Pro with D40

[CSR Studio]

Ok, I will give this one more shot.

By the way, Thank you again Buckster.

It's only you and Nate, Dennis, that have difficulty understanding what I am saying. But I will try to walk you through it. You are disecting every word I say and Nate just likes being vague. But I am the one that you have problems with, go figure.

When you get right down to it, gear doesn't matter. It is the photographer that matters. However you do have to have some gear to create the image, I think this is where the problem comes in. Just because I mention equipment doesn't mean that I am saying it matters but you do have to have it to take a photograph. That is all, the photographer is the variable that matters, not the gear. If it mattered then we would all have the same gear. This is not a blanket statement, it is about gear versus photographer which is what the thread is about.

Also, as far as my comment:
I think some people are getting a little sensitive about not having the eye and are therefore trying to over compensate with equipment.
Only you can determine if that is true of yourself, however there are quite a few photographers that it is very true of.

 

[NateWagner]

It is the photographer that matters. However you do have to have some gear to create the image,

Agreed, it is the photographer that matters, and you do have to have gear to create the image.

I think this is where the problem comes in. Just because I mention equipment doesn't mean that I am saying it matters but you do have to have it to take a photograph.

No, that is not entirely correct. You mentioned how different gear was required for different things. I believe your example was extremely long exposures being better with film than digital, which goes to prove the point that certain types of equipment are needed or better for certain types of images

That is all, the photographer is the variable that matters, not the gear. If it mattered then we would all have the same gear.

Your statement is rather illogical for a number of reasons.
1. Financially, it is not always economical to purchase the most expensive equipment that will work best, so we make compromises.
2. often goes back to the debate of primes and zooms, zooms are good, and much more useful as far as composition is concerned, but primes are generally much faster. and sometimes people don't want to switch back and forth.
Compromises must be made. The gear any one chooses to bring with them limits that person in some way. There are always compromises and that should be why a professional chooses the equipment they choose. The gear affects the way they shoot the event, if you're using mostly fast primes you're quite possibly going to be moving around a lot more, perhaps going for greater bokeh etc. if you're using the zooms then perhaps you're trying to lay low and catch the mood more.

Also, consider the differences between wildlife photography and wedding photography (is this a red herring? I don't think so... but maybe).in wildlife photography (I'm thinking birds) people often use focal lengths of 400mm and higher, in weddings rarely does it go beyond 200 and usually it's more in the 24-70mm range. it would be asinine to shoot a wedding with a 400mm lens (unless it's one huge wedding) and it would be ridiculous to shoot wildlife with a 24-70 unless you're planning getting really really close to them.

This is not a blanket statement, it is about gear versus photographer which is what the thread is about.

I think the thread is more about gear plus photographer.

 

[Christie Photo]

Also, as far as my comment:
I think some people are getting a little sensitive about not having the eye...

"Having the eye"?

ewww... That's a creepy way of describing people who know what they're doin'. I usually just call 'em "pros."

-Pete

 

[CSR Studio]

well, I honestly should have stopped disagreeing with you before, I just hadn't looked at your portfolio yet which fully explains why you hold so strongly to your position CSR (inaccurate though it may be).

^So, what is this supposed to mean?


Regarding your latest post. Yes, there is different equipment for different situations, which is part of what we have been talking about. There isn't one camera that is good for everything so therefore it goes back to the photographer.

The original question was would you hire a pro with a D40. I said the gear that the photographer has doesn't matter as long as he has the eye. Therefore, the type of gear doesn't matter. If he is able to get the image then it is good.

 

[CSR Studio]

Also, as far as my comment:
I think some people are getting a little sensitive about not having the eye...

"Having the eye"?

ewww... That's a creepy way of describing people who know what they're doin'. I usually just call 'em "pros."

-Pete

I usually say can see the light, because there are too many 'pros' that can't see the light so I don't call them pros.

 

[NateWagner]

Regarding your latest post. Yes, there is different equipment for different situations, which is part of what we have been talking about. There isn't one camera that is good for everything so therefore it goes back to the photographer.

The original question was would you hire a pro with a D40. I said the gear that the photographer has doesn't matter as long as he has the eye. Therefore, the type of gear doesn't matter. If he is able to get the image then it is good.

note bolded text

If he doesn't have the type of gear that is needed for the given situation then that is a problem. That is exactly what I am saying.

because if you have the "eye" and have the wrong equipment for the given situation (ex. 400mm telephoto lens at a small intimate banquet) then you'll have a problem.

 

[Christie Photo]

Ummmm... not to intrude on this love fest, but...

Has anyone considered that, in large part, it's not going to a photographer (or wanna-be) doing the hiring, so the whole equipment posturing thing is pretty much mute?

-Pete

 

[CSR Studio]

note bolded text

If he doesn't have the type of gear that is needed for the given situation then that is a problem. That is exactly what I am saying.

because if you have the "eye" and have the wrong equipment for the given situation (ex. 400mm telephoto lens at a small intimate banquet) then you'll have a problem.

Why will you not explain your other post?

 

[NateWagner]

Christie, you're absolutely right, as far as whether or not a photographer with a D40 is going to get hired is probably just going to be up to an uninformed consumer.

Of course, most 'love fests' like these are pretty mute, because very few people ever get convinced one way or the other from such discussions. If they have already made up their minds, their minds will be the same after the discussion. If they haven't yet made up their minds they will probably leave as muddled or more so than they were to begin with.

 

[CSR Studio]

Nate, is it really that hard for you to say that I'm a better photographer than you thought I was?

 

[Christie Photo]

Nate, is it really that hard for you to say that I'm a better photographer than you thought I was?

Yeah... go with that.

 

[CSR Studio]

Nate, is it really that hard for you to say that I'm a better photographer than you thought I was?

Yeah... go with that.

So witty you are.

 

[Plato]

Since no one seems to be listening to anyone else anyway, I figure that I'll throw my opinion into the mix.

I'm a potential customer.
I see an absolutely stunning portfolio.
In leafing through the portfolio, it's patently obvious that the bulk of the shots required a medium or even large format camera with multiple light sources.
The photographer shoots with the digital equivalent of a Kodak Brownie and a popup flash.
The portfolio is now meaningless because it's a fraud.

Conclusion: The portfolio is NOT the only basis on which I will make my decision.

 

[CSR Studio]

Since no one seems to be listening to anyone else anyway, I figure that I'll throw my opinion into the mix.

I'm a potential customer.
I see an absolutely stunning portfolio.
In leafing through the portfolio, it's patently obvious that the bulk of the shots required a medium or even large format camera with multiple light sources.
The photographer shoots with the digital equivalent of a Kodak Brownie and a popup flash.
The portfolio is now meaningless because it's a fraud.

Conclusion: The portfolio is NOT the only basis on which I will make my decision.

Unfortunately that does happen as does the person with all the equipment and they have no clue how to use it. Buyer beware.

 

[NateWagner]

Unfortunaltely that does happen as does the person with all the equipment and they have no clue how to use it. Buyer beware.

huh?

oh yeah, I hear stories quite frequently about photographers who steal other photographers images from the web and post them as their own images. It is exceptionally easy to do so, and unlikely that they will be caught.

So yes, buyer beware, don't just buy on portfolio alone, and don't just buy on equipment alone.