Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Started Aug 10, 2014 | Discussions thread
Joris1632 Senior Member • Posts: 2,261
Re: "It's the photographer" is a condescending and incomplete cliche

bford wrote:

Joris1632 wrote:

bford wrote:

The fact is, the artistic and the technical are both important.

I agree, I never said otherwise.

You have downplayed the importance of the technical side of photography. The fact is, the technical side of photography has always been important.

I have not downplayed it, that is your faulty interpretation. I learnt photography at college on an 8x10 studio cam and a Rolleiflex 2TLR and have used top Nikon gear from the mid 1960s  until today. I love digital photography and wish I'd had it's convenience in my working days.

Why is sharper better? What are your universal criteria? Mine are simple, does the shot achieve it's aims or not? Is the aim to convey an emotion or accurately reproduce a test chart?

A sharper lens affects all results, not just test charts. A sharper lens, all other things being equal, can convey more emotion by actually recording more detail. Don't need so much detail for a particular project? The results can be blurred through software. Adding detail when it is not there in the first place though is not possible. A sharper lens also helps a photographer crop more aggressively, potentially saving a shot. A better lens also has less distortion and light fall off, and consistent sharpness across the frame. Most photographer's aims include the technical.

I would sincerely like to know how emotion is conveyed by more detail.

In that case you may as well just take photos of blobs of light and color.

Yes, why not?, - as long as your equipment is up to it!

Would you then like a camera that is designed to be limited to such a type of photography?

"Limited"? it would have to be pretty sophisticated; incidentally, what else does a camera capture?

I SAID 'superbly exposed and processed" meaning of equal technical quality.If you pick a genre like sport which is technically challenging, the outstanding/ prize winning pics are the ones where a certain viewpoint has been chosen, the composition is planned and the photographer has caught a special instant. All his mates with identical gear missed it.

You asked for examples, and I gave them to you. The things I mentioned are purely technical, technical things about cameras that can improve a person's photography.

PLEASE read carefully, "identical gear". It is something other than gear which makes a really great shot.

You dodge the issue. Art and craft in photography go together, one doesn't exclude the other.

What have I dodged? You spoke about the "technical" and I responded with technical, like I have been throughout the discussion. Perhaps English is not your native language but I believe you're confusing the technical (as in technological) side of photography with technique.

Perhaps English isn't your native tongue?  It is fact, mine.

Learning photography is learning to see the world, and to see it through the eye of the camera.

And if your are looking through the eye of a more capable camera and lens then your photos will have more potential of being something special.

Nonsense. Do you honestly believe that?

Of course, otherwise I wouldn't have wrote it. An obvious example of that is a landscape photographer using a Nikon D800 over a point and shoot.

That's silly. My meaning was that the brain "sees" differently, one has to learn to see what the camera will record. Perhaps nuances of language escape you? And as to your comparison doesn't a Sigma DPM count as a point-and-shoot?

Making photos for most photographers entails maximizing the technical and artistic aspects of photography. It's always been that way.

Yes, I've said so repeatedly.

A photographer also doesn't have to communicate anything to anyone. Many photographers take pictures for their own satisfaction and to try and record things as faithfully as to what they experienced.

I find this seriously odd. Can there be a photographer who doesn't want to share his images?

A photo doesn't have to have some deep and philosophical meaning to be enjoyed.

Of course it doesn't, I've said several times now that every image should be judged on it's own terms. Don't you understand that?

If someone were to ask me me what "unique vision" I was trying communicate in a photo that I took I would feel a bit sick.

Very odd.

That's the kind of unnecessary and often pretentious talk that many so-called artists feel they need to engage in, typically to try and add value and get validation from others.

Can't speak for others but I do what I do and if people "validate" it by paying money for it that's cool.

otherwise most photographers would still be shooting film using homemade pinhole cameras.

.... not most, but some do just that! Don't rekindle the film/digital wars

Why did you feel the need to say "some" after I said most? That's a given. My comment was correct though.

Your English is slipping, in reply to  "most photographers ..... " my reply in English translates as -  not most, but some photographers still shoot film using homemade pinhole cameras. How can you disagree?.

. For some the very best technology is critical, for others it don't matter a damn.

No, I have addressed your downplaying of the technical side of photography when the technical, the technological, as opposed to something like painting, has always been a fundamental part of photography.

FFS I have not downplayed anything. And please stop quoting painting as you clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of the chemistry and technology, (yes technology!) involved.

I enjoy and appreciate what I have, but I also strive to improve upon what I have. Every person that views photos made today with modern digital cameras are appreciating technological advancements that have greatly improved photography, whether they know about the technicalities involved or not.

Yes, that's probably true

Yes? Probably? Do you believe it, or don't you?

probably

and most of those people are very glad of their smartphones!

As a person that continues to put the emphasis on the photographer's skill I find it strange and contradictory that you would mention smartphones in such a way.

I was referring to the viewers ( "those people"is a noun clause referring to "Every person that" ...etc.) , can they see perfect sharpness on their smartphones or do they need a high resolution colour calibrated monitor? Surely your images need a 27" Eizo? (sarcasm)

The pictures made with today's run of the mill digital cameras displayed on run of the mill monitors make most prints of the film days look like crap.

What has that to do with anything at all?  Especially for those who make photos for personal viewing only(!)

As to the point of all this; as well as deciding the subject, exposure, processing and printing or sharing, the photographer decides which camera to use. I can only see one conclusion.

What conclusion is that? You lost me.

Well, like, er, the thread, -  ""it's the photographer" is a condescending  ......etc."  As the photographer decides everything including which camera - he has to get the credit, - or blame.

Don't be in such a hurry to give knee-jerk reactions.

-- hide signature --

Joris1632

-- hide signature --

Joris1632

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow