Hey guys,

Ok, I've long suspected (and have stated so in the past) that a lot of photography 'skill' has nothing to do with the photographer or their actual skill and more to do with the money in their pocket - more specifically, the camera they can afford and the places they can visit.

Finally, after an accident, I have managed to prove it............ those of you that know me (hi guys!) know I have an old Fuji 4900 - lovely kit at the time I bought it 4 years ago, but a little long in the tooth now.  Well, it got bumped off - unfortunately, literally - and met it's demise against an old stone wall.  Thankfully it was insured and I got a replacement. Only 2/3 of the retail value, but a much better camera none the less.

So, now I'm the owner of a Fuji 9600...... and within a day of ownership got my best ever 'bird in flight' photo.  This is despite the fact that I've hardly had a camera in my hands over the last 18 months and haven't improved in skill at all. Quite the opposite, I'm sure I've lost some of what touch I had.  Anyways, since then I've been rattling out the pics and playing with things and have definately, unreservedly taken my best pictures ever over the last week and a half........

As for my travel theory, I still say that if ANYONE goes into a  refugee camp in Africa and spends a day doing nothing but taking photo's, they too will get at least a couple of pictures the likes of which we see in the newspapers that get awards for being great shots.... if anyone wants to donate air fare to Africa, I'll happily prove that one too ;-)

Take care!
Mike.

I don't agree with your skills  vs money theory..

case in point..I have over 500 images in my gallery..
The one with the most comments is one I shot with a 1.2 megapixel camera..my first digital..

Ok..it was a gift..

but NOT an expensive camera..

all of my shots from Vegas were with my point and shoot Oly..I paid like $150 for it..

So you got a shot of a bird in flight...so!..and?
Its knowing how to use the cam...and how to work it :-)
Lets see your shot then...!
Bugger, I have wasted £10,000 plus on gear!...shit!
Love to see how this thread evokes ones emotions on your findings!

spends a day doing nothing but taking photo's, they too will get at least a couple of pictures the likes of which we see in the newspapers

Goes without saying across any board/travel.
Its how you use them imo! Been in  local papers numerous times over the years...
if its newsworthy and good quality, of course they will print!

Back to stirring the pot again, eh Mike? ;'] "I've long suspected (and have stated so in the past) that a lot of photography 'skill' has nothing to do with the photographer or their actual skill and more to do with the money in their pocket - more specifically, the camera they can afford and the places they can visit." I will agree with you on the point that a better camera can "help" you get better shots, but that certainly is not all of it. Robert Clark took amazing photos for a book shot only with a camera phone! It was his knowledge are artistic eye that helped him make the most of the camera phone. So I don't think that you NEED to have an expensive setup/really good camera to take great shots. Of course, that brings us to your other point --the opportunity. Ericsson paid him to go on a 50 day road trip across America. Most of us don't have that luxury, so in that I would say yes, being in the right place at the right time really helps. http://www.robertclarkphoto.com/ (( Go to special projects – Image America )) I too would love to see this photo of yours Mike, don't keep us in suspense! ;'D

That's almost like saying that the most expensive brushes and the finest paint brands will make you a better painter... Good tools and skills can make a fine technician, but artistry is something that can't be measured by such things. I know a sculptor who was the best in his class... he learned all the fine techniques of wood carving and bronze assembly and all the other stuff... and now that he's developed as an artist he does ALL his wood 'carving' with a chain saw..!! That's not exactly the finest artist material, is it..?
By the way, one of the most important reasons why those photographers have to buy expensive, professional material is the fact that they have to use it every day and in all sorts of situations, so the material simply has to be able to endure the most extreme working conditions... You simply can't do that with a consumer camera.
And yes, they get paid to travel all around the world, but I'm sure they had to have something to show for it in the first place...

And another thing: suppose that you let 100 photographers of Renderosity go to a refugee camp in Africa... do you really think that each one of them will make the same quality photographs..???

Attached Link: www.wallpaper.com/newgallery/17050003/11

Lol, not meaning to stir the pot, honest! :-)  Hell, hope I'm not coming across like that.....
I'm pulling on my personal experience and the way I perceive the photography professionals as much as anything.  I mean, you don't see sports/nature/press photographers with little Kodak's do you?!? ;-)  And I think you'd have something to say if your wedding photographer turned up with an instamatic, no matter HOW good he is ;-)

Nameless... and, well, nothing really. Just got it, think it's my best, damn proud of it and KNOW that with any previous camera I've had I couldn't have got it no matter how hard I tried.  Just still full of that çhuffed'feeling that we all get when we do something like that!

