JetEye wrote:
I don’t think anyone can tell me what not to buy because I am not a professional photographer.
I've been thinking a lot recently about the strange and confusing ways that this discuss skews off track. (One I mentioned earlier is the "come back" to any suggestion that owning the very best gear - whatever that even might be - opining that Ansel couldn't have made his photographs using a brownie camera. Right.)
This is an example of another odd twist. No one said you can or cannot buy anything you want to buy. What people are saying is that your purchase of such stuff won't get you where you may want to be as a photographer, and that if your goals are photographic more than about owning things you move toward your goal more quickly and effectively by focusing on things that you cannot buy.
For those who get joy from buying expensive stuff, no one is telling you that you cannot do this. However, when such folks go beyond "I can buy it and it feels good to do so" to "you need this stuff to make great photographs," some of us are going to disagree.
This past winter I was shooting with friend who makes his living producing stunningly beautiful photography, whose work is regularly shown in well-known galleries, whose books are often recommended even in this forum, and whose workshops are highly regarded and often recommended. We were photographing migratory birds in California's Central Valley. My friend's longest lens for photographing birds? A 70-200mm f/4. Using the most current camera body? One optimized for "birds in flight?" Hardly. The quality of the photographs he produced? Beautiful.
A few years ago I sold a print to a fellow who travels the world engaging in a particular sport that involves boards, sails, and the ocean. It turned out that I had ended up with a photograph of him engaged in his sport. We met when I sold him the print and he was a very nice person and I enjoyed our conversation. We ended up talking about the print and eventually he mentioned that he had tried to photograph such subjects without much success. He wondered what my "secrets" were. It turned out that he owned gear that cost perhaps four times as much as the gear I regularly used to make photographs like the one in question. (My gear is not cheap, but it isn't the most expensive, either.) The irony of the fellow with the really, really top-end gear buying a print from the guy with the merely good equipment was not lost on me. :-)
So, no one is saying what you "can" and cannot purchase. However, with respect to your possible desire to do what photographers do, namely produce visual images that move others, when someone suggests that the gear acquisition isn't what will get you there it might be worth trying to understand why photographers might be saying this.
Teaching several hundred students over the last 30 or so years has allowed me to make some observations. Attending a premier photo school and working with and around some extremely talented photographers has also given me some insights.
I believe that most relatively intelligent, motivated people can become a competent photographer. I have also had students with the extensive collections of gear, including Leica and Hasselblad, who were awful photographers who never improved no matter how much they shot. They are just visually tone deaf. I have seen some exceptionally gifted photographers, although they are very rare. They possess true talent, something that can't be taught or obtained through experience.
I have a recording of Anne Sophie Mutter playing Mozart's Third Violin Concerto. It was recorded when she was 14. Although her technical expertise is striking, what sets this recording apart is her musicality. Teachers can help her with phrasing and thousands of hours of practice can enhance it, but nothing can take the place of it if it is not innate.
This is a very interesting and informative thread, and there have been numerous postings here that make great points about the balance between the two extremes.
I think there is a tone by some writers that elevates the craft (and creative side) of photography above the pride of ownership and technical use. I think that is what JetEye is referring to in instances of this thread topic.
It comes across as condescending to say, "It's fine if you want to own the best, but you certainly don't need it to take quality photos." That's a lightly veiled way of saying the person is self-deluding.
I don't think there is any dispute that qualtiy work can be done on minimalist equipment. To state the point repeatedly comes across as a rebuke to those who love the equipment and tech as much or more than the creative side.
It comes across as condescending to say, "It's fine if you want to own the best, but you certainly don't need it to take quality photos." That's a lightly veiled way of saying the person is self-deluding.
A person who really was self-delusional might take it that way.
If he already knew that the best equipment did not guarantee the best results, he would chime in an agreement...as most of the correspondents in this thread have done.
Ooh I love these threads. It seems to get people that have expensive gear riled up. I'm new to the game so most people would probably cite me as one of those with equipment but not much in skills. I didn't go to art school or even have a single artistic bone in my body (I struggle drawing stick figures). I went to business school and went into business for myself at an early age.
I just started a new photography company last week and have started gearing up with lenses, crop and FF bodies, light stands, manual flashes, and productivity gear as well as a digital processing studio. I went with Canon since I like how their cameras function and I like to shoot fast and furious. I'm by no means a good and educated photographer but I learn as I go. With a 90% dump rate of photos that I've taken, it means that I need to take 100 photos just to keep 10.
The gear doesn't make a photographer but it does aid in taking photos where you once would not be able to take photos. It's the same reason why I love point and shoot cameras that have software driven features to increase picture quality to any person that can press the shutter button. There's a right tool for the right job and the only thing that can guarantee me awesome photographs is lady luck. For that same reason, if I deliver photographs taken from a variety of cameras including my iPhone camera, I don't feel bad giving photographs that are only 8MP taken with an iPhone because maybe I was only able to create the shot with an iPhone. From a business perspective, it just makes sense to deliver whatever you can based on what you can currently use.
Maybe I'll get better with time and lower that 90% dump rate with a 60% dump rate. If I have access to equipment that will take more pixels or with much better focus, or some advanced tech to make my photos look better, I would definitely use it. With a lack of creativity or "art", I have to compensate with business and convenience. Just another view of the photography world as I see it.
dmacmillan wrote:
Teaching several hundred students over the last 30 or so years has allowed me to make some observations. Attending a premier photo school and working with and around some extremely talented photographers has also given me some insights.
I believe that most relatively intelligent, motivated people can become a competent photographer. I have also had students with the extensive collections of gear, including Leica and Hasselblad, who were awful photographers who never improved no matter how much they shot. They are just visually tone deaf. I have seen some exceptionally gifted photographers, although they are very rare. They possess true talent, something that can't be taught or obtained through experience.
I have a recording of Anne Sophie Mutter playing Mozart's Third Violin Concerto. It was recorded when she was 14. Although her technical expertise is striking, what sets this recording apart is her musicality. Teachers can help her with phrasing and thousands of hours of practice can enhance it, but nothing can take the place of it if it is not innate. ...Show more →
Exactly. And the music analogy is very apt.
It is also interesting to me that people often "get" this when they look at an example in another area of endeavor, even when they resist in the field that they are interested in. I'm sure that many would stipulate that it is patently obvious that handing a Stradivarius to someone who did not have Mutter's talent, drive, and years of experience would lead to nothing all that interesting. They would also agree that putting you or me in the seat of an Indy car would not give us a prayer of a chance of finishing a professional auto race. Or that the best culinary tools and facilities in the world would not enable us to become genius chefs.
I'll bet that they would even advise a person with such notions that the best thing to do would be to practice and learn. (Brings to mind the old joke, one version of which goes more or less like this. Young artist arrives in New York City with dreams of greatness. Asks the cabbie, "How to I get to Carnegie Hall?" To which he answers, "Practice!")
whtrbt7 wrote:
I need to take 100 photos just to keep 10.
Getting one really good photograph for every ten exposures would be a really great success rate in many cases. :-)
And don't worry about your supposed inability to draw. A range of factors in my childhood had convinced me at a very young age that I had no visual sense. It took me years to unlearn that notion. Work on it - you never know where it might lead.
I believe it was Stalin in WW II who said “quantity has a quality all its own.”
That explains why I have to have top photo equipment. The quantity of sharpness, contrast, etc. that can make someone ooh and aah over how realistic a photo looks goes a long way cover-up my lack of composition, imagination, etc.
RobDickinson wrote:
I get 5 or 10 decent images a year. Mostly by accident. Ah well.
You're doing a lot better than me then
Personally i do this for fun and little else. Its a hobby, and as such if i stop enjoying it i will give up and move on. I derive some joy from owning shiny gadgets, some from taking photos, and very little from postprocessing. I find photography hard, but it is not an impossible challenge for me and so most of the pleasure i derive is from the challenge of improving and seeing that i am doing so. While that continues i will keep doing it. In general though, once i plateau at something i usually lose interest and move on. I don't know when that will be for photography, but its probably my longest running hobby so far.
I think that probably means i fall into Dan's category of being able to learn, but not being possessed of genius.
Wow, I'm totally confused. It looks as some people actually take some real photos.
I thought that on this forum it was enough to take photos of a brick wall and collect gear
It came from a varied collection of terrible and menacing strawmen which were erected and then demolished with gusto, all in the name of a snapshot of the triumphant poster standing over the vanquished enemy :-D
It came from a varied collection of terrible and menacing strawmen which were erected and then demolished with gusto, all in the name of a snapshot of the triumphant poster...
You summed this up well. Natural talent is an innate quality and if you are not born with that gift you can still become sufficiently proficient or competent at the game with some coaching and a lot of practice but you will never achieve the status of "genius" who make it look so easy.
dmacmillan wrote:
Teaching several hundred students over the last 30 or so years has allowed me to make some observations. Attending a premier photo school and working with and around some extremely talented photographers has also given me some insights.
I believe that most relatively intelligent, motivated people can become a competent photographer. I have also had students with the extensive collections of gear, including Leica and Hasselblad, who were awful photographers who never improved no matter how much they shot. They are just visually tone deaf. I have seen some exceptionally gifted photographers, although they are very rare. They possess true talent, something that can't be taught or obtained through experience.
I have a recording of Anne Sophie Mutter playing Mozart's Third Violin Concerto. It was recorded when she was 14. Although her technical expertise is striking, what sets this recording apart is her musicality. Teachers can help her with phrasing and thousands of hours of practice can enhance it, but nothing can take the place of it if it is not innate. ...Show more →
Therr are a small minority who have tremendous innate talent; even they have to work to develop their craft. The rest of us slowly build one our skills atvarying rates of success based on a lot of factors. The most important is learning from master craftsman, followed by experience. At no higher than third is gear- but it is there and does matter. I know I get better lowlight results with my current gear than what I had 5 years ag. However, my best work is based on experience and knowing how to get the result I want.
bobbytan wrote:
... the status of "genius" who make it look so easy.
I don't think being a genius is about doing things effortlessly. I think it's mostly about knowing how and what to do (create/solve/write/paint/photograph/etc.) when rationality fails, when the usual rules do not exist, do not apply, or need to be broken.
One thing you see in most technology is the diminishing returns, ie. the difference between a machine that costs $500. versus one that costs is $1000. is far greater than the difference between one that costs $1500. and one that costs $2000. Yet the difference is $500. in both cases.
Not getting ahead of yourself, upgrading only when there is a clear difference or benefit and knowing when you have 'enough', being able to separate 'need' from 'want', etc., a lot of it is the 'consumer economics' that can be said for a lot of technology.
As for innate ability, yes it exists but thinking is important too. Positive thinking doesn't create ability, but negative thinking can certainly destroy or inhibit it.
Personally, I can say I have enough and just don't need to buy much anymore. 90% of the 'new' photographic things I've obtained in the last 2 years have been things I've designed / made myself, not things I've bought. And the far majority of my photography today depends not on acquiring some new item, but around being in the right place (at the right time), being able to meet the right type of people, basically life, freedom, things like that. It doesn't depend on getting more stuff.
Starting tomorrow, I will no longer have a digital camera. I am going to embark in a 9-12 month adventure, shooting only film. It sounds crazy, and is expensive. I don't really shoot haphazardly, but I will need to be even more careful with my shots.
What I hope to gain from this experience is growth in my skills. TO be honest, I never look at my histogram - and I am embarrassed to say I don't know how to read it - so I won't miss that aspect. I also have been shooting with a 1Ds and an old manual focus lens (not even in Canon mount), so I won't have live view to yearn for, or all the other things (micro adjust or whatever it is called?).
My goal is to get shots as good (or better) as what I am getting now. Going to be interesting...
oh and before anyone jumps on me about the histogram deal, I think I have done well with exposures
