Why is the photography community all "DURRR IT'S NOT

>>58252039
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.

File: 134756164_ceda9cac23_o.jpg (2MB, 1795x1204px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1795x1204px

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

File: images.duckduckgo.com (164).jpg (65KB, 672x434px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 672x434px

>>58252119

are you >>58205868?

>>58252150
Negative.

File: IMG_20161112_165800.jpg (3MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3024x4032px

>>58252039
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

>>58252039
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 >>58252119
when these are the exception rather than the rule.

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

>>58252039
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

>>58252197
> Pic related I shot with my 6p
yeah, and it shows

>>58252284
let's not go all /p/ here

>>58252273
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.

>>58252273
>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.

>>58252308
I'm not sure a 12 mp camera built into a $500 phone counts as entry level.

>>58252322
>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

>>58252358
OP post makes no mention of specific camera model

>>58252333
>>58252378
OPs post also makes no mention of smartphones

File: 1477572326757.jpg (3MB, 1653x2816px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1653x2816px

>>58252039

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.

>>58252769
Nailed it.

>>58252156
I GET IT

File: IMG_3484.jpg (1MB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3456x2304px

>>58252217
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

>>58252859
lol

File: IMG_0829.jpg (3MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5184x3456px

>>58252884

File: 1464433758077.jpg (3MB, 3000x4550px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x4550px

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.

>>58252284
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.

>>58253024
>with good color balance
>30% of completely crushed blacks

>>58253085
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.

>>58253115
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.

>>58252769
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.

>>58252859
>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.

>>58252938
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.

>>58254044
People argue about everything, photography is no exception

>>58252039
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.

>>58254202
>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.

>>58254202
>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.

>>58252039
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.

File: Snapchat-353606946.jpg (511KB, 1440x2392px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1440x2392px

>>58253434
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.

>>58252039
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.

File: DSC00037.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

taken on a nexus 5, for confidencesweden

>>58254454
Shut it down.

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

>>58254281
Using a camera is fucking easy you retard.

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

>>58255189
>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.

>>58252039
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
>/g/

Just delete this thread already

File: _RIP8930.jpg (791KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1600x1067px

>>58255933
You don't leave your basement?

>>58252039
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.

File: japanese-girls-licking-doorknobs-28.jpg (54KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x750px

>>58256339
>doorknobs

File: Linux-Torvalds-Shows-Off-His-Home-Working-Desk-451264-3.jpg (93KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1280x720px

Analogy:

Plenty of /g/ 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.

>>58252119
>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.

>>58256406

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

>>58256399
Does she even know where that doorknob has been?

>>58256472
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.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

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

>>58256470
>>58256406
He experimented with the standing desk for a month or so and gave up on it.

Also, he usually has three monitors at once.

>>58256470
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

File: japanese-girls-licking-door-knobs-1-425x640.jpg (51KB, 425x640px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 425x640px

>>58256472
who knows

File: zenit_et_by_frgtn-d2yx24b.jpg (120KB, 1026x779px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1026x779px

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.

>>58256517
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.

>>58254468
>16:9
>Vertical
>No rule of thirds
I want to puke

File: bF64Rpe.jpg (823KB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 3264x1836px

>>58256506
>he usually has three monitors at once.
[citation needed]

File: 000002.jpg (683KB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 1818x1228px

>>58256535
i have a Zenit E model, its a nice kamera

pic related, its from my zenit e,

>>58256535
>A great Russian analog camera takes better pictures than a shit phone camera with a babby lens
Gee, no shit

File: 000020.jpg (1MB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1818x1228px

>>58257142

>>58252039
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

>>58257142
God I hated this exhibition. Stupid crap.

good picture tho

ITT: Idiots who know shit about photography.

>>58257239
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.

>>58257239
are you retarded? please say yes, I won't have to be sad for you those few hours before 2017.

>>58257341
Wrong. /g/ knows everything about everything :^)

>>58254448
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.

>>58256551
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.

>>58257160
>Great
>Russian
Time to choose one.

CANON SHILLS ON DAMAGE CONTROL!!!

>>58256612
>>No rule of memes
go back to your shitty youtube self teaching channels or leddit

>>58257595
Zenit machines are great products of soviet engineering, fucking imperialist americuck

>>58252769
This this this.

/thread

>>58255996
This is comfy af.

>>58252039
you fucking ignorant swine

>https://youtu.be/uv0n52-ncmg

>>58257923
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.

>>58258217
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.

File: IMG_20161231_114914.jpg (3MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x3120px

Can...can i be part??

>>58258307
Will check it out, danke

>>58257732
t. Ivan Ivanovich Ivanovsky

File: 1335516207681.png (562KB, 1902x1573px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1902x1573px

>>58252039

its all about the lenses, cunts.

>>58258217
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.

>>58252039
Camera doesn't matter, lens does.
You can take rebel camera and stick good lens on it, and take good quality photos.

>>58255189
Did I say that it was a challenge? No. Doesn't matter as most don't have a clue about the basics of exposure. There are situations where just dialing in the right settings can be a challenge not to mention to do that in time to get the shot.

>>58252430
>>58252358
I have a lenovo smartphone and i can:
Correct the exposure
Configure the light measurement
Enable grid for composing
Enable HDR

Apart from point focusing, zoom, iso settings...

>>58252197
Imagine if you had your DSLR with you, you could use a lower ISO and the IQ would be way better

>>58257722
>Cut wings, make the entire composition a claustrophobic nightmare
>Rule of memes

>>58258307
>inb4 some tard saying shit against "bridge" cameras
They use the same sensors as a shitty Point and shoot camera

>>58252039
>ITT
Hur durs who say it's about the photographer and proceed to post shitty photos they took from shitty cameras.

>>58256399
She's going to be sick.

>>58256494
I've watched a lot of these and in the majority of cases I feel like the pros don't do much better with the cheap cameras than myself or any other amateur photographer. The one exception was the guy who shot some sundown photos at a beach and really went to great lengths.

>>58260916
It was Matt Usher in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktv7I_yM0qQ

And Paul John Bayfield also showed the difference between a person who can take good photos and what it means to be a photographer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktv7I_yM0qQ

The rest of the challenges were just meh.

>>58260933
linked the same video twice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbFV1QXSc3E

>>58256253
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/

>>58260916
>I feel like the pros don't do much better with the cheap cameras than myself
Post some pics of yours please, taken with some really shitty cameras like the guys in the videos.

>>58252039
they consider taking photos as art

You need the photographer to understand the basics of photography to get good and consistent photos.

Giving a teenage girl with $10,000 camera does nothing.

Giving a $20 camera to a professional will produce good photos.

>>58259225
A good photo and a good quality photo may be two different things.

Usually a good photo will also be good quality, but you can have bad photos that are good quality too (good camera, good lens, tripod, ample light, bad framing, bad composition, uninteresting subject).

>>58260916
The only difference I think is that the protogs consistently try to find interesting subjects and situations to shoot. In terms of picture quality, sure, anyone could take them if they chose to. The difference is seeing the possibility of a good photo.

>>58252039
Its not, Ive seen people with shit point and shoots outperform people with five thousand dollar dslrs.

>>58252113
Bingo
>>58252217
Photography is more about the composition and the subject of the photo rather than having a fuck ton of megapixels. Sure a particular camera is better than another but the quality of the photo rely more on the users skill rather than the camera.

>>58252430
Smart phone cameras are shit, the sensors are small and they perform like shit in low light.

File: DSC01383.jpg (1022KB, 6000x3237px) Image search: [Google]

1022KB, 6000x3237px

>>58252039
I took this with a sub $1000 camera.

>>58254202
Sure you are post some pics.

i keep telling you fuckers the only fun in photography is photographing women.

too bad model mayhem is complete dogshit the past few years.

not to mention shooting models pays zero dollars and zero cents.

shooting weddings is the only thing profitable and unless you have a great partner to shoot with and a damn good assistant, it's not worth the hassle. also if you're a guy then you might as well forget wedding photography in the long run as any woman with a 5D3 and a 70-200 2.8 will make twice as much money selling bullshit to brides because women.

>>58263405
I could take that with my cellphone or my $200 mirrorless camera.

File: IMG_9294.jpg (171KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1600x1067px

>there are probably Nikon posters in this thread

Fucking disgusting.

>>58256494
I was going to post this lol.
>>58258307
Well bridge cameras are shit tho.

