Some food for thought: The eye of the photographer

[timmyquest]

I remember feeling hampered by my 300D. And in many aspects, there is no doubt in my mind that i was. But after getting a much better camera, and having that first few weeks of "reality check" i've kind of looked at my photography in a differnt light. (That was kind of a pun, and it was intended http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif

Someone on FM said something about how in a few years even your most average of shmos will be able to get SI quality shots (I'm paraphrasing here).

This was my reply, after reading it again, i think i wanted to share it with this forum:

The Big Bad wrote:
Id love to make a career shooting sports as well, who wouldnt right LOL ?

Seriously though in 10 years I can only image how slim the chances of getting that kind of job will be. Look at the results the average joe can get with a $1500 camera these days. Just image when even the cheapest consumer P&S is going to have blazing AF, high frame rates, large buffers etc.

Everyone is going to have the gear that can produce great results and as it stands thats one of the biggest factors right now is that not many amatures can or want to buy a $4000 camera and $6000 40mm 2.8 lens.

I know it sounds cliché, and I know it may be hard to believe...but the person behind the camera really does matter.

My camera cost me $2200, I often question if my better photos are the result of my hard earned $2200 camera. Then, I put it in the hands of friends, or my mom...and all my fears go away as most the time the results are crap (one of these days I’ll get my girlfriend to pick it up and then she’ll be wanting to go digital herself).

Most people don’t have the patients, know-how, or desire to produce a great image.

Case in point:

This is not a great image; this is a good image with a story behind it (which is good as it's for a local paper).

In order to get this shot I first had to know a little about who's who. I knew this kid was going to win, most everyone did.

Good swimmers typically breathe on either their left or right stroke. This isn’t something I knew going in; it's something I observed throughout the night. With this new knowledge I made a note of which stroke he breathed.

I then went to the proper side of the pool and got on my knees on a sopping wet poolside and took about 25 shots of him passing by.

Furthermore, I spent about 45 mins getting the exposure perfect before the meet to minimize noise and maximize shutter speed while keeping in mind things like glare, depth of field etc.

Once I took the shot, I spent 3 hours sorting through all of the photos from the night, I took about 200 shots, I picked four to send to my editor.

All of that work (2 hours there 3 hours on the PC at home), all of that patients (200 shots, 25 shots to get one keeper), all of that desire (kneeling on a poolside getting my pants soaking wet knowing it was 10 degrees outside, getting splashed from other swimmers). And most importantly, the creative eye to get this image. Maybe you don’t like it yourself, but any shot that is thought out in advance takes creativity, people now-days are getting too lazy to express their own creativity.

ALL OF THAT, and still...it's a mediocre shot. The arm is cut off, his hand is blurred and distracting, the water is blurred, and i could have bettered the WB if i had more patients

The coming technology won’t narrow the gap between the best of the best and the soccer moms. I believe it will be the contrary.
http://www.questphotos.com/December2004/4.jpg

[Moppie]

A very good reply.

I wonder if 60 years ago the advent of consumer level film cameras caused the same reactions amongst proffesional photogs?
And then 25 years ago the invention of small point an shoot cameras with autofocus caused the same questions?

Basicly I wonder if whats going on is nothing more than a repeat of whats gone before when ever a new technology has entered the market that makes it easier to take photos?

[tim]

Don't sell yourself short Timmy, there are a few things wrong with that photo but there are more things right than wrong. Great exposure, good enough shutter speed, and great timing on your part.

Not everyone can be trained how to use a camera in a technically correct way. Many people, but not everyone. Not everyone can compose a good photo. And there are very few people who can do both well. You're absolutely right, in the end the photographer is everything. I can make pretty good photos with my camera, people I hand it too, even on full auto, take at best acceptable photos, at worst, well, you know.

How has the better camera helped you? I know they have features like better resolution, active focusing, and they're generally faster and offer more features, but what about it helps you take better photos?

