Photographer's rant...when someone says, "nice pics, you must have a good camera!"

[miketsp]

..as if it's the camera that selected the lens, chose the camera settings and put the photographer in position to take the shot.

When I hear comments like this, I wonder if they would ever say something like..

"Nice meal, chef, you must have a good stove!"

It might not just be the camera but it definitely helps.

 

[ScubaSteve]

It might not just be the camera but it definitely helps.

Absolutely! If the camera made no difference at all then they would not have 000's or 0,000's invested in equipment. I like the idea of the professional photographers and the disposable cameras. I bet you would still get some amazing pictures that people like me would never be able to get with the absolute best camera.

Photography is SO much more than equipment. That is why I suck at it . The reality is that it really takes a keen and creative eye to "see a good picture" and to then be able to comppose the shot properly. Anybody can "point and shoot".....that is why they created those cameras . Having said all that, larger sensors and all that technical stuff......if they did not help then nobody but amateurs would buy them.

So, it truly is both I believe.

 

[hbhobby]

I have to agree that a lot of it is the photographer but I know that when I use my "expensive" camera I do get higher percentage of better pictures than when I use the "cheapo"

and when I was in high school photography class we did the "regular" camera vs the everybody with a "cheapo" and the quality was defiantely better with peoples "regular" cameras

 

[piikki]

The heavy innuendo behind that comment is that "If only I had as nice a camera I could shoot just as great photos too". Sometimes that's very true, sometimes not. Like already commented, surprisingly often someone with great photo gear can post pretty neat stuff with not so much of an eye, and someone with true talent who can't yet afford all the great gear (and trips) is left frustrated with the crappy shots and feedback that comes with that.

I like the idea of having the 'big shots' struggle with mediocre gear and showcase their true talent too. (Not that it should be a contest but it seems to be ) It does sometimes feel like nowadays it's so much about the gear and manipulation. I personally am quite illiterate what one can even do with all the best programs, so I do not any more know about how to judge 'the original eye' in final product (the eye one had when shooting? the eye one had for seeing what one can do to manipulate the end product?). I feel like you can't any more talk about it so much when photos can be cropped and cut etc in so many ways.

The eye of the artist must have changed in all this but I don't read photog mags, so I don't really know what I am talking about - I just enjoy looking at stuff. I do agree with the OP that the comment on the camera can come across as a bit of a slight.

 

[ScubaSteve]

I feel like you can't any more talk about it so much when photos can be cropped and cut etc in so many ways. The eye of the artist must have changed in all this.

Editing of photos has changed things drastically. Programs like Lightroom, Photoshop CS3/4......they put so much editing power into the hands of the user that it is tough to know where a photo came from. Even just RAW manipulation drastically changes the outward appearance of a picture.

There are a couple of shots that I took in Thailand last year that people have actually accused me of claiming someone else's (a professional's) photo as my own. I tell them the truth (that I took them) and thank them for the compliment. I take each comment about my photography as a compliment (even if it is constructive criticism).

Bottom line is, I believe the shots are a little better because of my camera/lens....but I still suck as a photographer. No camera will change that. No editing or cropping will change that even if they do improve how the picture appears When I first bought my Canon XSi, I had never used an SLR camera....never used any manual functions in a camera. It has taught me a great deal of respect for real photographers....especially those that were great with film. Technology has improved photos but has not improved or created more photographers IMO.

 

[fppf]

The digital editing of images has changed everything.
I don't mind when people say I have a nice camera. But it bugs the living hell out of me when they asked how long that took to photoshop.

People can have the worst dive skills, stir up the bottom, get all kinds of back scatter, wrong white balance, incorrect exposure, basically do everything wrong. Then come home, spend 100 hours in photoshop and submit for a magazine cover. Hell, you can even through your buddy in the background from another bad shot for good measure.

When does a "Photo" become a "Painting"???
I take pride in not editing any photo's other then simple cropping and camera settings at the time of the photo.

 

[fppf]

Actually, my last post may offend some artists, sorry about that.

So, when does a "Photo" become a "Paint by Numbers"??

 

[ScubaSteve]

Actually, my last post may offend some artists, sorry about that.

So, when does a "Photo" become a "Paint by Numbers"??

Now you have offended the children......what else can you use instead?

 

[fppf]

Now you have offended the children......what else can you use instead?

Sorry, out of comparisons.

 

[friscuba]

The digital editing of images has changed everything.
I don't mind when people say I have a nice camera. But it bugs the living hell out of me when they asked how long that took to photoshop.

People can have the worst dive skills, stir up the bottom, get all kinds of back scatter, wrong white balance, incorrect exposure, basically do everything wrong. Then come home, spend 100 hours in photoshop and submit for a magazine cover. Hell, you can even through your buddy in the background from another bad shot for good measure.

When does a "Photo" become a "Painting"???
I take pride in not editing any photo's other then simple cropping and camera settings at the time of the photo.

The thing is, photo editing has been around forever. Professional photographers have been pushing film during developing, dodging, burning, cropping and much more during the printing process for eons. It's now that average Joe who doesn't have a developing studio in the corner of their place can finally do it on their computer. People tend to think even the pros took their film to the local drugstore or Fotomat all this time.

There's nothing wrong with a little photo editing, unless you're a genius at Photoshop the original photo has more to determine whether the picture is going to turn out good or not. I generally give up after 60-90 seconds of Photoshop maneuvers if it doesn't look like it's gonna work. I think the people who are saying those things probably have never tried it, just assumed any good photo needs a lot of help unless you're a "Pro".