Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!

[gingerbaker]

"art produced with a more sophisticated tool is superior"

This is a statement which CAN be true.

One of my favorite images is a landscape taken on a Yorkshire road in poor light, and without a tripod.  I needed ISO 800 to be able to have the shutter speed to handhold.  I used a Canon 20D.

A camera without the relatively low noise of a Canon 20D at ISO 800 would not have produced a useful file.  My previous camera, a Fuji P&S, had only ISO 100.

Without the sophisticated tool I had in my hand, there would have been *no art* produced that day at that time at that location.

The camera matters.

[Ray]

But Ray! Your lens doesn't matter! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now, Eric, Ken did not make the point that it doesn't matter if your equipment is not working properly. I've always conceded the point that the equipment does matter with regard to the possible range of subjects one can address, and I've always agreed that it's plain common sense to try to use the best tool you have for a particular job, whatever the job, photographic or not.

I bought the EF-S 17-55/2.8 for a specific purpose, night photography without flash. This lens is as sharp at f2.8 as a Canon 50mm prime. If I focus on someone's eye and the result is a fuzzy eye but a sharp nose, then the lens is not fullfilling the purpose for which I bought it.

However, I can still take artful photographs with this lens, but not on subjects where I want a sharp eye and a fuzzy nose using autofous. The lens would be quite all right for landscapes at f8 to f13, but I already have other lenses that serve this purpose quite well.

If Canon can't get the lens to autofocus properly, then buying it was largely a waste of money. It still has some uses though, when I have time to manually focus, but for hand-held shots, trying to manually focus a 10x magnified image on the Live View screen of the 40D is a pretty hopeless exercise.

[Ray]

There, you have said it quite clearly. A specific tool (maybe analogous to film chemicals) is contributing greatly to the end result.

I rest my case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nick,
That's sort of cheating, isn't it?    I don't think Ken made the point that tools in general don't matter.

If you wish to broaden the definition of 'tool' to include film type, the painter's blank canvas, the wood preservative that Stradivarius used, the spices used by a chef in preparing a meal, and most important of all, your own brain, then tools always have a bearing on the artistic result. We are tool using creatures.

But not necessarily every tool used will have a bearing on the artistic result in accordance with its sophistication. Some tools will be more relevant than others. In the case of Stradivarious, he had a tool which we don't have (at least not until recently) and that was the secret ingredient of the wood preservative.

There are many secret recipes for food preparations that are fiercely guarded by their owners. If you wish to describe a recipe as a tool, that's fine. Ken's point is that the sophistication of the stirring pot is not crucial to the taste of the food.  

[DarkPenguin]

Are you kidding me?

[Jonathan Wienke]

I don't think Ken made the point that tools in general don't matter.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. To quote from Ken's article:

"Cameras are just another artist's tool."
"it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools."
"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."
"Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography."
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference."
"...one day when someone comes up to you asking for advice you have an epiphany where you realize that it's never been the equipment at all."
"... the car, camera, running shoes or whatever have little to nothing to do with your performance..."
"Better gear will not make you any better photos..."
"Don't blame anything lacking in your photos on your equipment."
"The advantage of modern equipment is convenience, NOT image quality."
"Likewise, no one who looks at your pictures can tell or cares about what camera you used. It just doesn't matter."

I could go on (Ken certainly did), but I think I've proved my point. Ken's entire article is dedicated to defending the proposition that "tools in general don't matter".

If you wish to broaden the definition of 'tool' to include film type, the painter's blank canvas, the wood preservative that Stradivarius used, the spices used by a chef in preparing a meal, and most important of all, your own brain, then tools always have a bearing on the artistic result. We are tool using creatures.

Agreed. Ken is clearly denying that there is any possibility that tool choice impacts the artistic merit of the result, which is exactly the reason Ken Rockwell is being castigated for his idiocy. By defending his stupidity, you are making yourself look stupid, especially when it is so obvious you are unable or unwilling to comprehend or admit what Ken is actually saying. There is no reason to give him any benefit of the doubt; what he wrote is inexcusably stupid. There are times when the choice of tool is critical to capturing one's artistic vision, and the wrong choice will negatively affect both the technical and artistic attributes of an image. While the choice between a Nikon D3 and a Canon 1Ds-III may not make a significant difference in many shooting situations, the choice between a 1Ds-III and a pinhole camera will make a huge difference in most situations.

