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

Started Aug 10, 2014 | Discussions thread
bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: "It's the photographer" is a condescending and incomplete cliche

Joris1632 wrote:

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.

You have, all throughout your posts. You disagree; that's fine.

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?

But blobs of color and light wouldn't require a camera with anything more than a handful of pixels.

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.

My response was based exactly on what you said. You mentioned the technical and I responded with the technical. I believe you probably meant technique instead.

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.

It doesn't look like it's your native tongue. Your writing is certainly not typical of a native English speaker. Your screen name also sounds Dutch. Am I right?

Anyway, and again, you mentioned the technical and I responded with the technical. The technical things about a camera that can produce a technically (not to do with technique) better image. I haven't been focusing on anything "other than gear which makes a really great shot."

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.

How is it silly? Typically a landscape photographer wants a high resolution camera for such photography. He or she is not going to want to "learn to see what the camera will record" if that camera is a typical point and shoot with a tiny sensor.

Perhaps nuances of language escape you?

How can you speak of nuances when you can't even see the value of using a D8xx series camera over a point and shoot camera that typically has a small sensor?

And as to your comparison doesn't a Sigma DPM count as a point-and-shoot?

I own two Sigma DPMs, and no one knowledgeable in such cameras would view them as "point-and-shoot" cameras. The term point and shoot is very commonly used to highlight a less sophisticated and less capable camera. I think you knew that.

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.

No, I have. You were focusing on the artistic and craftsmen side.

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?

Why not?

Besides, one can share their photos without having something to communicate.

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?

I am simply responding to what you said. You've snipped out your relevant comment.

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.

How can you say that after what you just said immediately above?

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.

Yet you find it odd for me not wanting to "communicate" a "unique vision?"

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?.

And most people would say, obviously, quickly followed by, so?

What's the point in stating something that is already a given if someone else has already explicitly acknowledged that?

. 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'm not quoting painting; I'm mentioning painting.

The point in mentioning painting is that it is an artistic medium that is not affected much by technology, in comparison to photography.

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?


Then there's not point in saying yes. That's all I'm saying.

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)

Well, you snipped out relevant previous comments so I'll pass on responding in detail, but, no, my images look good on any run of the mill monitor.

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(!)

Go back in the other posts, that you snipped out of this one, and see what was being discussed.

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.

I haven't been talking about the photographer, I've been focusing on the technical side.

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

If that were true I wouldn't have asked you "what conclusion" and I wouldn't have told you that you lost me.

At this point we are starting to repeat things so It would be best to just move on.

-- hide signature --


-- hide signature --


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