The camera does matter.

[J A C S]

BTW, there was nothing particularly deep or scientific about that photo. Again I was pointing out that no matter what one does or personal skill , good tools help.

But to bring this around to our original point: Does a truly outstanding carpenter *need* good tools to do high-quality work, or can he still make high-quality furniture with primitive tools?

How is that the original point?

 

[Autonerd]

You must not have read what I wrote.

Of course I did! And I have a ten-minute hole in my life to prove it!

As I follow your argument, if the camera is more important, than any one with a D850 can make a great photo -- and of course we know that isn't the case.

You super, extra, really, mega didn't read a word I wrote other than the subject, huh? Please quote me in support of your above conclusion. I triple dog dare you.

Challenge accepted (and apologies to all for this extra-long quote):

Many articles written by respected (and not-so-respected) photographers extol the purity of the artistic process by emphasizing the primacy of the photographer’s creativity and minimizing the importance of the camera itself. Somehow artists view valuing a piece of equipment as part of the creative process as an insult to their role in the act of creation and, therefore, their value as artists. Essentially the argument made says that the creative process so greatly overshadows the ability of any camera to take a picture as to make the camera’s abilities appear essentially inconsequential. In other words, the camera doesn’t matter.

How can one of the two essential aspects of an art form not matter?

[snip]

Considering all of the subtle and not so subtle ways those variables can affect a photographer’s shooting style and output, the camera itself would appear to play a complex role in the otherwise simple act of recording the image.

[snip]

This oversimplification places all the responsibility for great photographs strictly on the shoulders of one’s artistic talents and skills, ignoring how the technology that enables the art form to exist in the first place affects the use of that talent.

These passages among others -- and the title of the thread, and other material about knowledge of the equipment being of paramount importance (a point I semi-agree with) -- strike me as an argument that the camera is the more important element in photography, enabling or limiting one's ability to take a good photo.

Maybe I didn't understand the point you were making, an error that could be in transmission or reception or both, but I definitely did, extra, really, mega read not just a word you wrote, but all of them.

What if Adams had a 300MP large format digital back in 1920? Yeah, I don't know either.

No, but we can surmise -- I think Adams would have been a HUGE fan of digital and the ability to do .RAW processing. Digital is the great enabler of the zone system which, unless you were willing to burn a whole role on one subject (and quickly before the sun moved) could only be done with sheet film. I think he would have done amazing things with 300 MP.

And while I could maybe copy his work with such a camera, I sure as hell couldn't make a photo the way he does.

That does not mean they can take photos as good as Man Ray's.

No, it just means they aren't Man Ray.

So does it mean they absolutely can take a photo as good as Man Ray's?

If the camera limited the results one can acquire, you'd expect a commensurate change in results.

No, you'd expect changes in output, opportunity, mass adoption. I wonder if you could compare the number of images taken just today to say a year in the 1920's. The magnitude difference would be utterly astonishing.

Of course. But aren't we talking about quality here, not quantity?

Look at Annie Liebovitz's work (which I rather like) -- did it get notably better when she switched from film to digital? I don't think so.

A great photographer got a better tool.

You. Just. Proved. My. Point. "The Camera Does Matter."

I didn't mean to. I don't think the move to digital did change the quality of her work one iota -- that's the point I was trying to make. By your argument, should Liebovotz's work have gotten better with the move to digital? I don't think it should have, and I don't think it did.

But you did also make the point about knowledge of one's equipment -- clearly, among other things, Ms. Liebovitz is a master of controlling light, and I think that's one reason her work has been so consistent (and consistently good) over the years.

(I wonder if she'd disagree about how digital changed her work -- I haven't read/heard anything from her on the subject.)

Aaron

 

[tinternaut]

But some are more equal than others. That’s all I have to say on the subject.

 

[Flavil]

This thread needs way more analogies.

--
RAW--- Reconfigurable Architecture Workflowness

 

[ashleymorrison]

 

[Aaron801]

here is a hobby carpenter play area ...

No sure that this whole wood studio thing makes for a very good comparison with modern cameras. To do a range of woodworking chores you really do need a pretty good selection of tools.

I think it's a terrific comparison. What you need to do woodworking is obviously more than a camera and a lens, but very few woodworkers get by with just what they need. As with photography, there's stuff geared towards making pros productive and profitable. And in the middle, there's a range of stuff marketed at hobbyists to make things easier and faster; to let them make joints without needing the know how that craftsman of old days needed; to cut to ridiculous degrees of accuracy that fly out the window the moment the humidity in the room changes and to cut more, bigger, faster than they need. Woodoworking magazines, like photography magazines (to the extent there are any) exist to let manufacturers of all kinds of gear push their wares and the magazines themselves are full of reviews, with a handful of technique articles, a spotlight on some woodworker and plans for building something.

It seems to me that most cameras available these days are kind of "Swiss army knife" type tools in that they're designed to do many types of things well. I'm not sure that there's any one tool or even small batch of tools for a wood shop that has the same kind of versatility. This is what I'm talking about.

I'd say that if you're serious about woodworking that very high quality tools make sense as an investment. I would say though that for camera gear, even folks who are very serious photographers could get away with using pretty inexpensive gear...

I don't see any difference between the two. For pros, you're mostly interested in what helps your business. For the rest of us, what you need mostly depends on whether there are any specific requirements for the stuff you want to do. And then GAS.

Pros are a special case, and even within that, a big investment in gear isn't always necessary. It seems to me that if you're say a wedding photographer, which is what a very high percentage of pros specialize in, then just about any modern interchangeable lens camera could work quite well - a DSLR or mirrorless, high end or even cheaper models. I knew a guy a few years ago who was a pro portrait photographer and he used a Canon 6D with an off-brand, cheaper flash gear, rather than a more expensive Canon and "pro" type strobe stuff. Often pros will get the very best that they can afford, because they can afford it and write off some of the cost, but it isn't typically because more expensive gear is are really make or break elements for what they do...







I will agree about the "GAS" part though. I'm not even saying that gear totally doesn't matter, but it seems to me that what's implied is that it, more often than not, doesn't matter as much as folks think that it does. Give any experienced photographer just about any contemporary camera, with the right choice of lenses and have them shoot a wedding or formal portrait and they'll surely be able to turn in some great photos. Even if they're shooting something more challenging like an action sport, I'd be willing to bet that someone with lots of experience shooting this kind of stuff will be able to turn in better photos with a cheaper, slower focusing camera than someone with less experience using a camera with state of the art tracking focus....

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

--
my flickr:

Aaron Hayman

Explore Aaron Hayman’s 967 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[FrancoD]

here is a hobby carpenter play area ...

No sure that this whole wood studio thing makes for a very good comparison with modern cameras. To do a range of woodworking chores you really do need a pretty good selection of tools.

I think it's a terrific comparison. What you need to do woodworking is obviously more than a camera and a lens, but very few woodworkers get by with just what they need. As with photography, there's stuff geared towards making pros productive and profitable. And in the middle, there's a range of stuff marketed at hobbyists to make things easier and faster; to let them make joints without needing the know how that craftsman of old days needed; to cut to ridiculous degrees of accuracy that fly out the window the moment the humidity in the room changes and to cut more, bigger, faster than they need. Woodoworking magazines, like photography magazines (to the extent there are any) exist to let manufacturers of all kinds of gear push their wares and the magazines themselves are full of reviews, with a handful of technique articles, a spotlight on some woodworker and plans for building something.

I'd say that if you're serios about woodworking that very high quality tools make sense as an investment. I would say though that for camera gear, even folks who are very serious photographers could get away with using pretty inexpensive gear...

I don't see any difference between the two. For pros, you're mostly interested in what helps your business. For the rest of us, what you need mostly depends on whether there are any specific requirements for the stuff you want to do. And then GAS.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

The problem with analogies is that some cannot see the similarities , they tend to only think of the differences.

So here I am reviling an ncient and well kept secret : the only thing that really does taste like chicken is chicken.

However a small portin of the population is able to understand what is meant by it "taste like chicken"

 

[Aaron801]

here is a hobby carpenter play area ...

No sure that this whole wood studio thing makes for a very good comparison with modern cameras. To do a range of woodworking chores you really do need a pretty good selection of tools.

I think it's a terrific comparison. What you need to do woodworking is obviously more than a camera and a lens, but very few woodworkers get by with just what they need. As with photography, there's stuff geared towards making pros productive and profitable. And in the middle, there's a range of stuff marketed at hobbyists to make things easier and faster; to let them make joints without needing the know how that craftsman of old days needed; to cut to ridiculous degrees of accuracy that fly out the window the moment the humidity in the room changes and to cut more, bigger, faster than they need. Woodoworking magazines, like photography magazines (to the extent there are any) exist to let manufacturers of all kinds of gear push their wares and the magazines themselves are full of reviews, with a handful of technique articles, a spotlight on some woodworker and plans for building something.

I'd say that if you're serios about woodworking that very high quality tools make sense as an investment. I would say though that for camera gear, even folks who are very serious photographers could get away with using pretty inexpensive gear...

