Gear enables genres of photography that was not feasible before. E.g., available light - no flash or other photographic lights - photography of indoor events, under the poor lighting typical of restaurants and ballrooms. Consider it photographing people in some of their natural habitats while being very inobtrusive.
Talent uses that capability to produce good stuff.
I don't think anyone should be made to feel guilty for lusting after nice gear, whether they take a nice picture or not.
Not everyone will be the top in the field, or have the talent or endurance to stay at the top of any field.
I like the car analogy -- if you can own it and enjoy it, isn't that enough? It might not be for someone, but that's personal, not a rule everyone should live by.
I'm not a natural born photographer I would say, I one day discovered photography or maybe I have to say that photography discovered me.All said, I find my pictures very similar with just a few evolving features mainly coming from experimentation, not from gear.
However, I'm not saying gear is not important because big part of these changes in my pictures are due the fact that I got more capable gear within that time range. Let's see:
1-Started with P&S, my pictures had the same perspective but lacked a bit of punch sometimes. But I was careless and doing whatever, really.
2-Got a Rebel XT with 50 mm 1.8 and being tied to one single lens made me incredibly creative, what a contradiction.
3-Then I got a very versatile 17-250 for all occasions, I somehow started abusing of telephoto and portrait from the medium distance. But got lazy somehow.
4-Passed to a 40D with Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Sigma 70-200 2.8 and somehow my portrait side got better and my flower pictures started to show up for me.
5-Got a 5D and I forgot about the 40D even if it was technically more advance and I could do moving subjects better. Why? the 5D somehow increased my creativity with its limitations.
6-Got my first L lens, the 24-70, the 180L, 35-350L and my favorite, the 135L HAd the same point of view for my pictures but the quality got better.
7-Got rid of the zooms and remained only with primes while doing a real downsizing so the 5D + Canon 50 mm 1.4 + 85 mm 1.8 + my loved 135L is my whole kit. My creativity came back for some reason.
8-I'm now getting a 5DIII which soon enought will be brought by a family member (I bought in US to save from the european price) and I hope I have another little turn to my photo-screwing abilities
Just one thing seems odd to me, the more I limit myself to prime lens the more I seem to get into my creative side.
So yes, gear really changes the way you take photography but my mindset is crucial for it.
"Just one thing seems odd to me, the more I limit myself to prime lens the more I seem to get into my creative side."
Not odd at all really, I think the simplicity of the prime make you think more about where you are, and what your actually doing.
If you look at a lot of images, you'll see that theres usually a central theme drawing you into the image, that and just shoot lots of images , and really learn to look at them and self critique, which is easier said than done..
gdanmitchell wrote:
I make thousands of poor photographs. If I hadn't I would never have made a single good one.
True that.
For me this is the benefit of the digital age. I did not progress very much as a photographer in my early days with film. But digital opened up a whole new opportunity to really go out and try things, to experiment, to take lots of photos, to fail again and again, to learn, and occasionally when I'm lucky and the planets align get a keeper or two. I'm not saying that I go out and point the camera with no thought or without an intended purpose, but the simple fact that I'm free to shoot whatever I like, opens up my creativity.
I would say the best piece of gear to help improve my photography are big memory cards. I can shoot away and learn with every shutter click.
If you are a pro photographer, talent is important and your talent will be commensurate with your success. However, if photography is strictly a hobby to you (like it is to me) it doesn't really matter what your skills level is, as the enjoyment and entertainment value is what matters. That's the reason why "serious amateurs" often own better equipment than the average pro - they don't have to look at the ROI or justify buying any piece of equipment. A photography enthusiast is no different to a golf or Hi Fi enthusiast. Gear can be very important to a hobbyist as it contributes to his or her enjoyment of photography. I view my camera equipment as toys ... not tools.
I collect gear and like a bad habit exercise it for the indulgent pleasure...At least it's not like my other bad habits which are immoral,illegal and fattening.
On the talent end...not nearly as talented as some...and years of experience has helped improve my measly talent at a glacial pace.
With quality gear and a little luck,capturing some decent images can occasionally make me look talented.
The BIG 3: Composition, Subject and the Emotions an image creates for the viewer. I so very, very rarely read any of this mentioned but in school when we put our work on the wall what’s all we talked about.
But on the other hand digital photography is…. LIBRATING… and good equipment helps a lot!!!
Don't forget, talent only makes you learn faster, and better gear only makes learning and getting the result you want easier. Hard work is what gets you there.
Talent and creativity is mostly an intrinsic quality. Good gear = better IQ = instant gratification. I want more gear and need more instant gratification. Nothing wrong with that, I hope.
Man, oh, man! You are right - I truly do need to add that to the list! :-)
And this time of year, those mornings are even earlier. Talk about double edged swords: In winter I can get up at least a couple of hours later to shoot the early morning light - but I freeze. Then summer comes and I don't necessary need to wear 8 layers at dawn... but dawn is hours earlier. Just can't win...
A friend of mine just recently had two separate shows in conjunction with the Sydney, Head On Portrait prize festival.
Magnificent Black & White prints, 48" on the wide side, shot with a G10.
For the curious, go to www.jonnylewis.org and look up "portraits from the edge". All with a P&S!! Timor was done with a twin lens rolleiflex. That pic of the soldier in the burnt out church might be the defining shot of that era
The manufacturers of cameras and related gear have been promoting the idea that the equipment, not the photographer, makes the photograph since the earliest days of mass market photography gear ( e.g. "you click the shutter, we do the rest"). How could they sell new gear if they admitted that a great photographer can make great photographs with almost any equipment and a bad photographer will make bad photographs with even the best gear?
This is not exactly misleading or untrue. Without a camera and good lenses, we will not have a photograph ... much less nice and sharp photos with lovely background blur and creamy bokeh, etc, etc. We bring our photo vision, ideas and creativity to the table. They do the rest.
campyone wrote:
The manufacturers of cameras and related gear have been promoting the idea that the equipment, not the photographer, makes the photograph since the earliest days of mass market photography gear ( e.g. "you click the shutter, we do the rest"). How could they sell new gear if they admitted that a great photographer can make great photographs with almost any equipment and a bad photographer will make bad photographs with even the best gear?
