Photography is not just about the camera
peter.czanik.hu
peter.czanik.hu
Composition and lighting are far more important. For film cameras the lens is far more important than the camera which is mostly just a light tight box. An experienced photographer can still produce amazing images from cheap cameras.
All that said I have thousands of dollars of camera gear. It absolutely helps but if I give it all to a random person on the street they aren't going to instantly become a better photographer.
It's very easy to think that gear is important, but the progress in recent years is towards quicker photo taking, which is actually the opposite of what helps me take better photos. I find that a decent quality manual focus camera without a light meter slows me down enough for me to get into the right frame of mind to understand what i'm looking at.
A few years later with a Nikon D90 it was possible to get amazing, print-worthy shots by accident… through the window of a moving car!
I had an olympus C-2 Zoom which was dramatically worse than the Sony and it captured many great photos. I can see some good sample photos here ofthe F717 https://onfotolife.com/camera_sample_photos?camera_id=4527&p...
I had the same experience. At gorgeous locations in good light I could get okay photos — but only with a lot of editing.
I had a similar issue with a Panasonic micro four-thirds camera where I was just never happy with the photos I got out of it. I much prefered the results I got with my prior inexpensive Canon APS-C DSLR, and the Sony Full Frame mirrorless camera I upraded to afterwards. No doubt a better photographer than myself could have gotten some great photos out of the Panasonic - but yeah for me just upgrading the camera made a big difference in both my own satisfaction and also the feedback I was getting from others.
> Composition and lighting are far more important
yeah a good camera enables more angles/speed and allows more dynamic range or better pictures under low-light conditions.
Good composition and lighting processing is THE most important part of camera design.
The three most important things in photography: the legs of the tripod
New photographers argue Nikon vs Canon. Middling photographers argue Leica vs Hasselblad. Expert photographers argue Gitzo vs Manfrotto.
Because different cameras facilitate different types of pictures. Partially through ergonomics, partially through technical capabilities, and partially because these overlap.
An iPhone SE has a different picture making envelope than an 8x10 large format view camera, and both are quite different from the latest full frame DSLR (which offers different ergonomics and capabilities than a similarly sensored mirrorless).
What I would say is that the camera is among the least interesting aspects of a picture…not the least interesting because the color of the photographer’s pants is objectively less interesting.
The focus on cameras is in part because shopping is easier than making pictures.
And the ways in which better cameras are described as better is usually by parroting the marketing points of camera manufacturers…the sharpest of corners won’t make anyone weep.
I feel like this is a trend in a lot of hobbies. People (myself included) find it really fun to deep dive into research and collecting things related to some hobby they supposedly find interesting. But the actual doing the hobby part is really just some scaffolding to enable that research and collecting.
The truth is that good gear is worthless for somebody who doesn’t know what you’re doing, but it’s essential for a skilled photographer to open up the possibilities and flexibility to get the kind of result they want. It’s not even ‘expensive gear’ - my 645 was only $600 from eBay (and a couple of old lenses only a few hundred) but I’ve taken some great stuff with it and I love the experience and feel of working with film. But it serves a different purpose than my far more expensive DSLR setup, and I still take a lot of everyday photos on my phone.
Musical instruments, bikes, motorcycles, computers, and everything else imaginable is the same. If only for the feeling that it feels like it helps you, you should get what you want within the restrictions you have.
Having used a view camera, which really is nothing more than a flexible box, this sentiment resonates with me. But, I can see how different types of camera support types of picture-taking that wouldn't be possible otherwise.
A nice pyramid way to phrase it. As for any other thing, people may have an innate fit for a certain position within, but my belief if that people usually develop in all dimensions. Not everyone will need to develop their film or buy a medium format digital camera though.
There's the exposure triangle with aperture, shutter speed, ISO.
There's the triangular shapes in framing/composing the frame that makes the image "interesting" in how it draws the eye.
There's also the Rule of Thirds, but while not a triangle it is still "3" related
the "technique, equipment, essence" threesome got me on this tangent
Reveling in music you love is great! And enthusing over interesting hifi equipment is great!
Do what you love, if you have that luxury, but why be dismissive of related hobbies?
When I use my phone, I find myself not putting as much thought into the shot. For whatever reason, holding a nice camera puts me into a creative state of mind. It makes photography more fun, and I end up with better photos simply because I’m more engaged.
A lot of "serious" [online] photography people dismiss or even mock automatic mode, but honestly subject, scene, and theme (and or story telling) is far more important than ISO/shutter speed/aperture/etc, yet every photography tutorial or guide is focused on the least important part (i.e. mastery of dry settings/specs/tech).
I'd point people to "toy camera challenge" on YouTube or elsewhere, where photographers are able to take an e.g. 1.4 megapixel Barbie Camera with no settings and produce better photos than you or I.
PS - While I'm saying photography heresy let me also say this: Shooting straight to JPG (instead of RAW) and picking a single color palette for longer periods will help you understand your photographic taste and really force you to capture the scene in front of you rather than creating the final product in post-production. Is it suboptimal? Absolutely. Is learning post-production tooling useful? Sure. But artificial restrictions often breed creativity, and post-production can become a crutch.
You can find people like Ted Orland.
I'm still in awe of his Dawn at Mono Lake in Winter ( https://shop.anseladams.com/collections/ted-orland/products/... ) and Tree in Snowstorm ( https://shop.anseladams.com/collections/ted-orland/products/... ). Some others - https://web.archive.org/web/20070302193018/http://www.tedorl...
These photos where shot and then reassembled afterwards. One of the neat things with them is that you can see the outside the frame information on the print - and so seeing an "11" in one spot followed with a bit of rotation on another square with a "12" - you can feel how the photograph was taken - its like seeing the brush strokes on a painting.
He took regular photos too - Ted Orland Black & White "Even Ansel Adams Has To Make A Living" 1972 https://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/wall-decorations/photograp... (I recall chatting with a photographer who had a gallery in Bishop - it wasn't Galen Rowell, but someone with one nearby - and the mundane aspect of being a professional photographer meant bidding against the other photographers who lived in the area for the school photo contract that year. This is what Ted Orland was hinting at in the title, even though I don't believe that was a regular school photo.)
Similarly, do not discourage anyone from pursuing photography by telling them that they have to start with something like film.
This extends to trying to tell people that they should learn programming by starting with (for example) assembly instead of python.
ASM seems to give people a really bottom up mindset and it takes a while to adapt to Python-ish practices. ASM people think "Oh I could do it these ways from scratch", Python people think "I know just how to express that in terms of this highly optimized numpy object".
I took two semesters of computer science in college—working in Java. I hated it. I just wanted to build websites that did things and those courses didn't get me any closer. I built a bunch of apps that had to be compiled and nobody would ever use them. I swore programming off until I discovered WordPress a year later and started building WordPress themes.
And what you call bottom-up approaches have value too. You talk about "how to express in numpy?", as if you were dead set on using numpy. But it numpy the right choice? It is highly optimized, sure, but is it highly optimized for your use case? A "bottom-upper" will start to think "how will I solve this problem" and then look for something that will make their task easier. It may be numpy, it may be "from scratch" or it may be something else. Ideally both approaches will lead to the same conclusion. The numpy guy may realize that his favorite library is not the right choice in the same way that the ASM guy may realize that his solution is already implemented in a library.
Anyways, a good programmer needs to have an idea of the whole spectrum, from hardware architecture to assembly to low level languages like C to high level languages like Python. Start where you want.
digital does not -> interpreted language.
p.s. if your goal is professional s/e it is hardly a bad idea to start with a compiled (i.e. film) language. something similar likely applies for photography.
When I started photography as a hobby years ago, the community in the forums never suggested I used film, neither did friends (a couple of them working at pro level) and colleagues. I know there are some snob people out there but even the ones I’ve met never actually said to start with film.
That being said, every one of them gave the same advice: don’t worry too much about the gear; instead, go learn light and composition.
After you manage that you can do the same with any other camera to improve quality.
