Gear is far outdone by visual impressions

[Jamie Pillers]

After spending some time tonight browsing around some websites dedicated to photo imagery, I was struck by a thought, not new, but it hit me a bit harder for some reason. That thought is this: The visual impression made by a photograph has almost nothing to do with the gear used, at least from a viewer's perspective. Great images exist because a photographer placed an interesting bunch of stuff in his/her viewfinder and clicked the shutter. It didn't matter what body, lens, film format, or megapixel count was involved.

I've chased my share of gear in search for the perfect kit. But deep down I know none of that matters. What matters is pointing my camera at something interesting and clicking the shutter. I believe this has been true for all the great photographic imagery ever created... the gear never really mattered. It was the passion and the vision that mattered; nothing else.

 

[lynnb]

Agree! No-one cares what gear you used, it's the photograph that matters - with the exception where, without the gear (e.g. 1:1 macro, long lens, etc), the photo couldn't have been taken at all.

Edit: and even then it's the visual impact of the photo that matters, not the gear.

 

[Spicy]

timing is everything

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I agree that the tools used are irrelevant to the viewer's perception of the image.

However, the tools used, I think, are vital to the photographer's efforts in capturing the image, as in the Old Testament bit about the difficulties of making bricks without straw.

To put it another way, when swans glide past, the observer's impression is of grace and tranquility. The swan, on the other hand, is working very hard, underneath the surface.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Would you stop if you only had a cheapo P&S?

Would you stop if you only had a cheapo P&S?

Lynn, good points. And I'd say that if a photographer didn't have the macro lens or the telephoto on hand, they'd make another kind of image that would create an equally impressive image that conveyed something powerful they were feeling at the time. For example, I can imagine, say, Galen Rowell stuck on a mountain top having just dropped his beloved 24mm Nikkor down a crevasse and thus only having his 105/2.5 at hand. I suspect he'd still find some way to make a powerful image that captured what he was feeling.

Or what if Gary Winogrand could only afford the Canon 50/2.8? I doubt that would have stopped him from making images that sang his song.

The internet has opened up a huge opportunity to investigate photo-making gear. And so we spend a lot of time talking about it, craving it, buying and selling it. But is this all necessary? Probably not. I mean... would we stop making photographs if we only could have a cheapo P&S? Not me. 🙂

 

[gavinlg]

Most of my favourite photographers use point and shoots or know nothing about the technicalities of photography or lighting.

 

[Ranchu]

Lenses matter a lot, I don't care what anyone says. The rendering of the space captured, the tonalities and the color have a huge impact on the picture. And what's the fun in using lenses that don't look good to you? Fun is key! The scene is reproduced in three dimensions in miniature in the camera, by the lens, imperfect or perfect in different ways in those three dimensions for every lens. It's only the film that samples it in 2d.

 

[Harry S.]

Most of my favourite photographers use point and shoots or know nothing about the technicalities of photography or lighting.

Could you share some examples?

 

[waileong]

The gear does matter. It can be too heavy, too difficult to carry, too slow, etc etc. Maybe the brand doesn't matter. But what the gear can do, what it cannot, what its limitations are, etc.-- they matter a lot.

 

[Takkun]

Lenses matter a lot, I don't care what anyone says. The rendering of the space captured, the tonalities and the color have a huge impact on the picture. And what's the fun in using lenses that don't look good to you? Fun is key! The scene is reproduced in three dimensions in miniature in the camera, by the lens, imperfect or perfect in different ways in those three dimensions for every lens. It's only the film that samples it in 2d.

Agreed, in some cases. In anything documentary, moment is everything, but I find there are a lot of photos I wish I'd shot with a different lens. In particular, the Tamron 17-35, with its less-than-flat plane of focus and severe vignetting on digital that I favored for years.
But in a lot of non-architecture or landscape shots, it worked well.

 

[gavinlg]

Could you share some examples?

Daido Moriyama and Annie Leibovitz are two famous ones straight from the top of my head. Most of the others are smaller time and not so famous. But there are plenty of them out there.

 

[lynnb]

thinking some more about this, I can usually immediately spot a photo taken on MF or LF. There is a look to MF/LF that's hard to approximate any other way - perhaps by multi-stitching, for instance.

So in some cases, the gear does make a difference. But if it's a boring photograph, no-one will pay any notice! Content and ideas are more important.

 

[gavinlg]

I watched some videos about Moriyama. He talks a lot about how import the small P&S is for his shooting style. So his gear choice is well thought and he is convinced that he could not take his photos with some other gear.

As far as I'm aware he has never bought a camera. The ricoh he originally used was given to him by a photography professor? (can't remember). He definitely knows his darkroom stuff, but he't particularly interested. about what camera he uses as long as it's a point and shoot. Watch his documentary - the whole thing is on youtube.

 

[dct]

My 2 € cents on this.

More than 90 % of the gear impact finds expression in my own personal satisfaction, patience, concentration, feelgood factor and realization of my fantasies when I'm shooting.

For that reason:
- Is the used gear important for me, for my images? Definitely yes.
- Is it important for the viewer of the final image? Almost never.

 

[thegman]

To a point, but I'm not sure Ansel Adams work would have been the same had it been shot on a Minox or something like that.

I certainly agree about a lot of gear, i.e. whether it's an MP + Summilux or a Pentax K1000 + kit lens probably makes no difference, but 8x10 sheet film or an iPhone likely does.

 

[jmilkins]

If a photographer is utilising the the full potential of any given piece of gear I think that very often adds an extra "something" to a great image, and I think this is particularly applicable to lenses.

Lens designers probably strive for some particular characteristic - sharpness, bokeh, microcontrast, flatness of field, colour accuracy, all round usability, etc - and this can make an image.

And of course, last time I went snorkelling with my M2, instead of my Nikonos III, having the right gear mattered....;-)

 

[daveleo]

After spending some time tonight browsing around some websites dedicated to photo imagery, I was struck by a thought, not new, but it hit me a bit harder for some reason. That thought is this: The visual impression made by a photograph has almost nothing to do with the gear used, at least from a viewer's perspective. Great images exist because a photographer placed an interesting bunch of stuff in his/her viewfinder and clicked the shutter. It didn't matter what body, lens, film format, or megapixel count was involved.

I've chased my share of gear in search for the perfect kit. But deep down I know none of that matters. What matters is pointing my camera at something interesting and clicking the shutter. I believe this has been true for all the great photographic imagery ever created... the gear never really mattered. It was the passion and the vision that mattered; nothing else.

Well said, and I pretty much agree with all of that.
Gear (like "sharpness" 😀 ) is highly over-rated and over-discussed..

 

[MikeAUS]

Don't agree. The lens/camera film/sensor/processing etc. impacts the final result in some way ... Of course the 'gear' doesn't 'make' the shot - you still have to have the right subject/vision/light etc. ...

 

[RichC]

After spending some time tonight browsing around some websites dedicated to photo imagery, I was struck by a thought, not new, but it hit me a bit harder for some reason. That thought is this: The visual impression made by a photograph has almost nothing to do with the gear used, at least from a viewer's perspective. Great images exist because a photographer placed an interesting bunch of stuff in his/her viewfinder and clicked the shutter. It didn't matter what body, lens, film format, or megapixel count was involved.

I've chased my share of gear in search for the perfect kit. But deep down I know none of that matters. What matters is pointing my camera at something interesting and clicking the shutter. I believe this has been true for all the great photographic imagery ever created... the gear never really mattered. It was the passion and the vision that mattered; nothing else.

△ Completely agree with this. As Jamie Pillers says above, a photographer with any visual sensibility adapts to the tools to hand. A cheap disposable film camera, an iPhone, a Leica M with a Noctilux, a medium-format Hasselblad back with a zoom lens - the images from each will be different, but not better or worse; all will be meaningful, all equally "good". If there's a difference in quality that detracts from the content, then that's a reflection of a poor photographer, not of poor equipment.

▽ Fundamentally disagree with this. Of course equipment changes the image. So what. A photographer should be able to take a good photograph with anything so that both they and the viewer appreciate the image.

Lenses matter a lot ... The rendering of the space captured, the tonalities and the color have a huge impact on the picture.

A photographer has preferences for ways of working and equipment - that's fine. But photographs do NOT depend on equipment - unless you think there is only one possible one way to photograph a subject, which is patently nonsense.

 

[MikeAUS]

Daido Moriyama and Annie Leibovitz are two famous ones straight from the top of my head. Most of the others are smaller time and not so famous. But there are plenty of them out there.

Annie mainly uses Medium Format cameras.