Pro with D40

[robdavis305]

My uncle is a pro and makes 6 figures a year doing special events and everything and he has never picked up a digital camera. But I must say that a D90 should still be considered as a pro camera but also agree that the portfolio is what gets you hired.

 

[NateWagner]

And no I have never posed my images around the limitations of my equipment. Never would. I would find a way. That is what I'm talking about and you don't want to be true. There are ways around what you are talking about, no it may take longer than a nanosecond but there are ways around it.

This is exactly what I am saying. You cannot take the shot, you have to find a Way around it. you have to do something different in order for the shot to work. In some cases that may be moving it to a different location, or using a faster lens, or on the variable aperture lenses zooming out so you can use a faster aperture. In any event you're working around the problem of not being able to take the same shot.

Haven't pages and pages of people telling you that the equipment doesn't make that big of a difference told you something. Buying the latest and greatest camera doesn't make you a great photographer.

DUH!!! I have agreed with this numerous times. It is the photographer, but even being a great photographer. However, a great photographer with great equipment is going to generally come out with better shots than an equally great photographer with poor equipment. I have said this numerous times as have others and yet you still don't seem to be catching it.

 

[NateWagner]

My uncle is a pro and makes 6 figures a year doing special events and everything and he has never picked up a digital camera. But I must say that a D90 should still be considered as a pro camera but also agree that the portfolio is what gets you hired.

Absolutely.

I will also say that a digital camera does not necessarily make a camera great... There were and still are some amazing film cameras that have a much higher resolution than any digital camera around. There were amazing lenses created in the 80's that many (for example the big beer can) still use today.

For weddings it's a little uncommon for people to use film cause of the cost. but it can be done. I am not in any way saying that it can't. However, I am stating that there are restrictions to the film cameras including primarily the cost of film and the length of developing time. Both can be worked around but are a negative.

 

[dhilberg]

Your basic premise is that equipment doesn't matter. And in my opinion it doesn't...to some extent. I simply pointed out an example where equipment does matter, or you don't get a shot (my point). I'm not quite sure how you can refute that point by diverting attention to old equipment (classic Red Herring fallacy).

My point was to say that no one single camera or piece of equipment can do it all. Therefore, equipment is not the be all end all, which I have been saying all along.

No. Your general premise is that equipment doesn't matter, which is what prompted me to join this thread. Quote to support my claim:

so therefore gear makes no difference?

When it comes right down to it, no it doesn't.

I think some people are getting a little sensitive about not having the eye and are therefore trying to over compensate with equipment.

That is a hasty generalization (a conclusion based on insufficient evidence), another logical fallacy. I'm not going to get sucked into that one.

Your basic premise is that equipment doesn't matter. And in my opinion it doesn't...to some extent. I simply pointed out an example where equipment does matter, or you don't get a shot (my point). I'm not quite sure how you can refute that point by diverting attention to old equipment (classic Red Herring fallacy).

Fallacy huh?

Yes, fallacy. As in logical fallacy (see Red Herring Fallacy).

Then what about infared? Better with film than digital. Is that a fallacy too?

Second example, extremely long exposures. Not good with digital, too much noise.

Third example, scheimpflug, swing, tilt and shift.

You are now supporting my argument by saying that there are situations where you need the right equipment (my argument all along), instead of your "equipment doesn't matter" argument.

Whose point are you trying to prove here?

 

[CSR Studio]

Nate keeps saying that I am repeating myself and don't get it and Dennis keeps asking what is my point. Come on, if you can't figure it out by now, you never will. Sad, sad, sad.

And Dennis, a red herring is different from a red herring fallacy. You need to understand what you are saying.

 

[dhilberg]

Nate keeps saying that I am repeating myself and don't get it and Dennis keeps asking what is my point. Come on, if you can't figure it out by now, you never will. Sad, sad, sad.

And Dennis, a red herring is different from a red herring fallacy. You need to understand what you are saying.

Me asking you which point you're trying to prove is perfectly understandable because I'm confused about your exact viewpoint. The confusion is a result of some conflicting statements you've made, which I clearly identified in my previous post, with quotes.

To address your entire post, I never said Red Herring, I said Red Herring Fallacy. Not that it matters, because they're the same thing--unless you thought I was talking about a fish. Click the link I provided about the red herring fallacy and read up on it, or Google for some other explanations. Clearly, you don't understand what it is.

You're still dodging the issue by pointing the argument in yet another direction. It's apparent you're simply grasping for straws in an attempt to get the last word in.

Furthermore, I'm not sure what is "sad, sad, sad" about my previous post. The reason I can't identify your viewpoint is because you haven't presented it clearly. I hope you are not resorting to personal attacks here.

I'm still waiting on your explanation as to why your viewpoint changed from insisting the equipment doesn't matter, to saying that equipment does matter (which has been my viewpoint all along). Even though I dislike repeating myself, I'll quote you again to eliminate any possible ambiguity.

Here is where you say the gear doesn't matter:

so therefore gear makes no difference?

When it comes right down to it, no it doesn't.

Then you make the following statement, suggesting that the gear matters in the first sentence. However, in the second sentence you then refute your own suggestion by saying the gear doesn't matter:

My point was to say that no one single camera or piece of equipment can do it all. Therefore, equipment is not the be all end all, which I have been saying all along.

You further confuse the issue by then citing specific examples of specialized photography equipment that only would be used in situations where the gear matters:

Fallacy huh?

Then what about infared? Better with film than digital. Is that a fallacy too?

Second example, extremely long exposures. Not good with digital, too much noise.

Third example, scheimpflug, swing, tilt and shift.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the reason I joined this thread was because you said that equipment doesn't matter, which--as a blanket statement--I disagree with. My viewpoint (as it has been all along) is that equipment does matter--in certain situations, which you seem to agree with all of a sudden.

Can you explain why your viewpoint has changed?

 

[Buckster]

Actually, the red herring is the one that says some shots can only be gotten with certain gear adequate to the task, and was introduced to divert attention from the actual topic and question, which is "would you hire/not hire someone based on their gear?"

Some of us said no, we'd base that decision on their abilities as demonstrated in their portfolio.

Then the red herring of "but some shots can't be got without certain gear" was introduced, which we've been saying over and over and over again doesn't matter because the portfolio STILL shows what that photographer can do with the gear they have. If they can do the job they're being asked to do, then they and their gear, whatever it is, must be adequate to that job, and that should be all that matters, not whether they have the gear that can do some other job that's unrelated, like a sports illustrated cover, IR, or deep sea shots.

Then that all gets ignored again with the repeat, "but some shots can't be got without certain gear", which is the excuse in this thread for basing the hiring/not hiring of a photographer on their gear rather than their demonstrated abilities.

 

[CSR Studio]

Actually, the red herring is the one that says some shots can only be gotten with certain gear adequate to the task, and was introduced to divert attention from the actual topic and question, which is "would you hire/not hire someone based on their gear?"

Some of us said no, we'd base that decision on their abilities as demonstrated in their portfolio.

Then the red herring of "but some shots can't be got without certain gear" was introduced, which we've been saying over and over and over again doesn't matter because the portfolio STILL shows what that photographer can do with the gear they have. If they can do the job they're being asked to do, then they and their gear, whatever it is, must be adequate to that job, and that should be all that matters, not whether they have the gear that can do some other job that's unrelated, like a sports illustrated cover, IR, or deep sea shots.

Then that all gets ignored again with the repeat, "but some shots can't be got without certain gear", which is the excuse in this thread for basing the hiring/not hiring of a photographer on their gear rather than their demonstrated abilities.

Thank you Buckster.

 

[JamesMason]

I love these endless discusions on TPF, every week the same questions are asked and the same responses given.

Can anybody tell me if i should buy a canon or a nikon ?

 

[NateWagner]

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).

 

[NateWagner]

I love these endless discusions on TPF, every week the same questions are asked and the same responses given.

Can anybody tell me if i should buy a canon or a nikon ?

Neither... Get Sony

 

[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).

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[dhilberg]

Actually, the red herring is the one that says some shots can only be gotten with certain gear adequate to the task, and was introduced to divert attention from the actual topic and question, which is "would you hire/not hire someone based on their gear?"

Your argument would be fine here, except for the fact that I didn't join this thread on the subject of whether or not a photographer would be hired based on his/her gear or portfolio, and then avoid the issue by diverting to a discussion on how gear matters. I only joined this thread on page 8 (link) with the intent on pointing out how I disagree with CSR_Studio's blanket viewpoint that the "equipment doesn't matter." I disagree with that statement (nothing else), which I've said time, and time again. That's it, no more, no less.

I haven't diverted attention from anything, and have already addressed the issue of demonstrated abilities (last two paragraphs here). I'm simply asking for CSR_Studio to explain why she thinks the gear doesn't matter. However, now it appears she agrees with my viewpoint, which is why I'm asking for additional clarification.

Some of us said no, we'd base that decision on their abilities as demonstrated in their portfolio.

I understand that, and I already addressed it by agreeing with your viewpoint that what's contained in the portfolio is what matters, as far as hiring a photographer (again, last two paragraphs, here). However, I'll elaborate at this time so we can get it out of the way.

Hiring a photographer simply because they're carrying around a D3 with a 70-200 f/2.8 on the front--without looking at their work--would be just silly. Although, as strange as it sounds to me, I bet this happens occasionally with clients who don't have any photography experience. They may think he/she has a big camera, so he/she must be a professional who takes fabulous photos.

On the other hand, I'd personally be wary of someone claiming to be a premier wedding photographer whose equipment consists of a D40 and a couple of kit lenses, but that is where my technical understanding of photography takes over. Even so, I'd still be interested in viewing their portfolio because if they can attain premier wedding photographer status with that gear, then they probably have copious amounts of skill.

Then the red herring of "but some shots can't be got without certain gear" was introduced, which we've been saying over and over and over again doesn't matter because the portfolio STILL shows what that photographer can do with the gear they have. If they can do the job they're being asked to do, then they and their gear, whatever it is, must be adequate to that job, and that should be all that matters, not whether they have the gear that can do some other job that's unrelated, like a sports illustrated cover, IR, or deep sea shots.

Then that all gets ignored again with the repeat, "but some shots can't be got without certain gear", which is the excuse in this thread for basing the hiring/not hiring of a photographer on their gear rather than their demonstrated abilities.

Again, I'm not ignoring anything. I've already addressed the viewpoint of hiring a photographer based on their demonstrated abilities (again, last two paragraphs here), and elaborated on above. I'm simply asking CSR_Studio to explain why she thinks that the gear doesn't matter (as a blanket statement irregardless of circumstances) because I respectfully disagree.

I'm assuming she doesn't wish to address either as she hasn't even even made an attempt. All she has done is point her argument with me in a separate direction, here, and the first paragraph here. She even attempts a mild personal attack in the second paragraph here, implying that those who have purchased expensive gear lack skill.

Then, strangely, she seems to agree with me here by citing specific situations in which shots wouldn't be attainable without the right equipment, implying that the equipment matters (the complete opposite of her original blanket statement). That's why I'm asking for the additional clarification.

 

[Buckster]

Actually, the red herring is the one that says some shots can only be gotten with certain gear adequate to the task, and was introduced to divert attention from the actual topic and question, which is "would you hire/not hire someone based on their gear?"

Your argument would be fine here, except for the fact that I didn't join this thread on the subject of whether or not a photographer would be hired based on his/her gear or portfolio, and then avoid the issue by diverting to a discussion on how gear matters. I only joined this thread on page 8 (link) with the intent on pointing out how I disagree with CSR_Studio's blanket viewpoint that the "equipment doesn't matter." I disagree with that statement (nothing else), which I've said time, and time again. That's it, no more, no less.

The thing is, it wasn't a blanket statement, but was predicated on the discussion up to that point, and specifically on the attempted red herring slanted question as it pertains to the original question of the thread.

I haven't diverted attention from anything, and have already addressed the issue of demonstrated abilities (last two paragraphs here). I'm simply asking for CSR_Studio to explain why she thinks the gear doesn't matter. However, now it appears she agrees with my viewpoint, which is why I'm asking for additional clarification.

Quite true that you didn't introduce the red herring. That was done by someone else. That said, your decision to ignore the discussion that preceded it and run with the red herring instead seems to have led to the confusion you're having with the answer from CSR_Studio.

Again, it's explained simply by noting that the statement was made in relation to the discussion that precedes it, and specifically to the question raised by the thread's premise question.

"Equipment doesn't matter" when it's the portfolio that demonstrates if a photographer is up to the task a client desires.

Hopefully, that clears up the misunderstanding.

 

[Christie Photo]

Ok, bride walking down the aisle, moving at all. boom, that 2 second shot ...

2 second shot? Boom is right.... that "boom" is her ass hitting the floor. Somebody put the friggin' lights on before someone really gets hurt.

-Pete