Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!

[Nick Rains]

We should also not lose sight of the fact that any work of art is, almost by definition, like a piece of rhetoric, just like Ken's article. It's meant to be persuasive, and inevitably contains exaggerations for dramatic effect.

Jonathan's castle turret is a good example. The precarious position of the solitary figure, seemingly tottering on the brink of eternal darkness, is a dramatic effect which Jonathan has deliberately created, although it's not clear if he manipulated the image in Photoshop to that effect in order just to remove obtrusive noise.

Maybe if he'd been using a D3 at ISO 6400 which just might have produced marginally less noise in those dark shadows, he would have left some detail in the lower part of the image which might have reduced that dramatic effect of the precarious position of that lone figure lower right.

The debate as to whether photography is an art or a craft is relevant here. If one is merely trying to portray the scene in front of the camera with the greatest accuracy possible with regard to color, hue, detail, sharpness and shade, just as the eye, flitting from one part of the scene to the other, sees it, then I think perhaps we are dealing with a craft rather than an art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a can o'worms you're opening here Ray...

But I'll bite.

Most photography is craft, some is indeed art, but there are many who claim art 'status' with no genuine provenance. Merely saying you are an artist does not wash.

I don't think Jonathan claims art status for his image (maybe he does) but I do rather like the gothic mood. It's an effective image.

[bernie west]

Ray, are you by any chance a post-modernist?

[TaoMaas]

... Joni Mitchell can never hope to be as great an artist as Zamfir or Poison.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey, hey, HEY!!...Don't be dissin' Zamfir!  

[TaoMaas]

... there are many who claim art 'status' with no genuine provenance. Merely saying you are an artist does not wash.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe it does wash.  If a person is trying to create art, then they ARE an artist.  But that doesn't automatically mean that they are a good artist because it's possible to be an artist, but still be a really bad artist. lol

[Jonathan Wienke]

Jonathan's castle turret is a good example. The precarious position of the solitary figure, seemingly tottering on the brink of eternal darkness, is a dramatic effect which Jonathan has deliberately created, although it's not clear if he manipulated the image in Photoshop to that effect in order just to remove obtrusive noise.

Maybe if he'd been using a D3 at ISO 6400 which just might have produced marginally less noise in those dark shadows, he would have left some detail in the lower part of the image which might have reduced that dramatic effect of the precarious position of that lone figure lower right.

Having never shot a D3, I hesitate to comment on how the capture may have been different if it had been made with a D3 instead of a 1D-Mark II. But if it did capture more shadow detail, it wouldn't have affected the final image in the manner you propose. The original capture has significant detail in the shadows, which I deliberately pulled down to accentuate the sense of the castle tower "floating" over a void. It's a creative choice I made in post; it isn't really something I considered while shooting, but an idea that I had when I was working the image after the fact.

I'm not sure that using a D3 vs the 1D-II would have significantly altered the final image either technically or artistically; both have the sensitivity to capture a reasonably sharp and low-noise image at handholdable shutter speeds, and sufficiently good autofocus to ensure that the image is in focus, and minimal shutter lag. But the majority of digicams I've used would have struggled in that situation; either they would have taken too long to focus and missed the decisive moment, there would have been too much motion blur from excessive camera shake, or the image would have been noisy enough that it would have obscured significant detail. There's also the issue of holding detail in the moon; the DR of 1D-II was barely sufficient for the task, and a digicam would have had a harder time capturing the aurora around the moon with smooth gradations.

Great images are made, not simply captured. But having a technically high quality capture to start with makes it easier to make something great out of it.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Mastering a tool technically is of interest to people that are interested in technical qualities...sure.I'm not one of those....I am not even sure you know what that means! I mean...a quality of noise  in an image can be a very desireable texture. How would that relate to this idea of technical excellence?