I think I’d suggest film because it’s just much more fun and physical, not because it gives you better pictures.
It makes the learning curve steep, which can be offputting for a lot of people.
A polaroid is not a bad choice because the compose-shoot-view_results loop is about the right length of time, and the limited number of shots in a pack makes the "compose" step important straight away.
Having a knowledgeable but not dominating friend helps. "Try kneeling. What do you see?" "What about waiting for that cloud?" That kind of help.
Hehehe I think only film snobs do that. Film is fun but these days for beginners, grab a digital camera because of instant feedback: you'll automatically see the image you've taken. And if you use more sophisticated camera, you can also see the histogram. Useful for analyzing your exposure. Not impossible with film camera.
Once you are comfortable with your exposure, then jump into film.
Human skill is important, but what having good equipment gives you is a lot less limitations. There are many situations where tech makes taking good pictures a LOT easier.
Think for instance of a sports match -- your chances of taking any good pictures of the action get a whole lot better if you have a humongous zoom lens with a high end camera attached to it.
Same with nature -- yeah, you don't want to "use your legs to zoom" when taking a picture of a lion.
Macro, you can use extension tubes, but bet you wouldn't say no to a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 -- that's not just macro, it magnifies by up to 5x. If you've ever seen some crazy closeup of a fly that's probably what it was made with.
For something more mundane, try shooting inside at a dimly lit Christmas party -- that works best with the right, wide aperture lens. Great, you got a cheap 50mm f/1.4, but indoors in a cramped room you can't back out through the wall when mounting it on a crop camera.
My best anime conventions were taking by dragging huge amounts of equipment to the con. Here they do them at ugly places with ugly backgrounds and not a lot of nature or anything attractive nearby. My solution was borrowing Canon's 85mm f/1.2. That's a $3600 humongous chunk of glass, but boy does it work. At conventions people put a lot of work into the costumes -- a 50mm f/1.4 may do okay headshots, but little else.
Then there's the cool camera features -- good autofocus, low noise for high ISO, weather sealing for shooting in the rain, stabilization... those also lower the difficulty of taking a picture by a lot in many circumstances. While somebody is trying to set up a tripod and put an umbrella over it, you can just hand hold it.
Yeah, a pro photographer can work wonders with old or bad equipment -- so long the specific subject isn't important. If you have a specific task you want to accomplish the unfortunate truth is that throwing cash at it makes it a lot easier a lot of the time.
Cosplay is a good example. To unify this with what the article is saying, in my experience if someone takes the time to find a suitable, well-lit setting, then even if they use a phone they'll get a better photoshoot than any amount of expensive camera can get them. But of course if you're trying to shoot dozens of people in a few days at a convention then equipment that will deliver under less-than-optimal conditions hugely improves what you can do in the time and space available.
The lines of sight can be very long so something unfitting in the background is near guaranteed, and they like to mix and match lighting temperatures often with lights right next to each other.
This was exactly the thought, and example, I had reading the article.
The last "oh wow" level photo I took was of a dragonfly perched on a flower on the shore of a lake. My phone would never have taken the photo; it lacks the hardware necessary to capture that photo. It's not a lion, but you can't walk up to a dragonfly: it would have flown away.
Not only the zoom problem, but for that particular photo I took a series of photos at just ever so slightly different focuses. Autofocus is only so good … and sometimes just completely misses the mark; I have fought my phone on this so many times, with it just picking the wrong spot continuously. Much easier to aim a camera's autofocus, and if that fails I can manual.
But even then, sometimes the autofocus is "right" (in that it hits the right target), but I find it's still only so good. And a dragonfly is not a large target; if it's off even a bit, blur. Sometimes it's such that I can look at the preview/view finder, and it looks in focus, but once the photo is taken, it's close … but not perfect, and it ruins the wow. Hence, manual focus and just spreading a bunch of shots across the nearby range — one is bound to be close.
I've also shot dance competitions, and they're dimly lit. Looks nice, but you need a real lens to get sufficient photons.
Absolutely composition matters … but if you're just consistently missing due to the hardware, then even if you get it right, the photo is still lacking.
