I am open to this discussion as well... When people say "Man, nice photos, you must have a very expensive camera" most of us get offended by, but, did it really design to insult us?
I heard about "a very good book writer vs. his or her typewriter" argument. Good one, but you can also use something like "a car racer vs. his or her car", one can't win without the other. I might be comparing "apples to oranges", but some people just might credit us "how well we know to use expensive cameras".
No matter what I do, I can't match the quality of a 5D or 50D or 40D with my camera. And the lenses! Yes, expensive equipment does help a lot. Talent with nice equipment, the best results.
So, I can't say all those people "trying to hurt us" by complimenting to our cameras... would you?
it is BS when someone claims his/her camera did not contribute to the photo
when i get someone saying "your camera is really good, the photos came out very nicely", i know he isnt commenting on the photos i took with my mattel barbie cam.
No matter what I do, I can't match the quality of a 5D or 50D or 40D with my camera. And the lenses! Yes, expensive equipment does help a lot. Talent with nice equipment, the best results.
So, I can't say all those people "trying to hurt us" by complimenting to our cameras... would you?
There are two different ways of looking at this, regarding equipment. You are specifically speaking of output quality. You could for most circumstances, replicate a shot in terms of composition and what you captured, regardless of camera. Composition and what your frame depicts are not directly linked to the piece of technology but rather how the photographer chooses to orient them. Output is directly and inextricably tied to device.
I wouldn't say people are trying to insult photographers when they use such speech. But whether they try or not doesn't matter.
If you sincerely say to somebody "you speak english well for a mexican," it doesn't matter if you really meant they speak english well in general, what you said was an underhanded compliment.
ETA: You're just rabble rousing tonight, aren't you? and then watching the antics ensue ;)
When i get someone saying "your camera is really good, the photos came out very nicely" it means to me that my photo failed to emote. After all if it did the viewer wouldn't be focused so much on the sharpness, low noise, etc, which is basically what that comment translates to, IMO.
When i get someone saying "your camera is really good, the photos came out very nicely" it means to me that my photo failed to emote. After all if it did the viewer wouldn't be focused so much on the sharpness, low noise, etc, which is basically what that comment translates to, IMO.
You phrased output vs. vision in a much more comprehensible manner.
When i get someone saying "your camera is really good, the photos came out very nicely" it means to me that my photo failed to emote. After all if it did the viewer wouldn't be focused so much on the sharpness, low noise, etc, which is basically what that comment translates to, IMO.
If the person were a photographer, yes, I can see that. Non-photographers really quite often just like the picture and don't know how to evaluate sharpness, low noise, etc. They assume that your excellent composition, perfect exposure, etc - those things they really don't know how to express or translate - are somehow a result of your way cool camera. And in a way that's true. It is BECAUSE you know what you're doing, you have a good eye, you have the mad skillz, that you use a way cool camera. So the layperson does indeed offer "your camera is really good" as a compliment. We should take it as such.
I just take it as the compliment that is intended.
I feel the 80/20 rule applies. 80% is the photographer, and 20% is the gear. With the caveat that this only applies if the photographer has the know-how to get the benefit out of better gear. If you don't have the know-how, then you just get high quality snapshots.
To those people who comment on my camera, I consider the source. And I don't mean that in a negative way. 6 years ago, I would have said exactly the same thing because I didn't know anything about photography.
Most people know what they think makes a good picture. They just don't know why, so they can't say, "Man, you really nailed the composition on that and the exposure is perfect so that you have details visible in both the shadows and highlights." or "Wow. The contrast on this picture is perfect. And the depth of field you have chosen really makes the subject stand out."
So, they comment on what they think they know. "You take great pictures, you must have a good camera."
Similar to comments on here, there is a lot more behind that, and the good part is that you pretend it means what you think it means.
I choose, "Hey, they must think I take really good, professional level pictures, because I care enough about what I'm doing to sink more money into my camera than the little ones at Wal-Mart."
