# Who says it's the camera which determines photo quality?



## KyraLamb (Mar 7, 2012)

My gear? A point-and-shoot pocket digital camera- cost me $126 which may  as well be a priceless deal considering the quality of heart captured  with each frame.


----------



## Josh220 (Mar 7, 2012)

I've always found it amusing when people with very little money in their gear can out-shoot some people who have thousands invested in their gear. 

It just goes to show that it truly is the photographer, rather than the gear, that makes a good image. 

Granted, you will hit limitations far sooner with a P&S than you would with a DSLR, but for general snapshots I couldn't agree with you more. It's the creative/technical areas in which you are limited-- but without the proper knowledge/skill that point is moot.


----------



## bazooka (Mar 7, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> I've always found it amusing when people with very little money in their gear can out-shoot some people who have thousands invested in their gear.



I agree with you but this just doesn't happen often, and please take no offense OP, but your photos are not good supporting evidence of your claim.  As good as saying this makes people with lower cost equipment feel, from what I have seen, people that spend thousands usually outshoot people who don't.  Part of it is certainly because of the equipment, but part of it also because the amount of money they are willing to invest reflects the amount of time and effort they are also willing to invest.


----------



## MReid (Mar 7, 2012)

I strongly believe most people would be better off sticking to point and shoots and all auto. 

Once they buy a DSLR the fun stops.


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 7, 2012)

A lot of this comes down to the intent I think.  The OP's intent was to "capture heart", and she succeeded!  It does take skill to get the emotion you want to come through in the frame, and to that end, this is a great demonstration of how it's not the equipment.

If the intention is reliably getting a high quality (technical quality) shot every time you want one, then yeah, really expensive gear is obviously leaps and bounds better, but that doesn't matter in every situation.


----------



## bazooka (Mar 7, 2012)

Sorry for chain posting, but I don't want to leave it at that. Kyra, notice that each of your photos have something in them that (I assume) you love. But if you look at them from a stranger's point of view, they have issues and could be dramatically improved with changes in composition and light. They also have WB, focus, and exposure issues. 

Most importantly, I don't feel much from these photos, but small adjustments could be made to improve them dramatically. For example, the black eyes from the cat in the drawer would be GREATLY improved with some catchlight. It would give the cat a "soul". 

I don't want to get into detail as this is not a CC thread, but I just want to point out that your camera is capable of more than what you posted. I hope I have been gentle enough not to cause offense as that is not the purpose of my post(s), but I also hope I have been clear enough for you to know that you have much room for improvement. With some time spent here viewing other CC threads or looking at excellent examples of photos, I believe you can mostly definitely and quite easily improve in a very short amount of time.  Plus, you obviously have some great models to work with.


----------



## Kolander (Mar 7, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> My gear? A point-and-shoot pocket digital camera- cost me $126 which may  as well be a priceless deal considering the quality of heart captured  with each frame.



Certainly you can take much better pictures with better gear, believe me


----------



## cguron (Mar 7, 2012)

I have seen iPhone pictures. Some folks take excellent pictures on their iPhone.  If you are looking for an avenue for creativity and technical control; P&S will not solve that problem.


----------



## SCraig (Mar 7, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> My gear? A point-and-shoot pocket digital camera- cost me $126 which may  as well be a priceless deal considering the quality of heart captured  with each frame.


As long as you are happy with your results that is all that matters.  Personally I'll stick with my DSLR.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 7, 2012)

Not bad for a point and shoot.. but I have seen better. Just basic snapshots! I see overexposure, underexposure, WB issues, and none of the skin tones match up in any other shot. The fact that they are in focus.. and relatively sharp is a function of the camera... nothing else. If you are shooting in Auto or Program.. then the camera handles that too.  

You are a MWAC (mother with a camera), aren't you? We see so many shots of children that the mothers are very proud of.. and that is fine! But that doesn't mean the shots are good.. only that they are important to the person that took them! Not trying to be rude.. but a post like this is a bit pretentious!


----------



## PapaMatt (Mar 7, 2012)

You have a great eye for photogrphy, very nice work. I feel like I should give you my set up. I think you would put it to better use than I do that is for sure.
Keep up the good work and I think soon you may turn pro.


----------



## bazooka (Mar 7, 2012)

PapaMatt said:


> You have a great eye for photogrphy, very nice work. I feel like I should give you my set up. I think you would put it to better use than I do that is for sure.
> Keep up the good work and I think soon you may turn pro.



This is why I love TPF.  The entertainment is never ceasing.  :lmao:


----------



## PapaMatt (Mar 7, 2012)

bazooka said:


> PapaMatt said:
> 
> 
> > You have a great eye for photogrphy, very nice work. I feel like I should give you my set up. I think you would put it to better use than I do that is for sure.
> ...



I am happy you find entertainment on this site and that I could help.


----------



## Joel_W (Mar 7, 2012)

They are nice family snap shots, important and meaningful to you, and you seem to have a good sense of composition. But that doesn't make them quality photographs. All have DOF issues, and exposure issues.  As CGibson1 pointed out, you have 3 closeups, and each has a completely difference skin tone.

If you would think you would like to move up to the next level, look into a good bridge camera like the Nikon P500/510. Learn how to use it in other then Auto or P, and you'll be quickly surprised at the difference it will make.


----------



## KyraLamb (Mar 8, 2012)

Some people get it and some people don't. 

Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one. 

Is it hard to believe that expensive gear and technical knowledge is not what makes a photographer, but simple love for a subject coupled with basic feel for light and space- and talent? I guess it all depends on who you ask. Ask an artist, and they will say that art is emotion and once you try to explain it- or worse: create it based on how you PLAN to explain it- it ceases to be art. True art inspires love in a viewer without them being able to explain why. Think of Picasso. Think of Van Gough. Think of Andy Warhol. They were all heavily criticized by their peers in their day for their lack of "skill". 

In fact, the role of art expert is a made up one. It doesn't exist. For one person to say that another's art is "not good" is TRULY pretentious. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder- ESPECIALLY in the category of art- photography being part of that category. So it is nobody's place to declare one person's art to be "good" or "not good". Doing so only exposes you as an egomaniac- obsessed with your own way when in reality- there is no "right way" or "wrong way" to capture art.

Like I said, some people get it and some people don't. But know that you CAN quit your day job with a simple point-and-shoot and that most people are NOT looking to pick apart your technique. Take it from me and the scores of other of my peers who are doing just that.


----------



## jonathon94 (Mar 8, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> Some people get it and some people don't.
> 
> Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one.
> 
> ...


 
She has a point. They always say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I may be an amateur but I've seen some plain images that I know would get heavy criticized on this forum that got sold for a couple million. If I still had the magazine article I'd show you guys. So while her photo may break some technical photography rules it doesn't mean that the image is bad.

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-


----------



## SCraig (Mar 8, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> ... Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one....


In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king .....


----------



## jake337 (Mar 8, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> Some people get it and some people don't.
> 
> Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one.
> 
> ...



Only idiots would pay for that junk.....

But ok, I'll take it from you and the scores of ****ty facebook photographers pretending to know what they're doing.....

I'm not really sure what "good money" is to you.


Your photos only inspire love in you.  We have no emotional connection to the subject, only you.


Have fun ripping people off from their hard earned money because they just don't know any better.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 8, 2012)

Ahhhh...She played the "It's Art!" card!  Well done.


----------



## JSER (Mar 8, 2012)

As far as I am aware no one says "Who says it's the camera which determines photo quality?"

It is many things, no disrespect but the photographs you have taken are great family pics but nothing I as an individual would look at more than a few seconds, as they are just that, family pics


----------



## JSER (Mar 8, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> Some people get it and some people don't.
> 
> Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one.
> 
> ...



Perhaps I am mis reading your comments but believe me there is more to photography than it appears you know, whilst your photographs of food plastered babies and snow may be great for the family album believe me I have taken thousands of my own three children, all they are are, album snaps.

To get decent macros I have just spant £500 on a macro lens, to get decent wildlife shots I have gear in the many thousands, for these children snaps I have a £50 compact.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 8, 2012)

If only Picasso and Van Gough were into scrapbooking...


----------



## jake337 (Mar 8, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> If only Picasso and Van Gough were into scrapbooking...



She must be referring to the editing software not the individual.  Van Gough must be Picasso's replacement since it went away.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 8, 2012)

Yeah, I'm sorry. I always see retorts using Picasso and Van Gough as examples akin to Godwin's Law.

In citing these artists as examples, the OP shows a lack of understanding of them, and their art, if not art in general. They weren't ridiculed for their "skill", they were ridiculed for pushing the envelope and doing something that was totally going against the current "acceptable" art think. The OP's images aren't doing that.

The other problem I see with these arguments, is that it inherently suggests that the user of the argument is somehow believing they are on the same plane, or level of the examples given.

Further, the OP states that people are making a living making photographs with point and shoots. 
We need some definitions here, and citations. We need some proof to back up the statements.
What is "making a living"? What dollar amount is considered making a living to the OP?
Examples...Can the OP post five websites of such people?


The poster that brings up "plain" images (his opinion), that sell for millions, is leaving a lot out of the equation. There are many factors involved in what money a piece of art brings in. Art is a market. Prices don't necessarily relate to whether a piece (or body of work) is "good" or "bad". So many examples are brought to the table in these arguments by people who have no understanding of what they are talking about.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 8, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Yeah, I'm sorry. I always see retorts using Picasso and Van Gough as examples akin to Godwin's Law.
> 
> In citing these artists as examples, the OP shows a lack of understanding of them, and their art, if not art in general. They weren't ridiculed for their "skill", they were ridiculed for pushing the envelope and doing something that was totally going against the current "acceptable" art think. The OP's images aren't doing that.
> 
> ...




Also, on the subject of photo's making millions, many see these on the internet and go "huh?".  What they don't see, is the actual print, in person.  There's a difference, a huge one, in seeing a little digital interpretation and seeing something 12 feet wide by 6 feet high with proper printing, paper, and lighting.

If I were to hire someone, I would expect them to truly care about what I am asking them to create for me.

Someone who cares about what they create:

Chrisco - The Making of How the book was printed - Open Photography Forums

The video:
Claris image builder, agence de publicite, photographie internet et presse Bordeaux, video, web agency, photo, communication, advertisement, agency


----------



## ghache (Mar 8, 2012)




----------



## jake337 (Mar 8, 2012)

ghache said:


>


----------



## bazooka (Mar 8, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one. [....]
> 
> But know that you CAN quit your day job with a simple point-and-shoot and that most people are NOT looking to pick apart your technique. Take it from me and the scores of other of my peers who are doing just that.



So let me get this straight, you have quit your job and are supporting yourself solely as a photographer with a P&S camera (along with "scores" of others)?


----------



## bazooka (Mar 8, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love.



And tell that to the people who pay $1000 for a craigslist photographer and get epic fail pics of a moment that can never be redone.


----------



## SCraig (Mar 8, 2012)

You know, I just had an epiphany.  If she would quit using that P&S and start using her cell phone she wouldn't even have that $126 investment in her career!  Plus she could claim her cell phone as a business expense on her income taxes!


----------



## DScience (Mar 8, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> Some people get it and some people don't.
> 
> Most people, as it turns out, are not as cynical when looking for a photo that will mirror their love. If I were a photographer whose goal it was to please other photographers with my technical skill, then I might be offended. However, the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself. And a good living can be made on intention alone, believe it or not. Take it from someone who can well afford a professional camera if she wanted one.
> 
> ...




