Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Mort54 on March 13, 2008, 11:45:06 am
-
Give a photographer two cameras - one camera being more capable than the other - and the photographer will take better shots, on average, with the more capable camera. That always seemed pretty obvious to me. The key, of course, is that it's the same photographer using the two cameras.
Give two photographers of differing abilities the same camera, and the better photographer will take better shots, on average, than the lesser photographer. Again pretty obvious.
Give two photographers of differing abilities two different cameras of differing capabilities, and now the outcome isn't so obvious. Which I guess is where the cliche comes from. Except the cliche tries to oversimplify.
-
Give two photographers of differing abilities two different cameras of differing capabilities, and now the outcome isn't so obvious. Which I guess is where the cliche comes from. Except the cliche tries to oversimplify.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All cliches simplify reality. I think the bottom line in this case is that both the camera and the photographer matter. But all else being equal, the photographer matters far more. Of course a pinhole camera doesn't have the same picture taking capabilities of, say, a Nikon D3, but then any competent photographer wouldn't expect it to and wouldn't attempt to use it to take a photograph that demands the capabilities of a D3. Certainly, a big part of being a good photographer is understanding what your equipment can and cannot do.
On the other hand, I would expect an Ansel Adams (were we able to beam him alive and kicking into our time) to be able to produce far more compelling images using a pinhole camera than your average three-year old. Likewise with the D3. A good photographer will always produce better photographs with any given camera than a my cousin Marvin would (assuming one could tear him away from ESPN), and will be far better at choosing the right camera for the job in the first place.
Give pinhole cameras to both my cousin and Ansel Adams and set them loose in Yosemite Valley and my cousin will happily snap away at El Capitan and Half Dome. Ansel would be far more likely to hang out at the bar in the Ahwanee Hotel and plan a return trip, armed with his view camera.
-
My camera and lenses are quite simply extensions of my eyes, brain, heart and soul. Yes they are important. I must "connect" with my hardware/camera/lens to make creative serious work. I am drawn to certain specific types of equipment--always have been. It is that equipment that motivates me and challenges me along with my subject matter and my feelings about that subject matter, of course. Eleanor
-
I totally agree with Micheal, I used to sell cameras in a small shop near Montreal and the first thing i'd ask customers is "what do you plan to shoot" (and then the budget comes into play).
Then after that, we could suggest certain products (ok almost all of them were compacts and not SLR but...) And i'm sorry but when they came back to get they're picture printed, you can really see the difference between a nice piece of equipment and a crappy one...
So in my opinion, if this is true in compact cameras, it's true in all cameras/equipment.
-
This reminds me of a time when I was __________ ing. I'm a very good _____ er.
On a demo-day, I tried out a number of _________'s.
Each one enabled me to _________ very well.
Then I tried out the cream-of-the-crop _________. I found it had a profound difference on my ___________ ing.
I think people like Ken can get confused because any number of cameras allow for a certain level of competence. But there some cameras that will allow the competent to exceed at a new level.
BTW, ____ = ski
-
of course there are differences between cameras, some produce better detail and some can shoot faster....the right camera for the job...that goes without saying....
but there are also different kinds of photography...the kind when you wait for the moment, the kind where you create the moment and then there are some grey areas in between (setting the stage and waiting for the moment you wanted to create).....
i find it funny that ansel adams always is used as an example of a great photographer....which he certainly was, but he was an even better printer and a large part of his art is the developing and printing technique....
there is the old saying that the difference between an amateur and a pro are 500 frames....which to a point is true, not because random shooting will get you better results, but shooting more is like exploring and by that (and during editing) one finds what works better and learns for the next shoot....i would also add to that that the biggest difference is a master printer....nowadays that means someone who can make a file from a canon rebel look better then from a 1dsIII....
and considering that some working pros shoot with disposable cameras and some don't even touch the cameras (the assistants and camera operators do that for them...although i would say that that blurs the line with art directors)....no the camera does not matter at all....
but in reality these people found a way to get their ideas from their heads onto paper...that is the most important thing.....and forums probably can't help you with that....you have to play and find your toy.....
it is funny that in these forums, cameras and are discussed to death....and lens specs are compared in numbers.....but what makes the picture..the character of lenses and the light that is captured..actually rarely does....
-
I thought I'd let Michael know that there are indeed online forums where people debate the merits of various pieces and brands of kitchen equipment for both the serious hobby-chef and the aspiring professional.
For example, try Chowhound.com and the 'cookware' board.
I remember a long posting on chowhound once complaining about people who comment on a cook's pans or appliances and say things like 'I should get a XXX so I could cook this dish' and not realising the importance of the cook. It all seemed very similar to the sort of equipment and counter-the-equipment debates that happen in photo circles.
-
Uhm. Ken Rockwell's site is a joke. It's a gag. It's meant to poke fun at all manner of things photographic. Did you read his "About" page?
[[Come on folks. Don't they teach analytical thinking in schools any more? ]]
Indeed.
-
Isn't this all irrelevant?
It's not the camera...get a life.
It's not the photographer...get over your ego
but the person (client) looking at the picture who is the most important
-
If his site is a joke, it's one which he and many other take all too seriously.
His disclaimer simply appears to be an excuse for inconsistency.
Michael
-
Just what the manufacturers want us to believe - the more we buy, the "better" we get...I got over that a long time ago...
I guess Michael Schumacher was just along for the ride while the car won 7 championships...
Yes the equipment matters, and I enjoy the latest technology without shame or guilt. But to say that we need modern tools to accomplish anything is truely naive. Just ask the Incas, or the Egyptians...hell we're still trying to figure out how they did it.
-
a doctor can't do surgery without a finely honed scalpel
Right, but who would do a better job removing your appendix? A surgeon with a pocket knife, of a boy scout with a finely honed scalpel?
I think the point here is that the equipment only matters insofar as the photographer has the skill to get the most out of it.
-
The thing I like about photography is it's a combination of art and science. And in the skilled hands of a great photographer, a better camera can make better images, but in the hands of someone who knows not what they are doing, it's wasted. A picture is the sum of the camera, the technology, the art and the artist. You can't just look exclusively at one aspect or you'll get to the point of absurdity very rapidly....
-
Michael:
With all due respect, I don't think that you and Ken are in disagreement. You both believe that the camera is an essential part of the photographic experience and endeavor, as it obviously must be. Ken makes the very valid point that the purpose of the camera is to make it possible for the photographer to accomplish his or her vision. Put another way, the best camera is the one that best suits the photographer's intended purpose with the least amount of thought given to the tool and the most amount of thought given to the "seeing" of the final image.
I would suggest that Jay Maisel, who I have had the pleasure of shooting with on two occasions, would succeed in creating striking images with whatever equipment you gave to him. However, he chooses to use a Nikon D3 because it allows him to capture the images he wants in the environments in which he chooses to shoot.
What Ken was communicating is that many of us get caught up in the technology chase and forget what drove us to photography in the first place, i.e., creating that "wow" image. Does the camera make a difference? Of course it does, and Ken would be the first to admit it. Does the photographer make a bigger difference? Of course he or she does. Give a talented photographer and an uninspired photographer the same equipment and the same shooting environment, and I have no doubt which one will be the more likely to produce the "wow" image.
I have also experienced shooting with Michael in the Amazon last year. Michael, you own or have owned virtually every fine piece of photographic equiment ever made, but can you honestly say that these purchases have improved the artistic, as opposed to technical, quality of your images anywhere near as much as your attention to improving your ability to "see" an image. If you believe the answer is yes, then good for you. You are a rare creature in that respect.
Rather than disparaging Ken's message, perhaps the debate would be furthered by concentrating on the insights he offers about the relative importance (not the exclusive importance) of vision over technology. There is value there.
-
Goodness, Michael, that article is a bit of a rant!
Of course you are right in a sense but in another sense you are wrong, too. It is a matter of degree and the kind of photography being undertaken. Praise of the Holga might be overdone but so to is the endless deconstruction of the merits of competing camera models which in reality offer almost identical performance.
Oh, and I'm surprised you are not more familiar with the words of Mr Rockwell. Love him or loath him the man is a internet photographers' (anti)legend. A man who can review equipment in great detail by looking at the brochure alone!
ps
Why not do something different and write a review of the Sigma DP-1. I was at the Focus on Imaging 2008 show the other week and managed to persuade Laurence Matson to let me into the Sigma booth to take a close up look at the A0 sized prints they had on display. The Death Valley shots demonstrated excellent print quality. I think a camera you can slip into a shirt pocket and get Canon 5D like quality from for landscape work has got to a lot more interesting than endless reviews of Canon Rebels (even though my 350D gets a lot more use than my 5D)...
-
As Michael often says: "Horses for courses."
I think it boils down to the intent of the photographer.
Is it possible to create a striking image with a Holga? Certainly.
Could Burtynsky execute his intent with a Holga? No way.
(And let's not confuse the necessary with the sufficient).
-
Michael is correct in saying that the equipment matters. It does in photography and in any endeavor in which science plays a significant role.
The real issue is that the equipment is not all that matters. The art matters as well.
In my view one's approach should be a 50/50 split between art and science.
Or maybe 60/40.
Definitely not 90/10 or worst 100/0 in either direction.
At least not if one intends to create expressive images.
-
In a literal sense, of course equipment "matters", but that's not the point that most people who say "equipment does not matter" are trying to make.
Bad workmen blame their tools, so the mediocre photographer explains his or her mediocrity on the fact he or she does not have a good enough camera. Therein lies the root of the problem - the belief that all one needs to release the Ansel Adams trapped inside is a better camera, lens or other gadget. Its not true historically and its not true now. In that sense, equipment does not matter nearly as much as the sad gearheads on dpreview would like to believe and I'd be mighty surprised to see a contrary view receive support here.
Quentin
-
Wrote a mail to Michael about a week ago suggesting Ken Rockwell as an interesting subject for a future Video Journal interview. To me KR and MR represent opposite extremes when it comes to Internet photo sites. Personally I agree maybe 92% with MR, 3% with KR and 5% with myself, but I still think KR is a pretty smart guy who makes some valid points. Fun to read too.
Anyway, don't know if my mail influenced Michael to check out Ken Rockwell’s site, but I certainly won’t expect an interview anytime soon.
-
Michael wrote: Camera Does Matter. Yes he is right, a toycamera can make very interesting pictures.
-
In a literal sense, of course equipment "matters", but that's not the point that most people who say "equipment does not matter" are trying to make.
Bad workmen blame their tools, so the mediocre photographer explains his or her mediocrity on the fact he or she does not have a good enough camera. Therein lies the root of the problem - the belief that all one needs to release the Ansel Adams trapped inside is a better camera, lens or other gadget. Its not true historically and its not true now. In that sense, equipment does not matter nearly as much as the sad gearheads on dpreview would like to believe and I'd be mighty surprised to see a contrary view receive support here.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quentin, you have it about right: it takes both the tools and the ability to use them. Where I think it all goes up its own ass is where great claims are made between models so similar as to be practically the same: D200/D300 comes to mind. As I answered elsewhere on this site to that very question, if you are really able to cross your heart and say that the D200 is not good enough for your skills, then get the D300. But, to extend that here, if you really are better than the D200, I think you should forget the D300 and await the one after the D3 or, perhaps, funds no problem, get the D3 and also the next one up that comes along.
Can I get better shots from Leica M-whatever than I can with Nikon F3? Certainly not, as I have no DEEP experience of the Leica. But, with experience of both, my last employer (M3, if you need the detail) did exactly that and embraced the new Nikon F. Not so much a CAMERA choice but a system one, rangefinder v. reflex.
I think Michael´s reaction was quite surprising, for him, must have been something he had for dinner last night; we all get those moments! I think the main problem is that he seemed to have taken a very literal interpretation where, to me at least, there was but one point being made: it IS the photographer who matters and the camera need but be good enough. I agree utterly that nit-picking and pixel peeping are hobbies in their own right, that great photography is a cerebral event, hardly an overwhelmingly mechanical one.
But then, a whole group of little industries depends upon photographic circles of confusion for its very being and the bucks they bring in, so not a lot is going to change, whether by word of mouth, through magazines or clubs or even the internet. Everbody has an axe to grind, a field to plough, a cash cow to milk. Just make the most of the educated opinion you can form for yourself.
Buenas noches - Rob C
-
many classic and iconic images are out of focus or soft, lack contrast have too much grain and probably show CA under a loupe....
nothing worse then a sharp image of a fuzzy concept....ansel adams, i believe....
i would say that this is one of the problems with the advances in digital imaging...everybody has access to professional tools (yes i count a rebel as a pro tool) and photoshop....the world is NOT a better or prettier place because of it...there are just millions of very mediocre crisp and detailed images...
-
Michael, I'm sorry that you happened to stumble upon Ken Rockwell's site for the first time. He's been around for a while now. I can describe his website in one word: Hilarious.
He used to bash Canon. Then he got a 5D. He's in love now.
He used to say that full-frame 35mm is out of date, and that APS is superior. Now he disagrees.
The only thing that hasn't changed is that he believes that JPEGs are superior to RAW files and that TRIPODS are OBSOLETE.
He's actually a nice guy. He replied to my emails, and seems like a good guy. The only problem is that he's a complete jackass.
-
Wrote a mail to Michael about a week ago suggesting Ken Rockwell as an interesting subject for a future Video Journal interview. To me KR and MR represent opposite extremes when it comes to Internet photo sites. Personally I agree maybe 92% with MR, 3% with KR and 5% with myself, but I still think KR is a pretty smart guy who makes some valid points. Fun to read too.
Anyway, don't know if my mail influenced Michael to check out Ken Rockwell’s site, but I certainly won’t expect an interview anytime soon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181189\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hope it did because Ken Rockwell definitely needs to be "spanked". What a total, effing, bullshitting idiot.
I remember years ago when I shot Nikon and was looking for an on-line review of a new Nikon lens. Got a hit for a review of the lens on his site. I go there and the "review" was just something like "How does it perform? I have no idea, since I've never used one"!?!
Then I saw how he described himself as a "published" photographer. I couldn't believe it looking at the stuff posted on his site so I emailed him and asked where he had been published. Turned out it was in some crappy black and white toy train or airplane hobbyist magazine or something like that.
Michael I can't believe you took this goof seriously but thanks for "spanking" him anyway.
-
Without the shadow of a doubt there many different fields within photography, and many of those sub-industries have implicit standards in terms of equipment. That's a fact of life that is not even worth discussing.
One of the confusions in this debate results from the fact that people are overall treating photography as if it were PJ work alone. Yes, it is true that the dying soldier shot by Capa during the Spainish war could have been shot with a current mobile phone and still carries an amazing appeal. All this shows is that image quality is not important for all photographic fields, but it can hardly be used as a proof that all photographic fields can overlook the impact of equipment on the end results.
Michael and many others have been writing this for years, and it would seem to me that 6 years olf kids with a basic education in logic should be able to make this out, but I guess that I am expecting too much.
Now, a topic that I find much more worth discussing is what I call "the re-virtualization of capturing devices". Today, most of my images I consider worth printing are panoramas. A panorama only becomes reality thanks to the combination of capturing device and post processing. In a way, it is a partial step back towards the former world of film where [chemical] post processing was needed to reveal the virtual image carried by the exposed piece of film.
The implication of the usage of panoramic techniques on the nature of photography can be troubling since the capturing process of panoramas stops to be a more or less prolonged instant event, but becomes discrete in time, spead out in a way. This has the potential to shed new light on the eternal debate on the "reality" of photography vs it being intrinsically an interpretation of reality combining more or less conscious depatures induced both from the equipment and the person using it.
If we are to re-open classical debates, I'd rather focus on these topics. I might write an essay on this one of these days.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
???????????
-
Michael,
With all due respect, your use of ^%^*$ language speaks volume about the validity of your arguments. The more irritated you seem to be, the more weight you give to Ken's arguments.
-
The only problem is that he's a complete jackass.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I like Kens site, and his use of language that many find so infuriating.
I thinks hes saying
have fun
get out
take pictures
enjoy
Your current digicam is probably pretty good
As the owner of some stupid gear with lust for more its food for thought
Ps some of the best money I have ever spent was on a $200 frying pan
SMM
-
Michael,
With all due respect, your use of ^%^*$ language speaks volume about the validity of your arguments.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Again, re-read his essay, then go back to read a few books on logic/rethorics and you might see the light.
Questionning Michael's main point equals questioning logic itself.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... Questionning Michael's main point equals questioning logic itself...
Sounds like we have a new deity here. The above statement would make even The Pope proud.
And by the way, Bernard, patronizing me (or others) is not going to add any weight to your arguments.
I am sure that your superior logical/rhetorical skills allowed you to grasp that in my post I did not go into the validity of Michael's argument at all. I was simply pointing out that using a cursing language typically does not add weight to one's arguments; on the contrary, it weakens them.
-
Again, re-read his essay, then go back to read a few books on logic/rethorics and you might see the light.
Questionning Michael's main point equals questioning logic itself.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is not about questioning Michael's main point and the relevance of logic to the discussion. It is about Michael responding to Ken's thesis by stating that cameras do matter, which is putting much too much emphasis on the title of Ken's article, and paying little attention to the substance of his article. Michael's main point is superficial and unresponsive to the main tenet of Ken's article, which is that the camera is less critical to the photographic experience than what the photographer brings to the image capture. Michael dismisses this by arguing that camera technology is very important to the process of image capture. Of course it is, but more important to the debate is the relative importance of the advances in technology to the creative process itself.
-
Mr. Michael H. Reichmann wrote:
One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any camera. Horseshit.
But I think a technical good photograph is not per definition a interesting photograph and that is
great difference.
I think also that a good photographer can take a interesting photograph with just about any camera.
-
I don't think Michael's article was just in response to reading Ken's site. All that article did is set him off about a topic that he believes is far too prevalent across the wider Net. it was 'The straw that broke the camel’s back', so to speak. Whilst Ken's site itself may purport to be a "joke", it’s just one example of far too many in online forums where you see this almost holier-than-though attitude of 'it’s all the photographer, stupid’.
Michael is certainly not espousing that is all about the gear either, but that it should be a balance of the two. They both matter. We pursue a craft that relies heavily on tools, and the quality of your tools always matters to a craftsman, regardless of their craft.
As an amateur woodworker, I see this constantly in trade magazine, and even articles reprinted from 100 years ago. Tools have always been discussed, debated, and analyzed. (Do I want the #97 Stanley Edge, or is the #127 Stanley Jack better for edge planning some Tasmanian Oak)
Quoting Michael from a slide in his recent Seminar in Sydney.
"Better tools will NOT make you a better Photographer.
Better tools WILL allow you to make better Photographs. "
Subtle, but important distiction, that I happen to agree with.
Regards
Mark
PS: No, They don’t’ seem to teach analytical or critical thinking in school any more, I personally only did it after joining the Navy.
-
This is not about questioning Michael's main point and the relevance of logic to the discussion. It is about Michael responding to Ken's thesis by stating that cameras do matter, which is putting much too much emphasis on the title of Ken's article, and paying little attention to the substance of his article. Michael's main point is superficial and unresponsive to the main tenet of Ken's article, which is that the camera is less critical to the photographic experience than what the photographer brings to the image capture. Michael dismisses this by arguing that camera technology is very important to the process of image capture. Of course it is, but more important to the debate is the relative importance of the advances in technology to the creative process itself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ken's "thesis"? Puhleeze. Ken Rockwell isn't qualified to even carry Michael's camera bag.
-
Of course the camera doesn't matter . . . to the taste of my PB&J sandwich.
Which 'fact,' of course, has about the same relevance in answering an equipment-related photography question as knowing that a Holga can capture an award-winning photograph. That might be true, but I sure don't see many pros shooting Holgas on the NFL sidelines.
The equipment is not an end, but neither is it irrelevant.
-
He used to bash Canon. Then he got a 5D. He's in love now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I remember when the 1Ds came out and he announced that "it was no big deal". No, it's probably just one of the five or ten most significant cameras of all time.
-
I was once told that all a photographer needed was a camera and an audience -- and the camera was optional!
-
I am sure that your superior logical/rhetorical skills allowed you to grasp that in my post I did not go into the validity of Michael's argument at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure...
"With all due respect, your use of ^%^*$ language speaks volume about the validity of your arguments"...
If you didn't mean to question Michael's argument, you probably need a class in writing on top of the class about logic...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just returned home from a shoot at the Tonto Monument Lower Cliff Dwellings and decided to check-in and see what’s new. It’s been several minutes now and I’m still laughing my ass off at Michael’s latest article….
There’s so much merit to the article that I’ll just say it should be required reading.
Also I’m now thinking I know what to do with the cereal box after I empty it in the morning.
Michael - keep up the good work!
-
Judging by the number of typos in Michael's article, I'd say he's still a bit edgy from time lag and temperature adjustment. Or was it the tears in my eyes from laughing. Obviously, he doesn't suffer fools lightly. But seriously, have you ever seen a self-respecting craftsman who didn't take pride and care in his/her choice of tools. I know as a surgeon that I've thought long and hard about the tools I use. That's not to say there aren't choices and variations of outcomes. In any art form the important thing is the product. But how you get there is what this forum is all about.
-
OK, I'll bite...I can't resist picking apart flawed reasoning.
Ken Rockwell is 'putting the cart before the horse'. Looking at great images and finding out they were taken with low level gear does not lead to the conclusion that low level gear takes great photos, only that it can under certain circumstances and in the hands of a good photographer.
The point here is that in many quoted cases the camera was chosen for a specific reason to get a specific effect by a master photographer, ergo the camera is indeed critical to the end result.
There is a talented photojournalist here in Australia called Michael Coyne who took two Holgas to East Timor to shoot a serious piece on the people of that war torn country. The reason he used the Holgas was not because he is a great photographer who can take great images with any piece of junk but specifically because the cameras evoked a different reaction from his subjects.
Pointing a top of the line Canon (worth a year's wages) at a 3rd world war victim is one thing, but pointing a 'toy' camera at them was actually amusing to the subjects. Michael's images show people in far more natural poses that a gun Reuters guy might have shot. The choice of camera was a deliberately creative one - a considered choice of tool for that particular job and critical to the intended outcome.
Regarding pots and brushes, yes people do agonize about the minutiae of such things. All activities involving tools have this aspect, it's human nature to one degree but, more importantly, it is critical to a master of any craft to understand exactly how a given tool will behave. Only master craftsman can fully appreciate just how important the tools are to the job in hand.
Anyone who says the camera is irrelevant simply does not fully understand their craft.
-
The creation and use of tools is arguably that which separates us from lower animals. That we discuss them endlessly seems to be both natural and normal. In the end, however, people have to use those tools. The difference in results is not a function of the tool.
I enjoy reading Michael and Ken - for different reason and with different mindsets.
Some random thoughts:
Check out a woodworking site and see how many words are expended on chisels.
A professional is one who does his best work when he doesn't feel like it.
Despite the high cost of living, it remains highly popular.
-
The difference in results is not a function of the tool.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181269\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't entirely agree with this.
Objectively, different tools must make a difference, simply because they are different. Subjectively I agree, tools don't always make a difference.
Objectively, one lens can be sharper than another; subjectively, this may not be important to the outcome but, if it is, then the choice of tool is vital.
-
Whilst I am no super Ken Rockwell fan, he sure does have a point.
I am puzzled as to why the LL would put up that article. I don't take KR that seriously, and I dont think he does either, but he says some good things at times (and some not so good ones too)
I think what he was saying, is that the persuit of gear, and in many cases premium stuff, in itself means not a whole lot, rather obvious thing to say..but how true. We all get what we need, can afford etc. And we all like gadgets to a point. But the real meat is the photographer..and everyone knows it. How many of us know the keen new shooter who has loaded up with L lenses and high end stuff..only to produce somewhat lacking shots.
I feel there is a "snob" element to some photographers, in regards flashing off gear etc, this is not directed at anyone in particular.
Not that I suggest buying cheap stuff, but I think we all know what the argument is. And what does really count. I know KR's site has some iffy articles, and you could question the "tone" of some of his remarks, I find them somewhat refreshing in their no holds barred kinda way. Mind you, slightly OT, and dont take this the wrong way, but I am not sure this site is 100% on its articles either. DOF one is a bit lacking IMO, and the metering one avoids any mention of trying to explain how modern cameras work. So we can pick hairs if we want to.
Sorry Michael, I am with Ken on this one ;-)
-
Whilst I am no super Ken Rockwell fan, he sure does have a point.
Sorry Michael, I am with Ken on this one ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181278\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think everyone knows what Ken is trying to say, it's his arrogant proclamations that are so irritating. Reasoning out and debating issues is worthwhile but he takes the line of "I'm a free thinker and won't be caught up in all this mainstream stuff - oh and by the way if you do this or that then you are wrong"
He is a good example of what is bad about the Internet and his 'spoof' excuses simply will not wash when he must be aware that people do take him seriously when they don't know any better. He is trying to have his cake and eat it.
If you look at his home page, and click on Updates:
"Observation #2: I ticked-off a Canadian gear-oriented site with my classic Your Camera Doesn't Matter article, which has resonated with such deep truths worldwide that it is now available in fourteen languages.
I guess they've never seen good photos made with bad cameras up in Canada. I know I sure have, and linked to some, which settles that one.
I sure know I've also seen far more really crappy photos made with great equipment, in fact, I've made thousands of the crappy ones myself with great gear! "
(My italics)
I think this makes my point.
-
I know what you are saying Nick, and I am not here to defend Ken's sometimes questionable use of words. He tends not to pull his punches, sometimes that is good..other times not so good.
And I def do not agree with everything he says. But being a DP forum veteran, I am well used to strong arguments! I tend not to take things so seriously, esp websites and forums. I am sure both Micheal and Ken are nice guys, and both can have their view on this.
The problem I have is this..I honestly feel, IMO..my best shot was taken on a cheap beaten up Olympus compact, it didnt have the sharpest lens, it didnt make the best exposure. It is just, far and away my best ever shot (and film too..sorry!)
That kinda tells me something, whilst I would def have got a sharper better exposed shot with a leica, what counted is, I got the shot. That seals the deal for me, on a personal level, and really does say..that what you pack, matters a whole lot less, than what you get.
Ansel Adams said "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"
-
It's always important, and interesting, to present prevailing arguments for or against some issue, and then examine the reasoning.
Seemingly wise sayings are often meant as an antidote to excessive concerns in the opposite direction. They are like parables. If you take such arguments literally, you can always pull them to pieces. At least I can .
Ansel Adams' pithy aphorism, 'There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept', is a perfect example. Of course there's something worse; a fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept. That really is totally useless; no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
At least Ken has done his best to present the 'for' case that the equipment doesn't matter, and his argument was good enough to provoke a rebuttal by Michael .
-
and his argument was good enough to provoke a rebuttal by Michael .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually I think it was exasperating enough to provoke a rebuttal!
-
Of course the camera matters. How much depends of the shooting situation. If you're shooting in bright sunlight, a digicam may produce results nearly indistinguishable from a 1D-III when both are printed 8x10 inches. But if you're shooting action in a dimly-lit gymnasium, the choice of camera can make the difference between good quality captures and noisy, unusable crap, no matter who is behind the camera. High-end, expensive cameras don't sell just because photographers have an incurable mine-is-bigger-than-yours complex (although that does factor into some camera sales), but because in many situations they offer capabilities that make a measurable difference in the quality of the final result. These may be improvements in image quality, autofocus speed and accuracy, handling, or ergonomics or "feel". In some cases these differences may be insignificant to the average person, but if those differences are significant to a paying client, then they may very well justify spending the additional money for the more sophisticated camera.
-
The problem I have is this..I honestly feel, IMO..my best shot was taken on a cheap beaten up Olympus compact, it didnt have the sharpest lens, it didnt make the best exposure. It is just, far and away my best ever shot (and film too..sorry!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, but was that best shot meant to be an answer to a RFP for a coffee book on the architecture in Venice or an add for the new BMW M3?
Had you in mind an exhibition in Kualalumpur where the requirement for print size it at least one meter high?
I know that the answer to these questions is NO, and I also know that if the answer had been yes, then the best shot would most probably not have been shot with an Olympus.
That's all Michael is saying.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Actually I think it was exasperating enough to provoke a rebuttal!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay! Exasperatingly good enough.
-
Okay! Exasperatingly good enough.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I'd say "exasperatingly stupid enough."
What I got from Ken Rockwell's piece was --
1. He must be a pretty inept photographer if he can't get better results from his 5D than from a P&S.
2. He totally misunderstands Ansel, who never said that the only think that matters is what is 12 inches behind the camera.
I am a bit surprised that Michael dignified it with a reply.
-
I think we all really understand this issue. The only reason it keeps cropping up is because there's an 'artistic' perception, a way of seeing and looking, that is independent of the technology that enables the final product.
There's a strong 'association' tendency in human affairs. You see a Porsche with a scantily clad lady draped over the bonnet and your subconscious thinks that maybe the lady comes with the car, although your conscious reasoning knows that that is not necessarily the case, although it might be the case if you later come across a lady that is mightily impressed with your Porsche.
To a certain degree, there can be a placebo effect taking place when someone buys a Porsche-like camera. It's possible that such an effect might motivate a photographer to take better photos than he/she otherwise would. But let's not go there. It's too disastrous on the bank balance.
-
My take on Kens post is:
Context is important. He is obviously not talking about or to professionals who require professional gear. The post is for those using a camera such as a D40 or D80 who shoot casual photographs, be it of the family, city or landscapes. Not photographers but people who own a camera and take photographs as a casual hobby.
A D80 and a 18-200 is a great combo for them, it covers a wide range, they can get some nice results and they have not purchased above their skill or needs level. They don’t need a $3000 camera and a $3000 lens, it would be a waist of money.
They don’t really know that much about photography, they enjoy taking photographs, they occasionally take something quite nice, they might visit sites like DPR to get some information, ask some questions. At sites like DPR they are told that the Nikon 18-55 is a bad lens and that if they only spent $3000 on the f2.8 17-55 they would start getting good photographs. Photography is all about gear they are told. You must have the latest Canon/ Nikon/ Pentax/ Sony/ Olympus and you must have professional lenses. Without good gear you are only an “Amateur”, the lowliest of the low in the world of photography.
So, these people get caught up in the freakiness that is gear fetish worship. Will a $3000 lens make them a better photographer. Unlikely.