>>58258469
Ayy I have the same camera. What lens and how do the pics come out?

Why was Lawrence of Arabia so much better than Transformers? Must have been the superior Cameras they had in the 60s.
/g/ is so fucking stupid sometimes, christ.

>>58262536
>seeing the possibility of a good photo.
BINGO
\thread

>>58263501
>implying Lawrence of Arabia wouldn't have been better if they had access to all the tools of all the modern day

>>58263521
Many compositional techniques have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. This has nothing to do with photography itself, and everything to do with composition of visual arts.

>>58263565
Composition is obviously fucking important, but a good camera can also be pretty important.

A better camera will allow someone to achieve

>>58252039
I got a DSLR recently for low-light photography and you're pretty wrong, if you don't know what you're doing it's as shitty as a smartphone or point-and-shoot.

>>58263501
Film can store a surprising amount of detail, both in terms of detail and color fidelity. This holds true for 35mm film, but perhaps especially for 65mm and 70mm. Digital sensors have just recently began to surpass film, and it's only recently that we've gotten the tech to scan and process film in lossless high-bit 4K+.

In terms of quality, optics and sensor size matters the most. Sensor tech also matters, but we've started hitting the ceiling for improvements there. The lighting matters a lot, it's all about being there when the light is right.

A lot of the technical weaknesses of a camera can be worked around with computational photogrqaphy. Multiple exposures can be combined to give an extreme bit depth (HDR bracketing), and/or very high resolution (stitching) and/or extremely wide depth of field (focus stacking). With custom firmware, you can shoot with dual ISO now and create HDRs of fast moving objects. Noise can be reduced with powerful algorithms, same with chromatic aberration, vignetting, and other optical issues. With a modern DSLR and a computer, anyone can take world class photos, give the knowledge and ability to be at the right spot at the right time. Most good shots are staged though.

>>58254468
so shit photo from phone is shit :^)

>>58263603
It's not "fucking important" it's everything.
Yes a good camera is important, but it's only a tool used to create art. It allows you more options and finer control compared to something like a smartphone. There's nothing stopping you from taking amazing photos using garbage cameras though.

>>58263667
Why are you giving me an information dump? What does any of this have to do with the point of my post? HDR, really?
Lawrence of Arabia isn't amazing because of the fucking camera, it's amazing because of the shots they took and the story they told.

>>58263718
>Lawrence of Arabia isn't amazing because of the fucking camera, it's amazing because of the shots they took and the story they told.

Calm your tits. Lawrence of Arabia is so good in a large part because it was shot (by a competent team of people) on 65mm film. If it had been shot on 35mm, it wouldn't have been as visually crisp and with as good dynamic range and colours.

>>58263808
The technical aspects are only a limiting factor to composition. They would have worked with what they had and made a film that was just as amazing. Again, the quality of the film is because of its composition in general, not the hardware it was made with. That was just the icing on the cake.

>>58252039
you need a good camera. but you also need an eye for composition. otherwise your photos will just look like any other "i got a dslr for christmas" photography.

>>58263841
The film type matters, some types provided better colors and more dynamic range, very important for visual quality. Colors "pop", skin tones looks delicious, and less/no clipping and burned out highlights/shadows. Better looking grain. Sure, composition matters, but the very wide shots in lawrence was only possible because of the lenses and film format they used. If they tried it with 35mm, it just wouldn't have worked well because of the lack of resolution.

>>58252039
Because it's the photographer who operates the camera, not the other way around.

>>58260434
And you can't do any of those things without looking at the touchscreen, pulling down multiple menus, hoping you don't touch the wrong thing, and then when it's all ready... look for the 'shoot' button, tap. hm, did it take? tap again... wait a few seconds then... you have a picture you need to escape out of, lagging, lagging, oh, but you touched the button twice once it catches up, so it thinks you want to focus there, undo that, ok, now we can set up next shot...

>>58263465
I can still use all my expensive glass form the 60s, 70s and 80s.

>>58264206
It sounds like you're just really bad at phone cameras

File: 1435560645049.jpg (65KB, 281x810px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 281x810px

>>58263667

>it's all about being there when the light is right.

no, it's about understanding how to light your subject and/or surroundings.

some of my best shoots have been in the dark with a flashlight to autofocus with and a few strobes.

>>58264206
Meanwhile, your great aunt Edna, who taught photography classes at the local college in the 50s, is shouting 'just take the goddamned picture already!'

>>58264234
I've never seen anyone with a cellphone camera just take a picture. It's always 'tap tap drag, draaag swipe pinch tap tap tap [furrowed brow] tap tap tap drag...'

>>58252039
>>>/p/

>>58264270
but the biggest issue is you can't look at what you're photographing and use the interface at the same time. You have to take your eyes off what you're really doing to interact with cellphone cameras. The interfaces generally couldn't be worse.

>>58252923
wow how'd you do that?

>>58264373

>what is photography 101

google it faggot

>>58263405
DAMN bro

>>58264530
Thanks!

>>58263405
> sub $1000

is that supposed to be impressive? You could buy a top of the line camera and lens from a few years ago at that price. Sub $100 would be something to brag about.

photography is only useful for war photographers. I need my fix of dead cia niggers. anything else is for fucking faggots who make no money

>>58264270
>>58264270
I use hardware buttons (volume down) for taking a photo.

Yes it may involve tapping if i play with settings

>>58265691
The point I am making is that you can spend a little bit of money a get decent results.

>>58263501
>implying Lawrence of Arabia wouldn't have been improved with some giant robots.

>>58263667
>With a modern DSLR and a computer, anyone can take world class photos, give the knowledge and ability to be at the right spot at the right time. Most good shots are staged though.
>give the knowledge and ability to be at the right spot at the right time

This is the whole point. Taking good photos isn't hard. It just takes basic skills and knowledge of photography, which people don't innately have.

>>58264206
This is what happens when install linux on your smartphone.

Meanwhile, iPhones "just werk".

>>58264270
My phone has a dedicated shutter button.

>>58256535
You're still just making the argument that one kind of gear is better than another.

>>58257142
>>58257178
terrible photos

>>58257341
>I have no argument but I must shitpost

>>58256551
I think better lenses can be counted in with OPs idea.

>>58262536
>The only difference I think is that the protogs consistently try to find interesting subjects and situations to shoot.

I stand by what I said earlier in that I was not impressed by much of the subject matter chosen by the pro photographers in the cheap camera challenge. I think the majority did not take it seriously (which was in part the laziness of digitalrev's production style).

>>58263200
>Ive seen people with shit point and shoots outperform people with five thousand dollar dslrs
Those people with the DSLR would be retards and I don't see how they would fit into any reasonable discussion. Let's stick to people who know how to take a picture.

File: 724d462ccdbca199a3b0bd41dede55a0[2].jpg (10KB, 236x275px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x275px

>>58261867
>Giving a $20 camera to a professional will produce good photos.

But exactly what kind of $20 camera? Sure, you can buy an old SLR for less than that which will give you fantastic image. Compare that to a $20 dollar store digital camera and it's night and day.

But then....that would mean the camera matters doesn't it?

>>58261532
This is pretty good.

>>58252113
If your camera can shoot in RAW format then it's by default a "top of the line" for the world of cameras. Even an entry level DSLR is still better than what 99% of people are using.

>>58252358
It doesn't take very long to understand every function of even the most complicated DSLR. You're on /g/, anon. Not /p/. While we may not be good artists, understanding the technical side of things is child's play.

>>58254220
underrated post

>>58266186
>Sure, you can buy an old SLR for less than that which will give you fantastic image. Compare that to a $20 dollar store digital camera and it's night and day.
>But then....that would mean the camera matters doesn't it?

I would bet money on the Pro with a $20 digital camera over the camwhore with the $20 analog SLR.

>>58263501
But Lawrence of Arabia was shot with some of the best cameras and lenses ever. Ones that would take a colossal dump on those used for Transformers.

So...what was your point again?

>>58263440
>the only fun in photography is photographing women.
gear fagging is a fun hobby all to its own

>>58263606
>If you're a dumbass your photos will come out shitty

o rly?

>>58263718
>Lawrence of Arabia isn't amazing because of the fucking camera,
It actually is if you have seen it in 70mm. The film is set up in such a way that you can see small details in every part of the frame, and that's a huge part of the experience.

>>58265899
>$1000
>little bit of money

>>58266256
But what if they were both pros? The whole pro vs idiot argument is faulty. You can't assume incompetence. That's not a valid approach to any argument.

It would be like saying it doesn't matter what kind of pots and pans you cook with because you're too retarded to understand how to fry an egg.

>>58266388
The original argument in OP is which is more important, camera or photographer?

If you had a noob with a mediocre camera, would he improve more with better photography skills, or a better camera? I say he improves more with better skills.

>>58266571
I would honestly say he would do better with the better camera, but part of that comes from the change in mindset that comes when you know you have the potential to create something very good when you have good tools to do it with.

>>58266360
Being this poor. Shit I'm a broke college student and I can scrape 1k for a camera. Get a job NEET.

>>58266785
>broke college student
>spends $1K on a camera

Now we know why you're broke all the time. This is what happens when they don't teach basic economics in school anymore.

>>58266316
Well, yeah. What do you think it was saying otherwise?

A good camera doesn't make a shitty photographer who doesn't know how to use it less shitty. They're probably better off with a lower end point-and-shoot with more pre-programmed settings most of the time.

>>58264323
Retard

>>58252039
Have you seen what pro photographers can do with shit cameras?

>>58266855
But they do.

>>58266785
>broke
>spends 1k on a camera
check your privilege, richfag scum

>>58267008
If you're using a $5,000 camera and the majority of your photos are coming out blurry you're not a shitty photographer, you are literally retarded and might need help going to the bathroom.

>>58260916
Point of this series is
1. Learning the limits of your camera and working with/around them. Many people find their camera doesn't have feature X and just give up. This includes the notion you can only take "good" pictures with a big expensive camera.

2. Understanding photography enough that you can pick up any camera and run with it after orienting yourself with the main functions. Like I don't get how people can get so assblasted over operating system interfaces; I regularly switch between my OSX/Linux/Windows machines without thinking about it.

3. Building rapport with models you've just met, or people who did not start the day expecting to be photographed, and getting the best out of them.

>>58266388
Not a photographer but that argument about the cooking with better pots and pans really doesn't translate. A good cook will be able to cook well with the shittiest pan you can imagine, because he understands how to overcome the problems a bad pan will pose.

Someone who never cooks or knows how to cook will need the better pan to produce a good result because he can't overcome the problems a bad pan will bring.

So if that logic applies to photography I guess what we have to wonder is, what would be the right set of environment variabilities that makes you learn the craft. Are you better off as an "idiot" to have a cheap $299 DSLR or a $99 GoPro? DSLR is the same as a cast iron seasoned lightweight skillet a $99 GoPro is a cheap aluminium pan, they can both cook the same steak but both require different sets of skills.

DSLR vs. Mirrorless type (all of them)

1" sensor or less?

I seriously don't know, my pictures look like shit when I use a cell phone, my point and shoot pictures look meh, my film SLR pictures look amazing. Is my technique shit or is my camera shit??

>>58267670
the one where the dude shot that video with the barbie is truly amazing. that one in particular proves that all they are good cameras in the proper hands. i think a lot of the problem comes from the elitism of it, go on /p/ and there are more gear threads than i took a picture threads, and the criticism on pictures is beyond constant negativity constant your pictures are shit, it is rare the time that anyone on /p/ likes a picture.

>>58267843
/p/ is low-key one of the most garbage boards on 4chan in terms of knowledge and taste regarding its subject matter.

Because photographers want to pretend they're artists.

In reality, it's mostly about the gear and what you're photographing. The true artists deserving credit are the ones who makes the camera.

Learning the basics of cameras is super easy and quick. There's a few things I'd say requires skill, like taking good looking pictures of ugly people, especially when they're doing something else, but when they're modeling it's up to the person posing.

Most of the stuff is going to be completely unavoidable, noisy low res pics, no pics in dark environments, fucked white balance indoors, etc etc.


>>58256494 their results look pretty shitty, even if they got some artsy stuff going.

>>58252039
because if you gave me the world's best camera, I would still take a fucking terrible picture.

>>58252039
It isn't. Ever seen "Cheap Camera, Pro Photographer"?

It's all about the sensor size anyways.

PENTAX 4 LYFE

>>58252333
You're right, it's even worse than or on the same level as a point and shoot.

>>58267280
Must've stuck with the kit lens :^)

>>58267754
It's the camera.

Your pictures probably need more lighting, and since the sensor size goes up in the order that you describe your pictures to be getting better, I'd say it's the culprit.

And what are you talking about, 1" sensor or less?

The only difference between mirrorless and DSLRs is the mirror on DSLRs, and mirrorless generally being less bulky.

>>58252039
It really is about the camera, just as any real artist will tell you, it's about the quality of their brush or other tool.
Could you really draw fine lines with a dirt cheap brush made of hog hair on rough canvas? Could you really know the nature of engraving if all you get is a rusty nail and soft crappy material? Most artists don't go for the most expensive media, but they do expect a baseline level of quality to do what they need to.

To a certain degree, a better camera is immediately more liberating and gives a person a better idea of what they can expect from the craft. A higher clean ISO limit, wider usable apertures, stabilization, etc. it goes without saying by that you can physically do things with a better camera than you could with a cheaper one even if you did try to "work around the limits".

If all you have is an entry-level crop cam with kit lens that tops out f/5.6 on the long end, you can't expect to get the same level of flexibility as a fullframe camera and f/2.8 zoom, you're looking at least 3 stops difference in where the latter system gives you freedom to put those stops where you need them.

File: ex.jpg (17KB, 300x398px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x398px

Warning Visual Arts faggot with a BFA to back it up. Not a photographer but Painter/Collage Artist.

It's slightly about the tech behind the shot, but most entry level DSLRs will hack it just fine. There are materials based techniques to be exploited (see n-exposures and timelapse) but those bottom out somewhere. At the end of the day a photo is what sits in a frame hung on a wall, and how it can stand up to criticism from there. (Even if the wall is a screen). Tech specs are nearly irrelevant.

What makes a good photograph is the photographers understanding of composition and their eye for aesthetics. I'm not talking about rule of memes composition, I'm talking about following the eye within the frame, where it rests, what causes it to move, the major lines it moves along, the restraint in colour choices, masses of values forming shape, masses of chroma well divided. That kind of composition. A well taken photograph subverts the initial act of labeling ("Thats a orange. Neat.") while still evoking some sort of emotion underneath, it becomes pleasant to view at a glance as well as head on over a longer duration. It resists fully understanding the work (look a Kandiskys/Gris/Pollocks work for ARTH101 examples).

Good visual art is about understanding contrasts in the pictoral sense and pushing/pulling them in various motions across the canvas. For fucks sake look at what Albers was able to do with one fucking hue. It's subtle and refined. Look at this image, notice how the eye is thrown upward and caught in rapid motion of this vortex? Does the eyes stray? That's composition!

But subject matter also needs depth. Modernic art was classed as bullshit because it was squares and horeshit. At least the Abstractionist movements (read: Picasso) tried to blend in figurative elements to bring a sense of the mundane back into their works. Giving a new way to view an object over differing perspectives in a single image. Subject needs depth, Subject must allow for symbols...

...to slowly emerge and play with others. The theme of the subject should be tailored to the audience. If the subject tops out at "Neat photograph of a road" well it's a shitty photograph. It doesn't make a statement, raise a question, advance some dialogue, create a tension. "Neat photograph of a road, leading to a dilapidated barn" might provide slightly more depth.

What makes a good photograph is the skill of the person handling the damn thing. Do they know their way around the hardware and can they execute advanced techniques (Whatever the equivalent of decently handled impasto work is for cameras here). Does the photographer understand how lens warp a scene and exploit that somehow? I don't camera past taking semi-well lit photos of artworks so I can't even here.
I'm tired, I've got malware to write. I'm out.

>>58269034
But if you give a total fucking knob a good set of brushes and artist grade materials they will still make shit. I'll take a capable artist with decent gear over a knob with extremely amazing gear.

>>58252039
Give a man a scalpel, vs give a doctor a bowie knife.

File: Unknown.jpg (204KB, 1350x912px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1350x912px

>>58269229
Forgot image

Because old of cameras still take good shots. A camera is as good as his photographer. You need composition and other elements for a good photo

>>58269241
Is that a triple exposure?

>>58269259
I think it's only a double. But here's the article I ripped it from with a few more examples of her work.

http://themetamodern.com/tatiana-giacinti-osculating-time-space/

>>58252769
thread

This is what gets me with tech, they are tools that still need an input. And that imput effects output.

User^Tech = Results

DSLRs are overpriced.
Prove me wrong.

>>58257553
more like rule of turds
art is art, you can't measure it, you can't make rules or laws about it, either something looks good or it doesn't. if you're more concerned with matching up what's in the photo with what someone else told you looks good, you don't actually like art

>>58252156
underrated post

Same with giving a super computer to a video gamer. All they'll think of is how to play games at 60 fps.

Meanwhile if you give a $500 workstation to a CS student at a prestigious school, they'll put that to use as a machine learning platform

In daylight, it's not so much about the camera body itself, but the lens.

>>58252039
a good camera does give you a better result, but you could be like my whore cousin the waitress with genderstudies and art associates and her fucking leica that costs more than her car does. all she does is use it for taking shitty instagram food pics, and pictures of her hoggy ass friends and their tattoos.

i supposed if you give enough monkeys a $8500 camera rig, you could get a few good shots, but nothing will replace someone that knows what they are doing. but give a basketball american a fur coat and they think they're king kong.

>>58267754
>my film SLR pictures look amazing.
You mean all your generic noob bokeh whoring "rook amazing".

>>58257595
the old soviet cameras and optics were top tier shit.

>>58252039
You can get good enough with everything given some time and guidance. Some subpar camera cant keep up is some situations. I have canon a1200 in the locker, no matter how good you are it is pure shit on low light because it is cheap 6 years old compact camera. I'm more /k/ fag, and will tell you this, you can shoot great with stock glock 17. I have seen many people shoot great. But if you give it to a newbie and try to tech him how to hit, it will take x time to start hitting 10s. If I give him my cz 75 ts he will need x/3. It is just magnitudes easier to control and shoot.

File: schweitzer-with-a-lamp.jpg (123KB, 740x410px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 740x410px

HDR + really good stabilization and you're done. Leave "artsy" shit to real professionals - it's always about the post production anyway.
This >>58252197 could easily be salvaged.

>>58252217
Complete horseshit

>>58254202
>hanging out on a Vietnamese cartoon forum
>professional anything

sure, kid

>>58254675
I use a Nikon D700 which is about 8 years old, shit works fine, fuck the haters

>>58264530
>>58264965
Samefagging

>>58265899
Or rather you proved that you can take a crappy shot on a fairly expensive camera, whereas you could have achieved the same thing with something far cheaper.

>>58265935
>Taking good photos isn't hard. It just takes basic skills and knowledge of photography,
Far too general.

Not all styles of photography are the same. Sure, you could take a sharp photograph of a subject, but you ain't gonna be taking something you can sell or exhibit, otherwise you would be, as would so many others.

I can build a computer to a high standard, doesn't mean shit, just that I can build a computer, wow.

>>58266212
>If your camera can shoot in RAW format then it's by default a "top of the line" for the world of cameras.
wat

More and more cameras shoot in raw these days, as do some phone cameras. Doesn't mean they're top of the line, or even anywhere close.

>>58266388
/p/ is just like /g/ - gearfagging and dumb opinions. Both are too broad a topic to be generalized and argued about on a pleb tier level.

>>58268593
>The true artists deserving credit are the ones who makes the camera
Some suicidal nip in a far eastern sweat shop?

Don't be a moron

>>58268955
>And what are you talking about, 1" sensor or less?

What I meant was do you go for a camera with a full frame 1" lens or do you get something smaller.

Thanks for the suggestion I may go buy the cheapest DSLR I can find, canon has refurbs for cheap.

>>58269688
They look amazing to me. And I'm the only one who needs to be satisfied since I'm not posting pictures anywhere to get approval or feedback. Most of the pics I take on cell phone sensors are shit id say 99% of the pics are shit. With a compact point and shoot it's a mixed bags half is OK half is shit. With film I may get one or two bad shots in a roll of 24 I am usually happy with them.

>>58252156
Now I get it

>>58266212
My 2013 made $300 cellphone can do raw shots

>>58252217
Lel

>>58269475

Yeah, but the video gamer will have tons of fun.

The CS student on the other hand will want to kill himself, to escape his boring ass existence.

