"It's not the camera that makes the photographer.....
 

"It's not the camera that makes the photographer; it's the photographer that makes the camera!"

I saw this saying in someone's signature on a mainstream photography board and I just loved it.

And it's so true.

Just thought I'd share :thumbsup

And you stole his quote? :)

was the person that said it called Sony? or Sam Sung?


but yeah, its true

Of course not....I just borrowed it :winkwink:

Would like to chat sometime when you have time Dean. Kind of getting pulled into the world of paid photography after putting up some of my mainstream portfolio stuff lol.

Technology does not make an idiot less of an idiot.

but better equipment sure helps out a bunch, doesn't it?

I thought the manufacturer made the camera.

Having the best tools makes it easier to achieve the results you want and or need.

I shoot great stuff with a Canon 10D and 20D , of course my new canon 5Dmk II is far better, but it is the monkey holding the camera of course.

I would love to see a guy shoot fast action with a rebel on the fly...lol Going thru menus to change aperture and shutter speeds.. NO WAY!!

Gotta have it on the dial....

So I shoot with my 5Dmk II and the 40D as a back up.

I've seen people do great shots with a cheap point and shoot. I've also seen shitty photos from expensive dslr cameras.

I totally agree with that quote :2 cents:

so very true

many of the guys with expensive gear rely on it to much and forget basics, the guy with the cheap stuff really sets everything up right relying little on the camera itself

One should not forget the basics, its all about light and controlling the light and contrast.
Metering, white Balance and all.

US in AZ we take a girl out and use all natural light, if one needs any pro lighting in AZ on a sunny day I would not call him a photographer . Man, you have free light right there in the sky and its the most beautiful light.

Take a girl outside find a very nice colorful area with even contrast. Look for a warm wall to reflect the sun light onto your model, a building, a sidewalk will reflect tons of light onto your subject, always use the SUN as a backlight, to get that golden glow in the models hair and she does not have to squint... lol

Also understand that i shoot girls out in the public, flashing, masturbating, ect.. So i don't have the time to hang out and improve the shot with setting up blackboards and reflectors...
We shoot the naughty public stuff as i mention , sun as a backlight, even contrast areas, and reflective walls, sidewalks, even a car will reflect a lot of light on your subject.

Turn your model away from the sun and you will get more pleasing results!

you buy a camera your concern should be will it last given my style of shooting, ditto the lenses flashes etc.

the camera makes little difference, with a good lens a good photographer takes good pictures, nothing else matters.

Dean is dead on the money

While some photographers prefer natural light, some prefer to have more control over their lighting and bring in alternative light sources to "enhance" the available light. I do not think less of a photographer who does this...because I'm one of those kind of shooters.

I'm surrounded by beautiful light every day but seldom do I take advantage of it the way some shooters do. I prefer instead to bring in additional lighting to enhance what is already there. Speaking for myself - natural light is beautiful but it's boring for me. I like to be challenged and using available light doesn't challenge me. Using available light along with 5 more lights....now we are talking about a fun and interesting challenge.

The challenge comes with juggling multiple light sources, multiple light temperatures, the models personality, her strengths and weaknesses as a model and coming outta there with some beautiful work that'll make the client happy...and that I'm happy to have my name associated with. Photography has to be fun for me or I'm done!

very true:thumbsup

I got to know Herb Ritts went living in the US. Great photographer who agreed with that saying, in fact he did a book that was taken 100% with disposable cameras.

Great lighting and subjects make a photo!

Reminds me of the old Nike "Is It the Shoes?" commercial with Michael Jordan.

I agree with you Dean....

But natural can be very challenging in many ways. I was not saying that someone at your level is not a photographer if he does not shoot in natural light. My point was if that is all you have and you can not get great shots, with our gift that is in the sky. Well hang it up.

I am far from being a great or the best photographer, that is true indeed. I am always learning.

But here are two examples of what i think in my opinions are do's and donts in NATURAL Light. The first shot is a DON'T as I pointed out before, the model is uncomfortable number one with the Sun blazing in her eyes, and it is just to harsh, yes a scrim would be the best way to go, however i do not have time to get all the public nasty stuff with all the gear gotta shoot it and get out of dodge, before an angry house wife calls the cops.
http://www.eddiecoates.net/sample4321.jpg
This following shot , was more pleasing to the viewer in my opinion and the model was able to be more comfy with sexual expression.
The wall behind me was enough warm light to fill the model.
http://www.eddiecoates.net/sample1234.jpg

Dean is a much better photographer than me.. But i am learning. These shots were taken with a 40D and the Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR di lens

Nice House!

Subject makes the photo.
http://www.ninjito.com/images/2009-0...ollector-3.jpg

Are those flashes in the background that I see? I've always wanted to try this type of stuff. I've got all the gear to do it, except for the 14mm lens and full frame camera. I've got a 24 mm lens with an APS-C camera.

The photographer makes the photo. The subject makes the photo interesting :winkwink:

another great shot Simon:thumbsup

I guess that is true. They have to choose the angle, lighting, setting, etc. Pressing the button to take the shot is the easy part.

"It's not the camera that makes the photographer; it's the photographer that makes the camera...until digital came along and made everyone a photographer!"

I have to agree with you here, Dean. While I CAN shoot outdoors, I much prefer indoors with consistent lighting that I control. Maybe it means that I don't get the fun of fudging around in Lightroom for 5 minutes with each pic, but it's a sacrifice I can live with. I'd rather spend the time fudging in Photoshop, if I'm going to fudge.

(waiting for the "real photographers don't need to Photoshop their pics" people to come out of the woodwork)

Psst, I think you missed the subject of this thread ;)
24mm should do you fine anyhow, that was shot on 17mm.

All 'natural' light there. Fullframe isn't vital, but it does help w/ wide angle stuff..

You all better be getting good at final cut. Video stills are coming faster than when digital took over film. Some of the larger retailers have already switched to using red camera's for their catalogues. They shoot the video and then grab shots off of it. They are using a hybrid of it online too. Crazy that the stills they pull are better than from a high end phase one back.

The system is 27k right now, but remember when a 3 megapixel camera was that about 8 years ago? It's coming real fast.

why in the fuck would we need Final cut for getting stills? Guess only Macs can get crisp video stills now? lol

Love shots like that !!!! :thumbsup

Very true

True.Keep up the great work!

very true... I know some folks that buy expensive cameras and they think they can make great photos, but are outperformed by others with cheaper cameras because of the their great experience...

For sure, agree with you. There's some people that gets a superb camera but don't know how to use it. ;)

nice read and different styles..
i guess a good photographer can get good pics in any situation in or out door.
to me natural light is so much more complicated to work with than studio lighting.
but some of the best work i have even seen was shot in natural light.
the best equipment makes your job as a photog easier and each task less demanding in resources (such as lighting, or using the right glass)
a digital slr with a wider dynamic range is still on my wish list..

yep for the most part

we all know its only bad to steal porn content, anything else is fine. Netflix dvd rips, and so forth are fine. :winkwink:

No it does not. You can't buy experience, "the eye for a shot" and the skill to reproduce it on film or digital.

In this market or any photography that uses people the ability to communicate, produce a full varied set, fit the niche and find the new models who will do as they are told and you can sell the work. The last part is the most important.

In fact it's the cruncher.

A better camera in the hands of a good pro will usually produce a better shot, in the hands of an average photographer it's a crap shoot, in the hands of a bad photographer he's wasting his money.

In the hands of a pornographers it's often irrelevant. A writer uses a computer, a better computer does not make him a better writer. We both create an illusion with a tool.

I once was lucky enough to stumble across a pro fashion photographer working in NY on the streets shooting fashion models. I introduced myself and asked, as a pro in another field, could I watch him work. His skill had nothing to do with his cameras, lights, reflectors, assistants. It was about him working with the models.

Yes shooting outdoors using natural light or a little fill in, is far more challenging in my opinion than shooting in a studio or using a full lighting set up outdoors. Also the results can be awesome if doe right. I never could but know guys who can.

This shot illustrates the problems, girl squinting, might be roasting and not happy. Plus you're having problems. Also the background is too interesting, should be more out of focus.

http://www.eddiecoates.net/sample4321.jpg

Perfect and I'm envious. :)

http://www.eddiecoates.net/sample1234.jpg

have been reading some books on photography - such a different mindset and way of seeing. find it facinating.

That's what a lot of people like to think but not true. Yes shooting on film was hard, you had to know the slides would come out within half a stop of what you need right through the set at the same exposure.

But still the camera is merely a tool in the hands of a craftsman or a plodder. Lot more to photography than getting the exposure right.

Exactly. I shot this with a 5 year old Nikon Digital camera with a flash on Camera. No crew, no lighting truck, no assistant, with no time to wait for the sun to pause so I could shoot. I could have shot the exact same picture with a 1970's SLR on Film. I would have had to bracket the exposure a little and processed the film myself to make sure I got the shot to save expensive hotel fees but I could have done it. In fact I have some skateboarding shots into the sunset that I could dig out of my garage fgrom the 80's that have the same look.

http://new.petergirls.com/images/Amb...girls20009.jpg

Ansel Adams took the most amazing pictures of Yosemite using almost a box camera. I could have shot the exact picture with a cardboard box with a hole punched through one side and film on the back wall. I would have had some sleepless nights, some trial and error, and some dodging and burning in the darkroom, but it could have been done.

http://www.povcash.com/postpics/Pete...ro_2009005.jpg

There are 3 parts to a good porn photograph: Lighting, Composition, and CASTING. And it takes a really good shooter to master all 3.

Well done Peter.

Thanks... I have a really good camera... te-hee...

That is exactly what i was explaining about these two shots.

The first shot was just way to much... Aperture was to tight so the background was in focus as well. She was squinting.

The second shot was much cleaner and all about the girls yet with a nice background.

I get distracted by some of the met-art sets because the Eastern European ruins the chick is standing in are more appealing. :1orglaugh

The ability to see in your mind the image you wish to create and the skill and technical know-how to produce it are both necessary qualities of photographers...

To expand on that - it's a combination of the photographer's willingness to thoroughly learn his camera's capabilities through practice...practice...practice - an ability to visualize and compose in an aesthetic way, and a photographer's willingness to take whatever effort is needed to get a desired shot.

We all have our own methods, practices and tricks of the trade - knowing where your strengths and talents are is the key to it.

I would jokingly add - it's not the camera that makes the photographer - it's PHOTOSHOP!

thumbs up for that... especially the bigger the camera, the more it takes to get stuff done right ;-).

I completely disagree with Photoshop making a good or great photographer!!

Photoshop is to enhance or repair mistakes that a photographer did not get right out of the camera! I was shooting back in the day with chrome and we did not have photoshop, you only had a darkroom, or your local walgreens.. lol

A good photographer will get it right out of the camera and use Photoshop to enhance or create a more interesting image by manipulating the photo with effects and so forth.

Like for example, i see too many great photographers use the hell out of Portraiture!! It makes the model look fake, the skin does not look real. I would rather beat off looking at a girls natural skin, knowing exactly what she looks like when i am with her in person.
I do use photoshop to heal out a scar or mole, but i do not over correct the models skin.