Does the Camera Even Matter Anymore? Or is it about software/software skills?

[uinku]

Everything matters to varying degrees and to make statements like "the camera doesn't matter" is just the flipside of "the camera is everything."

With digital cameras, you have the issue of varying sensor-sizes, similar to 35mm vs. 120 vs. 4x5. It's faulty to say that you could get the same result from a cheap cameraphone as you could from a full-frame digital with fast glass. You can get great photos from both, but there's an optimal tool for the result you're looking for.

 

[Brian Legge]

I think about it as information capture. If you don't have the information there, photoshop doesn't have anything to recover.

Getting that information is primarily skill but is limited by camera given a particular desired shot. A Holga isn't going to get a crisp shot of fast moving object in low light. The vignetting and softness of the Holga could be added later however in post process (darkroom or digitally). The amount of detail captured in a 4x5 opens doors a small sensor point and shoot isn't going to compete with - there just isn't enough information there to resolve the same detail. The depth of field of a large format camera may be approximated by a point and shoot - and may be more so in the future as depth information is captured - but isn't there yet. A 4x5 isn't going to get into that music venue where only small, fixed lens/non professional looking cameras go.

Photoshop can do wonders to salvage an image but even it has its limits unless you take it to the extreme of realist painting. 😉

 

[btgc]

To rephrase it - does it really matters which environment and equipment we use to split hairs? Results are same 😀

 

[thegman]

I don't think it's ever truly mattered except at the extremes. A $5000 Leica MP + $6000 'lux basically takes shots which 99% of us could not discern from one taken with a $50 Pentax ME Super. Obviously if you want a mural sized print, then it matters, you need to shoot LF or at least MF. At the other end, Nick's shot looks fine, but it probably wouldn't if if he used the camera on a 5 year old BlackBerry.

I think the gear can be noticeably good at the very high end, and it's noticeably bad at at the low end. But the gear we talk about here (Leica) does not make any difference. We get this gear because we like it, not for the results.

 

[Sparrow]

poor camera + good software skills = good photo

good camera + good software skills = better photo

... yes of course it matters

 

[Igor.Burshteyn]

well, camera never mattered that much.
Portraits benefit much more from correct light setup and post-processing than from camera/lens combination.

 

[bobbyrab]

Sorry Nick but I don't think I could be convinced this had been taken with any quality camera, just to many shortcomings that no amount of pp can overcome. Like all these cameras the detail is created by sharpening, hence the eyes are sharp, but there's very little detail there. Another trait of these cameras is the flash/lens axis, like low grade ring flash.
One thing I've learned when photoshopping skin is go very light when using the blur tool, it very quickly looks photoshopped, much better to clone bad skin with with good skin, and even then I revisit with the history brush and put back some of the imperfection, I find I can get carried away so easily and overwork an image, good skin photoshop is really quite difficult.

 

[skírnir]

I'm more likely to make pictures, and good pictures, with a camera that I really enjoy using. So for me, gear matters. It doesn't necessarily have to be a very good camera, though.

 

[Pete B]

It is remarkable what some can manage with software. For example the before and after shots attached from Scott Kelby's 7 point system. Photoshop allows you to get what most people would regard as good output from bad input. I feel this particular photo looks a hideous monstrosity, but it would get lots of Facebook "Likes" in this high def, highly saturated digital world.
In some cases a good camera matters but, for web viewing, a good camera/lens isn't necessary for a good photo. However, I would find it much more rewarding to capture a moment than invent one with software.
Pete

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

If you are both happy with the picture then nothing else matters...

Regards, David

 

[NickTrop]

Here's my take...

1. If I told you this was taken with an expensive portrait glass attached to pricey gear I just bought - I'd be getting congrats posts on the gear.

2. Because I took this with a cheap camera, and titled my thread as such, your defenses shot up and you're ready to attack.

In either case you can not look at the picture I posted objectively. AT ALL.

3. I think we overvalue the 100+ year old technology for what they can do.

4. We undervalue (and take for granted) the contemporary technology and what it can do. A technology so amazing that if it appeared on Star Trek in 1966, people would think that they jumped the shark and crosses the line into absurdity.

 

[gavinlg]

Here's my take...

1. If I told you this was taken with an expensive portrait glass attached to pricey gear I just bought - I'd be getting congrats posts on the gear.

2. Because I took this with a cheap camera, and titled my thread as such, your defenses shot up and you're ready to attack.

In either case you can not look at the picture I posted objectively. AT ALL.

The reason that people are being defensive is because you have declared it to be a technically perfect portrait, when on the contrary many of us don't see it as a technically perfect portrait. It shows off the shortcomings of using a digital point and shoot and software manipulation to try to imitate a larger format camera very well.

You'll notice the ever popular threads on the GRD series cameras, holga picture threads, yashica GSN threads, etc. There's a big appreciation for small point and shoot/cheap cameras here, we all use and love them. Holgas are under $50 new, grd's can be bought for under $120 (I bought mine for 100). It's been said a few times the grd thread is the best photo thread on RFF. So in essence it's a bit difficult to see what your point is...

 

[Richard G]

Was that Keith just now?

 

[bobbyrab]

TBH I'm actually quite amazed that your so convinced it can pass as being anything other than a poor P&S. I don't doubt you'd find some positive comments had you said it was taken with whatever Leica lens, but that in itself doesn't prove anything about the quality of the image.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Shoot the same portrait with a 90 Summicron and a 90 Thambar. You MIGHT, with enough PP, be able to get something similar out of the Summicron shot.

Now shoot it on 8x10 with a 21 inch lens. You're NEVER going to get the same effect with digi or 35mm. You'll have a job even with 4x5 inch.

Of course, these are extreme examples, but they clearly illustrate that equipment does make a difference. The next question is, how much is the difference? That's part objective, part subjective -- and things which look awful to some people just won't matter (or will even look good) to others.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Disaster_Area]

First off, I really hope the OP was just posting an exaggeration, the original shot is far from a "perfect portrait"

- the top of her head is cut off (though thats a photographer problem not a camera problem)
- even at this small size I can see pixelization and JPG artifacts
- the direct on camera flash (I'm assuming) is not the most flattering and FAR from perfect lighting for the perfect portrait
- the fake bokeh and halo effect is far from convincing

I could go on, but I won't. No, I don't think you need a $7000 lens to take an amazing portrait, and yes, I think there is a diminishing returns as you spend more and more on camera gear. I also don't think that anyone with a $7000 lens automatically takes better pictures than someone with a $30 thrift store Pentax K1000. Artistically, the only thing more expensive cameras give you over say a Holga (the seeming gold standard of low-tech, low-cost gear) is control over what you have in your mind versus what you can actually capture on film/sensor.

Technically though, yes, more expensive gear does play a role in photography depending on your goals/requirements. How big do you need to blow the shot up in a print? What are the minimum file sizes required by your intended outlet (stock photography, magazine, client).

In the end, your gear dictates and your PP ability dictates the limits of what you can capture and present, your artistic ability is what allows you to reach that potential. Example: There are some amazing photos taken with Hipstamatic/Instagram and an iPhone, but the limits of the technology means they're only really good for small prints or web viewing. You'd never be able to submit those shots for stock photography or a juried show due to the file size limitations and JPG artifacts. I think you can take an AMAZING portrait (I don't believe there's such thing as a perfect one) with an iPhone, but there's limits as to what the lens and sensor can capture, you wouldn't be able to realize every shot you can create in your mind with that equipment.

 

[varjag]

Here's my take...

1. If I told you this was taken with an expensive portrait glass attached to pricey gear I just bought - I'd be getting congrats posts on the gear.

You know Nick, criticizing a portrait of someone's SO is setting up yourself between rock and a hard place. Thing is, you will *always* get some amount of praise on the Internet for *any* kind of photo, the law of big numbers in action here. Some people would cheer you from politeness or compassion, others can't tell bad quality even if you hit them with it. Most would rather refrain from comments, precisely to avoid the defensive reaction you show now.

The hair looks like sugar cotton, the lips are oversharpened, the eyes unsharp. The overall deer-in-the-headlights look from the frontal flash. The focal length seems too short for a headshot that tight.

This portrait is not very good, and I couldn't care less about the equipment used for it. Am sure you could do better.

 

[uinku]

Here's my take...

1. If I told you this was taken with an expensive portrait glass attached to pricey gear I just bought - I'd be getting congrats posts on the gear.

2. Because I took this with a cheap camera, and titled my thread as such, your defenses shot up and you're ready to attack.

[...]

4. We undervalue (and take for granted) the contemporary technology and what it can do. A technology so amazing that if it appeared on Star Trek in 1966, people would think that they jumped the shark and crosses the line into absurdity.

Nick, I don't know if you're doing it for the sake of discussion, but it seems like you're still viewing things in absolutes.

There's a place for Photoshop, and it's not in making P&S snaps look like DSLR shots. When I've seen Photoshop done well, it's in subtle HDR, or giving photos a fantastical feel. Photoshop is used as an effect, not to replace a camera set up. There's also a young girl who takes amazing photos with a Canon Rebel and Photoshops them quite skillfully on Flickr, but I can't find her.

No one here (or in this thread, at least), is undervaluing contemporary technology. Folks were mentioning the 5D in the previous page and that's quite a feat of contemporary technology.

And if I personally saw a crappy shot taken by an expensive set up, I wouldn't call the person out on the photo (if you don't have anything nice to say...), but I wouldn't congratulate him on the gear either because I'm not much of a gearhead myself. I'm aware that other people here might, but there's no harm in letting them enjoy geeking out over (expensive) gear.

 

[uinku]

And just to throw a point out there, I'd argue it's harder for a beginner to learn enough Photoshop to get decent post-processing results, than it would be for the same person to pick up a 5D with a 85/1.2 and just set it on aperture-priority or even program.

 

[noimmunity]

The camera could certainly make a huge difference if it is imposing an undesirable point of focus, or other parameters at odds with what the photog wants. In the OP photo, it looks to me like the camera focused on the couch, not the subject.