Do technique and camera matter ?

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Hi all,

 

<p>

 

In another thread, Yossi writes:

 

<p>

 

�Gee, and I was told "the camera is not important".�

 

<p>

 

For me, the relationship between a camera and a Photographer is exactly the same any craftsman has with its tool� Nothing more but nothing less.

 

<p>

 

The statement the camera (or anything technical, artefact or practice ) matters more than the brain of the Photographer is false, but conversely the statement the camera (or any technical issue) doesn�t matter at all is equally wrong.

 

<p>

 

Let�s take the example of HCB: he has a certain way to �see� people and translate this sight into a picture and without this very conception which pertains to him individually he won�t have been HCB and a master photographer. This translate into this reality: to have the same camera HCB used won�t make you HCB. But conversely, should the Leica concept have never been developed would HCB had expressed his touch and style the same way? I consider he would have never been able to do so. So the link between the photographer and his tool is reciprocal: dialectical in philosophical language if you prefer.

 

<p>

 

A simple example will convince you: if you need sharpness to express the interpretation of a scene you want to shoot, you�ll need a camera able to get a sharp image. This is as simple as that. As if conversely you want a blurred or not so sharp image you can ever trick with the same camera to obtain it but you can�t do the reverse with a cheap camera if you need it, so it is better to have a camera which permits both options than a camera regularly unable to produce sharp images.

 

<p>

 

So the camera, the technique, DO MATTER, because it brings you the choice instead of letting you rely on the built in limitations of your outfit or your knowledge of technique.

 

<p>

 

I have always considered the so-called �artistic researches� where the photographer voluntarily rely on crappy material absolutely pointless� Whatever the result obtained, it could have been simulated with a good camera. By the way it seems to me most of the time these alleged researches are only a way to mask the lack of capabilities of the so-called self appointed �artist� to master his technique. Any beginner confronted with an all manual camera will tell you how easy it is to get bad pictures versus the ability to get good ones technically speaking �

 

<p>

 

Now we can elaborate for hours about the relative importance of all factors contributing to obtain a picture with any kind of artistic value (something very subjective by the way). I have just remarked something (as far as what is called straight photography is concerned) most of the time the emotional value of a not so good technically speaking picture is due to the emotional value of the subject itself and I don�t think the lack of technical quality give the picture anything more or was a consequence of a deliberate choice of the photographer.

 

<p>

 

Finally, the relative importance of technique and cameras in the value of a particular picture seems to me more linked to the subject nature than anything else� I think we can formulate this as a kind of rule: the more the subject is bringing an emotional charge by itself, the less the importance of the technique and camera are important to the final result. Assuming the technical factors are within limits of quality which permit the viewer to clearly see what is the subject, of course�

 

<p>

 

Friendly

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

[yossi1]

I was TOLD "the camera is not important".

 

<p>

 

I BELIEVE the camera is important.

[jay_.]

Of course the camera matters. Inaccuracies (focus, exposure, framing

etc.) caused by a poorly designed or maladjusted camera will degrade

images. Some lenses are sharper than others and with many images it

makes a difference. The quality of film (sharpness, grain and tonal

range) likewise will impact the image. All that is meant by the

statement that "it's the photographer not the camera" (putting aside

the times it's said by people trying to justify their equipment

choices)is that being technically perfect does not automatically

affirm an image's artistic merit, nor do technical faults

unequivocally negate it.

[yossi1]

The mere fact that we are all reading threads here means Leica is

important to us. Get over it! Give credit to Leicas where they

deserve.

 

<p>

 

To those who still think "the camera is not important", get a life or

2.

[sl]

I do a lot of 'HCB' style 'decisive moment' Street Photography mostly

with Leica M. On my website http://www.streetphoto.net there are over

200 street photos, most people say they are pretty good. Ninety five

percent of those were taken with Leica Ms and some with Nikon Fs.

Nobody but me can tell which is which. So is the camera important? Not

really. The ability to SEE a good photo in your mind is much more

important than the mechanical thing that you are holding in your hands.

Let's face it, no matter what camera brand you are using, 'some people

can and some people can not.'

 

<p>

 

sl

[yossi1]

Steve, I heard the Yashica T4 is renowned for its STREET

phototography ability. Have u tried one? at low light perhaps?

[david enzel]

I agree with Steve. Good photographs come from good photographers.

The equipment doesn't much matter. For example, I saw an award

winning photograph made with a $30 Holga, which has a plastic lens.

I do think if you like to take pictures you should have a camera you

like. But the equipment won't lead to good pictures. It all comes

down to what the picture taker sees -- which can be both frightening

and liberating.

[sl]

Yossi,

 

<p>

 

I do not have a clue about the Yashica, I am sure it takes great

pictures, IF, the photographer is capable of doing it. The point is

that, it is all in the eyes and mind of the photographer. I love my

Leica Ms (I better, I have six of them) and they work very well for

what I am using them for. But I can, and I have used, other brands to

accomplish the same thing.

 

<p>

 

sl

[mikep]

Stephen is correct, the camera is important only as much as it works

as you need it. If a Leica M does it better for you then by all

means, do it better. I believe the eyes behind the camera make the

image work. HCB would have still been able to achieve greatness with

a lesser camera, BUT he chose Leica. Lets face it, we need to stop

making excuses for not being able to take top notch images, we need

to concentrate on subject and stop idolizing our toys. They are mere

tools, nothing more, nothing less.

[ralph_barker]

I like the analogy of a craftsman and his tools being applied to

photography, and I think it applies particularly well to Leica

photography. I feel we <i>choose</i> to use a Leica for some or all of

our work because it is a <i>tool</i> that allows us to make the

photographs we see in our minds. Other tools could be chosen and

applied to the task, certainly. But, the choice of the tool prescribes

a particular set of capabilities and techniques that can augment the

finished product, once the tool is mastered.

[yossi1]

What Mr Weil intended to say was basically this (I think).

 

<p>

 

Is that, wouldn't it be nice to have :

 

<p>

 

1) a camera you like and;

2) has nice handling properties with outstanding lenses to go with?

 

<p>

 

so that you can vary your intended artistic visions? e.g super bokeh

in low light ? SUper sharp images at F2 etc?

 

<p>

 

 

Most cameras can't do that. I dunno if a Holga can, but most can't do

so like Leica lenses can.

 

<p>

 

Of cos, Leica lenses do not always garuantee good images. It depends

on the photographer afterall. But why settle for less when most of us

are already using/have used the best?

 

<p>

 

 

Of cos, some can perfect their artistic visions with a P&S and say

that the camera is not important. But so what? Who is to know what

camera was used to make those artistic images?

 

<p>

 

Only the photographer will know, deep inside them, what is best for

them. SO, the sentence "the camera is not important" has no meaning

when it is said out loud.

[art waldschmidt]

I think the camera that is important is the one that is important to

you, and I think the technique that matters is the one that allows

you to say what you want to say - if indeed you have anything to say.

[yossi1]

Of cos if u wanna do macro, use a NIKON! If u wanna do sports, use a

CANON! Nobody will know!

 

<p>

 

What I cannot understand is some people will tell u they shoot all

their life, has tons of leica equipment and love the feel etc, AND

then say "the camera is not important, just shoot what u cared for"

 

<p>

 

;)

[yossi1]

I missed out "shoot L-E-I-C-A all their life"

[yossi1]

Ralph, right on.

 

<p>

 

But some people refuse to pay tribute to THE TOOLS once the job is

done by saying :" Any tools will do." ;)

[Spearhead]

I think most people who aren't <i>photographers</i> consider the

tools to be far more important than people who are

<i>photographers.</i><p>

 

In the early 60s, many well-known photographers switched from Leicas

to Nikons. I've asked many people who claim that the tool makes the

photograph to show which photos were taken with which camera, but no-

one has ever been able to. In other words, photographers at a

certain level of accomplishment are able to take the same

photographs regardless of the tool.<p>

 

What I have observed over many years is that format differences are

far bigger than lens differences within a format, and that printing

almost always obliterates any differences. Most people don't print

at a level that makes use of the differences, and many people use

automated labs for prints taken with expensive cameras. In the end,

these prints are only as good as the lab, not the equipment used to

take the photograph.<p>

 

I do find it far easier to hip shoot with a camera with autowind.

[yossi1]

sell all your Leicas then.

[steve_wiley]

The camera shouldn't be important to the audience, only the

image.

[dford]

Just as a great musician can extract beautiful music from a poorly

made instument so to can a great photog extract great images from a

poorly made camera. The artists' choice in 'instruments' allows him a

feeling/sense of familiarity/comfort to free him to express his

craft. The differences between well made 'instruments' are personal

choice only. If HCB's personal choice was Leica, so be it. Others

blessed with talent have chosen otherwise. If you haven't been

blessed with talent for photog the choice is moot.

[glenn_travis5]

This is what HCB has to say about sharpness in his book, "The Naked

Eye," page 39: "I am constantly amused by the notion that some

people have about photographic technique-a notion which reveals

itself in an insatiable craving for sharpness of images. Is this the

passion of an obsession? Or do these people hope, by this trompe

l'oeil technique, to get to closer grips with reality? In either

case, they are just as far away from the real problem as those of

that other generation which used to endow all its photographic

anecdotes with an intentional unsharpness such as was deemed to

be "artistic.""

[glenn_travis5]

And this is what I have to say. Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W

KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=767582&size=lg" WIDTH="750" HEIGHT="503">

[dlegaspi]

<i>In other words, photographers at a certain level of accomplishment

are able to take the same photographs regardless of the

tool</i><br><br>

huh?! are you saying you can capture the image taken with a leica

with an el-cheapo yashica p&s? please...

[dlegaspi]

a <b>zoom</b> yashica p&s, that is...

[Troll]

Early published pictures by HC-B, before he got a Leica, indicate

that his vision was already fully developed. The Leica was, for

hiim, just a somewhat handier tool.

[glenn_travis5]

Willhelmn - Could the reason be that "Fine Arts" education he had?

Did you ever see the HCB/Charlie Rose interview? At one point, CR

asked HCB, if he always carried a camera, where his camera was? And

HCB pulled a small sketching pad and pencil out of his pocket. Wow,

thought I, I can really dig were this dude is coming from.