>>58252039
Because they're buttmad that newbies buy expensive DSLRs and (with some effort) take better pics than they did throughout their entire career

I mean, just look at >>58252197
Just stand and fiddle with some settings and take a picture, hardly any skill required. If a guy could do it with his phone, you can do better with a DSLR. "Professional" photographers always make it seem like it's such a huge fucking deal but if you know which settings to tweak you're pretty much set

Or >>58252119
Literally looks like unpleasant lo-fi garbage you'd get from scanning a photo from a 1995 camera, but it's considered amazing by these deluded fucks

You just find a nice view or an object, point camera, take picture, put some shitty filter to cover up how bad the picture came out and boom, you're officially a photographer

File: sb17.jpg (50KB, 528x296px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 528x296px

It's about the image it's about the picture what does the image say to you.. here's one I took earlier on my Nikon what does I say to u

>>58270859
the thing though is beauty is truly on the eye of the beholder, he thinks his picture is good, who cares what anyone else thinks? The real question is, is he achieving the results he wants or is the camera in his way? Is the camera what makes the picture, the photographer or the audience?

>>58252119 is not my type of thing, but I can't say it looks like shit, yeah its grainy because its film, when film is scanned it always looks like shit, well it was never meant to be scanned to begin with, you're supposed to put it on a print and youll see little grain on that print.

>>58252197
This is less my cup of tea than the previous one, but everyone here seems to love it I much prefer the look of film, but that is my personal preference it doesn't mean his picture is shit and the above anons is better, it's just my taste.

>>58252119
Disposeable´s tend to use good film, and the core quality is fine.

If you can mess around with stutter time and get a stand, the sky is the limit.

>>58263501
65mm film is pretty good
35mm film(standard of the time) isn´t that great.
Modern standards isn´t better than 65mm film of 1960s.

>>58270904
Excellent use of contrast and the rule of thirds

>>58270760
>fun
People who use the word "fun" lack imagination. They use the word "fun" because they can't think of any real reason why the choices they have made are better than the alternatives.

You could instead say "as a gamer, I can be entertained for hours at a time play call of duty or league of legends". Thats a relevant argument. However that still falls short as gamers assume playing games is the only form of entertainment. For an expert programmer, the very fact that you're able to manipulate the hardware of the machine to do exactly how I program is entertainment.

>>58271328
not him but youre simply looking for reasons to argue, fun or entertainment are, in this context, exactly the same thing.

>>58270341
No, i meant the nip designing the camera. they're the ones doing the heavy lifting.

>>58252039
Can I get better pictures out of my "prosumer" DSLR than out of my phone?
Yes
Can I get better photos out of my phone than you could out of my DSLR?
Probably.

>>58270936
I think you'll find that 90% of image quality depends on how good the optics are.

Pretty sure disposable cameras have wank optics

because they already have all the best cameras and are lamenting their lack of self

>>58258072
>someone is triggered

>>58266855
>Not having parents cover most of you expenses. Also I use my camera for my second job so it pays for itself.

>>58254468

From a composition standpoint, this photo is boring as fuck. It has nothing going on, the eye isn't drawn anywhere. The only thing it had going from your first post was the insane oversaturation of colors, which makes it look like a Samsung phone/tv demo picture.

>>58256838
>Dirty diaper in the the trash
>Coffee about to fall of the table if that rag gets knocked
>Rubixcube lol so smart
>Guitar lol so musical
>Can desk
>Windex for whiping cum off screen
>Cum towel beside desk
>Leaving mail on desk so we can find your adress

>>58252197
And it sure looks like a phone photo. The sky looks flat and blown out, the plane is blacked out badly.

You had a good subject, but the result just makes you think "I bet that looked amazing in real life, shame about the pic"

>>58257342
>then it would look better.
You seem to fail to understand what 'art' is.

File: canon_5ds_vs_d750_dr_en[1].jpg (587KB, 1200x621px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 1200x621px

>>58263465
canon pls

File: 14322678_1266687986696939_1974742237860701477_n.jpg (4KB, 173x119px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 173x119px

>>58252156

/g/ nerds actually think they can throw money at a camera and become a god-tier photography. Why haven't you /g/eeks gone pro yet then?

>>58269140

Only good, true post.

>>58252284
>idiot confuses image detail with photographer skill

/g/ never lets me down

>>58276182
You fail to understand what "quality" is.