Is it the CAMERA or PHOTOGRAPHER?

[rateeg]

It has been a long debate...
Some say it's not the camera and gadgets, but it's the person taking it.
But some say the camera makes a bad photo look good.

Any thoughts?

 

[Light Artisan]

I'll cross this line, what the heck...

I look at it this way, if you take 2 people - one who doesn't know anything about photography and another who is a seasoned professional in landscape photography and give them both the same gear, the landscape photographer will most likely come out ahead.

(Same goes for any other type of photographer.)

That said, I don't believe that the same professional photographer could get the same results from a disposable camera that they could from an entry level point and shoot.

Both play a part, and you can't ignore the importance of all the pieces.

A bad photo is a bad photo, but if the gear can expose the scene better - than yes, it could technically make a good scene better.

 

[Big Mike]

But some say the camera makes a bad photo look good.

I wouldn't agree with that. Few things can make a bad photo look good.

But good quality gear can help the photographer to get good images in the first place.

 

[KmH]

The camera has no artistic input.

The camera doesn't select the image framing, subject, lighting, background, etc.

All the camera does is record the photographer's vision.

Not all cameras are created equal as far as their usefulness as tools for making images.

A pro can still make a good image using a P&S, but the P&S as a tool, limits the range of creativity the pro has at their disposal.

So while the camera does matter somewhat, it's the photographer that is by far, the main influence.

 

[sleist]

I don't understand why this comes up so often. Good photographers will be able to do more with any quality of gear up to the physical limits of the equipment, at which point neither will be able to overcome these limits. At some point, at every level of technical skill, the ability to think creatively will separate those with equal technical ability from those who take boring, in focus, well exposed snapshots.

 

[Overread35]

Depends on the shot - but whatever you won't get far without:

Light
camera
photographer
subject

everything else is mostly secondary (maybe)

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Few things can make a bad photo look good.

I'll go you one better, Big Mike. Nothing can make a bad photo look good.

A bad photo is a bad photo. Throw it in the trash and go reshoot.

There are no absolutes in the art world. And that means it is neither the camera nor the photographer, it is a combination of the two. A bad photog with a good camera can luck out into a good shot. A good photog with a sh*tty camera can still make a good image.

A bad photog with a bad camera will not get much of anything and a good photog with a great camera will get a wonderful image.

Period.

Get over it.

Next question...

 

[mrpink]

But some say the camera makes a bad photo look good.

A good camera can make a bad photo in focus, or properly exposed.... but it is still a bad photo.









p!nK

 

[Derrel]

I like to go out in public and hold my hands up to my eye level and with my right thumb and forefinger make a pinching motion and say, "Click! Click! Click!", and in that way, I make imaginary, three-shot memorygraph sequences of things I see. I then come home and tell my cats about the things I have seen, but they never listen...

The camera is definitely overrated. Ask the cats.

 

[white]

It's in teh brains.

 

[keethjon]

I believe the photographer is way more important than the camera. I think sometimes advanced photographers might sometimes get so hung up on things like the resolution, the crispness, dynamic range, and vividness that their cameras produce, they forget that they also took the time to frame and compose the image to help make it so pleasing. You can put a $5,000 camera in the hands of a novice and chances are you will come up with a so so, poorly composed image. On the other hand if you put a $100 point and shoot camera in the hands of a experienced photographer, he/she will probably produce a better image than the one taken by the novice with the $5,000 camera. That being said, of course the image taken with the $5,000 camera will be of a better "image quality" than the one taken with the $100 camera. In any case people should stop thinking that an expensive high tech camera will automatically make them great photographers.
Keith
Easy Basic Photography

 

[reznap]

I like to go out in public and hold my hands up to my eye level and with my right thumb and forefinger make a pinching motion and say, "Click! Click! Click!", and in that way, I make imaginary, three-shot memorygraph sequences of things I see. I then come home and tell my cats about the things I have seen, but they never listen...

The camera is definitely overrated. Ask the cats.

Derrel got into the pot again..

 

[mrpink]

I like to go out in public and hold my hands up to my eye level and with my right thumb and forefinger make a pinching motion and say, "Click! Click! Click!", and in that way, I make imaginary, three-shot memorygraph sequences of things I see. I then come home and tell my cats about the things I have seen, but they never listen...

The camera is definitely overrated. Ask the cats.

Mental Bracketing?

When you get home, you should make a mental HDR memory, that would impress your cats.





p!nK

 

[c.cloudwalker]

When you get home impress your cats.

Yeah, impress them with you tire tread!

Cat, the other white meat

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Me loves the serious answers to this question.