Gear vs Skill

[Bear Dale]

The question is - Gear vs Skill

Of course skill is the answer, but that doesn't detract from the fact that great gear enhances skill.

Thoughts?

[ricktas]

No. Skill is utmost. I could give a non-photographer $50,000 of the best gear and they will still take 'non-photographer' photos. Train them how to use that gear and it all changes. So I disagree that 'great gear enhances skill'. I would say that skill enhances the use of great gear.

[ameerat42]

Is there a fuller version of the question?
If the answer is "Of course skill...", then so be it, and the Q doesn't need to be asked.
A begged question is one where the answer is built in, like:
"What do you think of this great photographer's work?"
Am(wonderbaring).

[Bear Dale]

No. Skill is utmost. I could give a non-photographer $50,000 of the best gear and they will still take 'non-photographer' photos. Train them how to use that gear and it all changes. So I disagree that 'great gear enhances skill'. I would say that skill enhances the use of great gear.

Good view point Rick.

With photography gear, it's really not that much more difficult to master good gear (as in top level gear) as to master entry level gear.

I don't know about the oft said advice of a novice cutting their teeth on entry level gear, unless they're 'sucking and seeing' photography to see if it's going to be long term hobby for them. If they've made that descision, I don't see any problem with them going all out from the get go.

I still believe that good gear enhances skill.

[Wayne]

I agree with Rick for the most part, and further with Jim, simply because while it's true if you gave a $50k camera to a non-photographer, they;

A) wouldn't know how to use it
B) probably don't know how to take a good image

giving that $50k camera to a photographer of intermediate skill who understands what a good pic is and how to get it would open the door for them to make those good pics.

It surprises me, and I often laugh at how many people say things like "Gear means nothing, a good shooter will make good images with any gear" and I find that often those spruiking the notion are those who simply don't have the gear.:rolleyes:

If we think about this for a minute, we know that statement is untrue. Shooting entry level gear will in many cases simply not allow you by virtue of it's limitations to get the images you could get in the same shooting scenario with pro gear. Low noise in low light, AF in low light, high frame rate, fast focus tracking, high sync speeds, shallow DOF, DR, colour/contrast etc are all things that can mean the difference between making a good pic and a terrible one, or none at all.

Whilst good gear won't instantly make a shit shooter a good one, it certainly helps a good one do more, and often things they couldn't do with entry level gear otherwise we would all be shooting box brownies and $50 P&S cameras with fixed lenses.

[MissionMan]

I agree and disagree. I think a beginner with basic body and good lenses is still going to take better photos than cheap lenses. Even if you are not great from a composition perspective, the focus times and sharpness of a good lens will always help.

[Brian500au]

A good example here is, can you take just as good a photo with your iphone as you can with your DSLR in every circumstances? I would love to say yes, but sadly I have missed so many photo opportunities because I wanted to travel light.

In the end it has to be the right gear for the job - add the skill and you have success.

Personally myself I have had a real wake up call here. I did a stock take of the amount of gear I have accumulated over the years and got a REAL shock. I sometimes work with a tog who has one semi pro body and one basic "L" zoom lens. He runs rings around me with his skill in using this equipment. Needless to say I am going back to basics.

[mudman]

i think image content is most important
i saw a photo taken with an imstanmatic camera of a giraffe at a water hole with a crocodile hanging off its snout
image quality was awful, but a major London daily published it due to the wow factor

[mikew09]

I have witnessed this on 3 occasions personally now, someone upgrades to top gear from entry level and it defiantly does not make someone a better photographer but we all tend to agree on that. Having said that, I do think that a developing photographer will present better photos and will improve as a photographer with better gear - ie a move to FF.
One thing I think comes out of this question is - better gear challenges a photographer and if the photographer takes the challenge to push the limits on the new great they may very well become a better photographer, but if the person decides not adventure with the gear the person but just continue to take happy snaps, high quality happy snaps but happy snaps just the same.

[zollo]

imo it can work both ways. you give a beginner a camera with a f/3.5-5.6 lens and get them to take a portrait, then same camera, same everything except an f/1.4 lens, and assuming they can maintain focus, the f/1.4 portrait will be a better photo, making them a better photographer

[jjphoto]

I see lots of great images from people who have relatively little photographic (technical) skill but who have great ideas, often with the software skills to massage whatever images they have into something much better. If you need proof of this then just have a look at Flickr, RedBubble or similar sites.

I think that this is specifically the biggest change in photography in the last 100 years (since George Eastman introduced roll film, the Box Brownie in the 1880's and Kodaks service to process and print it's images). This is because just as George Eastmans Brownie allowed people to take a picture, and Kodak did the rest, modern technology has largely removed a need to have technical skill or knowledge to create images of a very high technical standard. You can just press the button and now the technology and software does the rest, instead of Kodak. This has allowed vast numbers of very creative and imaginative people to 'photograph' without any of the skill previously needed to print a B+W print, shoot on C41 or particularly E6 films. Those same people would never in a million years have engaged in what used to be called photography due to it's many technical hurdles. Most people are just not wired the way you needed to be to process and print B+W, to shoot large format, or even medium format. It's just too hard. But that level of skill is obsolete, at least in what used to be called photography. Now similar levels of skill are required in programs like C1, Lightroom, Photoshop, Photomatix or various other image editing applications.

Sure high skills levels are needed for various high level work, retouching, printing etc. but this is often outsourced even today. I wonder if people like Annie Leibovitz (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&gs_rn=8&gs_ri=psy-ab&cp=15&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=annie+leibovitz&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4GGNI_enAU494AU494&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.aGc&biw=1356&bih=1037&ion=1&wrapid=tljp136533461663702&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=WVphUdOqJ-6eiAepxoCYCg), Thomas Demand (http://www.thomasdemand.info/images/photographs/) or Gregory Crewdson (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=gregory+crewdson&hl=en&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4GGNI_enAU494AU494&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=XFdhUZzBKI6SiQfA_IHgAw&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1356&bih=1037) know how to use Photoshop? I suspect so but they probably don't need to.

I've seen large prints from a point and shoot camera which are technically far superior to images that could have been shot with 35mm film or 120 medium format film. In fact better (better resolution, sharper, into the corners) than I can shoot with my 5D2 and some very high quality lenses. A point and shoot camera!

Conversely lots of people with in depth photographic knowledge, experience, skill and equipment still only manage to create quite mediocre images, images that may well be beautifully composed, lit, executed, but lacking the spark or idea that makes an image interesting, engaging or even memorable. It's one thing to play technical tricks with shallow depth of field, tilt/shift lenses, or extraordinary post processing techniques, but it's another to shoot an insightful image that is remembered for it's content, not it's technical quality.

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

[Ezookiel]

Obviously great equipment in a fool's hands will still take crap photos, but no matter how good you are, it can be very hard to overcome the limitations of cheap lenses or gear.
* Shots taken with tack sharp quality glass is going to look a whole lot better no matter how good the tog.
* A very slow lens isn't going to take good shots inside a dark venue, especially with moving subjects like people.
I've heard those sorts of arguments argued against by saying that a good tog with crap gear would take the shot differently to make up for the limitations of the cheap lens etc, but that's not always possible - there's only so close that you can get to a distant mountain range in a scenic shot, there's only so much you can do with a slow lens when you need a fast one. Being a better tog will definitely HELP overcome bad gear, but I don't believe limitations of bad/wrong gear can be totally overcome in every instance.

[JM Tran]

Conversely lots of people with in depth photographic knowledge, experience, skill and equipment still only manage to create quite mediocre images, images that may well be beautifully composed, lit, executed, but lacking the spark or idea that makes an image interesting, engaging or even memorable. It's one thing to play technical tricks with shallow depth of field, tilt/shift lenses, or extraordinary post processing techniques, but it's another to shoot an insightful image that is remembered for it's content, not it's technical quality.

BAM!


Too many times in life and on AP have I seen people constantly upgrading or possessing high end gear, which never equated to the final product I have been seeing.

[zollo]

Yet, There are certain equipments that all the "successful" creatives and luminaries in photography use.

[ricktas]

Yet, There are certain equipments that all the "successful" creatives and luminaries in photography use.

Dont' we all all though. We all use lenses and a camera. without those none of us would be 'successful'. ;)

[ricktas]

BAM!


Too many times in life and on AP have I seen people constantly upgrading or possessing high end gear, which never equated to the final product I have been seeing.

I agree, but conversely, people do what they want to. Buying new gear might not be about taking 'better' photos for some. People buy new things for a whole myriad of reasons. I have friends who buy a new car every 2 years, but doing so doesn't make them better drivers, and there was nothing at all wrong with their old car. They don't buy it to be better drivers, they buy it cause that is what they want to do. Some people like shiny new things. Some people have different ideas about what they want from their gear and their photography, and maybe it isn't necessarily 'perfection'.

Certainly some people spend huge amounts on gear and yes their photography doesn't appear to improve as this new gear arrives, thus as I stated in post 2 above "So I disagree that 'great gear enhances skill'. I would say that skill enhances the use of great gear".

If it is the gear alone that results in a change/improvement, then guns kill, spoons make people fat, cigarettes cause cancer, pens misspell words and cars drink drive.

[livio]

Guys and Gals, I'm sorry but I have my 2c worth on this discussion. I believe that the Skill vrs Gear debate is alive and I am going to agree and disagree. It is a contextual debate if we look at photography in its most basic form that of being a light tight box with a lens to capture light on a light sensitive surface. All cameras do that but not all cameras are equal. A good example was given to me the other day where people were using iphones to take the first photos of a baby and because of the low light they turned out crap. Someone had a Nikon 1 and because it's low light capability is much better than an iphone the photo turned out very nicely. We have such a broad spectrum of gear available to us just as large as needs wants and desires to take photos. What about the camera system where you can alter the focus point after the photo is taken, Kym posted about this a while ago, so having clear focus is now sorted but that still leaves exposure and low light capability. The point I'm making is that there are different tools for different needs. The compact digital camera has improved greatly over the years and you can take some amazing photos with these cameras. They have facial recognition systems where they maximise focus on a persons face. They expose well, they have a level of zoom, and they have a built in flash. As long as you are shooting short distance photos they come up great and the camera does most of the work. All you have to do is to compose the image and you get a great shot. Then there is the middle market the Nikon 1 where you get a little more than a compact camera, you get interchangeable lenses and more features. Then there is the DSLR more features, can be a little daunting to some, bracketing, multiple exposures, high ISO, a comprehensive range of lenses from micro to massive zoom at ridiculous f stops. Then there is the high end cameras the ones which cost you an arm and a leg, they are based around precision and component perfection hell if you know how to really use these cameras you will take great photos but if you don't the chances are they are going to be no better than the do it all for you compact camera. The difference though is if you do know how to use it the images will be visibly different. So I think that at the low end the camera enhances the users skill by taking care of the basics like focus of the face when shooting a person or indicating clearly where the focus is if not on a person. For a number of people this is just what they want, chances are they will have difficulty in reproducing photos they like because the camera is making the decisions and it becomes more of a hit an miss but they just want the average family happy snap and they are happy. Then you have the middle ground and I believe this middle ground has grown considerably over the last few years, the camera makes some of the decisions or all of the decisions depending on mode but you have more flexibility you really need to know a little more about what is going on and you can most likely reproduce that image you took that you really liked. Then you have the high end by now you make the choices the camera does your bidding, you understand the relationships between ISO, exposure, shutter speed, and composition. You can reproduce that set of images you like with different models and still get that same wow factor.

[Rattus79]

Without reading all of the other replies (although I did skim a good bunch of them) I agree to a degree that a certain level of skill is required to produce a good image.

Luck does have something to do with it, being in the right place at the right time (which is a skill also) but the spray and pray method does achieve results sometimes!

Gear comes in when you're trying to do something in particular. For example one of the key reasons I upgraded my body was for better High ISO performance and noise banding issues in my k10. It was practically useless at night. A beginner doing long exposure night shots would not be able to get better results then a pro using the same body.

I recommend beginners to stick with their current entry level equipment until they start to hit the boundaries of the equipment and have a clear understanding of why it's a boundary to their creativeness.

[MissionMan]

I think to think it's a case of understand what gear we are talking about before commenting. For example:

1. I don't think a beginner can ever invest too much in lenses. Lenses will always be a strength no matter what your skill level is and I don't think a lens can actually adversely effect the outcome of your photos.
2. A body on the other hand can be extremely confusing, if you don't have predefined modes to start with, the body is probably going to do worse in the circumstances because you simply don't know how to work with the basic features. When it comes to bodies, my guess is that you work with a low end body (even low end bodies have decent ISO these days) and when you reach a point that the body becomes a limitation to what you're trying to achieve, upgrade to something better.
3. Strobes and Flashes - I think even a beginner would be better off with an external flash. Bouncing is not a science (at basic levels) and will achieve far more than than any built in flash. Strobes on the other hand are extremely complex and I think any beginner buying strobes would be wasting their times, even with an entrance level set.
4. Flash modifiers - In some cases, these are bad or difficult to use so I'm not against beginners experimenting with them
5. Light meters - probably the one thing I think most photographers (beginner or advanced) should invest in just to get a handle on correctly exposing images. A light meter will never go to waste no matter what your skill is. Most people become dependent on the internal light meter in a camera but in most cases, they aren't great in comparison to the real thing.
6. Tripods - is there anyone here who honestly thinks a beginner can "over invest" in a tripod? A good tripod will last you a long time


This list could go on for ages, but I think there are some times its worth investing in the right gear up front, and there are some times where it's a waste.

[Rattus79]

. Light meters - probably the one thing I think most photographers (beginner or advanced) should invest in just to get a handle on correctly exposing images. A light meter will never go to waste no matter what your skill is. Most people become dependent on the internal light meter in a camera but in most cases, they aren't great in comparison to the real thing.

I disagree here. (but I still want one!)

A lightmeter is only really truly helpful when doing extremely long exposures that the internal meter can't calculate. (which is just a firmware thing anyway)
OR
for calculating flash exposure (assuming your meter will do flash)

More often then not, the reflected light meter is good enough to get a "correct" exposure without having to rely on the incident lightmeter.

Gee I would like one though, I just can't justify the expense for a good one when I can approximate a good exposure anyway.

[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!!:D

[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!
:D

[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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise) (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 :p
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 :D ... 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 :D 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 :lol2:

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/time-picks-the-top-10-photos-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/forum/showlibrary.php?title=How_Do_I:Landscape_Worflow_Part_1_by_dtoh

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=Tutorials:Kathmando_Fridge_Delivery_Processed_general_PP

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=Indexes:Genre_Specific_Index

[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/forum/showthread.php?97835-Before-and-After-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 :lol:

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/forum/showlibrary.php?title=How_Do_I:Landscape_Worflow_Part_1_by_dtoh

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=Tutorials:Kathmando_Fridge_Delivery_Processed_general_PP

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=Indexes:Genre_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 :p

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? :D

[Bear Dale]

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

ROFLMAO :D

[MissionMan]

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

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

[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.

[Doktaduck]

I'm not sure the pretense of Gear vs Skill is fair or accurate.

I think that they have a symbiotic relationship when it comes to some of the truly stunning (I use stunning instead of great, as I agree with the earlier sentiment that a great photo has more to do with subject then technicalities) images that I've seen some photographers produce.

to expand; will gear influence the perceived quality of even the most unskilled photographer? I believe yes. better glass, and body giving more room to move in exposure, speed to focus etc will almost always give a cleaner sharper "prettier" image than a cheap body and "starter" glass.
Can a highly skilled photographer take a great photo with the most basic of beginner gear? I think Yes, but that image will be effected through restricted choices for exposure due to light handling capabilities, and compromises to the original vision to compensate for the equipment capabilities.
A great photographer with great gear is given the freedom to make artistic choices without the hindrance that cheap gear places on them.

So I think that the real question is not Gear vs Skill, but more Great Photo + Cheap gear vs less skilled + great gear.. And in this question I think that the Skill would win out more times then not, however would not always win.

i.e. Skill = consistency Gear = Flexibility

Skill + Gear = more consistent great shots ad a better chance to relise a vision.
Skill + Cheap gear = Great shots, but compromised on artistic vision (most of the time)
No Skill + Gear = the chance of a great shot
No Skill + no Gear = sad panda.

Hopefully with everyone's help on AP those of us that want to are slowly moving up the skill ladder :)

[Raoul79]

I agree with Rick for the most part, and further with Jim, simply because while it's true if you gave a $50k camera to a non-photographer, they;

A) wouldn't know how to use it
B) probably don't know how to take a good image

giving that $50k camera to a photographer of intermediate skill who understands what a good pic is and how to get it would open the door for them to make those good pics.

It surprises me, and I often laugh at how many people say things like "Gear means nothing, a good shooter will make good images with any gear" and I find that often those spruiking the notion are those who simply don't have the gear.:rolleyes:

If we think about this for a minute, we know that statement is untrue. Shooting entry level gear will in many cases simply not allow you by virtue of it's limitations to get the images you could get in the same shooting scenario with pro gear. Low noise in low light, AF in low light, high frame rate, fast focus tracking, high sync speeds, shallow DOF, DR, colour/contrast etc are all things that can mean the difference between making a good pic and a terrible one, or none at all.

Whilst good gear won't instantly make a shit shooter a good one, it certainly helps a good one do more, and often things they couldn't do with entry level gear otherwise we would all be shooting box brownies and $50 P&S cameras with fixed lenses.

I totally agree with this comment. I had an entry level DSLR for about 5 years up until very recently. The reason for the upgrade was not because there was anything wrong with the camera as it still takes great photos but I just simply could not get the photos I wanted with it (milky way) due to limitations as mentioned (low light and noise). With the new camera - this shot was more or less effortless.

[old4570]

Well , you cant discount the performance edge of top of the line gear ( That would be silly ) , no pro would be seen with a box brownie ...

When you have $5000 camera and a $5000 lens , well what can I say .. You would have the edge ...

Sure skill counts , but so do the tools .

Aint no way you could compete with say my istD and the Sigma Lens it wears , against top of the line Canon or Nikon ..
Even a pro photographer with the cheap gear VS a Noob with top of the line gear , ( everything else being equal )

But the exp photographer would most likely source some primary lenses , say 28mm 50mm 90mm and 135mm , so even with a cheap body could take killer pictures ..

Its all relative !

Bottom line , gear makes a difference .. Good gear can make a noob look good , a pro look - well Pro !

Cheap gear will make the noob look , well Noob , and a pro look ?? ( depends on the gear )

What is that saying , a poor tradesman blames his tools , but bad tools are bad tools , how can you do good work with bad tools ...

So there you go , Good gear and skill go hand in hand ...

You do realize - this is easily put to the test - right .

Just need to organize a photo excursion - decide on gear , and two people to photograph the same things , their way . Bottom of the line gear VS top of the line ... Noob VS Pro
I mean , it would do-able .. :confused013

[Ezookiel]

^ I can supply the cheap gear for the experiment - my whole setup is less than some people spend on a lens - actually my whole setup and the car I carry it in - is less than some people spend on a lens :(

[MissionMan]

how about a mobile phone challenge. No filters, out of the box mobile phone camera pictures. Everyone should have one.

[Mark L]

how about a mobile phone challenge. ....
And then some may argue about the specs of the mobile phones!! I don't have one, so no skill (or gear) here.

[Ezookiel]

The camera on my wife's old brick is 3mp and no fancy "features"
My phone is 8mp and does in camera... sorry ... in phone ...HDR, with touch screen selective focus/exposure point, and has a much higher quality lens.
(don't blame me, my wife LIKES her old brick phone and won't upgrade).

Not a fair comparison between the photos from those two unfortunately.

[Roosta]

I think you've all forgotten one major ingredient - Pure arse, sometimes, this is what it takes, no skill involved and no matter what gear was involved.

Was watching some 4WD vids on Youtube the other day, and the new Sony adds are getting so airplay at the moment, this thread reminds me of what it depicts, DSLR - Tennis court and the lens cap still on, did I laugh, yeap.

Good Laugh if you haven't seen it.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9YiDd4v19Y

[Jad]

If you have the skill, great equipment is certainly an asset. But a meaningful photograph can be taken with most any quality camera in the hands of a skilled photographer.

[sunny6teen]

the marketing department at Canon assure me that it's gear...nothing else required.

[Ezookiel]

...Was watching some 4WD vids on Youtube the other day...

Roosta, if you're into 4WDing and into photography, you should come along on one of our 4WD Photography Trips.
The fifth one is this coming long weekend up to Barrington Tops.
They're a great bunch of people that all got together through a 4wd forum where I suggested those who like photography travel together on a trip because non-photographers get annoyed if you stop too often to take a picture. The first one went so well we did 3 more, and we have the fifth one this weekend.
We even got published in a 4wd mag twice and shared the payment (only $100 per person each time but every bit counts).

[andylo]

To Roosta's post, here is another one :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wED-ujkp7s4

[PhotoPaul]

I'm going to speak from my musical experience instead (which is far more extensive than that of photography) as I can see massive parallels between the two in this discussion.

A beginning player should always start out on the best instrument they can afford at the time, and as skill increases, they will 'out play' their instrument. In other words, they will find the limitations of the instrument for various reasons, usually stylistic as the player develops their own personal style. This is where the better gear allows for growth and further enhancement of skills, plus expansion of their skill set. Without the better gear at that point, the musician will stagnate and become frustrated at the limitations imposed by their gear. Especially if they use others' gear and experience the difference. Then the cycle continues but at a higher level.

So I don't think that one overrules the other. I believe they have a symbiotic relationship where one pushes the other in a cycle of continuous improvement.

The parallels between music and photography should be pretty clear I hope :)

[ameerat42]

A well-put || Paul.