bycostello said:
If you are told to just go out and bring back some amazing shots, then maybe.
If you are told to come back with specific sorts of sorts it may be that equipment is suddenly incredibly critical.
Upvote
0
Photography - Equipment or Skill ?
- Thread starter koolman
- Start date
- Status
If you are told to just go out and bring back some amazing shots, then maybe.
If you are told to come back with specific sorts of sorts it may be that equipment is suddenly incredibly critical.
LetTheRightLensIn said:
+1
There is no one criteria that makes a great shot. Many of them are skill based, a few equipment based. If you use the adage, a camera wont go and shoot itself then it is 100% skill 0% equipment.
But I think the OP had some reasonable assumptions... being a rookie myself, I'd say, 80% skill, 20% equipment.
Upvote
0
C
Cornershot
Guest
There is a world full of skillful photographers. They know how to use the gear and shoot competently. But most will never be great or even good photographers. Skill is something you can learn. Really good photography comes from talent and that can't be learned. Just like you can't learn to be a great painter. Good gear is a distant third.
Upvote
0
Cornershot said:
Sorry, pet peeve: I have to respond to this nonsense.
- Would you care to provide some proof of this? Show me some well-designed scientific studies to show that people cannot "learn" or "develop" ability as artists.
- Define "talent." If you consider it innate, please explain how degrees of talent can be distinguished in newborns or toddlers, and how early identification of talent can be correlated to great work later in life.
- How would you classify someone who started painting only late in life (as my great-grandmother did in her 70's)? Would you say that was latent talent or developed skill? How could you tell the difference? Or would you simply manipulate your definitions to suit?
While it is certainly true that people are born with inherent differences, it is the height of arrogance to proclaim that some are gifted with the golden touch, while others are forever doomed to live the mediocre and drab life of the non-artist.
Upvote
0
[quote author=Grand Moff Tarkin]
This bickering is pointless!
[/quote]
Every photographer has a different level of expertise and will therefore have different requirements from their equipment. For a "true artist," the camera is probably no more than a canvas and the lens, their brush and paint.
Trying to explain the relationship via percentages is like ... trying to explain why the sky is blue.
[quote author=The 6 O'Clock News]
This just in! Scientists discover why the sky is blue. Film at 11.
[/quote]
D@MMIT!
Fine, here's a percentage. It's 100% Art.
This bickering is pointless!
[/quote]
Every photographer has a different level of expertise and will therefore have different requirements from their equipment. For a "true artist," the camera is probably no more than a canvas and the lens, their brush and paint.
Trying to explain the relationship via percentages is like ... trying to explain why the sky is blue.
[quote author=The 6 O'Clock News]
This just in! Scientists discover why the sky is blue. Film at 11.
[/quote]
D@MMIT!
Fine, here's a percentage. It's 100% Art.
Upvote
0
C
Cornershot
Guest
It's not arrogance or nonsense and it's not something you can spell out in a formula. Just apply this same idea to any art form and art history. Are you saying that anybody can pick up a camera and learn to be Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier Bresson? That anybody can eventually become Beethoven or Bach? That anybody can learn to become Albert Einstein? That is the golden touch. Call it a random mutation or a gift from the gods. Whether undiscovered or developed late in life, some have it and some don't but, of course and obviously, there's also a spectrum of artists and ability in-between.
Sorry, pet peeve: I have to respond to this nonsense.
While it is certainly true that people are born with inherent differences, it is the height of arrogance to proclaim that some are gifted with the golden touch, while others are forever doomed to live the mediocre and drab life of the non-artist.
[/quote]
Sorry, pet peeve: I have to respond to this nonsense.
- Would you care to provide some proof of this? Show me some well-designed scientific studies to show that people cannot "learn" or "develop" ability as artists.
- Define "talent." If you consider it innate, please explain how degrees of talent can be distinguished in newborns or toddlers, and how early identification of talent can be correlated to great work later in life.
- How would you classify someone who started painting only late in life (as my great-grandmother did in her 70's)? Would you say that was latent talent or developed skill? How could you tell the difference? Or would you simply manipulate your definitions to suit?
While it is certainly true that people are born with inherent differences, it is the height of arrogance to proclaim that some are gifted with the golden touch, while others are forever doomed to live the mediocre and drab life of the non-artist.
[/quote]
Upvote
0
A
archangelrichard
Guest
sort of a 50 - 50
If you don't have the equipment you won't get the picture
If you don't have the skills you won't get the picture
if you don't have the artistry you won't know what the picture IS if it bit you on the asphalt
If you don't have the motivation you won't go looking for any pictures
I would say the skills and the equipment go hand in hand; the equipment is a tool and the skills are in using that tool
If you don't have the equipment you won't get the picture
If you don't have the skills you won't get the picture
if you don't have the artistry you won't know what the picture IS if it bit you on the asphalt
If you don't have the motivation you won't go looking for any pictures
I would say the skills and the equipment go hand in hand; the equipment is a tool and the skills are in using that tool
Upvote
0
[/quote]Cornershot said:
Being great at something doesn't require being a prodigy, it simply takes more time and effort. No, not everyone can be a Beethoven composing symphonies at the age of 5, but if you have the desire and passion for something, you can learn how to be great. As for Ansel Adams, it was his passion for nature that led him to learn photography. It's not as if he was "great" overnight, but don't take my word for it:
"My photographs have now reached a stage when they are worthy of the world's critical examination. I have suddenly come upon a new style which I believe will place my work equal to anything of its kind." -- Ansel Adams, 1927 (6 years after his first photographs were published).
Upvote
0
Noone likes to say it, but photography is actually rather easy way to make art when you compare to other art forms like painting and music. Even the moderately gifted amateur can make great pictures, not just as often as the very talented person. It also depends on style, some styles are simpler to shoot and require less creative artistic talent than others. But that's what is great about photography, almost anyone can do it.
When it comes to equipment it depends on the type of photography how important it is. It is much easier to shoot good wildlife pictures with if you have those super-expensive tele lenses and responsive auto-focus. Making fantastic large prints is easier when you have a high resolution system. But camera won't take the pictures for you.
Photography is today technically simpler than it was in the film era. Both when taking the picture and when doing post-processing.
When it comes to equipment it depends on the type of photography how important it is. It is much easier to shoot good wildlife pictures with if you have those super-expensive tele lenses and responsive auto-focus. Making fantastic large prints is easier when you have a high resolution system. But camera won't take the pictures for you.
Photography is today technically simpler than it was in the film era. Both when taking the picture and when doing post-processing.
Upvote
0
Orangutan said:
Agree 100%. I take a lot of interest in sports, sports psychology and junior sports development. In a lot of ways, sports ability is seen to be similar to artistic ability. Many people think that you've either got it or you don't. While some people do have a natural edge (and admittedly, you need a bit of this to make it to No. 1), the ones who make it to the top are invariably the ones who dedicate the time and effort, show up to training, enjoy what they are doing and have the desire to succeed.
Don't be fooled by the world's best who make things look easy. Was Tiger Wood's success due to natural ability, or because he’s up at 6.00am, takes a four-kilometre run followed by gym stretches, then half-an-hour for breakfast, two hours on the driving range, nine holes of golf, lunch, two more hours on the range, another nine holes, some pitching, dinner and bed? Despite all of his natural ability, look at how a few disruptions has impacted on him at the elite level. Natural ability, while important, isn't as crucial as most people think. But it gives everyone a good excuse for not being pro golfers, footballers, soccer players, worlds best photographer etc...
One of the contributors above asked the question about scientific studies and whether people can learn or develop ability as artists. Another interesting exercise would be to round up the world's leading photographers and ask how much time they dedicate and the lengths they go to capture THE shot. Pressing the shutter button is probably the easiest part of the process. The hard part is the 3am wake up to get into position before dawn, the weeks on end in hides, the treks into remote locations, the trips to dangerous places (such as warzones), getting up close with deadly wildlife etc etc is 95% of the effort. The reality is, virtually anyone could do this if they wanted to. The person who you think has "artistic ability" in most cases is simple the one who just gets out there and does it. Most of us don't want to to go outside our comfort zone (eg I hate early mornings and would rather be snug in bed than outside pushing the limits of photography), which is why most of us linger in the realms of mediocrity.
Upvote
0
C
Cornershot
Guest
Probably most people in the world can't be taught to throw a 100 mile an hour fastball or even 80. And there are plenty of minor league ball players that have dedicated their hearts and souls into getting into the majors but never do. And there are plenty that can't even make it into the farm system. It's nice to think that sheer will gives everybody the same chance. But the truth is that there's a lot of physiological variation between people. You wouldn't say that everybody in the major league is number one but they all have the ability to outperform most of the world in that sport.
Upvote
0
Cornershot said:
Body and mind. Apples and oranges. Sorry, but you really can't compare the two. You can't learn to be 6' tall -- believe me, I've tried!
In any case, physical ability doesn't necessarily translate into success, so the point is moot.As Hillsilly correctly pointed out, not everyone has the will power/drive/desire to get up early in the AM and do what it takes to become the best. That is what separates the best from everyone else.
Upvote
0
koolman said:
I think that really depends, as many have pointed out already. The technical aspects of photography are not really "hard" compared to other skills and art forms. Good equipment makes it both, easier and more flexible. Non of this has to do with composition, "having an eye" and the creative thought process. Yet good tools are always a plus. Using a screw driver to stir paint can not exactly be attributed to being creative if you know what I mean.
And for some things there are certain minimum criteria. I personally always liked playing with depth of field so fast and or long lenses and big sensors/film are a plus. In the film days this was relatively affordable. With digital today it's on average more expensive. My first digital camera, a point & shoot just couldn't do much of what I wanted it to do. So that was a clear technical component that was not sufficient. But for most of the other aspects it wouldn't really matter if I was using my 5DII, a Leica M9 or an entry-level Rebel kit and whatever is messed up or flat out boring is due to my own limitations and not the cameras'. In fact, I believe that some equipment challenges can help improve skills.
Upvote
0
Cornershot said:
You are right in several aspects. Physiological differences play a part in sport. But there are all sorts of sports. Some favour strength, others agility, precision, accuracy and endurance. Some people are better suited to football. Others might do better at lawn bowls. And at the top end of any sport, it is the very minor differences that separate the best from the rest. Just because you want to play a particular sport, it doesn't mean that you're ideally suited for it. But photography has so many aspects, portraits, wildlife, landscapes, macro for example, and most of the top photographers tend to find a niche.
I agree that wanting something to happen and working towards that goal isn't necessarily going to make it happen. Plus, the world is a hard place. Despite putting their heart and soul into something, people often still fail. But does that mean that people shouldn't try?
My belief is that if you spent 5 years full time at photography (both practicing and also studying art) you would develop artistic compositional knowledge. You would be virtually as good as almost any other photographer. The thing that would stop you being seen as a great photographer probably wouldn't be your ability or style. It would more likely be your self promotion, marketing, and contacts. Its a crowded world out there and its hard to get noticed. Your financial ability is also a major limiting factor. Getting a job in a related field that gives you the freedom to pursue your goals is difficult.
To use your baseball analogy. If you're playing minor league baseball, doesn't that still make you one of the best few thousand in the world? Wouldn't you be almost as good as the major league players? Despite being a hard place, the world is also full of opportunity. As a photographer, you can choose your own path. You're not reliant on a talent scout, coach or somebody else giving you a chance. And there's no rankings in photography. You can just get out there and do it.
Upvote
0
Trying to look at something like art by percentages is where the key mistake is made. All things are a matter of perspective, especially art! Talent? Well that's a given. As is equipment. There are people that simply cannot take a good picture. There are those that it would seem cannot take a bad one! The argument though about talent is better left to a subject of physical skills, like track as an example. Either you CAN run the 400m in 47 seconds or you can't. If you can get close to that you might be trained to capture that goal. If you run a 65 second 400m then it's highly doubtful you'll ever win any medals in that event.
