The "gear does/doesn't matter" argument

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 381
The "gear does/doesn't matter" argument
5

A recent thread about photography got a bit sidetracked by a debate about gear and formats. I've seen a few versions of the same argument on these forums. People seem to argue about extreme position, which both seem nonsensical to me:

  1. Equipment doesn't make any difference at all, or
  2. You need an expensive camera to take a good photo,

It seems obvious that there are some photographs that could only have been taken with very specialist equipment, while at the same time there are many famous, classic photos that were taken with very simple, basic cameras.

A good example might be Stephen Shore, who has had one very famous photographic exhibition (American Surfaces) taken with a simple 35 mm compact, and another equally famous work (Uncommon Places) taken mostly using an 8x10 view camera. You can't say that he didn't care about gear, because he used the equipment he needed to get the results that he wanted. At the same time, he knew how to take great photos with a basic camera.

So I'm never quite sure what the argument is about - or do people just like arguing for its own sake?

S.

ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
MOD Smaug01
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow