All the cameras are better than you are...

<p>I don't know Tim, I think the article's hook line detracts a little from his subject. In the hook line he's acknowledging that with our powerful cameras we're all a bit like Jack Benny was with his Stradivarius; like Jack we have more instrument than we can use to best effect. The same could be said of even a mere pencil in my hands, or of Excel where we all use an over powered Excel when a simple VisiCalc would do just as well. Still, Tuck has some interesting things to say. All those powerful features should make the work of taking the photo we want easier and even expand what's possible. My experience is that the technological advances have delivered on those two points.</p>

<p>Kai at DigitalRev TV has a fun series of famous photographers dealing with cheap cameras. These videos make the point much better than the blog post.<br>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"All those powerful features should make the work of taking the photo we want easier and even expand what's possible. My experience is that the technological advances have delivered on those two points."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and I think that's the whole point about "better" cameras. <br>

<br>

If you're a casual duck hunter, then you might not need <a href="

gun that aims itself</a> as a skilled marksman requires, or the way an F1 driver would always need a better car. Above a certain level, it becomes all about better tools. </p>

<p>If Robert Frank were offered the use of a modern camera, I'm sure he would at least consider it. Hemingway could have written "Old Man and the Sea" with any #2 pencil, but that doesn't make spell-check a useless tool. <br>

Personally, I'd like to see those pictures that Sarah Fox might make, if the technology were available.</p>

<p>I think it's important to remember who is replying to these thoughts. <em>This</em> site is for people who are serious about photography. There are many professionals and seasoned PJs, as well as award-winning shots on these pages and in the portfolios of p.n members, many of whom have dedicated a significant proportion of their lives to this medium, so few are going to agree with the statement "Almost nobody cares about their photographs and is either too lazy or too stupid to make proper use of their camera."As is so often the case, the essay is illustrated with an uninteresting photograph in which he seems to have annoyed his subjects. This is truly an embarassing file to post from one who is trying to educate.<br>

But, I also feel certain that the vast majority of the camera-buying public would do well to read something like this blog and for more of us than would like to admit it, we are pouring a lot of money down a black hole simply to keep ourselves amused. There is nothing wrong with being happy with one's shots, equipment etc- if you're not hurting anyone, who am I to say about what you do with your money? And how can one put a price on having wonderful prints of your family, friends and places to look over and enjoy for decades? But it is important to remember that what a photographer cares about is rarely the same as what those who have never heard of ISO care about. Most of the time it's "Oh yeah, Dad's really into his camera- he's quite good." Showing your work to those who have little interest in their own cameras and use their phone to take pictures of "Lucy, who we met on the beach in Thailand" can be constructively deflating!<br>

There are, however, some leaps, some advances which do make a difference- it would be silly to pretend otherwise. Jump from an RX100 II to a 5DIII with top glass and I guarrantee you'll notice the difference! But it is also true that there is little point in many of the obsessive gear threads we see so often and most of us would get a real shock if a truly gifted photographer went out for a day in our neighbourhood with our gear and then showed us their results.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I prefer to make photographs rather than blame my tools. But then I have little interest in making picture-perfect Kodak Moment photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So basically you're saying that you, with your superior skills, could take the shot I described with basically any camera, because they're all... you know... up to the task. Right? Heck, I suppose even your iPhone would do it.</p>

<p>But back in the real world, there are some things we can photograph and some things we can't. And scattered just short of that fuzzy line of "can" and "can't" are things we can photograph poorly. Thanks to advancing technology, that line keeps getting shoved back. I am constantly amazed at what advancing technology has handed us, and I love what I can do even with my humble, older cameras (5D and 40D). But that doesn't mean I have no interest in pushing farther. I do. I'm obviously not in any huge rush, but when Moore's law works its magic and hands me an affordable jump forward, I'm going to take it, and I will enjoy photographing a few new things that I couldn't photograph before. And you will thumb your nose at me for doing so, because you're so... above that.</p>

It is interesting in how conversations here, and the many many that have preceded them, always seem to talk

about photography and making photographs in terms of having better (or unobtainable) gear, rather than from

a perspective of vision, seeing, expression, communication, sharing what's felt, releasing narrative, using

various techniques like controlling light/shadows to achieve goals, logistics, etc.

 

 

 

>>> If Robert Frank were offered the use of a modern camera, I'm sure he would at least consider it.

 

Frank started with a vision and the desire to tell a story as an outsider, and used what was available to him to express

that vision. I suppose he could have spent days/years wishing for better gear, but that was not what drove him.

No doubt there are some here that would have been more pleased with his photos if they were shaper, contrastier,

had less grain/noise, and in better focus.

>>> So basically you're saying that you, with your superior skills, could take the shot I described with

basically any camera, because they're all... you know... up to the task. Right? Heck, I suppose even your

iPhone would do it. ... And you will thumb your nose at me for doing so, because you're so... above that.

 

I'm not saying anything of the sort. Those are your words and sarcasm.

