camera or person behind camera?
- Thread starter HTCahHTC
- Start date
nottipiglet
New Member
zz stupid question
like car or driver
ans:
Wrong...
An aunty driving a Vios will be faster than Hamilton on foot. :bsmilie:
nottipiglet
New Member
Most people gave the wrong answer... Of course it is the camera producing the pictures. Automatic speed cameras may not make nice pictres, but they sure make better pictures than the best photographer without a camera. :bsmilie:
Maybe if you give the photographer an piece of charcoal, he can make a sketch... but it certainly won't be making any photographs.
Maybe if you give the photographer an piece of charcoal, he can make a sketch... but it certainly won't be making any photographs.
Last edited:
gundugundu
New Member
i refuse to vote
its just dumb
its just dumb
I would define "a good picture" as one that can emotionally move a viewer's heart.
Many a times one comes across a photo in newspaper that moves one either to tears or laughter.
DEFINITELY person behind the camera. One of my friend has won several photo competitions consecutively just using a pocket-sized compact camera. If u get the best camera but the person using it knows nuts abt composition, operation of the camera or knowing its features, etc. he/she will still produce crappy pics.
Else, that person invents and programs a robot to take all the pics.
Else, that person invents and programs a robot to take all the pics.
wootsk
Deregistered
Wrong also, the aunty bang her Vios into a tree, then the medical team came and brought her off the track to hospital. Hamilton won the race not moving.:bsmilie:
Moral of story: Equipment in wrong hand might create devastating result. Might as well give to me. So all newbies, come and give me your photography equipment :lovegrin:
butterflyblack
New Member
hahahah...just makes me think of this question....
"is the glass half-filled with water....half-empty or half-full?"
polling starts now...
"is the glass half-filled with water....half-empty or half-full?"
polling starts now...
nottipiglet
New Member
Firstly, any professional photographer worth their salt will know an awful lot of cold hard science, it's called exposure theory kiddies and without it no amount of technology is going to save your ar$e regardless of camera type. Secondly there is composition and again that's something that can be taught to a fair degree but what cannot be taught is the ability to get the maximum out of what you use every time when under incredible pressure. What cannot be taught are the innate abilities of timing and knowing exactly when everything is in place. This doesn't apply to certain aspects of commercial photography but it's critical in sports, action and journalism and to a lesser extent street photography.
The camera and lens have a bearing on the end result, any tool does, but at the end of the day I can guarantee that a good pro with a box brownie will outshoot a novice with a current DSLR.
So in summation, it's 99% the person, 1% the equipment. The Internet has given rise to a whole group of gear obsessed wankers who can't take a photo to save their life. A sad and very sorry state.
The camera and lens have a bearing on the end result, any tool does, but at the end of the day I can guarantee that a good pro with a box brownie will outshoot a novice with a current DSLR.
So in summation, it's 99% the person, 1% the equipment. The Internet has given rise to a whole group of gear obsessed wankers who can't take a photo to save their life. A sad and very sorry state.
You aren't old enough to say it haha. Us ancient types have enough jets and clout to say the !#$% obvious, especially as unlike many on this thread I don't talk out my backside.
Things weren't better with just film .. it was the same old $hit just a different form. Digital has liberated those in the industry and we can fall back on film if we need to. 5-6 years back I was shooting about 50/50 film / digital, now it's more like 97% digital 3% film.
Last edited:
word word word wrod worowrotr2395r203952353209590409329459125r
I used to think that the camera really mattered, then exposure theory saved my arse and my life, and then i realized all i needed is a camera with a light meter (even that's not too much of a necessity thanks to Sunny 16). I'm still thankful for today's technology though because it makes it alot easier for me to shoot in low light situations. On the contrary, as you said, there's just too much bullshit on the internet (Mr. KEN ROCKWELL) which does get on one's nerves, but it's better to turn a blind eye.
They long ago stopped getting on my nerves. The BS filter just works seriously overtime when online, sadly for many GWC's who consider themselves photographers or photographers in the making their BS detectors are firmly switched off.
