Of course the technical limitations of the camera will be a factor. The best photographers are going to be capable of wringing the most out of any piece of equipment that we put in their hands. Be it an Iphone or a Phase One medium format camera, the best in the world will produce photographs that engage the viewer. But that Iphone still might be able to produce something unique that the Phase One can't. Those technical restrictions run both ways.
But the iphone will be less likely and less capable of producing a particular image that is not inherently limited by the phase one. Say an image that you could crop down to a certain detail
As above, those technical restrictions run both ways. What if that night time image is ruined by the presence of the larger DSLR....the subject balks at the idea of being photographed...she freezes up? Image ruined. That big camera body has restricted that vision. There is simply no way around it.
That's not a
technical limitation. For talks' sake we could argue about two similar sized cameras with different technological capabilities. ISO, DR, sharpness etc. One will be more limited than the other from a purely technical standpoint.
It doesn't matter what scenario you throw out there, there is always a counter. Similarly, there is always a counter to any I propose. It's dangerous in a debate such as this to rely too heavily on examples such as those above.
Dangerous? We're talking about cameras not weapons?
Limitations are limitations and certain limitations are manifested in technical performance that may impede your desired aesthetic.
If the desired result was clarity, sharpness then the better performing camera will provide this.
Don't assume that I am saying that all good photographs must have sharpness and clarity to have an intrinsic value. But the desired vision can be and often is limited by the constraints of a certain technology.
Your argument takes a somewhat absolute viewpoint that some collection of technical capabilities is what is needed for better photography. Sure, I'd rather have the Phase One, but it's not because of some unbridled desire to create art....it's because I'd love a Phase One. If I was a photographer on the purist level, I'd probably just shug and take whatever was at hand, just as long as I could take pictures.
My argument has an absolute conclusion but not the one you are interpreting.
All I am saying is that technical limitations are absolute. This does not
necessarily imply that you cannot take a good photograph just that the technical performance can impose limitations on the range of aesthetics you are using.
Again you are projecting those things that you and I might want, technical mumbo jumbo, into this debate without consideration about how art is created or what the photographer might consider "limiting" or "challenging".
Some people do find low light, mixed light, fast moving scenarios challenging and want a certain aesthetic. Better performing cameras will be better able to handle these situations if you want results like clarity and sharpness, colour accuracy etc. And it's not just what I want. Clarity and sharpness are often counted as having an intrinsic aesthetic value and not just from a camera nerd point of view. Not always but enough to justify the technical advancements of modern cameras.
You mean whatever artistic intent you have in mind. Your argument will fall flat with all of the Holga and Diana users in the world. Those that love their pin hole photography. Film users, cyanotypes or vanDykes would be left dry. Hell, I've even read about people who use flat scanners to make images. The dynamic range and uber-mega-pixels of the new D800 aren't going to make better art for them.
Me and many others. Like I said above there is value to the technical superiority of cameras in allowing the photographer to be able to realise his vision.This does not apply to people who have chosen an aesthetic where the technical limitation is seen as having an advantage. That's their particular choice. That doesn't mean that there are no good Holga or Diana photographs. There certainly are but they are limited in measurable ways when compared to a DSLR in terms of clarity, sharpness. These things may not matter in a given image but they can and often do.
The very fact that you are using a machine to capture a certain vision offers a layer of abstraction that involves the limitations/strengths of the particular technology. Hence all the technical talk on these forums.
There seems to be a tendency to always frame this topic as if the technical prowess of a camera and the vision of the photographer are mutually exclusive. Photography is a synthesis between the vision of the photographer and the machine that they use to realise this vision.
The camera always matters by nature of the camera being a necessary component of photography.