There are times when a certain amount of noise or other artificial texture added to an image either by the recording medium or by tools in Photoshop can be a creative enhancement. I do it myself on occasion; I even posted a thread in the Digital Image Processing forum describing a simple technique for doing so in conjunction with upsizing to prevent pixelization and other obvious "digital" artifacts when upsizing an image. But that does not mean that noise or film grain or any other artificial texture is alway a desirable artistic effect, any more than HDR, selective color, toned B&W, partial desaturation, hypersaturation, local contrast enhancement, soft focus, shallow DoF, sharpening, film noir lighting, motion blur, or any other creative effect is appropriate for every image. All of these things have a place in a photographic artist's toolbox, but insisting that any one of them is always desirable in every image is simple-minded.

If you're creating an image that can be creatively enhanced by artificial texture and a low degree of sharpness, by all means break out your Voigtlander or a Holga or whatever and have at it. But if the subject already has interesting texture and detail, obliterating it with artificial texture is not always the wisest or most artistically creative choice. I prefer to make such decisions on a case-by-case basis based on the creative intent of the image, rather than blindly accept what I'm given by a technically inferior piece of equipment and tout that piece of equipment's technical shortcomings as a panacea for artistic superiority.

[Slough]

Well..as I've said...ART. Everything else  done with a camera is uninteresting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is a very arrogant position to take, namely to assume that only one viewpoint is valid.

[Slough]

Ya know what..you just don't get it and you never will..it's as simple as that.I am not under any sad impression of anything.Mastering a tool technically is of interest to people that are interested in technical qualities...sure.I'm not one of those....I am not even sure you know what that means! I mean...a quality of noise  in an image can be a very desireable texture. How would that relate to this idea of technical excellence?
I do think those photos are  dull, yes,if that's what you were asking. You're hung up on silly words...does the camera "matter"..et al. You don't seem to grok what it means...what I've been talking about in these posts. Well, let me rephrase that..I am sure you understand what I am saying, I just don't think you subscribe to that position...as is your right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can see from the way that you write that you are not exactly good at expressing yourself. I guess Ken appeals to people like you, who have trouble with basic basic languages skills. That was rather a flow of consciousness ramble wasn't it.  What does "grok" mean?

"I am sure you understand what I am saying"

No, not really.

Your problem is that you take one narrow viewpoint on photography, and assume that everyone takes the same stance. How about taking a less arrogant approach. How about conceding that some people here might just know a few things that you don't. I would not for one minute pretend to know anything about wedding photography. Or sports photography. I see beauty in nature, not in some pretentious artistic statement made with a crappy throwaway camera. Others are free to use such cameras, and good for them, I wish them luck. For me photographers such as John Shaw have real talent.

Here is the sort of thing I like:

[mrleonard]

  What does "grok" mean?

"I am sure you understand what I am saying"

No, not really.



[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can be succinct if need be...sorry if things are over your head. You speak of arrogance yet you and others keep harping on about peoples ignorance.Iam just mirroring that a bit is all. Btw "grok" is from Heinlen's "Stranger in a Strange Land", it basically means "understanding"...I should have just said "y'dig?"

In any event...I was ALWAYS talking about ART ( I did start these posts remember). For your field of interest in photography, and by the photo you use to  illustrate this...OF COURSE THE CAMERA..ahem...MATTERS (if that's even the right word). But that is documenting something technical...it's not art. It CAN be art...but it clearly  (in your case) isn't !
In Crime,Scenes,X-Rays, Australian Wildlife (lol..having a laugh ;-) and  now add  Macro Buggery the camera matters....because it needs to be designed so that anyone can do it (which anyone can).
I would concede that there may be some people that know some things that I don't.You don't know me at all. I have no problem being wrong...I do it alll the time. I'll let you know when I've heard something I don't know..k?

[Jonathan Wienke]

In any event...I was ALWAYS talking about ART ( I did start these posts remember). For your field of interest in photography, and by the photo you use to  illustrate this...OF COURSE THE CAMERA..ahem...MATTERS (if that's even the right word). But that is documenting something technical...it's not art. It CAN be art...but it clearly  (in your case) isn't !

