Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: mrleonard on March 15, 2008, 11:47:07 pm
-
I am an occasional reader of both Luminous Landscape AND Ken Rockwell's site. Both of them occasionally give me some info I find useful (technical, photoshop hints etc.). I have, however, found them to be both rather meager in any meaningful content as related to discussions of art, artistic process, aesthetics et al. I find Alain Briot's articles on the creative process to be sophomoric and dull...overstating the obvious and lacking any new, fresh ideas or insights. This is just my opinion.
As to the rebuttal...The question IS the problem. "The Camera Doesn't Matter" is just a rewording of the "pithy aphorism" -It's not the camera, it's the photographer.
I am not sure if Michael understands the question....Let me put it this way:
You may have heard the riddle: "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" . The most technically cogent answer would be....NO. A tree falling creates sound waves....and a 'sound' is a measurement of the sound waves (to our ears...noise, music…whatever). Therefore, if there is nothing to measure the sound waves…there is no sound. The problem however is that this ignores the "essence" of the question...the question is not a scientific inquiry but rather a philosophical dispute: "Is there an objective reality that exists outside of our perception of it". THIS is the real question in the case of a tree falling, and I think the real question in the case of the camera is: "Does a technical improvement in a creative tool directly correlate to an aesthetical improvement in that creative process." OR "Can an improvement in precision foment an improvement in creative decision" OR "It not the medium, it is the message" OR…well…You could go on and on. The question is obvious.
I must start by saying I don't appreciate the patronizing tone of Michael’s rebuttal. As if reading his point of view is somehow the final word on the subject. Throwing around words like "stupid" "horseshit" and "mindless vapidity" does not elevate his position in any way…all it does is get my back up. And so I start...
Photography is an art and a craft. As a craft it is only of interest to speak of its merits or qualities purely in terms of its commercial value. As a craft it is as interesting a subject to discuss as it is to have a discussion about the K&N air filter on my motorcycle (well…it IS interesting to me , actually). Maybe Michael is more comfortable talking about technical matters because (in my opinion) his work is lacking of much artistic content or style. I could never look at one of his photos and recognize a distinctive personal style or trait, and his work does not move me on any emotional level. He is very technically proficient, and because he is always traveling and shooting full-time, he has shot some unique moments. But an artist creates his own moments. Currently, in Toronto, there is an exhibition at Stephen Bulger's photo gallery by Larry Towell (http://www.bulgergallery.com/). As this gallery is rather close to my own gallery I have looked at these quite often. I am amazed by his composition...and all how works have a signature style. These are just photos shot around his Ontario farm (Larry Towell is a Magnum photographer btw....google him). Very few of us photographers can reach the quality if this photographer...that's not my point though. These could have been shot with any camera....the composition is the thing (in this case).
Michael (or at least I think it was him...from photos I’ve seen) once came into my gallery and looked at one of my own photo works hanging on the wall. He was looking at it from six inches away. I suppose he was discerning the quality of this digital print purely on its technical merits. I tend to think this is looking at art through a loupe....or not seeing the forest for the trees.(I print with an Epson 2200, at 1440 dpi with Imageprint 5.6 and the image in question was shot with a Rollie 35 camera, Agfa Scala scanned on a Minolta Dimage Dual IV...not at all interesting really, but for the sake of full disclosure).
There is an artist currently on exhibition here that created her works with a Lomo Frogeye film P&S camera printed 36" by 24". The inherent 'noise' qualities are quite pleasing...Looks great! Noise is very interesting to me. This is when the subject matter expands beyond its frame. I think it is a byproduct of when inert , static, immaterial particles come alive from creative processes.Examples of desirable noise that comes to mind... feedback 'noise' in Jimi Hendrix' guitar.Video feedback. Fractals. The 'warm' qualities of old analog stereo systems. Vintage synthesizers.
One of my more 'successful' images is a composite of two images...one shot on a P&S digital , the other from a 60's 'half-frame' film P&S camera scan.I have the luxury of shooting with a Canon 5d and L lenses....but that is mostly so that I look 'professional' for some commercial work I do.
O.K....Im rambling on a bit. I dont usually have the time or bother to post on web forums or have these type of interactions/discussions via the internet...and it's late and i'm tired...
To sum up...Landscape photography has been shot to death...and it is very difficult to shoot anything very original.It is usually in this arena that discussions of technical quality are given so much merit. Would love to show some examples of what I was talking about. I know Flash and Director...but i'm pretty daft at all this html stuff..lol.Anyway....it's pretty much a watershed for digital photo technology. The megapixels can increase, but it won't make a difference until the lenses can be improved to match. This is at the high end,'technical' end of things....only of interest for commercial concerns. For artists...FOR ART....times have never been better. Go out and spend 150$ on a camera and create some amazing photos. It's not the camera...it's the photographer!
-
Go out and spend 150$ on a camera and create some amazing photos. It's not the camera...it's the photographer!
If the camera does not matter, why spend that much? Why not get a webcam? Or make a pinhole camera from an oatmeal box and a sheet of tinfoil and some duct tape?
-
I regularly use 4 different types of camera for the types of photography I do. None are especially expensive, though I do have some midling-expensive lenses (and some cheap ones). I have taken (IMO) some good photos with each. But I don't for a moment think one camera can take the same good photo as another. Each serves a different purpose. There are some types of photos I can't properly take with any of my cameras. Should I want to take those types of photos, I'll need to get the appropriate equipment. What is so bad/wrong/inappropriate about saying this? I don't get it.
...Mike
(And, before anyone says there's some magical camera that can take any kind of photo I'll say "x-ray" )
-
mrleonard said "There is an artist currently on exhibition here that created her works with a Lomo Frogeye film P&S camera printed 36" by 24"."
This begs the question, was the choice of this camera a deliberate creative one, or was that the only camera the artist had access to?
If it was a creative choice then that is quite simply an artist or craftsman choosing an appropriate medium or tool. Which of course proves the point that tools do matter from both a creative and technical point of view.
And as Mike says - what's so wrong with that?
ps - a friendly reminder, it's considered good form to add a 'signature, and maybe even a web link, to initial posts so everyone knows who you are
-
mrleonard said "There is an artist currently on exhibition here that created her works with a Lomo Frogeye film P&S camera printed 36" by 24"."
This begs the question, was the choice of this camera a deliberate creative one, or was that the only camera the artist had access to?
If it was a creative choice then that is quite simply an artist or craftsman choosing an appropriate medium or tool. Which of course proves the point that tools do matter from both a creative and technical point of view.
And as Mike says - what's so wrong with that?
ps - a friendly reminder, it's considered good form to add a 'signature, and maybe even a web link, to initial posts so everyone knows who you are
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whos begging?
Good form add a signature weblink whatnow?? This is seriously my 2nd web posting so I have no idea what you are talking about....and it should not really matter.
As to your question of choice... The ARTIST made it...not the camera...And I wouldn't count on them doing anything appropriate...they are human after all.No worries...there's been a history of some good results from their happy mistakes.Who said tools don't matter? Are you sure you know what I'm saying? Y'dig?
-
Here is what I posted on POTN. I stand by this view. The camera supports the vision but you cannot support the vision with crappy equipment.
-----------------------------------------------------
It is true that it is vision that makes a great photograph and great photographers, but it sure helps to have the best equipment you can afford to capture it.
Ansel Adams came from a wealthy family and had the best equipment of his day. He spent hours in his wet darkroom getting the prints just so. GHis finished prints often bore little resemblance to the image the camera captured in terms of contrast, saturation etc.
If he was alive now in our modern times, I bet he would just love to have photoshop and get in there and tweak those images so the capture matched his vision.
I'm not throwing out my 20D or 300D and going back to a box brownie any time soon - although I still do play with my TLR 6x6 occasionally (after I've tested the exposure on the digital)!
-
ps - a friendly reminder, it's considered good form to add a 'signature, and maybe even a web link, to initial posts so everyone knows who you are
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fair enough. I've added a signature and hope that's sufficient for "good form's sake". If not, I'll stand to be corrected. This may be an iterative process
...Mike
-
Good form add a signature weblink whatnow?? This is seriously my 2nd web posting so I have no idea what you are talking about....and it should not really matter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry if I caused any offence, I'm just pointing out that readers of posts like to have a context - ie to know a little about the poster, if they choose to.
This is quite normal on forums and there is a facility under My Controls (top right) to set up a small signature that's added to your posts. Nothing sinister, just adds to the communication.
-
Fair enough. I've added a signature and hope that's sufficient for "good form's sake". If not, I'll stand to be corrected. This may be an iterative process
...Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No worries Mike, I was replying to the OP but nevertheless, thanks for the new sig.
Cheers
-
This begs the question, was the choice of this camera a deliberate creative one, or was that the only camera the artist had access to?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, here's a photo where the artist only had access to a Holga (read the notes that go with it by clicking on the thumbnail):
[a href=\"http://trueblood.deviantart.com/art/sidewalkng-18080693\" target=\"_blank\"] )
That doesn't mean I won't use "lesser" equipment. IMO, this is a "good" photo in that it produced at least one visceral and entirely negative reaction:
(http://www.mikefunnell.com/jackpots-1-bw-web.jpg)
(OK, the selective colour is a little cliched: I'm still undecided about that, two years on!)
It was taken with a pocket-sized P&S digicam (a great little camera, BTW) used deliberately outside "its comfort zone" to produce the "technical lack of quality" I was after. Used within its comfort zone, the same camera can produce images of (IMO) quite decent technical quality. But would I use it to shoot wildlife or football? Not by choice. If it were the only camera I had with me, however, I'd try to come up with something, anything... (and, of course, I might not succeed).
Which leaves me having rambled on for quite a bit. To what point, perhaps, I don't quite know, except to say that equipment controls what a photographer can produce - and so does matter - while the photographer controls what is produced. Equipment may constrain a photographer from taking a certain photo - but can't stop 'em from taking a different photo that may be just as "good" in an abstract sense.
Maybe this was Ken Rockwell's point. If so, I wish he'd just said so, instead of making categorical statements that equipment doesn't matter at all, at all.
...Mike
-
But I don't for a moment think one camera can take the same good photo as another. Each serves a different purpose. There are some types of photos I can't properly take with any of my cameras. Should I want to take those types of photos, I'll need to get the appropriate equipment. What is so bad/wrong/inappropriate about saying this? I don't get it.
There's nothing wrong with saying that. You're using your experience to choose the best available tool for a particular job.
Oddly enough, the example of the master photographer who deliberately chooses a Lomo Frogeye or Holga or pinhole camera or a cellphone for a particular artistic effect proves Rockwell wrong; that the choice of camera does matter. The Lomo Frogeye was not chosen because the camera choice was irrelevant, but because its combination of perspective, lens distortions, vignetting, and the film tonality/grain combined to create an effect the photographer found desirable. The choice of camera is just as important when technical perfection is NOT desired as when technical quality IS desired.
Now of course with digital, one can replicate pretty much any color, tonality, vignetting, blur, or grain effect you like. But if you have a Holga, it may be easier to actually use it to get the Holga look than to get it via digital effects. Or it may be easier to duplicate the "look" digitally than buy a Holga and deal with film. Or the shooting conditions may dictate using a DSLR and simulating the look digitally. But in any case, saying the choice is irrelevant is untrue.
-
I see they now sell a Holga "special edition" white one, just for that exclusive look!
Being honest, I have never tried one, but I predict a massive increase in ebay sold holga cameras.
Maybe its time to whip out my 1929 120 roll film camera, with real glass lens ;-)
These are all just tools for us to use, and enjoy..I like the fun part about photography, the experimentation.
-
I own several cameras. Some because they have specific capabilities, others because I actually enjoy using them, and as a consequence take images with them which I find personally very satisfying. I'm NOT going to mention brands, but surely this is as much a part of photography as any other - actually enjoying the act of using a camera to take an image which you want to capture. And for different people, different brands may well suit them better - which this thread seems to bear out (Holga's and all - and NO I don't own, nor do I want to own a Holga!). So I'd say that the camera that you use MAY matter - if it doesn't then great.
-
So much posting in multiple threads on this topic, and Mr. Rockwell's statement.
I read Rockwell's little essay on this subject about a year ago. Two things I have learned from visiting Rockwell's site.
1. He often states personal preference as objective, or universal fact. He is of course not unique in doing so, but it is humorous at times, and could be misleading to the uninitiated.
2. He is the king of hyperbole.
But if you use Nikon or Canon equipment, he is another source of information, to be filtered as necessary. His "cheap" camera piece was simply an ham-handed, hyperbolic way of encourgaging point & shoot owners not to dispair in the sea of spendy DSLR's. And while it is a bit over the top, I think it was well meant by Rockwell.
Exspecially when you consider what is his apparent shooting style. Color JPEG (he is also a contrarian on RAW), 1/3-2/3 stop under-exposed with the saturation settings on the camera set-to-the-max. This look can be well duplicated by his cheap camera of choice, the Canon A550.
I had one, and now have a A570IS for light travel stuff. I got some very nice color iso 100 desert landscape details out of it a few months back.
If you check what his actual camera recommendations are in another part of his site, it kind of all figures together. As long as you want Color JPEG 1/3-2/3 stop under-exposed with the saturation settings on the camera set-to-the-max.
-
This is getting more fascinating every day.
Nobody, including Michael, ever stated that it is impossible to create interesting art with cheap gear.
I, for one, have defended several time on this forum the proposition that ultra focus on high end gear can damage the recognition of photography as an art form (I won't develop this point here), but I do also fully understand that there are many areas of photography where gear DOES totally and utterly matter. Some will find this lacking romantism, but I don't believe that those forms of photography where gear matters are lesser art than the one created with cheap gear.
So, from a purely logical standpoing, one positive counter example is enough to counter a general negative proposition, and it is therefore incorrect to state that "camera doesn't matter". You can write "camera doesn't matter to me" or "camera doesn't matter to X", but that's it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm deliberately staying out of the fray. So much noise – so little music.
Just as there are those that think I've misinterpreted Mr. Rockwell, similarly there are those who haven't been around here long enough and have therefore done so with me as well.
To which my response is this article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/funkeycam.shtml) from a couple of years ago.
Michael
-
I'm deliberately staying out of the fray. So much noise – so little music.
Just as there are those that think I've misinterpreted Mr. Rockwell, similarly there are those who haven't been around here long enough and have therefore done so with me as well.
To which my response is this article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/funkeycam.shtml) from a couple of years ago.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The "Funky Cam" LOL - I'd forgotten about that
-
I'm deliberately staying out of the fray. So much noise – so little music.
Just as there are those that think I've misinterpreted Mr. Rockwell, similarly there are those who haven't been around here long enough and have therefore done so with me as well.
To which my response is this article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/funkeycam.shtml) from a couple of years ago.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
micheal... keep up the good work...
to all others.... do your best with what you have.
discussions like this remind me why I stopped going to asmp meetings 20 years ago.... boring
botom line.... both matter.
-
I know I argued that the camera does not matter, but I will accept a Leica M8, as a prize for "putting up a good fight" ;-), and for putting something up to at least make a point.
I can see both points of the argument, and accept that it is easy to misjudge comments on both articles. I think even Ken Rockwell knows that certain needs and specific equipment are needed for some tasks. And that Michael knows himself that there is a gear mania culture in this area..and that you really don't always need "ultra quality" bodies and lenses.
The spirit of the debate is still with Rockwell IMO, whilst he did go OTT on some points, I think it was to highlight his thoughts. I am not here to put words into people's mouths..but that is what I got from it. Nobody here need feel bad for being poor and having junky cameras and lenses, and neither should anyone feel bad for buying high quality equipement. Ken highlighted to me, and some others..how important it is to really "concentrate" on taking photos, and doing the best you can..rather than the more usual lens testing, pixel peeping..oh my camera is not good enough stuff, we see so often on forums, and we are all guilty of doing that from time to time.
-
As stated by many, no-one is saying you cannot take A grade photos with cheap equipment, assuming enough talent. Especially when the goal is artistry alone. What I and others object to is absolute statements such as "your camera does not matter" because very often the equipment is as important as the user.
Ken is funny, in the strange sense of the word. He rails against gear fetishists (his word), and measurebators (his rather distasteful made up word). And yet take a look at his site, and it is full of techno-babble, with almost nothing about technique, and field craft. Most if not all of the latest 'articles' are 'reviews' of equipment, though all too often he has either never held the item in question, or he has spent 10 minutes fondling a prototype on display at a Nikon stand in a trade fair.
I suppose if you want to take garish pictures, with little in the way of composition, then Ken is your man.
I note that Michael allows people to comment on his views, and even to make negative remarks on his work, unlike Ken. It is interesting to Google Ken's name. It is quite surprising that one person can generate so much enmity.
-
As stated by many, no-one is saying you cannot take A grade photos with cheap equipment, assuming enough talent. Especially when the goal is artistry alone. What I and others object to is absolute statements such as "your camera does not matter" because very often the equipment is as important as the user.
Ken is funny, in the strange sense of the word. He rails against gear fetishists (his word), and measurebators (his rather distasteful made up word). And yet take a look at his site, and it is full of techno-babble, with almost nothing about technique, and field craft. Most if not all of the latest 'articles' are 'reviews' of equipment, though all too often he has either never held the item in question, or he has spent 10 minutes fondling a prototype on display at a Nikon stand in a trade fair.
I suppose if you want to take garish pictures, with little in the way of composition, then Ken is your man.
I note that Michael allows people to comment on his views, and even to make negative remarks on his work, unlike Ken. It is interesting to Google Ken's name. It is quite surprising that one person can generate so much enmity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
this topic reminds me of how inefficient we humans are as communicators...
while Breedlove spoke after crashing during an attempt to break the ground speed record in bonnieville, it took him 45 minutes to discribe the accident which took only 15 seconds to actually happen.
most everyone here is saying the same thing.
how bout a pole...
is it you? yes/no
is it your camera? yes/no
is it both? yes/no
please add what type of photography you consider your game... ie: arch, product, landscape, fineart, portrait.... etc.
-
The only question that's interesting to me is how a guy that's so obvious a wannabe hack could have any kind of "following".
-
Why is everyone replying to my post with unrelated arguments? Did anyone read my post...or do you all just want to blah-blah your point of view about an unrelated argument.
As I said...the question that is THE only question that was ever posited...no matter how unclearly is , well, not even a question....it is: " It is not the camera it is the photographer". SO...in other words....the essence of this is: "Does a technical improvement in a creative tool directly correlate to an aesthetical improvement in that creative process."
What's all this about cameras mattering or not?It is elementary they matter...how could one call it photography without a camera? This is not what is being discussed. I posted in response to Michael's rebuttal...as I believe he totally missed the mark. As of yet I haven't seen ANY reply or post that has added to this or argued the case that I am wrong.
A few notes btw...
Now of course with digital, one can replicate pretty much any color, tonality, vignetting, blur, or grain effect you like. [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=181854\")
Photoshop doesn't replicate anything at all...it EMULATES. It is like in audio software that trieds to emulate vintage synthesizers....it can't.The quality of this emulation, to any discerning eye/ear, is quite off...and it will never be adequate. The very nature of the noise in the older/original tools (say..a Minimoog synth, or Tri-x pushed 2 stops )actually engenders a certain aesthetical approach or way of working. So what use is it to 'look' like a photo taken with a Holga? Completely useless actually...
I'm deliberately staying out of the fray. So much noise – so little music.
Just as there are those that think I've misinterpreted Mr. Rockwell, similarly there are those who haven't been around here long enough and have therefore done so with me as well.
To which my response is [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/funkeycam.shtml]this article[/url] from a couple of years ago.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do think you have misinterpreted Mr. Rockwell. And this fray was actually started by you.It's your bed..lol
-
What's all this about cameras mattering or not?It is elementary they matter...how could one call it photography without a camera? This is not what is being discussed.
Yes it is, because Rockwell started this discussion by saying the camera didn't matter at all in his article numerous times. And he failed to offer any hints that there may be exceptions to the principle anywhere in his lengthy babblings. That's what this debate is all about. Are you defending Rockwell's position without even knowing what he wrote? Or do you think we're too stupid to notice the absurdity of your argument here?
Photoshop doesn't replicate anything at all...it EMULATES. It is like in audio software that trieds to emulate vintage synthesizers....it can't.The quality of this emulation, to any discerning eye/ear, is quite off...and it will never be adequate. The very nature of the noise in the older/original tools (say..a Minimoog synth, or Tri-x pushed 2 stops )actually engenders a certain aesthetical approach or way of working. So what use is it to 'look' like a photo taken with a Holga? Completely useless actually...
That's your opinion, but that doesn't make it an established fact. You're ignoring the possibility that someone may not want or need the exact "Holga look" for their image; they may want the lens aberrations and film grain look but more accurate colors than the palette the film offers, or the lens aberrations and color palette without the film grain, etc. Just because Tri-X and Velvia have a specific "look" doesn't mean that achieving that "look" should be the ultimate goal of photography, any more than the sound of a vintage tube amp is what every guitar player should aspire to, regardless of their style, or that every keyboard player must use a Minimoog or an original Hammond with the rotating speaker. Often the sound desired may not correspond to any piece of vintage gear exactly, and that's where digital can come in very handy. While amp modeling may not perfectly recreate the sound of a particular piece of analog gear, it can get pretty damn close; close enough for the digital emulation to be worthwhile and useful.
When I'm playing guitar, the exact distortion I want may not be available from any analog amp. Having a digital distortion pedal with adjustable parameters allows me to fine-tune the amount and type of distortion to my tastes, without limiting myself to the characteristics of any original analog device. The same goes for emulating the Holga look digitally. Doing so may not duplicate every aspect of the Holga look perfectly, but that certainly doesn't mean doing so is "completely useless".
-
Let's keep everyone happy.
How about these lines..
"Your camera does not matter that much"
"Your camera does not matter so long as it does what YOU want"
There you go, that should do the job..
But then everyone will argue about how MUCH it matters, and when. Or what % it matters!!! Such is life..
Anyway, I just use what I feel is the best camera/lens for the job. If I don't have it, I work around the problem the best I can. If I foget to take a real camera, I WILL use my sellotape junko special to take a shot! Because a photo taken is better than none!
-
Let's keep everyone happy.
How about these lines..
"Your camera does not matter that much"
"Your camera does not matter so long as it does what YOU want"
If I foget to take a real camera, I WILL use my sellotape junko special to take a shot! Because a photo taken is better than none!
This is a fairly reasonable perspective.
And it is better to shoot with the crappy camera you do have than not shoot with the best possible tool you don't have with you. I used an Olympus SP-350 while in Iraq for that reason; hauling around 40 lbs of Canon 1-series bodies and L glass was not practical given the limited space for personal belongings and the weight of the gear I had to carry already. The shots I got in Iraq don't have the level of technical quality I would have preferred, but that doesn't mean they are valueless:
"Sunset at OP 546"
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-09-28_0013.jpg)
-
Yes it is, because Rockwell started this discussion by saying the camera didn't matter at all in his article numerous times. And he failed to offer any hints that there may be exceptions to the principle anywhere in his lengthy babblings. That's what this debate is all about. Are you defending Rockwell's position without even knowing what he wrote? Or do you think we're too stupid to notice the absurdity of your argument here?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Um...My post was never about defending Rockwell's position.I don't think you're too stupid to notice that though....What I was doing was bringing the whole argument back to it's intent...trying to state clearly what the question actually is.Where you see it is perhaps a discussion of technical details....I simply see it as a discussion of creativity,aesthetics, process etc.
As far as digital emulation of analog processes. You'd have to have fogged eyes and plugged ears to NOT say what I said is fact...not merely opinion. I didn't mean that it is completely useless to use emulation to achieve certain desirable looks etc...I am sure there are commercial reasons for it. But it is pretty useless for original work...the inherent noise characteristics of a camera change the very nature of how you shoot with it. Though it may be subtle it DOES change the way you shoot....This alone can never be emulated.
I guess , in my photography, all I aspire to do is be original. That is probably why I dont shoot too much landscape photos actually...it is difficult to do much that's fresh or original. Digital technology is very useful...but I think it changes ones emphasis towards 'content' and 'ideas'...at least when you want to explore the new possibilities it opens up. I dont find it very useful to explore or emulate old ideas.
-
If the camera does not matter, why spend that much? Why not get a webcam? Or make a pinhole camera from an oatmeal box and a sheet of tinfoil and some duct tape?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181834\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the camera does matter, but it's still the photographer that takes the picture.
Best way to illustrate this, would be to give say a Holga to a photographer and to someone who knows nothing about photography. The photographer should take better pictures. Do the same thing with a P+S and then again with say a Nikon D3 and a Hasselbald H3-39D, again the photographer, should consistently take the better images.
The camera does matter if there is a choice of cameras to be utilised, but the skill of the photgrapher would also be in knowing which camera to choose for any given subject, so seeing as the photographer choses the camera, then it's the photographer and no the camera taking the picture/making the difference.
Mind you I argued with a fellow pro at our monthly get together that the camera used is important, as he was of the opinion, that the camera was irrelevent. Why? As clients never asked what camera you used and he'd never not got a picture due to the camera, was his reasoning. I explained that it did matter as on a shoot I did when another colleague of ours was present, I was able to get shots he couldn't because my camera was much better for the situation than his.
-
I didn't mean that it is completely useless to use emulation to achieve certain desirable looks etc...I am sure there are commercial reasons for it. But it is pretty useless for original work...the inherent noise characteristics of a camera change the very nature of how you shoot with it. Though it may be subtle it DOES change the way you shoot....This alone can never be emulated.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is a very germane point, emulation is fine, but it certainly does not replicate the method of taking which will inform your ability to shoot and influence how you compose/work. If I use my 16-35mm f2.8 lens at 35mm it will not take the same pictures as my 35mm f2 lens at f2.8 as the 35mm is very small and discreet compared to my hulking great zoom lens, so I will be able to shoot say street scenes more unobtrusively with the smaller lens.
In fact. I'm going away for a few days tomorrow [non work stuff] and I've decided to tak my 5D with no grip and just the tiny 35mm f2.0 lens, 8g+2G of CF cards, 2 batteries [no charger] and my 30G backup device. Why? I'm fed up with carrying loads of camera gear, laptops, chargers etc. I'll take different shot from normal, simply as I'll be limited and limits can make one more creative, so not too bad a thing.
-
Um...My post was never about defending Rockwell's position.I don't think you're too stupid to notice that though....What I was doing was bringing the whole argument back to it's intent...trying to state clearly what the question actually is.Where you see it is perhaps a discussion of technical details....I simply see it as a discussion of creativity,aesthetics, process etc.
You're not bringing the argument back to it's intent, you're obfuscating the invalidity of Rockwell's position with a completely different discussion. Try again.
You'd have to have fogged eyes and plugged ears to NOT say what I said is fact...not merely opinion.
That is what is known as an ad hominem attack, ladies and gentlemen. I've played music (harmonica, bass guitar, and hammered dulcimer, as well as other instruments) for about 30 years now, and worked with a concert promoter for a few years. I've met hundreds of musicians, some of whom have sold millions of records and are known worldwide. Some of them use analog gear (one band in particular used a Hammond B3 and a Leslie speaker assembly), but most (>90%) use a collection of digital effects pedals for guitars, and keyboards with electronic synthesizers. And you haven't answered my point about not everyone's artistic preferences neatly corresponding to a specific piece of analog sound gear or film stock. There are other possibilities out there that digital technology allows us to explore.
In the meantime, I leave you with this article to read:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul03/articles/hammondb3.asp (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul03/articles/hammondb3.asp)
I dont find it very useful to explore or emulate old ideas.
Then why your fixation with the notion that digitally approximating a Holga or Hammond B3 is "useless"? What's wrong with me wanting to process a digital image quasi-Holga style, but with less vignetting and less film grain? Or with a saturated color palette that isn't quite like Velvia? Doesn't the expansion of options that digital technology allows increase the boundaries of what is possible, thereby allowing a greater variety of creative possibilities?
-
That is a very germane point, emulation is fine, but it certainly does not replicate the method of taking which will inform your ability to shoot and influence how you compose/work. If I use my 16-35mm f2.8 lens at 35mm it will not take the same pictures as my 35mm f2 lens at f2.8 as the 35mm is very small and discreet compared to my hulking great zoom lens, so I will be able to shoot say street scenes more unobtrusively with the smaller lens.
In fact. I'm going away for a few days tomorrow [non work stuff] and I've decided to tak my 5D with no grip and just the tiny 35mm f2.0 lens, 8g+2G of CF cards, 2 batteries [no charger] and my 30G backup device. Why? I'm fed up with carrying loads of camera gear, laptops, chargers etc. I'll take different shot from normal, simply as I'll be limited and limits can make one more creative, so not too bad a thing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182015\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Without wishing to get into the discussion on whether it matters or not(!) that's why I bought my gx100. It changes the way I work because it is small and discreet - plus it's noisy compared to my dslrs, which are basically two copies of the same tool. So as not to claim the thought as original, Sean Reid describes the output from small sensor cameras as more sketchlike than that from dslrs , which I think is a good description and certainly fits how I work with mine at present.
Mike
[attachment=5627:attachment]
[attachment=5625:attachment]
[attachment=5624:attachment]
[attachment=5626:attachment]
-
What's all this about cameras mattering or not?It is elementary they matter...how could one call it photography without a camera?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Photograms?
Don't even need the suckers.
-
In fact. I'm going away for a few days tomorrow [non work stuff] and I've decided to tak my 5D with no grip and just the tiny 35mm f2.0 lens, 8g+2G of CF cards, 2 batteries [no charger] and my 30G backup device.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182015\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now if Leitz would just come out with a FF rangefinder, I could go beck to just the camera and a 35 1.4. For the life of me I can't figure out why the M8 is a crop sensor, other than either Canon refused to sell them FF sensors or Leitz was too haughty to ask.
Elitist Snob
-
To go back to your 'original question(s)'. As any technology changes it brings new possibilities. Whether the possibilities offered by specific digital cameras expand creativity is clearly dependent on the photographer. As far as I can see you have a chicken and egg question here - one is dependent on the other - so logically both matter!
I guess , in my photography, all I aspire to do is be original. That is probably why I dont shoot too much landscape photos actually...it is difficult to do much that's fresh or original.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If its fresh and original to you does it matter if someone else has done it first? Originality is another difficult to pin down concept and is often IMHO all too often confused with style!
-
You're not bringing the argument back to it's intent, you're obfuscating the invalidity of Rockwell's position with a completely different discussion.
uh...you should have said: "...you're obfuscating the invalidity of Rockwell's, Ansel Adam's, Walker Evans', Ernst Haas', and Andreas Feininger's position with a completely different discussion."
The point Rockwell was making was that even if all you have available to you is a Holga, you can still create decent pictures.
-
The point Rockwell was making was that even if all you have available to you is a Holga, you can still create decent pictures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At last! I am not the only one that "gets it"!
Nobody is insane enough to take a Holga over a D3, but if that is what's in your hand, as you say..you can get some good stuff even with a camera like that.
-
I agree with Jonathan's posts.
The point Rockwell was making was that even if all you have available to you is a Holga, you can still create decent pictures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No he wasn't.
Why oh why can't people read?
He did not say "For some kinds of photography, especially art school, the camera does not matter" or "Even a cheap camera takes really good snaps of your family on holiday, so you don't need a Nikon D3" or "Pros use expensive cameras because they might sometimes need the obscure features to get special shots to earn them a fat fee from an agency".
He said "your camera does not matter". Basically he is talking out of his nether regions.
Ken can do a pretty good impression of the village idiot when he wants to. Not that he is an idiot, far from it. He sure knows how to get publicity. Just don't expect his conception of the world to contain too much overlap with reality.
-
The point Rockwell was making was that even if all you have available to you is a Holga, you can still create decent pictures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Could all those that subscribe to this view please list all those types/styles/photographic scenarios that they could not take a decent (technically and/or aesthetically acceptable) photo of with a Holga.
Could they then please list the technical shortcomings of the Holga that make it an inappropriate tool for the job...
For me (personal opinion and I've got my asbestos suit on so flame away all you will!!) the problem with Mr Rockwell's argument is that he lumps all of photography into one. You just need to read the volume of discussion on different style etc on this (and other) sites to realise that that is not the case (if you hadn't realised already). To present an argument in this context is what people here are reacting to, and which Mr Reichmann pointed out in his breakdown of what you need to construct a camera.
-
Okay, I specialise and as such equipment DOES matter, very much indeed. Since I shoot underwater a Holga would be utterly useless to me - unless someone knows of a housing to fit it in...........
-
Okay, I specialise and as such equipment DOES matter, very much indeed. Since I shoot underwater a Holga would be utterly useless to me - unless someone knows of a housing to fit it in...........
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One of my friends was taking a trip to Cozumel and was planning to do some snorkeling. He knew I had a Nikonos (but he didn't really know what it was. He just knew it was a good underwater camera) and he asked if he could borrow it. I tried to explain to him the limitations he'd have in using it since I didn't have a flash for it, but since he wasn't really into photography, he really didn't understand what I was telling him. Sure enough, he came back from his trip convinced that I had wasted my money since his disposable underwater camera had taken pics that were just about as good as what he'd gotten with the Nikonos. So, there's your proof that equipment makes no difference. Ignorance will always triumph. lol
-
SO...in other words....the essence of this is: "Does a technical improvement in a creative tool directly correlate to an aesthetical improvement in that creative process."
Sometimes. But that isn't what Rockwell is writing. From reading your posts, I think you actually agree with what MR wrote, the camera matters, and you're objecting to the tone. of his essay. Your example of the current display of Lomo imagery in your gallery is a data point backing up the essay that camera matters.
-
You're not bringing the argument back to it's intent, you're obfuscating the invalidity of Rockwell's position with a completely different discussion. Try again.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182024\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well...as my post says, I am not really discussing Rockwell's 'position'. I think Rockwell is obfuscating the real question...the classic question "It's not the camera, it's the photographer". It was from that point I was jumping off from.
An ad hominem (spare me the latin..lol) attack it is one way off looking at it...I would just say it's my point of view and the point of view of most professional and creative musicians and photographers ( as far as the discernable technical differences between analog and digital). When one is using emulation, or appropriating these analaog qualities in a digital work....I agree,and was wrong to imply that this is 'useless' as this mode of creativity is valid and has it's place. It is perhaps akin to 'sampling' in music...and my feeling is that if you are sampling a saxaphone and playing it on a keyboard , it is , in my opinion, a waste of time and the results are usually sub par. But using sampling where you reference your source material , say like Public Enemy, Girl Talk, Jason Forrest, John Oswald...then it gets interesting. This is music 'about' music....and becomes art.
There are examples of where I am wrong sure..but you get what I mean.
-
An ad hominem (spare me the latin..lol) attack it is one way off looking at it...I would just say it's my point of view and the point of view of most professional and creative musicians and photographers ( as far as the discernable technical differences between analog and digital).
That may or may not be, but it certainly doesn't stop the overwhelming majority of them from shooting with digital cameras, or playing with digital effects pedals on their guitars, or using electronic keyboards with synthesized or sampled instruments...while there are some differences between electronically sampled/emulated effects and their analog predecessors, the practical reality is that they are close enough that the convenience of the digital gear trumps the small differences in which they deviate from the analog original for most applications. And the digital gear allows one to do things that are impossible with analog.
You are welcome to hold an opinion, but confusing a personal preference with a law of nature is rather arrogant on your part.
-
uh...you should have said: "...you're obfuscating the invalidity of Rockwell's, Ansel Adam's, Walker Evans', Ernst Haas', and Andreas Feininger's position with a completely different discussion."
The point Rockwell was making was that even if all you have available to you is a Holga, you can still create decent pictures.
Bullshit. Go back and read his article. Rockwell says the camera makes no difference at all over and over again, without any attempt to qualify that oft-repeated mantra. Rockwells article means what it says, not what you wish it implied reading between the lines.
BTW, Ansel Adams was a dedicated gear freak; he was constantly experimenting with ways to improve the technical quality of his images, both while shooting, and later in the darkroom. Have you ever read any of Adams' books?
-
Bullshit. Go back and read his article. Rockwell says the camera makes no difference at all over and over again...
I did re-read it. I suggest you do likewise because then you'll see that Rockwell is saying that quality pictures can be made with all sorts of cameras and he gives examples. What's so controversial about that? It's true.
-
Most arguments require assumptions that aren't always valid. Stepping back a layer from the "artist -vs- gear" assumptions, the fact that this "artist" can see a distinct improvement in his photos over time and upgrades is prima facie evidence of the camera making a significant difference. And what percentage of my content is art anyway? I take photos with gear - I don't create images with paint on canvas. I think too many "photographers" regard their art abilities over-optimistically. Thankfully, Michael deals with the art by showing how it actually happens, where there's little that can be hidden or faked. If there's any jealousy or envy apparent here, it's that we can't have Adams and some of the others tagging along on the field trips.
-
It is not my intention to deviate from the original topic, but in regards to Landscape Photography, it is true it presents a challenge due to the extensive amount of works already generated. However many artists have found a way to continue to make original material by injecting style and original perspective. Examples: Jim Brandenburg (http://www.jimbrandenburg.com/flash/index_flash.html)
Just my 2 cents.
OK, I am getting out of the way...
.......I guess , in my photography, all I aspire to do is be original. That is probably why I dont shoot too much landscape photos actually...it is difficult to do much that's fresh or original. .....[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I did re-read it. I suggest you do likewise because then you'll see that Rockwell is saying that quality pictures can be made with all sorts of cameras and he gives examples. What's so controversial about that? It's true.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
utt ohh.... not the word "quality"?
maybe a "ZEN AND THE ART OF PHOTOGRAPHY" moment in the near future?
While I'm making some more popcorn for my entertaining read of this thread... I'd like to say one thing....
A look is not owned by an object... in other words, the "Holga" does not own the look it gives. the look is a look... nothing more. And, being creative is all about "choices".... We make the choice of what tool to use and what look we want to end up with. Sometimes our choices are on purpose, and sometime by serendipity.... but our choice to call it done and show it to the world.
-
I did re-read it. I suggest you do likewise because then you'll see that Rockwell is saying that quality pictures can be made with all sorts of cameras and he gives examples. What's so controversial about that? It's true.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is horse shit.
Just because you can take a nice snap with a cheap camera does not mean that the equipment does not matter.
Oh I can drive from A to B in my small Ford car. So then, clearly the Formula 1 teams are wasting their money using such expensive cars, when my little Ford would do the job.
That last stupid statement uses the same (il)logic as Ken.
-
It is horse shit.
Just because you can take a nice snap with a cheap camera does not mean that the equipment does not matter.
Okay..I give. You're right. Any idiot can become a world-class photographer if he just spends enough on equipment.
-
This is a fairly reasonable perspective.
And it is better to shoot with the crappy camera you do have than not shoot with the best possible tool you don't have with you. I used an Olympus SP-350 while in Iraq for that reason; hauling around 40 lbs of Canon 1-series bodies and L glass was not practical given the limited space for personal belongings and the weight of the gear I had to carry already. The shots I got in Iraq don't have the level of technical quality I would have preferred, but that doesn't mean they are valueless:
"Sunset at OP 546"
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-09-28_0013.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well I hope you take some more nice shots, as documentary. Don't forget that your current environment is unknown to us apart from a few news reports.
As you imply, saying that "Your equipment does matter" is not the same as saying "You will get better pictures with a more expensive camera". It is all about choosing the appropriate equipment for the task at hand. IMO only a fool would buy a Nikon D3 and pro lenses to take holiday snaps. Photography is IMO largely a craft, not an art, though some exponents can elevate it to the level of an art. And as such knowing how to use the equipment, and what equipment to use, are key skills. The equipment does matter.
-
Okay..I give. You're right. Any idiot can become a world-class photographer if he just spends enough on equipment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, no, no. You are using bad logic.
Saying that equipment does matter is not the same as saying that the photographer does not matter. Is that really so hard to follow?
Here is another example. An olympic athlete will not have a chance of winning a race unless he uses shoes of a certain standard. Does that imply that using shoes of a certain standard will give someone a chance of winning an olympic running event? Of course not.
It seems to me that you and other apologists for Ken do not understand basic logic.
-
I did re-read it. I suggest you do likewise because then you'll see that Rockwell is saying that quality pictures can be made with all sorts of cameras and he gives examples. What's so controversial about that? It's true.
You and Rockwell ignore the fact that in many of the examples he gives, the less-technically-advanced camera was used to achieve a particular artistic effect that would have been more difficult if a different tool had been used. The camera used DID matter, not because it was the most technically excellent choice, but because it flavored the image with a particular look the photographer found desirable. And for that reason the camera does matter.
Rockwell also ignores all of the many instances when the choice of camera and lens is critical to get any kind of usable image, such as action, macro, low light, astronomy, etc. Do you think a pinhole camera would be appropriate for shooting a ski-jumping competition? Or an 8x10 view camera would work well for shooting candids at a candlelit wedding reception?
And Rockwell also fails to offer any proof whatsoever that images shot with less-technically-advanced cameras succeed because of their technical shortcomings rather than in spite of said shortcomings. When I did my tour in Iraq, I carried an Olympus SP-350 digicam instead of my Canon 1-series DSLRs due to weight and space considerations, as well as the fact that my primary purpose there was to be a medic, not a photographer. I got some pretty decent shots with my Olympus:
"Sales Pitch"
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-09-17_0004.jpg)
"Sunset at OP 546"
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-09-28_0013.jpg)
"Hesitation"
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/images/2006-10-07_0008.jpg)
Yes, I captured these images with a fairly cheap digicam and they turned out pretty good. But it's also true that I would have much preferred to have shot them with my DSLRs. The noise level and sharpness are pretty decent in these web JPEGs, but are not that great in print, especially the last image. The DR of the scene was really more than the camera could handle, and the image suffers as a result. Is it a good image as-is? Certainly. But it would have been even more effective if it had fewer technical limitations to struggle through.
Then there's the issue of the images I didn't get because of the limitations of the cheapo camera. I lost out on several good shooting opportunities because the camera took too long to clear the buffer, and many others because the camera simply couldn't handle the available darkness well enough to create anything resembling an image with a recognizable subject.
The SP-350 allowed me to get some images I'd not have gotten otherwise (it's certainly better than shooting with nothing!), but I'd never willingly set aside a DSLR to shoot with it instead. It has too many limitations that get in the way of the creative process and compromise the final image.
According to Rockwell's oversimplified worldview, my images prove his point that "the camera doesn't matter". But when you really look at all aspects of the situation, you'll discover he's full of shit.
-
Saying that equipment does matter is not the same as saying that the photographer does not matter. Is that really so hard to follow?
And saying that less than ideal equipment can be used to take good pics is not the same as saying the camera doesn't matter. Why is that so hard for you to follow? That's what Rockwell was saying. This was the first article of his I've ever read, btw, so I'm hardly a big fan. Equipment matters only to the point that it needs to be "good enough". Beyond that, ideas and execution take over.
-
And saying that less than ideal equipment can be used to take good pics is not the same as saying the camera doesn't matter. Why is that so hard for you to follow? That's what Rockwell was saying. This was the first article of his I've ever read, btw, so I'm hardly a big fan. Equipment matters only to the point that it needs to be "good enough". Beyond that, ideas and execution take over.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182214\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The article is entitled "Why your camera doesn't matter".
I have read it again (first time for years) and I am amazed how bad it is. It really is very bad and I now realise why Michael was to angry (or so it seems) when he wrote his rebuttal, although I do wonder why he wasted his time on it. (And why we are doing likewise.)
Quote: "Maybe because it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools."
Give a painter a chisel and and a hammer, and tell him that he will be able to paint just as well, and he'll call you a nincompoop. This would make sense: "Maybe because it's an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools alone."
Quote: "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."
Horse shit.
Quote: "Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography. "
Horse shit.
Quote: "The quality of a lens or camera has almost nothing do with the quality of images it can be used to produce."
Horse shit.
I really cannot be bothered to expand on my criticisms of the above quotes because they are so idiotic. And there are other idiotic statements that I cannot be bothered to quote. It is so bad that it transcends normal rules of assessment, and like some B movies, becomes good, in a kitsch way.
The famous UK landscape photographer Joe Cornish uses expensive and heavy gear in order to help him achieve his vision. As do many others. A camera is a tool, no more no less. In the hands of a good workman it produces the goods. In the hands of a poor workman, it doesn't. That is so obvious it does not need saying.
-
And saying that less than ideal equipment can be used to take good pics is not the same as saying the camera doesn't matter. Why is that so hard for you to follow? That's what Rockwell was saying.
You are another comprehensionally impaired individual. Here's what Rockwell actually says:
"...it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools."
"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."
"Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography."
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference."
All of these statements are unequivocal, absolutist pronouncements, and no attempt is made anywhere in the article to point out that there indeed instances where a particular type of camera or lens is necessary to shoot in a particular situation. At best, this is a gross oversimplification of the truth, and is deceptive and misleading. But Rockwell isn't content to leave stop there; he goes on to state:
"Having too much camera equipment is the best way to get the worst photos."
This is utterly ridiculous. Buying a new camera or lens may not improve your artistic vision, but neither will throwing away a 1Ds-III and collection of L glass and picking up a Holga. It's also a refutation of his previous statements. If equipment "doesn't make a bit of difference", then how can having too much be "the best way to get the worst photos"? If you are so stupid that you can't figure out an appropriate way to use a new DSLR even in green box mode, then buying a digicam and shooting it in green box mode isn't going to make you a better photographer, either. But if you do have a modicum of intelligence, it's likely that eventually you'll figure out ways to use the DSLR to get shots you wouldn't be able to with the digicam.
Words mean things. You can't judge Rockwell on the basis of what you wish he implied or what you assume he meant, but rather on what he actually said. And what he actually said was a load of excrement. Yes the photographer matters, but that doesn't mean the gear he uses is irrelevant. And that's the nuance that Rockwell has entirely failed to grasp.
-
Words mean things. You can't judge Rockwell on the basis of what you wish he implied or what you assume he meant, but rather on what he actually said.
I'm not, but apparently you are because you've totally missed the intent of the article. Maybe it's because I don't read Mr. Rockwell's articles that I didn't come at this with a preconceived notion and just read it like I would any other article on the internt. Here's the gist of the article. Not what I've implied, but what he actually wrote: "Photographers make photos, not cameras.
It's sad how few people realize any of this, and spend all their time blaming poor results on their equipment, instead of spending that time learning how to see and learning how to manipulate and interpret light." THAT'S what he's talking about. And it's also why he quoted Ansel, Ernst, Walker, and Andreas expressing that same sentiment. Are you saying they're full of horsesh*t, too?
-
I haven't read every post in every thread on this topic but it seems to me there's one obvious point in support of Michael's rebuttal that has been missed.
Rockwell makes much of the fact that a lot of Ansel Adams best work was done over 50 years ago, is still "unequaled", and that somehow proves that your camera doesn't matter. But AA was using the best equipment and film available at the time, which in large part would still be competitive today in terms of IQ.
Yeah, if AA had done all his work with a Box Brownie, then argument over, Rockwell wins. But he didn't did he?
-
Maybe it's because I don't read Mr. Rockwell's articles that I didn't come at this with a preconceived notion and just read it like I would any other article on the internt. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well done!!!Though I referenced the title of his article,my posting is not really about Rockwell's article. Some people keep going on about it though...I guess they just want to talk about whatever they want and not address the questions I am posting.
While on the subject of Rockwell though...I would say that you'd have to be pretty thick to take all his words literally. If you read his articles you can quickly see that he is shooting off from the hip and I dont think his brash, sometimes crude, comments and analysis are to be taken at face value.
-
You are another comprehensionally impaired individual. Here's what Rockwell actually says:
"...it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools."
"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."
"Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography."
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference."
....
Words mean things. You can't judge Rockwell on the basis of what you wish he implied or what you assume he meant, but rather on what he actually said. And what he actually said was a load of excrement. Yes the photographer matters, but that doesn't mean the gear he uses is irrelevant. And that's the nuance that Rockwell has entirely failed to grasp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182233\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think this subject is worthy of your emotional energy. Two way personal attacks aside, I can almost hear your teeth grind as you type!
KR is immensely irritating for many of the reasons you point out. But IMO there is a 'gist' to be understood, a point that others have made. Scattered amongst the obviously flawed 'absolute pronouncements' are things like this:
"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 is in fact quite true and if KR could be restrained enough in his 'style' to come up with more reasoned comments like this he would be a far better writer. This statement disagrees with his bold pronouncments and this kills any credibilty he has. No-one can take seriously someone who contradicts themselves over and over in the same article.
So, I think KR does, on some level, understand the that a camera is a part of the process (duh), but he is too wrapped up in being opinionated to be clear. I find it tedious in the extreme to wade through the hyperbole of incorrect proclamations like "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image." What rubbish.
So take a chill pill and just have a laugh at such amateurish attempts to be a photography guru!
-
While I am no professional, and by no means an expert, and have made far less money from my photography then the equipment that I have purchased to enjoy the hobby. I will say this:
If you read his words and don't interpret his words to make sense, then I agree most of it is horse shit.
Does your equipment matter? Yes.
Will owning expensive equipment make you a better photographer? No
Will expensive equipment make it so that you are able to capture better images? Yes
Will the equipment improve your artistic eye? No
Will it enable you to take photographs and capture the vision in your artistic eye? Yes (With proper time, learning, experimentation and dedication)
On the statement of having too much equipment is your biggest enemy: This can be true if you are fumbling around with equipment when trying to catch that vision.
I remember being at a football game (audience member). I shoot solely with prime lenses (as if forces me to plan my shots, take my time, and enables me to take lower light shots). I had my longest lens on the camera taking shots of people on the field. When I heard a jet in the distance, I didn't react quickly enough, and by the time I'd put on my wide angle lens to capture the moment, it was too late. If I had been using a zoom lens, or if I had been operating in a two camera environment (one long and one wide) I would have gotten the shot. This was a case where too specialized and too "much" equipment "ruined" the photograph.
