Is it the camera or the photographer?

I've seen a few posts on here talking about how the general public often notices a photog with a nice camera and comments on how the camera must take great pics. We all know better here...the photographer is the much more important element....but while watching TV this evening I saw a Nikon commercial and I realized....That's how they market their equipment. They imply that it's the camera that "gets the shot". Not long ago, they went to a town and gave a bunch of people a Nikon to shoot with and used the photos in their ad...implying that by simply giving a person a decent camera, they become a great photographer. It's no wonder why so many people seem to think that great photography is nothing more than buying a nice camera.

The camera doesn't matter, to an extent. A talented artist can create great works using many kinds of equipment. That doesn't mean there aren't certain advantages to better gear or there aren't certain styles of photography that don't require the right equipment.

C'mon, thats crazy, everyone knows it's the shoes that count.

Having a nice camera is always a pluss, but imo, its the photographer! as its the photographers eye thats needed to capture the moment!

-Austin

it depends on what you are shooting. the camera does affect the image to a certain level, especially in sports

there are some people with top of the line gear, but can't get the image.

Then there are some with entry level gear, but they get the image.

I say it's the right gear with the right photographer. It has to be a match

It's the same in most fields though. The companies making the money will try to tell you that it's the latest whizz-bang equipment that you need to be any good. Whereas in truth all that matters is you knowing what you are doing.

Take computers for example where people are being sold dual core "to be able to do two things at once", silly amounts of memory and fast processors just to browse the internet and do some word processing which they could do fine on bargain basement kit.

Aaagogo wrote in post #5724197
it depends on what you are shooting. the camera does affect the image to a certain level, especially in sports

I say it's the right gear with the right photographer. It has to be a match

Well said--the sports side of the hobby/profession seems to be the exception to many of the rules.

Having the right gear in difficult situations makes all the difference.

I traded gear with a friend so that she could take some "decent" shots of her daughter playing softball.

She is a portrait photographer but got nothing usable--camera too heavy--lighting and pose never right--can't keep that center point on anything moving--focus button on the back too hard to use--Why cant they just stand still and smile for the camera?

My .02 --Your mileage may vary.

"Permission to play El Diablo Advocato"

Perhaps it requires a closer look. Why do noobs want to "travel the world and take pictures?" As if it is an easy job where all you do is travel to a distant land where no other photographers are, whip out your trusty NOINK and viola a NG cover!!

30 Years ago you had to understand at least the basics of photography. The camera makers would have you beleive that you just throw money at it and bring home "professional quality" images. Or "shoot like the pros". Or take this mailorder/online class and become a professional photographer.

Really folks how many unique images get posted here - no really. We have dozens of carbon copy, weddings, portraits, glam and baby shots. The truth is there are very few actual photographers (of note) on this site. The rest know alot about duping great work.

Questions like - What (insert gear type here) should I buy to get shots that look like this?
Or How do you like this "portrait" of my kid with basketti all over his mug. These are "portraits" of my cats. Gee look another nekkid girl on a black BG...

I guess what I am saying is I would love to see something new, and even worse I wish it were me that shot it!!

So yea, it is the camera, because without it we could not dupe anyone else's copied image...

Kinda been down this road every two or three weeks but think of this, Adams did moonrise with very simple equipment. A viewcamera and a good lens and an extraordinary talent and vision. How many photographers have and still go back to the same spot he took that famous Moonrise photography? I have yet to see one that is half as good as the original.

I guess my point is instead of following, find your own Moonrise. Like LBaldwin has eluded to real creativity is just that. Not making images like everyone else but seeing and making images like only you can make. Finding and LEARNING to use the equipment to capture the way you see is what it is all about. The equipment is a small part of the equation. Find the gear that will help you express your vision what ever that might be. Proper tool for the job.

LBaldwin wrote in post #5724685
I guess what I am saying is I would love to see something new, and even worse I wish it were me that shot it!!

With so many people shooting these days it can be harder to know when someone has really captured something new I think. Still, to reproduce the look or feel of a past masters work, without knowing it especially, speaks well of the skill of a contemporary photographer. I think calling it "duping" great work is a bit harsh, even if in some fashion that's what it is. There are good reasons we'll keep seeing the same sorts of shots out of wedding photographers... perhaps because it's a business and that's what the customer wants.

The real issue I think is why do you take photographs? Do you do it as a business (I do not), do you do it to make a lasting impression in the arts or do you just do it for your own personal enjoyment as a creative outlet? The right tool for the job can be important in any of those pursuits, but skill and an eye still separates the average photographer from the photographer that can create something that is actually good... be it a revisiting of something shot before or something completely new.

