Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Started Aug 10, 2014 | Discussions
Glen Barrington
Glen Barrington Forum Pro • Posts: 20,020
Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?
2
 Glen Barrington's gear list:Glen Barrington's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 +12 more
mostlyboringphotog Senior Member • Posts: 8,644
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Glen Barrington wrote:

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/07/09/photographer-spotlight-eduardo-acierno/

No, as no photographer ever took a picture without a camera, it's a camera first.

 mostlyboringphotog's gear list:mostlyboringphotog's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Pentax 645Z Nikon 1 J5
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,400
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Well, it's certainly a very unique and personal way of seeing.  The work appears somewhat strange, to me. The color is weird. That's probably part of its appeal.

Mike_PEAT Forum Pro • Posts: 13,344
I've taken photographs without a camera!
5

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

No, as no photographer ever took a picture without a camera, it's a camera first.

Sure they have, I've done it!  In the darkroom you place objects right onto the print and expose the paper to light.  It's called a photogram, I did my first one when I was 11:

Glen Barrington
OP Glen Barrington Forum Pro • Posts: 20,020
Look up the photographer Mann Ray. . . n/t

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

Glen Barrington wrote:

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/07/09/photographer-spotlight-eduardo-acierno/

No, as no photographer ever took a picture without a camera, it's a camera first.

-- hide signature --

I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/

 Glen Barrington's gear list:Glen Barrington's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 +12 more
mostlyboringphotog Senior Member • Posts: 8,644
Re: I've taken photographs without a camera!

Mike_PEAT wrote:

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

No, as no photographer ever took a picture without a camera, it's a camera first.

Sure they have, I've done it! In the darkroom you place objects right onto the print and expose the paper to light. It's called a photogram, I did my first one when I was 11:...

Of course, one could say the tarnish on a silverware is a kind of photogram and also can make a case that a painting is a direct deposition of color pigments.

On one hand, the modern marvel that is a camera can take a photo almost by itself but if a photographer did not take a photo, what would be the point? If everyone was blind, would it matter who or what took a photo?

But a photographer is a photographer because he/she carries camera; other than that he/she may just be an accountant.

Now, if the question is who is a better photographer, the one who carries FF or the one who carries FZ1000? This would be like asking who is a better shot, one who carries AK-47 or Saturday night special?

 mostlyboringphotog's gear list:mostlyboringphotog's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Pentax 645Z Nikon 1 J5
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,240
Sort of
4

The proof is a good photographer can get the most out of what ever camera he has. That doesn't change the fact that a P&S is limited to a narrow range of photography with static subjects in good light and prints that are not too big.

-- hide signature --

Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
Glen Barrington
OP Glen Barrington Forum Pro • Posts: 20,020
I think it's really a question of . . .
2

tbcass wrote:

The proof is a good photographer can get the most out of what ever camera he has. That doesn't change the fact that a P&S is limited to a narrow range of photography with static subjects in good light and prints that are not too big.

  1. Having something to say,
  2. knowing how you want to say it,
  3. and knowing how to make the gear you have, do what you need it to do
  4. AND knowing when the gear can't take you where you want to go.

I think all good photography starts with the photographer, and pretty much ends with the photographer.  The gear is important to be sure, but only so far as the photographer knows how to use it.

-- hide signature --

I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/

 Glen Barrington's gear list:Glen Barrington's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 +12 more
richiebee
richiebee Veteran Member • Posts: 3,673
All is not as it seems...
4

Why? He uses a Canon full frame camera. Its funny that he loves to talk about his equipment but the article only mentions one old P&S and not what camera was used for each image in the article, or indeed what camera he uses now.

I won't take anything away from his now excellent photography, but my reading of the article led to an implication that he still uses that old Sony P&S, and not only does he not, but also not all of the images in the article used that camera. Even that first image... definitely not what came out of the camera. The post production is pretty rough.

 richiebee's gear list:richiebee's gear list
Nikon D610 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +17 more
mostlyboringphotog Senior Member • Posts: 8,644
Re: I think it's really a question of . . .

Glen Barrington wrote:

tbcass wrote:

The proof is a good photographer can get the most out of what ever camera he has. That doesn't change the fact that a P&S is limited to a narrow range of photography with static subjects in good light and prints that are not too big.

  1. Having something to say,
  2. knowing how you want to say it,
  3. and knowing how to make the gear you have, do what you need it to do
  4. AND knowing when the gear can't take you where you want to go.

I think all good photography starts with the photographer, and pretty much ends with the photographer. The gear is important to be sure, but only so far as the photographer knows how to use it.

I wanted to add the obvious that any photography, good or bad, starts with a photographer and the resulting the image (regardless of the process - choice of cam, PP, printing and mounting, etc) that the photographer chooses to display will be judged good or bad independent of the photographer.

-- hide signature --

I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/

 mostlyboringphotog's gear list:mostlyboringphotog's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Pentax 645Z Nikon 1 J5
bosjohn21
bosjohn21 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,617
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

Glen Barrington wrote:

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/07/09/photographer-spotlight-eduardo-acierno/

No, as no photographer ever took a picture without a camera, it's a camera first.

this is not entirely true. we used to put stuff on paper in a printing frame and expose it. made some great shadows

-- hide signature --

John aka bosjohn21

mostlyboringphotog Senior Member • Posts: 8,644
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

bosjohn21 wrote:

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

Glen Barrington wrote:

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/07/09/photographer-spotlight-eduardo-acierno/

No, as no photographer ever took a picture without a camera, it's a camera first.

this is not entirely true. we used to put stuff on paper in a printing frame and expose it. made some great shadows

I guess smiley is not enough to convey the silliness of this kind of the thread.

-- hide signature --

John aka bosjohn21

Also, it made me think of the negative imprints of hands on cave painting...

 mostlyboringphotog's gear list:mostlyboringphotog's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Pentax 645Z Nikon 1 J5
new boyz Regular Member • Posts: 360
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?
3

It's the post processing techniques.

 new boyz's gear list:new boyz's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +1 more
anisah
anisah Contributing Member • Posts: 520
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

This thread seemed to start as a consideration of whether the good photographer really needed the best equipment, but, like many other threads in the forums overall, seems to have lost its way a bit.

In any era it is reasonable that many photographers will want to use the best equipment available or that they can financially afford to use, but consider that many of the great photographers from before the 1940s, and even much later, took fantastic pictures with equipment that we, today, would not even give house room to and would consider very mediocre when compared to present cameras. Truthfully, it is not so long agon that serious photographers would not use digital cameras as the images they produced were so poor. Now things have changed, and they will change again - of that we can be sure.

Yes, a photographer needs a camera, but camera technology is constantly evolving. The new technology sometimes brings breakthroughs that allow photographers to take pictures that were not previously possible, but may of the older forms of photography, eg reportage, phot realism, street photography, still depend more on the "eye" of the photographer than on the advanced technology in use. In truth, the user and the technology are both important, but the balance between them often depends on what you are trying to photograph.

-- hide signature --

"The only thing certain about life is uncertainty." (Rabbi Berel Wein)
"We must learn to love the man who differs from us in opinion." (Swami Vivekananda)

 anisah's gear list:anisah's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Nikon Coolpix AW130 Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III +13 more
Gato Amarillo Veteran Member • Posts: 5,844
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Sort of, yes.

No one is going to rise to the top in photography based solely on their equipment. You could just as easily come at it from the other side and link something like a flckr gallery from a pro camera model - they vast majority of the photos would range from OK down to awful, with probably less than 5% being really original or exciting.

Gear without vision is wasted.

There are areas where well-chosen gear can make the work easier, and even a few like sports action where high-end gear is a necessity for a professional, but most photographers could do their work wiht modest gear. Many on these forums don't like to hear it, but in most areas of photography creativity, talent, ingenuity and just plain hard work are much more important than fancy gear.

Gato

-- hide signature --

"We paint with our brain, not with our hands" -- Michelangelo
Portrait, figure and fantasy photography at Silver Mirage Gallery:
silvermirage.com

MisterBG Veteran Member • Posts: 6,523
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Glen Barrington wrote:

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/07/09/photographer-spotlight-eduardo-acierno/

I think those photos would look just as bad if they were taken with an expensive camera.

So I guess the answer to the question is "Yes - a poor photographer will get poor results whatever the camera."

 MisterBG's gear list:MisterBG's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a6000 Olympus PEN-F Canon EOS 80D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +14 more
Sonyshine
Sonyshine Veteran Member • Posts: 8,893
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

I sell more work taken with my little Nikon V1 than any previous camera!

 Sonyshine's gear list:Sonyshine's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II Apple iPhone SE
stevens37y
stevens37y New Member • Posts: 6
Re: Man Ray

nt

 stevens37y's gear list:stevens37y's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic FZ1000 Sony SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
"It's the photographer" is a condescending and incomplete cliche
3

Glen Barrington wrote:

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/07/09/photographer-spotlight-eduardo-acierno/

The term "it's the photographer" is a condescending cliche that also ignores the other half of photography, the technical half, the technology involved that allows someone to produce a technically superior image. Photography, unlike something like painting, has always been a very technical, technology affected craft.

The cliche is also condescending because it looks down upon those that simply want to improve the technical aspect of their photography. If I were the photographer in that article, I would also not be indirectly referring to my photos as "great" and "masterpieces" while in the process of stating the obvious. Again, condescending.

Is the skill of the photographer important? Of course. Any photographer knows that. Is the technology of the camera used important? Of course, otherwise Ansel Adams would have used 35mm instead of medium and large format. A sports photographer wouldn't use a camera with high frame rates and superior AF. That photographer's pictures, which are nothing really special to begin with, could have been improved upon, technically, with a better quality camera.

mostlyboringphotog Senior Member • Posts: 8,644
Re: "It's the photographer" is a condescending and incomplete cliche
1

bford wrote:

Glen Barrington wrote:

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/07/09/photographer-spotlight-eduardo-acierno/

The term "it's the photographer" is a condescending cliche that also ignores the other half of photography, the technical half, the technology involved that allows someone to produce a technically superior image. Photography, unlike something like painting, has always been a very technical, technology affected craft.

The cliche is also condescending because it looks down upon those that simply want to improve the technical aspect of their photography. If I were the photographer in that article, I would also not be indirectly referring to my photos as "great" and "masterpieces" while in the process of stating the obvious. Again, condescending.

Is the skill of the photographer important? Of course. Any photographer knows that. Is the technology of the camera used important? Of course, otherwise Ansel Adams would have used 35mm instead of medium and large format. A sports photographer wouldn't use a camera with high frame rates and superior AF. That photographer's pictures, which are nothing really special to begin with, could have been improved upon, technically, with a better quality camera.

This is also part of the camera marketing that suggests if you get the latest wizbang camera, you too can make the photo of your wife to look like a fashion model and so the one who looks at your photo of beautiful model will invariably ask if you used the latest wizabang cam.

 mostlyboringphotog's gear list:mostlyboringphotog's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Pentax 645Z Nikon 1 J5
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads