Who says it's the camera which determines photo quality?

[jonathon94]

Some people get it and some people don't.

Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one.

Is it hard to believe that expensive gear and technical knowledge is not what makes a photographer, but simple love for a subject coupled with basic feel for light and space- and talent? I guess it all depends on who you ask. Ask an artist, and they will say that art is emotion and once you try to explain it- or worse: create it based on how you PLAN to explain it- it ceases to be art. True art inspires love in a viewer without them being able to explain why. Think of Picasso. Think of Van Gough. They were heavily criticized in their day for their lack of "skill".

Like I said, some people get it and some people don't. But know that you CAN quit your day job with a simple point-and-shoot and that most people are NOT looking to pick apart your technique. Take it from me and the scores of other of my peers who are doing just that.

She has a point. They always say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I may be an amateur but I've seen some plain images that I know would get heavy criticized on this forum that got sold for a couple million. If I still had the magazine article I'd show you guys. So while her photo may break some technical photography rules it doesn't mean that the image is bad.

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-

 

[SCraig]

... Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one....

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king .....

 

[jake337]

Some people get it and some people don't.

Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one.

Is it hard to believe that expensive gear and technical knowledge is not what makes a photographer, but simple love for a subject coupled with basic feel for light and space- and talent? I guess it all depends on who you ask. Ask an artist, and they will say that art is emotion and once you try to explain it- or worse: create it based on how you PLAN to explain it- it ceases to be art. True art inspires love in a viewer without them being able to explain why. Think of Picasso. Think of Van Gough. They were heavily criticized in their day for their lack of "skill".

Like I said, some people get it and some people don't. But know that you CAN quit your day job with a simple point-and-shoot and that most people are NOT looking to pick apart your technique. Take it from me and the scores of other of my peers who are doing just that.

Only idiots would pay for that junk.....

But ok, I'll take it from you and the scores of ****ty facebook photographers pretending to know what they're doing.....

I'm not really sure what "good money" is to you.


Your photos only inspire love in you. We have no emotional connection to the subject, only you.


Have fun ripping people off from their hard earned money because they just don't know any better.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Ahhhh...She played the "It's Art!" card! Well done.

 

[JSER]

As far as I am aware no one says "Who says it's the camera which determines photo quality?"

It is many things, no disrespect but the photographs you have taken are great family pics but nothing I as an individual would look at more than a few seconds, as they are just that, family pics

 

[JSER]

Some people get it and some people don't.

Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one.

Is it hard to believe that expensive gear and technical knowledge is not what makes a photographer, but simple love for a subject coupled with basic feel for light and space- and talent? I guess it all depends on who you ask. Ask an artist, and they will say that art is emotion and once you try to explain it- or worse: create it based on how you PLAN to explain it- it ceases to be art. True art inspires love in a viewer without them being able to explain why. Think of Picasso. Think of Van Gough. They were heavily criticized in their day for their lack of "skill".

Like I said, some people get it and some people don't. But know that you CAN quit your day job with a simple point-and-shoot and that most people are NOT looking to pick apart your technique. Take it from me and the scores of other of my peers who are doing just that.

Perhaps I am mis reading your comments but believe me there is more to photography than it appears you know, whilst your photographs of food plastered babies and snow may be great for the family album believe me I have taken thousands of my own three children, all they are are, album snaps.

To get decent macros I have just spant £500 on a macro lens, to get decent wildlife shots I have gear in the many thousands, for these children snaps I have a £50 compact.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

If only Picasso and Van Gough were into scrapbooking...

 

[jake337]

If only Picasso and Van Gough were into scrapbooking...

She must be referring to the editing software not the individual. Van Gough must be Picasso's replacement since it went away.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Yeah, I'm sorry. I always see retorts using Picasso and Van Gough as examples akin to Godwin's Law.

In citing these artists as examples, the OP shows a lack of understanding of them, and their art, if not art in general. They weren't ridiculed for their "skill", they were ridiculed for pushing the envelope and doing something that was totally going against the current "acceptable" art think. The OP's images aren't doing that.

The other problem I see with these arguments, is that it inherently suggests that the user of the argument is somehow believing they are on the same plane, or level of the examples given.

Further, the OP states that people are making a living making photographs with point and shoots.
We need some definitions here, and citations. We need some proof to back up the statements.
What is "making a living"? What dollar amount is considered making a living to the OP?
Examples...Can the OP post five websites of such people?


The poster that brings up "plain" images (his opinion), that sell for millions, is leaving a lot out of the equation. There are many factors involved in what money a piece of art brings in. Art is a market. Prices don't necessarily relate to whether a piece (or body of work) is "good" or "bad". So many examples are brought to the table in these arguments by people who have no understanding of what they are talking about.

 

[jake337]

Yeah, I'm sorry. I always see retorts using Picasso and Van Gough as examples akin to Godwin's Law.

In citing these artists as examples, the OP shows a lack of understanding of them, and their art, if not art in general. They weren't ridiculed for their "skill", they were ridiculed for pushing the envelope and doing something that was totally going against the current "acceptable" art think. The OP's images aren't doing that.

The other problem I see with these arguments, is that it inherently suggests that the user of the argument is somehow believing they are on the same plane, or level of the examples given.

Further, the OP states that people are making a living making photographs with point and shoots.
We need some definitions here, and citations. We need some proof to back up the statements.
What is "making a living"? What dollar amount is considered making a living to the OP?
Examples...Can the OP post five websites of such people?


The poster that brings up "plain" images (his opinion), that sell for millions, is leaving a lot out of the equation. There are many factors involved in what money a piece of art brings in. Art is a market. Prices don't necessarily relate to whether a piece (or body of work) is "good" or "bad". So many examples are brought to the table in these arguments by people who have no understanding of what they are talking about.

Also, on the subject of photo's making millions, many see these on the internet and go "huh?". What they don't see, is the actual print, in person. There's a difference, a huge one, in seeing a little digital interpretation and seeing something 12 feet wide by 6 feet high with proper printing, paper, and lighting.

If I were to hire someone, I would expect them to truly care about what I am asking them to create for me.

Someone who cares about what they create:

Chrisco - The Making of… How the book was printed - Open Photography Forums

The video:
Claris image builder, agence de publicite, photographie internet et presse Bordeaux, video, web agency, photo, communication, advertisement, agency

 

[ghache]

 

[jake337]

 

[bazooka]

Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one. [....]

But know that you CAN quit your day job with a simple point-and-shoot and that most people are NOT looking to pick apart your technique. Take it from me and the scores of other of my peers who are doing just that.

So let me get this straight, you have quit your job and are supporting yourself solely as a photographer with a P&S camera (along with "scores" of others)?

 

[bazooka]

Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love.

And tell that to the people who pay $1000 for a craigslist photographer and get epic fail pics of a moment that can never be redone.

 

[SCraig]

You know, I just had an epiphany. If she would quit using that P&S and start using her cell phone she wouldn't even have that $126 investment in her career! Plus she could claim her cell phone as a business expense on her income taxes!