Gear is far outdone by visual impressions

[Darshan]

Agree with the OP, some of the images that "wow" me are taken with P&S, iphone etc and which makes me wow even more. We are guilty of associating a good photo with a good gear and surprised even more when it's taken with a mediocre camera..why? Why do we always have to think about the gear? People saying the same photo could be made to look better if shot with a better lens, camera etc., but there is no other camera around to prove that point, isn't it? The fact that a photo catches our attention in the first place is because of the photo, appreciate it and move on cuz the gear is irrelevant..

 

[thompsonks]

I think what's been missing in the discussion is the notion of a style. I know of no photographer famous for flitting from one vision/technique to another; rather, all seem to work out a synthesis of vision and execution. This would apply as much to HCB and Robert Frank as to Adams and the Zone System - even to Julia Margaret Cameron. The gear is part of the shooting style, and even the developer and the paper are part of executing a vision. this is just as true for photographers who don't print for themselves, but have a trusted printer (Salgado).

just two of the myriad of examples: Ralph Gibson practicing regularly to be able to set his Leica without looking at it; or Arbus, whom some think was careless about technique, fretting about which camera to buy and worried when she couldn't obtain her Portriga paper. And the allegedly sloppy final series of partying hospital inmates looked exactly the way she wanted - that was carefully-chosen and practiced blur (Arbus, A Chronology, p. 85).

One could go on and on. Equipment choices and visions are connected in a feedback loop, and IMO it's naive to think otherwise.

 

[f16sunshine]

This is a discussion only occurs on a "photography" forum.
That should tell us something yes?

I often feel like camera enthusiast are the worst consumers of images.
Too much distraction with what was used to take an image to actually take in the image 😉

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Lucky OP! He reminds me myself between 2008 and 2009 then I was happily point and shooting everything just to be able to get good picture.
But.
At some point I noticed how sky is dull in my pictures. Here comes polarizer on my kit lens.
Then at some point I noticed how my pictures are still dull. Here comes LR and PP.
At some point I noticed how PP kills details in colors and shadows. Here comes my first high end lens.
At some point I noticed my cropper is nowhere near to FF in terms of DOF.
Here comes my digital FF.
At some point I realize digital is not as good for B/W as film.
Here my family FED-2 comes back and I started my B/W film photography and darkroom later.
With film I started to notice even more. The difference between old Leitz glass and modern CV glass. Film brand difference. MF and LR are recognizable to me even at small icon size...
I stopped checking Flickr groups where digital is dominant...
I wish to be back to the OP simple point of view. I do take pictures with iPhone to practice 🙂

 

[FrozenInTime]

This is a discussion only occurs on a "photography" forum.
That should tell us something yes?

Yet there is nothing worse than when someone says 'Great photo - you must have a good camera'

 

[airfrogusmc]

I think what's been missing in the discussion is the notion of a style. I know of no photographer famous for flitting from one vision/technique to another; rather, all seem to work out a synthesis of vision and execution. This would apply as much to HCB and Robert Frank as to Adams and the Zone System - even to Julia Margaret Cameron. The gear is part of the shooting style, and even the developer and the paper are part of executing a vision. this is just as true for photographers who don't print for themselves, but have a trusted printer (Salgado).

just two of the myriad of examples: Ralph Gibson practicing regularly to be able to set his Leica without looking at it; or Arbus, whom some think was careless about technique, fretting about which camera to buy and worried when she couldn't obtain her Portriga paper. And the allegedly sloppy final series of partying hospital inmates looked exactly the way she wanted - that was carefully-chosen and practiced blur (Arbus, A Chronology, p. 85).

One could go on and on. Equipment choices and visions are connected in a feedback loop, and IMO it's naive to think otherwise.

I don't think the OP was implying that they weren't connected. Finding the equipment to match your vision is essential. Then as you said, using it to a degree that it is an extension of you and your vision is the key. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to have all of the stuff or even the most expensive stuff just the stuff whether it's a Holga or a Deardorff.

"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston

"Simplicity is a prime requisite. The equipment of Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston represents less in cost and variety than many an amateur "can barely get along with". Their photographs were made with intelligence and sympathy-not with merely the machines. Many fields of photography demand specific equipment of a higher order of complexity and precision; yet economy and simplicity are relative, and the more complex a man's work becomes, the more efficient his equipment and methods must be."-Ansel Adams

If a Holga is a tool that best express what you are trying to say visually then the proper tool is a Holga.

 

[gb hill]

It depends on who the viewer is. I know as an amateur photographer like myself, when I go to a gallery or when looking at photographs one question in my mind is, what film, if film was used, what camera, & what lens? The average collector I say don't care. Take Bill Eggleston for an example. Camera might not of mattered as much but you can dang sure bet the film he used did.

 

[emraphoto]

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

I have a d3 on my desk that has about an inch of dust collected atop. I have been shooting assignment work on point and shoots for a long time.

Through a whole load of luck, circumstance and possible BS on my end, I have met many and count friends amongst top shelf photographers working today. Many of them have little interest in gear outside the actual dimensions of the capture medium.

 

[Mcary]

The question isn't whither one's choice of gear has an impact on the photos or images one produces but rather what if any effect another photographer(s) choice of gear has on our appreciate of that photographers photos or images.

Or another way of putting it, does knowing what equipment was used effect how you feel about an image?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

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

Wonderful quotes!

Gear should be considered as simple, basic tools... They can do the job or can't. The photographer can do the job or can't. 99.9% of the cameras and lenses available for each kind of job, can do the job, no matter the price or brand. 99.9% of the photographers and people buying gear of all kinds, can't do the job, no matter the price or brand. Highest aspherical sharpness and top quality gear, are good for nothing, as the lenses and cameras used for 99.9% of the greatest photographs of all time clearly teach us. The rest is bussiness.

Cheers,
Juan

 

[Pioneer]

I can agree that for most viewers, the visual impression is most important so the gear used is not an issue.

For the photographer the gear is important in so much as she/he is comfortable with it and knows how to do what is needed with it.

I have enough gear. I know how it works. Now I need to learn to see!

 

[Ranchu]

The visual impression made by a photograph has almost nothing to do with the gear used, at least from a viewer's perspective.

So, the visual impression on the viewer for a given photo is the same whether you use an M42 mamiya/sekor 35mm f2.8 or a Pentax PC35AF? Who believes this?

Fundamentally disagree with this. Of course equipment changes the image.

What? That's the debate and you agree with me, not disagree.

 

[hepcat]

So, the impression on the viewer for a given photo is the same whether you use an M42 mamiya/sekor 35mm f2.8 or a Pentax PC35AF? Who believes this?

Yep. Exactly. As long as the photographer is happy with the way the gear renders the image, and the image looks the way he wants it to, the equipment used to make the image is of no concern to the viewer.

 

[Ranchu]

Yep. Exactly. As long as the gear is capable of rendering the image the way the photographer expects it to be, the equipment is of little or no concern to the viewer.

So, as long as the photographer knows ahead of time that the mamiya picture will be sludgy and depressing looking, and the Pentax picture will be clean and bouncy looking, then the viewer will be unaffected by either look?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious here but this seems to me to be turning into a dialogue of the deaf (so, what else is new).

The way I see it, there's a cloud of people who make images. In one direction, the artists, who care only for the end result. Off in another, the hobbyists, who love the kit and kaboodle. A third direction takes us to the craft folk, who are happiest breathing chemistry and massaging paper in some esoteric manner. Somewhere near the artists are the vast majority, who just point something with a lens and recording medium at what interests them and press the button. Some of the majority also rather like "sexy" camera kit. There are lots of other little groups as well, such as the mechanics, in their element taking cameras and lenses to pieces and putting them together again.

All these groups intermingle and only the rather odd, in my opinion, are pure examples of any of these types. The thing is, they're all absolutely correct in thinking that their views are the correct views, provided they add the magic words: "for them".

I reckon we'd all get more from the discussion, if we tried to think that way.

 

[Ranchu]

Yep. Exactly. As long as the photographer is happy with the way the gear renders the image, and the image looks the way he wants it to, the equipment used to make the image is of no concern to the viewer.

Well your edit.

Then the photographer would use the pentax if they wanted that look and the mamiya for the other look. So, gear matters to the impression on the viewer, you should admit.

 

[YYV_146]

I can create a 90mm FOV image at the same location and be as visually appealing to the casual viewer as a 35mm, but I will know the difference, and may not be happy with the 90mm image.

And there are truly unique lenses out there that can deliver what no other lens/system can...Again, it might not make a difference to the viewer, but certainly makes a difference to the photographer. Magnificent glass such as the Nikon 6mm F2.8 and the Nikon 300mm f2 comes to mind...

 

[Ranchu]

I can create a 90mm FOV image at the same location and be as visually appealing to the casual viewer as a 35mm, but I will know the difference, and may not be happy with the 90mm image.

That's why I'm talking about two 35mm f2.8 lenses.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

So, the visual impression on the viewer for a given photo is the same whether you use an M42 mamiya/sekor 35mm f2.8 or a Pentax PC35AF? Who believes this?

My point was more to this point: if an influential photographer (one whose images are known as 'powerful') could only use some run-of-the-mill camera and lens, I think they'd still be able to produce powerful images. This is not some big idea, I think. But its a useful one if, for example, you're like me and find that you're spending a LOT of time chasing gear around and little time trying to perfect the imagery. If you're someone like that, I'd suggest that you could stop worrying about the quality and quantity of your gear and get on with the business of making photographs.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't some different looks to images produced by a well-made lens and a not-so-well-made lens.

 

[hepcat]

Well your edit.

Then the photographer would use the pentax if they wanted that look and the mamiya for the other look. So, gear matters to the impression on the viewer, you should admit.

There is a point in the maturation of the craftsmanship of a photographer that we, as photographers, know enough about optical qualities, light, and film/sensor properties to care. And we need to. OUR job is to select that gear that will make the image we want the consumer to see.

Each of us as photographers like our images to "look" or "feel" the way we want them to "look" and "feel." We choose the equipment that gives us that, and the images (hopefully) look the way we want them to. I doubt that a consumer of images would be faced with choosing the same image shot with two different setup. YOU as the photographer may want to know what the differences in setup look like, and that's appropriate to put the "look" out there that you want, but the "average" consumer of images (viewer) really doesn't care how the image was made or what gear it was made with, as long as it works.