WOW! Ok let's get real. You say you quit your job and are making a living form a P&S. Give us some details! How much are you making? What sorts of jobs have you done? How many unsuspecting morons out there have you charged for your "art"? I was actually looking for some high quality snapshots of other random peoples babies playing in the living room, so I think I may want to order some prints from you.


----------



## Joel_W (Mar 8, 2012)

Folks, we're missing the real point here. This is nothing more then SPAM. Take a look at the bottom of her signature. It says Make $300 a Week with your Digital Camera! Money For Pictures   I went to the site, and she's selling a book.


----------



## PapaMatt (Mar 8, 2012)

I thought this site was to help and encourage people achieve a desire they have within them. At the same time help them with the technical side also.  Not ridicule in a arrogant aggressive way.
For photographers of ART where is the compassion for and of people and all living things. Technically you may be right but maybe you should try taking photographs with a heart and soul also. Show some understand and compassion for others.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 8, 2012)

PapaMatt said:


> I thought this site was to help and encourage people achieve a desire they have within them. At the same time help them with the technical side also.  Not ridicule in a arrogant aggressive way.
> For photographers of ART where is the compassion for and of people and all living things. Technically you may be right but maybe you should try taking photographs with a heart and soul also. Show some understand and compassion for others.



Yes, only if they want to advance their skills and knowledge.  But making a thread showing how easy it is to rip unknowing people off is ridiculous.

It's a combination of heart, soul, knowledge, and technical skill that make a great paid photographer.  

My heart and soul goes out to all those this individual has ripped off.


And before someone posts the "what about those who can't afford a more expensive professional" statement I'll say this...

For the same price the OP may be charging I guarantee I can find someone with equal lack of knowledge in composition, photographic lighting, and photography in general who will produce better results, with better gear, possibly for free!!!


----------



## Joel_W (Mar 8, 2012)

Guys again, she's selling a book on how to make money with your P & S camera.  Her pictures are just examples of what people are supposedly willing to pay for.


----------



## bazooka (Mar 8, 2012)

Hmmm, $300 a week is not a living. And I doubt she is making $300 a week. I'm guessing she got sucked into some marketing scheme and now she's just taking advantage of free advertising.  Been there, done that.  If that's the case, I genuinely empathize.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 8, 2012)

I think you're right Joel. Inconspicuous spammer.


----------



## Joel_W (Mar 8, 2012)

I'm sure that the Moderators will check this out and take the appropriate action.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 8, 2012)

bazooka said:


> Hmmm, $300 a week is not a living. And I doubt she is making $300 a week. I'm guessing she got sucked into some marketing scheme and now she's just taking advantage of free advertising.  Been there, done that.  If that's the case, I genuinely empathize.



Soon she'll be posting questions about what to do about some letter for tax evasion.


----------



## PapaMatt (Mar 8, 2012)

I hope you guys are wrong but I do see your point of view. I try to think the best in people, like you guys, I see your good side also :thumbup:

Good luck to you all


----------



## Joel_W (Mar 8, 2012)

jake337 said:


> bazooka said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, $300 a week is not a living. And I doubt she is making $300 a week. I'm guessing she got sucked into some marketing scheme and now she's just taking advantage of free advertising.  Been there, done that.  If that's the case, I genuinely empathize.
> ...



you're assuming she actually sold some pictures or books. :mrgreen:


----------



## bhop (Mar 8, 2012)

I don't think she's a total spammer because she has more than 2-3 posts, but saying you can make a living with a p&s camera is laughable.. unless you're Terry Richardson..


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 8, 2012)

Joel_W said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > bazooka said:
> ...



Coincidence?...Blog page selling book goes up in March 5th, Joins PhotoForum March 6th, setting free marketting plan in motion.


----------



## PapaMatt (Mar 8, 2012)

I made a living with a very tiny camera!! But that was when I was 007:lmao:


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 8, 2012)

Perhaps some people shouldn't watch that video with the iPhone and studio lights for epic pics


----------



## kundalini (Mar 8, 2012)

OP, do you know what the asking price is for the house in photo #1?  I'm digging the detached garage.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 8, 2012)

This is kind of the equivalent of going to a chef's forum and telling everyone about all the money they could be making if they just made bologna sandwiches.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 8, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> This is kind of the equivalent of going to a chef's forum and telling everyone about all the money they could be making if they just made bologna sandwiches.



depends on how "hot" the chef model gal is


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 8, 2012)

You certainly have a point.


----------



## Kolander (Mar 8, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> ...the vast majority of regular people will- and do- love (and will pay good money) for photos which focus is not light and color, but the subject itself...


Listen, got an old ailing guitar and I'm not a fine player at all, but you better forget sound and harmony, concentrate on the music! Please call that crowd wanting to pay good money.


PS: Picasso, lack of skill?!?? Do you mean Pablo Picasso? :mrgreen:


----------



## Joel_W (Mar 8, 2012)

I would love to see a new post from the OP as to all of this. 50/50 we never hear from her again, at least in this thread.


----------



## CMfromIL (Mar 8, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> Is it hard to believe that expensive gear and technical knowledge is not what makes a photographer, but simple love for a subject coupled with basic feel for light and space- and talent?



Similarly, it's hard to belive that expensive gear and technical knowledge is NOT what makes a racecar driver, or skilled robotic surgeon, or highly trained military pilot.....

Because I bet any Indy Car driver could get on the track facing his peers in their 'expensive gear' cars, while driving a base model KIA and kick some serious ass.  It's got nothing to do with the equipment...just like photography.



Joel_W said:


> I would love to see a new post from the OP as to all of this. 50/50 we never hear from her again, at least in this thread.



Well duh. Between taking half-ass snapshots, and rolling around on the bed with all the cash she's generating...who WOULD have the time?


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 8, 2012)

KyraLamb said:


> *Make $300 A Week With Your Digital Camera!*



lol! That wouldn't even cover my mortgage payment!


----------



## MTVision (Mar 8, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> lol! That wouldn't even cover my mortgage payment!



Well according to her website you can make a lot of money with photos sitting on your hard drive! A picture of grass - that's right grass- made 600.00 it's first month!! What an amazing opportunity I HAVE got to do this. All you have to do is literally point and shoot. I knew everyone was dying to buy pictures of my kid! LOL


----------



## bazooka (Mar 8, 2012)

I disagree with whoever said this post is fail.  This post is definitely full of win.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 8, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> KyraLamb said:
> 
> 
> > *Make $300 A Week With Your Digital Camera!*
> ...



I'm guessing those figures don't include taxes one needs to pay either.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 8, 2012)

MTVision said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She is a RIP-OFF artist.... PERIOD! If what she says is true, why would she write a book about it.. and generate competition? She should be making a killer living just of of her $hitty shots! She is trying to take advantage of the Hopeful and the Gullible!


----------



## MTVision (Mar 8, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> She is a RIP-OFF artist.... PERIOD! If what she says is true, why would she write a book about it.. and generate competition? She should be making a killer living just of of her $hitty shots! She is trying to take advantage of the Hopeful and the Gullible!



Well I think it's an amazing opportunity and I'm all for it!!!

LMAO!

I am kidding BTW...


----------



## SCraig (Mar 8, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> She is a RIP-OFF artist.... PERIOD! If what she says is true, why would she write a book about it.. and generate competition? She should be making a killer living just of of her $hitty shots! She is trying to take advantage of the Hopeful and the Gullible!


So ... what you're saying is that I wasted my money on this book?  Oh wait, I forgot to place the order anyway   Whew, that was close!


----------



## Overread (Mar 8, 2012)

I would like to remind uses that we are in Just for Fun - critique isn't supposed to be in here.
Plus as this thread seems to be derailling/going nowhere locked


----------

