Comments on: “You must have a nice camera.”

By: Because I have a nice camera - All Narfed Up

Because I have a nice camera - All Narfed Up — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:03:59 +0000

[...] Cheng — “You must have a nice camera: Part 1 and Part [...]

By: inimini

inimini — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 04:06:27 +0000

Does it really matter what people say? When people say something like that, they either have no idea what they're talking about or not paying attention at all?

I usually don't care much about what people say especially when I know that I am good.

Finally, here comes what u want to hear - yes you do take very nice pictures... ^:^

By: terence

terence — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:43:38 +0000

yeah, the 1Ds is a sweet camera. i read an interview with nikon’s north american marketing director and he defended the small senor thing and the fact that they’re sort of falling behind on camera technology. he basically said it’s in the lenses and software (firmware, buffering speed, capture software, etc), so with the money people are paying, they’re actually getting more than the competition. go figure…

By: echeng

echeng — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:35:32 +0000

blasphemy!

actually, I like Nikons. Except that my camera is the only viable full-frame dSLR out there. Who knows what Nikon will do, now that they've committed to this smaller sensor thing with the announcement of the new WA lenses...? I read an interesting discussion on DPReview about the shortcomings of the Nikon lens mount. I guess Canon's move to dump the older lens mount (and piss off people at the time) finally paid off.

By: terence

terence — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:21:13 +0000

actually eric, your camera sucks. get a nikon.

juuuust kidding!!!!!!!! ;)

By: echeng

echeng — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:05:02 +0000

Alright, alright!

I do have a nice camera. And it works well for me. :)

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 02:01:59 +0000

Hmmm … I am late to the party and it seems most of the points have been covered. I like Aaron’s summary but I think that a combination of the right skills and talent can effectively so-called “nice” equipment. And while talent and skills can produce great photos w/ mediocre or mainstream equipment, specialized or high-end equipment can only serve to improve upon such photos (or whatever else). Otherwise what’s the point of developing such high-end products?

By: echeng

echeng — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:52:15 +0000

nicely said, aaron. :)

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:23:55 +0000

Eric--your website looks super cool and has a lot of great content. You must have a nice computer. ;)

Since photographs are created and observed in such subjective ways, I'm sure there are a lot of different opinions about what constitutes a "great photo." In my most humble opinion (shouting up from an echelon of photographic skill far lower that yours), I'd say that there are four "ingredients" necessary for making a good picture, and the quality of your equipment only accounts for ~25% of the outcome.

1. As David said, the most important thing about a photo is the subject matter. It doesn't matter how sharp your photos are or how saturated your colors are if you are taking pictures of boring shit. Usually, there is a lot of skill required for selecting subjects, but sometimes, it's just a matter of luck--again as David said, being in the right place at the right time... and having your camera turned on and in the general vicinity of your eye at the time.

2. Once you happen upon your subject either by luck or by intention, the next factor is how you choose to capture your subject--ie, how you compose the photo. As Norm said, two people standing side-by-side looking at the same exact subject and using the same equipment can take very different photos. Compositional skills and subject selection together constitute the "artistic" 50% of a photo. To this point, your equipment means very little (with one caveat as explained below).

3. I'll save the equipment issue for last, and skip ahead to what you do with your image after you've pressed the shutter release--post-processing. One's knowledge of how to process the data your camera collects (eg, your decision to crop, sharpen, alter saturation, contrast, etc.) can make a huge difference in how your photo is perceived by the viewer. Also, there is a certain artistic sensibility required to select how to best present your image--eg, full-color vs. black and white, etc. Neither your camera equipment nor your computer equipment have much to do with this component of your photo (provided, of course, that you have some software for manipulating images, which most people these days do have at their disposal). Rather, your skill and technical knowledge, which are both very subjective, are what make the difference.

So up to this point, 75% of the outcome of your image relies on your artistic ability and your technical knowledge, and not on your equipment.

4. Your equipment, as Steve said, determines the window of opportunity for making a nice photo. It's definitely possible to compose a brilliant photo with a cheap point-and-shoot, but there are more situations in which you can create a brilliant photo if you are using a more advanced camera. For instance, take the issue of shutter lag. If you are using a "cheap" digital camera, you will not be able to take a photo of what you actually see the moment you press the shutter release (you get what happened a second or so later), whereas you can basically do so with a more expensive D-SLR. Granted this only influences your window of opportunity for taking a great shot of a limited subset of subjects, ie, the moving ones. As an example, I'm thinking right now of your fabulous shot of a breaching whale you took several months ago, Eric. You wouldn't likely have gotten that shot with a point-and-shoot (yes, it would be possible, but much less likely). Finally, to address the caveat I mentioned above, I think there is one way in particular that your equipment can, in and of itself, make the difference between a great shot and an ok one (provided that you have basic compositional skills), and that comes down to your lens and choice of camera mode. For instance, you can take a great low-light portrait of someone outdoors in the evening with a fast lens set by aperture priority to open wide (and probably sitting on a tripod), but you're just not going to be able to take that same shot with a point and shoot that opens up to f4.0 and only has an autofocus mode. Of course, knowledge is essential for using a "nice" camera/lens to take a "great photo" (I lump such knowledge in with compositional skills). Like you said, you can have a multi-$K dollar set-up and still take horrible photos if you don't know how to use it.

Bottom line: You're right; People shouldn't just say "You must have a nice camera." They should say, "You are an excellent photographer," which means you posses a combination of skill, knowledge, and equipment, and an ability to use them together properly.

Okaaay, that was a bit long and maybe not as clear as I intended. Sorry. :)

By: norm

norm — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:04:04 +0000

Having had the opportunity to take pictures with eric’s cameras right next to him after he took pictures of the same stuff with the same camera, there must be something to the whole ‘talent’ thing…