When People Think Photography Is Easy

[Ballistics]

I love the elitist attitude shown on these boards sometimes. That somehow an iPhone is incapable of taking amazing pictures. I have news for you, great pictures were taken long before all the gadgets and gizmos and lenses and digital inventions we have today.

"A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said ‘I love your pictures – they’re wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.’ He said nothing until dinner was finished, then: ‘That was a wonderful dinner; you must have a terrific stove."

Photography is an art, and art isn't about technology, it's about people, intuition and vision.

The bottom line is that ever since George Eastman came out with the first Kodak Camera in 1888, regular people have been taking pictures to capture memories. Memories aren't art, but art can be memories.

It is a select few who have the knowledge, understanding and timing to take a once-in-a-lifetime picture. Most of the iconic photos in history were just people being in the right place at the right time with a camera.

Museum quality photos can be taken with an iPhone, and sold for $1000 bucks a print, if you have the talent and vision.

It's not an "elitist" attitude. An amazing picture is subjective.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Rhein_II.jpg

This is the most expensive photograph in the world. Someone somewhere thought this picture was worth $4.3 million, so the argument that the iPhone can take amazing photos is irrelevant because it's impossible to argue for or against.

Photography is an art, but it's also a science.

So let me ask you, is it knowledge and understanding or just dumb luck for a photo to be revered?
Also, what is "museum quality"?

The age old argument that the equipment doesn't matter is silly, because there are too many variables and circumstances to make that statement true or untrue, and in most cases it is false.

 

[JasonNY]

Look, I understand that people are very defensive of their latest gadgets and the thousands of dollars they've spent on this lens, or that camera, but in the end, it's the photo that matters, not what took it.

In my opinion, there's the bread-and-butter, 'I-run-a-photo-studio-and-take-graduation-pictures-to-pay-the-bills' type of photography, which, arguably is about quality to stay competitive. Backdrops, lighting, lenses, cameras, etc. all add up to make you better than Joe's Photo Studio down the street.

But when it comes to artistic photography, that is about vision and inspiration, it doesn't matter what equipment you use.

Feel free to disagree with me all you want, but an iPhone 4, with proper subject, lighting, timing and post-processing can take truly breathtaking photos.

The equipment doesn't make the photo, the photographer makes the photo.

 

[Ballistics]

Look, I understand that people are very defensive of their latest gadgets and the thousands of dollars they've spent on this lens, or that camera, but in the end, it's the photo that matters, not what took it.

In my opinion, there's the bread-and-butter, 'I-run-a-photo-studio-and-take-graduation-pictures-to-pay-the-bills' type of photography, which, arguably is about quality to stay competitive. Backdrops, lighting, lenses, cameras, etc. all add up to make you better than Joe's Photo Studio down the street.

But when it comes to artistic photography, that is about vision and inspiration, it doesn't matter what equipment you use.

Feel free to disagree with me all you want, but an iPhone 4, with proper subject, lighting, timing and post-processing can take truly breathtaking photos.

The equipment doesn't make the photo, the photographer makes the photo.

Ok, then I challenge you to take a photograph without a camera. Good luck.