Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Here's a question for the masses:

Is it possible for a photographer to be BETTER than their equipment?

haha some of the comments there are awesome

Last time I checked Photographers weren't equipment thus a comparison would a logical fallacy.

Oh boo!! Blocked at work!!! rawr...

Insulting. Im gonna try to leave a rude comment

Hahaha what a sleasy salesmans line. Who ever runs their social media needs to get a kick in the head. They should have known what would have come of a comment like that.

Epic...

dam, i missed it. I dont see it in the comment thread. Where is this posted? I wanna comment on that too.

the nikon line is logically correct and true in the everyday, common sense of "true." most of the people who commented there would do better getting relaxed-cut pants and finding a more social endeavour (because, as i always say, photography is no schweinfest)

http://photogallery.thestar.com/1059646

huffing and puffing to "express yourself," "assert your creativity," and even, oh god, hand me some fresh underwear, "make art"--whatever this bullshit might mean to your therapist--won't change the fact that the camera is capable of infinitely more you could ever "previsualize". if someone's not comfortable with that, i hear hog farming is profitable (and the hog can be weighed)

ps. hope i didn't miss something really really important when i stopped reading on seeing annie leibovitz (annie who?) called on to bear the battle banner of the gifted!

boy, look at all the butt kissers on the new statement. LOL

Nikon fail for sure .. it was fun reading the comments.

that's why Canon is better

I thought it was better because they have Avril.

yeah but Nikon has Ashton Kutcher!

Ha Ha I beat you!

Must be an Android phone.


[/iPhone user]

you're only as good as the phone you use to post!

I know, it's sad. We couldn't even afford Charlie Sheen

Definitely...I get much better images with my Olympus SLRs than with the Canon SLR I have to use at work.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but there's the old story about an expert getting better images with a $10 P&S than a novice can with a $30,000 camera.

And of course there's the story about the cook complimenting someone's pictures and saying they must have a good camera, and the photographer retorting that the cook must have a good stove because of the good meal.

and then there's them sports cars

and tanks

I've seen you drive a sports car wouldn't help

To the Nikon post. Ummmm, yes and no.

A novice driver will never win an F1 race regardless of how fast the car is. At the same time, a top ranked pro can't hope to do well in F1 unless he has an awesome ride with deep pockets for R&D to boot. Same with cameras. If all things are equal (or very close) better gear does help.

If you going to throw tomatoes please don't aim for my face

Winning a car race is not the same as creating art. There is no finish line. There are many routes to great art, not on the same track.

??

he he sorry, responding from airport on ipad.

I meant a racetrack only has one route and all cars go the same way to get to the finish line. In art, you can take many different "routes" or methods, to make a great photo. Not everyone has to use the exact same method. Art is not measured by the speed of your shutter, the exactness of your white balanbce, the sharpness of your photos, etc.

F1 is not a very good comparison. Only a few get a chance to drive a f1 car while even a monkey can use a camera.

In any mere mortal, none pro, road track race that I have seen or participated in better drivers routinely beat out poorer drivers that have better equipment.

Within reason ability and skill are far more important then equipment. And as I think Chopper is saying photography is not racing.