To provide you with additional information about how we collect and use your personal data, we've recently updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. Please review these pages now, as they apply to your continued use of our website.

Judging a picture by its camera

A few days back I watched the movie Gattacca. What does it means? its a word with basically no meaning, but letters coming from the DNA make up.

The movie got me thinking. Let me simply summarise the movie first. Its about gene manufacturing and controlling the genes before the baby is born, in a way the child is made up with qualities what the parents desired. Otherwise, leave the child to fate along with risk and disorder probabilities and your child belongs to the lower class in the society when it's born.

Jobs allocated to genetically engineered people, people who are superior, who are in almost everyway possess better quality. Then again, a child who was born normally applied for an exclusive space exploration job using superior urine and blood samples for himself. After which the samples was tested 'valid' meaning it was engineered, he asked the interviewer "how about the interview?"

"That was it", came the reply.

This movie made me think about how good we ourselves as photographers are. If we had a big DSLR, does that mean that we are better than those who are don't own them?

Having a more expensive lens will show that we can produce better photographs. Is that it? I have read enough on forums about how people have looked down on others who either have a cheaper DSLR or none at all.

Do they mean if we're using film we are even worse off?

I always see myself having inferior photographs as compared to others who are even using a D80 like me, I always myself how did they achieve it and I go about out figuring while in doubt wondering that if I can produce their quality finishes.

All this while as I shot, I learnt and practiced different techniques of processing as well. Trial and error was a painful way to learn but never too painful to stop learning. I found some processing styles which I liked and I saw improvements in my photograph.

Of course without the photograph shot well in the first place, processing comes to nothing. All this as a combined recipe helped me gain more confidence and more importantly, better finishes.

There is not shortcut to success, I'm still on my long way there...

Photo credits: Koh Sze Kiat.

Your article must be written in English

September 25, 2007


absolutely true. I got to agree that gear is sometimes essential even to a certain extent. with a bad glass, that eye for subject worths nothing. I had a sigma 70-200 that gave completely soft focus that you will see no sharp edges. after that i saw on forum that a person even after 4 lens exchange, its still soft eventually despite after correction. I sold it away and acquired the 80-200 push pull, though old but definitely more trustworthy and i havent regretted since. Limited gear really does forces creativity juices to flow, it peaked when I had 50mm 1.8 to play with, that was when I felt i began to learn alot. Thanks for sharing your experiences too!

Technique related image searches