Gary and I often hear things like, `If only I had your camera..' or `Any picture can be good with editing...' etc. It kind of drives us bonkers. Even if you have an expensive camera and editing software, you're not necessarily going to get a good picture! If you are one of those people that have said that, don't worry, I'm not mad. Just educating here:)
I asked Gary to break it down into percentages of what can result in a great photo. Here is what he said, and I agree:
Equipment: 15%
Editing: 15%
Photographer: 70%
It took me about 4 years of taking an average of 100 pictures per week (just for fun, not for work) to get to where I am. Along with our part time photography work, I probably take an average of 400 pictures per week now. Gary has been taking pictures for 10 years.
By saying `photographer' in the percent breakdowns, I mean; having a good eye for it, creativity, understanding lighting and aperture, white balance, shutter speeds etc. Gary and I still have so much to learn but it takes time and effort to get better. That's what makes it fun, always new things to try out! Even if you have a cheap camera, you can still get amazing photos.
Gary and I do not do much editing. Sure, we crop and play with exposure and contrast a bit but I really feel that you can be really proud of a picture that looks good on it's own. Just my thoughts. They could change. There you go.
Thankful Thursday
3 years ago
I would even say that it is more like 90% photographer is required. GEAR IS GOOD, VISION IS BETTER.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is something to be said about a natural straight out of camera photo. But...I love punishing megapixels in post processing. Very fun.
GREAT POST LOUISE/GARY.
good point!! I have a fancy camera but that definitely doesn't mean that I'm a great photographer. I have lots yet to learn :)
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that 'editing' is often spoken of as something which is external to the photography, something foreign to the photographic endeavour. I find it equally interesting that people often see the camera as the sole source of the photograph.
ReplyDeleteA couple years back I visited the Vancouver Art Gallery to see the exhibition titled “TruthBeauty: Pictorialism and the Photograph as Art, 1845-1945”. Pictorialism was an art movement in which photographic artists sought to find new ways to express themselves through photography as a legitimate art form, especially in the face of the emergence of the first ‘point & shoot’ camera by Kodak in 1888. The Pictorialists sought to express themselves through manipulating the photography to show their artistic skill (eg. the use of soft focus and suppression of detail, as well as various editing techniques). When photography,as an art form, is understood as a process, one in which the photographer/artist is inseparable from the finished 'product', sharp distinctions between gear, editing and talent become less tenable.
Furthermore, it seems to me that appreciation for the final work is the final aim of photography. When we consider that though intrinsic to all life and the world in which we live is the sublime reflection of the divine creator, what we are ultimately viewing in the finished photograph is an interpretation by the artist through his/her eyes and camera. If camera's simply captured life in photograph, they would be amazing inventions indeed. They do not, though; instead the photographer presents life through their perspective for the viewer to share.
Sure, a great camera is a great camera; but it's nothing without the eyes that guide it.
"Equipment 15%"
ReplyDeleteWhat do you guys use? I'm looking at upgrading from a 20D to either a 50D or 7D (full frames are out of my budget right now!). What do you look for in a camera? What do you really value you about the cameras you have, and what do you want in a new camera?