File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
A great camera is pointless in the hands of an unskilled photographer. Where as a lousy camera is great in the hands of a skilled photographer.

True or False?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATIONCamera ModelX250,D560Z,C350ZCamera Softwarev774-75Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.3Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created0000:00:00 00:00:00Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/5.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating128Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length17.40 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height1536RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalCompression SettingHQMacro ModeMacro
>> Anonymous
Quit trolling, We all know Equipment still matters, Just marginally so.
Plus judging pictures is all subjective.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
True.

Although that shot appears to be the work of a lousy photographer with a lousy camera...
>> Anonymous
>>93760
Maybe that shot meant to illustrate the consequences of a lousy photographer handling a camera?
>> Anonymous
That shot was to show indeed the work of a lousy photographer with a lousy camera operated by the lousy hand in lousy light.

and the bloody bits. It was the latest photo made in the folder I visited last.
>> Anonymous
More true with film than digital. In a film camera you're using the same medium to record the image whether you're using it in a top-end SLR or a disposable camera. A truly bad digicam (especially a phone camera) will make it extremely difficult to get good images because of lack of a viewfinder, shutter lag and so on - not impossible, but the gap between 'pro with crap, amateur with great kit' narrows significantly. Even a cardboard box with a pinhole has no shutter lag beyond what it takes for you to peel off the tape and can result in rich, contrasty and colourful (albeit horribly vignetted and poorly focused) images.

Another aspect is that analog technology fails gracefully - if you overexpose film it has natural compression (just like audio tape) whereas if you overexpose a digital sensor it abruptly clips and you suddenly go from 'detail' to 'no detail'. Grain is more visually pleasing than noise etc.

I should say that digital rocks my socks, you just need a damned good digicam to get better results than with a $15 pawnshop SLR (or even one of the better P&Ses such as the Olympus Trip) and some rolls of Velvia.
>> Anonymous !bs9fqRKKCM
True.
>> Anonymous !gygsq3M.BY
False.
>> Anonymous
IMO equipment is irrelevant
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>93794

You just take the pictures by wiggling your finger in mid-air in front of you?
>> Anonymous
>>93804
No, I just look at the scenery then describe it to people.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>93821

Cunning. I hope you are articulate enough to get the image sharp and clear (in their minds), a good dynamic (vocal) range, while producing as little noise as possible.
>> Anonymous
A great camera is pointless in the hands of an unskilled photographer.
false. its the best way to learn. no limitations so you find your skill limits a lot faster.

Where as a lousy camera is great in the hands of a skilled photographer.
possibly. it depends on the subject and the camera. no photographer no matter how amazing could shoot amazing portraits or anything with a webcam.
both statements have their limitations.
>> Anonymous
>>93827no photographer no matter how amazing could shoot amazing portraits or anything with a webcam.

Maybe not what is generally defined as an "amazing portrait," but if the content is strong enough and the photographer creative enough to make the shortcomings of the camera work to his/her advantage, then there is no reason you couldn't create an amazing portrait with a webcam.

>>93827false. its the best way to learn
I wholeheartedly disagree. Usually a great camera will overwhelm the beginner with technical necessities and cause him/her to neglect the far more important things: content and vision.

That isn't to say that anyone with an interest and some skill in photography can't benefit from a good camera, but good doesn't mean great. When you start talking about exceedingly bad cameras then, yes, it begins to limit what can be done even by a great photographer. But you have to be pretty far into what most people consider bad cameras for that to truly become the case. Most of the time any "limitations" that people blame on cameras are actually due to a lack of technical skill, lack of creativity, laziness, or a combination thereof.

If you can't pick up a 1970s Zenit and make the same kind of photos that you could with the latest and greatest DSLR, it is due only to your failing as a photographer.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
True.

Check these links:

Holga Photographer
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.StoryDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3RHA2VXC

Olympus Point-and-Shoot
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844