The Camera

[mh2000]

Honestly, I think this is 95% of being a great photographer... but I don't see many new digital photo geeks being able to do this...

>>...most people can only take credit for deciding when to press the button and how to frame the shot, the camera has done all the other creative thinking as far as aperture, shutter, etc etc

 

[Al Kaplan]

Lens sharpness is a ellusive target. It's affected by several types of lens abberations. Each has its own distinct effect on the photograph. The results of each interacts with the others, and may change due to focussing distance and f-stop. Some lenses are designed to be a bit unsharp such as the Leitz Thambar and Rodenstock Imagon. At the other extreme are today's mult-coated apochromatic aspherics. Are they better? Better for what? That's the underlying question.

Of course there's always the Ego Equation to contend with. Bunches of years back Leitz introduced a pair of lens that I think were f/6.3, possibly f/6.8. One was 400mm, the other 640mm. They consisted of two elements cemented together in a very long tube with a focussing mount. Spiratone and Sterling Howard both offered 400mm f/6.3 lenses for under $40. The Leitz lens were well over $400 apiece. Modern Photography magazine did some lens testing. They concluded that Spiratone made a sharper more contrasty lens than Leitz. Did that kill the sale of Leitz Telyts? Hell no! I'm still using the 400mm Sterling Howard Tele-Astranar that I modified to Visoflex II mount. It was good enough to shoot two record album covers, amonst other things. It's sitting right here on my desk mounted on my Visoflex-II.

So there you have it! Extremely sharp off-brand lenses for a pittance. Extremely expensive name brand lenses for soft photographs. Your choice.

 

[bmattock]

If you were to take a fully manual Leica and your favorite lens and take a shot. Then take the lens and put it on a $5.00 Ebay fully manual crapper and take the same shot. Why would the Leica shot be better? Why would there be better creative choices? What would they be? Why would the results be better? Wouldn't both have the same result?

Perhaps, if you could put your 'favorite lens' on both cameras. And assuming that the viewfinder is bright enough on the eBay camera, the shutter accurate, there are no light leaks, etc.

But that reduces the question to something it wasn't - you're asking "Is a camera essentially a light-tight box that holds a lens?" The answer is yes, of course it is. But that is not the same question as asking "Is it the camera or the photographer?"

 

[DriesI]

"With everything full auto most people can only take credit for deciding when to press the button and how to frame the shot"

well, to me that seem to be the two most important decisions in the creative process, and I know of no camera that can do that

 

[bmattock]

Lens sharpness is a ellusive target.

...

Extremely sharp off-brand lenses for a pittance. Extremely expensive name brand lenses for soft photographs. Your choice.

You are of course correct, but then that is not typical. Generally speaking, better lenses are better engineered, and as a result, often cost more. While it does not necessarily follow that the more a lens costs, the better it is, it is true often enough to be a reliable indicator.

In any case, the O/P's original statement would still be true, even in the case of your Tele-Astranar. That lens, despite the price, was better than a similar lens from Leica, and you chose it (I presume) on that basis. It was indeed the equipment that mattered. Of course, I have also stated that the photographer matters just as much, so I presume your talents are up to the task of producing album covers.

 

[bmattock]

Honestly, I think this is 95% of being a great photographer... but I don't see many new digital photo geeks being able to do this...

I agree that many newcomers to photographer are failing to learn even the rudiments of the craft - in fact, some of them shrug them off as unimportant or inconsequential. I am equally sure that some will take the time to master the craft, as well as to develop their eye, and will in time produce masterful works of photographic art. The word 'digital' does not make or take away from a photographer's capability to become great.

 

[bmattock]

Yawn.....maybe this is turning into a matter of semantics.....

I think perhaps you're right, because I agreed with your response (snipped here for brevity). We seem not to be disagreeing on the issues of the equipment making a difference to 'a photographer' and we even seem to agree on the need for specialized equipment needed for some photographic professions.

If you put a camera in my hands, and tell me to take a photo of a landscape or a portrait of a friend, I'll probably make the same or very similar photo no matter what camera it happens to be. But if the camera is a Box Brownie and I'm at an air show, I won't be getting closeups of the Stukas over Disneyland.

