LiuLangMao
New Member
actually I always tell my fren.... cannot swim...dun say the swimming trunk too big......
I hate it when ppl say "its not the camera, its the person behine it"
- Thread starter TsQ
- Start date
- Status
david_goh
New Member
Sorry, can simplify and relate this to the thread for me? I can't seem to understand how it relates. Must be the moody sky...
:bsmilie:
ahbian
Senior Member
Sorry, can simplify and relate this to the thread for me? I can't seem to understand how it relates. Must be the moody sky...
I guess it means, if you are are unable to do something, you are hindered by the lack of skills not the proper equipment.
night86mare
Deregistered
this is still running ar
ok i say
it's not the person, it's the camera in front of it. that really makes more sense.
ok i say
it's not the person, it's the camera in front of it. that really makes more sense.
phazed1
New Member
I agree with your opinion.
Let's critically consider the following:
1. Will a Leica club identify your image superior if they can identify it was capture with Japanese brand (believe me it is absolutely possible as there're obvious hallmarks in the image that can suggest what was being used)
2. Will a photoclub whose members pat one another and had not being exposed to other philosophy and art of image making think twice about your philosophy and seance?
3. Will a particular brand of camera sponsoring a competition allow an image of a rival brand to grab the top prize in a competition held in its marketing efforts?
4. Will a bunch of obsenly wealthy folks think high on a image if they know it came from a 200 bucks camera?
5. What wiill an art critic think about your image using what he knows about transfomation and periods of art revolution and the style, philosophy, expression and various interpretations?
The point is, if you join a group that thinks in line with you, the queston in your title will never come. But if you join a different group, meet someone who's thoughts are from a different group or even join an event organised by a different group, than such pain will intensify.
That said, if you can't find groups who thinks like you, why not start one?
Well said, well said. :thumbsup:
but if swimming trunk is really too big, also cannot swim properly mah:dunno:
RichardSeah
New Member
LOL! Swim halfway trunks drop to the bottom of the pool :bsmilie: Then must stay in the water until closing time before getting out!
Likewise, if camera "too good" also cannot take good pictures. If you give a sophisticated camera to a beginner, good chance the results will turn out bad - possibly worse than if you give that same person a simple "idiot proof" camera.
Babyhunter
New Member
I was attending photography classes in DSLR, and would need a DSLR camera. Since when I was very young, I have this interest of photography, and always wanting to learn to take good photos. I took the first step to attend class and went with a friend to source for a DSLR camera. I asked casually to my friend about his thoughts on camera. He told me it is the person and his skills that is important. I agree with him without further doubts. Next, he commented further about if the person is not creative, no matter how good the camera is, or skills, the photos will "be still as bad as those photos which you have always taken, as bad". He further comments on how his the other friend whom he admires, though not skillful, but creative, and his photo turns out really good. I was actually wanting to take out my credit card to get my first DSLR. I gave up after his hurting comments. I guess this surmount to some sublime personal attack in a very implicit way. I admit that I take lousy photos. But i somehow agree that if the person does not have an inborn "talent", there will be very limited potential on this photography skills.
mynameisgreg
New Member
??" as bad as you have always taken?", that is utter nonsense in my opinion. taking good pictures requires skills but photography is an art. Who is to judge whether an art piece is good or not? It's a subjective opinion, i don't believe i need to further elaborate on my point. if you are truly into photography learning these skills will help enable you to get what you perceive and want others to perceive onto the picture. thats all there is to it. whether other people appreciate your work is entirely based on them, not you. Your friends comments are ill thought and undeveloped
dont take them to heart. If you enjoy and are interested in something pursue it regardless of outside comments.
Taking good pictures is something that is learnt, being uncreative doesn't mean that you can't and won't ever be able to take good pictures. You do also know that creativity is not a talent, it is a skill. Learn the definition of talent and then ask yourself what kind of limit do you want on your 'photography skills'? if i don't have talent, how much is that 'limit' supposedly imposed on my 'photography skills'. Must i be the best photographer in the world in order to take on photography? I believe a casual shooter doesn't need any talent, just an interest.
dont take them to heart. If you enjoy and are interested in something pursue it regardless of outside comments.Taking good pictures is something that is learnt, being uncreative doesn't mean that you can't and won't ever be able to take good pictures. You do also know that creativity is not a talent, it is a skill. Learn the definition of talent and then ask yourself what kind of limit do you want on your 'photography skills'? if i don't have talent, how much is that 'limit' supposedly imposed on my 'photography skills'. Must i be the best photographer in the world in order to take on photography? I believe a casual shooter doesn't need any talent, just an interest.
Like everything else, if you want to take good photographs, you need to practice. Talent may start you off a little bit higher than say someone with no talent, but if you don't put in the effort, even talented people won't take good photographs.
Being able to have the latest DSLR will give you a head start versus say just using a pns, but if you only leave the DSLR in full auto, you wouldn't be benifiting from it. Will you appreciate the latest DSLR versus an entry level one... well that's a different discussion.
