4 ms·

Professional photography and videography gear has always only been about that though. It broadens the range of shots you can get and/or the efficiency of the p

by ska 3y ago

Professional photography and videography gear has always only been about that though. It broadens the range of shots you can get and/or the efficiency of the process (and usually puts up with more abuse).

chiefalchemist 3y ago
It helps, sometimes. There are plenty of shooters running around with elite gear and getting slightly above average images of the classic (read: cliche) sunset, etc. Scarcity is the spark that ignites creativity. Put another way, look how many shite films Hollywood makes, and they have top gear. Great gear will never save a lack of creativity, lack of vision, etc.
- ska 3y ago
  Other than robustness, 'pro' gear mostly expands the range of parameters you can push and still get a decent shot. It's not going to give you an eye. Elsewhere in thread it's correctly noted that in a lot of cases lighting is more important that cameras anyway. But similarly, you have to know how to set up - same applies though, the gear can't do the setup for you.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > look how many shite films Hollywood makes, and they have top gear. You can't even judge the output of the gear by what Hollywood puts out. Maybe the gear does make a huge difference. For all we know every shot out of the camera is breathtaking, but it doesn't matter if by the time it gets to the screen they've barfed orange and teal all over it, darkened it to the hide bad CGI, and edited it to assault the viewer with a muddy blur of special effects and fast cutting.
whyenot 3y ago
It can. But sometimes the important thing is not the gear, but rather being in the right place and having the skill to frame a good composition or get good footage.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
Yeah like while getting a good shot is obviously a skill, there are shots of, for example, wildlife, that I fully can't capture because it's just too far away and I don't have a zoom lens. Gear matters for things like that.
Aurornis 3y ago
Not completely. You could always make certain types of excellent creative works with cheap gear, but cheap gear would limit you to more lo-fi aesthetics. It also requires more careful attention to everything else from lighting to acoustics to work around deficiencies of the gear. For example, cheaper camera gear would have worse low light sensitivity, meaning you’re either getting grainy images or you need extra lighting. As cameras improved, fewer compromises need to be made and you can get the result you want. With infinite creativity and luck you can always get something get if you try long enough, but great gear really does open the door to more options and opportunities to catch a good shot. Another good example is sports photography, where fast imaging is mandatory for capturing movement shots. With slower cameras your only option would be to catch slower, more stationary moments.
- amluto 3y ago
  I’m not even remotely close to being a professional photographer or videographer, but I’ve used camera phones (including old iPhones) with amazingly poor performance in anything but the brightest light. Careful attention to lighting might have involved lighting scenes painfully brightly, which causes its own problems. Modern phone cameras seem to perform at least as well as I remember early fancy digital cameras performing, and they really are good enough for a lot of purposes. (But they still can’t do a good job of blurring the background. I keep expecting ML advances to improve this, but even latest-generation iPhones produce pretty bad results IMO in portrait mode.)
- ska 3y ago
  “Broadens the range of shots” We aren’t disagreeing. But it’s mostly at the fringe where you can’t do anything at all with meh gear.
tjmc 3y ago
The professional gear can also be too good. I remember when the first Hobbit film came out the picture was so crystal clear it was distracting - like a very high end BBC drama.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
  That wasn't the issue. The Hobbit was shot at 48 FPS in true 3-D. While it might have seemed "too clear," it was a truly remarkable movie experience that set a new standard of quality that we should get used to. It was higher-quality motion. I hate the fake interpolated frame rates on recent TVs. But if we started legitimately shooting at 48 FPS, I think we'd get over the "video"-ness of it.

by ska 3y ago

chiefalchemist 3y ago

It helps, sometimes. There are plenty of shooters running around with elite gear and getting slightly above average images of the classic (read: cliche) sunset, etc. Scarcity is the spark that ignites creativity. Put another way, look how many shite films Hollywood makes, and they have top gear. Great gear will never save a lack of creativity, lack of vision, etc.

ska 3y ago
Other than robustness, 'pro' gear mostly expands the range of parameters you can push and still get a decent shot. It's not going to give you an eye. Elsewhere in thread it's correctly noted that in a lot of cases lighting is more important that cameras anyway. But similarly, you have to know how to set up - same applies though, the gear can't do the setup for you.
autoexec 3y ago
> look how many shite films Hollywood makes, and they have top gear. You can't even judge the output of the gear by what Hollywood puts out. Maybe the gear does make a huge difference. For all we know every shot out of the camera is breathtaking, but it doesn't matter if by the time it gets to the screen they've barfed orange and teal all over it, darkened it to the hide bad CGI, and edited it to assault the viewer with a muddy blur of special effects and fast cutting.

whyenot 3y ago

It can. But sometimes the important thing is not the gear, but rather being in the right place and having the skill to frame a good composition or get good footage.

BobaFloutist 3y ago

Yeah like while getting a good shot is obviously a skill, there are shots of, for example, wildlife, that I fully can't capture because it's just too far away and I don't have a zoom lens. Gear matters for things like that.

Aurornis 3y ago

Not completely. You could always make certain types of excellent creative works with cheap gear, but cheap gear would limit you to more lo-fi aesthetics. It also requires more careful attention to everything else from lighting to acoustics to work around deficiencies of the gear. For example, cheaper camera gear would have worse low light sensitivity, meaning you’re either getting grainy images or you need extra lighting. As cameras improved, fewer compromises need to be made and you can get the result you want. With infinite creativity and luck you can always get something get if you try long enough, but great gear really does open the door to more options and opportunities to catch a good shot. Another good example is sports photography, where fast imaging is mandatory for capturing movement shots. With slower cameras your only option would be to catch slower, more stationary moments.

amluto 3y ago
I’m not even remotely close to being a professional photographer or videographer, but I’ve used camera phones (including old iPhones) with amazingly poor performance in anything but the brightest light. Careful attention to lighting might have involved lighting scenes painfully brightly, which causes its own problems. Modern phone cameras seem to perform at least as well as I remember early fancy digital cameras performing, and they really are good enough for a lot of purposes. (But they still can’t do a good job of blurring the background. I keep expecting ML advances to improve this, but even latest-generation iPhones produce pretty bad results IMO in portrait mode.)
ska 3y ago
“Broadens the range of shots” We aren’t disagreeing. But it’s mostly at the fringe where you can’t do anything at all with meh gear.

tjmc 3y ago

The professional gear can also be too good. I remember when the first Hobbit film came out the picture was so crystal clear it was distracting - like a very high end BBC drama.

ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
That wasn't the issue. The Hobbit was shot at 48 FPS in true 3-D. While it might have seemed "too clear," it was a truly remarkable movie experience that set a new standard of quality that we should get used to. It was higher-quality motion. I hate the fake interpolated frame rates on recent TVs. But if we started legitimately shooting at 48 FPS, I think we'd get over the "video"-ness of it.