Who the hell died and made you the Judge Who Decides What Is Art And What Isn't? Insect macro photography is art; so fashion and wildlife and landscapes and even crime scene photos. And what makes you think that insect macros or wildlife photography is something so simple and straightforward that "anyone can do it"? You are truly an arrogant fool, and are hereby added to my Ignore List.

[Nick Rains]

I have no problem being wrong...I do it alll the time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL - that's for sure  

Look, you may be right and have some deep insights into photography and art that we all miss - or you may simply be an arrogant PITA.

Either way you have missed one rather large point.

Go back and re-read your first post on this forum. You launched into a pompous monologue with no attempt you introduce yourself or justify your opinions. I'm sure most people thought 'just who the hell are you?'.  You have some interesting ideas, I would be happy to continue a genuine debate and I have actually read and considered your points. Unfortunately your aggressive tone, dismissive comments and general arrogance have got everyone's back up. I didn't see one single post in support of anything you have said - not that you will care.

The point you miss is that the function of this forum is to discuss and exchange ideas, not to insult and disparage. On the DPReview forums you would be labelled a troll, but we don't use such terms here being so awfully polite. Feel free to head on over to DP Review where you will feel more at home.

[mrleonard]

Who the hell died and made you the Judge Who Decides What Is Art And What Isn't? Insect macro photography is art; so fashion and wildlife and landscapes and even crime scene photos. And what makes you think that insect macros or wildlife photography is something so simple and straightforward that "anyone can do it"? You are truly an arrogant fool, and are hereby added to my Ignore List.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Relax Colonel Klink..it's only my opinion. I never said it was simple...just that anyone can learn to do it. I dont decide what is art...but if you can't recognise that art exists independant of ones tastes or opinions...then I'm sorry it is you who are the fool...and a bore... and a hack (so there! nyah nyah nan nan nyah) and I wished you started ignoring me a long time ago.

[mrleonard]

LOL - that's for sure  

Look, you may be right and have some deep insights into photography and art that we all miss - or you may simply be an arrogant PITA.

Either way you have missed one rather large point.

Go back and re-read your first post on this forum. You launched into a pompous monologue with no attempt you introduce yourself or justify your opinions. I'm sure most people thought 'just who the hell are you?'.  You have some interesting ideas, I would be happy to continue a genuine debate and I have actually read and considered your points. Unfortunately your aggressive tone, dismissive comments and general arrogance have got everyone's back up. I didn't see one single post in support of anything you have said - not that you will care.

The point you miss is that the function of this forum is to discuss and exchange ideas, not to insult and disparage. On the DPReview forums you would be labelled a troll, but we don't use such terms here being so awfully polite. Feel free to head on over to DP Review where you will feel more at home.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well listen...I didn't set the tone here. It was MR in his rebuttal! This is not my style at all...Im sure a lot of people wondered 'just who the hell I am... I didn't post here before.In all honesty I usually find that internet 'forums' ,discussions, tend to cater to the lowest common denominator for expressing ideas.The fresh and new ideas are out in the real world.
Sure..I'll admit...I'm shit disturbing a bit. DPreview..OMG..isn't that a site even MORE interested in technical specifications and details...lol. I don't insult and disparage...I just bite back is all.

[Nick Rains]

Well listen...I didn't set the tone here. It was MR in his rebuttal! This is not my style at all...Im sure a lot of people wondered 'just who the hell I am... I didn't post here before.In all honesty I usually find that internet 'forums' ,discussions, tend to cater to the lowest common denominator for expressing ideas.The fresh and new ideas are out in the real world.
Sure..I'll admit...I'm shit disturbing a bit. DPreview..OMG..isn't that a site even MORE interested in technical specifications and details...lol. I don't insult and disparage...I just bite back is all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

These forums have a tone of their own - what MR says and how he says it are his prerogative. Whilst there can be fierce debates here, it usually stays civilised.

Be yourself, you don't need to let MR's tone influence your own.

[MarkWelsh]

What a waste of bandwidth this whole discussion is, and the absurdly prickly controversy it's generated. For heaven's sake, in music, painting and photography, the instrumentality and the technique shapes the art. How could it not? Even words have meanings nuanced by typography.

This isn't even debatable. And it's an entirely different discussion from the one about whether an obsession with technique corrodes the soul of the artist. That depends on who they are.

If you give someone a good camera will he instantly become a good photographer? No. End of debate.

Can a good photographer produce good work with a bad camera? Yes: but it might be harder. End of debate.

Will the same photographer make more attractive images with a better camera? All else being equal: probably. End of debate.

Is there a purely subjective element in our choice of equipment that is a complex mixture of sentimental, ergonomic and aesthetic factors? Yes. End of debate.

[mrleonard]

What a waste of bandwidth this whole discussion is, and the absurdly prickly controversy it's generated. For heaven's sake, in music, painting and photography, the instrumentality and the technique shapes the art. How could it not? Even words have meanings nuanced by typography.

This isn't even debatable. And it's an entirely different discussion from the one about whether an obsession with technique corrodes the soul of the artist. That depends on who they are.

If you give someone a good camera will he instantly become a good photographer? No. End of debate.

Can a good photographer produce good work with a bad camera? Yes: but it might be harder. End of debate.

Will the same photographer make more attractive images with a better camera? All else being equal: probably. End of debate.

Is there a purely subjective element in our choice of equipment that is a complex mixture of sentimental, ergonomic and aesthetic factors? Yes. End of debate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well...those weren't the questions...but apparently you had to add to the waste of bandwidth with your point of view. Thank you.

[Ray]

Is there a purely subjective element in our choice of equipment that is a complex mixture of sentimental, ergonomic and aesthetic factors? Yes. End of debate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, that's where the debate begins, and has already begun. Sentimental, ergonomic and esthetic? You could add delusion to the list of subjective factors, a major factor which Ken tried to address in his article, that technically sophisticated gear will help you produce better works of art.

[Ray]

The original capture has significant detail in the shadows, which I deliberately pulled down to accentuate the sense of the castle tower "floating" over a void. It's a creative choice I made in post; it isn't really something I considered while shooting, but an idea that I had when I was working the image after the fact.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nevertheless, it's an example of the sort of thing that can happen when technical qualities are allocated greater priority than artistic qualities.

There's no doubt that the D3 with the same exposure would have provided more detail, sharper detail and better detail in those shadows and that some photographers, if not you, would have consequently made a decision in post processing, with such an image, to bring out the shadow detail and thus lose the dramatic effect which you have created by exaggertaing those dark shadows in the same way than Ken exaggerated his concept of "The Camera Doesn't Matter".

I rest my case.  

[Nick Rains]

Nevertheless, it's an example of the sort of thing that can happen when technical qualities are allocated greater priority than artistic qualities.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan is not saying he allocated priority to technical qualities over artistic ones - he is saying he has used a technical characteristic to support his chosen creative outcome.

Nothing to disagree with here, surely?

"exaggertaing those dark shadows in the same way than Ken exaggerated his concept of "The Camera Doesn't Matter"."

That's a stretch, I see not so much 'exaggeration' as simply flaky writing and naive opinion. It's just too poor an article to warrant the sort of laboured interpretation you claim it needs.

Andrew Rodney has a delightful expression - "Polishing a turd"'.

[bernie west]

Nevertheless, it's an example of the sort of thing that can happen when technical qualities are allocated greater priority than artistic qualities.

There's no doubt that the D3 with the same exposure would have provided more detail, sharper detail and better detail in those shadows and that some photographers, if not you, would have consequently made a decision in post processing, with such an image, to bring out the shadow detail and thus lose the dramatic effect
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And whose to say the that those other photographers didn't have a different artistic vision to Jonathen.  Who are you to say what IS and ISN'T art?  And this really is the crux of this argument.  Art is like postmodernism.  There are, apparantly, no objective truths.  It's all in the interpretation.  Macro photography is just as much art as is any piece of pompuos rubbish you "artists" could come up with.  Clearly ones equipment helps one to portray meaning in ones images.  How much equipment means to one "artist" has no bearing on how much it means to another artist.