Talent v. Equipment?

[SurplusCorn]

This is more of a philosophical thread than anything...

I'm just wondering about other peoples experience in this case. Has anyone found that even though they have a talent and ability for photography, that said talent can be held back by not having the correct equipment?

Is it possible for someone to be a successful photographer whilst only having a minimum of equipment? I don't mean having the entire L series of lens's, but certainly there comes a point where a 70-300 needs to be replaced with a 70-200, or a 18-55 with even a 17-85?

Just interested in opinions...

[form]

I have no talent for photography, but I find that without the best equipment for the job my ability to do the job is more limited.

[narlus]

a lot depends on what you are shooting...obviously for sports, wildlife and performing arts, the demands for good gear (fast glass, accurate AF, etc) are much more than in some other disciplines. i'd say that someone w/ a very creative perspective and strong photoshop skills and an XSi w/ kit lens could run circles around an average shooter w/ whatever gear they could possibly use.

[Alleh]

First your ability is limited to your skill and creativeness second it is limited by your equipment.

[joedlh]

I would not be the one to claim any level of photographic talent for myself. That's for others to say.

I upgraded from/to the lenses that you listed. I did it because I wanted the best quality lenses. In particular, was disatisfied with the quality of the images I was getting from the 70-300. The 17-85 is still a good lens for lots of uses and I still use it on my 20D.

Having said that, my most acclaimed shot was taken with the 70-300 on the day that I discovered that there was some kind of fungus growing on the edges of the internal elements. So I guess that answers your question somewhat.

[Gentleman Villain]

"The medium determines the message."

What exactly does that mean? It means that the ability of a photographer to successful convey an idea (message) will be determined by his tools and techniques (medium) An aspiring photographer has to merge his ability to use tools and technique to portray an idea properly. If there is not a synthesis between the tools, technique and idea then the photograph will surely be a failure.

Sometimes, a cheap disposable camera is the perfect tool to portray an idea. Sometimes, a studio filled with a million dollars worth of gear will be the necessary tool required to portray an idea.

A lot of people that are searching for gear are just having a hard time matching up their medium with their message. This is a struggle that most photographers will go through at some point in their careers. Some people find the synthesis between the medium and the message right away and they might just happen to stumble on the right gear to portray their idea perfectly without much experimentation. I envy those people :D

Be really careful when discussing talent and gear in the same breathe. Talent is much more elusive than that...There are plenty of photographers out there that are loaded with natural talent that still haven't found the right tools and techniques to portray the vision that is in their minds yet. Some photographers may take decades until they get a synthesis between their vision and their tools/technique. Some people find it right away. But just because a photographer is struggling with gear or something doesn't mean that person lacks talent. On the contrary, it could mean that person's vision is truly original and might take much time to incubate before being born. I'm just making this point about talent because all too often people that struggle think it's because they lack ability. Usually it's a matter of something else other than ability. My life experience has taught me that almost every aspiring photographer has a natural talent even if they haven't discovered it yet.

[alabama1980]

It comes down to potential, IMHO.

You have the potential of the gear, and you have the potential of the photographer.
Both have a maximum potential at any given point. The difference is that human potential can grow, whereas the potential of a piece of equipment is set. Once the limits are reached, that's it.

Once a photographer has found the limits of his gear, regardless of talent, he will be held back by those limitations. There is no escaping that truth, however, what is a limit to you may not be to someone with more talent. Chase Jarvis could take my 40D and do amazing things. I'm not there yet. It's not the equipment, it's me.

The problem is most people (myself included) don't realize the true potential of their gear and fall into the trap of thinking that a better piece of equipment will bring about more talent. It never has or will. It may however make you realize that it wasn't a lack of talent, but a limitation of the equpment....or it may make you realize that you suck with any piece of equipment.

[NickSimcheck]

It's dependent on the subject, without a doubt.


What good would a landscape shot be without sharp glass?

Without proper timing and clever framing, good street photography would not exist.

Good luck getting a great sports shot with a large format camera.

Don't need a tack sharp lens for a portrait, everybody wants softer skin anyway.

An uncomfortable portrait is pointless, and a camera generally does not make people comfortable - but the photographer can!


So there you have it... camera, photographer, camera, photographer.

[sk8ape]

Just from personal experience, I feel my photography has gotten better over time with help of some good investments.
Maybe is because, I've invested some serious cash, made me be more focused and learn and practice more, you know, always want to play with the new toys.
I'm not saying that that's the way it should be, it's just the way it happened for me.

[DC Fan]

Has anyone found that even though they have a talent and ability for photography, that said talent can be held back by not having the correct equipment?

You can't buy talent with money.

[JEC]

Though I realize that many bad photos can be taken with really good cameras, the reverse is true as well.
I've met a few people that, with a Polaroid, could make me second-guess my abilities.
Sometimes when I think back, look back at younger days and images captured with 110 film, I appreciate what the tools were then.
New tools, new gadgetry inspires creativity, and pursuit of that sense of satisfaction that is always on the horizon.

Short answer to the question "Is it possible for someone to be a successful photographer whilst only having a minimum of equipment?"

Yes.

[darosk]

I say both!

[Karl Johnston]

This is more of a philosophical thread than anything...

I'm just wondering about other peoples experience in this case. Has anyone found that even though they have a talent and ability for photography, that said talent can be held back by not having the correct equipment?

Is it possible for someone to be a successful photographer whilst only having a minimum of equipment? I don't mean having the entire L series of lens's, but certainly there comes a point where a 70-300 needs to be replaced with a 70-200, or a 18-55 with even a 17-85?

Just interested in opinions...
Oh hell yeah. Give me 20 grand and I'll show you marc adamus' worst nightmare.

A photographer without a camera is up the creek without a paddle; it's going to be a hard road

A photographer without any skill is down the creek without a paddle, about to go over a waterfall and plunge 1000 thousand meters into an icy platitude; they need to find another road to venture down

[bwolford]

You can get further with talent and less equipment than with equipment and less talent. Talent takes you further.

[D.A.]

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.

[Floriantrojer.com]

a lot depends on what you are shooting...obviously for sports, wildlife and performing arts, the demands for good gear (fast glass, accurate AF, etc) are much more than in some other disciplines.

ONE HUNDRED percent true. If that winning pass comes straight at you and the receiver just manages to catch the football with two defense players behind him, all racing towards you at a hell of a speed in low light..............lets just say good luck getting it right with a 300D plus a 70-300 zoom lens.

There's certain areas where you have to have top equipment to show your talent!

[motoroller]

Having the equipment is often a substitute for having the talent. As long as the shots are reasonable, I don't see an issue - the advantage of better equipment is either the pro look, or the repeatability in your shots (where cheaper / inferior equipment would suffer)

[DC Fan]

If that winning pass comes straight at you and the receiver just manages to catch the football with two defense players behind him, all racing towards you at a hell of a speed in low light..............lets just say good luck getting it right with a 300D plus a 70-300 zoom lens.

Here's the exact situation and the exact equipment you mentioned. A football game, a cloudy day, a Digital Rebel 300d, a 70-300mm lens and a touchdown pass coming at the camera position.

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing/11082008a0058.jpg

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing/11082008a0060.jpg

Somehow, everything worked. Maybe you don't need thousands of dollars in equipment.

[MJPhotos24]

This is more of a philosophical thread than anything...

I'm just wondering about other peoples experience in this case. Has anyone found that even though they have a talent and ability for photography, that said talent can be held back by not having the correct equipment?

Is it possible for someone to be a successful photographer whilst only having a minimum of equipment? I don't mean having the entire L series of lens's, but certainly there comes a point where a 70-300 needs to be replaced with a 70-200, or a 18-55 with even a 17-85?

Just interested in opinions...
Yes, 100% without a doubt the equipment can hold you back from expressing the talent and knowledge you have. I only upgrade my equipment when what I have is holding me back from doing what I want to do. Right now I am held back in certain aspects and working on not having that problem.

Is it possible for someone to have talent and not the equipment and do well - yes, depending on what you're shooting. A sports photographer for bigger companies must have certain equipment and be able to use it as a tool of there knowledge, that's all. You can get by in many aspects on lesser gear where your knowledge/skill will be the leader but there will always be a point you're held back.

[MJPhotos24]

Here's the exact situation and the exact equipment you mentioned. A football game, a cloudy day, a Digital Rebel 300d, a 70-300mm lens and a touchdown pass coming at the camera position.

Somehow, everything worked. Maybe you don't need thousands of dollars in equipment.
I agree and disagree with you - this shows the moment well, but in my mind I have a little bit different shot that I'd want on the front page as an editor. I picture the runner with his left arm up (flexing) and ball tucked (as happens when you run with it) and head up more in the running away from defenders than he is - which looks to be in the caught the ball and about to turn up the speed. The image in my mind is probably a little after you took this particular image after he turned it up. With the fps used as a tool in this instance you could have got the "perfect" shot, instead you got the good shot. This is all in my mind and not a must obviously, overall they're both good shots showing the series of events and shows the user is important behind the gear.

[DC Fan]

...in my mind I have a little bit different shot that I'd want on the front page as an editor.

You haven't seen the other images in this sequence. :)

Besides, the point was to show that, despite what others have expressed in this thread, that you don't need the most expensive equipment available to get an image, even under conditions that are less than ideal.

This thread also shows there's a misconception that working pros use expensive equipment because it's somehow "better." The real reason is because it's durable. Deadline shooters are extremely rough with their equipment, and they prefer something that can be thrown around and still work. Where a user in this forum might carefully pack their equipment before taking it to an event, a working pro might just throw it in a car trunk. A salesman at a camera store once noted that lenses and bodies from newspaper shooters tend to look like junk when they're traded in.

[MJPhotos24]

You haven't seen the other images in this sequence. :)
I assumed, since it was from the one turning up field to in the end zone those were the only two since I have no clue how far he actually went and the 300D only gets 2.5fps and a player can move a pretty good amount there. If you got "the shot" I'm describing throw it up on here.

Besides, the point was to show that, despite what others have expressed in this thread, that you don't need the most expensive equipment available to get an image, even under conditions that are less than ideal.
"An image" - no, but sometimes "THE image" - yes. my point was yea you got an image of the big play but did you get the best one possible, who knows. In my mind I see something a little different and fps used as a tool (i.e. not a spray and pray shooter all through the game) could have helped. Rarely use the 8.5 fps but in a big play of course it becomes a tool you're glad to have. Many spreads you see are chosen from a sequence, not the only choice they had.

