Who makes the photo? The photographer or the Camera?
 

It ain't whatcha got, But whatcha do with whatcha got IMO...

I just bought a camera Two Days ago and experimented... Any advice from photog's to improve pics... Please advise...

Fucking around with lightning
http://www.chicagofreaks.com/rugg.jpg
My lil cool Ghetto Shawty that eat girls out for me
http://www.chicagofreaks.com/rugg1.jpg
My lil Ghetto Bitch again getting smokey
http://www.chicagofreaks.com/rugg2.jpg
My White Bitch that pays me 100% EVERYDAY
http://www.chicagofreaks.com/rugg3.jpg

Answer: the photographer with a good camera

Always the shooter - no question!!!

what he said...

NEVER about the camera... all about the photographer..... i can shoot with a ten dollar disposable camera, and you wouldn't know the difference

Yup, the photographer.

This post has a lot of meaning to it... Thnx! :thumbsup

Always the photographer. I could take the same camera Lensman has, he goes one way, I go another way and we shoot all day. I guarantee his photos will blow mine away even though we used the same camera! That was too easy! :disgust

:winkwink:

you can learn all the features, lighting, etc of shooting and the camera you have and end up taking 'nice' pictures... but to be a photographer and have your work stand out and actually mean something... it takes a little more...


note: when i say 'you' ... not talking directly to you :winkwink:

photographer makes the photo :thumbsup

In addition, it's about "the eye". You either have it or you do not - i cannot be taught or learned.

Exactly!!! :thumbsup

:thumbsup :thumbsup

That's true...and in addition to that, then I'll have to give it to you...you are not that cross eyed... :thumbsup

3 first ones, super...4th, no comment :)

Not true. I've seen some top photographers use disposables during shoots.

Photographer indeed

i've done that before... they came out great :thumbsup

Any camera can take a picture, but not just any photographer can take a good one..

Well, I say "mostly" the photographer.

Sorry guys, but cameras and the equipment they harness cost money for a reason.

Mostly the photographer, but a 2k IS Canon lense snapped onto a 20D certainly give you something to start with.

not true... equipment dont mean shit.. spend all the money in the world... if you cant shoot, you cant shoot

Sure, if you "can't shoot" then you just can't.

But if you "can" shoot, then you "can" shoot better with better equipment.

If the latter isn't true, why would spend all that money?

Top pic looks like an album cover

I like the lighting in the first three pics.. the photos have alot of character .

The 4th one I am too distracted by the look on your girls face to give comment :1orglaugh

So you take two photographers into a lowlight situation and those disposables should be fine? Better equipped cameras handling 800 plus ISO doesn't help?

What about shooting wildlife with a disposable? Don't need that zoom lense?

BTW, like your photos. Sorry for my tangent.

A camera, no matter how basic or advanced, is nothing more than a lightbox.

That said, it boils down to features. I shoot on a Canon 1Ds because it's got functions that my 300V didn't. It's easier to use, speeds up the shooting process. The photo quality (I'm talking final product, not MP etc) is identical.

You can *always* tell a photo 'noob' when the first question they ask is 'What camera did you shoot that on?'

I place noob in inverted commas simply because the question is valid in some circumstances - (What did you shoot it on, it's got a MF cropping...) .. more often they mean 'Neat, what lens / lighting / location did you have?'

photographer, a camera assist a photographer to max his abilities, but this doesn't make him less important.

Sure, you'd put ISO 800 film in the camera, or hold the shutter open longer.
See my above post.

this has nothing to do with the question though... if you can shoot, then nyou dont need the fancy equip to create art... a photographer sees what others dont, and with any camera he can capture that.... the lighting may be 'off' or not 'perfect' but there's NO WAY that a regualr person wouldve seen that shot to capture in the first place.. so having all the gear is absolutely useless...

But what if you need a zoom? Panning stabilization doesn't help?

I agree that the camera does not make the photographer, I also agree that your photo quality can be the same with many cameras, but comparing a disposable to a 1D is somewhat a stretch I think.

Also, what about film cameras against digital? Think of the reduced learning curves. Instantaneous results.

I don't disagree totally, but making it black and white is simply wrong. Otherwise, everyone is wasting money.

I own a 20D and a few pretty nice lenses. If I could get the same results with a point and shoot, I would never have paid for it.

i love you man :bowdown

have you ever seen ansel adams work where he uses the cardboard box with a small hole on it as his camera?

I think we are on different pages. I totally agree with you about image quality and the regular eye.

But that equipment comes in handy. I love shooting surfing, I will take my 20D and 400MM Canon lense over a point and shoot and honestly admit, it makes me better because I simply can't zoom without it. I simply will not get the sharpness from an inferior lense. The fast focus. The burst rate. These things are proven.

Now, shooting a vase or a tree? I don't disagree. Shooting a concert? That equipment would help!

It's the photographer that moves the lense to the precise angle.. :thumbsup

Note the difference - I'm talking cameras not lenses :)

You're backing up my point- you have a 20D because you can have the features of the EF series lenses, and instant digital results - not because having a 20D will make you a Super Dooper photographer.

I have the 1Ds because I need full frame digital.

I was quite happy shooting on my 300V [obviously full frame]

I like the results when a talented, educated photographer has good cameras and equipment and the money for first-class talent with costume, makeup and hair dresser.

Setting and lighting should not be under emphasized as well.

It is kinda like making a cake....the talented cook needs first-class ingredients for a first-class cake.

I have a copy of 'the camera' and 'the print' sitting next to my desk.

:thumbsup

Exactly. Composition is not measured by equipment in most instances, but your camera must adapt to a zoom and those often cost more.

I don't disagree that having a really nice camera will not improve your compostion, etc. But to come in and act as though a billion dollar market is a fraud, well that is stretching it.

However, I will buy some of you photographers out for rock bottom prices if you just want to go to point and shoots! I will be more than happy to suck up my pride and carry around a mark1 :)

Ansel Adams was exceptionally talented and dedicated to his craft. And, his content: world class.

A good photographer with a good camera will generally take a better shot than a good photographer with a disposable.

Often a good shot relies on having good cropping latitude, and if a disposable's format is too small, you have no room to crop.

This isn't to say a good photographer can't get a decent shot with a cheap cam - but in my experience odds are in favour of the higher quality equipment in the right hands.

Tell you what, I'll give you my mI and you can proud, and you can give me a mII ;)
...or better yet.. digi back hasselblad.

With Nikon releasing the D200, Canon and Nikon wars are going to hopefully drive down some prices man!

I love my 20D though. I really do.