"Your camera takes great photos" and other peeves

[sdsr]

This

http://youtu.be/n5aAYpwB5zc

This just became my new favorite video ever.
Could anyone just transcribe this part, i can't get it....?
"You shoot a lot of sports ? Moving action ? You take hundreds of pictured "[what ?] [cats & fish ?]" ... ? Cause otherwise you don't need a 1D".
Thanks...I hardly try to improve my accent...

"herons catching fish." (Many thanks to paul13walnut5 for finding it!)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But shooting on full auto and refusing to learn any other modes AND calling yourself a photographer is what I was referring to. The post was a reply to the "do you think either deserve to call themselves photographers?". Just my way of saying hell no!

Now, if they can use full auto as well as other modes to create stunning images then yes I would say that person could be called a photographer.

You gotta know the limitations of your equipment and be able to push yourself and be creative. That person Roo was talking about sounds like the opposite of that.

Sorry, but I can't resist posting this link about...how to be a Professional Photographer:

MWAC Attack-Episode 1: The Camera

I get tickled every time I watch this..or the ones that follow in her series....

Okay, this is the first time I've watched this video.....................................................

I understand now that I had it all wrong, I need to move my dial from "M" for moron, to "P" for professional.

I had many opportunities before to watch this, but I passed on it based upon what you fine folks commented. How could I have been so short sighted. :

Actually, her bubbliness kind of creeped me out.

wow people here are wayyyyyy too serious

she is doing sketch comedy

comedy

as in not real

as in think SNL

as in think satire

the funny thing is that in the end she's ended up switching over more to sending up all the overly serious, easily insulted photographers more than those who think being a photo pro is a push of a button as she had been at first

 

[sanj]

You mean you watched it right through to the end ?! ???

If you have not watched the second half, you missed most of the fun.

I had watched just the start but based on your post watched it through. Thank you. She is incredible. I suspect her dinner will be putting a packet in the micro.

 

[RomainF]

"herons catching fish." (Many thanks to paul13walnut5 for finding it!)

Thanks !

 

[paul13walnut5]

Jonah: What are you shooting with?
Photographer: This is a 5D
Jonah: Not a 1D?
Photographer: No. Why would I need a 1D to shoot this?
Jonah:I have a 1D..
Photographer: Cool
Jonah: ...it's really expensive, but it's a really nice camera, THATS NOT A KNIFE

Lol.

 

[mrsfotografie]

But shooting on full auto and refusing to learn any other modes AND calling yourself a photographer is what I was referring to. The post was a reply to the "do you think either deserve to call themselves photographers?". Just my way of saying hell no!

Now, if they can use full auto as well as other modes to create stunning images then yes I would say that person could be called a photographer.

You gotta know the limitations of your equipment and be able to push yourself and be creative. That person Roo was talking about sounds like the opposite of that.

Sorry, but I can't resist posting this link about...how to be a Professional Photographer:

MWAC Attack-Episode 1: The Camera

I get tickled every time I watch this..or the ones that follow in her series....

Okay, this is the first time I've watched this video.....................................................

I understand now that I had it all wrong, I need to move my dial from "M" for moron, to "P" for professional.

I had many opportunities before to watch this, but I passed on it based upon what you fine folks commented. How could I have been so short sighted. :

Actually, her bubbliness kind of creeped me out.

She's horrible!!!

Wait - I now know what I need to do to become 'professional': Get rid of all those complicated big camera's and only use my IXUS 132 from now on, because it comes with P for 'Professional'

In any case here's a topic I launched on the little budget camera I'm talking about: "IXUS Fun" 'It' takes great pictures! Lol ;D

 

[Pixel_crab]

A recurrent phrase I hear from people holding my camera when a prime lens is mounted is the habitual:
"Where is the zoom?"

I won't talk about people saying that anybody would take great pictures with my DSLR as it annoys me more than anything else.

 

[Harry Muff]

Jonah: What are you shooting with?
Photographer: This is a 5D
Jonah: Not a 1D?
Photographer: No. Why would I need a 1D to shoot this?
Jonah:I have a 1D..
Photographer: Cool
Jonah: ...it's really expensive, but it's a really nice camera, THATS NOT A KNIFE

Lol.

Ah, Veep. May it grace our screens again soon...

 

[jdramirez]

A recurrent phrase I hear from people holding my camera when a prime lens is mounted is the habitual:
"Where is the zoom?"

