Talent v. Equipment?

[nuffi]

Yes, and we always keep saying that the old masters or legends using very few equipments to get arts, but i want to imagine if those old are still young and living nowadays, what will they use then? What do you think will happen after 10 years when anyone can afford medium and large formats cameras? I hope then we can see something called "Art".


I'd think they'd use something like the equivalent of what they used in their day even now. They both used Leica bodies with the 50mm leica lens. I strongly suspect they had leitz enlargers in their darkroom, too.

Thing was, they just spent so much time with their equipment it became like an extension of their senses.

[Tareq]

I'd think they'd use something like the equivalent of what they used in their day even now. They both used Leica bodies with the 50mm leica lens. I strongly suspect they had leitz enlargers in their darkroom, too.

Thing was, they just spent so much time with their equipment it became like an extension of their senses.

The thing should be nowadays is: now i am good enough talented, so whatever equipment i use i can produce ART, and not to be: Oh i need more gear to get Art, so in my case what i want to do is that i can do good enough with any gear, less or more, and as i said even my talent and skill will be the same all the time and growing with the time so i buy more gear to have fun and test and not to increase my talent, but i know many there can't afford many gear and they think they should do with gear to get talent or art, so i hope we all can achieve what we are looking for, if i look for to be a better photographer then i have to work on that with reading and practicing and watching the concepts and don't worry which gear i used [1 camera or 20 gear], if others just want to collect gear and don't care much for talent then this is their choice, we can't force people to work on talent only, and nowadays i got confused on what is talent and what is an art, are all talented people artists or are all artists are talented?

[sapearl]

Well, that depends.

Many things that previously were cost prohibitive are now quite affordable. But if people find the gear too hard to learn, too intimidating, too bulky or just plain inconvenient, they won't bother with it.

People are impatient - most folks want instant results with something they can whip out of a shirt pocket or purse. That's why P&S sales are still strong ;).

Yes, and we always keep saying that the old masters or legends using very few equipments to get arts, but i want to imagine if those old are still young and living nowadays, what will they use then? What do you think will happen after 10 years when anyone can afford medium and large formats cameras? I hope then we can see something called "Art".

[Tom Reichner]

Steven, I remember a thread a while back where we were discussing a fire and you can grab equipment or your work (images) not both and I was surprised to see all how many would grab the equipment. The images should be priceless. They can't be replaced. The gear, not only can be replaced but most that said they would grab gear would replace the gear as soon as the newest stuff comes out anyway. Like I said the images should be priceless and can NEVER be replaced. Maybe thats very telling of what they really feel about their work ;) .
I can't imagine someone taking their gear and letting their images perish. One's body of work would have to be total crap if they did that.

[Lightchaser]

I agree that talent will take you further than equipment.

Having said that, I started with a Rebel and kit lens and beat myself up for months about how I must be really bad because I couldn't seem to get a sharp picture... "A bad workman blames his tools" and all that.

So it turned out the lens was indeed the culprit. I just wish extraordinary talent could be purchased for the same price!

[airfrogusmc]

I can't imagine someone taking their gear and letting their images perish. One's body of work would have to be total crap if they did that.

Tom to lazy to go look for the thread now but there were those that said it would be the gear:rolleyes: Can you believe that? Man my stuffs all insured and I have originals on an external in a safety deposit box that I back up every few weeks so I don't loose it all if sump'm were to happen.

[sfaust]

I just wish extraordinary talent could be purchased for the same price!

It can be. Unfortunately, it needs to be done at birth with the doctor, in a back room, secretly. Which explains why only a few end up so talented. ;)

Man my stuffs all insured and I have originals on an external in a safety deposit box that I ...

Allen, do you mean your images are insured, or your gear? If its your images, how much is it costing you, for what relative value, and by what carrier? I've been looking for archive insurance, but the prospects are pretty dim.

[airfrogusmc]

The thing should be nowadays is: now i am good enough talented, so whatever equipment i use i can produce ART, and not to be: Oh i need more gear to get Art, so in my case what i want to do is that i can do good enough with any gear, less or more, and as i said even my talent and skill will be the same all the time and growing with the time so i buy more gear to have fun and test and not to increase my talent, but i know many there can't afford many gear and they think they should do with gear to get talent or art, so i hope we all can achieve what we are looking for, if i look for to be a better photographer then i have to work on that with reading and practicing and watching the concepts and don't worry which gear i used [1 camera or 20 gear], if others just want to collect gear and don't care much for talent then this is their choice, we can't force people to work on talent only, and nowadays i got confused on what is talent and what is an art, are all talented people artists or are all artists are talented?

Yep so put a 35mm or a 50mm on an M6 and go out and rock. You would be surprised how liberating it can be. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

It can be. Unfortunately, it needs to be done at birth with the doctor, in a back room, secretly. Which explains why only a few end up so talented. ;)



Allen, do you mean your images are insured, or your gear? If its your images, how much is it costing you, for what relative value, and by what carrier? I've been looking for archive insurance, but the prospects are pretty dim.

All the gear in insured the images are on a external here in office and another one I back up every couple weeks in a safety deposit box at the bank.

[airfrogusmc]

I'd think they'd use something like the equivalent of what they used in their day even now. They both used Leica bodies with the 50mm leica lens. I strongly suspect they had leitz enlargers in their darkroom, too.

Thing was, they just spent so much time with their equipment it became like an extension of their senses.

Exactly and you will never get that in touch with your equipment if you keep changing it all the time. Ralph Gibson shot wit ha normal lens because he said thats the way his eye sees. CONSISTANCY is the key. Put say a normal lens on your 5D and take nothing else and go out and shoot everyday for a month. You'd be surprised how freeing it can be. And by the end of that month (if theres talent there) how good your images are.

[sapearl]

Now there's a philosophically interesting question Tareq...:D

I agree, people need to follow their own muse, and follow their own path to enjoyment. Now to me, talent is the ability to use the tools at hand and practice the craft better than the average bear. As Allen said: "Yep so put a 35mm or a 50mm on an M6 and go out and rock. You would be surprised how liberating it can be," - that is a really talented person who can take that combo and make it shine.

Now true art - well, that's real talent ratchetted up several degrees. That's a tougher challenge. Some folks are born with the ability and really excel at it, and some can develop what they have to a degree.

I believe that all talented people - dancers, musicians, painters, photographers, etc. are certainly artistic in what they do. But as to what an artist is.... well that's highly subjective and really hard to quantify.

I used to be an art director. I held that job because I was an effective manager and not because I was an artist - which I was not. I had a "talent" for effectively scheduling the work, evaluating the abilities of the artists under me, matching them with tasks appropriate to their abilities, and making sure that deadline were met.

Want to see some truly talented artists? Peruse some of the galleries here. Many of these folks make lack "business success" but they are truly exemplary in the art they have produced. ;)

.......we can't force people to work on talent only, and nowadays i got confused on what is talent and what is an art, are all talented people artists or are all artists are talented?

[Tareq]

Yes, i read about that.

At the end, the most important is that i do shoot good or better shots, i will not push myself to be an artist or a pro in such a day, but i will keep enjoying what i do, whether my works become arts or not it is not a big deal for me, still there is a long long way to go, and with all what i did now i am very happy, i can't think more than what i achieved now, exposed in newspaper, exposed in a TV channel, and won twice or 3 times in different competitions, even i know some people will try to help me to sell my photos or even can try to enter me into business, so what more i need to do? Should i shoot some photos to be as arts and put it in galleries? in fact i am new in photography world, it is about 3 years ago, so i have time, we will see after 7 years when i complete 10 years or more where i will be, if i have talent fine, if i don't have talent i will make it.

[Kendoway]

Interesting conversation, may I join in?

I am at best a very amateur photographer, even though I’ve been shooting since the mid 70’s. For me, it’s been luck, or what I like to call the “law of averages”.

I enjoyed a very nice evening photo presentation with Mike (Nick) Nichols, a National Geographic Photographer who lives here in Charlottesville, when he gave a lecture at our local community college. He had just returned from Africa after shooting about 100,000 photos of elephants, said that he felt as though he got “100 pictures that were keepers”. He went on to say, that’s the standard ratio for the Nation Geographic selections process (1/1000), and of course – that’s culled down to about a dozen good images for the magazine.

Thinking about my own photography over the last 33 years, I feel that’s about right. I’ve taken somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 photos, and I’ve got about 50 that I think are really slam bang. Maybe the other 10 percent (500 or so) are “good” and can be brought up a notch in Photoshop.

Speaking of Photoshop – I’m surprised people haven’t mentioned that more in this thread. One of the hardest things I’m learning is that it’s 100% ok to crop a picture, change the colors, or convert it to black and white.

Anyhow, my 2 cents :)

[Tareq]

Interesting conversation, may I join in?

I am at best a very amateur photographer, even though I’ve been shooting since the mid 70’s. For me, it’s been luck, or what I like to call the “law of averages”.

I enjoyed a very nice evening photo presentation with Mike (Nick) Nichols, a National Geographic Photographer who lives here in Charlottesville, when he gave a lecture at our local community college. He had just returned from Africa after shooting about 100,000 photos of elephants, said that he felt as though he got “100 pictures that were keepers”. He went on to say, that’s the standard ratio for the Nation Geographic selections process (1/1000), and of course – that’s culled down to about a dozen good images for the magazine.

Thinking about my own photography over the last 33 years, I feel that’s about right. I’ve taken somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 photos, and I’ve got about 50 that I think are really slam bang. Maybe the other 10 percent (500 or so) are “good” and can be brought up a notch in Photoshop.

Speaking of Photoshop – I’m surprised people haven’t mentioned that more in this thread. One of the hardest things I’m learning is that it’s 100% ok to crop a picture, change the colors, or convert it to black and white.

Anyhow, my 2 cents :)

Not sure if that coming under "Equipment", and not sure if "Talent" in Photoshop is something else as well, or talent is to be less of equipment and software?

[sapearl]

Hello Chris - sure, welcome to the discussion :D.

As far as cropping goes, back in my darkroom days I always cropped to one degree or another. The 35mm film format had to be cropped onto an 8x10 sheet of paper. And then when I moved up to medium format square, even though I'd compose it in my head, most of my client work was 8x10, 5x7 etc. so there was always cropping involved.

As far as conversion to B/W, you could do that in the darkroom with color negs and panalure or ektalure paper, but I felt it was clunky and rarely did it. I much prefer the ease and flexibility of PS. I'm doing now with the s/w what I could only do badly in the past with tedious aggravation and expense.


......Speaking of Photoshop – I’m surprised people haven’t mentioned that more in this thread. One of the hardest things I’m learning is that it’s 100% ok to crop a picture, change the colors, or convert it to black and white.

Anyhow, my 2 cents :)

[sapearl]

Sorry Tareq - bit of a jumble here..... not entirely sure what you're saying.

Not sure if that coming under "Equipment", and not sure if "Talent" in Photoshop is something else as well, or talent is to be less of equipment and software?

[BIGTUFFGUY]

The photographer has to have "the eye".
Good gear helps too, Fast glass produces nicer bokeh, its a fact. The more expensive lenses produce nicer bokeh.
More expensive bodies have less or nicer noise at high ISO.
Off camera flash is usually nicer than on.

I've found I get more keepers when I upgrade my gear. I've spent a fortune yet I'm not even close to being good yet.

Also post processing is a huge part of photography now. Most photos we see are not straight out of the camera.

[sapearl]

Actually, this has always been true and not something new- it was called "Custom Lab Printing" and they always socked us with premium charges if we didn't do it ourselves. ;)

......Also post processing is a huge part of photography now. Most photos we see are not straight out of the camera.

[BIGTUFFGUY]

No argument on my part. I'm just saying, you can be an amazing photographer, if you can't post process you might not/wont stand out.

[sapearl]

Np guy ;) - totally agree.

No argument on my part. I'm just saying, you can be an amazing photographer, if you can't post process you might not/wont stand out.