Both the photographer and the equipment matter. Even if I owned an M8, and the glass to go with it, I would not produce the images that the real artists make.
I rarely produce anything that I would call art. I have not developed an eye for it, I never studied any form of art as a child, adolescent or adult. I've learned by playing around with different things, failing and succeeding at times.
With each upgrade of my equipment, the "quality" of the images, from a technical standpoint (pixels, colors, Focus, dirt) increases. And with each upgrade of my "eye" the "quality" of my images, from an artistic standpoint (framing, proper usage of equipment, angles, message) increases.
Back on topic: The author is either/or/all of the following: a horrid writer, ignorant, misguided, intending to motivate, using absolutes because he doesn't know not to, or using absolutes to rile people up.
-
While I am no professional, and by no means an expert, and have made far less money from my photography then the equipment that I have purchased to enjoy the hobby. I will say this:
If you read his words and don't interpret his words to make sense, then I agree most of it is horse shit.
Does your equipment matter? Yes.
Will owning expensive equipment make you a better photographer? No
Will expensive equipment make it so that you are able to capture better images? Yes
Will the equipment improve your artistic eye? No
Will it enable you to take photographs and capture the vision in your artistic eye? Yes (With proper time, learning, experimentation and dedication)
Back on topic: The author is either/or/all of the following: a horrid writer, ignorant, misguided, intending to motivate, using absolutes because he doesn't know not to, or using absolutes to rile people up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sound of a nail being hit on the head. Well said.
-
And it's also why he quoted Ansel, Ernst, Walker, and Andreas expressing that same sentiment. Are you saying they're full of horsesh*t, too?
Ansel said the photographer was the most important part of the photographic process. He did not say that the photographer is the only important part of the the photographic process. Rockwell's use of the quote is disingenuous at best, especially when you throw in the fact that Ansel was one of the most gear-obsessive photographers ever. Ansel would say that the statement "the camera doesn't matter" is a load of rubbish.
-
I remember these arguments from the film camera days. I think Rockwell makes a light point, that is true in the basics. After 15 years of being a tech rep, teacher and working photographer, and I found that people want to define the best in everything they do, but they often do lose sight of the end product. The IMAGE. The message is that if you can see well, you can get a good picture. The differences of similar types of cameras are relatively small. Nikon, Canon, Sony (ne Minolta), Leica, Olympus or Pentax SLR, even Panasonic, Sigma and Fuji cameras are all superb performers. Nitpicking about details is really nuts. The differences in low end cameras and high end ones is usually ease of use, and the ability to work well under different and varying circumstances.
I have seen hundreds of postings arguing about noise at high ISO, and all of today's top digitals look virtually grain free when compared to film equivalent. Don't you remember grain like baseballs? A box camera worked fine with the sun at your back and a non-moving subject not too far away and small prints. All the other cameras have a more ability in different circumstances.
If you have a favorite feature or special use of one, that's what I want you to share. How you get around shortcomings (your own and the camera's) that's what we should be discussing. Until the cameras we can afford give us 12 stops of dynamic range at any ISO, absolutely no measurable shutter delay, and perfect anti-shake at all focal lengths, and lenses with 5,000 dot resolution edge to edge, perfect contrast, we need to share knowledge and experience, not bicker about minor details between similar cameras. I loved my Pentax, my Nikon, My Fuji, my Minolta, my Canon, my Olympus, my Topcon and my Speed Graphic. Good pictures have come out of all of them.
-
I remember these arguments from the film camera days. I think Rockwell makes a light point, that is true in the basics. After 15 years of being a tech rep, teacher and working photographer, and I found that people want to define the best in everything they do, but they often do lose sight of the end product. The IMAGE. The message is that if you can see well, you can get a good picture. The differences of similar types of cameras are relatively small. Nikon, Canon, Sony (ne Minolta), Leica, Olympus or Pentax SLR, even Panasonic, Sigma and Fuji cameras are all superb performers. Nitpicking about details is really nuts. The differences in low end cameras and high end ones is usually ease of use, and the ability to work well under different and varying circumstances.
That's exactly right. The point Rockwell made several times was "quit worrying about your gear. Worry about your images instead." Photographers have always been a bit gear crazy, but the digital revolution has really set things off. The resonses to Rockwell's article are proof of this. But, there are somewhat good reasons for the increased attention to gear, too. Cameras HAVE evolved greatly over the last 5 to 6 years. What was top of the line in the beginning may be near obsolete now. But beyond a certain point, the gear matters very, very little. Nobody gives two hoots in Hades whether I'm using lenses designed for digital cameras with my Pentax or if I'm shooting with a screw-mount lens from 40 years ago. Nor do they really care if I'm using a K20D, a K10D, a K100D, or shooting Velvia in an old Spotmatic and having the slides scanned. IT DOES NOT MATTER. WHAT MATTERS IS THE RESULTS. I'm not saying that gear NEVER matters, but I am saying that the guy who bounces from camera brand to camera brand to camera brand because his pics aren't turning out the way he wants is totally missing the problem because it's probably not the gear that's at fault! The point isn't that a Holga can be used to shoot indoor sports the same way a good DSLR and a fast lens can. The point is that if all you have is a Holga and you want to take pictures, don't sit there and pout for years until you save up enough money to buy the gear you think you need. Take your Holga, load it up with Tri-X, push process it to 1600ASA, and shoot players on the sidelines...or fans...or wait until the action comes to you...or, heck, learn how to use the motion blur to convey the sense of the game. Don't cry over what you don't have. Learn to use what you've got.
-
That's exactly right. The point Rockwell made several times was "quit worrying about your gear. Worry about your images instead." Photographers have always been a bit gear crazy, but the digital revolution has really set things off. The resonses to Rockwell's article are proof of this. But, there are somewhat good reasons for the increased attention to gear, too. Cameras HAVE evolved greatly over the last 5 to 6 years. What was top of the line in the beginning may be near obsolete now. But beyond a certain point, the gear matters very, very little. Nobody gives two hoots in Hades whether I'm using lenses designed for digital cameras with my Pentax or if I'm shooting with a screw-mount lens from 40 years ago. Nor do they really care if I'm using a K20D, a K10D, a K100D, or shooting Velvia in an old Spotmatic and having the slides scanned. IT DOES NOT MATTER. WHAT MATTERS IS THE RESULTS. I'm not saying that gear NEVER matters, but I am saying that the guy who bounces from camera brand to camera brand to camera brand because his pics aren't turning out the way he wants is totally missing the problem because it's probably not the gear that's at fault! The point isn't that a Holga can be used to shoot indoor sports the same way a good DSLR and a fast lens can. The point is that if all you have is a Holga and you want to take pictures, don't sit there and pout for years until you save up enough money to buy the gear you think you need. Take your Holga, load it up with Tri-X, push process it to 1600ASA, and shoot players on the sidelines...or fans...or wait until the action comes to you...or, heck, learn how to use the motion blur to convey the sense of the game. Don't cry over what you don't have. Learn to use what you've got.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182397\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In the words of Jeff Lebowski.... " that's like your opinion man"
I buy new gear because it IS better than the gear it is replacing.... not because I like the way it looks in my bag.
My clients expect the best from ME... they expect me to be reliable, honest, and to show up on time. These expectations require me to have a RELIABLE vehicle, camera, lens', lights, workflow, delivery, grip, and attitude. I buy a new car every 4 years, buy new macs every 2, upgrade camera's every doubling of pixels, upgrade software when the upgrade allows for a better workflow.
YOU may be able to use whatever camera ( or else ) YOU want... but I need to stay competitive to support my passion and my family.
YOU may be happy with what you have, and that's good for you. But please don't try to label us working pros as misguided. We are part of something incredible.... we are the demand for the supply and without us the supply would not evolve into the incredible tools that they are! I'm very thankful for things like mores law and the fast evolution of technology!
I will never stop wanting more resolution, more dynamic range, more bandwidth, more is more! less is well.... less. We are an incredible life form.... we have developed incredible technologies! Embrace being who you are... one of use, and part of it all!
Now get out and spend some money on some new gear and keep the economy from falling apart!
-
But please don't try to label us working pros as misguided.
Show me where I did that. I DID talk about someone who bounces from brand to brand, but I didn't label him as pro or amateur. FYI, I make 100% of my living with a camera, too, except it's a video camera, not a still camera. But I got into video because I was obsessed with still photography. And after 35 years, I am still obsessed by it. Video was just a way to pay the bills and still work with cameras, light, and composition. People don't hire your gear so much as they hire your talent. Or they certainly haven't in my case.
-
I hung out in the Bolsa Chica wetlands for 2-1/2 years, and now mostly in northern Ohio. I've always carried at least an iPod, and sometimes a Toshiba Libretto computer. Of all the photogs I've talked to, most with pricy SLR's, not one has ever had a device to show any of their pics. Makes me wonder what's the point.
-
I hung out in the Bolsa Chica wetlands for 2-1/2 years, and now mostly in northern Ohio. I've always carried at least an iPod, and sometimes a Toshiba Libretto computer. Of all the photogs I've talked to, most with pricy SLR's, not one has ever had a device to show any of their pics. Makes me wonder what's the point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182530\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I keep both my still and video folios on my iPhone. it has become a very good sales tool.
-
I had dinner with the guy who owns a stock agency that represents my work and a handfull of other photographers. While we were waiting for our meals, it turned into an iPhone fest with everyone passing their iPhone portfolios around the table.
-
IT DOES NOT MATTER. WHAT MATTERS IS THE RESULTS. I'm not saying that gear NEVER matters, but I am saying that the guy who bounces from camera brand to camera brand to camera brand because his pics aren't turning out the way he wants is totally missing the problem because it's probably not the gear that's at fault! The point isn't that a Holga can be used to shoot indoor sports the same way a good DSLR and a fast lens can. The point is that if all you have is a Holga and you want to take pictures, don't sit there and pout for years until you save up enough money to buy the gear you think you need. Take your Holga, load it up with Tri-X, push process it to 1600ASA, and shoot players on the sidelines...or fans...or wait until the action comes to you...or, heck, learn how to use the motion blur to convey the sense of the game. Don't cry over what you don't have. Learn to use what you've got.
This is hilarious. You start out by saying that gear doesn't matter, and then give an example of a situation where even you admit it does matter. Your advice to an amateur with a Holga is excellent, at least for a beginner who wants to learn the basics of photography without mortgaging the house. But it has little to do with Rockwell's article, and is of no value at all to a working pro. If Rockwell had made the point over and over that getting obsessed with the absolute best gear is not generally wise, and that lack of top-of-the-line gear shouldn't stop you from going out and shooting what you can, nobody would be arguing with him. But that isn't what he said, and it isn't the point he made over and over again. What he said repeatedly was that the camera doesn't matter at all, which is obviously ludicrous.
If I'm hired to shoot action shots of a basketball game, shooting players and fans on the sidelines is not an option, nor is shooting only when the action is nearby. If I'm hired to shoot a wedding, I can't use the low light level of the church interior to as an excuse to go outside and shoot the flower girl while the ceremony is in progress. Such images may turn out to be adorable, but the bride and groom aren't going allow that to excuse my failure to capture any photos of the ceremony. As a professional, I need to use tools that are capable of accomplishing the task for which I was hired, or I'm cheating the client and tarnishing my own reputation. Do I need the most technically advanced camera to get the job done in every situation? Absolutely not. But the less technically capable my equipment is, the narrower the range of conditions where I can meet my clients' expectations will be.
The ultimate problem with Rockwell's article is that it is poorly written, and gives the wrong message to the audience it appears to be intended for, amateur and inexperienced photographers. Telling them that "the camera doesn't matter" over and over is going to lead them to believe that they can take their digicam and shoot Cousin Bill's wedding and do just as good of a job as the expensive pro with all the high-end gear. An experienced pro knows the limitations to how far you can take "the camera doesn't matter" before running into problems, but the amateur does not. Rockwell failed to provide adequate context for his point to be helpful to beginners, and his point isn't really applicable to pros, so he fails to serve the needs or best interests of either audience.
-
The ultimate problem with Rockwell's article is that it is poorly written, and gives the wrong message to the audience it appears to be intended for, amateur and inexperienced photographers. Telling them that "the camera doesn't matter" over and over is going to lead them to believe that they can take their digicam and shoot Cousin Bill's wedding and do just as good of a job as the expensive pro with all the high-end gear. An experienced pro knows the limitations to how far you can take "the camera doesn't matter" before running into problems, but the amateur does not. Rockwell failed to provide adequate context for his point to be helpful to beginners, and his point isn't really applicable to pros, so he fails to serve the needs or best interests of either audience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah! Now I'm beginning to understand your great concern about this issue, Jonathan. As a wedding photographer, that last thing you would want is for amateurs with a P&S camera to get the impression they can do just as good a job as a paid professional who uses a top-of-the-range DSLR. That certainly wouldn't be good for business.
-
Ah! Now I'm beginning to understand your great concern about this issue, Jonathan. As a wedding photographer, that last thing you would want is for amateurs with a P&S camera to get the impression they can do just as good a job as a paid professional who uses a top-of-the-range DSLR. That certainly wouldn't be good for business.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John and your points are well taken. I'm afraid I must agree that with a P&S waving Rockwell's article in hand, attempting to shoot a wedding would be very bad for business . . . .
-
As a wedding photographer, that last thing you would want is for amateurs with a P&S camera to get the impression they can do just as good a job as a paid professional who uses a top-of-the-range DSLR. That certainly wouldn't be good for business.
I'm not really worried about that trend holding up long-term, but it will take several cases of well-meaning and misinformed (by Rockwell) amateurs botching the job before some potential clients and the amateurs they set up for failure figure out that Rockwell's statements aren't really as absolute as they are purported to be. He's setting his apparent target audience (novice photographers) up for failure and hard feelings when they try to shoot something outside the operational limits of their gear, not knowing that in many shooting situations, the camera and lens and other gear used do matter quite significantly, Rockwell's repeated and emphatic protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
-
In short, for the Photography Business the Camera does matter (with Digital since the camera IS the capture media, film is another story).
It wont compensate for bad technique or bad taste.
A better camera will result (given equal technique and skill) in "better" (technically speaking) images for discriminating clients. Specially in highly competitive markets like advertising. Of course, im using the term "better" loosely, should be better for YOU, your needs etc. Whats good for me might not be good for you due to the type of work you do. For example, I do low volume (pic count) advertising work, so i need the highest res files possible but if you do sports or events having large files might be a burden.
Todays DSLR's are all quite capable so subtle improvements are the norm. There are plenty of choices.
-
Here's my take: First one starts with the prime directive: The Composition. One sees it in his mind, as he surveys the scene. The first question that pops into his mind is: How am I going to record this composition? In answering this, he goes through the list kit in his mind, or what he has on hand. Will the kit support his vision?
Will the kit support his vision? Notice one does not ask: Will the kit take this picture? or Will the kit make this picture?
The kit supports the picture, and for this reason alone, the kit matters; the camera matters.
A resulting composition is a conspiracy between the human and his kit. A composition, even a bad one cannot be created without both components: Human and kit.
The primary "processor" in this conspiracy is the human of course, as he is the controller of this multi-component system, however if his kit cannot support his vision, then his vision, his composition cannot and will not be realized in the way he wants. In this conspiracy, it is best that the weak link be the human and not his gear, and so you, me, perhaps most of us have or will spend big $$ on kit. Given my own kit, if I blow a shot, or create a crappy picture, that is on me, my fault, plain in simple.
As to KR, well, consider the source guys. Look at his many other essays and you be the judge. As for myself, I don't read his ramblings anymore, and those that know, that get it, that have been there done that don't read his work either. As to what he actually wrote and what some might "interpret" from his writings...well, I was raised to say what I mean, mean what I say ;-)
Just my 2 cents.
-
Ironically enough, another blogospherologist lumps Rockwell and Reichmann together as "saccharine" photographers of "Socialist Realism."
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontificat...uck.html?page=2 (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/p_Why_Most_Landscapes_Suck/_Why_Most_Landscapes_Suck.html?page=2)
-
Ironically enough, another blogospherologist lumps Rockwell and Reichmann together as "saccharine" photographers of "Socialist Realism."
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontificat...uck.html?page=2 (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/p_Why_Most_Landscapes_Suck/_Why_Most_Landscapes_Suck.html?page=2)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Petteri doesn't like Ansel Adams much, either. So they're in good company.
-
Ironically enough, another blogospherologist lumps Rockwell and Reichmann together as "saccharine" photographers of "Socialist Realism."
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontificat...uck.html?page=2 (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/p_Why_Most_Landscapes_Suck/_Why_Most_Landscapes_Suck.html?page=2)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Much better writer than Rockwell but about the same level of photographic talent I'd say, so I have about the same respect for his opinions. Lumping Alain and Michael in with Rockwell is just silly, for example.
Jeez though I have to agree Ed Ley's stuff is wonderful. Wasn't aware of him until now.
-
Petteri and Rockwell have the same photographic talent? Right.
Much better writer than Rockwell but about the same level of photographic talent I'd say, so I have about the same respect for his opinions. Lumping Alain and Michael in with Rockwell is just silly, for example.
Jeez though I have to agree Ed Ley's stuff is wonderful. Wasn't aware of him until now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Petteri and Rockwell have the same photographic talent? Right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, they both bore me. I stopped looking at Sulonen's work after about 15-20 images. Seen a lot of Euro street stuff like that and wasn't compelled in any way to keep going.
Michael's street/people work is way more interesting; pulls me in and makes me wonder about the people/place. What's interesting/artistic about a guy taking a leak?
-
Ironically enough, another blogospherologist lumps Rockwell and Reichmann together as "saccharine" photographers of "Socialist Realism."
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontificat...uck.html?page=2 (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/p_Why_Most_Landscapes_Suck/_Why_Most_Landscapes_Suck.html?page=2)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How odd. I thought Socialist Realism was about the glorification of the peasant in a bucolic idyll for political purposes. Quite how Michael's work fits that description is beyond me. And as for Ken, well for the most part he takes technically poor snapshots.
The comment that a P&S can put wedding photographers out of business is just ignorance. For one thing a P&S cannot create shallow DOF required for certain stylised shots. Nor could it capture the tones in the whites of a wedding dress as well as a 'proper' camera. Nor does it have the speed of operation to capture a fleeting moment glimpsed by the photographer.
But it is true that most photography seems to consist of cliches. I get sick of seeing the same old crepuscular rocky coastlines, or pictures that have mood added by under exposure via Photoshop. Open them up and you see how mundane they are. But then again people like such images so maybe I'm just a cynical twisted old get.
I can see why pictures that win competitions can often seem quite ugly. Clearly the judges are sick of the same old same old, and look for something fresh.
-
This guy ( http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontificat...uck.html?page=2 (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontificat...uck.html?page=2) ) seems just bitter and frustrated. needs to lighten up.
-
The comment that a P&S can put wedding photographers out of business is just ignorance. For one thing a P&S cannot create shallow DOF required for certain stylised shots. Nor could it capture the tones in the whites of a wedding dress as well as a 'proper' camera. Nor does it have the speed of operation to capture a fleeting moment glimpsed by the photographer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the argument here is that the amateur with a P&S camera, having read Ken Rockwell's article, might get the impression that he/she can do as good a job as the professional who uses much more expensive equipment.
If this is the case, then it seems logical that an army of P&S toting amateurs, convinced that they are limited only by their talent, could have an impact on the business of wedding photographers.
If this is not true, then why the concern? Why the great number of threads on this topic? Are you guys really only concerned about the accuracy of information that some beginners may be carrying around in their head with regard to the true potential of their modest camera?
This argument about 'the camera doesn't matter' has at least two dimensions. On the one hand, a beginner with a P&S is likely to be encouraged by the notion that the modesty of his equipmentis is no impediment to the taking of good, interesting and even inspiring photos.
On the other hand, a beginner who has been convinced that the sophistication of the equipment does matter, is quite likely to be discouraged from taking any trouble with their shots. They might well take the attitude that their camera is only good for snapshots and might therefore waste several years of their life abstaining from a serious pursuit of their interest because they can't afford a 1Ds3.
-
Ironically enough, another blogospherologist lumps Rockwell and Reichmann together as "saccharine" photographers of "Socialist Realism."
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontificat...uck.html?page=2 (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/p_Why_Most_Landscapes_Suck/_Why_Most_Landscapes_Suck.html?page=2)
Pretentious Pontifications from Petteri...more web dreck. I could feel my IQ dropping as I read the first page.
-
Well, let me help it rise again, Jonathan .
There's a Shakespearian quotation that springs to mind, that I think is very relevant in this discussion; from Hamlet.
'For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'.
If we believe it, it's true for us, so if we believe we're right, why then, right we are! And what the real truth of the matter may be, well, that's not our concern. We congratulate ourselves on our superior 'spirituality', our depth and sensitivity and wisdom and intuition, and pity the poor benighted materialistic wretches who deny our spiritual truths. Heads I win tails you lose, swings and roundabouts...it's a good old world, after all.
-
I have never seen the point of trying to mock, or degrade the efforts of others with regards ability of the photographer. This is so taste driven, it is impossible to really make informed comments. We are all capapble of taking bad photos, and we know it..I also think that we can take some nice stuff too!
I will point out an example here. I can see some great talent here, regarding digital art, but to me, it has no effect on a photographic level. I would point out, I am not attempting to downgrade another persons efforts, just point out that taste is a very personal thing. I wish him the best of luck with his book...
http://www.ephotozine.com/u8438 (http://www.ephotozine.com/u8438)
Like I say..we all have out own personal preferences with photography. Same with food, I hate butter beans, you might love them!
-
I think the argument here is that the amateur with a P&S camera, having read Ken Rockwell's article, might get the impression that he/she can do as good a job as the professional who uses much more expensive equipment.
If this is the case, then it seems logical that an army of P&S toting amateurs, convinced that they are limited only by their talent, could have an impact on the business of wedding photographers.
If this is not true, then why the concern? Why the great number of threads on this topic? Are you guys really only concerned about the accuracy of information that some beginners may be carrying around in their head with regard to the true potential of their modest camera?
I have encountered this issue on many occasions; attempting to explain to a potential client what the value of hiring me to do the job right over letting Uncle Joe with his P&S botch it. I've seen the results of letting Uncle Joe do it, and they usually suck. "Uncle Joe" may have a notion about composition, but he doesn't have the lighting, is generally clueless about color management, and rarely has any clue how to process a file optimally, especially with regard to dealing appropriately with the much higher noise levels of his P&S vs my DSLRs. Ultimately, it comes down to balance. You don't want to discourage newbies from getting a camera they can afford and going out and exploring and learning with it, but at the same time it benefits no one to give them unrealistic expectations of what they can do with it. And that is what Rockwell did with his article.
-
I have encountered this issue on many occasions; attempting to explain to a potential client what the value of hiring me to do the job right over letting Uncle Joe with his P&S botch it. I've seen the results of letting Uncle Joe do it, and they usually suck. "Uncle Joe" may have a notion about composition, but he doesn't have the lighting, is generally clueless about color management, and rarely has any clue how to process a file optimally, especially with regard to dealing appropriately with the much higher noise levels of his P&S vs my DSLRs. Ultimately, it comes down to balance. You don't want to discourage newbies from getting a camera they can afford and going out and exploring and learning with it, but at the same time it benefits no one to give them unrealistic expectations of what they can do with it. And that is what Rockwell did with his article.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I want to reverse that somewhat. I had a casual job arranged, nothing major, just a few shots at a church for a christening. Friend of friend thing..no big deal. Anyway a few weeks before the shoot, she backed out..saying, it's ok my aunt has a digital camera. I was not bothered..but I pointed out. "You are not hiring someone because they have a nice camera, but because they can take good photos"
You hire the hitman, not the gun ;-) The hitman will use what he wants. End results count.
So we can look at it a number of ways. Don't get me wrong, I would have no intentions of taking a samsung compact to the job, but you can see my point.
-
barry,
What about if the hitman get caught? then you get the gun,to kill the hitman?
So if you tell someone to take a photo in you like to print it, 40x60
then what?
the person can take the photo with a 3megapixel camera in will be ok?
BlasR
-
barry,
What about if the hitman get caught? then you get the gun,to kill the hitman?
So if you tell someone to take a photo in you like to print it, 40x60
then what?
the person can take the photo with a 3megapixel camera in will be ok?
BlasR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183192\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the obvious response is as I said. Nobody would in their right mind take an el cheapo compact, to do serious flash shots in tough lighting. Limitations are there on all cameras, the M8 is pretty expensive..but you dont see many sports shooters using it do you? lol
But, on the other hand..I don't need a D3 or top range SLR to do it either. A budget SLR can do the job well enough. Can you see the point in this? People are suggesting the "best you can get, that is what you need"..did we not have great sports shots long before we had autofocus and motordrives??? How was that then??
We need not keep repeating the obvious here..yes a pinhole is of no use for action work, yes that cheapo half broken compact is not good for event photography..but you might be able to wing a not bad landscape out of it..maybe.
People dont make life hard for the sake of it, but we need to focus on what really counts. And top notch best of the best..well, great..but you dont need that.
-
Just looked at Sulonen's site, and the similarities between him and Rockwell are striking and fascinating -
Doesn't appear to be a pro or exhibit and sell prints.
Writes provocative, extremely unbalanced essays with obvious howlers in them.
Photos rarely seem to rise above travel/documentary level.
Publishes reviews and teaches with no apparent qualifications.
And yet, seems to have a "following".
Guess that's the power of the Internet. No one would have ever heard of either of these guys without it.
-
Just looked at Sulonen's site, and the similarities between him and Rockwell are striking and fascinating -
Doesn't appear to be a pro or exhibit and sell prints.
Writes provocative, extremely unbalanced essays with obvious howlers in them.
Photos rarely seem to rise above travel/documentary level.
Publishes reviews and teaches with no apparent qualifications.
And yet, seems to have a "following".
Guess that's the power of the Internet. No one would have ever heard of either of these guys without it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=183270\")
Most of the people posting in this thread seem to be pro's (meaning they earn some income from their photography). I'm not and never will be. I doubt I'll ever be a serious amateur either, even though I only know personally a handful of people more serious than me. My goal is mainly to get the odd interesting snap shot and document some of my life's moments. Since I got my dslr, I think I've been meeting my goal. I also want to get better, but I'm really not interested in spending a lot of time with Photoshop, yet.
Rockwell's writing appeals to me because he speaks to my needs. Yes, he's over the top. I get that. Just because I don't know photography doesn't mean I'm dumb. Yes, you have to read through a pile of pages to get his complete picture. But, he focuses on some basics like how to actually use your camera and what different settings are meant for. To the rest of you, it's simple stuff, but he provides a starting point for the rookie. Within the paragraphs of stuff saying why something isn't important, he will usually say that the pro needs it, or if you are shooting in certain conditions you need it. No, it's not balanced, but most of you posting in these threads are exactly the people who he will say actually needs whatever it is he told the rest of us isn't important.
You knock him, but I haven't seen anyone on any of these posts list any web sites that are comparable and more accurate. I'd love it if you would. I'm not interested in more sites with great pictures. I've been pointed to dozens of those. What I want is a great author who spends time writing about using the camera. If Rockwell's not the guy, who is? [a href=\"http://www.bythom.com/index.htm]Thom Hogan[/url] might be an example. He sprinkles technical camera stuff and composition lessons together. Who else?
-
I would encourage you to read all of the books you can get your hands on by John Shaw. Much of what he has written is from the days of film, but the information is not dated and is readily transferable to digital. Futhermore, he is fine writer, fine photographer, and not the least bit puffed up or entralled with the sound of his own voice. After that, I would suggest you read Alain Briot's book on landscape photography. Where you get your information really is important and when you get it from those best prepared to teach, your learning is greatly enhanced.
-
Most of the people posting in this thread seem to be pro's (meaning they earn some income from their photography). I'm not and never will be. I doubt I'll ever be a serious amateur either, even though I only know personally a handful of people more serious than me. My goal is mainly to get the odd interesting snap shot and document some of my life's moments. Since I got my dslr, I think I've been meeting my goal. I also want to get better, but I'm really not interested in spending a lot of time with Photoshop, yet.
Rockwell's writing appeals to me because he speaks to my needs. Yes, he's over the top. I get that. Just because I don't know photography doesn't mean I'm dumb. Yes, you have to read through a pile of pages to get his complete picture. But, he focuses on some basics like how to actually use your camera and what different settings are meant for. To the rest of you, it's simple stuff, but he provides a starting point for the rookie. Within the paragraphs of stuff saying why something isn't important, he will usually say that the pro needs it, or if you are shooting in certain conditions you need it. No, it's not balanced, but most of you posting in these threads are exactly the people who he will say actually needs whatever it is he told the rest of us isn't important.
You knock him, but I haven't seen anyone on any of these posts list any web sites that are comparable and more accurate. I'd love it if you would. I'm not interested in more sites with great pictures. I've been pointed to dozens of those. What I want is a great author who spends time writing about using the camera. If Rockwell's not the guy, who is? Thom Hogan (http://www.bythom.com/index.htm) might be an example. He sprinkles technical camera stuff and composition lessons together. Who else?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
(Well, that's funny. Was writing this and then stopped to answer a phone call and I see Colorado Dave beat me to it. John's the Man.)
The best thing on Rockwell's site is the list of links to instructional books, and to me the best of these has always been John Shaw's stuff (the "Field" guides). Nothing improved my shooting more than the info in those books. And don't be put off because they seem to be targeted at nature and wildlife photographers and you just want to improve your snapshots. They'll do that for you AND give you the foundation to go (way) beyond snapshooting if you want.
Also, John shoots exclusively now with the D3, and I'm guessing that his books have been updated quite a bit to encompass digital considerations and techniques.
-
My main problem with Petteri is that he doesn't know what Socialist Realism is. The photographers he cited don't do it. It's like saying that Reichmann is a Neo-Classicist or a Post-Impressionist. No he isn't.
The *painting* on Petteri's site *is* a piece Socialist Realism -- it shows happy, well-dressed, literate peasants sitting in a field, pleased that the nation's leading newspaper recognizes the value of their efforts. That's Socialist Realism. It's a particular type of realism with an explicit social message. Alain Briot takes a picture of a mountain, and what? The mountain is pleased to be part of Stalin's newest five-year plan? Tell you what -- the mountain doesn't give a shit.
Calling something by a technical name gives the caller a certain authority among the unknowledgeable. It's annoying when it's simply wrong.
JC
-
I think what gets a lot of serious photographers, pro or otherwise, about Rockwell's article is that it seems to paint any discussion of photographic equipment as some sort of misguided elitism. To be sure some of it is. It should be made clear to those who might be lead into believing that whatever equipment they own or can afford isn't worth attempting worthwhile photography with that this is a cart load of bovine excrement. There is a wide gulf however between properly making this point and the blanket statement that "the camera doesn't matter."
Rockwell points to the fact that there is plenty of serious photography being shown that was done using $15 Holga's, but this is more damning to his point than anything. It's not as though these cameras sell because of their reputation for giving similar results to other cameras but for less money. Anyone I have heard of who's done anything noteworthy using a Holga also owned lots of nice expensive equipment. They chose to use the Holga instead of putting the same roll of film through, say, their Hasselblad because it gives a different sort of result (i.e. the camera really does matter.)
-
I get the sense that many of you guys opposing Rockwell's argument that the camera doesn't matter, are missing the point that common language is not scientific language. The words we use for general purposes are all to some degree metaphor, simile and rough approximation.
For example, if I describe a room as being empty, we all know what I mean even though such a statement is clearly false. The room cannot literally be empty. It presumably contains air. Even if I were to remove the air and create a vacuum, it still wouldn't be empty. It contains electromagnetic waves of a variety of frequencies bouncing around. Perhaps if I were to reduce the temperature of the room to absolute zero, an impossible task I would think, I might then be able to claim the room is empty, or very, very close to being empty.
When people use a general term like,'it doesn't matter', they never in any circumstances I can think of literally mean, 'it doesn't truly matter in any degree whatsoever, in any circumstances whatsoever'. You have to use a bit of nous here .
-
You knock him, but I haven't seen anyone on any of these posts list any web sites that are comparable and more accurate. I'd love it if you would. I'm not interested in more sites with great pictures. I've been pointed to dozens of those. What I want is a great author who spends time writing about using the camera. If Rockwell's not the guy, who is? Thom Hogan (http://www.bythom.com/index.htm) might be an example. He sprinkles technical camera stuff and composition lessons together. Who else?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You make a good point. As you say, Hogan is respected. But books are your best bet.
John Shaw is a genius in my view. As the other poster says, his books are a bit dated when it comes to camera technology, but they are full of useful information.
There are plenty of books by other authors such as Niall Benvie, Laurie Campbell and others which are also good. I am sure reviews on Amazon will help the choice.
But really the best way to learn is experiment and take notes. Well, these days you do not need to take notes (as I used to) as the shooting settings are recorded in the image.
My concern about Ken is that the information is mis-leading. You could end up wasting years with a given piece of equipment because Ken says the camera does not matter. In fact a well chosen piece of equipment can lift your shots up a level.
What I do not see from Ken is a discussion of important things such as lighting (apart from natural light), of the use of flash, on and off camera. Or the use of accessories such as diffusers. There is little discussion of composition. And so on. And when he does discuss something in detail, such as MTF plots, his writing is confused and hard to follow.
-
I get the sense that many of you guys opposing Rockwell's argument that the camera doesn't matter, are missing the point that common language is not scientific language. The words we use for general purposes are all to some degree metaphor, simile and rough approximation.
I can't speak for others but I think Ken is quite simply a bad writer. You do not say that buying a better camera will not improve your photography when what you actually mean is that buying a better camera will only improve your photography if you have the skill to use it. They are quite different statements. The first one is patently false, the second is true. People will need to upgrade equipment as their skills improve.
I have read online comments from newbies who defend Ken's statement that a tripod gets in the way of good photography by saying that "Hey, look, he does say that for large format cameras you need a tripod". People could waste years before they realise the value of a tripod.
But it is true that his friendly chatty informal writing appeals to a wide audience, and his regular claims to be a master photographer are widely believed. He has 10 out of 10 for chutzpah.
-
I can't speak for others but I think Ken is quite simply a bad writer.
Is he a bad writer? Does he not write what he means? Or is he a good enough writer that we can assume he means exactly what he writes? I find it highly amusing that those who take the biggest exception to the article are also the ones who are treating Rockwell's words as gospel. If he's a bad writer then we SHOULDN'T take his words literally, it would seem to me. Everyone is worried about the misconception that might be given by the article, yet so far I haven't seen one person chime in who actually HAS been led astray.
-
Is he a bad writer? Does he not write what he means? Or is he a good enough writer that we can assume he means exactly what he writes? I find it highly amusing that those who take the biggest exception to the article are also the ones who are treating Rockwell's words as gospel. If he's a bad writer then we SHOULDN'T take his words literally, it would seem to me.
I do not take his words as gospel. God forbid. (I suspect you do not understand the meaning of the phrase.) The only point I and I presume others which to make is that Ken's article is full of nonsense. If you want to completely re-interpret his article so that it makes sense, then that's fine by me. I guess you are a fan of Humpty Dumpty from "Through The Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll:
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' ..."
However, such sloppy use of English is not for me.
-
My concern about Ken is that the information is mis-leading. You could end up wasting years with a given piece of equipment because Ken says the camera does not matter. In fact a well chosen piece of equipment can lift your shots up a level.
What I do not see from Ken is a discussion of important things such as lighting (apart from natural light), of the use of flash, on and off camera. Or the use of accessories such as diffusers. There is little discussion of composition. And so on. And when he does discuss something in detail, such as MTF plots, his writing is confused and hard to follow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183455\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks to those of you who took the time to mention authors to check out. I've pulled several web sites from that. Since the internet made it into our house, I find I've got less ability to focus on actual books. That attention span thi......
Anyway, I wanted to re-inforce the point that at least one reader of Rockwell's doesn't take him as gospel. Just another spot on the internet where I can get ideas. The article under discussion re-inforced the idea that I should know why I would buy new hardware before I just blindly spend the money. It may not be what he said, but it was the message I got. So, I guess my point is not to get your knickers in a knot over the guy. Even those of us who read his stuff realize the limitations.
-
The article under discussion re-inforced the idea that I should know why I would buy new hardware before I just blindly spend the money. It may not be what he said, but it was the message I got. So, I guess my point is not to get your knickers in a knot over the guy. Even those of us who read his stuff realize the limitations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly! There are limitations to what any tool can do and all art forms are structured within a limiting format. For example, a Haiku poem cosists of 3 lines of 17 unrhymed syllables. Line 1, 5 syllables, line 2, 7 syllables, line 3, 5 syllables.
A sonnet on the other hand consists of 14 lines and a specific rhyming sequence.
I'm no poet, but I see a clear analogy here. A person could spend his whole life just writing sonnets and express everything he wanted to express. The structure of the form is simply the limiting parameters within which one expresses oneself.
Like-wise a person could spend his whole life, and people have done just that, shooting just 35mm film. The limitation is, you can't make a poster-size, razor sharp, detailed prints from 35mm film. That's a limitation one might happily accept to live with and still find more than enough interesting scenes to shoot in a way that taxes whatever talent and imagination one has.
There are clearly limitations to a P&S camera just as there are limitations to a P45+ DB. Using a 35mm DSLR will make it easier to produce shallow DoF, but sometimes too easy with the consequence of unwanted shallowness of DoF, as in macro photography where one might struggle with the slow shutter speed resulting from stopping down in order to get a reasonable DoF.
The message I get from Rockwell's article is not that there are no differences between cameras, but that learning to work within those limits of the equipment you are using, is what matters.
-
The article under discussion re-inforced the idea that I should know why I would buy new hardware before I just blindly spend the money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm far from sure that this is a sound argument! In my experience most 'gear' (not just photographic) is bought based on specification and personal bias rather than whether it is capable of filling a requirement. I do actually know a few photographers who are not interested in their equipment - so long as it does the job they are happy with it - but I'd say that they are in the minority. So I'd say that to most photographers their equipment does matter - if not for logical reasons.
Having reread the article under discussion I have to say that unless there had been so much discussion about it, I very much doubt if I'd have bothered to read it to the end.
What I've found so fascinating is the discussion that it provoked.
-
The message I get from Rockwell's article is not that there are no differences between cameras, but that learning to work within those limits of the equipment you are using, is what matters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then why didn't he say that? Maybe you should sign on as his ghost writer.
While so many are reading what they want to hear into his essay, I am tempted to summarize my own position as "Your camera doesn't matter (but mine does)."
-
I love a good food fight, and this is probably the best I have seen since I was a kid in camp in the 1960s.
As a professional photographer of 35 years, I would say that the gear matters, if the intent of the photograph is to present the image as clearly and as close to the original scene visited as possible. I would also agree that a creative mind will create with any tool available. Now I must admit that I have been to galleries and read Aperture magazine and often didn't "get it." I sometimes scratch my head and wonder why a curator will pick a particular artist or image to put in a gallery. Art being subjective, I try to refrain from making any rigid judgments. So, back to this chicken and egg argument. To paraphrase Bill Clinton "It's the camera stupid" unless "it's the photographer stupid." Maybe this whole argument is stupid.
-
Is he a bad writer? Does he not write what he means? Or is he a good enough writer that we can assume he means exactly what he writes? I find it highly amusing that those who take the biggest exception to the article are also the ones who are treating Rockwell's words as gospel. If he's a bad writer then we SHOULDN'T take his words literally, it would seem to me. Everyone is worried about the misconception that might be given by the article, yet so far I haven't seen one person chime in who actually HAS been led astray.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think Ken's article is a publicity stunt no different than a costume malfunction.
If he believed he could get top quality from a basic SLR or a P&S why did he buy a D3 and a D300? Why did he buy a 5D? The fact is he blows a lot of money on equipment.
He doesnt practice what he preaches.
-
Maybe this whole argument is stupid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184000\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now there's a point we should all be able to agree on.
-
Ken Rockwell is absolutely right, the camera makes absolutely no difference. I'd explain it in more detail, but right now I have to get to the airport; I'm going on a wildlife shoot in Africa and I still have to pack my M8 and CV12mm.
-
I think Ken's article is a publicity stunt no different than a costume malfunction.
If he believed he could get top quality from a basic SLR or a P&S why did he buy a D3 and a D300? Why did he buy a 5D? The fact is he blows a lot of money on equipment.
He doesnt practice what he preaches.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course, I'm sure you realise that this sort of argument cuts both ways. Maybe it is necessary for Ken to buy a few good cameras in order to draw the conclusion that your camera doesn't really matter.
If he had made such a comment without ever having owned and used expensive and modern cameras, you would be entitled to declare, "How the heck would he know whether the camera matters or not. He doesn't even own any good cameras." Get my point?
-
Maybe this whole argument is stupid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184000\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now there's a point we should all be able to agree on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not necessarily, Eric. Only living creatures can be stupid, like people and kangaroos.
Arguments can be poorly constructed, factually wrong, unconvincing or compelling, as the case may be, but surely not stupid.
-
But Ray, "Your choice of words doesn't matter!"
Cheers,
Eric
Or, as Humpty said . . .
-
I've observed that while the average pro is better than the average amateur, the very best work is usually done by amateurs, who have the time, and care personally about each task. And they care about their equipment. And if I were having my wedding photographed, I'd like to see the photog show up with a clean-looking, well-maintained kit, and the kind of wild-eyed enthusiasm that few professionals enjoy. Michael is the professional exception, since you know he'd be doing the same thing whether as a pro or amateur.
-
I've observed that while the average pro is better than the average amateur, the very best work is usually done by amateurs, who have the time, and care personally about each task.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a stretch - maybe you can give examples.
No doubt there are talented amateurs around but I have yet to see anyone whose work surpasses that of the top pros.
-
Of course, I'm sure you realise that this sort of argument cuts both ways. Maybe it is necessary for Ken to buy a few good cameras in order to draw the conclusion that your camera doesn't really matter.
If he had made such a comment without ever having owned and used expensive and modern cameras, you would be entitled to declare, "How the heck would he know whether the camera matters or not. He doesn't even own any good cameras." Get my point?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really. I first came upon his website when he was doing an article on the Minolta multi pro scanner. He was reviewing the "top of the line" 135 equipment back then too. He continually buys the expensive gear then he claims it doesn't matter. The next generation of equipment comes along and it repeats. Its either for publicity or it's insanity.
-
George Barr has posted a balanced (IMHO) view of the issue:
http://georgebarr.blogspot.com/2008/03/pho...and-camera.html (http://georgebarr.blogspot.com/2008/03/photographer-and-camera.html)
-
Not really. I first came upon his website when he was doing an article on the Minolta multi pro scanner. He was reviewing the "top of the line" 135 equipment back then too. He continually buys the expensive gear then he claims it doesn't matter. The next generation of equipment comes along and it repeats. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can't blame him for trying. Don't we all buy new equipment in the hope it will contribute to our taking better photos. However, if we are really honest we might draw the conclusion that our best shots, our most memorable shots (from the many thousands we've taken) were perhaps due partly to chance, being at the right place at the right time when the lighting was magical, and partly due to good technique with whatever camera we happened to be using at the time.
-
Can't blame him for trying. Don't we all buy new equipment in the hope it will contribute to our taking better photos. However, if we are really honest we might draw the conclusion that our best shots, our most memorable shots (from the many thousands we've taken) were perhaps due partly to chance, being at the right place at the right time when the lighting was magical, and partly due to good technique with whatever camera we happened to be using at the time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that life is too short to continue to read articles written by those that clearly know little about photography, like KR, for example. Additionally, life is too short to spend time justifying those types.
Perhaps your time is better spent reading about photographic articles written by those that write what they mean, and mean what they write, know the subject matter, and don't require the reader to "get it" or read between the lines, or interpret their words.
Our talent, or skills are a function of the people we talk to, books we read, and other sources of education (prgramming of our brains), so for this reason, we should all be mindful of the sources we use to "program" our brains.
I don't read KR, nor Petterie, and especially articles written by socialists! ;-)
-
I think that life is too short to continue to read articles written by those that clearly know little about photography, like KR, for example. Additionally, life is too short to spend time justifying those types.
Perhaps your time is better spent reading about photographic articles written by those that write what they mean, and mean what they write, know the subject matter, and don't require the reader to "get it" or read between the lines, or interpret their words.
Our talent, or skills are a function of the people we talk to, books we read, and other sources of education (prgramming of our brains), so for this reason, we should all be mindful of the sources we use to "program" our brains.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have read very little of what Ken's written which is why I don't comment on his writings generally. In fact, I think the first time I gave a close look at anything he's produced was when I was searching for a comparison between the the 5D and the D3. Ken Rockwell was then just about the only person on the net who had published any comparison images.
I'm surprised that so many contributors on this forum find it necessary to refute what is clearly meant in Ken's article and restate the bleeding obvious. At a fundamental and literal level, of course the camera matters. You can't take a photo without a camera.
I don't read KR, nor Petterie, and especially articles written by socialists!
... or novels, poetry, religious texts, movies, TV dramas, sitcoms etc etc etc, none of which should be taken literally and all of which need some kind of interpretation .
-
I'm surprised that so many contributors on this forum find it necessary to refute what is clearly meant in Ken's article and restate the bleeding obvious.
I think you have issues with reading. Of course what the previous sentence means is "I think your reading comprehension is superb". At least in Ken's world!
-
I think you have issues with reading. Of course what the previous sentence means is "I think your reading comprehension is superb". At least in Ken's world!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My reading comprehension is superb in anyone's world, I hope, except when the language is foreign, to state the obvious.
-
Unless you're a politician, "interpretation" normally doesn't mean reversing the meaning of what is stated literally.
-
That's a stretch - maybe you can give examples. No doubt there are talented amateurs around but I have yet to see anyone whose work surpasses that of the top pros.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see this is going to be a tough sell. If a "top pro" really is that good, then it's not because they were paid well. It's because they had a personal interest in the subject that equates to something not related to pay (the simple definition of 'pro' = one who is paid for the work). This could go to a major philosophical discussion, but I don't think that's necessary - most of us can understand that the best work comes from people who were not necessarily hired to do the particular piece, nor were motivated by money to produce it. You just can't buy talent, unless you believe Warhol etc. is talent.
-
Well, I AM an artist & I agree with every post in this thread.
-
... or novels, poetry, religious texts, movies, TV dramas, sitcoms etc etc etc, none of which should be taken literally and all of which need some kind of interpretation .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Technical articles are not in the same genres as those other things you listed above. Technical articles, reviews should not have to be interpreted, and have little subjectivity in them.
I suspect you already know this, but we humans have to justify our posture ;-)
-
I see this is going to be a tough sell. If a "top pro" really is that good, then it's not because they were paid well. It's because they had a personal interest in the subject that equates to something not related to pay (the simple definition of 'pro' = one who is paid for the work).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Being paid and earning a living out of photography allows someone with even a modest amount of talent to develop their skills to their fullest potential. Being simply paid does not make someone a pro, earning a living by being skilled does.
I also think you are considering the more arty side of photography when you say 'best work'; in the raw commercial world 'talent' is less important than craftsmanship and training.
This is probably better off discussed in a new thread should you choose to do so, but I would say this: you may not be able to buy talent (if such a thing exists) but you certainly can buy competence.
-
Technical articles are not in the same genres as those other things you listed above. Technical articles, reviews should not have to be interpreted, and have little subjectivity in them.
I suspect you already know this, but we humans have to justify our posture ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The article which is the subject of this thread is not a technical article but more of a rumination or reflection on the importance of the sophistication of the equipment used (the camera) in the taking of a photograph.
But I suspect you know this .
Also, technical articles and reviews do have to be interpreted, especially when they consist of raw data which can sometimes be contradictory or inconsistent.
-
Unless you're a politician, "interpretation" normally doesn't mean reversing the meaning of what is stated literally.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184854\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah! So Ken's only sin (in the article under discussion) is behaving a bit like a politician?
-
Ah! So Ken's only sin (in the article under discussion) is behaving a bit like a politician?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you read into the article whatever suits your beliefs.
Anyway Ken is a hypocrite since he is one of the biggest gear heads around.
-
I think you read into the article whatever suits your beliefs.
Anyway Ken is a hypocrite since he is one of the biggest gear heads around.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Phew! You're asking for trouble here. Aren't we all receptive to ideas that suit our preconceptions and experience? We are all to a large extent a product of our upbringing, our education, our early experiences whether joyful or traumatic, the books we've read, the people we've met, and not least of all, our genetic make-up.
When reading other people's opinions we agree or disagree in accordance with our own experience, but we also need to use a bit of nous in understanding the general context. You wouldn't find a sitcom entertaining if you were persuaded it was a serious drama. In fact, you might find it quite stupid.
I repeat, Ken's article is not a technical article. He's not speaking in technical language but colloquialisms. "It doesn't matter" is a colloquial expression.
I understand this. Why don't you?
-
The term you're looking for is "hyperbole", not "colloquialism". But your argument is indefensible in either case. Words mean things, and "it doesn't matter" means "it doesn't matter", not "it can matter greatly sometimes, depending on what you're shooting, but in many situations the user is the limiting factor, and not the camera". Claiming the two statements are equivalent on the basis of colloquialism is no more intellectually defensible than claiming Clinton's statement that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman" wasn't a lie because fellatio is not "sexual relations".
-
Phew! You're asking for trouble here. Aren't we all receptive to ideas that suit our preconceptions and experience? We are all to a large extent a product of our upbringing, our education, our early experiences whether joyful or traumatic, the books we've read, the people we've met, and not least of all, our genetic make-up.
When reading other people's opinions we agree or disagree in accordance with our own experience, but we also need to use a bit of nous in understanding the general context. You wouldn't find a sitcom entertaining if you were persuaded it was a serious drama. In fact, you might find it quite stupid.
I repeat, Ken's article is not a technical article. He's not speaking in technical language but colloquialisms. "It doesn't matter" is a colloquial expression.
I understand this. Why don't you?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray: I'm sure you haven't read the article so here are some quotes:
"...it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools."
"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."
"Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography."
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference."
"Having too much camera equipment is the best way to get the worst photos."
If you fail to understand the meaning of terms such as "does not" and "will not", I can explain them to you, just ask.
-
Ray: I'm sure you haven't read the article so here are some quotes:
If you fail to understand the meaning of terms such as "does not" and "will not", I can explain them to you, just ask.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm a bit worried by guys who voted twice for George Bush, so just in case you are one of those (and I apologise if you're not), I'll take the trouble to explain.
The issue here is not about the definition of such common words as 'does not' and 'will not', but key words such as 'image' and 'improve'.
(1) "...it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools."
This sentence means, "it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that provides the qualitative, distinctive factors that separate the extraordinary image from the ordinary image, not his tools".
You see, Ken's phraseology was more succinct.
(2) "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."
This means, "your equipment does not affect those important aspects of an image derived from the artist' eye, patience and skill".
(3) "Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography."
This means, "buying new gear will not help you create memorable and exceptional images if you are totally devoid of talent, have no artistic eye, no patience and no skill".
(4) "The camera doesn't make a bit of difference."
This is just a repitition of the above point (3).
(5) "Having too much camera equipment is the best way to get the worst photos."
This means that having too much camera equipment can detract from the artistic focus on creating a fine and inspirational image as opposed to a merely competent image. If the equipment doesn't get in the way, then clearly you haven't got too much.
Hope I've been of some help here in explaining Ken's words.
-
And in each case, you are assuming things Rockwell never wrote even once in his article.
-
Ray: You are completely changing the meaning of the quotes by inserting your own words. Anyone can do that but I don't see the point. If you want to live in a world where language is so fluid that it can mean anything, then fine, just don't expect me to take part.
-
The article which is the subject of this thread is not a technical article but more of a rumination or reflection on the importance of the sophistication of the equipment used (the camera) in the taking of a photograph.
But I suspect you know this .
Also, technical articles and reviews do have to be interpreted, especially when they consist of raw data which can sometimes be contradictory or inconsistent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185104\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
KR's article is within the realm of a "technical" document, and god help the newbies that read it!
You are wrong again! Technical articles are interpreted within the literal meanings of the words, sentences used in the article, and one has the unspoken understand with the author that one should find meaning in what was actually written....you wronglfully expect words, sentences and themes in Mr. KR's piece of excrement to be bent, and meanings to be somehow ascertained as to expect the reader to read between the lines. In short, you extract meaning that does not exist in KR's literal words. This is not interpretation...this is dillusion on your part.
Just be a man, and admit KR's article in question is pure cr@p. For you to spend many posts to defend KR says more about you then him.
-
Wow. I'm a bit late getting into this, but here's my take on this:
1 - The only thing that really matters in photography is your optics and whether you understand how to use them(hint, if you have only 2-3 lenses, you're making massive compromises already unless you're doing only one type of shooting, like large format scenery)
If you go to his site, he goes on and on and ON about gear and lenses and so on.
He may say it doesn't matter, but over and over on various sites in addition to his, one thing is always mentioned the most. The lens.
So it should be changed to "The most important piece of equipment in photography is the lens." This I can agree with, and it's why a lot of old school cameras from the past still do amazing things. It's hard to beat a 40 year old 50mm 1.2 lens for low light with most of the newer stuff. At best they tend to equal it. Yet, that old pre-digital/non AF lens can be had for dirt cheap in a lot of cases.
2 - Optical always will trump digital when it counts. No place is this more apparent than in the prints and enlargements. Typical 400DPI printing looks fine because it's what we're mostly used to, but if you find a good professionally done old-school enlargement and put them side by side, it's kind of sobering. We forgot what good printing looked like thanks to the labs and computers cutting corners.
That said, a lot of good results can be had for cheap with good old fashioned film and a good manual lens that you can't get with digital unless you spend literally 10x the price. A lot of the examples that I see Ken and others tout as reasons why the gear isn't important are shot with old cameras with good optics and good film. This gives you a huge advantage versus digital right away, especially at the lower end, and most of them are dead-simple to use.
IE - A $50 used rangefinder with some modern film blows the socks off of a typical $500 digital camera. That's not the gear not mattering, it's in fact, exactly the opposite. The thing Ken and the others miss is that just because it's less expensive doesn't mean it's not worthy compared to the new toys.
-
I've made my thoughts clear on some of KRs opinions, but his more objective articles are well worth looking at, like this one.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-bokeh.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-bokeh.htm)
I don't know many people who would have access to all these lenses at the same time.
This is much better and if he would stick to relatively objective articles like this he would gain a lot more credibility. This is genuinely useful info but, and I can't resist this, it rather does make a mockery of the 'equipment doesn't matter' dogma.
-
KR's article is within the realm of a "technical" document, and god help the newbies that read it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185492\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's actually more of an opinion piece or editorial.
-
Whenever I want entertaining I return to this thread.
I did read the article - actually as a result of LL posts. IMHO its basically a rather extended sweeping statement which is in need of numerous qualifications. I don't think that it is particularly well written and it certainly doesn't prompt me to read anything else on the same website (actually somewhat the opposite). But its one great asset is that it created a lot of entertaining posts!!!
-
I've made my thoughts clear on some of KRs opinions, but his more objective articles are well worth looking at, like this one.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-bokeh.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-bokeh.htm)
I don't know many people who would have access to all these lenses at the same time.
This is much better and if he would stick to relatively objective articles like this he would gain a lot more credibility. This is genuinely useful info but, and I can't resist this, it rather does make a mockery of the 'equipment doesn't matter' dogma.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=185532\")
IMO the following are much better:
[a href=\"http://www.PhotoZone.de]http://www.PhotoZone.de[/url]
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html)
And of course:
http://www.NikonLinks.com (http://www.NikonLinks.com)
I cannot trust someone who says such stupid things as Ken sometimes does. I also find that his opinions on equipment which I have owned is often at variance with my own experiences. His opinions are also often at variance with the reviews linked above.
-
Hi guys,
I know I'm pretty new to this forum, but I'd like to spend a word on this topic and try to face it from a different side.
Where a certain and PRO camera matters:
- on a daily basis if photography is our bread to survive.
- tough field conditions (i.e. photoreporters on a war area)
- under certain lighting conditions, the image recorded can have a better or worse overall quality due to a not good noise management or, especially with some lenses, an exposure mistake
- for certain subjects, as already stated, you can't use another kind of camera.
- to get some particular effects which couldn't be taken with a less flexible camera (just think of artistic work)
- where, and this is what I'd like to underline, the EMOTIONAL side prevails on the rational side. It's for sure that brands sell much more PRO cameras than the ones strictly necessary. It's like for cars, especially in those countries where having the "bigger" is the "better". Some spend money on cars, some others on cameras, simple as that. Who of you would ever deny that camera handling and appeal has its importance, especially if you use it quite often?
Where the camera doesn't really matter is the SELECTION (what) and the FRAMING (how it's photographed) of the subject, which is only in photographer's mind (able or not to yield a catching picture or not, depending on his experience)
Of course, for an occasional and spot use (just think of a photoreporter that, having lost his camera in a war area casually finds another one to use) each camera is good to take pictures.
That said, even if I know that 95% of my pictures can be taken with a common F80, having found locally for a really little price (nay, just a trade) a demo F6, why shouldn't I get it? I know the F6 will presumably last much longer and could really be MY film camera for the life. It's THE (latest) Nikon film camera, it has also a collectible value. With DSLR is different. Each two years a new model comes and everyone is praising it against the older one even if it served us very well. This is the "consumistic" model that we're actually following. Of course today I lust for a D3 against my actual DSLR (just think of noise management, so useful during low-light shooting) but I'm also aware that a D4 will be released in a couple of years so why have I to spoil my life if I can't actually afford a D3? I'll save money for the next one.
Here I'd like to widen a bit the concept. Why necessarily striving and crying for more MP when you would need a 4x MP camera to get a quality just double of the actual model, so needings a lot of time to be released? If the gap is really high and relevant (let's say a 5x-10x) ok, I can think of it. But why spoiling my day if a 15 MP camera has just released the day I got a 12 MP one? THERE is no REAL matter about cameras.
Same with lenses. Just think of the recently released Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon. They are MF and their optical quality, although stunning, is NOT 10x better than direct competitors, if you want to get them despite their price it's just for an emotional factor build-quality related or a specific needing, not surely for a valid common rational reason, but that's it, in some way they "matter" for some of us.
So, depending on what you have to do (and the way you do it) there's never a certain answer about that. Flexibility is the keyword. Flexibility with uses and flexibility with emotional side of things.
-
Whenever I want entertaining I return to this thread.
I did read the article - actually as a result of LL posts. IMHO its basically a rather extended sweeping statement which is in need of numerous qualifications. I don't think that it is particularly well written and it certainly doesn't prompt me to read anything else on the same website (actually somewhat the opposite). But its one great asset is that it created a lot of entertaining posts!!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right on!
-
But your argument is indefensible in either case. Words mean things, and "it doesn't matter" means "it doesn't matter[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whatever you do, Jonathan, do not become a lexicographer. A dictionary written by you would be very uninformative.
abacus n. (pl ~uses, or ~i) 1. abacus. 2. abacus 3. abacus.
matter v.i. 1. matter 2. matter.
The fact is, and I'm sure you know this, common and non-technical terms often have a very vague meaning. The precise meaning can often only be determined by the context. For example, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 degrees C are all conditions that could be described as 'cool', 'hot' and 'very hot' depending on the context.
-
Whatever you do, Jonathan, do not become a lexicographer. A dictionary written by you would be very uninformative.
abacus n. (pl ~uses, or ~i) 1. abacus. 2. abacus 3. abacus.
matter v.i. 1. matter 2. matter.
The fact is, and I'm sure you know this, common and non-technical terms often have a very vague meaning. The precise meaning can often only be determined by the context. For example, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 degrees C are all conditions that could be described as 'cool', 'hot' and 'very hot' depending on the context.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So the camera does not matter except in the cases where it does
-
The precise meaning can often only be determined by the context. For example, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 degrees C are all conditions that could be described as 'cool', 'hot' and 'very hot' depending on the context.
Bullshit. 1,000 C is a precise definition of a specific temperature, regardless whether you characterize it as "hot", "cool" or "purple". "Does matter" and "doesn't matter" are equally precise, along the lines of "pregnant" and "not pregnant".
-
Bullshit. 1,000 C is a precise definition of a specific temperature, regardless whether you characterize it as "hot", "cool" or "purple". "Does matter" and "doesn't matter" are equally precise, along the lines of "pregnant" and "not pregnant".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How come you are so adept at missing the point? 1,000 degrees C is indeed a very precise term. It's a technical term of the sort that Ken Rockwell's article is very much lacking, because it is not, and clearly was not intended to be, a technical article.
Common words such as 'hot' and 'cold', and colloquial expressions such as 'it doesn't matter' do not have precise meanings outside of the context in which they are used.
One, just one, of the meanings of the intransitive verb 'to matter', according to my small, Concise Oxford English Dictionary, is 'to be of importance or significance'. I won't bother to refer to the complete Oxford dictionary where there would be many more shades of meaning mentioned.
As far as I know, there's only one meaning of 1,000 degrees centigrade, and that's how it should be, otherwise we wouldn't be able to do science.
-
Common words such as 'hot' and 'cold', and colloquial expressions such as 'it doesn't matter' do not have precise meanings outside of the context in which they are used.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186040\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's the whole problem with this discussion. Some people are trying to extract exact meanings from imprecise terms. For instance, Rockwell said: "Better gear will not make you any better photos, since the gear can't make you a better photographer." The meaning a person attaches to "better" will determine how he interprets this sentence.
-
It's actually more of an opinion piece or editorial.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rockwell is exaggerating for effect, that much is obvious. Looks like it worked, judging by the furore he has let loose. Take away the hyperbole and he is fundamentaly right. You can't buy talent by buying a better camera.
Quentin
-
That's the whole problem with this discussion. Some people are trying to extract exact meanings from imprecise terms. For instance, Rockwell said: "Better gear will not make you any better photos, since the gear can't make you a better photographer." The meaning a person attaches to "better" will determine how he interprets this sentence.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually he said, in a separate standalone paragraph, with his emphasis:
"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need."
Me, I'm off to work on capturing birds in flight, close-up and freeze-frame with my camera obscura. Wish me luck, 'cause I suspect it will be difficult, slow and inconvenient. I didn't spend any time thinking about this, but high-quality photos will result, because I need them. However, I might need to spend a great deal of effort. Good thing I didn't spend any time thinking about my equipment beforehand, as this looks like taking a long, long time...
...Mike
-
Take away the hyperbole and he is fundamentaly right. You can't buy talent by buying a better camera.
Take away the hyperbole and you have nothing left. You can't buy talent by buying a better camera, and great talent isn't going to change the fact that an 8x10 is the wrong choice for capturing close-ups of birds in flight. A large part of talent and creativity is based on recognizing that tools do matter, and choosing the best one available for a particular task, whether that tool is a Hasselblad, Holga, or something in-between.
-
Rockwell is exaggerating for effect, that much is obvious. Looks like it worked, judging by the furore he has let loose. Take away the hyperbole and he is fundamentaly right. You can't buy talent by buying a better camera.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It isn't hyperbole, which is indeed exaggeration for effect, because he uses absolutes. A logical corollary of Ken's stance is that you cannot improve your image quality by buying a better camera. And that is wrong. But I bet a lot of people believe that. They do not realise that, for example, for good nature photography you pretty much need mirror lock up, and the cheapest (Nikon) cameras don't have that. It is that level of arrogant ignorance that makes me annoyed with Ken. Just because he hasn't got a clue about nature photography (because he does not pursue it) doesn't give him a right to preach nonsense to, and mislead, the inexperienced. The camera bloody well does make a difference. Phew!
"You can't buy talent by buying a better camera."
Yes but that isn't what Ken said. It's what you said. And of course we all agree with your statement.
-
A logical corollary of Ken's stance is that you cannot improve your image quality by buying a better camera. And that is wrong. But I bet a lot of people believe that. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bullshit! Everyone who understands the first thing about photography knows that expensive lenses can produce sharper images and that distant objects need telescopes, or telephoto lenses, and that very distant objects need super telescopic lenses like the Hubble telescope. This is common knowledge.
The problem here is simply one of English comprehension. You have incorrectly assumed that Ken's definition of 'image quality' in this context refers to 'degree of image sharpness, dynamic range, noise and color accuracy etc'.
It's very clear to me that Ken is not talking about these qualities in this article but is clearly referring to other qualities that make a photograph distinctive as a 'work of art'. He is elaborating on Ansel Adam's aphorism, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept". The fact that Ansel Adams might also be considered a 'gear head' is another matter.
For you, my friend, 3/10 for English comprehension.
-
It's very clear to me that Ken is not talking about these qualities in this article but is clearly referring to other qualities that make a photograph distinctive as a 'work of art'. He is elaborating on Ansel Adam's aphorism, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept". The fact that Ansel Adams might also be considered a 'gear head' is another matter.
For you, my friend, 3/10 for English comprehension.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well at least 4 or 5 of us "get it"
But we are not allowed to use "corny" quotes from Ansel Adams are we? lol
The Rockwell article came across to me, in exactly the way you say. As in a "quality image"
The much hyped "Image Quality" is something very different indeed, Ken calls them "gear heads"
As Michael decided to blast ken on his article, I can come to no other conclusion, bar the fact he is obviously far more interested in "image quality" and "sharp lenses" etc etc. Sometimes the soap box thing doesnt work very well!
I think most people know what is far more important. And I think that Michael, sends out the "wrong message" to people. That is fine, we can all have a view..just this time, MR is plain and simple "WRONG" in a huge way.
-
The problem here is simply one of English comprehension. You have incorrectly assumed that Ken's definition of 'image quality' in this context refers to 'degree of image sharpness, dynamic range, noise and color accuracy etc'.
It's very clear to me that Ken is not talking about these qualities in this article but is clearly referring to other qualities that make a photograph distinctive as a 'work of art'. He is elaborating on Ansel Adam's aphorism, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept".
This is a red herring. The choice of camera and lens has just as significant effect on the artistic and aesthetic properties of an image as it does on its technical qualities. If you want to photograph a waterfall and blur the motion of the water, it's a lot easier to do that with an 8x10 than a small-format camera. The technical and artistic aspects of an image cannot be divorced from one another; they are inextricably linked. Each affects the other--you can't ignore either aspect.
-
This is a red herring. The choice of camera and lens has just as significant effect on the artistic and aesthetic properties of an image as it does on its technical qualities. If you want to photograph a waterfall and blur the motion of the water, it's a lot easier to do that with an 8x10 than a small-format camera. The technical and artistic aspects of an image cannot be divorced from one another; they are inextricably linked. Each affects the other--you can't ignore either aspect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186271\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Red herring? Wha?! A camera is a camera is a camera....they all work on the same principle. Blurring a waterfall is easier with an 8X10 is easier than a small-format?!? You're having a laugh now...Which part is easier? Lugging it around to said waterfall and adjusting on a large tripod...after you've taken a few Tylenol 3's for the slipped disc in your back?
The point is ...KR wasn't talking about technical specifics....ie...all that minutia of info that (mostly) hacks always drool about, while giving no consideration to ideas of content, composition, form et al. The technical aspects are only empirically relevant as they pertain to the artistic and creative qualities....that is unless you are interested purely in the 'science' of photography (yawn).
-
Red herring? Wha?! A camera is a camera is a camera....they all work on the same principle.
And they are all equally useful for every shooting situation. A Holga is just as appropriate of a tool as a Hasselblad + digital back for a fashion shoot where 2-meter prints are needed, and an 8x10 view camera is just as good of a tool for shooting motocross or birds in flight as a Canon 1D Mark III. Are you really that obtuse?
Blurring a waterfall is easier with an 8X10 is easier than a small-format?!? You're having a laugh now...Which part is easier? Lugging it around to said waterfall and adjusting on a large tripod...after you've taken a few Tylenol 3's for the slipped disc in your back?
No I'm referring to getting a long enough exposure to blur the motion of the water acceptably without having to stop down to the point where diffraction is a problem, stack ND filters, etc. Larger formats require greater exposure times for a given DOF and ISO than smaller formats, and their use when long exposure time is desired is advantageous. Conversely, smaller formats are advantageous when fast shutter speeds are desired, such as sporting events.
The point is ...KR wasn't talking about technical specifics....ie...all that minutia of info that (mostly) hacks always drool about, while giving no consideration to ideas of content, composition, form et al.
No, the article was almost entirely composed of a long-winded rant denying that the technical side of photography is of any relevance whatsoever.
The technical aspects are only empirically relevant as they pertain to the artistic and creative qualities...
Exactly. The technical always affects the artistic to some degree, which is why the technical side is not irrelevant. It's not as relevant as some of the brand-fanboys make it out to be, but that does not mean that "a camera is a camera is a camera" and has no impact on the final image. The choice between a Nikon D3 and a Canon 1D Mark III may not have a impact on the final image in the hands of a skilled photographer shooting a ski-jumping event, but choosing between a DSLR and a Deardorff in the same situation will have a major impact on the final image, regardless of the skill of the photographer.
-
Ray,
Are you related to the Clintons?
Just wondering...Bill too had issues with words...as you might remember him asking the question "What do you mean by the word 'is' "? If you take KR's words literally, if you apply the dictionary to his words, his grammer and such, then there is only one conclusion you should've had.
-
Now that Ray has educated us all on the proper interpretation of English sentences, I am tempted to suggested a replacement for KR's original title claim. Perhaps it should have been, "Ken Rockwell's Camera Does Not Matter." I find that a more defensible position. Maybe it applies to Ray's camera as well.
-
Now that Ray has educated us all on the proper interpretation of English sentences, I am tempted to suggested a replacement for KR's original title claim. Perhaps it should have been, "Ken Rockwell's Camera Does Not Matter." I find that a more defensible position. Maybe it applies to Ray's camera as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric,
My camera matters to me because I enjoy looking at sharp images with no discernible noise in the shadows. I also prefer my prints to be large like most paintings.
But I don't kid myself that my prints have any great esthetic appeal and I'm almost willing to accept, when I'm being really honest with myself, that my fascination with the technical side of photographic image making may be a compensation for a lack of basic artistic talent.
Beat that for humility!
-
The problem here is simply one of English comprehension. You have incorrectly assumed that Ken's definition of 'image quality' in this context refers to 'degree of image sharpness, dynamic range, noise and color accuracy etc'.
For you, my friend, 3/10 for English comprehension.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Assumed? Here is just one of his many statements:
"Buying new gear will NOT improve your photography."
How much more clearly does it have to be expressed?
Oh, and it is wrong. When I bought a better camera and lens, it improved my photography significantly. And I wish that I had gone to digital sooner to get significantly improved results. The sort of nonsense spouted by Ken does everyone a disservice, apart that is from his bank manager.
The problem with Ken is that he lacks any sense of nuance. He also lacks any sense of precision. Don't you get it? Ken makes outrageous indefensible statements to get publicity.
Anyway, I'll let you get back to your woolly, wishy washy, world of imprecision.
-
Red herring? Wha?! A camera is a camera is a camera....they all work on the same principle. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186275\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The problem with Ken is ignorance, and I see you are being misled by Ken's nonsense.
A camera is not just a camera. There are significant technical differences which MAY make the difference between getting and not getting the shot.
I photograph insects using long macro lenses. The only way I can get sharp (and usable) images is to use mirror lock up, along with a good tripod and head. Without MLU, the images are not worth keeping. Before owning a camera with MLU, I had to place a large bean bag on top of the camera in an attempt to damp vibrations. It was clumsy, and made it almost impossible to stalk an active dragonfly.
And for sports photographers the ability to shoot at a high frames per second for an extended interval can make the difference between capturing the decisive moment, and missing it.
Oh and for concert photographers, the ability to get usable images at high ISO matters.
Sure, for Ken's narrow field of interest, which seems to be landscapes, and babies, the camera probably does not matter. But there is more to life than Ken's interests.
-
Bullshit! Everyone who understands the first thing about photography knows that expensive lenses can produce sharper images and that distant objects need telescopes, or telephoto lenses, and that very distant objects need super telescopic lenses like the Hubble telescope. This is common knowledge.
The problem here is simply one of English comprehension. You have incorrectly assumed that Ken's definition of 'image quality' in this context refers to 'degree of image sharpness, dynamic range, noise and color accuracy etc'.
It's very clear to me that Ken is not talking about these qualities in this article but is clearly referring to other qualities that make a photograph distinctive as a 'work of art'. He is elaborating on Ansel Adam's aphorism, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept". The fact that Ansel Adams might also be considered a 'gear head' is another matter.
For you, my friend, 3/10 for English comprehension.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now I see how this is done. Only a bloody idiot would believe the literal interpretation of Ken Rockwell's words, and Ken Rockwell is obviously not a bloody idiot (oh yeah? who says??) so what he must really mean is.... That's not English comprehension, that's speculating way, way, way beyond the evidence.
For a start, you are assuming the very thing you're trying to prove: that Ken Rockwell is not a bloody idiot, when his own statements seem almost purpose-designed to demonstrate the opposite.
You seem to have a point you wish to make. I don't even think anybody is arguing against your point. But its not at all obvious that Ken Rockwell is making the same point you are. Why are you so keen to think he is?
...Mike
P.S. What I suspect (but certainly can't demonstrate) is that Ken Rockwell is running a variation of the "strong versus weak form" technique. In front of the faithful he'll maintain that he means exactly what he says. In front of a more skeptical audience he (or one of his apolologists) can back away saying "no, you misinterpreted, what I really meant was..."
-
Reminds me of what some people do when confronted with something stupid that they're just said... "Oh – I was just kidding!"
Unless one is being ironic (and no one can be ironic for dozens or hundreds of pages over years) then what one writes has to be taken at face value. One can't just can't squeeze out from it so easily when hoisted by ones own petard.
Michael
-
One can't just can't squeeze out from it so easily when hoisted by ones own petard.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hoisted by you, Michael, or at least an attempt by you to hoist him.
-
Hoisted by you, Michael, or at least an attempt by you to hoist him.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh Ken, ah, I mean Ray, still fighting the good fight I see. Wonderful.
It must be grand fun to have the ability to extract meaning from words whose literal meaning is so different. I don't judge ya, kid. I envy you. I wish I could do it too....but you know how it is with old habits and stuff. I have this hang up of applying published dictionary definitions to the words I read...I know, it's stupid, but what can I say? I just can't stop, man....and besides, even if I could change, then I would be so different from 99.9% of the population around here, and frankly, I don't have the courage to be the maverick that you are. Well, we all can't be so brave as you....anyways, sorry for the drivvel...just want to say, I look forward to your daily responses, and maybe it's the rebel in you that stirs me up, what can I say?
Looking forward to tomorrow.
Cheers,
Lovell
-
I have this hang up of applying published dictionary definitions to the words I read...I know, it's stupid, but what can I say? I just can't stop, man....[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In my dictionary, the verb 'to matter' has two completely different meanings.
(1) to discharge pus.
(2) to be of importance.
When you first saw Ken's title to his article, "Your Camera Doesn't Matter", would I be correct in assuming that you did not think that Ken was trying to make the point that your camera does not discharge pus?
-
The horse has been dead for a couple of days now. Why are we still beating it?
-
The horse has been dead for a couple of days now. Why are we still beating it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186981\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because the horse still have meat.
BlasR
-
The horse has been dead for a couple of days now. Why are we still beating it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186981\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To tenderise the meat.
-
From the viewpoint of a large format photographer, the debate seems a bit odd. The camera is just the dead airspace between the lens and the film/sensor. How much could it matter? But today's digital whiz-bangs have become so loaded with micro-processing nano-techno-turbo-plasma drives that I guess the whole concept of "camera" has changed.
Maybe the Stones put it best: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need."
Most photographers just like to play with the toys, but the images have no direction, no destination. You won't find your either in a camera, though the right equipment choice may help to get you where you want to go. But it's hard to figure what to pack for the trip if you don't know where you're going...
-
The camera is just the dead airspace between the lens and the film/sensor.
So that leaves the lens and the film. With raw captures, Photoshop, and so on, as well as how forgiving modern film is if you use film instead of digital, this part of the equation is moot. In Ken's case, he seems to shoot Fuji slide film 99.9% of the time. That essentially makes it not a variable at all. All modern technology seems to be doing is making the media less and less of an issue(which will eventually be a good thing).
That leaves the lens, as I said.
And 90% of Ken's site seems to be about lenses. Amazing...
But it's hard to figure what to pack for the trip if you don't know where you're going...
Pack a good lens.
-
Pack a good lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
...leaving us only to figure out what "good" is...
-
From the viewpoint of a large format photographer, the debate seems a bit odd. The camera is just the dead airspace between the lens and the film/sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187049\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you use your large format camera for sports or nature and macro work?
For SOME purposes Ken's statement is true. But for many it isn't.
-
...leaving us only to figure out what "good" is...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Heh. Well, that's something that can take a lifetime to get right...
-
Most photographers just like to play with the toys, but the images have no direction, no destination. You won't find your either in a camera, though the right equipment choice may help to get you where you want to go. But it's hard to figure what to pack for the trip if you don't know where you're going...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187049\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right on baby!
-
Oh, and it is wrong. When I bought a better camera and lens, it improved my photography significantly....[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186321\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A new camera "improved" your photography? What do you mean by improve? You mean to say it improved the image quality of your shots? Well then, image quality is NOT composition, and really, the ONLY way to improve one's photography where it matters is in composition. The improvement of image quality simply means one's craap work is just sharper, less noise, and cleaner, but at the end of the day, it's still craap.
In other words, a better kit has never improved one's photography where it matters, and that is composition.
Don't get me wrong, as I am in the "the kit matters" camp, but at the same time I think the only way to improve one's pictures is when one improves their vision, their ability to compose.
On the other hand, image quality is just that, and has NOTHING to do with composition, as IQ only supports the composition and not is the composition.
Another way to say it: Take the cheapest digital point & shoot, and you will find that that camera will compose no worse then the most expensive digital DSLR available for purchase. The only really big advantage of the expensive DSLR is that it provides better image quality, but what good is better IQ if the composition is craap?
Kit does matter, but for reasons that might be different from yours. ;-)
-
From the viewpoint of a large format photographer, the debate seems a bit odd. The camera is just the dead airspace between the lens and the film/sensor. How much could it matter? But today's digital whiz-bangs have become so loaded with micro-processing nano-techno-turbo-plasma drives that I guess the whole concept of "camera" has changed.
Maybe the Stones put it best: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need."
Most photographers just like to play with the toys, but the images have no direction, no destination. You won't find your either in a camera, though the right equipment choice may help to get you where you want to go. But it's hard to figure what to pack for the trip if you don't know where you're going...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187049\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Stones had it wrong. So did the Beatles. They lied when they sung that all you need is love....love is hopelessly not enough...just ask McCartney these days ;-)
Your post is so ah....macho. Yea, macho is the word....the camera does not matter as you say...it's 100% up to just the photographer, the macho all knowing arteeest....sorry, but the zipper on your logic is down, and I'd be embarrassed ;-)
Kit does matter....ever try to shoot sports with your Large Format camera?
;-)
-
The improvement of image quality simply means one's craap work is just sharper, less noise, and cleaner, but at the end of the day, it's still craap.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This isn't a very good argument. What if his composition was top notch to begin with? Then improving his image quality may very well improve his work. Blanket statements from either side in this argument aren't very helpful.
-
This isn't a very good argument. What if his composition was top notch to begin with? Then improving his image quality may very well improve his work. Blanket statements from either side in this argument aren't very helpful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suspect you misunderstood my point, and I think you might find that we actually agree ;-)
You should agree sir, that if the comp is craap, then the higher image quality will also be craap. This is true every single time.
Now if the comp is great, then the higher IQ makes it even better. This is true too, every single time too.
Two blanket statements that are true every single time ;-)
Here's a 3rd blanket statement that is true: A better kit will not improve one's compositional skills. If it did, then I'd replace my two 5D's with one 1DS Mark III...wish it were that easy ;-)
Photography is a subjective art, that is build on the foundation of some objective methods, truisms, and blanket statements ;-)
What may well be subjective is the term "better camera". For a given vision, result a $30 Holga with a plastic lens might be the "better camera" because it offers the less then perfect look that the $8,000 1DS Mark III might not be able to provide, if that look is what one is wanting.
-
A new camera "improved" your photography? What do you mean by improve? You mean to say it improved the image quality of your shots? Well then, image quality is NOT composition, and really, the ONLY way to improve one's photography where it matters is in composition. The improvement of image quality simply means one's craap work is just sharper, less noise, and cleaner, but at the end of the day, it's still craap.
In other words, a better kit has never improved one's photography where it matters, and that is composition.
Don't get me wrong, as I am in the "the kit matters" camp, but at the same time I think the only way to improve one's pictures is when one improves their vision, their ability to compose.
On the other hand, image quality is just that, and has NOTHING to do with composition, as IQ only supports the composition and not is the composition.
Another way to say it: Take the cheapest digital point & shoot, and you will find that that camera will compose no worse then the most expensive digital DSLR available for purchase. The only really big advantage of the expensive DSLR is that it provides better image quality, but what good is better IQ if the composition is craap?
Kit does matter, but for reasons that might be different from yours. ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Without meaning to be rude, what you say is rather obvious. It can be rephrased as "Good equipment will not a good photographer make" or "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear"
As far as I am concerned a poorly composed image has poor image quality. (You are probably defining image quality in a manner that suits your statement.) And in my book an image that is well composed but very soft is (usually) crap. Image quality is a combination of factors: sharpness, colour, lighting, shapes, composition, emotional pull, and so on. Sometimes an image should be soft, or have muted colours. Most of these factors are dependent on the photographer's skill and vision, not the camera, though in some disciplines, such as sports photography, a certain level of equipment is needed to allow the photographer to realise their vision. But to make a blanket statement as Ken does that the camera does not matter is crass and ignorant.
Anyway most of the points made in this thread, including my own, are rather obvious and trite.
But the key point that I have tried to make is that Ken's article is badly written, badly articulated, confused, and plain wrong. But that is not of concern to Ken. What he wants to do is generate publicity and get advertising clicks to generate his income.
-
Anyway most of the points made in this thread, including my own, are rather obvious and trite.
But the key point that I have tried to make is that Ken's article is badly written, badly articulated, confused, and plain wrong. But that is not of concern to Ken. What he wants to do is generate publicity and get advertising clicks to generate his income.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes...but it was not in fact Ken's article that was so much in question as MR's rebuttal. I also don't subscribe to the convoluted idea that there is a calculated intention in KR's 'essay'. I think it's just his opinion. Ideally he may want more clicks ,generate revenue etc....but if that was his only intention, he'd probably just write porn.
Yay! It's back! Is it? Please?