more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

mgb74 · Aug 19, 2014

Better equipment will take a better photograph (all other things equal). Which will make you a better photographer. That's - at most - the first 5% being a very good photographer. The rest, 95%, of becoming a very good photographer is skill and art.

I wish I could buy that. I've checked B&H, Adorama, and Freestyle. Don't see it listed.

As the saying goes, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice." But I believe that, while artistic sense can be developed in all of us, there is a practical limit. So some got it, some don't.

cliveh · Aug 19, 2014

The cost and type of camera has nothing to do with your ability as a photographer, as I believe that only comes with practice. However, just as if I were say a cabinet maker, I want the best tools to do the job. That doesnt necessarily mean the most expensive, but something specific to the task that is reliable and robust and these often come at a cost. Also, if you can be consistent with the materials and process you use, it makes the practice easier.

gone · Aug 19, 2014

Not everyone that owns a camera and takes pictures is a photographer. A photographer will use the tool that gives the results they're after.

dpurdy · Aug 19, 2014

jnanian said:
in 11 years i have asked this question maybe 4 times
and it is always interesting to read different people's thoughts on this subject ..

why is it that many people believe if they have expensive equipment,
excessively large format cameras &c. that they will be better photographers?

thanks
john

if you want to post something not serious i couldnt care less
im not anal retentive about seriousness.

I think your primise is wrong. I don't think a lot of photographers believe the expense of their camera has anything to do with their talent as a photographer. I personally don't know anyone who thinks that. I do know lots of photographers who are somewhat irritated that a well made camera is so expensive... me for one. Also I don't believe there is any confusion regarding the fact that large format only is better for you if you want to use large format. I don't know your circle of photo friends but most photographers aren't that stupid.
"You get what you pay for" is pretty well established in practically every industry. So I would guess there are some people just getting into photography who don't know the kind of system fits them and who have plenty of money that will buy the most expensive just because it is probably well made or because it is a known tool of some professionals. But beyond that I think you are wrong in your assumptions.
Dennis

removed account4 · Aug 19, 2014

dpurdy said:
I think your primise is wrong. I don't think a lot of photographers believe the expense of their camera has anything to do with their talent as a photographer. I personally don't know anyone who thinks that. I do know lots of photographers who are somewhat irritated that a well made camera is so expensive... me for one. Also I don't believe there is any confusion regarding the fact that large format only is better for you if you want to use large format. I don't know your circle of photo friends but most photographers aren't that stupid.
"You get what you pay for" is pretty well established in practically every industry. So I would guess there are some people just getting into photography who don't know the kind of system fits them and who have plenty of money that will buy the most expensive just because it is probably well made or because it is a known tool of some professionals. But beyond that I think you are wrong in your assumptions.
Dennis

hi dennis

i couldn't agree with what you said that it is irritating that good equipment is very expensive and what you have assessed about people with $$
getting into photography so they buy what they perceive is very good equipment, but i have seen people over the years who are not "newbees"
they are not "just learned about photography" &c but people who believe that if they have the best of the best ( or the best their $$ can buy
which often times is the best of the best ) they will make even better photographs than they already make with whatever middle of the road already pretty good
gear they already have. it also goes for exotic processes &c. granted it is fun to do new things, to make images by hand, to have the experience
of making something 1 of a kind, whether it is a ambrotype or bromoil or oil print or ptpd gumover &c ( i am just throwing processes out there )
so they go and buy thousands of dollars of ULF equipment &c with the hopes that the process will overcome the imagery or their skill as a photographer.

don't get me wrong, i honestly believe great photography is something to behold .. exotic processes ( like the ones i mentioned and others )
leave me in awe sometimes because the photographer is able to not only make the equipment part of them, but their process too is able
to blow my mind and leave me inspired ... [ added later] i mean i look ( i know its only the web but still ) at the gum overs, salt prints,tins dag's pt/pd prints, carbon prints &c of people like you, kerik, bill schwab, jason motamedi, vaughn, cliveh, nedL, david white, and gandolfi and i am mezmorized ...
and inspired ... KNOWING and SEEING the CONNECTION between equipment, mind and process ]
but i have seen many many people in the past 35 years ( from college days up )
who thought if their gear was the best there was they would be that much better ... granted some stuck with it and they were able to
fill the shoes they bought and drive that bmw like mario andretti but others .. no so much ...