I won't talk about people saying that anybody would take great pictures with my DSLR as it annoys me more than anything else.

wow, y'all deal with some rude people. most people acknowledge me and not my gear performance.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Jonah: What are you shooting with?
Photographer: This is a 5D
Jonah: Not a 1D?
Photographer: No. Why would I need a 1D to shoot this?
Jonah:I have a 1D..
Photographer: Cool
Jonah: ...it's really expensive, but it's a really nice camera, THATS NOT A KNIFE

Lol.

Ah, Veep. May it grace our screens again soon...

Yup. Enjoyed the second series far more than the first. I hadn't long finished watching west wing (I know I know) and found it an uneasy adjustment.

In the UK Armando Iannucci directed / produced a series called 'The Thick of it' about spin doctors in the UK, which was far more viceral, maybe a reflection of the way politics are done this side. I initially found Veep the poor cousin, but suspect a revisit with fresh eyes may help.

Iannucci is just a genius, his own eponymous show aired late night on a minority UK channel years back and contained some of the very very funnniest TV ever. Partridge has grown on me, but attracts similar zealous fervor.

I am a fanboy. Dating back to the radio series 'On the hour'.

 

[anthonyd]

As a seventeen year old with a 5D mkii, my biggest pet peeve is that everyone always says, "oh your parents bought you a nice camera" and things like that. No, I payed for it, I actually sell prints, shoot weddings, do ad work and photograph for local magazines. I have literally over a million hits on several of my photos and have been featured on petapixel.

oh your parents must be nice to let you use the internet

 

[TeenTog]

Despite the fact it pisses me off when comments such as "your camera takes nice photos" and such are made, I try to keep in mind that they are genuinely trying to complement you/me, and by lashing out and correcting them on something they obviously have no expertise in, you're only making enemies, and reinforcing the stereotype of snobby, rich, tech-headed photographers. I just simply smile, nod, thank them, and if they have questions, answer them in the most respectful way possible

 

[paul13walnut5]

As a seventeen year old with a 5D mkii, my biggest pet peeve is that everyone always says, "oh your parents bought you a nice camera" and things like that. No, I payed for it, I actually sell prints, shoot weddings, do ad work and photograph for local magazines. I have literally over a million hits on several of my photos and have been featured on petapixel.

If you have a self-funded 5D2 at 17 there's probably very little advice I can offer about photography.

At 17 everybody else is more self conscious about their own paranoia. Be yourself. Short of murder or rape you are allowed a few mistakes. Take risks man. It could be brilliant.

 

[anthonyd]

Photographers have a rather high opinion of themselves. They are probably the least earners in terms of industrial average and have rather substantial investments in their assets, but take offense when somebody gives credit to their gear.

If you are a painter, you could argue that it is your talent and skill that contribute most to the product you are developing. After all, having good quality canvas or paint alone is not going to translate into good painting. But a good quality lens and a good quality camera will give a good quality photo UNLESS the operator sucks. Of course, great photographers can get great results with great cameras, but the skill and talent necessary for great photos is not as great as photographers would like to believe. No offense, but we are in this rumor site where we talk nothing but gear -- so, gear does matter quite a bit in photography.

So, when somebody compliments your gear, just smile and reply back, "Thank you, without this expensive gear, my photo would look shitty just like coming from your iphone." That is the truth.

I'm sorry, but I could not agree less with your view. Sure, we mostly talk gear in this forum, because it's a gear oriented site and we are part gear nerds and part into painting with light (to avoid the loaded term "photographer").

However, there is no way that average joe would take a good picture with a great camera/lens combo. If he could, then photography studios would not have a photographer in them, they would rent the equipment to you for 15 minutes to do your family shot/portrait/boudoir/whatever by yourself.

Now, if you call great picture a standard shot of a gorgeous mountain range, or a Caribbean beach that is in focus and sharp through the corners ... then we have a different definition of great picture.

When talking about people photography, if I had to choose between background, lights and camera, I would choose the camera third.
Consider which of the following two has a better chance of looking good:
A) An outdoors shot of a model (or any good looking person) using unmodified natural light in the middle of the day, in front of a cluttered background done with a 1D+85/1.2 (or other camera/lens combo of your choice).
B) A shot of the same person at dawn/dusk (or at least very late in the evening) using reflectors/diffusers against a carefully selected background done with a $300 point and shoot.

I'd bet money that (B) will be a better picture any day, unless (A) is done by a very talented photographer who uses the unconventional setup to "break the rules" and achieve a different look, but of course that would only strengthen the point that it's the operator and not the gear.
And if you think that (A) was too contrived look at the light and the choice of background in the pictures your uncle/nephew/colleague who doesn't understand photography takes.

The operator takes the picture, hands down. The expensive gear only makes your life easier, allows for more opportunities and enables you to utilize your potential more. It won't improve your pictures if you are clueless.

 

[Orangutan]

Photographers have a rather high opinion of themselves. They are probably the least earners in terms of industrial average and have rather substantial investments in their assets, but take offense when somebody gives credit to their gear.

If you are a painter, you could argue that it is your talent and skill that contribute most to the product you are developing. After all, having good quality canvas or paint alone is not going to translate into good painting. But a good quality lens and a good quality camera will give a good quality photo UNLESS the operator sucks. Of course, great photographers can get great results with great cameras, but the skill and talent necessary for great photos is not as great as photographers would like to believe. No offense, but we are in this rumor site where we talk nothing but gear -- so, gear does matter quite a bit in photography.

So, when somebody compliments your gear, just smile and reply back, "Thank you, without this expensive gear, my photo would look shitty just like coming from your iphone." That is the truth.

However, there is no way that average joe would take a good picture with a great camera/lens combo. If he could, then photography studios would not have a photographer in them, they would rent the equipment to you for 15 minutes to do your family shot/portrait/boudoir/whatever by yourself.

<snip>

look at the light and the choice of background in the pictures your uncle/nephew/colleague who doesn't understand photography takes.

The operator takes the picture, hands down. The expensive gear only makes your life easier, allows for more opportunities and enables you to utilize your potential more. It won't improve your pictures if you are clueless.

I think you're missing the main point I believe poias is making. I believe the point is that photography is a combination of three things (a) technical skill; (b) equipment that's up to the job; (c) good aesthetic judgement.

Many photographers think that (a) is hard to develop. With good teaching, and a willing (not necessarily talented) student, "average Joe" can develop decent technical skill pretty fast. I have seen it happen several times.

As we all agree, (b) is pretty easy to buy if you have the money.

(c) is a major point of contention, and I think it's the main issue poias is addressing. Many photographers have the absurd notion that photographic "talent" is some innate spiritual attribute. That doesn't account for folks who don't start paying attention to art until after retirement, or following a traumatic event. You can always engage in confirmation bias and postdiction to proclaim that so-and-so was "destined" to be an artist, but that's a steaming pile of freshly produced organic fertilizer. While we know that some people have specific deficits that make it harder to do visual arts (acuity, poor depth perception or color vision), there has been, to date, no test to show which 3-year olds have artistic "talent" and which do not.

Photographic ability, like other "talents," is some inscrutable combination of heredity and development. It is entirely possible that "Uncle Joe," who takes crappy pictures, will one day metaphorically wake-up and start learning to be a better photographer. It won't happen overnight, but it can happen. You don't know who doesn't have talent until they acquire the interest, and put in the effort to learn. And one more thing: at any given level of skill, from incompetent to genius, "better" equipment helps. (by "better" I mean more suited to your desired end-result)

 

[surapon]

Yes, Yes, Yes, " "Your camera takes great photos" "---Yes, Just you and your camera can take this great Photos---One in Life time.
Sorry , Not Me and Not My Camera.
Surapon

PS, Dear Friends, If you know who took these pictures and what kind of camera, Please let us know---THANKSSSSSS.

May be This One ?? : http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx

 

[surapon]

Yes, Yes, Yes, " "Your camera takes great photos" "---Yes, Just you and your camera can take this great Photos---One in Life time.
Sorry , Not My Camera.
Surapon

 

[surapon]

Yes, Yes, Yes, " "Your camera takes great photos" "---Yes, Just you and your camera can take this great Photos---One in Life time.
Sorry , Not My Camera.
Surapon

 

[ME]

Photographers have a rather high opinion of themselves. They are probably the least earners in terms of industrial average and have rather substantial investments in their assets, but take offense when somebody gives credit to their gear.

If you are a painter, you could argue that it is your talent and skill that contribute most to the product you are developing. After all, having good quality canvas or paint alone is not going to translate into good painting. But a good quality lens and a good quality camera will give a good quality photo UNLESS the operator sucks. Of course, great photographers can get great results with great cameras, but the skill and talent necessary for great photos is not as great as photographers would like to believe. No offense, but we are in this rumor site where we talk nothing but gear -- so, gear does matter quite a bit in photography.

So, when somebody compliments your gear, just smile and reply back, "Thank you, without this expensive gear, my photo would look shitty just like coming from your iphone." That is the truth.

However, there is no way that average joe would take a good picture with a great camera/lens combo. If he could, then photography studios would not have a photographer in them, they would rent the equipment to you for 15 minutes to do your family shot/portrait/boudoir/whatever by yourself.