* To take more interesting photographs, put yourself in more interesting places
* The best zoom lens is a good pair of sneakers
* The best camera is the one you have with you
* It’s easy to delete extra pictures, but it’s impossible to recreate a moment.
* The pictures are there, and you just take them.I don't like this one, because it implies that you never want to change focal length for artistic/aesthetic effects, but this is one of the most important characteristics you can change!
lighting > lens > body
in that order
It has a good nugget of truth in it, but it's not meant to contain all the relevant info you need about purchasing lenses.
You won't be able to capture the cathedral interior / room full of people with a non-wide lens because you simply can't back off through the wall.
You can't capture birds pictures with a wide angle, because "sneaker method" will just chase them away.
You can't just go closer to a person to get a headshot portrait with a wide angle because the perspective will distort their face to an ugly degree.
For many years I lived with a fixed focal length camera (Fuji X100) and it "sneaker method" did not work very well.
True.
On the other hand one should perhaps not discount a packet of seeds/bird feeder as a great zoom lens. (ie: compose/pose the scene, not just the shot).
Yet an even better shot with better gear.
"A bad photographer with good gear doesn't produce good photos"
Yet still a better photo compared to low-end gear.
My point is that better gear tends to produce better photos at a technical level, regardless of skill. Skill and gear are parallel tracks, not things at odds with each other.
The categories of photography where gear is less important, are fairly limited. Using a mobile phone and some artistic skill you can make quite decent photos of people, large animals that are close, a building here and there, and some landscapes.
Yet if you look at the types of photography where you find the gear-heads, you'll find that most often high-end gear is required, and just skill doesn't cut it.
In wildlife and sports photography, you need big glass. Even if you have it, you may notice your neighbor has AI focus detection and 40fps capturing. He has keepers, you miss the shot or have out of focus ones. Skill cannot compensate for these massive differences in capability.
In macro photography, you need highly specialized gear and lighting equipment. It's a gear-heavy discipline.
In higher-end portrait photography, you need large aperture lenses and lighting systems that do not overheat.
In landscape photography where you want maximum detail, you require high MP cameras, specific lenses and decent tripods.
In none of these cases can you compensate the need for gear with skill.
> Yet still a better photo compared to low-end gear.
Give me an iPhone I can take a half-decent photo.
Give me some fancy DSLR camera with 3000 settings and 20 lenses and I'll have no idea where to even start getting a good photo.
Myself and most other people don't want to learn how to work a camera, we want to point and shoot.
I have put thousands into a lens just for taking photos indoors of my kids. Is it overkill? Absolutely. Do I think every cent of it was worth it for me? Absolutely. Not disagreeing with you though, I wouldn't at all recommend that others do the same as me.
I was considering an artistically lacking photographer with good gear, that knows how the gear works. That's the typical target of these discussions. So the gap is artistic skill, not technical skill.
I totally agree with your conclusion that most people don't want to bother with any of this.
Smart phones have smaller sensors and not as good lenses as for example full frame cameras.
??? Example?
https://flickr.com/photos/---mike---/51858792421/in/album-72...
I strongly agree with the idea of taking photos when there's doubt.. I've regretted not taking photos I was uncertain of. I almost never regret taking too many.
1) Go to the most interesting places 2) Take photos at the most perfect moment 3) Have a great understanding of light
You don't need to do all three, just any one of them is enough. But the camera can be anything if you do one of those three things.
What is an interesting place? Or the perfect moment? Or great light? These are all pretty subjective.
What defines a 'great photo' is so subjective and loaded, that it's basically pointless to discuss in the abstract.
Also, the main thing that sets dedicated DSLR/mirrorless cameras apart from smartphones is the ability to trigger external flash. Artificial lighting can really change your photography.
I would also say that the lenses on smartphones are still a big limitation - although becoming less so with every generation as manufactures continue to cram in larger aperture lenses, bigger sensors, and multiple cameras for wide-angle and telephoto shots. "Portrait mode" for simulating larger apertures also continues to improve with each generation to the point where I think it is now at least worth giving it a try, even if it doesn't always produce usable results.
For me, upsides of a good camera include:
* More precise control over photographic characteristics (most important for artistic purposes: depth of field and exposure time)
* Higher information-theoretic entropy of image (which leads to better perceived photo quality and more flexibility in post-processing)
* Ability to bypass or customize automation around color science, de-noising, etc. so that you're not stuck with whatever style the device has built in
* ILCs allow you to select a lens and other optical components that match the artistic goals you have in mind (esp. focal length)Particularly true if you have a good, modern smartphone and are in poor lighting. I witnessed this the other day in Carlsbad Caverns. I was astonished at how good the photos came out from those in my group using iPhone 12, iPhone 8, and Samsung Galaxy (not sure of the exact model, but at least 2 years old).
I don't know which is worse financially for the person, but I've seen tens of thousands of dollars thrown at both. I'm not going to comment out the results... oh who am I kidding, of COURSE I am. We know where this is headed and what I'm going to say. Lots of really crappy furniture made on Festool/SawStop/Powermatic tools, and lots of really crappy compositions taken with Zeiss glass and Leica bodies.
As everyone has heard (or will hear): tools don't make the artist.
All those "taken with an iphone/pixel/samsung" ads are not proving anything, because they can only take that in absolute perfect conditions.
But make the conditions less perfect and suddenly the camera matters more. Things like you need more control of DoF. Or it's a bit dark.
But that's going after perfection. Nobody cares about DoF, noise, colors, or clarity if it's a boring photo.
Even with perfect gear sometimes you have to take the slightly fuzzier photo, or the one where the focus is on the eyelash instead of the iris, because the one where focus was perfect was less... good.
A bigger or newer hammer won't automatically make me better at driving in nails. But it is still a tool that I use to perform my trade. If there is a hammer that makes it easier, more enjoyable or even one that inspires me more (bad example with hammers probably), then it can make sense to buy that one.
Objectively there are probably more cases of the equipment out-shining the user, than users held back by their equipment.
But if people want the latest and greatest - go ahead.
One weekend I ended up taking a trip to Sand Dunes National Park to take pictures of the sunset over the dunes. Unfortunately, I mistimed my trip and by the time I climbed the middle dune the sun had already set. I thought I'll just stay and take pictures of the night sky instead. While I was waiting, I snapped a few long-exposure pictures during the last minutes of the "blue hour." I've never done it before thinking that I'll just have a bunch of washed out images. When I came home and loaded a few shots into Lightroom I was shocked to find the exact "painted" effect I was looking for. [2] It's not by any means the best image, but it's my "eureka!" shot.
A large part of photography is about training your eyes to see something interesting, making unique compositions out the things in front of you and playing around with the light. With that said, the camera, lens and tripod you use make the entire journey less dubious and more pleasant for sure.
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeyakopov
[2] https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeyakopov/37182230034/in/ph...
Even if you just stop at developing the film, and then storing it in a folder / booklet that has the 35mm film sleeves inside them (yes, you can still get those), you can do like 80% of the "fun" part of your photographic journey, and developed film in a folder will only take up the space of a decent sized book on your bookshelf.
For what it's worth, I started with DSLR photography and am now (as of late last year) getting into film photography and really am enjoying it. I don't develop my own film, I send it off to a lab, but I still get a thrill out of the whole process, even if I'm not involved in some parts of it.
I would think few people had the view that anything is mostly about the tools involved
There are pictures I can't get with my 50mm 1.4. There are pictures I can't get with my 200mm 2.8. I can get a reasonable facsimile with my phone camera.
But it's all about tradeoffs. As someone or another said, the picture you don't take won't be any good.
I also personally hate editing photos (its just boring), so getting it as close to perfect in the camera as possible is an important point for me.
if you look how exposure metering works its just context free averaging over some defined parameters.. it does not say much about the photo, its just a tool you can use to control the camera..
A big improvement that most new photographers are taught in school is to pay attention to the background. Obviously the subject is important, but you should be able to account for everything you want (or don't want) in the photo.