[Nick Rains]

Nick,
That's sort of cheating, isn't it?    I don't think Ken made the point that tools in general don't matter. I don't need to broaden the term, tools can be anything.
 
If you wish to broaden the definition of 'tool' to include film type, the painter's blank canvas, the wood preservative that Stradivarius used, the spices used by a chef in preparing a meal, and most important of all, your own brain, then tools always have a bearing on the artistic result. We are tool using creatures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not really cheating,   , Ken clearly did make that point and you have defended that position.

My position is this:

1. Anything that is used to create a work (of art) affects the end result to some degree - therefore tools absolutely do matter.

2 The only circumstance where tools are irrelevant is from the viewers perspective. Aesthetic appreciation of a work is entirely independent of the tools used to create the work. No one else but the artist cares what brushes were used, no one else but me really cares what camera I used.

Thus only the viewer can say correctly that "tools do not matter (to me)", but the artist cannot truthfully say the same.

Quick example. By sheer coincidence there's an article in the weekend newspaper about artists who have rejected modern tools. Google "Trent Parke", he uses B+W film to realise his creative vision and won't use digital - his choice. Better yet is a writer who still uses a typewriter (!) to write books.

Obviously they care very much about the tools of their trade, but me? I don't care whether a book was written on a PDA or a typewriter.

[Ray]

I could go on (Ken certainly did), but I think I've proved my point. Ken's entire article is dedicated to defending the proposition that "tools in general don't matter".
Agreed. Ken is clearly denying that there is any possibility that tool choice impacts the artistic merit of the result, which is exactly the reason Ken Rockwell is being castigated for his idiocy. By defending his stupidity, you are making yourself look stupid, especially when it is so obvious you are unable or unwilling to comprehend or admit what Ken is actually saying. There is no reason to give him any benefit of the doubt; what he wrote is inexcusably stupid. There are times when the choice of tool is critical to capturing one's artistic vision, and the wrong choice will negatively affect both the technical and artistic attributes of an image. While the choice between a Nikon D3 and a Canon 1Ds-III may not make a significant difference in many shooting situations, the choice between a 1Ds-III and a pinhole camera will make a huge difference in most situations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187170\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan,
You've missed the entire thrust of Ken's article. You are the one who is lacking in English comprehension. You are behaving as though you've never read a novel in your entire life.

I repeat, Ken's article is not a technical article. It's an opinion written in common, non-technical language that tries to be entertaining and thought provoking. It's a reaction against the obsessive concern that many of us have, including me, about pixel quality, noise and general equipment performance.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Ray]

The only circumstance where tools are irrelevant is from the viewers perspective. Aesthetic appreciation of a work is entirely independent of the tools used to create the work. No one else but the artist cares what brushes were used, no one else but me really cares what camera I used.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But that is simply not true, Nick. Many people who are interested in Photography (and aren't there millions of people who own a camera?) want to know the details of the equipment used, especially when they really happen to like a particular shot.
 
Those who know very little about photography, upon discovering that your camera costs as much as a small car (or in the case of a DB, as much as a big car), might take the attitude, "Oh! It's no wonder that photo is so nice."

When this happens, don't you feel a bit diminished by the implication that your beautiful photos are simply the product of expensive gear and that anyone could have taken such shots if they'd had the gear?

It's such an attitude that Ken is railing against in his article. I can't understand why anyone would draw the conclusion that Ken's point is that tools in general have no relevance whatsoever.

When our Prime Minister wrote his "Sorry" speech, he used a fountain pen (or maybe ball-point pen). He was just using the tool that he felt most comfortable with, when expressing his emotions. But he certainly needed some sort of writing tool.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

You've missed the entire thrust of Ken's article. You are the one who is lacking in English comprehension. You are behaving as though you've never read a novel in your entire life.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't realized that KR's piece was a novel. I can agree that it is pure fiction, just not very good fiction.  

[Jonathan Wienke]

Jonathan,
You've missed the entire thrust of Ken's article. You are the one who is lacking in English comprehension. You are behaving as though you've never read a novel in your entire life.

I repeat, Ken's article is not a technical article. It's an opinion written in common, non-technical language that tries to be entertaining and thought provoking. It's a reaction against the obsessive concern that many of us have, including me, about pixel quality, noise and general equipment performance.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Whether the article is intended to be technical, opinion, or pure entertainment is irrelevant--none of that changes the plain and obvious meaning of his endless repetition of "the camera doesn't matter" throughout. Your assumptions and explanations are bullshit, and have no basis in any portion of the text of the article. Either cite some quotes from Rockwell's article that disprove my point, or shut the hell up. You seem to possess some degree of intelligence, what's so hard to understand about the meaning of these quotes?

"Cameras are just another artist's tool."
"it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools."
"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."
"Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography."
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference."
"...one day when someone comes up to you asking for advice you have an epiphany where you realize that it's never been the equipment at all."
"... the car, camera, running shoes or whatever have little to nothing to do with your performance..."
"Better gear will not make you any better photos..."
"Don't blame anything lacking in your photos on your equipment."
"The advantage of modern equipment is convenience, NOT image quality."
"Likewise, no one who looks at your pictures can tell or cares about what camera you used. It just doesn't matter."

Show me one citation from the article where Rockwell admits any possibility that choice of photographic tools can materially affect the outcome. Until you do, I'm not going to alter my position. And I will continue to heap ridicule on your willful ignorance of the obvious.

[Nick Rains]

But that is simply not true, Nick. Many people who are interested in Photography (and aren't there millions of people who own a camera?) want to know the details of the equipment used, especially when they really happen to like a particular shot.
 
Those who know very little about photography, upon discovering that your camera costs as much as a small car (or in the case of a DB, as much as a big car), might take the attitude, "Oh! It's no wonder that photo is so nice."

When this happens, don't you feel a bit diminished by the implication that your beautiful photos are simply the product of expensive gear and that anyone could have taken such shots if they'd had the gear?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uh, not really. I am secure in my skills and know that I am more important than my gear. I am also honest enough to admit that my gear is also a contributor to the quality of my work.

Look up Alain Briot's writing on this exact subject.

Besides, what you have said above is surely contradicting your earlier posts about the camera not mattering.  I was kinda agreeing with you with respect to aesthetic appreciation - the above quote now seems to say that cameras do not matter to the photographer but do to the viewer.   ?

It's such an attitude that Ken is railing against in his article. I can't understand why anyone would draw the conclusion that Ken's point is that tools in general have no relevance whatsoever.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

See Jonathan's extensive quotes - Ken is quite explicit with respect to camera tools.

When our Prime Minister wrote his "Sorry" speech, he used a fountain pen (or maybe ball-point pen). He was just using the tool that he felt most comfortable with, when expressing his emotions. But he certainly needed some sort of writing tool.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Did Rudd write the speech? Even if he did the tool is irrelevant in this case - however, who wrote it is. Tools do not always matter, I have never said otherwise, but your position appears to be that they never matter, which is an entirely different thing.

[Slough]

Those who know very little about photography, upon discovering that your camera costs as much as a small car (or in the case of a DB, as much as a big car), might take the attitude, "Oh! It's no wonder that photo is so nice."

When this happens, don't you feel a bit diminished by the implication that your beautiful photos are simply the product of expensive gear and that anyone could have taken such shots if they'd had the gear?

There is not much you can do when faced with ignorance.

An educated friend considers that photography is not art or even a craft. He thinks you just point the camera and press the shutter and hey presto. And any fool can do that.

The problem is when people express opinions on something they don't know much about, but think they do. Oh, that brings us nicely back to Ken.

No doubt Ray has taken up smoking on the grounds that the "Smoking kills" stickers on the cigarette packs really mean "Smoking extends your life".

[TaoMaas]

See Jonathan's extensive quotes - Ken is quite explicit with respect to camera tools.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It really depends on how one chooses to interpret vague words, like "quality", "better", "improve", "matter".  You can't go to the dictionary and look them up because you'll totally miss the point the article, as has been clearly demonstrated.  Rockwell isn't that precise of a writer.

[Jonathan Wienke]

It really depends on how one chooses to interpret vague words, like "quality", "better", "improve", "matter".  You can't go to the dictionary and look them up because you'll totally miss the point the article, as has been clearly demonstrated.  Rockwell isn't that precise of a writer.

You are smoking the same Kool-Aid as Ray. The words you mention are not vague; Rockwell is actually quite clear regarding what he means by these words in his article. He is quite adamant that the choice of camera has no impact on either the artistic or technical qualities of the image, and makes no mention whatever of any situation where this might not be the case. If you believe otherwise, you are basing that belief on wishful thinking and unjustified assumptions, and not on anything actually written in the article. Show me one citation from the article where Rockwell give any indication that the camera has a material effect on either the artistic or technical aspects of an image under any circumstance.

[TaoMaas]

You are smoking the same Kool-Aid as Ray. The words you mention are not vague; Rockwell is actually quite clear regarding what he means by these words in his article. He is quite adamant that the choice of camera has no impact on either the artistic or technical qualities of the image, and makes no mention whatever of any situation where this might not be the case. If you believe otherwise, you are basing that belief on wishful thinking and unjustified assumptions, and not on anything actually written in the article. Show me one citation from the article where Rockwell give any indication that the camera has a material effect on either the artistic or technical aspects of an image under any circumstance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Those ARE vague words.  And, no, Rockwell doesn't explain what he means by those terms.  He gives absolutely no explanation what he means by "quality", "better", or "improve.  Nowhere does he say anything similar to, "When I say 'quality', I'm talking about the sharpness of the image" or "When I say 'improve', I'm talking about the abilty of the image to communicate the emotion of the shot to it's viewer."  He doesn't really say what he means.  That's the whole problem.

[barryfitzgerald]

Well you can read the KR article however you want. But Quality to me, has nothing at all to do with "image quality", as in all the areas that this involves.

And the usual tedious tests that we see on this subject.

Yes people use a holga for I would think that look ;-) aka fall off, flare etc etc. Do we really need to say this, its a bit obvious really.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Those ARE vague words.  And, no, Rockwell doesn't explain what he means by those terms.  He gives absolutely no explanation what he means by "quality", "better", or "improve.  Nowhere does he say anything similar to, "When I say 'quality', I'm talking about the sharpness of the image" or "When I say 'improve', I'm talking about the abilty of the image to communicate the emotion of the shot to it's viewer."  He doesn't really say what he means.  That's the whole problem.

The "problem" lies entirely within your limited ability (or perhaps willingness) to comprehend plain English. Here are some quotes of Rockwell explaining exactly what he means by "quality", "better", and "improve".

Why is it that with over 60 years of improvements in cameras, lens sharpness and film grain, resolution and dynamic range that no one has been able to equal what Ansel Adams did back in the 1940s?

A camera catches your imagination. No imagination, no photo - just crap. The word "image" comes from the word "imagination." It doesn't come come from "lens sharpness" or "noise levels.

Ansel made fantastically sharp images seventy years ago without wasting time worrying about how sharp his lenses were.

It’s nothing but a matter of seeing, thinking, and interest. That’s what makes a good photograph.

Don't blame anything lacking in your photos on your equipment. If you doubt this, go to a good photo museum or photo history book and see the splendid technical quality people got 50 or 100 years ago. The advantage of modern equipment is convenience, NOT image quality.

These statements (and many others like them in the article) make it quite clear that Rockwell believes that the technical qualities of cameras and lenses and equipment (dynamic range, sharpness, and noise levels are specifically mentioned) have no bearing at all on the artistic merits of an image or its ability to capture the viewer's imagination; the only relevant factor is the skill and imagination of the photographer. Rockwell's problem is not that he is vague, it is that he is wrong.

The fact that the camera and equipment is not as important as the photographer does not mean that camera and equipment is irrelevant. As has been pointed out, there are many situations where the right type of equipment is absolutely necessary to capture images that have any images at all.

The same principle applies to noise and sharpness. While sharpness and the absence of noise do not automatically make an artistically excellent image, and there are times where a certain amount of noise and blur can be aesthetically pleasing, there are limits to how much noise/grain and blur can be present before the artistic intent of the photographer becomes completely obscured. An image blurred or obscured with noise to the extent that there is no discernible subject or composition is meaningless, and has little no artistic merit at all, except perhaps as an abstract image.



So we see that sharpness and noise do have some bearing on the artistic merits of an image. They are not the primary characteristics of artistic excellence; one still needs a subject and composition. But noise and blur must not be so great as to obscure the subject and composition, or the artistic impact of the image will be lessened.

