13 
When you’ve been blogging about photography for a while, you’ll come across a lot of questions from beginners. “How did you take that photo?”, sadly, isn’t the top question I’m asked. Instead, people try to take shortcuts, and the first step of taking that shortcut is asking me what photography equipment I’m using.
It’s flattering when people ask, but just like you wouldn’t ask James Patterson, Harlan Coben or John Sandford what word processing software they use, or dig into the past to find out what brushes Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning or Gustav Klimt used, asking a photographer what equipment they used to take a particular photo is, in itself, insulting. The implication that you could paint as well as Rembrandt if you only had his canvasses and brushes is absurd — and the same goes for photography.
Let me be the first to tell you this: You don’t need expensive photography equipment to take fantastic photos. Take the Canon EOS 1000D, for example. It’s the cheapest SLR camera Canon ever made. A quick search on Flickr shows that there’s dozens of photos taken with that camera that are far better than I’ve ever taken.
The same is true for the Nikon camp — you can pick up a Nikon D3000 for under £300 these days, but cast thine eyes at Fullerton or Ant Nightmare, and it quickly becomes clear that, in the right hands, even the simplest of digital SLRs can be used to capture fantastic photos.
Try it yourself; head to the Flickr camera finder, find your own camera, and see what people have achieved with it. I’m willing to bet that you’ll be surprised (whether that is because one of your own photos is being shown, or because the results are so astonishing).
The point we’re making is that photographers need to get off their desire to buy the newest and greatest kit. You’ll recall, for example, the fashion shoot F-stoppers did using only an iPhone camera…with magnificent results.
If you’re going to invest in anything, invest time in your own photography skills. Start following some online tutorials (here are 250 of ‘em to get you started); sign up for a class, or put together a small circle of friends and set yourself some challenges.
You don’t become a better driver by buying yourself a flashy car, and you don’t become a better photographer by buying a top-shelf camera.
Photo credit: Haje Jan Kamps / Photocritic (Taken with a humble Canon compact camera)
Haje Jan Kamps is a prolific photography blogger who has written a small stack of books about photography. He also developed the Triggertrap camera trigger and has been known to travel the world a bit. If you’re of the tweeting kind, try him on @Photocritic!
I disagree to a large extent. While there are a lot of people who take photography seriously, there are also many that aren’t photographers who still use point-and-shoot cameras or even their phones to take their normal photos. I am one such person. I have no strong desire to learn about photography and am extremely happy to let the camera technology do it for me. I fully accept that the photo quality is not going to be anywhere near what even a casual photographer can produce but this is what works for me (and many other people). If someone looks at my photos and asks me what camera I used, I would not in the slightest be insulted. Likewise, if there is a reasonably priced camera I could upgrade to that could improve my end image quality while still allowing me to take pictures in the same “point-and-click” manner then I will happily upgrade.
Your analogies of painting or driving a car are completely flawed. To a large degree, painting and driving is down to the skill of the person. Where as there is very little skill required for point-and-shoot photography.
Also, I would bet that more people fall into the point-and-shoot category than those that don’t.
I feel like you’re missing the point slightly. There may not be very much skill required to take a ‘technically’ good photo these days with point-and-shoot cameras and automatic settings but by saying photography is not down to the skill of the person is kind of insulting a whole artform. Photography is about subject, composition, framing, lighting, mood and so on – these are the real skills that make interesting photographs. The technical ability of your camera and your knowledge of how to exploit it should come once you’ve mastered these other skills.
I think the point he’s trying to make is that a large proportion of technically uneducated photographers somehow believe that a high standard of photography is only achieved through high end equipment and not due to the artistic ability of the photographer.
Yes, upgrading your equipment from what you have now may increase your image quality, but it will not increase your technical ability or how you photograph your subject. you’ll just have a larger crap photo.
You mention that “I have no strong desire to learn about photography and am extremely happy to let the camera technology do it for me”. It doesnt work like that. This is exactly the point he’s trying to make.
The painting and car analogy is actually spot on.
I agree, it is insulting and wrong to neglect the talent, and it becomes more apparent when you extend photography to cinematography – when a daft rom-com may largly use the same equipment as a cinematic masterpiece.
The only aspect the article is wrong on here is not understanding about the art world, many artists research the tools of great painters, including the fine recipes they used in oil painting. Something which I always find futile, considering most of Da Vinci’s painting don’t exist because of the experimentation he did in materials and substrates. Or they may use the same limited pigments of a great painter. This is all very well but they also need to understand that many artists in history used pigments and brushes and oils of a certain type purely because that was the best that they could get at that time, we have better options, and if most of those artists would use those better options if alive today – it is madness like saying going to work on a horse in the morning is going to make you a better painter like Da Vinci. And many Artists probably wouldn’t even be painting if alive in todays world – Da Vinci would be into genetics or something or Van Gough may be an animator.
