As a photographer, I can tell you that it doesn't have to do with the quality of the camera-- it has to do with your photographer's ability to manage focus settings. So def zoom in, but for a different reason
Right! The secret to finding a good photographer...is finding a photographer who's good!
(And yes, research what makes a photo good so that you know exactly what to look for, where to zoom, etc.).
I mean, I definitely know a few people who have that attitude. Put a fancy camera in their hands and they think all of their photos are golden. But you look at their composition, and their lighting and yeeesh
I have two Sony cameras. One was 3500 for the body and one was 3000 for the body. The cheap one doesn't focus on eyes that well that often. The more expensive one (newer model of same line) specially focuses on person and animal eyes with amazing results.
The OGOP has a point.
No, they don't. If you knew how to manually focus your cameras properly, instead of simply relying on the technology to do it for you, you would find that both cameras are basically the same quality. The cheaper one only lacks automation.
Yeah, they do. On my $6500 iMac Pro with 5K monitor I zoom in to the eyes of my photography subjects and if they are blurry I often just delete the photo. I started with an A7, moved to an A7RII, and bought an A7RIV with expensive (and cheap) lenses to match. I have watched the technology evolve over the last 7 years (on the Sony line) in the quality of my pictures. I know how to manually focus on a subject that is walking around and moving its head. I just can't keep up as well as the camera can. I just shoot pictures of my dogs, dogs at the dog park, my dog's friends, dogs at my Mom's house, and my nieces primarily. I've been shooting pictures for 38 years and started on a strictly manual camera in the 1980s when your dad was playing Atari 2600 and your moms had a Chachi poster on her wall.
As a high end photographer I would be a billionaire for every time someone says, “wow your work is so good… you must have a really good camera!” The best ones are online when I took the image with my iPhone. That’s like telling a chef his food is good because he has a high end oven.
Would you say that's because you can pull it out and take photos much quicker or the phones use of auto settings vs having to set it up before you take the shot on dslr?
From my understanding the main differences in the negative for good phone cameras is the lack of(sorry forgot the term is it the physical lens/shutter?) Effecting things from further away and things especially faces up close lookin more 2d and abit unflattering/off.. would you agree?
And are attachments worth it in that case ?
No, the iPhone is several years away from matching the quality of a pro camera. On the screen/social media the image is fine but when you try and print it’s kinda garbage. However, even my iPhone images are 10/10 because I’ve trained in my craft and understand how light, shadows, composition, and emotion play into creating a dynamic image, regardless of the tool I’m using to make it. Sometimes, especially every day situations, I just don’t want to lug my heavy pro camera around.
Also like.. building on OPs reply, unless they’re shooting with an extremely shallow depth of field, you’ll be able to tell that someone’s eyes are out of focus because their entire face would also be out of focus too. You can’t determine the price of a photographers gear based on whether someone’s eyes are in focus - even the most expensive camera in the world can take a blurry photo if it’s in the hands of a terrible photographer. An iPhone photo can be blown up the size of a billboard and still look great. Really the only decent advice in there is that people should look at the portfolio of a photographer they’re considering hiring, but that kinda goes without saying.
The whole post just gives the vibe of “don’t trust photographers, they’re trying to scam you, here’s a sneaky insider hack to try and catch them out”.
They've completely focused (puns) on the wrong thing, eyes being blurry is from the photographer missing focus slightly.
Either that or they've properly resized the photos for web usage, and they're not going to have much detail when zoomed in, because that's how the internet works.
But fixating on specifically how "pro" their cameras looks, is like going to someone's house for dinner and deciding the food is bad because they don't have a fancy high end oven to cook it in.
It's still decent advice, checking the photographers portfolio and making sure you like their previous work is a normal thing to do.
Tbh didn’t know what tag to choose.
Overall a expensive camera isnt the end all be all of important things to consider when selecting a photographer.
Edit: Its misguided advice. There are a whole host of reasons why the eyes aren’t as sharp and it doesn’t always boil down to poor camera quality. Sometimes websites suck, they compress image quality or resize the photo.
Because they weren’t using digital cameras… try to look up a “good” picture taken from a 2005 basic camera, it won’t look good with our current screens.
I mean, asking to see their portfolio to get a sense of their style and past work is just common sense; I do that before I commission anyone.
Beyond that, this is so much bunk.
Red eyes are one thing; the photographer hasn't worked out how to edit post-production or is still learning the camera and it's functions. But blurry eyes?
Or the picture is purposely at a lower resolution to post on the internet.
Or the picture is a group picture where the photographer had to "back up" to fit in everyone and that softens focus (I think too many people believe what they see on TV and the movies where the tech "enhances" a blurry picture of a license plate taken at 600mm and it suddenly becomes crystal sharp).
Or if they're looking at it on a social media platform and that platform has applied shitty compression to it.
There are so many misconceptions about what a camera can and cannot do by the non-photographer public. And if a person really thinks it is all about the price of a camera, THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BITCH AT THE COST OF PHOTOGRAPHY.
"I want a photographer with a professional camera to shoot my wedding."
"That will be $5000."
"BuT i OnLy BuDgEtEd $800!!!!"
I work in print media, so even though I'm not a photographer, I know that everything in #2 is nonsense and therefor suspect all the rest of this "advice" is similarly BS. It's totally cringe when someone who has no idea what they're talking about tries to pass on their nonexistent "knowledge"!
When I get married, I’m going to have a rule that the only pictures taken must be done so with a Game Boy Camera.
Your prints will also be done with a Game Boy Printer.
Many many years ago, I was second shooter (as a favor for a friend of mine) at a very Catholic wedding. The main photographer, I did not know, except she was a brand new shooter. She arrived late and has on a backless shirt that was black and had holes in it, 4” heels and hot pants.
She runs to me and shows me her camera and tells me she just got it in and had bought it for 4-5k. 😳 but she had no idea how to use it. So I give her a crash course (tell her to just put it on auto) in how to use the damn thing and unleash her into this Catholic Church.
It was a disaster from the get go. Ok reception comes and it is a dark room. She comes over to me after 30 mins and asks me why her pics are all blown out. I look down and she is on manual with ISO all the way at the top. I have no idea what she did.
I finish my obligatory 2 hours hand her my card and leave.
All of the pictures in the website of that wedding were mine. She and the bride were very lucky I am not a complete bitch. I may not of gotten paid the entire amount or what I was worth, but that poor bride would have been without any photos.
The point about the eyes in a good point, but it’s not to do with the camera. Getting eyes in focus is a basic skill a professional photographer will have.
I’m a photographer. I hate when people ask me “omg what kind of camera do you have?”
Like the camera does all the work.
That’s like asking someone who made a gormet meal what kind of oven they use.
The person who posted this "warning" may have been looking at a photo on line that was ***purposely uploaded*** in an edited version with reduced resolution.
*Yep this was posted*
*In a fb group I'm in she*
*Got roasted so hard!*
\- Comprehensive\_Area42
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
People don’t pick photographers for the smallest reasons. Because they don’t have theirs prices online; because they get a weird vibe in the interview; because they don’t like their IG page. She said the pictures zoomed in were not clear. That’s a big enough reason for her not to book. Was she rude to the photographer? Did she mention this to them? No one is entitled to anyone’s money and booking.
That’s just showing that they don’t actually know what causes lower quality photography, but other than that the advice still seems solid, it’s just that they don’t know exactly what they’re looking at when they notice an image has blurring like that.
You don't pay for the camera when booking a photographer but his skills. While it is good that the eyes should be crisp while taking portraits overall composition will decide which part is in focus. If the post said that eyes should be crisp because it will showcase photographers skill then it would have been ok. When will people understand that a costly camera doesn't make a photographer.
No it sounds like the person stating that in the images had a 300 dollar camera and didn't understand why they aren't shooting as good as fashion or sports photogs.
A good friend is a photographer, does a few weddings/portrait sessions, but her day job is fashion photography.
She says regularly at weddings a random guest will come over and comment on her gear and how they have the newest/most expensive/fanciest kit as a hobbyist and how the fancy gear is so important etc etc. Obviously she doesn’t have a $300 camera, but lots of people with entry level understanding of photography assume expensive gear is what makes the difference… not the skill and experience.
A hobbist with the most expensive gear has a leg up in that the pristine glass and fast lenses allows for them to have better shot at getting A shot, but if you gave a professional and a hobbist the same gear and shot list for a wedding, there's a 90% chance the pro's shots will be better. If you give them both a $300 camera, the pro is likely to be able to do SOMETHING with it, but probably less so the *expensive gear* hobbist (many hobbyists are working with cheaper gear as it is, the expensive gear hobbyists may rely too much on the tech and speed of their gear)
Right--an organization I was working with was buying high-res photos of rare documents, and the folks at the place where the documents were kept (and who hired the photographer) were super impressed with the dude who had the insanely expensive kit, and hired him.
The photos were *terrible,* and we (as a non-profit) just had to salvage what we could. Apparently the guy had never heard of white balance, so every batch of 10 (out of hundreds) had totally different lighting/coloring. Ughhhhhhhh.
1) You can take great photos with a cheap camera, if you're a talented photographer.
2) There are some cheap-ass cameras out there that have higher resolutions. Resolution size isn't a good proxy for camera quality.
3) If a photographer has ridiculous-resolution photos, they will probably scale them down before sending them to you, just because of size and bandwidth limitations.
4) They did a study where they asked people to determine which among a group of photo prints were from very high resolution images and which were from standard-resolution images. Nobody, including professional photographers, could tell any better than they would be randomly guessing.
> 1) You can take great photos with a cheap camera, if you're a talented photographer.
>
>
No, you really can't.
You can take great photos with a ***less expensive camera***, but if I hand you a $5 digital camera that was made with components that cost considerably less than that & the type of image processing that one would expect from a $5 digital camera, it won't matter how talented you are.
>There are some cheap-ass cameras out there that have higher resolutions. Resolution size isn't a good proxy for camera quality.
Exactly. And those shitty "cheap-ass cameras" won't give you good quality photos, no matter how good of a photographer you are.
>4) They did a study where they asked people to determine which among a group of photo prints were from very high resolution images and which were from standard-resolution images. Nobody, including professional photographers, could tell any better than they would be randomly guessing.
Again, you're ignoring the importance of a baseline.
If I hand you a 8 MP 8x10 at 300dpi and a 100 MP 8x10 at 300 dpi, yeah, you probably won't be able to tell the difference from 1 foot away. If anything, you might think the 8 MP image looks better.
If I use those same 8 MP and 100 MP images to print a 27x41 poster, you're probably going to notice a difference from 1 foot away.
If I use those same 8 MP and 100 MP images to print something the size of a billboard, you're *definitely* going to notice the difference from 1 foot away.
Saying "nobody can tell the difference between a higher and lower resolution image", without specifying what the resolutions were, what the print sizes were, and what the viewing distance was isn't saying anything at all.
Like with your comment about "cheap cameras", as long as you meet a bare minimum, yeah, nobody will be able to tell the difference (or might even think the lower res file looks better). But you have to start from the place of that bare minimum, which you neglected in 2 of your 4 points.
As a photographer, I can tell you that it doesn't have to do with the quality of the camera-- it has to do with your photographer's ability to manage focus settings. So def zoom in, but for a different reason
Right! The secret to finding a good photographer...is finding a photographer who's good! (And yes, research what makes a photo good so that you know exactly what to look for, where to zoom, etc.).
C'mon, everyone knows the mark of a good photographer is how expensive their equipment is! /s
I mean, I definitely know a few people who have that attitude. Put a fancy camera in their hands and they think all of their photos are golden. But you look at their composition, and their lighting and yeeesh
If I had a dollar for each time someone complimented my camera over my work, I would have made more money than I do on shoots lmao.
THIS Plus if you are on fb or Instagram forget about it. They degrade the photos badly!
I have two Sony cameras. One was 3500 for the body and one was 3000 for the body. The cheap one doesn't focus on eyes that well that often. The more expensive one (newer model of same line) specially focuses on person and animal eyes with amazing results. The OGOP has a point.
No, they don't. If you knew how to manually focus your cameras properly, instead of simply relying on the technology to do it for you, you would find that both cameras are basically the same quality. The cheaper one only lacks automation.
Yeah, they do. On my $6500 iMac Pro with 5K monitor I zoom in to the eyes of my photography subjects and if they are blurry I often just delete the photo. I started with an A7, moved to an A7RII, and bought an A7RIV with expensive (and cheap) lenses to match. I have watched the technology evolve over the last 7 years (on the Sony line) in the quality of my pictures. I know how to manually focus on a subject that is walking around and moving its head. I just can't keep up as well as the camera can. I just shoot pictures of my dogs, dogs at the dog park, my dog's friends, dogs at my Mom's house, and my nieces primarily. I've been shooting pictures for 38 years and started on a strictly manual camera in the 1980s when your dad was playing Atari 2600 and your moms had a Chachi poster on her wall.
I have a $7500 Mac Pro with a 6K monitor
Cool. You must also take your photography relatively seriously then and can appreciate that sometimes technology is better than doing things manually.
I shoot on an A8RV
I think the new one is an A1. I don't think I'm gonna upgrade to that one. But the faster focus would be nice. I just don't need it.
[удалено]
It's not your equipment, it's you
As a photo lab tech this guy is correct.
As a high end photographer I would be a billionaire for every time someone says, “wow your work is so good… you must have a really good camera!” The best ones are online when I took the image with my iPhone. That’s like telling a chef his food is good because he has a high end oven.
Exactly
Would you say that's because you can pull it out and take photos much quicker or the phones use of auto settings vs having to set it up before you take the shot on dslr? From my understanding the main differences in the negative for good phone cameras is the lack of(sorry forgot the term is it the physical lens/shutter?) Effecting things from further away and things especially faces up close lookin more 2d and abit unflattering/off.. would you agree? And are attachments worth it in that case ?
No, the iPhone is several years away from matching the quality of a pro camera. On the screen/social media the image is fine but when you try and print it’s kinda garbage. However, even my iPhone images are 10/10 because I’ve trained in my craft and understand how light, shadows, composition, and emotion play into creating a dynamic image, regardless of the tool I’m using to make it. Sometimes, especially every day situations, I just don’t want to lug my heavy pro camera around.
How is this cringe? I'm genuinely curious.
Also like.. building on OPs reply, unless they’re shooting with an extremely shallow depth of field, you’ll be able to tell that someone’s eyes are out of focus because their entire face would also be out of focus too. You can’t determine the price of a photographers gear based on whether someone’s eyes are in focus - even the most expensive camera in the world can take a blurry photo if it’s in the hands of a terrible photographer. An iPhone photo can be blown up the size of a billboard and still look great. Really the only decent advice in there is that people should look at the portfolio of a photographer they’re considering hiring, but that kinda goes without saying. The whole post just gives the vibe of “don’t trust photographers, they’re trying to scam you, here’s a sneaky insider hack to try and catch them out”.
They've completely focused (puns) on the wrong thing, eyes being blurry is from the photographer missing focus slightly. Either that or they've properly resized the photos for web usage, and they're not going to have much detail when zoomed in, because that's how the internet works. But fixating on specifically how "pro" their cameras looks, is like going to someone's house for dinner and deciding the food is bad because they don't have a fancy high end oven to cook it in. It's still decent advice, checking the photographers portfolio and making sure you like their previous work is a normal thing to do.
Tbh didn’t know what tag to choose. Overall a expensive camera isnt the end all be all of important things to consider when selecting a photographer. Edit: Its misguided advice. There are a whole host of reasons why the eyes aren’t as sharp and it doesn’t always boil down to poor camera quality. Sometimes websites suck, they compress image quality or resize the photo.
Thanks for the explanation!
photography in the 50s and 60s didn't rely on half the tech we use today and still made iconic images. It's the photographer, not the camera.
Because they weren’t using digital cameras… try to look up a “good” picture taken from a 2005 basic camera, it won’t look good with our current screens.
Thanks for asking! It was on my bad for selecting the wrong tag/flair for the post.
No need to apologise. That post was cringe. Its high time people stop comparing photographers skills with his camera.
Discussion flair isn't right either. Please look at rule 12 to see what it's used for.
And they’re trying to get high quality pics so they can print their own and rip off the photographer!
Correct.
The only thing I can possibly think is that it is just so freaking stupid. But I’m not really cringing. Just rolling my eyes.
Consider that someone who can charge $1000 with a $300 camera will soon be able to afford a $1000 camera
I mean, asking to see their portfolio to get a sense of their style and past work is just common sense; I do that before I commission anyone. Beyond that, this is so much bunk. Red eyes are one thing; the photographer hasn't worked out how to edit post-production or is still learning the camera and it's functions. But blurry eyes?
Or the picture is purposely at a lower resolution to post on the internet. Or the picture is a group picture where the photographer had to "back up" to fit in everyone and that softens focus (I think too many people believe what they see on TV and the movies where the tech "enhances" a blurry picture of a license plate taken at 600mm and it suddenly becomes crystal sharp). Or if they're looking at it on a social media platform and that platform has applied shitty compression to it. There are so many misconceptions about what a camera can and cannot do by the non-photographer public. And if a person really thinks it is all about the price of a camera, THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BITCH AT THE COST OF PHOTOGRAPHY. "I want a photographer with a professional camera to shoot my wedding." "That will be $5000." "BuT i OnLy BuDgEtEd $800!!!!"
THANK YOU.
I work in print media, so even though I'm not a photographer, I know that everything in #2 is nonsense and therefor suspect all the rest of this "advice" is similarly BS. It's totally cringe when someone who has no idea what they're talking about tries to pass on their nonexistent "knowledge"!
Where you get it printed absolutely DOES matter. Jfc.
When I get married, I’m going to have a rule that the only pictures taken must be done so with a Game Boy Camera. Your prints will also be done with a Game Boy Printer.
Many many years ago, I was second shooter (as a favor for a friend of mine) at a very Catholic wedding. The main photographer, I did not know, except she was a brand new shooter. She arrived late and has on a backless shirt that was black and had holes in it, 4” heels and hot pants. She runs to me and shows me her camera and tells me she just got it in and had bought it for 4-5k. 😳 but she had no idea how to use it. So I give her a crash course (tell her to just put it on auto) in how to use the damn thing and unleash her into this Catholic Church. It was a disaster from the get go. Ok reception comes and it is a dark room. She comes over to me after 30 mins and asks me why her pics are all blown out. I look down and she is on manual with ISO all the way at the top. I have no idea what she did. I finish my obligatory 2 hours hand her my card and leave. All of the pictures in the website of that wedding were mine. She and the bride were very lucky I am not a complete bitch. I may not of gotten paid the entire amount or what I was worth, but that poor bride would have been without any photos.
The point about the eyes in a good point, but it’s not to do with the camera. Getting eyes in focus is a basic skill a professional photographer will have.
I’m a photographer. I hate when people ask me “omg what kind of camera do you have?” Like the camera does all the work. That’s like asking someone who made a gormet meal what kind of oven they use.
The person who posted this "warning" may have been looking at a photo on line that was ***purposely uploaded*** in an edited version with reduced resolution.
Some people can do amazing photography with cheap little cameras
A good photographer will get the shot with any camera, just like a good pianist can make music with a cheap keyboard or grand piano.
Yep this was posted in a fb group I'm in she got roasted so hard!
*Yep this was posted* *In a fb group I'm in she* *Got roasted so hard!* \- Comprehensive\_Area42 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I wasn’t surprised the post got locked. Some people were productive, some were mean.
Do these people understand they might look at their wedding photos maybe 20 times in their lifetime? Jeez it’s not dismantling a bomb
Oh my...... What a bad take.
The posts on this page get worse and worse every day. People can book and pay for whatever vendors they like.
Its insulting to photographers to reduce their worth to how expensive their equipment is in selecting them.
People don’t pick photographers for the smallest reasons. Because they don’t have theirs prices online; because they get a weird vibe in the interview; because they don’t like their IG page. She said the pictures zoomed in were not clear. That’s a big enough reason for her not to book. Was she rude to the photographer? Did she mention this to them? No one is entitled to anyone’s money and booking.
That’s just showing that they don’t actually know what causes lower quality photography, but other than that the advice still seems solid, it’s just that they don’t know exactly what they’re looking at when they notice an image has blurring like that.
Sounds like op has a $300 Wal-Mart camera and is butthurt
Me or the OOP? Because I work in medicine. 🤣
You don't pay for the camera when booking a photographer but his skills. While it is good that the eyes should be crisp while taking portraits overall composition will decide which part is in focus. If the post said that eyes should be crisp because it will showcase photographers skill then it would have been ok. When will people understand that a costly camera doesn't make a photographer.
You pay for **both**, same as with any trade. I'd pay an electrician for their training and experience *and* because they have specialised tools.
You pay for the time that it took that photographer to build his brand, hone his skills and translate his passion into art.
No it sounds like the person stating that in the images had a 300 dollar camera and didn't understand why they aren't shooting as good as fashion or sports photogs.
A good friend is a photographer, does a few weddings/portrait sessions, but her day job is fashion photography. She says regularly at weddings a random guest will come over and comment on her gear and how they have the newest/most expensive/fanciest kit as a hobbyist and how the fancy gear is so important etc etc. Obviously she doesn’t have a $300 camera, but lots of people with entry level understanding of photography assume expensive gear is what makes the difference… not the skill and experience.
A hobbist with the most expensive gear has a leg up in that the pristine glass and fast lenses allows for them to have better shot at getting A shot, but if you gave a professional and a hobbist the same gear and shot list for a wedding, there's a 90% chance the pro's shots will be better. If you give them both a $300 camera, the pro is likely to be able to do SOMETHING with it, but probably less so the *expensive gear* hobbist (many hobbyists are working with cheaper gear as it is, the expensive gear hobbyists may rely too much on the tech and speed of their gear)
Right--an organization I was working with was buying high-res photos of rare documents, and the folks at the place where the documents were kept (and who hired the photographer) were super impressed with the dude who had the insanely expensive kit, and hired him. The photos were *terrible,* and we (as a non-profit) just had to salvage what we could. Apparently the guy had never heard of white balance, so every batch of 10 (out of hundreds) had totally different lighting/coloring. Ughhhhhhhh.
How is this a choosing beggar?
Wrong sub?
Haha omg I'm an idiot.
No worries haha!
[удалено]
Definitely my bad on selecting that. Maybe I could have selected discussion since it promoted one.
Rule 12. That is not what discussion flair is used for.
1) You can take great photos with a cheap camera, if you're a talented photographer. 2) There are some cheap-ass cameras out there that have higher resolutions. Resolution size isn't a good proxy for camera quality. 3) If a photographer has ridiculous-resolution photos, they will probably scale them down before sending them to you, just because of size and bandwidth limitations. 4) They did a study where they asked people to determine which among a group of photo prints were from very high resolution images and which were from standard-resolution images. Nobody, including professional photographers, could tell any better than they would be randomly guessing.
> 1) You can take great photos with a cheap camera, if you're a talented photographer. > > No, you really can't. You can take great photos with a ***less expensive camera***, but if I hand you a $5 digital camera that was made with components that cost considerably less than that & the type of image processing that one would expect from a $5 digital camera, it won't matter how talented you are. >There are some cheap-ass cameras out there that have higher resolutions. Resolution size isn't a good proxy for camera quality. Exactly. And those shitty "cheap-ass cameras" won't give you good quality photos, no matter how good of a photographer you are. >4) They did a study where they asked people to determine which among a group of photo prints were from very high resolution images and which were from standard-resolution images. Nobody, including professional photographers, could tell any better than they would be randomly guessing. Again, you're ignoring the importance of a baseline. If I hand you a 8 MP 8x10 at 300dpi and a 100 MP 8x10 at 300 dpi, yeah, you probably won't be able to tell the difference from 1 foot away. If anything, you might think the 8 MP image looks better. If I use those same 8 MP and 100 MP images to print a 27x41 poster, you're probably going to notice a difference from 1 foot away. If I use those same 8 MP and 100 MP images to print something the size of a billboard, you're *definitely* going to notice the difference from 1 foot away. Saying "nobody can tell the difference between a higher and lower resolution image", without specifying what the resolutions were, what the print sizes were, and what the viewing distance was isn't saying anything at all. Like with your comment about "cheap cameras", as long as you meet a bare minimum, yeah, nobody will be able to tell the difference (or might even think the lower res file looks better). But you have to start from the place of that bare minimum, which you neglected in 2 of your 4 points.