more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

miha · Sep 7, 2014

jnanian said:
hi milha

there is nothing wrong with having no talent and buying the best equipment, but having the notion in you mind
that if you buy the best camera and lens/es money can buy ( money is no object ) and claiming it will
making your lack of talent disappear that is something different. i think there is a difference.

I wish people would buy cars based on their (driving) abilities, not cameras Back to topic: do you John (or anyone else) really believe people think this way?
Can we discern (those of us who judge) talented from those buying the latest & greatest in vain?

markbarendt · Sep 7, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
Some people may think this way. However, others just want the full weight of responsibility regarding success to be on their own merits... no excuses for equipment failure. If we own the best then we have no excuses to fall back on... if only I had this lens or that camera. Zero excuses... so we must either improve or accept the fact that we haven't the technical skills and/or artistic vision. Take away all variables except which rest solely on our own shoulders and the undeniabilities force us to either improve or accept our own limitations.

There always seems to be something else to buy.

MattKing · Sep 7, 2014

miha said:
I wish people would buy cars based on their (driving) abilities, not cameras Back to topic: do you John (or anyone else) really believe people think this way?
Can we discern (those of us who judge) talented from those buying the latest & greatest in vain?

If you have ever worked selling photographic equipment, you will recognize the compulsive "latest and greatest" purchasers.

They tend to gravitate to retailers who offer return and exchange priviledges, and are decried by salespeople.

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 7, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
Some people may think this way. However, others just want the full weight of responsibility regarding success to be on their own merits... no excuses for equipment failure. If we own the best then we have no excuses to fall back on... if only I had this lens or that camera. Zero excuses... so we must either improve or accept the fact that we haven't the technical skills and/or artistic vision. Take away all variables except which rest solely on our own shoulders and the undeniabilities force us to either improve or accept our own limitations.

Sage words, ONF. For some more than others.

"Zero excuses... so we must either improve or accept the fact that we haven't the technical skills and/or artistic vision."

Ken

removed account4 · Sep 7, 2014

miha said:
I wish people would buy cars based on their (driving) abilities, not cameras Back to topic: do you John (or anyone else) really believe people think this way?
Can we discern (those of us who judge) talented from those buying the latest & greatest in vain?

yes,
i spoke of 2 of these people earlier in this thread.
and i know others who only have expensive gear because
to them it is like "bling" it gains them attention so people
think they are different than they are ... ( the classmate of mine was sort of like this too )
there are all sorts of people in this world ( who use cameras, cook food, drive cars )
maybe they buy expense gear to grow into it like parents do for cloths for their kids
"this shirt is way too big for me! " ... " don't worry you'll grow into it "

i agree with what you have said O-N-F ... but
often times people have excuses for everything ...
"how could i lack talent/skill &c i have this camera ...
must be the film or developer or paper or .... couldn't be cause of me ... "

Dan Fromm · Sep 7, 2014

jnanian said:
i agree with what you have said O-N-F ... but
often times people have excuses for everything ...
"how could i lack talent/skill &c i have this camera ...
must be the film or developer or paper or .... couldn't be cause of me ... "

I dunno, John. I often get results that don't please. Shame on me.

I try to learn from them, look at them and try to understand what went wrong. Every once in a while I get a bad overexposure because of using a shutter that's badly out-of-spec. Shame on me for not testing, especially now that I have a tester.

Otherwise its always operator error. That's me. Shame on me.

Yes, I try to do better. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. Its almost always me, almost never other things that I can't control.

removed account4 · Sep 7, 2014

dan

if youhad the rolls royce of cameras and lenses
this wouldn't have been a problem.
so shiney, you know ...

Dan Fromm · Sep 7, 2014

jnanian said:
dan

if youhad the rolls royce of cameras and lenses
this wouldn't have been a problem.
so shiney, you know ...

John, I've seen some pretty ratty old Rolls.

I've had a few bizarremobiles, never a Rolls, not sporting enough. No matter, when I had them I was still me. Shiny car, scruffy driver. These days I drive Hondas. Nicer than my old bizarremobiles; faster, quicker, better handling, better braking, better fuel economy, air-conditioned, cruise controlled, quieter, more comfortable and, oh, yes, more reliable. Much better than good enough.

My brother is a much better photographer than I am. He sees better. Understand, my vision (corrected) is 20/14. I have the skill, not the talent.

Johnkpap · Sep 7, 2014

Hi Everyone

This is a fun thread .......

The best example of this is was a Photographer's Show and Sell at the Grand Canyon hotel in 2006, the photagrapher had his camera on
Display as well a very shiny Linhof technica iv 4x5 camera.

The Photo's he was trying to sell ...... Wow.... they looked like they were taken with a 2mp Phone camera and printed on a cheap inkjet.

I asked the "Photographer" a number of simple technical questions which I recieved a blank look....

The camera I took with me to the Grand Canyon was my little Fuji GS645S with its 60mm lens, the Kodak 64 Slides look nothing like
the photos taken by the Pro Photographer on Show.

I am always amazed at how good the quality of the images taken with my Fuji travel camera are

Having a very nice 4x5 camera dosn't make you a great photographer, If you don't realy use it and it is just a display item

Johnkpap

miha · Sep 8, 2014

jnanian said:
yes,
i spoke of 2 of these people earlier in this thread.
and i know others who only have expensive gear because
to them it is like "bling" it gains them attention so people
think they are different than they are ... ( the classmate of mine was sort of like this too )
there are all sorts of people in this world ( who use cameras, cook food, drive cars )
maybe they buy expense gear to grow into it like parents do for cloths for their kids
"this shirt is way too big for me! " ... " don't worry you'll grow into it "

i agree with what you have said O-N-F ... but
often times people have excuses for everything ...
"how could i lack talent/skill &c i have this camera ...
must be the film or developer or paper or .... couldn't be cause of me ... "

Very true John, just that I still have nothing against talentless people with flashy cameras. They mean nothing to common folks (I.e. non-photographers).
I do find it funny or amusing, though, when people are showing off with their cameras - regardless of the talent in them.

removed account4 · Sep 8, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
John, I've seen some pretty ratty old Rolls.

I've had a few bizarremobiles, never a Rolls, not sporting enough. No matter, when I had them I was still me. Shiny car, scruffy driver. These days I drive Hondas. Nicer than my old bizarremobiles; faster, quicker, better handling, better braking, better fuel economy, air-conditioned, cruise controlled, quieter, more comfortable and, oh, yes, more reliable. Much better than good enough.

My brother is a much better photographer than I am. He sees better. Understand, my vision (corrected) is 20/14. I have the skill, not the talent.

yeah ratty old rolls are kind of fun, there are a few within a few miles of where i live, they must have been nice 20-30 years ago ...hand made is nice ...
but practicality is something a bit different. i used to drive a honda, 88 civic "stripper" had 500,000 miles on it when i sold it ( for $500 )
i must have replaced everything but the block, cylinders and the heads, its only drawback was it had no airbags and there to too many yahoos
driving gigantic SUVs ( who it seems like got their drivers license in a box of laundry detergent ) where i live ... kind of fits into this thread well,

" i can barely drive a car, but i have a car that costs as much as a house, check out how the hubcaps spin backwards and i can talk on the phone
and watch TV while i am driving i drive so good in this car! "

miha said:
Very true John, just that I still have nothing against talentless people with flashy cameras. They mean nothing to common folks (I.e. non-photographers).
I do find it funny or amusing, though, when people are showing off with their cameras - regardless of the talent in them.

i don't really have a problem with talentless/ skilless people at all, to be honest it is refreshing to see work from a different perspective,
something i would never have thought of or seen, even thought the execution wasn't perfect ( i have given up on perfection anyways i think it is
an unobtainable thing that fuels chasing magic bullets and spending cash ( that i don't have ) and this thread wasn't started to bash or crank
people who like to buy the best they can afford ( or what the salesman told them was the best or what they read on the web was the best, or what their
peer group told them was the best &c ) but to get in their head and try to understand why someone would spend that sort of $$ on something
to "grow into" when it might just be more practical to not buy the top of the line until he / she needs that extra bit of umph / turbo to put them over the edge
i mean a 19 year old kid who can barely make an exposure with a K1000 with a camera that costs almost as much as a semester's tuition seemed
a bit excessive to me, but then again who am i to say anything, maybe if i had been wearing his shoes i would have done the same thing ?

John Koehrer · Sep 9, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
many(toomany) claim that the type of equipment does not matter and that it is all in the photographerbut, I have never seen a really good photographer use anything but the best equipment

Weston? Stieglitz? Atget? Adams? Evans? Sudek? Ruzicka? Etc.
Guess they weren't very good.

John Koehrer · Sep 9, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
I've never understood the claims that a photograph has no connection to the camera equipment used to make it. And anyone who thinks it does is an equipment snob.

"It's never about the camera. It's only about the photographer."

I mean, the photographer wasn't exactly pressing the button on a piece of fruit when the picture was made, was he? And during at least one brief moment while making a photograph I can virtually guarantee you that it is indeed all about the camera.

Ken

See 194.

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 9, 2014

John Koehrer said:
See 194.

You mean those guys all used fruit? Who knew??

(BTW, Adams often used state-of-the-art cameras. Think Polaroid. He was, in today's terminology, an "alpha tester" for Dr. Land...)