It is good to learn and understand what others have done, but that is purely the beginning of a very long journey of defining yourself in your own terms.
This is a great post, 100% agree with you.
I can see both sides of this:
I got my first beginner DSLR about 2 years ago now, just because I had the equipment didn’t mean I knew how to use it, everyone I could see on Flickr with the same camera was achieving much better pictures… So I went on a couple of courses to learn how to use the camera and a couple to learn how to compose decent pictures, and over the years I’ve seen an improvement in the quality of my photographs (at least I hope so anyway). I’ve still got a long way to go to get to the quality of photography I desire, which won’t come through equipment but through more learning and more practice.
On the other hand though, some equipment can change the outcome of a photograph… such as an ND filter so you can take longer exposures, often producing beautiful seascapes and sweeping clouds; or lighting that others just can’t seem to replicate with their own equipment. So sometimes I do feel curious and ask what that photographer used to achieve those results.
surely that covers a different topic in itself?
Having filters or proper lighting equipment is more akin to asking an artist whether he had any lighting to help him get the extra detail in the skin, or asking a rally driver if he had xenon fogs so he could see better driving at night.
Or the filter is like a paint artist changing to ink to get a better effect for a sketch.
Those things aren’t spending more money to “improve” the camera, as much as they are are there to widen it’s skill range. A d3000 vs a d3s with the filters or the flash should still both produce fantastic photography.
Camera finder link is incorrectly formatted.
I’d agree about the camera body, but the particular lens used for a shot is critical and can take a lot of thought, perhaps people are more bothered about that rather than the camera itself? Since a huge part of learning to use an SLR/DLSR is working out what lens to use.
This is very true, considering most photographers videographers list the equipment used on online postings – took on this camera with this lens, using this equipment at these settings, I guess they do that to educate and inform others. I think most photographers pay the respect to the glass and settings used on that. Yet also their are effects and shots that you just can’t get, or will find it hard to get, without the right camera body or lenses.
To me, having a good camera is about expanding the possibilities and increasing the opportunities for taking a quality photograph
In the perfect condition, the crappiest camera in the world can take the best picture you will ever take… But perfect conditions never exist, in fact the world tends towards the opposite, that is why you change the lenses and filters, set your exposure and aperture correctly, and hold the camera properly… The more expensive the camera, the more options you will have in dealing with real and imperfect conditions
But in the end, it is you who is dealing with the conditions of taking a picture, so yes, the more expensive the camera, the more skill you will need, and also you will need knowledge that does not apply to cheaper cameras
If the case was stated any other way I would have to agree with you, but when you frame it in terms of investment, I have to question whether kit or “oneself” is a better investment, because with one you know what you’ll get, with the other you don’t. I have been researching what DSLR is best for shooting short films for someone breaking into the industry. They are desperate to do courses but they not only cost a fortune, but there is so little way of knowing whether the result will actually be worth it. With the tech you know that investing only£1000-£1500 is going to get you enough kit to make almost anything you want, and the only thing to stop you is your own creativity and initiative. So why invest £500 in a short course which might leave you with barely more than a couple youtube videos? I say, invest in the ghastly overpriced manfrotto tripod that will let you pan smoothly rather than worry about the crappy £50 one which distracts you from the core of it – creativity!
Get over yourself.
Seriously.
If someone is asking what your kit is, take it as a compliment: clearly, they like your pictures and respect your skills enough if they’re asking for advice.
In any field, people — particularly those new to the field — can be incredibly put off by people being rude. Getting insulted over a question like the above, is to my mind, being rude. People learn by asking questions, and there is NO such thing as a stupid question, even if it’s one that pisses you off personally. Besides, even the supposedly-best photographer can still learn new things, and even you (and I!) take bum shots now and then. Don’t pretend to be a paragon of all things decent.
Be humble. Be friendly. Be nice. Be helpful. And take questions as a compliment. Chatter about equipment, pointers for how to use features, ideas for things to try, etc. Be open. It’s the best thing you can do.
totally agree with theodora. OP could not come off more pretentious, but gee, thanks for enlightening me on the whole workman/tools thing in such a long-winded (guess you’re after a word count here) and patronising fashion. in any case, on http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/haje you seem to bang on about camera equipment as much as the next guy. also, have you ever wondered why DSLRs might be slightly more attractive to the gadgeteer over a paintbrush?