Thomas A Anderson
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,114
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,801
People claim nobody really thinks “the camera doesn’t matter.” But seriously, some prominent photographers literally do think that. A quick internet search will find this claim all over the internet for years. A prominent and perfect (because of how awful it is) example follows.
Disclaimer: the original post was LONG. I know that and it was intentional. The claim I’m talking about is deceptively simple and it has been supported using many different flawed arguments. Whether meant as a vague shorthand or literal truth, the phrase is heard differently by different people and is always harmful to the understanding AND art of photography. It was structured carefully and built one brick on top of the next, to fully dispute all the small, subtle, insidious implications and meanings the phrase has been used to express….I KNOW stream of consciousness and this is the opposite.
And now, MORE words on why I posted.
A person with a reputation as a good photographer, who constantly broadcasts his opinion about all things photographic and has a large audience of impressionable novices, once said the following: “If you can shoot well, all you need is a disposable, toy camera or a camera phone to create great work. If you're not talented, it doesn't matter if you buy a Nikon D3X or Leica; your work will still be uninspired.” In the interest of fairness, that nameless person later somewhat clarified “Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need.” He used 3,430 words in his long, meandering post which I’m sure you can find if you so choose.
Many years later in 2021, after reading other discussions on the subject I was reminded reading that incredible incorrect article. In a response to others obviously perpetuating this series of logical failures, I chose to write down 1,821 words of my own dismantling this insidious failure to accurately describe the symbiotic relationship between photographer and camera that, in the end, is at the core of photography .
Some here have said I started with a wildly incorrect misrepresentation of what some others have either implied or stated outright, created a strawman that in no way represented any type of real position, and attacked it by poking holes in it. The quotations above are real and easy enough to find on your own, and many, many others have repeated such statements either in forums as an anonymous photographers or too often as respected photography journalists trying to make a false point about the true importance of human creativity. At least, I suppose, to accuse me of straw manning they at least read my entire essay, but as with most assumptions about people that is probably far too optimistic of me.
First, to those quotes: “If you can shoot well, all you need is a disposable, toy camera or a camera phone to create great work. If you're not talented, it doesn't matter if you buy a Nikon D3X or Leica; your work will still be uninspired.” This is absolutely reductionist, oversimplification disguised as a pithy, wise observation and has the advantage of deeply appealing to both a genius photographer with a naturally attuned “eye” as well as an amateur that thirsts for simplicity when first starting in a complex field. “I can do everything all on my own, overcome any adversity, and all of my creative output only has to do with my talent, my hard work, my skill, and I could do it with any camera you put in my hand.” Man, I wish that was true…or maybe I really don’t. To act as though a good camera that I enjoy using, enabling me to engage in a PROCESS that doesn’t unnecessarily frustrate or block my creative ability, and is completely immaterial to learning and growing as a photographer sounds so much more simple, doesn’t it? I don’t have to worry about my camera. Anything that happens is all my fault, whether that is huge success or dismal failure. Grab any camera and go.
Oh, but then again don’t get carried away: “Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need.” It just makes it easier?! Ohhhh, now I get it. The wrong camera couldn’t possibly put me off photography entirely, right? If that were to happen it would just be my failure. It would mean that I don’t really enjoy photography and I just didn’t have the energy, the interest, the raw natural talent to overcome such a trivial barrier as something that doesn’t exist called “the wrong camera for me.”
Maybe we should look at the most common photographer on the planet, and that’s the “photographer” (more likely just a casual snapshooter) taking pictures with their smartphone. For a lot of people whether they are interested in photography or not these days, their phone is almost certainly going to be their first and only camera. Kids get a smartphone when they’re 10…or maybe even a tablet sooner than that. As we know from so many posts on DPR, most people deeply love their phone cameras. It’s all they think they need. There is a lot of reinforcement pushing them to never even bother with a proper, standalone camera. A phone is fine if that works for you, but it’s such an incredibly limiting tool.
