Your Camera Does NOT Matter

[Satch]

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?

[Slough]

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]

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.

[Ken R]

This guy ( http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontificat...uck.html?page=2 ) seems just bitter and frustrated. needs to lighten up.

[Ray]

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.

[Jonathan Wienke]

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

Pretentious Pontifications from Petteri...more web dreck. I could feel my IQ dropping as I read the first page.

[Ray]

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.

[barryfitzgerald]

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


Like I say..we all have out own personal preferences with photography. Same with food, I hate butter beans, you might love them!

[Jonathan Wienke]

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.

[barryfitzgerald]

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.

[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

[barryfitzgerald]

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.

[jashley]

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.

[Omar]

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]

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?

[Colorado David]

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.

[jashley]

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 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.

[John Camp]

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

[skorj]

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.)

[Ray]

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   .

[Slough]

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 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.

[Slough]

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.