Two little things:
- What's "SI"?
- I have no desire to do sports photography ;)

[Goofup]

What's funny is most of the digital pictures I see could be taken with a $150 P&S, or a $4000 SLR. They could be worked on with the $600 PS CS, or the $50 Microsoft PictureIt!. Unless they tell you, in most cases you can't tell.

It's the photographer, not the tool. Stick a P&S in the hands of Ansel Adams and we'd be amazed at the pictures he'd come back with.

PS: SI= Sports Illistrated (especially the Swimsuit issue)

[OneManArmy]

I agree, except for the hand blurring and maybe a not-quite-perfect exposure, that shot is pretty good. If the elbow was in the pic the face might be so tight, and the face is what I like in that on.

And basically, gear matters a LOT, but so does the photographer obviously. I know many people who can take better shots than I with lesser equip.

Oh, and SI=Sports Illustrated

[FOTOWEEK.com]

A great informative post worth making an article. Its always a man behind the machine that matters...at least untill human can create artificial creativity. Technical superior camera can make your life easier or difficult depending on how much you know about the grear...it can NEVER compensate for an eye of a photographer!

[JohnEBongo]

I always used to have the same kind of discussion about my golf game. I am not good at golf by any definition. I wondered how much better I would be if I went out and bought better, more expensive clubs, as if I would all of the sudden shoot lower scores. Then reality kicked in and I realized that Tiger or Ernie or any of those guys could take my clubs and whip most people with them on the golf course. If you don't have the skill to use the tools, then it doesn't matter if you have the best clubs, or camera, on the market. Fortunately, through practice, education and the wealth of knowledge found here, my photography skills are catching up with my equipment level much faster than my golf skills improved. When I am ready to upgrade I know I will be able to use the technology to it' s fullest. Sorry I went a little long.......

John

[timmyquest]

http://www.pbase.com/maciekda/india2&page=all

All taken with a digital rebel

[cecilc]

Patience, patience, patience .....
Yep ... it takes a lot of that, too.

[IndyJeff]

Timmy I am most impressed with your preperation for that shot. That is what you have to do to get the shot. If you show up about 5 minutes before and think your going to walk away with a shot that good, you either nuts or really lucky, maybe both LOL.

As for that shot, so his arm is cut off, it doesn't distract from the main focus of the image, his breath stroke. That elbow isn't that important.

Check your PM's

[timmyquest]

Thanks for the feedback on the photo guys.

Anyways, i fixed the photo a little better (in my opinion) and even had time to send it in for this weeks paper.

http://www.questphotos.com/december2004/breath.jpg

[jgbeam]

http://www.pbase.com/maciekda/india2&page=all

All taken with a digital rebel

That guy is an awesome photographer.

My favorite shots have been with my Rebel, not my 1DmkII.

Jim

[timmyquest]

That guy is an awesome photographer.

My favorite shots have been with my Rebel, not my 1DmkII.

Jim

Want me to take your 1D off your hands?

:D :) :confused: :rolleyes: :o

[Steven M. Anthony]

There's a society photographer that i see at the charity auctions that i attend. He's a real young guy (well, younger than i am, anyway). For the past five years, I've seen him shooting with a collection of battered Fujica camera bodies and really low powered cheapo no-name flashes. I'm no equipment junkie, and I'm not impressed by brand names (I put black tape on my camera so noone knows what I'm using).

But dang, this guy's equipment is so crummy that it's laughable. I told my wife one time that I was thinking of bringing one of my EOS 650's to the next event and just give it to him so he doesn'r have to use the junk he uses. (Yeah, I know my 650 is junk compared to the AF that's out there now).

My wife said, no. Don't do that.

I agreed. I might have offended the guy and the equipment might have ruined his style. His photography is superb DESPITE his equipment.

So, yeah, I agree. It's as much the guy behind the camera as it is the equipment.

Sometime, take a look at fashion photographer Gordon Parks' work. He did a lot of his early work on a REALLY crummy Voigtlander.

In a nutshell,

Bloo Dog

His photography is superb DESPITE his equipment? If his equipment has a half-way decent lens, is light-proof and working exposure controls what more equipment does he need?

Also, I'm curious: why do you not want people to know what brand of camera you use?

[AprilShowers]

http://www.pbase.com/maciekda/india2&page=all

All taken with a digital rebel
no f'ing way... (not out of disbelief, but utter reverance)

go rebel go.

[AprilShowers]

His photography is superb DESPITE his equipment? If his equipment has a half-way decent lens, is light-proof and working exposure controls what more equipment does he need?

Also, I'm curious: why do you not want people to know what brand of camera you use?
i knew a guy in czech republic that did the same with his nikon. He'd added a piece of silver tape over 'Nikon' imprinted on the SLR, a mint condition 1980's model. when i attempted to peel off the tape, thinking the underlying name should be broadcasted and he should be PROUD, he stopped me and said something along the lines of 'without temptation, coveting does not exist.'

he replaced the silver sticker, covering 'Nikon' and the camera retreated back to resembling a generic no-frills camera. theft in prague is certainly not uncommon...
smart thinking!

[tim]

no f'ing way... (not out of disbelief, but utter reverance)

go rebel go.

It's about the photographer, not the gear. A great photographer with crap gear is still great, a crap photographer with the best gear is still crap.

[CDickinson]

I"m remembering one of my first photo classes I took when I started out in the art department. Prof was/is a well known minneapolis art photographer. First day of class, first thing he said was I could strap a brownie camera on the side of a cow and set it to take an exposure randomly for a few hours, then turn the cow loose downtown. I'd get better photographs from that camera than I will from a majority of my students. A Hasselblad in the hands of someone who is not creative will not produce great photographs.
I was pretty offended. So, I went to the local goodwill, bought a brownie and spent the entire semester not looking in the viewfinder and just clicking randomly then cropping, developing, etc.
Ultimately, I did some of the best work in class...my lesson? Its not the camera and not exactly what you capture but how you deal with it in post processing.
Years later, I was teaching bronze casting in the same art department. After the end of the first semester and after the final critique, I could have taken 99 percent of those bronze sculptures and dropped them off at Wall Drug in SD to be sold as trinkets. Most were technically well done....and I learned then you can't teach someone to think creatively, you can teach them to be technically good. Creativity is a brain process - a way of thinking that's inherent in the person...and some people will be Ansel Adams and Picassos and Diane Arbuses and majority will fall in the middle.
Then there is the whole issue of the art market itself and that is another thread.

C

[Steven M. Anthony]

I"m remembering one of my first photo classes I took when I started out in the art department. Prof was/is a well known minneapolis art photographer. First day of class, first thing he said was I could strap a brownie camera on the side of a cow and set it to take an exposure randomly for a few hours, then turn the cow loose downtown. I'd get better photographs from that camera than I will from a majority of my students. A Hasselblad in the hands of someone who is not creative will not produce great photographs.
I was pretty offended. So, I went to the local goodwill, bought a brownie and spent the entire semester not looking in the viewfinder and just clicking randomly then cropping, developing, etc.
Ultimately, I did some of the best work in class...my lesson? Its not the camera and not exactly what you capture but how you deal with it in post processing.
Years later, I was teaching bronze casting in the same art department. After the end of the first semester and after the final critique, I could have taken 99 percent of those bronze sculptures and dropped them off at Wall Drug in SD to be sold as trinkets. Most were technically well done....and I learned then you can't teach someone to think creatively, you can teach them to be technically good. Creativity is a brain process - a way of thinking that's inherent in the person...and some people will be Ansel Adams and Picassos and Diane Arbuses and majority will fall in the middle.
Then there is the whole issue of the art market itself and that is another thread.

C

Wow. That's a fairly narrow view of human nature! While we will not all be creative geniuses, we all have some level of creativity. And while there is no prescription for being creative, creativity can certainly be taught. It can't be taught like history is taught--you can't just read a book and suddenly be creative. But there are exercises one can do to enhance a person's creativity; there are ways to help people see things from a different perspective that will get them to approach things more creatively. Creativity is, indeed, a brain process. But all our brain processes can be enhanced to some degree.