I think the 'it's only the image crowd' are normally made up of more inexperienced folks who don't understand a process...
NUTS to that!!!! And I fundamentally disagree with Stephen’s original post.
I’m doing a master’s degree in photography, and rarely does talk about lenses and cameras and how a photograph was made occur on the course - and as for the photographer recalling all the technical details of a photograph, as suggested by Stephen - the settings, the equipment: don’t make me laugh! Most of us on the course have no interest in the “how” of an image - just the “why”. For us, photography is most definitely all about the image - it’s all about what we present to the viewer. The exception is if the means of production of the image is crucial to the integrity of an image (e.g. a project relating the image and technology may require its creation through use of digital or film).
This attitude towards cameras - playing no part in the photographic experience except as mere tools - seems right to me. One of my tutors is Mark Power, the Magnum photographer, and he’s never spoken to us about how he uses his equipment, and no one asks him about cameras either. I’m sure he knows loads - probably: who cares!? (I do know that he’s using film less and less - like many other Magnum photographers - and used video for the first the time in his last project.) We also have regular visits to our MA course from established photographers, most recently Mikhael Subotzky and Alessandra Sanguinetti (both Magnum) and Karren Knorr (currently exhibited in the National Gallery - Britain’s, err, national gallery): none spoke about equipment or technical matters, nor were they asked - the discussions revolved entirely around the image - as it should. It’s all about the image.
Sure, you have to know how to use your tools, and settings and equipment are important - but only when necessary to achieve or replicate a certain image or effect. If I recall which lens I used or camera or aperture, then it’s usually because it’s crucial for future images (e.g. completion of a project, or a style I want to retain).
I like to think that I have a good knowledge of cameras, lenses and other photographic tools. And I like well-crafted mechanical objects – one day, I’d love to own a
Le Coultre Compass camera simply because, as a mechanical device, it sings; and I can tell you the history of Mandler’s Leica lenses. But this appreciation of the camera as object has NOTHING to do with how or why I take photographs.
I choose the tools that give me the images I’m after, and have zero interest in how photographs are taken, except as means to an end: the image. That means I’ll never use 35mm film (never have, never will - I learnt my craft with digital cameras) because I consider it dead-end technology: I do use medium- and large-format film on occasion in preference to digital when it suits a project, but minuscule 35mm film has no practical benefits whatsoever over larger film formats or digital.
And I used a rangefinder for several years because it suited my photography - an Epson R-D1, then a Leica M8. I collected some nice lenses, including 35mm and 50mm Summiluxes from the 1970s.
But it’s all about the image ...
My photographic needs have changed, and my overriding requirement now is to produce images as efficiently as possible. A rangefinder is not efficient, so I’ve just sold my entire Leica kit, to buy a “workhorse” camera - one that is flexible, and is easy and quick to use.
So, my new camera is a Nikon D800E. Its advantages include the following: as an SLR, it gives me precisely what I see in the viewfinder; zoom lenses allow me adjust the field of view to my exact requirements (no need to walk or - worse - shuffle the tripod back and forth); it’s as easy to use with manual lenses as with autofocus ones (my preference is for the former - the latter will doubtless prove convenient); the technical quality exceeds my requirement; and 36 MP means that I can make prints as large as door that look pin sharp even when viewers stick their nose.
The Nikon D800E may be superlative as an image-making tool but I have no emotional connection with it whatsoever. As a desirable object, it’s far removed - it has nothing in common with my former Leica camera (and lenses), let alone the Compass camera I mentioned earlier - it’s just a pig ugly lump of plastic and metal and electronics, made down to a price (e.g. nasty, wobbly built-in flash) with far too many functions that I’ll never use (face recognition!?). If it gets stolen or broken, I’ll just feel inconvenienced, and get a replacement on my insurance (whereas if my 1971 35mm Summilux had been stolen, I’d have been gutted!). But it lets me get on with the entire point of photography: to make images.
Cameras are simply a means to an end... it’s all about the image.
