Your camera doesn't matter

[dave_g1]

<p>I would say the camera is inconsequential, with a few caveats. <br>

You can go out with an old box camera and get most shots most of the time. Some of the time you cannot get some of the shots.<br>

I think you could similarly say that you could write most books with just a pen, but there are other options for getting it done out there that will make it a lot easier. </p>

 

[steve m smith]

<p>Aother way of looking at this is to consider what Roger Hicks wrote on the subject:</p>

<p> Once the quality of the camera exceeds that of the photographer (which it normally does) any extra quality is irrelevant.</p>

[zensphoto]

<p>I'm a firm believer it is the artist behind the tool not the tool that is making the photograph. I know digital cameras have limitation, but that doesn't mean you can't make an outstanding photograph with a 1.3 mega pixel camera. Better tools are always nice and can help you achieve your goal faster, but it is the artist in you that is really producing what you want your audience to see.</p>

[jason]

<p>In certain areas the equipment is very paramount, underwater, hi-speed sports, where a "special" camera is the only way. In everyday photography, families, weddings,gatherings,photojournalism, candids, street photography,advertising, animals etc nearly all of us here are way over-camerad!<br>

Recently purchased my first "point and shoot" at Goodwill the charity store. A Pentax zoom60. The roll exposed was great! Great exposure, focus not always exactly where i wanted..Result is that i could have used one of these in place of fancy Leicas that hated flash! No hot shoe. Carrying a flash plus all my needed stuff made photography serious not fun. i was serious.<br>

My first digital Pentax Optio forced upon me, needed for stuff on the internet, pro work, changed my whole way!<br>

It is the individual not Leica or Canon or Nikon or Minolta/Sony or Deardorf..<br>

If You cannot see it yourself, no box is going to make it happen.<br>

Best advice,mine, "push the button".<br>

cost of Pentax 60Zoom was $2.53.Batteries extra $9,04. Film, developed and scan $7.plus tax.<br>

Result priceless.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I took my first 'serious' photographs at the age of 12 on an Ilford Sprite 127 (example here - http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Sprite_127.html).<br /> The attached photograph was one of them. Technically it leaves much to be desired but the quality is sufficient to make the point. I think that Steve Smith's quote, above, from Roger Hicks is right on the nail.</p><div></div>

[zlight_b]

<p>i tried taking a picture without a camera once, but regardless of how hard i tried i couldn't do it.</p>

[lionel_rafferty]

<p>Despite the over-generalization implied in the title of Ken Rockwell's article, there are some valid points in it. But while it may be true that a skilled photographer can take great pictures with an iPhone camera, she may not be able to get a <em>specific</em> shot with it. I don't think you could get a shot like <a href="http://www.burnmagazine.org/dialogue/2009/01/profile-steve-mccurry/">this</a> using Mathew Brady's equipment. So in that sense, equipment <em>does</em> matter.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Spirer....</p>

<p>You say:</p>

<p>"'Superior results,' if one is actually talking about photography, which does not really seem to be the case here, is about the impact of the photograph on the viewer. It can be taken with anything as long as the photographer has the ability to communicate through photography.'"</p>

<p>I strongly disagree. Photography for <strong>you</strong>, according to your statement, is about the impact on the viewer. That's fine for you and your absolute right to feel that way.</p>

<p>That is not the case with all photographers, or all photographs taken by all photographers. I mentioned in an earlier part of the thread that some people take pictures for reasons other than impact, emotionality, etc. I cited an example of a photo I had of John Kennedy, shortly before he died. I needed a lens fine enough to resolve his features. Otherwise, he would not be recognizable. I did not take the picture with the intent of creating an impact on any viewer, including myself. I was simply trying to get a picture that would show his facial features. It was documentation.</p>

<p>I know this makes me a lowly, non-artistic type. I know that lowers the worth of anything I do photographically. I did, however, do it, low value or no value or not. Perhaps you could look down from your lofty artistic perch to see there are us unwashed filthy masses out there who may not have your high level of taste and understanding. Therefore, we see things differently. Therefore, we may feel the need of superior equipment to get the photo that we tasteless, undereducated people nevertheless want.</p>

<p>Think of the astronomer who finds a new star. He wants to put it on film to offer proof that it is there, or perhaps to enhance his academic standing, or for whatever reason. He is going to want photographic equipment, film, lenses, and the ability to produce a precise exposure in order to document the finding. He is not taking the picture so people will relate to it emotionally, perhaps on one hand, lifted by the beauty, on the other hand, feel small and insignificant in the universe because of seeing it. He just needs equipment suitable to capture the image.</p>

<p>Different strokes for different folks. Even us unwashed ignoramuses (or should it be "ignoramusi?", I am too ignorant and tasteless to know anyway. As proof of my low end lack of vision, feel free to look at the low class, no count, unartistic, non-emotion producing pictures I have in my folders) may have a different stroke than our recognized, far superior, artistic, emotive, and most of all, impacting betters.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>P.S. I may be quite low end, but the computer can sometimes make up for my obvious deficiencies. For those who are interested, the plural is actually "ignoramuses."</p>

<p>P.P.S. If you recognize my second post that you are referring to is related to my first post, you might have then deduced that I was talking about/referring to photography. Granted, it was in a more roundabout way in order to answer additional posts, talking about tools.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

>> Once the quality of the camera exceeds that of the photographer (which it normally does) any extra quality is

irrelevant.

 

The relationship is more synergistic than that. The modern piano exists because Beethoven beat the pianos of his day

into submission and piano makers vied to build better and better instruments in order to please him. On the flip side,

the advent of jet aircraft forced pilots to learn new skills. Sometimes we limit the gear, and sometimes the gear limits

us, but those limits are not immoveable. The photographer whose camera exceeds his abilities might be a better

photographer in a year, and then the camera might be the bottleneck.

[dan_south]

>> i tried taking a picture without a camera once, but regardless of how hard i tried i couldn't do it.

 

Best post on the entire discussion.

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. South...</p>

<p>You said: </p>

<p>"The photographer whose camera exceeds his abilities might be a better photographer in a year, and then the camera might be the bottleneck." </p>

<p>You made a good point. May I expand and say, a new and/or moderate level photographer with topflight equipment can get better before exceeding the capability of his equipment. Also, not all results produced by any photographer I know are at exactly the same level of technical competence and artistic merit. High level equipment will allow him to have a better picture when either he uses extreme effort or good luck falls his way. Good equipment expands possibilities, poor equipment limits them. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[blumesan]

<p>Wow, this is a very long thread for such a banal subject. <br /> I haven't the patience to read the whole thread, so perhaps someone has already made the comparison to a famous quote attributed to Mark Twain regarding old age. The same can easily be said of one's equipment.</p>

<p><em>"It's a question of mind over matter; if you don't mind it doesn't matter"</em></p>

[rossb]

<p> One thing about a hobby is you can do it any way you want. Spend a fortune on a fancy computer rig that has dummied down the process to boring or shoot an old junker held together with duct tape if you want. It's up to you as I don't care myself. .I think people can do great things with the darndest tools.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>If you take photographs, the camera matters - obviously. The only thing I ask of my camera equipment is that it doesn't limit me, technically or creatively, if it does, then I will buy something to solve the problem or upgrade. If it doesn't limit me, then I'm all set. </p>

<p>The bottom line though is that cameras are simply dumb tools. They have no influence at all on the actual content of the images they take, and content is what images are about. Cameras simply help with focus and exposure, and they often get those wrong because they have no clue what they are being pointed at, or why. Clearly specialized needs require specialized equipment, and better cameras can provide higher resolution, better low light performance, weatherproofing, etc. Those may or may not be important to your picture taking.</p>

<p>However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with buying equipment simply because you are a technophile or for pride of ownership. It's no-one's place to judge the reasons for another person's purchases or sneer because they perceive their own reasons to have more merit. If that were the case no-one would ever really need to buy more car than a Subaru.</p>

<p>As with any tool the user's skill determines the quality of the end result - a camera can no more make a beautiful picture than a hammer can built a house - but doing the job without the right tools is pretty miserable too.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Blume....</p>

<p>It may be banal to you, o superior one. To us great unwashed masses, there may still be some question. Of course, that is only because we are of far inferior taste and intellect as yourself.</p>

<p>And then, some of us may even think that it was your comment that was banal. Of course, that would only be to our lack of understanding, intellect, and taste.</p>

<p>And even more, it may just be our good fortune that you have cast your pearls of wisdom amongst us unworthy swine.</p>

<p>Yours in freeloading,</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>With these types of discussions, I just go look at people's photos to see how to take their statements. This is about photography, right?</p>

<p>Well what do you know...</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>And speaking of looking at photos, which seems to be not part of this for some people, check out Mario Giacomelli. His work is in museums around the world, many books have been published, some by the top publishers, he's generally regarded to be Italy's greatest photographer. Giacomelli shot most of his life with one lens with a broken shutter, stuck on 1/25. Beautiful photography, obvious that he didn't care at all about the equipment.</p>

<p>(This doesn't apply to commercial work where very specific types of results can be required.)</p>

[blumesan]

<blockquote>

<p>It may be banal to you, o superior one. To us great unwashed masses, there may still be some question. Of course, that is only because we are of far inferior taste and intellect as yourself.<br>

And then, some of us may even think that it was your comment that was banal. Of course, that would only be to our lack of understanding, intellect, and taste.<br>

A. T. Burke</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I rest my case.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>I think that Steve Smith's quote, above, from Roger Hicks is right on the nail.<br /><br />It wasn't really a quote as I can't remember his exact words but he did refer to a 'quality plateau' above which, the quality does not matter. </p>

[johne37179]

<p>I've seen some great images made with a pinhole in a box with a sheet of film on the back of it.</p>

[lionel_rafferty]

<p>Mr Spirer, you and others have been vehemently defending the opinion that equipment does not matter. Then you add the caveat "This doesn't apply to commercial work where very specific types of results can be required." That's the whole point of the debate! The statement "Equipment doesn't matter" is too broad and needs to be qualified. If your <em>purpose</em> is as general as "Go out and get some great photographs", then you're right, a skilled photographer can do that with just about anything. But I recently did a wedding and I can assure you my client would not have been very happy if I'd done it with crappy lenses, grainy film and poor lighting. And as for looking at other people's photos, I did not join PN to post photos. I joined to learn something from other photographers through these forums.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>At the risk of being unusually terse, I think I've boiled my opinion down to: "There are no <i>bad</i> cameras, merely inflexible ones."</p>

<blockquote>And as for looking at other people's photos, I did not join PN to post photos. I joined to learn something from other photographers through these forums.</blockquote>

<p>Well said. I think there is sometimes a little snobbishness from those who have drummed up the courage to put images on show. Kudos to them for doing so, but some of those of us who lurk <i>do</i> take photos, even if we <i>talk</i> equipment.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Incidentally, I see Ken's added a new "should I upgrade?" article. His good advice is "don't upgrade to take better pictures". He fails to say "do upgrade (or at least, get more kit) to take <i>different</i> pictures."</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I'm going to take my 5D Mark II out tomorrow. Some of the photos that I capture will be quite good. Some will show promise. Some will be kind of wimpy, and others will be just plain goofs.</p>

<p>If I had used a cheaper, older, or lower MP DSLR, I probably would have made just about number of images, but none of the images would have been as sharp as their 5D2 counterparts, nor would I have been able to print the best of them at the dimensions that the 5D2 affords me.</p>

<p>What have we learned here? The 5D2 doesn't make me a better photographer - only hard work and systematic honest criticism can do that - but the better camera allows me to create higher quality output even at a fixed level of skill.</p>

<p>If I were using my 4x5, the total number of attempts would be far fewer. I can only carry a limited number of film holders, and every shot takes a lot of time and effort to capture. I might have ended up with a handful of lovely chromes for a day's work.</p>

<p>If I were using MF digital (after winning the lottery, of course), the quality of the output would be better than the 5D2, but I probably would have taken fewer photos overall, especially given that I would not have had the ability to hand hold shots with the assistance of IS for sharpness.</p>

<p>In conclusion, you're ALL right. Even Ken Rockwell. Equipment matters in some ways and in other ways it doesn't. Now, get out there and shoot someone!</p>

 

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr South...<br>

In your post above you said "Now, get out there and shoot someone!" May I choose Mr. Blume as my target? Oops, I mean, subject. Now, now Homeland Security, that was said tongue in cheek. You really don't want to arrest me and have to pay for all my medicines while I await trial. The public debt is high enough as it is. </p>

<p>Actually, regarding Mr. Blume, before making my last comment, I had attempted to look up his other posts on Photonet. That particular Photonet feature was temporarily non-op, so I made it without the benefit of knowing the level and/or frequency of his general posting. To be honest, I would have to rate him high in both categories. I note most of his posts are of a technical rather than artistic nature. I also note they are usually helpful, on point, and well explained. Credit where credit is due. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>