If Rockwell had said "the camera matters less than the photographer" or "the camera doesn't matter in many shooting situations" nobody would be arguing with him. But he decided to make these statements unconditional absolutes, and that's where he errs.

[Slough]

It's quite amusing to see the weasel words and tortuous reasoning needed to make sense of Ken's article.

Words such as "better", "improve" and "image quality" are not in the least bit vague. Or do you really think the statement "Eating lots of fruit and veg will improve your health" is vague, and does not carry much meaning? Come off it. Everyone understands what it means, just as they understand the meaning of "Don't blame anything lacking in your photos on your equipment."

In fact let's take another look at that example:

"Don't blame anything lacking in your photos on your equipment."

That sounds pretty unequivocable to me. Nothing vague there. All rather clear in fact.

We should not blame a lack of sharpness on the equipment. Lenses do not affect image sharpness. Or bokeh. Or contrast. The tripod also has no affect whatsoever on image sharpness. And mirror lock up is no use at all. Hell, why use a tripod. In fact why have more than one lens? Or maybe, just maybe, Ken is talking a pile of soft and steamy poop.

Ah, but you say, it depends what we mean by 'anything'. Ha ha ha.

Ken's supporters need to go back to their remedial reading class and work harder.

[mrleonard]

And I will continue to heap ridicule on your willful ignorance of the obvious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am the one that started these....seemingly never ending ...threads as a rebuttal to MR's rebuttal. I will have little else to say on the matter , as it seems it will just not get through to most....

[mrleonard]

[attachment=5976:attachment]quote=Jonathan Wienke,Apr 5 2008, 08:02 PM]
 And I will continue to heap ridicule on your willful ignorance of the obvious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

I am the one that started these....seemingly never ending ...threads as a rebuttal to MR's rebuttal. I will have little else to say on the matter , as it seems it will just not get through to most....Anyway, the conversation is boring.
I'll sum up my P.O.V.

LVB00448alt.jpg > I started shooting withg a Olympus XA4...Nice little camera with some degree of control. The camera didn't matter much to me...[attachment=5973:attachment]

LVB04204BW.jpg> They made a great little 'half-frame' camera in the 60's by Canon, and branede under the Bell and Howell name. Saved some money as I shot 72 on a roll of 36 (this was 4 years ago btw). Lots of grain...that didn't matter.[attachment=5974:attachment]

LVB00099alt.jpg >I moved 'up' to a German Rollie 35 small camera. Full manual control and super sharp Zeiss lens....as if that mattered at all.[attachment=5975:attachment]

LVB00296.jpg > I dabbled with a 'rangefinder' for a bit. The cheapest Voigtlander body (cant remember model) to accomodate a 12mm ultrawide lens. A super lens...I was shooting B&W slide film (AGFA Scala). The camera didn't matter though...

_MG_3396BW.jpg > I made the jump to digital with the Canon 20d, and I had that Tamron 28-70mm lens...you know..the one touted for it's sharpness. Was a bit of dosh for me....but I suppose I was saving on film costs. I was hooked on digital. The camera still didn't matter....hmmm[attachment=5977:attachment]

LVB05982alt2.jpg > I bought A Lumix LX1 P&S digital..Lovely small camera with a Zeiss lens and shoots RAW. I have since moved up to the LX2. Always have a camera on me..ike this time I was on a motorbike...The LX1 (or LX2) didn't matter at all....[attachment=5978:attachment]

LVB02498.jpg> I now shoot with a Canon 5d and 'L' lenses. Top gear ! A bit heavy and expensive.....but,well...the camera, definately, always, and still does NOT  matter !

The tool I hold in my hand...the image I shoot....the art I process. Hopefully alive at inception...or will just be stilllborn/dead at output of the process. I had a look at pics and links by members that supported the view that the camera matters. They were mostly mediocre, unoriginal and..well...stillborn. I suppose that they WISH  for  the day that they CAN buy something that will make their art better (zzzzz...keep dreaming).
(ART)Photography is an inner perception..not an optical set of tools...If you are shooting x-rays,murder scenes,and catalogs...o.k...you win, the camera matters.
For the rest...well....if it was Jazz we we're talking about, I would say.."It don't  mean a thing if it ain't got that swing."