Great Images Don't Require an Expensive Camera

Modern cameras are small marvels of technology, with capabilities that would not have been dreamed of even a decade ago. And while they are wonderful tools to have, it is important to remember that they are still the means, not the end. To help prove that point, this great video shows that you can still create compelling images even with the cheapest cameras. 

Coming to you from Julia Trotti, this excellent video follows her as she shoots portraits with extremely cheap and low-end cameras. No doubt, it is amazing what we can do with modern bodies and lenses, and they make our lives easier, create higher-quality images, and even enable shots that might not have been possible otherwise, but we often rely on them just a little too much, sometimes to the point that we let our creativity and technique fall by the wayside. That is when returning to the bare basics can be really beneficial, as it removes any crutches and forces us to focus on the real elements of a quality image: composition, lighting, posing, and more. Though you might not put any of the results in your portfolio, it is a worthwhile exercise. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Trotti.

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments
7 Comments

You're right. She's a boring me me me person. I've tried to watch other videos by her, and, no thanks!

I get your point but you can still create subjectively great photos with that cheap camera in low light if you let go of needing everything tack sharp. Nothing wrong with abstract results. Accepting blur can create some REALLY amazing results. I suggest looking at work by Kohjiro Kinno.

in the hands of a seasoned photographer, most of that would have already been taken into account . . . and taken care of . . . but i guess a newbie wouldn't understand that level of technique . . . ergo PHS photography

Ok ya a weird camera! But remember post processing programs back when digital came about were terrible. Like the Canon T2i in 2010 when PS and Lr both cost $800 each and for every full update so you had to use Canon's processing program. In 2006 I used a Vivitar Vivicam 8300s for a trip to Hawaii it made tiff and jpegs besides the normal tourist shots it took captured some great shots if you had a good eye. Also the little Fiji waterproof. If you just go back and process some of the images or even pick one up at a Flea Market and do some captures and process with Lr and other programs like Topaz Denoise and Gigapixel you will learn the $5k to $10k camera you have may not really be any better. Example I got a capture of the Milky Way when I did a capture of a small water inlet facing south one night, but not till 6mos ago did I realize the milky way was up in the sky. Two Pearl Harbor with Vivitar Vivicam 8300s, Remember the image of faces in the oil from the USS Arizona, I unknowingly captured this when a fast print shop processed my SD card and said nice and was years before the famous capture that went around the net.
Those were processed several years ago in Lr and proof not the camera but the post software AND a good eye!