• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

7 Levels of Photographers & Your Camera Does Not matter

avanti

Forum Addict
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
6,565
Location
Milano, Italia
Car(s)
5 cars + 8 motorcycles
The Seven Levels of Photographers
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

Why Your Camera Does Not Matter
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

I wouldn't take everything Ken Rockwell says 100% seriously but there is definitely some truth in the 7 levels article...:lol:

I mostly agree with what he says in the second article too, proof is in the Lens Flare thread, many of the pictures are taken with far from "state of the art" equipment.
 
guess i'm a true artist then. :lol:

some truth indeed...but i still want a d50 instead of my s5500. ;)
 
Classic Level 4 here. ;)

I bought my digital cam without any optical or digital zoom. And I knew what I did. I did it on purpose. My pictures are all "been there", "saw that" and "it looked like this". They show exactly what I saw with my eyes. And that's what I want them to be. Hence no zoom and no gadgets.

Greetings, lip
 
Level 4 here too. Good articles though.
 
Right now I'm a snapshooter but wish I had the equipment and time to be an amateur...
 
I'd guess I'm a Level 5. I don't really earn anything off my work, but I certainly go out to take pictures for the fun of it :) Certainly some truth in it though. The number of measurbators I see about is crazy....people with D2Xs and EOS 1Ds shooting crap :( It makes me cry :cry:
 
I still get great pics from the Canon ELPH EL260 I bought 5 years ago for $70.00.

To me, expensive equipment is compensating for talent. My opinion, of course. :)
 
Not really a big surprise that film has better characteristics than a digital sensor..
But otherwise, Rockwell speaks the truth :thumbsup:
 
im def a level 4, but after reading about all the others i realized that a level 3 describes my girlfriends Dad to a T, if he camera breaks he just goes buys a new one and when he goes to a job he will come home with at least 6 new ones i have no clue how he does it.

btw here is his website if any of you get bored
http://www.gallagherphoto.net/

p.s. leave me some feedback of what you all think
 
I agree with Rockwell on some of his points, however, I disagree that your equipment makes little or no difference to your shot quality. Once you get into the higher-end stuff, the divisions blur and your equipment becomes less important, but for lower-end guys like me, your equipment can be very important. While your image composition and artistic vision may be perfect, it matters little if your camera's lens or sensor is the shits. The way I look at it is this:

Skill: 75% of the picture
Equipment: 25% of the picture.

However, up to 25% of the "Skill" section can be replaced by "Photoshop Skill", which can also make up for about 10% of the Equipment section. I say this because while Photoshop can alter images to make up for lack of pure photographic skill, it really is part of your equipment. You may not carry it in your bag, but Photoshop is certainly an important part of the photographic process, expecially for those of us who lack good equipment.
 
matt_shaw said:
ArosaMike said:
The number of measurbators I see about is crazy....people with D2Xs and EOS 1Ds shooting crap :( It makes me cry :cry:


You can't judge art.

I disagree, I think that everyone judges art. It's just the judgements of the people willing to back up their judgement with money that make the difference. Da Vinci didn't sell his paintings to the whole world, he sold them to single people that liked them.

(I wouldn't have bought the Mona Lisa, yet it is judged by many to be the ultimate piece of artwork.)
 
lip said:
Classic Level 4 here. ;)

I bought my digital cam without any optical or digital zoom. And I knew what I did. I did it on purpose. My pictures are all "been there", "saw that" and "it looked like this". They show exactly what I saw with my eyes. And that's what I want them to be. Hence no zoom and no gadgets.

Greetings, lip
I like you philosophy, which camera are you using? I am also considering something similar, in addition to my KM A200. The only thing I found so far is the Ricoh GR-D
 
few days late.. but this is an interesting topic for me.

I've been using my DiMage Z2 since May of 2004. I owned a DiMage S414 from June 2003 until I bought my Z2. I had considered buying a 300d back when I bought my Z2.. and have been looking at dSLR's ever since. As of a year or so ago, after shooting two years with my Minolta's and having shot about 18 thousand photos during that time (and now that I look back on it, most of it was junk), I was determined to buy a dSLR.

It's been a year since I "made up my mind". A year ago, after shooting with both a 300d and a d70 I was pretty sure I wanted a d70. However, I haven't really had the money to buy one since that time. I've had to continue shooting with my camera that's worth a lot less than $300 these days. I've shot close to another 10,000 photos during this past year. My camera is starting to exhibit some problems.. buttons are starting to stick, and so on.

But I've learned more about photography and taking good photos during this time.. this time that I would have loved to have had a dSLR but was forced to use what I had.. than the previous two years combined. In fact, I've learned a lot more than that. In a way I'm glad that I haven't been able to buy a better camera just yet. Being forced to use a cheaper camera has helped me figure what exactly I want from a camera and why I need a better camera.

I don't need a better camera in order to take better photos. I've learned to take better photos with my existing camera, and I'm pretty sure I can continue to learn to take even better photos still. But a good SLR will work better as a tool than my current camera. An SLR would allow me to take the photos I want to take more quickly and efficiently, and would give me more control over the shots. I will miss less shots than I do now.. I won't have to spend 20 seconds changing basic settings like aperture, iso, and shutter speed that can be done in less than 5 seconds on a nicely designed SLR. An SLR will give me more options.. and will simply allow me to grow further and more quickly than my current camera will allow.

But do I need a newer/better camera? No.. except that my current camera likely won't last another 5000 photos. As I said, I'm quite confident that I can continue to produce better photos as time goes on even though I'll have been using a $400 set of equipment for 2+ years. I just look forward to a more efficient picture taking experience.. and hopefully better photos a year from now than what can be produced with my current camera.. not because of the camera per say, but because the camera would allow me to continue to improve more quickly than my existing camera.

End rant. :D
 
Top