Great Photos: The Camera or the person behind the camera?

[digitalfingers]

What a compliment! Thank you Aung. Yes it's true. I had a fuji s5600 until my cousin decided to drop it in a lake in ireland. Then I purchased my trusty D3000 around August Last year. One or two of my very first pictures are on my DP profile ( I hate looking at them now but they remind me of how far I've come) I've been told I have a good eye for photography by a few people, which has really made me want to improve further. I now believe my skills are deserving of a new camera which has a decent frame rate and also decent quality shooting at high ISO settings. Below is a link to the Very first photo I took with my D3000

http://dphotographer.co.uk/image/192466/colour_burst

[singingsnapper]

Paul, for me looking at the work on your flickr account, regardless of the camera you are using; the images just don't say photographs to me, instead they say pictures. For me 'pictures' can be taken with any camera/phone but 'photographs' are taken by the photographer. This is why I raised the question about the equipment you are using. It's not for me to judge what people spend their money on and I'm glad you can afford to buy high end equipment. I do however think it would be a wise investment to go on a photography course so you get a better understanding of what makes a good photograph.



some of my amateur work can be seen on http://www.dflynnphotography.com/ or on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/dflynnphotography/

I'd love to spend a day with you taking some pictures and perhaps you'd come back with some photographs.

I still can't help feeling a little patronised so perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I don't use a huge amount of post processing in my shots and it dismays me to see 10+ photoshop magazines next to photography magazines in WHSmith. I try to use thirds techniques in my photos plus leading lines and I have said 4 times in just this one thread that I have much to learn. I'd rather not learn how to over process images (not that I'm suggesting you do) or perhaps I'm just being thIck. Perhaps you could enlighten ne as to the difference between picture and photograph as I clearly don't grasp the difference in your view since you have been so dismissive of my obviously novice efforts.

There's no excuse for not getting out and taking photos. I don't drive either and even with a packed schedule I can get on a train and head to the lakes. My pictures may not be high art. But I'll keep on trying to improve. If I can find some time I definitely want to take on a course. The problem on my case is a diary that often changes at a moment's notice so it's difficult to pin down a weekend in advance.

Having said all this I have no issue with constructive criticism. I need to learn but you haven't been specific or in my view all that constructive. What is it about my landscapes that make them 'pictures' rather than photographs?

[digitalfingers]

I apologise if I sounded patronising, that is not my intention and I didn't mean that all of your images are pictures. I have read your post and understand where you are coming from, I'm not having a pop at the fact you don't process your images, I don't always process mine either. Maybe just some level adjustments and sometimes but very rarely, I use Lightroom plugins.

To me a picture is picking up the camera, pointing it at the first scene you see and clicking the shutter. A photograph is knowing the aperture to use, the iso, the light source, the time of day, the composition (not neccesarily the rule of thirds as it's almost always broken) the shutter speed and drawing the viewers eye to a focal point. An example of this is your 'gloomy skies over windermere', I think it works well, with the tree trunk in the foreground and then your eyes are drawn accross the lake. I'm no landscape expert though so this is just my opinion. I wasn't referring to your landscape images anyway.

I do go out whenever I can and of course having no car is not an excuse, what I was trying to point at is the fact there are some hidden treasures around the english countryside which are not accessible without a car and those are the places I'd like to go to.

Hope that's cleared up your confusion. Dave.

[Keitht]

Surely even the question "The camera or the person behind the camera" is too simplistic in these days of digital imaging. In the olden days of film camera & transparency stock, what you took was pretty much what you got as an end product. Film & printing is a different story of course.
In the digital world there are so many other elements to factor in such as the software used, the ability of the person using the software, screen & printer calibration.....
On a basic level the best kit in the world doesn't guarantee a single decent final image although the quality of result available using 'auto everything' gives a damn good chance of creating some reasonable 'keepers'. I would suggest that a photographer with a good 'eye' using entry level kit is more likely to produce consistently good material than somebody without any concept of photography with megabucks worth of kit. Therefore, the simplistic answer is 'The person behind the camera'.

[digitalfingers]

I would suggest that a photographer with a good 'eye' using entry level kit is more likely to produce consistently good material than somebody without any concept of photography with megabucks worth of kit. Therefore, the simplistic answer is 'The person behind the camera'.

I agree with this statement.

[ALwin]

I would suggest that a photographer with a good 'eye' using entry level kit is more likely to produce consistently good material than somebody without any concept of photography with megabucks worth of kit. Therefore, the simplistic answer is 'The person behind the camera'.

I agree with this statement.

I second this.

As I posted before:

It's mostly true that the person behind the camera is responsible for getting the shot. But the camera and lens play a role as 'right tool for the job'.

1> Understanding the limitations of the camera (including sensor capability with digital and choosing the right type of film for film cameras) to understanding the effects of different lenses, focal lengths, apertures, so on.

2> Knowing & understanding what you want to show your audience.
- Do you want to only 'say': look at this photo, this is proof that I've been to this place.
- or: This scene that I saw is majestic, I created this photo to represent/share this amazing view with you.
- And for portraits: Look at this photo, this is someone I know.
- or: This is someone I know, he/she is a 'beautiful' person, I wanted to make a photo that represents that 'beauty'.
For what purpose are you creating the photo?

3> And finally, bringing about what you want to create, your vision, onto the output media, whether it be a digital file or film print.

[digitalfingers]

Damn, I can't find the 'like' button for the comments.

[ALwin]

Damn, I can't find the 'like' button for the comments.

like

[singingsnapper]

I apologise if I sounded patronising, that is not my intention and I didn't mean that all of your images are pictures. I have read your post and understand where you are coming from, I'm not having a pop at the fact you don't process your images, I don't always process mine either. Maybe just some level adjustments and sometimes but very rarely, I use Lightroom plugins.

To me a picture is picking up the camera, pointing it at the first scene you see and clicking the shutter. A photograph is knowing the aperture to use, the iso, the light source, the time of day, the composition (not neccesarily the rule of thirds as it's almost always broken) the shutter speed and drawing the viewers eye to a focal point. An example of this is your 'gloomy skies over windermere', I think it works well, with the tree trunk in the foreground and then your eyes are drawn accross the lake. I'm no landscape expert though so this is just my opinion. I wasn't referring to your landscape images anyway.

I do go out whenever I can and of course having no car is not an excuse, what I was trying to point at is the fact there are some hidden treasures around the english countryside which are not accessible without a car and those are the places I'd like to go to.

Hope that's cleared up your confusion. Dave.

My landscapes tend to be stronger than other elements of what I take photos of. I'll be the first to admit that, and if I was over sensitive and defensive please accept my apologies. I acknowledge that the shot that instigated this debate was not one of my strongest, and it was a snap rather than a serious shot, and perhaps would have been better off on the cutting room floor so to speak. If I gain something from it in another angle then all is not lost. I need to look more carefully at what I'm trying to say and see how I can best communicate that in my pictures/photographs. Training would of course help, and I am looking into this but it's pretty difficult to pin down my diary at the best of times.

[singingsnapper]

Surely even the question "The camera or the person behind the camera" is too simplistic in these days of digital imaging. In the olden days of film camera & transparency stock, what you took was pretty much what you got as an end product. Film & printing is a different story of course.
In the digital world there are so many other elements to factor in such as the software used, the ability of the person using the software, screen & printer calibration.....
On a basic level the best kit in the world doesn't guarantee a single decent final image although the quality of result available using 'auto everything' gives a damn good chance of creating some reasonable 'keepers'. I would suggest that a photographer with a good 'eye' using entry level kit is more likely to produce consistently good material than somebody without any concept of photography with megabucks worth of kit. Therefore, the simplistic answer is 'The person behind the camera'.

I agree, but is it actually so simplistic after all? The answer certainly isn't. I think the truth is that now it is a combination of person and technology, and being able to get the most from technology plus having a good eye for a shot will always be a huge advantage. It's possible that the lines will get greyer as more and more technology emerges. I do feel that the most important element will always be the person behind the camera.

[ALwin]

So Paul, let me ask you another question: in the progress of your learning to improve your photography, are you only playing with the different settings, lenses, etc, on the camera or are you also reading books, observing what others do, doing research?

In the meantime, let's put the discussion into another perspective. In another topic I started in the same section, I asked:

If we were to use a grading system with a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 being the optimal score and we graded two factors:
1) the subject matter in the photo
2) the way the subject matter is presented in the photo (it can be the way it was composed/framed, the exposure, sharpness, colors, etc.)

What do you think about the following combinations:

A) the subject matter scores a low grade of e.g. 5 but the presentation scores 95
Could a photo of an ordinary or even outright boring/unpopular/uninteresting subject matter be turned into a great photo just by the way it was presented?

B) subject matter scores 50, presentation scores 50
Could an average ranking subject matter and an average presentation of it in a photo combined add up to become a good or great photo?

C) the subject matter scores 95 but the presentation scores 5
Could a great photo be achieved only by relying on the high interest/popularity of the subject matter while having only an average or below average image presentation?

Or is it always necessary for both the subject matter and the presentation to have high scores?

Take this photo for example:

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/smcclarin/5978534581/
Here, the composition is all too common of using the lines, rule of thirds, golden ratio, etc. just like the rules you are following. Yet why does this photo stand out compared your photo below?

vs. This photo of your's

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/singingsna ... hotostream

The answer is simple, because the above photo of The Wave in Arizona is easily recognizable. Your photo is of a lake shore, reflections, etc that is all too common and can be easily mistaken for any similar place in the world if you didn't mention in the title "black day on rydal water". People will recognize any photo of The Wave, because it is so unique. For yourself, you need to work on making your photos or the content of your photos 'unique' that would hold the interest of the audience. Photography is not all about knowing how to correctly compose the scene or meter the light or adjust the settings on your camera. It is about knowing how to make your photos seem unique (even if they aren't), being a photographer in some ways can be like being a magician, creating illusions that trick your audience into believing something you want them to believe.

[singingsnapper]

So Paul, let me ask you another question: in the progress of your learning to improve your photography, are you only playing with the different settings, lenses, etc, on the camera or are you also reading books, observing what others do, doing research?

when time allows, I am also reading books, and magazines and looking at what other people produce...i use the face to face part of the gallery here at dp to look at other people's work too

[ALwin]

Third example, one of my own photos:

Gorges de l'Areuse - Pont du blacklisted_site by A.LwinDigital, on Flickr
A couple of months ago, I went hiking through this small canyon with a group of friends, early on into the hike we passed this bridge. A fellow hobbyist photographer friend of mine asked if I can make a unique image of this bridge, mainly because this is a narrow canyon, therefore very limited vantage points to capture this bridge on an image and this being a popular hiking trail that many hundreds of people pass here every year and they also take photos. If you search on the web, you will find many similar photos of the same bridge that looks almost exactly like mine.

To this day I am looking back at this photo and trying to think of ways that I could make a unique photo of this bridge. I keep this as a mental exercise.

This following photo was taken from the bridge itself, and up towards the top left is the small area where I stood to capture the above photo.

Gorges de l'Areuse by A.LwinDigital, on Flickr

[ALwin]

So Paul, let me ask you another question: in the progress of your learning to improve your photography, are you only playing with the different settings, lenses, etc, on the camera or are you also reading books, observing what others do, doing research?

when time allows, I am also reading books, and magazines and looking at what other people produce...i use the face to face part of the gallery here at dp to look at other people's work too

If you haven't already read them I'd recommend reading David duChemin's Within the Frame: A Journey of Photographic Vision

And soon to be released: Photographically Speaking: A Deeper Look at Creating Stronger Images. I am gonna pick up a copy of this for my iPad kindle app, it seems like it will be an interesting read.

[D Pentney]

It seems to me that saying someone isn't at a standard for certain equipment is a little daft. I've been into photography for a short while really but I've learnt that equipment costs are more a factor of what a person cares to pay rather than how good they are. It won't make a bad photographer a good one, but it will open up oppotunities where lesser equipment just won't do the job. I'm coming at this from the cheap end, I can't afford even moderate kit, I've got a D60 with 2 kit lenses, and it can be a real fight to get the image I'm after. I'm quite into motorsport, but I'd like to see the person that can capture a decent shot with what I have in the bag. And you should see the results of trying to shoot my brothers wedding without the benefit of a flash. I think a full sensor, with fast glass, and top noise control would have made a lot of difference!

The ironic thing is, that it's all the guys teaching photography saying it's not about the camera but what you know, and granted this is true to a certain extent. However, if you lack the experience in things like timing your shots, or pre-focussing, then a fast auto-focus is pretty handy. You get less camera shake if you can up your shutter speed - I can't because if I try that I'm under-exposing like it's night. Turn my ISO up? I'm not a fan of white noise thanks. Photography is an art that has technical constraints that the guy behind the camera has to balance to get the shot. Having better equipment means you are less constrained, there is less compromise, and gives the shooter more time to compose a decent image rather than dealing with the harsh facts of practicality. You simply have more options.

In short, if you can afford it, whats the issue with having the capacity there rather than ruing the fact you just missed a shot because you didn't think you were good enough for it?