Taking a Great Photo: Camera or Photographer?

[oakvilleonca]

After viewing a very large number of recent postings, I can't decide whether it's the camera or the photographer that makes a great photo. Both is not really the answer that I am looking for. Let me explain.

When I come across what to me are great photographs, and when I can determine what type of camera has been used, the answer seems to be a high end SLR digitals. Is this because good photgraphers gravitate to high end cameras? Or is it because average photgraphers who use high end cameras end up with better pictures and become even better photographers? Or, ... ?

John

[bobtrips]

The photographer is the most important. I've seen some absolutely wonderful work done with compact/disposable film cameras and low pixel digitals.

A more advanced camera makes the job easier, it's a more flexible, more capable tool. And people who enjoy an activity tend to spend more money to get better tools. You can catch fish with a cane pole. You stand a better job getting a trophy bass from under a distant log with a good rod and reel.

[framewerkz]

My two cents - it's the photographer.

[simonkirk]

easily it has to be the photographer, not saying i am good but i have taken some great images with a £200 camera as i have with my DSLR.

[sheila]

Its the photographer but as everyone else has said, the ability of the camera to take difficult images such as low light or fast moving, helps a lot.

Elliott Erwitt's quote below my signature says it all

Cheers
Sheila

[jefferey]

I agree with bobtrips, Race car drivers aren't going to bust any land records with a 98 toyota corolla. Although they'ed probably blow away anyone else in that car.

Photos are often better with SLR's because it IS a tool, designed to let the photographer make every decision they want for a better shot.

If you're camera is shutter priority only, how will you control depth of field? if its aperture priority, how can you stop fast moving objects? or blur slower situations?

Canon does a good job of incorporating a lot of these tools into their consumer point and shoot digitals.

I usually shoot medium format, but after doing some research and test driving a few digi's I just ordered a canon A75 for walk around snaps. I'm looking forward to getting it (As a 645 SLR isn't the easiest thing to lug around...)

You don't need a high priced camera to get good pics. Just make sure it's got all the right tools, and easy user interface(so you're not fumbling around trying to GET to those tools)

Like I said, My money's on canon for the small stuff.

Oh, uh... I think it's the photographer that makes the difference...

[soulfulimpressions]

what makes a great photograph? several things must happen for me to get the shot. first i must learn where my subject will be. next getting the wife's blessing to go out that night. now that that is out of the way, the day of the shoot arrives. get plenty of rest, because the shots i want do not happen untill after 10:00 pm. after throwing back a few, the performance begins. i shoot through several different apetures and shutter speeds to find out what is working that night. i'll shoot 300 or so shots to get those top ten shots. next the drive home at 2:00am. while in bed i find myself replaying the show in my head before it begins to hurt the next day. after shaking the headache i upload the images to my computer. once there the photo editor in me takes over. you see the original image is just the canvas. what takes place after is where the magic begins. a tweek here and there, a crop for artistic value sometimes, maybe change the image to greyscale for that intimate feel. all of those components must be in place to make it work. it's not the man behind the glass that makes the image , but the man upstairs who brought all this @#$% together, and created one hell of a canvas for all us photographers to think were the best thing since sliced bread. it's only rock n roll but i like it ! http://www.pbase.com/soulfulimpressions

[fastuno]

I get the gist of what everyone else is trying to say & agree for the most part. The photographer makes the difference, but a better tool can only enhance the outcome.

I have seen things a little differently recently though. I have gone through hundreds of images trying to determine if it's the camera, the lens, photographer, post processing, taking thousands of shots, or just plain old luck! I think it's a combination of all of these factors. There are too many sum total factors for us to analyze at any one given time. I have seen a beautiful flower that looks like it will translate great on picture, only to be disappointed, even after multiple setting adjustments and shooting in RAW.

If we step back and analyze what it's that we are trying to do, perhaps then we can make some sense of the chaos. All that a camera does is to capture bouncing light of various types of frequencies. If we had ideal lighting conditions aimed at all subject matter, then I feel that even a cheap point & shoot camera can take a GREAT shot. In this ideal utopia the sun would be our bulb & we can fancy it in any direction & intensitiy. Furthermore, we can introduce soft clouds to evenly disperse the light. We obviosly don't shoot in this type of case & as a result attempt to compensate in some form or another with our handly camera tools. It's in these compensating factors that most lenses & cameras are judged. We spent all this money on our equipment we are going to want to take a few shots in situations where lighting is not ideal.

Once we have lighting licked, then it's time to move on to what I think is the next important factor. The subject matter....will write more on this later......
http://www.pbase.com/fastuno

[sheloc]

I have used SLR, point and shoot digital and now am using an Olympus C5050 and I think I have taken some pretty good photos with all three.
I think it is the photographer that matters. I started out with a pretty good eye and took some photo courses and read alot and now belong to a support group online that gives excellent critiques. I have a long way to go when it comes to improving as a photographer though. I think with an SLR I put more into each shot as I have to wait for the result and I get a bit lazy with my digital. Just my thoughts on the subject.

Shelley

[bish0p]

Hey John,

10 days ago I attended a Digital Photography course in the Rocky mountians of Canada. There was a wide varity of experance and equipment there. True there was a large number of people with DSLR's and it is true that they took most of the honors for their photo's (most of this I would put into the experance side of things not the equipment) the over all winning photo, was taken by someone with very little experance with a point and shoot digital.

I find that as people gain more experance they tend to gravitate to the SLR models more to get away from the limitations they fight with their point and shoot cameras. You know the "features" they bought the camera for quickly are out weighted by lag time, limited focal length, etc.

Recently even my sister a point and shooter was complaining about the lag on her brand new point and shoot, when taking shots of little babies, as they do have a tendancy to have move out of the shot by the time the P&S actually takes the pic.

James

[gary777]

It's the photographer. I've seen not so good images taken with expensive camera, on the flip side, I've seen great images taken with inexpensive 2 MP cameras.

[annayu]

I figure that if I can't upgrade the photographer (me), it can't hurt to upgrade the camera and lens first and see what happens.....

[ianbmw]

I had the same discussion when I used to compete in paintball and we concluded as I do with photography that its a ratio. I believe a good photograph is 80%photographer and 20%gear.

[framewerkz]

I had the same discussion when I used to compete in paintball and we concluded as I do with photography that its a ratio. I believe a good photograph is 80%photographer and 20%gear.

Hmm. With paintball it's probably slightly more gear-dependent.

[framewerkz]

/rant on

It just chafes when I see someone with gear that costs tens of thousands of dollars not using it to its intended limits. I don't pretend that I use every single function on my camera, but there are some real muppets out there with incredibly expensive gear and glass who really have no business owning it if they are unable to use it properly. Case in point, was just looking through some muppet's action photos, and he's shooting with a D2H and a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8, and he's on P-mode, resulting in pics at 1/80s at f/14. Grrrr.

/rant off