PDA

View Full Version : How to reply when people say "You must have an expensive camera"?



Ekliptix
05-28-2006, 10:08 AM
It seems more and more that the first thing people do is give credit to the camera when they see a nice picture.

I'm sure most of you have experienced this and I often have a hard time replying without sounding self praising.

An exadurated reply might be "I guess in the old days you would have said nice painting, you must have a fancy paint brush".

:banghead:

Dooms_Bane
05-28-2006, 10:13 AM
hahah so true... kinda hard...
if you own a fully automated camera.. different question. :)
then you do have a nice camera
BUT if it's those ones where everything is done manually. :(
then hell you got some mad picture taking skills :)
which is why all the better pictures are taken with those manually adjustable ones :)

i personally don't know how to use them.. only like playing with them hahaha

Ekliptix
05-28-2006, 10:20 AM
The use of good equipment is a part of getting a good photo.
Most people forget about:
a) learning how to actually use the equipment properly
b) considering composition in the image
c) the times spent learning how to post process

D'z Nutz
05-28-2006, 10:29 AM
Oh, fuck do I hate that! My response is usually "Uhh... okay." then I ignore them.

Other comments that drive me nuts:

"Whoa, nice camera, you must be a pro."
"How many megapixels?"
"Just shoot it. Don't worry, you can photoshop it out later."

xrayvsn
05-28-2006, 10:40 AM
The camera equipment matters less than what is going on 5 cm behind it.;)

EK 2.0
05-28-2006, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by D'z Nutz
"Just shoot it. Don't worry, you can photoshop it out later."


D. that one is my fave...hahahaha...

Phuqu
05-28-2006, 12:17 PM
I can get the same results with a disposable.

Xaroxantu Zero
05-28-2006, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Ekliptix
I'm sure most of you have experienced this and I often have a hard time replying without sounding self praising.

I just say, "It certainly is a nice camera, but learning how to use it effectively is a completely different story. I've seen people who can take better pictures with a disposable camera."

Ben
05-28-2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by D'z Nutz
Oh, fuck do I hate that! My response is usually "Uhh... okay." then I ignore them.

Other comments that drive me nuts:

"Whoa, nice camera, you must be a pro."
"How many megapixels?"
"Just shoot it. Don't worry, you can photoshop it out later."

HAHA, I get this all the time, especially at the last show.

-I am, thanks.
-Enough
-I prefer to take the extra few seconds before the shot so that I dont waste hours post processing after the show. Sometimes you dont have time to post process, goes back to my first answer.


Generally when I'm at a show and someone asks what my "rig" is worth, and then they fire out a low figure like a grand, I'll just say it wasn't cheap but it's well worth it.


The megapixels one is a little aggravating because everyone thinks more megapixels = better camera. So so so so so WRONG!!! haha. But now I have more than enough anyhow. :P

TurboMedic
05-28-2006, 03:00 PM
I love the megapixels argument.......I have friends insist their P&S 8mp camer is better than my DSLR....funny how my photos always turn out better...They get amazing photos out of 4mp D2H's still!

City of Calgary must not have heard that though, they're using 12mp D2X's in the red light cameras!

Elliot
05-28-2006, 07:46 PM
^ So they can zoom in and get your plate.

I dont even own a camera, I know why - its because I dont know how to use one properly. See so many nice shots from you guys, and I just can't do it. Its more to the camera, its the location of the shot, angle etc.

TurboMedic
05-28-2006, 10:55 PM
You can still get good crops with lower MP cameras though....

BerserkerCatSplat
05-29-2006, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by TurboMedic

City of Calgary must not have heard that though, they're using 12mp D2X's in the red light cameras!

:eek: If a red light camera suddenly goes missing tomorrow, it wasn't me! ;)

snowboard
05-29-2006, 02:17 PM
when its higher mega pixels doesnt that just mean that you can zoom in further and it doesnt "pixelate" as soon?

fuck it would be nice to learn how to use a good manual camera with 35mm? film. i love a good photo. but thats a pricey asss hobby haha.

sputnik
05-29-2006, 02:22 PM
I like the guys who shoot 400-500 shots just to find 2-3 that are actually good images and then their friends praise him about how great a photographer he must be.

"An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of cameras..."

benyl
05-29-2006, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by EK 2.0

D. that one is my fave...hahahaha...

nah this one is better:

"The ISO must be too hot!"

BerserkerCatSplat
05-29-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by sputnik
I like the guys who shoot 400-500 shots just to find 2-3 that are actually good images and then their friends praise him about how great a photographer he must be.

"An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of cameras..."

I disagree with that somewhat. No matter how much thought you put into composition and technique, not all of your photographs are going to be keepers. Not even half, not even a tenth. I might take 800 images in a day of shooting and have a dozen that I think are visually attractive and worth processing - and even fewer than that get posted in my gallery.

Ansel Adams used to say that getting 12 really good shots in any one year was an excellent crop - and that's a guy who took more photos in a month than I probably do in a year.

3g4me
05-29-2006, 04:47 PM
Nah all my pics are beautiful and worthy of being published.:D

seer_claw
05-29-2006, 08:03 PM
I hate when people look at some of the shots I've taken with my new camera and said that they are way better shots than I had with my old Sony Cybershot P30 (1.3 megapixel). Yes, they do look a lot better, its a nicer camera (Nikon D70s) but the shots that I've been taking are still in the learning process. There are a lot of old shots that I really like because they mean a lot and shot some really neat scenes.

The other comment that I've heard a lot recently is:

Q: Is that a digital camera?
A: Yes.
Q: I didn't know that digital cameras came with lenses like that, only film.... :banghead:

streetarab
05-29-2006, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by seer_claw
I hate when people look at some of the shots I've taken with my new camera and said that they are way better shots than I had with my old Sony Cybershot P30 (1.3 megapixel). Yes, they do look a lot better, its a nicer camera (Nikon D70s) but the shots that I've been taking are still in the learning process. There are a lot of old shots that I really like because they mean a lot and shot some really neat scenes.

The other comment that I've heard a lot recently is:

Q: Is that a digital camera?
A: Yes.
Q: I didn't know that digital cameras came with lenses like that, only film.... :banghead:
yea, i hate when people call a picture bad because the camera quality isn't perfect, its like only lookin at a book cover and sayin the book must suck because the cover isn't perfect, they dont go any deeper

iceburns288
05-29-2006, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by sputnik
I like the guys who shoot 400-500 shots just to find 2-3 that are actually good images and then their friends praise him about how great a photographer he must be.

"An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of cameras..."

When I shoot, I consider more than 3 shots I really like on a roll (yeah, old school B&W too) spectacular. One great shot per roll is still pretty nice.:dunno:

Ben
05-29-2006, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


I disagree with that somewhat. No matter how much thought you put into composition and technique, not all of your photographs are going to be keepers. Not even half, not even a tenth. I might take 800 images in a day of shooting and have a dozen that I think are visually attractive and worth processing - and even fewer than that get posted in my gallery.

Ansel Adams used to say that getting 12 really good shots in any one year was an excellent crop - and that's a guy who took more photos in a month than I probably do in a year.

He's talking about usable photos, not that one glorious shot that just moves you inside.

Sputnik is bang on.

People just snap away and hope for the best. Say you're at a hockey game, you are photographing the game, and that one play comes up where the shot needs to be bang on. It doesn't matter if you got all the other shots of skating around, but if you missed that game winning goal, you're SOL, especially when it's a 1 time shot, make it or bust.

It's the percentage of usable photos that matters.

Thats a major thing that is critiques with the digital world, when you have no film to worry about, you're bound to get at least one picture right.

If you take your time and set up your shot, use the camera properly, and utilize some photography skills, the image WILL turn out, EVERY time, without a doubt. It comes down to experience and being able to asign the proper exposure settings to the camera without 10-20 "test fires", but on the first fire.

EK 2.0
05-29-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by benyl
nah this one is better:

"The ISO must be too hot!"

what the...who says stuff like that??...

BerserkerCatSplat
05-29-2006, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Ben


He's talking about usable photos, not that one glorious shot that just moves you inside.

Sputnik is bang on.

People just snap away and hope for the best. Say you're at a hockey game, you are photographing the game, and that one play comes up where the shot needs to be bang on. It doesn't matter if you got all the other shots of skating around, but if you missed that game winning goal, you're SOL, especially when it's a 1 time shot, make it or bust.

It's the percentage of usable photos that matters.

Thats a major thing that is critiques with the digital world, when you have no film to worry about, you're bound to get at least one picture right.

If you take your time and set up your shot, use the camera properly, and utilize some photography skills, the image WILL turn out, EVERY time, without a doubt. It comes down to experience and being able to asign the proper exposure settings to the camera without 10-20 "test fires", but on the first fire.

OK, I gotcha. I was talking about the really good shots, the ones you're proud of - not the "useable" shots. 99% of shots will be "useable" if you know what you're doing. Being an amateur that doesn't sell his work, the "useable" shots don't really concern me. They get filed away in the depths of my hard drive for if I might want to look at them again, becuase nobody's looking to buy my shots in bulk. The shots that really rock my socks are the ones I define as "good" ones, the ones I'm proud of and feel confident enough to display them to the world as examples of my work.

In your context, sputnik is indeed quite correct.

sputnik
05-30-2006, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Ansel Adams used to say that getting 12 really good shots in any one year was an excellent crop - and that's a guy who took more photos in a month than I probably do in a year.

Ben clarified what I was getting at.

My wife does architectural photography and will shoot a maximum of 10-12 shots in an 8 hr day.

When shooting architectural there is close to an hour (or 2) of setup work done per image. It also isnt worth her time to spend countless hours in photoshop fixing stuff. She shoots everything "in camera" and doesnt machine gun a site hoping for 10-12 images. Everything she does is deliberate so that she knows EXACTLY what she will have for her client and her output is over 90%.

Remember when people would shoot film? No photographer in their right mind would shoot off a dozen rolls of film just for a couple of images. The processing alone would leave you making minimum wage. Change that to shooting 4x5 E6 transparancies and you would have no chance at making ANY money.

seer_claw
06-01-2006, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by D'z Nutz
*Snip
"How many megapixels?"
"Just shoot it. Don't worry, you can photoshop it out later."

So I'm out buying my brother a camera today (I'm currently up in Fort McMurray) and I went down to the local camera shop to see what they have available. Of course everything is behind the counter, no problem so wait for the first person availble to help me. A lady walks over and asks if she can help, I say sure, "What do you have for p&s cameras that have manual (M,S,A) settings on them?" She gives me a wierd look and heads over to shelving where the cameras are. After looking at them for a minute, turns around and asks "How many megapixels did you say?" I reply "I didn't mention anything about megapixels, just bring the ones with manual settings over." She grabs a camera and brings it over, I look at it and it is the furthest thing from having any settings on it at all other than zoom. :banghead:

She then says, it has an 8MP sensor which is above average....:banghead: The look that I gave her must have made her decide to find someone else to help me. She turned around and grabbed the closest person who fortunately did notice that I was not asking for 'megapixels'. A person working behind the desk of a camera store with this lack of knowledge I find appaling. I really have to head back down to the Camera Store in Calgary. lol

gp36912
06-21-2006, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


I disagree with that somewhat. No matter how much thought you put into composition and technique, not all of your photographs are going to be keepers. Not even half, not even a tenth. I might take 800 images in a day of shooting and have a dozen that I think are visually attractive and worth processing - and even fewer than that get posted in my gallery.

Ansel Adams used to say that getting 12 really good shots in any one year was an excellent crop - and that's a guy who took more photos in a month than I probably do in a year.
^^^ 800 :D wow



:D i take about 120 shots or so everytime i go you for a shoot or w/e :D alot of them are almost doubles where i change the angle a little or the aperture a little, etc. either way i still end up only using 5 or 6 of the shots, because the rest are useable but i just don't wanna use them lol :D its not like the lighting is off or whatnot but its just it dosn't look right to me, just like beserker says also :D

My wife does architectural photography and will shoot a maximum of 10-12 shots in an 8 hr day.

When shooting architectural there is close to an hour (or 2) of setup work done per image. It also isnt worth her time to spend countless hours in photoshop fixing stuff. She shoots everything "in camera" and doesnt machine gun a site hoping for 10-12 images. Everything she does is deliberate so that she knows EXACTLY what she will have for her client and her output is over 90%.

Remember when people would shoot film? No photographer in their right mind would shoot off a dozen rolls of film just for a couple of images. The processing alone would leave you making minimum wage. Change that to shooting 4x5 E6 transparancies and you would have no chance at making ANY money.

:D that why we have digital cameras now :D the person my mom babysits for is a professional photog and he takes a ton of pics every time hes out there. its not that he needs to take all those shots but he does so that he has captured every good angle possible and then he can sift through them later.



o and if i still had my 3.3mp sony dsc i would still be using it :D i have gotten some great shots with it lol but its broken now and it can't be fixed.