Prove to me that you don't need to have expensive gear to be a good photographer.>Pro-tip: you can't
I can prove to you that you don't need to have cheap gear to be a bad photographer
In reference to what?Stupid and unqualified statement. SAGE goes in all fields.
i made this with a pirated version of lightroom and a 60 dollar DSLR from 2008[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D40XCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.1 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern758Focal Length (35mm Equiv)30 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2019:04:15 19:37:54Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/3.8Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/3.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length20.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3468264The definition of "expensive" spreads quite a distance.However you can take pretty great pictures with pretty cheap gear.Keep in mind that most people won`t look at your pictures in large prints or at large screens, so sharpness is not as important.Pretty much nobody will look at a 100% crop and most websites/social media compress the shit out of your images anyway.As long as you can adjust whatever you need to and have access to some post processing tools you can take pretty damn good pictures.
>>3468274is this some kind of artistic take on the arthur fist meme?
>>3468320thats an interesting interpretation, i liek it. My actual intention with it was trying to interpret the sensation of touch while on drugs, how i found my hand felt disconnected from the rest of the limb when i tried touching something, its how i think bad depth perception would look if it was a physical attribute
fuck gear related threads
>>3468264You've drawn a correlation and think it's causation. it isn't.Professionals have expensive gear because they know how to get the best from it. You can drop 20k on gear and still be shit.
>>3468324If that's how you feel when you touch something, why is your hand just hanging there doing nothing?
>>3468264I have seen great pictures taken with shit gear. That being said, if a photographer shows up to photograph my wedding with a rabble complete with pop up flash and kit lens, either I paid him $20 or I was bamboozled in to thinking he was much better than he actually is.
>>3468402How do you know? Most likely the pictures will be amazing just like the other pictures you saw and based your decision to hire him on
>>3468264I've seen a lot of really nice shots on Instagram that were shot with mediocre gear, even some that were shot with a Sony so it just goes to show what can be done
>>3468264I'm a good photographer and all I use are point and shoots I find at thrift stores for $5
I'm a bad photographer and I use a 645z
Here, a group full of images rendered through the worst lens known to man:https://www.flickr.com/groups/2122756@N21/pool/Some are good at least
>>3468392its more focusing on the disconnect under drugs or false depth perception, rather than what is being touched
>>3468427>even some that were shot with a great camera
Canon Rebel SII, 50mm plastic fantastic, Tri-X 400op is a fag[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpi
>>3468447The a6000 kit lens? You're just shit. It's actually very decent for a kit lens although slow af. I've had better colors from it than my Sigma prime. It's small, lightweight and has stabilization. Find me a better value than that.
>>3468649Nope I said Sony, even if the camera was half decent it's users are all gumbies
>>3468264My entire print catalogue is made up of shots from my x100, despite having owned a ff Sony for the last year and a half.
>>3468324Oh god, enough to me for not taking the bait.
Old gear will excel in most lighting situations. I owned a 450D from 2009 till last year when I finally upgraded.Back in the late 2000s no one was taking photos in the dark without a flash, and no one blew up their prints to 40 x 30 unless its a billboard viewed from afar. You really don't need 15 stops of dynamic range and 50 MP for everything you do. Obviously I'm not telling anyone to bring their Holga to a war zone, but if the masters can make do with their manual rangefinders, you can make do with your Sony faggot.
>>3468780>You really don't need 15 stops of dynamic range and 50 MP for everything you do.50mp can come handy. But dynamic range is the biggest meme in the world. In real world environment it's still so fucking low compared to human eyes, it's having no fucking effect on end picture. Everyone of note, even with the best sensors and most expensive dbacks, is still exposure bracketing! People take at lest two, three brackets per landscape or architecture, and often as many as couple of hours of interval shooting, for optimum selection later in editing.
>>3468722eat shit Canon fag, cope harder
>>3468797Are you implying that Barack Obama is cheap gear?
>>3468797degenerates attract one another
>>3469059Then how come I hate both of them?
>>3469023good morning, poopchute
>>3468274yeah it's shit.. you're proving the OP right you retard
>>3468264>Prove to me that you don't need to have expensive gear to be a good photographer.>couldn't even get the subject in focus
>>3468264Legendary New York Times fashion photographer, Bill Cunningham, using an entry level Nikon DSLR with a Nikkor AF 24mm f/2.8 (sells for less than $300 currently on eBay)
>>3468264>more revered than you’ll ever be[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width369Image Height550Scene Capture TypeStandard
Bait thread, but using shitty gear makes you a better photographer. Learning to expose each scene without blowing out the highlights and crushing the shadows, instead of using dynamic range as a safety-net. Having a single AF point to accurately track a moving subject instead of using multi-AF and cropping your shots. Blending in with the crowd instead of using your Big Black Camera™ for clout. There are plenty of reasons why you should start out with a shitty camera
>>3468648Okay here >>3469865 I purchasedd this for $5 At value village and it works just fine.
>>3469913It's a film camera. The film emulsion takes the image, not the camera body
I bought a 1DX M1 for $1700, shit rocks and still holds up three years laterI still suck ass so you're right
>>3469429everytime you post this it seems he hasn't changed his clothes for years that barnacles already started attaching themselves and later to his hair and beard
this was taken on a $15 camera and free roll of film[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width6000Image Height4000Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:04:22 19:09:32Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Brightness-2.6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceOtherFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>3470144And this was taken on a DSLR from 2004 and a kit lens[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70sCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern822Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution111 dpiVertical Resolution111 dpiImage Created2007:03:12 20:41:41Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length40.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width650Image Height650RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3470145And this was taken on a bridge camera from 2001[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width725Image Height567Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:01:09 21:31:33Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width696Image Height523
>>3468264I have a D7000 with a 50 and I'm a goo-
>>3470144>A7 with manual lens>$15 camera and free roll of film
>>3468264You don't need expensive gear. You need good gear. There is a difference.
>>3468264The best gear is the gear you always carry with you
>>3468264>Pro tip: You can be a good photographer regardless of the gear you carry. Ask yourself what makes a good photographer . If you link the concept of "being a good photographer" to sharpness and dynamic range then I'm sorry but to me you have no idea about photography. Those things are important for some types of pictures, (I personally love pin sharp portraits and landscapes) but there are many examples of awesome photographers whose pictures are not sharp, well focused or have great IQ but that transmit way more than others that are all of those things.Ask yourself what kind of pictures you want to take, what do you want to transmit to the people who is watching them and then research what gear you need to convey those emotions in the way that you want to do it.Gear is important but concept is king. Otherwise everyone with enough money can take the same pictures that you can.
>>3470144This is great. How deep out there were you?
>>3468658It shows. Terrible shot.
>>3471425i used my a7 + macro lens + nikon es-1 slide copier for scanning film>>3471509not that deep. standing in waist deep water but needing to jump up with the camera over my head when waves were passing
>>3468264>define expensive>define good>what is a good photographer>what is a bad photographer>you're unironically thinking that expensive gear has anything to do with good photographyI've seen people with 1200D cameras and max 250 bucks glass doing astonishing jobs. I've seen idiots with daddy's fuck you money spending over 10 grand on a lens + body combo and even after a while not getting close to what the 1200D lad did.You're a fucking moron. The cancerous type of moron who thinks that "hurr durr, if you have, you good" type of moron. Get a clue you moronic neanderthal. No amazing photographer became amazing because of his thousands of dollars worth of gear.
>>3468264Look like, fullframe? Cheap and nice![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2019:05:02 17:30:44Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3469093And you're proving that /p/ is just bunch of GASers.
Expensive gear wont compensate for lack of any sort of artistic knowledge - you have to acquire that yourself. By that logic skill as a photographer lies in the person, not the gear.You may need good gear to take good photos, but you said "good photographer" implying you're talking about the person taking the photos. You can be a good photographer taking okay pictures because you dont have good gear, but a bad photographer wont magically take amazing pictures just because they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on gear.
>>3468264Since you've been asked to define everything else, define "photographer".
>>3473239Even with improvements to cameras wont a good one always be good, Why do people keep buying newer models?
>>3473974marketing. But it is not actually such a sin to be a gearfag, costs of traveling for shoots dominates in the end. well, hopefully.
>>3468264Proofs[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)PhotographerMichael AckermanMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2019:01:07 10:59:00Exposure Time1/1500 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating3200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length70.00 mm
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)PhotographerMichael AckermanMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2019:01:07 10:59:07Exposure Time1/1500 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating3200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length110.00 mm
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)PhotographerMichael AckermanMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2019:01:07 10:58:17Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating3200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length145.00 mm
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)PhotographerMichael AckermanMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2019:01:07 10:58:31Exposure Time1/1500 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating3200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length70.00 mm
>>3474669It's more important than street.
>>3469290>>3469290That's just because he's a cheap jew
>>3474669sports photography is awesome. far better than shitposting
>>3468274point still stands lmaodumbass
>>3468658>Canon Rebel SII, 50mm plastic fantasticno shit>>3470146whats a bridge camera
>>3474665>>3474666>>3474668>10D in 2019bold man
>>3475000>whats a bridge cameraKnow those cameras that are the same size as cameras that you can swap lenses with, but have a fixed lens? Those are bridge cameras.They're almost universally shit upon because they combine the weaknesses of compacts (small sensor, fixed lens, subpar controls) with the size of a dslr/mirrorless effectively giving you the worst of both worlds.You're basically always better off avoiding these and getting a dedicated compact or an ilc (interchangable lens camera).
>>3468264here is proof u succer. no go away.
>>3475047ahh gotcha so like a x100
proof. simply amazing work
>>3474697>>3474828The heavy emphasis on burst shooting and hoping you get something is lame as fuck.
>>3477685There's no more of a heavy emphasis on burst shooting in sports photography than any other kind.
>>3477686Burst shooting sucks in general. The difference is that in sports photography it's just about a requirement.
>>3477688>The difference is that in sports photography it's just about a requirement.No, it really isn't.
>>3477688Now that I have more of a chance to comment, no, burst firing is only a crutch, even in sports. It's for people who can't read the situation well enough to hit the shutter release at the right moment. Shooting off a burst of say a football play is no different from shooting off a burst of the husband and bride kissing. You only do it if you feel you need a backup to your sense of timing and feel for the moment.
>>3477728burst shooting is a crutch, but only for those who don't know how to properly use it.>You only do it if you feel you need a backup to your sense of timing and feel for the moment.This is sorta true but also a gross over-simplification. There are plenty of moments that even the most experienced photographer won't be able to anticipate/react quickly enough to capture in the moment, which is where burst shooting comes in. Also, capturing 'peak action' won't necessarily create the best photo, for a number of reason, so it's important to be able to capture a sequence of photos of that particular play. Also, you need to take into account that even the most sophisticated autofocus system will miss focus on occasion, especially in continuous mode.
>>3468791>saying this unironically
>>3480165Dynamic range really isn't all that important though, Fujichrome Velvia is only about 4 or 5 stops of dynamic range and plenty of photographers still love it.
>>3468264any camera that shoots RAW is good enoughjust make it look good in photoshop like all the professionals dobam
>>3475047>>3475097Buy an RX100much bigger sensor than a bridge camera. they hold their value, though, for the later models
>>3480220Doesn't mean it's not limited though.To use it effectively you need to wait for the right light and/or use filters (GNDs for sure, maybe a polariser too, or a warming filter if there's lots of shadows).Which is fine for landscapes but not something you'd use on midday trying to capture scenes that evolve and that you can't come back later and shoot again.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r15 (Mar 1 2019) 5e078a5 01.03.Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpi
Your photos just can't be technically the best, but make a story around using shitty point and shoots that will succeed and boom, you are a good photographer.
Based daido and his boy say otherwise
>>3468264>no good photographers existed before 24mp DSLR'syour logic is as flawed as Sony's raw format
>>3480653>your logic is as flawed as Sony's raw formatwhat's wrong with it?
Ren Hang[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2012:10:30 01:57:18
>>3480594>Any camera is fine. Why was Daido scratching his nose? Was he lying?
Every great photo taken ever has was taken with a camera technologically inferior to an entry level DSLR.
>>3480657eats your stars even in RAW format which means there is in camera processing on RAW which shouldn't befirmware update didn't fix it >just buy a new camera
>>3480233You're forgetting about decisive moment shooting.If you can't predict a camera's inconsistent shutter lag or take over full control when you feel the AI isn't thinking what you're thinking, getting the picture you want gets more and more up to luck than ability.
I took this with a Canon AE-1 and a 50mm 1.4 that I got for $10 at a flea market.
>>3470144Really aesthetic, great pic imo.
>>3468271>>3468273Define "define 'define'".
>>3469290>LegendaryNever heard of him.
>>3480899is there something that doesn't add up?
>>3468658You're not really disproving his point eh?
>>3468264At this point even low end bodies feature 24 MP, 12 stops of dynamic range and rather good low-light performance.Combine that with any somewhat decent lense and you can take pictures far sharper and with higher dynamic range than most displays can show.Even 4K is just barely above 8 MP and good luck finding a screen capable of three times as much, pretty much nobody will view your image on a screen with that high resolution.These days it is far more about composition than it is about overall sharpness.Either your pictures look good or they don't, unless you do a 100% crop side by side you won't see much of a difference most of the time.If you want insane resolution, shoot CMS-20 II film in medium or large format and scan it at something like 20.000 dpi.I don't see why anyone would need that much resolution, but it is about as much as you can get these days.
>>3480742That is fairly interesting at least.
>>3480899Not even that guy, but all of my film scans that I get done at a shop always come back in .jpg, whats wrong with jpg for film scans?
>>3481459A .tif file will offer more latitude when you process it. Honestly though you have the negatives if you need to rescan so i wouldn't be super concerned about it unless it looks really bad.
>>3468264You're empirically wrong andf it's not even worth debating such a child like misconception. We'll chat when you grow up. Off you toddle!
>>3481973what the fuck?