I don't see any difference between the two. For pros, you're mostly interested in what helps your business. For the rest of us, what you need mostly depends on whether there are any specific requirements for the stuff you want to do. And then GAS.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

The problem with analogies is that some cannot see the similarities , they tend to only think of the differences.

So here I am reviling an ncient and well kept secret : the only thing that really does taste like chicken is chicken.

However a small portin of the population is able to understand what is meant by it "taste like chicken"

It's not that I don't get the analogy being made, I just don't think that it's the most accurate one that could be made. Something like "tastes like chicken," is (again) different because its become a kind of idiomatic expression whereas "like a wood shop" clearly isn't one.








I think that my analogy of the "Swiss army knife," in the way that I used it is more apt...

--
my flickr:

Aaron Hayman

Explore Aaron Hayman’s 967 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[FrancoD]

It's not that I don't get the analogy being made, I just don't think that it's the most accurate one that could be made. Something like "tastes like chicken," is (again) different because its become a kind of idiomatic expression whereas "like a wood shop" clearly isn't one.

I think that my analogy of the "Swiss army knife," in the way that I used it is more apt...

This was your Swiss Army knife bit :

it seems to me that most cameras available these days are kind of "Swiss army knife" type tools in that they're designed to do many types of things well. I'm not sure that there's any one tool or even small batch of tools for a wood shop that has the same kind of versatility. This is what I'm talking about.

The problem with that is that there isn't a single camera (with one lens...) that can cover all aspects of photography or even most by itself.

And that is why pro and keen amateurs alike have multiple cameras and multiple lenses, just like a carpenter (pro or not) has multiple tools.

Just for one example, you can't go out and take magazine quality bird photos with a macro lens the way you can't do a wedding with a 150-600mm and so on.

Sure, you can get a top of the line bridge camera that can do most things relatively well but not at pro level and that is the point : the camera does matter.

 

[Aaron801]

It's not that I don't get the analogy being made, I just don't think that it's the most accurate one that could be made. Something like "tastes like chicken," is (again) different because its become a kind of idiomatic expression whereas "like a wood shop" clearly isn't one.

I think that my analogy of the "Swiss army knife," in the way that I used it is more apt...

This was your Swiss Army knife bit :

it seems to me that most cameras available these days are kind of "Swiss army knife" type tools in that they're designed to do many types of things well. I'm not sure that there's any one tool or even small batch of tools for a wood shop that has the same kind of versatility. This is what I'm talking about.

The problem with that is that there isn't a single camera (with one lens...) that can cover all aspects of photography or even most by itself.

And that is why pro and keen amateurs alike have multiple cameras and multiple lenses, just like a carpenter (pro or not) has multiple tools.

Just for one example, you can't go out and take magazine quality bird photos with a macro lens the way you can't do a wedding with a 150-600mm and so on.

Sure, you can get a top of the line bridge camera that can do most things relatively well but not at pro level and that is the point : the camera does matter.

No, you're not wrong about that. I'm thinking more of camera bodies than lenses though and some folks' zeal to have the latest and greatest of that, which I think of as something that doesn't tend to make a lot of sense. Even with lenses, the idea of buying the very highest line, fastest aperture models is a kind of dubious idea. By all means, get a camera that works for you and the type of lenses that you're actually going to make good use of for the kind of shooting that you do. This stuff though rarely requires the most expensive or most recent models though...






I mean, don't let me stop you from buying some lens that's 2/3 of a stop faster than one that you already have, costs twice as much and weighs a lot more, but the difference that you're likely to get in terms of the quality of the shots that you get is likely negligible...

 

[FrancoD]

I mean, don't let me stop you from buying some lens that's 2/3 of a stop faster than one that you already have, costs twice as much and weighs a lot more, but the difference that you're likely to get in terms of the quality of the shots that you get is likely negligible...

and what difference is there compared with any other hobby ?

Can you really hear a different sound with those new Monster Cables ?

https://www.thecableco.com/emperor-double-crown-speaker-cable-pair.html

are those $20,000 better than these ?

Odin Supreme Reference

Nordost, manufacturer of high technology cables including speaker / video cables and analog and digital interconnects. Brand names include the Supreme Reference Odin, Reference Valhalla and Tyr and others including Norse, Flatline and Sort Systems

www.nordost.com

(BTW, most of my gear was bought second hand ....however I can afford new)

 

[J A C S]

No, you're not wrong about that. I'm thinking more of camera bodies than lenses though and some folks' zeal to have the latest and greatest of that, which I think of as something that doesn't tend to make a lot of sense. Even with lenses, the idea of buying the very highest line, fastest aperture models is a kind of dubious idea. By all means, get a camera that works for you and the type of lenses that you're actually going to make good use of for the kind of shooting that you do. This stuff though rarely requires the most expensive or most recent models though...

I mean, don't let me stop you from buying some lens that's 2/3 of a stop faster than one that you already have, costs twice as much and weighs a lot more, but the difference that you're likely to get in terms of the quality of the shots that you get is likely negligible...

Too many "likely" here.

 

[aluma]

FrancoD

Can you really hear a different sound with those new Monster Cables ?

https://www.thecableco.com/emperor-double-crown-speaker-cable-pair.html

are those $20,000 better than these ?

https://www.nordost.com/odin-supreme-reference.php

(BTW, most of my gear was bought second hand ....however I can afford new)

Analog for photo - print wall poster. It is notching if the rest of the system has sufficient resolution.
"Camera" in this case really matters, but also the task is non-trivial.

 

[Aaron801]

I mean, don't let me stop you from buying some lens that's 2/3 of a stop faster than one that you already have, costs twice as much and weighs a lot more, but the difference that you're likely to get in terms of the quality of the shots that you get is likely negligible...

and what difference is there compared with any other hobby ?

Can you really hear a different sound with those new Monster Cables ?

https://www.thecableco.com/emperor-double-crown-speaker-cable-pair.html

are those $20,000 better than these ?

https://www.nordost.com/odin-supreme-reference.php

(BTW, most of my gear was bought second hand ....however I can afford new)

Exactly... Decent cables are worth it over cheap ones if you have a system that's good enough to bother tweaking it to get better sound, though the crazy expensive ones just seem like a snake oil type proposition...

 

[Klaus dk]

One could argue that you have created a very long straw man.

Good! I hope you do exactly that! If I've done that, then someone really should tell me so that I can refine or completely change my position. I can't wait!

Well, I tried. The point I was trying to make is that I doubt very many who write "The Camera Doesn't Matter" mean it literally, and so the whole premise for your post is a straw man.

Being neither as articulate as you, nor as verbose, I failed to make that clear.

Our disagreement is not about whether the camera matters (I think it does), but about whether it is commonly believed that it doesn't.

I have personally experienced the law of diminishing returns through my progression through Canon's offerings, and I think it is relevant for young photographers who want to "take their photography to the next level" to be made aware of the dangers lurking along the upgrade path.

 

[57even]

I mean, don't let me stop you from buying some lens that's 2/3 of a stop faster than one that you already have, costs twice as much and weighs a lot more, but the difference that you're likely to get in terms of the quality of the shots that you get is likely negligible...

and what difference is there compared with any other hobby ?

Can you really hear a different sound with those new Monster Cables ?

https://www.thecableco.com/emperor-double-crown-speaker-cable-pair.html

are those $20,000 better than these ?

https://www.nordost.com/odin-supreme-reference.php

(BTW, most of my gear was bought second hand ....however I can afford new)

Exactly... Decent cables are worth it over cheap ones if you have a system that's good enough to bother tweaking it to get better sound, though the crazy expensive ones just seem like a snake oil type proposition...

They are. As are crazy expensive components.

 

[Aaron801]

I mean, don't let me stop you from buying some lens that's 2/3 of a stop faster than one that you already have, costs twice as much and weighs a lot more, but the difference that you're likely to get in terms of the quality of the shots that you get is likely negligible...

and what difference is there compared with any other hobby ?

Can you really hear a different sound with those new Monster Cables ?

https://www.thecableco.com/emperor-double-crown-speaker-cable-pair.html

are those $20,000 better than these ?

https://www.nordost.com/odin-supreme-reference.php

(BTW, most of my gear was bought second hand ....however I can afford new)

Exactly... Decent cables are worth it over cheap ones if you have a system that's good enough to bother tweaking it to get better sound, though the crazy expensive ones just seem like a snake oil type proposition...

They are. As are crazy expensive components.

Crazy expensive, I suppose is relative. I'm a kind of "budget audiophile" because I kind of have to be... though I'm pretty satisfied with the sound that I get (I'm far more into collecting the music than the gear). Still, a friend of mine who's an audiophile with more money to throw around has some gear that sounds truly fantastic to me, he's got some really great tube amps (modern, not vintage ones) and more importantly a pair of open baffle speakers (no box!) that sound amazing. I think those speakers were about 6k, but honestly I think that they might actually be worth the moment because they sound so good. My friend with this system doesn't bother to use super-expensive cables though...

 

[57even]

I mean, don't let me stop you from buying some lens that's 2/3 of a stop faster than one that you already have, costs twice as much and weighs a lot more, but the difference that you're likely to get in terms of the quality of the shots that you get is likely negligible...

and what difference is there compared with any other hobby ?

Can you really hear a different sound with those new Monster Cables ?

https://www.thecableco.com/emperor-double-crown-speaker-cable-pair.html

are those $20,000 better than these ?

https://www.nordost.com/odin-supreme-reference.php

(BTW, most of my gear was bought second hand ....however I can afford new)

Exactly... Decent cables are worth it over cheap ones if you have a system that's good enough to bother tweaking it to get better sound, though the crazy expensive ones just seem like a snake oil type proposition...

They are. As are crazy expensive components.

Crazy expensive, I suppose is relative. I'm a kind of "budget audiophile" because I kind of have to be... though I'm pretty satisfied with the sound that I get (I'm far more into collecting the music than the gear). Still, a friend of mine who's an audiophile with more money to throw around has some gear that sounds truly fantastic to me, he's got some really great tube amps (modern, not vintage ones) and more importantly a pair of open baffle speakers (no box!) that sound amazing. I think those speakers were about 6k, but honestly I think that they might actually be worth the moment because they sound so good. My friend with this system doesn't bother to use super-expensive cables though...

The difference between budget and mid-range is significant. The difference between a well designed mid-range system and a really expensive system isn't. In fact, just because a system uses ultra-expensive exotic components often makes no difference at all an audible level, and if they are not well optimised and matched, often sound worse.

We actually compared a $500 amp that he designed and a $20000 amp designed by someone else, and the former sounded a lot more pleasant and balanced at a normal volume - for which it was designed.

He also showed me two CD players, one $200 and one $2000, which used exactly the same off-the shelf internals. Their performance was identical.

He also pointed out that no matter how good a system is, it can't improve on the source. If the CD, or vinyl, isn't perfect, and none are, it's just better at reproducing the imperfections. I bought one of his pre-amps and a set of reference cans (so I don't disturb my wife) and realised that a lot of my recordings were junk.

 

[newnorm]

Suppose you are only able to produce boring photos with a phone. Talentless maybe. So, chances are your image will still be boring on the latest and greatest medium format digital camera available you can buy today.

 

[Thomas A Anderson]

If you reduce photography down to its most basic elements, two things are required to take a picture: the photographer and the camera. complexity of their creative process.

Light is the most important element- without it, the camera and the photographer are obsolete!

-M

Just so.

Human hubris operates at many levels. It can be particularly loud and insistent in those who have classed themselves as artists. Being "a creative" often comes with having a ginormous ego! The shorthand is "primadonna".

A modern camera and its adjuncts of image-rendering software and presentation tools provide a high portion of the creativity in digital photography. The designers of all this gubbins deserve some credit, then. But where is the greatest element of creativity?

Well, not really in the photographer. At bottom, we folk using a camera and its adjuncts invoke a series of highly automated processes

This is really my issue with computational photography on phones: it is an infinite rabbit hole that can take a simple image and fool the person who captured it into thinking that the output has more to do with their skill and their "eye" than all the fakery that actually created the majority of interest contained in the shot.

Is HDR really fakery? I think not. Phones just automate the process that we already do with our cameras.

The way most people do it, yes. HDR looks like hot garbage the way most people do it. It mostly appeals to people who don't see it all the time. Do people buy that stuff at art fairs and then not get sick of it after a week?

with our own contribution being the choice of framing and moment. The major creative contributor to the photo, though, is whatever created the light patterns bouncing off reality and into the camera lens.

These patterns of light might be bounced out by the artefacts other human creatives such as architects/builders, farmers, clothes designers, builders of studio backgrounds and those many others who design and construct our world-of-human-made stuff. In other cases, Momma Nature is the designer/constuctor. The photographer really doesn't do much creating at all.

One measure of creativity is time. In the great majority (perhaps all) creative arts or crafts, it takes many days, weeks or even years to create the output. It takes seconds to take a photo, with a few more to pass it through the rendering software.

Of course there are those who will spend hours "perfecting" a photo in one way or another. We can admit them to the panoply of "craftsmen" perhaps. Let's call them "graphic artists" if they produce a particularly pleasing or otherwise impactful result that differs radically from the basic light patterns auto-captured by the camera sensor.

Here's where the details matter. There are dramatic differences in effect between the negatives Ansel Adams created and his final, meticulously crafted prints. There are comparisons between his negatives and various versions of his prints, and the impact of different contrasts, shades, and tones is considerable.

SirLataxe