Is it the camera or the photographer?

I have a different take on the Strobist movement.Basic lighting can be learned with cheap gear just as well as with studio quality lights.It takes a certain amount of ingenuity to cobble together a lighting system. Not everyone has pro gear, it's great that people are using their hands and heads instead of a credit card to achieve a goal.

Many digital photographers seem to be in such a hurry to produce nothing it seems. A slower more methodical approach might help.:p

emorphien wrote in post #5725418
It feels to me like the dumbing down of photography in some ways.

That could be said about many other endeavors today. For example, and please excuse my going off-tangent, I was a professional pilot for five years. The last 2 1/2 were flying a high-tech regional airliner with all of the latest technology. Basically, I was a systems manager and not a pilot. The technology in the airplane was a double-edged sword. On one hand, it greatly assisted the pilot in operating the aircraft. On the flip side, it also greatly dumbed down being a pilot. Couple this with a new generation of pilots in these cockpits, people weaned on glossy "be an airline pilot in 6 months" ads in magazines; people who, in some cases, have absolutely no business being in the cockpit of an airplane full of passengers. This new breed of pilot basically has no clue about being a pilot.

Same thing about today's photographer. The technology has opened a whole new world and brought many more people into said world. Like Frog stated, many millions of photographs are created and displayed instantaneously on the web. However, how many of those are truly images? Granted, there are those that truly just want to take snap shots. It's the "tweener", a PWC, that might be most gullible buying into the current marketing hype about better gear producing better images.

Well I have gear that matches my style which I know and am starting to get comfortable with. The digital age has changed things a bit because in the film days the camera was just a light tight box and the lens is what you would put your $$$ in. I shot with Hasselblads and Canon F-1s for over 20 years. 30 for my F-1s. The reason, because the gear was VERY RELIABLE and durable. No reason to upgrade because nothing that was made was BETTER. Allot of newer technology came along but nothing was better, more durable. In fact the more complex and sophisticated the electronics got the (to some degree) less durable and more problematic the gear became.

Skip to the digital world. Now you have a sensor that is the film so the quality of the sensor is now also going to effect the overall quality of the image. I have 2 5Ds because I don't need any more camera. I don't shoot out in rain and snow often enough or need FPS which I had a motor for my newer F-1 but NEVER used it because of the weight. That was also the beauty of that system. You could build into the newer F-1 as much technology as you needed by buying things like finders, screens and drives. I prefer mine all manual, spot meter, bright plain ground glass screen. And I could have that all in one of the most durable SLRs ever made.

Allot of pros still shoot with all manual cameras like 500C/Ms, viewcameras, and Leica Ms. In fact the new M8 takes all the old lenses and is manual everything. Most pros that I know (with sports guys being the exception) would rather shoot manually and all this auto stuff is just more stuff that can go wrong.

I just had a shutter replaced a couple of years ago in on of my newer F-1s and that was the FIRST major repair in over 25 years. I had dropped it more than once and that was 25 + years of HARD use. I've already had my newest 5D back in for some shutter problems. When you make your living with your equipment durability is a must. Break downs are not a good thing and the more stuff thats on a camera is more stuff that can go wrong and when the camera will only operate with batteries your at the mercy of electronics hmmm the battery goes dead or an electrical problem your not shooting with that body.

My point is most of this constant changing of equipment is more in the hands of consumers. Pros don't buy new gear at the same rate that consumers do. We just don't because for one it really takes time to get very comfortable with gear. It takes time for the use to become second nature and that is so important. So for a pro to change gear ever two years is kinda useless unless there is some huge benefit. Like going from 4 MP to 12 mp. I can get INCREDIBLE 13 X 19 inch prints from my 5D so unless there is some earth shattering development in the new one I doubt I will be upgrading.

I have a couple of friends that work for one of the major camera stores and they say pros just don't buy into all the new gadgets (usually) that consumers do. They used to be a pro oriented business with regular business hours but have RECENTLY changed, moved to a consumer friendly location, increased hours including Saturdays to and become more consumer friendly so the can stay competitive because the pros don't usually spend on every new gadget like consumers.

Camera companies know this so they have to keep coming out with a new model every few years to keep hitting earning goals. After all the years if one of my old F-1s could have a 16MMP, FF sensor in it I would take it over ANYTHING out there today because nothing is better and more durable.

breal101 wrote in post #5725497
I have a different take on the Strobist movement.Basic lighting can be learned with cheap gear just as well as with studio quality lights.It takes a certain amount of ingenuity to cobble together a lighting system. Not everyone has pro gear, it's great that people are using their hands and heads instead of a credit card to achieve a goal.

Sorry, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

Karl C wrote in post #5725517
That could be said about many other endeavors today. For example, and please excuse my going off-tangent, I was a professional pilot for five years. The last 2 1/2 were flying a high-tech regional airliner with all of the latest technology. Basically, I was a systems manager and not a pilot. The technology in the airplane was a double-edged sword. On one hand, it greatly assisted the pilot in operating the aircraft. On the flip side, it also greatly dumbed down being a pilot. Couple this with a new generation of pilots in these cockpits, people weaned on glossy "be an airline pilot in 6 months" ads in magazines; people who, in some cases, have absolutely no business being in the cockpit of an airplane full of passengers. This new breed of pilot basically has no clue about being a pilot.

Same thing about today's photographer. The technology has opened a whole new world and brought many more people into said world. Like Frog stated, many millions of photographs are created and displayed instantaneously on the web. However, how many of those are truly images? Granted, there are those that truly just want to take snap shots. It's the "tweener", a PWC, that might be most gullible buying into the current marketing hype about better gear producing better images.

I think technology can do great things but what you describe is absolutely right as well. Some come to rely on it so much, get swept so much in the current technology and thinking, that they don't understand the basics behind it all and what things mean. That I think is unfortunate because it helps you appreciate and use the tools better and I think if you have some understanding of that you can be more self sufficient in solving your "how do I do this?" problems when trying to take photographs. That, and now many basic tools in Photoshop seem to be magic to people who missed out on getting a footing in the "film days." Dodging, burning, unsharp mask, gradient overlays... not that I think the darkroom skills are necessary to approach all these newer tools, but it's curious to see how disconnected people are from their tools or what they mean or where they came from.

emorphien wrote in post #5725795
Sorry, but that wasn't what I was talking about.


I think technology can do great things but what you describe is absolutely right as well. Some come to rely on it so much, get swept so much in the current technology and thinking, that they don't understand the basics behind it all and what things mean. That I think is unfortunate because it helps you appreciate and use the tools better and I think if you have some understanding of that you can be more self sufficient in solving your "how do I do this?" problems when trying to take photographs. That, and now many basic tools in Photoshop seem to be magic to people who missed out on getting a footing in the "film days." Dodging, burning, unsharp mask, gradient overlays... not that I think the darkroom skills are necessary to approach all these newer tools, but it's curious to see how disconnected people are from their tools or what they mean or where they came from.

Theres an entire generation of photographers that don't know what a real fine B&W print is. What we need to always keep remembering is cameras are just tools and the proper tool for the job is always the key and knowing how to properly use the tools and what tools in which situation is another key.

A camera even today is nothing more than a light tight box that holds a light sensitive medium/material and there needs to be something in a measured way to control the time the light strikes said medium (shutter) and something to control the amount of light striking said medium and something to form the image on that medium(lens). The basic tool of any good photograph is a real good understanding of how this all works and how it impacts his/her vision. One basic tool and a good deal of photographers today do not grasp it is the law of reciprocity and how it works.

These tools need to be mastered by the photographer in order to become tools of true self expression. You have to get beyond technique and that has to become second nature for you to be able to get exactly what your minds eye is seeing at the moment of exposure. So it always the photographer, his ability to use his tools to capture what he is seeing. His/her vision first and the equipment second.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5725869
Theres an entire generation of photographers that don't know what a real fine B&W print is.

I have a question:

Who cares? I probably couldn't make a "real fine B&W print" to save my life but my B&W prints appeal to me and my customers. I also have variations on B&W that would be appalling to some of the old hats but I don't cater to old hats. What does it have to do with camera vs photographer anyway?

cdifoto wrote in post #5725884
I have a question:

Who cares? I probably couldn't make a "real fine B&W print" to save my life but my B&W prints appeal to me and my customers. I also have variations on B&W that would be appalling to some of the old hats but I don't cater to old hats. What does it have to do with camera vs photographer anyway?

If you're a B&W photographer or trying to be its everything...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5725943
If you're a B&W photographer or trying to be its everything...

I would wager that this "entire generation of photographers" you refer to are not B&W photographers or trying to be. They just like the occasional B&W photo, and if they're into it enough they'll work on their process. Otherwise, who give a hoo-hah. There are zillions of film images that suck too...we just don't see as many because scanning is a pain in the ass. Digital hasn't changed the quality of images on a global level...only the share-ability.

cdifoto wrote in post #5725949
And if you're not, then it's not.

Exactly my point. If your going to do it learn to do it right.

jra wrote in post #5722704
implying that by simply giving a person a decent camera, they become a great photographer.

NAh it's the opposite. If photo is great, then it's photographer, but when photo is bad, it's always camera's fault
In reality... people think that with pro cameras, everyone can take at least as good photos as you see on wire. And Nikon (or Canon, because Canon has exactly same commercials too, at least here in Europe) has smart (enough) people in their marketing department, to know how to make commercials so people will buy their product.

primoz wrote in post #5725974
NAh it's the opposite. If photo is great, then it's photographer, but when photo is bad, it's always camera's fault

Damn right. When I nail a shot, I'm good. But when the camera misses, I need to upgrade.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5725959
Exactly my point. If your going to do it learn to do it right.

Well - "right" is what's pleasing to the viewer now, not what someone did 50 years ago. And furthermore, "right" is subjective and constantly changing. Hanging onto the past as "the good ol' days" is just as deluded as saying it IS the camera and not the photographer.

cdifoto wrote in post #5726000
Well - "right" is what's pleasing to the viewer now, not what someone did 50 years ago. And furthermore, "right" is subjective and constantly changing. Hanging onto the past as "the good ol' days" is just as deluded as saying it IS the camera and not the photographer.

Whether you want to admit it the bars been set and if you're going to do it you should do it right. You owe it to you clients and anyone that would purchase your work. I never hang on to the past but ya have to know where its been to see clearly see where its going. If you want to be taken seriously you had better be measuring up. With clients your only as good as your last job. If your feeding your family you had better take the time to be the best that you can be. Its that simple. And its always the photographer. Its his knowledge and vision that picks the tools.

I have more respect for someone who goes out on a limb and creates 1500 shots with only 500 making the cut because the other 1000 were experimental than someone who plays it safe just so he can say he "gets it right in the camera" and chide the first guy as being a newbie with no clue as to what he's doing.

At least the first guy is advancing. The second guy will get stuck in a rut.

Technology seems to have played a role in how many photographers don't seem to understand very basic things like the relationship of ISO-Aperture-Shutter speed or Aperture-DOF. When I first came to digital sites I thought those questions were hoaxes.