Would $3000 be better spent on a fast lens or spent on such things as some life drawing lessons, learning how to observe and see the world, some decent photography books, both technical and more importantly, books of images by the greats such as Ansel Adams, Robert Mapplethorpe, Julia Margaret Cameron etc etc and lets throw in a workshop with a local photographer or photography school for good measure.
There are too many people on the net, on sites like DPR, that believe that gear is the answer. You look at their gear lists and they have ridiculous amounts of money invested on gear and you look at their photographs, if they have a link to their images, and the images may be sharp (sometimes) but they lack life, vision, art, soul.
Gear most certainly has its place, I like a good piece of kit as much as the next person but it won’t make you a good photographer. I believe Ken is trying to show new hobby photographers that in the context of a casual hobby a $500 lens is just as good as $3000 lens and I agree, for many casual hobby photographers that extra $2500 would be better spent on other things.
For a professional, be it commercial or fine art, a dedicated enthusiast, then yep, it's a different conversation, different priorities, different needs. But his post isn’t aimed at them.
-
My mother is right after all. She often tells me, "Your camera takes good pictures."
-
Meanwhile, looks like somebody else tuned into this thread tonight:
http://web.mac.com/aaronandpatty/What_the_...mic_Strips.html (http://web.mac.com/aaronandpatty/What_the_Duck/Comic_Strips/Comic_Strips.html)
Love it!
-
My mother is right after all. She often tells me, "Your camera takes good pictures."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181322\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow! I want a camera like that. As I sit by my pool side swigging a beer, I'd like to tell my robotised camera to go take some award winning photographs.
-
There is also a lot of value in working with a piece of equipment that is finely made, of excellent quality and that you get a sense of pleasure using. Fine tools are a joy to use and allow a craftsman to relax and enjoy the process, rather than wasting creative energy struggling to make a poor tool perform beyond its capabilities.
I think James makes a good point. If it is true that KR is aiming at warning off amateurs who fall into the DPReview gear fetish trap then he makes some sense, but he goes to far with his dogma and only confirms his already flaky reputation.
-
There is also a lot of value in working with a piece of equipment that is finely made, of excellent quality and that you get a sense of pleasure using. Fine tools are a joy to use and allow a craftsman to relax and enjoy the process, rather than wasting creative energy struggling to make a poor tool perform beyond its capabilities.
I think James makes a good point. If it is true that KR is aiming at warning off amateurs who fall into the DPReview gear fetish trap then he makes some sense, but he goes to far with his dogma and only confirms his already flaky reputation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181330\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. There is value in working with a finely tuned piece of equipment. I bet Ken Rockwell also knows this. He's jsut presenting a case; being provocative as usual.
-
What annoys me is when there's a technical/gear discussion and somebody just has to barge in and spout the cliche that "the camera doesn't matter, it's the photographer behind the camera". Such posts are IMHO annoying and pointless. Who are you to say that just because people are discussing the techinical merits of equipment that they have no talent or interest in the art of photography? Yet by making one of these cliche posts, you're implicitly accusing the other thread participants of being talentless hacks interested only in equipment.
IMHO people who make such posts are usually either (1) trying to feel superior, or (2) have a case of sour grapes.
-
Rockwell's essay made me recall some old lessons about cognitive & developmental psychology - lessons about both writing & photography.
Rockwell doesn't get very far in his writing about photography, & he irritates many of us, because he's limited by a kind of binary thinking - things are true/false, right/wrong, in paired opposites. This sort of dichotomizing makes thinking seem quick & easy, but unfortunately it can't handle much complexity. It's a cognitive limitation that we're supposed to grow out of, by learning to handle more complicated thinking patterns ("formal operations").
Examples from KR:
--"... it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools." No, Ken, both/and?
--"Photographers make photos, not cameras." Again, both/and?
--"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image." Again, a rigid insistence on half of the story & a willful blindness to the other side.
Some alternatives: Not the opposites of Rockwell's statements, but acceptance of more complexity:
--A photographer & a camera (& some more technology) form a complex system. We're endlessly interacting with the tools we use: ideas, feelings, pictures in our heads ('symbol systems'), realized through camera, film, sensor, software, printer, paper, etc.
--We work with our tools in a succession of feedback loops: we think & feel what we want, we see what we got, we adjust & recalibrate our intentions or our tools. Lo & behold, we learn from experience. Many of us, pursuing changing visual values, have moved from small film cameras to MF & view &/or digital, as we learned how some kinds of equipment articulate some of our visions better than others.
--We develop, within our self-selected limits - both personal & technological - bodies of work, photo essays, or portfolios that show how we're reaching out, extending our vision, in different contexts - & with the tools appropriate for engaging them.
--Eventually, if we're pretty good at what we're doing & pretty diligent, we work out a recognizable 'style' - an inner way of seeing that's realized externally as a certain kind of print, publication, or web image. This may make us a recognized 'artist,' or a commercial photographer with a recognized specialty, or even both (though in only a few instances).
Peter Galassi's introduction to the MOMA Friedlander book is a wonderful inquiry into how a personal style can grow through time & reinvent itself through experimentation. You can see camera, light, focal length, the whole works, changing developmentally as Friedlander makes recognizable 'Friedlanders' in so many genres: jazz portraiture, street shooting, architecture, urban patterns, nudes, landscapes, 'snapshots.' In every mode, he's the master of his own vision of barely-ordered chaos & his own technique - especially his strong contrasts & luminous highlights.
If you look at Rockwell's website galleries, you see that his photographs are almost all cliches: "good photographs" in imitation of conventional expectations. His color palette is a Velvia cliche. He can presumably teach you, in his binary way, how to make more "good photographs" & fewer "bad photographs," by conventional or camera club standards. But he has no style: he neither writes nor photographs at an interesting level of complexity.
-
Yet by making one of these cliche posts, you're implicitly accusing the other thread participants of being talentless hacks interested only in equipment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed. I think DPReview types call this a troll.
I must confess, having a bit of time free at the end of a Friday, to having had a brief look at some of the rest of Ken Rockwell's rather large site. I make no judgements, but...
1. There are pages and pages and pages of gear comparisons.
2. His thoughts on colour management (sRGB and AdobeRGB colourspaces in particular) are interesting.
3. His opinions of the values on RAW shooting are probably what you'd expect.
After a while I got bored - time to move on to more important matters.
So just just how does the new 24Mp Nikon stack up against my new 1Ds Mk3... ?
-
Lookie what I found...
============
[span style=\'font-size:21pt;line-height:100%\']A Parable[/span]
Once Upon a Time....
Once upon a time there was a young career photographer. He was talented, but he didn't have much money.
Nevertheless, because it was the mid-'60's and he was reacting to his depression/war era parents, he thought that money wasn't important — art always came first.
Consequently while as his peers, who were developing their careers alongside his, bought Nikon Fs, M series Leicas and Hasselblads, our hero had to satisfy himself using Pentax and Minoltas along with inexpensive third-party lenses from Tamron, Tokina and the like. He reveled in the simplicity of his ways.
And, our hero succeeded. His photographs, made with cheap cameras on even cheaper lenses were widely published in major magazines, his better work was collected by major galleries and national institutions, and he was able to make a decent living as a freelance photojournalist.
Meanwhile his colleagues and competitors continued to tease and distress him about his not using "the best".
Then the illness struck. He started to believe that they might be right. As quickly as he could he started to buy top rated cameras and lenses. Nikons, Leicas, Contax, Hasselblads — all the top brands. His family's life-style suffered as he plowed more and more money into the finest camera bodies and lenses available. Finally his career as well as his personal life were in jeopardy as his spending exceeded his financial abilities.
Years later he reviewed this period of his life. With hindsight he saw how in fact his best work from that time of his life was done when he was poor and using so-called "amateur equipment". There was a freshness and a clarity of vision that became veiled by the later obsession with lines/mm, titanium bodies, exotic lens elements and the like.
Today he can afford to buy whatever equipment he wishes — and he does, and enjoys every one of them. But, he always remembers the lesson that difficult period of his life taught him.
============
It sure sounds familiar. I wonder where I read that?
[grin]
-
I´m afraid this is turning into my guru is better than your guru; a general genuflection of the sychophancy comes to mind.
And yes, there are those who will believe that success depends on spending big bucks, which it can do, but not always or exclusively spending them just on equipment.
I suppose that there will never be honest replies to this argument; those who spend the money in hope can´t accept that they are possibly into self-delusion whilst those who have success with inexpensive equipment know their own truth just as clearly. No, there are not total, common standards in photography either - as stated somewhere here different genres have different criteria by which they are measured.
Taking the offending article at face value, there is a hell of a lot of truth to it; but obviously, it, as with anything, is open to re-interpretation and with each such reinvention of the original the plot gets more wild and the original sense distorted beyond recognition.
Such a delicate aroma of singed sensibilities...
Ciao, from a happy but currently seriously equipment-challenged former pro.
Rob C
PS Enjoyed the parable.
-
Well in general I find KR pretty wild-eyed, I think Michael fired off at the wrong target this time. What I get from Ken's article is the theme that you should think about what your intent is, what you are seeing, what you want to see, before you think about the tools. And actually I think Michael is saying pretty much the same thing, which is a bit weird. It is hardly a rebuttal, more of a similar conclusion, albeit drawn from very different arguments.
A technically better photograph is usually only better in the absolute if it is commercial work. Illustration, not art. Frankly, if a photo really moves me, the last thing I look for is if it is "pin-sharp" or if it has "awesome definition". Who gives a f***, really ?
Cameras can be used for all sorts of things, including personal mementos, commissioned commercial work, and art. The intersection between art and landscape photography seems to becoming vanishingly smaller, maybe because landscape photography is the perfect refuge for the gear head.
And who says you can't shoot the Serengeti or Antarctica with a Holga ? Why not, actually ? Might be a helluva lot more engaging than a bunch of bland, boring, repetitive 48 Mpix (is that where we're at ?) pixel arrays.
-
What annoys me is when there's a technical/gear discussion and somebody just has to barge in and spout the cliche that "the camera doesn't matter, it's the photographer behind the camera". Such posts are IMHO annoying and pointless. Who are you to say that just because people are discussing the techinical merits of equipment that they have no talent or interest in the art of photography? Yet by making one of these cliche posts, you're implicitly accusing the other thread participants of being talentless hacks interested only in equipment.
IMHO people who make such posts are usually either (1) trying to feel superior, or (2) have a case of sour grapes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nobody said that. I think you take it the wrong way.
I think you have that reversed. Frankly I never judge a photo on what lens or camera was used, its just the "photograph". Do you like it or not. Who gives a damn what was used. On the other hand, nobody "downgrades" a photo if top line stuff was used. And most people will say that gear def does make life easier. No question. The argument is about what really counts. And it aint the camera.
I wont argue that I cannot get tele action shots with my el cheapo micro hanimex 110 film plastic fantastic camera, well it would be very hard to. I wont suggest its going to match a Nikon D3 with pro line lenses. Obviously it dies a horrible death.
It's like this, I enjoy the challenge. Those who go out with bad equipment and take great shots, get my respect. I liked F1, what was more fun..watching Schumacher fight some dodgy car to death and tearing it apart, winning with skill and guts. Or just the usual top car guy cruising along to the finish..not even breaking into a sweat!
Some gear has limitations, its up to the photographer to challenge those, and overcome them. Gear is a part of the toolbox, and yes..right tool for the job. But if you can manage to tighten a bolt and nut with a needle and some sticky tape..people will be impressed ;-)
-
This always makes me think of that old saying
"A poor workman blames his tools"
I always replied a good workman always has the right tools. This is important,I use multiple cameras, as they all do different things better than each other. It is true that a lot of great photographs can be made on simple cameras but aside from using odd low cost cameras for their special qualities a better lens will give a sharper picture (in focus of-course), a better sensor or film more information and so on. But there is a point of diminishing returns, a D80 and D200 where very similar in output but the D200's meter is a lot better, the rest is feature set that I dont realy use. The D200 is my preferred camera but thats more to do with the feel of the thing in my hand. The camera is a personal thing though and whats right for me may not be right for you. But the camera shore does matter
-
I can see the point made, but still, everyone has to accept that technology will only take them so far. It can make life easier, no question. It is not that the camera does not matter at all, it is simply that it is the least important factor. Some lenses are sharper than others, and faster etc. But they dont take photos, nor does the camera you do.
An expensive camera and lens lying on a desk has done nothing at all, so has a cheap one. The shooter is the key factor.
KR says:
"If someone can't make a good photo with a bad camera, it's because they're a bad photographer, not because it's a bad camera. Potty-mouth language doesn't change anything. I make thousands of awful shots with great gear, but even I crank out a nice one with a crappy camera now and then"
It is very hard to really argue with that.
Whilst you might find Ken's tone a tad OTT, and I wont argue with that.
MR writes:
"I was at first amused and then annoyed by the piece – quite annoyed, and so decided to write this rebuttal"
Why get annoyed? Just an article..
"One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any camera. Horseshit"
Corny, sure is..but its just "TRUE" !!! lol
Sorry, but LL would be well advised to pull down that article, because its just saying the wrong thing IMHO. What matters most? Photographer or Camera? Its got to be 90% photographer.
"So please folks, stop the childish nonsense. Equipment does matter, and if anyone tells you otherwise, smile, nod sagely, and simply move along. Or, send them here for a good spanking"
Ok I am ready for my spanking! But as quoted above..
"And, our hero succeeded. His photographs, made with cheap cameras on even cheaper lenses were widely published in major magazines, his better work was collected by major galleries and national institutions, and he was able to make a decent living as a freelance photojournalist."
So I guess equipment does not matter then??????
-
Hi,
it seems to be that this is a non-argument. Both sides, if sides there be, are right in their contexts. I think it would be easiest to sum up the positions as follows:
MR: Ultimate potential image quality is compromised with less than ideal tools. At a more basic level, the camera has to be functional to even take a shot.
KR: Tools that can provide ultimate image quality are not going to provide it unless the user knows how to use them.
Both are truisms, both are right.
Secondly I suspect LL and KR probably have very different target audiences and readers, who by and large have different skill levels and different needs. When I began photography as a hobby, I invested more into learning than into gear. I went digital and found KR's site to be helpful, up to a point. Then I found LL and learned a lot more. For people getting started, who want to only learn enough to get a shot of their kids or and have some shots on their PCs, go KR. If you want to learn how to deal with RAW and make print, go LL.
Cheers,
N
-
But which Michael do we believe?
This one:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/parable.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/parable.shtml)
Or this:
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml)
I have great respect for MR, and whilst I do not agree on some things, this is a place that has a benefit for most who visit it. KR is more aimed sometimes, as a PR web hit stunt..but there is some truth to his no nonsense articles.
Michael always said if you have a problem/disagreement, dont moan on other sites, do it here. Here I stand..
-
Hi,
it seems to be that this is a non-argument. Both sides, if sides there be, are right in their contexts. I think it would be easiest to sum up the positions as follows:
MR: Ultimate potential image quality is compromised with less than ideal tools. At a more basic level, the camera has to be functional to even take a shot.
KR: Tools that can provide ultimate image quality are not going to provide it unless the user knows how to use them.
Both are truisms, both are right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You paraphrase Michael pretty accurately, but you miss KR by a long way. He doesn't say anything like "The photographer's craft is much more important than the equipment used." What he says is "The camera doesn't matter!"
The KR supporters in this thread consistently try to suggest that KR's point is something that they wish he had said, instead of what he actually said." There is a huge difference between saying "A is much less important than B" and saying "A doesn't matter at all."
Nick's posts on this thread make a lot of sense to me. And I like any of Nick's photos I've seen much better than any of Ken Rockwell's that I've seen.
To further muddy the quote from Ansel that has been bandied about here recently I'll say that KR's essay is "a fuzzy expression of a fuzzy concept."
-
Eric, did you really read the article from Ken?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm)
I see that he says good gear can make life easier. I think that counters your argument here. I am not a Ken Rockwell fan by any means, sure dont agree with a lot of what he says. Neither am I here to say anyone is a bad photographer, its all down to taste. Its just as simple as this. Ken is right on this one, sorry!
-
The KR supporters in this thread consistently try to suggest that KR's point is something that they wish he had said, instead of what he actually said." There is a huge difference between saying "A is much less important than B" and saying "A doesn't matter at all."
Is this like truthiness?
-
But which Michael do we believe?
Both. I was having fun being snarky, but I believe that Michael was saying you need the right tool for the job. You can't hand tighten a bolt that requires nothing less than a wrench to tighten it safely (e.g. lug nuts on your car's tire). That being said, you can either use a cheap wrench or the most expensive one on the market. The professional mechanic will probably have a chest full of Snap-On tools. He needs something that works every time and that will take a fair amount of abuse. But those just starting out can probably get by with less -- so long as they use the right tool for the right job.
That's the point of Michael's "Parable".
As to his "Why Cameras Matter" article...
You don't try and saw with a hammer or use your hands when you need a wrench. I own a 6x9 Zero Image pinhole camera (http://www.zeroimage.com/web2003/ProductPage/69/Zero69_2003.htm) -- which I absolutely love using (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2005/04/00363.php) -- but I would never ever go birding with it. I'd take my Canon 20D with the 100-400 EF IS L lens.
I get the impression from KR's article that he would send someone birding with an old Kodak Brownie. Or that he'd tell someone to use a Canon a620 when what they really need is a camera with T/S movements to correct perspective. My opinion of KR is less than complimentary.
-
Personally I've always thought that what is in front of the camera (landscape, model, whatever) is the most important thing. Decisions about framing/composition/lighting come next. Equipment choice is a much more distant third.
A shit and/or boring subject will always result in a shit and/or boring photograph - no matter what equipment was used to shoot it.
-
According to my girlfriend, the camera doesn't matter and no, I cannot have the money to get a new 1DSmkIII.
-
After looking at Mr. Rockwell's site, I believe he is what my teenage daughter would call a "poser". Michael, I must echo the comments of others who wonder how you could have dignified his opinion with a "rebuttal".
-
According to my girlfriend, the camera doesn't matter and no, I cannot have the money to get a new 1DSmkIII.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181452\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Damn, your girlfriend is rich enough to give you the money for a mkIII but she won't do it? Get rid of her!
-
"And who says you can't shoot the Serengeti or Antarctica with a Holga ? Why not, actually ? Might be a helluva lot more engaging than a bunch of bland, boring, repetitive 48 Mpix (is that where we're at ?) pixel arrays."
Well what a touchy subject we have here ! KR was as usual being provocative and MR fell for it. Must have been the jet lag as it seems an unusual outburst from him.
I agree with the above statement entirely. In my opinion the majority of people who shell out mega bucks for the latest MF digital gear would do better spending their money on improving their craft rather than their equipment. Better gear does not improve your photography unless you have the aptitude and skill to take advantage of it.
A good example of this is Mark Tucker. He can make a great photo from a camera equipped with a loupe instead of an expensive lens. David Burnett produces wonderful images from almost anything with a lens too. From a Holga to an old Speed Graphic.
It's the person who makes the image not the camera.
My two cents of course
-
Damn, your girlfriend is rich enough to give you the money for a mkIII but she won't do it? Get rid of her!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote
Well, that´s an interesting point of view, and better yet, shows how cloudy things can get.
If the girlfriend has the money but won´t do it, get rid of the girl friend; if the girlfriend has no money but does it like a rabbit, keep her.
This is what you meant, isn´t it?
Best solution, of course, is a girlfriend who both has the money and is willing to do it as often as you want her to do it. But trust me, even then there will be those who find fault with your ideal solution, possibly even those who have never met either you or your girlfriend, but most likely those who have no money but never do it anyway.
Funny thing, ffff - photography.
Ciao- Rob C
-
Damn, your girlfriend is rich enough to give you the money for a mkIII but she won't do it? Get rid of her!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote
Well, that´s an interesting point of view, and better yet, shows how cloudy things can get.
If the girlfriend has the money but won´t do it, get rid of the girl friend; if the girlfriend has no money but does it like a rabbit, keep her.
This is what you meant, isn´t it?
Best solution, of course, is a girlfriend who both has the money and is willing to do it as often as you want her to do it. But trust me, even then there will be those who find fault with your ideal solution, possibly even those who have never met either you or your girlfriend, but most likely those who have no money but never do it anyway.
Funny thing, ffff - photography.
Ciao- Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And then what if your wife started working out and lost 30 pounds and you wanted to start doing it with her again? That could get really complicated (not to mention exhausting).
-
Michael wasn't actually engaging Rockwell's direct argument (about photographers and cameras), so much as he was attacking Rockwell's stupid cliches. Arguing that it's the photographer, not the camera, is a stupid cliche. Anyone who spends 1/4000 of a second thinking about it, knows that. Actually, Michael's article itself is something of a cliche, in pointing out that Rockwell's piece was a cliche; but Michael's piece was the product of annoyance, and so forgivable, while Rockwell's is just another piece of internet trash written without even the vaguest semblance of original thought.
If somebody argued that it's all the camera, and not the photographer, then it wouldn't be a stupid cliche (although it would be stupid) because nobody ever argues that, although a talentless hack might think it.
Not to piss anybody off, but the one thing about Michael's article that stuck me as, er, less than truthful, was that he really wasn't that familiar with Rockwell and more-or-less stumbled over him while surfing. Well, excuse me, but you can't have been on the net, reading about photography, for any amount of time, without knowing something about Rockwell, though most of what you hear about the quality of his site is bad.
JC
-
And then what if your wife started working out and lost 30 pounds and you wanted to start doing it with her again? That could get really complicated (not to mention exhausting).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That´s exactly what I mean about things getting a little complex on the internet: this discussion had absolutely nothing to do with MY wife, but was about somebody else´s girlfriend!
But theoretically, you have a point, only how can you know if the 30 pounds would be better lost than gained? 15 pounds a side can make a hell of a difference: ask Pammy.
Rob C
-
Rockwell has responded on his site (03/14/2008 Whats New) to the LL piece. Response starts of a tad weird, and well, a bit nationalistic.
-
Ken Rockwell wrote an article of 3400 words, with plenty of quotes and examples, yet all those holier-than-the-Pope crusaders of the new religion (commonly known as equipment junkies) are aiming their diatribes against only four words, the headline of his article: 'Your Camera Doesn't Matter'. And yet, the headline is a text-book example of a hyperbole . Here is Wikipedia's definition:
"... a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally . Hyperbole is used to create emphasis...."
The new equipment religion has some eerie similarities with most religions: prophets, followers, crusaders, intolerance to heretics and infidels... their dogma can not be disputed or doubted:
Questionning Michael's main point equals questioning logic itself
Amen!
-
The funny thing about a pissing match is that, right or wrong, everybody gets wet.
I think the topic has wandered towards Rockwell, but I don't think the article was a direct response to it. Sure, there was some frustration with its pedantic theory, but I think Michael's response was really prompted by a post on this site. I can't speak for him and I'll back out now before I get wet.
-
Rockwell has responded on his site (03/14/2008 Whats New) to the LL piece. Response starts of a tad weird, and well, a bit nationalistic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Based on his response I must say I've changed my opinion of Mr. Rockwell. To try and frame this as some kind of "Americans vs the World" thing is way beyond "posing", it's just kooky.
-
BALANCE....its a key in life and most ALL things.
Give an amazing photographer amazing tools and quality light.....and sit back and watch the magic happen.
Vary to any direction and watch the quality fall off a bit...to an aweful lot.
Craftsmen hone their skills...as well as their tools.
Anyone silly enough to not understand that will suffer in their work accordingly and proportionately.
Roman
-
And then what if your wife started working out and lost 30 pounds and you wanted to start doing it with her again? That could get really complicated (not to mention exhausting).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Guys, its MY money. She just decides how its spent
-
Guys, its MY money. She just decides how its spent
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh God, you poor bastard--just get the ring. Bet she'll let you spend as much money as you want on that!
-
Eric, did you really read the article from Ken?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm)
I see that he says good gear can make life easier. I think that counters your argument here. I am not a Ken Rockwell fan by any means, sure dont agree with a lot of what he says. Neither am I here to say anyone is a bad photographer, its all down to taste. Its just as simple as this. Ken is right on this one, sorry!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I read it, completely. And admitting that "good gear can make life easier" is a far cry from admitting that it can ever, under any circumstances, help you make a better image.
I'll admit that Ken is right in that one statement, and even perhaps in some others in the essay. But his main thesis is that "Your camera does not matter." Is that the same as saying "Your camera may not be as important a contributor to image quality as you think?"
-
If the girlfriend has the money but won´t do it, get rid of the girl friend; if the girlfriend has no money but does it like a rabbit, keep her.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can see Ken Rockwell's next essay forming right now! Will it be "Your girlfriend's money doesn't matter?" or "Doing it like a rabbit doesn't matter?"
Watch his site for the answer.
-
Yes, I read it, completely. And admitting that "good gear can make life easier" is a far cry from admitting that it can ever, under any circumstances, help you make a better image.
I'll admit that Ken is right in that one statement, and even perhaps in some others in the essay. But his main thesis is that "Your camera does not matter." Is that the same as saying "Your camera may not be as important a contributor to image quality as you think?"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, Eric, in this specific instance, I think it is tantamount to the same thing.
But hey, KLRZ-FM.com is beaming its magic into my ears and all this silly semantic bickering is so, so less important in the general scheme of things than we care to think and... oh, my god, that Cookie and the Cupcakes version of Great Pretender has just ended... some more triplets piano just coming on... let´s be happy!
Rob C
-
I can see Ken Rockwell's next essay forming right now! Will it be "Your girlfriend's money doesn't matter?" or "Doing it like a rabbit doesn't matter?"
Watch his site for the answer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, but what will Mike counter with?
EDIT: Oops! Should have read: with what will Michael counter?
Rob C
-
People are talking about "image quality", no sane person would dispute a MF digital back and top lens is going to mangle a vivitar compact, or make vastly better prints.
It is the "quality of an image" that is the topic.
Let's take one of the most iconic images of the 20th century.. "Che Guevara". You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara)
Taken by Alberto Korda
Look at that image. That is, today still on T-shirts, baseball caps, painted on walls. It is one of the most memorable images ever seen, its unique, and has lasting impact. I have no idea on what camera it was taken, what lens was used..nor do I really care that much!
Its a unique and fantastic image, and it will be remembered probably in 100 more years, if not longer. Look at some of the american civil war photos, fascinating..again WWII, many memorable pictures, telling a story of what happened.
These are the things we should concern ourselves with..not pixel peeping, lens or res testing. And yeah you could have taken that with a vivitar! And still, nobody would really give a damn! Most people would chop their limbs off to have taken a shot that memorable, is it perfect on a techinical level? Nope..but it just works, and big time.
And yes it was taken on a Leica..but we all know, that matters not one little bit.
-
I have no idea on what camera it was taken, what lens was used..nor do I really care that much![a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I saw the contacts somewhere
I think it is pushed triX and it is a crop from a landscape frame
Meaning the average DSLR, D80 even on JPG or whatever would produce a finer file
A good argument that Ken might be right...
IMO subject is most important - but I still think my D3 sucks compared to my H1
SMM
-
Ken Rockwell wrote an article of 3400 words, with plenty of quotes and examples, yet all those holier-than-the-Pope crusaders of the new religion (commonly known as equipment junkies) are aiming their diatribes against only four words, the headline of his article: 'Your Camera Doesn't Matter'. And yet, the headline is a text-book example of a hyperbole . Here is Wikipedia's definition:
"... a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally . Hyperbole is used to create emphasis...."
The new equipment religion has some eerie similarities with most religions: prophets, followers, crusaders, intolerance to heretics and infidels... their dogma can not be disputed or doubted:
Amen!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The quote you extract is only a part of what I wrote, it seems that you are doing yourself what you are accusing Michael of doing.
Why don't you just step back and read Michael's essay as a general comment, triggered by the title of Ken's writting, but with a larger scope?
You don't have to stay stuck in your initial reaction, move on man.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And yes it was taken on a Leica..but we all know, that matters not one little bit.
Give ya $50 if you can reproduce any of these using a pinholgaroid:
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...03/04/00195.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2003/04/00195.php)
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...04/04/00104.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2004/04/00104.php)
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...04/04/00105.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2004/04/00105.php)
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...05/01/00296.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2005/01/00296.php)
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...05/03/00332.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2005/03/00332.php)
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...05/05/00445.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2005/05/00445.php)
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...05/06/00458.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2005/06/00458.php)
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...05/07/00556.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2005/07/00556.php)
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...06/01/01124.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2006/01/01124.php)
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...06/01/01125.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2006/01/01125.php)
http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/image...06/04/01151.php (http://www.digiteyesed.com/portfolio/images/2006/04/01151.php)
Remember, the camera doesn't matter, only what's in front of it! Don't give me no lame excuses about the wrong lens or subject movement because we all know it doesn't count.
-
I have to confess, I have invoked St. Ansel on occasion, and even mentioned people being happy with Holgas. But my point was never that equipment doesn't matter. Rather, my complaint with a lot of the equipment discussion lately is that there seems to be (to me at least) an innordinate amount of concentration on digital "Image Quality," at the expense of other equipment considerations, which do matter a great deal.
There have been a lot of lengthy posts lately about one camera having detectably better noise characteristics than another at ISO X,000, as viewed at 800% magnification on a monitor. I think noise is important, but it's only one piece of the decision. Most newish DSLRs (in my opinion) are good enough now that it shouldn't be the biggest prioirty in the decision, unless you shoot at the highest ISOs all the time.
Posters ask about which of two cameras might be "better," and before long, we're back to arguing about high magnification views of high ISO noise, and whether the noise in one or the other is more "natural looking." As if that's the only important aspect of camera performance. MR is well-known for being concerned about how a given camera model handles while wearing gloves. Surely, those types of issues should be considered as well, yet the net discussions come back to IQ again and again.
I'm interested that this latest generation of Nikons seems to have made a great improvement in high ISO performance, but I could never justify switching my entire camera system for that gain alone. If I had no SLR system now, it would be relevent, but even then, only one thing to consider. So tell me about all the rest of the factors. That's the value of LL to me. I'll watch how MR gets on with his Nikon rig, surely. But it annoys me to see people saying that the 4/3s cameras can't be considered useful for high quality work, now that Canon and Nikon have cameras with much larger sensors, etc., etc. (And no, I don't own any 4/3s equipment, so don't accuse me of the wretched affliction of fanboyism).
Frankly, when I'm looking at buying a camera, I don't need anyone to tell me too much about IQ anyway. I can just go to something like DPreview, download the samples, and judge for myself. (On occasion, I've taken a a blank CF card into a store and used it to take several shots at each ISO, with every camera that interests me.) What I'd really like to know from reviewers are things that I can't see on a web site, or by looking at images. Things like how does the camera handle in bad weather? Does it have annoying menu structure? Are there flimsy parts that fail early? My equipment satisfaction doesn't always match what I expected from the reviews. I think that comes from reading reviewers who concentrated on qualities I don't consider important in the real world.
In summary, I'd say the equipment is very important. What is not important are endless declarations about why some new camera model should be entirely avoided, because a competitor has just announced a newer model with 4% more pixels, or infinitesimally improved noise structure at extremely high ISO. I've been let down by things like poor acccess to mirror lock up much more often than I have by the fact that another camera might have less noise at an ISO I don't use.
Still, St. Ansel would probably do a lot a better with my equipment than I do...
-
Ignoring the numerous instances of faulty logic in KR's article, where I take particular exception is his reliance upon insults. Either a camera-owner is a good photographer (recognizes and is able to take a good photo with any equipment) or the camera-owner is "clueless," a "turkey," even if you are "otherwise intelligent."
Unfortunately, the essay typifies a 'bully' attitude often seen on the internet that stereotypes others, responds and belittles based upon the stereotype, and usually offers faulty logic and meaningless (and, often irrelevant) aphorisms.
Bravo to Michael for his rebuttal that such a bullying attitude, particularly one based upon faulty logic, has no place in discussions on equipment.
-
Another thought about all this waffle
I am clearing through my old cameras box
Great uncles Leica, other great uncle had a Contaflex, I recently gave my contax T2 to my mother - the only person who uses film that I know
(all these cameras still work BTW)
Now the contaflex has a leaf lens 50 F2 500flash synch - its better than any current DSLR for some uses and has a lovely bright viewfinder - really easy to focus
The rangefinder on the leica is pretty sweet too
I reckon my Guncles leica and half decent film is better than the M8
The contaflex easier to manual focus than a D80
My T2 was always as good as my nikon F5 IN the right circumstances
And better than any compact avaiable now ?
Basically until pretty recently Digital was Crap
So there was a chat worth having - can any digital camera give the results of my Great Uncles cameras from the 40s and 50s ?
Then answer was probably no
That conversation is luckily fast coming to an end
The camera no longer matters therefore - because most cameras are great
Whenever I think about buying more kit I remember the name of lance armstrongs book.. 'its not about the bike'
SMM
-
Whenever I think about buying more kit I remember the name of lance armstrongs book.. 'its not about the bike'
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hmm, remind me, did Lance Armstrong choose to ride a Schwinn or a carbon fibre featherweight costing more than a small car?
At the top of your field the tiniest differences in equipment performance can make 1/100th sec difference - a potentially winning margin in many sports.
... it's not ALL about the bike.
... it's not ALL about the camera.
-
Whenever I think about buying more kit I remember the name of lance armstrongs book.. 'its not about the bike'
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your talking about the same thing lol, no matter what Lance says it is about the bike to a certain extent, I could vouch for that being a biker, I wouldn't dream about taking a road bike down a mountain, or a mountain bike 50+ km. Like cameras for us: Leica for wildlife when I'd need a 500mm, or 500mm in a studio apartment for a portrait? lol
I do agree with you though about how you said cameras don't matter anymore because most cameras are really great. That's true, but for the niche.
I was in the market for a pocket camera not long ago and while looking and comparing online I realized that for what I was doing (me only) it didn't make a difference what the hell I got, the camera was going to be used for emails to family, and i didnt care what so ever about noise etc. let alone resolution.
Have u guys ever played with the Iphones camera? not bad for a cell.
Sometimes the camera matter, sometimes it couldnt make a difference.
-
I can see Ken Rockwell's next essay forming right now! Will it be "Your girlfriend's money doesn't matter?" or "Doing it like a rabbit doesn't matter?"
Watch his site for the answer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm betting on "Your Lens Doesn't Matter".
-
Michael Thank you for posting this rebuttal . I believe you were speaking to issues beyond the actual essay. There is quite a tendency across most of the forums I follow, to answer ever question about .."what lens, what camera etc" with a sharp response to "go shoot pictures". Rarely are any of the relevant questions ...like "what do you like to shoot" asked. IMHO you hit the nail right on the head.
-
Oy...
The years roll by, the testosterone steadily declines, and this discussion reminds me of schoolyard pissing matches. Your 200mm 2.8 lens is impressive but a poor substitute for the way I can stream it out there with my sheer artistic vision.
I think I got over the gear thing and the artistic vision thing in junior high.
My house smells of rich mahogany and leather-bound books...
-
Hi All
As a new member, it was interesting to read this debate. It remained relatively free of pejorative remarks and free of personal attacks.
I read a similarly controversial topic on the DPReview forum a couple of years back when I first joined there. It was full of trolling, flaming and vitriol. Little wonder I have never posted there.
As for the slight sideline of the girlfriends and wives, I am also a jeweller and can tell you that in the trade there is considered three rings you will pay for:
1. The Engagement Ring
2. The Wedding Ring
And the last but definitely the most costly:
The Suffering
Cheers
Tim
-
and hurray for the Duck addition this one is also great as animated!!!
http://web.mac.com/aaronandpatty/What_the_...WTD433web_1.mov (http://web.mac.com/aaronandpatty/What_the_Duck/Animated_Strips_files/WTD433web_1.mov)
love the background piano... he he...
-
That says it all!
-
this discussion reminds me of schoolyard pissing matches.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181570\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You may have missed the point of this thread. Michael's lashed out at yet another ill-informed blogger's attempt to stir. His conclusion was in fact to get over it and move on - as you have bluntly pointed out.
Your dismissal of this discussion as a "pissing match" unfortunately insults all the participants in a (so far) mostly well reasoned debate.
-
Equipment does matter today not because you get more features or custom functions to set, but because more money buys you better picture quality. That was not necessarily the case 6 or 7 years ago. It used to be that the camera body was just a light tight box and it was the glass attached and the film chosen that was really important. Unless you needed 1/8000 of a second or 8 frames/second, which less expensive bodies didn't handle. I recall that many of Galen Rowell's great shots were taken with the Nikon FM, but he always used the good glass and Velvia. Top of the line was built better and had more features, but for many uses less expensive was good enough so long as you had good glass and good film. If you wanted better quality large prints, you used a finer grained film and better glass. Today, more pixels means better quality large prints and that means a better camera body and not just a different kind of film. Switching to an improved film was easy and cheap. Changing camera bodies isn't.
I'm hoping that this will play out similar to the PC world. Each generation of PC was genuinely more capable than the preceding one but we've probably reached the point that for most of us, midrange models are Good Enough. It will take a while but I'm hoping that in a few years we'll have 15-20mb full frame cameras in the midprice range. There will always be the top of the line models that are built better to pro-specs and with a lot more features, but for me it will be nice to get back to the time when the glass is more important than the camera.
-
Serious question: does anyone know what Rockwell actually does for a living? I'll go out on a limb here and guess it's computer-related.
-
Serious question: does anyone know what Rockwell actually does for a living? I'll go out on a limb here and guess it's computer-related.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Should I take offense to that?
That is my day job.
Roman
-
Should I take offense to that?
That is my day job.
Roman
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think what Statch means is that his 'job' is not photography related (directly). Apparently the ads on his website earn his money therefore, yes, his job is computer related. Good for him if he is making money out of the internet - even if the information he is peddling is weak.
It therefore seems that his income is derived from talking about photography, rather than doing photography. He mentions his work hanging in private collections but gives no examples and of work in 'hard cover books' but again no examples.
Here's a cliche : "Those who can do, those who can't teach".
Actually I don't agree with this since there are some wonderful do-ers who are very proficient in their subject professionally but who choose to teach as well. However, in the case of Ken Rockwell, well, you be the judge.
-
Should I take offense to that?
That is my day job.
Roman
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's funny because I was also going to add "like half of all participants on photo forums". But you still shouldn't take offense since I'm part of that "half", too (.NET developer).
-
mmmm very interesting debate, its got a lot of attention
i think to a way to settle this is for all those taking part to is engage in an experiment.
dig out all you old gear and new gear, take what you think the 'best shot(s)' you can of various subjects, with both, and post the results, keeping the equipment used a secrete.
dont be biased towards the experiment due to your personal feelings on the subject but try to be objective.
choose a wide range of subjects that will reinforce the argument or work against it.
but be objective.
the argument being
that 'your camera does not matter'.
e.g. a studio photographer could use the latest medium format digital back and then switch to a film medium format (if there is any left) and scanning to digital etc.
use an old olympus OM2n for a night shot and a Nikon D70s for the same scene and compare
do some art stuff on any camera and compare etc
do some landscape on digital and on large square plate
whatever you want
but when you post, the equipment used is not mentioned.
how this would be judged is open to suggestions.
will it boil down to
technical photography IS dependent on equipment and subjective photography IS NOT, or am i defining parameters?
any ideas?
-
I think the difference between Ken and Michael in the understanding of photography and equipment is far smaller than it might appear upon reading the original article and the rebuttal; it is not black & white, more like different shades of gray.
Ken, who says the camera doesn’t matter, prefers to use his spanking new top-of-the-line Nikon D3 and not some older DSLR or compact model. Michael, who stressed the importance of quality equipment, offers workshops and writes or hosts articles concerning the art of photography on his web site.
Cheers,
Achim
-
Indeed, Ken Rockwell and Michael Reichman are different ages but have far, far more in common than in distinction, not the least of which is that both are Internet "personalities".
Rockwell's article and Reichman's rebuttal contain, to my eye, about the same measures of conceptual accuracy, conceptual obfuscation, tunnel-vision, and self-righteous hubris. Many of the six pages of posters above have already wrung this subject dry, with many making observations that are far keener and cooler than anything found in either source pieces. Adding my pence to the subject would be utterly superfluous.
I will say, however, that in the final analysis Reichman's rebuttal was the weaker of the two pieces by virtue of its angry reactionary tone. In my opinion, his rebuttal both raised the general awareness of Ken Rockwell (formerly a boundary gadfly by most measures) and reinforced the popular opinion that Reichman is merely a gear hound. I think it was a misjudgment for Reichman to post his rebuttal. He should have written it, carefully edited it, and then filed it away for revisiting in 90-120 days to review its value after the bug had exited the orifice.
-
The same stuff is in front of everyone with a camera. There have been many fine photographs taken of subjects considered boring by others, just a there have been interesting images produced by low tech gear.
In B&W photography there is black and white, but also many shades of gray. Or not, if that is the intent. Unfortunately the "for us or agin us" mentality that has taken root in the political/religious arena seems to have insinuated itself into all levels of this society. Mr Rockwell's simplistic blanket statements seem to embrace this, humorous intent or not.
Good equipment only makes photography easier? Tell that to the guy lugging the view camera with attending tripod, film holders, etc., ten miles into the Sierras. The Holga would be much easier.
As others have said, it's just tools. Either they do what you want or they don't and it really doesn't seem to make sense to adhere to a dogmatic loyalty to any one format or brand. Art is subjective and what floats my boat may leave you cold. There is no right or wrong and one is not better than the other, just as "art" and "commercial" aren't mutually exclusive. I've seen excellent advertising work and bland junk passed off as art. There are lots of Thomas Kinkade's out there.
In regards to commercial work, if you want to actually make a decent living and be taken seriously by clients, what gear you show up for the job with is almost as important as your portfolio.
If you do believe that the equipment is unimportant, chuck all the camera stuff and just use your phone. No problem. But why dismiss people who do want to use the best tools they can? Almost seems a form of reverse snobbishness.
-
Is not the basic point this
Obviously one wil need a 500 for traditional sports photography or wildlife, decent ISO if its indoors or near dark
You may need a wide lens for interiors
Prints from a P45 are sharper
WHILE
a photo of 911 bombing or death of JFK , will still have vlaue even if shot on a phone camera
etc
but fundamentally incremntal differences are not going to do much to change ones photography compared to getting up earlier, talking to more people, being more charming, more inspired, doing more research, finding better props, hiring expensive models or whatever - that IMO is kens core point
40d , d200, d80 d300 - all the same
70-200 2.8, 80-200 f4 - the same
85 1.2, 135 f3.5 - the same
50 1.8 50 1.2 - the same
Zeiss WA adapter on canon - 16-35 - the same
H3d, P45 - the same
1ds2 1ds3 - the same
canon/nikon -the same
WHich would damage MRs photography most - banning P45 use or air travel ?
SMM
-
I think the major difference is that MR tries to write what he believes and tries to stand behind his words - or acknowledge things when he's wrong or changes his mind. KR (seemingly) tries to be "provocative" - making categorical statements he subsequently tries to weasel out of, because he was only joking or writing for a different audience or oversimplifying or whatever...
I note in one of his recent responses he references another "great photo taken with a crappy camera". The camera in question is a Canon EOS 650. Crappy?? No doubt KR could point out that these days they sell cheaply on eBay. But cheap is not the same as "crappy". The EOS 650 is a good camera and in its day was not cheap. So his "evidence" does not support his contention - in KR's world "so what" seems the most likely response.
I say: if he doesn't want to be taken seriously then I'm happy to oblige. But that doesn't stop - or help - his (IMO unfortunately numerous) fans.
...Mike
-
Woke up this mornin´ feelin´ fine
Hope of somethin´ different
On my mind...
Oh well, we live in hope.
Rob C
-
Talk is cheap, so I shall tell and show my story.
Now if you like the shots, is down to taste..but its about time someone threw something up to at least make some point.
I went out for the day a few years ago, went to a well known spot outside dingle, ireland. Had no intentions of doing any serious photography..family day out etc. But I grabbed a panasonic fz-5 camera anyway.
Well the light was good, I could see that..so we stopped off at this area outside lispole. You have a drive in viewing area here, so I nipped out and grabbed the fz-5. Having not planned to do anything serious, I forgot my tripod, had no ND grad filters or anything else..just my £250 at the time panasonic.
I got chatting to a tourist, nice guy..over from Virginia, setting up his canon 5d, 24-70 f2.8L, nice tripod too pano head..cannot remember the make. Cut a long story short, we exchange emails..in fairness he never mocked my cheap camera. I took my 8 shots, only 8..for the pano, he took probably 10 times that no. bracketing etc.
I knew this was a well shot location, so I decided to let the highlights go on the right, and crop in tight on the skyline, in an attempt to get something a bit different. I got an email from the guy and we shared some photos, he was not so happy with his shots, they were ok..but he would say himself, not too great. He liked my pano, a lot..
Few months later I got an email from a publisher who did a web search, they wanted to use my shot for an article they were doing on Ireland. Ok no problems, so I asked for a fee..and they published it.
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/SL270963.jpg)
Not only did I not have a camera that was not very expensive, or ideal for landscape work, but I had none of the usual stuff people use for panoramic shots, no tripod, no pano head, Just my 5mp FZ-5, I used autostitch for the pano, that cost me nothing, its free.
I got a better shot that day, because I knew what I wanted, I could have taken it on a £99 compact, or a top grade camera and L grade lenses.
A few years earlier I was passing through pembroke in wales, and stopped off. I only had a cheap Olympus 35mm compact, again nothing fancy..it was ok for what it is, not exactly ideal landscape stuff, no real WA, no controls or manual modes bar flash cancel. You could buy this on ebay for about £10 if you wanted to, probably cost about £100 brand new when it was ist out.