removed account4 · Aug 19, 2014

darkosaric said:
John, here is something that I just saw on rangefinder forum: to make some laugh + expensive equipment in nice use .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTQ9WQCCFyQ

thanks darko made my day ..
i think they just ran out of room for the extra letters to be honest and that zoom feature was pretty cool

ParkerSmithPhoto · Aug 19, 2014

snapguy said:
I was a professional photog for many years -- in Hollywood, New York City, the Olympics, all major league sports, Presidential campaigns, Broadway backstage and the whole shebang. The guys (and they were mostly guys) who had the most expensive, shiny new cameras and lenses were usually the dentists and the doctors' sons. They would mostly stand around and try to look pretty and did not shoot much in the way of photos. Expensive or shiny new cameras does not mean diddly dick. There were plenty of top pros who carried cameras that looked downright shabby. Only results count, not how cool you look to the other dentists.

I routinely run into amateurs who have far more expensive and up to date equipment than I use.

The latest phenomenon to sweep through photography is the army of "Moms with Cameras" who have decided that being a portrait photographer is their economic and psychological salvation in life. It's really the fulfillment of all their dreams to chase your kids around the park and then spend hours away from their own families working in Photoshop for the price of a mani/pedi.

They somehow become convinced that the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens (costing a mere $200) isn't good enough, so they drop $1500 on the f1.2 lens ("I couldn't live without that extra 1/3 stop"), attach it to their 25 megapixel camera and proceed to make thousands of pictures that will inevitably end up as 600 pixel JPGs on Facebook or embalmed on an Office Depot CD-R, tossed in a drawer and forgotten.

It's The Sisterhood, all very self-reinforcing: we post our portraits to our Facebook pages, say how much "FUN WE HAD AND IT WAS SUCH AN HONOR TO PHOTOGRAPH YOUR FAMILY FOR $50!" and all tell each other what wonderful photographers we are. Sort of like the Emmy awards for the little people: "you're awesome!" "No, YOU'RE awesome!" "No, YOU'RE the one that's awesome!"

Sorry, do I sound bitter...?

benjiboy · Aug 19, 2014

Having an expensive camera makes you an expensive camera owner not a photographer, anymore than than owning a Stradivarius violin would make me a violinist.

ntenny · Aug 19, 2014

David Brown said:
Photographers (or to use a better term for what we're discussing: "camera owners") are not alone in this. Know any woodworkers? I see a lot of them that spend thousands on high end tools and gadgets and spend most of their time making more tools and jigs for their shop, but never really create anything. Or, they just make yet more boxes, but with fancier joints.

As the spouse of a woodworker, I can confirm the phenomenon, but I think you're misreading the intention. Creating tools and jigs and gratuitous fancy boxen is, I think, an end in itself, not because the world needs more tools and jigs and gratuitous fancy boxen, so much as BECAUSE IT'S FUN. Somewhere out there, there are about three people in the world who really *need* that combination joiner/planer/oil-drilling-rig/rice-cooker with the built-in jig for four-dimensional dovetails, but there are zillions of them who just want to play with it.

Woodworkers, IME, are better at acknowledging this pattern than photographers are. Or maybe they just get better peer support for it; when you hand somebody a couple of blocks of wood with no purpose but with a really cool joint between them, they commonly look them over and admire the coolness of the joint. When you hand someone a Technika and say "check out how much tilt this thing has", they usually just turn and run away.

-NT

ntenny · Aug 19, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
I'd also add people with fancy stuff don't have a monopoly on snobbery. There are plenty of people using junk who have their noses in the air precisely because they are using junk.

Guilty, yer Honour.

Well, I try not to really have my nose in the air about it, but the satisfaction of "I took this picture with a ridiculous old box camera with no controls and a lens made of expired lunchmeat" is real.

-NT

snapguy · Aug 19, 2014

top pro

I knew a top pro whose photos were used all over the world. He regularly carried (in addition to his Nikon F) an old Yashica 35mm SLR with a 30mm lens. He thought the 30mm was perfect. The 35 was too narrow and the 28mm too wide. It was not a Hassey or a Leica or even a Nikon but it suited him. Back in the day when I was a hard charging pro photographer, third party lenses and flashes were oftimes state-of-the-art as opposed to brand name equipment, and cheaper. The big companies have to schedule advertising and product release and can get bogged down while the little guys can be more flexible. And cheaper. Don't be fooled into believing that wearing an overepriced jeans designer's name on your butt automaticallty makes you Joe Cool.

NedL · Aug 19, 2014

ntenny said:
Guilty, yer Honour.

Well, I try not to really have my nose in the air about it, but the satisfaction of "I took this picture with a ridiculous old box camera with no controls and a lens made of expired lunchmeat" is real.

-NT

Michael is right.. there is snobbery at both ends of the scale. But snobbery comes from "look at me" and "compared to you". Being satisfied/amazed that it's possible/happy with a photo from a ridiculous old box camera is only snobbery if you think it makes you better than someone else. I'm guessing you're not guilty!

removed account4 · Aug 19, 2014

ntenny said:
Guilty, yer Honour.

Well, I try not to really have my nose in the air about it, but the satisfaction of "I took this picture with a ridiculous old box camera with no controls and a lens made of expired lunchmeat" is real.

-NT

now sure about lunch meat but i thought about using the gelatin surrounding the paté & aspic i ate a few weeks ago for a lens ..
only problem is it would have melted fast in the summer sun ... the difference is that i will gladly admit that this photography will suck (compared to most )
and the aspic/paté lens was just for fun not to improve my social and egotistical standing.

MattKing · Aug 19, 2014

Many people understand prices easily, but struggle with the concept of value.

I'm much more likely to spend money on a really good deal than I am on "the best".

The really top line stuff is often really beautiful though.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 19, 2014

NedL said:
But snobbery comes from "look at me" and "compared to you". Being satisfied/amazed that it's possible/happy with a photo from a ridiculous old box camera is only snobbery if you think it makes you better than someone else.

Jeff Kubach · Aug 19, 2014

benjiboy said:
Having an expensive camera makes you an expensive camera owner not a photographer, anymore than than owning a Stradivarius violin would make me a violinist.

I just a bought a Stradivarius violin, damn it!

Jeff

removed account4 · Aug 19, 2014

Jeff Kubach said:
I just a bought a Stradivarius violin, damn it!

Jeff

removed account4 · Aug 19, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
Boy is this thread ever full of brand spanking new shiny pearls of wisdom.

and they will cost you dearly ... the funny thing is you get the same wisdom out of a fortune cookie

analoguey · Aug 19, 2014

Mid price equipment wont let you do x thing, 'pro' equipment wont be cheap/light/small, junk wont be reliable enough.

Get whatever works for you.

Going for bigger, better, costlier etc is the human thing to do, isnt it? Cars, cameras, smartphones that look like mini-skateboards...

Sent from Tap-a-talk

Sirius Glass · Aug 19, 2014

Yes if the skill level is there but the older equipment is not up to the job.

cliveh · Aug 19, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
Yes if the skill level is there but the older equipment is not up to the job.

I don't quite understand this, as in what way would older equipment not be up to the job?

Old-N-Feeble · Aug 19, 2014

I always buy the best I can afford... or can't really afford but buy anyway. This way, if my images suck, I can only blame myself and hide those images away in a dark lonely place never to be seen by others. Conversely, I can take full credit for excellent images.

Sirius Glass · Aug 19, 2014

cliveh said:
I don't quite understand this, as in what way would older equipment not be up to the job?

The Hasselblad viewfinder is clearer and brighter than the Mamiya C330. The Hasselblad also has a preview button, the Mamiya does not. Hasselblad uses EV, the Mamiya does not. Hasselblad's Zeiss optics are superior the the Mamiya's. The Hasselblad allows mid roll swaps, the Mamiya does not. The Hasselblad does not exhibit parallax error, the Mamiya does not.

The list goes quite a bit longer.

removed account4 · Aug 19, 2014

cliveh said:
I don't quite understand this, as in what way would older equipment not be up to the job?

thats the hook clive
older not pristine, not top of the line not ulf 36x42 WILL do the job
but it is more IMPRESSIVE to have the ULF 36x42 or top of the line
so people say "ooooo aaaaaah " like they are watching a fireworks display.
plus it is more of an ego-stroke to know you are using the best and not some old clunker.
... i am not an equipment snob it really doesn't matter to me what the gear is
but at the same time, if you can't drive a chevy citation ( insert your own country.'s piece of junk car )
there is no way a 80K carbon fiber BMW will make you drive better ... i think it just ends up being BLING

Old-N-Feeble · Aug 19, 2014

jnanian said:
<snip>...if you can't drive a chevy citation ( insert your own country.'s piece of junk car )
there is no way a 80K carbon fiber BMW will make you drive better ... i think it just ends up being BLING

The $80K BMW will get you laid more... a LOT more... than any piece of junk car no matter how well or poorly you drive.

more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency