Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: skiphunt on March 09, 2011, 10:58:39 am

Title: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: skiphunt on March 09, 2011, 10:58:39 am
Just curious what the general reactions of photographers are when they're looking at photographic images from an art appreciation point of view.

Over the last 30 years I've shot everything from 4x5 view cameras to simple cell phone digicams. I've been obsessed with gear off and on, but have gravitated over the last few years to simply looking at what an image conveys and how I feel about it. I really don't care as much about pixels, noise, gadgets, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems to me that all the manufacturer emphasis on gear and the tech side of things, including painstaking pixel-peeping camera reviews has shifted the user/viewer's attention away from the vision of the photographer and more on the gear itself. As if the photographer doesn't matter so much anymore if you have bought the latest and greatest version of some new gear.

Of course I know this isn't true, but it seems like the meme has taken hold and it likely sells a lot more cameras. Still, it's painful to hear, "Hey, that's a really nice image. What camera made that image?" As if all one must do to make nice images is buy the fanciest, most expensive, most sophisticated machine and then push a button.

After again lugging Nikon dSLR gear and a small Panasonic LX3 compact on a U.S. motorcycle journey http://www.kaleidoscopeofcolor.com/galleria/go-west-color/ I discovered getting back to just using a simple compact  appealed to me. My intent was to work on publishing a book of my photos and journaling from the road to capture more of a LIVE feel http://amzn.to/hE9KNG So, I figured I better make myself shoot more sophisticated dSLR gear for the extra resolution. However, I found that I actually ended up using just as many images from the much easier to shoot LX3 stuff in the book. Sure, you can tell a difference between the compact and dSLR images, but I don't believe there's much difference in how the images emotionally convey what I intended.

I recently backpacked for a month in Mexico. I've spent many years traveling off and on in Mexico. Have lugged 35mm gear through the jungle, and heavy dSLR gear all over the country on motorcycles, backpacking, buses, etc. So, at this point I figured I had plenty of satisfying images of Mexico (from a 2009 Motorcycle/Mexico trip: http://vimeo.com/7268216 ) and could leave the heavy gear behind at home for a change and force myself to simply use only an iPhone 4 and apps for editing and uploading. Also published short MagCloud magazines from the road via my travel blog http://www.kaleidoscopeofcolor.com/mexico-2011 (sorry, it shows me still in Mexico but I got the flu on the way back and haven't got around to wrapping it up yet)

After I got home and noticed how well the iPhone images actually held up and printed, I was fairly shocked to be honest: http://skip-hunt.artistwebsites.com/art/all/mexico+winter+2011/all

So, my question is this... when photographers look at images in general do they now mostly study the image for pixel quality and make an aesthetic decision whether they like an image based on how much resolution and lack of noise there is? Or whether or not the image was obviously made with the state of the art full-frame camera? Or, if the photographer managed to make something nice with the simplicity of an iPhone, Holga, or a toy camera?

Or, do you first look at an image and decide how you feel about it based on how the image effects you without regard for how and what camera was used to create it?

Skip Hunt
Austin, Texas
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: B-Ark on March 09, 2011, 11:24:30 am
I admit to being a "propellor-head" and lusting after megapixels, and yet, the images that I appreciate the most, are the ones that I can emotionally connect to. My first DSLR, at 6 mpix, is used just as often as my newer 12 mpix one. And it will continue to be used when I upgrade to the next 24 mpix model.

I think that we all know that fine images are created by people, not cameras.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: skiphunt on March 09, 2011, 11:35:09 am
I admit to being a "propellor-head" and lusting after megapixels, and yet, the images that I appreciate the most, are the ones that I can emotionally connect to. My first DSLR, at 6 mpix, is used just as often as my newer 12 mpix one. And it will continue to be used when I upgrade to the next 24 mpix model.

I think that we all know that fine images are created by people, not cameras.



When you say "we all know" are you speaking mostly for photographers who tend to be more inclined to get obsessed over spec sheets? Or people in general? If the latter, I'm not so sure that's the case.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: feppe on March 09, 2011, 12:39:15 pm
As for myself, I don't really care - as long as a photograph is compelling it doesn't matter whether it comes from a camera phone or MFDB. I've seen good and bad photos from all types of camera.

One good way to avoid gear tangents is to not disclose the camera and strip EXIF information when discussing artistic merits of a photo . Nobody can reliably tell from web-sized photos if a photo was taken with a DSLR or MFDB*, and even iPhone shots (http://fstoppers.com/iphone/) can be pretty amazing.

* I did a survey/test regarding this a few years back here, so if you disagree come equipped with data
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: DiaAzul on March 09, 2011, 12:56:12 pm
So, my question is this... when photographers look at images in general do they now mostly study the image for pixel quality and make an aesthetic decision whether they like an image based on how much resolution and lack of noise there is? Or whether or not the image was obviously made with the state of the art full-frame camera? Or, if the photographer managed to make something nice with the simplicity of an iPhone, Holga, or a toy camera?

Or, do you first look at an image and decide how you feel about it based on how the image effects you without regard for how and what camera was used to create it?

There is another aspect of this which you haven't mentioned and that is the photographers use of light, composition, timing in the picture. More often than not I spend my time looking at the technique used in creating the picture rather than anything technical about its reproduction. I also do this with painted images as well - recent case in point was a trip to a Gaugin exhibition at which we all came away thinking what a poor quality (composition/ content) artist he was.

To answer your question, my initial reaction is usually emotional. I then start to pull the image apart and, if I learn something from it or it still continues to stand up IMHO, then it gets on the keepers list.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 09, 2011, 03:16:11 pm
Art is the result of a complex interaction process between artist, gear and subject (not necessarily a physical object, could be a concept as well).

A great artist can do good things with little gear, but will do other things with other/better gear.

Technical mastery has always been an important part of art,
not only because it is the craftsman within the artist,
but also the effort and long term development which is behind technical perfection.

In other words - if someone uses gear which requires skill, like a tech camera and film and it can be seen in the product,
that he has mastered it, the satisfaction with the result will be influenced by this in a positive way.

But just using the gear and producing technically satisfactory results is not enough.

There is a difference between a skilled craftsman and an artist.

But being a skilled craftsman isn't that bad.....

my 0.02 ...
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 09, 2011, 03:56:21 pm
Hi,

My view is that the artistic value of an image does relate little to it's technical quality, but technical quality defines pretty much how you can present it. So I have very good images shot with a 6 MP DSLR, like the one below. I actually have an A2 enlargement hanging on my wall. It's nice but it is a stretch. With the 24 MP camera I have now I could make an excellent A2 or an A0 with the same quality I have now on my A2. The image won't be better or worse, but I could make a larger print, and I love large prints.

The other side is DR. I seldom feel that my images are limited by DR and I can always shoot HDR. So extended DR is nice to have, but I can live with limited DR.

Best regards
Erik


Just curious what the general reactions of photographers are when they're looking at photographic images from an art appreciation point of view.

Over the last 30 years I've shot everything from 4x5 view cameras to simple cell phone digicams. I've been obsessed with gear off and on, but have gravitated over the last few years to simply looking at what an image conveys and how I feel about it. I really don't care as much about pixels, noise, gadgets, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems to me that all the manufacturer emphasis on gear and the tech side of things, including painstaking pixel-peeping camera reviews has shifted the user/viewer's attention away from the vision of the photographer and more on the gear itself. As if the photographer doesn't matter so much anymore if you have bought the latest and greatest version of some new gear.

Of course I know this isn't true, but it seems like the meme has taken hold and it likely sells a lot more cameras. Still, it's painful to hear, "Hey, that's a really nice image. What camera made that image?" As if all one must do to make nice images is buy the fanciest, most expensive, most sophisticated machine and then push a button.

After again lugging Nikon dSLR gear and a small Panasonic LX3 compact on a U.S. motorcycle journey http://www.kaleidoscopeofcolor.com/galleria/go-west-color/ I discovered getting back to just using a simple compact  appealed to me. My intent was to work on publishing a book of my photos and journaling from the road to capture more of a LIVE feel http://amzn.to/hE9KNG So, I figured I better make myself shoot more sophisticated dSLR gear for the extra resolution. However, I found that I actually ended up using just as many images from the much easier to shoot LX3 stuff in the book. Sure, you can tell a difference between the compact and dSLR images, but I don't believe there's much difference in how the images emotionally convey what I intended.

I recently backpacked for a month in Mexico. I've spent many years traveling off and on in Mexico. Have lugged 35mm gear through the jungle, and heavy dSLR gear all over the country on motorcycles, backpacking, buses, etc. So, at this point I figured I had plenty of satisfying images of Mexico (from a 2009 Motorcycle/Mexico trip: http://vimeo.com/7268216 ) and could leave the heavy gear behind at home for a change and force myself to simply use only an iPhone 4 and apps for editing and uploading. Also published short MagCloud magazines from the road via my travel blog http://www.kaleidoscopeofcolor.com/mexico-2011 (sorry, it shows me still in Mexico but I got the flu on the way back and haven't got around to wrapping it up yet)

After I got home and noticed how well the iPhone images actually held up and printed, I was fairly shocked to be honest: http://skip-hunt.artistwebsites.com/art/all/mexico+winter+2011/all

So, my question is this... when photographers look at images in general do they now mostly study the image for pixel quality and make an aesthetic decision whether they like an image based on how much resolution and lack of noise there is? Or whether or not the image was obviously made with the state of the art full-frame camera? Or, if the photographer managed to make something nice with the simplicity of an iPhone, Holga, or a toy camera?

Or, do you first look at an image and decide how you feel about it based on how the image effects you without regard for how and what camera was used to create it?

Skip Hunt
Austin, Texas
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on March 09, 2011, 04:17:49 pm
Skìp

Your question is addressed to photographers and so I expect you probably hope for a different perspective on opinions.

Well then, from my point of view as a snapper, I think it always comes down to this: would I be proud to have taken it?

I can't say that I'm particularly interested anymore in what sort of equipment was used; I was very interested in that when I was still working, but now that I just potter about doing what grabs me, I really don't care what people use to get where they got. The only thing that matters to me is whether the shot works for me.

That's not to say that I'm not interested in equipment: I am. The diference is that I know that I have little intention of buying anything else unless things take a dramatic turn and I start making money from the game once again. I think that the only thing that would tempt me is an M9, and that's probably not really versatile enough for me, but it still tempts me as Leica Ms always did, though I never bought into the system for the same reasons: too limited in scope and too expensive for fun. (For me.)

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: bradleygibson on March 09, 2011, 09:58:23 pm
Your first iPhone picture, "A Good Read" answers this question for me -- and the answer is "no".  A beautiful, well-executed shot--what's not to love?  Now, if you were going to try to print a billboard, you might have issues, but that, to me at least, is a separate issue from artistic merit.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Anders_HK on March 10, 2011, 02:48:50 am
So, my question is this... when photographers look at images in general do they now mostly study the image for pixel quality and make an aesthetic decision whether they like an image based on how much resolution and lack of noise there is? Or whether or not the image was obviously made with the state of the art full-frame camera? Or, if the photographer managed to make something nice with the simplicity of an iPhone, Holga, or a toy camera?

Or, do you first look at an image and decide how you feel about it based on how the image effects you without regard for how and what camera was used to create it?

In my opinion the impact from and how I feel about an image is what triggers me into impression of if it is a good image. At same time the technical perfection need to be there to a satisfying degree so as not to diminish the qualities of the image to my eye. Perhaps else, the feeling and impact that an image makes on me must be stronger to overtake the lesser technical qualitative aspect of the image itself.

It also of course depends on what we shoot. Your photos look great (albeit appear way over saturated perhaps to make pop art grafitti like impact to gain attention? Perhaps the paragraph I wrote above is what aids them to work?). However, what is my own primary passion in photography are landscapes. While those can be shot with an iPhone it would lend to a photographic language that does not lend itself to represent what I visualize and see. Heck, also DSLR does not do it for me. It takes both a media and details to make the maximum impact, not merely the skill in achieving feeling and impact. Landscapes are demanding in requiring an enhancement of reality that becomes believable to the eye. This is why. That is not to say that they should not be saturated, but to a degree that nevertheless will pass as believable or natural looking.

Some of my best photos are from my 35mm Velvia slide film days. They have beautiful colors and rendering. In the end the image counts, but they lack in detail. I wish they too had detail because it would be far better images if more details were present. However, though I mention details, there is more is it not? Somehow there needs to be a balance and no matter how... an image that triggers the eye and feelings inside...

Regards
Anders
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on March 10, 2011, 09:22:53 am
Skip, It always comes down to what Cartier-Bresson said: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." If you check fora like Nikonians or Leica Users Forum you'll read unending equipment testimonials from people whose lives apparently revolve around owning particular cameras and lenses but, in most cases, don't show pictures they've shot with their equipment. One of the beauties of LuLa is that people are interested in pictures, not equipment.

ln the end, the only thing expensive equipment can do for you is let you make pictures you couldn't even attempt with your point-and-shoot or your cell phone. But even with advanced equipment, looking still is everything.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: John R Smith on March 10, 2011, 10:19:57 am
What Russ says (and his HCB quote) pretty much sums it up. Of course the end result, the picture, is all that matters. But let me give this a slightly different, personal slant -

When I play guitar, I know I play much better when I have a fine instrument in my hands. The audience may not know the difference, but if the guitar "speaks" to me I will enjoy the experience far more. And similarly, I enjoy my photography far more when I have a fine camera in my hands. A good camera and lens system gives me pleasure because of the feedback I get from it, tactile, audible, and visual. The audience who view my pictures will neither know nor care about this difference, but the act of making photographs is important to me in just the same way as playing the guitar, or sailing a reponsive wooden boat upwind against a tricky tide.

John
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: feppe on March 10, 2011, 12:39:25 pm
One of the beauties of LuLa is that people are interested in pictures, not equipment.

Oh boy, I haven't laughed that hard all week - you sure have a good sense of humor :)
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: skiphunt on March 10, 2011, 03:18:48 pm
Such excellent responses! I really didn't think I'd get that many people here who really cared about such things. What an excellent surprise. Looks like I've found a new place to hang. I've highly regarded Luminous Landscape reviews for years now but didn't even notice there was a forum.

I too appreciate fine equipment and also know that there are some images you simply can't get with an iPhone (yet). And although I tend to like very rich and saturated color, the iPhone images I referenced were also edited with apps on the iPhone and I likely went a little bit far with the saturation even for my tastes. Still, I'm quite happy with what I got given that everything was done with a gadget in my pocket that also makes calls. :-)

It's just that from sites like dpreview and others... it seems people have taken the emphasis off of the "seeing" and more on the gadgets. I posed the question here because this site doesn't seem to focus so much on the pixels and hardware as other sites and claims to be a "fine art photography" site. I was mostly curious if this obsession with gear over content had bled into the fine art photography circles yet.

Also... there were shots that I wanted to get that I simply couldn't with the iPhone 4. I also had a Panasonic LX3 with me which almost picked up the slack but the reach wasn't as far as I needed.

I'm totally into minimal gear now, but will try out the new Olympus XZ-1 compact on my next trip. Heading out on the motorcycle this time, but only for a couple weeks and just from Texas to around Louisiana and a little bit of Mississipi. Will only be taking the iPhone 4 and the XZ-1.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 10, 2011, 03:20:19 pm
Now, after it is clear we are only interested in images and not gear -anyone out there donating me an H4D-60 or a P65?
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on March 10, 2011, 04:34:49 pm
Now, after it is clear we are only interested in images and not gear -anyone out there donating me an H4D-60 or a P65?



And if I may squeak into the queue: that now obsolete (to you) M9 can find tender loving chez moi. I'll even help you pay postage.

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: fredjeang on March 10, 2011, 05:25:40 pm
Oh boy, I haven't laughed that hard all week - you sure have a good sense of humor :)
Yes, I almost drop my coffee on the screen when I read this. On this one Russ I must admit that you broke the sound barrier of the humor.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on March 10, 2011, 07:20:34 pm
Of course, you guys are right. I should have said "The Art of Photography." Once I realized what I'd said, I started laughing too.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on March 10, 2011, 09:50:49 pm
Of course, you guys are right. I should have said "The Art of Photography." Once I realized what I'd said, I started laughing too.
Russ,

I thought you were distinguishing between "People" (i.e., the sensitive individuals who frequent the Art and Critique threads) and the "Zombies" (who produce the endless discussions and heated arguments on the technical threads).

C-B said it exactly right, as usual.

Eric
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: scrinch on April 01, 2011, 07:51:02 am
I sell my work at street fairs and art shows as well as galleries.  It gives me a lot of feedback from customers, and passer-bys.

The hands down, #1 question I am asked,   "What kind of camera do you use?".
It bugs me, but I am trying to sell, so I am polite and tell them.

It seems many people look for a simple technological fix to make good photographs.  If one gets the "right" printer, software, camera, then that beautiful scene will be automatically transferred to the print. 
I  like to equate it to the carpentry trade.  Very few people ask a carpenter what type of hammer, skill saw,  or level he/she uses after he/she has built a wonderful structure.  Why is it so important to photographers?  Certainly good equipment helps make good images, but when I goes back into the history of photography, there are books filled with great images made by very rudimentary equipment.

As far as art goes.  I like to quote a Navy buddy of mine.  We were all sitting around the mess deck drinking coffee and talking about art.  Mike from Nebraska, who had been quiet previously, finally piped up with,   "I don't know about art, but I know what I like." 

In the end, it seems to me, that is what really matters.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Steve Weldon on April 01, 2011, 08:30:18 am
I don't think you can separate equipment and 'art' when it comes to photography.  As much as some try.

The fact is, photography requires equipment.  You cannot produce a print without a long list of equipment.

So obviously gear matters.  In matters in a multitude of ways, from user satisfaction to photographic capability.  It matters in the way a skilled carpenter maintains the sharpest set of chisels possible, or a draftsman his instruments.

I ask you this.. Is medicine art?  Surgery?  I know some medical professionals who think so.  If you required a major surgery, would you want the surgeon to have the best tools and equipment available, or perhaps only what was available 100 years ago, or the cheapest set made in India?  Before you go off and say the quality of the surgeon is more important than the tools.. consider that's a given.  But also consider there will be some surgeries which can be done better by a lesser surgeon with state of the art tools, than a better surgeon with lesser tools.

Photography is this way.  Of course gear matters.  It just doesn't matter for ALL aspects of the photographic exercise.

The photographer sets the priorities.  Perhaps its the most captures in a set amount of time to document, perhaps it's being able to shoot in the lowest light, maybe its the most detail.. Whatever his/her priorities.. he looks in his bag and selects the best tools (equipment) to serve his artistic priorities.  He/she does it, we do it.  Photographers do it.  We'll always do it.

As better tools become available, they'll inspire greater visions which we didn't think possible yesterday.  But now that they're possible creative juices flow and and we see photographs today, we didn't see yesterday. 

With video now commonplace in still camera bodies.. how soon will it be until we can shoot full resolution images at 60-120fps?  Movie or still?  It's only electronics which will make this possible and it will become possible soon.  As the electronics develop we'll be able to take more frames per second, more resolution per frame, shoot in less light, record more details, and achieve higher image quality than ever before.  It's just a matter of time.  If you haven't already considered and desired some of these possibilities then you're way behind others who have.  Equipment is only part of the equation, another part is vision.  Envisioning that which we can't yet achieve and working towards it.. is an entirely different level.

The "does equipment really matter" debate/argument is limiting, boring to those who can think.  It's like asking "does water matter?"  "Does food matter?"  Lots of things matter.  And depending on the vision different subsets of things become part of the equation.

Better to ask "Define your vision and submit your equation."  Think about it..

Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on April 01, 2011, 11:14:28 am
I don't think you can separate equipment and 'art' when it comes to photography.  As much as some try.

The fact is, photography requires equipment.  You cannot produce a print without a long list of equipment.

So obviously gear matters.  In matters in a multitude of ways, from user satisfaction to photographic capability.  It matters in the way a skilled carpenter maintains the sharpest set of chisels possible, or a draftsman his instruments.

Steve, Well, you're right. You have to have a camera to make a photograph. But the same thing's true of painting or intaglio art like engraving or etching or even woodcuts. So you're suggesting that the kind of brushes or engraving tools or chisels the artist uses is what makes the difference between good art and bad art? In other words, if Leonardo had had better equipment the Mona Lisa would have been a better painting?

Quote
I ask you this.. Is medicine art?  Surgery?  I know some medical professionals who think so.  If you required a major surgery, would you want the surgeon to have the best tools and equipment available, or perhaps only what was available 100 years ago, or the cheapest set made in India?  Before you go off and say the quality of the surgeon is more important than the tools.. consider that's a given.  But also consider there will be some surgeries which can be done better by a lesser surgeon with state of the art tools, than a better surgeon with lesser tools.

What I'd want is a surgeon who's an artist and who has the tools he feels most comfortable working with. That might not be the latest gear. Can you give me an example of a lesser surgeon doing a better job with state of the art tools than a better surgeon with lesser tools?

Quote
Photography is this way.  Of course gear matters.  It just doesn't matter for ALL aspects of the photographic exercise.

The photographer sets the priorities.  Perhaps its the most captures in a set amount of time to document, perhaps it's being able to shoot in the lowest light, maybe its the most detail.. Whatever his/her priorities.. he looks in his bag and selects the best tools (equipment) to serve his artistic priorities.  He/she does it, we do it.  Photographers do it.  We'll always do it.

You started out talking about the relationship of equipment to art. Are you suggesting that the most captures in a set amount of time will produce art? Somehow that doesn't sound like an artistic priority to me.

Quote
The "does equipment really matter" debate/argument is limiting, boring to those who can think.  It's like asking "does water matter?"  "Does food matter?"  Lots of things matter.  And depending on the vision different subsets of things become part of the equation.

Better to ask "Define your vision and submit your equation."  Think about it..


You lost me completely with that last sentence. What equation are you talking about? E= mc2?

But I guess I'm not one of those folks who can think. The does equipment really matter debate is important because of publications like "Popular Photography," "Shutterbug," and their clones. Beginners read these magazines and the magazines teach them that equipment is everything. If you want to be Cartier-Bresson you must have a Leica M9. If you want to be Ansel Adams you must have a view camera. The more expensive your camera the better pictures you'll make. Nothing could be further from the truth. A beginner is going to make better pictures with a point-and-shoot than he can make with an M9, and certainly much better pictures than he can make with a view camera. Someone needs to explain that fact to beginners.

It all comes back to what Cartier-Bresson said and I've quoted on these fora over and over again: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." If you're holding a point-and-shoot and you know how to look you'll produce much better photographs than if you're holding a Hasselblad and you're blind. Better equipment on the horizon isn't going to change that fact.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Steve Weldon on April 01, 2011, 11:56:16 am
Steve, Well, you're right. You have to have a camera to make a photograph. But the same thing's true of painting or intaglio art like engraving or etching or even woodcuts. So you're suggesting that the kind of brushes or engraving tools or chisels the artist uses is what makes the difference between good art and bad art? In other words, if Leonardo had had better equipment the Mona Lisa would have been a better painting?

Have you studied art?  I have a bit.. basic classes.  But yes, what paints, brushes, chisels, etc.. it all matters.  Artists in those days (before commercial materials) were fanatical about mixing their perfect pigments/oils/lacquers and finding the perfect materials for their brushes.  They were this way because how much you can 'load' a brush is related to the length of a stroke, what type of brush makes differences in texture which is an element in the composition, and much more.. so clearly yes equipment matters.

To your second question.  I don't know and either does anyone else but Leonardo.  I don't know what he envisioned and I don't know how close he came to his vision and if/how much he was held back by his equipment.  So.. maybe.  Maybe not.  It was a bit of a strawman question no?

Quote
What I'd want is a surgeon who's an artist and who has the tools he feels most comfortable working with. That might not be the latest gear. Can you give me an example of a lesser surgeon doing a better job with state of the art tools than a better surgeon with lesser tools?

Listening to understand is a skill.  Many don't have it.  They immediately refuse to consider anything that doesn't fit their pre-defined views and come up with "can you give me a link.." sort of response.  If you cannot understand that certain medicines (equipment), certain types of xray/MRI/Pet scanners (equipment), and other DME gear can limit or enhance a doctor then it's not worth going into.

Quote
You started out talking about the relationship of equipment to art. Are you suggesting that the most captures in a set amount of time will produce art? Somehow that doesn't sound like an artistic priority to me.

Yes, for some photographers being able to make more captures per second, having the camera available to make one capture after another was just taken, etc.. 'could' certainly result in art.  You really can't think of photographers who depend heavily on being able to make captures with faster frame rates (sports photographers, wildlife photographers, wedding photographers, etc)???  Really?  Yes, enhanced speed will help someone produce art by getting shots they wouldn't have otherwise captured, by obtaining sequences that otherwise wouldn't have been possible, or just having the camera ready after one shot when another presents itself.
 

Quote
You lost me completely with that last sentence. What equation are you talking about? E= mc2?

The equation is should be clear to a reader.  It must be clear to a photographer.

Quote
But I guess I'm not one of those folks who can think. The does equipment really matter debate is important because of publications like "Popular Photography," "Shutterbug," and their clones. Beginners read these magazines and the magazines teach them that equipment is everything. If you want to be Cartier-Bresson you must have a Leica M9. If you want to be Ansel Adams you must have a view camera. The more expensive your camera the better pictures you'll make. Nothing could be further from the truth. A beginner is going to make better pictures with a point-and-shoot than he can make with an M9, and certainly much better pictures than he can make with a view camera. Someone needs to explain that fact to beginners.

I respectfully disagree.  The debate continues because people are saying exactly as you said and it doesn't make sense to people who can think for themselves.  What started out as a good natured word of advice (worry about your art more and equipment less) during an era people where scrambling for more megapixels.. has been blown totally out of context to the point where it just sounds silly.

Quote
It all comes back to what Cartier-Bresson said and I've quoted on these fora over and over again: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." If you're holding a point-and-shoot and you know how to look you'll produce much better photographs than if you're holding a Hasselblad and you're blind. Better equipment on the horizon isn't going to change that fact.

Here's a quote for you.  "There are those who quote, and those who will be quoted."  Which one do you want to be?

Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on April 01, 2011, 12:48:22 pm
Listening to understand is a skill.  Many don't have it.  They immediately refuse to consider anything that doesn't fit their pre-defined views and come up with "can you give me a link.." sort of response.  If you cannot understand that certain medicines (equipment), certain types of xray/MRI/Pet scanners (equipment), and other DME gear can limit or enhance a doctor then it's not worth going into.

Well, I guess you'll never know whether or not I can't listen unless you give me a phone call, but I can read. You said: "But also consider there will be some surgeries which can be done better by a lesser surgeon with state of the art tools, than a better surgeon with lesser tools." I asked you for an example, not a link. Your reply, above, doesn't address the question much less offer an answer.

Quote
Yes, for some photographers being able to make more captures per second, having the camera available to make one capture after another was just taken, etc.. 'could' certainly result in art.  You really can't think of photographers who depend heavily on being able to make captures with faster frame rates (sports photographers, wildlife photographers, wedding photographers, etc)???  Really?  Yes, enhanced speed will help someone produce art by getting shots they wouldn't have otherwise captured, by obtaining sequences that otherwise wouldn't have been possible, or just having the camera ready after one shot when another presents itself.

Somehow I just never considered sports, wildlife, or wedding photographs to be art -- especially the kind of sports, wildlife, or wedding photographs that have to be shot in rapid sequence. I've shot birds on the wing for years and long ago I learned that looking and shooting at the appropriate instant will give me results, while shooting in 9 frame per second bursts won't.

Quote
The equation is should be clear to a reader.  It must be clear to a photographer.

Huh?

Quote
I respectfully disagree.  The debate continues because people are saying exactly as you said and it doesn't make sense to people who can think for themselves.  What started out as a good natured word of advice (worry about your art more and equipment less) during an era people where scrambling for more megapixels.. has been blown totally out of context to the point where it just sounds silly.

Sorry, Steve. You lost me again.

Quote
Here's a quote for you.  "There are those who quote, and those who will be quoted."  Which one do you want to be?

Here's another quote for you: "The best camera in the world is the one you have with you." That's a quote all  photographers should take to heart, whether they can think for themselves or not.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on April 01, 2011, 02:45:30 pm
Some see pink elephants, some see nothing; why the hell do I have to see circular arguments?

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 01, 2011, 03:42:48 pm
... The "does equipment really matter" debate/argument is limiting, boring to those who can think...

I have to agree with Steve on the boring part (setting aside his signature condescending tone). The debate is boring if for no other reason then for the fact that two camps tend to talk past each other, using rehashed arguments. Unless you are reading it for the first time in your life, of course. And as in many others instances were beliefs dominate, no amount of reasoning is going to change much.

As for me, I assume photography is a craft and art at the same time, and my belief then is that equipment matters much more for the craft part, and less (or not at all) for the art part. Or to rephrase, the more the art aspect dominates, the less equipment matters.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on April 01, 2011, 05:20:54 pm
Quite right, Slobodan, but let me remind you what the OP's opening paragraph said:

Just curious what the general reactions of photographers are when they're looking at photographic images from an art appreciation point of view.

(emphasis added)
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: scrinch on April 01, 2011, 08:10:16 pm
I don't think you can separate equipment and 'art' when it comes to photography.  As much as some try.

The fact is, photography requires equipment.  You cannot produce a print without a long list of equipment.




I have seen wonderful prints done with a pin hole in a 50 gallon drum and print paper used as a paper negative.   Conversely, I have seen many, many, terrible images made using the most expensive modern equipment available. 

As far as cameras shooting 100 frames a second to create a work of art....well.....I just cant buy into that.   If you give enough monkeys enough typewriters and they have enough time...they might write the same words as Shakespeare in " A Midsummers Night Dream",  but will you call it art or just a mistake?   I know my feelings but, perhaps I have been too influenced by Ansel Adams and his thoughts on pre visualization and careful craftsmanship. 

Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Steve Weldon on April 02, 2011, 01:27:42 am
Well, I guess you'll never know whether or not I can't listen unless you give me a phone call, but I can read. You said: "But also consider there will be some surgeries which can be done better by a lesser surgeon with state of the art tools, than a better surgeon with lesser tools." I asked you for an example, not a link. Your reply, above, doesn't address the question much less offer an answer.

If you can't think this through on your own then it's just part of the presentation which is lost on you.  Sorry.
 
Quote
Somehow I just never considered sports, wildlife, or wedding photographs to be art -- especially the kind of sports, wildlife, or wedding photographs that have to be shot in rapid sequence. I've shot birds on the wing for years and long ago I learned that looking and shooting at the appropriate instant will give me results, while shooting in 9 frame per second bursts won't.

So now we're down to defining "art" to that which only the reader can agree with.  I suppose this is your choice, but there are a lot of wildlife, sports, and wedding photographers who would strongly disagree with you.  This is one of the major issues of the debate, 'what you shoot isn't art'..  Sorry, but I don't feel qualified to make that decision for others.  Absent an agreed upon definition of art, we must accept that photography is art, photography of all types, and the valuation of it being art or not is in the eye of the photographer.



Quote
Here's another quote for you: "The best camera in the world is the one you have with you." That's a quote all  photographers should take to heart, whether they can think for themselves or not.

Another problem with quotes is they're often not original and more often misquoted.  This particular quote was used by the gun crowd for decades that I know of.. would you care to change the words around?

As to the point.. I get it and I agree.  And I'm not saying a better camera will in all cases make better art.  However in some it clearly will and denying it serves nobody.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Steve Weldon on April 02, 2011, 01:31:18 am
I have to agree with Steve on the boring part (setting aside his signature condescending tone). The debate is boring if for no other reason then for the fact that two camps tend to talk past each other, using rehashed arguments. Unless you are reading it for the first time in your life, of course. And as in many others instances were beliefs dominate, no amount of reasoning is going to change much.

As for me, I assume photography is a craft and art at the same time, and my belief then is that equipment matters much more for the craft part, and less (or not at all) for the art part. Or to rephrase, the more the art aspect dominates, the less equipment matters.

You're just upset when someone 'out' condescends you..  :D

I'd tend to agree with your last statement.. but until we can remove the equipment from the required list.. equipment matters.  To which degree will vary by photographer and circumstance.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Steve Weldon on April 02, 2011, 01:34:59 am
I have seen wonderful prints done with a pin hole in a 50 gallon drum and print paper used as a paper negative.   Conversely, I have seen many, many, terrible images made using the most expensive modern equipment available. 

As far as cameras shooting 100 frames a second to create a work of art....well.....I just cant buy into that.   If you give enough monkeys enough typewriters and they have enough time...they might write the same words as Shakespeare in " A Midsummers Night Dream",  but will you call it art or just a mistake?   I know my feelings but, perhaps I have been too influenced by Ansel Adams and his thoughts on pre visualization and careful craftsmanship. 



1.  This is the tired example so often misused in such debates which is easily turned around the other way if someone so wishes.  It really means nothing.

2.  About monkeys.. here we have an elephant camp where the elephants draw paintings using a brush, their trunk, and different water colors.. and these paintings go for ridiculous amounts of money.  Sitting there watching them one day I noticed even the elephants clearly favored certain brushes and paint types over others.. remarkable!

3.  Ansel Adams.  You do realize there are many devotee's who try to replicate his equipment as accurately as possible, his steps, the scenes, the right time of the year?  I wonder why they worry so much about the equipment?
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on April 02, 2011, 10:18:12 am
If you can't think this through on your own then it's just part of the presentation which is lost on you.  Sorry.

Steve, Afraid I'll have to let this penetrating response pass by since I'm not much into responding to imbecilic insults
 
Quote
So now we're down to defining "art" to that which only the reader can agree with.  I suppose this is your choice, but there are a lot of wildlife, sports, and wedding photographers who would strongly disagree with you.  This is one of the major issues of the debate, 'what you shoot isn't art'..  Sorry, but I don't feel qualified to make that decision for others.  Absent an agreed upon definition of art, we must accept that photography is art, photography of all types, and the valuation of it being art or not is in the eye of the photographer.

In a couple other threads I've already said all I have to say about any attempt to define art, but I do have a bit of a problem with your last sentence, which seems to accept as a default position that anything that comes out of a camera is art. The last half of that sentence tells me you missed the vertical pronoun in my first sentence.

Quote
As to the point.. I get it and I agree.  And I'm not saying a better camera will in all cases make better art.  However in some it clearly will and denying it serves nobody.

How about giving us an example of a case where a better camera made better art.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Steve Weldon on April 02, 2011, 02:16:47 pm
Steve, Afraid I'll have to let this penetrating response pass by since I'm not much into responding to imbecilic insults

I'm hurt.  You took something I was trying to let pass because you clearly didn't 'want' to understand it (remember what I said about "listening to understand" being a skill?) and then you directly insult me?  Not nice Mr. RSL..

Look, I'm not going to respond to the "show me a link" and "give me an example" type of response.  I wrote a post that included many points supporting my position.  You choose to only address the ones you thought you could debate, while ignoring the ones you didn't.  When you did this, by default, you accepted that equipment matters.
 
Quote
In a couple other threads I've already said all I have to say about any attempt to define art, but I do have a bit of a problem with your last sentence, which seems to accept as a default position that anything that comes out of a camera is art. The last half of that sentence tells me you missed the vertical pronoun in my first sentence.

Right.. so you make a blanket statement that you don't consider wildlife, sport, or wedding photography "art."  And then you hide behind "I've already said all.."  Fine.  I agree, you said too much.  This clearly shows you position to be one of snobbery.  I don't agree with this and either will most people who shoot these genres.  It was only a single example, but perhaps a revealing one I put in there to draw out exactly this sort of mindset.

What you're missing in this.. is that it doesn't matter what YOU define as art.  I could care less.  I personally don't care for leaves and pine needles and puddles of water some label "fine art."   But I respect the pine needle photographer enough to not wholesale discount his work.  If HE thinks its art then it's art to him and that's all that matters.   Some people will never understand this.. and it as "anti-art" a mindset as you could come up with. 

And did you ever notice it's the "fine art" crowd who spend the most on their equipment?  Wouldn't it be ironic if they're the ones usually telling us equipment doesn't matter? 

Some even dare to judge 'art' by how much the pieces sell for.  If that's the case I know a couple elephants who are probably making more than most of us here..

Quote
How about giving us an example of a case where a better camera made better art.

If you're that limited that you can't think of multiple examples right off the cuff.. then well.. shrug..

Why don't you give us an example of photographic art that didn't involve/require equipment?  When you can do this then you could logically claim that with 'some' types of photographic art equipment doesn't matter. 

Go ahead.. provide the example.  Demonstrate your logic..
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on April 02, 2011, 03:17:45 pm
Don't you just love it when logic disappears out the widow sans parachute?

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on April 02, 2011, 03:29:56 pm
Look, I'm not going to respond to the "show me a link" and "give me an example" type of response

Of course you aren't since you won't be able to find any examples.
 
Quote
Why don't you give us an example of photographic art that didn't involve/require equipment?  When you can do this then you could logically claim that with 'some' types of photographic art equipment doesn't matter. 

Go ahead.. provide the example.  Demonstrate your logic..

Steve, Have you ever heard of a guy named Laszlo Moholy Nagy? I'd guess the answer's pretty obvious.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: fredjeang on April 02, 2011, 04:06:54 pm
I have to agree with Steve on the boring part (setting aside his signature condescending tone). The debate is boring if for no other reason then for the fact that two camps tend to talk past each other, using rehashed arguments. Unless you are reading it for the first time in your life, of course. And as in many others instances were beliefs dominate, no amount of reasoning is going to change much.

As for me, I assume photography is a craft and art at the same time, and my belief then is that equipment matters much more for the craft part, and less (or not at all) for the art part. Or to rephrase, the more the art aspect dominates, the less equipment matters.
and I'd add: the more the art aspect dominates, the less equipment matters and the more expensive equipment actually appears.
A good artist uses a lot of different tools (included the photoshopery part), but of course, tools don't make talent, they only can enhance the talent that is there or simplify the workflow.
On the contrary, a 50.000euros camera in the hand of a bad artist enhance the same way his mediocrity.
So be carefull with high-end gear.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Paul Sumi on April 02, 2011, 04:08:12 pm
...Have you ever heard of a guy named Laszlo Moholy Nagy?

Man Ray's "Rayograms" also come to mind.

Paul
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: feppe on April 02, 2011, 05:39:00 pm
and I'd add: the more the art aspect dominates, the less equipment matters and the more expensive equipment actually appears.

You're saying that the more art-focused a photographer is, she spends more and more on expensive equipment - but the equipment doesn't matter in the end? That doesn't make sense unless artists are extremely irrational people - even more-so than the general public already thinks :P

Also, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny: Avedon, Helmut Newton, HCB, even Leibovitz didn't always use high-end equipment, or even often, yet they are widely considered artists of the highest order.

I would go as far as saying that the current fetishism of equipment (and IQ) over art is misguided at best. This is blatant and pervasive on this board, but hopefully not out in the real world.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: fredjeang on April 02, 2011, 07:06:03 pm
Avedon and HN have used everything but mainly MF. Avedon shooted a lot of LF even in fashion. HCB mostly Leica, like Garcia Alix, wich is not a cheap 35mm gear for beginners (see the costs of the M glasses even second-hand) and Annie used mostly Mamiya MF, Hasselblads digitals, 35mm etc...The imagery they produce is expensive.
Without talking about the army of assistants, some of the best techs in the words, best printers, best retouchers etc...
Those people, except maybe HCB wich equipment is more "humble", where not point-and-shooters.
There is no paradox, yes they started, they made their name with whatever, they built their talent as Russ said with the-camera-that-was-with-them, they also used light equipment on purpose, yes, but also there is no mystery when you hang on museum walls 2 or 3 meters portraits print with such standard like Avedon there is no averageness or light equipment behind. Those are in general carefully planed session with budgets involved and team work.
We are not in Flickr planet there.
Some Avedon current settings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjH-AtGU3s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ork312iNPDw&feature=related

Or this one that also shoots with a small 5MP DP1 or similar film camera when he casts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl3EtjQt6VA&feature=related

Or Annie, look where is the digital hasselblad as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNyIUlra9LU&feature=related

Beginners should forget about gear when talent and gain a personal style is about, but should be concern (and will be) about it when things are going more serious and there is responsability and money involved.
There is no problem to shoot a 150 euros Holga, if the photographer has talent it will extract good things from it. Art can be done with whatever, but the ones who succeded as artists generally do not only use whatever but a vast palette wich includes to a large extend the high-end equipment.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: feppe on April 02, 2011, 09:10:11 pm
Avedon and HN have used everything but mainly MF. Avedon shooted a lot of LF even in fashion. HCB mostly Leica, like Garcia Alix, wich is not a cheap 35mm gear for beginners (see the costs of the M glasses even second-hand) and Annie used mostly Mamiya MF, Hasselblads digitals, 35mm etc...The imagery they produce is expensive.
Without talking about the army of assistants, some of the best techs in the words, best printers, best retouchers etc...
Those people, except maybe HCB wich equipment is more "humble", where not point-and-shooters.
There is no paradox, yes they started, they made their name with whatever, they built their talent as Russ said with the-camera-that-was-with-them, they also used light equipment on purpose, yes, but also there is no mystery when you hang on museum walls 2 or 3 meters portraits print with such standard like Avedon there is no averageness or light equipment behind. Those are in general carefully planed session with budgets involved and team work.
We are not in Flickr planet there.
Some Avedon current settings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjH-AtGU3s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ork312iNPDw&feature=related

Or this one that also shoots with a small 5MP DP1 or similar film camera when he casts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARav6Cq3VZA&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl3EtjQt6VA&feature=related

Or Annie, look where is the digital hasselblad as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNyIUlra9LU&feature=related

Beginners should forget about gear when talent and gain a personal style is about, but should be concern (and will be) about it when things are going more serious and there is responsability and money involved.
There is no problem to shoot a 150 euros Holga, if the photographer has talent it will extract good things from it. Art can be done with whatever, but the ones who succeded as artists generally do not only use whatever but a vast palette wich includes to a large extend the high-end equipment.

Spoken like a true 21st century victim of marketing. At least you didn't drop manufacturer names which seems to be the de rigueur on pro blogs these days - often with the disclaimer "although they pay me [to push their products], I use their gear because it's the best."

I'm fully aware of the work and equipment the people I listed  - that's why I brought them up - so there's no reason to go on a googling binge. One can produce similar links to support  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RGunD1tngg)the polar opposite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9wkCLkVWcI) of what your links suggest. If you actually read what I wrote, I acknowledged they do use expensive equipment (not limited to cameras), but that they also occasionally (Avedon) or often (Newton) used cheap(er) equipment. For the truly hard-working top-tier artist equipment is not a pre-requisite for great results.

And hard work, dedication, sweat and tears will always supercede "talent," which is a concept as valid as astrology, and thoroughly debunked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29).

As an aside, I think I spotted chromed light stands in one of the Mario Testino clips - not to mention the talent that doesn't get out of bed for less than 10k :)

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you seem to be talking about commercial photography - often an anathema to art.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: fredjeang on April 02, 2011, 09:53:22 pm
Ok, here is a truth artist with big prod, that I like very much: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdfUCQjYPCQ
others of the same level will work with a point-and-shoot.

I knew the Helmut clip you linked, it is a good example indeed of reduce set that almost everybody could produce.

There is no IMO gear that is right. Some gets big and expensive, others no. The thing is doing it because that is what you really want and need based on your art, and as you mentionned, not based on marketing influence or social status or pixel reviews and not thinking that the gear has to do with talent but not ignoring it either when time comes because it influences a lot the workflow and the output type.

As for talent, I think that hard work, dedication, sweat and tears actually build the talent. There is an intimate connection to me between both concept. I hardly beleive of the romantic idea of "born talent". It does happen sometimes but if it's not trained intensively it vanishes.

My post was in fact not aimed to you in particular, I knew you knew those people equipment, it was clear in your lines. It was more a general thought from the idea of your post and others above.
Cheers.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: feppe on April 02, 2011, 10:23:01 pm
There is no IMO gear that is right. Some gets big and expensive, others no. The thing is doing it because that is what you really want and need based on your art, and as you mentionned, not based on marketing influence or social status or pixel reviews and not thinking that the gear has to do with talent but not ignoring it either when time comes because it influences a lot the workflow and the output type.

In your previous post you seemed to advocate the opposite view. Which is it?

Quote
As for talent, I think that hard work, dedication, sweat and tears actually build the talent. There is an intimate connection to me between both concept. I hardly beleive of the romantic idea of "born talent". It does happen sometimes but if it's not trained intensively it vanishes.

You misunderstand what "talent" is - it is innate, ie. "born talent." By definition it can't be built, and you're talking about something else. I do agree that talent - if such a thing exists - can be enhanced by hard work.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on April 03, 2011, 04:28:28 am
Spoken like a true 21st century victim of marketing. At least you didn't drop manufacturer names which seems to be the [i]de rigeur[/i] on pro blogs these days - often with the disclaimer "although they pay me [to push their products], I use their gear because it's the best."

I'm fully aware of the work and equipment the people I listed  - that's why I brought them up - so there's no reason to go on a googling binge. One can produce similar links to support  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RGunD1tngg)the polar opposite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9wkCLkVWcI) of what your links suggest. If you actually read what I wrote, I acknowledged they do use expensive equipment (not limited to cameras), but that they also occasionally (Avedon) or often (Newton) used cheap(er) equipment. For the truly hard-working top-tier artist equipment is not a pre-requisite for great results.

And hard work, dedication, sweat and tears will always supercede "talent," which is a concept as valid as astrology, and thoroughly debunked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29).





De rigeur: I like new, abbreviated French.

Googling binges: maybe you have missed the point that for those really into the thing, total immersion is where it's at.

Talent: without it, you get visual mechanics, not pyrotechnics.

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: fredjeang on April 03, 2011, 05:08:57 am
In your previous post you seemed to advocate the opposite view. Which is it?
Not at all. Maybe I expressed myself clumsily. Keep in mind that english is not my native lenguage and my vocabulary is rather limited, so I try to precise again the apparent paradox in a different way.

Gear is/are the tools for expressing one's art (in the context of the OP). In that sense, as tools that one uses on a daily basis, it has to be taken into serious consideration, and at the same time it's obvious that the tools are not making the talent or the art itself.

Just on this forum, we see people with high-end gear producing very average kind of imagery and others with simple equipment producing mastered art. Obviously the high-end equipment will not solve a problem of vision, of clear goal, of experience etc...On the contrary! As I expressed, high-end equipment will enhance whatever, and if the whatever is bad, it will enhance the lack of talent. It's like a guitar amplifier. You don't want to hear a beginner guitarist on a stack Marshall set for wembley stadium.

The marketing brain washing does not work only in one sense to high-end equipment. It is ridiculous to get a P65 just because it's expensive and powerfull if one do not really need it, and it is also ridiculous to see people cueing in the Holga shop in Madrid just because it's cool, cheap, anti-system and fashionable.

When you see the DP review kind of pages, you have everything about cameras, but much less about lenses. And lenses are crucial. You can have the best sensors, if the glass you put in front is a wreck, you can forget about what you've paid for. It should be much more lens reviews than camera reviews. Very little about the connection with studio equipment, very little about sync-speed and its consequences etc... no, just jpegs isos comparaisons that make no sense in the real world. And nothing about distribution, customer service etc...just pixels, menus and holliday samples. And those are cult webs that influence a lot the new generations.
That's why we end with those DR and DxO stuff that nobody in the spheres that I know cares at all. Young photographers end preocupated by the brain washing. They see an Hasselblad as a 50MP camera, not as an overall system for certain needs and kind of imagery.

First, people are photographers so they are in theory able to express themselves with whatever they can afford, or whatever they feel like working with. Then, with the experience, the personal style maturing, the natural tendencies of each individual, the needs for particular imagery etc... precise the tools. Generally they are diverse.
The problem comes when tools are choosen not from a real field perspective but from ideas, advertising influences or lack of experience, desire to be cool or to belong to a select club etc...
Idea that the tool will make one a better photographer. This is of course not the case.

I doubt many truth artists are looking into gear testings. They choose their tools based on their work and their workflow. If high-end gear appears in commercial is not because it's expensive, on the contrary, if they could cut costs at any price they would do it, specially in commercial. It's for good reasons that have very little to do with pixel-peeping or social status.
It makes me often smile when I sometimes read this pro who's fed-up with MF switched to the D3x. Still it is high-end equipment. They don't switch from a P65 to a G12 for their clients. There is also a logic with equipment but this logic can be broken at any time exactly like the rules can be broken at any time..

Choosing a view camera with digital back because you want this kind of look, for example in terms of DOF, and you feel at home with the slow process is perfectly fine if it serves your art. As well as if somebody feels that he-she wants to use a 50euros camera and no crew if it also serves your art is a good choice. Gear matters because they are your tools, they matters as tools and those tools can be expensives or not as there is imagery that is expensive to produce and other kind not. But it does not mean that an expensive imagery to produce is necesarly brilliant art. There is no direct correlation.

The mistake IMO is when somebody takes a rigid position, for example that MF or LF are just non-sense equipment snobery, or on the exact contrary, when MF users are claiming that small sensor and cheap gear are just toys for the average amateur. None of those ideas are truth. There are equipments for everybody, styles and needs.

I remember when I was young in Paris I used the Nikon F3, wich was a camera that I felt very well in my hands. When they released the F4, a friend of mine bought it. The F4 was a far superior camera but I felt extremely uncomfortable with it the first time I used it and decided not to upgrade despite the enhancements. I didn't need it at all. In fine arts I was using a 100 euros (francs at that time) 6x6 russian camera because it was the only one I could afford and it worked perfectly fine for me. I never felt frustrated or desperatly in need for more sophisticated equipment, but when I had the Mamiya the workflow was indeed smoother, easier and more reliable and I apreciated it a lot.

In my assistance, I have to work with the 5D2 and 1DMK3 because that's the main equipment of my boss and I really don't like the 5D2. I would never buy one for me, and it is a great bargain. Neither it serves the imagery I'm working on, nor it feels right in my hands and my workflow style. I'm very much onto very small size view camera more I gain experience and more my imagery is maturing because I like the kind of shooting very much, it serves my personal projects-direction, but it also mean that I have to use digital back because there is no other option and I hate tether. No miracle but compromises that work for one and not for the other. Tools are diverse and I also like to take my cheap Pentaxes manually, my old DP1 or whatever. Just that I won't take a DP1 for the same reason I would take a Red camera or a tech cam.

Good sunday.  

Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: feppe on April 03, 2011, 06:24:23 am
De rigeur: I like new, abbreviated French.

Fixed. Not sure if I can ever look in the mirror again :)

Quote
Talent: without it, you get visual mechanics, not pyrotechnics.

I know this is a whole different topic, but I at least provided research to support my case - you only supported yours with a pithy statement.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: feppe on April 03, 2011, 06:47:19 am
As I expressed, high-end equipment will enhance whatever, and if the whatever is bad, it will enhance the lack of talent. It's like a guitar amplifier. You don't want to hear a beginner guitarist on a stack Marshall set for wembley stadium.

You keep saying that, but I haven't seen any convincing examples showing such a tendency. Many of the greats in photography have produced great photos with both cheap and expensive gear. Also, many of the most famous and loved photographs were not produced with high-end gear. So gear doesn't matter.

On the other hand, no matter how much gear a poor photographer has will not make his photos better if he has no vision; you can't polish a turd * But I can't really see how a P&S would produce better photos in unskilled hands than a P65 - that's what you are claiming, right?

* Mythbusters busted that myth :P

Quote
The marketing brain washing does not work only in one sense to high-end equipment. It is ridiculous to get a P65 just because it's expensive and powerfull if one do not really need it, and it is also ridiculous to see people cueing in the Holga shop in Madrid just because it's cool, cheap, anti-system and fashionable.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote
When you see the DP review kind of pages, you have everything about cameras, but much less about lenses. And lenses are crucial. You can have the best sensors, if the glass you put in front is a wreck, you can forget about what you've paid for. It should be much more lens reviews than camera reviews. Very little about the connection with studio equipment, very little about sync-speed and its consequences etc... no, just jpegs isos comparaisons that make no sense in the real world. And nothing about distribution, customer service etc...just pixels, menus and holliday samples. And those are cult webs that influence a lot the new generations.
That's why we end with those DR and DxO stuff that nobody in the spheres that I know cares at all. Young photographers end preocupated by the brain washing. They see an Hasselblad as a 50MP camera, not as an overall system for certain needs and kind of imagery.

That's a bit unfair. First of all, DPR and DxOMark both produce very good lens reviews. Secondly, they are a business: if their customers read more camera reviews, that's what they will write. Don't blame the messenger.

The MFDB sub-forum here has plenty of long-term pros discussing minutiae of cameras, not just "brainwashed" "young photographers." Frankly I find it amazing that a pro has time for something like that - I can see the need for it in some contexts (architecture, documenting other artwork), though.

Quote
The mistake IMO is when somebody takes a rigid position, for example that MF or LF are just non-sense equipment snobery, or on the exact contrary, when MF users are claiming that small sensor and cheap gear are just toys for the average amateur. None of those ideas are truth. There are equipments for everybody, styles and needs.

Exactly. Thankfully there's very little of that here, even implied. From what I've heard, some people put gear on a pedestal in the pro world, usually perpetuated by insecure ADs or clients who don't know better.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: fredjeang on April 03, 2011, 08:06:55 am
You keep saying that, but I haven't seen any convincing examples showing such a tendency. Many of the greats in photography have produced great photos with both cheap and expensive gear. Also, many of the most famous and loved photographs were not produced with high-end gear. So gear doesn't matter.

On the other hand, no matter how much gear a poor photographer has will not make his photos better if he has no vision; you can't polish a turd * But I can't really see how a P&S would produce better photos in unskilled hands than a P65 - that's what you are claiming, right?


If many of the great photographers have produced great photos with anything is precisely because they are great. Saying "gear does not matter" as a truth conclusion is not a path I'd follow personaly, whoever says it. It seems to be your conclusion or thought, and it's fair and respectable, and I fully respect it if it's what you really feel, it's fine. There is no one golden truth anywhere in this world, everything is relative to a lot of factors. In my case, gear-does-not-matter is far from being my conclusion. As as said, gear are tools and to me they matter as far as tools can matter. Not more but certainly not less.

A P&S would not produce better photos in the hand of an unskilled hand. A P65 would just exhacerbate the lack of skills because it is more difficult to get good results with those cameras. A bad lightning setting, a slightly out-of focus, mistakes from unsecure photographer procedures are much more visible on this kind of platform. It's much much less forgiving. So yes, in a certain way, beginner mistakes will be more softened with entry-level equipment. (I don't see anyway why a beginner or week-end shooter  would uses a P65). But all the P65 does is as it can enhance a good work, it also enhances the lack of tech skills much more than a P&S does, so craft experience is more evident in one way or another than with a smaller equipment and that is generally truth more one goes bigger, like LF.  
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: EduPerez on April 04, 2011, 03:21:42 am
Yes, gear does matter; it matters a lot, indeed.

But it not a question of being better or worse, it is not a question of features, or resolution: it is a question of feeling. When a device feels good on my hand, I feel good, and being into that mood is very important to make good photographs; but when a device gets into the way, and makes me hate it, all I can think is about the device, not photography.

I doubt I will ever be capable of making a keeper from a small camera, or one without a viewfinder, for example.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on April 04, 2011, 03:51:09 am
Fixed. Not sure if I can ever look in the mirror again :)

I know this is a whole different topic, but I at least provided research to support my case - you only supported yours with a pithy statement.



I would have thought that the truth of the statement was self-evident. I don't feel inclined to leap off a tall building just to demonstrate the effect of gravity to a doubter! However, some do: I was recently sent a two-image cartoon of three guys in gowns standing in a little group. The first drawing shows the speaker wearing a suicide belt and saying: now listen carefully, I'm only going to demonstrate this once!  The second drawing shows the two amazed guys left, one saying: holy shit!

You see what I mean?

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: feppe on April 04, 2011, 12:14:37 pm
I would have thought that the truth of the statement was self-evident. I don't feel inclined to leap of a tall building just to demonstrate the effect of gravity to a doubter! However, some do: I was recently sent a two-image cartoon of three guys in gowns standing in a little group. The first drawing shows the speaker wearing a suicide belt and saying: now listen carefully, I'm only going to demonstrate this once!  The second drawing shows the two amazed guys left, one saying: holy shit!

You see what I mean?

The "truth" of the statement is self-evident only to those who believe talent is more important than sweat and tears. I would gladly change my position if there was evidence to support the opposite, or disputing the research I cited.

I don't know where you are going with your tangents most of the time, and this is definitely a time when I'm lost :P
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on April 04, 2011, 01:17:44 pm
The "truth" of the statement is self-evident only to those who believe talent is more important than sweat and tears. I would gladly change my position if there was evidence to support the opposite, or disputing the research I cited.

Harri, Did anyone say that hard work isn't part of it? Sure it is, but hard work alone doesn't get the job done -- unless you're talking about weddings or portraits or the kind of commercial photography where your clients want clichés.

Photography is kind of like music. You can work your butt off learning to play an instrument but unless you have an ear for it your product is going to be mundane at best. There's plenty of evidence to support that.

Back in the thirties some newspaper guy wrote that the reason Walker Evans's photographs were so good was because of the fine equipment he used. So Walker grabbed a box camera and made a few of the same fine photographs he'd made with his view cameras. Maybe they weren't as technically perfect as the ones he'd made with the view camera, but they carried the same messages and delivered them with the same power.

I certainly agree with Edu, that it helps to have a tool in your hand that feels right, but that's not the same thing as saying you have to have a comfortable tool in order to do good work.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: feppe on April 04, 2011, 01:28:11 pm
Photography is kind of like music. You can work your butt off learning to play an instrument but unless you have an ear for it your product is going to be mundane at best. There's plenty of evidence to support that.

That's a conveniently non-falsifiable claim.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: skiphunt on April 05, 2011, 12:06:07 pm
Heh! I forgot about this thread I started a few weeks ago. Figured it was dead. Some compelling stuff here. And to the guy who said that he felt this original question was "boring", etc. Sorry, didn't mean to start a boring conversation. I've been busy traveling on my motorcycle in Texas/Louisiana/Mississippi trying to make images with an iPhone for my current travel blog: http://www.kaleidoscopeofcolor.com/lsms-2011 And testing the viability of a new compact (Olympus XZ-1) in my continuing effort to scale it down and get back to the focus of image-making and not so much on the pixel-peeping: http://www.kaleidoscopeofcolor.com/galleria/txlsms-2011/

Good that you're such a great "thinker" that my humble thread bored you so much to spend so much time typing into it. lol ;-)
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: iamacamera on October 04, 2011, 03:20:47 pm
In times past I would absolutely agree that the camera (what camera you have) is beside the point.  I used, and still use, very old cameras, but I always careful to use film that I knew would do the job that I needed done.  Even the latest film would work fine in my old cameras.  All the R&R was in the film.  Now, all the R&R is in the camera.  Under those circumstances the brand new CanoNikon will give better results than earlier cameras.  SBT. SBT.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: fotometria gr on October 07, 2011, 07:52:04 pm
Skip, It always comes down to what Cartier-Bresson said: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." If you check fora like Nikonians or Leica Users Forum you'll read unending equipment testimonials from people whose lives apparently revolve around owning particular cameras and lenses but, in most cases, don't show pictures they've shot with their equipment. One of the beauties of LuLa is that people are interested in pictures, not equipment.

ln the end, the only thing expensive equipment can do for you is let you make pictures you couldn't even attempt with your point-and-shoot or your cell phone. But even with advanced equipment, looking still is everything.
Obviously in human activity brains is the master and body executes through tools, tools are important if they help to precisely achieve what brains intended. A finer tool is useless if it does nothing more that a lesser one already achieves, if "precisely" needs a different tool then it must be considered. Art is IMO the most important human activity..... Cartier said another important thing: "great photographer is the one that can "see" the PHOTOGRAPH before he even captures it...", It is obviously well related with his saying above that you quoted and perhaps it completes the ...picture. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
 P.S. A photograph is only the printed image on a piece of paper, ...nothing else.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: fotometria gr on October 07, 2011, 08:13:06 pm
Harri, Did anyone say that hard work isn't part of it? Sure it is, but hard work alone doesn't get the job done -- unless you're talking about weddings or portraits or the kind of commercial photography where your clients want clichés.

Photography is kind of like music. You can work your butt off learning to play an instrument but unless you have an ear for it your product is going to be mundane at best. There's plenty of evidence to support that.

Back in the thirties some newspaper guy wrote that the reason Walker Evans's photographs were so good was because of the fine equipment he used. So Walker grabbed a box camera and made a few of the same fine photographs he'd made with his view cameras. Maybe they weren't as technically perfect as the ones he'd made with the view camera, but they carried the same messages and delivered them with the same power.

I certainly agree with Edu, that it helps to have a tool in your hand that feels right, but that's not the same thing as saying you have to have a comfortable tool in order to do good work.

Being both a pro and a ...photographer, I use both kind of tools, the pro ones are the expensive ones, the creative ones are usually older, S/H and more precise to achieve the goal. "Get the job done" is an irrelevant phrase if it refers to art, "achieve the goal" is the phrase in the artist's mind and sometimes "goal" is only there... it doesn't concern others..., If it does, the artist becomes acceptable. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr 
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Corvus on October 25, 2011, 07:41:49 am
A camera does not produce art nor can art be produced without a camera.

Or perhaps that's too simple-minded.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: petermfiore on October 27, 2011, 02:53:37 pm
Art was made long before the camera.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: dreed on October 31, 2011, 04:28:20 am
Since when has gear not mattered?

Would the Mona Lisa look as good today if Da Vinci had of used water colours?

Would Michelangelo's "David" have been possible, never mind survived the many centuries, if he had lesser material than marble to work with?

In short, gear does matter but just having gear is not enough.

For photography, you've got to be able to see the result before you start. In some instances, what people see and photograph isn't even present in the real world so they use tools such as photoshop to bring out the colours that they do see with their mind and create something compelling in that manner. So in that sense, you have to consider the software that you use to process your images as part of "the gear."

And for photographers, this "being able to see" is central - Michael has covered this before on this website but I can't quickly find the article.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Fine_Art on October 31, 2011, 08:09:10 pm
This is a $35 camera.
This was shot on a one day walk about on one roll. Some of these I will rescan in multi-pass because they turned out better than I expected. I planned to convert to B/W prior to the shoot due to the expiry date of the film.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fineart48/sets/72157627877123855/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fineart48/sets/72157627877123855/)

If I had shot these with a fancy digital they would still be the same shots. People trying to make a buck will always peddle gear. 
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: JohnKoerner on November 01, 2011, 09:55:20 am
Have you studied art?  I have a bit.. basic classes.  But yes, what paints, brushes, chisels, etc.. it all matters.  Artists in those days (before commercial materials) were fanatical about mixing their perfect pigments/oils/lacquers and finding the perfect materials for their brushes.  They were this way because how much you can 'load' a brush is related to the length of a stroke, what type of brush makes differences in texture which is an element in the composition, and much more.. so clearly yes equipment matters.

To your second question.  I don't know and either does anyone else but Leonardo.  I don't know what he envisioned and I don't know how close he came to his vision and if/how much he was held back by his equipment.  So.. maybe.  Maybe not.  It was a bit of a strawman question no?

Listening to understand is a skill.  Many don't have it.  They immediately refuse to consider anything that doesn't fit their pre-defined views and come up with "can you give me a link.." sort of response.  If you cannot understand that certain medicines (equipment), certain types of xray/MRI/Pet scanners (equipment), and other DME gear can limit or enhance a doctor then it's not worth going into.

Yes, for some photographers being able to make more captures per second, having the camera available to make one capture after another was just taken, etc.. 'could' certainly result in art.  You really can't think of photographers who depend heavily on being able to make captures with faster frame rates (sports photographers, wildlife photographers, wedding photographers, etc)???  Really?  Yes, enhanced speed will help someone produce art by getting shots they wouldn't have otherwise captured, by obtaining sequences that otherwise wouldn't have been possible, or just having the camera ready after one shot when another presents itself.

The equation is should be clear to a reader.  It must be clear to a photographer.

I respectfully disagree.  The debate continues because people are saying exactly as you said and it doesn't make sense to people who can think for themselves.  What started out as a good natured word of advice (worry about your art more and equipment less) during an era people where scrambling for more megapixels.. has been blown totally out of context to the point where it just sounds silly.

Here's a quote for you.  "There are those who quote, and those who will be quoted."  Which one do you want to be?


Excellent post.



.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: JohnKoerner on November 01, 2011, 10:27:26 am
This is a $35 camera.
This was shot on a one day walk about on one roll. Some of these I will rescan in multi-pass because they turned out better than I expected. I planned to convert to B/W prior to the shoot due to the expiry date of the film.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fineart48/sets/72157627877123855/

And it shows ....




If I had shot these with a fancy digital they would still be the same shots. People trying to make a buck will always peddle gear.  

And IMO they'd still be disposable shots ... so I am not sure what your point is ???

Jack



.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on November 01, 2011, 10:32:43 am
There's a story about Brassaï photographing Laurence Durrell that seems appropriate to this thread. From Brassai: Images of Culture and the Surrealist Observer by Marja Warehime. Quotes are from Durrell's recollection of the session:

"... Brassaï had "hardly any equipment at all, one very old camera with a cracked lens hood" and "a tripod that kept kneeling down like a camel." ... "After several attempts worthy of Laurel and Hardy," Durrell and Brassaï managed to get Brassaï's tripod to stand up. ... "Quietly, absently," Brassaï began to talk about photography, all the while keeping an eye on Durrell, cutting short the conversation to signal him that he had moved into just the right position. He then focused and took his photograph."
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: JohnKoerner on November 01, 2011, 11:31:47 am
Since when has gear not mattered?
Would the Mona Lisa look as good today if Da Vinci had of used water colours?
Would Michelangelo's "David" have been possible, never mind survived the many centuries, if he had lesser material than marble to work with?
In short, gear does matter but just having gear is not enough.
For photography, you've got to be able to see the result before you start. In some instances, what people see and photograph isn't even present in the real world so they use tools such as photoshop to bring out the colours that they do see with their mind and create something compelling in that manner. So in that sense, you have to consider the software that you use to process your images as part of "the gear."
And for photographers, this "being able to see" is central - Michael has covered this before on this website but I can't quickly find the article.


This (and Steve Weldon's post on the preceding page) is probably the best post on the subject.

The either/or mentality is always flawed; the truth is both gear and talent matter. Of the two, artistic talent is clearly the most important to rise above the masses, when the camera is of acceptable quality and the lens range is of an acceptable nature, who is the "true artist" will readily become apparent between two photographers. Yet even with this concession, it is pretty hard to argue that a talented person using truly superior gear will simply be able augment whatever talent s/he has.

In some cases, however, quality gear is mandatory. For example (and the inane view that there is no such thing as 'wildlife art' notwithstanding), try taking a photograph of a bird 300 yards away without the right equipment, or try taking a 3x lifesize shot of an arthropod emerging from its pupa, without the right equipment, and you will quickly realize that some photographic shots are simply impossible without the right equipment. (Weldon's example of a doctor needing top gear to perform at his best comes to mind ... or one could also imagine a top racecar driver trying to win at Daytona Beach Raceway driving a Yugo also comes to mind.)

So equipment/gear does matter. I mean let's face it: shooting (and rendering) any kind of photograph "at all" without some kind of equipment is impossible, so to say "equipment doesn't matter" is preposterous right out of the gate: ya' can't do shyt without it (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)

Since any fool should be able to see that equipment is absolutely necessary just to be able to produce a photograph at all, then it shouldn't be too much of a mental step for any fool to realize that "some equipment is better than others."

If both of these 2 premises can be accepted as true ... 1) that equipment is absolutely necessary just to be able to take a photograph and 2) that some equipment is more capable than other pieces of equipment, it is just an automatic step of logic that better equipment will produce better results, all other things being equal.

Just because good equipment may not "bestow" artistic talent on the buyer does not change the fact that good equipment will enhance the potential of whatever artistic talent is present in the buyer.

Artistic talent is a gift that can rise above mediocre equipment ... and talented work will always shine when compared to the work of the untalented. However, when artistic talents become equivalent between two individuals, then any disparity in equipment and rendering will become quite evident.

In the end, good equipment can only help talent shine ... and while lousy equipment may not "prevent" talent from being noticed, lousy equipment will hinder talent from achieving its full potential.

Jack




.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Fine_Art on November 01, 2011, 06:39:02 pm
And it shows ....




And IMO they'd still be disposable shots ... so I am not sure what your point is ???

Jack



.

If you cant understand pictures of people's lives are not dependent on the equipment you don't see art. Your images are very good technical recordings of things. Clear, crisp, technically very good. Also lifeless. Most cameras are more than good enough at presenting the subject well. All basic DSLRs now are much better than anything available through most of the history of art. The idea that people are equipment limited is a fallacy. Most photographers are limited by their time with the subject. The ability of a $100,000 camera vs a $1000 camera is minuscule compared to other issues in making the art.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Corvus on November 02, 2011, 03:22:46 am
The ability of a $100,000 camera vs a $1000 camera is minuscule compared to other issues in making the art.

What's the difference between a mediocre photographer taking mediocre pictures with a 150 buck kit lens compared to a 1000 buck Zeiss?

- With the Zeiss he will now be able to take sharper mediocre pictures.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: JohnKoerner on November 07, 2011, 08:43:20 am
If you cant understand pictures of people's lives are not dependent on the equipment you don't see art.

Perhaps it's you who can't understand the reality that "pictures of people's lives" do not constitute the only form of art.

Secondly, all pictures are dependent on some form of "equipment" or another, so unless you come to terms with the fact that all photographs are dependent upon equipment it is impossible to have a meaningful disussion with you.





Your images are very good technical recordings of things. Clear, crisp, technically very good. Also lifeless.

Thank you for the compliments on my techincal skill in taking macro shots. As for the "lifeless" comment about my photos, I would have to disagree, seeing as my photos are of wildlife. I find your comment interesting, however, as one of the most consistent compliments I get are that my photos are "bursting with colors and life," but you most certainly have the right to your own opinion.

One more thing I would like to mention about the photos I have taken is that you couldn't possibly duplicate photos of this kind with a standard lens ... especially that $35 beauty you used ... you would have to have the right equipment in order to come close ;)




Most cameras are more than good enough at presenting the subject well.

Actually, cameras don't "present" the subject at all (they merely record what gets presented to the sensor). Lenses are what present the subject, and so here again we're talking about equipment, are we not?

And as far as being able to "present the subject well," the degree of effectiveness in doing so all depends on what that subject is too, doesn't it? I can promise you that your little $35 camera couldn't take a single acceptable photograph of an insect or butterfly, nor could it render a single acceptable bokeh in a macro shot either. For that matter, even a high-end standard lens also couldn't take a single acceptable 1:1 macro shot, nor any kind of natural bird shot, either. So, here again, the ability to take certain kinds of photographs is entirely dependent upon choice of equipment.

At the end of the day, you might be interested to know that, regardless of what kind of shot you're taking, it requires both cameras and lenses, which are nothing but "equipment" ...




All basic DSLRs now are much better than anything available through most of the history of art.

This is true.

However, by saying that the equipment of today is "much better" than anything available in times-gone-by, you are therefore admitting that some equipment is "better than others," are you not?




The idea that people are equipment limited is a fallacy.

In point of fact, the idea that people can "do anything they want" without the right equipment to do so is what constitutes true fallacy ;)




Most photographers are limited by their time with the subject. The ability of a $100,000 camera vs a $1000 camera is minuscule compared to other issues in making the art.

The limitations of time may be yet another limitation, but no photographer can take a single picture of any subject (regardless of the time he has), without the necessary equipment to do so. And even if you had a decent camera, if all you had was a standard lens, I could give you all the time in the world, but you still could never take a single 1:1 macro shot with it, nor could you take a single wide-angle shot with it, nor could you take a single super-telephoto shot with it. Here again, you would have to have the right equipment in order to obtain these kinds of shot.




The ability of a $100,000 camera vs a $1000 camera is minuscule compared to other issues in making the art.

You are clearly thinking within the limited terms of your own kind of "snapshot" photography. If you are only thinking within this limited context, then I agree with you that if a person's only photographic goal is to run all over town snapping random shots of buildings, of people sitting on benches, and other assorted 'standard range' shots (as you do) ... then any old camera will do ... as you just proved with your $35 experiment.

However, if you want to take the kind of ultra-precise photos I take, of exceptionally-small subjects, or of any kind of specialized subject at all, you aren't going to be able to get to first base without the right equipment to enable you to do so.

Cheers,

Jack




.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: DeeJay on November 13, 2011, 08:22:31 am
Depends entirely on your aesthetic. Art is "fashionable" and has it's own sense of fashion. High res it seems is certainly in.

You can create an incredible piece of art with a pin hole or an sx70. But doesn't mean it will suit modern tastes.

THere's a lot of luck involved with stabling on to a process that becomes fashionable.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: petermfiore on November 16, 2011, 06:50:31 am
If you take away an artist's tools he will learn how to spit beautifully.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: allegretto on December 01, 2011, 11:34:20 am
Hello all,

I'm a rank amateur and have enjoyed reading the back an forth in this post. Lots of well-thought positions, some a little weak, but the banter both good natured and otherwise is fun to read since I know none of you.

I have a question; it seems that the OP has a real cool lifestyle/profession with his planes, trains and automobiles (and motorcycles and backpack) shooting style. And he possess some very strong feelings about the irrelevance of high-end equipment in the pursuit of "Art". To prove his point he takes an iPhone assignment and then pumps the heck out of the images in PP. To my uneducated eye the photos are so saturated and manipulated that their humble origin was obscured long ago. But nonetheless he pronounces them Art.

So; does great hardware = not Art, but excessive software manipulation somehow = "Art"?

And petermfiore; if you're going to paraphrase Picasso that closely, shouldn't you at least offer attribution?

Oh, one more thing;

-arthroscopic knee/shoulder surgery vs. old open joint procedures
- radiographic guided stents, biopsies and the like
- laser vision correction vs. radial keratotmy 

All examples of hardware allowing nearly new trainees to perform safer and more efficacious procedures than their far more experienced predecessors ever could without these toys. Could name many more if anyone wants, but I figured this was sufficient for now

Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 01, 2011, 12:13:13 pm
So, to use your propensity for simplified equations:

"New trainees" + great hardware = art?

Making things easier = art?

You seem to live in a binary world, where something is either 0 or 1 (i.e., either is or isn't). However, in the real world, great hardware neither equals "not art," nor it equals art. Excessive software manipulation neither equals "not art," nor it equals art.

Great hardware makes things easier, and... that's it. It does not make art "artier".
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: allegretto on December 01, 2011, 01:00:23 pm
So, to use your propensity for simplified equations:

"New trainees" + great hardware = art?

Making things easier = art?

You seem to live in a binary world, where something is either 0 or 1 (i.e., either is or isn't). However, in the real world, great hardware neither equals "not art," nor it equals art. Excessive software manipulation neither equals "not art," nor it equals art.

Great hardware makes things easier, and... that's it. It does not make art "artier".

Actually my comment about trainees was related to Mssers. Weldon and RSL and their discussion (?) abut whether a surgeon's art could be improved with hardware which begins at the very top of page 2

My other question was directed to the OP who felt it was easy for him to produce "Art" with an iPhone but somehow neglected to give credit to post processing. So is PP manipulation "Art"?

Not sure why you feel my decision process is "binary". It was me who was questioning others. I never offered my own opinion since I'm not as experienced as any of you. Simply looking at things and asking for clarification.

Tough crowd... ;D
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: petermfiore on December 01, 2011, 01:35:24 pm
  Hello Allegretto,


Picasso was one of the greatest visual thieves of all time. I do mean that in a good way. No need for attribution, Picasso would understand.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 01, 2011, 01:46:55 pm
... I never offered my own opinion...

And that could be a problem in itself.

If you do not take your stand clearly, then people will most likely resort to reading between the lines. Or, to paraphrase Margaret Tatcher (see, I can attribute ;)): do not stand in the middle of the road... you risk being overrun by both sides. As for my own stand, formulated very broadly, I clearly believe equipment does not matter for arts.

As for "just asking questions," yes, that is a very popular debating stile. You seem like an educated guy, so you are surely aware that questions are often used as cleverly disguised statements. For instance, when the Fox News runs a feature headlined as a question: "Is Obama A Socialist?," only some would believe that to be an innocuous, open-ended question. A disclaimer here: I really do not want this to turn into a left vs. right debate, or about Fox... just the first thing that comes to my mind about cunning questions. So, in the interest of fairness, the same would be true if, say, MSNBC runs the same feature, headlined the same, except, of course, the implied answer would go in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: allegretto on December 01, 2011, 02:52:45 pm
While I wasn't specifically offering a debate gambit by my question, I do appreciate exactly what you are saying and I was making a statement. You and the Grand Dame are quite right. Thank you for the invitation, won't hesitate to offer my insight (or lack of it) and dutifully/good naturedly suffer the consequences! I hope others will see it that way... as previously stated I lack the awareness on some issues but am eager to learn.

This thread caught my eye since i am likely the dilettante many here rue. Been nothing but an amateur all my life, but my day job allows me some of life's luxuries. Of relevance here is my Leica collection which has ebbed and flowed over the years. Modestly would suggest that many here have missed the boat regarding my affair with the German way.

No delusions that my art will ever grace any gallery. My subjects are my family, colleagues and minor events. No doubt most pros would rip my work to shreds with withering criticisms. But I don't really care, my art is for me and my family. But unlike a previous post, would share some of my favorites if anyone expressed interest.

So why the high-end toys? Would readily acknowledge that many less expensive items would yield similar results. But the images are so sharp and the color balance pleases my eye. Further, when I crop (no limits for me in terms of how much is cut or the resultant proportions unless truly bizarre... usually) the image holds up well. Went Canon for a few years for the versatility and options but something about the balance and sharpness didn't suit me. Beyond that, just the feel and more minimal ergonomics are very attractive as well.

So I think it unenlightened to argue that those of less experience than many here buy equipment as that because they think it some automatic ticket to competency. Life is too short... take your delight where it hits you.

And to be perfectly forthright, I felt the OP's stated hypothesis was flawed for the reasons stated above. He was trying waay to hard for my tastes. But whatever floats your boat.

and petermfiore? Great answer! touche!

Great crowd here... thank you Slobodan.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 01, 2011, 03:21:26 pm
... So why the high-end toys?...

Hell, yeah!!!

Give me high-end toys any day of the week! I love them! Have or had them too. Hasselblad, Contax, Zeiss, Bang & Olufsen  ... I love them not for what they can do for my art (or "art"), but for being beautifully designed machines, pleasure to hold, use and look at. I never truly fell in love with Leica, though wanted to buy an earlier R model (R7, I think) at some point, but changed my mind after holding it in store. However, I recently had a chance to hold the latest and greatest, S2, and literally wanted to cry, how beautifully it holds in my hands (can not afford it though).

See? Nothing wrong with enjoying your Leica... and let us see some of your images at some point.

Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: kencameron on December 01, 2011, 06:09:30 pm
"Nothing wrong with enjoying your leica" - exactly so, and nothing wrong with enjoying your iPhone or your Holga either. Surely in order to do consistently good work you need to enjoy using your equipment. That enjoyment can come from various places. Fitness for purpose has to be one of them. A photographer who wants to produce large prints of sharp images of Mount Everest is unlikely to enjoy trying to achieve this with her iPhone, whereas if she wants to post on line some surreptitious airport snapshots of travelers behaving badly she may not have good success with her large format digital back and Eiffel Tower sized tripod. But it is not all about fitness for purpose or at least, that phrase has to be understood broadly. People also like or dislike particular equipment for aesthetic, psychological and even quasi-political reasons. Clean lines, fine engineering, brilliant software, the latest thing, old but still good, matches my outfit, yes my intimate equipment really is as big as my lens, expensive but I can easily afford it, simple and accessible to the common people - and so on. Whatever gets you in the mood to take a photograph. Speaking personally, I respect my 5d2, it is admirably fit for a lot of purposes, but I can't say I love it - it is big, noisy and ugly and like some other people on this site I find myself dangerously attracted to portability and wondering whether the Sony Nex 7 really will provide the best of quite a few (but not all) possible worlds. Some people only take one kind of photograph, and therefore have specific requirements for equipment. Others use different tools for different purposes, either simultaneously or over time as their interests change. One of the things I appreciate about Michael R's reviews, and Sean Reid's, is that they always think about the photographic purposes for which a camera is suitable and understand and respect a wide range of photographic purposes. And a lot of the useless argument about cameras comes from people who think, or unthinkingly assume, that theirs is the only worthwhile way to do photography.

Ken C (http://kencameron.zenfolio.com/)
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: allegretto on December 01, 2011, 06:17:43 pm
trying to post a few images here but even in lousy .jpg it runs 3+M which should work. it says 4096KB max

am I missing something?
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on December 01, 2011, 07:21:25 pm
Whatever gets you in the mood to take a photograph.

What, other than something worth photographing, would get you in the mood to take a photograph?
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: kencameron on December 01, 2011, 08:00:59 pm
What, other than something worth photographing, would get you in the mood to take a photograph?

That would work for me. Also maybe seeing a camera which I enjoy using on my table and thinking it might be interesting to go for a walk and look for something worth photographing. Or seeing an interesting effect in a photograph by someone else and thinking that I would like to try something similar. Or imagining an image and thinking it might be worth going out and looking for it in the world. Different strokes.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: luxborealis on December 06, 2011, 09:25:02 pm
I suppose we have to start with "what is art?" But that's a lifetime journey in itself...

There are photographers and there are artists. Skating well, doesn't make you a figure skater; baking well doesn't make you a chef; taking pictures does not make you an artist. Art is less about well you see and more about expressing what you feel.

If art is the goal then, no, gear doesn't matter too much provided you can create the art that's inside you with the gear you have. "Gear" certainly doesn't matter to the average buyer of fine prints. As photographers, we often forget that most people are attracted to the emotion of a photograph, not the pixels. I can tell when another photographer is looking at my work - they walk right up to it and pixel peep. Those who appreciate art for the emotional connection begin by just standing there, then move to one side and have another look. They might walk up to it, but not to pixel peep but rather to read the signature or the title card. Then they'll bring someone else over to validate their emotions. (I know, it sounds a bit crass, but that's what appears to be happening!)

Astute buyers will appreciate a photograph for its emotional connection, but also recognize quality craftsmanship when they see it. Perhaps this discussion is more about craft than art. From my experience, most people buying photography at weekend art shows don't recognize craftsmanship which is why so many poorly crafted photographs sell - buyers have an emotional connection to the scene.

That being said, I have what one would might call a jaded view of galleries which is often the next "level" artists aspire to. Gallery-owners place an emphasis on gear seemingly for two disparate reasons:
A. How "serious" is this photographer? (i.e. they rate the saleability of a photographer by how much the photographer has invested, after all, the gallery is going to invest as well and they want to know the artist is serious. All things being equal, the more the photographer has invested the more the gallery-owner might be willing to invest.)
Unless scenario two comes along...
B. An unknown/undiscovered "diamond in the rough" shooting amazing stuff with a sexy new gadget like an iPhone. Again - that translates into sales because it's a human interest story and can become a "project" of the gallery-owner, a "discovery" if you like.

Is it art? - no more or less than any other quality photography. But who said the gallery world is about art. It's as much about sales as the camera gear industry, but at least most gallery owners recognize superior craft.

Remember - "it's not what ya got... it's what you do with what ya got". So, in the hands of an artist, the same scene will turn out entirely different from the average photographer, irrespective of equipment. It's all in the eye and your ability to use the tools you have (visual design elements, gear, darkroom/lightroom) to recreate what you saw and felt at the moment. Once you have a well-crafted photograph, it's now up to marketing as to how well that photograph becomes formally recognized as "art". In the meantime, keep working on your craft.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Isaac on December 08, 2011, 12:14:14 pm
Is it art? - no more or less than any other quality photography.

"To make art is to pursue an idea in a visual way... (http://books.google.com/books?id=KeKJ9NrMN64C&lpg=PA176&ots=QY_gtWR6Zc&dq=%22To%20make%20art%20is%20to%20pursue%20an%20idea%20in%20a%20visual%20way%22&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q=%22To%20make%20art%20is%20to%20pursue%20an%20idea%20in%20a%20visual%20way%22&f=false) Look at the work of mature contemporary drawing artists and you will see this very process ... all these artists are pursuing and questioning abstract ideas through the vehicle of those images, and so when you look more closely, you will see beyond the images and into the variations of those internal ideas."

Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on December 13, 2011, 12:21:45 pm
What, other than something worth photographing, would get you in the mood to take a photograph?




The obvious answer, of course, is money.

Apart from that point, yes, you are absolutely right. I struggle with the question every day. I feel the urge to justify the small fortune I've spent post-retirement on buying again equipment I owned and then sold towards the end of my pro days. And that's difficult.

Inspiration doesn't come knocking every day, and going out with a load of stuff and an empty mind isn't very productive either. The perfect combination is when one has a semi-formulated idea of location, treatment and lens. That way one can travel light and, if it comes to nothing, at least the exercise has done the heart some good.

That was one of the purposes of travelling to exotic locations: one got a fresh perspective on life and whatever one was supposed to be shooting. At least, that was the best reason I could offer my clients at the time, and it must have seemed sensible to them...

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on December 15, 2011, 07:33:02 pm
Yes, exotic locations can snap you out of a slump, but I'm not sure it's a solution to what you're feeling. The world is full of fascinating images -- people, architecture, even sometimes landscapes. If I know I'm after architecture or its equivalent, as when I'm traveling cross-country and poking through dying towns, I have my D3 with an L bracket and 24-70 lens on the floor of the car between the front seats, and a tripod behind me -- a load of stuff. But when I go out with a small camera -- one I can hold in my hand with the strap around my wrist -- and a 50mm prime or its equivalent I don't have even a semi-formulated idea of location or treatment. I'm looking for things that strike my eye -- whatever they are. Here's one of those things from last night in St. Augustine, Florida, where I spent a couple days and walked about 30 miles looking for photographs. Tomorrow I've got to start going through the two-day catch and culling.

No, inspiration doesn't come knocking every day, but it seems to me that just going out into the world and looking often gets inspiration at least to hang out around my shoulder. Just going out and shooting tends to get things moving. With digital it's especially easy because as soon as you get home you can see what you grabbed. For me at least most of it turns out to be dumpable, but then, every once in a while there's that one that stopped your heart when you tripped the shutter, and it turns out to be there... right in front of you on the screen.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 15, 2011, 07:48:52 pm
Hi,

In general I prefer well executed images. Fine detail may be interesting/important in many images.

The image is important, not the way it was taken.

Best regards
Erik


Just curious what the general reactions of photographers are when they're looking at photographic images from an art appreciation point of view.

Over the last 30 years I've shot everything from 4x5 view cameras to simple cell phone digicams. I've been obsessed with gear off and on, but have gravitated over the last few years to simply looking at what an image conveys and how I feel about it. I really don't care as much about pixels, noise, gadgets, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems to me that all the manufacturer emphasis on gear and the tech side of things, including painstaking pixel-peeping camera reviews has shifted the user/viewer's attention away from the vision of the photographer and more on the gear itself. As if the photographer doesn't matter so much anymore if you have bought the latest and greatest version of some new gear.

Of course I know this isn't true, but it seems like the meme has taken hold and it likely sells a lot more cameras. Still, it's painful to hear, "Hey, that's a really nice image. What camera made that image?" As if all one must do to make nice images is buy the fanciest, most expensive, most sophisticated machine and then push a button.

After again lugging Nikon dSLR gear and a small Panasonic LX3 compact on a U.S. motorcycle journey http://www.kaleidoscopeofcolor.com/galleria/go-west-color/ I discovered getting back to just using a simple compact  appealed to me. My intent was to work on publishing a book of my photos and journaling from the road to capture more of a LIVE feel http://amzn.to/hE9KNG So, I figured I better make myself shoot more sophisticated dSLR gear for the extra resolution. However, I found that I actually ended up using just as many images from the much easier to shoot LX3 stuff in the book. Sure, you can tell a difference between the compact and dSLR images, but I don't believe there's much difference in how the images emotionally convey what I intended.

I recently backpacked for a month in Mexico. I've spent many years traveling off and on in Mexico. Have lugged 35mm gear through the jungle, and heavy dSLR gear all over the country on motorcycles, backpacking, buses, etc. So, at this point I figured I had plenty of satisfying images of Mexico (from a 2009 Motorcycle/Mexico trip: http://vimeo.com/7268216 ) and could leave the heavy gear behind at home for a change and force myself to simply use only an iPhone 4 and apps for editing and uploading. Also published short MagCloud magazines from the road via my travel blog http://www.kaleidoscopeofcolor.com/mexico-2011 (sorry, it shows me still in Mexico but I got the flu on the way back and haven't got around to wrapping it up yet)

After I got home and noticed how well the iPhone images actually held up and printed, I was fairly shocked to be honest: http://skip-hunt.artistwebsites.com/art/all/mexico+winter+2011/all

So, my question is this... when photographers look at images in general do they now mostly study the image for pixel quality and make an aesthetic decision whether they like an image based on how much resolution and lack of noise there is? Or whether or not the image was obviously made with the state of the art full-frame camera? Or, if the photographer managed to make something nice with the simplicity of an iPhone, Holga, or a toy camera?

Or, do you first look at an image and decide how you feel about it based on how the image effects you without regard for how and what camera was used to create it?

Skip Hunt
Austin, Texas
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: luxborealis on December 15, 2011, 09:54:26 pm
Quote
Yes, exotic locations can snap you out of a slump, but I'm not sure it's a solution to what you're feeling.

How true! I have always believed that our best potential is our own backyard. It has continued as a major theme in my work through out my life.

One of the things I learned whilst I was working and travelling for seven years in Tanzania, England and Europe, was that photographers who are closest to these wonderfully exotic places have the best opportunity of capturing scenes at just the right time under just the right conditions. I always lamented that they could be there when it counts. As a tourist, I would simply have to do the best I could under the conditions given to me in the few days or weeks I was in a place.

Upon arriving back on home turf it occurred to me that to people from other continents, my home location of southern Ontario is exotic (I know, it seems a stretch!) AND, who is better placed to portray the best of this exotic place than photographers like me, as I live here and can be where I need to be relatively quickly. I can also scout out locations for another day or next year.

Sure everywhere else is exotic, but to everyone else it's exotic right here. If you go through life with that thought running through your head, you will never be at a loss for photographs.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on December 16, 2011, 03:58:32 am
Well, I'm afraid that I have to remain the odd man out!

My own experiences on trips were that I was far more awake and aware, that very often the recce trip was even more rewarding in terms of the non-model pics (I was only location scouting on those - model pix were the final objective for the actual shoot) than the real shoot. I found nothing compared with the 'shock' of the new. By the time I returned with the girls, it wasn't that exciting anymore.

As for the backyard: when we first moved out here to Mallorca my wife and I drove down the whole accessible bits of coastline looking for beaches and cliffs (and restaurants) that we could use; the main reason for leaving the original backyard was to live in better photo-locations for calendar-style work (and stock) than found in Scotland and with warmer waters!

And you know what? After thirty years that new 'backyard' has become so boring (to me) that I no longer feel capable of seeing it with fresh eyes. In fact, today, I'd probably get fresher shots back in friggin' Scotland!

That's the secondary problem, apart from the basic lack of models which is the greater.

On the other hand, the new reality has made me think more in terms of the unreality around me; that's partly why I recently bought my second cat Nikkor, and also perhaps why I bought a 105 micro Nikkor a couple of years ago. Perhaps my salvation lies in avoiding the obvious, and exploring what's not in front of my nose, in creating my own little world.

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 16, 2011, 08:45:27 am
My own experiences on trips were that I was far more awake and aware, that very often the recce trip was even more rewarding in terms of the non-model pics (I was only location scouting on those - model pix were the final objective for the actual shoot) than the real shoot. I found nothing compared with the 'shock' of the new. By the time I returned with the girls, it wasn't that exciting anymore.
Oh, dear, Rob! You're not saying that the exotic locations looked better without the girls are you? That would go entirely against the RSL/RobC Philosophy of Landscape Photography, that every landscape needs either the Hand of Man or the Body of Woman.

Eric
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 16, 2011, 08:52:54 am
... the RSL/RobC Philosophy of Landscape Photography, that every landscape needs either the Hand of Man or the Body of Woman...

Or SB's philosophy (ok, more like a wishful thinking) that has both, preferably combined? ;D
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on December 16, 2011, 10:39:31 am
Oh, dear, Rob! You're not saying that the exotic locations looked better without the girls are you? That would go entirely against the RSL/RobC Philosophy of Landscape Photography, that every landscape needs either the Hand of Man or the Body of Woman.

Eric


Nope, Eric, sorry to disappoint you! I'm just saying that the second take isn't that exciting regarding the location anymore. The girls provide their own intrinsic je ne sais quoi (lies! I sais perfectly well!) which makes it okay... actually, my best client used to make use of a mix of both girls and location 'atmospherics', the latter mostly shot on the recce since it was best use of available time.

I enclose this example hidden deep inside the Biscuit Tin on my site; it was part of the cover, the whole cover consisting of two sections; a top one with all the image pages, and a lower one also wiro-bound to the backing board on which lived the dates, credits and the various company logos. Logos, because the Group had me make 42 different versions with different company names and stuff... kept me working for months. Wish they still did, but though they were the largest civil engineering plant-hire and plant-sales group in the UK, they ended up being bought out by a Canadian group... so endeth the fortunes of Man, never mind his hand. And much of his income.

;-(

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: fotometria gr on December 22, 2011, 06:22:20 pm
"To make art is to pursue an idea in a visual way... (http://books.google.com/books?id=KeKJ9NrMN64C&lpg=PA176&ots=QY_gtWR6Zc&dq=%22To%20make%20art%20is%20to%20pursue%20an%20idea%20in%20a%20visual%20way%22&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q=%22To%20make%20art%20is%20to%20pursue%20an%20idea%20in%20a%20visual%20way%22&f=false) Look at the work of mature contemporary drawing artists and you will see this very process ... all these artists are pursuing and questioning abstract ideas through the vehicle of those images, and so when you look more closely, you will see beyond the images and into the variations of those internal ideas."


+1
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: jessuca09 on February 06, 2012, 02:11:34 am
I admit to being a "propellor-head" and lusting after megapixels, and yet, the images that I appreciate the most, are the ones that I can emotionally connect to. My first DSLR, at 6 mpix, is used just as often as my newer 12 mpix one. And it will continue to be used when I upgrade to the next 24 mpix model.




(http://www.herfree.com/avatar.php)
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on February 06, 2012, 09:31:54 am
I admit to being a "propellor-head" and lusting after megapixels, and yet, the images that I appreciate the most, are the ones that I can emotionally connect to. My first DSLR, at 6 mpix, is used just as often as my newer 12 mpix one. And it will continue to be used when I upgrade to the next 24 mpix model.

(http://www.herfree.com/avatar.php)



Why? And if so, why upgrade at all?

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Vincen77o on February 13, 2012, 04:13:20 am
Having looked at the phone images I got to thinking that yes, gear does matter. The lack of quality stood out and I thought if I had a Phase One I could take, obviously, far better images. My canon and 3/4 Lumix could easily take better images.
Then I saw the latest article on the site 'The Making of Sugarloaf Rock', taken with a Phase One. This is art, not plain photography, as the image is highly enhanced. I recently bought a cheapo Olympus for $150 which could have taken the initial picture of Sugarloaf Rock.
The answer is that if you want to take pro photographs get some gear, but if it's art you're after, stick with the phone.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on February 13, 2012, 09:22:50 am
Having looked at the phone images I got to thinking that yes, gear does matter. The lack of quality stood out and I thought if I had a Phase One I could take, obviously, far better images. My canon and 3/4 Lumix could easily take better images.
Then I saw the latest article on the site 'The Making of Sugarloaf Rock', taken with a Phase One. This is art, not plain photography, as the image is highly enhanced. I recently bought a cheapo Olympus for $150 which could have taken the initial picture of Sugarloaf Rock.
The answer is that if you want to take pro photographs get some gear, but if it's art you're after, stick with the phone.


I wish I could agree with you!

Cellphone 'art' is okay as long as you want to stay with tiny Internet pics as I do with it; if you want to print, then forget it. In my own lot, hardly any of them are as shot: the image is invisible in the shooting conditions, and all I can do is make a guess at how much might actually be on the sensor when I go click, and even that is a matter of doubt since who can tell when the actual exposure is being made, what delays might be in process? So really, chopping bits out of an inferior medium ain't gonna give you paper-based art! Plenty of frustration about what might have been, but not a lot more. As for going back with a decent camera to reshoot: you gotta be kidding! Once shot the idea is as dead as the dodo.

The cellphone is always around, but it isn't a solution for anything serious.

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on February 13, 2012, 11:52:08 am
The cellphone is always around, but it isn't a solution for anything serious.

Which is exactly why, even though my cell is on my belt, unless I'm lugging my D3 I carry a little E-p1 with a Leica auxiliary finder and a 25mm (50mm equivalent) DG Summilux lens on it wherever I go. I can print up to 17 x 22 with the raw files from that camera. Couldn't even begin to touch it with the cell.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on February 13, 2012, 02:15:40 pm
Which is exactly why, even though my cell is on my belt, unless I'm lugging my D3 I carry a little E-p1 with a Leica auxiliary finder and a 25mm (50mm equivalent) DG Summilux lens on it wherever I go. I can print up to 17 x 22 with the raw files from that camera. Couldn't even begin to touch it with the cell.




Russ, what's an E-p1? I'm not up to speed with small cameras.

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: langier on February 13, 2012, 03:10:09 pm
IMO, discussions of cameras, lenses, sensors, film, noise, grain, ad infinitum when it comes to the aesthetics of a photograph is simple B.S. It's nothing more than polishing a turd trying to one-up that the tools I use were better than the image and since I use good junk, that matters more than the image.

Take Van Gough's Starey-starey night. Is the impact any better because he used Windsor-Newton Cerulean Blue oil with an Ultretch No. 10 Hog Bristle brush on Gumbacher canvas?  I think not. If I used my Wolfgang Puck pot to cook you a can of beans, would the gas I gave you smell sweater than if I simply cooked them in the can over a fire in the hearth? I think not.

It's still the vision and the craft that matters!

Look at the photos in many photo magazines. The best photos from the best photographers are great images. The rest listing cameras, lenses, tripods, media, filters, etc., are nothing more than a way to sell you more crap. The implication is that if spent your wad on all that stuff and used the same tripod holes as was used on the published image, you, too will have just as good image. Not! Get over it!

Sure, if you are learning, get into the minds of great photographers and emulate. Then move on and form your own vision, unique to your work and stop shooting using the same old crap in the same old place and creating the same old and tired view.

Now go out and create a gee-whiz image of something new and exciting!!!
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on February 13, 2012, 04:37:36 pm
Russ, what's an E-p1? I'm not up to speed with small cameras.

Hi Rob, It's an Olympus micro four-thirds "mirrorless" camera. Its sensor is essentially the same 12 megapixel sensor Olympus uses in their DSLRs. It's exactly half frame, and even though individual sensor size is moderately small in a four-thirds array, I find I can operate up to ISO 1600 and usually not pick up enough noise to worry about. It's about the same size and weight as my old Leica M4, and several months ago Panasonic came out with a 25mm DG Summilix for it. On a half-frame that scales up to the equivalent of 50mm on a full-frame -- my favorite prime lens for the street (and a lot of other places). With the Summilux's f/1.4 lens the thing's usable almost anywhere. I shot that picture "Over There" that I posted a week or so ago in User Critiques with the E-P1 at f/1.4 and 1/60 second.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on February 13, 2012, 07:15:54 pm
Hi Rob, It's an Olympus micro four-thirds "mirrorless" camera. Its sensor is essentially the same 12 megapixel sensor Olympus uses in their DSLRs. It's exactly half frame, and even though individual sensor size is moderately small in a four-thirds array, I find I can operate up to ISO 1600 and usually not pick up enough noise to worry about. It's about the same size and weight as my old Leica M4, and several months ago Panasonic came out with a 25mm DG Summilix for it. On a half-frame that scales up to the equivalent of 50mm on a full-frame -- my favorite prime lens for the street (and a lot of other places). With the Summilux's f/1.4 lens the thing's usable almost anywhere. I shot that picture "Over There" that I posted a week or so ago in User Critiques with the E-P1 at f/1.4 and 1/60 second.


Thanks for the info - I'd never looked into smaller cameras than 35mm...

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Vincen77o on February 14, 2012, 04:33:58 am
My earlier answer re: cell-phones was a bit tongue in cheek, but I am using a G3, another micro 3/4 camera like the E-p1, and as Russ says, the images they produce are very usable.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Tom Frerichs on February 14, 2012, 04:57:48 pm
Upon arriving back on home turf it occurred to me that to people from other continents, my home location of southern Ontario is exotic (I know, it seems a stretch!) ...


Where I live, I have the Colorado Rockies in my backyard, a locale visited by photographers year round. But I don't find them "exotic." For me, that category requires the following:

Now, Ontario certainly fits.  Of course, except for the money part, so does Texas.

On the whole, I think I'd rather visit Ontario.

Tom
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: popnfresh on March 06, 2012, 07:03:36 pm
Being an artist means having complete control over your art to get the results you want. The better artist you are the more you know how the equipment affects the outcome. Of course the equipment is important. Everything is important. That doesn't mean one needs the latest or most expensive equipment. It means having the right equipment.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 07, 2012, 04:02:00 am
Being an artist means having complete control over your art to get the results you want. The better artist you are the more you know how the equipment affects the outcome. Of course the equipment is important. Everything is important. That doesn't mean one needs the latest or most expensive equipment. It means having the right equipment.

The idea of having control over your art is a complete illusion which results from an overestimated ego.
Though it is true, that craftmanship and control over the process plays an important role it is only half the truth.
This results from the fact, that the artists ego by itself is an illusion.

Why?

If we analyze why we do things the way we do, be it in art or elsewhere,
we quickly can come to the fact how strongly we are influenced and conditioned by our surroundings:
The people we meet, the education, the food we eat, the air we breath and, of course, the equipment we use and so on ...
So - basically we are simply nothing and everything in the same moment.
How can we talk of control in this situation?
We may have a feeling of control, a feeling of being an ego - "I and the others" - but -
looking at the chain of causes and consequences this all sort of vanishes and nothing solid remains.

Doing art on the basis of an error must necessarily lead to erraneous art.

So - I basically want to plead for an artistic consciousness which knows about not being in control while trying to reach control.
I personally believe this will produce better, less erraneous results, since one will easier find the point where the process is no longer about more control but something different - whatever it may be in the given situation.

Cheers
~Chris


Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: RSL on March 07, 2012, 10:39:08 am
Interesting point, Christoph. I think photography, especially, is something the artist can't really control. You're always gambling. What you put on the board is your time, whatever mechanical skill you've developed, and, most important of all, your ability to see what's significant. You lose more often than you win; but when you win, sometimes you win big. The thing I'll never forget is the short film clip of Henri Cartier-Bresson in which he tells about shooting what's probably his most iconic picture: "Behind the Gare St. Lazare" (Derriere la Gare Saint-Lazare). He says that he shoved the camera's lens between boards to get the picture. The interviewer asks, "You couldn't see the man leaping?" Henri replies "non non." The interviewer says, "That was lucky." Henri replies: "It's always luck. It's luck that matters. You have to be receptive, that's all."

You can see the clip at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qZ3Z8shZE&feature=related
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on March 07, 2012, 11:16:40 am
And, of course, the harder you work the luckier you become!

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 08, 2012, 04:18:24 am
The funny thing is, that neither a rule (as a means of control) nor the giving up of rules (as a means of giving up control) grabs the point, since either is just again another concept.
To really let illusion go means neither to glue to the rules nor to reject them.
Its something we can't really grab and keep as knowledge.
But practise creates improvement over time and yes, Rob - working hard (though not too hard) over a long time makes you lucky.
So - time to go out and shoot some stuff before it gets too esoteric ...
 :P
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: DickPountain on March 10, 2012, 07:29:14 am
Agree completely. To extend your point though, modern digital cameras make it far easier than in the past to take competent (ie well exposed and focussed, not great, pictures). So the control element becomes increasingly one of fighting the equipment - you need the camera that irritates you the least. I've found this out the hard way when after losing a modest but well loved-camera and replacing with a far superior one that made me take worse pictures. 
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: popnfresh on March 28, 2012, 06:58:44 pm
Which is exactly why, even though my cell is on my belt, unless I'm lugging my D3 I carry a little E-p1 with a Leica auxiliary finder and a 25mm (50mm equivalent) DG Summilux lens on it wherever I go. I can print up to 17 x 22 with the raw files from that camera. Couldn't even begin to touch it with the cell.

Russ, clearly it's time for a new cell:  http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/27/nokia-808-pureview-first-sample-shots-feast-your-eyes/

 ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: popnfresh on March 29, 2012, 12:13:06 pm
The idea of having control over your art is a complete illusion which results from an overestimated ego.
Though it is true, that craftmanship and control over the process plays an important role it is only half the truth.
This results from the fact, that the artists ego by itself is an illusion.

Why?

If we analyze why we do things the way we do, be it in art or elsewhere,
we quickly can come to the fact how strongly we are influenced and conditioned by our surroundings:
The people we meet, the education, the food we eat, the air we breath and, of course, the equipment we use and so on ...
So - basically we are simply nothing and everything in the same moment.
How can we talk of control in this situation?
We may have a feeling of control, a feeling of being an ego - "I and the others" - but -
looking at the chain of causes and consequences this all sort of vanishes and nothing solid remains.

Doing art on the basis of an error must necessarily lead to erraneous art.

So - I basically want to plead for an artistic consciousness which knows about not being in control while trying to reach control.
I personally believe this will produce better, less erraneous results, since one will easier find the point where the process is no longer about more control but something different - whatever it may be in the given situation.

Complete nonsense.

Why?

Because having an ego is part of being human, that's why. Find me one living person without an ego, artist or not, and who isn't actually brain dead, and I'll give you my car.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Rob C on March 29, 2012, 01:26:27 pm
Complete nonsense.

Why?

Because having an ego is part of being human, that's why. Find me one living person without an ego, artist or not, and who isn't actually brain dead, and I'll give you my car.


What kind of car are you offering? This seems too good to be true.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 29, 2012, 01:34:36 pm
Complete nonsense.

Why?

Because having an ego is part of being human, that's why. Find me one living person without an ego, artist or not, and who isn't actually brain dead, and I'll give you my car.

I guessed you would oppose that.

Fact is, the ego is a concept our brain believes in to keep functional.
We need a concept of ego to manage ourselves and our life.
But there is no ego isolated from the rest of the world.
Once you try to do that separation the ego might be a useful concept, but the concept - as useful as it is - brings an illusion with it.
Basically you cannot separate anything from the whole with concepts or words without inherently falling into this illusion - its a dilemma.
In daily life this usually does not play a role.
But under certain circumstances, when dealing with the most subtle human internal processes, like in art,  there is a difference how strong you believe in that concept of the ego or not, or if you are very much depending on it.
The funny thing is you need a strong ego to not become crazy giving up this concept -  which is possible, at least for short special moments.

But if you find this complete nonsense it won't harm anyone as well ... ;)

Cheers
~Chris
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: popnfresh on March 29, 2012, 04:02:08 pm
I guessed you would oppose that.

Fact is, the ego is a concept our brain believes in to keep functional.
We need a concept of ego to manage ourselves and our life.
But there is no ego isolated from the rest of the world.
Once you try to do that separation the ego might be a useful concept, but the concept - as useful as it is - brings an illusion with it.
Basically you cannot separate anything from the whole with concepts or words without inherently falling into this illusion - its a dilemma.
In daily life this usually does not play a role.
But under certain circumstances, when dealing with the most subtle human internal processes, like in art,  there is a difference how strong you believe in that concept of the ego or not, or if you are very much depending on it.
The funny thing is you need a strong ego to not become crazy giving up this concept -  which is possible, at least for short special moments.

But if you find this complete nonsense it won't harm anyone as well ... ;)

Cheers
~Chris

You're making a ton of assumptions here. First, you assume that the human ego is a concept and therefore it's an illusion. In fact, there's nothing you can point to as proof that the ego is merely an illusion for the simple fact that no one has ever functioned without one. It's impossible. You wouldn't bother to get out of bed in the morning or feed yourself or find a job without an ego. To suppose that it's an illusion without evidence to support that assertion makes no sense.

Next you assume that the ego is somehow antithetical to artistic endeavor because the ego separates us from the world. That too is an unsupportable argument. The ego was created by the world as part of us. We, along with our egos, are part of this world. It's not keeping us from appreciating the world in some mystical way.

I would accept that during the act of artistic creation one can feel more connected with the world around them. But even so, why pick on the ego? One can make great art and have a perfectly functioning ego at the same time. In fact, you wouldn't be able to make any art, good or bad, without one.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 29, 2012, 04:31:25 pm
You're making a ton of assumptions here. First, you assume that the human ego is a concept and therefore it's an illusion. In fact, there's nothing you can point to as proof that the ego is merely an illusion for the simple fact that no one has ever functioned without one. It's impossible. You wouldn't bother to get out of bed in the morning or feed yourself or find a job without an ego. To suppose that it's an illusion without evidence to support that assertion makes no sense.

Next you assume that the ego is somehow antithetical to artistic endeavor because the ego separates us from the world. That too is an unsupportable argument. The ego was created by the world as part of us. We, along with our egos, are part of this world. It's not keeping us from appreciating the world in some mystical way.

I would accept that during the act of artistic creation one can feel more connected with the world around them. But even so, why pick on the ego? One can make great art and have a perfectly functioning ego at the same time. In fact, you wouldn't be able to make any art, good or bad, without one.

You are messing up words with reality, which actually easily happens in this kind of debate.
And we come to a fundamental problem here - we are trying to express something with words and symbols, but the use of words and symbols restricts us to the meaning of these words which is restricted again.
If we talk of "ego" or "my ego / myself" we have something in mind which is a symbolic abstraction as well.
We often tend to be glued to this abstraction or concept as I'd call it.
Of course we have an ego, no sane person could deny that.
But the words we use to describe it and the way we think about it is not the whole truth of what is behind this thing we try to capture with the word ego.
So - this is about the truth behind the words so to say and about an attitude which accepts that there is something beyond our capabilities of symbolization and world reproduction inside our brain.
The problem is not, that there is something which we name ego and which makes sense to be named.
The problem is our concepts of it, the idea of "I" in the whole process.
The most complicated this becomes in the current discussion on intellectual property.
Basically we need some kind of concept of model for this because artists need to feed their kids too.
But from a more absolute point of view the idea is complete rubbish, like the idea of an ego.

My idea here basically is to point to another aspect of reality and our relation to it,
which evades concepts and ideas, and which can help us in the artistic process.

One result of this could be to find the right moment to stop bothering about gear or perfection or
ego or success or control or whatever, because something different appears to be more important (which is different in every case).

The idea of an "ego" who is "controlling" the process and being the "master" of the work is such a thing too which can easily become a burden if you want to accomplish something which has more substance then a sorry effort.

ADDENDUM:
Reviewing this again after posting I think I should point out that this is not about some crazy or esoteric ideas - its about our relation to our concepts and ideas of ourselves, the artistic process and the world as a whole.
Its just good to step back at times and release the controlling grip of our mind and hands from our art, our ideas about other people or anything else and just let something happen.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: popnfresh on March 29, 2012, 04:50:11 pm
The idea of an "ego" who is "controlling" the process and being the "master" of the work is such a thing too which can easily become a burden if you want to accomplish something which has more substance then a sorry effort.

ADDENDUM:
Reviewing this again after posting I think I should point out that this is not about some crazy or esoteric ideas - its about our relation to our concepts and ideas of ourselves, the artistic process and the world as a whole.
Its just good to step back at times and release the controlling grip of our mind and hands from our art, our ideas about other people or anything else and just let something happen.
Art is not a random event and art does not create itself. It requires someone to create it and in the process of creation they are controlling many things. In your own photography, for example, you have demonstrated a high level of control. You have looked at a scene and made it into art. It didn't "just happen". Your mind made it happen.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 29, 2012, 05:03:05 pm
Art is not a random event and art does not create itself. It requires someone to create it and in the process of creation they are controlling many things. In your own photography, for example, you have demonstrated a high level of control. You have looked at a scene and made it into art. It didn't "just happen". Your mind made it happen.

In the act there is no I.
To me it is a clear difference in which state of mind I try to take, postprocess and print a picture.
Again: Of course I don't die literally in the act - but my ideas die in the act and something different happens at some point.
And giving up concepts is not random at all.
It is hard work and takes a lot of faith and bravery.
This is no contradiction to the fact, that I try to improve hard, even in terms of control - 
as Charlie Parker already said: "Learn everything, then forget it all, and play!"
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: popnfresh on March 29, 2012, 06:13:40 pm
In the act there is no I.

Prove it.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 30, 2012, 02:56:37 am
Prove it.

I think it doesn't make sense to attempt to prove an experience.
How should I prove the smell of a rose to an Inuit?
I think exchanging positions and experience in a civilized manner is enough in the context of this forum.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: kencameron on March 30, 2012, 03:02:19 am
I think it doesn't make sense to attempt to prove an experience.
How should I prove the smell of a rose to an Inuit?

Isn't that exactly what zen masters ask of their students? Prove it! Show it to me, now! Without concepts! Maybe p&f is setting a koan for you  ;)
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 30, 2012, 04:58:43 am
Isn't that exactly what zen masters ask of their students? Prove it! Show it to me, now! Without concepts! Maybe skip p&f is setting a koan for you  ;)

It is not possible to replicate the character of a Zen teaching within an internet forum.
There is a limit.
Its just that simple.
If you wan't to understand Zen then sit and seek for a Zen master.
But trying to pull that kind of stuff into an internet forum is just vanity or delusion.

Though what I wrote has some sort of influence from and intersection with Zen, which I can't and don't want to deny, it is basically my view on the fundaments of the artistic process.

So - lets just keep it at that and not mess up things.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: kencameron on March 30, 2012, 05:05:40 am

So - lets just keep it at that and not mess up things.


Maybe we could lighten up a bit.  ;D
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 30, 2012, 05:09:49 am
Maybe we could lighten up a bit.  ;D

 ;)
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: popnfresh on March 30, 2012, 01:17:04 pm
I think it doesn't make sense to attempt to prove an experience.
How should I prove the smell of a rose to an Inuit?
I think exchanging positions and experience in a civilized manner is enough in the context of this forum.
Then let me ask you this. How do you know that in the act there is no "I"? I create art. I do all sorts of things. Yet I've never acted when "I" wasn't present and accounted for. You say there is no "I" in the action, I say if there is no "I" there is no action.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 30, 2012, 02:18:53 pm
Then let me ask you this. How do you know that in the act there is no "I"? I create art. I do all sorts of things. Yet I've never acted when "I" wasn't present and accounted for. You say there is no "I" in the action, I say if there is no "I" there is no action.

It is clear we are not in the realm of strict logic here.
Logic just checks if named cause and consequence (the statement) follow certain laws (the laws of logic).

What I was trying here, was to point out a certain experience of being or a state of mind which is a real experience.
I also tried to give some lose hints why the concept how I expressed it in my opinion works.
But these are all just words and limited symbols.
The real experience of the "ego not existing" or "just being" in a sort of open, non-narrowed and free and especially unspectacular state of mind can not be told, just sort of be pointed to.
I am quite sure there are many on this forum who would maybe express this differently, maybe not even like the language how I tried to explain it, but still have this sort of experience - often most likely even without thinking about it.
There are things we can't share if the other person does not have the respective experience.
Its a dilemma, but it is just so.
And an experience of forgetting oneself and ones concepts and just be and perform (play, photograph, whatever) in the free and open way I attempted to describe is not explainable in a classical or even logical way.
It can only be explained in a sort of poetic, even illogic language.

And - it is not possible to "see" what I am trying to point out and really analyze it.
Its something different.
You can't grab it and take it home so to say.
And actually it is not so overly important as well.
Trying to improve as an artist and just not take ideas, concepts and oneself too serious is much enough.

The ego never vanishes while not being braindead. There you are right - of course. But thats not what I was trying to tell.

I think I can't make it much clearer here, and I think I won't try much more.
You are required now to understand for yourself or just forget this discussion and mark it as complete rubbish.

Cheers
~Chris
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: John Gellings on November 29, 2012, 08:14:19 am
It seems many people look for a simple technological fix to make good photographs.  If one gets the "right" printer, software, camera, then that beautiful scene will be automatically transferred to the print.


Well, technically speaking it could be good.  Equipment helps to give a certain quality to your output. However, what will never be a simple technological fix is framing and content.  You still have to point the camera and choose what to include / exclude.

Quote
I  like to equate it to the carpentry trade.  Very few people ask a carpenter what type of hammer, skill saw,  or level he/she uses after he/she has built a wonderful structure.  Why is it so important to photographers?  Certainly good equipment helps make good images, but when I goes back into the history of photography, there are books filled with great images made by very rudimentary equipment.

The difference is that photography is derivative (you are photographing something that exists already generally speaking) and carpentry starts from nothing but raw materials that are shaped into something completely different.  Of course there are exceptions to both.  
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Isaac on November 29, 2012, 11:51:45 am
The hands down, #1 question I am asked,   "What kind of camera do you use?". It bugs me, but I am trying to sell, so I am polite and tell them.
...
Very few people ask a carpenter what type of hammer, skill saw,  or level he/she uses after he/she has built a wonderful structure.  Why is it so important to photographers?

Perhaps the slight equivocation makes this harder to understand than need be, once we change that to "Very few [carpenters] ask a carpenter what type of hammer, ..." I start to think it's likely most carpenters do ask other carpenters about technique.

"Why is it so important to [people]?" -- because so many people have some experience of photography and try to relate what they have done to what you have done. (Far fewer people have any experience of carpentry.)
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: kencameron on November 29, 2012, 04:03:34 pm
"Why is it so important to [people]?" -- because so many people have some experience of photography and try to relate what they have done to what you have done. (Far fewer people have any experience of carpentry.)
Exactly. And particularly, if they admire your work, because they hope that they could do something like it if they had your equipment. Take it as a compliment. People probably don't ask too many questions about what equipment was used to take photographs they hate.
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: Isaac on November 29, 2012, 04:10:07 pm
People probably don't ask too many questions about what equipment was used to take photographs they hate.

Except when they are being polite :-)
Title: Re: If art is goal does gear matter so much?
Post by: kencameron on November 29, 2012, 04:29:04 pm
Except when they are being polite :-)

Or overtly hostile, I guess.  "What kind of camera did you use to take that?". But I am sure that LuLa members rarely get either of those responses.