Does equipment matter?

Chris101 said:
As you are new, I have a suggestion. Do not try to over ride the default color/size/face selections when posting. It makes your posts difficult to read in color schemes (they are user selectable) other than the one you have.

I'm sure your latest rebuttal is salient to the discussion, it's just that, for members with light backgrounds, it is nearly unreadable.
Click to expand...

I'll try. When posting real time, the system has been loggin me off in the middle of writing and I loose my content. i tried to pick a reverse color that matched. i'll look for a better one. Thanks, p.
 
PKR said:
I'll try. When posting real time, the system has been loggin me off in the middle of writing and I loose my content. i tried to pick a reverse color that matched. i'll look for a better one. Thanks, p.
Click to expand...


Is this any better?
 
Love of gear and vision in photography are not mutually exclusive in my experience. Back when I was a kid the picture magazines would occasionally give a monkey a camera and then publish the result as the work of some new photographic genius before revealing the ruse. Avedon, or monkey, the individual images were great. More gear means diversity. You can make a great folk tune with just three cords on a guitar, but that does not diminish what Motzart does with an orchestra. People who insist on limits for themselves need these limits to push against to summon up a creative response, but different people need different limits. Recognizing that these are self-imposed, rather than absolute is a step in maturity within the personal creative process. It's liberating to know that you chose your limitations. I absolutely love gear and absolutely love selecting from an arsenal of wonderful tools that each add their own unique contribution to my seeing.
 
Photography is a technology derived art and technology has impact on the aesthetic - study of gear and lust for gear is natural.

It's just important to know when to say "when" and just go take pictures with what you have.
 
"I advocate people taking photos with whatever equipment they may have or can easily afford. You say “Of course a good photographer can produce good pics with an extremely limited camera, working within its limitations”. I would think that unless you’re taken with rubbing up against your photo gear for fun, one would spend ones time striving to become one of those “good” photographers." (PKR)

First sentence: so do I.

Last sentence: as you say, you're new here... But surely you'd be an idiot to struggle with a camera you don't like, or with a camera that won't do what you want it to, if you have an alternative. You may choose a box camera or a Leica or an 11x14 inch Gandolfi, but trying to become a 'good photographer' with the wrong camera is a mug's game. The purpose of photography is either taking good pictures or simply enjoying yourself taking any old pictures, or a mixture of both. It is not purifying the soul through suffering, unless that's what turns you on.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing, except perhaps about whether asking a good photographer to use a snapshot camera is a stunt or not. The Vermeer thing is a complete red herring: all of the painters I know are fairly passionate about the equipment and materials they use. And most of the professional and amateur photographers are pretty picky too. If they can't get what they want, they'll use second best - we all will - but to pretend that there are no personal preferences and that all cameras are the same is hardly defensible.

Cheers,

R.
 
A Great Photographer!

A Great Photographer!

A Great PhotographerTo quote Rockwell “An underlying metric for cameras is how well they get out of your way. Great cameras never get between you and your pictures. With a great camera, you can concentrate on your pictures instead trying to figure out, or wait for, your camera........the Leica is elegant because it makes it extraordinarily easy to carry and to create great images”.

I like Rockwell's phrase “Great cameras never get between you and your pictures” and perhaps he has a point? However, I feel that phrase has to be expanded upon for my accuracy, lest I truly believe that it means a great photographer can take great pictures with any camera. For me it means that the photographer understands his camera, he knows it's image capturing limitations, its strengths and he especially understands it's operation in his hands when he is working with it..........it never lets him down or gets in the way of his photography. Not every camera is great and very often one can get between you and your pictures........the wrong camera for capturing birds in flight can certainly ruin your optimism when the image has flown right past the lens before the shutter closes.

Just like painted art, photography has its many critics and to much be read into what makes a 'great photographer' and why his or her work can be defined as 'great' whilst others are not recognised. It is a fact that more great images are captured through 'opportunity' rather than planning and this can be broadened to the 'opportunity by association' such as photographers who socialise with celebrities and who later publish their images. Some will say that you become a good photographer through the ability of common sense, fortitude and tenacity to 'forward develop' your skills with your camera and concentrating on what type of pictures you wish to shoot. These actions create luck and the ability to capture (every now and again) a 'Class A' image........I would add location, material and opportunity to create that luck!