If the position stated by the quotes above hold, and if those many who agree with saying something so clichéd out loud without some extensive context, then put an R5 in the hands of a smartphone shooter and they’ll obviously continue their love of photography unabated. That extremely talented, natural creative eye will overcome any lack of interest in such a large, expensive tool with so many technical options. Any tool only requires the will to use it, and only makes something easier and never so hard or so frustrating that one might quit. A tool can’t be so limiting that a person is absolutely unable to engage in the types of varied pursuits available in photography.
These completely false dichotomies are obviously patently absurd. The tool can deeply affect one’s experience. The early days of the collodion process meant photographers had to have wagons full of gear and chemicals. It was a rare profession. Now some photographers are only interested in something that offers the extreme convenience of a phone, and certainly either a wagon full of gear or a smartphone can make amazing images…..if, and ONLY if, the right tool is paired with the right person. Certain people may be able to use one of hundreds of tools and do all they want to do. Some people may absolutely require the smallest, most pocketable camera available or the largest most expensive. Not just ANY tool will do. This obvious truth is actually disputed by respected, well-intentioned PROFESSIONALS.
This is, believe it or not, a shortened version. The longer version is here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65623036.
///////////////////////////
JUST FOR REFERENCE OR MAYBE AN EASIER READ
Let’s assume the universe, all its laws, light in the form of photons, you and I all exist….and that includes the subject of any photograph that we might aim a camera at. Then to discuss exclusively the process of capturing a photo in terms of the two most basic variables all we need is the photographer and the camera.
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? More specifically, how can the technology required to make photography possible be so unimportant as to render almost any form of a camera essentially equal?
An experienced photographer can take these similar but disparate pieces of technology and create amazing works of art. This fact would appear to lend support to the argument that the camera itself is comparatively trivial and unimportant to the artistic process. This only proves that the artist has reached a level of comfort with the technological aspect of his or her field that allows them adapt without much conscious thought to the limitations of the equipment they happen to be using at the time.
The short version of this paragraph is: the ability to skillfully use a camera doesn’t necessarily mean one is also a talented artist when creating a photograph. Read on if you wish -- In most populations a bell curve describes the distribution of individuals in relation to a specific variable. In this case, it stands to reason that a bell curve would describe artistic ability of those individuals in the photographic community with the bulk of photographers being average and a select few being outliers in both the exceptionally talented and the exceptionally untalented direction. Think of it as a histogram where the X-axis is skill/desire/motivation/general interest in ever bothering to take a picture and the Y-axis the number of individuals at each level. It also stands to reason that a bell curve would describe the skill level of this group with respect to the use of photographic equipment. The exceptionally talented outliers in one category may not necessarily be the same individuals in the other.
Not everyone, even very talented artists, will pick up any camera and have the ability to quickly use it to make meaningful artwork. More importantly, no matter how talented the artist the camera may have limitations that dramatically reduce how the artist can or will use it. In other words, the ability to adapt and create exists only within the confines of technological ability to capture an image or reproduce it.
The camera places limits on the process of image capture and reproduction (printing, viewing, editing, etc.). Capture and reproduction both limit the usefulness of the artist’s ability to adapt. An expert photographer will adapt to more situations and with more skill. The ability of those limitations to affect the output of the photographer diminishes as the photographer’s skill in both the use of the camera and in artistic expression increase. Does the existence of this small population of skilled photographers imply the camera itself, therefore, fades into the background?
If it requires great skill in the use of cameras in general and great artistic skill to produce an exceptional photograph from any camera one randomly picks up then it takes a very small and experienced group of people to minimize the interference of the camera’s limitations on the artistic process. If it requires that much artistic and technical skill to adapt one’s process to the camera they use, then the camera must play a pivotal role in not only how one captures images but also what one chooses to capture in those images.
Why would someone classify an absolute necessity as unimportant? Exaggeration of this type tries to people away from focusing solely on equipment and concentrate instead on improving their composition skills. Unfortunately, the exaggeration also treats inexperienced artists, hobbyists, and the most casual snapshooter as equivalent and with a tone of condescension. Trivializing aspects of the technology used to enable the art form confuses a complex issue rather than giving it due attention. Someone can get a great shot with any camera simply by chance, but when great talent and great technical knowledge overlap the greater the chances of the results being exceptional.
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 (focus speed, image quality in low light, lens sharpness, frame rates, or the size and resolution of the imaging sensor or practical considerations like size, weight, balance, ergonomics, menu system, control layout, the system with all of its lenses and accessories, and all of the random features).
Capturing a moment requires all of these variables. Having the camera with you at any given time may simply be a function of whether or not you feel like carrying it out of the house that day. Using the camera in a situation may require very fast response time, an easy menu to navigate, a good viewfinder, a zoom lens, or a flash. As with any piece of technology the barriers to using it must not overwhelm or frustrate a user and, in fact, would benefit from being simple, quick, and intuitive to use.
Anyone who uses a computer, phone, digital music player, or even a home appliance knows that the smallest things make all the difference. Clicking through complex menus can make finding your music on a digital music player frustrating, and even then if the battery dies too quickly you might not even bother using it. Because digital cameras behave more like handheld computers with each new generation, software plays a larger and larger part in the perception and use of the hardware….just look to how many people keeping howling about cameras not having smartphone computational features.
How can this ever increasing complexity and range of choices not overwhelm new or even experienced photographers? Someone coming into the digital photography world for the first time might make poor decisions in choosing a camera due to lack of research just as easily as they could make poor decisions by trying to advance too quickly, attempting to find the best camera with the most features assuming that only the camera limits creative output rather than talent or experience. The temptation to shoot raw image files and then process in advanced photo editing software may also place the new photographer into the deep end of the photographic pool much earlier than necessary, offering even more options and complexities to learn.
So, to avoid all of this complexity and sometimes overwhelming interplay of technology, skill, and psychology we get articles about “the camera doesn’t matter”: the lazy man’s method for reducing a complex subject down to one variable. 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. Such a discussion makes for great internet blogging and gives the appearance of great philosophical high-mindedness, but it also puts an amateur, enthusiast, or professional photographer in a box that excuses them from knowing about their equipment. That will only hurt the uninitiated, those new to photography, since they don’t know any better.
This strikes me as akin to saying “put your camera in fully automatic mode because your vision is all that matters, not the camera’s settings. You should be able to get a great shot without knowing how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO affects your final image.” Standing in the shallow end of photographic knowledge, whether in terms of artistic vision or technological savvy, gives one a false sense of comfort by ignoring the fact that the deep end exists. Differences matter, even little ones, as any artist knows. And if small differences can make a differences in how someone shoots or whether someone decides to shoot at all then it logically follows that the camera matters.
Disclaimer: the original post was LONG. I know that and it was intentional. The claim I’m talking about is deceptively simple and it has been supported using many different flawed arguments. Whether meant as a vague shorthand or literal truth, the phrase is heard differently by different people and is always harmful to the understanding AND art of photography. It was structured carefully and built one brick on top of the next, to fully dispute all the small, subtle, insidious implications and meanings the phrase has been used to express….I KNOW stream of consciousness and this is the opposite.
And now, MORE words on why I posted.
A person with a reputation as a good photographer, who constantly broadcasts his opinion about all things photographic and has a large audience of impressionable novices, once said the following: “If you can shoot well, all you need is a disposable, toy camera or a camera phone to create great work. If you're not talented, it doesn't matter if you buy a Nikon D3X or Leica; your work will still be uninspired.” In the interest of fairness, that nameless person later somewhat clarified “Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need.” He used 3,430 words in his long, meandering post which I’m sure you can find if you so choose.
Many years later in 2021, after reading other discussions on the subject I was reminded reading that incredible incorrect article. In a response to others obviously perpetuating this series of logical failures, I chose to write down 1,821 words of my own dismantling this insidious failure to accurately describe the symbiotic relationship between photographer and camera that, in the end, is at the core of photography .
Some here have said I started with a wildly incorrect misrepresentation of what some others have either implied or stated outright, created a strawman that in no way represented any type of real position, and attacked it by poking holes in it. The quotations above are real and easy enough to find on your own, and many, many others have repeated such statements either in forums as an anonymous photographers or too often as respected photography journalists trying to make a false point about the true importance of human creativity. At least, I suppose, to accuse me of straw manning they at least read my entire essay, but as with most assumptions about people that is probably far too optimistic of me.