Bit of luck here, but the camera goofed the exposure, underexposed it somewhat, not great with the film I had loaded..just some cheap agfa stuff. Anyway correcting this led to a really grainy looking image..but one that IMO is not half bad.
I got this..
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/35mm/PembrokeCastleMaster.jpg)
Now the point of this story is, not that I am a great landscape photographer, plenty out there who are far more talented than I am. It's not even that I have a shoddy technique at times! (or rather dont take the better quality stuff I have out), it is just this...two cameras, neither anything amazing or special..had very little impact on getting the shots I wanted. Not having a pano head top tripod (or any tripod come to that), didnt count for a can of beans..
So to those who still say the gear matters, well it can def help you out, and sure, you cannot do some shots with some cameras. But what counts for a lot lot more, and way more than 50% as some say, is what you do with "what you have" at the time.
I dont cry myself asleep wondering if I could have got sharper shots on those two with better cameras and lenses, just happy enough I got 2 shots that I think, are fairly decent.
Good pictures are taken by good photographers, not good cameras. It sure is nice to have quality gear, but not always needed.
-
Talk is cheap, so I shall tell and show my story.
............
Good pictures are taken by good photographers, not good cameras. It sure is nice to have quality gear, but not always needed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly. Case proven.
Quentin
-
Exactly. Case proven.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[a href=\"http://mfunnell.deviantart.com/art/Lace-Monitor-1-38168669\" target=\"_blank\"] . Sure, I could have got a good photo with my Stylus Epic (I've taken quite decent photos with it) but I was, um, happier using a camera that had a telephoto option .
I admire anyone who thinks a fixed wide-angle lens camera is ideal for taking close-ups of hyenas at the kill, but I wouldn't sell them insurance!
...Mike
-
I used a 350mm lens with close-up adapter to get this image...
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/MiscImages/BlackWidowDirectFlash.jpg)
I could have used a shorter lens, but black widows dislike having their webs disturbed for some reason, and having a poisonous spider angry at me didn't seem prudent. The longer lens got me enough stand-off distance that my tripod wasn't touching her web. It also guaranteed me some reaction time on the occasions when the viewfinder abruptly went vacant...
-
I think what Statch means is that his 'job' is not photography related (directly). Apparently the ads on his website earn his money therefore, yes, his job is computer related. Good for him if he is making money out of the internet - even if the information he is peddling is weak.
It therefore seems that his income is derived from talking about photography, rather than doing photography. He mentions his work hanging in private collections but gives no examples and of work in 'hard cover books' but again no examples.
Here's a cliche : "Those who can do, those who can't teach".
Actually I don't agree with this since there are some wonderful do-ers who are very proficient in their subject professionally but who choose to teach as well. However, in the case of Ken Rockwell, well, you be the judge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The guy's only real talent is self-promotion. You know that if his landscape work was ever published in any significant magazine or book, or he was actually paid for something in a significant "public collection" he'd be trumpeting it to the heavens.
It's impossible to take the guy seriously because he just doesn't have the goods.
-
From Ken's Article: "Sure, if you're a pro driver you're good enough to elicit every ounce of performance from a car and will be limited by its performance, but if you're like most people the car, camera, running shoes or whatever have little to nothing to do with your performance since you are always the defining factor, not the tools."
This gets to the heart of why I don't like Ken's article. In order to take his position, you need to assume a certain audience. He is stereotyping by saying "most people..." The internet makes this all the worse because there is no way to know your audience.
Michael, I think your article is exactly right. Get to know something about the individual who asked the question in the first place. Then the response can be relevant to them.
-
Talk is cheap, so I shall tell and show my story.
Now if you like the shots, is down to taste..but its about time someone threw something up to at least make some point.
I went out for the day a few years ago, went to a well known spot outside dingle, ireland. Had no intentions of doing any serious photography..family day out etc. But I grabbed a panasonic fz-5 camera anyway.
Well the light was good, I could see that..so we stopped off at this area outside lispole. You have a drive in viewing area here, so I nipped out and grabbed the fz-5. Having not planned to do anything serious, I forgot my tripod, had no ND grad filters or anything else..just my £250 at the time panasonic.
I got chatting to a tourist, nice guy..over from Virginia, setting up his canon 5d, 24-70 f2.8L, nice tripod too pano head..cannot remember the make. Cut a long story short, we exchange emails..in fairness he never mocked my cheap camera. I took my 8 shots, only 8..for the pano, he took probably 10 times that no. bracketing etc.
I knew this was a well shot location, so I decided to let the highlights go on the right, and crop in tight on the skyline, in an attempt to get something a bit different. I got an email from the guy and we shared some photos, he was not so happy with his shots, they were ok..but he would say himself, not too great. He liked my pano, a lot..
Few months later I got an email from a publisher who did a web search, they wanted to use my shot for an article they were doing on Ireland. Ok no problems, so I asked for a fee..and they published it.
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/SL270963.jpg)
Not only did I not have a camera that was not very expensive, or ideal for landscape work, but I had none of the usual stuff people use for panoramic shots, no tripod, no pano head, Just my 5mp FZ-5, I used autostitch for the pano, that cost me nothing, its free.
I got a better shot that day, because I knew what I wanted, I could have taken it on a £99 compact, or a top grade camera and L grade lenses.
A few years earlier I was passing through pembroke in wales, and stopped off. I only had a cheap Olympus 35mm compact, again nothing fancy..it was ok for what it is, not exactly ideal landscape stuff, no real WA, no controls or manual modes bar flash cancel. You could buy this on ebay for about £10 if you wanted to, probably cost about £100 brand new when it was ist out.
Bit of luck here, but the camera goofed the exposure, underexposed it somewhat, not great with the film I had loaded..just some cheap agfa stuff. Anyway correcting this led to a really grainy looking image..but one that IMO is not half bad.
I got this..
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/35mm/PembrokeCastleMaster.jpg)
Now the point of this story is, not that I am a great landscape photographer, plenty out there who are far more talented than I am. It's not even that I have a shoddy technique at times! (or rather dont take the better quality stuff I have out), it is just this...two cameras, neither anything amazing or special..had very little impact on getting the shots I wanted. Not having a pano head top tripod (or any tripod come to that), didnt count for a can of beans..
So to those who still say the gear matters, well it can def help you out, and sure, you cannot do some shots with some cameras. But what counts for a lot lot more, and way more than 50% as some say, is what you do with "what you have" at the time.
I dont cry myself asleep wondering if I could have got sharper shots on those two with better cameras and lenses, just happy enough I got 2 shots that I think, are fairly decent.
Good pictures are taken by good photographers, not good cameras. It sure is nice to have quality gear, but not always needed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So I take it that you've now dumped all your other gear and just use these two, as they are obviously all thats needed.
Quentin - What's that thing you're leaning on, just a prop?
-
i am not sure what is more scary....the blind following of master michael (who can do no wrong and cannot be questioned...ever....) or that some people here actually believe that a more expensive camera will make them better photographers....
a pro driver will beat me on the racetrack in a golf even if i drive a porsche....lance armstrong will beat me on a tricyle even if i ride the most advanced, expensive bike out there....
a great sport shooter with a g9 will make a little league game look more interesting then a bad photographer with all the gear at the superbowl.....
no: if you want to shoot wildlife/animals in the wild, a wide angle won't help you and every idiot with a 500 can get a shot of a lion when he is close enough....which is why we amire every shot of a lion available these days...yawn..every idiot and my aunt can go to afrika and get that shot....here is the lion, here is the elefant,....
i would still much rather flip through the shots the pro got with his wide angle.....obably more interesting and more telling about the place and the atmosphere....
nobody (including KR) disputes that everybody needs the right tool for the job, whatever that might be but it is still much more important HOW you use the tool...
i am a gearhead like most photographers but i never tricked myself into believing that THAT camera or THIS lens will get me THAT job or will make my photos better...it will enable me to take them, nothing more....
there is a profile on a (very successfull) photographer...she does not even own a camera..only a lightmeter....rents everything according to the job...extreme and i could never work like that, but still interesting....
someone here said about the old ansel adams quote that it is worse to have a fuzzy picture of a fuzzy concept....this totally misses the point: at worst they would be both equally worthless because of the concept....with a sharp image, this would be even more obvious and faster detectable....with fuzziness there might be a certain mistery which might distract the viewer and veils the lack of concept....either way great shots are not judged wether they are fuzzy or not....
i am not on KRs side or michael's...both articles are rants and as such to be taken as a whole and not dissected word by word....and as a whole KR is correct and michael seems a little upset about something.....but then again, the only shots i have seen from michael are on this website, as jpegs and i read the captions and (since they are jpegs) they could all be from the same camera....but they say P45, ricoh, dsIII..whatever....
everybody should take a look at nick devlin's stroll with the g9 on this website....and after that tell me that everybody would have come home with the same quality (!) from that walk....this is with a 400$ camera....if someone does not get that, please go out and get yourself a P45 (michael has one!) and be happy and bore us to tears with extremely detailed shots of your backyard and all the flowers and spiders in it....
actually safe some cash, you can bore us just as much with shots from the g9! or not..it is up to YOU
-
I'd just like to extend my thanks to Michael for finally putting this debate to rest once and for all. That ought to quiet things down hereabouts.
-
i am not sure what is more scary....the blind following of master michael (who can do no wrong and cannot be questioned...ever....) or that some people here actually believe that a more expensive camera will make them better photographers....
Interesting that you made this comment. I actually don't think anyone here, "...believes that a more expensive camera will make them a better photographer."
Some may believe that in certain situations a better camera gives them better results, but I don't know that anyone has stated it makes them a better photographer.
However, let's see if I can justify such a statement. Two examples:
1. When a photographer uses her view camera it causes her to slow down and pay more attention than she would have with her D3/1Ds/superwhatever. Her results are better. Did that make her a better photographer?
2. A photographer uses his MF with a waist level viewfinder (let's say handheld so this is not about sharpness). Everything is flipped because of the viewfinder, which makes this particular photographer pause and pay more attention to the graphic elements in the photograph than he would have with his G9. His results are better. Did that make him a better photographer?
Perhaps in each case the camera did not make the person a better photographer, but instead brought out the best in that particular photographer.
I for one have my good days and bad days. Sometimes my mind is just elsewhere. If a tool makes me concentrate more on my craft, then I would argue it makes my results better.
I don't think any of the cameras I've owned have made me a better photographer. But my tripod sure has!
-
I started with a small camera doing B&W lab work in the 60's, then bought Leica M's in the 70's, then nothing new until my first digital in 1998. My early digital photos were well-conceived and edited, and I had several years of digital editing exp. prior to 1998, yet with each new camera I've acquired since, the quality of the images has improved markedly. Not the composition or presentation, just the basic quality which can clearly be seen as a product of better sensors, more pixels, better colour mgmt., etc. How do the latest compare to the Leica images? Hard to say exactly, but about the same.
-
So we go from - a POS that produces useless pics but is 'having fun' is a good thing, because skill makes the shot not the equipment: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/funkeycam.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/funkeycam.shtml)
to equipment is important afterall?
-
a pro driver will beat me on the racetrack in a golf even if i drive a porsche....lance armstrong will beat me on a tricyle even if i ride the most advanced, expensive bike out there....
i am not on KRs side or michael's...both articles are rants and as such to be taken as a whole and not dissected word by word....and as a whole KR is correct and michael seems a little upset about something.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just like to pick you up on a couple of points here.
A pro driver in a golf (cart) is rather unlikely to beat you in a Porsche unless you are blindfolded and the car has 4 flat tyres. However, sure, I get your drift.
A lot of this thread has revolved around 'winning' or being better than someone else, which is not really the point. The anti-KR folks are merely arguing that the correct tools allow you to do a better job, at whatever level of photography you are at, than incorrect or inappropriate tools. Surely this is inarguable?
KR is correct, you say. What, precisely, is correct about his plain assertion that the 'camera does not matter'? We all know that a top photographer can make good images with most cameras but would a such a photographer choose to work with the wrong gear?
I looked at your website and your fashion images are exquisite. No doubt at web size they could have been shot on a G9, but I would assume they weren't. Regardless of what they were actually shot on I'd imagine that you chose the correct gear for the task like all good craftsmen would do.
A previous poster said this: "Perhaps in each case the camera did not make the person a better photographer, but instead brought out the best in that particular photographer."
Well put.
Regarding rants, Michael's was indeed a rant but KRs was actually not. It was put forward as a reasoned opinion intended to be taken seriously (caveat lector notwithstanding).
Now that's scary.
-
Hi Nick
I think the Golf referred to may have been of the VW variety.
Cheers
Tim
(P.S. nice site)
-
My bad camera helped me!
Because it stuffed up the exposure, I got an instant "taken 100+ years ago" look ;-)
Had I used my DSLR, I know I would have just nailed the exposure, and got the shot, sure I could have spent a while pp'ing it to death. But as it was, luck was on my side.
Now I dont suggest you buy a camera that constantly underexposes, esp not good for film. (And being fair, it's most of the time good on exposure..bar this time)
So if I want to take "Olde majestic" shots of big castles like Pembroke, I know which camera to take with me. Its the one with sellotape on the battery door..that snapped years ago, its the one with the slightly soft corners on the lens, and the one that has no manual controls to twonk with, and a dusty mini lcd frame counter on top. You just have to point it at something good. Sometimes its liberating to use something basic and not so great.
-
Just like to pick you up on a couple of points here.
A pro driver in a golf (cart) is rather unlikely to beat you in a Porsche unless you are blindfolded and the car has 4 flat tyres. However, sure, I get your drift.
A lot of this thread has revolved around 'winning' or being better than someone else, which is not really the point. The anti-KR folks are merely arguing that the correct tools allow you to do a better job, at whatever level of photography you are at, than incorrect or inappropriate tools. Surely this is inarguable?
KR is correct, you say. What, precisely, is correct about his plain assertion that the 'camera does not matter'? We all know that a top photographer can make good images with most cameras but would a such a photographer choose to work with the wrong gear?
I looked at your website and your fashion images are exquisite. No doubt at web size they could have been shot on a G9, but I would assume they weren't. Regardless of what they were actually shot on I'd imagine that you chose the correct gear for the task like all good craftsmen would do.
A previous poster said this: "Perhaps in each case the camera did not make the person a better photographer, but instead brought out the best in that particular photographer."
Well put.
Regarding rants, Michael's was indeed a rant but KRs was actually not. It was put forward as a reasoned opinion intended to be taken seriously (caveat lector notwithstanding).
Now that's scary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181801\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i am referring to a VW golf...
nobody, including KR disputes that one needs the RIGHT tool for the right job...and of course lance armstrong races much better with his superbike then with my nieces tricycle....this goes without saying!
there are shots up on my website that were made with a nikon 950 coolpix (!).....and i bet you can't tell me which ones they are....the 950 coolpix was a 3mpix thing in 1997?8?..i think there are better phonecams out there nowadys...
and no i am not lusting after one right now for my next shoot....
-
Hi Nick
I think the Golf referred to may have been of the VW variety.
Cheers
Tim
(P.S. nice site)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, yes, missed that!
-
there are shots up on my website that were made with a nikon 950 coolpix (!).....and i bet you can't tell me which ones they are....the 950 coolpix was a 3mpix thing in 1997?8?..i think there are better phonecams out there nowadys...
I'll bet the difference would be obvious in any print 8x10 or larger. That the difference is not obvious at web resolution is not particularly relevant to anything...
-
Hi Nick
I think the Golf referred to may have been of the VW variety.
Cheers
Tim
(P.S. nice site)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whether a VW Golf, a golf cart or a billy cart should make no difference. Its just equipment, after all, and equipment doesn't matter.
...Mike
-
An Art Director's point of view:
Once again, in the argument over equipment, I find it useful to put on my Art Director's hat so I can see things from the perspective of a user of photographs rather than a maker of photographs.
If I were buying stock images, I have virtually no interest in the equipment used to take the shot; I would be looking at the suitability of the image to fit in with my visual concept and it would either suit my needs or not. Technical quality is of course an issue, but I have often seen and have often used images because of their fit on a conceptual level and then done my best with Photoshop to improve the technical quality.
If I was commissioning work, I'd first be looking for a photographer whose work seems to match the style I'm looking for - and still not have much interest in his gear, other than perhaps the final print size that can be achieved. I would however, naturally expect him to be shooting with top notch gear; I want to know I'm using a professional who's continually investing in his business and more importantly on delivering top quality.
And just one other point: I have seen many a good photograph, doubtless shot on good gear by a good photographer, butchered by a junior art director with ham-fisted Photoshop skills.
-
So I take it that you've now dumped all your other gear and just use these two, as they are obviously all thats needed.
Quentin - What's that thing you're leaning on, just a prop?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I'm the mediocre photographer I mentioned earlier trying to compensate with bigger and better equipment
Quentin
PS actually I am getting a tad frustrated with all the choices and I am trying to get back to basics. With so much new gear around, its too easy to think you need that new piece of kit when you probably already have too much already. Ever been out in the field with several different cameras and could not decide what to use? I have. I work better with less. I'm probably happiest with the 8x10 and one lens and Provia 100 bit its a hassle to us and I use the Mamiya ZD more often than not. The trouble starts when I go out with a shedload of gubbins in the boot (trunk) of my car.
Q.
-
The trouble starts when I go out with a shedload of gubbins in the boot (trunk) of my car.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's your problem Quentin. You want to get rid of the gubbins and replace them with a boatload of thingummies and whatsits.
-
KR, say any car will take you to the same place,.
Watch the video, and see if that is the true.
Maybe my sienna will do the same
PSS, your 3 mpix, was jpg ,
Are you still using it?
hey it's not different before and now, why change
it's so much different between 1ds and p45+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBZ35KAsURE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBZ35KAsURE)
BlasR
-
Of course the camera matters. How much depends of the shooting situation. If you're shooting in bright sunlight, a digicam may produce results nearly indistinguishable from a 1D-III when both are printed 8x10 inches. But if you're shooting action in a dimly-lit gymnasium, the choice of camera can make the difference between good quality captures and noisy, unusable crap, no matter who is behind the camera. High-end, expensive cameras don't sell just because photographers have an incurable mine-is-bigger-than-yours complex (although that does factor into some camera sales), but because in many situations they offer capabilities that make a measurable difference in the quality of the final result. These may be improvements in image quality, autofocus speed and accuracy, handling, or ergonomics or "feel". In some cases these differences may be insignificant to the average person, but if those differences are significant to a paying client, then they may very well justify spending the additional money for the more sophisticated camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is of course exactly true. All any idiot has to do to see this is to just take the matter to the extreme.
Just try to take an award-winning macrophotograph with a disposable camera to see if the camera quality "matters" or not as to the quality of an ultimate end photograph.
Here is a similar analogy: I may have never driven in a professional auto race in my life, but I promise you (as a complete novice to auto racing) I would blow the doors off of any pro race car driver ... if I were sitting in a Ferrari and he were sitting in a Toyota Corolla. All of the skill, training, and experience the pro may have would be useless to him against me, simply because I was sitting in the better, faster machine.
And this same truth applies to photography. If I take a Nikon D3 and go to a rainforest, and some great pro photographer takes a disposable camera with him to that same rainforest, I promise you I will come back with the better portfolio, not because of my skill (or his lack), but because I brought the better machine with me.
It is only when you start narrowing the disparity in machines that the difference in photographic prowess emerges between individual photographers.
Give a great photographer an average contemporary setup and he will still likely outshine a novice with a great setup ... for most applications anyway.
Jack
-
Of course the equipment matters, but within reason. Give less-than-perfect equipment to a good photographer and he will always have better results than a bad photographer.
BTW... the "What the Duck" cartoon makes the point that the photographer matters not the equipment... what was the point of referencing it? Counterpoint?
-
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
-
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.
-
I do not try to be wise here I just want to share my opinion.
I read both LL and KR.com regularly. One aspect of these sites was not discussed here at all. I think they're both aimed towards a different audience. While KR writes for the occasional or amateur hobbyist MR targets the full-blown professionals. Take a look at the websites: KR.com is full of ads for promoting to buy equipment cheap, while LL is advertising its own top-end workshops and travel activities (knowledge and experience not easily obtained elsewhere). Also look at the topics covered. At KR these are for the casual amateur (not in a pejorative meaning) discussing common lens/cameras from a hardware point of view and leaving alone color spaces/RAW conversion while boosting saturation from the technique point of view. MR OTOH is mostly focusing on top gear (KR never wrote a decent article about MF digital systems, but it does not make him incompetent) and techniques required for exhibition grade results. These things clearly differentiate the two web sites!
Now let's get back to the original question: who is right? MR or KR? I'd say for the TARGET AUDIENCE both are correct. For an amateur the expected result is rarely publishable grade, let alone suitable for an exhibition. And why should the local sunset or Uncle Bob's hair be shot with $$$$$ gear when the results will be mediocre at best regarding composition, subject matter, use of light, etc. For these people KR's advice is the best I could give myself: learn the basics first and invest later when you reached the limits of your gear you have for your task. These shooters will get better off with KR's advice than with MR's.
But there are the professionals required to deliver photos and artists who seek ultimate image quality. They (hopefully) know and use the basics in their photography and the only limitation for them are posed by their gear. They will of course benefit from high end equipment.
These two are different groups people (there might be some overlapping, but I think I could draw a pretty solid line between them) addressed by two different web sites.
Finally the statement of KR "Your equipment does not matter" is just a provoking and catchy headline like found in all newspapers. No need to get hung up on semantics here. In the article KR clearly describes that camera matters, but to a certain degree only above a certain level.
-
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]
I agree with you, the camera does matter - but in my opinion things like resolution, autofocus, frames per second etc don't have a lot to do with it. It's the feeling that matters, the camera has to feel "right" in your hands. Otherwise you won't be able to enjoy shooting with it, no matter how great the camera is - and if you don't enjoy shooting with it you will be able to take al least technically perfect pictures but you won't be able to take great pictures.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, that the best camera for you is the one you like working with and not automatically the one with the better resolution/autofocus/whatever.
Christoph
-
I do not try to be wise here I just want to share my opinion.
I read both LL and KR.com regularly. One aspect of these sites was not discussed here at all. I think they're both aimed towards a different audience. While KR writes for the occasional or amateur hobbyist MR targets the full-blown professionals. Take a look at the websites: KR.com is full of ads for promoting to buy equipment cheap, while LL is advertising its own top-end workshops and travel activities (knowledge and experience not easily obtained elsewhere). Also look at the topics covered. At KR these are for the casual amateur (not in a pejorative meaning) discussing common lens/cameras from a hardware point of view and leaving alone color spaces/RAW conversion while boosting saturation from the technique point of view. MR OTOH is mostly focusing on top gear (KR never wrote a decent article about MF digital systems, but it does not make him incompetent) and techniques required for exhibition grade results. These things clearly differentiate the two web sites!
Now let's get back to the original question: who is right? MR or KR? I'd say for the TARGET AUDIENCE both are correct. For an amateur the expected result is rarely publishable grade, let alone suitable for an exhibition. And why should the local sunset or Uncle Bob's hair be shot with $$$$$ gear when the results will be mediocre at best regarding composition, subject matter, use of light, etc. For these people KR's advice is the best I could give myself: learn the basics first and invest later when you reached the limits of your gear you have for your task. These shooters will get better off with KR's advice than with MR's.
But there are the professionals required to deliver photos and artists who seek ultimate image quality. They (hopefully) know and use the basics in their photography and the only limitation for them are posed by their gear. They will of course benefit from high end equipment.
These two are different groups people (there might be some overlapping, but I think I could draw a pretty solid line between them) addressed by two different web sites.
Finally the statement of KR "Your equipment does not matter" is just a provoking and catchy headline like found in all newspapers. No need to get hung up on semantics here. In the article KR clearly describes that camera matters, but to a certain degree only above a certain level.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know, you might be right. But that's not how Rockwell presents himself. If he'd just say, "Ok I'm not a pro, and people don't pay me for my work, but here's my opinion, anyway..." then maybe people wouldn't hate the guy so much.
It's because he's so obviously trying to bullshit people into believing that he's some kind of "published" artist that people think he's a jackass.
-
You know, you might be right. But that's not how Rockwell presents himself. If he'd just say, "Ok I'm not a pro, and people don't pay me for my work, but here's my opinion, anyway..." then maybe people wouldn't hate the guy so much.
It's because he's so obviously trying to bullshit people into believing that he's some kind of "published" artist that people think he's a jackass.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, but as soon as he comes clean his "career" is over. His reputation amongst his fans is based on the belief that he must be a "pro".
-
Pss
As pros, current and past, we should know better than getting into these circular arguments where each poster says the same thing for whichever side, but tries his damndest to make it sound original.
It is part of the Last Word syndrome - wives sometimes have it to excess...
Ciao - Rob C
-
Pss
As pros, current and past, we should know better than getting into these circular arguments where each poster says the same thing for whichever side, but tries his damndest to make it sound original.
It is part of the Last Word syndrome - wives sometimes have it to excess...
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL, so true.
Rob, your pithy comments always make my day.
-
Nothing wrong with Michael's article..it states the obvious (and so does Ken's)
Both take somewhat extreme viewpoints, probably to highlight the message.
But this is the line I have a problem with..
"One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any camera. Horseshit."
Now if he wanted to say a el cheapo digicamera (or any other one come to that) gives awful print quality, and thus is no good to anyone, that is one thing. A good photograph, subjective at best..is one which works. We aint talking about "fine art super quality" we are talking about does this photo work.
Not a single person on this thread is dumb enough to suggest you can do everything with a pinhole, or that you dont need some equipment to do some work. Are we so stupid as to need an article telling us this? I can take a portrait with a kodak throwaway, sure I wont get the shallow DOF with an SLR and a prime, I wont get the enlargement I could with the SLR..so what?
Most of the American Civil War shots are not so great on quality, does this make them any less good? If someone points their webcam out of the window, takes a nice composition, but its unprintable or just plain looks tat. That is still a good photograph, that is bad quality. It can still be good.
If Richard Avedon were still around, and you gave him some iffy casio to shoot with, he will have more limited options, and restrictions on what he does, but you would get good photographs. The most important element is the photographer, NOT the equipment. The camera can help or hinder, but that is all.
What I find amazing is how some still think, that image/print quality defines a "good photograph" The equipment is not so important..a lot less important than we are told.
Another quote "a doctor can't do surgery without a finely honed scalpel"
WRONG!
No doctor would pick to do surgery with a pen knife, but if they have to..they can..
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...9669D946197D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C01E7D6173FE433A25752C2A9669D946197D6CF)
-
Here is a similar analogy: I may have never driven in a professional auto race in my life, but I promise you (as a complete novice to auto racing) I would blow the doors off of any pro race car driver ... if I were sitting in a Ferrari and he were sitting in a Toyota Corolla. All of the skill, training, and experience the pro may have would be useless to him against me, simply because I was sitting in the better, faster machine.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, but without wishing to cast any doubt on your driving ability you are probably mistaken here:)
-
You know, you might be right. But that's not how Rockwell presents himself. If he'd just say, "Ok I'm not a pro, and people don't pay me for my work, but here's my opinion, anyway..." then maybe people wouldn't hate the guy so much.
It's because he's so obviously trying to bullshit people into believing that he's some kind of "published" artist that people think he's a jackass.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So if we say both MR and KR are right for the TARGET AUDIENCE then why are we arguing? Who cares how they present the message? MR has undeniable expertise and that's what is needed for HIS audience to get the message. KR acts as a pro (well, if we stick to the definition of pro being "someone who gets his/her income from photography" then he is a pro), because he found down the road that is required for HIS audience to get the idea (BTW I can't remember KR saying or implying to be a published artist, so I would not call him a liar in this matter). IMHO it's just marketing and it's his way of communication (which he also mentions on his website). The communication which both KR and MR both do pretty well, although in a different style. Now we all know that KR style marketing does not work with high-end photographers, but I also doubt that MR's moderate and purely professional way would impress any amateur. I think it's that simple. Low-end masses were always served differently than the top because they have different needs - take any aspect of life.
-
Pss
As pros, current and past, we should know better than getting into these circular arguments where each poster says the same thing for whichever side, but tries his damndest to make it sound original.
It is part of the Last Word syndrome - wives sometimes have it to excess...
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
you are so right...i always fall into the trap...one of the reasons i try to stay away from this forum...
-
So if we say both MR and KR are right for the TARGET AUDIENCE then why are we arguing? Who cares how they present the message?
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.
-
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?
-
Must have been a slow news day. That Ken Rockwell article has been up forever. Probably generated lots of traffic though.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!).
-
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
-
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
-
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...?
-
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.
-
Here's another 'camera doesn't matter opinion':
Bruce Percy (http://www.thelightandtheland.com/blog/?cat=22)
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.
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=182189\")
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
as "a Canadian gearhead site"......
What does this supposed to mean?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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
-
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My cousin knows Dr. Phil. I'll get it set up.
-
I've been lurking here on LL for a couple of years, but this recent controversy over the KR article has be quite puzzled. I am not sure why some people took the opinion of a single person on one website *almost* as a personal insult.
A few years back I met a man, basically a complete novice, trying to learn more about photography, but when I cam across him he had almost given up. He simply did not have the money for the "really good camera" he was told he need to make good results. This attitude that he ran into in both person and on some internet web sites really did a number on him. So in my opinion, the way I read the KR article, I though it was aimed at people like this guy - people who have to put money for buying groceries, keeping the car on the road,paying for the kid's dental work, etc, before buying a new D200 or D300 every couple of years. Keep up hope, develop your skills, don't give up if you cannot afford the best.
The other issue that bothers me is what is the best? After recently buying a new Nikon D40 - well just even this afternoon, I was asked "why not the new D300?" or "Why not a D3?"
Well the answer is simple - the money that would of gone into a D300 or even a D3 instead went into a new 4x5", a couple of G-clarons, a second spot meter and a Devere 504 enlarger.
However, I have never, ever at any time used the fact I shoot LF to "look down my nose" at the other guy because his camera was "only" 35mm Nikon or Mamiya or or even a digital SLR. Hey, you use what works for you, right? even if I had the cash in my pocket for a D3 right at this moment, personally I would rather buy a new 11x14 and get into some heavy duty contact prints.
One last comment - a number of pros I know do NOT use the latest digital SLR. One specific example I am talking about are newspaper photographers, the kind who hit the asphalt everyday covering the daily local news. The resolution on most print or web editions of newspapers don't require the D3 or even the D300, and so as a result, a lot of newspapers are either unwilling or maybe cannot even afford to replace all their gear every two or three years. The attitude many newspapers is you use it until it wears out. Right or wrong, that's how the real world works out for a lot of people.
-
My cousin knows Dr. Phil. I'll get it set up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hope they hug at the end of the show. That always makes me feel better.
-
Deleted.
-
From a dp post..
Holga makes a comeback..
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertai...ack-797582.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art-and-architecture/features/the-cult-of-holga-the-sixties-camera-makes-a-comeback-797582.html)
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/holg...ion=Popup&ino=1 (http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/holga-pics-article-797623.html?action=Popup&ino=1)
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=holga (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=holga)
You see its all about the images ;-)
-
The thing I like about photography is it's a combination of art and science. And in the skilled hands of a great photographer, a better camera can make better images, but in the hands of someone who knows not what they are doing, it's wasted. A picture is the sum of the camera, the technology, the art and the artist. You can't just look exclusively at one aspect or you'll get to the point of absurdity very rapidly....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Graeme - you said it all with this post, I think. I shan't read the rest of the thread now
-
If his site is a joke, it's one which he and many other take all too seriously.
His disclaimer simply appears to be an excuse for inconsistency.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know I am coming to this discussion late, but really, what can you say about a man with a LAVA LAMP on his desk? (see down page on Ken's site)
I can't wait for the first "Travel to the moon with model rocket" etc.
Michael, I'm glad you took this on. If I remember correctly Van der Meer used a camera oscura and Ansel Adams spent a lot of time with f64 technique and depth of field.
Art is often enhanced by technology, giving the artist's vision more room to play.
Regards
Victor
-
Sorry, but without wishing to cast any doubt on your driving ability you are probably mistaken here:)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181975\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No sir, you're mistaken.
A vehicle that can only go 100 mph will never be able to beat a vehicle that can go 200 mph
Jack
-
No sir, you're mistaken.
A vehicle that can only go 100 mph will never be able to beat a vehicle that can go 200 mph
Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182795\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A vehicle that can go 200 mph doesn't go 200 mph unless the driver is capable of driving it that fast. Apparently I think that is more difficult than you do.
-
I can drive 125MPH...
-
I can drive 125MPH...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Used to own a BMW and took it up to 140 a couple times. First time was kind of scary, but second time it just didn't seem that fast. I think NASCAR drivers average around 140-150 so that kind of amazed me.
-
Driven 180mph in a Lotus Carlton. Very smooth.
-
Driven 180mph in a Lotus Carlton. Very smooth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A bit over 90 may not sound like much, but it was on a motorcycle. A BMW, in fact. Back in my reckless youth.
-
I love Lotus.
-
Driven 180mph in a Lotus Carlton. Very smooth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep, they're pretty quick - when I was younger I ran a 900 sports bike and the Lotus Carlton was just about the only car that ever left me standing:) - to be fair I bottled and he just blasted off into the distance.
My original comment was that racetracks tend to have corners and travelling fast around them is much more skilled than driving in a straight line!
Mike
-
I love Lotus.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Damn nice cars, handle beautifully as well.
-
My original comment was that racetracks tend to have corners and travelling fast around them is much more skilled than driving in a straight line!
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree wholeheartedly. Corners is where the fun is.
-
Dear God, the lunatics are indeed in charge here.
Adios - Rob C
-
A vehicle that can go 200 mph doesn't go 200 mph unless the driver is capable of driving it that fast. Apparently I think that is more difficult than you do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The point you are completely missing is best understood in Porsche's most famous advertisement: "It's not how fast you go, but how well you go fast."
If I were in a Ferrari, I would never even need to redline it at 200 mph to easily defeat any driver in a Toyota. I could quickly and effectively get well passed the Toyota's capability in seconds, which would still be nowhere near the Ferrari's capability.
By contrast, the pro race car driver's skill (however considerable) would still be severely limited by the fact it takes a Toyota forever to get up to 100 mph, and then the sad unit would be screaming in protest if asked to keep it at said speed continually.
A Ferrari at 120 mph is coasting in style, a Toyota at 100 mph is screaming in agony ... and cannot maintain said speed for very long at all.
So as I said in the beginning, yes the tools do matter. You won't ever see a professional race car driver entering a race in a Toyota Corolla for this reason, nor will you ever see a professional photographer come to a wedding (or trying to enjoy macrophotography) with a disposable camera.
It is only when you are getting close to the top-end in equipment consideration where choice becomes less relevant, and photographer skill becomes more relevant, but all of the choices involved will still be amongst high-quality equipment if he expects to be in the race.
Jack
-
I agree wholeheartedly. Corners is where the fun is.
Corners are also an area where the superior handling of a car designed for speed (Porsche, Ferrari, etc.) will keep it firmly attached to the road at speeds and lateral G-forces that will send a Yugo through the guard rail and into the canyon. If you were to follow directly behind a Formula One driver in a Toyota, so that both of you were driving the same line through a corner, the Toyota is going to break loose and hit the wall long before the race car.
-
Corners are also an area where the superior handling of a car designed for speed (Porsche, Ferrari, etc.) will keep it firmly attached to the road at speeds and lateral G-forces that will send a Yugo through the guard rail and into the canyon. If you were to follow directly behind a Formula One driver in a Toyota, so that both of you were driving the same line through a corner, the Toyota is going to break loose and hit the wall long before the race car.
Again, this is exactly correct. The steering system, the braking system, and the suspension system are all factors that contribute to handling quality and capability in a race ... on top of the legitimate ability to go fast ... that matter most in effective racing capability, long before the difference in "human" capability will ever come into play.
It is simply impossible for low-end cars to take corners and achieve maximum speed like a professional race car, I don't care who is driving ... just as it is simply impossible for a disposable camera to take macro photos like a high-end SLR with a good macro lens, I don't care who is taking the shots.
Again, it is only when the equipment gets "close" in capability, where the user skill will now begin to make the difference.
Jack
-
Dear God, the lunatics are indeed in charge here.
Adios - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's been two months and they still haven't figured out we hacked the hospital's wireless network. It's one of the nicer places I've stayed actually--several of us here are into photography and we convinced Dr. Reichmann (a coincidence?) that an 11880 would be highly therapeutic. Supposed to arrive early next week.
Oops, gotta go, I'm late for group.
-
One of my best friends used to do a lot of SCCA amateur racing. I'd often go with him just so I could shoot the cars. I can remember one particular race where the course that had been set up was particularly tight and was giving the drivers fits. Then it became the turn of John, one of the best drivers in the club, to take a shot at it. John was actually driving a Porsche Carrera that belonged to one of the other drivers. The owner of the Carrera often let John drive it because John could get a lot more out of the car due to his superior skill. (Two drivers....same car, but different skill levels...skill won. And won every time, I might add.) John sets out on the course, throwing the Carrera into the exceptionally tight turns. He was planting the inside wheel on the pylon, throwing the hand brake, then using the power and weight of the rear-engined Porsche to spin the rear end around the turns before releasing everything and screaming off to the next turn. I gotta say...it was impressive. lol Sure enough, when he crossed the finish line, John had shaved 5 seconds or so off the next best time. That time stood through quite a few drivers. Then came one of the old guys in the club. He was driving his old Datsun 1600. Without squealing a tire, he was able to shave a half second off John's time. I guess we should have expected it since this old guy used to be the driving instructor for our highway patolmen before he retired. (Two drivers...one with much better gear...skill still wins.)
-
Yep, they're pretty quick - when I was younger I ran a 900 sports bike and the Lotus Carlton was just about the only car that ever left me standing:) - to be fair I bottled and he just blasted off into the distance.
My original comment was that racetracks tend to have corners and travelling fast around them is much more skilled than driving in a straight line!
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The corners are definitely more fun than the straights. I learnt to drive in the Forest of Dean which barely has a straight road anywhere and my brother, who owns his own motorcycle engine tuning company, used to tune up cars like Escort RS Turbos, Lotus Exige's, Grasstrack cars, Westfield Group B's etc. We spent countless hours chucking these tuned up racing cars around the coners, great fun! Ironically my brother had a Suzuki 1100 and raced it against the Carlton. The bike was left standing.
Miss those days
-
The corners are definitely more fun than the straights.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But isn't image quality usually worse in the corners?
-
Corners are also an area where the superior handling of a car designed for speed (Porsche, Ferrari, etc.) will keep it firmly attached to the road at speeds and lateral G-forces that will send a Yugo through the guard rail and into the canyon. If you were to follow directly behind a Formula One driver in a Toyota, so that both of you were driving the same line through a corner, the Toyota is going to break loose and hit the wall long before the race car.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182925\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very well put. G force, weight transfer and late breaking is where its at :-)
Do note that there is a Toyota F1 team in the current F1 Championship. Not that they are doing great but they're there. Also, Lotus uses Toyota engines in their current cars. Of course these are very different from a standard Toyota.
-
Dear God, the lunatics are indeed in charge here.
Adios - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually I think there is a direct correlation between automobiles and cameras when it comes to equipment. In both instances the equipment will greatly influence the outcome.
There's a logic behind this apparent lunatism.
-
I once got my Wolseley 4/44 up to 62mph. I didn't realise man could live at that speed. David
-
The issue is not whether it's the camera or the photographer, but what is most important is the end result. The end result of photography are fine prints and images, and so, to achieve that, your skill level must be high for one, for two you need to know what you want in your prints, and three, you must either hone up your skill to reach that end and/or get the gear that will help you achieve that end.
jjp
-
A bit over 90 may not sound like much, but it was on a motorcycle. A BMW, in fact. Back in my reckless youth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do not write this to denigrate in any way your 90mph, since I don't ride motorcycles at all, but I'm proud to say that a young gentleman from my state (Minnesota) was arrested a couple of years ago for driving a motorcycle 205 miles an hour on a public highway, as timed by a highway patrol plane. That was 150 miles an hour OVER the speed limit. He was fined severely, but, of course, was also something of a local hero. The bike was a specially tuned Honda.
JC
-
I do not write this to denigrate in any way your 90mph, since I don't ride motorcycles at all, but I'm proud to say that a young gentleman from my state (Minnesota) was arrested a couple of years ago for driving a motorcycle 205 miles an hour on a public highway, as timed by a highway patrol plane. That was 150 miles an hour OVER the speed limit. He was fined severely, but, of course, was also something of a local hero. The bike was a specially tuned Honda.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I read about that. But my 90 was only 35 over the speed limit, and I didn't get caught.
-
I love Lotus.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lots Of Trouble, Usually Serious
-
212 posts. All men. About "my toy is better than your toy" I missed the memo that said photography is a competition.
Oh wait ... my local camera clubs says that every month. Never mind.
Regards, Art.
-
My toys better than your toy..
-
My toys better than your toy..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But didn't KR say that your toy doesn't matter?
-
But didn't KR say that your toy doesn't matter?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He must have really crappy toys, and's telling himself "ITS ALL GONNA BE OK"
Michael
-
Yes, I do agree with the article and most of the forum posts, however, looking back at my amature history I made a few observations. I started with rol fim in 6x6 russian cameras that were used at highschool for training purposes. Some of my best portraits were shot with these mere pinhole cameras (at the age of 14!)
Then I 'upgraded' to the canon AE1 of my dad. It took a while but using its only lens a 50mm 1.8 MF I created some astonishing pictures on HEMA film (the dutch equivalent of wallmart but then smaller, Actually it was cheap konica b/w film inside the box, but that I found out later) One of those pictures still hangs framed in my living room.
Then I got a, in my position, affordable Nikon F801 with some nice zooms and a flash. Suddenly I had all the gear I could dream/afford but soon i found my pictures lacked quality. not techical but at the artistic level. the shots became just good recordings....So I lost interest in photography for about 10 years.
Only three years AFTER the purchase of a Nikon Coolpix 995 i regained my enthusiasm about photography and the artistic quality of photography that grabbed me 20 years before returned.
Several 1000s of shots later I bought a nikon D50 (nothing top notch, but the only thing I can afford). I am using my old lenses (and a new Sigma 10-20 I won at a contest, using a mere $10 Vivitar MF lens) but I use it with its limitations and a different mindset.
It is this mindset that makes the difference I think. Would a better camera make me a better photographer? I guess not. Would the images be of higher quality, maybe a little. Would I care.....not at all.
What matters is passion, time and concentration.
So does gear matter: yes, if it s your work. yes if your goal is to reach highest quality, No if it's your hobby to create ,sometimes artistic or just mere pleasant, images.
that said, I too have a wish list: A D300, a 85 1.8, a 70-200 /2.8 VR, a 17-55 maybe, so I quess I'm not that different after all..
-
What matters is passion, time and concentration.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah never say "Passion" it ranks up there with "Timeless" and or "Timeless Memories" add "Cherished Memories" also. Worse is the fact 95% of people use these uber corny phrases on their sites. I admit, its hard to think of what to say at time..but cmon!!!
Arrgghhhhh, I know a tad OT, but hell..some people even have their outfit named like that. Just a tad on the overused double special cheesey side. The next worse to that is an in depth gear head "about me" page, pushing your own beloved brand..oh John is using a Nikon D3, or a Canon 5d and L lenses..nobody cares what maker you use!!!
3rd place goes to the "boring blog" I hate blogs, there are more often than not damn tedious, what to say eh..oh I got up today and made a coffee..WOOOOOOOOO! lol. If I had a blog, it would bore you to tears. My apologies for the sarcastic post, too many Lee Evan's DVD's!
Ok, my rant is over ;-)
-
The way I look at it is like trying to ask a Super-model on a date:
It is possible to ask a super-model out on a date by potentially anyone. Stress, "possible", because it's all in what the model wants, correct? It's what her mind perceives as a pleasing sight and connection that will determine her attraction to the asking person.
Now, with that said, the better you look and communicate, the more attractive you might be to her. So, if you make an investment in yourself and go for the best you can be in many ways, your chances will improve in getting a "Yes" from her.
It is possible that you can invest your entire life and efforts into improving your chances, and she could say "No", but you could simply have just gotten there a little too late, didn't ask her correctly, or just didn't have the certain charm she's looking for. however, if you've neglected yourself, wouldn't you think that your chances would diminish?
So, in essence, it seems correct what Michael says in his rebuttal. If your equipment is better, wouldn't you say your chances of getting a better shot would improve? A good statistics class covers these modes of Mean and Discriminants (terminology?) etc. The theory Michael refers to is undoubtedly true if you really dig into it. It's true in other aspects of life as well, as Sean Reid points out.
-
What I teach people around me is that if you've watched any of the Sports debate shows, you may see three guys in a forum that will debate each other on who's going to win the next playoff. They are quite polite and display a very friendly un-biased set of personalities on the air.
What you don't see are their outtakes when they're choking each other and screaming profanity about each other's parents and such. Nah, I'm sure that doesn't happen, but it's fun to speculate. hehe
Anyway, let's go shoot some pictures!!
The other day, a bird shot me a human.......
-
A bit aside from the matter of the debate, which seems to be variations of vigorous agreement of a moderate position, I found the camera phone work that Jeff Ascough posted on his blog to be quite fun. Here's the link: http://jeffascough.typepad.com/wpj_resourc...era-phones.html (http://jeffascough.typepad.com/wpj_resource/2008/04/camera-phones.html)