Why is the photography community all "DURRR IT'S NOT ABOUT THE CAMERA IT'S ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER" when it very clearly...

Why is the photography community all "DURRR IT'S NOT ABOUT THE CAMERA IT'S ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER" when it very clearly is about the camera?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5
youtu.be/uv0n52-ncmg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

KEKS
U
C
K
S

Becuase they arent necessarily wrong. You dont need a top of the line dslr to take good raw photos and then touch them up in an editor.

You can take very good pictures with even a garbage camera. Pic related, was shot with a disposable.

are you ?

Negative.

Coming from a DSLR owner, no you don't need a good camera to take good pictures, and good cameras don't just take good pictures themselves. Hand a fucking 1DX to an idiot and they will take shitty photos all day long. Hand a smartphone to a good photographer and he'll take great photos for you.

> Pic related
I shot with my 6p

Photographers (generally) don't know squat about technology so when confronted with numbers and technical information they stick their fingers in their ears and yell about the camera not mattering because they saw one or two good shots like when these are the exception rather than the rule.

You want to take good pictures? Buy a good camera.

Because it's not, really. You need to be familiar with the camera more than anything

I've been working part time with a local small business photographer for over a decade and all I'm using right now is a D3300 most of the time. Entry level as it gets, but it works as well as the big boys if you know what you're doing

> Pic related I shot with my 6p
yeah, and it shows

let's not go all /p/ here

Also, I should mention, the tech in this entry level camera blows away top of the line cameras from less than ten years ago, which people STILL take great shots with.

>You need to be familiar with the camera more than anything

Which...doesn't really take that long. And once you do learn the fundamentals you are going to be looking at your point and shoot and comparing yourself to people with DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras and thinking the cameras matter juust a little bit.

I'm not sure a 12 mp camera built into a $500 phone counts as entry level.

>Which...doesn't really take that long
For a point and shoot, obviously. There are like 3 whole buttons and you can't change but the zoom. I thought we were talking about DSLRs

OP post makes no mention of specific camera model

OPs post also makes no mention of smartphones

...

People are inherently bad photographers. They don't have the knowledge or training to know what it takes to take a good photo. It's like putting a random person in a high end kitchen and telling them to make a great. If they were a terrible cook, the kitchen isn't going to help them much. But take a professional chef and they'll make something spectacular in your own kitchen.

A lot of the tech in modern cameras are designed to compensate for poor photography skills, like image stabilization. This is because people think it's fine to take a photo with one hand held at arm's length, rather than holding the camera with both hands against your face. People don't understand why lighting is important, or how shutter speed matters, or other basic camera tech.

I often see people take blurry photos and complain that it's because they only have a 6MP camera. I'll then take a similar photo with my old ass 3MP camera with good clarity and tell them it's not the camera, then tell them how to achieve similar results.

So like any other hobby, you should know the basics of how to take a good photo, because no amount of tech is going to help if you can't hold the fucking camera still.

Nailed it.

I GET IT

well do you know about sensor sizes, processing power, F. Stop, shutter speed, ISO, SD Write speed, etc. there is alot of factors and creativity to go along with.

here is one of my early photography photos

lol

...

You could give a $10k camera to a complete beginner and his pictures would be shitty because he would have no idea about composition, lens settings and properties, wouldn't be able to read an histogram, etc. He'd just be shooting in full retard all the time.
A photographer that masters all of the above would be able to take great pictures on almost any camera even if he would have to work a bit more in post to make his shots look right.

In short, it's about (in order of importance) the photographer, the camera (and lens) as well as whatever you're using to grade and fine tune your raws.

OP, have you ever seen that kid with the high end ricer computer using water cooling and all that fancy jazz, but running ames and applications that don't fully utilize its power?

That's kinda what it's like. You can get a high end camera but if you don't know how to use a camera odds are your photos will look like shit. But once you learn enough about good settings and a bit of composition, your really good camera can help you.

So it's like if someone expects to be a gaming pro with all the latest gadgets or a hacker extraordinaire with the high end paid IDEs. It helps (cough), but you need to actually know what you're doing to fully utilize what you have.

Not really. Sure there's noise but you only see it if you zoom in. You might not see it at all if you shrank the resolution. It's a well-composed shot with good color balance, and that's all that really matters.

>with good color balance
>30% of completely crushed blacks

If you were an actual photographer and not a histogram babby you would realize some photos are fine with some crushed blacks or blown whites.

But yours isn't. You have a lot of details in your sky while the lower tier of your photo has way less which looks very odd.
Not to mention that the interesting object, the plane, has much lower values than the sky right above it which is confusing for the eyes.

I think we can assume in any discussion of people who actually know anything about cameras that those involved are going to know how to take a stable image.

>well do you know about sensor sizes, processing power, F. Stop, shutter speed, ISO, SD Write speed, etc. there is alot of factors and creativity to go along with.

Yes, that's only abut an hour or so of reading to understand the basics of. File formats and know how a particular camera deals with color would be the deeper subjects.

Who cares about complete beginners? They're not relevant.

Photography is a meme, and you guys will argue over fucking anything.

Gear matters, I am a professional and it absolutely matters
This board is full of teens who think their artsy shit pics are deep, the photos posted here are trash and that copy pasta about a chef is old
Bunch of retards who think their shitty b&w photos are art

Photography fags are the biggest fags of all. They are nu male cucks that love the cocks.

People argue about everything, photography is no exception

Camera is a tool. Better one makes the job easier but does not create pleasing images for you. That's up to the person taking the picture. Most of photography isn't about pixel peeping, jizzing over high resolution, high signal to noise ratio sensors or low distortion optics. The most important aspect is the person operating the camera. Starting from basic knowledge of your gear and then just having a keen eye for a nice shot. You can take great photographs with very modest gear. Battlestation threads here are a good example of people having decent cameras(modern smartphones) but don't have the slightest clue about how to operate them.

Also photography "community" doesn't agree on anything.

>Gear matters, I am a professional and it absolutely matters
I don't think anyone is arguing against this.

>He actually believes this

Look up Polaroid photographs taken by Tarkovsky. You can just by looking at them they were made by an expert.

>Can't take a good photo without $10,000 photography equipment
>Professional

You will have better success in life if you changed professions.

This is most certainly the case with video though. Regardless of skill a large portion of technology is focused on providing a entry level experience which matches that of a trained professional. Everything is running on autopilot for the most part its just how quick you can get to the end goal for the same amount of high standard video.

Part of it is a conspiracy by pro photographers to tell you to not buy better cameras and equipment because it threatens their occupation. They're quite a catty lot.

Well that was not me you were replying to. Here's the unedited version of my photo. It has much less contrast. Still, I didn't put that much time into taking this pic. I hopped out the plane, took the pic and rushed to pull it off the taxiway.

Because Professional photography is about composing, if you can't get that right then it wouldn't do much good getting a higher end camera.

That being said older professional cameras are still pretty good. The Canon 5D for example. It can still produce good images whilst having the attributes of a workhorse.

taken on a nexus 5, for confidencesweden

Shut it down.

Telephotos are for amateurs, it's all about the timing

Using a camera is fucking easy you retard.

Give me a 5D + a good lens and every photo I make is gold.

>Give me a 5D + a good lens and every photo I make is gold.
Maybe for YOU personally because you know what you're doing, but from what I see around the internet nobody knows what they're doing. I see photos here all the time that are like 5000x8gorillion pixels large but completely out of focus and blurry.

It's a bit of both but more like 70% photographer, 30% camera (and lenses, lenses are important, more important than the camera).

There's a lot more to taking a good photo than just pointing the camera and pressing the button, the knowledge is that of the photographer.
Good cameras only take good photos (consistently) when a good photographer is using them.

>Need to go outside the basement to take good photos
>Sup Forums

Just delete this thread already

You don't leave your basement?

Because they can't afford good cameras, so they make an excuse.

Any good websites or books to learn photography?

Because while the camera can make an image technically good the photographer makes it interesting and a good picture.
Autists shooting doorknobs with six figure large format or digital medium format setups take technically good pictures but they're completely uninteresting, no matter how much money or time they spent on it.

>doorknobs

Analogy:

Plenty of Sup Forums users have 3 large monitors, 32 GiB of RAM, $500 mechanical keyboards, yet struggle to implement fizz-buzz. On top of that, they act like they're hot shit and you "need" multiple monitors to be "productive".

Linus Torvalds maintains the world's largest open source project with a single monitor.

>Pic related
>good
lmao

You can get good studio shots with older DSLRs but outside in the real world you will notice the poor dynamic range and slow autofocus. In low light situations, a traditional CMOS cannot come close to the BSI sensor used in Sonys and Nikons. Older firmware comes with less options as well.

It's about the camera and who uses it. A good photographer can take good pictures with anything, but he can take more of everything with a good camera.

If you use everything in automatic, it dosen't really matter what you use. Of course a full sensor camera will do well in low light but really having the skill to take pictures is the factor that determines how useful the camera is.

Giving a D750 to a whore who takes crappy selfies through a mirror with the camera set to automatic is a waste. Giving it to someone who knows what it take to take good picture, it will look drastically different.

don't tell me he fell for the standing desk meme

Does she even know where that doorknob has been?

it's attached to the door. It hasn't gone anywhere in a long ass time.

Watch some.
They're fun for passing the time.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

Give a pro a piece of shit and they can still take great pics.

He experimented with the standing desk for a month or so and gave up on it.

Also, he usually has three monitors at once.

it's a treadmill actually.
so walking desk.

he actually mentioned that he can only walk on slowest setting because anything faster and his mouse movement get so disruptive he can no longer close a window kek

who knows

It is.

My buddy could take great pictures with my soviet-made Zenit ET (fully mechanical btw, even the lightmeter is analog - Selenium cell)

And I sometimes take blurry photos with my smartphone which is millenia ahead technology wise and has shitload of crutch-features.

You're all forgetting something.
Lenses.

hardcore hepatitis

i'm all about aperture size, shutter speeds, ISO, white balance, etc but don't quite have an eye for framing/composition.

used to set my camera up for my gf then let her take the pictures, which usually turned out better than anything either of us can take individually.

>16:9
>Vertical
>No rule of thirds
I want to puke

>he usually has three monitors at once.
[citation needed]

i have a Zenit E model, its a nice kamera

pic related, its from my zenit e,

>A great Russian analog camera takes better pictures than a shit phone camera with a babby lens
Gee, no shit

...

An old photograph that took 20 minutes of holding ones face perfectly still is not worse or better than a picture taken with a modern camera, it is merely different.

art ≠ medicine/science

God I hated this exhibition. Stupid crap.

good picture tho

ITT: Idiots who know shit about photography.

I disagree. Optics have improved. If you took that old camera and used newer lens technology to make a modern lens for it then took the same picture with all other things being equal then it would look better.

are you retarded? please say yes, I won't have to be sad for you those few hours before 2017.

Wrong. Sup Forums knows everything about everything :^)

Completely and utterly wrong. If you have a video camera on Auto you're making the most amateur mistake in the book. Anyone who has ever worked professionally with a camera know how useless Auto is. If you want to be good at photography, I found it best to start on a video camera because it outlines the importance of getting a perfect overall picture (camera placement, rule of thirds, focus, F stop, etc, etc) If you're letting Auto handle your focus and aperture it shows.

This is becoming both more and less relevant - modern sensors have such a pixel density that lens sharpness is increasingly important and while factors like distortion and chrommabs are important, speed is becoming less so when processors and sensors are usable at significantly higher ISO speeds.

On the same film stock lens is decisive, but on a modern digital MILC / DSLR camera the T-stop of the lens doesn't matter much. All other factors of the lens do matter though.

>Great
>Russian
Time to choose one.

CANON SHILLS ON DAMAGE CONTROL!!!

>>No rule of memes
go back to your shitty youtube self teaching channels or leddit

Zenit machines are great products of soviet engineering, fucking imperialist americuck

This this this.

/thread

This is comfy af.

you fucking ignorant swine

>youtu.be/uv0n52-ncmg

eat shit x3

/fuck you

Is a ~$100 camera good enough for baby's first camera?
Want to get into photography. And no my smartphone isn't good enough.

more like 199
Sony Cyber-shot HX300
>inb4 some tard saying shit against "bridge" cameras

This cameras are like testing the pool with your toes, if you like the whole f-number, evs, 1/500, etc etc etc then you can go to a dslr.
For most people dealing with all variables is a chore.

Can...can i be part??

Will check it out, danke

t. Ivan Ivanovich Ivanovsky

its all about the lenses, cunts.

Anything with manual settings is good when you're starting out. Save your money for when you know what you're doing and what you need to do it.

Camera doesn't matter, lens does.
You can take rebel camera and stick good lens on it, and take good quality photos.