Gear is far outdone by visual impressions

[gavinlg]

Annie mainly uses Medium Format cameras.

Not referring to her using point and shoots, referring specifically to her not having much technical or lighting knowledge. AFAIK she actually uses canon EF gear mostly.

 

[Sparrow]

Not referring to her using point and shoots, referring specifically to her not having much technical or lighting knowledge. AFAIK she actually uses canon EF gear mostly.

... from what little I've seen of her working I would have said the opposite, she seems to have a huge amount of lighting involved

 

[gavinlg]

... from what little I've seen of her working I would have said the opposite, she seems to have a huge amount of lighting involved

The word on the street is that she uses very skilled assistants to set lighting up for her. Obviously she has some idea - but I think she doesn't care enough to be 'technically proficient'. I'm not taking anything away from the lady, she's one of my favourites. Whatever gets the job done, you know?

 

[Sparrow]

The word on the street is that she uses very skilled assistants to set lighting up for her. Obviously she has some idea - but I think she doesn't care enough to be 'technically proficient'. I'm not taking anything away from the lady, she's one of my favourites. Whatever gets the job done, you know?

I just recall seeing a documentary when she did the Queen's portrait, anyway wouldn't you say hiring an expert to do the task counted as caring about the technicalities?

PS ... I agree with the premiss though, what was used to make a photo has little impact on its quality ... well except in specialist areas perhaps

 

[John E Earley]

Could you share some examples?

http://www.brownie-camera.com/gallery.htm

 

[Godfrey]

Classic ponderment of artistic vision and technology: which is primary?
Neither, but given any technology that can do the job, vision wins.

​

G

 

[hepcat]

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.

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.

Gear is important. You have the wrong camera and/or lens and you can't take the photos you want. If you have the skills but insufficient tools, then you might get some good shots but can't produce consistent quality. Here photography is no different than other crafts.

Sorry guys... gear doesn't matter to the viewer... and that was the premise of the OP's post. And he's right. We like images. There may be gear that gives a specific image a specific look... but as viewers, as consumers of images, we don't care. Nor, I think, should we.

 

[MikeAUS]

Sorry guys... gear doesn't matter to the viewer... and that was the premise of the OP's post. And he's right. We like images. There may be gear that gives a specific image a specific look... but as viewers, as consumers of images, we don't care. Nor, I think, should we.

I don't think that was his main point - unless I'm mistaken. It's the age old argument that the camera/lens/processing/film etc. used is of of no consequence in the image making. It's just the photographer's vision that counts. The camera's just a light box etc. Don't agree with that. Anyway it's sort of a pointless 'argument' which I wish I hadn't joined - enjoy 🙂

 

[Ansel]

These threads always remind me of the Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

 

[FrozenInTime]

That great source of internet wisdom 😉 DigitalRev show with their "Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera" challenge that vision and skill overcome gear limitations .
However I doubt any of the photographers chosen would have been able to achieve clear insight and pre visualization without time served using and getting results with good equipment.

 

[zauhar]

I agree with the OP completely. I would add though that for some their personal connection to the tools is important.

Which actually makes me wonder about people who have dozens of cameras - how do they develop a relationship with any of them?

Randy

 

[gns]

I've always said it this way...
There is one thing that will affect the way your photo looks far far more than anything else and that is, where you point the camera.

 

[Thardy]

That great source of internet wisdom 😉 DigitalRev show with their "Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera" challenge that vision and skill overcome gear limitations .
However I doubt any of the photographers chosen would have been able to achieve clear insight and pre visualization without time served using and getting results with good equipment.

They got some shots, but had a difficult time doing it! 😀

 

[hepcat]

I don't think that was his main point - unless I'm mistaken. It's the age old argument that the camera/lens/processing/film etc. used is of of no consequence in the image making. It's just the photographer's vision that counts. The camera's just a light box etc. Don't agree with that. Anyway it's sort of a pointless 'argument' which I wish I hadn't joined - enjoy 🙂

I think he actually has a valid point, Mike. Knowing what your gear does, how it works, and what its impact will have on the final image is important to the photographer in making the image. Knowing what gear was used or how is irrelevant to the viewer. That's a point that we, as photographers, frequently forget.

 

[airfrogusmc]

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.

Agree Jamie...

Two great relevant quotes by Ernst Haas.

"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." - Ernst Haas

"The limitations of photography are in yourself, for what we see is only what we are." - Ernst Haas

 

[Chrisrw]

I believe it's mostly timing and lighting. Although certain lenses,films and sensors will render individual characteristic effects, the bottom line is that as a viewer I am drawn to the effect of the image on me with no regard to equipment used to capture that image. As a hobbyist, I am drawn to equipment that is a pleasure to use.

 

[KM-25]

Gear is only important if you have a rocking good eye and sheer talent. If that is lacking, then one has bigger concerns than the gear they use. On forums especially, I often see people going on and on about all the expensive gear they have and the painstaking choices leading up to the purchase of it and then I look at their work and in some cases it is like..."WoW" bad...

 

[RichC]

And there's nothing wrong with being into gear AND photography - provided that you don't think that one is essential for the other.

Even when I have no camera, I take photographs - committing them to memory, however fugitive that may be...

 

[Vics]

Not referring to her using point and shoots, referring specifically to her not having much technical or lighting knowledge. AFAIK she actually uses canon EF gear mostly.

She's very knowledgable about all aspects of photography. Switched from Nkons to Hassys when Rolling Stone's format changed, forcing her to square cover pics. Then, I think to RZ67 when she went to MYC. Now shoots all digital. MF, I'd bet. Loves shooting with her iPhone.

 

[Vics]

I agree entirely with the OP, and I offer a digitalrev video to prove it. This is actually very interesting, so watch to the end, so you see how the pics come out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnUavVTTjb8