Saying a Camera takes Nice Pictures is like Saying a Guitar Plays Nice Melodies

[ShadowMaster]

The following was left as a comment on a previous post by one of our readers – Angelino Pan y Vino (no link given). I thought it was a great story and one that might encourage readers who might feel they have lower quality cameras and gear.

Read more: http://www.digital-photography-schoo...#ixzz1TTnvtagJ

[flar]

Well, it's true: a great musician can make great music on a crappy guitar, and a great photographer can make great photos on a crappy camera.

However, the crappy camera and the crappy guitar impose limitations. Your crappy guitar will not give you the best tone, and the intonation may be off, and it may go out of tune easily. Your crappy camera might have low resolution, won't give you shallow depth of field, or might be too slow to capture something.

But the point remains, having awesome equipment won't make you better at either music or photography. I'm experienced in both music and photography and both arts seem to have a large share of equipment junkies with little talent.

[photoLith]

I hate it more than anything when some ignorant of photography people see a picture and ask right away, what camera do you use, it takes great photos. Ahhhh!!!!! No, the photographer takes good photos, not the camera!

[i_am_hydrogen]

^I think you're confusing image quality with composition. If a good photographer composes the exact same shot and takes it with two cameras--one shitty and the other expensive--the latter camera will inevitably produce better image quality. No matter how talented a photographer is, he cannot make shots from a shitty digicam look like those from an SLR, in terms of image quality. Were that not to be true, few would spend the money they do on better gear. Photojournalists for The New York Times would be using $50 cameras. Basically, cameras are responsible for good image quality, people are responsible for good compositions.

[volguus zildrohar]

^Something that should be stapled to the door of every Best Buy and camera shop in America.

[photoLith]

Yes, but people who arent photographers when they see a photo and thats all they say is that camera takes great photos, thats what pisses me off. Yes, if you have the exact composition by two cameras, one a Nikon D3x, the other a Nikon point and shoot than of course the D3X will take a better picture but still, you could have a Nikon D3X and a point and shoot. If the person with the point and shoot understands composition, lighting, and is creative, and the person who has the D3X has more money than talent than the person with the cheap point and shoot will get a better photo. People when they see an amazing photo shouldnt say, wow, that camera takes great photos, they should say, wow, you take great photos.

[Robert Pence]

On a week-long visit to San Francisco more than thirty years ago, I took along my Rolleiflex TLR. It's a superb camera that lacks any automation; it doesn't even have a built in exposure meter. One day I just wanted to do the standard tourist stuff (Hyde Street Pier, etc.), and I was tired of lugging a bag with big, delicate camera, meter, filters, film, etc. I was staying with a friend and I borrowed his Kodak instamatic. Remember those? Plastic, cartridge-loading with, I believe, 126 Kodacolor 100ASA (ISO) color-negative film with wide exposure latitude, strictly point-and-shoot with no adjustments of any kind. I stuck the camera in one pocket and an extra cartidge or two in another and away I went.

I worked within the limitations of the Instamatic, trying to fill each frame with colorful, simple compositions. The sky was blue and the sun was bright and there was just enough atmospheric haze to soften contrast, and I got some pleasing photos. When I returned to work and shared my vacation photos with co-workers, more than once people looking at the Instamatic photos said something like, "Oooh! What kind of camera do you have?"

At standard machine-print size the prints didn't have quite the crispness of Rollei photos, and they certainly wouldn't have stood up to much enlargement, but casual family-vacation snapshooters don't look for those factors. Often they can benefit from a little coaching on choosing and composing their subjects while watching out for harsh lighting contrasts and jarring composition elements (telephone pole appearing to grow from grandma's head, etc.) and understanding their camera's limitations.

[HomeInMyShoes]

"A poor carpenter blames his tools."

I am a shitty carpenter. No tool is going to fix that.

[Xander202]

Originally Posted by photolitherland

People when they see an amazing photo shouldnt say, wow, that camera takes great photos, they should say, wow, you take great photos.

Absolutely agree with you 100%. Of course a better camera takes better quality pictures, any fool realises that. But does that mean anybody with a good camera could be a professional?? No of course not, all we are seeing is an era of clueless people with great cameras, and an overabundance of substandard photography taken with quality cameras.

When someone says to me (which has happened on numerous occasions) "your camera takes great photos", the implication is certainly that "if I had your camera I could have taken that....at least thats what I feel.

[diskojoe]

I have a crappy camera and it takes great pictures.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Originally Posted by diskojoe

I have a crappy camera and it takes great pictures.

Same. My gear was pretty crappy to begin with (except my wide angle), and it's all taken a beating: dropped on rocks, pelted with hail, falling into a firepit, etc.

In the end, it still works pretty damn well (although an upgrade might be in order soon).

[vid]

I use tape to close the battery compartment on my 2.1MP camera from 2001. When people find out what kind of camera it is, they're usually impressed by what I've done with it.

[george]

I use a well worn Lumix DMC-ZS10 which I've dropped a few times.
My goal is do more with less. BTW, nice thread.