Gear vs Skill

[ktoopi]

I think skill is paramount and using the example of a dear friend who has been a professional photographer for over 30 years(worked for many magazines, newspapers etc) and who now runs a photography tour company.....she almost exclusively shoots with a 550d nowdays instead of her 5d while away on these photography tours and produces amazingly beautiful photos ! She once told me that she got sick of her students saying "oh your photos are so amazing I guess it's because you have a better camera than me!"
So now the playing field is level and only the skill of the photographer is different. She wanted her students to understand that it is not the camera that makes the image...it's the person operating it!
My 2 cents worth!!

[MissionMan]

I don't believe we're talking about whether a beginner can afford one though, I believe its whether a beginner can benefit from one and I believe correct exposure is something that anyone can benefit from. You don't have to only be working with flash or long exposures to benefit from a light meter. Simple shots with complex lighting and shadows can create inaccurate readings. It's not going to make the difference between a brilliant shot and a terrible one most of the time, but at least it would be a correctly exposed terrible shot, same as having a good lens.

[zollo]

in some instances i have decided that there is no substitute. Example - I got to use a new to market phase one digital back medium format camera for landscaping over the weekend and I must say, the best 35 mm digital slr's cannot come close to image quality and detail either lens or sensor. The camera was able to meter for 60 minute(!) long exposures and even then, was basically noise free. Just incredible.

Good gear will definitely enhances a good photographers work, maybe it works a little less in the opposite

[arthurking83]

......

Ideas and imagination make great images, not equipment, or even photographic skill.

Whilst I agree with 99% of JJ's response, I don't agree with this comment.
Actually I'm not entirely disagreeing with it, but there must be different levels of acceptance of what constitutes great images.

Great images that capture our imagination can be borne from ideas and imagination .. that's for sure.

But! ... not all great images need to have those sorts of qualities about them to be considered great images.
Images from science taken with basic gear can still be great images without any concept of 'idea' or 'imagination' behind the capture.

As an example of this, think of the images from Mars from the rovers over these past years.
Other than the idea that they were sending a land based mechanical device with the ability to capture images .. no consideration would have been given to these concepts of 'idea' or 'imagination' by the engineers when planning the devices to capture the images.
The brief would have been simple and succinct. Make sure the images get taken without failure and make sure they're usable images.

Yet in my memory, the first images of the Martian landscape are the only ones of any note that I can easily recall.
While there are literally millions of great images captured over the years by photographers of note with ideas and imagination, they tend to blur into a large gaussian vagueness for me.
Yet those images of Mars still remain embedded deeply into my memory .. bland banal in terms of idea and imagination, yet they stand out to me as some of the most important images of our generation.

I suppose this probably has something to do with the fact that predisposition towards geeky sciencey stuff .. but that's not the point.

On Earth, or in art there's always going to be a kind of one-up-manship with respect to a specific genre .. where one greatest image of our times is outdone by a new greatest image of our times .. these sorts of images are derived from the notion of idea and imagination.

Yet images such as those from the boundaries of science .. such as those from Mars, or invisible light images of some artifact .. or whatever are great images simply because of the subject being captured.

So does gear have something to do with capturing great images .. you betcha it does!
It depends on your interpretation of the term 'great image'.

[Ezookiel]

That's probably the same reason that one of the shots voted as one of the best photos of 2011 was a mobile phone shot taken out an aircraft window of the Shuttle rising up through the clouds. The subject evoked great emotion a little like those shots of mars you mention

[outstar79]

I shot with my old Pentax Kx for quite and was under the misconception that the entry level DSLR couldn't take good photos - and it wasn't too long before I realised that it was me that couldn't take good photos without the knowledge on how to operate the camera, composition, exposure triangle etc.
That and I listened and learned from everyone on this site that had invaluable information and years of knowledge to impart on the newbies here! And when I upgraded (a little) to the Canon 60D with the knowledge garnered from the pros and enthusiasts from here (and other site) my photographer got better - and I'm still learning and pushing myself photographically!
But without a passion for the art of photography, you'll never get anywhere - you really have to enjoy it, almost be empowered by the fact that you've possibly created something wonderful and unique to the best of your ability. There really is so much to learn and so many aspects about each genre of photography that you must get a "handle of" before you take "great images" - spare of the moment, right place, right time issues aside!

[AVALANCHE]

Well, I consider a camera no different to a paint brush that an Artist would use to paint or a pencil to draw with. They come in all shapes and sizes, and can do different things and have different effects on the surface you put them too. Cameras are the same. From pinholes to point and shoots, to dSLR's and even those lomograph plastic cameras...their application is varied.

So, I consider Photographers as Artists instead. What seperates an Artist from Uncle Bob shooting a garbage bin with his camera is that compelling images in my opinion are made so because of the idea behind them. If the idea is consistent, it becomes almost a signature for the Artist. Think when you write your signature...it doesn't matter if you use a pencil, highlighter, marker...people will recognise that signature as your own...I think the same can be said for Photos to a degree. So...it could be y'know...just using one type of lens all the time, or only using on-camera pop-up flash for everything, or even simply making subjects jump in the air to make them look like they levitate...

With that said, I would consider instead the following: Idea, skill and gear all link in to one another each with purpose in acheiving the vision you have for a work.

[Bear Dale]

I consider a camera no different to a paint brush

I personally see a massive difference between the two and don't think of them as the same.

[jjphoto]

...So does gear have something to do with capturing great images .. you betcha it does!
It depends on your interpretation of the term 'great image'.

I think the OP's original question was essentially does gear make you better or does skill rise above gear? Not all photography requires advanced or high spec equipment and I think this area of photography is where the question is most relevant, rather than those fields which obviously would be impossible without the right gear.

My favourite image, of all time, is Earth Rise (William Anders) but also the various images that where shot on the Moon itself and the cine footage shot along the way. I will always be in total awe of this stuff. This stuff was only possible because of technology, Saturn V rockets.

Yet, there was probably no plan or expectation to shoot Earth Rise on the part of the astronauts that shot it. It was a case of 'F8 and be there'. Sure, it took a Saturn V Rocket to be there but the astronauts where trained, they knew the power of what they were seeing and they shot it with a simple Hasselblad and a medium tele lens. But is this increadible image something they previously imagined or planned? Probably not.

So yeah, gear does matter and I am personally fascinated by time lapse, ultra high speed footage, photomacrography and various specialised fields that require ample technology and equipment, but I think such extreme examples are really outside the scope of this discussion.

[arthurking83]

.... but I think such extreme examples are really outside the scope of this discussion.

Maybe my example is in a direct sense .. but while I can't think of them right now, I'm sure there are examples of how this applies to general(or artistic) photography as well.

.......

With that said, I would consider instead the following: Idea, skill and gear all link in to one another each with purpose in acheiving the vision you have for a work.

I'm not sure if the ordering of those three concepts are deliberate or not, but I think 'opportunity' has to be factored into the equation too.
That is, thinking of JJ's comment on 'being there'.
While it's possible to plan an idea to the nth and usually things go according to plan, all the best planning in the universe can't guarantee a shot if some unfortunate series of events causes these ideas to fall into a heap.
For example, and apologies for the examples, but it's important to never underestimate the importance of the quality of your gear!! ... but you have an upcoming wedding shoot to create. You have all the ideas planned out, and you come along with your iPhone, and you possibly create a suite of fabulous prize winning images. Or, on the other hand, the battery dies on the iPhone because you forgot to charge it, or it locks up midway through a scene setup and now you're stuffed, because everyone else on the shoot were busy Facebooking on theirs and they all only have 10% power remaining too
Or, this wedding tog purchased a lower level consumer DSLR as she was advised to spend all his money of better quality lenses instead, but the camera strap broke and the camera and lens fell 2 feet onto wet grass. The super heavy duty pro lens survived, but the poor little consumer level body has broken to bits, so the lenses are now in fact pretty useless for the day.

The importance of gear, and the quality of it (I believe) should never be underestimated as an important part of the equation in achieving great images .. just like any tool(or a trade), it should be at the top of the photographers consciousness for coming back with good images

That's probably the same reason that one of the shots voted as one of the best photos of 2011 was a mobile phone shot taken out an aircraft window of the Shuttle rising up through the clouds. The subject evoked great emotion a little like those shots of mars you mention

I'd be curious to know if this photographer has produced any other images of notable quality as well.
There's a real possibility that this photographer may have had no skill at all, and also with no idea .. or at least a preconceived idea that a photo of the space shuttle in it's ascent was foremost in their thoughts.
It's was just a random opportunity that came along and Joe Schmoe with their phone at the ready just happened to be there.
Once again this brings up the random quantity of opportunity in the production of great photography(unless you have complete control of the environment).
So this begs the question, if there is the possibility to produce images out of random unplanned opportunities and by people with no idea on how to create good photography in a consistent manner .. is it really skill and imagination that creates a great photograph?

As a group of enthusiasts in photography, no one here can claim that they've never felt that the gear that they had or have has become obsolete at some point in their lives .. and so the need to upgrade to better gear .. be that a lens, or a new body, or better studio lighting .. but the point remains that 99.9% of us have felt a need to acquire better gear to suit our purposes.
Mind tho, that this gear acquisition may not always be an upgrade to more expensive or more pro orientated gear .. it may have been a conscious 'backward' step for the sake of mobility or portability .. or ease of use.
But if this is not the case.. that we have all updated out gear at some point, then do we really believe that the gear doesn't help to produce better images??

Why would you update your gear(or think about updating it), if the gear itself has very little bearing on the outcome of the quality of your work?
Why not spend those funds on an adventure where your imagination is more likely to run riot and hence produce more riotous work, rather than take the risk in spending thousands on gear that most likely won't help?

I've always held the belief that gear is as important, and quite possibly more important in some instances, than the idea and maybe even the skill of the photographer.\
Again with the examples ... if a birding photographer has a minimum set of requirements in terms of gear(say a fast focusing long tele lens and fast and accurate camera body), and they choose to use gear specifically below those minimum requirements(smart phone), are they more likely to produce great images of birds.
I'm sure they will produce some images of birds and maybe one or two may be great .. but even a novice using the best lens and the best focusing body will come away with more great shots of birds than the smart phone tog.

Using the appropriate gear should be a very important consideration.


While the OP said that great gear enhances skill .. I think it should be more like there's a skill to choosing the most appropriate gear

[Mathy]

I thought I'd be the first 'Beginner' to enter this debate Like many, as a youngster I had a cheap Kodak Instamatic, followed by a cheap SLR, then put it all away for a long while.

Digital came along and I've had a variety of P&S cameras. And you know what? Digital allows more people to really get into taking photographs and to try to be better - because you don't need a darkroom, which requires additional (complex) skills, equipment, money, time, chemicals and a whole room! So digital is quite inspirational and affordable. One can afford to be inspired to try, to be creative and to want to achieve.

So, I have a Nikon V1, with the 3 (at the time) lenses that were available for it. And, it's a fantastic camera in one particular aspect - blazing fast AF in good light and the ability to shoot continuous at an incredible rate because it doesn't have a mirror (and silently as well). It's not a great performer in low light and, although you can mount practically any Nikon lens on it using an adapter, you have to be a pretty good photographer to get an image quality that matches a DSLR. I have 2 comp entries that were shot with this camera - one with a V1 lens and the other with a Nikon lens designed for a FF - both finished top 4 - and, no, I'm not a great photographer

I wanted to learn and do other things that the V1 would struggle with, so I also now have a d3200. I tossed up about buying a d7000, because, let's face it, that's a great camera and I'm still not sure that I made the right choice. More megapixels can be difficult for a beginner to work with. Stretching one's boundaries requires more knowledge in other areas, as well as better PP skills. It's a fascinating cycle of doing and learning, which is really important to me.

The best advice I got was to buy good lenses. And there truly is a difference that is visible. When I first put my Nikkor f2.8 VR EGD on my Nikon V1, I could instantly see the difference in the image quality. The damn thing hunts, and carries on like the proverbial, trying to find focus,but when it gets there, it's a beautiful sight to behold.

To summarise my experience, good gear is not going to make me a better photographer, but it will help me expand my boundaries. And, as an educator in a previous life, I believe that expanding boundaries is a great thing to do, because it encourages you to keep working on the basics. You attempt something that's probably a bit beyond your skill level, you look and learn, you realise that there's something simple like aperture/shutter speed/focus/ISO/composition (Basics) that could improve what you've done, so you go back and try again, varying the parameters and thereby learning more about the basics, and improving. Digital cameras allow anyone to do this at a very reasonable cost (unlike film), and you get instant feedback (also, unlike film) - one of the best ways of learning - how good is that?

I'm not likely to lust after a new body, but I am likely to buy more good lenses, at the end of the day, within brand/system, they are reusable and ageless. The lens is what offers the quality and creativity. The camera body and PP software (digital darkroom) do the grunt work.

Thanks for posting this most interesting and thoughtful question, cheers Deb

[arthurking83]

...... A friend bought himself a D300. Back then it was some $3000 worth of kit.

He only shot in auto... Ever. Didn't care that he could do more. .....

Just so that you are clear on this, there is no real Auto mode on the D300 ... not a pro programmed scene Auto type mode anyhow.
There is only the semi Auto modes, that are more manual than Auto anyhow, such as Aperture/Shutter priority. And then the hard to understand Program Auto mode.

A mate of mine, who is much more than capable with a camera that started with a D700 and then a D800(his first entries into digital !!) and he prefers to use [P] Program mode.
He once tried to describe the advantages of it, but it basically went in one ear and straight out through the other ..... one mode I definitely can't get my head around.

.....

But if a great photographer doesn't need great gear... Then why do they buy it? Joe McNally... Why does he use a D4. He's an incredible photographer with an amazing eye for light and colour, are his photos going to be just as amazing out of my old D40 and 18-55 lens? .....

This is my point too. If there is no need for better gear then why do they(the professionals), as well as ourselves, continually try to convince ourselves that we need it all.
And yet on the other hand, we also try to convince each other that it's all about the skill.

[Ezookiel]

That's probably the same reason that one of the shots voted as one of the best photos of 2011 was a mobile phone shot taken out an aircraft window of the Shuttle rising up through the clouds. The subject evoked great emotion a little like those shots of mars you mention

I'd be curious to know if this photographer has produced any other images of notable quality as well.
There's a real possibility that this photographer may have had no skill at all, and also with no idea .. or at least a preconceived idea that a photo of the space shuttle in it's ascent was foremost in their thoughts.
It's was just a random opportunity that came along and Joe Schmoe with their phone at the ready just happened to be there.

According to the lady that took it, it was the latter, pretty much a complete fluke, and was taken with an iPhone 3G
Pic and story below

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/12/07/...of-the-year/#9

[Granville]

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?

[Kym]

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?

I posted this on another forum some time ago...

Straight out of Camera vs Photoshopping – the debate

Due to having had this debate in various forms and venues I'd like to get a discussion going here.
BTW I'm not saying you can't just have a SooC happy snap, but I'm really talking about images that will be entered in comps (online or camera clubs) or displayed in exhibitions and so forth.

Up front, I think the whole SooC thing is a crock. For these reasons...

SooC is to me its like saying don't use a darkroom for film.
It would basically invalidated all of Ansell Adams work.
(there is a documented example where Ansel went through 24 stages over four days to make the image he wanted)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System Ansel Adams (1981) said: (anticipating the digital age)

I believe the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.

To me the concept of SooC is a total con job.
Your digital camera does these things (at minimum) when shooting JPEG
(to varying degrees depending on settings, eg. you can crank up the saturation)...

• Contrast/Brightness
• White balance
• Tint
• Saturation
• Noise reduction
• Sharpening

Further many modern cameras have in camera editing and in my case has the ability to do 3 shot HDR (K-5)

And all those adjustments are done by software that does what some geek programmer thought would be generically good and got put into the firmware.

At least shooting raw and doing it in PP is more honest, i.e. not depending on that geek software dude (not that geeks aren't uber kewl).

The term "photoshopped" is used by many without really having clue.
For Joe Average, they are only aware of air-brushing of this actress or that model, or some hacked image collage.
The response is the SooC brigade, which I see to be an invalid concept.

Good post processing (PP) lets you get the most out of a good image, but won't really help a bad image.

But, to have an anti PP stance is just silly.

[Bear Dale]

How does one acquire skill without gear?

[Granville]

Thanks Kym. Not sure you were suggesting this anyway, but I wasn't necessarily taking a "no PP" stance. I was pointing out that the gear or skill discussion hadn't mentioned skill in PP as much as I thought it would given the amount of PP that happens before images are posted here.


From the POV of a Devil's Advocate of course.

Cheers

[MissionMan]

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?

[Kym]

How does one acquire skill without gear?

We had a comp at our camera club last year.
Minimal gear = 1 x very cheap disposable film camera.
24 shots during the month, hand in the camera and all processed at the same local lab, enter you best 5.

The idea was to level the playing field so to speak.

In reality we only had control of horrible on camera flash, distance to subject and composition.
No control of DoF or shutter or film speed.
Considering the limitations of the gear and no control of printing etc. the results were presentable and in some cases slightly creative.

We all agreed gear helps!

[Kym]

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...Part_1_by_dtoh

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

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