Case in point - I went to a parade recently with my wife, and instead of my usual accoutrement, I just brought along a simple Kodak 'bridge' camera. I intended to just get a few happy-snaps, not my usual stuff. Well, the shots looked like the shots I always take at parades - faces, mostly - I have an 'Americana' kind of thing in my head alla time. But I was unhappy - the Kodak has a really razor-sharp lens, but the response time was horrible, lag time was driving me nuts, and I missed a bunch of shots I feel I would have nailed because the shot-to-shot time was so slow. And several shots were muffed because the camera chose to focus where I did not want to place the focus. Did the camera matter in that case? Yes, I feel it did. But the shots that came OK looked just like my usual work.

This was the heart of my argument - that 'equipment matters' in that sense. I entirely agree that the photographer imbues their photographs with their own, if you'll permit the pun, 'vision'.

 

[sjw617]

But that reduces the question to something it wasn't - you're asking "Is a camera essentially a light-tight box that holds a lens?" The answer is yes, of course it is. But that is not the same question as asking "Is it the camera or the photographer?"

It is the photographer. Even if you are just pointing and shooting it's still the photographer.

Steve

 

[stuken]

http://web.me.com/aaronandpatty/What_the_Duck/WTD_2006-2007.html#94

 

[bmattock]

It is the photographer. Even if you are just pointing and shooting it's still the photographer.

Steve

It is the photographer, but it is not ONLY the photographer.

The best artists choose their tools carefully for a reason - they matter. A good knife does not make a person a master chef, but a master chef can do more with a good knife than a poor knife.

 

[sjw617]

It is the photographer, but it is not ONLY the photographer.

The best artists choose their tools carefully for a reason - they matter. A good knife does not make a person a master chef, but a master chef can do more with a good knife than a poor knife.

I tend to pick equipment that is well made, get to know it well and use it for many years. I think the familiarity with a camera leads to confidence in using it. So yes, the camera does have a part in the equation.

 

[bobbyrab]

Could some great images have been taken with lesser cameras? I dare say if you'd given HCB any number of cameras the results wouldn't have been that different, so Yes. Could some great images have been taken with lesser cameras, I don't think if you had given A. Adams a digital P&S you would have much to write home about, so no, but then this is an internet forum, so blunt sweeping generalisations are the common currency, more fool me for wasting my time.

 

[Merkin]

Could some great images have been taken with lesser cameras? I dare say if you'd given HCB any number of cameras the results wouldn't have been that different, so Yes. Could some great images have been taken with lesser cameras, I don't think if you had given A. Adams a digital P&S you would have much to write home about, so no, but then this is an internet forum, so blunt sweeping generalisations are the common currency, more fool me for wasting my time.

It is very possible for great images to be taken with lesser cameras. As much as I love 'em, Holgas are utter crap when it comes to quality, but there are tons of great images out there that have been made with Holgas. I have made a number of good images with my digital point and shoot, including a few that I have managed to sell to newspapers. Granted, my digital point and shoot is a D-Lux 3...

 

[raid]

There is a mix between talent, know-how, and equipment availability, resulting in better or worse photographs. The right mix depends on these factors. If someone is very talented and has built up experience, then a basic camera outfit may be sufficient for this person to produce very high quality output. Offering such an individual specialized lenses may result in even better images. On the other hand, if talent level and experience level are low, then a better camera outfit may not result in better photographs.

I was once blown away by the beauty of posted images by a Russian gentleman who used an Argus C44. I quickly bought such a camera! Oh well, the results are not at the same beauty level as those images that made me get the Argus. I wanted that "look".

 

[Merkin]

While it is obvious that I feel that both play a part, If the camera was significantly more important than the photographer, we would be going to see "The new Hasselblad exhibit at the local arts council," or the "really intriguing Nikon F2 photojournalism retrospective." Granted, it would be pretty cool to go see a show where a large number of great photographers were all given the same gear, to see all of the different stuff that would be done...

 

[BB52]

The Camera

All of your opionions are well respected,I have read every one and gained a great deal of knowledge from all views.Thanks folks.Brian......

 

[FallisPhoto]

It`s not the camera,it`s the person behind it.I may be off base here with this one but there is "some"truth to my statement.I would like to have some serious thoughts on the subject.I respect everyone`s opinions here on the RF forum.Intelligent comments please................Thank you.

I am so tired of hearing that. Yes it most certainly is the camera. It is also the lens, the lights, the subject, the format, the mood and the artistic and technical abilities of the guy behind the camera, the attitude and the artistic and technical abilities of the guy in the darkroom, his choice of developer and paper and the condition and limitations of his equipment. Photography is all about getting the best compromise you can given the limitations and abilities of each of a lot of seperate elements, and any one of them can ruin an otherwise good photo.