darn it...

I can't see the screen in bright light on my phone. My Lumix has a bright LCD and an EVF. My phone is just for emergency calls. But I am not starchy enough that I will never buy one. I have an iPAD which is nice. But I do not think of it as a camera. My Lumix will take a burst of photos and let me select one at 8 mpixels. It will do mutliple focus stacks in camera and merge them. So far I am tickled. But then it links with a cel phone or tablet...dum da dum dum...so we have to be open minded.

The power of a photograph is rarely driven by a particular camera.

 

Rather, that's a result of the photographer's curiosity, imagination, life experiences, drive, ability to compose and read light, and on and on.

 

It is true as far as it goes. Lacking a photographic sensitivity nothing will do the job. The familiarity and ease of use and location of stuff and handholdability are important enough to make us want what we enjoy. I could never be happy with just the iPAD. But on a trip the iPAD does so much and keeps me informed. Which is after all as important as grabbing a photo. Switching to a camera separates the day to day from the pursuit of something else that is more a choice than a happenstance. If that makes sense. Snaps and selfies are for the hoi polloi. Bless them all..

But I think in some important cases, the particular camera is more integral to the photography and is worth considering.

 

Sure. There certainly are edge cases. But I think most people are aware of that. Obvious situations include photographing professional sports, such as NFL and NBA games for those organizations. BIF (birds in flight) are not likely going to produce salable prints from a camera phone. Ditto with professional wildlife photography. Pinhole camera photography is another, where the capture device drives a large aspect of the overall aesthetic. And no doubt there are at least a few dozen more.

 

But we all know that, from having many years of experience, right?

Edited January 10, 2018 by Brad_

I think a lot depends on what you're trying to do.

 

See my above response to Fred.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Brad_

Brad, though the examples you give are appropriate, I was thinking more along the lines of photographers like Cosindas (as well as Hockney, Warhol, and Samaras) who didn’t have to use a particular camera for a given task or genre of photography but rather were excited to work with a particular camera to explore what they could do with it specifically.

I should also add, photographers like me, enjoying using my iPhone more and more for photos and exploring ways of using it that are very similar in some cases but also very different from in other cases the way I use and see with my dslr. I’ve always enjoyed having a bit of dialogue with my tools and, in a way that’s very comfortable for me, allowing them some influence over me. That’s why I thought it important to add the specific tool to your otherwise good list of things that go into making photos. And it’s probably why I don’t necessarily see this as a matter of “edge” cases. Edited January 10, 2018 by Norma Desmond

My initial post was about what drives the power of a photograph. From shooting with cameras ranging from an Arca-Swiss 4x5 large format camera to an iPhone, I've yet to find any tangible "thing" that significantly contributes much to a photograph's power or strength. Again, noting there are better tools used in some situations to make a technically better and successful photograph, and tools used to drive aesthetics - both of which not driving a photograph's power to a significant extent. That, speaking to the usual special situations/exceptions that apparently still need to be mentioned in discussion forums.

 

Similarly, as a woodworker I have a wide range of tools that cut wood; ranging from a 450 pound 3 horsepower Unisaw cabinet saw to a $20 Japanese Dozuki hand pull-saw. They both cut wood and are used for different purposes. I can't say the power of what I create is driven much by either of them.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Brad_

That, speaking to the usual special situations/exceptions that apparently still need to be mentioned in discussion forums.

No more or less so than curiosity, imagination, life experiences, drive, ability to compose and read light apparently seem to still need to be mentioned even though they're profoundly obvious, when a discussion of cameras or equipment is ensuing.

No more or less so than curiosity, imagination, life experiences, drive, ability to compose and read light apparently seem to still need to be mentioned even though they're profoundly obvious, when a discussion of cameras or equipment is ensuing.

 

That is correct. However, it's interesting that is rarely discussed here. But there's always loads of conversation about gear. And that's ok.

 

I was merely taking issue with what was said above and offering my view of what drives the strength of a photograph (should anybody be interested in that aspect of photography), which it seems, many people lose sight of believing it is about gear. From just looking at many photography forums.

 

I do understand that people have different goals with their photography. And that's ok, as well.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Brad_

The reason for choosing one tool over another doesn't necessarily has anything to do with the tangibles of the tool but can be more about the intangible experience a specific tool provides when using it.

 

Exactly. Which is why, from time to time, I shoot with a phone for long periods of time.

Then there are Hockney's Polaroid grid collages which utilize and embrace the physicality and color of actual Polaroid prints. I imagine there were any number of things that drove his Polaroid use including intangible aspects, but I think his is a case of some very tangible reasons relating to camera choice and finished photographic work. There's also a sense, at least to me, of symbiosis between the Polaroid as its known and the art he produced with it.

 

[i just saw a great show of his at the Met, so he's kind of in my blood right now.]

Hockney using polaroid prints for his collages seems to me more a choice of medium (requiring a specific tool, a polaroid camera).

I see your point but I think there's more to it than that. To me, at least, the finished product is very much about the medium as you say but is also very in tune with the camera itself that's being used. The work has that one-off, instant, more casual kind of feel to it.

Four by five and five by seven pinhole and photo paper. Better than digital.

(Well, cheaper anyway, and you can build your own camera.)

The strength of digital is not that it has a particular aesthetic

I agree with this to an extent. Digital doesn't have to have a particular aesthetic, but just as I think Polaroids didn't have to have a particular aesthetic, I think some photographers worked in a Polaroid aesthetic, just as I think there's a lot of potential for photographers to develop a digital aesthetic, especially when they let go of emulating all the aspects of film with it and utilize some of digital's own specific qualities for what they are. For example, using noise as noise instead of trying to mimic film grain with it. That's not to say there's anything wrong with emulating film via digital. It's just to say there are alternatives.

To me, noise can look very different from grain or it can try to imitate the look of grain. I'm talking about using noise that looks like digital noise and doesn't try to emulate the look of film grain. There are other unique characteristics of a digital look that can be exploited to develop a digital aesthetic. It's not an argument, just an opinion.

And I'm not focusing on "the reason." I'm talking about what things look like. Photography is, at least in part, a visual medium and the aesthetics of that medium are partly dependent on looks. Since digital noise looks different from film grain, digital noise can be part of a uniquely digital aesthetic. That's all I'm saying.

That's fine. And still, digital noise looks different from film grain and can be part of a unique digital aesthetic.

We disagree. Hallelujah!

Prior to digital, given the different types of film available in its heyday and the various processing techniques, I wonder if anyone felt that film itself had any particular aesthetic. They probably saw particular types of film as having a particular look, - like Kodachrome for example. But even then, Kodachrome changed over the years and not everything shot with it necessarily had the same aesthetic that was often associated with it. Anyway, to people of that era, film was likely also seen as amorphous.

 

Today we see film as having a certain look because we've moved on, - or mostly moved on to something different. Just like we may not see ourselves as speaking with a accent until we've spent enough time in a region that speaks differently than we do.

 

It was only a few weeks ago that there was thread focused on a young photographer who chose to use digital cameras that had older CCD sensors in them as opposed to the more modern CMOS sensors, - because they create photos that look different than more modern cameras. And no doubt in a couple of decades, some people will seek out equipment from this era because it produces photos that look different than what more modern cameras produce.

Edited January 10, 2018 by tomspielman

Tom, you make a good point. What I'd say is that, particularly because digital is relatively new on the scene, I think there can be a digital aesthetic, especially because of some of the differences from film. But, based on some of the points you raise, I would want to consider the possibility that, in time, the aesthetic would become more about different kinds of digital technology. And, I'm certainly not saying that this aesthetic based on tools is more important than aesthetics which grow out of other things. Just that I think for a lot of artists there is such an intimate relationship to the tool they use, that there develops an interest in exploring the symbiotic relationship between tool and expression and some of the unique relationships that exist between a particular tool and what one expresses. I also don't think any of this is anything every photographer either will or SHOULD explore, think about, or even care about.

 

To give you an example from music. I've played the piano since I was a kid. I've gotten to perform for people in my house and on stage. And I've played on many different types of pianos. Let's take my favorite Mozart sonata. I don't interpret it the same way when I play it for friends at home and when I play it in a larger recital hall. I think about it differently and want different things from it in each setting. Likewise, I wouldn't, and couldn't, play it similarly on an old upright (which I love playing on) and a baby grand. I would actually think and hear differently in different settings and with different equipment.

 

Other musicians might well not do this, and I respect them as much as I respect myself. They, instead, would develop a more universal and all-encompassing interpretation that they thought the piece of music deserved and would stick to that as much as they could regardless of what they played on or what the circumstances were in which they were playing.

 

I have a poet friend. He says he sometimes finds himself hand-writing very different types of poems than he creates when he's typing on his computer. Many poets probably don't experience this.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Norma Desmond

To give you an example from music. I've played the piano since I was a kid. I've gotten to perform for people in my house and on stage. And I've played on many different types of pianos. Let's take my favorite Mozart sonata. I don't interpret it the same way when I play it for friends at home and when I play it in a larger recital hall. I think about it differently and want different things from it in each setting. Likewise, I wouldn't, and couldn't, play it similarly on an old upright (which I love playing on) and a baby grand. I would actually think and hear differently in different settings and with different equipment...

 

I have a poet friend. He says he sometimes finds himself hand-writing very different types of poems than he creates when he's typing on his computer. Many poets probably don't experience this

 

I have no trouble believing this.

"Better" depends on what you want to achieve. A pinhole won't cut it if you're looking for the fidelity and tonal volume of a large format contact print. The strength of digital is not that it has a particular aesthetic but that it's a flexible medium that lets you go back and forth between different aesthetics.

My comment was very tongue-in-cheek, you know, being the contrarian. Sure I like pinhole because the cameras are handmade and building one is something to do on a rainy day. (Something we are having quite a lot of in Puget Sound this time of year.)

"The life of a photograph (when photographs are most alive, when life is photographic) is in neither its Romanticism nor its Realism but in the push and pull between the two.Phil..

 

Methinks a photo just needs itself, it does not need to push or pull between any conceptual ideology.