I think I agree with airfrog, in that perhaps what he is saying is you should recognize what your style and your interests are photographically and that you should pursue them. Look for ways to exploit your style, I know that alone has a big impact on how I look at places before I shoot. Sometimes I just get the feeling in my gut that "this place isn't going to work for me" and it's not always right, a revisit later may reveal something interesting I had ignored or missed before, but usually it's close. I've been with friends and they've asked "Why don't you take a picture of that?" and I don't because I don't really feel I can do anything with it, whether or not that means I think my image would be too cookie cutter or not, I just don't feel I'd do anything of any justice to it with my approach.

There's always the travel photos, skill is still necessary to make them more than just a travel snapshot, but when you are on vacation or traveling it is nice to have some good looking records of places you've been or events you attended. I think while those don't necessarily do anything to further your individual style all the time, it's good to do because at least you can then say "I was there, this was my moonrise, this was my Manhattan skyline." Of course, hopefully you also put your own spin on the area and take photos that reflect your style as well.

Would a carload of monkeys write a better novel with a better type writer? That's extreme but at some levels accurate. If the question is about marketing then yes they are misleading , what marketing doesn't do extreme spin these days?

I agree with Les and the Frog. I'd also add that camera companies are in business to make money which requires continued selling of gear. Marketing's function is to "spin" how easy it is for the newb to produce "pro" shots, even though said person behind the viewfinder is basically a photographic idiot.

Couple that with the sad testament that many "photographers" today have visions of being the next Ansel but lack the vision and skill.

In the end, there are photographers, then there are PWC's - People with Cameras.

Well, the way I look at is you see all this "great gear" and so many more millions and millions of photographs being taken but if what the camera companies are selling would be true then you would see a huge elevation in photography its self and I'm not seeing it. In fact I think its had quit the opposite effect. People aren't taking the time to master the craft or their gear which whether you want to believe or not literally takes years. Theres no easy way there but to go through it and it even takes longer to find your vision and to not make photographs like everyone else which is what gets most of the rewarding feedback. You have to have courage in your own vision and the unique way you see the world. Sometimes you know when your starting to arrive when you family starts saying things like oh thats interesting but I liked it when you were taking all those pretty sunsets.

Perhaps it might have been better at the onset of this repeating discussion to have defined some terms and
in the words of the esteemed William Jefferson Clinton "it depends on your definition of "it" is".

POTN is a photography site and, for the most part, we talk about taking pictures and not much about creating images.
In my mind, this is a huge difference. I record memories. I cannot, because of genetic deficiencies (no talent), create images.

The 30% of the folks within that actually earn their entire livelyhood at photography, what do you use?

Any other commentating is purely mindless pontificating based entirely on what we have read sans much first hand knowledge.
Yeah, we can all come up with various links to reinforce our point like that P&S shooter, but what's the point?

We all pour as much money into this hobby/livelyhood/whate​ver as we can afford/justify and if we cannot afford better "stuff",
we then justify that decision by saying that "I don't need better "stuff".

Well I got news for ya bucko, if you can't afford it, you say I don't need it, otherwise you just go ahead and buy it.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5725372
Well, the way I look at is you see all this "great gear" and so many more millions and millions of photographs being taken but if what the camera companies are selling would be true then you would see a huge elevation in photography its self and I'm not seeing it. In fact I think its had quit the opposite effect. People aren't taking the time to master the craft or their gear which whether you want to believe or not literally takes years. Theres no easy way there but to go through it and it even takes longer to find your vision and to not make photographs like everyone else which is what gets most of the rewarding feedback. You have to have courage in your own vision and the unique way you see the world. Sometimes you know when your starting to arrive when you family starts saying things like oh thats interesting but I liked it when you were taking all those pretty sunsets.

I agree. The photos that challenge the viewer are, I think, the ones that start to mean something.

The proliferation of quick info on the web, and the instant gratification of digital as well as the reduced cost of just trying and trying over and over again seems to have reduced the need for many people to actually know what they're doing. I personally feel the "Strobist" movement is an example of this. I think as a resource the Strobist site and its creator(s) have done great things, but every time I see people reference their "strobist" setup I cringe. What happened to the idea of on camera, or off camera or studio flash. Since when did we need a catchy phrase and rag-tag gang to represent this fundamental approach to lighting and concept of photography? It feels to me like the dumbing down of photography in some ways.