Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: Maybe in the old film days they were 'enlargists' or 'darkroomists'
in the early days they were often called operators, or even, don't tell everyone, " manipulators"
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: " manipulators"
I thought this thread might spark a wee bit of controversy. Thanks for not letting me down.
Of course, the photographer v. camera argument is totally facile and meaningless. There are many more factors that go into producing a masterpiece or a flop.
Throw aside you prejudices and think about it rationally. A photograph is produced by a unique combination of contributory factors which will vary enormously in scope and significance from photo to photo.
To name just a few:
Probably most important is circumstances/conditions. Maybe more so in landscape and wildlife than in, say, still life or portraiture, the coming together of the optimum subject conditions in the best possible lighting is of paramount importance. But, even then, other factors interplay - the photographer must be able to recognise the circumstances/conditions and his camera must have the technology to capture the image to maximum effect.
Then there are the skills of the photographer in composing the image. And the technology of the camera in assisting him to find the optimum exposure and to focus correctly.
Then don't forget the power of the software used to process/manipulate the image. Once more the skill of the photographer to use this to best effect enters the equation.
....and I could go on and mention several more critical factors.
The upshot is that any outstanding photograph is a unique blend of all of those factors.
And, really, anyone who suggests otherwise is talking through an orifice that is not located in the upper half of their body.
I think most of us knew this really. I certainly did. But everyone ends up misinterpreting other people's posts or not making themselves clear when posting and then there is always someone to jump in for a good old bit of forum fun ... Get outside, the weather is beautiful
thought we'd covered this one in agonising detail a while back...
I think a "sensible" conclusion would be that the biggest factor in the "quality" of an image from any given circumstances would be the person holding the camera.....
Quote: I think a "sensible" conclusion would be that the biggest factor in the "quality" of an image from any given circumstances would be the person holding the camera.....
Oh surely not................. EPZ forum would cease to exist!!
how vague can i get....
If I could just bring this thread back on topic for a second. I love Sierra Nevada Pale Ale!
Have you tried their Torpedo Extra IPA ? Even better
The do some proper thick stouts too - I forget their names....
Like all simplistic statements, Better Cameras DO Take Better Photographs is just a matter of what you mean by better.
All the many pictures I remember vividly, from Cartier-Bresson and Salgado to the little girl running from the napalm in Vietnam are a matter of the image itself, its impact, sensitivity, timing and observation. How sharp or well exposed any of those images are, I couldn't tell you and I don't care. Any of the pictures would be stunning whatever camera - or phone - you managed to take them on. These, for me, are 'better' photographs than others. Is there anyone who doesn't remember Capa's pictures of the D-Day landing. Fuzzy, haphazard exposures, films devved in too hot chemicals.
If, on the other hand, what you mean by a better photograph is one that is sharp and perfectly exposed, the pictures you remember are for their sharpness and tonal range, then it is true that better cameras take better pictures.
I think you have to define "better" before answering this question................. and that's a whole multi-page discussion in itself!
Brief conversation from yesterday (probably heard a million times), when a colleague visited my desk:
Her: "That's a nice picture on your screen, where did you get that"
Me: "It's one of mine, I took it"
Her: "It's lovely, you must have a good camera."
So, I guess it must be the camera rather than the photographer.
Quote: Brief conversation from yesterday (probably heard a million times)................... "It's lovely, you must have a good camera."
Indeed - and has sometimes led to the decease of the person making the comment! But it's OK - you could probably get away with it as "justifiable homicide".
Quote: Her: "That's a nice picture on your screen, where did you get that"
Me: "It's one of mine, I took it"
Her: "It's lovely, you must have a good camera
Her: "That's a nice tune you are playing, what is it"
Me: "It's one of mine, I wrote it"
Her: "It's lovely, you must have a good piano"
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar