Your Camera Does Matter

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

In my What's New mention of adding the cartoon I called it a "rejoinder", or in other words a counterpoint as you seem to have guessed.

My purpose in putting it there was to reinforce, since some people have chosen to interpret otherwise, that it's both the equipment AND the photographer that are important. I can't believe that anyone seriously thinks otherwise.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Except, maybe, Ken Rockwell?  

[Scott_H]

Must have been a slow news day.  That Ken Rockwell article has been up forever.  Probably generated lots of traffic though.

[schrodingerscat]

According to his PHOTO.NET bio, Ken's day job is "in TV".  I'll bet he is (or was) a steady-cam operator, which would make sense given his views on jpeg, tripods, etc.

Also, couldn't find one mention in Google search of any published photos, works in "public collections", etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably Cue Card guy.

[Satch]

Probably Cue Card guy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Turns out this is just another classic example of his BS.  I found out what his real day job was (apparently he's now "retired").  He was an electrical engineer, and used to design TV test equipment.  In Ken's world, that becomes "in TV".  What a joke.

[Satch]

Because Rockwell's often-repeated categorical denial that the selection of camera has any impact on the end result is demonstrably false, and does not serve the best interest of any audience, whether rank amateur, seasoned pro, or anyone in between. Gear does matter. It may not matter as much as the talent and skill of the person using it, it matters more in some situations than others, and the difference between one brand versus another is often overstated, but that does NOT mean that the choice of equipment is irrelevant. Repeating an obviously false statement over and over so is not helpful or educational for anyone.

Reichmann at least pointed out that both the gear and the user play important roles in the process, thereby bringing some balance to the discussion, while Rockwell did not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said.

My own road to print sales is particularly relevant here I think, since I found KR's and MR's sites about the same time 6 or 7 years ago, and I'm not a pro.

The information Michael has made available on this site was invaluable in improving the quality of my prints to the point where they essentially began to sell themselves.  If I'd become a "follower" of Rockwell, I doubt I would have sold a single print by now, even if I was out there trying like the devil.  Fortunately, I was already advanced enough as a shooter that my BS-detector immediately went on high-alert (Warning, Warning, Will Robinson!).

[Quentin]

Except, maybe, Ken Rockwell?   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its the degree of emphasis that's important.  The kit used should be well down the list relative to talent.  Its a statement of the bleedin' obvious that a P45 is better than box brownie, but a 350D in the right hands would be a lot more effective than a MF back in the wrong hands.  Why are we even bothering to debate such a ludicrously obvious point as this?  

Quentin

[John Camp]

Why are we even bothering to debate such a ludicrously obvious point as this? 
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We're not debating it any more; we're just pissing on Rockwell as a way to pass the time. It's now March 17 where I am, and it's snowing outside...

Most people have agreed that equipment is obviously and undeniably a factor in photography, although on a scale from 1-100, some would place it at 38, and some at 18, etc. The one really unhappy argument that seems to continue is whether Reichmann and Rockwell (which sounds like a right-wing law firm) appeal to different audiences and whether that should make a difference. I don't think it should -- bad information is bad information, whether it's aimed at a professional or beginner.

JC

[Satch]

We're not debating it any more; we're just pissing on Rockwell as a way to pass the time. It's now March 17 where I am, and it's snowing outside...

Most people have agreed that equipment is obviously and undeniably a factor in photography, although on a scale from 1-100, some would place it at 38, and some at 18, etc. The one really unhappy argument that seems to continue is whether Reichmann and Rockwell (which sounds like a right-wing law firm) appeal to different audiences and whether that should make a difference. I don't think it should -- bad information is bad information, whether it's aimed at a professional or beginner.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not snowing here now, but we had the second snowiest season on record AND   record high temps between snowfalls.  Can you say, "global warming"?

Getting back to Rockwell though (sound of zipper opening), his site makes me think of the famous, "Everything I say is a lie..." logic problem.  He says basically the same thing--"I'm really just joking around on this site".  Ok, so if he's joking when he says that, then...?

[alainbriot]

The information Michael has made available on this site was invaluable in improving the quality of my prints to the point where they essentially began to sell themselves.  If I'd become a "follower" of Rockwell, I doubt I would have sold a single print by now, even if I was out there trying like the devil.

I think this helps define the respective audience of the two sites.  I don't think many pros frequent KR's site and neither do people go there to learn how to achieve world class print quality.

[Nick Rains]

Here's another 'camera doesn't matter opinion':

Bruce Percy

In this case Percy acknowledges that it's a simplistic statement and more importantly, he knows how to take decent images. Some of his work is lovely and thus he at least has credibility in the talent department.

[barryfitzgerald]

I think this helps define the respective audience of the two sites.  I don't think many pros frequent KR's site and neither do people go there to learn how to achieve world class print quality.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have no doubt you are right. KR's site isnt really any good for that. On the other hand, it does have some use..to some people. And some iffy ones no question

This site has loads of great articles, but a few not so good ones.
"you'll see that one of the laws of optics is that the DOF extends from 1/3rd in front of the point focused on, to 2/3rds behind it. In other words, you have twice as much DOF behind your point of focus than in front of it" (this is only true when subject distance is 1/3 the hyperfocal distance)

I shouldn't have to point this out. This was a fun article..I enjoyed reading it..

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml[/url]

But it failed to tell me that whilst the DOF is the same in many cases, the distribution of the DOF is not. Longer focal lengths have a more even almost 50/50 front and back, short WA ones have the more usual 1/3rd front to 2/3rd back DOF.

Now some smart person will come along and say focal length has nothing to do with DOF. What the correct response is, it is part of the formula for DOF, but its effect can be "negated" by distance to subject. Two variables that can cancel each other out. Sorry to be picky now, but I think I made a point here.

Same on metering and exposure, whilst a solid article..it could have mentioned all modern multizone systems are autofocus based. I know there is a variation on systems between makers, but few sites ever say that. I don't want to pick apart too much, as the good stuff here is well worth it, I could have a field day on KR's site too.

[Raoul]

Regarding the importance of the camera I read on Mr Rockwell's site:

Maybe because it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools.

followed by examples of photos taken with old equipment.

The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need.

Well yes, this is a simplification, as some pictures just could not have been taken with a field camera on a glass plate.

Mr Rockwell buys expensive gear yet tells his readers that old and cheap cameras perform as well. Conctradiction? Not really, because he states:

1.) Good tools just get out of the way and make it easier to get the results you want. Lesser tools may take more work.
2.) They add durability for people who use these tools hard all day, every day.
3.) Advanced users may find some of the minor extra features convenient. These conveniences make the photographer's life easier, but they don't make the photos any better.
4.) Hey, there's nothing wrong with the best tools, and if you have the money to blow why not? Just don't ever start thinking that the fancy tools are what created the work.

As far as I understand Mr Rockwell's point, he says we should stop worrying about the latest and greatest tools, unless we can really identify a capability we want or need to improve our photography or the convenience of taking pictures. Insofar he is quite in line with Mr Reichmann, who sees the importance of ergonomic features as well. (the 'good tools just get out of the way' part).

I see a difference in the writing style of Mr Reichmann and Mr Rockwell, but I did not see that many fundamental contradictions. Well, maybe Mr Rockwell is more jumpy with his opinion on specific items (FF, Canons etc), but then he says as well that obsolescence comes fast for digital cameras. If the facts change, we can change our opinion.

And no, I would not buy equipment based on anyone's opinon on the Internet. I like to hold and try expensive gear before I buy it. I may not need or like what somebody else thinks is great.

[viewfinder]

This all needs to stop now......

I have a quick look at 'LL' most days because it has, in periods, been worthwhile.  I don't know if I will continue to do so.......

'LL' did have integrity.   It was a well respected site with good information.   There was simply NO NEED to stoop to bash another site.

By doing so this site HAS qualified itself as "a Canadian gearhead site"......

The 9 pages of table thumping have added to the loss of face.

As far as I can tell, KR did not write anything about this site,.....MR bashed HIM first......mores the pity.

Actually, rude and unforgivable.......and totally uneccassary.

[Satch]

This all needs to stop now......

I have a quick look at 'LL' most days because it has, in periods, been worthwhile.  I don't know if I will continue to do so.......

'LL' did have integrity.   It was a well respected site with good information.   There was simply NO NEED to stoop to bash another site.

By doing so this site HAS qualified itself as "a Canadian gearhead site"......

The 9 pages of table thumping have added to the loss of face.

As far as I can tell, KR did not write anything about this site,.....MR bashed HIM first......mores the pity.

Actually, rude and unforgivable.......and totally uneccassary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree there's no point in "bashing" the guy anymore.  He's a bit of a paper tiger, and he's been completely shredded.

But you can't ignore the argument  that Rockwell gives bad advice even for his "target audience", so I'll leave KR fans with one question:

Do you think Joe Holmes took the AMNH photos with no tripod and his D70 set to JPEG?

[michael]

I continue to be amazed at some people's inability to read and comprehend without any critical ability.

Bashing?

Oh well. So you say, since that's what you read.

Good by.

Michael

[adion]

as "a Canadian gearhead site"......

What does this supposed to mean?  

[situgrrl]

I'm a long term Luminous Landscape fan but am most confused with what has got in to the proprietor recently.

Michael has been talking about people's lack of "critical ability" recently but, I would question the very same thing in his statement, "if enough people read (this article,) we can end the mind numbing vapidity of this pointless debate once and for all."

One hardly needs a PhD in Critical Thought to think, "If it is mind-numbing, vapid and pointless then surely a rebuttal of it is the same."

Ken's site as a whole is a bit of a giggle - he's clearly a gearhead testing all of those lenses - and his advice - forgo RAW and suchlike - is for the most part poor - but as has been said before - by Michael and others, talent makes better pictures than equipment and this is all Ken's article seems to be trying to state.  

Since Michael has just lambasted some of you for daring to align his article with "Ken bashing" I'll quote this from his article where he references Ken, "consistency of thought and clarity of expression are not hallmarks of his writing style."

That's a pretty potent statement to my mind.  Having read his site, I also don't think it's true.  Ken is very consistent in his opinion on RAW, his opinion on tripods and his constant begging for money.  I disagree with every one of these points - but because we disagree does not make him inconsistent.

Please Michael, I beseech you, get this site back to what it does best - photography, I'm sure I'm not the only person that has noticed it going from equipment heavy to equipment obsessed recently.

The last LL "scandal" over a picture of a young girl, was an interesting insight into the human condition, even if the debate was overblown to start with and ridiculous by the end.  This though, this is kids with conkers in the playground.

Charly

[jashley]

I agree there's no point in "bashing" the guy anymore.  He's a bit of a paper tiger, and he's been completely shredded.

But you can't ignore the argument  that Rockwell gives bad advice even for his "target audience", so I'll leave KR fans with one question:

Do you think Joe Holmes took the AMNH photos with no tripod and his D70 set to JPEG?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm a Joe Holmes fan so that one jumped out at me too.  It's just another case of KR using an example from a great photographer that actually disproves his whole approach/theory.

As I asked on another thread, "Ansel Adams didn't use a Box Brownie, did he?"  And Joe Holmes doesn't use a D70 for his landscape photography, does he?

Plus, a D70 isn't a "cheap" or "inferior" camera to begin with.  And no way Holmes could have made good 13 x 19 prints if those shots were handheld and JPEG's.

Sorry, KR defenders, you're backing a losing cause.

[macgyver]

I wish I could say otherwise, but I'm not really surprised by any of this. I think the general consensus is that neither Rockwell's nor Reichman's ideas are probably that far from that of the other person, yet I doubt either will ever admit to that. Too much pride in being right on both sides. And, what's more, neither handled things all that well.

What I would like to see is the two of the have some sort of dialogue. I think a joint article/discussion from the two of them could be very, very interesting. But, again, I tend to doubt the chances of something like that.

And, Michael, you must admit that the number of gear related articles seems to be legion here recently. Not necessarily a bad thing, just seems different that I remember the site being in the past. I'd echo what was said below about getting back to the photographic basis.

My two cents.

[MikeMac]

Some of this piece is pure flamebait, simply written to attract visitors to the site.

The camera doesn't matter to a good photographer, they can still make a great photo, maybe not technically perfect, but ones that stirs the senses or illustrates the point, whatever. A picture says a thousand words, so have a look through the photostream of J Michael Sullivan on flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjsfoto1956/

Sure he uses some pretty perky gear, but there are also amazing photos taken with happy snappers. Oh, and they are often architectural subjects. The exclusive preserve of view camera's with movements? I think not.

I don't normally agree with Ken Rockwell's articles or his writing style, but I think Michael's article does miss Ken's point. Objectively discussing gear and selecting the right tool is important, but don't give a particular camera or brand mythical status.

Mike