RichC
Well-known
I’m a photographer ... what’s a camera?
This forum is full of gearheads - some even seem to place more importance on how the image is taken rather than seeing the image as the entire point of photography. The camera was of course invented to make pictures, not for folk to fondle equipment for creating photographs. Witness Stephen’s recent thread...
Stephen’s thread is stereotypical of many in "photography" forums, in its assumption that to be a photographer is to be into the equipment - you have to be a "gearhead". He dismissed photography as being "all about the image".
I disagree. You can be a brilliant photographer yet know nothing about cameras; indeed, you can be a photographer without using a camera.
Examples of a few important photographers who influenced modern photography are given below. For all them, it’s all about the image: Schmid is wholly uninterested in the mechanics of photography; Crewdson employs people to deal with the technical details of his photographs, including pressing the shutter button for him; and Rickard takes snaps of his computer screen.
Is what these “camera-less” practitioners doing still photography - collecting other people’s photographs; getting someone else to set up and take “your” photograph; finding images on Google taken by someone else (albeit they may never have been seen before, as the Google images are recorded automatically)? These photographers may not be household names but are hugely influential in contemporary photography - their images appear in books by major publishing companies and are exhibited globally in the world’s most important are museums and galleries, and no university degree in photography is complete without discussion of their work.
Rangefinderforum has a fixation on gear ... surely photography IS all about the image?
This forum is full of gearheads - some even seem to place more importance on how the image is taken rather than seeing the image as the entire point of photography. The camera was of course invented to make pictures, not for folk to fondle equipment for creating photographs. Witness Stephen’s recent thread...
Stephen’s thread is stereotypical of many in "photography" forums, in its assumption that to be a photographer is to be into the equipment - you have to be a "gearhead". He dismissed photography as being "all about the image".
I disagree. You can be a brilliant photographer yet know nothing about cameras; indeed, you can be a photographer without using a camera.
Examples of a few important photographers who influenced modern photography are given below. For all them, it’s all about the image: Schmid is wholly uninterested in the mechanics of photography; Crewdson employs people to deal with the technical details of his photographs, including pressing the shutter button for him; and Rickard takes snaps of his computer screen.
Is what these “camera-less” practitioners doing still photography - collecting other people’s photographs; getting someone else to set up and take “your” photograph; finding images on Google taken by someone else (albeit they may never have been seen before, as the Google images are recorded automatically)? These photographers may not be household names but are hugely influential in contemporary photography - their images appear in books by major publishing companies and are exhibited globally in the world’s most important are museums and galleries, and no university degree in photography is complete without discussion of their work.
Joachim Schmid has been a photographer for three decades - since the 1980s. He's widely published, and his work is exhibited in major international galleries and museums. But he doesn’t take photographs, instead he collects and displays other peoples’ (yet, he is still called a "documentary photographer" by some). He is particularly famous for his “found photography”, where he picks up discarded snapshots - torn and ruined - from the streets and displays them: see reused snapshots.
Then there’s Gregory Crewdson, who creates photographs as if they were movies - completely staged, using vast, expensive sets. Famously, he never takes photographs himself, instead employing photographers and other specialists (e.g. in lighting) to create and take the images. His role is solely to visualise the image and to direct. See this video introduction to how he works.
A final example is Doug Rickard - one of the new breed of photographers who use the internet instead of the camera to “take” photographs. Rickard does street photography from his desk, searching the surveilled world of Google Street View for the 21st-century equivalent of the decisive moment. His “camera-less” photographs are considered of such importance that they’ve been exhibited internationally, including in New York’s MoMA - the Museum of Modern Art. Here's an example of Rickard’s work and that of other photographers using Google: Google Street View and Beyond.
As a parting comment, over time I’ve become less interested in cameras and gear and more concerned with creating images, to the extent that I don’t care what equipment or techniques I use, provided I get the photograph I’ve visualised. Film, digital, Photoshop, rangefinder, SLR - whatever works... I even have a project where I’ve cut out photos from a magazine!Then there’s Gregory Crewdson, who creates photographs as if they were movies - completely staged, using vast, expensive sets. Famously, he never takes photographs himself, instead employing photographers and other specialists (e.g. in lighting) to create and take the images. His role is solely to visualise the image and to direct. See this video introduction to how he works.
A final example is Doug Rickard - one of the new breed of photographers who use the internet instead of the camera to “take” photographs. Rickard does street photography from his desk, searching the surveilled world of Google Street View for the 21st-century equivalent of the decisive moment. His “camera-less” photographs are considered of such importance that they’ve been exhibited internationally, including in New York’s MoMA - the Museum of Modern Art. Here's an example of Rickard’s work and that of other photographers using Google: Google Street View and Beyond.
Rangefinderforum has a fixation on gear ... surely photography IS all about the image?
Mongo Park
Established
You artist, you ...
Michael Markey
Veteran
I`m very pleased for you Rich but at a loss to see why any of this matters.
It sounds to me like UK camera club orthodoxy.
If you don`t want to visit the forum because it doesn`t reflect your interest then don`t visit it.
Whats the problem ?
It sounds to me like UK camera club orthodoxy.
If you don`t want to visit the forum because it doesn`t reflect your interest then don`t visit it.
Whats the problem ?
I'd argue that google street view is a camera.
it'sawhat?
Established
I would argue the people mentioned are not photographers at all but artists who use photography as a basis for their art.
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
Rangefinder Forum.
It's kind of in the title isn't it?
It's kind of in the title isn't it?
kutitta
Well-known
I like cameras but I don't se myself as a gearhead per se, as I use them to create images - to take photographs. But I don't make my living as a photographer either.
No offense, but I don't see none of the "artists" you referred above as photographers. To me, Schmid was a collector, not a photographer at all. I've never heard of the other two. But to me, Crewdson is a visual artist/designer or sort, not a photographer, as you also mentioned in your post he actually hires photographers to capture his installations or designs etc... The last one, Rickard, can be seen by some as a photographer, as he captures digital images by using a sort of medium, but I don't simply buy that!
No offense, but I don't see none of the "artists" you referred above as photographers. To me, Schmid was a collector, not a photographer at all. I've never heard of the other two. But to me, Crewdson is a visual artist/designer or sort, not a photographer, as you also mentioned in your post he actually hires photographers to capture his installations or designs etc... The last one, Rickard, can be seen by some as a photographer, as he captures digital images by using a sort of medium, but I don't simply buy that!
RichC
Well-known
No problem ... just curious about what people think: curious about what photography means to us. Has technology changed photography? Is craft important to photography? And so on...
Part of being a photographer is curiosity about the world around us, so I think questioning what photography is, is a natural extension of that drive...
I'm most certainly not looking down on people's interests in or approaches to photography - if my interest is not theirs (or vice versa), that doesn't make any one view superior: just different - and equally valid.
And, to be clear, there's nothing wrong with an interest in "gear" - I have a shelf with a complete set of Weston light meters (they were made in my home town, Enfield!). But gear plays little part in my photography these days, except as a means to an end. A few years ago I used a Weston meter regularly - but now when I need a light meter, I use a modern all-singing digital Sekonic meter: it's no pleasure to use whatsoever, but it's efficient. For me, the camera is becoming less and less important to how I take photographs.
Anyway, I thought I'd clarify this, in case anyone thinks I'm dissing RFF and its members, or that an emphasis on gear irritates me. Neither is true!
So, back to the thread: can you be a photographer without craft or camera?
Lastly, @ jsrockit. Yes, some of these "photographers" don't call themselves that - but plenty do. Joachim Schmid calls himself that on occasion, and he is often termed a photographer by others.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Thanks for the clarification Rich.
I must admit that wasn`t obvious from the tone of the post ...It sounded to me more like a manifesto.
However I think that its pretty clear by now that people enjoy their photography in different ways.
I`m surprised that it needs any further discussion.
"Can you be a photographer without craft or camera" ?
Going to have to elucidate a tad more on the first two ....I`m having a slow day
Gid
Well-known
Lets start with a couple of definitions (Oxford dictionary online)
Photograph:
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally
Photographer:
a person who takes photographs, especially as a job
Crewdson is clearly a photographer even if he doesn't actually press the shutter. He is an extreme version of any photographer that uses assistants to help create the finished photograph. Commercial photographers (fashion, portrait, product etc) create scenes that deliver the required emotion, message etc, but the end result is still a photograph. The other two are probably image makers in the same way that artists create images using any number of techniques - paint, charcoal, collage, digital manipulations.
You don't have to know how to operate the equipment if you have assistants with the requisite technical knowledge, but you do have to be aware of its constraints and limitations. If one's goal is to create an image, then aside from the latter point, the equipment is unimportant. However, if you want to take a photograph, you need a camera. If you want to create an image, then use whatever works for you.
Photograph:
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally
Photographer:
a person who takes photographs, especially as a job
Crewdson is clearly a photographer even if he doesn't actually press the shutter. He is an extreme version of any photographer that uses assistants to help create the finished photograph. Commercial photographers (fashion, portrait, product etc) create scenes that deliver the required emotion, message etc, but the end result is still a photograph. The other two are probably image makers in the same way that artists create images using any number of techniques - paint, charcoal, collage, digital manipulations.
You don't have to know how to operate the equipment if you have assistants with the requisite technical knowledge, but you do have to be aware of its constraints and limitations. If one's goal is to create an image, then aside from the latter point, the equipment is unimportant. However, if you want to take a photograph, you need a camera. If you want to create an image, then use whatever works for you.
v_roma
Well-known
I agree with Michael. If the intent of the post was really to elicit discussion and thinking about photography, Rich, I think the tone failed to convey that. It felt like a lecture, honsetly, which you are certainly entitled to give but you should not necessarily expect a constructive discussion when you start things off like that. I wasn't personally bothered by it and I'm often dealing with this question personally (i.e., why do I spend so much time thinking about gear instead of thinking about what I can do with it). But, in the end, it's RFForum not PhotographyAsArtForum...
lam
Well-known
I find it interesting the threads the past few days..
Seems like people are losing what really matters in their own selves. Darn daylight savings
Seems like people are losing what really matters in their own selves. Darn daylight savings
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Don't need no stupid camera.
Just go market yourself to a wealthy power broker/art curator/marketing agency in NYC and rent a few hot women with tats to fawn over you.
Just go market yourself to a wealthy power broker/art curator/marketing agency in NYC and rent a few hot women with tats to fawn over you.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Crewdson is a director. The "assistants" Crewsdon hires to capture the images he directs are photograhers. He's doing the same job as the director on a movie set; the only difference is the recording equipment and medium.
I have to agree with some of the folks above that none of these folks Rich lists in his original post are photographers. Making collages with "found" photos is art, not photography. Photography is about capturing reflected light using some medium and redisplaying what was captured; nothing more... but that IS the primary element in its purest terms. Folks who use those redisplayed images are consumers of photography, not producers.
That's one of the interesting things of our times. Very clear lines seem to be blurred by people who don't understand them... that doesn't mean the lines themselves are blurred, it's merely that more and more people don't understand where they lie.
Peter_wrote:
Well-known
yes, i think so. there may be projects where technical skill is necessary to realize the idea, and there may be projects where it is less important. but for photographs i look at, for me the idea and concept is the important part.
but personally i am also more of a gear head though
zauhar
Veteran
We live in a culture that obsesses over 'new paradigms'. It isn't enough to be a good artist, you need to have your own version of the Theory of Relativity.
Unfortunately, this opens the door to anyone with a functioning brain and a sociopathic sense of self-promotion.
Not to disparage the specific guys mentioned by the OP, these may be sincere and hardworking artists who have been fortunate to be picked up by the press and/or patrons. However, the ideas they represent are nothing new or special. Using found objects (including photos) goes back decades, and while I do not know if HCB would have stooped to using a hidden camera to capture the Decisive Moment, I am sure it crossed his mind. The idea is too obvious.
Of course today an 'obvious' idea and an inflated ego is more than enough.
Randy
Unfortunately, this opens the door to anyone with a functioning brain and a sociopathic sense of self-promotion.
Not to disparage the specific guys mentioned by the OP, these may be sincere and hardworking artists who have been fortunate to be picked up by the press and/or patrons. However, the ideas they represent are nothing new or special. Using found objects (including photos) goes back decades, and while I do not know if HCB would have stooped to using a hidden camera to capture the Decisive Moment, I am sure it crossed his mind. The idea is too obvious.
Of course today an 'obvious' idea and an inflated ego is more than enough.
Randy
dabick42
Well-known
@ RichC - - -
I think that you're labouring under a misconception. You don't really understand the meaning of the words ''photography'' and ''photographer''.
If, as you state, your heroes are people who futz around with other people's photographs and images and never actually use cameras themselves, then I suggest that you - and they - are merely multi-media image manipulation junkies... photographers and artists you most definately ain't.
How are you with Rorschach's ink blots as photographic art.... ?
I think that you're labouring under a misconception. You don't really understand the meaning of the words ''photography'' and ''photographer''.
If, as you state, your heroes are people who futz around with other people's photographs and images and never actually use cameras themselves, then I suggest that you - and they - are merely multi-media image manipulation junkies... photographers and artists you most definately ain't.
How are you with Rorschach's ink blots as photographic art.... ?
Michael Markey
Veteran
I`m still not entirely clear about the reason for the post but my previous reference to UK club orthodoxy may yield a clue.
It is not unusual in UK camera clubs for submissions to competitions (especially AV) to contain not a single shot which has been taken by the contributor.
This seems prevalent in historical submissions and here I`m thinking of an AV I sat through on Oradour -sur- Glane or more avant gard works which are frequently composed of found photos and presented in montage form.
It is also heresy to mention cameras or lenses but very acceptable to talk at great length about sharpness ,cropping or how the PS importation of a more dramatic sky from a friend or, one of your own previous shots might lead to greater impact.
Those are the issues which matter not the camera or cameras that have been used.
So common is this practise that they are considering a separate category of entry for pictures which haven`t actually "seen" a camera.
Well ...not a single camera.
RichC
Well-known
Only if they're photographed...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Maybe one can be a photographer without a camera.
But that's not what I want to pursue personally. To me, photography without a camera is like a road-trip without a car or being in a party remotely.
As for RFF, there are gearheads AND also imageheads.
And frankly, dealing with both can be quite grating sometimes.