[cjc145]

perhaps I have a lack of both talent and equipment, but I've seen some of the most amazing pictures taken with point and shoot digital cameras.. the camera is just a tool. talent is better.

[Tareq]

perhaps I have a lack of both talent and equipment, but I've seen some of the most amazing pictures taken with point and shoot digital cameras.. the camera is just a tool. talent is better.

Oh my, i hear that many times, and we know that already. bw!

[cjc145]

Oh my, i hear that many times, and we know that already. bw!

aren't you a sweetheart.

[Tareq]

aren't you a sweetheart.

Thanks! ;):oops:

[Gideon]

I believe that both should be in the same level...

A good photographer with the best equipment...

I don't believe in the saying, "It's not the Pana, but the Indian"

[RDKirk]

Hello Chris - sure, welcome to the discussion :D.

As far as cropping goes, back in my darkroom days I always cropped to one degree or another. The 35mm film format had to be cropped onto an 8x10 sheet of paper. And then when I moved up to medium format square, even though I'd compose it in my head, most of my client work was 8x10, 5x7 etc. so there was always cropping involved.

As far as conversion to B/W, you could do that in the darkroom with color negs and panalure or ektalure paper, but I felt it was clunky and rarely did it. I much prefer the ease and flexibility of PS. I'm doing now with the s/w what I could only do badly in the past with tedious aggravation and expense.

For sure. I'm not doing anything in Photoshop that I would not have done in the darkroom...if I could have, with any degree of convenience.

Back in the late 50s to early 60s--before color and small cameras took over the portrait business--every portrait photographer also knew how to retouch. It was part of the job, part of the art. Retouching for most photographers fell by the wayside because with small cameras and color simply it was too hard and too expensive--not because there was any moral superiority to "getting it right in the camera." It was always a matter of "where is it more time and cost effective to do it? In the camera or in the darkroom?"

[harroz]

to an extent. Its awesome to get an image up on screen straight from the camera that is sooo good as it is that to add anything more than a wee tweak would actually degrade it or not make it better.

No argument on my part. I'm just saying, you can be an amazing photographer, if you can't post process you might not/wont stand out.

[damonb]

Pure talent can't be replaced by equipment alone (having a good eye for composition, for example). The equipment will only augment natural abilities, imho.

Lenses will make a difference, for sure, but a solid photog would be able to make the most out of what they have on hand. I think that's the difference between pros and amateur photogs.

[Tareq]

Fill or complete the following:

Pro photographer + Pro gear = ???

Pro photographer + Poor gear = ???

Amateur photographer[but talented/skilled/keen] + Pro gear = ???

Amateur photographer[Talented] + Poor gear = ???

I am not including a photographer who is not talented or haven't skill or not well educated.

[Biffbradford]

At a bike race this summer I was approached by an older gentleman who asked me about my camera gear. Turns out that he was the father of one of the racers and was thinking about upgrading from his little shirt pocket point and shoot. He said that he was a long time photographer in the army but never shot digital before. He said tat he served in 'Nam and did a lot of formal army shoots as well. Then he showed what he had just shot of the races with that little toy camera ... OH MY! I mean, they were SPOT ON.

Talent and experience goes a long way in this game.

[mackmittonz]

I've met plenty of gearheads who obsess over the latest and greatest gear but their pictures still look straight out of a point and shoot. Definitely talent trumps gear until you get into a situation where your gear does not allow you to accomplish what you'd like to do creatively.

[Tareq]

I've met plenty of gearheads who obsess over the latest and greatest gear but their pictures still look straight out of a point and shoot. Definitely talent trumps gear until you get into a situation where your gear does not allow you to accomplish what you'd like to do creatively.

How? so aren't in this case a gear playing a rule, ofcourse talent is so important, but what if that talent going beyond than that gear limit.
Can a top professional sports shooter using Hasselblad film or Mamyia or even large format to shoot sports? if not then why? isn't him a talented pro? Can he shoot with a point and shoot that shoot at 2fps with maximum 140mm focal length for soccer and cricket and so? if not then how come he is a pro? Can Ansel Adams shoot his amazing landscapes with 1Dmk3 + 800mm? i will give him H3DII-50 + 120 macro to shoot in Yosemite NP for landscape [no macro and no pano], can he? Now Talent is really the key, but can the talent help if you have a wrong gear and at wrong place?

[sebmour]

Talent is probably one of the most important things in photography. Having a great vision and creativity is more what you need then much better glass or better camera.
Some things you can't do with kit lens and 300D but generally someone who is talented can make great pictures with more or less average equipment.

Exactly right.

But they issue nowadays, is people actually expect the results from a 70-200 f4L IS with the kit lens...

[Kendoway]

The vast majority of these were shot with a shoebox or a beer can.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=all&q=pin+hole&m=text

Just saying ;)

[sebmour]

The vast majority of these were shot with a shoebox or a beer can.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=all&q=pin+hole&m=text

Just saying ;)

Thats true but how many do you think he missed?

It works for artistic stuff. Try shooting an event with a pinhole camera...

[airfrogusmc]

Thats true but how many do you think he missed?

It works for artistic stuff. Try shooting an event with a pinhole camera...

The secret is know what tool is appropriate for which job. I have a friend that had a big show in New York a few years back with images she took with a Holga and it was the perfect tool for the subject matter and feel of the images.

[sjones]

Thats true but how many do you think he missed?

It works for artistic stuff. Try shooting an event with a pinhole camera...

I don't think Kendoway was suggesting that a pinhole camera is all you need to cover every style or genre of photography. Perhaps a pinhole won't do for an event, but nor does that mean someone needs a US$8,000 rig to cover the event either.

[airfrogusmc]

I don't think Kendoway was suggesting that a pinhole camera is all you need to cover every style or genre of photography. Perhaps a pinhole won't do for an event, but nor does that mean someone needs a US$8,000 rig to cover the event either.

A DSLR isn't the perfect tool for every job either.

[RDKirk]

Can a top professional sports shooter using Hasselblad film or Mamyia or even large format to shoot sports? if not then why? isn't him a talented pro? Can he shoot with a point and shoot that shoot at 2fps with maximum 140mm focal length for soccer and cricket and so? if not then how come he is a pro? Can Ansel Adams shoot his amazing landscapes with 1Dmk3 + 800mm? i will give him H3DII-50 + 120 macro to shoot in Yosemite NP for landscape [no macro and no pano], can he? Now Talent is really the key, but can the talent help if you have a wrong gear and at wrong place?

That is the point mackmittonz was making. A top professonal sports shooter using a large camera can do some good work. Heck I shot football and basketball with a Mamiya medium format press camera in my early days--photographers before me shot those sports with 4x5 press cameras.

At fourth down and goal, six points behind and five seconds left to play, I would be smart enough to position myself for a dramatic touchdown, and be ready to snap at the instant the running back leaped over the defense into the endzone--I'd get that picture with my Mamiya, sure enough because I could anticipate it and I'm darned good with that Mamiya "bedpan with a lens." But I would not get the game-losing fumble in the next moment because it's going to take me at least 3 seconds to wind the film and re-cock the shutter.

We got good photographs--but not of everything we would have wanted. We got good photographs within the limitations of the equipment. That's why mackmittonz said,

Definitely talent trumps gear until you get into a situation where your gear does not allow you to accomplish what you'd like to do creatively.

[Jannie]

The photographer Chas Jarvis who is quite good and has more high end equipment than God (check out his UTube videos) has just published a book calle The Best Camera Is The One You Have and it is all photos shot with his iPhone and according to the Nikon Shooter Joe McNally, it is quite good. Chas also has a blog where he posts all kinds of iPhone photos. Bottom line is I've seen a lot of his commercial work and the guy is very good. ITunes announced yesterdY also that you can now download an app for your iPhone called Best Camera and it was put together by chas, it's pretty cool.

You can become good with any camera as long as you are able to work within it'ts limits and take advantage of it's assets. When you shoot for clients, you need the tools you're clients need you to have for the job they are offering and that generally means really good professional gear but not always.

[Tareq]

Honestly, you should have talent to make your gear shining.