Whither goest us?

[Torus34]

[The slow wind-up ... ]

Are you a serious photographer? Gather round here and put your thinking cap on.

These days, most folks have cameras as a part of their cell phones. The quality of the cameras continues to improve with each passing year. Meanwhile, the point-'n-shoots have evolved to the point where images taken with them aren't distinguishable from those taken with top-o'-the-line DSL's of but a very few years back.

We've lots and lots of folks taking lots and lots of pictures. The results, as far as exposure and pixel count are concerned, are often of a very high level of quality, surpassing the best we could achieve a decade ago.

We're reaching the point where a print of reasonable size taken with one of the latest DSLR rigs and one taken with a P&S are indistinguishable. The discussions about gear, many years old, are becoming less and less relevant to the finished product. [Ed.: There may be a parallel here between the evolution of artist's pigments and brushes to modern standards and the present stage of the digital revolution in cameras.]

[and the fast pitch ... ]

So where does that leave us as 'serious' photographers?

What distinguishes 'our' prints from 'theirs'?

 

[Designer]

IMO there will always be a significant difference between a casual snapshot by an untrained photographer and one that is composed with care, lighted with skill, and photographed with correct application of technology.

So even if his cell phone is capable of 56 megapixels, it still won't know where to add light.

 

[480sparky]

Buying a D4 or 5DmIII doesn't make you a great photographer. It makes you a camera owner.

Same reason buying a Viking 8-burner stove doesn't make one a great cook. Or buying a Ferrari makes one a great driver.

 

[sandollars]

Composition and inspiration.

 

[Gary A.]

I call it Image Impact and I call it Consistency. The serious photographer is able to capture images with greater Image Impact than the casual person with a camera. The serious photographer will be able to capture an image with greater impact much more consistency than the casual person with a camera. The serious photographer strives to see and capture the Exceptional Image.

 

[Buckster]

Meanwhile, the point-'n-shoots have evolved to the point where images taken with them aren't distinguishable from those taken with top-o'-the-line DSL's of but a very few years back.

Point and shoots are being replaced by the cameras on phones. The average Joe and Jane snapshot producer doesn't have a working knowledge or concerns about depth of field, shutter speed, ISO or creative lighting, so those abilities that point and shoots provided to emulate DSLRs were irrelevant to the masses, and most of the people who actually wanted those abilities with a camera went with DSLRs anyway, and maybe had a point and shoot just for the times they didn't feel like taking their "good" gear to the beach or wherever.

The results, as far as exposure and pixel count are concerned, are often of a very high level of quality, surpassing the best we could achieve a decade ago.

Good exposure and pixel count are no doubt good things to have, but they don't turn snapshots and selfies into wall art and portraits.

We're reaching the point where a print of reasonable size taken with one of the latest DSLR rigs and one taken with a P&S are indistinguishable.

Again, the P&S is going away, so it's pretty irrelevant if it's coming close to DSLR quality.

The discussions about gear, many years old, are becoming less and less relevant to the finished product.

THERE'S the nail on the head: "Finished Product".

So where does that leave us as 'serious' photographers?

Lens and sensor sizes matter when dealing with things like depth of field, and a wide variety of choices in shutter speed, aperture and ISO configured in a way for someone to easily make choices from shot to shot with them, rather than dig through menus to change any of them, let alone all of them, are HUGE differences between the cellphone camera technology the masses are using for snapshots and selfies, and the technology that actual photographers need in order to control "finished product".

What distinguishes 'our' prints from 'theirs'?

It's not enough that the prints are sharp, clear and have good color and can be made big.

The "finished product", no matter how big or how clear or how sharp or how color-accurate, is STILL either just a snapshot or selfie, OR it is wall-art, portraiture type work.

It's the same difference that has ALWAYS "distinguished our prints from theirs". The same difference that has ALWAYS existed between what the masses produce as opposed to what professionals produce. Today's gear vs. yesteryear's gear makes no discernible difference that I can see.

When the masses start using their cellphone cameras the way professional photographers use their cameras to control all aspects; Fluidly changing ISO, shutter and aperture on the fly as the situation changes; When they're actually studying and savvy on composition, light and shadow, posing and all the rest. When they're setting up lights and scrims and reflectors and snoots and so on to control the light, THEN I think there will actually be something to discuss about how there's not enough of a difference between "them" and "us" and are thereby threatening "professional photographers".

 

[Torus34]

Many thanks to those who've commented. Several of you seem to understand what I'm getting at here.

It's basically a difference in composition, the understanding of the effects of light and the choice of subjects that differentiate the serious photographer, whether amateur or commercial, from the pack. In some specialties such as wedding photography, the ability to pose subjects also makes a huge difference, but that when reduced to basics becomes composition. [Ed. Hint for newbies taking wedding snapshots: Get the father of the bride and the bride to look into each other's eyes. Count slowly to 5 and click.]

So far, so good.

Next question: Why are there so few discussions on composition and lighting vs. gear on this site?

 

[TammyCampbell]

I believe that Ansel Adams said.." You don't take a photo you make it."
The equipment is secondary to the photographer.

 

[Buckster]

Next question: Why are there so few discussions on composition and lighting vs. gear on this site?

Because this site's Google ranking tends to attract a lot of folks who fall into the "noob" or "just got a camera" or "I used to be a serious photographer, but it's been so long that I forgot how and need a refresher (GIANT LOAD OF BS)" categories, who generate more questions about gear than anything else, since they don't know much about anything else yet to even ask about it, and they gotta start somewhere.

Those of us who tend to hang out here and enjoy helping or bantering about this stuff, and are willing to answer the questions posed aren't ourselves usually in need of advice about composition and lighting, so who's left to ask about them and start such conversations?

 

[pixmedic]

Many thanks to those who've commented. Several of you seem to understand what I'm getting at here.

It's basically a difference in composition, the understanding of the effects of light and the choice of subjects that differentiate the serious photographer, whether amateur or commercial, from the pack. In some specialties such as wedding photography, the ability to pose subjects also makes a huge difference, but that when reduced to basics becomes composition. [Ed. Hint for newbies taking wedding snapshots: Get the father of the bride and the bride to look into each other's eyes. Count slowly to 5 and click.]

So far, so good.

Next question: Why are there so few discussions on composition and lighting vs. gear on this site?

Actually, there's tons of discussions about composition, lighting, and gear on the sight. You just have to look in the right forum sections and at posts looking for critique. Some of the best discussions stem from someone looking for C&C on their photos.

 

[The_Traveler]

Talking about composition or lighting in the abstract is already done in lots of places in tutorials and books.
What you get on this site is comments about composition and lighting as it applies to specific photos.
As it happens we have the typical pyramid of photographers, weighted towards the relatively inexperienced.

Composition specifically is hard to 'teach' because there is no set of standards that apply to every photo or situation.
Composition is taste and understanding of how viewers' see and process images - and that is difficult to get across, like teaching someone how to mix perfume. What works in some pictures doesn't work in others. If anyone attempts to use established 'rules' then the result is cookie cutter images.

 

[runnah]

[The slow wind-up ... ]

Are you a serious photographer? Gather round here and put your thinking cap on.

These days, most folks have cameras as a part of their cell phones. The quality of the cameras continues to improve with each passing year. Meanwhile, the point-'n-shoots have evolved to the point where images taken with them aren't distinguishable from those taken with top-o'-the-line DSL's of but a very few years back.

We've lots and lots of folks taking lots and lots of pictures. The results, as far as exposure and pixel count are concerned, are often of a very high level of quality, surpassing the best we could achieve a decade ago.

We're reaching the point where a print of reasonable size taken with one of the latest DSLR rigs and one taken with a P&S are indistinguishable. The discussions about gear, many years old, are becoming less and less relevant to the finished product. [Ed.: There may be a parallel here between the evolution of artist's pigments and brushes to modern standards and the present stage of the digital revolution in cameras.]

[and the fast pitch ... ]

So where does that leave us as 'serious' photographers?

What distinguishes 'our' prints from 'theirs'?

Idk, I can buy a thing of paint down at the store but I wouldn't be an threat to a serious painter.

Also if a photigrapher is worried about a guy with a cell phone out shooting them, maybe they should step up their game.

 

[rexbobcat]

Composition and its related facets are so vague and ambiguous in the context of the varied skill levels here.

It basically boils down to "Use the rule-of-thirds except when you shouldn't," because the concept of composition is vast and subjective just like the experiences of this forum's userbase.

Most discussions of that nature eventually degrade into shouting matches about whether or not the other person has photography good enough to make them a credible source of information. From the onset, it's a race to the bottom.

Gear is (generally) much more cut and dry. Either you like 50 megapixels, or you don't, and nobody can tell you "Hey, you're full of s****."

 

[Solarflare]

These days, most folks have cameras as a part of their cell phones. The quality of the cameras continues to improve with each passing year. Meanwhile, the point-'n-shoots have evolved to the point where images taken with them aren't distinguishable from those taken with top-o'-the-line DSL's of but a very few years back.

Yeah ... riiight. Also, pigs have started to fly and rivers flow upward. Because the laws of physics no longer apply and what you describe is thus absolutely physically possible. Like - ever.

Small sensor cameras can produce tolerable results thanks to electronic post processing, i.e. trickery, like sharpening. But they cannot fool physics. The details that the small sensor and abysmal, often already diffraction limited optics do not manage to capture are gone, and no post processing will restore them. All the post processing can do is produce an illusion.

What I rather see is a diversion. One group of people thinks like you do. The other group demands higher and higher qualtiy optics, and larger and larger sensors.

I believe that Ansel Adams said.." You don't take a photo you make it."
The equipment is secondary to the photographer.

And yet Ansel Adams carried around a large format camera for his landscape photography. Guess he wasnt talking about the idea that "gear isnt relevant" there, after all.

 

[Buckster]

I believe that Ansel Adams said.." You don't take a photo you make it."
The equipment is secondary to the photographer.

And yet Ansel Adams carried around a large format camera for his landscape photography. Guess he wasnt talking about the idea that "gear isnt relevant" there, after all.

That's a good point. He could have carried a simple Brownie. Instead, he used a pack mule to deal with all the gear he hauled around Yosemite.