That must be a really great camera ...

If they shoot with a phone or a 10 year old P&S, imagine the look of the images they make. They then see something that is crisp and clear and are amazed. Why of course they would think the camera had something to do with it, and to a degree they are right.
 
Keith said:
For the first time ever, since taking up photography nine years ago, I copped this comment from someone recently in regard to my M240. They'd been looking at the images I've posted on FB from my trip and really liked them and reasoned that obviously I'm just the monkey pressing the shutter ... and the camera does the rest. Trust Leica to provide me with a camera that brought this about ... it's never happened with anything else I've owned!

You can't really respond to this type of reasoning ... you just lick your wounds and walk away. 😛
Click to expand...

The one I get most often "you must have a really good camera to make pictures like that". My brother that's a well known luthier gets similar, "you must have great tools to make instruments like that".

My brother quoted the great guitarist Chet Atkins when one of his fans said, "you must have a reat great guitar to make music like that". Chet's response was, let me stand it in the corner and see what kind of music it makes".

My response is "let me put my camera on the table and we'll see what kind of pictures it makes" or "it's not the camera but what's two inches behind it".

It doesn't make any difference what camera you have, the comments are the same. I get when people view my work at art show openings and they've never seen me with a camera in hand.

It just shows the ignorance of some people and how they view artists. You see it on every forum, the thinking that X piece of gear will make better images than Y gear. When asked about what camera I use I rarely give a direct answer. I say it's not that important. I te them I use a wide variety of cameras from digital to 35mm - 8x10 film.

It's all in the equipment isn't it? No Tallent required!:bang:
 
Keith said:
Don't get me wrong ... I do see it as a compliment, it just amuses me that people (some) do seem to regard the camera as paramount when viewing the final result of a photographer's hard work.
Click to expand...

I see it as more of an insult that fine photographers and craftsmen aren't given the credit due them. I don't get upset but I don't hesitate to give them a cutting response. I've said on more than one occasion that if I knew it was all in the camera I could have saved myself a lot of time and money and just bought expensive equipment and forgotten about the learning process. I could have soared to the top 45 years sooner.
 
I don't know why this should be surprising. This message is being used by every advertiser out there and they've been using it on these kids since they first started watching TV.

  • Buy this software and you can make these kinds of portraits!
  • Buy this computer and you will be able to pass a really heavy class load!
  • Buy this camera and you will be able to make photographs as good as any of the famous photographers.
  • Buy this exercise machine and within weeks you will look just like this guy/girl.
  • Buy this diet pill and you will soon look just like this 19 year old model whose face was touched up by Photoshop.
  • Use this little pill and you will be able to make love in bathtubs well into your ripe old age.
So why should it be surprising when someone tells you that you must have a great camera? :bang:
 
Probably a fellow RFF member, who have read the threads here at RFF. The tools are the most important thing
 
Truly an evergreen, here is another humorous take on it by What the duck:
http://www.whattheduck.net/strip/95

However, I don't agree it is as clear cut and that it is a sign of gross ignorance about the artistic vision. There is a difference between a writer writing a novel (goosepen, typewriter, pencil, 6000 $ MacPro, what have you....) and a photographer putting together an exhibition. For the writer, the tool used is technically irrelevant to the final book. The same cannot be said to the same extent about the photo exhibition.
Practical example: there is a reason sports photographers haul around them big white lenses. Many of them sure have the artistic vision to cover their assignments with a Holga. But it is just not the right tool in the long run.

And Keith: you got partly complimented for a high technical quality of the picture, you would not have gotten this remark if you had taken the picture with a digicam from 2001 or a really crappy cellphone cam. So yeah, that must be a good camera. And you can turn this around and ask yourself, why you paid for a M240. Only because it is the best outlet for your artistic vision? Image quality etc. was not a factor?

Just my two cents 🙂
Greetings, Ljós
 
Ljós,

This is true to an extent. There are specified tools for certain jobs, like in sports photography. However, we're talking about photography in general. Take a look at people like Ming Thein who can take gallery worthy photos with an iPhone or medium format. Real talent can do much more with much less.
I think what bugs most of us is not that people think a good camera can take great photos, it's that some think that ALL that makes a great photo is the camera. That if any Joe Shmo got an M240/MM then they too could take amazing photos. (Little do most know that a rangefinder is very limited in comparison to the wonder boxes that modern cameras have become.)

But as pioneer said, that's what the marketing depts have told people. Look how the iPhone 5 camera is advertised: instead of teaching people to take better photos, the phone does it for you. 🙄

Ljós said:
Truly an evergreen, here is another humorous take on it by What the duck:
http://www.whattheduck.net/strip/95

However, I don't agree it is as clear cut and that it is a sign of gross ignorance about the artistic vision. There is a difference between a writer writing a novel (goosepen, typewriter, pencil, 6000 $ MacPro, what have you....) and a photographer putting together an exhibition. For the writer, the tool used is technically irrelevant to the final book. The same cannot be said to the same extent about the photo exhibition.
Practical example: there is a reason sports photographers haul around them big white lenses. Many of them sure have the artistic vision to cover their assignments with a Holga. But it is just not the right tool in the long run.

And Keith: you got partly complimented for a high technical quality of the picture, you would not have gotten this remark if you had taken the picture with a digicam from 2001 or a really crappy cellphone cam. So yeah, that must be a good camera. And you can turn this around and ask yourself, why you paid for a M240. Only because it is the best outlet for your artistic vision? Image quality etc. was not a factor?

Just my two cents 🙂
Greetings, Ljós
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #6 detail of screen free camera design
Replies
3
Views
272
lxforrest
lxforrest
A
What is the MOST gear you've ever carried on a trip?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Ray Vonn 2023
Ray Vonn 2023
J
  • Article Article
Collecting Cameras: It can be an obsession, but a little rationality helps!
2 3
Replies
53
Views
4K
bythelight
B
lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #2 Rethinking of retro digital camera
Replies
4
Views
746
lxforrest
lxforrest
lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #2 Rethinking of retro digital camera
Replies
0
Views
230
lxforrest
lxforrest
Back
Top Bottom