Your camera DOES matter

[lovell]

And I'd rather hear Mozart play his music on an 18th century piano, which in photography terms was the equivalent of a very modest camera, greatly lacking in the rich tonality and extended dynamic range of a P45+ (or a Steinway Grand), and didn't even have as many keys as a modern piano (61 as opposed to 88).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your arguments show NO valid correlation between the camera and piano, nor between a pictorial composition and musical notes.

Apples and oranges.

The camera CONTRIBUTES to composition by supporting the image quality.

The quality of the piano DOES NOT contribute to the writing of music.  Sure, during the execution of that written music the piano greatly matters, but NOT when the music is composed.  In contrast to this, the camera does in fact matter at the time the composition is made.

See the difference?

[sreidvt]

Sure he would, and here's the source of the confusion. Would Mozart have written more sublime music if he'd had a modern piano?

Sean's article makes reference to musicians and other artists preferring modern tools. Do we therefore assume if such tools had not been available, these artisits' works would have been less artistic, less notable, less enduring, less worthy?

Bach is considered by many to be the greatest composer who ever lived. His works are frequently played today on the modern piano, yet the piano wasn't invented in his time. The keyboard of his day was the harpsichord.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186326\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

First of all, thank you for the comments on the essay.  I'm glad that some found it useful.

Second, I said nothing at all in the essay about more modern or more expensive tools being preferable.  Rather...we use what works best for us.  

Cheers,

Sean

[jani]

The quality of the piano DOES NOT contribute to the writing of music.  Sure, during the execution of that written music the piano greatly matters, but NOT when the music is composed.  In contrast to this, the camera does in fact matter at the time the composition is made.

Are you a composer, or avidly interested in classical music?

My guess would be "no".

There is a clear correlation between what certain composers chose to do and the tools at hand. When the pianoforte matured, several composers used the keyboard as their tool for composing; not many composers -- if any --had a full orchestra they could use to see if things sounded right.

The analogy isn't perfect. That's why it's an analogy, not an identity.

[David Sutton]

The keyboard analogy  ends in the absurdities of counting keys or measuring db. You should stay away from it.
How can you play Mozart on a pianoforte without ruining the Alberti bass? In this sense the modern instrument is not more capable.
Beethoven was composing on the fortepiano and though driving its dynamic range where is the documentation showing his dissatisfaction with the instrument per se?
Bach was composing on whatever you paid him to, often using his own tunings to allow pantonality.
 David

[Ray]

Second, I said nothing at all in the essay about more modern or more expensive tools being preferable.  Rather...we use what works best for us. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Right! We use what works for us best from the various options we've tried and often just the options that are readily available or affordable. We do the best with what we've got, and having done the best we can with the options we've got, the enduring value of our achievement will depend more on our talent, skill and technique than the equipment we use.

That's the message from "The Camera Dosen't matter".