Some will say that a good photographer can 'see the picture' before it is captured. This is what makes them 'stand out' as photographers and able to use the camera in a way that others cannot. This is portrayed as a 'gift' rather than achieved through teachings or experimentation or indeed experience of use. I am sure than many photographers would like to assume the mantle of being 'gifted' but I doubt very much that being gifted is the reality? The only time that a photographer actually 'sees the picture' is after he has fired the shutter.

Recognition of a persons photographic talent is a 'fickle' thing and sometimes it is very difficult for others to agree on that recognition. It is very easy to 'see the picture' after it turns out to be a good one but how many negatives have been binned or digital images have been deleted that were also 'seen in advance' of that shutter firing? I admit that you do have a 'sense of feeling' that the image is right when you frame it and fire the shutter but I am not so sure that the majority of 'Class A' images are seen in advance - I am sure that the majority of photographers 'if truth be known' actually achieve one 'Class A' image out of many images taken. How often have photographers taken a picture only to find that it does not match up to their expectations in print......if it is ever printed......these days they are usually downsized and judged on a website.

Now we have Photoshop and it becomes even harder to judge photographic talent as the real image is lost in post processing and emerges.........more often than not, bearing very little resemblance to the original. The edges become blurred between photographic talent and digital image manipulation. We even have reviewers of ‘gear’ openly admitting that they dramatically alter their images in post processing. Perhaps Rockwell as a reviewer is more honest than most, as he usually shoots Jpegs straight out of the camera onto his website? At least we have a more accurate analysis of what a photographer and his camera/lens can achieve!

One has to take onboard the reality that people have different ideas of what is a quality image. I believe that location and material are all important as these stimulate ideas and the ability to help create new photographic projects. There is no doubt that 'self satisfaction' in one's photography is all important, no matter what people think of your work and perhaps niche work is more rewarding and yes 'gear' is important for it has it's photographic rewards in handling.


Sorry about the long text - its from an article on my web!

Kind regards

Richard
 
/\ very interesting post, I think that K. Rockwell is a gear head more obsessed with the machine than most, why else would he maintain a website dedicate to it?

Photographers, published or not, have equipment preferences and I am fairly certain they are very aware of the camera between them and the subject.

It has become fashionable to say, "A camera is just a tool." but it's all about semiotics!
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
What is funny is how little gear matters, and how many people with bad photographs, as next step buy more expensive gear instead of finding out why their photographs are weak...

That's why internet galleries are full of thousands of mediocre photographs made with Leicas and Hasselblads... Gear doesn't matter at all in my book (if we talk about brands) as long as the camera used can technically do the job...

Several concepts, skills and experience are a lot more important than gear, to the point of making gear secondary:

1. To know how to be in the right place, and be there.
2. To be unobtrusive.
3. To have the camera as prepared as possible.
4. To have technical skills (light, previsualization, media, camera controls and meanings...)
5. To hit the shutter in the best possible moment.
6. To decide very well the point of view.

With those well covered, it doesn't matter the camera or lens used. Decades ago all brands have enough quality. What matters in photography has NEVER been image quality or gear used, but the strength of the visual narrative an image has for emotional communication... No gear is better than other gear there: that's why it doesn't matter...

Basically there are people who look at gear and tests and reviews, and people who look at what an image conveys... When you go deep in any of those two visions, you don't care too much about the other one... One of those visions crowns brands, and the other one crowns photographers. One is related to engineering, crafts and precision, and the other one is related to creation, feelings and art.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Very well stated, Juan!
 
Thanks, Dan... Hey! You made a photograph of Emmylou Harris! Nice shot! She looks beautiful! As I had never heard of her for a long time, for years I wondered who was that girl "Emmylou Harris" singing Evangeline with The Band in The Last Waltz... I like that song a lot...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I am reaching a point in my life where it is becoming boring to get lenses and cameras for enjoyment of collection and occasional use. I am much more interested in taking photos with any gear, but since I have really good gear, I might as well use what I have. I find myself not even looking at threads about lenses and cameras anymore.
I sold equipment to get a 75mm Lux. I find this lens to be superb. Do I actually need such a lens? I really doubt it.
 
You just have to work with what you have.

A plastic lens wont take a picture that looks like it was shot with a biogon and likewise. That is not to say that a plastic lens can't take a great shot.

In photography, anything goes. It is art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom