beginning to develop an understanding of how to fix what is wrong or improve it.

I dont blame the lenses for rubbish shots most of the time, I blame a lack of know how and experience - that is Consciouss Incompetence- so I dont think buying thousands of dollars worth of lens or a better body is going to teach me a thing, only make it easier to kid myself that Im getting good at this stuff, when I probably am still in the kindergarten.

I will buy new lenses and one at a time and work it hard and learn its capacity and how it fits with my camera is different genres and take another year of crappy shots and the odd good one- at my own pace.

Yeah, I would say 80 percent photographer and 20 percent camera/gear fits in my case.

[jim]

I'd say at least 80% photographer. A good photographer with poor equipment will work within its limitations and make worthwhile photos, maybe even great ones. A poor photographer is unlikely to get much out of even the best kit.

I tend to agree with the dreaded K_R_ that enthusiasts like us worry too much about the quality of our stuff, when we should just get out and use it.

[arthurking83]

......

I tend to agree with the dreaded K_R_ that enthusiasts like us worry too much about the quality of our stuff, when we should just get out and use it.

And he's living proof that even pro's should concern themselves with the quality of their work!

(ie. I've had a look at his gallery .... and I rest my case! )

[jdreamer]

I voted 20/80 too.

[jim]

Hi Arthur, by stuff I meant equipment. I think Mr R_ does care about the quality of his photography (though I admit it looks fairly pedestrian to me)

[Sar NOP]

I think the ratios really are genre specific.

Birding and sports especially just require stellar gear to produce stellar photos

Portraits, landscapes etc I think are less dependent on gear

Exactly, each case is specific. I don't think one can be a good photographer on evey subject and/or with any gear. For instant, a good landscape photographer who always use a manual SLR (film) with a wide angle lens likely won't be successful by using a high end DSLR and a long (AF) focal length on bird !
That's why it's a 50/50 ratio for me...

[SpaceJunk]

strictly 50/50 for me, I have seen some very worthy images posted here from p&s cameras and can only be impressed by folks who understand their kit and how to get optimal results from it.

[Steve Axford]

It's a bit like the argument of nature vs nurture. You really can't have one without the other. A photographer without a camera will do just as badly as a camera without a photographer.

[Kym]

It's a bit like the argument of nature vs nurture. You really can't have one without the other. A photographer without a camera will do just as badly as a camera without a photographer.

Except that I'm talking about a qualitative issue - being the quality of the equipment.
How much does good gear improve your photography and how much is skill?

[Steve Axford]

Except that I'm talking about a qualitative issue - being the quality of the equipment.
How much does good gear improve your photography and how much is skill?

But you ask for a quantitative answer to a qualitative question. This isn't possible.

[David]

While Steve and Cypher work out the meaning of qualitative vs quantitative concepts (the word qualititative in research at least has nought to do with 'quality' per se (funny how we get derailed by strange things here in AP), getting back to Cypher'S intent,
what do you think Steve ?

Can a good camera/lens make a person unconsciously (unaware of how or why the image turned out as it did) look like a scmick/expert/master photographer ?

Ive taken a shot or two where people commented that it had great composition, very good exposure, nice rule of thirds application, mass balance, apeture controlling the DOF, clever use of Shutter Speed and avoidance of 'vignetting' when I thought composition was something a music composer did, shutter speed was how fast you hit the button, apeture was ..huh ?...ISO was an Indigenous Services Officer and exposure was taking the lens cap off. Now I know what those things mean I am consciously incompetent instead of unconsciously incompetent

I think a person can have an innate photographers 'eye' in terms of composition and subject matter, but everything else has to be learned with experience and consciouss awareness of creating an image by use of the tools and experience you have with the camera and lenses at your disposal being a contributing, but significantly less important factor.

So Im sticking with a quantitative valuation 80 percent photographer on Cyphers scale which may not be technically correct but uses concepts and values your average Joe can get to grips with. Over to you Steve -

[Steve Axford]

While Steve and Cypher work out the meaning of qualitative vs quantitative concepts (the word qualititative in research at least has nought to do with 'quality' per se (funny how we get derailed by strange things here in AP), getting back to Cypher'S intent,
what do you think Steve ?

Can a good camera/lens make a person unconsciously (unaware of how or why the image turned out as it did) look like a scmick/expert/master photographer ?

Ive taken a shot or two where people commented that it had great composition, very good exposure, nice rule of thirds application, mass balance, apeture controlling the DOF, clever use of Shutter Speed and avoidance of 'vignetting' when I thought composition was something a music composer did, shutter speed was how fast you hit the button, apeture was ..huh ?...ISO was an Indigenous Services Officer and exposure was taking the lens cap off. Now I know what those things mean I am consciously incompetent instead of unconsciously incompetent

I think a person can have an innate photographers 'eye' in terms of composition and subject matter, but everything else has to be learned with experience and consciouss awareness of creating an image by use of the tools and experience you have with the camera and lenses at your disposal being a contributing, but significantly less important factor.

So Im sticking with a quantitative valuation 80 percent photographer on Cyphers scale which may not be technically correct but uses concepts and values your average Joe can get to grips with. Over to you Steve -

Ahh. You guys just think I'm being pedantic. But I really don't think you can answer such a question. It takes both to take a photograph, so both are vital. You could say they are equally important, but that really misses the point. I'm sure we could come up with examples where the camera seemed to be all important - eg it is impossible to take a photo of a distant object (eg a star) without a very good telephoto lens (a telescope), or examples where the photographer seemed all important - eg a photo of a very significant event is better if it is taken with the cheapest of cameras than it is missed by the most expensive.

I think it is very like the nature vs nurture argument. That one tends to swing with the political scene, though again, it is very hard to imagine the one without the other.

Over to you David.

[David]

Na I dont think your being pedantic Steve- you have implicitely come close to a 50/50 position where both the photographer are equally important/influential in producing good photographs, or as close to that as your likely to concede. Im not saying you have decided on a generalisation, but that is close to it I reckon.

Meantime, I have enjoyed reading everyones input and comments about this issue; makes you think about what you are doing standing behind a camera if nothing else.

[Steve Axford]

Ok - call it 50/50 if you wish, but all other answers are meaningless. It isn't a matter of opinion. Just like the world isn't flat. (oh hell - now what have I started)

[David]

Well Steve if the world is not flat how come I have flat feet ? ...

[Steve Axford]

Hadn't though of that. Oh shit, I just fell off the edge. Byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ..........