Level of quality in work
- Started
- Last post
- 30 Responses
- nocomply0
I think the point you make can be applied to almost any job that falls within the greater QBN community (web designers, developers, print designers, flash programmers, etc...).
Cheap technology has made it easy for anyone to get the tools, but it takes experience to realize that it's how you use them that counts.
I'm a firm believer in that motto, to the point where I actually become kind of stoked about getting more out of less. (Ex... "Man, I took an awesome picture with that shitty point-and-shoot camera!" or "Dude, can you believe I pulled off those web updates on this old laptop with Win2000 and 512mb memory?!") It gives me the feeling that I'm truly in control, and not a slave to any device. That's more of my inner geek coming out than is necessary, but I think it fits with the theme here.
My way of looking at this situation has always been to put my head down and produce the best work possible, and trust that it will get noticed/respected by the right people. So far, so good.
- yes.... got a Nikon D50 on craigslist for $200..... keep it in my bag with me now....vaxorcist
- Miguex0
as long as you stay clear of this:
I'm good
haha
- sherm0
The argument has some validity, i agree that there will be great photographers and photographers that are POO because the bar of entry is lower.
Generally speaking the cheaper cameras & lenses will attract the lowest common denominator in terms of skill and these folk will crank out the highest level of shit. Some of these same folks will even opt for a more expensive camera thinking it will increase skill or the impression of professionalism.
However, certain people will push the envelope regardless of the camera they use and learn about how to use the camera without relying on automatic settings or fixing it in post production.
Some people will study the craft of photography and apply it to whatever camera they are using for best results. Some people won't have time to delve into the theory, and will want the quick fix of the automatic setting.
What can you really do about it?
Trashing anyone comes across as hating anyway... just don't do it.
Do what you do and let that be your voice.
- vaxorcist0
I once worked in a 1 hour photo lab... some of the best images were "accidental masterpieces" shot on point and shoot cameras by soccer moms... occasionallly some really amazing images that would look at home in Aperture magazine,etc.... and no, these people didn't consider themselves artists... and couldn't repeat this sort of thing on call....
and yes, I know that a professional is somebody who can do what's needed on call....
....and some of the worst images were the from the dudes with big bucks and big cameras....
- Miguex0
To be honest, I think this debate is just a way for old timers to try to separate themselves with the newcomers. There has always been bad photography, way before digital cameras were around, and it has nothing to do with your camera brand/ model being better or newer than another.I'm one of these people, and I'm the first one to say it, when my dad gave me my first film camera I had no interest in it. When I worked on a photo magazine with its own dark room/ slides light table, I wasn't interested either, but when I got my first point n shoot I was hooked.
I'm not a pro photographer buy any means, but I have worked in several photoshoots as lighting assistant just to learn, and I have seen and heard so many people putting "digital" down, and how their work is great cause they been shooting "film" for so long and that "you will never get a picture like mine, with that camera" sort of thing.
As soon as I hear stuff like that, I think.. this guy is insecure, he doesn't even know me and is already trashing people's work left and right, as he was waiting from some sort of validation from me.
Sorry, I don't care what kind of camera you shoot, or for how long you have been doing it, a good photo should be a good photo on it's own, I don't need you to whisper in my ear how good it is because of the kind of camera you used.
my 2 cents.
- SigDesign0
Look at what people can do with their phones nowadays:
Also, a lot of photo apps like Hipstamatic, that imitate the look of old film and Polaroid... sigh... it's effortless for people to do these things I used to love to create in the darkroom or with vintage cameras...
- it's not about the effort.... at least not only....vaxorcist
- erikjonsson0
bitter? :P
- jfletcher0
differenz - Nikon FM2!! Love it. It'sa the only camera I shot with for about 8 years!
The one thing that makes me upset [and this will make me seem old] is that when I learn photography, we had to *understand photography. How film worked, how a camera worked. We made our own camera first... pinhole style, both film and paper.
Now I buy a camer, hit a button and boom, it's done for me. Part of that is my wishing I had this tech when I was younger :\
...but I agree with others here. More camera mean more photos, more people being "photographers", but it doesn't change that some people are grwat and others aren't. It's the same thing with design. People use Photoshop/Illustrator/can make websites. Doesn't make them a designer.
It's frustrating, but I'm sure I've done it (marginalized) to other disciplines too and not realized it :\
- not that much difference in a way.... I had a Nikon F, old 120 cameras,etc.. similar to digicam in manual anyway....vaxorcist
- mikotondria30
There's a world of difference between technical quality and aesthetic quality.
New equipment can produce 20Meg images of perfect exposure and focus and chips can capture the wonderfully subtle variations of color and shade and contrast that almost rival that of our eyes, and anyone can take a picture that is technically a marvel compared to anything that even the best professionals could ever have managed a generation or 2, or 3 ago.
But that's not what photography is. A good photograph can change the world, capturing and placing the viewer at a place in history, or just revealing a hidden world of human emotion or an abstract fantastic idea.
What cannot really be taught or engineered is vision - seeing the unseen and capturing it, whether with a brush a mouse or a lens.- yes in a way, the standard of some things has vastly improved...others not so much...vaxorcist
- cannonball19780
let your own work be the comment you make about quality
- ckentish0
You sound very elitist. I am 100% behind democratisation of all media and as someone said above the cream will rise to the top.
The difference now is that the cream will become successful through democratic opinion and not just a few elite taste-makers at the top.
- vaxorcist0
I just finished a test shoot with a 5D/Mk II, a lot of lights, L lenses etc...
and I looked at the impeccibly lit and composed images..... and I see.... alot of near-misses... I often didn't emotionally connect as well as I would have liked to with the models.... there's a certain lack of chemistry here sometimes... it was a test shoot, and that's okay, but I'm seeing how doing so many tests that you think much more about your interaction with people than anything else, it begins to show in images with more charisma and connection... some models do that almost automatically, most don't so we have to cajole them.... an interesting skill I'm learning..
- davebellechique0
my family album from when i was young are full with horribly exposed and bad framed pictures, now the camera does it for you and your kids will go into eternity looking good : P
- davebellechique0
quality floats on top.
it's just fine that about everyone can take a more or less decent picture.
the democratisation of artistic skills only drives us into more perfection, pushes us to work harder and make better work
- vaxorcist0
whatever... we thought the same thing in the 80's when autofocus came out... and those vietnam photographers thought the same thing with autoexposure came out.... and the 50's photographers thought the same thing when the Nikon F could shoot 36 shots with a motor drive rather than their Speed Graphics 1 shot at a time....
....etc...
But I do see that the learning curve may be faster for a dedicated person with talent, skill can be acquired through dilligent practice, there are fewer old-prof gatekeepers of sacred knowledge these days, and for me that's a good thing....
- instrmntl0
Macro Lens + Hi-Res = Photography Gold
i hate that equation and completely agree. it drives me nuts.
- Knuckleberry0
I completely agree. I have a few friends that are photographers. One of them went through training/ school and is great. One bought a camera and decided to start "shooting" everything... horribly.
I agree completely with what nosaj said about everything... except the music part. Self taught musicians are usually the most creative and groundbreaking... Mr. Hendrix.
- dirtydesign0
terry richardson?
- ESKEMA0
These new Cameras turned Photo / Video in the new easy to step in thing. It already happened to design, music dj's, etc...
In the long run, the good will still be shooting, the bad will jump in the next thing and another cycle begins.