# Photography: how much is me and how much is my camera? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 1, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204 "2010-09-01T00:22:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/41 "2010-09-02T14:55:25Z")
> [@Ellen\_Cherry](#): > > > [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > > > See, this is what I’m talking about. I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you, Ellen, but I immediately see a number of flaws in your image, flaws that a skilled photographer (not necessarily a pro) would have avoided. > > > > You called it a snapshot, and that’s exactly what it is. Nothing wrong with snapshots, of course, but they leave the impression that very little thought went into their creation. > > > > That is one cute kid, though. 🙂 > > > > mmm > > I’m not offended! (Especially when you tell me my son is cute.) What could I have done other than not cut off his feet to make the photo better? > > When I say “snapshots” I mean spur-of-the-moment pictures I take, with no beforehand planning. I try to put thought into composition, but everything else is as it is. Well, since you asked… 😃 1 The biggest problem is the background clutter; it creates an enormous distraction. You want the focus to be your little guy, not your kitchen clutter. 1. Get down so you’re level with the dude. Shooting from above is unflattering and screams ‘snapshot’. 2. Yep, you cut off his feet. If you must amputate, do not do it at a joint. But always try to avoid it. 3. The vertical line of the doorway is tilted; it should be plumb. 4. Composition is boring. Centering the focus of your image is rarely a good idea. On the plus side, the lighting is good, and his expression is genuine. And, of course, he’s cute. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/42 "2010-09-02T15:04:43Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > 1 The biggest problem is the background clutter; it creates an enormous distraction. You want the focus to be your little guy, not your kitchen clutter. This is one of the bigger lessons for photographers wanting to improve their photography. Don’t just pay attention to your subject. Look at what’s _behind_ your subject and whether it’s adding or detracting from the composition. The converging verticals don’t bother me so much, but that problem would be solved, anyway, if the picture were taken at subject level rather than from above looking down. Also, yes, central composition can be boring, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. Look at the iconic portraits (both painting and photography) of the last hundreds of years. They tend to be centrally composed along the horizontal axis. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/43 "2010-09-02T15:05:01Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > > [@Kyla](#): > > > > One of the blogs I was reading explained that I just need to raise the ISO. And voila - it looks much better! > > That’s important to know, but on a P&S camera it will introduce a lot of noise to your images. On a small image on screen it won’t be as noticeable, but you will see it if you try to do anything else with the image (crop, print). This is where DSLRs shine, you can push the ISO and the images will still be noise-free. Yeah, I read that too. I experimented with different ISOs and checked them out on the computer. At 1600 (which is the highest my camera will go to) it is very snowy, but the image is sharp. At 800, it’s not as sharp, but the image is also not as snowy. I guess it’s a compromise. Either way, it’s still better than either the fuzziness due to my hand being unsteady, or the flash. I see what you’re saying about the DSLR, but like I mentioned, buying a new camera is totally not gonna happen right now, so I think I’m just going to work on improving my skills with the camera I already have. ---
**Author:** ![Ellen\_Cherry](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellen_cherry/32/3600_2.png) [@Ellen\_Cherry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellen_Cherry)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/44 "2010-09-02T16:15:20Z")
Thanks for the tips, guys! That juice pitcher is going to bug me now for all eternity. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/45 "2010-09-02T16:31:39Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > Yeah, I read that too. I experimented with different ISOs and checked them out on the computer. At 1600 (which is the highest my camera will go to) it is very snowy, but the image is sharp. At 800, it’s not as sharp, but the image is also not as snowy. I guess it’s a compromise. Either way, it’s still better than either the fuzziness due to my hand being unsteady, or the flash. There are other techniques you can use to take pictures in low light that allow you to use a lower ISO and preserve image quality. Simply learning how to brace yourself and the camera to avoid camera shake will allow you to shoot with a slower shutter speed. I can often take shots at 1/20th or 1/10th second hand held without noticeable camera shake by bracing myself against a steady object, using the optical viewfinder so the camera is against my eye, and shooting between breaths. You can also just set the camera down on a solid platform and use the 2 second timer to dampen vibrations from pushing the shutter release. You’d be surprised what you can accomplish with a little practice. ---
**Author:** ![Nunavut\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e95f7d/32.png) [@Nunavut\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nunavut_Boy)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/46 "2010-09-02T16:31:46Z")
Now I’m curious. What do the photographers think of [this](http://imgur.com/HtbcX.jpg) photo? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/47 "2010-09-02T16:45:13Z")
> [@Nunavut\_Boy](#): > > Now I’m curious. What do the photographers think of [this](http://imgur.com/HtbcX.jpg) photo? That’s a great picture. I’d make two small changes to it: (1) I’d rotate it a small bit counterclockwise, so that the table edge and the wall are at the right angle – they’re off just enough to be a distraction. (2) I’d crop at the bottom, so that there’s only half as much of the table top. Part of the reason why it works is that the cat’s face (the centre of interest) is sharply in focus, while the potentially distracting background is out of focus. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/48 "2010-09-02T17:23:46Z")
I have several friends who are pro photographers (I consider myself to be a good amateur …maybe semi pro). A common event is someone will see a picture that I (or they) have taken and say “Oh I like that, what kind of camera did you use?” It can be an annoying question. It’s like having a delicious meal at someone’s house and saying “That was yummy…what kind of oven did you use?” Sure, certain cameras (or glass) allow you to have more creative control over your photos than a point and shoot (for example, I couldn’t have taken [THIS](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4385743853_6cc316d045_z.jpg)photo with a point and shoot) but the decisions about lighting, composition, setting etc are more important. For example, [THIS](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/2156984836_28172c1cd8_o.jpg)one is one of my favorite photos that I have taken (and it has been published a few times), but I shot it with a 3MP old Olympus point and shoot. I like Bryan Peterson’s books…maybe your local library might have copies? [Understanding Exposure](http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated/dp/0817463003/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283447893&sr=8-4) [Learning To See Creatively](http://www.amazon.com/Learning-See-Creatively-Composition-Photography/dp/0817441816/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283447893&sr=8-6) [Beyond Portraiture](http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Portraiture-Creative-People-Photography/dp/0817453911/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283447893&sr=8-3) ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/49 "2010-09-02T17:59:53Z")
Just wanted to pop in and second Peterson’s “Understanding Exposure”. Worth every penny. I’m not quite as enthusiastic about the other two (though they’re not worthless). mmm ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/50 "2010-09-02T18:02:58Z")
> [@](#): > > I can often take shots at 1/20th or 1/10th second hand held without noticeable camera shake I would respectfully disagree with this. The rule of thumb is to not venture below 1/60 hand-held, and even then your technique must be perfect. To get a sharp shot at 1/10, or even 1/20 would be virtually impossible. This is why they make tripods. ETA: I would provide a cite, but instead I’ll invite you to Google “slowest hand held shutter speed”. mmm ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/51 "2010-09-02T18:22:43Z")
> [@](#): > > I can often take shots at 1/20th or 1/10th second hand held without noticeable camera shake If true, that’s impressive. I would think at that speed, though, the pulsing of blood thru the hands would have an effect. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/52 "2010-09-02T18:35:31Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I can often take shots at 1/20th or 1/10th second hand held without noticeable camera shake > > If true, that’s impressive. I would think at that speed, though, the pulsing of blood thru the hands would have an effect. I’ve been able to take pictures hand-held with reasonable results. [This picture](http://www.flickr.com/photos/75905404@N00/4336602761/) was taken by me about 50 years ago, on a Kodachrome slide – so ASA 25 or 40 – with an exposure of either 1/8 or 1/15. It would have needed to be that long to get decent results at night on such a slow film. Basically, I push my arms against my sides to make them more steady, and hold my breath while I’m on such a long exposure. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t … (And note that the picture was taken in the middle of a busy street: even if I had had a tripod, I don’t think there would have been room on the traffic island.) ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/53 "2010-09-02T18:53:08Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I can often take shots at 1/20th or 1/10th second hand held without noticeable camera shake > > If true, that’s impressive. I would think at that speed, though, the pulsing of blood thru the hands would have an effect. It can be done, and done by pretty much anyone. No, it won’t be perfectly sharp but the shots are usable and can be quite clear. I certainly have to throw out a bunch of them, but I get enough usable ones to make it worthwhile. I’ll post some tonight when I have access to my library. IS gives you a bit more reach, I can take 1/30th shots that I couldn’t take with a non-stabilized camera. It’s not a perfect solution, but if your subject isn’t moving it can result in some pretty dramatic shots. I haven’t learned the art of firing between heart beats like biathletes, but that would be a boon. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/54 "2010-09-02T20:39:30Z")
ISTM that the camera does make a difference in some ways; for example, a lot of cheap cameras have a really long delay between pressing the button and the photo actually being taken, and that can really affect how good a picture you get, especially of a scene with movement. And a good camera will, obviously, give you a lot more control, allowing you to _show_ how good a photographer you are. The camera is only part of the, um, picture (:D) when it comes to taking good photos, and it’s not the most important part (how important depends on the scene you’re taking photos of), but if good cameras really made no difference, then good cameras would not exist. I’ve always thought of photography as being a lot about technological skill as well as artistic, and I think that’s a good thing. My daughter took [this one](http://twitpic.com/2km6cp) and I took [this](http://twitpic.com/2km7n8)and [this](http://twitpic.com/2km8rf) all with a cameraphone. I think they’re all pretty good, but not brilliant, and I can see ways in which they could have been improved. I’m another one who holds my breath while taking a photo - I was about to recommend it as one way to get less camera shaking. ---
**Author:** ![Nunavut\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e95f7d/32.png) [@Nunavut\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nunavut_Boy)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/55 "2010-09-02T20:49:01Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > > [@Nunavut\_Boy](#): > > > > Now I’m curious. What do the photographers think of [this](http://imgur.com/HtbcX.jpg) photo? > > That’s a great picture. I’d make two small changes to it: > (1) I’d rotate it a small bit counterclockwise, so that the table edge and the wall are at the right angle – they’re off just enough to be a distraction. > (2) I’d crop at the bottom, so that there’s only half as much of the table top. > > Part of the reason why it works is that the cat’s face (the centre of interest) is sharply in focus, while the potentially distracting background is out of focus. Thanks! I got a DSLR last boxing day sales and I just got a tiny pancake lens for it. I took that shot while testing out the low f-stops #s on my new lens. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/56 "2010-09-02T22:52:18Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I can often take shots at 1/20th or 1/10th second hand held without noticeable camera shake > > I would respectfully disagree with this. The rule of thumb is to not venture below 1/60 hand-held, and even then your technique must be perfect. > > To get a sharp shot at 1/10, or even 1/20 would be virtually impossible. This is why they make tripods. I disagree. The “rule of thumb” is 1/focal length for average hand-holding abilities. So, if you’re shooting a 50mm lens, 1/50th (or round up to 1/60th) is the safe zone (this is for 35mm or full-frame cameras. Use the equivalent 35mm focal length for crop sensors). Good, steady photographers get to _at least_ one stop better than this, more like two stops, possibly three. So, a steady hand can get to 1/15th of a second with a 50mm lens. The problem is not necessarily the motion blur introduced from your hand shake, but also from the movement of the subject. If you’re shooting a subject that’s in motion, it’s perfectly fine that you’re rock steady, but if the subject is moving with any reasonably amount of motion, you’re going to be hard-pressed to get a tack sharp image at 1/30 sec or under. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/57 "2010-09-02T23:18:14Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > > > I would respectfully disagree with this. The rule of thumb is to not venture below 1/60 hand-held, and even then your technique must be perfect. > > > > To get a sharp shot at 1/10, or even 1/20 would be virtually impossible. This is why they make tripods. > > I disagree. > > The “rule of thumb” is 1/focal length for average hand-holding abilities. So, if you’re shooting a 50mm lens, 1/50th (or round up to 1/60th) is the safe zone (this is for 35mm or full-frame cameras. Use the equivalent 35mm focal length for crop sensors). Good, steady photographers get to _at least_ one stop better than this, more like two stops, possibly three. So, a steady hand can get to 1/15th of a second with a 50mm lens. > > The problem is not necessarily the motion blur introduced from your hand shake, but also from the movement of the subject. If you’re shooting a subject that’s in motion, it’s perfectly fine that you’re rock steady, but if the subject is moving with any reasonably amount of motion, you’re going to be hard-pressed to get a tack sharp image at 1/30 sec or under. Yeah. This is the technical skill part I was talking about. I don’t have that at _all_. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/58 "2010-09-03T01:54:26Z")
> [@Ellen\_Cherry](#): > > Thanks for the tips, guys! That juice pitcher is going to bug me now for all eternity. Darkforebodingvoice/Careful, the more you learn the harder you’ll be on your early work/DFV. **Kyla** , as someone who knew little a year ago and has learned tons since getting my first real camera, welcome and congradulations. If you’ve already got a camera and a computer you can have a lot of fun and learn a lot for no real outlay of cash. Hit your local barnes and borders and read the periodicals, you should be able to find a few that are at the right level. My questionable wisdom, acquired so far, **Aperture** is how big a window you’re going to open **ShutterSpeed** is how long it’s going to stay open, and **ISO** is how sticky\* the sensor is. Each can be controlled to a greater or lesser extent depending on camera, each can be manipulated to get the ‘right’ amount of light, and each has advantages and disadvantages. - As ISO goes up, the sensor records more light, but also more noise, just like sticky tape will collect more dust. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204/59 "2010-09-03T18:31:26Z")
I don’t know how I forgot to mention this earlier, but join Flickr. There are free or pro accounts. Not only can you then have a “storage” area, but you have the social networking component of Flickr, both online and (in some cases) in person. There is a local flickr group that I joined. I’ve learned a lot from being in the [quad cities group](http://www.flickr.com/groups/quad-cities/), made some good friends, and have had some photographic opportunities (like models) that I might not have had before. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/photography-how-much-is-me-and-how-much-is-my-camera/552204.md?page=2)