Is it the Camera OR the things that you can capture with it?
October 15, 2008 12:49pm CST
Everyone loves photography cause it lets you see all those beautiful moments you captures sometime in the past.. Some moments may never happen again or some pictures are such that only a very few people in the world will be able to view it in real.. Photography has grown through age.. and so have the apparatus used for it.. Would the saying ever be applicable that the picture can only be as good as the camera? Hence the question.. Is it the camera or the picture captured?? You can be at the most beautiful place but just cannot get it to look the same in the picture you try clicking one after the other.. But sometimes.. its the most simplest things that look spectacular because of the camera you using.. Many times.. its like a mixture of everything.. best camera.. worst picture.. worst camera.. best picture.. For me.. I am more interested in the technology..
1 person likes this
16 Oct 08
Artists today have painting knives of flexible stainless steel, brushes and pigments that artists of earlier eras never dreamed of, materials that sculptors could only dream about, musical instruments that blend science and art.... but what do current artist achieve that surpasses DaVinci or Botticelli or Shakespeare or Beethoven??? Sorry, cameras are great tools, but it is what you do with them that counts, day or night!
16 Oct 08
Thats very simply put but its more towards the emotional side than based on facts.. We are talking about photography.. and discussing if the picture matters more or if the apparatus used to capture it.. There are different cases.. and all hold true.. Like in the case of a night shot.. you might see something beautiful but just cant capture it through your pocket camera.. while in the other case.. perfect shot but your just not there with your camera bag.. so the one with the pocket camera might just capture it.. So what more important now? No Im not asking if its between the pocket camera or a big one...
16 Oct 08
I am not sure what the issue about night photography is... but while the technonlogy that enables most people to obtain a well exposed picture has improvd and fallen in price to the point where it is no longer just for the elite, photography has been able to do virtually everything that modern digital cameras do for decades... digital is more convenient, but not necessarily better. I started taking photos in the 1950s; I took my first night pictures with a box Brownie. At High School in the 1960s, the teacher who lead our photography club used a twin lens reflex to shoot city scenes at night and atmospheric photos of people - the acts and the dancers - in night clubs. Waist level viewfinder that moved left to track a subject going right (that took some skill!!); no exposure meter; manual focus; 25ISO slide film (he could have had faster, but preferred his Kodachrome). His photos outshine anything you will see produced by these modern marvels of technology! The subject is NOT what is out in front of the camera: that is just the raw material, the potential in the scene. It must be recognised by the photographer's eye and organised by his mind. The camera does not make the picture - it is nothing more than a mechanical device to record the photographer's perceptions. The image it takes is the product of the photographer's experience, skill and knowledge of his equipment. The end product, the photograph, the final image, is the interaction between many elements, revealed to our understanding by the photographer.
17 Oct 08
Wrong on all counts! The examples you have chosen are all clearly subject to the skill of the photographer more than to the equipment in use. However, to acknowledge the obvious, there are instances where the camera is apparently more important than the photographer: fixed speed cameras and red-light cameras; monitor cameras in shopping centres and tunnels. Yet even here, if the photographer does not choose well where to place the camera, select the appropriate focal length lens, determine the best angle of view etc. then the pictures will not serve their intended purpose. You mention jewelery and product photography~ you seem to believe that highly detailed photos are all that is required, but you would be surprised how many of these fail to display the product to best advantage, despite having an adequalte camera for the task. In reality, the intervention of the photographer is paramount, which is why professional photographers are so well paid for this work; it would be a lot cheaper to give a good camera to the clerk, but that just doesn't work. The best camera can - and does - produce inaccurate detalis, colour castes, distortions in perspective etc. It is part of the photographer's task to determine how the finished shot should look and ensure that the camera is set up properly to do this. Whatever each cameras' strengths and weaknesses, the photographer must understand and compensate for, or capitalise upon. A "pocket camera" (whatever that is), a DSLR, a 35mm analogue camera, a medium format digital back, or a half-plate rail camera, will have a range of potential for detali, clarity, magnification etc. But put any of those cameras in the hand of a competent and a less competent photographer, and you will see greater differences than between any 2 photos taken by the same person with different cameras... especially if the subject offers little obvious scope for creatividity, like an eclipse. Several years ago I ran a "photo challenge" which involved professional photographers handing over their regular cameras to a group of amateurs, and engaging in a shoot-off with them. While the amateurs were experienced photographers and had instruction in the pro gear, the pros were limited to using single-use cameras with fixed-focus lenses and no exposure meters. An independent panel judging the pictures blind rated the pros pictures above the club photographers in every case!
• United States
16 Oct 08
A good photographer can take great images with a poor quality camera. A bad photographer can't magically make good images come out of a fancy, expensive camera either. With that said, a good photographer knows how to get the most out of a nicer camera with lots of different features. So having that expensive technologically advanced camera can help a photographer who already has the skill to take properly composed photographs. So first and foremost, it's the skill of the photographer. But having a good camera can help put that skill to use!
15 Oct 08
I think for really good pictures there is a certain amount of srt involved, I remember years ago I had a rather cheap camera and my then boyfriend had a really good good camera, we would go out and take photos together, he was actually teaching but a few times he would say photos i tto were better than his not so much the quality but the composition of the photo so it can be getting that really good shot and capturing memories as well...