Reading mode: Light Dark

How important is great technology to a great photograph?

Go to last post
F

filmrescue

Leading Member
Messages
935
Reaction score
71
Location
US
This topic came up way down in a thread and I figured it was worthy of it's own thread.

Someone commented that Ansel Adams required great gear to take great pictures. I argued that Ansel Adams likely would have taken some pretty great pictures regardless of what camera he had to work with. So much of what made his images great is composition and having the patience to wait for great light and to recognize great light when it occurred. Huge format film and great lenses didn't hurt but there's so much more to what made his pictures good then just that. Give him a point and shoot with a wide angle adapter strapped on with duct tape, he likely would have found a way to make it work for him. I didn't really get any support for this but I'm sticking to my guns.

Here's my view....

Great pictures are about subject matter and capturing that subject matter creatively, with passion and thought. While the technology can't be completely discounted it is ultimately just gravy.

Any takers on that idea?
 
Well, you mention Ansel Adams.

In his later years he used Hasselblad cameras and it is quite plausible that today he would have one also, except with a digital back.

It is also fairly safe to say he would be an expert in post processing and use things like HDR and tone mapping.
 
A camera can't take a great picture without the person behind the viewfinder, but even the best photog can be limited in capturing his vision by the gear he has available.

If you want star trails you need a long exposure regardless of the gear. But with today's best gear you can take an ISO6400 shot and run some NR on it and have shutter speeds only dreamed about 40 years ago.

Also, digital can be blown up way bigger than film of the equivalent size as the sensor. So technology has indeed changed what a photographer can do. But it still takes a photographer to 'see' the image.
 
Yes...I do essentially agree with you. My post was primarily to stimulate conversation in regards to photography and not just technology. I know it's a gear site but there is so little talk here about other important aspects to what makes a great picture. It sometimes feel like in here that fabulous camera and lens that equals fabulous pictures. There's so much more to it then just that. I think probably most people get that and if I want to talk more metaphysically so to speak, about photography there are likely better sites for that.

I was curious about the responses I might get.
 
He used large format view cameras in order to maximize sharpness and limit the effects of grain.....which was many orders of magnitude more coarse back then. The cameras were primative....as most view cameras are now.

But to anser your question, he could have shot with 35mm....or a 10mp DSLR had they been available....and for the most part would have obtained a similar photograph.....

....it just wouldn't have stood up to the quality he obtained with the old, primative view camera and sheet film. New does not necessarily equate to better!
 
LeRentier wrote:
and use things like HDR and tone mapping.

Gawd I hope not!!!
 
He would not be recognised as a great photographer . Many DPR amateurs are actually better than him by todays standards.
Gerry
filmrescue said:
This topic came up way down in a thread and I figured it was worthy of it's own thread.

Someone commented that Ansel Adams required great gear to take great pictures. I argued that Ansel Adams likely would have taken some pretty great pictures regardless of what camera he had to work with. So much of what made his images great is composition and having the patience to wait for great light and to recognize great light when it occurred. Huge format film and great lenses didn't hurt but there's so much more to what made his pictures good then just that. Give him a point and shoot with a wide angle adapter strapped on with duct tape, he likely would have found a way to make it work for him. I didn't really get any support for this but I'm sticking to my guns.

Here's my view....

Great pictures are about subject matter and capturing that subject matter creatively, with passion and thought. While the technology can't be completely discounted it is ultimately just gravy.

Any takers on that idea?
Click to expand...
--

If you go into Home Depot and someone offers to help you and he is not an employee, you are in Canada :-)
 
filmrescue said:
Great pictures are about subject matter and capturing that subject matter creatively, with passion and thought. While the technology can't be completely discounted it is ultimately just gravy.
Click to expand...
Yes to the first sentence.

But being able to capture your subject matter creatively depends on having the right gear for your subject. Not obsessing over it; not tweaking it to the nth degree, but picking the gear that enables rather than hinders you in shooting what you want to shoot and shooting it well.

There's the old sophomoric saw: a great photographer can make great photos with any camera you give him. Maybe, maybe not, but he can't make great photos of any subject matter. I think most successful photographers, whether commercially successful or artistically successful are particular about their gear, but probably spent far, far less time figuring out what they need than we spend talking about it here :)

On theonlinephotographer.com there's a recent article about a photographer (Gary Stochl) who shot Chicago street scenes for 40 years before walking into Columbia University and getting 'discovered'. He spent all that time shooting with the same Leica M3. No obsessing over gear. No need to - he selected the right gear for his subject in the first place.

As for Ansel Adams, I believe the success of his work depended largely on being seen printed large. His legacy is based on the influence his photographs had and I doubt he'd be a household name had he not shot those landscapes with view cameras.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
I usually run into folks that decry the value of good gear. Usually newbie 'pros' that think a 70-300 4-5.6 lens on a D40 will take just as nice a picture as a 1Ds with L glass on it.

Under ideal conditions any camera can capture a great image, but pros are called on to make great images under any and every circumstance. Clients pay for pictures, not excuses.

Artistically so much is in the eye of the beholder! Amateurs need only please themselves. Pros need to please complete strangers to the point they'll reach into their pockets and pull out cash.

Then you have the categories of 'art' - be that PPA print competitions or museum displays or any of 100 other variations. Here you have to please the 'literati' rather than the masses or yourself.

Posting an image in a forum kind of falls into that last class. You get all sorts of opinions and to some degree all are correct.
 
Interesting but it seems rather rigid. Sometimes you'll come across a picture that is completely failing technically but it's still an outstanding photograph. This perhaps due to irony or extreme emotional depth. This photo by Vincent Teuliere is a fine example.

What would you rate it?

 
filmrescue said:
This topic came up way down in a thread and I figured it was worthy of it's own thread.

Someone commented that Ansel Adams required great gear to take great pictures.
Click to expand...
I believe I was the one who invoked the name of Ansel Adams in the thread to which you refer. Nowhere does anyone say that he required great gear, just that he took sharp pictures. The context was landscape photography, and I was noting that this is generally the most demanding genre with respect to the sharpness of the image.
filmrescue said:
I argued that Ansel Adams likely would have taken some pretty great pictures regardless of what camera he had to work with. So much of what made his images great is composition and having the patience to wait for great light and to recognize great light when it occurred. Huge format film and great lenses didn't hurt but there's so much more to what made his pictures good then just that. Give him a point and shoot with a wide angle adapter strapped on with duct tape, he likely would have found a way to make it work for him. I didn't really get any support for this but I'm sticking to my guns.
Click to expand...
Still no support from me. While I would not presume to suggest what Mr. Adams would have done (other than throw the P&S into the Merced River), we don't see any fuzzy pictures attributed to him. It just wasn't his style.
filmrescue said:
Here's my view....

Great pictures are about subject matter and capturing that subject matter creatively, with passion and thought. While the technology can't be completely discounted it is ultimately just gravy.

Any takers on that idea?
Click to expand...
I agree with that last paragraph. I just don't see much appeal in fuzzy landscapes.

--
Leonard Migliore
 
G. Gray said:
He would not be recognised as a great photographer . Many DPR amateurs are actually better than him by todays standards.
Click to expand...
Pure blasphemy. Those DPR'ers are emulating Ansel's style, and of course his subject matter. How can you be "better" than the one that paved the way when you are just imitating someone? If you don't create your own vision and style, you are just a copycat. Without Adams, would there be people taking photographs of what he did in the way he did or would that not happen for decades if he never laid the ground work when he did?

If you watched the National Park miniseries, you'll see that his national parks photos were instrumental in getting areas denoted as a national park. Without Adams, some parks may not have been protected and the subject matter might not be around in the same condition to photograph today.
 
Ansel Adams was great photographer, he became famous after starting using sophisticated camera.

But why always mentioning Ansel Adams, Ansel Adams, Ansel Adams? Because this name is most recognized now. It is most effective to use well recognized name to support the idea. It has heavy artillery effect.

Ask yourself, can you make great photo with basic camera?

--
http://www.stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com
 
He was used just because it was brought up as an example on another thread. I very much appreciate his work but he's not my favorite photographer. Look at the part of the thread with the subject "3/10" here I posted a better example of what I'm talking about.
 
I agree with you very much with what you have said here. I worked a short time as a Pro and hated it...maybe this is why. I'm more interested in pleasing myself then a client. I was taking this primarily from an artistic perspective and not considering the requirements of professional photography. The argument is academic only...I always end up buying the best stuff I can get my hands on anyway....that said the 50s vintage adox bought for 30 dollars does often give me stuff I'm very happy with. Please see the picture on the thread here titled 3/30...this is what I'm talking about.
 
While I don't exactly agree with you I'm kind of sorry I used him as an example but he's the guy that came up in another thread so I used him. Please see the example I posted in this thread with the subject 3/30. It's a far better example of the point I'm trying to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top