<snip>

look at the light and the choice of background in the pictures your uncle/nephew/colleague who doesn't understand photography takes.

The operator takes the picture, hands down. The expensive gear only makes your life easier, allows for more opportunities and enables you to utilize your potential more. It won't improve your pictures if you are clueless.

I think you're missing the main point I believe poias is making. I believe the point is that photography is a combination of three things (a) technical skill; (b) equipment that's up to the job; (c) good aesthetic judgement.

Many photographers think that (a) is hard to develop. With good teaching, and a willing (not necessarily talented) student, "average Joe" can develop decent technical skill pretty fast. I have seen it happen several times.

As we all agree, (b) is pretty easy to buy if you have the money.

(c) is a major point of contention, and I think it's the main issue poias is addressing. Many photographers have the absurd notion that photographic "talent" is some innate spiritual attribute. That doesn't account for folks who don't start paying attention to art until after retirement, or following a traumatic event. You can always engage in confirmation bias and postdiction to proclaim that so-and-so was "destined" to be an artist, but that's a steaming pile of freshly produced organic fertilizer. While we know that some people have specific deficits that make it harder to do visual arts (acuity, poor depth perception or color vision), there has been, to date, no test to show which 3-year olds have artistic "talent" and which do not.

Photographic ability, like other "talents," is some inscrutable combination of heredity and development. It is entirely possible that "Uncle Joe," who takes crappy pictures, will one day metaphorically wake-up and start learning to be a better photographer. It won't happen overnight, but it can happen. You don't know who doesn't have talent until they acquire the interest, and put in the effort to learn. And one more thing: at any given level of skill, from incompetent to genius, "better" equipment helps. (by "better" I mean more suited to your desired end-result)

I agree with you on your three points, for the most part. Skills are a definite asset, and can be developed by educating yourself and practicing a lot. I believe the old adage: practice makes perfect. As far as equipment is concerned, it can depend on what your objective is and what type of equipment is needed to achieve your goals. Shooting sports often requires expensive fast telephoto lenses and fast fps cameras. You only get one chance to capture that moment. And even if you are a skilled pro, if you miss too many shots because of inadequate gear, your income could be seriously reduced. I used sports shooting as one of the more obvious examples for possibly needing better equipment, and better equipment often correlates to expensive equipment. But just having expensive gear will not make you a talented photographer. As for talent, it is obvious some are born with it. Mozart is an extreme example of talent (genius) at a young age. Did he have to have the best musical equipment? Probably not, but it probably sounded better and made it easier for him to play and compose new music. How much time did he need to practice to improve his skills? Who knows, but i would guess not as much as most. As far as creating music as opposed to playing it, who knows where creativity or talent comes from? I have my ideas on this, but this is not the forum to discuss that subject matter, plus i dont have time and dont feel like. I think most of us believe that some people have more talent (something I believe is not related to education or practice) than others, and some discover it at various times of their lives. At least that is what I have observed. As far as photography vs painting, having done both, I am inclined to say that many more people can take an "ok" photograph than can paint an "ok" painting. And that is mainly because technology makes it easier. (I am not going to get started on a debate of what constitutes a "good" photograph or painting , but I think there is often a general consensus at any particular time in history, or of what the majority of people like at a given time-is it all relative? And we each have our personal likes/dislikes that may or may not agree with the masses, and may change with time). However, if someone is going to take a particular type of photograph within a specific time frame and/or circumstances, I believe someone with skills and a certain amount of talent will be much more likely to get the desired results more consistently, which is usually a requirement of professionals. And having the right equipment for the occassion can definitely make a difference. Everybody is bound to have a little luck once in a while. And there are exceptionally gifted people, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. As far as people making ignorant remarks about your gear, I guess MOST of the time I believe people are just trying to be nice and make coversation, and may be curious about your gear for whatever reason ( hopefully no plans to steal it). And even though it is an ignorant remark, ideally, I believe patience and courtesy/politeness is a good response. On a bad day/bad mood, a response might be to roll my eyes and say: "Yes, in the right hands this camera CAN take very good photos."

 

[ME]

Yes, Yes, Yes, " "Your camera takes great photos" "---Yes, Just you and your camera can take this great Photos---One in Life time.
Sorry , Not My Camera.
Surapon

I am fairly certain that I didnt take those photos. I would probably remember. There is a movie out with images similar to some of these. They make it look realistic. Did we really land on the moon? ??? ;D The important thing about those images is how good is the DR. Were they taken with a Canon or Nikon? Whatever it is, it does take great photos. I wonder if a ND or polarizer was used.