Talent v. Equipment?

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

SurplusCorn wrote in post #7574518
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.

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.

I say both!

SurplusCorn wrote in post #7574518
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

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

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.