This thread also shows there's a misconception that working pros use expensive equipment because it's somehow "better." The real reason is because it's durable. Deadline shooters are extremely rough with their equipment, and they prefer something that can be thrown around and still work. Where a user in this forum might carefully pack their equipment before taking it to an event, a working pro might just throw it in a car trunk. A salesman at a camera store once noted that lenses and bodies from newspaper shooters tend to look like junk when they're traded in
I'm going to totally disagree here on pretty much everything you've said. Working pros do use the gear they have because it is better. The II/IIn/III all have better ISO capabilities, better speed, better focus, better MP, pretty much better across the board when you compare specs and results in many instances depending on what you're shooting. Does it mean you can't get an image with lesser gear, nope not at all. You may get lucky and get that perfect image, it happened back in the film days it can happen with lesser digital gear. Can you take acceptable shots with good timing in sports, of course - but still there's times when the gear matters. The more expensive gear has better tools for you to take advantage of and up your chances of getting the shot instead along with just better overall quality. I started with lesser gear and have grown to shoot with better and can tell you from experience what you're saying is dead wrong. Especially as I go through my old archives and get to see the quality back then compared to now.

As for deadline shooters, which I am one and shoot with many of them throwing there gear around is assinine. You have a very wrong misconception of how working pros treat there gear. Now I've seen some idiots who do treat it like crap, there was three college kids in a media room once talking about how bad they treat there professors gear as they loaned it from him for the paper - he was the director of it. Those type idiots are RARE!! Most working pros treat there gear good, they don't throw it in the trunk unprotected that's for sure. Every photo room I've been in each photog has a roller case or bags to store there gear after an event and are taking care of what they have.

Now for the newspaper comment, of course they look like junk! All you have to do is think about it with common sense. The photogs use that gear every single day of the year all day long. That gear is going from when the first photog reports to the last one leaves and sometimes more. By the time they trade it in it's a few years old of constant use, of course there's going to be some dings and it's foolish to think there wouldn't be. when you use ANYTHING as much as they use the gear at a newspaper it's going to wear down a little quicker. As a newspaper photog you have to have your gear constantly ready, so it may be sitting in the front seat of your car more than a bag - it's news and the story is important to get. Wear a pair of shoes for 16 or so hours a day, every day for three years and see how they look when done.

[CatchingUp]

Let's not forget and be honest with ourselves, oftentimes, there is a whole lot of 'luck' involved as well. :- )

I've heard carpenters say, as well as auto mechanics, that there is no substitute for good equipment. And that if you want to do a job well, invest in good tools. I think the same can be applied to our trade as well.

[narlus]

You haven't seen the other images in this sequence. :)

Besides, the point was to show that, despite what others have expressed in this thread, that you don't need the most expensive equipment available to get an image, even under conditions that are less than ideal.

to be fair, the original post you replied to specified low-light (ie, night games). which this isn't.

This thread also shows there's a misconception that working pros use expensive equipment because it's somehow "better." The real reason is because it's durable. Deadline shooters are extremely rough with their equipment, and they prefer something that can be thrown around and still work. Where a user in this forum might carefully pack their equipment before taking it to an event, a working pro might just throw it in a car trunk. A salesman at a camera store once noted that lenses and bodies from newspaper shooters tend to look like junk when they're traded in.

sportshooters routinely use 300 and 400 f/2.8 lenses, and not because they are durable.

[shaggymatt]

I've heard carpenters say, as well as auto mechanics, that there is no substitute for good equipment. And that if you want to do a job well, invest in good tools. I think the same can be applied to our trade as well.

I think that this statement goes a long way. I'm a closet mechanic as well. I have the tools I need to get the job done. People think that modern cars are difficult to work on. I have a custom OBD II cable made for Audi cars and the software is written for the platform as well. Factory repair manual, buy the tools or rent them for the job. I undertook what is an almost $2k dealer preventative maintenance item a couple months ago at a cost to me of $300 and two days.

Now to relate to photography... Take a picture with a Drebel, pop-up flash and kit lens. Take the exact same photo with a 5dmkII (or insert other here), 580exII and a Prime lens. The better gear is going to have a lot more pop to the image.

You still need to have the talent to see the picture mentally. Your mind needs to be trained to see the shot. I find myself doing this commonly walking down the street I'll frame shots in my head. Reading people to anticipate what they are going to do next, as if I were capturing an image for a wedding.

Bottom line is that it is a bit of both. Your credit limit can certainly hold you back, but if you don't have the natural gift take classes and read LOTS!

[wayovrpar]

to be fair, the original post you replied to specified low-light (ie, night games). which this isn't.



sportshooters routinely use 300 and 400 f/2.8 lenses, and not because they are durable.

Agreed...I don't think you have posted an image that supports your claim. Push the ISO to 1600 and then get back to us on whether or not the 1d, or even a 40d for that matter, is better. If you are happy with your equipment, then more power to ya', but to suggest that pros use more expensive equipment simply because it is more durable is not accurate. Look at MJ's post to see the list of reasons more expensive equipment is indeed "better". IMHO.

[Huskers69]

Agreed...I don't think you have posted an image that supports your claim. Push the ISO to 1600 and then get back to us on whether or not the 1d, or even a 40d for that matter, is better. If you are happy with your equipment, then more power to ya', but to suggest that pros use more expensive equipment simply because it is more durable is not accurate. Look at MJ's post to see the list of reasons more expensive equipment is indeed "better". IMHO.

I agree with this also. that picture looks like it was taken quite a distance from the photographer. none of the linemen are even in the picture anymore, just DB's , a LB?, and maybe a RB. It wasn't a bang, bang play right at you, taken under the lights of football, where good glass and camera would have been a must. JUST MO.

[DC Fan]

Push the ISO to 1600 and then get back to us on whether or not the 1d, or even a 40d for that matter, is better.

ISO 1600? Use that all the time with the XTi. Not for football, but for indoor events.

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing/03102009a0273.jpg

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing/011720090244.jpg

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing/12292008c0084.jpg

Three different arenas, three different lighting situations. It's a mix of the Canon 70-300mm IS and the Tamron 18-200mm. Set the ISO to 1600 on the XTi and chose a useful shutter speed that would work with the available light and the lens' capabilities. Body and two lenses cost less than one body in the 1d series.

[PeaceFire]

I think talent can grow with equipment. I started out because we lost our wedding photographer last minute and desperately needed a solution, which was an XTi and 28-105 and some very nice, willing family members. LOVED the results. For me, they are perfect. Now I am a wedding photographer myself (yes, that's how I got into it) and I wouldn't DREAM of showing up at someone else's wedding with just an XTi and a 28-105. I wouldn't have the reach, the speed, the light, etc. So in that sense, equipment would hold me back. But I learned everything I know on my XTi, so that's where I built my skills/talent (though I won't claim to have much, but I do have enthusiasm and a crazy work ethic which makes up for it, I think!).

[p4photo]

I really think that you can be talented no matter what equipment that you have. If you are shooting a landscape and only have a 50mm, look for other creative ways to photograph it. Get close to a subject that you can fit in the foreground. I have gone through my whole professional career with two lenses. A 28-135mm and a Tamron 28-70mm. I do rent lenses on every once in a while, I generally know and have a shoot planned out when I rent one. Its not about the equipment but what is six inches behind the camera.

[MJPhotos24]

ISO 1600? Use that all the time with the XTi. Not for football, but for indoor events.


Three different arenas, three different lighting situations. It's a mix of the Canon 70-300mm IS and the Tamron 18-200mm. Set the ISO to 1600 on the XTi and chose a useful shutter speed that would work with the available light and the lens' capabilities. Body and two lenses cost less than one body in the 1d series.

Sorry, but even web ready (where you can hide the details often since the image is smaller) these are not as good as 3200 ISO on the IIn noise wise - and the III is even better. Not to mention the motion blur kills it, I would lose jobs handing in images with that much motion blur. When you do this for a full time job, especially sports, you realize you need the tools to get jobs done to the CLIENT needs. I've gotten jobs because I had the right gear and lost some because I didn't have something in my bag. Still I'm not saying talent doesn't matter (see previous posts), it sure does and you can get good images with lesser gear but the higher end equipment just helps a photog with the tools it offers.

If you really wanna compare results take your image and put it up against a Nikon D3 and prime. I did that friendly challenge in the media room a few weeks ago and my IIn and 400 prime lost to his D3 and 400 prime. The guy was a Canon shooter using the gear on loan from Nikon as they tried to get him to switch - his results won (and yes we used the same settings, same ISO, etc). Now when Canon comes out with the IIIn or IV then maybe they'll win the battle - well hopefully!!

[Tarzanman]

You can't buy talent with money.

Maybe not, but you sure can rent the f#$ out of it, though!

[DC Fan]

Interesting pattern in this thread. Twice, someone makes a "you can't do that" statement, and when shown that something impossible is possible, the response is "you need a more expensive camera." With this pattern, eventually someone is going to demand that everyone go out and buy a $40,000 Phase One P65 Plus or a Hasselblad H3DII. :)

[snyderman]

I can't buy talent or experience (equally important) so I bought the equipment! ;)

dave

[spkerer]

Interesting pattern in this thread. Twice, someone makes a "you can't do that" statement, and when shown that something impossible is possible, the response is "you need a more expensive camera." With this pattern, eventually someone is going to demand that everyone go out and buy a $40,000 Phase One P65 Plus or a Hasselblad H3DII. :)

I just started reading this thread. There's a difference in quality. Could that basketball picture you posted be taken with your equipment? Obviously yes. But can the equipment you're describing take the picture with sufficient quality for ... (you name it). Maybe, maybe not.

For some purposes the images you posted are fine. For other purposes, they are completely unacceptable. This isn't a case of whether taking a picture in given conditions is "possible" or "impossible" with certain equipment. It's a question of whether it's possible to take a picture of a certain quality in given conditions with certain equipment. Without specifying the subjective "certain quality", the argument is pointless. Everyone can be right.

There are times when I'm shooting a scene in the dark where equipment with higher ISO that my equipment would allow me to take a better picture.

[MJPhotos24]

Interesting pattern in this thread. Twice, someone makes a "you can't do that" statement, and when shown that something impossible is possible, the response is "you need a more expensive camera." With this pattern, eventually someone is going to demand that everyone go out and buy a $40,000 Phase One P65 Plus or a Hasselblad H3DII. :)

Again, where are the images that show what anyone is talking about in this thread when it comes to better gear? Where's the image I asked about and you said I haven't seen the whole series? The one as an editor I would want on the front page as the "perfect shot" to tell the story of that big play? From the ones posted it looks like you got the start and end of it - where's the middle where the best shots are? Where's the b-ball images most sports clients would accept? I haven't seen them and the ones posted are not it because of the before mentioned reasons.

I've repeatedly said you can get good images with lesser gear, maybe good enough, sometimes great, but all the reasons mentioned why more expensive gear is better have not once been addressed. The b-ball images are only showing why and how more expensive gear is better. I know you want to believe it's all the same but it's not and either uneducated to think so or maybe just jealous of those that have it or get to use it? I have no clue how anyone can deny why it's better given the tools it allows a photographer to have over cheaper gear.

I can't buy talent or experience (equally important) so I bought the equipment! ;)

dave
Can to, you can hire a talented & experienced photographer for the day :)

[MJPhotos24]

...also, just having the gear alone doesn't help - knowledge and talent are needed. I know a guy with a MKIII and 300 2.8 IS and his images suck as he has no clue about composition, what to look for, proper exposure, WB, nothing. He said his images sucked before because his XTI didn't have 10fps and that's what was needed to take good images even though he had the glass which should have helped some, but now that he has it his images still suck. Strange ain't it? It's why so many photographers get annoyed at the comments like "that camera takes good pictures".

[CatchingUp]

I think it can be said that the technological advances in digital photography has raised the level of quality of photos being taken across a broad spectrum. In other words, the equipment available today has enhanced whatever level of talent an individual may have had.

case & point - Years ago, I would have been terrified to shoot a wedding using film. It was that never really knowing what you got until the pictures came back or you developed them. Now days, when I shoot a wedding, I can make instant adjustments along the way as I'm shooting because of being able to view what I'm capturing.

Another example would be shooting sporting events. With digitial, I'm going to shoot probably 5-10x as many shots as I would have with film. So the percentages of more 'keepers' increases. That in turn might suggest I am more 'talented' with the gear I have today as opposed to what I shot with film?

[wayovrpar]

Interesting pattern in this thread. Twice, someone makes a "you can't do that" statement, and when shown that something impossible is possible, the response is "you need a more expensive camera." With this pattern, eventually someone is going to demand that everyone go out and buy a $40,000 Phase One P65 Plus or a Hasselblad H3DII. :)

Not once did I say that it was impossible to take quality pics in less than perfect condidions with your xt. I am a novice shooter and the motion blur in your BB shots would get them deleted by my standards. If your standards dictate these images are acceptable then your equipment is satisfactory for you. For my requirements, it is not.If I were generating an income from my images I would want equipment that sets me up for success, not "acceptable".

[randplaty]

There's a lot more involved than just talent and equipment.

There's also learning, knowledge, intelligence, experience etc.

If you have a ton of talent, and a ton of awesome equipment but no experience. You'll probably produce horrible photos.

[kevindar]

I think for most photographers with some degree of skills and technical understanding, better equipment leads to better images. So as an independent variable, yes, equipment does make a difference. As others have said, in certain genres extra features of equipment can make a huge difference. However, it stands true with current technology, even the entry level dslr's and consumer grade glass provide for very powerful tool in skilled hands.

[sapearl]

Just saw this thread and couldn't resist making a comment Joey :D - obviously you're being sarcastic.... seen your stuff and some of it's pretty good. And besides, you wouldn't keep plugging away at wedding photography if you didn't have some talent.

I have no talent for photography, but I find that without the best equipment for the job my ability to do the job is more limited.

[DC Fan]

A good real-world example of how something that wasn't the most expensive item was the best choice.

Dave Black (http://www.daveblackphotography.com/index.htm) is an accomplished sports photographer who uses Nikon DSLR's such as the D3 and D700. But when he got assignments to cover The Masters for Golf Digest, he started using Nikon Coolpix 8700 and 8800 (http://www.daveblackphotography.com/on-the-road/12-2008.htm) point and shoot cameras. Why would someone accomplished with Nikon's most elaborate gear start using a consumer-grade camera for the biggest tournament of the year?

Because the point-and-shoots had an advantage: they were silent. In golf, any sort of noise during a player's backswing, especially the shutter noise from a DSLR, can get you ejected from an event. The Coolpix 8700 and 8800 don't make any noise. So, Black could take shots of golfers during any part of their swing (http://www.daveblackphotography.com/on-the-road/0705.htm) and no one would notice.

No complaints of inferior equipment, just someone who understood a sport's written and unwritten rules and found a way to handle those situations.

[Tom Reichner]

As someone who primarily shoots wildlife that is truly wild and unaccustomed to human proximity, I can say from experience that excellent equipment is a must.

I have the 100-400 L series zoom. Guess what? - it's not good enough. Now that I've gotten used to the IQ that my big 400 2.8 provides, I'm simply disappointed with the results form the 100-400. And many folks consider the 100-400 to be a high quality lens. Sure, talent is the first and foremost consideration. But once the talent is developed, it requires equipment to produce what is in the mind's eye.

[MJPhotos24]

A good real-world example of how something that wasn't the most expensive item was the best choice.

Dave Black (http://www.daveblackphotography.com/index.htm) is an accomplished sports photographer who uses Nikon DSLR's such as the D3 and D700. But when he got assignments to cover The Masters for Golf Digest, he started using Nikon Coolpix 8700 and 8800 (http://www.daveblackphotography.com/on-the-road/12-2008.htm) point and shoot cameras. Why would someone accomplished with Nikon's most elaborate gear start using a consumer-grade camera for the biggest tournament of the year?

Because the point-and-shoots had an advantage: they were silent. In golf, any sort of noise during a player's backswing, especially the shutter noise from a DSLR, can get you ejected from an event. The Coolpix 8700 and 8800 don't make any noise. So, Black could take shots of golfers during any part of their swing (http://www.daveblackphotography.com/on-the-road/0705.htm) and no one would notice.

No complaints of inferior equipment, just someone who understood a sport's written and unwritten rules and found a way to handle those situations.

Once again that shows it's not always the equipment as has been said all alone, and once again the issues at hand people were actually discussing were ignored. Seriously, why won't you address them? The funny thing is you proved a point in the opposite direction for your argument again, he wasn't using the P&S for anything but the back swing shot because he used that cameras TOOL of a silent shutter, all the other shots were with high end gear. That doesn't support your argument at all you realize, right?

[gregpphoto]

It comes down to potential, IMHO.

You have the potential of the gear, and you have the potential of the photographer.
Both have a maximum potential at any given point. The difference is that human potential can grow, whereas the potential of a piece of equipment is set. Once the limits are reached, that's it.

Once a photographer has found the limits of his gear, regardless of talent, he will be held back by those limitations. There is no escaping that truth, however, what is a limit to you may not be to someone with more talent. Chase Jarvis could take my 40D and do amazing things. I'm not there yet. It's not the equipment, it's me.

The problem is most people (myself included) don't realize the true potential of their gear and fall into the trap of thinking that a better piece of equipment will bring about more talent. It never has or will. It may however make you realize that it wasn't a lack of talent, but a limitation of the equpment....or it may make you realize that you suck with any piece of equipment.

Nice! I agree with all (especially about Jarvis).

[S.Horton]

I only upgraded when I was sure that the gear would make a real difference.

If I were to put a value on my time, then I'd have spent much more on practice than gear.

[RDKirk]

A really talented cook can prepare a tasty dish of some sort in nearly anyone's kitchen, just as a really talented photographer can produce a good photograph of some kind from nearly any camera.

However, both the talented cook and the talented photographer will be aware of what compromises they had to make and how much more they could have done with better equipment.

[S.Horton]

I'm a better cook than photog -- That's about right, if you think of the image as the ingredients.

[Brideshooter]

IMHO, talent is one of the most important aspects of what we do. Equipment is important too, but its the talent behind the device that ultimately makes the image.

[canonphotog]

Here's the exact situation and the exact equipment you mentioned. A football game, a cloudy day, a Digital Rebel 300d, a 70-300mm lens and a touchdown pass coming at the camera position.

http://www.fansview.com/racing/11082008a0058.jpg

http://www.fansview.com/racing/11082008a0060.jpg

Somehow, everything worked. Maybe you don't need thousands of dollars in equipment.
I agree and disagree with you - this shows the moment well, but in my mind I have a little bit different shot that I'd want on the front page as an editor. I picture the runner with his left arm up (flexing) and ball tucked (as happens when you run with it) and head up more in the running away from defenders than he is - which looks to be in the caught the ball and about to turn up the speed. The image in my mind is probably a little after you took this particular image after he turned it up. With the fps used as a tool in this instance you could have got the "perfect" shot, instead you got the good shot. This is all in my mind and not a must obviously, overall they're both good shots showing the series of events and shows the user is important behind the gear.

Exif shows 1/800", f/4.5 and iso 400. That's a far cry from "low light".

[MJPhotos24]

Exif shows 1/800", f/4.5 and iso 400. That's a far cry from "low light".
...and you quoted me why? I said nothing of low light in my reply...but yes you're right, hardly low light.

[sapearl]

And my wife is a far better cook than I am Sam, which is why I do the dishes...:rolleyes:; has nothing to do with the current topic, but seemed like the right thing to say at this point :lol:.

I'm a better cook than photog -- That's about right, if you think of the image as the ingredients.

[canonphotog]

...and you quoted me why? I said nothing of low light in my reply...but yes you're right, hardly low light.

If you're confused as to why.., I'll leave it at that.

[MJPhotos24]

If you're confused as to why.., I'll leave it at that.
Pointless quote where you have no reason why, got it...

[sapearl]

Now will one of you help me with the dishes already? You know this stack isn't getting any shorter by intself......:rolleyes:

Pointless quote where you have no reason why, got it...

[JeffreyG]

If your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

If your only camera is a pinhole camera, every photo you take will look like a very soft still life or landscape.

If you happen to be a really great still life or soft landscape specialist, then you might be better with a pinhole camera than some hack with a top of the line dSLR.

But my nine year old daughter would shoot a better night football game with a top of the line dSLR than the best photographer with a pinhole camera.

So yes, talent and gear matter. This seems so obvious and yet the question resurfaces with regularity.

[MJPhotos24]

Now will one of you help me with the dishes already? You know this stack isn't getting any shorter by intself......:rolleyes:
Dishes? Bachelor life means you only use dishes you can throw out!

[sapearl]

That's pretty good MJ - got me there :lol:. You purchase by the truck load?

Dishes? Bachelor life means you only use dishes you can throw out!

[tkbslc]

Why do I have to pick? Can't I have talent and top end gear? I'm working on both. I hope to get there over the next 20+ years.

[MDJAK]

Hey, this is a fun thread. Mind if I join the fray?

Talent: Something that surely cannot be taught, bought or learned. Can it be acquired? Perhaps, if the person has it somewhere inside their being and knows how to bring it out.

Equipment: Something that surely can be bought, acquired, traded. Can it give you talent? Can it give you "the eye?" Nope.

Just ask one who knows, me. I've owned every top DSLR made, from my current D3 to the 1DsMKIII, 1DsMKII, 1DMKIII, and I just don't have "the eye." No matter which lens I used, no matter what setting I tried, my buddies using much less expensive equipment would come away with better pictures.

So, what's the answer? I'll tell you. When I switched to Nikon recently (yeah, I'm an unabashed gearhead. I state it loud and clear. I love it.) I tried to get by with just the 14-24, perhaps the best wide angle zoom made; the 24-70, a small step above the Brick, but way more expensive; and the 70-300, a large step above every 70-300 Canon makes, including the DO model I owned. However, when wrestling season came a knockin', I couldn't answer the call. No way I could shoot any indoor sport without the 70-200 f2.8. So, I acquired the 70-200 f2.8, and then the 200-400 f4, an amazing lens also.

Yeah, I still suck, but I do love the equipment. And the more POTN get togethers I attend, perhaps, just perhaps the better I'll get.

me

[yoyoer13]

"The medium determines the message."

What exactly does that mean? It means that the ability of a photographer to successful convey an idea (message) will be determined by his tools and techniques (medium) An aspiring photographer has to merge his ability to use tools and technique to portray an idea properly. If there is not a synthesis between the tools, technique and idea then the photograph will surely be a failure.

Sometimes, a cheap disposable camera is the perfect tool to portray an idea. Sometimes, a studio filled with a million dollars worth of gear will be the necessary tool required to portray an idea.

A lot of people that are searching for gear are just having a hard time matching up their medium with their message. This is a struggle that most photographers will go through at some point in their careers. Some people find the synthesis between the medium and the message right away and they might just happen to stumble on the right gear to portray their idea perfectly without much experimentation. I envy those people :D

Be really careful when discussing talent and gear in the same breathe. Talent is much more elusive than that...There are plenty of photographers out there that are loaded with natural talent that still haven't found the right tools and techniques to portray the vision that is in their minds yet. Some photographers may take decades until they get a synthesis between their vision and their tools/technique. Some people find it right away. But just because a photographer is struggling with gear or something doesn't mean that person lacks talent. On the contrary, it could mean that person's vision is truly original and might take much time to incubate before being born. I'm just making this point about talent because all too often people that struggle think it's because they lack ability. Usually it's a matter of something else other than ability. My life experience has taught me that almost every aspiring photographer has a natural talent even if they haven't discovered it yet.

I fully agree +1

These are mostly my thoughts towards photography.

I just shot a bunch of rolls of expired Kodak 200 colour for a really cheap cheezy look even tho I have a 40D and 5D, thats sometimes what I want things too look like.

[nphsbuckeye]

These talent v gear threads are among my most favorite to read. /hijack

[CatchingUp]

I think 'talent' is a subjective word that is not easily defined, especially when it comes to art.

You can measure the sucess that talent has produced in some fields with statistics. i.e. the Tiger Woods and Michael Jordans of the world.

But when it comes to photography , I am not going to be that quick to lay claim to possesing any special talent or ability when it comes to taking pictures. This I do know - the better equipment I obtain, the better quality of pictures I am producing. And people notice.

[S.Horton]

I think success in photography is 60% sales.

[sfaust]

Equipment can limit talent.
Talent can trump equipment.

The most talented photographers can trump any technical limitations by using their creative talents to turn a negative into a positive, or overcome the limitations with a new or unique creative approach. Give a very talented photographer a point and shoot and tell them they have to live with it, and watch them create some great images with it.

If we are talking about say the difference and limitations between a Canon 10D and a 1DsMkIII, or a consumer lens vs a L lens, all are very capable tools in the hands of any photographer, and it won't hamper their creativity much at all. Throw some limitations at a talented photographer, and they will take it in stride and still deliver stunning results.

[nphsbuckeye]

I think 'talent' is a subjective word that is not easily defined, especially when it comes to art.

You can measure the sucess that talent has produced in some fields with statistics. i.e. the Tiger Woods and Michael Jordans of the world.

But when it comes to photography , I am not going to be that quick to lay claim to possesing any special talent or ability when it comes to taking pictures. This I do know - the better equipment I obtain, the better quality of pictures I am producing. And people notice.
To quote Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it."

[Jacobredphoto]

It's a mix of both in my opinion. I consider myself fairly talented in photography. I started out with a 1.3 megapixel Olympus and made my way to my last camera which was a Fuji FinePix S700, it was a great camera and I got some really good photographs with it but once I graduated to my new XSi, there were different worlds that opened for me. The ability to take low noise shots at concert, switching out lenses, batter grips, rugedness, quality, external flashes, long exposures, speed ,etc.

[MDJAK]

I think success in photography is 60% sales.


You're close to correct. Actually, success is 90 percent sales, the other half is talent. :lol:

me

[MJPhotos24]

You're close to correct. Actually, success is 90 percent sales, the other half is talent. :lol:

me
Yogi is screaming copyright infringement. :)

That's pretty good MJ - got me there . You purchase by the truck load?
Nope, another whole kind of load!

[Tareq]

I don't care about all statements, simply because i will buy more and more expensive or cheap gear, and i will use any gear to grow my skill, because my skill will be grown with any gear, and i don't just stop myself in limitations, if that XT is a great amazing camera and it will do the job but it has some limitations then why i can't go for another camera? if my 1DsII or 1DsIII are top gear but i need something more for a reason [say printing billboards and 5m frames] then who will tell me never buy P65 or H3DII or large format?

Simply i signed here in this forum since 2006 and i was using just Nikon coolpix8800 and Canon 350D[XT], now it is 2009 and i have Hasselblad H3DII and still my nikon 8800 and 350D are there around, did that made anything to me? i use H3DII and Canon DSLRs and never feel they stopped my skill to grow, and i will never make my skills and talent to decide if i should upgrade or not, i swear if i have Millions$$$ from beginning then i will buy Hasselblad and 1DsII and Nikon D200 or D2X and large format from the beginning of my photography and never look back or saying "Oh, i am just newbie, i should by P&S first".

[sapearl]

Ah but the question is Tareq, have you ever stayed long enough on one piece of gear or with a particular platform to push it to it's limits to really see how much you can learn from it and how far you could go?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but sometimes we (and I have been guilty of this too sometimes) jump to the "next latest greatest" piece of gear just because we can afford to, or maybe because we are bored with the "old" stuff.

[Tareq]

Ah but the question is Tareq, have you ever stayed long enough on one piece of gear or with a particular platform to push it to it's limits to really see how much you can learn from it and how far you could go?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but sometimes we (and I have been guilty of this too sometimes) jump to the "next latest greatest" piece of gear just because we can afford to, or maybe because we are bored with the "old" stuff.

to be honest, in some of my gear, yes, and YES strongly, but i agree that other gear i just jumped faster than i should, for example my Nikon coolpix was terrible at ISO400, so it was like i need better quality camera at higher ISO, and also 350D ISO1600 was limited, and not so high quality as i was shooting in a church without a tripod and no flash, also my 350D was not fast enough for me in sports, the AF is not spot on as in my 1D series, so if i never going into many conditions like fast actions and very low light and extreme conditions like in snow mountains once in Lebanon then i will never reach any camera limits, but i don't go into those conditions 100 times to decide then it is time to upgrade, one time is enough for me to see where are the cameras limitations, so i've done when i got 1DIIN and 5D[or 1DsII], after that all what i buy later is just for fun and not because limitations mostly.

[gregpphoto]

I think if you have shiny white lenses then youre the best photographer you can be.

[Tareq]

I think if you have shiny white lenses then youre the best photographer you can be.

I have, but i will never use that to show others that i am 100% best photographer, shame on some people who has those great gear and they don't use it for better results, same also with those who have cheap low quality gear and don't want to upgrade and learn and improve themselves, i have a friend who was shooting for almost 10 years or so, mostly portraits and sports, still using his D70 or older, and he didn't buy new lenses, and many times coming to me which i am just shooting sports for 2 years or less and he asking me why my photos are not good quality as mine, i didn't want to tell him that it is either you who don't know how to use camera even with that 10 years shooting or it is that gear you use which is not good enough, so i let him to try himself, he bought D300, his photos are much better now even he didn't change his skill or doing something more, and also he decided that he want to upgrade his lens Nikkor xx-300 to something better like 70-200, so he found that the gear will help him to get improved and his shots looks better quality and sure he will start to learn how to get better photos in sports [portraits he is doing very good].

So simple, the gear and photographer are important, you have great gear that will help you to get more photos with more keepers and maybe remarkable and winner shots that if you are a good enough on photography, but if you are not good enough at all and you use cheap or expensive it will not be a big difference except with expensive gear you will get more keepers than those cheap, and to be honest i see many people who started or using high end or expensive gear learning faster than those with cheap and not so high end or entry-level gear, one of my friends shooting birds for almost 3 years with his Canon 70-300 and he said 90% of the shots he doesn't like and delete it, after he got 70-200 and 100-400 he told me that he was an idiot that he was shooting with 70-300, 90% are great and he was happy, so is that means that his skill was not good enough? sometimes you have good shots not because of your skill, but because of your gear, so don't always rush and say that you have great photos because of your skill and talent and the gear is 10-20% only, i am sure if i shoot something like landscapes with my 350D and 1DsIII with all my talent or experience maybe those shots of 1DsIII will look much more vibrant and better than my 350D, i wish if i was using my 5D when i was in Paris inside that NotreDam church, then i can crank that ISO up to 3200 and it will be much better look than my 350D ISO 1600.

If i have to put percent then i will say it is a photographer 50% and the gear is 50%, i wouldn't say photographer is 30% and gear is 70% then many here will not accept it even of that 50 50.

[RDKirk]

But my nine year old daughter would shoot a better night football game with a top of the line dSLR than the best photographer with a pinhole camera.

Maybe not. Not all photographs of a football game need be action images of players. Once, years ago, I went through an exercise of using a view camera on a tripod for "grab" shots. It's amazing what you can find that holds still--and will hold still--when you look for it with the right vision.

I can think of some very iconic pinhole possibilities that would stay on gallery walls long after the latest Sports Illustrated has found its way into the wastebasket.

[PhotoJourno]

A photograph as an artistic expression, is about its content just as -if not more- than the technical edge that produces it. It is often seemingly grayscale, or OOF photos that get the job done. To this day, the craft is young enough to establish the fact that the masters of photography accomplished most of what we learn today by using the most rudimentary equipment.

Can equipment enhance one's ability to take a photograph? Absolutely. But the two are in completely different categories. Equipment along can help someone make you believe the talent is there. But this cannot be done the other way around.

Would a sledgehammer do the job a hammer can do? Probably. Is it necessary? well, that's entirely up to discussion. To me it is not Talent Vs. Equipment, but rather Talent AND Equipment. In that order.

Talent * Equipment = Photo

I keep thinking of an old creed by GM Rupertus, I have taken the liberty of substituting the words, so that it makes sense (I love it in its original form though).

"This is my Camera.
There are many like it, but this one is MINE.
My Camera is my best friend. It is my life.
I must master it as I must master my life.
My Camera without me is useless. Without my Camera, I am useless.
I must fire my Camera true.

[Tareq]

Talent * Equipment = Photo

My Camera without me is useless. Without my Camera, I am useless.



Exactly true, both should be on par to work together for best performance and output and results, don't just always saying with successful photos it is the talent only or the photographer only, who knows, maybe with not right tool he can't get that successful photos, maybe i use a tool to get winner shot that if you used it you won't maybe, and maybe the camera you use to do the job not necessary it will do for me, so if equipment is not important or no effects then all photographers in the world should use cameras from mobile camera up to not just large but even XL cameras with same talent and all will do the job, what do you think of a Pro photographer who is using a medium or large format for landscapes only for 30 years and then you give him 1D MKIII or D3 or D3X to shoot sports but he failed then will you say that he is not a pro because it should be the photographer and not the tool? maybe you will say he is not a sports photography pro, but he should be talented and experienced enough to use any camera for anything, but if he dedicated to one type of camera to one type of photography then i hope is we give him a P&S camera to shoot landscapes and he couldn't get stunning great photos then what is his excuse, the gear wasn't right for him?

[MyCatsAnnoyingMe]

I completely agree with the statement that it depends on the type of photography.

Some people have an eye and ability to shoot sports, they just have uncanny talent with timing, while others are masters at capturing a persons inner essence in portraiture, they just know when to push the button.

The equipment is just a tool, and it helps to have the right tool for the right job for sure.

I have a friend who photographs horses for her artwork, she's a juried international equine artist. I've shot side by side with her, same position, same shots.. Hers just have something mine don't, you can totally tell which ones she shoots. It kinda pisses me off....;) In saying that, she has no idea how to shoot sports or fashion. She can shoot horse races at Woodbine and they look okay, but hockey, soccer etc... she can't get the timing and doesn't know what to look for.

I remember reading an interview in a magazine years ago, and the photographer they were interviewing was talking about Steve Meisel, and he made the comment about how, 'you could give Steve Meisel a disposable throw away camera and he'd shoot 24 covers for you.' I always think of that, it says a lot about Meisel and his 'talent'. :cool:

[PhotoJourno]

..., 'you could give Steve Meisel a disposable throw away camera and he'd shoot 24 covers for you.' I always think of that, it says a lot about Meisel and his 'talent'. :cool:

Yup. In my view -and again, I am glad you brought up the detail- GENERALLY SPEAKING, Equipment will usually fill the gap between the Talent and the end result of the photo. Those with less talent will require more equipment goodness (face tracking in case someone's forgotten what they look like ;) ) and more talented artists will not require as many features to turn out outstanding work.

Along those lines, I can think of many musicians, that if isolated with a guitar or keyboard, could not remotely duplicate their studio performance. Others in the other hand, may outdo themselves acapella. Generally, being the keyword.

[DwightMcCann]

You can't buy talent with money.

Though I realize that many bad photos can be taken with really good cameras, the reverse is true as well.
I've met a few people that, with a Polaroid, could make me second-guess my abilities.
Sometimes when I think back, look back at younger days and images captured with 110 film, I appreciate what the tools were then.
New tools, new gadgetry inspires creativity, and pursuit of that sense of satisfaction that is always on the horizon.

Short answer to the question "Is it possible for someone to be a successful photographer whilst only having a minimum of equipment?"

Yes.

You can get further with talent and less equipment than with equipment and less talent. Talent takes you further.

A photograph as an artistic expression, is about its content just as -if not more- than the technical edge that produces it. It is often seemingly grayscale, or OOF photos that get the job done. To this day, the craft is young enough to establish the fact that the masters of photography accomplished most of what we learn today by using the most rudimentary equipment.

Can equipment enhance one's ability to take a photograph? Absolutely. But the two are in completely different categories. Equipment along can help someone make you believe the talent is there. But this cannot be done the other way around.

Would a sledgehammer do the job a hammer can do? Probably. Is it necessary? well, that's entirely up to discussion. To me it is not Talent Vs. Equipment, but rather Talent AND Equipment. In that order.

Talent * Equipment = Photo

I keep thinking of an old creed by GM Rupertus, I have taken the liberty of substituting the words, so that it makes sense (I love it in its original form though).

"This is my Camera.
There are many like it, but this one is MINE.
My Camera is my best friend. It is my life.
I must master it as I must master my life.
My Camera without me is useless. Without my Camera, I am useless.
I must fire my Camera true.

I didn't read the whole thread but these jumped out at me because I am utterly and absolutely convinced that talent is supreme and equipment is very secondary. I have no talent, no vision, am not creative, but I have a significant gear list (see signature) and it doesn't help a bit! My son has an old 20D and a couple of lenses I gave him and his images make mine look like disposable film camera stuff. I have seen several POTN photographers who produce fantastic images with Rebels. A good example is Paul Buceta who does fashion/glamor. He started with a Rebel IIRC and only moved up to 1DsMII because Playboy insisted! Yes, good equipment is a wonderful asset but unless there are technical requirements it is just a convenience.

[yoyoer13]

I think success in photography is 60% sales.

Interesting quote, I would like you hear more about what you think about it.

I'm early into the business, but with my sales skills and being personable I haven't yet had to show a full portfolio. Just like here is some recent shots and the rest is just telling that I will put my full effort, talent and equipment to take the best photos for (the client) and will edit or change anything to what (the client) wants.

This is not quite towards the thread, but an equally valid point.




Also, If anyone hasn't said it yet. I think new gear can also encourage MORE SHOOTING. Which we all (should) know is extremely important, I think that plays a huge roll as well.

[airfrogusmc]

"The medium determines the message."

What exactly does that mean? It means that the ability of a photographer to successful convey an idea (message) will be determined by his tools and techniques (medium) An aspiring photographer has to merge his ability to use tools and technique to portray an idea properly. If there is not a synthesis between the tools, technique and idea then the photograph will surely be a failure.

Sometimes, a cheap disposable camera is the perfect tool to portray an idea. Sometimes, a studio filled with a million dollars worth of gear will be the necessary tool required to portray an idea.

A lot of people that are searching for gear are just having a hard time matching up their medium with their message. This is a struggle that most photographers will go through at some point in their careers. Some people find the synthesis between the medium and the message right away and they might just happen to stumble on the right gear to portray their idea perfectly without much experimentation. I envy those people :D

Be really careful when discussing talent and gear in the same breathe. Talent is much more elusive than that...There are plenty of photographers out there that are loaded with natural talent that still haven't found the right tools and techniques to portray the vision that is in their minds yet. Some photographers may take decades until they get a synthesis between their vision and their tools/technique. Some people find it right away. But just because a photographer is struggling with gear or something doesn't mean that person lacks talent. On the contrary, it could mean that person's vision is truly original and might take much time to incubate before being born. I'm just making this point about talent because all too often people that struggle think it's because they lack ability. Usually it's a matter of something else other than ability. My life experience has taught me that almost every aspiring photographer has a natural talent even if they haven't discovered it yet.

GV another well informed and thought provoking post. I've posted similar posts before. I think part of being a good photographer is knowing which tool is appropriate for which job. And you have said it much better than I have in the past. Knowing when say a Diana is right for the vision and when an 8X10 horseman would be the appropriate tool for the vision is where most that haven't had experience with either sometimes wind up using a DSLR when one of those would have been more appropriate. For street photography theres few cameras that can bet an M series Leica. For studio portraits medium format (I always preferred the square format for portraits) is just about perfect.

I have a very good friend that did a series of images with a Holga of circus posters where she made metaphor of her own life and her breaking the chains of a bad marriage and a suppressed life. For the series of images (she had a large show in New York with the work) nothing would have conveyed her vision better than a Holga and she knew it and took full advantage of the tool.

So like I've said before finding and being able to use the tools that are appropriate for the vision is whats important and those are all choices an experienced photographer makes. And talent is a part but knowledge is another part. Like you said a talent without knowledge is just talent. Knowing what to use and having the skills to use the tool to capture the vision is the real secret....

[sjones]

If you suck, you suck.

[CatchingUp]

Let me preface this statement by saying that I LOVE my craft/hobby of taking/processing pictures. I get lots of positive feedback from people in my community over my pictures and they seem to recognize that I have a 'talent' for taking pictures.

And while the comments are appreciated, I have to smile, because I'm fully aware that with the advancement of technology, and the better gear I have, the better pictures I take and produce.

But if you want to talk about real 'talent', then I defer to the true artist who can draw/paint a life like portrait of a subject, vs. me taking a 3 thousand dollar camera/lens and capturing an image on a nice little memory device and enhancing the image in photoshop. :- )

People that can do that freehand....have genuine talent. IMO, of course. ;-)

But admittedly, when it comes to photography, there are gifted photographers out there that can do things with a camera that most people can't.

[TheGreatOg]

This questions always drives me nuts. Without talent, a camera is just a tool. Without a painter, a brush is just a brush. If I had no talent and picked up a 1DsMIII and shot a pencil, it's still a crappy (albeit probably sharp w/ high IQ) shot of a pencil. If I have talent I could pick up a Rebex XT and make a pencil shot sing. The point of getting better equipment is because your abilities and potential have exceeded the capabilities of the camera you already have. Only a fool would buy a high end camera thinking the camera will take better pictures for him. It's not the camera that takes the pics. ;)

[sapearl]

Well, still being a kid at heart I will COMPLETELY agree with that :lol:. Anytime I get something new I just can't wait to put it through its paces just for the fun of it. The other part of me says that now I better use it after having taken so long to save up for it.;)

......Also, If anyone hasn't said it yet. I think new gear can also encourage MORE SHOOTING. Which we all (should) know is extremely important, I think that plays a huge roll as well.

[Tareq]

Yes, when buy new things mostly we go and shoot, i will not say shooting more but it will encourage to shoot more, maybe there are many who doesn't care of new gear and they keep shooting thousands and thousands, but there are some as well who are shooting 20k shots by rebel this month, nest month it is 10k, after 3 months the number of shots is more or less 2000, but if he took for example 5D classic upgrading his rebel then he may take 50k shots then maybe 35k which is more than his rebel, ad maybe if he took 5D2 or 1Ds3 or even D3X maybe he will be encouraged to take 100k shots first time or month, but this is not a rule.

Anyway, i think this topics will be repeated many times and people will always commenting that it is the talent first and not gear and others will say gear is important as well, and the simple answer to this is that talent will make any gear shining or singing, but it will defer in the look of the shinning or the sound of singing, with my high talent i can get photos from 300D and 1DsIII really perfect, but with 1DsIII photos it will be better look as it is advanced camera with better ISO and newer Digic, so with print up to say A3 or A2/A1 then here people will talk not about talent, but about the quality of the gear with printing.

Today i printed few shots to the size of A1, 1DsIII shots, and there are anther people as well printing in same size [A1] with different cameras, it was clearly that with higher megapixel camera the resolution or say the quality was better, even all photos are great and stunning itself but the quality of printing was really clear, A3 and A4 photos were almost the same in quality even it depends on the file size and compression or format, so how can that talent help to make your photos to be amazing in high large format size great quality? But don't make that high print is a reason for everything, many talented people upgrading their gear sooner or later to math the quality of the prints, and to my opinion, it is not a harm at all if i want to get the largest format of camera to get the largest best clear quality print if i can, who will stop others to get the best if they want or NEED it, i will never always tell others, don't buy something more because your talent is not high enough yet, who knows? maybe that low talent can be high in one year or less, and this forum really making many people here to get talented at short time really.

[S.Horton]

I think success in photography is 60% sales.

Interesting quote, I would like you hear more about what you think about it.

.....



I'm not a pro photog -- I had a business, I founded a consulting group, so when I think about the technology vs. sales, that's roughly the mix.

So, I think that's the case with photogs, but I do not know.

Then of the remaining 40%, that's gear (infrastructure) and pure human skill built upon hard work, 20/80.

What's for sure is that you could have all the talent, no proper tools, and you'd fail for a technical reason. I think, for photogs, that would be roughly like trying to use an f/5.6 lens to shoot low-light concerts.

I'll return to the Holiday Inn Express now.
;)

[motoroller]

Talent isn't really that important for a pure documentary though? Of course you have to have some, but you don't have to be on the absolute top of your game...

[sapearl]

Well, that would depend upon how good you want your documentary work to be.

Other "intangibles" of talent include a sense of timing, knowing where to be at the right time, a feel for composition.... few people are absolutely at the top their game (after all, the process is a journey as you exhibit your creativity throughout life) but you do have to have some sort of talent to produce solid good work that others will appreciate and admire. Good work is still good work. Changing the "label" on poor work will not make it better.

Talent isn't really that important for a pure documentary though? Of course you have to have some, but you don't have to be on the absolute top of your game...

[airfrogusmc]

Talent isn't really that important for a pure documentary though? Of course you have to have some, but you don't have to be on the absolute top of your game...

Tell that to W Eugene Smith, Bruce Davidson, Helen Levitt, Walker Evans, Robert Frank, Roy DeCarava you have to be at the very top of your game. Its infinitely more difficult to put an entire body of work together and have all the images relate than one might think and then throw in difficult shooting situations an no reshoots and sometimes having your life at risk; yeah you're right it takes little talent to be able to see the decisive moment. A great deal of talent and skill go into true documentary photography and a lot of real thought.

[sfaust]

Talent isn't really that important for a pure documentary though? Of course you have to have some, but you don't have to be on the absolute top of your game...

Yes, this is very true. But the more talent you have, the more successful you will be. Musicians that are at the top of their game are household names, making the bookoo bucks. Those not, are playing local and regional events, and relatively unknown to everyone, and making ends meet. It's all relative.

But you are right in that you don't need to be at the top of your game in any aspect of a job to make a living at it. But it sure helps if you want to be successful, and absolutely needed to excel and become part of the elite in that field.

[airfrogusmc]

Yes, this is very true. But the more talent you have, the more successful you will be. Musicians that are at the top of their game are household names, making the bookoo bucks. Those not, are playing local and regional events, and relatively unknown to everyone, and making ends meet. It's all relative.

But you are right in that you don't need to be at the top of your game in any aspect of a job to make a living at it. But it sure helps if you want to be successful, and absolutely needed to excel and become part of the elite in that field.

They are plenty of great artist and musicians that are at the top of their game and not household names. There is so much that goes into being a household name other than talent and skill. Theres also luck. Remember many of the greats didn't make a lot of money or were household names during their life times. Weston, Van Gogh and music Robert Johnson...

[rabidcow]

Many, (way too many) people put their equipment on pedestals. They value their camera(s) more than most other things, to include other people.

This leads to the "puffed chest" syndrome. This is when a basketball dad walks up to me with his chest puffed out, carrying a Rebel XSi and kit lens around his neck, while I am photographing a game, and tells me how nice my cameras are. He continues to tell me that while I have nice equipment, he has a camera that does what he needs, and his talent fills in the gaps left by his equipment. He then goes on to shadow me like a lost puppy and take every shot I do, constantly asking what my shutterspeed is, and commenting on how he sure could use 8 fps, but how 3 fps is OK, but how it clogs his buffer because he shoots in RAW.......

Now, there are a few things wrong with this. First, I do not go to his place of work and compare laptops, or whatever he uses at work, it would be rude. But because my workplace is a gymnasium where his kid is playing B-ball, it is apparently cool to interrupt me while I am working.

Secondly, I carry 2 1D bodies because I need durability, reliability, and responsiveness. I did not buy them because of some guys on-line review. I did not buy them because they looked cool, and I did not buy them so I could walk around flaunting them to others. They are my tools, they can handle the jobs I do. They will work 6 days a week during peak season and they will be banged around and abused. I have fast L lenses because.....well, read the reasons to have the cameras above.

The equipment I use does not make me better, it does not reflect my ability, but rather my equipment fulfills the requirements of my work demands. I do not think it cool to walk around with a camera strapped to each shoulder, actually, it gets tiring. I find it to be annoying at best when others "oggle" my equipment, make comments on it, talk about how cool it be to have....etc. Really all I want is to do my job and go home.

Framers use good hammers, and they cost good money, but if you walked past a framing crew and started in on how awesome the hammer was, or how it makes the framer better, and the only reason you can't frame a house well is because you do not have that hammer, then.....well....I sure as hell wouldn't want to bug those guys.

[airfrogusmc]

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 ;) .

[DwightMcCann]

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. .
I would grab my daughter. The images are on offsite backup and the equipment is insured.

[rabidcow]

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 ;) .


+1 bw!

Gear is gear, just tools for the job. Photos are the product of our tools and work, they are the important thing. That is why I chose this profession, I get to help others create lasting memories through photography.

[Gentleman Villain]

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.

Dayum! I just failed the test big-time...The first thing I thought of to rescue from a fire was my bass guitar

[catsfive]

I'm late to this thread, so I'll say something different:

In 1951 a Korean pilot defected with his MiG-17. The USAF was anxious to test just how dangerous the enemy fighter was in comparison to their own fighters. Not wanting to risk losing their precious new intelligence asset until they'd thoroughly tested the MiG, they put none other than Capt. Chuck Yeager (who later broke the sound barrier) at the controls. The tests began and, oh no, the MiG was even better than they feared. The enemy fighter downing everything the USAF threw at it.

Then, you guessed it—someone had the brilliant idea of putting someone else at the controls of the MiG and Yeager in the USAF fighters. And presto, no matter who was flying the MiG, the USAF fighter, with Chuck Yeager at the controls, won every time. Pilot after pilot lost fight after fight.

The USAF has never looked back from these tests. While the know-it-all kids and fat, middle-aged "air show enthusiasts" in their Coke-bottle glasses argue over whether the F-16, F-18, or F-15 is a better fighter plane, the USAF knows that the best-trained pilot will literally wipe the skies clean, period. Tactics, tactics, tactics.

I never worry when I walk into a room full of photographers with my 30D and 25-105 zoom lens. I know I'm coming out of there with THE picture.

[catsfive]

...also, just having the gear alone doesn't help - knowledge and talent are needed. I know a guy with a MKIII and 300 2.8 IS and his images suck as he has no clue about composition, what to look for, proper exposure, WB, nothing. He said his images sucked before because his XTI didn't have 10fps and that's what was needed to take good images even though he had the glass which should have helped some, but now that he has it his images still suck. Strange ain't it? It's why so many photographers get annoyed at the comments like "that camera takes good pictures".

I agree. I am not a pro photog, but there are IMHO some things that are just inexcusable. I was at Race City "covering" a race and got to chatting with a guy who had some pretty amazing gear. He gave me his card and I looked at his images. For a split second I thought every one of his images were identical. And they were. Boring, backlit, no composition, utterly no talent whatsoever. I called the guy two weeks after the race and said, hey, you going to post your images? He said he hadn't "gotten around" to it, yet. And you want to sell your images??

F#@&!n% inexcusable, if you ask me.

I shot my images with my Rebel XT and 85mm prime lens. I selected a different spot and shot away. I liked my shots better (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=race+city&w=45011363%40N00&s=int).

Like I said, I'm not a pro photog, but no matter what I'm doing, my images are downloaded, sorted & deleted, keyworded, processed, chopped, shopped and uploaded the next day, PERIOD. If you're in the game, even as a serious amateur, there's no excuse at all to let your images lie around. Ever.

[zagiace]

I wasn't even going to read this thread because I thought it was a silly question. But then I thought about it and it is not as cut and dry for me as I thought.
My initial thought was if you have the equipment you can literally follow simple rules and produce work that will support you. There are many successful studios who do just that. Look at the most successful portrait studios in the country and even if they have talented photographers their talents are not put to use. They are very cookie cutter operations.
Then again, if you are to be successful in the eyes of your peers you need to be producing stellar work and selling it too. A feat not as easy.
So:
How exactly are you defining success in your original question?
I have had many cases where I shoot something and someone looks at an image and comments how nice a camera I must have. Oddly enough I have taken plenty of bad pictures with it.

[airfrogusmc]

Dayum! I just failed the test big-time...The first thing I thought of to rescue from a fire was my bass guitar

To GV and Dwight I think it was put either equipment or work, not what would be grabbed first, bass or daughter :D

[PhotoJourno]

Mid-night ramblings here... but this just popped into my mind:

That there is a relationship between talent and equipment, is beyond doubt. To what degree does each one apply? Well, I reckon it depends on the situation, practically speaking. So long as both exist, there is no real problem.

What did hit me like a kick to the head, was the issue that if one of them was missing, which one was easier to acquire?.. Talent or equipment?

Though equipment should not be underestimated, Talent must be cultivated, and developed over -usually- a span of many years. A single bank loan, or an unlucky uncle's death, may leave us with enough capital to get whatever equipment we choose to have.

So this brings me to a conclusion, which to me is very important:

These two are separate issues:

- Which Percentage of Photography is Talent, and which is Equipment, practically speaking (In short, the answer is 'some combination of both, neither can be zero').

And...

- Which is the value of Talent, and that of equipment, relative to the effort and time required to acquire them

I have found myself trying to answer the main question of this thread, and dwelling mostly on the value of Talent, what it means to me to know however little I have learned, through having photographed a tad over a million frames in the last 20 years.

Hope this makes some sense.

[yokotas13]

...and you quoted me why? I said nothing of low light in my reply...but yes you're right, hardly low light.
and your focus isnt on the main player...so yeah, you missed it

[CatchingUp]

I don't think you can really seperate the two. (Hard to stay away from this thread as I find it a facinating subject/discussion myself)

I thought about many of the pro athletes today in just about every sport.

Why are they accomplishing things today that surpasses what any of their counterparts dreamed of doing a generation or two ago? Has the human body really 'evolved' in that short of time span?

Ask 'talented' pro golfers why driving a golfball 310+ yards is 'par for the course' these days --equipment!

Why did Phelps shatter swim records in these past Olympics? --equipment (new suits)

Even your sprinters of today will talk of 'faster tracks', shoe design, and let's not forget all the 'equipment' that enabled then to train better.

Nope- you can't really seperate the two as they go hand in hand. A super talanted NASCAR driver won't do squat on the circut unless he is driving the best 'equipment'.

[Bobster]

Tallent

I shoot gigs with other togs in the area, they have MKIII and 5D's and i come away with the better images every time :)

[sjones]

I don't think you can really seperate the two. (Hard to stay away from this thread as I find it a facinating subject/discussion myself)

I thought about many of the pro athletes today in just about every sport.

Why are they accomplishing things today that surpasses what any of their counterparts dreamed of doing a generation or two ago? Has the human body really 'evolved' in that short of time span?

Ask 'talented' pro golfers why driving a golfball 310+ yards is 'par for the course' these days --equipment!

Why did Phelps shatter swim records in these past Olympics? --equipment (new suits)

Even your sprinters of today will talk of 'faster tracks', shoe design, and let's not forget all the 'equipment' that enabled then to train better.

Nope- you can't really seperate the two as they go hand in hand. A super talanted NASCAR driver won't do squat on the circut unless he is driving the best 'equipment'.

That's just it; over the past century, photography has not improved commensurate with the advances in technology. Yes, you can photograph a bullet piercing an apple now, so undoubtedly, certain features have expanded the possibilities of photography, but I can name numerous photographers from the pre-auto focus era that remain unsurpassed, perhaps equaled, but not bettered, by anything coming out now. Photography is not something you measure with a stopwatch.

[cdifoto]

You can get further with talent and less equipment than with equipment and less talent. Talent takes you further.
Actually you can get further with business acumen than talent or equipment.

[sapearl]

So, perhaps most of the memorable visual accomplishments since 1839 can be attributed to the mind's eye ;)?

That's just it; over the past century, photography has not improved commensurate with the advances in technology. Yes, you can photograph a bullet piercing an apple now, so undoubtedly, certain features have expanded the possibilities of photography, but I can name numerous photographers from the pre-auto focus era that remain unsurpassed, perhaps equaled, but not bettered, by anything coming out now. Photography is not something you measure with a stopwatch.

[airfrogusmc]

So, perhaps most of the memorable visual accomplishments since 1839 can be attributed to the mind's eye ;)?

Stu

bw!
Now theres a concept :D

[sapearl]

This is absolutely true in a lot of cases - of course "business success" does not always mean "best work" or "most artistic." It just means that somebody did an excellent job of self promotion, or they had the good fortunre to have their work discovered and then were savvy enough to run with it.

As we have seen by the high quality of some of the work here, there are plenty of unsung heroes who are financially unrecognized, or who have failed at business through no fault of the their work.;)

Actually you can get further with business acumen than talent or equipment.

[sfaust]

They are plenty of great artist and musicians that are at the top of their game and not household names. There is so much that goes into being a household name other than talent and skill. Theres also luck. Remember many of the greats didn't make a lot of money or were household names during their life times. Weston, Van Gogh and music Robert Johnson...

Absolutely. You need talent, business skills, luck, connections, etc. to make it to the top. There are always exceptions, but in general if you look at those that made it to the top, they are at the top of their game and their talent is evident, and they had everything else lined up to help make them successful (business skills, personal skills, connections, luck, etc). But without their talent, and them operating at their very best, the others skills aren't a guarantee of success either.

[CatchingUp]

I am not sure where or why the idea of 'success' fits in to this discussion? Not being argumentive, but that really brings in an entirely new element to this discourse, don't you think?

[cdifoto]

I am not sure where or why the idea of 'success' fits in to this discussion?

...

Is it possible for someone to be a successful photographer whilst only having a minimum of equipment?

[airfrogusmc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SurplusCorn
Is it possible for someone to be a successful photographer whilst only having a minimum of equipment?

Yes...

[CatchingUp]

...

My Bad. I was thinking of weighing the pros and cons of talent vs. equipment and lost sight of the 'success' factor.

continue on.

[airfrogusmc]

My Bad. I was thinking of weighing the pros and cons of talent vs. equipment and lost sight of the 'success' factor.

continue on.

Well this is the business section.

[airfrogusmc]

This is absolutely true in a lot of cases - of course "business success" does not always mean "best work" or "most artistic." It just means that somebody did an excellent job of self promotion, or they had the good fortunre to have their work discovered and then were savvy enough to run with it.

As we have seen by the high quality of some of the work here, there are plenty of unsung heroes who are financially unrecognized, or who have failed at business through no fault of the their work.;)

Totally agree...

[sfaust]

This is absolutely true in a lot of cases - of course "business success" does not always mean "best work" or "most artistic." It just means that somebody did an excellent job of self promotion, or they had the good fortunre to have their work discovered and then were savvy enough to run with it.

As we have seen by the high quality of some of the work here, there are plenty of unsung heroes who are financially unrecognized, or who have failed at business through no fault of the their work.;)

I agree. And it may not have even been a fault at all. It could just as easily been a decision to pursue it as a hobby and not a full fledged business.

[sapearl]

Hope I didn't give the impression in my earlier very judgemental statement (I tend to have big mouth sometimes according to my wife) that equipment had minor importance. It certainly can figure into the equation.

But....... I come from a family of artists. My father taught art for nearly four decades and exhibited regularly. My sister teaches painting on the college level. We've discussed the concept of creativity a lot.

Truly, brilliantly creative people have that special something that just sets them heads and shoulders above the rest of us. They are born that way. And that's not to say that a lot of people on this earth don't have some amount of creativity, vision, and some spark of the "mind's eye". Things can be learned, practice can be done, exercises can be performed. And here's where gear can sometimes come in. It will make a difference for some people. It is possible for something a little more full featured or a little newer to push a person's ability up a notch. But it cannot give you abilities and talent that you never had.

My father and sister have taught a number of very talented people over the years, and even more "regular folks."

We all agree though that to truly shine above most individuals, you really do have to be born with a little different spark in you.... another way of looking at the world, and how you interpret what you see. Their people use brushes, paint and canvas or paper; we use cameras electrons and inkjets. The same thing can be said for highly talented musicians, sculptors, vocalists, etc.

But the most important thing of all is that we should not get distracted from our main purpose. And that purpose is to create something for our own satisfaction. It matters not one bit if somebody else judges your work harshly, so long as you created it just for your own pleasure.

Now, producing quality work under contract or for some other type of paying job, well that's a different discussion :lol:. - Stu

[Tareq]

Hope I didn't give the impression in my earlier very judgemental statement (I tend to have big mouth sometimes according to my wife) that equipment had minor importance. It certainly can figure into the equation.

But....... I come from a family of artists. My father taught art for nearly four decades and exhibited regularly. My sister teaches painting on the college level. We've discussed the concept of creativity a lot.

Truly, brilliantly creative people have that special something that just sets them heads and shoulders above the rest of us. They are born that way. And that's not to say that a lot of people on this earth don't have some amount of creativity, vision, and some spark of the "mind's eye". Things can be learned, practice can be done, exercises can be performed. And here's where gear can sometimes come in. It will make a difference for some people. It is possible for something a little more full featured or a little newer to push a person's ability up a notch. But it cannot give you abilities and talent that you never had.

My father and sister have taught a number of very talented people over the years, and even more "regular folks."

We all agree though that to truly shine above most individuals, you really do have to be born with a little different spark in you.... another way of looking at the world, and how you interpret what you see. Their people use brushes, paint and canvas or paper; we use cameras electrons and inkjets. The same thing can be said for highly talented musicians, sculptors, vocalists, etc.

But the most important thing of all is that we should not get distracted from our main purpose. And that purpose is to create something for our own satisfaction. It matters not one bit if somebody else judges your work harshly, so long as you created it just for your own pleasure.

Now, producing quality work under contract or for some other type of paying job, well that's a different discussion :lol:. - Stu

Now this is what we want to discuss ;)

[sapearl]

Actually, this is a much simpler issue.

In general, customers tend to vote with their wallets. As in any trade: Quality Craftsmen = referrals = repeat business = $$$. Economic natural selection works here too ;).

Now this is what we want to discuss ;)

[Tareq]

Actually, this is a much simpler issue.

In general, customers tend to vote with their wallets. As in any trade: Quality Craftsmen = referrals = repeat business = $$$. Economic natural selection works here too ;).

I wish if it is that simple as you stated ;)

[sapearl]

True, I did oversimplify it a bit ..... but in my area of the country it pretty much follows that pattern. Many of us have regular FT day jobs to keep from going bankrupt in our part time photography businesses.

And this is quite similar with musicians, artists, sculptors, fill in blank ________, etc. ;)


I wish if it is that simple as you stated ;)

[sfaust]

I wish if it is that simple as you stated ;)

I think it is that easy, although there are some deviations. But in general, if you deliver the goods the clients are looking for, at a price they are willing to pay, and for which you can make the profit you need, it has a tendency to build upon itself. Granted, you need to keep the wheels greased (marketing, keep up with trends, etc), but thats part of any business.

[rabidcow]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SurplusCorn
Is it possible for someone to be a successful photographer whilst only having a minimum of equipment?

Yes...

Yes.....but know the limitations of and therefore the expectations of your equipment.

Would I use a XSi to photograph football games?

No.

Can an XSi do it?

Yes, but I know that focus tracking will not keep up with my expectations, and I know that if (rather WHEN) I get tackled, the camera will likely not survive.

The image quality may be great, but there is more to life than pixel peeping (see sig below), I need a machine that can deal with the rigors of my job, rain, or no rain, tackled or not, I need confidence in my equipment.

[Tareq]

True, I did oversimplify it a bit ..... but in my area of the country it pretty much follows that pattern. Many of us have regular FT day jobs to keep from going bankrupt in our part time photography businesses.

And this is quite similar with musicians, artists, sculptors, fill in blank ________, etc. ;)

I think it is that easy, although there are some deviations. But in general, if you deliver the goods the clients are looking for, at a price they are willing to pay, and for which you can make the profit you need, it has a tendency to build upon itself. Granted, you need to keep the wheels greased (marketing, keep up with trends, etc), but thats part of any business.

I will try to work on that as much as possible as i can, just i need to do many things first before i enter business world and turn a pro or use Photography as my job.

[sapearl]

Well Tareq, you can always start off small and still keep your regular FT job as one possibility. This way you ease into things, build that clientelle base and skill set, get a following and reputation, and the business evolves from there.

I don't do a large business but there is a certain consistency to it. I've noticed that sometimes over a period of a couple years for certain social event jobs, I will see a number of the same people over and over again. This is because I'll get referred around within a social crowd of people or group of friends.

I've demonstrated to people that my pricing is reasonable, my product is good, service consistent and reliable, and I am easy to do business with. Clients want minimum aggravation. Deliver service and quality in a punctual manner and the phone will keep on ringing.

I will try to work on that as much as possible as i can, just i need to do many things first before i enter business world and turn a pro or use Photography as my job.

[airfrogusmc]

Yes.....but know the limitations of and therefore the expectations of your equipment.

Would I use a XSi to photograph football games?

No.

Can an XSi do it?

Yes, but I know that focus tracking will not keep up with my expectations, and I know that if (rather WHEN) I get tackled, the camera will likely not survive.

The image quality may be great, but there is more to life than pixel peeping (see sig below), I need a machine that can deal with the rigors of my job, rain, or no rain, tackled or not, I need confidence in my equipment.

Thats why what GV said is so valid. You need to fully understand and know what equipment is appropriate for which job and the vision and the final image that the you are trying to create. FPS and a 500mm lens usually mean nothing to a studio product photographer. And to expand a bit most of the professionals I know have equipment very muched tailored to what they do.

[rabidcow]

+1, I missed that post.

Absolutely true!!

[Tareq]

Well Tareq, you can always start off small and still keep your regular FT job as one possibility. This way you ease into things, build that clientelle base and skill set, get a following and reputation, and the business evolves from there.

I don't do a large business but there is a certain consistency to it. I've noticed that sometimes over a period of a couple years for certain social event jobs, I will see a number of the same people over and over again. This is because I'll get referred around within a social crowd of people or group of friends.

I've demonstrated to people that my pricing is reasonable, my product is good, service consistent and reliable, and I am easy to do business with. Clients want minimum aggravation. Deliver service and quality in a punctual manner and the phone will keep on ringing.

Here in my country i can never do wedding Photography myself, i may do it for foreigners only but seems even foreigners here not wanting us UAE people to do it for them, so i just work for sports photography for now [paid], but i am trying now to widen my interest to be in commercial and even fashion if possible, last 3-4 months were so busy hard months as i won in a competition and got some of my work in Newspaper and also yesterday opened an exhibition [Gulf Print] about LFP [Large Format Printing solutions] in dubai and one Manager in Canon Middle East office took some of my photos to print and presesnt them in the exhibition, so i am trying hard now to make my name into markets and i know it is not easy and i need a lot to do, but really it seems i will take much much longer time than others who can do that easily [foreingers] because they are living in Dubai and have more free time than us and even more freedom than us, and the worse they also don't let us to do something in business [took over everything in business more than us :twisted:]. In all cases i still work in my current job [Civil engineer] even the salary is not so good enough but i can afford a lot, and i keep working here and there to get something in Photography, and this year i am going to New York and i must look at the markets and photography world there so it will help me when i go back home.

[elisesanchez]

A bad carpenter will blame is tools.

[sfaust]

A bad carpenter will blame is tools.

Opps, I measured once and cut twice. Damn saw!

[S.Horton]

I do know a professional symphony musician -- There is a reason why she owns the instrument she's in debt for: she can command it to make the sound she hears in her mind.

Without it, she cannot.

[Tareq]

Opps, I measured once and cut twice. Damn saw!

I was a good carpenter when i was a kid, i made a chair and a table once when i was 6 or 7 years old.

[sapearl]

Tareq, why do you feel this is the case? What is the issue with "foreigners" not wanting to use UAE citizens to do their photography.... seems a bit odd, although I am not well versed on social and business protocols in that area of the world.

You've made some thoughtful comments Tareq. Is there the feeling that you and your neighbors perhaps are not sufficiently qualified or have the demonstrated portfolio experience to deliver full service in this area? People EVERYWHERE have difficulty "breaking into" the business when they just start out. It's the same in my own home town. Maybe this is the issue with your difficulties and not one of potential clients avoiding UAE photographers.

As far as your salary not being very good....... well, according to your gear list and other statements you've made here, either somebody is being extremely generous with the gifting, or you're better off than you realize. I can see you're pulling our leg again Tareq :lol::lol::lol:.

Here in my country i can never do wedding Photography myself, i may do it for foreigners only but seems even foreigners here not wanting us UAE people to do it for them,.......In all cases i still work in my current job [Civil engineer] even the salary is not so good enough but i can afford a lot, and i keep working here and there to get something in Photography, and this year i am going to New York and i must look at the markets and photography world there so it will help me when i go back home.

[Tareq]

Tareq, why do you feel this is the case? What is the issue with "foreigners" not wanting to use UAE citizens to do their photography.... seems a bit odd, although I am not well versed on social and business protocols in that area of the world.

You've made some thoughtful comments Tareq. Is there the feeling that you and your neighbors perhaps are not sufficiently qualified or have the demonstrated portfolio experience to deliver full service in this area? People EVERYWHERE have difficulty "breaking into" the business when they just start out. It's the same in my own home town. Maybe this is the issue with your difficulties and not one of potential clients avoiding UAE photographers.

As far as your salary not being very good....... well, according to your gear list and other statements you've made here, either somebody is being extremely generous with the gifting, or you're better off than you realize. I can see you're pulling our leg again Tareq :lol::lol::lol:.

OK, it seems that many people think that we are UAE Photographers are not enough experienced or qualified, because Photography to us is new here in our area, even i can't remember the big names of UAE photographers here, and they work for heritage and culture and sometimes photojournalism [and newspapers], never heard one is working for weddings, and maybe due to our culture and religion in many foreigners weddings there are mixed people with beer parties and all that may not be good for us, and also as i said those foreigners coming along to take business here either in Photography or something else, so to every 1 UAE photographer there is maybe 5 foreigner photographers, and i don't think they are not good enough, even if we all in same level i am sure they will choose foreigners over me, it is in many fields here, unfortunately, you can come and visit here and see, the population of UAE citizens or even arabs overall in UAE are about 30-40% of of the whole population [UAE citizen are about 15%], so this is making us to have very big difficulties to get our names in business, Dubai only is the big city here mostly and 90% there are foreigners [mostly asians who are around 75-80%], so that i always saying that i want to try my chance out of UAE like in USA or Europe as everyone can try his own, here whatever i try not sure i can get my name or be successful, too bad to say that it seems we are been fighting to not get famous but i will not say that in general, people here or even you if visit will see what i talk about.

[nphsbuckeye]

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 ;) .
Grab the hard drive, problem solved. :lol:

[sapearl]

If this is the case, then it does sound like they are in fact judging (the collective) you by the quality of your work.

In that regard we all face similar business challenges and yours is no more difficult than ours...... actually it is probably full of more opportunity since the UAE is so flush with oil money. There is more discretionary income floating around your country than in other parts of the world that have been hammered by the economic downturn.

And if you don't shoot weddings and events that serve alcohol, that is certainly your choice. But in that regard you are limiting the business opportunities and not the other way around.

OK, it seems that many people think that we are UAE Photographers are not enough experienced or qualified, because Photography to us is new here in our area, even i can't remember the big names of UAE photographers here, and they work for heritage and culture and sometimes photojournalism [and newspapers], never heard one is working for weddings, and maybe due to our culture and religion in many foreigners weddings there are mixed people with beer parties and all that may not be good for us,.............

[Tareq]

If this is the case, then it does sound like they are in fact judging (the collective) you by the quality of your work.

In that regard we all face similar business challenges and yours is no more difficult than ours...... actually it is probably full of more opportunity since the UAE is so flush with oil money. There is more discretionary income floating around your country than in other parts of the world that have been hammered by the economic downturn.

And if you don't shoot weddings and events that serve alcohol, that is certainly your choice. But in that regard you are limiting the business opportunities and not the other way around.

What i can do then? i am trying now to work hard, so i attended some exhibitions and galleries where i can meet other people there, i got some shots to be printed in large size for an exhibition of "Gulf Print", where there are all those printers companies are there [Epson, HP, Canon,....] so it is one opportunity that my work is shown there, and also tomorrow i will have a live meeting in a TV [Rotana Channel] regarding my photography life, that because they saw my few photos in a local newspaper, so all those are just a start for me, but i hope i can go further more from there, and to be honest, i like to do weddings here regardless of alcohol or the food is there, but to do this i need to be enough knowledgable and experienced to choose me, otherwise from one wedding i fail that may affect me more than nothing, so i have to be careful, but i shouldn't just make weddings as my only business opportunity, in fact i am trying to check some agencies that work for magazines [Fashion, commercial, cars, lifestyle,.....] so i can work with them, i know they need talent, but i hope they can give us a chance first and we will learn fast, but if they want someone who is ready then how can i get experience in fashions or products or commercail if i can't work in those agencies? so i will see what can talent vs. equipment help me in these situations.

So the question is: talking about talent here, how can someone get talent in weddings or fashion or commercial if he didn't work in companies or agencies that do these kind of photography?

[sapearl]

Excellent question - and that is THE question that many of us have faced over the years.

It sounds like you are doing a lot of networking and getting good exposure (no pun intended). These are the right things to do. It takes time; rarely does it happen overnight unless somebody discovers you and feels that your work is spectacular. This is not an easy process. And typically these opportunities are things that are not just handed out - they have to be earned by demonstrating creativity, reliability, energy, business acumen and talent.

What i can do then? i am trying now to work hard, so i attended some exhibitions and galleries where i can meet other people there, ........and also tomorrow i will have a live meeting in a TV [Rotana Channel] regarding my photography life, that because they saw my few photos in a local newspaper, .......

So the question is: talking about talent here, how can someone get talent in weddings or fashion or commercial if he didn't work in companies or agencies that do these kind of photography?

[airfrogusmc]

I do know a professional symphony musician -- There is a reason why she owns the instrument she's in debt for: she can command it to make the sound she hears in her mind.

Without it, she cannot.

Yeah but she has the instrument that works for her not all the instruments in the orchestra. ;)

[Tareq]

Excellent question - and that is THE question that many of us have faced over the years.

It sounds like you are doing a lot of networking and getting good exposure (no pun intended). These are the right things to do. It takes time; rarely does it happen overnight unless somebody discovers you and feels that your work is spectacular. This is not an easy process. And typically these opportunities are things that are not just handed out - they have to be earned by demonstrating creativity, reliability, energy, business acumen and talent.

And for this reason, i thank this forum very very much!

you all helped me a lot to get into photography more and more, even my skill and level growing with you here, so i keep this website as my first and most important resource to learn photography.

Yes, i always do networking research to see about the business or photography in my area and worldwide, and i try all the time to get into it [online workshops, competitions, online galleries or profiles,....] to get exposed, and as you said, it is not easy and not coming in one day or night, it will take time and sometimes luck can be there, so i will always keep trying, and good i didn't give up before as last 2 years i was not sure what i will do for photography or even why i do it.

[sapearl]

Above all, you should always do it for your own pleasure and satisfaction.

.... so i will always keep trying, and good i didn't give up before as last 2 years i was not sure what i will do for photography or even why i do it.

[Tareq]

Above all, you should always do it for your own pleasure and satisfaction.

Which i do it now for sure.

Thank you very much!

[sapearl]

Tareq, here is another thread that may interest you:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=674645

An individual just out of school is also trying to start her photography career, and is wrestling with some similar issues.

[Tareq]

Tareq, here is another thread that may interest you:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=674645

An individual just out of school is also trying to start her photography career, and is wrestling with some similar issues.

Ah ok, i will give it a look, thank you very much!

[nuffi]

My understanding is that both Walker Evans and Henri Cartier Bresson shot everything with a standard film body and a 50mm lens.


I've been known to be wrong about stuff like that, cause I am one seriously gullible person, but that's what I've been told (or read, or heard on some doco I watched at 4am one sleepless night)

Jane Brown shot some of the most touching, significant and beautiful portraits of the 20th century with natural light and very limited kit.

I think they're excellent examples of talent being more important than equipment.

[Tareq]

My understanding is that both Walker Evans and Henri Cartier Bresson shot everything with a standard film body and a 50mm lens.


I've been known to be wrong about stuff like that, cause I am one seriously gullible person, but that's what I've been told (or read, or heard on some doco I watched at 4am one sleepless night)

Jane Brown shot some of the most touching, significant and beautiful portraits of the 20th century with natural light and very limited kit.

I think they're excellent examples of talent being more important than equipment.

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".