Its NOT All About the IMAGE!

[zuiko85]

Even the 'it's all about the image' crowd must know that when equipment is poorly designed or the command and control interface gets in the way of making photographs, then they too have to deal with and discuss 'cameras and lenses'.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

If you note, you'll see that despite my academic setting, I mention practising photographers

I'm sure that if they practice enough, they'll get it right...

😀

 

[Photo_Smith]

Exactly. I couldn't tell you what camera and lens was used for any of my favorite photographs (made by others). Not that I'm immune to wanting to know these things, but if you aren't into photography or gear, you are only going to care about the image.

That's basically what I said if you aren't interested in photography (not just gear) you have no interest in the image, probably you'll see it without even looking.
If you have an interest you'll be able to appreciate it more and will want to look at the image in a slightly deconstructive way.
In order to do that you'll probably be interested in some of the process of how that image was made, and could use that in order to grow yourself as an artist.
Those people who say it's only the image are discounting the process that formed that image–because they have no interest beyond initial aesthetic.

 

[Merumeni]

I totally disagree with RichC’s entire post.

There is a well known difference between the creation of a picture and the taking of a money-shot.
In the 1966 Leica Fotografie edition there is a nice article on page 197 starting with “Photographs which were never developed and yet, I see them more clearly before my mind’s eye than all the thousands testifying in my filing cabinets and slide boxes…”.

It is this ongoing process of being driven to realize the picture in my mind (that gets triggered by a something I have to know to identify, I have to “catch” and translate both into a different dimension and into the common language I share with a potential recipient) that I would call dealing with photography. Learning happens as a process and therefore comes along with a history. A success sometimes condenses and symbolizes entire movements and eras. And those pictures most definitely have stories and, depending on the circumstances, the question for how they were actually realized and technically done can be quite fascinating.

NUTS to that!!!! And I fundamentally disagree with Stephen’s original post.

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.

The efficient production of images is totally unknown to my understanding of seeing the world through a lens. This may only be because economically I am not depending on the production of images.

I do not want to argue about the advantages and disadvantages of DSLRs over rangefinders (or vice versa) and / or film over digital. To each its own. I have and use all of them. But I can assure you that the obtrusive size and intimidating weight of a camera does have a strong influence on my creative output.

 

[RichC]

Even the 'it's all about the image' crowd must know that when equipment is poorly designed or the command and control interface gets in the way of making photographs, then they too have to deal with and discuss 'cameras and lenses'.

No one has said otherwise.

Usually the solution is obvious and not worth talking about: a competent photographer has a pretty good idea of how to achieve a particular image, so they use suitable equipment. Unless there's a specific problem, what's to talk about?

 

[Photo_Smith]

No one has said otherwise.
a competent photographer has a pretty good idea of how to achieve a particular image, so they use suitable equipment.

Obviously then it's not all about the image because that competent photographer must choose the right process and equipment.

 

[RichC]

I totally disagree with RichC’s entire post.

There is a well known difference between the creation of a picture and the taking of a money-shot.
...

The efficient production of images is totally unknown to my understanding of seeing the world through a lens. This may only be because economically I am not depending on the production of images.

The MA I'm doing is specifically on ART photography - there is nothing whatsoever in the course on commercial photography, and it's entirely geared towards the photographic image as art.

I can assure you that speed of picture-making does not enter into it, let alone "money shots"! I'm doing the course purely to become a better art photographer - I already have a career (as an editor/designer), and have no intention of working as a photographer.

 

[jsrockit]

Those people who say it's only the image are discounting the process that formed that image–because they have no interest beyond initial aesthetic.

I've always wondered about this i.e. how it is to look at photographs without the benefit of knowing how to make them... is it purely aesthetic or do people dig deeper? I would say it is purely aesthetic for the most part, but some people study art (history) without making art.

 

[icebear]

"You’ve got to deal with how photographs look, what’s there, not how they’re made."

"Photos have no narrative content. They only describe light on surface."

"Photographers mistake the emotion they feel while taking the picture as judgment that the photograph is good."

-Garry Winogrand.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We've got a winner!

Amen to that.
It is about the image, maybe not all but essentially is does boil down to exactly that.

All the gear we used is just a tool. The way we use these tools and the moment we press the shutter to capture
a certain moment in time gives the result (after some polishing in dark or light room...).

As much a I love to use my Leica stuff (and Zeiss and CV lenses for M), the equipment doesn't take a single image.
I am deciding what to frame and when to shoot. Knowing how to use my stuff indeed helps and you might need
to know a little more than with an "auto everything" toy but essentially it is the photographers eye and vision that captures an image.

And as others have said if the image is crap, all the other information does not make it better.

If a major art work, painting or photo goes to the auction block, then marketing comes up with all the background
what the artist had for dinner before he went on to produce this unique piece ...bla bla bla.
Yes, sometime the background info might be interesting but the message is in the image.
Does anyone care about the type of oil paint used in a Monet or Van Gogh (other than a restaurateur or expert to examine authenticity)?

A friend of mine once said to me :
"If you have to explain your image, forget about it."
He was right.

 

[jsrockit]

A friend of mine once said to me :
"If you have to explain your image, forget about it."
He was right.

He was right in some situations, not in others... 😉

 

[Exdsc]

Was an image ever returned after a sale because the buyer found out that a certain camera/lens was used/or not used?


I really don't know, so I'm asking if anyone had such an experience.

 

[dabick42]

@ RichC - - -

It's a pity you didn't think to mention earlier that your interest in photography was SOLELY focussed on the ''art'' aspect of the medium.

Had you done so, the reason for your indifference to the ''nuts and bolts'' of photography and your somewhat cavalier dismissal of 35mm film would have been more readily understood....

 

[kdemas]

I look at the Golden Gate Bridge and feel empty as I do not know the personal details of those that built it. Where were each of them from? What types of hammers did they use? Were the nails from this fab or that? Was it hemp rope that held them aloft as they worked? Was it cold up there? Did they have hot chocolate or other warm drinks to keep warm? Was their commute bad?

I think we're confusing a couple of things here.

For many people the tools and circumstances around creating an image adds to their appreciation and understanding of their own work. There may even be a small set of enthusiasts who gain pleasure, appreciation and depth by knowing these details. This is fine and natural.

Where this discussion gets off point is when it is portrayed that viewers of the image (that's right, the image...not the camera and lens framed on the wall) and their appreciation of it are somehow hampered by not getting the production process and shooting specifics. Other than Art Historians does anyone suffer from not knowing which canvas (or material) supplier Van Gogh used? Which paint and brush choices he made? Was he drinking Absynthe during the painting session or just drooling in a cup?

And to argue that "well if your camera doesn't work then it's clearly not just the image that matters" is just silly. Nobody is arguing that you do not need A TOOL to do photography, it's required by the medium. That said it does not mean that the type of tool you use is critical to the understanding and appreciation of an image (as a viewer, not as a creator).

 

[steveclem]

How can it not be about the image? Does knowing the settings or camera model etc matter really?
Robert Capa, Omaha beach.

 

[jsrockit]

How can it not be about the image? Does knowing the settings or camera model etc matter really?
Robert Capa, Omaha beach.

No, but many of us know the story of what happened to the negatives right?

 

[kshapero]

I love it all: the image (oh my!) and the gear behind it.

 

[lam]

By claiming all that matters is the image, you basically say you care what the image looks like, meaning you give a **** about what gear you're using to shoot said image with.

 

[Bike Tourist]

I can marvel at the work of the old masters, some modern painters, many photographers, plus my favorite jazz musicians, Stephen. Somehow, I don't care how they mixed their paint, whether or not they used a red sable hair brush, what camera was used or what brand instrument they chose to perform on.

All the details you enumerate can be of interest to those of us working in the same field but to equate that to the appreciation of the actual art itself is a little specious.

 

[alistair.o]

@ RichC - - -

It's a pity you didn't think to mention earlier that your interest in photography was SOLELY focussed on the ''art'' aspect of the medium.

Had you done so, the reason for your indifference to the ''nuts and bolts'' of photography and your somewhat cavalier dismissal of 35mm film would have been more readily understood....

Stephen - you are a salesman and your business is to promote the sale of goods. I think it 'difficult' for you, to say the least, not to list at least 75% of the things you have without keeping an eye on turnover of lenses and bodies.

dabick42 - I have sung from the same hymn sheet as RichC since I first started making pictures. I had (and to a large degree still have no knowledge of names in the world of photography) I am driven by a picture and so I just get out and make pictures.

I am utterly amazed and not a little dejected at the turnover of kit as people seek 'THE' kit and then they WILL get that picture. All the while what does a person really know about a lens (or two) after 2 minutes and then chop it for another 'only better than the last' - oh yeah, says who?

It's the picture that matters and it's the picture that will go on and on and on - a picture has the potential to cause laughter, tears, joy and memories regardless of how it was taken or with what.

 

[steveclem]

No, but many of us know the story of what happened to the negatives right?

Apparently not, in my case.
Blurred pictures and struggle was all I saw. I had to guess the rest, he was there , as were the soldiers. Why would I need to know what camera or film etc he used?