Camera? Image? Post Production? Combination?

[Bitter Jeweler]

You go by what's in your :heart:.

 

[WesternGuy]

I'd say that the make of the camera being irrelevant would be an invalid argument, considering the notion that those in the photography field, recommend specific types of cameras which are apparently beneficial in aiding in bringing to life that sacred form of art.

Are you telling me that my Fuji 18x optical has the capability of producing the excellent quality that a much touted Canon or Nikon can?

That is exactly what I am trying to tell you. I think maybe you might be missing the point to the extent that your Fuji 18x is just as capable of producing a quality, artistic, museum quality image as someone's Canon 1D Mark IV. Take for instance Henri Cartier-Bresson who, some feel, was the "father of modern photojournalism". He shot most of his images with a Point & Shoot and in black and white. In the case of the Fuji vs. the Mk. IV, the technical aspects of the image will vary - I mean you are comparing a camera with a sensor of about 8Mp with one that has about twice the number of pixels, so the technical aspect of the images will differ, but don't lose sight of the fact that the camera doesn't know what it is taking a picture of - apples, landscapes, people, animals - all it is doing is trying to render a result in 18% grey. It is the person behind the viewfinder that knows what the picture is all about - who knows how to put things together to produce the final image - who knows how to take the raw image and render it in an aesthetically pleasing way in post-processing, etc. This was the basis for the work of the early photographers like Adams, Porter and Weston - they know how to put an image together in the camera and how to process it in the darkroom - I would speculate that the field cameras that these guys had to work with didn't even begin to compare to the 8Mp of your Fuji 18X - well maybe they did with the large negative plates that they had to use - would be an interesting comparison.

As far as the much touted Canon and Nikon equipment goes, its all about marketing and a quality product - they are the big names for a reason - they are the Coke and Pepsi of the camera world, doesn't mean that folks still don't drink RC Cola, Dr. Pepper, or the generic brands found in a lot of supermarkets - why do you think the "fast food" chains serve Coke and Pepsi - I know, I know - there is always A&W and their root beer - but it all comes down to marketing and product identity - folks want to be seen to have the "best of the best", or something like that. The reason they are much touted is because that is what folks know and we tend to recommend what we know. Another thing has to do with the quality and consistency of a product - nothing at all to do with the quality of the images that you can potentially take with the product. When I buy Canon (in case you haven't figured it out yet - I'm a Canon guy - :thumbup: ) I buy it because I am familiar with the product and know what level of quality to expect, so when someone asks, I recommend what I know and trust. All of this has very little to do with the quality of the images that I get from my 5D - that is my doing, or not, as the case may be. Don't know whether this helps you understand my point about the make/type of the camera not being that relevant to the end result - well maybe in some fields like action photography, or portrait photography, but even then don't forget that Yousuf Karsh did all his imagery with a big field camera and equipment that today, we would see as very primitive.

For your question - If one group of people who just like a pretty image say it's "amazing," but a group of educated photographers say that a certain something in the image just ruins it and it's trash, then what do you go by? - I think Bittter Jeweller is right on. Unless you are selling your images - another story - you have to shoot for you - that is what I do - I definitely know when an image of mine is good (for me) and when it is not so good - believe me I know - do I care what others think at this point in my photography - not really - how do I know that I am getting any better - from feedback from peers whose opinion I respect. More of my 0.02¢ FWIW.

Cheers,

WesternGuy