more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

[removed account4]

now if that thing was expensive, it would be impressive, as it is, its too inexpensive
and affordable to impress anyone, and it looks like a kaleidoscope so even of it did cost mucho $$
no one would know it ... so, i dont really think this thing would make me a better photographer
or even make me look impressive ...
it is pretty cool though ...

 

[markbarendt]

You've still got it all wrong, John haha lolololo haha omg

It's the beat-up expensive gear that makes you look cool because it means you've shot millions of pictures. And as everyone knows, the more film used, the better the photographer.

Have yet to see a Leica shooter with a beat up, oops I mean well worn, Noctilux.

I'm sure there is one or two, just say'n...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Baboons could replace most politicians.

But PETA wouldn't like us putting them in suits...

 

[analoguey]

But PETA wouldn't like us putting them is suits...

Bwahahaha

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

But PETA wouldn't like us putting them is suits...

Why not? Circuses do it. Aren't state/federal capitols and circuses the same?

 

[removed account4]

But PETA wouldn't like us putting them in suits...

is that the reason one of my favorite tv shows as a kid went off the air ( lancelot link secret chimp ) ?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

is that the reason one of my favorite tv shows as a kid went off the air ( lancelot link secret chimp ) ?

Absolutely!! Had the show been about an ape running for political office then it would still be on the air... oh wait... it is... during every election. They just use better makeup.

 

[removed account4]

You've still got it all wrong, John haha lolololo haha omg

It's the beat-up expensive gear that makes you look cool because it means you've shot millions of pictures. And as everyone knows, the more film used, the better the photographer.

naaah old beat up expensive gear means you are too much of a cheapskate to buy new shiny gear and you probably bought it used so you look cool
has nothing to do with the owner shooting lots of film and looking like a better photographer, i've realized its all about appearances, nothing more nothing less ..
like buying pre ripped jeans ... its all just depeche-mode
just like buying a 10000$ camera and lens when you can barely compose a photograph on your k1000 .. its all just bling

----===

not sure O-n-F
lancelot was a private eye, the best there was,
and the president was a chimp too .. i still watch episodes on the web once in a while
the mata hari was one crazy lady!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

This is getting tiresome. If one has no need of better gear then don't buy it. Or, if one prefers the lower resolution and grainier look of smaller formats then by all means use them. I guess what we've failed to do is define "better". To me "better" usually means higher resolution, finer grain, minimal shadow fogging, highest micro-contrast and pleasant bokeh. This isn't "always" the case... depends on the subject and desired final image.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

This is getting tiresome. If one has no need of better gear then don't buy it. Or, if one prefers the lower resolution and grainier look of smaller formats then by all means use them. I guess what we've failed to do is define "better". To me "better" usually means higher resolution, finer grain, minimal shadow fogging, highest micro-contrast and pleasant bokeh. This isn't "always" the case... depends on the subject and desired final image.

It's not possible to define 'better' because it's subjective. What you're talking about is technical quality above. Many of us seek other things from our pictures that are less tangible, and those items regarding grain and such are not important.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

The most expensive gear does not make a good photographer but it might suggest a successful photographer.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's not possible to define 'better' because it's subjective. What you're talking about is technical quality above. Many of us seek other things from our pictures that are less tangible, and those items regarding grain and such are not important.

Yeah, I should have paid closer attention to the title... "better photographer"... not "technically higher quality image".

 

[DannL.]

More expensive equipment and consumables may not help some people to be better photographers, but one thing I can say for certain is that making an investment sure makes my prints look better. At some point in the adventure I realized that I simply had to throw a certain amount of money at it, that is . . . if I wanted to advance. Advancement comes at a monetary cost. For me it did, and still it does. So, now there are fewer anomalies within the process. And fewer setbacks. Some of the problems that I found daunting prior to purchasing more expensive equipment included light leaks, dust and dirt on the film prior to exposure, lens flare, nasty OOF characteristics, unacceptable lens characteristics. uneven exposure, perspective distortion, scratches on the film, uneven development of sheet film, bromide drag marks, poor contrast on film and in prints, stains on the prints, and the list goes on and on. Naturally I always seek the best deal when upgrading.

 

[removed account4]

This is getting tiresome. If one has no need of better gear then don't buy it. Or, if one prefers the lower resolution and grainier look of smaller formats then by all means use them. I guess what we've failed to do is define "better". To me "better" usually means higher resolution, finer grain, minimal shadow fogging, highest micro-contrast and pleasant bokeh. This isn't "always" the case... depends on the subject and desired final image.

O-N-F

have you read what i am writing about in this thread?
it has nothing to do with what you are suggesting it is about.
i couldn't care less if someone upgrades their equipment, gets new bodies or lenses
or whatever ...
what it has to do with is my trying to understand
why someone who barely has a grasp of how to make an exposure
would want to abandon a "lower end learning camera" if i can put it that way
to purchase a camera or system that is the tippity top of the line, thinking it will aid them into making better photographs and being a "photographer"
in my original post it was someone who bought a camera that made 11x14 negatives with a lens that cost
a small fortune, and later on i described a classmate of mine when he was 19 he got rid of his K1000 and used
a high end camera that cost $6000 instead thinking that it would improve his photography.
in both cases the purchases didn't improve their technique or vision, at least when i knew them ..
and i just wondered why they would spend such money on a frivolous thing when they could have learned better with a smaller less expensive camera
that shot film that did not cost as much, and a camera/s that didn't give them the appearance of a seasoned "pro" ... ( and maybe frustration that their end images didn't look professional? )
i know that when i was starting out and was clueless or inept or without any ideas of composition or vision or skills
if i bought a camera that was the top of the line, it wouldn't have done anything to improve anything about my work,
and it might have actually been a hinderance because i would have been afraid maybe i would break it, or be timid with it because
it cost as much as a car.

as i said it has nothing to do with upgrading for need, but for other perhaps aesthetic-reasons i don't "get" and i would love to get it

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

O-N-F

have you read what i am writing about in this thread?
it has nothing to do with what you are suggesting it is about.
i couldn't care less if someone upgrades their equipment, gets new bodies or lenses
or whatever ...
what it has to do with is my trying to understand
why someone who barely has a grasp of how to make an exposure
would want to abandon a "lower end learning camera" if i can put it that way
to purchase a camera or system that is the tippity top of the line, thinking it will aid them into making better photographs and being a "photographer"
in my original post it was someone who bought a camera that made 11x14 negatives with a lens that cost
a small fortune, and later on i described a classmate of mine when he was 19 he got rid of his K1000 and used
a high end camera that cost $6000 instead thinking that it would improve his photography.
in both cases the purchases didn't improve their technique or vision, at least when i knew them ..
and i just wondered why they would spend such money on a frivolous thing when they could have learned better with a smaller less expensive camera
that shot film that did not cost as much, and a camera/s that didn't give them the appearance of a seasoned "pro" ... ( and maybe frustration that their end images didn't look professional? )
i know that when i was starting out and was clueless or inept or without any ideas of composition or vision or skills
if i bought a camera that was the top of the line, it wouldn't have done anything to improve anything about my work,
and it might have actually been a hinderance because i would have been afraid maybe i would break it, or be timid with it because
it cost as much as a car.

as i said it has nothing to do with upgrading for need, but for other perhaps aesthetic-reasons i don't "get" and i would love to get it

See post #144.

 

[removed account4]

OOPS!

thanks

didn't see that

best
john

 

[DannL.]

If that's all it's about, then it's probably the same reason people play golf, or drink and drive, or pee in the pool, or smoke cigarettes until their lungs quit. They do it because . . . they want to do it. It's enjoyable. They find it exciting for a time. It provides a boost to their self-esteem and sense of self-worth. It feeds their ego. It floats their boats, and blows up their skirts.

 

[removed account4]

thanksDannL
i had a feeling, but thought maybe there was some other "hidden" reason ...
guess its just the obvious ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Absolutely!! Had the show been about an ape running for political office then it would still be on the air... oh wait... it is... during every election. They just use better makeup.

That is why a gathering of apes is called a "Congress of Apes".

 

[Sirius Glass]

But PETA wouldn't like us putting them in suits...

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That is why a gathering of apes is called a "Congress of Apes".

That's hilarious. I didn't know that.

I'll bet apes with cameras made from dried banana peels make better photographers than congressmen using Leica and Ebony... because the apes have more heart.

 

[markbarendt]

O-N-F

Brain clicking....

Brain clicking....

Is that like Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Brain clicking....

Brain clicking....

Brain clicking....

Ohhhh, I get it.

 

[Chris Lange]

After a certain point cameras become rather boring to look at, don't you think?

I no longer get excited by new product announcements, or pristine cameras.

If you were to offer me a brand new MP in exchange for my M2, I would turn you down. The gear I know and trust, whose leather and metal I've sweat and bled onto; that gear makes me a better photographer. It's mental confidence, not material affluence, which gets us the pictures that matter.

 

[removed account4]

chris,

couldn't agree with you more ..

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'll take a decent (not necessarily pricey) 4x5 and a good (not necessarily pricey) lens over a 126 Kodak Instamatic any day. If I can afford them, I'll take better cameras and lenses... any day. It doesn't make me a better photographer but it makes me "more accountable for my own failures" of TECHNICAL QUALITY, NOT ARTISTIC QUALITY. For some, that's additional incentive to improve... no excuses.