Being able to have the latest DSLR will give you a head start versus say just using a pns, but if you only leave the DSLR in full auto, you wouldn't be benifiting from it. Will you appreciate the latest DSLR versus an entry level one... well that's a different discussion.
Hexlord
Senior Member
Similarly in music.. Give an expensive instrument to someone who can't play, it will still not make music. However, for a musician who is already good, a better instrument will allow that person to express better.
Good camera + good photographer = 80 % good photos
Good camera + lousy photographer =20% good photos
Lousy camera + good photographer = 50% good photos
Lousy camera + lousy photographer + luck = 10% good photos
* the % estimation is just to illustrate my point... don't start new thread to debate on the % figure
Good camera + lousy photographer =20% good photos
Lousy camera + good photographer = 50% good photos
Lousy camera + lousy photographer + luck = 10% good photos
* the % estimation is just to illustrate my point... don't start new thread to debate on the % figure
Let's use the F1 analogy.
Lewis Hamilton in a Toro Rosso would beat me in a McLaren. Lewis Hamilton on a moped wouldn't beat me in a hot hatch (I hope).
So both factors are important; the photographer and the camera. Similarly, the argument that a good photographer might as well not turn up with good gear cause he or she could get by with a camera phone doesn't necessarily hold water. That photographer would get better pictures than most on that camera phone just like Lewis would get better times on that moped than most, but he won't necessarily get better times than someone turning up with vastly superior equipment.
Equally a complete clutz in an F1 car is going to spin off and crash, in the same way a not-so-good photographer is going to struggle with a good camera.
When comparing one DSLR to another, usually the situation is akin to the F1 car v F1 car one, and in that situation, the photographer does make a big difference.
So your camera takes 10 frames a second. The real issue is whether you can make those 10 frames a second count.
Lewis Hamilton in a Toro Rosso would beat me in a McLaren. Lewis Hamilton on a moped wouldn't beat me in a hot hatch (I hope).
So both factors are important; the photographer and the camera. Similarly, the argument that a good photographer might as well not turn up with good gear cause he or she could get by with a camera phone doesn't necessarily hold water. That photographer would get better pictures than most on that camera phone just like Lewis would get better times on that moped than most, but he won't necessarily get better times than someone turning up with vastly superior equipment.
Equally a complete clutz in an F1 car is going to spin off and crash, in the same way a not-so-good photographer is going to struggle with a good camera.
When comparing one DSLR to another, usually the situation is akin to the F1 car v F1 car one, and in that situation, the photographer does make a big difference.
So your camera takes 10 frames a second. The real issue is whether you can make those 10 frames a second count.
zoossh
Senior Member
well, photography is one field that have the intense relationship between user and its tools. it is neither something that relies predominantly on the user (like a writer, with his pen and paper) or something that relies significantly on the tools (eg. car). and needless to say, automated shots without a photographer's preset, or a man with the most basic pinhole camera, neither makes its way to a good variety of good pictures, and at its most, produces good pictures in the most limited variety. pushing to the extremes of either limitations, the repertoire will also be limited. and the other almost just as important thing is the subject and the lighting. a good chef with nothing salty and no salt, cannot turn sweet food into good salty food, he can only make sweet food and food with sugar into good sweet food. subject and lighting is another thing just similar to food ingredients and moisture/heat intensity. lighting can be related to subject or tool, depending on whether it is natural or artificial light.
cameras that are considered not as good as SLR or other larger format cameras, inclusive of compact, prosumer, handphone or various toy cameras, generally are limited in certain sense that is physical or sometimes utterly limited by laws of physics. good photographers are able to work within these constrains and produce good works but in a limited number of ways. in works that does not demand the versatility or optical quality of better camera and lens, good photographers can produce the works as requested, but no matter how good or talented one is, he can never defy and overcome certain laws of physics.
what can however said and generally agreed on is that
1. the user input definitely is important, along with it composition - something that the tool cannot decide for you.
2. price/brand of DSLR nowaday is usually not the limiting factor to good pictures.
3. even a good photographer will still prefer a better camera/lens, but it has to weigh against the size/weight/conspicuity/ease of use of the camera setup.
4. it is not wrong that a newbie wanted a camera/lens that is the most value-to-money or easy for him to learn and use, so there is no need to slam on them when they ask about gear
5. the best camera is always the one that's with you (quoted from KRW) - so get what you can, not what you want.
my personal opinion on top of the above is that the photographer's input is important, but not to the point that camera does not matter or nothing else matters. on the other hand, it is not wrong to remind someone who dwell too long on gear discussion never making up any decision or have ignored importance of non gear related factors. likewise it is not wrong to point out to those who are clueless about their bottlenecks and wanted to get better gear without clearing the bottlenecks which may very well be either unrelated to gear or already achievable by the existing gear to the same ease. a more inferior camera but lighter and easier to use can work better for some people in certain limited manner, so if someone consistently only shoot in those limited manner, then perhaps it is better for him not to use the heavier and more expensive camera, but he can't advise others based on his own limited variety despite of good pictures, moreover, it again says "gear matters" - as the lighter weight does make it easier for him to shoot and get down to good pictures. i would have to disagree with KRW on his comments of "It's never the gear. It's always you." as his logic in the same passage works against his conclusion.
as to whether there is a reason to "hate it" when someone say ""its not the camera, its the person behind it". perhaps there is only a few reason to feel that way - associated bloated sense of self importance, an over-simplistic manner of looking at things or ignoring the credits of the subjects in good pictures. this sense of self-importance or more widely known as the artist sentiment, can lead one to be nasty when communicating to others or simply intolerant to differing opinions - which can occur to various degree in many photographers, not excluding myself.
i would say that if i have a superb camera, superb lens, superb location, superb subjects, superb lighting, superb moments, superb interaction with subjects and purely sheer good luck, i can probably sometimes shoot better than some of the better photographers who have unsuitable camera, unsuitable lens, lousy location, lousy subjects, lousy plus difficult lighting, no great moments and no occurence of good moments, inability to communicate with subjects and sheer bad luck. i will not be better just becos i have a better setup, and the better photographer than myself will definitely cope better with more difficult situation and shoot better once some of the good elements exist in the first place.
a better way of saying the statement is "it's not the camera, it's not the person behind it, it is both and EVERYTHING in front of it."
i personally feels that, though i dun expect others to agree or i will accept disagreement on, that what is IN FRONT of the lens is more important than the person BEHIND the camera body. that is my personal cult belief and cult way of shooting. 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. likewise everything that is beautiful in my picture are beautiful by themselves. and along with this, i would like to thank everything and everyone that is in front of my lens before, and everything and everyone that have make those trips and those moments possible, and it is not just me who is behind it.
cameras that are considered not as good as SLR or other larger format cameras, inclusive of compact, prosumer, handphone or various toy cameras, generally are limited in certain sense that is physical or sometimes utterly limited by laws of physics. good photographers are able to work within these constrains and produce good works but in a limited number of ways. in works that does not demand the versatility or optical quality of better camera and lens, good photographers can produce the works as requested, but no matter how good or talented one is, he can never defy and overcome certain laws of physics.
what can however said and generally agreed on is that
1. the user input definitely is important, along with it composition - something that the tool cannot decide for you.
2. price/brand of DSLR nowaday is usually not the limiting factor to good pictures.
3. even a good photographer will still prefer a better camera/lens, but it has to weigh against the size/weight/conspicuity/ease of use of the camera setup.
4. it is not wrong that a newbie wanted a camera/lens that is the most value-to-money or easy for him to learn and use, so there is no need to slam on them when they ask about gear
5. the best camera is always the one that's with you (quoted from KRW) - so get what you can, not what you want.
my personal opinion on top of the above is that the photographer's input is important, but not to the point that camera does not matter or nothing else matters. on the other hand, it is not wrong to remind someone who dwell too long on gear discussion never making up any decision or have ignored importance of non gear related factors. likewise it is not wrong to point out to those who are clueless about their bottlenecks and wanted to get better gear without clearing the bottlenecks which may very well be either unrelated to gear or already achievable by the existing gear to the same ease. a more inferior camera but lighter and easier to use can work better for some people in certain limited manner, so if someone consistently only shoot in those limited manner, then perhaps it is better for him not to use the heavier and more expensive camera, but he can't advise others based on his own limited variety despite of good pictures, moreover, it again says "gear matters" - as the lighter weight does make it easier for him to shoot and get down to good pictures. i would have to disagree with KRW on his comments of "It's never the gear. It's always you." as his logic in the same passage works against his conclusion.
as to whether there is a reason to "hate it" when someone say ""its not the camera, its the person behind it". perhaps there is only a few reason to feel that way - associated bloated sense of self importance, an over-simplistic manner of looking at things or ignoring the credits of the subjects in good pictures. this sense of self-importance or more widely known as the artist sentiment, can lead one to be nasty when communicating to others or simply intolerant to differing opinions - which can occur to various degree in many photographers, not excluding myself.
i would say that if i have a superb camera, superb lens, superb location, superb subjects, superb lighting, superb moments, superb interaction with subjects and purely sheer good luck, i can probably sometimes shoot better than some of the better photographers who have unsuitable camera, unsuitable lens, lousy location, lousy subjects, lousy plus difficult lighting, no great moments and no occurence of good moments, inability to communicate with subjects and sheer bad luck. i will not be better just becos i have a better setup, and the better photographer than myself will definitely cope better with more difficult situation and shoot better once some of the good elements exist in the first place.
a better way of saying the statement is "it's not the camera, it's not the person behind it, it is both and EVERYTHING in front of it."
i personally feels that, though i dun expect others to agree or i will accept disagreement on, that what is IN FRONT of the lens is more important than the person BEHIND the camera body. that is my personal cult belief and cult way of shooting. 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. likewise everything that is beautiful in my picture are beautiful by themselves. and along with this, i would like to thank everything and everyone that is in front of my lens before, and everything and everyone that have make those trips and those moments possible, and it is not just me who is behind it.
Last edited:
- Status
