JimG
dogzen
Sparrow
Veteran
OK, just don’t tell them about the tooth fairies, they’ll sulk
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
The truth does not hurt a bit if you realize who you are. I could not agree more with Ken Rockwell's article and realize that I can make crappy pictures with just about photo gear around and I have photos in my gallery to prove it. I still like to play with all sorts of gear and am always astonished at what gear in excess of 50 years old can still do today. Yeah, it is all fun if not taken too seriously.
Nikon Bob
Nikon Bob
JimG
dogzen
Your right Bob, I take photos (mostly crappie) because I enjoy photography. I know my using a Lieca makes them no less crappie then they would be with another camera, but does add to the enjoyment of taking them. In the mean time I hope that if I keep trying I'll learn to make a decent image someday. Jim (There's no tooth fairies?)
John Camp
Well-known
The article is amusing but total horse-bleep. Ansel Adams paid attention to his tools almost obsessively; you didn't see him out there with a Kodak Brownie. He always carried the biggest camera he could handle and considered MF a compromise; he wrote ***books*** about technique. You know the Zone System? He was one of the developers of it. Rockwell sez Jack Dykinga is as good as Adams but different; I'd disagree, but without getting into that argument, look at Dykinga's equipment. Can you say "Arca-Swiss?" Can you say ''Customized van to carry my photo equipment around?"
Rockwell's website is notorious for its misinformation. I think the guy must feel pressure to write **something** ...so he just writes **something.**
JC
Rockwell's website is notorious for its misinformation. I think the guy must feel pressure to write **something** ...so he just writes **something.**
JC
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
There are a few good ideas in this polemic, but so many of his key assumptions are wrong that the whole thing comes off as a bit silly. To pick a few nits:
Lots of people have been able to equal or surpass what Adams did, at least in terms of image and print quality. (If you like his Wagnerian style of landscapery, then you may consider him artistically unequalled -- although it's possible to argue that William Henry Jackson did a better job in the 19th century, even encumbered by the need to backpack a wet-plate camera and dark-tent into the wilderness.) Adams went to a lot of trouble to help people who wanted to "equal what he did," writing a whole series of very clear books explaining the technical basis of his work.
There's nothing mysterious about any of that stuff. To paraphrase some big-name photography professor quoted in the older, better Camera Arts: "If after a couple of years of darkroom courses you can't print as well as Minor White, you should be entitled to get your tuition back." It's just craft.
And since we're all mortal and have limited time and energy, "easier, faster, more convenient" translates directly into the opportunity to make images.
To pick an absurd but instructive example, say you invent a new process that makes a great image but requires 70 years of continuous effort to produce that image. Under such conditions, the most anybody would be able to create would be one image. How good are the odds that it would be a masterpiece? If you then improved the process so it only took 30 years, then a lot of people would have the chance to produce two images in their lifetime, dramatically improving their odds of doing something worthwhile. And so on down the line. The point is that making something easier, faster and/or more convenient has real-life value to the creative person. That's why most musicians nowadays buy ready-made instruments instead of personally whittling them out of whole trees, for example.
Both halves of this statement are completely wrong. Have you ever seen an original Ansel Adams print? It's a rare opportunity nowadays, because they're so expensive, but several years ago I got to see hundreds of them in a traveling exhibit, and since I was a newspaper art critic at the time, the museum hosting it opened the gallery for me and let me spend as much time as I liked looking as closely as I liked. One thing that struck me was that most of his prints weren't all that sharp. Oh, they were sharp enough, but nothing special -- just what any photographer of the same era would expect from the high-quality equipment available at that time.
And yet, yes, Ansel DID invest a lot of time in making sure he was choosing the best-quality equipment. A lot of his writings detail the gear he used for specific pictures, and if you check what was available during those eras, you'll find that what he used was always top-of-the-line -- from view-camera lenses to the Contax 35mm cameras and lenses he used for the available-light portraits he did back in the '30s (yes, Ansel Adams was an RF photographer, and a rather good one -- his environmental portraits aren't so highly touted today, but I think they're more interesting and less derivative than his landscape work.)
Up to a point that's true -- but it's also true that if you're not using equipment that's suited to your working style, or is optically or mechanically capable of producing the results you want, then buying the right new gear will improve your photography. For example, if you want to produce large Ansel Adams-style landscape prints, and the only camera you own is a Minox, it's probably time to go shopping for a new camera.
Compared to our online essayist's bombast, here's a less pretentious and more practical quote from Jeff Lowenthal, author of Stage and Theater Photography (still the only genuinely good book ever written on this subject, IMO)...
And to me that about sums it up. Doing personal photography of any sort involves solving a particular set of problems. To solve those problems, you don't necessarily need a lot of equipment, or need always to be buying new equipment -- but you do need the right equipment for your particular working style and preferences.
And since no two photographers are exactly alike in their styles, preferences, or problem-solving interests, you may not be able to find out what equipment works best for you without a certain amount of trial and error. So no, don't assume that new equipment will always make your pictures better -- but on the other hand, don't be afraid to change equipment if there's a good chance that it will make your pictures better.
This whole "equipment doesn't matter" party line is one that recurs over and over in writings about photography. In a sense, it's a form of bragging -- a way of saying to the reverent reader, "I get great photos because I'm a genius, not because of what equipment I use."
And in this type of formulaic tirade, such an implicit statement is usually followed fairly closely by the assertion that Great Artists in any medium are indifferent to mere materials and techniques. Sorry, but I'm in a position to tell you factually that that's B.S.
Now of course, a great violinist will play better than a poor one even on a mediocre instrument, a great dancer will dance better than a rotten one even wearing pointe shoes she doesn't like, and so on. But the whole concept of art as personal expression is that it is NOT about just doing better than average, or than someone else -- it's about doing the best you can possibly do.
Doing the best you can do is a lifelong challenge and takes everything you've got. You can't afford ANY "drag factors" that might hold you back.
Anyone out here a serious pool player? Well, you've probably got a custom-made cue, don't you? Sure, you can probably beat the average barroom duffer using even a lousy "house" cue. But if you're up against a tough competitor and you've got serious money on the line, you can't afford to accept any disadvantages, right? You want to make sure you're giving yourself every chance to do your best. You're gonna use the cue that plays best for you.
Same thing with photography equipment. When there's a lot on the line, you want to take your best shot, and that means you want to be holding the right "stick."
Lots of people have been able to equal or surpass what Adams did, at least in terms of image and print quality. (If you like his Wagnerian style of landscapery, then you may consider him artistically unequalled -- although it's possible to argue that William Henry Jackson did a better job in the 19th century, even encumbered by the need to backpack a wet-plate camera and dark-tent into the wilderness.) Adams went to a lot of trouble to help people who wanted to "equal what he did," writing a whole series of very clear books explaining the technical basis of his work.
There's nothing mysterious about any of that stuff. To paraphrase some big-name photography professor quoted in the older, better Camera Arts: "If after a couple of years of darkroom courses you can't print as well as Minor White, you should be entitled to get your tuition back." It's just craft.
And since we're all mortal and have limited time and energy, "easier, faster, more convenient" translates directly into the opportunity to make images.
To pick an absurd but instructive example, say you invent a new process that makes a great image but requires 70 years of continuous effort to produce that image. Under such conditions, the most anybody would be able to create would be one image. How good are the odds that it would be a masterpiece? If you then improved the process so it only took 30 years, then a lot of people would have the chance to produce two images in their lifetime, dramatically improving their odds of doing something worthwhile. And so on down the line. The point is that making something easier, faster and/or more convenient has real-life value to the creative person. That's why most musicians nowadays buy ready-made instruments instead of personally whittling them out of whole trees, for example.
Both halves of this statement are completely wrong. Have you ever seen an original Ansel Adams print? It's a rare opportunity nowadays, because they're so expensive, but several years ago I got to see hundreds of them in a traveling exhibit, and since I was a newspaper art critic at the time, the museum hosting it opened the gallery for me and let me spend as much time as I liked looking as closely as I liked. One thing that struck me was that most of his prints weren't all that sharp. Oh, they were sharp enough, but nothing special -- just what any photographer of the same era would expect from the high-quality equipment available at that time.
And yet, yes, Ansel DID invest a lot of time in making sure he was choosing the best-quality equipment. A lot of his writings detail the gear he used for specific pictures, and if you check what was available during those eras, you'll find that what he used was always top-of-the-line -- from view-camera lenses to the Contax 35mm cameras and lenses he used for the available-light portraits he did back in the '30s (yes, Ansel Adams was an RF photographer, and a rather good one -- his environmental portraits aren't so highly touted today, but I think they're more interesting and less derivative than his landscape work.)
Up to a point that's true -- but it's also true that if you're not using equipment that's suited to your working style, or is optically or mechanically capable of producing the results you want, then buying the right new gear will improve your photography. For example, if you want to produce large Ansel Adams-style landscape prints, and the only camera you own is a Minox, it's probably time to go shopping for a new camera.
Compared to our online essayist's bombast, here's a less pretentious and more practical quote from Jeff Lowenthal, author of Stage and Theater Photography (still the only genuinely good book ever written on this subject, IMO)...
"Years ago people said that a really good photographer could create masterpieces with a box camera. Maybe so, but not in a night club. Theater work involves problems beyond solution with elementary equipment."
And to me that about sums it up. Doing personal photography of any sort involves solving a particular set of problems. To solve those problems, you don't necessarily need a lot of equipment, or need always to be buying new equipment -- but you do need the right equipment for your particular working style and preferences.
And since no two photographers are exactly alike in their styles, preferences, or problem-solving interests, you may not be able to find out what equipment works best for you without a certain amount of trial and error. So no, don't assume that new equipment will always make your pictures better -- but on the other hand, don't be afraid to change equipment if there's a good chance that it will make your pictures better.
This whole "equipment doesn't matter" party line is one that recurs over and over in writings about photography. In a sense, it's a form of bragging -- a way of saying to the reverent reader, "I get great photos because I'm a genius, not because of what equipment I use."
And in this type of formulaic tirade, such an implicit statement is usually followed fairly closely by the assertion that Great Artists in any medium are indifferent to mere materials and techniques. Sorry, but I'm in a position to tell you factually that that's B.S.
- I used to work in marketing for a big chain of art-supply stores, and I learned the hard way that even though Winsor & Newton, for example, makes hundreds of different styles and shapes of art brushes, even big-name painters get very cranky if their specific favorite one gets dropped from inventory. Tools matter a lot to painters.
- In my current life I spend a lot of time around ballet dancers. Female ballet dancers wear special shoes, called pointe shoes, that allow them to dance on the ends of their toes ("pointes," in French.) Dozens of companies make pointe shoes, in hundreds of styles; they're all about the same, but most dancers have ONE specific make and style (and in some cases, individual maker) that they insist on, and won't tolerate anything else. Tools matter a lot to dancers.
- Years ago when I was a reporter, I interviewed a fast-rising young star violinist who was in town to perform with the symphony. He was a "fun" interview, full of lots of lively stories about his career and classical music in general. Eventually I asked him what kind of violin he played, fully expecting to get a mild lecture about how mere tools aren't important, it's the artistry that counts. Instead, he said that he toured with four different violins -- one very expensive antique and three modern models from different makers. He chose which one to use for each piece of music, he said, based on the style of the music, the acoustic characteristics of the hall, and his personal mood at the time. Tools, it seems, matter a lot to musicians.
Now of course, a great violinist will play better than a poor one even on a mediocre instrument, a great dancer will dance better than a rotten one even wearing pointe shoes she doesn't like, and so on. But the whole concept of art as personal expression is that it is NOT about just doing better than average, or than someone else -- it's about doing the best you can possibly do.
Doing the best you can do is a lifelong challenge and takes everything you've got. You can't afford ANY "drag factors" that might hold you back.
Anyone out here a serious pool player? Well, you've probably got a custom-made cue, don't you? Sure, you can probably beat the average barroom duffer using even a lousy "house" cue. But if you're up against a tough competitor and you've got serious money on the line, you can't afford to accept any disadvantages, right? You want to make sure you're giving yourself every chance to do your best. You're gonna use the cue that plays best for you.
Same thing with photography equipment. When there's a lot on the line, you want to take your best shot, and that means you want to be holding the right "stick."
back alley
IMAGES
damn, jimmy boy!
i love reading your stuff!!
joe
i love reading your stuff!!
joe
dazedgonebye
Veteran
It's a silly leap from "The eye is more important than the equipment," to "The equipment is unimportant."
I've read many a silly leap from the same source though, so it's not surprising.
JLW's post certainly put it all down right.
I've read many a silly leap from the same source though, so it's not surprising.
JLW's post certainly put it all down right.
PeterL
--
Ken might be exaggerating, but it sure is true that photography is one of the hobbies where it's very popular to brag about one's equipment. It's worst with people who know just a bit about it, because of all the hype that unknowledgable photo sales reps spew these days. I love it when people give me funny looks when I show up with my Zorki, then I love it again when I hear the reactions when I show them the pictures.
Peter.
Peter.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I always found ken Rockwell's diatribe about the camera not making any difference a little disingenuous when the first thing you see when you go to his website is this photo:
dmr
Registered Abuser
Nikon Bob said:
Yes, and the current wave of digital cameras (and stuff like phone cams) lets an awful lot of people take an awful lot of crummy photos, and the industry makes an awful lot of $$$ in the process.
Point to ponder: If an infinite number of monkeys shoot with an infinite number of digital cams, will they eventually reproduce the works of Ansel Adams?
sleepyhead
Well-known
I don't agree with good ol' Ken. I look at having a really good camera and really good lens sort of like having a good tennis racket: it won't, by itself, make me a better tennis player, but knowing that I'm holding an instrument in my hand THAT IS CAPABLE of great results inspires me to try harder and achieve what the instrument is capable of. Could be a good a decent musical instrument, if that's a better analogy.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
dmr said:Yes, and the current wave of digital cameras (and stuff like phone cams) lets an awful lot of people take an awful lot of crummy photos, and the industry makes an awful lot of $$$ in the process.
Point to ponder: If an infinite number of monkeys shoot with an infinite number of digital cams, will they eventually reproduce the works of Ansel Adams?
Point to ponder: if an infinite number of monkeys shoot with an infinite number of film cams, will they eventually reproduce the works of Ansel Adams? There are monkeys and then there are monkeys. For some top monkeys it may make a difference but for most not really. I am using monkeys here as you used them as a reference so take no offence. I think the intent of the article was than persons should not delude themselves that the photos taken by them with very expensive equipment will automatically be better than what they were using before. That is unless of course they were using very substandard or totally inappropriate gear . Ken IMHO is likely exaggerating to make a point. Spend the money by all means, I have on occasion, but don't ever believe it will automatically lead to better results. It is the old gearhead vs artist thing.
Nikon Bob
Sparrow
Veteran
The second law of diminishing returns; the more you think about it the less you’ll do (joke, just made it up). If people like to concentrate on the kit that’s fine, some things however will not improve my pictures, the strap the case the bag or whatever aer just vanitys, but enjoyable to read because they take it so seriously, they are ultimately irrelevant.