Photography is not just about the camera

https://peter.czanik.hu/posts/photography-not-just-camera/

by kgerzson • 4 years ago

69 98 4 years ago

peter.czanik.hu

zwkrt• 4 years ago

Some photography wisdom:

  * To take more interesting photographs, put yourself in more interesting places
  * The best zoom lens is a good pair of sneakers
  * The best camera is the one you have with you
  * It’s easy to delete extra pictures, but it’s impossible to recreate a moment.
  * The pictures are there, and you just take them.

knaekhoved2• 4 years ago

The best zoom lens is a good pair of sneakers

I don't like this one, because it implies that you never want to change focal length for artistic/aesthetic effects, but this is one of the most important characteristics you can change!

johnsonap2• 4 years ago

I do think it's good advice for folks just getting into photography that you don't have to have every lens to get close to the image you want.

imwillofficial• 4 years ago

It doesn’t imply that at all. Best does not mean only.

exar0815• 4 years ago

I started taking photography serious about a year ago, and as I struggle with the last part, I tend to overdo 1. Additionally, as I do Deep Astro and Night Photography, I upgraded for better Low Light Performance as a lot of pictures just turned out barely okay due to camera limitations. However, I got some nice Aurora shots already, so I am quite happy with that.

lgreiv• 4 years ago

These reasons are why my Canon 7D sees a fraction of the use that my Ricoh GR III sees. A camera small enough to fit in my pockets with a superb image quality and a stabilizer that makes up several stops so no flash is needed.

knaekhoved2• 4 years ago

A good camera isn't necessary for a good photo... but it makes it a hell of a lot easier.

For me, upsides of a good camera include:

    * More precise control over photographic characteristics (most important for artistic purposes: depth of field and exposure time)
    * Higher information-theoretic entropy of image (which leads to better perceived photo quality and more flexibility in post-processing)
    * Ability to bypass or customize automation around color science, de-noising, etc. so that you're not stuck with whatever style the device has built in
    * ILCs allow you to select a lens and other optical components that match the artistic goals you have in mind (esp. focal length)

neverartful2• 4 years ago

"A good camera isn't necessary for a good photo... but it makes it a hell of a lot easier."

Particularly true if you have a good, modern smartphone and are in poor lighting. I witnessed this the other day in Carlsbad Caverns. I was astonished at how good the photos came out from those in my group using iPhone 12, iPhone 8, and Samsung Galaxy (not sure of the exact model, but at least 2 years old).

woodruffw• 4 years ago

We've come all the way around on the poor old Lubitel: hipsters now crave them because of the "swirly" bokeh. Some examples here[1].

[1] https://wkoopmans.ca/notebook/?p=15347#

symfoniq• 4 years ago

As I was reminded this morning by the incredible colors of the sunrise over a fog-covered lake, photography is hardly about the camera at all, and mostly about the light.

neverartful2• 4 years ago

And the composition!

bigyikes• 4 years ago

One underrated benefit of wielding a standalone camera is the mindset it puts you in.

When I use my phone, I find myself not putting as much thought into the shot. For whatever reason, holding a nice camera puts me into a creative state of mind. It makes photography more fun, and I end up with better photos simply because I’m more engaged.

Someone1234• 4 years ago

I agree, but I'd go one step further: Even a lot of digital cameras have too many bells and whistles, so something like a Fujifilm X100 series or only shooting with a single prime on a mirrorless body can help.

A lot of "serious" [online] photography people dismiss or even mock automatic mode, but honestly subject, scene, and theme (and or story telling) is far more important than ISO/shutter speed/aperture/etc, yet every photography tutorial or guide is focused on the least important part (i.e. mastery of dry settings/specs/tech).

I'd point people to "toy camera challenge" on YouTube or elsewhere, where photographers are able to take an e.g. 1.4 megapixel Barbie Camera with no settings and produce better photos than you or I.

PS - While I'm saying photography heresy let me also say this: Shooting straight to JPG (instead of RAW) and picking a single color palette for longer periods will help you understand your photographic taste and really force you to capture the scene in front of you rather than creating the final product in post-production. Is it suboptimal? Absolutely. Is learning post-production tooling useful? Sure. But artificial restrictions often breed creativity, and post-production can become a crutch.

lake_vincent• 4 years ago

Yes, this!! I'll be in the car and will pull over to take good photos of a sunset if I have my DSLR with me, but not if I just have my phone. I agree there is a different mode it puts me in that a phone camera has yet to capture.

shagie2• 4 years ago

... and once you can get within that mindset and understand the limitations of the tool and how to play with it...

You can find people like Ted Orland.

I'm still in awe of his Dawn at Mono Lake in Winter ( https://shop.anseladams.com/collections/ted-orland/products/... ) and Tree in Snowstorm ( https://shop.anseladams.com/collections/ted-orland/products/... ). Some others - https://web.archive.org/web/20070302193018/http://www.tedorl...

These photos where shot and then reassembled afterwards. One of the neat things with them is that you can see the outside the frame information on the print - and so seeing an "11" in one spot followed with a bit of rotation on another square with a "12" - you can feel how the photograph was taken - its like seeing the brush strokes on a painting.

He took regular photos too - Ted Orland Black & White "Even Ansel Adams Has To Make A Living" 1972 https://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/wall-decorations/photograp... (I recall chatting with a photographer who had a gallery in Bishop - it wasn't Galen Rowell, but someone with one nearby - and the mundane aspect of being a professional photographer meant bidding against the other photographers who lived in the area for the school photo contract that year. This is what Ted Orland was hinting at in the title, even though I don't believe that was a regular school photo.)

NegativeK2• 4 years ago

Do not discourage anyone from pursuing photography just because they are using a mobile or a point and shoot camera.

Similarly, do not discourage anyone from pursuing photography by telling them that they have to start with something like film.

This extends to trying to tell people that they should learn programming by starting with (for example) assembly instead of python.

eternityforest• 4 years ago

I think starting with ASM might even be counterproductive. Low level coding is a useful tool for performance optimization, but most of the time programmers are thinking at high levels of abstraction and don't need to bother with details.

ASM seems to give people a really bottom up mindset and it takes a while to adapt to Python-ish practices. ASM people think "Oh I could do it these ways from scratch", Python people think "I know just how to express that in terms of this highly optimized numpy object".

samsolomon• 4 years ago

Most people just want to build stuff. Programming is just one way to do that.

I took two semesters of computer science in college—working in Java. I hated it. I just wanted to build websites that did things and those courses didn't get me any closer. I built a bunch of apps that had to be compiled and nobody would ever use them. I swore programming off until I discovered WordPress a year later and started building WordPress themes.

GuB-42• 4 years ago

I disagree. Abstractions are leaky, and I think that demystifying the computer is important. You may spend more time with high level abstractions, but under that is hardware that has registers, memory, jump instructions, etc... it is not magic, and if you expect your computer to do magic, it won't work.

And what you call bottom-up approaches have value too. You talk about "how to express in numpy?", as if you were dead set on using numpy. But it numpy the right choice? It is highly optimized, sure, but is it highly optimized for your use case? A "bottom-upper" will start to think "how will I solve this problem" and then look for something that will make their task easier. It may be numpy, it may be "from scratch" or it may be something else. Ideally both approaches will lead to the same conclusion. The numpy guy may realize that his favorite library is not the right choice in the same way that the ASM guy may realize that his solution is already implemented in a library.

Anyways, a good programmer needs to have an idea of the whole spectrum, from hardware architecture to assembly to low level languages like C to high level languages like Python. Start where you want.

eternalban2• 4 years ago

film requires processing -> compiled language.

digital does not -> interpreted language.

p.s. if your goal is professional s/e it is hardly a bad idea to start with a compiled (i.e. film) language. something similar likely applies for photography.

frxx• 4 years ago

Digital requires processing too. As far as I understand the light sensing silicon is kind of analog, but even after that the camera can't see color just yet. Huge amount of processing is involved.

random42_• 4 years ago

Similarly, do not discourage anyone from pursuing photography by telling them that they have to start with something like film.

When I started photography as a hobby years ago, the community in the forums never suggested I used film, neither did friends (a couple of them working at pro level) and colleagues. I know there are some snob people out there but even the ones I’ve met never actually said to start with film.

That being said, every one of them gave the same advice: don’t worry too much about the gear; instead, go learn light and composition.

Aeolun2• 4 years ago

Try taking some good pictures with a legacy polaroid :P

After you manage that you can do the same with any other camera to improve quality.

I think I’d suggest film because it’s just much more fun and physical, not because it gives you better pictures.

anta40• 4 years ago

"by telling them that they have to start with something like film"

Hehehe I think only film snobs do that. Film is fun but these days for beginners, grab a digital camera because of instant feedback: you'll automatically see the image you've taken. And if you use more sophisticated camera, you can also see the histogram. Useful for analyzing your exposure. Not impossible with film camera.

Once you are comfortable with your exposure, then jump into film.

mikewarot• 4 years ago

Digital cameras are sufficiently good now that the camera is almost never the limiting factor. One of my favorite photos to illustrate that is the composite I shot a few days after wearing out the shutter on my Nikon D40, and having a cheap zoom camera in hand, feeling experimenty... I took this by laying down in front of the bean and doing a 180 half sphere with about 33 exposures in "sports" mode, where the camera just keeps taking things. (This was a $100 camera, not an DSLR)

https://flickr.com/photos/---mike---/51858792421/in/album-72...

I strongly agree with the idea of taking photos when there's doubt.. I've regretted not taking photos I was uncertain of. I almost never regret taking too many.

squokko• 4 years ago

There are three ways to take great photographs:

1) Go to the most interesting places 2) Take photos at the most perfect moment 3) Have a great understanding of light

You don't need to do all three, just any one of them is enough. But the camera can be anything if you do one of those three things.

LeafItAlone• 4 years ago

I’d argue that 1) isn’t even a good way to take “great” photos. I have been to very interesting places and my pictures are still terrible and not “great”.

0_____0• 4 years ago

Yep. There's a saying in photojournalism -- "f/8 and be there."

chrstphrknwtn• 4 years ago

I don't think these describe qualities of great photographs.

What is an interesting place? Or the perfect moment? Or great light? These are all pretty subjective.

What defines a 'great photo' is so subjective and loaded, that it's basically pointless to discuss in the abstract.

_visgean2• 4 years ago

A lot of street photographers would disagree with you, sometimes taking an interesting angle of everyday place is far more interesting because it gives people a new way of looking at something they experience themselves..

SoftTalker2• 4 years ago

I used to be into photography back in the film era. I gradually figured out that what I liked was the process -- taking the photos, getting the focus and exposure right, developing the film, using the enlarger and making prints -- but then I never looked at the photos again. So I've basically stopped taking them. It was all just a lot of effort for zero return. As a result, the camera is the least interesting feature of a smartphone for me.

acherion2• 4 years ago

I read this comment and all I thought was "that's a real shame" that you stopped taking photos just because of the end result. You said yourself, that you liked the process. Surely in this case, the journey is the reward, not the destination? It doesn't matter if you don't look at the photos anymore, the time you're spending doing the aspects of the hobby that you enjoy more, surely that is enough to satiate the appetite?

Even if you just stop at developing the film, and then storing it in a folder / booklet that has the 35mm film sleeves inside them (yes, you can still get those), you can do like 80% of the "fun" part of your photographic journey, and developed film in a folder will only take up the space of a decent sized book on your bookshelf.

For what it's worth, I started with DSLR photography and am now (as of late last year) getting into film photography and really am enjoying it. I don't develop my own film, I send it off to a lab, but I still get a thrill out of the whole process, even if I'm not involved in some parts of it.

SoftTalker2• 4 years ago

Yeah I just lost interest I guess. For whatever reason, I just have zero interest in taking pictures of stuff now. Even as cheap and easy as it is to do digitally, I just never sit down and look at the photos again so it seems like a waste of time.

lizknope• 4 years ago

I've been taking photos for 35 years and I would say that the camera is the LEAST important part of photography.

Composition and lighting are far more important. For film cameras the lens is far more important than the camera which is mostly just a light tight box. An experienced photographer can still produce amazing images from cheap cameras.

All that said I have thousands of dollars of camera gear. It absolutely helps but if I give it all to a random person on the street they aren't going to instantly become a better photographer.

cesaref• 4 years ago

Yeah, exactly right.

It's very easy to think that gear is important, but the progress in recent years is towards quicker photo taking, which is actually the opposite of what helps me take better photos. I find that a decent quality manual focus camera without a light meter slows me down enough for me to get into the right frame of mind to understand what i'm looking at.

bergenty2• 4 years ago

The camera is definitely not the least important part. Try taking a picture with an iPhone 4 vs an iPhone 14. No matter how well you compose a picture, poor image quality automatically makes it look bad.

neoromantique• 4 years ago

https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/22/iphone-photography-award-winn...

gsich• 4 years ago

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/not-about-your-camera.htm#t...

jiggawatts2• 4 years ago

People always downvote these types of comments, but it’s true. I had one of the first generation consumer digital cameras (Sony F717), and I could only rarely get a decent photo out of it. I never once got a “wow” shot or anything worth printing.

A few years later with a Nikon D90 it was possible to get amazing, print-worthy shots by accident… through the window of a moving car!

p1necone2• 4 years ago

Poor example maybe - you can't buy an iPhone 4 anymore. Maybe camera quality mattered when it was current because there were lots of bad cameras around, but now the range is more from "good enough" to "great" and so it doesn't matter so much.

matwood2• 4 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o063wC_SNxo

est• 4 years ago

camera is the LEAST important part of photography.
Composition and lighting are far more important

yeah a good camera enables more angles/speed and allows more dynamic range or better pictures under low-light conditions.

Good composition and lighting processing is THE most important part of camera design.

shagie2• 4 years ago

The two "most important" and "debate" jokes of photography that I recall...

The three most important things in photography: the legs of the tripod

New photographers argue Nikon vs Canon. Middling photographers argue Leica vs Hasselblad. Expert photographers argue Gitzo vs Manfrotto.

brudgers• 4 years ago

I disagree.

Because different cameras facilitate different types of pictures. Partially through ergonomics, partially through technical capabilities, and partially because these overlap.

An iPhone SE has a different picture making envelope than an 8x10 large format view camera, and both are quite different from the latest full frame DSLR (which offers different ergonomics and capabilities than a similarly sensored mirrorless).

What I would say is that the camera is among the least interesting aspects of a picture…not the least interesting because the color of the photographer’s pants is objectively less interesting.

The focus on cameras is in part because shopping is easier than making pictures.

And the ways in which better cameras are described as better is usually by parroting the marketing points of camera manufacturers…the sharpest of corners won’t make anyone weep.

p1necone2• 4 years ago

The focus on cameras is in part because shopping is easier than making pictures.

I feel like this is a trend in a lot of hobbies. People (myself included) find it really fun to deep dive into research and collecting things related to some hobby they supposedly find interesting. But the actual doing the hobby part is really just some scaffolding to enable that research and collecting.

stephen_g• 4 years ago

I get why people do this, but I think think you’re massively underplaying the importance of gear. I just can’t take anything like the same kind of pictures with an old iPhone that I can with my 1986 Mamiya 645 and the beautiful old lenses. It opens up huge possibilities for art, with obvious limitations. My expensive DSLR and nice modern lenses opens up other options, more control, more resolution, different feel and a different output.

The truth is that good gear is worthless for somebody who doesn’t know what you’re doing, but it’s essential for a skilled photographer to open up the possibilities and flexibility to get the kind of result they want. It’s not even ‘expensive gear’ - my 645 was only $600 from eBay (and a couple of old lenses only a few hundred) but I’ve taken some great stuff with it and I love the experience and feel of working with film. But it serves a different purpose than my far more expensive DSLR setup, and I still take a lot of everyday photos on my phone.

david38• 4 years ago

Nice gear makes using it a pleasure. If you don’t feel encumbered by the gear, you are far more likely to actually use, and thus get good.

Musical instruments, bikes, motorcycles, computers, and everything else imaginable is the same. If only for the feeling that it feels like it helps you, you should get what you want within the restrictions you have.

wrp2• 4 years ago

...the camera is the LEAST important part of photography.

Having used a view camera, which really is nothing more than a flexible box, this sentiment resonates with me. But, I can see how different types of camera support types of picture-taking that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

Max-q• 4 years ago

Just like running is not all about the shoes an programming is not all about the text editor.

I would think few people had the view that anything is mostly about the tools involved

Aeolun2• 4 years ago

Hmm, that’s an interesting comparison. Using Intellij instead of Notepad doesn’t automatically produce good code, but it sure helps you write it.

fleddr3• 4 years ago

"A good photographer can take a great photo with low-end gear"

Yet an even better shot with better gear.

"A bad photographer with good gear doesn't produce good photos"

Yet still a better photo compared to low-end gear.

My point is that better gear tends to produce better photos at a technical level, regardless of skill. Skill and gear are parallel tracks, not things at odds with each other.

The categories of photography where gear is less important, are fairly limited. Using a mobile phone and some artistic skill you can make quite decent photos of people, large animals that are close, a building here and there, and some landscapes.

Yet if you look at the types of photography where you find the gear-heads, you'll find that most often high-end gear is required, and just skill doesn't cut it.

In wildlife and sports photography, you need big glass. Even if you have it, you may notice your neighbor has AI focus detection and 40fps capturing. He has keepers, you miss the shot or have out of focus ones. Skill cannot compensate for these massive differences in capability.

In macro photography, you need highly specialized gear and lighting equipment. It's a gear-heavy discipline.

In higher-end portrait photography, you need large aperture lenses and lighting systems that do not overheat.

In landscape photography where you want maximum detail, you require high MP cameras, specific lenses and decent tripods.

In none of these cases can you compensate the need for gear with skill.

hbn• 4 years ago

"A bad photographer with good gear doesn't produce good photos"
Yet still a better photo compared to low-end gear.

Give me an iPhone I can take a half-decent photo.

Give me some fancy DSLR camera with 3000 settings and 20 lenses and I'll have no idea where to even start getting a good photo.

Myself and most other people don't want to learn how to work a camera, we want to point and shoot.

koube• 4 years ago

It depends a lot on what you are trying to do. I agree that most photos an iPhone is sufficient. You do not need bokeh/low light/superzoom for the vast, VAST majority of photos. Once you are going for a certain look or a certain quality of photo though you're going to need to invest in camera gear. It's the margins in which you need the expensive camera stuff, not in the main body of photos, and GP lists some of these margins.

I have put thousands into a lens just for taking photos indoors of my kids. Is it overkill? Absolutely. Do I think every cent of it was worth it for me? Absolutely. Not disagreeing with you though, I wouldn't at all recommend that others do the same as me.

fleddr3• 4 years ago

I understand what you're saying, but it wasn't my main point. I probably expressed it poorly.

I was considering an artistically lacking photographer with good gear, that knows how the gear works. That's the typical target of these discussions. So the gap is artistic skill, not technical skill.

I totally agree with your conclusion that most people don't want to bother with any of this.

colund• 4 years ago

Most DSLR/mirror less cameras have auto/P mode where you can basically point and shoot and get a picture with better background blur, details, low light performance and less noise than smart phones

Smart phones have smaller sensors and not as good lenses as for example full frame cameras.

lmm2• 4 years ago

How are you defining "better" non-tautologically here? Photographers pay more for lenses with worse optical characteristics that are physically bigger, for example, since looking "pro" is more valuable than having more control over the kind of photos you take.

fleddr3• 4 years ago

"Photographers pay more for lenses with worse optical characteristics..."

??? Example?

dale_glass2• 4 years ago

Yeah, I'm going to disagree somewhat.

Human skill is important, but what having good equipment gives you is a lot less limitations. There are many situations where tech makes taking good pictures a LOT easier.

Think for instance of a sports match -- your chances of taking any good pictures of the action get a whole lot better if you have a humongous zoom lens with a high end camera attached to it.

Same with nature -- yeah, you don't want to "use your legs to zoom" when taking a picture of a lion.

Macro, you can use extension tubes, but bet you wouldn't say no to a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 -- that's not just macro, it magnifies by up to 5x. If you've ever seen some crazy closeup of a fly that's probably what it was made with.

For something more mundane, try shooting inside at a dimly lit Christmas party -- that works best with the right, wide aperture lens. Great, you got a cheap 50mm f/1.4, but indoors in a cramped room you can't back out through the wall when mounting it on a crop camera.

My best anime conventions were taking by dragging huge amounts of equipment to the con. Here they do them at ugly places with ugly backgrounds and not a lot of nature or anything attractive nearby. My solution was borrowing Canon's 85mm f/1.2. That's a $3600 humongous chunk of glass, but boy does it work. At conventions people put a lot of work into the costumes -- a 50mm f/1.4 may do okay headshots, but little else.

Then there's the cool camera features -- good autofocus, low noise for high ISO, weather sealing for shooting in the rain, stabilization... those also lower the difficulty of taking a picture by a lot in many circumstances. While somebody is trying to set up a tripod and put an umbrella over it, you can just hand hold it.

Yeah, a pro photographer can work wonders with old or bad equipment -- so long the specific subject isn't important. If you have a specific task you want to accomplish the unfortunate truth is that throwing cash at it makes it a lot easier a lot of the time.

lmm2• 4 years ago

My best anime conventions were taking by dragging huge amounts of equipment to the con. Here they do them at ugly places with ugly backgrounds and not a lot of nature or anything attractive nearby. My solution was borrowing Canon's 85mm f/1.2. That's a $3600 humongous chunk of glass, but boy does it work. At conventions people put a lot of work into the costumes -- a 50mm f/1.4 may do okay headshots, but little else.

Cosplay is a good example. To unify this with what the article is saying, in my experience if someone takes the time to find a suitable, well-lit setting, then even if they use a phone they'll get a better photoshoot than any amount of expensive camera can get them. But of course if you're trying to shoot dozens of people in a few days at a convention then equipment that will deliver under less-than-optimal conditions hugely improves what you can do in the time and space available.

dale_glass2• 4 years ago

Certainly, a good setting improves matters! But here for some reason it's very common to do anime cons at convention centers that are built in the cheapest way possible. Think a huge, empty square box, with a rough and dirty floor like a parking garage and a ceiling full of cabling and ventilation ducts. It just clashes horribly with anything not post-apocalyptic.

The lines of sight can be very long so something unfitting in the background is near guaranteed, and they like to mix and match lighting temperatures often with lights right next to each other.

deathanatos• 4 years ago

Same with nature

This was exactly the thought, and example, I had reading the article.

The last "oh wow" level photo I took was of a dragonfly perched on a flower on the shore of a lake. My phone would never have taken the photo; it lacks the hardware necessary to capture that photo. It's not a lion, but you can't walk up to a dragonfly: it would have flown away.

Not only the zoom problem, but for that particular photo I took a series of photos at just ever so slightly different focuses. Autofocus is only so good … and sometimes just completely misses the mark; I have fought my phone on this so many times, with it just picking the wrong spot continuously. Much easier to aim a camera's autofocus, and if that fails I can manual.

But even then, sometimes the autofocus is "right" (in that it hits the right target), but I find it's still only so good. And a dragonfly is not a large target; if it's off even a bit, blur. Sometimes it's such that I can look at the preview/view finder, and it looks in focus, but once the photo is taken, it's close … but not perfect, and it ruins the wow. Hence, manual focus and just spreading a bunch of shots across the nearby range — one is bound to be close.

I've also shot dance competitions, and they're dimly lit. Looks nice, but you need a real lens to get sufficient photons.

Absolutely composition matters … but if you're just consistently missing due to the hardware, then even if you get it right, the photo is still lacking.

codazoda• 4 years ago

I’m a casual photographer. I once purchased a $20 digital “toy” camera. I believe I got some of the best pictures I’ve ever taken from that camera. Unfortunately I stored them on a cloud service and they eventually decided to wipe them out.

iscrewyou• 4 years ago

Those disposable camera photos are some of the best photos I’ve ever taken.

_visgean2• 4 years ago

Yes, I blamed boring photos on the cheap cameras even though my exposures were 100% perfect

if you look how exposure metering works its just context free averaging over some defined parameters.. it does not say much about the photo, its just a tool you can use to control the camera..

knorker• 4 years ago

To me the main difference is in challenging circumstances.

All those "taken with an iphone/pixel/samsung" ads are not proving anything, because they can only take that in absolute perfect conditions.

But make the conditions less perfect and suddenly the camera matters more. Things like you need more control of DoF. Or it's a bit dark.

But that's going after perfection. Nobody cares about DoF, noise, colors, or clarity if it's a boring photo.

Even with perfect gear sometimes you have to take the slightly fuzzier photo, or the one where the focus is on the eyelash instead of the iris, because the one where focus was perfect was less... good.

djleni• 4 years ago

Does anyone have a resource they like for improving composition in photography?

oldstrangers2• 4 years ago

Composition has always been intuitive to me for whatever reason, but I also grew up obsessing over the work of Lothar Wolleh so maybe that had a big part in it.

A big improvement that most new photographers are taught in school is to pay attention to the background. Obviously the subject is important, but you should be able to account for everything you want (or don't want) in the photo.

enaaem• 4 years ago

My favourite type of photography is snapshot photography. Pictures that feel like dreams and memories. Recording interesting and spontaneous visuals in everyday life. I use a compact film camera on auto that I always carry in my jacket. It’s a very fun experience.

oldstrangers2• 4 years ago

My interest in gear has always been a sort of nerdy sideline of the actual photography. After 20+ years, I get just as much fun out of trying new/different gear as I do actually taking photos.

I also personally hate editing photos (its just boring), so getting it as close to perfect in the camera as possible is an important point for me.

Manuel_D• 4 years ago

This is mostly true, though gear can matter significantly in specific situations. Sport and bird photography benefits from good autofocus and low noise at high sensitivity.

Also, the main thing that sets dedicated DSLR/mirrorless cameras apart from smartphones is the ability to trigger external flash. Artificial lighting can really change your photography.

heikkilevanto• 4 years ago

In my young days, long before internet, I was given the advice that there are photo clubs where the people discuss photos, and camera clubs where the people discuss cameras. Both are worthy in their own right, but I should pay attention and choose the kind that works for me. I chose a photo club, and learned a bit about photography. Over the time I did buy fancier equipment, had my own darkroom, etc. But I was still more interested in good pictures than equipment. I have seen the same divide in many other fields too, from hiking equipment (vs hiking experiences) to cars (vs driving) to hifi (vs listening to good music). Not to mention computers, language wars, or editor preferences.

wrp2• 4 years ago

Yes, they are really two different hobbies, equally valid. On the equipment side, I think of it as being interested in the engineering of things. I guess you could say that the "using" side of the divide regards equipment merely as a means to an end.

tartoran• 4 years ago

There’s technique, equipment and essence. You seem to favor the essence, the process and final output in a practical or esthetic sense. I am like you as well. But even that last part can suffer the same divide where an interminable theoretical discussion can be had around it. I think in the end we gravitate towards what we’re good at and what ticks our minds. Luckily there is a variety of minds and modes of thinking

jeromenerf• 4 years ago

There’s technique, equipment and essence.

A nice pyramid way to phrase it. As for any other thing, people may have an innate fit for a certain position within, but my belief if that people usually develop in all dimensions. Not everyone will need to develop their film or buy a medium format digital camera though.

bittercynic• 4 years ago

I sense this kind of divide even within myself, and I think it's a little unfortunate.

Reveling in music you love is great! And enthusing over interesting hifi equipment is great!

Do what you love, if you have that luxury, but why be dismissive of related hobbies?

mc32• 4 years ago

I agree with both, but I also think most people would benefit from refraining from going overboard (buying lightest most expensive bike components rather than losing a little weight) in any case, it's not like those grams are going to propel you to win whatever prize against professionals.

lo_zamoyski• 4 years ago

Indeed, this is often how you distinguish between a mere camera trivia nerd (or camera salesman) from someone with an eye for composition, color, and proportion.

freetime22• 4 years ago

I think that lenses matter quite a bit. Not that you can't get great photos with a bad lens, but having a wide range of focal lengths and apertures to play around with opens up a lot of creative possibilities.

I would also say that the lenses on smartphones are still a big limitation - although becoming less so with every generation as manufactures continue to cram in larger aperture lenses, bigger sensors, and multiple cameras for wide-angle and telephoto shots. "Portrait mode" for simulating larger apertures also continues to improve with each generation to the point where I think it is now at least worth giving it a try, even if it doesn't always produce usable results.

sakopov• 4 years ago

I have been dabbling with landscape photography [1] off and on for a little over 10 years. I remember following a person on Flickr who would take astounding landscape pictures where the entire image is in sharp focus front-to-back and the composition itself looked like a painting. That set me off on a mission to figure out how to do this. I learned how to focus-stack and do simple DoF calculations, and prevent camera shake to get the sharpest image out of my kit lens. I eventually upgraded my tripod and my lens to one of Nikon's holy trinity lenses (70-200mm f2.8) and saw immediate improvement in quality and sharpness. Then I began experimenting with different light conditions as I was chasing sunsets and sunrises all over Colorado. My photography got a little better but I still couldn't get the "painted" effect. I ended up buying lens filters and lens adapters which got me nowhere. Then I dabbled with HDR thinking that was the most likely explanation and that was also wrong.

One weekend I ended up taking a trip to Sand Dunes National Park to take pictures of the sunset over the dunes. Unfortunately, I mistimed my trip and by the time I climbed the middle dune the sun had already set. I thought I'll just stay and take pictures of the night sky instead. While I was waiting, I snapped a few long-exposure pictures during the last minutes of the "blue hour." I've never done it before thinking that I'll just have a bunch of washed out images. When I came home and loaded a few shots into Lightroom I was shocked to find the exact "painted" effect I was looking for. [2] It's not by any means the best image, but it's my "eureka!" shot.

A large part of photography is about training your eyes to see something interesting, making unique compositions out the things in front of you and playing around with the light. With that said, the camera, lens and tripod you use make the entire journey less dubious and more pleasant for sure.

[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeyakopov

[2] https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeyakopov/37182230034/in/ph...

sbf501• 4 years ago

In my experience I've witnessed that engineers/programmers have two dominant hobbies: woodworking, and photography. (Followed closely by cooking.)

I don't know which is worse financially for the person, but I've seen tens of thousands of dollars thrown at both. I'm not going to comment out the results... oh who am I kidding, of COURSE I am. We know where this is headed and what I'm going to say. Lots of really crappy furniture made on Festool/SawStop/Powermatic tools, and lots of really crappy compositions taken with Zeiss glass and Leica bodies.

As everyone has heard (or will hear): tools don't make the artist.

q-base• 4 years ago

It's a balance. But the camera is still the tool you use to take/make the pictures.

A bigger or newer hammer won't automatically make me better at driving in nails. But it is still a tool that I use to perform my trade. If there is a hammer that makes it easier, more enjoyable or even one that inspires me more (bad example with hammers probably), then it can make sense to buy that one.

Objectively there are probably more cases of the equipment out-shining the user, than users held back by their equipment.

But if people want the latest and greatest - go ahead.

raghug• 4 years ago

Here are some of my pictures with mobile. https://www.instagram.com/raghughanapuram/

manv1• 4 years ago

A better camera can make you a better photographer, in that it can help you get the image you want.

There are pictures I can't get with my 50mm 1.4. There are pictures I can't get with my 200mm 2.8. I can get a reasonable facsimile with my phone camera.

But it's all about tradeoffs. As someone or another said, the picture you don't take won't be any good.

Photography is not just about the camera

Related Stories