Who says it's the camera which determines photo quality?

[KyraLamb]

My gear? A point-and-shoot pocket digital camera- cost me $126 which may as well be a priceless deal considering the quality of heart captured with each frame.

 

[Josh220]

I've always found it amusing when people with very little money in their gear can out-shoot some people who have thousands invested in their gear.

It just goes to show that it truly is the photographer, rather than the gear, that makes a good image.

Granted, you will hit limitations far sooner with a P&S than you would with a DSLR, but for general snapshots I couldn't agree with you more. It's the creative/technical areas in which you are limited-- but without the proper knowledge/skill that point is moot.

 

[bazooka]

I've always found it amusing when people with very little money in their gear can out-shoot some people who have thousands invested in their gear.

I agree with you but this just doesn't happen often, and please take no offense OP, but your photos are not good supporting evidence of your claim. As good as saying this makes people with lower cost equipment feel, from what I have seen, people that spend thousands usually outshoot people who don't. Part of it is certainly because of the equipment, but part of it also because the amount of money they are willing to invest reflects the amount of time and effort they are also willing to invest.

 

[MReid]

I strongly believe most people would be better off sticking to point and shoots and all auto.

Once they buy a DSLR the fun stops.

 

[analog.universe]

A lot of this comes down to the intent I think. The OP's intent was to "capture heart", and she succeeded! It does take skill to get the emotion you want to come through in the frame, and to that end, this is a great demonstration of how it's not the equipment.

If the intention is reliably getting a high quality (technical quality) shot every time you want one, then yeah, really expensive gear is obviously leaps and bounds better, but that doesn't matter in every situation.

 

[bazooka]

Sorry for chain posting, but I don't want to leave it at that. Kyra, notice that each of your photos have something in them that (I assume) you love. But if you look at them from a stranger's point of view, they have issues and could be dramatically improved with changes in composition and light. They also have WB, focus, and exposure issues.

Most importantly, I don't feel much from these photos, but small adjustments could be made to improve them dramatically. For example, the black eyes from the cat in the drawer would be GREATLY improved with some catchlight. It would give the cat a "soul".

I don't want to get into detail as this is not a CC thread, but I just want to point out that your camera is capable of more than what you posted. I hope I have been gentle enough not to cause offense as that is not the purpose of my post(s), but I also hope I have been clear enough for you to know that you have much room for improvement. With some time spent here viewing other CC threads or looking at excellent examples of photos, I believe you can mostly definitely and quite easily improve in a very short amount of time. Plus, you obviously have some great models to work with.

 

[Kolander]

My gear? A point-and-shoot pocket digital camera- cost me $126 which may as well be a priceless deal considering the quality of heart captured with each frame.

Certainly you can take much better pictures with better gear, believe me

 

[cguron]

I have seen iPhone pictures. Some folks take excellent pictures on their iPhone. If you are looking for an avenue for creativity and technical control; P&S will not solve that problem.

 

[SCraig]

My gear? A point-and-shoot pocket digital camera- cost me $126 which may as well be a priceless deal considering the quality of heart captured with each frame.

As long as you are happy with your results that is all that matters. Personally I'll stick with my DSLR.

 

[cgipson1]

Not bad for a point and shoot.. but I have seen better. Just basic snapshots! I see overexposure, underexposure, WB issues, and none of the skin tones match up in any other shot. The fact that they are in focus.. and relatively sharp is a function of the camera... nothing else. If you are shooting in Auto or Program.. then the camera handles that too.

You are a MWAC (mother with a camera), aren't you? We see so many shots of children that the mothers are very proud of.. and that is fine! But that doesn't mean the shots are good.. only that they are important to the person that took them! Not trying to be rude.. but a post like this is a bit pretentious!

 

[PapaMatt]

You have a great eye for photogrphy, very nice work. I feel like I should give you my set up. I think you would put it to better use than I do that is for sure.
Keep up the good work and I think soon you may turn pro.

 

[bazooka]

You have a great eye for photogrphy, very nice work. I feel like I should give you my set up. I think you would put it to better use than I do that is for sure.
Keep up the good work and I think soon you may turn pro.

This is why I love TPF. The entertainment is never ceasing. :lmao:

 

[PapaMatt]

You have a great eye for photogrphy, very nice work. I feel like I should give you my set up. I think you would put it to better use than I do that is for sure.
Keep up the good work and I think soon you may turn pro.

This is why I love TPF. The entertainment is never ceasing. :lmao:

I am happy you find entertainment on this site and that I could help.

 

[Joel_W]

They are nice family snap shots, important and meaningful to you, and you seem to have a good sense of composition. But that doesn't make them quality photographs. All have DOF issues, and exposure issues. As CGibson1 pointed out, you have 3 closeups, and each has a completely difference skin tone.

If you would think you would like to move up to the next level, look into a good bridge camera like the Nikon P500/510. Learn how to use it in other then Auto or P, and you'll be quickly surprised at the difference it will make.

 

[KyraLamb]

Some people get it and some people don't.

Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one.

Is it hard to believe that expensive gear and technical knowledge is not what makes a photographer, but simple love for a subject coupled with basic feel for light and space- and talent? I guess it all depends on who you ask. Ask an artist, and they will say that art is emotion and once you try to explain it- or worse: create it based on how you PLAN to explain it- it ceases to be art. True art inspires love in a viewer without them being able to explain why. Think of Picasso. Think of Van Gough. Think of Andy Warhol. They were all heavily criticized by their peers in their day for their lack of "skill".

In fact, the role of art expert is a made up one. It doesn't exist. For one person to say that another's art is "not good" is TRULY pretentious. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder- ESPECIALLY in the category of art- photography being part of that category. So it is nobody's place to declare one person's art to be "good" or "not good". Doing so only exposes you as an egomaniac- obsessed with your own way when in reality- there is no "right way" or "wrong way" to capture art.

Like I said, some people get it and some people don't. But know that you CAN quit your day job with a simple point-and-shoot and that most people are NOT looking to pick apart your technique. Take it from me and the scores of other of my peers who are doing just that.