Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

What takes the best photo ? Camera or photographer ?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Bloggs
Bloggs  2313 forum posts England
9 Dec 2011 - 10:31 AM

The better the camera the better the picture ? Does having a top rate camera mean you will get a top rate picture ? What percentage would you give to the camera and the person taking the shot ? Is it something like 70% camera and 30% photographer or is it the other way around ? Some people i have spoken to seem to think you must have a top rated exspensive camera in order to take a top rated photo ? True or false ? what do you think ? and how would work that out in percentage to camera and photographer ? thanks for your time ?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
9 Dec 2011 - 10:31 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014778 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
9 Dec 2011 - 10:48 AM

100% photographer really

give someone rubbish an amazing camera and you'll still get rubbish shots - albeit very high resolution and sharp rubbish shots

the camera becomes important when you take into account the usage of the photo. a fantastic i-phone photo would probably struggle to create a bill board campaign due to lack of pixels... maybe?


Just think of it like this...

the camera is to the photographer as the pen is to the author
or
the camera is to the photographer as the brush is to the painter
or
the camera is to the photographer as the hammer and chisel is to the master mason

Zatoichi
Zatoichi  5707 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Dec 2011 - 10:48 AM

The camera is nothing without the photographer! The camera is at the end of the day just a recording device, you will probably find most of your money goes into lenses, at least if you want a good image. Having an expensive camera will definitely not make you a fantastic photographer but will if you're a complete beginner probably create more confusion.

The art is in the person looking through the view finder not the camera. There may be those who think differently.

Steve Grin

Pete
Pete Site Moderator 1318442 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
9 Dec 2011 - 10:53 AM

A better camera can help.
Just a few examples. A camera with a 300mm f/2.8 is going to get a better picture for a sports photographer than a camera with a 35-80mm f/5.6.
A camera with a manual exposure option can (when used in the right hands) ensure a tricky lighting shot will come out exposed correctly.
A camera with a macro lens will allow a photographer to go closer to small subjects.
The list goes on.

But the photographer is ultimately responsible for the quality and I've seen brilliant photos with camera phones or basic compacts and poor shots with pro spec SLRs.

I'm not sure anyone could work it out in percentages. certainly with mobile phones and compacts it's more the photographer than the equipment.

Bloggs
Bloggs  2313 forum posts England
9 Dec 2011 - 10:55 AM

Very interesting comments but what is the balance between the two ? You must have to have some level of decent camera to acheive a good photo ?

By the analogy you both use is very very good.

icphoto
icphoto  131319 forum posts England
9 Dec 2011 - 11:49 AM

The bottom line is that it is the photographer not the camera Smile

User_Removed
9 Dec 2011 - 11:57 AM

LOL as usual at the people who say the "camera doesn't matter" that it's "100% photographer"

You guys must be idiots then and have wasted big money on camera equipment when you could have produced your portfolio using any camera, eg the camera on your phone?


The reality is it's a team effort of photographer and equipment.

Zatoichi
Zatoichi  5707 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Dec 2011 - 12:40 PM


Quote: LOL as usual at the people who say the "camera doesn't matter" that it's "100% photographer"

You guys must be idiots then and have wasted big money on camera equipment when you could have produced your portfolio using any camera, eg the camera on your phone?

The reality is it's a team effort of photographer and equipment.

I think the point being made is, eg. if you cant compose an image through the view finder then a Canon 5D MK II with a 4000 lens wont do it for you. There is logic in there somewhere Wink

franken
franken e2 Member 113098 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
9 Dec 2011 - 12:40 PM

When I was studying photography many years ago my tutor said something along the lines of,

"You can use the most expensive and highest quality cameras and lenses available and you can churn out endless average and badly composed images. Alternatively you can use lower quality and priced gear and turn out well composed images with impact!

Display an average image from the expensive camera alongside a well composed image with impact from the lower quality gear and the latter will always get the most attention!"


He was absolutely right!

Ken

Last Modified By franken at 9 Dec 2011 - 12:40 PM
ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014778 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
9 Dec 2011 - 12:55 PM

I am an idiot, fair enough Chris Wink

how about this then....

I can play, badly, about 4 or 5 chords on the guitar....

I've had a go on my guitarist's 2500 customer fender guitar, and do you know what, I sounded as sh1t on that as I did on my mate's 70 acoustic

However, I'm pretty handy on the keyboard, and I've had a go on a 49,000 steinway in Forsythe's on Deansgate, Manchester.... It sounded amazing, but I also sound pretty good on my 2500 Korg Triton Extreme 88, or even a 200 casio synth.


Kit is completely unrelated to skill

Skill is what makes someone great

Kit is something they apply the skill with

The requirements of a "job" dictate which "kit" is needed.

e.g.
huge billboard campaigns need lots of pixels - enter the Hassleblads or medium format backs.

family portraits rarely get printed that large, so a normal DSLR is required.

sport often needs lots of frames per second in wet conditions - enter the Canon 1D series

etc.

igknight
igknight  230 forum posts United States
9 Dec 2011 - 12:58 PM

Ive seen some amazing photos with a homemade pinhole. I think I'll go with the photographer.

User_Removed
9 Dec 2011 - 1:01 PM

Try doing it without a camera. It's not one or the other, it's a combination of both

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014778 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
9 Dec 2011 - 1:08 PM

WHY NOT TYPE IN CAPITALS AS WELL AS BOLD? WE'LL REALLY HEAR YOU THEN!!!!!!!!!

Tongue

mikehit
mikehit  56297 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
9 Dec 2011 - 1:10 PM

The camera lens in some cases lets you do things that are very difficult (if not impossbile) with another lens - for example try taking a macro shot with a 600mm f4 or a good one of a bird in flight with a 24mm prime.
As I see it the body is there to make it easier to get the shot you want - for example AF makes it easier to get a good sports or wildlife shot (just think of all those brilliant shots taken before AF came in).

To oversimplify, I think the body is more an extension of the photographer, while the lens is the real workhorse.

User_Removed
9 Dec 2011 - 1:54 PM

Let me put it a wee bit differently:

A great photographer can produce great photographs with virtually any camera. (Someone used the term "decent" camera above - nowadays, virtually any camera costing more than 30 will be "decent" )

An unskilled and untalented photographer will not produce great photographs (other than by accident), no matter how "good" his camera might be.

I don't much like the idea of assigning percentages as was asked, but - maybe 90% photographer and 10% camera. The reason that some of us spend illogical amounts of our hard-earned groats on bigger and better cameras is merely to try and push further into that final 10%.

Let me take that a stage farther:

If you took a random sample of 50 images taken by me on my Nikon D3s dSLR and 50 images taken by my wife on her Nikon P7100 compact, and viewed them full-screen on a normal computer monitor and then "ranked" them according to any subjective assessment of photographic quality, then I guarantee that my wife would have more in the top-20 than I would - simply because she has a better eye for a good photograph.

.

Last Modified By User_Removed at 9 Dec 2011 - 1:59 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.