How much of a good photo is based on camera equipment and how much on skill?

[ultimate weapon]

I doubt a good photographer could actually produce a brilliant picture on say an early cell phone camera am i right?

If not why does it seem like every serious photographer carries around some heavy what 10kg looking camera around his neck.

[phuketrichard]

Every serious photographer doesn't

what about those that use a 2 .5 lb leica M9 with lens

the camera should fit the shoot, (ie a serios sports photographer needs a long lens fast camera), shooting the streets--- small can be better

[Fiddlesticks]

I guess you have to define what you mean by a brilliant picture. Some amazing photos have been captured by foreign war correspondents and these images gained recognition for their documentary brilliance. These certainly could have been taken by an 'early cell phone camera'. If you are talking about fine art images that are typically printed at 8x10 up to 40x50 or larger then certainly this could not have been captured with a cell phone. That being said, if the photographer's purpose was to create images to be displayed on a computer screen then an early cell phone camera COULD have been enough.

I'll say it again and again, the camera is the tool. You choose the right tool for the right job. Good images are made in the mind of the photographer. The tool does not create. It is used to create.

[Sydneycraig]

I only use iPhone nowadays purely for its size benefits ... A few iPhone only pics from around Malaysia and Thailand on justridingaround.com

[sunshine51]

I guess you have to define what you mean by a brilliant picture. Some amazing photos have been captured by foreign war correspondents and these images gained recognition for their documentary brilliance. These certainly could have been taken by an 'early cell phone camera'. If you are talking about fine art images that are typically printed at 8x10 up to 40x50 or larger then certainly this could not have been captured with a cell phone. That being said, if the photographer's purpose was to create images to be displayed on a computer screen then an early cell phone camera COULD have been enough.

I'll say it again and again, the camera is the tool. You choose the right tool for the right job. Good images are made in the mind of the photographer. The tool does not create. It is used to create.

FS....Spot On!

Whatever camera one uses...from "early hand phone camera" (grainey vga resolution) to a Phase One medium format

jobber (very high res & price) the camera is nothing more than a recording device....just like a tape recorder or mp3

recorder. That's all it is...nothing more, nothing less. The creativity comes from the person who is using said recording

device via their brain and eyes when they determine....That's a great shot...or...Whoops, that's gonna suck, just as the

shutter release is pressed.

The more expensive cameras...take your pick of brand...only give you more fea tures than the cheaper ones do and

one important detail needs to be mentioned here...usually but not always, the more expensive cameras have a better

light metering system and these days...a more accurate & faster autofocusing system. Plus the more expensive kit

allows for more knocks & shocks to the gear than the cheaper ones do. One must also include faster and sharper

lens choices too...that are also ruggedly built.

I will not bring up details of TVF member MJP's fascination for old Soviet Block lenses built like tanks that are sharp

and have dual usage as anchors for aircraft carriers....they're great lenses....but I'm talking about todays choices, not

yesterdays...sorry MJP just some humour because I know you'll read this & plug the lenses!

Having the most expensive (read best money can buy) kit doesn't qualify or quantify that one is a good photographer,

it only says the person has access to heaps of money.

"Good photographs" are created. Some photogs like to create in-camera as much as possible while others like

to do more creating/creativity in post processing. Regardless of method, one must have..at the very least...a pretty

darn good photograph to start with. Or else it's all a waste of time.

[sunshine51]

A small story about big cameras....

Back in the mid 90's in Cambodia I was shooting TV news with the now defunct WTN.
A Sony BetacamSP BVW 400AP camera with 20x1/2x extender lens on the front and
an Anton Bauer 14.4 volt battery pack on the back end weighed in at around 35 pounds
or thereabouts. Add an on camera fill light & 30VDC battery belt and one is looking at
humping around 50 pounds in the horrific heat of dry or wet season Cambodia. I didn't
mention the tripod & fluid head...my Vinten Vision 10 weighed in at around 20 pounds
however many times I left that at the apartment and opted out of the extra weight and
carried an old Bolex 16 pro monopod...about 5 pounds of weight instead.

I had two Nikon F4s cameras and my Leica M6 back then, they resided pretty much in
my apartment in Phnom Penh since carrying just one F4s with say my 80-200 f2.8 D series
zoom lens was a bit too much when carrying the above mentioned TV kit around. Mind
you I did carry it around a few times and was thankful I did carry it at those times....but
normally; they stayed at home until I had time off to shoot stills instead of TV news.
I saved carrying my M6 and a choice of only two lenses around for the early evenings or
early morning times when the light was nice. I rarely carried it when shooting TV because
at the time I only had the 35 Sumilux M f1.4 and the 50 Noctilux f1.0 and never really
saw any need...plus since it was new kit...I babied my Leica gear...perhaps excessively,
perhaps wisely since I still have it.

One day in Siem Reip HRH Sihanouk (now deceased) flew in directly from China to
ease some tensions or try to anyway, between Hun Sen & HRH Prince Ranarridh.
It was a media circus for both the local press corps and the few of us foreign press
corps members based in Cambodia at the time.

Earlier in the day I busied myself shooting B-Roll around Sieem Reip & Angkor Wat
and also ran into an old friend, Magnum photographer Phillip Jones Griffiths out shooting
artsy craftsy stills to kill time before HRH arrived....which was to be around 1500 hours
local. Phil & I walked & talked & caught up on old tales, short stories & long laughs.
He exposed some frames and I rolled some tape on things we saw...in general a pretty
good outing for two old Southeast Asia hands killing time until the King arrived.

Phil was humping three big Canon EOS 1 cameras & assorted lenses while I humped
my BVW400 described earlier...including tripod this time...it was bloody hot out & about.

HRH arrives, it's quite a spectacle...his motorcade stops right in front of Phil & myself
and as the window is rolled down HRH motions us over with his hand and invites us
to a Royal do at the Siem Reip Palace the next day. We agree and as the window rolls
up the motorcade rolls away to the palace. Phil & I look at each other, wonder why we
received the oh so personal invite and agreed we must have been standing in the correct
spot since we didn't see the motorcade make any stops before us nor after us...and then
we had a good laugh as we walked to a lovely little restaurant named the Naga Porn for
some after work refreshments. Neither of us had to file our work that day and we agreed
to meet up at the newly opened Foreign Correspondents Club Cambodia Siem Reip
Annex that night for dinner and catch up on what we've been doing over the years.

The FCCC SR Annex was packed out that night. Travelers, tourists, some rich locals,
the foreign & local press corps...etc...ect. I decided to show Phil my M6 and the 35
attached to it saying it was much lighter than humping my Betacam. Phil asks if he
can have a hands on look, I agree and he takes my picture then another in a wide
shot of the FCCC. Phil comments on the M6 shutter and its noise and I reply with
"What noise?" and we have a laugh.

Phil then makes a comment that he has a "new toy" also and pulls out a brand new
Canon Ixus camera...the one that took a special film cassette. So I ask him if I can
have a hands on look and he passes me the camera. I want to take a picture of him
but can't get the thing to work. He mentions that I have to press the shutter button
since I was pressing some other button...."new cameras...bah" was my reply or
something similar...and I finally grabbed a few frames of Phil in the FCCC Annex
in Siem Reip.

We talked about a lotta things over dinner that night, even about the dinner itself in
context of quality of food since said quality left a lot to be desired for the price,
however our choice of wine was excellent value for money. We discussed very
little about the Royal invite for the following day...we'd find out why when we got
there. I guess we talked about life in general pretty much...family, a little about work,
a little about Cambodia & SEA in general, some jokes made the rounds, some friends
who have come & gone & are missing...the usual catching up stuff and such.

As we left the FCCC for our respective hotels I asked Phil..."Why in the Hell did
you buy that Ixus, you have Leica's too?" And I keep his reply close to me every
day and will keep it close until I stop breathing air.

"It lets ME be in front of the camera for a change...you know what I mean?"

If that little silver Canon Ixus with its odd film was good enough for one of the worlds
best photographers it goes to show all of us that big isn't always better in many scenarios.
It's how one uses the camera instead...after all a camera is just and will always be, only a
recording device.

RIP Phillip Jones Griffiths...18 February 1936 – 19 March 2008.

[MJP]

It's all in the minds eye . . .

. . . whatever the f£$c that means.

[rhythmworx]

Imagine in your hands is the worlds best camera and you have used it so much, you know it inside out. You also have the best lighting gear, reflectors etc...

Would you have the knowledge to light this shot with just 1 single strobe, use a light meter to measure the incidental light and set your camera to match, could you make the model comfortable, could you portray your vision to the make up artist and fashion designer all in front of your client who is watching your every move?

[kurnell]

I worked in a pro lab in Sydney for 10 years and saw everything come through, mostly by 'professional' photographers. 90% of the photography was the same level as you or me with an iphone, but they were using the expensive, clunky stuff for the most part.

[MJP]

^^ Looks out of focus.

[rhythmworx]

Oops it's a bit big that...realised my point is slightly irrelevant to the question also.

A good photographer could make a decent photo on virtually any camera...depending on what your terms of good photo are.

[rhythmworx]

^^ Looks out of focus.

Its possibly the post processing.

The 1st thing I see at that level of zoom is noise, which shouldn't really be there...maybe it's artifacts from processing?

[MJP]

^^ Looks out of focus.

Its possibly the post processing.

The 1st thing I see at that level of zoom is noise, which shouldn't really be there...maybe it's artifacts from processing?

I'm just pulling your leg.

[rhythmworx]

^^ Looks out of focus.

Its possibly the post processing.

The 1st thing I see at that level of zoom is noise, which shouldn't really be there...maybe it's artifacts from processing?

I'm just pulling your leg.

You evil man you...

It was took by one of the top end model and celebrity photographers...a lovely man (not in a gay way) named Matthew Jordan Smith.

[sustento]

A good photographer used one of these...

[astral]

Please resize images to fit the forum screen

Thanks

[ultimate weapon]

To rhythmworx how much of that picture has been altered by PS?

It looks like a typical magazine picture cover. There have been countless girls being photographed like that and you know how PS is used and not to mention the make up and everything. I looked at the exif data and saw it as a sony dslr A900 and you were talking about having the world's best camera etc i don't think you mean to say that sony camera is the best BUT from your post and then showing the picture of that girl you meant to say that the picture of the girl is very well taken with all the correct settings in play etc BUT the fact of the matter is at the end of the day there is computer software and makeup to fix irregularities and not to mention you can always take another shot i am sure he took a huge number of shots of her and that was selected.

[ultimate weapon]

^^ Looks out of focus.

Its possibly the post processing.

The 1st thing I see at that level of zoom is noise, which shouldn't really be there...maybe it's artifacts from processing?

I'm just pulling your leg.

You evil man you...

It was took by one of the top end model and celebrity photographers...a lovely man (not in a gay way) named Matthew Jordan Smith.

Wait a minute rhythmworx you mentioned before mjp told you that he was kidding that you see noise and artifacts so is it really there or not?

You see now we have a problem. Did this top end model and celebrity photographer actually create an imperfect picture or not.

Btw since he is a top end celebrity photographer does that make him a celebrity?

[MJP]

Who needs Leica when an £800 Pentax K-3, a wide open £60 Helios 77M-4 (50/1.8) and LR5.4 can do it? Saving? Oh, about two months income over a Leica M 240 and Noctilux 50/0.95.

[fimgirl]

Conversely, who needs a Ferrari for motoring when public transport will cover the same journey!

From user satisfaction and pleasure use I know which one I'd choose any day (and every day).

It's true that you don't NEED a great camera to take a great photograph but it sure helps to have the best. And why not have the best you can afford. As FS says, the camera is the tool, but the tool needs to be up to the job in hand. And more often than not, that comes at a price. As impressive as a £60 Helios may be, my Leica 50mm Summilux does not display that level of barrel distortion. LOL.

There's a pleasure in owning good quality equipment, be it cameras, cars, hi-fi or the like, and surely it's this pleasure element that encourages using the stuff which in turn will justify it's purchase.

Good quality equipment will also hold it's value. I use a Leica M 240 and Leica lenses and as someone once said, owning these lenses is like having money in the bank which is earning interest, and you're using it every day.

Yea, it's waffling a bit but imagine undertaking a one-off journey of a lifetime; given the choice, would you take a Leica or your iPhone?

[Fiddlesticks]

Conversely, who needs a Ferrari for motoring when public transport will cover the same journey!

From user satisfaction and pleasure use I know which one I'd choose any day (and every day).

It's true that you don't NEED a great camera to take a great photograph but it sure helps to have the best. And why not have the best you can afford. As FS says, the camera is the tool, but the tool needs to be up to the job in hand. And more often than not, that comes at a price. As impressive as a £60 Helios may be, my Leica 50mm Summilux does not display that level of barrel distortion. LOL.

There's a pleasure in owning good quality equipment, be it cameras, cars, hi-fi or the like, and surely it's this pleasure element that encourages using the stuff which in turn will justify it's purchase.

Good quality equipment will also hold it's value. I use a Leica M 240 and Leica lenses and as someone once said, owning these lenses is like having money in the bank which is earning interest, and you're using it every day.

Yea, it's waffling a bit but imagine undertaking a one-off journey of a lifetime; given the choice, would you take a Leica or your iPhone?

I'd take my Canon AND my iPhone since my Canon never gets a good signal!

[MJP]

I'll adjust barrel distortion in post and keep the £6940 difference.

Most work is done in post now and with sensors producing low noise at high ISO there really isn't any point in blowing tens of thousands on kit.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[MJP]

This came from an eighty quid lens, handheld on the K-3. A 1970's Meyer Optik Gorlitz Orestor 135/2.8 in perfect, as new condition . . . .

as did this . . .

[MJP]

Now then, here's an interesting modern alternative to the Noctilux, albeit it on a crop sensor and f1/.2.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/fujinon_xf56mm/

The Fuji XT-1 retails for some £879 and the XF56/1.2 for £780. So, a bit under £1700 or seven times less than an M 240 with Noctilux.

http://www.digitalrev.com/product/fujifilm-x-t1/MTEwMzIwNg_A_A

http://www.digitalrev.com/product/fujifilm-fujinon-xf-56mm-f1/MTEwMzA1NQ_A_A?googlebase=1&country=GB&gclid=CMWs_a_Zgb4CFScGwwod630Axg

Fast autofocus too and very good EVF.

The law of diminishing returns?

[Guest]

Now, when the 1% has talked, let's get to the normal user space.

I have been hobbyist for couple of years now. I still refuse to take raw-pictures as it would mean to change way too many things I have gotten just right for me. I did try that, but had no idea how to process the images on gimp.

When ever I have changed my camera (compacts -> bridges and now m4/3) it has been a long process and frustration due the "pictures I possible could have taken, but failed as the lens was too slow for the moment". I have seen the results when checking them on Picasa. After an while this frustration transforms to an action plan to buy a new camera.

For me that is the moment when the camera is not anymore able to produce the pictures I had in my mind. The more I try and fail, the more I want better camera (or for now I guess, more expensive glass.. darn you MJP for being right! . I loved to be able to frame the scene with my huge zoom bridge, which I'm not able to do anymore as things don't always happen within meters from me. There are downsides as well.

Modern phone cameras are probably great for most of the situations. It's the moment when you start to wonder, after failing to take some type of photos.. could I have been able to take the photo with better sensor, faster lens, longer zoom.. That's the moment to walk to a camera show and ask what they have.

Ps. I know I will someday switch to taking raw-images and go through to horrible learning curve how to process the images. The motivation does not come from the idea that all the pro's are doing it, so it must be great. It will come from the frustration of failure. Lazy people can go great distances to avoid the inevitable... do I remember correctly that new "lossless" JPG format was introduced just a while ago, maybe there is no need to go for raw after all?

[sunshine51]

^^^ The big benefit to shooting raw is that you have so much latitude

to "play" with an image. Jpeg's...even the newer lossless ones, will degrade

each time you change the image...even if only by a minuscule amount.

And don't ever be afraid to "fail"...one never learns much by winning all the

time. Mind you...always work from a raw "copy" (@100%) and never the

camera original...

[FracturedRabbit]

Or just use Lightroom which never changes your original RAW file and is VERY easy to use.

[Guest]

Picasa does not change the photo while editing. It simply creates changelog of the actions made to the photos.

Example:

[2014-02-14_19-01-20.jpg]

filters=autolight=1;enhance=1;finetune2=1,0.000000,0.000000,0.000000,00000000,-0.520468;

backuphash=42083

When extracting the photo, changes are applied to the extracted images.

But yes, the image quality (of to be extracted photos) lessen on each modification. I did not notice this too much with the Canon, but now with Olympus it's visible.. Every time I make an action I hope that the quality would be good.. One of the reasons to find new ways to handle photos.

To install Lightroom would cost me about 40-50.000 baht, which is a price of the new macbook pro. It would also mean that I would have to switch from Linux to OSx, which is basically Unix and quite close to Linux. Still the change would mean to that I would have to change quite many other things like automated backups etc.. and I would loose the trackpoint (I really don't like the touchpad).

I'm currently looking for a replacement for my old laptop. Macbook is one of the options also because far better availability for photo softwares. Then again I'm afraid changing from linux to osx might be a very expensive try and fail experience.

[Guest]

Macbook air was only 39.990.. got one..

[Fiddlesticks]

Macbook air was only 39.990.. got one..

I think you will really like it! Now if you want LR, Adobe is offering LR and PS for 300baht per mo. Not a bad deal really!