Photographer or camera enthusiast?

<p>In the world of amateur photography, it is very easy to become infatuated with image quality, resolution, pixels, technical advancement in general and Photoshop spectacular manipulations. However, I believe that a talented photographer can get great results using any type of camera or media. For "great results", I intend photographs that hold a special visual power and show strong intellectual, political, social or creative content. There is a thin line that divides amateur photographers in <em>camera enthusiasts</em> and <em>photographers</em>. What do you think is the <em>X factor</em> that creates this division? Talent or technical proficiency?</p>

<p>I also think a talented photographer can get great results using any kind of camera or medium. Getting great results with whatever camera still doesn't mean dismissing the significance of medium and tools. I don't separate talent from craft. The way one would likely get great results from any type of camera would be from having an intimate relationship with it as a tool (even if they didn't talk about it that way) in order to achieve that strong vision. That is technical proficiency.</p>

<p>There are some powerful images that don't require a sense of technical proficiency or adeptness at craft and there are some powerful images where the technique and craft are of great importance. I don't see it as an either/or proposal.</p>

<p>I think much of the talk about resolution, pixels, technical advancement is just commercialism and hype gone awry. At the same time, I think knowledge about the equipment you use and caring about the craft side and the particular medium you use to make your social statement or express your creativity can be very significant to that expression.</p>

<p>I think as often as we dismiss overemphasis on technical matters as a distraction, we wrongly dismiss awareness and concentration on craft as unartistic. How many times have I heard on the pages of PN, "I'm not concerned with technique, or blown highlights, or focus issues, or quality of prints because I'm an 'artist' and the emotion is the only important thing"? Too many times. Too often it is given or accepted as an excuse for producing crappy photos. At the same time, I've seen extremely moving and powerful photos where "lousy" technique just didn't matter.</p>

<p>I think the X factor is context-driven. It depends on the situation, the person, and the photos they're producing. There may be one guy who is obsessed with the tech end, buying up all the new toys and living his life in the "brand" forums. There may be another guy who has a cheap used camera from 6 years ago and doesn't even know how many pixels it has. I'd need to look at their photos and then I'd tell you who I thought the photographer was, though I wouldn't have a big investment in doing that.</p>

<p>Antonio,</p>

 

<p>I think you’re missing a vital element here: not all photography is the same.</p>

 

<p>The picture of the Vietnamese girl running naked away from the napalm is powerful because of

what it portrays. It only needed enough technical quality to be recognizable for it to be effective.

Your “any type of camera or media” theory applies in such situations.</p>

 

<p>But an Ansel Adams print is, in large part, effective because his mastery of the craft of

photography permitted him to use the best available technology to produce a window on

(<i>e.g.</i>) Half Dome almost as rich as a real window would be, but showing his interpretation of

the scene. Had he shot the exact same scene at the exact same instant with a piece of shit camera

and a coke-bottle lens, the picture would have been worthless. Adams’s vision depended on

image quality, resolution, technical advancement in general, and his era’s equivalents of

pixels and Photoshop spectacular manipulations.</p>

 

<p>In other words, what you’re missing is that, though photographers owe it to themselves

to always strive for excellence, the expression of excellence is different for each photographer. It is

up to the photographer to determine what is necessary to achieve excellence. For some, that

means gear obsession; others, learning how to get the shot without getting shot.</p>

 

<p>Oh — and <em>all</em> photographers need to be capable of producing technically

excellent photographs (in the classic sense), just as all musicians need to be able to play their

scales perfectly and with ease. If you don’t understand why…well, I’m not the one to help

you.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>One does not preclude the other.<br>

Conni</p>

<p>A bit of both.<br>

I agree with both responses before, but in addition to the gearheaded part (and part of me is certainly a gearhead). The tool one uses is ideally a tool one is at ease with. Sure a great photographer can take a great photo with any camera, but I believe he is more likely to do so with a camera he knows, and which is the right tool for that time.<br>

Ansel Adams had the time to use large format, his subject wasn't going anywhere. The right tool for that job. But Robert Capa did not exactly have the time for large (or medium) format as the soldier was shot - 35mm cameras tend to be faster to operate. Again, the right tool for the job.</p>

<p>So the line between photographers and camera enthusiasts is very thin or maybe even not there. Even the very best photographer will have to know technical details, and will be, to some extend (ok, maybe less than us gearheads), concerned whether the tools he is using are the right ones. Another one that is not 'either/or' but 'and'.</p>

<p>As to the X-Factor... again, I think it is both. If you are technically completely backwards, but highly creative, your photography is not going to work. And vice versa. For good photography, you will need both art and craft. Like with any artform.</p>

<p><strong>Fred and Ben</strong><br>

I am totally in agreement with both of you. Notice, though, that I have talked about <strong>amateur</strong> photographers, not professionals. It is obvious that, in order to be able to create images of great content, one needs to master the technical aspect and become one thing with the camera. But then you need to be able to go beyond just that. What I am talking about, is the "fetish" aspect of getting more technically advanced cameras every time a new model comes out, in order to improve that already great quality that was obtained with the old model, or maybe just to own the latest cool thing. That, to me, is a camera enthusiast behavior. Of course, if you are a top fashion photographer, you need to take advantage of every technical improvement, as long as it serves your job. However, what difference could there be between a shot taken with an old Canon 5D or the same shot taken with a Nikon D3s? If you analyze the two images technically, there will be differences but from a content point of view, it will be the same to me. They are both full-framed cameras capable of producing incredible shots in the hands of a good photographer. Now, I see more and more people talking for hours about how more sharpness you get from this or that camera or lens etc., missing the point of <strong>seeing</strong> and <strong>capturing,</strong> getting trapped into the net of technical advances. This, to me, is being a camera enthusiast, and the market takes advantage of people by selling them technology a piece at a time, so they spend more money in the long run. Good photographers produce images that have such impact on the viewer that the technical aspect, though still important, becomes of secondary importance. Am I completely off track here? Ore is there some truth to what I'm saying?</p>

<p>Talent and technical proficiency are determined more by an individuals sense, knowledge, and luck. Terms like <em>enthusiasts, </em>or <em>(serious?)</em><em>"Photographer" </em>are marketable terms determined by the amount of time or money or work you are able to put into the industry. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>..missing the point of <strong>seeing</strong> and <strong>capturing,</strong> getting trapped into the net of technical advances.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although your answer wasn't directed at me, I never seem to be able to shut up. Sorry...<br>

Antonio, I do not think you're missing the point here. Nor hitting it. There is an awful lot of chatter on gear. For some discussions, yes, I wonder if the people in that discussion are still really having photography as a hobby, or whether they prefer to study brick wall pictures at 100% magnification. Photo.net does rather well, though.<br>

But I do wonder whether it is mutually exclusive. I do not think so. One can be genuinely interested in gear and how it performs, and at the same time interested in composition, light, texture, intent and all other things that make a great photo great.<br>

To me, it's becoming a too common mistake to assume that people who like their gear do not like the creative side of photography. There are more threads with this same question, and every time, everybody agrees cameras are just tools etc. But is it wrong we want our tools to be as good and perform as good as possible? To make the only variable in the pursuit of great imagery is the photographer? No more excuses on the gear.<br>

And maybe internet just makes visible what a lot of photgraphers have been discussing for much longer? Maybe in the 70's/80's there were plenty of photoclubs where discussion went on and on about the virtues of the 50 f/1.8 versus a 50 f/1.4.... We just don't know. Now we do.</p>

<p>So, yes, you're right there is an awful amount of gear-related talk. But there is also still an awful amount of gifted, creative and original photographers out there. Some of them like to talk about their gear, some not.</p>

<p><strong>Antonio--</strong></p>

<p>I also was talking about amateurs.</p>

<p>I think Wouter makes a good point. Being a gear head doesn't preclude being a creative and visionary photographer.</p>

<p>We're living in a world where technology is becoming much more part of the fabric of life. I especially notice younger people often accepting technology, discussions about technology, constantly-changing technology, even the constant need to upgrade, as a simple part of life. I'd consider that some of this might well be a generational thing.</p>

<p>Do you find yourself being affected by this trend you notice? Do you see it affecting either your own photography or the course of photography in general either negatively or positively? Or is it just a sort of benign, yet interesting, subject you wanted to introduce for discussion? What significance do these labels have? In your response above, you seem to to want to move it away from the "craft-medium-art-creativity" level to aim the discussion back to the "fetish/obsession" level. </p>

<p>Just some randon thoughts from me!<br><br>

<i>However, what difference could there be between a shot taken with an old Canon 5D or the same shot taken with a Nikon D3s?</i> Everything some times! I was part of this exact scenario not so long ago ...shooting with 'an old Canon 5D' shoulder to shoulder with a guy using a Nikon D3. We were at a live night-time music gig. The stage lights were set on the low side (intensity wise) a lot of the time. I had my ISO mostly maxed out and struggling to get a crisply focused shot at 1/30, 1/45, or 1/60. Pete, the 'professional' was happily shooting at 1/120 or even at 1/160. I bet he got twice or thrice times more 'keepers' than I did. I might add that we both had 1.8 or 2.8 lens.<br>

<br> Now then, would I call myself a 'camera enthusiast', or a 'photographer' ? I'd like to say that I think I am both! About whether I am 'an amateur' or a 'professional'. Again here, I'd say that I am both in attitude. I seek to attain professional standards, the only difference is that I do not seek or get any financial remuneration for any of my photographic endeavours.</p> <p>What might be the 'X factor' in my case? In the end, it is the image/s that matter.</p>

<p>Plenty, here, has been said about talent and technology. I believe, a huge aspect of good photography is patience, perseverance and by corollary, being at the right place at the right time. Waiting for the right light, the right expression or the right event takes a lot of patience. Of course, you still need the right talent and equipment :)</p>

<p>So many interesting answers from you guys. But I want to answer <strong>Fred</strong> once again, 'cause he asked me a question. I introduced this subject because I was talking about it with a friend of mine just today. He is an amateur photographer, just like me, and was going through a dilemma whether he should get a D3 for his portraits. He makes good money, has no family and sure can afford one. He definitely looks for the best possible quality and was lamenting the fact that his photos, taken with an old D200, look too flat and force him to do major Photoshop work to get the details and shadows he wants. Is that a good enough reason to spend thousands on a D3 or maybe he is a bit too concerned about technicalities? I think he should focus on learning how to further improve the emotional depth and technical look of his portraits and that can be done by learning how to master lighting and better connect with the model, for example, instead of increasing the technical quality of the equipment. Later, when he is ready, he can get a top-of-the-line camera. A great photographer with a D200 will produce excellent work, a beginner with a D3s will produce average or mediocre results. A good violinist with a mediocre violin will still sound better than a mediocre violinist with a good fiddle.<br>

I don't get affected by the equipment, as you can see from my type of photography, at least not yet. Maybe I will in the future, if I get better and have different needs, but I believe that each one has to find his own perfect camera and media. After all, Bresson used the same camera and pretty much the same lens his whole life, and didn't seem too concerned about technical advances.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the wonderful answer, Antonio. I hope you said those things to your friend, because I think it would be sound advice!</p>

<p>When I first started, I had only a point and shoot. It couldn't shoot RAW and I outgrew it, because it was limiting what I wanted to accomplish. That being said, I knew and still know that even with a better camera, I am still improving my vision and my photography continues to evolve. I also know I could have continued to grow even while using that camera, but ultimately I think I get better final results having bought the new one AND having continued to learn the art of making photographs. For me, the technical advance and the continued process of learning about things you mention, like lighting, focus, EXPRESSION, all the nuts and bolts, went hand in hand.</p>

<p>By the way, I pay very little attention to technical things. I'm not even positive how many megapixels my current camera uses. Periodically, I research stuff when I want a new lens that gives me more flexibility or more potential for new creative ideas. I'm going to start looking into some artificial lighting soon to help with my indoor work. I'd rather be shooting and processing, but can't avoid some tech stuff. I think some people really enjoy the tech stuff. I think a lot of people think a better camera will mean better pictures. That's true only in a fairly limited sense of "better." However, if used with a deep knowledge of the craft, well-made equipment can add a lot of dimension to art.</p>

<p>When I played the piano, I played on a Steinway. Yes, I could express myself on much funkier instruments, and for some ragtime and blues stuff preferred it (though I didn't do much of that except on rare occasions). For most of my classical playing, I fully believe I could express myself better on the Steinway because of the response and depth of the keys and the ability it gave me to make the most of nuanced playing and a nuanced touch.</p>

<p>I am actually thinking about putting some new batteries in the old point and shoot and seeing what I can do with it now. I will work with it differently from the way I used to and work with it differently from the way I do with my current camera, but it might be exciting and I will likely learn some new things about making photographs from doing it, not to mention I'll probably enjoy it a lot. </p>

<p>Cameras are not central to photography.</p>

<p>There are other ways of collecting light from subject matter and directing it into a sensitive surface. An informal audit of my recent usage of light sensitive materials shows about 90% does not involve cameras.</p>

<p>Similarly, most camera work in today's world is not photographic. Consider all the surveillance cameras, video production cameras, camcorders, and closed circuit video systems; not a whiff of photography in any of it!</p>

<p>Cameras were invented some hundreds of years before photography and some great pictures, those of Canaletto and Vermeer for example, owe their spectacular verisimilitude to camera use. But no one is daft enough to classify Canaletto and Vermeer as photographers.</p>

<p>I suppose many camera owners like to think of themselves as photographers and maybe some personal vanity or solidary with other camera users leads them to it. But in a mainly point 'n click world very few camera-workers (camera-players?) actually make real photographs with their own hands.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> When craft becomes an end unto itself, or an obsession, everything else becomes secondary -- unless there's nothing else. In an ideal world, <em>everything </em> we do would aid and abet our vision. In reality, it's a lot more mysteriously indirect than that. Messier to the point of being organic, but, who knows, perhaps more efficient.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3809489">Antonio Bassi</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 11, 2009; 11:47 a.m.<br>

<em>I believe that a talented photographer can get great results using any type of camera or media.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Antonio, I agree. I've said in the past.....<br>

"A person with a Brownie and CRAFT trumps a hack with a Hasselblad, every time."</p>

<p>I've seen enough bad photography by "pros" that the concept of "pro" means more about the money than the craft.<br>

I've also seen many "hobby" shooters that should be in galleries.<br>

Money and politics being what they are, and the nature of the human species, stranger things have happened, but rarely.<br>

As far as gear is concerned, vintage gear gives vintage charm, if you know how to use it.<br>

Just as in the music industry, a Fairchild 670 brings phenominal money if you can find one for sale.<br>

Why? Because it has its own signature sound, just as a vintage Graflex Crown 4x5 has that special "look", if you know how to use it.</p>

<p>So much for the "latest, greatest gear !</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we have some sort of positive identity by virtue of a craft. </p>

<p>I do a lot of photography, but I don't think of myself as "a photographer." I happen to have developed some skills in this realm, redeveloped them several times, pursued a few worthwhile and less worthwhile attitudes and strategies. But that's activity/thought/energy, not identity...and identity isn't necessarily a good thing: I think it's often a cop-out on life, an easy answer, like identifying oneself as "an anabaptist" or "a Zarathustrian" rather than practicing what one espouses.</p>

<p>I'm trying to understand something about my world and this medium. For the same reason I've been attending to "enthusiasts" of Carl Jung and of James Joyce, and asking questions related of a few of my local Native American people (I'm not an "enthusiast" for any of those realms, I'm focused and curious, just as with photography).</p>

<p> When a person is an "enthusiast" they have some sort of energy that actually may distinguish them. I think of enthusiasm/enthusiast as positives. I don't think "photographer" implies anything positive.</p>

<p>Presumably photographers with that purported "x factor" are also enthusiasts. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>There're lens collectors, pixel peepers, brand loyalists, L lens-enthusiasts, artistic photographers, quick and dirty fast shooters, technology lovers and computer wizards, and then of course, these could all be the same person, if he or she is so lucky being this much blessed! IMHO, these are all legitimate aspirations and should be respected in their own rights. Some can break world record without wearing any shoes while others enjoy slow running till the very last day of their lives. The most expensive pianos usually don't belong to the best pianists either.</p>

<p>It's unfortunate that there seem to be so much animosity amongst these groups in so many different online photography related forums all the time, even though I've yet to met a real person who hates me because of my camera or lens (exclude my wife, who thinks I should have stopped at the first Casio point-n-shoot :))</p>

<p>It's said that if only those who have something to say are allowed to speak, this world is gonna be an awfully quiet place. Of course, the problem most of us facing today is really the opposite - too much "noise"...</p>

<p><strong>John</strong> , thanks for your comment. I believe that one of the keys to life is to demolish our <em>ego</em> and our <em>identifying ourselves with something</em> . I feel closer to the ethereal than the real, more comfortable around people that are aware of not knowing who they are than those that know exactly who they are and where they belong. I use the terms <em>photographer</em> and <em>camera enthusiast</em> to make my life easier...</p>

<p>national living treasures : <a href="http://craigmod.com/photography/sukiyabashi_jiro/">http://craigmod.com/photography/sukiyabashi_jiro/</a> <br>

<a href="http://craigmod.com/photography/nigiri_te/">http://craigmod.com/photography/nigiri_te/</a></p>

 

<p>Some beautiful works. Do you have anything to do with that reportage?</p>

<p>Antonio, no personal connection. <br>

I first learned of Japan's National Living Treasures program from films I saw years ago in San Francisco's "J-Town". Official treasures included a maker of black lacquer ware, makers of swords and ceramics as well as kabuki performers, martial artists, and geisha/tea ceremony...Google Japan Living Treasure.</p>

<p>I think the thing that separates the camera enthusiast from the photographer is this(although it only applies to film photographers): do you spend more on cameras or on film? The former is a camera enthusiast, the latter is a photographer.</p>

<p> The camera is just a fancy box with a hole in the front. 99% of the photo is the person holding it. So really, I don't think it matters either way.</p>

<p><strong>William</strong> <strong>G</strong> , that's mean that you believe in the photographer and don't care much about the media... But if you want to take a top quality landscape in B&W, you must use the medium format or higher, so the camera does matter...<br>

<strong>William P</strong> , pro is somebody that makes a living by taking photographs, amateur is someone that doesn't make a living by taking photographs... It doesn't mean a pro is necessarily a better photographer than an amateur. We agree on that. But a vintage camera can make vintage and uninteresting shots, if the photographer doesn't know how to use it. You could buy a 20000 euro digital Hasselblad with 36 (39?) mpxls and a 6000 euro pair of lens and still produce dull images. If one buys equipment like that and still produces dull images, he is a camera enthusiast.</p>