Your Camera Does NOT Matter

[daethon]

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.

[Nick Rains]

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.

[Jonathan Wienke]

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.

[Dichro1]

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.

[TaoMaas]

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.

[witz]

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!

[TaoMaas]

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.

[dalethorn]

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.

[witz]

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.

[Colorado David]

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.

[Jonathan Wienke]

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.

[Ray]

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.

[John.Murray]

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 . . . .

[Jonathan Wienke]

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.

[Ken R]

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.

[lovell]

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.

[Kuryan Thomas]

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

[DarkPenguin]

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
[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.

[Satch]

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
[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.

[DarkPenguin]

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]