Ken

removed account4 · Sep 9, 2014

John Koehrer said:
See 194.

i couldn't agree more with you john !
there have been, and still are photographers
who never used, never could afford and probably didn't
see a need for state of the art equipment. even some folks on this
website ( im thinking particularly of victor milin's biscotti cameras,
his holga work too ) and Miroslav Tichý's portrait work made with
something that definitely was not state of the art. if the photographer
has no "vision" ( i hate that word ) even directing someone WITH vision
AND a state of the art camera will be no use. i guess one problem is that
there people always use gear as a replacement for "vision" sometimes
they are able to pull it off, other times no so much ...

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 9, 2014

Counter argument (meant to be disruptive): When photographers work with inferior equipment they often have to use their imagination more, potentially leading to more interesting photographs than those who have all the best that money can buy.

True or false? Or somewhere in between perhaps?

It is the flip side of the coin, and a follow-up argument to this whole thread that truly begs to be put out there.

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 9, 2014

You offer the converse point-of-view, which by definition must be equally invalid. In the same way that having talent trumps all, having no talent trumps all.

Making a weak photograph that says nothing can be done with either top grade cameras or junk cameras. If the premise is true and it's really all about the photographer in the former case, then it must also similarly be all about the photographer in the latter case.

Weak vision is weak vision, regardless of whether the photographer references his awesome equipment, or his junk equipment. What those who argue the first point fail to consider is the converse-ness of their arguments.

One can't credibly argue that someone else is trying to cover their lack of talent by using superior equipment, then turn around and argue in favor of their own wonderful talent just because they use crappy equipment. Without realizing it, they are in fact arguing against themselves.

Ken

benjiboy · Sep 9, 2014

If the original premise was true, the people with the most expensive equipment would be the best photographers, and buying a Stradivarius would make me a brilliant violinist

cliveh · Sep 9, 2014

It's not about the cost, but the right tools for the job.

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 9, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
And I'd also like to repeat there's enough snobbery on both sides of the equipment coin.

And it's a corollary observation to my argument as well...

Ken

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 9, 2014

benjiboy said:
If the original premise was true, the people with the most expensive equipment would be the best photographers, and buying a Stradivarius would make me a brilliant violinist

I'm arguing that the original premise, and it's converse interpretation, are both false.

Ken

eddie · Sep 9, 2014

I'm not bothered by non-talented people thinking that purchasing top of the line equipment will make them a better photographer. It won't, but their purchases allow manufacturers to make technical advances which usually end up trickling down to lower cost gear. In the long run, camera snobbery benefits us all.

removed account4 · Sep 9, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
False as far as "seeing" goes. But they might have to use their imagination more to get the result, thinking of ways of jury-rigging equipment etc. I had to do a lot of that sort of "technical improvisation" stuff with my first enlarger. I've since upgraded. The prints are not better, but they are a little easier (and sometimes more enjoyable) to do in certain cases.

I realize I've made the same argument over and over again in this thread but anyway.

And I'd also like to repeat there's enough snobbery on both sides of the equipment coin.

i don't think it is "jury rigging",
instead i think it is using the "signature"
of something that might not create a
"clinically-perfect image" ( for lack of a better expression )
to further enhance the final product.

some say the top of the line lenses offer a certain
"sterility" that lesser expensive lenses don't have ...
compare an image made with a top of the line schneider xxl fine art lens against
something like a run of the mill barely coated turner reich ... some may suggest the turner reich
lens lacks contrast fails to create a sharply rendered image and is prone to flare and a piece of junk
but in most situations it will perform well with a sun shade and will create pleasing images ...
it won't be clinically sharp &c but it will do what it was designed to do ...
i'm not quite sure how one might jury rig a camera, its just a box ... some are bigger than others and that's about it ...

dpurdy · Sep 9, 2014

Another very similar argument is whether limitations can give you freedom. For some the idea of their camera having one fixed lens, like a Rolleiflex, is frustratingly limiting. For others it frees the mind up to see with one vision. You come to see as your lens sees, and your vision becomes stronger and more certain. Rather than questioning everything and looking through a variety of lenses trying to find the best view or perspective.
I have both type systems.. a Rollei and a Pentax 67 with several lenses. Using a Rollei is like being on vacation with no work and no stress. Using the P67 I can't bring myself to not carry optional lenses. It becomes a far heavier bag and uncertain vision. But it does allow me to work with a rectangle and non normal perspective when I itch for that.
Dennis

E. von Hoegh · Sep 9, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
I'm arguing that the original premise, and it's converse interpretation, are both false.

Ken

Here's a new premise: The more expensive the equipment, the more the owner spent on it.

more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency