I hate it when ppl say "its not the camera, its the person behine it"

[crapex]

well theres always even better gear out there..
even better photographers out there..
even better shots that could have been taken..
u can almost not have or be the best at everything..

for hobbist as long as you take pictures that you like,
pictures that you think are well taken,
pictures that satisfy yourself..
Its a good picture!
haha no point comparing too much to others/pros/newbs..

for pros as long as the pictures u take ur clients like,
ur clients think are well taken,
and the pictures will satisfy the client..
Its a good picture!
lol.. no point getting the best shots when it doesnt suit the client huh!


jus my veiw on it
cheers!

 

[Jed]

the people who smiles in front of my lens smiles becos they are receptive to photography and acts naturally, it is not me who make them smile.

You were doing alright until this point. Although, the Ken Rockwell reference was a massive faux pas to be fair.

I couldn't disagree more with what you've said in the quote I highlighted even if I agree with most of the rest of what you've said.

As a photographer it is down to you to make them smile. The whole experience of being photographed is your responsibility, and that includes making it an enjoyable experience to put them at ease, talking to them (before, during, after) to develop a relationship, make them comfortable with you and your camera, and getting them to trust you.

This applies less when working with a professional model, but it still applies. For professional model read F1 cars - the difference will be less. But amongst people not used to being photographed, then you have to use your experience to help them.

 

[zoossh]

i'm not a professional photographer. my responsibility as a travel photographer is not to infringe or impose on my subjects, but i have to try to initiate the contact (many people shy away from that). i suppose there is some differences you have to accept when it comes to different fields. i still give all the credits to my subjects, but that is just speaking for myself. that doesn't undermine the professional photographers. what you mention you did for your clients, that is rightly done, but i personally think that being nice to people shouldn't be just something that occurs between professional photographers and client, but something everyone should do outside photography as well - and something from the heart, not a responsibility. if i'm already doing that, then it dun come about as a responsibility. as for experience, perhaps it is unforgiving in professional photography, maybe yes maybe no, i have no knowledge to comment further, but for the layman, experience is something that comes with time, and due to the nature of the field that i shoot, i tend to be more forgiving to myself or other photographers.

anyway, hope nothing is offensive above. we are all just sharing our thoughts. i'm glad to hear what you feel abt the matter. i will have confidence in such a photographer if i pay for the service

You were doing alright until this point. Although, the Ken Rockwell reference was a massive faux pas to be fair.

I couldn't disagree more with what you've said in the quote I highlighted even if I agree with most of the rest of what you've said.

As a photographer it is down to you to make them smile. The whole experience of being photographed is your responsibility, and that includes making it an enjoyable experience to put them at ease, talking to them (before, during, after) to develop a relationship, make them comfortable with you and your camera, and getting them to trust you.

This applies less when working with a professional model, but it still applies. For professional model read F1 cars - the difference will be less. But amongst people not used to being photographed, then you have to use your experience to help them.

 

[guanlim]

Let's use the F1 analogy.

Thought this thread has died already.

I don't think using F1 as analogy is appropriate. Racing deals with one quantifiable objective that is time. i.e. You don't win with style, you win with time.

Photography, on the other hand deals with the "unquantifiable" that is art. While there are generally accepted guide lines to what constitute a good picture to human eyes, these are however, not absolute. I think that's what makes photography as an art form so interesting. i.e Rules of third are just that, a rule not a must.

Culinary, on the other hand, shares similar traits to photography and if we are using this as an analogy, the parallels are more obvious:

1a) Most people can cook. Even if one cannot cook a packet of instant noodles for his life, he or she can at least spread a slice of bread.
1b) Most people can click a shutter and take a picture. Even if they don't have any idea as to what is going on inside the camera.

2a) Most internationally acclaimed chefs should have at his or her disposal, the best equipments. i.e stove, knifes, ovens et al.
2b) Most internationally acclaimed professional photographers have a gear list that reads like my wife worst nightmare. (though that is another topic for another day)

3a) Good chefs will go out of his or her way to source and use the most appropriate and best ingredients as it is possible and available.
3b) Good photographers will wait forever for that most appropriate and best subject matter as it is possible and available.

4a) Good chefs know that food and its presentation plays equal parts in seducing a gastronomer's palate.
4b) Ansel Adams knew that post processing and its presentation were equally as important.

The only time when choice of equipment comes into play is when certain type of jobs require certain type of tools. One can't cook a 200 pounds tuna with my instant noodle pot, just like one can't capture the details of a spider's eyes without a macro lens. Which brings me back to point 3 -- Ingredients, or in photography terminology, Subjects. Selecting and studying your subject, IMHO, is way more crucial than selecting your next camera body.

Continue with this analogy for a bit. All things being equal, will a Michelin 3 Star chef frying a sunny side up in his fancy kitchen, along with my grease fearing wife frying a similar egg in our no frills kitchen, yield similar result?

Now switch the constant, the chef in my kitchen and my wife in his, will the result still be consistent with the first scenario?

I believe that the result will constant, that the chef should make a better sunny side up than my wife. The only variable here is the skill of the chef and not the fancy gear that was used.
Ergo, a good photographer taking a picture of the same subject in similar condition should be able to create art and not some snapshots, regardless of the equipment used.

That eye for details, the knowledge of which angle to dissect your subject matter, the experience and understanding of how lights and shadows tango in their spectrum are not something that can be bought off the catalog of Canon.

Apologize for this long winded post and bravo to all those who managed to read through my endless ranting and poor grammar. I have to write all these down and post it on this forum to convince myself that I don't really need a Canon 7D! :bsmilie:

 

[JacePhoto]

Its not the camera, nor the person behind it! Its the use of PHOTOSHOP! hahaha!

 

[RichardSeah]

Its not the camera, nor the person behind it! Its the use of PHOTOSHOP! hahaha!

Hey. don't joke joke ah. Some people seriously believe this is true :dunno:

 

[rgy1993]

i love it when people say, its not the camera, its the guy behind it

 

[denniskee]

sometime true sometime not.

give my pro everything also I cant beat this guy who uses oly 5050, very likely 99% of cser wont too.

Magnum photographer Alex Majoli
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

 

[TsQ]

sometime true sometime not.

give my pro everything also I cant beat this guy who uses oly 5050, very likely 99% of cser wont too.

Magnum photographer Alex Majoli
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

Thks.. GREAT READ...

 

[Jed]

I don't think using F1 as analogy is appropriate. Racing deals with one quantifiable objective that is time. i.e. You don't win with style, you win with time.

I get what you are saying. But in this situation we are actually not comparing the end product but about which produces a better product between two defined parameters. When trying to define whether something is better than the other, then it actually helps to have a quantifiable variable.

just like one can't capture the details of a spider's eyes without a macro lens.

Actually, reverseing a wide angle lens, or using a compact camera with a good macro function, would actually allow you to more easily capture the details of a spider's eyes

I think that you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying, more or less. I have long held views about the importance of a photographer in the whole process, and indeed I have a vested interest. I have had lots and lots of debates in the past about the gear-oriented photography subculture in the region.

We just have different ways of expressing it, although you seem to think my way is inappropriate

 

[Jed]

my responsibility as a travel photographer is not to infringe or impose on my subjects, but i have to try to initiate the contact (many people shy away from that). i suppose there is some differences you have to accept when it comes to different fields.

Oh absolutely! I wasn't suggesting anything else. But I was responding specifically to a statement that said that it's not the photographer that made people smile, on the implication that a smile was the intended result.

There is plenty of photography that doesn't directly engage human subjects and in that case obviously you shouldn't wade in there and get your subjects to smile

i still give all the credits to my subjects, but that is just speaking for myself.

Agree completely. In the case of my example, ie of formal portraits, informal portraits, photographing people at events, etc, although it is up to the photographer to control his/her subjects in the same way that he/she would hope to control composition, lighting, etc, it doesn't detract from the fact that your subjects are the stars of the images.

but i personally think that being nice to people shouldn't be just something that occurs between professional photographers and client, but something everyone should do outside photography as well - and something from the heart, not a responsibility.

Absolutely, I wouldn't dream of implying otherwise and hope I haven't!

What I was talking about though, isn't just about being "nice". It's about knowing how to help pose, if necessary. About being able to put someone at ease (which isn't necessarily the same as being nice, although there is a lot of overlap). For example you could explain what you're doing, rather than just letting them sit there.

if i'm already doing that, then it dun come about as a responsibility.

I'm not sure I necessarily mean it as a responsibility either, unless I suppose you are on a commission then it might be. But what I mean is that this part of the craft of photographing people is often ignored, when it is every bit an important part of the photographer's skill set. Like having the right equipment, knowing your equipment, having an eye for composition, and being able to work with people, photographically, and otherwise.

anyway, hope nothing is offensive above.

Nothing offensive at all, and indeed I agree a whole lot with a whole lot that you have side

 

[vince123123]

The only reason your chef analogy works is because a sunny side up egg is a very easy thing to do. Its' the same as saying the camear and gear makes no difference when you are trying to shoot a large, stationery, inaimate object in broad daylight. Everyone knows that.

You try cooking something higher level which requires better cooking equipment, and your analogy falls apart. Same goes when you are trying to shoot a fast moving, small object, in low light, with a window of opportunity of 1 second.

Thought this thread has died already.

I don't think using F1 as analogy is appropriate. Racing deals with one quantifiable objective that is time. i.e. You don't win with style, you win with time.

Photography, on the other hand deals with the "unquantifiable" that is art. While there are generally accepted guide lines to what constitute a good picture to human eyes, these are however, not absolute. I think that's what makes photography as an art form so interesting. i.e Rules of third are just that, a rule not a must.

Culinary, on the other hand, shares similar traits to photography and if we are using this as an analogy, the parallels are more obvious:

1a) Most people can cook. Even if one cannot cook a packet of instant noodles for his life, he or she can at least spread a slice of bread.
1b) Most people can click a shutter and take a picture. Even if they don't have any idea as to what is going on inside the camera.

2a) Most internationally acclaimed chefs should have at his or her disposal, the best equipments. i.e stove, knifes, ovens et al.
2b) Most internationally acclaimed professional photographers have a gear list that reads like my wife worst nightmare. (though that is another topic for another day)

3a) Good chefs will go out of his or her way to source and use the most appropriate and best ingredients as it is possible and available.
3b) Good photographers will wait forever for that most appropriate and best subject matter as it is possible and available.

4a) Good chefs know that food and its presentation plays equal parts in seducing a gastronomer's palate.
4b) Ansel Adams knew that post processing and its presentation were equally as important.

The only time when choice of equipment comes into play is when certain type of jobs require certain type of tools. One can't cook a 200 pounds tuna with my instant noodle pot, just like one can't capture the details of a spider's eyes without a macro lens. Which brings me back to point 3 -- Ingredients, or in photography terminology, Subjects. Selecting and studying your subject, IMHO, is way more crucial than selecting your next camera body.

Continue with this analogy for a bit. All things being equal, will a Michelin 3 Star chef frying a sunny side up in his fancy kitchen, along with my grease fearing wife frying a similar egg in our no frills kitchen, yield similar result?

Now switch the constant, the chef in my kitchen and my wife in his, will the result still be consistent with the first scenario?

I believe that the result will constant, that the chef should make a better sunny side up than my wife. The only variable here is the skill of the chef and not the fancy gear that was used.
Ergo, a good photographer taking a picture of the same subject in similar condition should be able to create art and not some snapshots, regardless of the equipment used.

That eye for details, the knowledge of which angle to dissect your subject matter, the experience and understanding of how lights and shadows tango in their spectrum are not something that can be bought off the catalog of Canon.

Apologize for this long winded post and bravo to all those who managed to read through my endless ranting and poor grammar. I have to write all these down and post it on this forum to convince myself that I don't really need a Canon 7D! :bsmilie:

 

[teodesson]

I hate more when people says: "I have [a brand], I'm photographer"