Why do people kept repeating "Its not the equipment but the man behind the cam"?
- Thread starter satan_18349
- Start date
- Status
Ha ha... glad I made you happy... :bsmilie:
photography today is no longer like back in 80's and 90's. you need rely less and less of technical skills that only pros used to know or bother fiddling with.
It's become sort of a cult, a techonolgy chase for people. So these days, even teenagers have reportedly carried around a Canon 1D series cam and amateurs are going for L lenses without second thot.
My favourite phrase: "You don't need to be an expert driver to driver a Mercedes."
So applied to digital photography: You don't need to be a pro to own expensive cams and lenses. So wad if amateurs don't take good photos with them? They've got $ to spend. Cams are like toys to them. Not happy with them tomorrow, dump them!
Everything is interdependent. No one can speed up to 100km/h without a vehicle. Same as no car can move without someone making it move.
So.. Assuming a same camera on earth used by different human being. Result is you'll see different pictorial representations.
So.. Assuming a same camera on earth used by different human being. Result is you'll see different pictorial representations.
i concur with the above. I have always believed in the inter-dependency of many things - user, tool and subject, although the "battle" of discussion always revolved around user and tool.
it is to me, a mistruth, that only the user matters, although if one insist enough, tool can be interpreted as the user's ability to own, bring out and use the right kind of tool in the right way, and subject can be interpreted as the user's ability to get to, work on, compose on and influence the subject to get what and how he wants it to be.
this statement is more appropriately true, if there is "most often, " added in front of it. otherwise, it is misleading
as to why some said the above repeatedly, there is certain bearings in making such statement. a man who manages different tools effectively cannot assume the same for everyone. it is dangerous to over-emphasize the importance of user over tool and subject becos it can breeds an unhealthy ego which can make a person arrogant, rude and narrow-minded, becos he disregard the advantages that his tools or his assessibility to suitable subjects and sees himself as simply better.
and last of all, probably more true than the above, people are quick to use the cliche statement in a too generalised manner. things are often contextual. different situation has different bottleneck, and put simply, in most situations such a statement pop out, it is often that the user has failed to identify the bottleneck of his problem, of which he hope that a different (and likely better) equipment will help to change the situation.
there are various possibilities:
1. the same camera can resolve the problem through a setting the user does not know;
2. the new camera does the same thing but is easier to set the setting;
3. the new camera is truely better in a certain aspect but is useless unless the user know how to set the setting;
4. the new camera has a default setting that solves the user's problem compared to the default setting in the old camera.
very often, the 4th situation is the one that happens to those people who relies solely on the tools for they have no knowledge and probably no interest in photography as an art. and if one is interested in speaking to such people who shares no similar passion, then speaking the cliche statement makes no sense, for these people just want to have the basic of image capture with no handshake and decent exposure.
for the rest who have no knowledge but the interest (they look forward to the tool becos they are clueless), and if one really bothers to help, i think he should help him to find out where is the bottleneck, and advise on that. i can't figure out how does the statement helps in most of the situations when they are being said.
Correct, most of the time when those are said does not answer or helps at all. They thought its the wonder "medicine cure" for all problems by that statement alone.
Imagine a few patients down with,
Gastric, Doctor answer: " Drink more water and rest"
Flu, Doctor answer: " Drink more water and rest"
Fever, Doctor answer: " Drink more water and rest"
When sensational questions pop up e.g. Nikon or Canon, L lens or not, what lens to buy... etc are not always answered without biasedness. When facts are told, ignorance and denial kicks in. To sum it up, it all depends on the context of the discussion. If you have received all your relevant information, answers like "its not the equipment but the man behind the cam" should not matter anymore. I do agree it is quite an eyesore occasionally when one asks a valid question but only to receive a half baked reply. I have learned to ignore such comments and move on. However, when the discussion goes south, it sure does feels good to be first one to say it to some of the equipment wankers around here. Cheers!
Well, well, well. What have we here.
Hazmee summarized it well a few posts above. It's all about the context, and also not to abuse/overuse/beat-to-death this gem of a statement.
The worst is when it is used to cover up inadequacies. A few similar examples in the trade:
"Let's take a holistic approach"
Translation: I don't know how to approach the problem, so I'm using a big word.
"My style is a journalistic style of photography"
Translation: I have no idea how to storyboard the shoot. So I'll just see-how see-how and shoot as we go along lor.
"It's not the equipment, but the person behind the camera"
This is a saddest case. Like the two statements above, it is a very valid statement. But when used/abused in a p*ssing contest, its translation becomes: Well, a$$h0!e, I don't have a clue about the gear you're wankin' about, nor can I ever afford one. So here goes the mighty Hammer of Thor!!!
Hazmee summarized it well a few posts above. It's all about the context, and also not to abuse/overuse/beat-to-death this gem of a statement.
The worst is when it is used to cover up inadequacies. A few similar examples in the trade:
"Let's take a holistic approach"
Translation: I don't know how to approach the problem, so I'm using a big word.
"My style is a journalistic style of photography"
Translation: I have no idea how to storyboard the shoot. So I'll just see-how see-how and shoot as we go along lor.
"It's not the equipment, but the person behind the camera"
This is a saddest case. Like the two statements above, it is a very valid statement. But when used/abused in a p*ssing contest, its translation becomes: Well, a$$h0!e, I don't have a clue about the gear you're wankin' about, nor can I ever afford one. So here goes the mighty Hammer of Thor!!!
then those people who parrots the statement should lead the threads to talk more about photographic skills working around subject and users, if the feeling is too much gear talks and too little skill talks.
Because people keep asking the same question which camera/lens/etc is better, thinking that buying a certain equipement will help them take better pictures. In a sense, they are not wrong because having a wrong equipment does make it more difficult to get the shot you want.
So in the first place, one needs to know what kind of shots he/she wants to take. But if that's the case, then they should be asking what lens/camera is better for this or that... Then an answer like the thread title would be less likely to be given.
So in the first place, one needs to know what kind of shots he/she wants to take. But if that's the case, then they should be asking what lens/camera is better for this or that... Then an answer like the thread title would be less likely to be given.
Bingo. Never ever condemn this statement cos it is the truth, just getting irritated by people slamming this on your face anytime anywhere no matter what esp when someone were discussing or even causually asking a simple qns like, Which cam/lens? And most of the time, its not the TS who replied but by lots of you-know-who.
So I guess this bring the last option "Nothing better to say..." to be the closest match. ;p
hi all... RELAX lah ! if u think it is equipment , then equipment loh.. if u think it is the man, then it is the man loh ! if the photos turns out stunning and good ! who cares !?? 
hi all... RELAX lah ! if u think it is equipment , then equipment loh.. if u think it is the man, then it is the man loh ! if the photos turns out stunning and good ! who cares !??
Guru...u the MAN!:thumbsup:
I thought this is funny, but damn well summarised. In any case, there are really some gear wankers with load$ of gear, but can't produce a decent image compare to a guy with a kit set.
So... I think the classic statement is a good and valid one, when intepreted in context.
Cheers,
- Status
