TedHarris
Newbie
I was reading a comment on another thread today where someone pointed out that a newer camera would not make one a better photographer. While I agree with the statement it seems there are some caveats to explore.
For instance, if someone buys a dslr at Costco, they are going to have better images of their kid (in most cases) if they use an 85mm 1.8 prime instead of the kit lens. So it would seem that ponying up a few hundred extra bucks would yield better images, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they have become a better photographer. Maybe it does though.
In a nutshell, my question is this; what’s the difference between having better images and being a better photographer?
(I apologize in advance if this has been addressed and/or beaten to death in other threads)
For instance, if someone buys a dslr at Costco, they are going to have better images of their kid (in most cases) if they use an 85mm 1.8 prime instead of the kit lens. So it would seem that ponying up a few hundred extra bucks would yield better images, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they have become a better photographer. Maybe it does though.
In a nutshell, my question is this; what’s the difference between having better images and being a better photographer?
(I apologize in advance if this has been addressed and/or beaten to death in other threads)
Steve M.
Veteran
It's not a given that the really neat lens/camera will provide superior images, as it really does come down to who is behind the camera. A good photographer can make great images with a $20 film camera, and a poor photographer cannot necessarily make great images with the best camera and lens out there.
It's always like this, and it's always been like this. That's why a good painter can use a house brush and a 2 ratty smaller brushes and paint a better painting that a bad painter can paint with all the expensive sable brushes in the world.
Better is a subjective word. Sharper, more detailed, good bokeh, all that is of no use if the portrait pose is bad, if the landscape has lousy light, and on and on and on. If someone doesn't have a good eye, and money cannot buy one, then they should try something else.
Take a look at the really lousy cameras and lenses that Edward Weston was forced to use due to money issues. He made some of the best photographs that were ever made, and they weren't made by his gear, they were made by Edward Weston. Even with the best gear money could buy, you or I couldn't have made those photos, or we WOULD be making them. We're not.
It's always like this, and it's always been like this. That's why a good painter can use a house brush and a 2 ratty smaller brushes and paint a better painting that a bad painter can paint with all the expensive sable brushes in the world.
Better is a subjective word. Sharper, more detailed, good bokeh, all that is of no use if the portrait pose is bad, if the landscape has lousy light, and on and on and on. If someone doesn't have a good eye, and money cannot buy one, then they should try something else.
Take a look at the really lousy cameras and lenses that Edward Weston was forced to use due to money issues. He made some of the best photographs that were ever made, and they weren't made by his gear, they were made by Edward Weston. Even with the best gear money could buy, you or I couldn't have made those photos, or we WOULD be making them. We're not.
fraley
Beware of Claws
Yes it's the eye behind the camera not the gear. But we do love our gear!
peterm1
Veteran
The way I look at in general is that better equipment may help you get better images if it is within you to see those images first. You must always see the images first.
For example modern AF with matrix metering, predictive focusing and a camera with image stabilization may help you get an image that you would not otherwise have been able to capture, or which is technically excellent when it might otherwise have been technically deficient in some technical respect (over exposed, under exposed, blurred etc)
But the question always remains whether the image is artistically excellent as opposed to its technical merits. That comes from within and also is a product of serendipity.
And having said he above some of the technical deficiencies I mentioned can add to an image in an artistic sense. For example I quite like a touch of vignette in certain images as it adds something artistically to the image or at least can do. Vignetting is always regarded as a defect if you believe the lens reviews.
I still shoot a lot with old manual focus lenses often because I enjoy the challenge and because of the special rendering some of them have which add to the artistic qualities of the outcome image. In that respect it can be argued that sometimes the newer "better" equipment might actually detract from some images because it is technically excellent but intrinsically rather boring.
When I look at the Flickr feeds I follow, almost without exception the images I like best are the artistically rendered ones which are so often blurry, dark, smeared etc and technically lacking but interesting.
For example modern AF with matrix metering, predictive focusing and a camera with image stabilization may help you get an image that you would not otherwise have been able to capture, or which is technically excellent when it might otherwise have been technically deficient in some technical respect (over exposed, under exposed, blurred etc)
But the question always remains whether the image is artistically excellent as opposed to its technical merits. That comes from within and also is a product of serendipity.
And having said he above some of the technical deficiencies I mentioned can add to an image in an artistic sense. For example I quite like a touch of vignette in certain images as it adds something artistically to the image or at least can do. Vignetting is always regarded as a defect if you believe the lens reviews.
I still shoot a lot with old manual focus lenses often because I enjoy the challenge and because of the special rendering some of them have which add to the artistic qualities of the outcome image. In that respect it can be argued that sometimes the newer "better" equipment might actually detract from some images because it is technically excellent but intrinsically rather boring.
When I look at the Flickr feeds I follow, almost without exception the images I like best are the artistically rendered ones which are so often blurry, dark, smeared etc and technically lacking but interesting.
CMur12
Veteran
Welcome to RFF, Ted!
If a person plans to pursue a certain type of photography (landscapes, portraits, macro, street, ... whatever), it makes sense to get the equipment that will enable that person to accomplish their goals. The issue is that we usually take it far beyond that with our enthusiasm for equipment in and of itself.
In my own notion of what makes a good photographer, it would be one who creates good images. A person could know the technical aspects of photography but not be able to create a good image. In that case, I would not see that person as a "good" photographer. At the same time, we don't need to be good at it to justify our enjoyment of the pursuit.
- Murray
If a person plans to pursue a certain type of photography (landscapes, portraits, macro, street, ... whatever), it makes sense to get the equipment that will enable that person to accomplish their goals. The issue is that we usually take it far beyond that with our enthusiasm for equipment in and of itself.
In my own notion of what makes a good photographer, it would be one who creates good images. A person could know the technical aspects of photography but not be able to create a good image. In that case, I would not see that person as a "good" photographer. At the same time, we don't need to be good at it to justify our enjoyment of the pursuit.
- Murray
michaelwj
----------------
A better photographer is more likely to get better images (and then recognise them after the fact) more often.
A better camera “should” allow a photographer to get better images more often.
A better camera “should” allow a photographer to get better images more often.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Newer camera? It could be old camera, but different one. Or it could be Mark "something" camera.
It is all about what are you capable of and what is your potential.
Technically incapable, but creative person will take better pictures with more automatic camera. Like mobile phone or cameras with good AF and AE functions.
I think newer cameras are more into this.
In the past camera which was more suitable for your potential would help you with better pictures. I mentioned it many times:
Yousuf Karsh, Ansel Adams both new how to work with large negatives - LF.
Jane Bown switched from TLR to Oly SLR and it helped her.
HCB and GW switched to Leica. It was their tool.
VM did it great with Rolleiflex and if you watch documentary about her you might realize why.
Or then I look at DA large prints from Mamiya TLR. Something hidden most be exposed and large, to help hidden ones.
It is all about what are you capable of and what is your potential.
Technically incapable, but creative person will take better pictures with more automatic camera. Like mobile phone or cameras with good AF and AE functions.
I think newer cameras are more into this.
In the past camera which was more suitable for your potential would help you with better pictures. I mentioned it many times:
Yousuf Karsh, Ansel Adams both new how to work with large negatives - LF.
Jane Bown switched from TLR to Oly SLR and it helped her.
HCB and GW switched to Leica. It was their tool.
VM did it great with Rolleiflex and if you watch documentary about her you might realize why.
Or then I look at DA large prints from Mamiya TLR. Something hidden most be exposed and large, to help hidden ones.
lynnb
Veteran
In this case if you're suggesting that subject isolation using a narrow FOV lens with shallow DOF = "better" images, I don't agree. Better images come from better seeing, no matter the lens or camera.
However simplifying one's equipment can help to improve seeing, IMO. Too much choice is too much distraction from seeing and learning to see. So just one lens, whether 85mm or 35mm or whatever, might help. Fully auto cameras with fixed focal length can remove distraction too.. I agree with Ko.Fe's comments (and others above).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Extracts from The Quality Plateau on my .eu site:
Up to a certain level, a better camera will give you better pictures. This level is the quality plateau. Above the quality plateau, more depends on you than on the camera.
. . .
The quality plateau is not a constant. It varies from photographer to photographer, and with what the photographer wants to do.
. . .
You can argue about the meaning of "better camera" too. Some people actually like Holgas and other cheap plastic cameras. That's fine. If that's how they get better pictures, defined as pictures they like more, then the Holga is a better camera for them. But if you want to shoot wildlife, you'll most likely want telephoto lenses, and if you want to shoot underwater, your camera had better be not just splash-proof but submersible.
And there's more in the link.
Cheers,
R.
Up to a certain level, a better camera will give you better pictures. This level is the quality plateau. Above the quality plateau, more depends on you than on the camera.
. . .
The quality plateau is not a constant. It varies from photographer to photographer, and with what the photographer wants to do.
. . .
You can argue about the meaning of "better camera" too. Some people actually like Holgas and other cheap plastic cameras. That's fine. If that's how they get better pictures, defined as pictures they like more, then the Holga is a better camera for them. But if you want to shoot wildlife, you'll most likely want telephoto lenses, and if you want to shoot underwater, your camera had better be not just splash-proof but submersible.
And there's more in the link.
Cheers,
R.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Technical quality is not only brought by the camera, but also by how the picture is processed. Cartier-Bresson had the best technicians working for him at Pictorial Service.
Erik.
Erik.
retinax
Well-known
I don't quite understand why this topoc comes up so frequently. Just compare with any tool that you use in your line of work, be it a computer or a chisel. You need it to fulfill certain requirements to get quality work done, if it's even better it might make work more pleasant. With any tool, some people are in love with them, others expect better ones to make up for deficient technique or thinking or inspiration, others view them pragmatically.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
None. Better photographers make better images. That's what it means to be a better photographer. Better photographers use all kinds of different cameras. Some technically sophisticated; some not. Some with a bag full of lenses; some not. Adequate equipment is necessary but not sufficient for better images.
Axel
singleshooter
I agree with some other writers before that it doesn´t need a special equipment to have
better pictures or to be a better photographer.
The choice in your example is only one possibility to aim a technical issue in a small
range of photographic challenges.
The proof of the concept stays always the picture
olifaunt
Well-known
Yes, though this was before Leica became a camera only the rich could afford, and Garry Winogrand used relatively cheap Canon 28 mm lenses that are nothing special optically for much of his work. But yet his images are treasures.
Art vs. technical. You can achieve technically better photos with a nicer camera (i.e. better focus, better dynamic range, etc.), but your camera is not going to frame your subject or find you compelling content.
That said, for me...if a camera feel right in my hands and reacts to my commands quickly, I will want to use it more and I will make better photos simply because I`m spending time happy making photos.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Many could afford LTM body and LTM lens. And M8 or M5. Or CL, HCB used them as well.
GW was buying second hand Leica cameras, BTW.
robert blu
quiet photographer
First welcome to RFF Ted!
I agree with Roger here, there is a "quality plateau" which to be reached needs a camera able to do it.
In the case the OP presented to have good images of your kids if you want to shoot them indoor you need a certain iso level...or a fast lens...or image stabilization. Why? because I guess you like to have pictures of your kids in focus and properly exposed (of course you can also make artistic pictures with a different style, I know...)
But we have seen many stunning photos made with "primitive" cameras...where the photographers was a good one, able to see the image...
Back in the film only era I took a workshop with a famous Nat Geo photographer. We were 5 or 6, I do not remember it was many years ago, each with a medium/good SLR a various lenses. Among us was a young girl with a basic SLR bought a few days before and which she used in a complete automatic way no knowing the technical side of photography.
Guess what? She made really good photos, I dare to say much better than some made but the other photographers in the class with better equipment. But...she came there from an art school where she had learned to see and this helped her much in selecting and framing her subjects.
Of course with a better knowledge of the technical side she could have done not good but excellent photos!
As peter said a good photo can also be "imperfect" , blurred or overexposed, or...which in today's era of digital perfection makes interest...
SO in my view it's always a combination, the tool and the photographer...
robert
I agree with Roger here, there is a "quality plateau" which to be reached needs a camera able to do it.
In the case the OP presented to have good images of your kids if you want to shoot them indoor you need a certain iso level...or a fast lens...or image stabilization. Why? because I guess you like to have pictures of your kids in focus and properly exposed (of course you can also make artistic pictures with a different style, I know...)
But we have seen many stunning photos made with "primitive" cameras...where the photographers was a good one, able to see the image...
Back in the film only era I took a workshop with a famous Nat Geo photographer. We were 5 or 6, I do not remember it was many years ago, each with a medium/good SLR a various lenses. Among us was a young girl with a basic SLR bought a few days before and which she used in a complete automatic way no knowing the technical side of photography.
Guess what? She made really good photos, I dare to say much better than some made but the other photographers in the class with better equipment. But...she came there from an art school where she had learned to see and this helped her much in selecting and framing her subjects.
Of course with a better knowledge of the technical side she could have done not good but excellent photos!
As peter said a good photo can also be "imperfect" , blurred or overexposed, or...which in today's era of digital perfection makes interest...
SO in my view it's always a combination, the tool and the photographer...
robert
Bill Clark
Veteran
Welcome to rangefinder forum.
I’ve found that, for me, photography is about posing, lighting and composition.
There are several sub-menus under each item. Tools are one of them. The person making the photographs is another. There are more.
The essence of photography, for me, is contained with my second sentence.
Enjoy your time here.
I’ve found that, for me, photography is about posing, lighting and composition.
There are several sub-menus under each item. Tools are one of them. The person making the photographs is another. There are more.
The essence of photography, for me, is contained with my second sentence.
Enjoy your time here.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, Leicas were always expensive. Leica IIIa with Summar lens in 1936 (ADKOO): £43. Multiplier for inflation: rather over 60x. This puts the camera at £2580 today.
Alternatively, and arguably more realistically, according to the measuringworth web-site, the average wage in UK in the UK in 1936 was around £160/year*, so a IIIa was over a quarter of an annual average wage. Go on: tell me that's NOT a camera only the rich could afford.
*https://www.measuringworth.com
Cheers,
R.
TedHarris
Newbie
Thanks everyone for all the thoughtful and insightful responses and the kind words. I’ve been reading threads for eight years or so and am pleasantly surprised by the responses to my first post.
The issue seems to be a bit of a conflict for most photographers, and the industry seems dependent upon unveiling the next greatest thing. More mega pixels! Higher ISO’s! Buy! Buy! Buy!
I’m fortunate to have several Contax II’s that have been overhauled by Henry Scherer and I mainly shoot with them. Sometimes I feel limited by the lenses but as several have mentioned working within certain limitations can be a good thing. I doubt thoug that if Robert Capa was resurrected today he would be using them.
I shot professionally for about ten years and got really burnt out on all of the digital whizbang hype and yesterday’s most amazing thing ever being valued as obsolete today.
I may miss shots with my Contax or M3 that I would’ve nailed with a 5Dx but I enjoy the experience this way a lot more.
The issue seems to be a bit of a conflict for most photographers, and the industry seems dependent upon unveiling the next greatest thing. More mega pixels! Higher ISO’s! Buy! Buy! Buy!
I’m fortunate to have several Contax II’s that have been overhauled by Henry Scherer and I mainly shoot with them. Sometimes I feel limited by the lenses but as several have mentioned working within certain limitations can be a good thing. I doubt thoug that if Robert Capa was resurrected today he would be using them.
I shot professionally for about ten years and got really burnt out on all of the digital whizbang hype and yesterday’s most amazing thing ever being valued as obsolete today.
I may miss shots with my Contax or M3 that I would’ve nailed with a 5Dx but I enjoy the experience this way a lot more.