(Not knocking Walmart cameras, I have one and use it regularly, but that is what I like to think.)
When i get someone saying "your camera is really good, the photos came out very nicely" it means to me that my photo failed to emote. After all if it did the viewer wouldn't be focused so much on the sharpness, low noise, etc, which is basically what that comment translates to, IMO.
If the person were a photographer, yes, I can see that. Non-photographers really quite often just like the picture and don't know how to evaluate sharpness, low noise, etc. They assume that your excellent composition, perfect exposure, etc - those things they really don't know how to express or translate - are somehow a result of your way cool camera. And in a way that's true. It is BECAUSE you know what you're doing, you have a good eye, you have the mad skillz, that you use a way cool camera. So the layperson does indeed offer "your camera is really good" as a compliment. We should take it as such.
Right. The non-photographer isn't going to know why exactly just that they like something about the technicals they can't pinpoint. That can be a compliment as you say. However, if you're trying to do more than just receive acknowledgments of your technical competency then such comments represent failure, IMO.
I find the ones who do the "great shot... nice camera" bit are often people who also own an SLR but don't go out the way to practice, shoot, practice, shoot, themselves. Then because they don't get the same results out of their camera they assume it's because they don't have the same equipment as you, hence the, "you must have a nice camera". These are always the people who believe that if they had better equipment they would be better photographers.
The added proof of this is that the ones that say it, are usually always the ones who actually know what sort of camera equipment you have, you never get it from people who don't, they usually just go, "WOW, that's a really nice shot!".
I've never heard anyone compliment a NASCAR winner on their car.
I don't know if it's relevant - just throwin it out there.
Though many winners will say they had a good car.
If someone admires my camera, it doesn't bother me a bit. Those who are not avid participants in any field, tend not to understand what goes into end result. And them sometimes even if they are, they still look at the equipment. How many golfers covet other good golfers clubs? Lots of money is made selling that "magic" better driver. Don't think I've ever heard a golfer get upset because someone admired his/her clubs. It must be the artist in us, that drives the emotion.
It's never bothered me, and I've heard it a lot. Here's what I "hear": "Wow! You really know what you're doing! You know how to pick the gear that works, and you know how to use it to best advantage!"
Heres a cut & paste from one of my facebook albums from my honeymoon:
"Timo, please tell me what type is ur camera. All the photos are amazing"
I dunno, I'm sure he meant well, but I couldn't help but feel the comment implied that the camera did all the work while i just pushed a button. I still took it as a compliment.
Originally posted by idnic:
I usually respond with something like "my camera can take really bad pictures too - but I work very hard to make sure that doesn't happen". :)
If I had really expensive golf clubs custom fitted to my exact size and swing I could golf better. I still would be a very bad golfer.
I could cook better if I had a big clean kitchen full of very nice pots and pans and gadgets. I still wouldn't be a gourmet chef (altough I'm close).
I could take better pictures if I had a multi-thousand dollar camera with multi thousand dollar lenses and every sort of lighting and other equipment. But I still couldn't take great shots like a lot of the people here.
Just some relevant examples.
I took a picture of my mother-in-laws dog the other day and it was clear and in focus dispite the fact that he was running. Of course she said "Wow thats a really good camera to freeze him like that." I resisted the urge to say anything about how her camera could do the same thing if she took it off of auto and used the proper settings or how to properly pan with the running dog. I said thanks because I know she was really trying to give me a compliment.
No matter what I do, I can't match the quality of a 5D or 50D or 40D with my camera. And the lenses! Yes, expensive equipment does help a lot. Talent with nice equipment, the best results.
I think that statement's nonsense.
I've seen way too many stellar images with high end P&S cameras as well as the Rebels and D40/50/60/70/ cameras to buy into that at all.
It's about that lovely combination of luck, skill, and experience that work together to make memorable images.
Yeah, there are some differences in actual image quality on some level, but if everything isn't right, you can shoot crappy images with a 5D, too.
