Camera or Photographer?

[mountainpete]

I thought this was an interesting read and perspective...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

I would love to hear what some of our professionals out there think.

Pete

 

[Dirty Harry]

Wow, that is a long rant to state something that is pretty obvious. Just as you don't need a rooftop tent and a freezer/fridge to explore the backcountry, you don't need a full frame sensor and pro glass to take good photos.

 

[mountainpete]

Wow, that is a long rant to state something that is pretty obvious. Just as you don't need a rooftop tent and a freezer/fridge to explore the backcountry, you don't need a full frame sensor and pro glass to take good photos.

Amen. I was trying to be neutral on the first post, but I have to agree - heck of a rant.

Edit: You do need a fridge for Baja. That has already been established.

 

[goodtimes]

Edit: You do need a fridge for Baja. That has already been established.

Actually, no. I believe the original statement was along the lines of "With a fridge and a stock tacoma TRD, you can go about anywhere in Baja". This certainly does not imply that a stock tacoma, nor a fridge is required...just that with the previously mentioned equipment, Baja is a surmountable destination.

I have been to Baja on several occasions with neither a tacoma nor a fridge, and had no problems.

 

[efuentes]

You can even downsize, and WALK baja, taking mental pictures while you´re at it ...

 

[Digital Nomad]

Sorry, I couldn't read a rant that long... that writer needs to know how to get to the point.

I teach photographers Photoshop all the time and am amazed how how ****ty of shots people come up with who have the best gear... 1Ds MarkII's with great class... but the photo isn't worth printing. Then they want to work in 16-bit with ProPhoto RGB and everything else that has the potential of producing higher quality when they really need to learn how to create a good composition and to find compelling subject matter (and lean how to get the proper exposure).

Having said that... if you are a good shooter, having better glass, and great Photoshop technique can elevate your images to a higher level... but you'd still have great images if you shooting film with a camera made in the 60's.

Lately I've been posting at least one shot a day on my blog at www.WhereIsBen.com I don't claim to be the greatest photographer in the world, but I've been happy with many of the shots I've been getting lately.

 

[mountainpete]

Actually, no. I believe the original statement was along the lines of "With a fridge and a stock tacoma TRD, you can go about anywhere in Baja". This certainly does not imply that a stock tacoma, nor a fridge is required...just that with the previously mentioned equipment, Baja is a surmountable destination.

I have been to Baja on several occasions with neither a tacoma nor a fridge, and had no problems.

It was a joke guys... check out the quotes thread for the original.

 

[tdesanto]

I thought this was an interesting read and perspective...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

I would love to hear what some of our professionals out there think.

Pete

I think the answer should be pretty obvious. Mountainpete, thanks for pointing it out though as a friendly reminder that the tool can help, but it's the artist or the person behind the tool that decides what to do with it.

Also, if it isn't obvious already, I would recommend taking just about anything that Ken Rockwell says with a grain of salt...drink plenty of water too.

 

[haven]

serendipity

I think good photography is one of those "man, moment, machine" things. You've got to know something about photography, you've got to be there at the right moment, and you've got to have functional gear.

My partner had one of those moments in the Sierra foothills north of Bishop a few years ago. The aspens were at their peak color, the light was just right, Marian was willing to walk to find the right angle (I stayed in the truck), and she had a 3 MP Sony point and shoot in her pocket. The result was a series of great photos, one if which is now part of the Griffith Park Observatory's permanent exhibit to illustrate the changing seasons.

Chip Haven

 

[goodtimes]

It was a joke guys... check out the quotes thread for the original.

Yes, so was my post. Maybe I shoulda included a monkey gittin jiggy? :shakin:

I started a rather long, almost rant~ish post responding to several statements Ken Rockwell made, but thought better of it. I'll give you the short version:

I do not entirely agree with him. Sure, the mind behind the camera is the absolute, most important piece of gear when it comes to good quality photographs. But to say that the gear has no impact on quality is just foolish.

Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
If this were true, we would all be running around with oatmeal containers turned into pin-hole cameras.

There is no substitute for "the eye", but having the "right" gear is vital. For 99% of consumers, a low end point and shoot is satisfactory. But to say you can capture the same image quality with that as you can a 5d, is crazy.

 

[Scott Brady]

I have seen the power of the creative eye myself, both with Chris's shots and Stephanie's. They are both very creative and have a superior eye to detail and composition.

I am fair at detail and pretty good at composition and lighting but they take images to the next level because of their "view" of things.

I will also say, without question that good glass and low sensor noise is also critical to taking good pictures. The Canon L glass can make good images incredible.

 

[Scott Brady]

I must say that these two quotes are fundamentally flawed and discount durability and reliability of pro gear.

Don't presume the most expensive gear is the best. Having too much camera equipment is the best way to get the worst photos.

The more expensive cameras and lenses don't do much of anything significant for the huge increases in price.

Stick him and that $150 camera in the middle of the Arctic or the Sahara and see how he fairs

I have always said that the photographer takes the great image, not the camera, but if you are in the business (or hobby) of taking great images, why would you use inferior equipment? It would be like taking a trip down the east coast of Baja in the middle of summer with a Chevy Barretta... The results are not going to be pretty :shakin:

 

[TeleScooby]

The (removed brand to make a point) camera can make good images incredible.

You hit it right there Scott. The mind and eye are what make the photo compositionally great...but shooting it with a kodak instamatic vs a 1D is what makes the image great.

It's a matter of a quality image vs image quality...if it's a quality image, the image quality matters alot less, but still matters.

 

[kcowyo]

While I appreciate a nonsensical rant as much as (more than?) anyone, where does luck factor into the equation?

I can't tell you how many frames I've shot of some place or object, from various angles, during different lighting scenarios, trying for that really unique shot, which didn't pan out only to see the one photo I snapped almost as an afterthought, that really turned out well.

And something should be said for perseverance or repitition too. I've noticed over the years that when I'm on a trip, my first days photos don't seem to turn out as well as the last days. Seems like I get a better feel or sense for what will turn out like I'm seeing it, after getting "warmed up" for a day or two.

 

[dan chain]

i would say a good majority of it is who is behind the lens. i was reading a photography magazine recently and there was an interview with a guy who has a lot of work in national geographic and for all of his super close shots of insects he actually just uses a slim point and shoot camera because an slr is just to big and bulky for alot of his type of work. kinda interesting that a 250 camera has produced images featured in national geographic.