Of course, there will always be pictures around that will prove me wrong, and I respect them completely.  Even I have to admit one of the best photo's I have was taken by my daughter with a point n shoot when she was about 7........

Anyways, hope everyone is well. Kort, just coz I say they're my best so far doesn't mean they're worthy of posting...... and just because I like some of mine doesn't mean everyone else will and I know that....... but I dare say a couple more will make it into the gallery once I've resized them!

Cheers
Mike.

It appears that ReBorne gave his carefully considered opinion that,

Ok, I've long suspected (and have stated so in the past) that a lot of
photography 'skill' has nothing to do with the photographer or their actual
skill and more to do with the money in their pocket - more specifically, the
camera they can afford and the places they can visit.

OK ... I'm going to try my best to confuse the issue with some of my thoughts

BTW, everyone should make sure to let me know what's wrong with my
opinions.  LOL

1. skill v. equipment ...

The right equipment, used properly, will make a better image. 

For that matter, better equipment usually also means more expensive. 

Oh yeah, I said, 'used properly", didn't I?  The best imaging eqipment ever
made won't correct errors such as bad or inappropriate subject matter, bad
focus, bad composition, gremlins, subject looking the wrong way, ...

2. skill v. specialized photography ...

For certain specialized photography ... e.g. macro, microscope, astronomy,
etc.  specific special equipment is required. 

3. setting v. skill v. equipment

This is tricky ... certain settings (an accident, an emotional scene, a reunion,
etc.) a box camera with black and white film might do as well as the most
advanced setup.  ... and anybody might get that 'perfect' shot. 

4. "nothing to do with the photographer or their actual skill"

Here I have to take the other point of view ... the best equipment in the
world won't make me (or most other people) take a picture that is up to
the standards of people like Ansel Adams, Dianne Arbus,
Richard Avedon, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Eadweard Muybridge,
Edward Steichen, Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston ...

--
Martin

LOL, Geert beat me to the paintbrush analogy that I was going to voice. I used to work at an art store and got a substantial discount on supplies. I got my self an expensive sable brush and some of the top quality paints and you know what? I wasn't able to produce anything substantially better than what I could come up with using a set of grade school watercolors and brushes. Good topic...getting some great thoughts voiced here. ;']

Mike, please do post the image...

I would say that equipment helps in this day an age as it always did.How many remember the old augment that you could get the same quality enlargement ( 20 x 16 ) and above from a 35mm neg as opposed to medium or large format.

But I still say having the ability to "see" a good image in your mind and view finder is of greater importance.

Over the years as a wedding and portrait photographer I have met many who have the best of equipment but couldn't compose a good shot if they were paid millions.

The ability to "see" an imago before you even switch the camera on is as of as much importance as any equipment.In my humble opinion.

Still wish I could afford that 1000mm lens though :-)

Eddie

In April, I attended a photography stage. 
Six attendants : 4 with good (expensive) DSLR cameras and 2 ladies with cheap automatic digital pocket cameras... they wanted to go back and not follow the training... but then the instructor (a real good professional photographer with the D2X !) said : 
"Just stay and I will show you..." 
For every exercise, he took a couple of shots with the pocket cameras... I can ensure you that most of us were sometimes ashamed to show some pictures taken with the expensive lenses... 
So , definate conclusion ?

What Gimi? If we don't have a very good equipment you cannot make a photography stage? this man is instructor or he have a Nikon partner in his pocket ? lol

Hmmm.  I'm seeing the points here, and have to agree with quite a few - beginning to think it's just me that works better the more I pay for stuff. lol.

As for the watercolour analogy I have to totally disagree with that one.  Photography, well ANYONE can pick up a camera and take photo's within seconds and possibly get great results quite quickly.  Any sort of art/sculpture takes at least a little learning and practice, even for someone who's a 'natural' at it, and paint is essentially paint - there's not as much difference with a cheap paint compared to expensive paint as there is between a cheap camera and expensive one.  And there's no 'auto' setting on a tube of paint!!!

Cheers, some interesting comments coming out here!

Mike

Both hubby and I take photos, unlike him though I'm just very much an amateur.  For a while I had a really good camera and all he had was a cheap little one but he still managed to take photos that were much better then mine (sometimes he makes me so mad!!!  ;) ).  He sees things that I don't see, manages to make composition that are so much more interesting, he uses the light and shadows in ways I wouldn't have thought of etc...*

But I still say having the ability to "see" a good image in your mind and view finder is of greater importance.
*Exactly...  There's so much more that is needed to make a photo interesting, while good equipment may help you to achieve the photo you want, it certainly won't turn you into a good photographer.

Whats Auto setting Mike :-)

Mike said:

"Photography, well ANYONE can pick up a camera and take photo's within seconds and possibly get great results quite quickly."

I have to disagree on that one, Mike... It's not because you can get a tiger, a dog, a landscape, an insect or a flower in focus that you automatically made a great (or even averagely good) photograph. On the contrary, that is not even a necessity for a good photograph.
People tend to believe that a picture of a beautiful landscape is a fantastic picture. Well, it isn't... it's just a beautiful landscape, that's all. Anyone can capture a beautiful landscape within seconds, yes. But a beautiful landscape can not possible mean that you've suddenly become a good photographer...
I only wish more people could see the difference between these two things...

I only wish more people could see the difference between these two things...

well put Girsempa

there are good landscapes etc....and bad snapshots :)

Over the years as a wedding and portrait photographer I have met many who have the best of equipment but couldn't compose a good shot if they were paid millions.

HA - yes, SO true! LOL
And sadly, they've ALWAYS managed to be better businessmen than me (I'm a worker-bee - I hate handling the business end)

What could I add...?

Well, with more expensive cams you get better meters, better lenses, and better/faster AF to "capture" the same moment you would have captured before but with much better results - hence, a noticed improvement. Add to that an exotic locale and you have the POSSIBILITY of taking award winning shots by circumstance and luck (and getting enough coverage - ie - taking a LOT of images while there).

The difference between someone with more money than training and/or skill (TAOS)?
TAOS shooter will study the scene, the angles, the light, the inhabitants, the colors - sometimes only in a few seconds - and (as stated above) see what is about to be taken and have better than a general idea as to how it will look finished before putting eye to viewfinder/ground glass. They'll wait for the subject/timing/lighting/activity to be right - and THAT'S the shot they take.

Just shoot the shot of the mountain in nice open light with perfect exposure due to the technical marvel with a good rubber grip? Or wait a while, watching for a little cloud cover to get shafts of light, spots of shade, vibrant AND subdued color both there, and a more interesting sky due to varied clouds (and take your time to compose for weight of the scene - without at least decent comp it's all for nothing)...?

Kinda hand in hand, but I'd bet on the skill first.
-Lew ;-)

Quote - Mike said:
Anyone can capture a beautiful landscape within seconds, yes. But a beautiful landscape can not possible mean that you've suddenly become a good photographer...
I only wish more people could see the difference between these two things...

That about sums it up, yes. And more good thoughts Lew.

I did say 'possibly' lol....... ok, my wording with anyone may not have been quite right, but the point I meant was there is a lot more possibility of happening than with paints or whatever..... everyone has the ability to pick up a camera and take a photo and has the chance of getting a good photo, not everyone has the ability to paint well.  That's better I think. lol. aaaarggh. And if anyone says anything about modern art / who is to say what a good painting is.... etc etc I'll commit cyber-homicide....... he he

Reading through I guess what I'm trying to say by 'better equipment' is demonstrated by my experience : 6 years agoI had a little digital point & shoot, no zoom. I realised I wanted a better camera because I saw a seal in the river and the camera physically wasn't able to get a close picture.  I got one with 6x zoom and more settings - my pictures instantly got better (imo) because I could do things that I couldn't before (like the seal etc) but was still limiting me in getting shots I really wanted - like getting a decent close up of a bird in flight.  Now the new one (10x zoom, 300mm equiv, not more settings, but easier to use settings and a MUCH faster auto-focus) means I got one.  That's where I've been coming from all this time......lol.......
I really appreciate the comments here though, making me realise how small-minded I can be and how I really should type clearer and not blether so much. rofl.

Nameless, Auto is the setting where the camera tells me how to do it right until I override it and screw it up.......lol
Mike

Nameless has left the building Mike, but thanks for clearing that up. I agree much more with your wording here. ;'] You do have a better chance of capturing something good if you have the right equipement, depending on your methods and what kind of images you want to get. Without a modified camera, there is no way I could capture crisp, hand-held infrared photos, it is as simple as that. I think people get start to get touchy though when it is implied that is all because of the equipement that their images are good -- which is not really what you said but I sure was taken that way by some. Anyway, good discussion from my PoV. 8')

(re-reading) I guess I came across a bit on the harsh side - yes, I agree that with better equipment you will see a quality improvement in the shots you take.

While some may ask "in comparison to what?" the answer is "the shots I've taken until now."

-Lew ;-)

What?  You mean my new 1D Mark III won't make me a better photographer?  I'm gonna strangle that guy at the camera shop!

Some photographs are for the record and only require the correct settings. The same scene may be required by a client but with more impact so you need too look for different points of view and consider the composition with more care. That is when a bigger range of lenses need to be handy.The actual camera body does not have to be a top end costly pro model.  I use a plastic body Canon 400D and get results which my clients are pleased with. When I was asked to produce large prints for an office foyer I had to look for a second hand medium format film camera.

So the camera kit cost is linked to what you are trying to achieve. Try not to be concerned about the body just handle it with care but buy the best lenses which you can afford.

and keep studying good examples of images which is why renderosity is so useful(apart from having chatty members !  )

Here's a view of another professional photographer...

"Whatever level you are at, if you have a standard compact and you move to an SLR you will take better photographs right from the start - fact. SLRs have better lenses and everything is faster and more precise. Need convincing? I shot an 8 page article in a major glossy magazine on the E-400 recently and the results were amazing."  - David Bailey

He's entitled to his opinion. When people start talking in absolutes, I get a bit wary. He neglected to say that if the person has been using the automatic settings all this time on their old camera, moving to a DSLR could prove to have a bit of a learning curve so not everyone would take better photos right from the start.

Can I put in my 2 cents worth?? :) What intrigued me about this discussion was not the skill vs. equipment, but the fact that you, Mike, seemed a bit upset at taking a better picture. When I got my first decent shot with my new cam, I was so excited. lol Now, I do realize that words don't come across well on the computer, so I don't want to offend or anything. I just think maybe you should be a little more excited about your better shots. :) With a new cam, you can get a better picture. That doesn't mean everyone can though. My first pictures with my dslr were awful! I still get horrible pics because I'm trying to learn the technical side of it now.  Get used to what your new and better photos look like, and then move on into the world of manual....or semi-manual even. lol But if you have that kind of thought running through your head....it's not my skill, it must be the camera.....you might lose the passion for photography. I might be wrong about that in this case, but it's still a point worth mentioning. ;)

I have to say, I started going off on a rant and had to delete half my post. It wasn't an angry rant....just got off topic and started babbling. LOL I'm done now. :)

Quote -
Reading through I guess what I'm trying to say by 'better equipment' is demonstrated by my experience : 6 years agoI had a little digital point & shoot, no zoom.

When I started playing with my dads camera so many eons ago all my dad had were 3 primes. I made a remark some day about zoomlenses and he said "son, you zoom with your feet". Zoomlenses are great, and in certain situations it's good to have them (it certainly saves on switching lenses), but in the end I used those 3 lenses for many many years without ever needing a zoomlens really :P

Having said that, I am glad I do have zoomlenses these days :D

Damia, no no no, I was overjoyed at actually being ABLE to get the shot, trust me!!   For a combination of reasons I'd not bothered with photography for a while, and damaged the old cam on one of my first forays back into it........ with the new cam I'm SO back into it!!!

Lol, 3DGuy...... trouble is where I live there's a lot of photo opportunities above water or in marshy areas, I I STILL can't master the walking on water bit ;-) (or just reserves where your access is limited......) believe me, I like to get in as close as possible....... then zoom. lol.

Oh, this is the infamous bird picture, resized.

Cheers.
Mike

Swooperific! I think a little postwork and cropping would result in an even better image. So your new nickname won't be "JC" anytime soon, eh Mike? Heheheh.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1480232