<blockquote>

<p>using various techniques like controlling light/shadows to achieve goals, logistics, etc.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>OK, Brad, so the city of Yorktown commissions the brilliant Brad Evans to come in and take the photo I describe. Because they're willing to pay so much for his work, he flies right in, iPhone in pocket. And then the planning begins. The esteemed Mr. Evans sets to work planning how to control the lights and shadows, logistics, and yada yada yada... to achieve the simple goal of taking the above photo with sufficient depth of field and freezing of action... because the city of Yorktown is very specific about what they want to see in the photo -- a couple enjoying the beach, the bridge behind, and all the beautiful reflections on the lightly choppy water. So how would you achieve this?</p>

<p>Here's what I'd do, BTW, assuming they have lots of money to throw at it: I'd either do my best approximation with a 6D, or assuming every camera is up to the task, with an adequately imaginative photographer, I'd...</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Decide to do night-for-day photography. The sun becomes the full moon.</li>

<li>I set up dozens of monolights on the bridge and inside buildings to flash in the direction of my camera creating the needed reflections on the water. They of course need to be gelled to recreate the different light colors. By trading off shutter speed and ISO, I can balance the intensity of the monolights with the "moon."</li>

<li>I pose the couple gazing romantically into the low sun over the bridge.</li>

<li>I take my shot with my trusty 5D.</li>

</ol>

<p>So yes, I can take the shot, even with my 5D, but it becomes a rather silly exercise.</p>

<p>So Brad, how would YOU do it? Inquiring minds and such...</p>

>>> OK, Brad, ... the brilliant Brad Evans ... The esteemed Mr. Evans ... and on and on.

 

Sarah, it's clear your sarcasm and bluster makes you feel better about yourself, energizes you, and that you believe it

somehow strengthens your position. With that attitude, I hope you understand why I choose not to

participate. Carry on.

<p>Sarah, some pictures <em>are</em> beyond the capabilities of most cameras at the moment. It is our job to choose which ones can be taken and which can't. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. But there's also something very wrong with assuming that the mythical "ultimate" photographer can photograph anything with <em>any</em> camera. In reference to the Ali photo, I would contend that, while the photographer did a good job, it is the historical context which gives its power, rather than any innate wonderfulness of the frame or content.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In reference to the Ali photo, I would contend that, while the photographer did a good job, it is the historical context which gives its power, rather than any innate wonderfulness of the frame or content.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most of the world would disagree with you. He is generally regarded as one of the greatest sports photographers of all time and those are his most memorable photos. Showing that photo to young people who don't know anything about the history gets responses of awe. </p>

<p>The Ali photo strikes me as monumental and awesome . . . and . . . it's made more so by its historical context. I don't know from innate wonderfulness. Just know what I see. Wonderfulness is a quality given by humans to something. It's not innate.</p>

<p>If noise free, sharp as a tack at high ISO and expanded dynamic range images is the metric used to define advancements in camera gear, I would've been better informed if that blog addressed the lack of advancement in printing technologies as I touched upon in this thread I started...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cPxj</p>

<p>I still don't know how we went from the doll print to the inkjet print off a $30,000 minilab and call that a benefit on account of advancement in technology.</p>

<p>Besides why should we care about hardware, it's the software that turns Bayer filtered photon filled pixel cells into grayscale and reconstructs it to map onto our display and those guys aren't telling their story. I mean who are we fooling here? Can anyone actually connect the dots with physical evidence that it's all on account of camera hardware advancements as the main reason we see a picture on our displays?</p>

<p>I want to talk to the guy who has to formulate the dyes and materials used to make the Bayer filter. Does he have ink stain all over his hands or does he have to wear HAZMAT gloves?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sarah, it's clear your sarcasm and bluster makes you feel better about yourself, energizes you</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you totally miss my intent, Brad. I was responding to the assertions by you and others that...</p>

 

<ul>

<li>It's silly to chase technological advancements.</li>

<li>A good photographer can take a photo (WHICH photo?) with any camera.</li>

<li>Tools don't matter.</li>

<li>Anyone desiring better tools is a bad carpenter/photographer.</li>

</ul>

<p>... or perhaps I misunderstand YOUR intent. However, taken at face value, I think you've insulted a lot of photographers with your dismissive assertions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>.. or perhaps I misunderstand YOUR intent. However, taken at face value, I think you've insulted a lot of photographers with your dismissive assertions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the internet. It would be foolish to assume that only one view will be accepted or even be correctly interpreted. I find that four drops of the Bach Rescue Remedy is more effective than any attempt to persuade others to my point of view.</p>

<p>Mr. Tuck is right when it comes to me in one respect. I do think all the cameras I have owned have been better than I am and I have never used one to its full potential. I honestly don't use or fully understand all the options my 70D contains but I still post a couple of hundred in focus pictures after each swim meet although I wish I could get more keepers. I still enjoy doing it and a lot of people like my pictures. I wish everything I shoot would be actually in focus. This takes nothing away from the satisfaction I had running a modestly successful wedding and events business where I am sure I could have used my Bronicas better; however, I delighted in happy brides and took satisfaction in my work product. I just bought a fire sale eos M and I am using it with great delight even though I have read some damning reviews of it. It makes very sharp pictures and through an adapter uses all my seven ef mount lenses plus flashes and old ettl cord. Using it pleases me For me the satisfaction is in the doing and if I have bought gear to excess its because it gives me some pleasure. I flew airplanes professionally and worked in aviation technology and I never stopped trying to learn more about that profession. I am older now and I feel exactly the same about my photography. To me it is about always growing and learning more and taking satisfaction in the doing. Maybe some day I will catch up with my camera. I did my weddings with film. It would have been wonderful to have Lightroom instead of hand sorting and building an album of a few hundred proofs to rush to the customer. It would have been wonderful to chimp instead of sweating for a few days waiting to see how the whole wedding came out. It would have been great to have had Lightroom and a 70d or 5Diii back then. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>From an article about Michelangelo: <em>The artist's obsessive process of selecting marble for his projects drove him year after year to the town of Cararra, where quarries that date back to Roman times are legendary for their pure white marble block.</em><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Likely, Michelangelo's vision and artistry would have led him to make glorious sculptures regardless of the materials he used. But the materials and the tools, from what I've heard, made a big difference to him and likely did affect his work. Given that and my own feelings about cameras and lenses, there seems to be room for vision <em>and</em> technology <em>and</em> choice of tools. I'd give vision and artistry, by far, the heads up, but I'm not opposed to considering what tools I use for what job and how they can greatly or very subtly affect the different jobs I do. It's not a precise analogy from cameras and lenses to marble for sculpting, by any means, but there are points of similarity, because the different cameras and lenses can make a material difference in the look of the photo which can actually BE part of the photographer's vision. IMO, vision can include craft and material concerns every bit as much as it can include content and aesthetic concerns. Different tools will often produce noticeably different material results.</p>

>>> I was responding to the assertions by you and others that... • It's silly to chase technological

advancements. • A good photographer can take a photo (WHICH photo?) with any camera. • Tools don't

matter. • Anyone desiring better tools is a bad carpenter/photographer. ... However, taken at face value, I

think you've insulted a lot of photographers with your dismissive assertions.

 

Sarah, *please*, stop putting words in my mouth. I said no such things. By making such claims you are

very much weakening your assertions and position.

<p>While much of the blogger's essay is truthful, in the end he's being disingenuous. No professional or enthusiast truly wants technology to stand still. We all want to see what comes next on the chance it might be useful to us. And, usefulness can be measured in many different ways; for some it may be megapixels while for others it may be better low light performance. This blogger is eagerly awaiting for the new stuff just like the rest of us.</p>

<p>Bad photographs are ALWAYS a result of deficiencies of the camera while good photographs are ALWAYS a result of overcoming those deficiencies. </p>

<p><strong>Sarah Fox:</strong><br>

<em>It's silly to chase technological advancements.</em></p>

<p>No. It's silly to chase technological advancements in the belief that they will make YOU better. It's silly to chase each tiny, incremental advancement when it will be meaningless to your result.</p>

<p><em>A good photographer can take a photo (WHICH photo?) with any camera.</em></p>

<p>No one is claiming anything of the sort. Kirk is claiming that for the VAST majority of photographers, any current (or fairly recent) digital camera will give a result indistinguishable from any other.<br>

<br /><em>Tools don't matter.</em></p>

<p>They do matter. Fortunately, we have excellent tools available, all of which can get the job done beautifully.<br>

<br /><em>Anyone desiring better tools is a bad carpenter/photographer.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>No. Anyone with excellent tools who cannot do the job is a bad carpenter/photographer.</p>

<p>I looked at your web portfolio again. As before, I thought the work was very good. I did not, however, see anything that could not be taken with my D300, or similar antiquated tools.<br>

<strong> </strong></p>

<p> (i) Blogger's basically right. It's the same marketing strategy that sells expensive golf clubs to crap golfers, and $5k titanium framed bikes to overweight yuppies. Most of us are never limited by the technology.</p>

<p>(ii) <em>A propos</em> the famous Ali-Liston photo: I have been told that Ali was really shouting something like 'Get up and fight! Nobody's going to believe this!' </p>

<blockquote>

<p>While much of the blogger's essay is truthful, in the end he's being disingenuous. <strong>No professional or enthusiast truly wants technology to stand still.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>That</strong> has nothing to do with what Kirk Tuck is saying. Not needing better technology is not the same as wanting technology to sit still. I want technology to keep improving, but I'm not going to upgrade my cameras unless they break.</p>

<p>"Anyone with excellent tools who cannot do the job is a bad carpenter"</p>

<p>Ouch! I don't need to hear that about <em>both</em> my hobbies. Dang.</p>