A professional, in almost any sense of the word, is a trained amateur. Ever think of that? Everybody that is famous started somewhere, and many of those starts were not at all impressive. So the will to use the talent you have to grow to the level you wish is a key, equipment is a tool to get you there. And many times it's in the breaks one gets. The right person cared enough to give a chance and it was an opportunity seized that led to fame and fortune.
Thankfully we have Canon to help us along our way!
A professional, in almost any sense of the word, is a trained amateur. Ever think of that? Everybody that is famous started somewhere, and many of those starts were not at all impressive. So the will to use the talent you have to grow to the level you wish is a key, equipment is a tool to get you there. And many times it's in the breaks one gets. The right person cared enough to give a chance and it was an opportunity seized that led to fame and fortune.
Thankfully we have Canon to help us along our way!
Upvote
0
Here's a brownie box camera, go make macro shots 8)bycostello said:
Truth is that the camera does most of the hard work these days. Of course, going beyond the same possibilities everybody else sees and doing something truly wonderful requires something more than knowing what the camera is capable of - perhaps. Maybe it's mostly knowing the camera's limits. Whatever the case, you can't take the camera out of photography.
Upvote
0
S
spaceheat
Guest
100% equipment. As long as anyone has the latest camera with the highest MP count and a fisheye lens, s/he will be regarded as a photographic genius... and they will become very rich like Gary Fong... and live on some yacht down in Hawaii.
Sincerely,
Canon / Nikon Joint Marketing Department
Sincerely,
Canon / Nikon Joint Marketing Department
Upvote
0
I have taken some great pictures with different cameras. I am more consistent with the 5DM2.
I can give my camera to my Dad to take a picture, and if you don't know what you are doing, the camera won't help you frame the shot or get the timing right.
I can give my camera to my Dad to take a picture, and if you don't know what you are doing, the camera won't help you frame the shot or get the timing right.
Upvote
0
C
Cregg Annarino
Guest
Unfortunately photography is one profession that anyone can just buy a camera and become a photographer. Does it mean they are good at it..no.....You can't buy a stethoscope or scalpel and just become a doctor, or buy new golf clubs and become tiger woods immediately or buy a fast car and become a Nascar driver....these things take time to learn and actually perfect the skills needed to perform.
A camera is a camera, most people that start new photography businesses don't even know how to use their own camera. Lots shoot and let the camera make all the decisions.
There is a difference between just taking photos of people or things that happen to be in front of you and trying to genuinely create something amazing through direction, use of light, angles etc. Photography is all about the light, for landscapes it's being there at sunrise or sunset. For people it's posing skills, making them feel comfortable and being able to see the good light and using it to your advantage to make them look their best, plus picking the right lens to compliment your subject whatever or whomever it may be. For weddings it's the same except you usually have a time restriction during your days.
If you can't see the light or create it, know how to compose, know how and take the time to learn and actually be able to use the camera to it's fullest, or know how to interact with and direct your clients and know how to use light on your subjects creatively to make a killer photo then a new 7000 dollar camera isn't going to really help you.
A camera is a camera, most people that start new photography businesses don't even know how to use their own camera. Lots shoot and let the camera make all the decisions.
There is a difference between just taking photos of people or things that happen to be in front of you and trying to genuinely create something amazing through direction, use of light, angles etc. Photography is all about the light, for landscapes it's being there at sunrise or sunset. For people it's posing skills, making them feel comfortable and being able to see the good light and using it to your advantage to make them look their best, plus picking the right lens to compliment your subject whatever or whomever it may be. For weddings it's the same except you usually have a time restriction during your days.
If you can't see the light or create it, know how to compose, know how and take the time to learn and actually be able to use the camera to it's fullest, or know how to interact with and direct your clients and know how to use light on your subjects creatively to make a killer photo then a new 7000 dollar camera isn't going to really help you.
Upvote
0
Cregg Annarino said:
Well stated!
BTW, I think your quote should be:
"You can't buy a stethoscope, scalpel or golf clubs and just become a doctor..." ;D
Upvote
0
- Status