First, to those quotes: “If you can shoot well, all you need is a disposable, toy camera or a camera phone to create great work. If you're not talented, it doesn't matter if you buy a Nikon D3X or Leica; your work will still be uninspired.” This is absolutely reductionist, oversimplification disguised as a pithy, wise observation and has the advantage of deeply appealing to both a genius photographer with a naturally attuned “eye” as well as an amateur that thirsts for simplicity when first starting in a complex field. “I can do everything all on my own, overcome any adversity, and all of my creative output only has to do with my talent, my hard work, my skill, and I could do it with any camera you put in my hand.” Man, I wish that was true…or maybe I really don’t. To act as though a good camera that I enjoy using, enabling me to engage in a PROCESS that doesn’t unnecessarily frustrate or block my creative ability, and is completely immaterial to learning and growing as a photographer sounds so much more simple, doesn’t it? I don’t have to worry about my camera. Anything that happens is all my fault, whether that is huge success or dismal failure. Grab any camera and go.
Oh, but then again don’t get carried away: “Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need.” It just makes it easier?! Ohhhh, now I get it. The wrong camera couldn’t possibly put me off photography entirely, right? If that were to happen it would just be my failure. It would mean that I don’t really enjoy photography and I just didn’t have the energy, the interest, the raw natural talent to overcome such a trivial barrier as something that doesn’t exist called “the wrong camera for me.”
Maybe we should look at the most common photographer on the planet, and that’s the “photographer” (more likely just a casual snapshooter) taking pictures with their smartphone. For a lot of people whether they are interested in photography or not these days, their phone is almost certainly going to be their first and only camera. Kids get a smartphone when they’re 10…or maybe even a tablet sooner than that. As we know from so many posts on DPR, most people deeply love their phone cameras. It’s all they think they need. There is a lot of reinforcement pushing them to never even bother with a proper, standalone camera. A phone is fine if that works for you, but it’s such an incredibly limiting tool.
If the position stated by the quotes above hold, and if those many who agree with saying something so clichéd out loud without some extensive context, then put an R5 in the hands of a smartphone shooter and they’ll obviously continue their love of photography unabated. That extremely talented, natural creative eye will overcome any lack of interest in such a large, expensive tool with so many technical options. Any tool only requires the will to use it, and only makes something easier and never so hard or so frustrating that one might quit. A tool can’t be so limiting that a person is absolutely unable to engage in the types of varied pursuits available in photography.
These completely false dichotomies are obviously patently absurd. The tool can deeply affect one’s experience. The early days of the collodion process meant photographers had to have wagons full of gear and chemicals. It was a rare profession. Now some photographers are only interested in something that offers the extreme convenience of a phone, and certainly either a wagon full of gear or a smartphone can make amazing images…..if, and ONLY if, the right tool is paired with the right person. Certain people may be able to use one of hundreds of tools and do all they want to do. Some people may absolutely require the smallest, most pocketable camera available or the largest most expensive. Not just ANY tool will do. This obvious truth is actually disputed by respected, well-intentioned PROFESSIONALS.
This is, believe it or not, a shortened version. The longer version is here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65623036.
///////////////////////////
JUST FOR REFERENCE OR MAYBE AN EASIER READ
Let’s assume the universe, all its laws, light in the form of photons, you and I all exist….and that includes the subject of any photograph that we might aim a camera at. Then to discuss exclusively the process of capturing a photo in terms of the two most basic variables all we need is the photographer and the camera.
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? More specifically, how can the technology required to make photography possible be so unimportant as to render almost any form of a camera essentially equal?
An experienced photographer can take these similar but disparate pieces of technology and create amazing works of art. This fact would appear to lend support to the argument that the camera itself is comparatively trivial and unimportant to the artistic process. This only proves that the artist has reached a level of comfort with the technological aspect of his or her field that allows them adapt without much conscious thought to the limitations of the equipment they happen to be using at the time.
The short version of this paragraph is: the ability to skillfully use a camera doesn’t necessarily mean one is also a talented artist when creating a photograph. Read on if you wish -- In most populations a bell curve describes the distribution of individuals in relation to a specific variable. In this case, it stands to reason that a bell curve would describe artistic ability of those individuals in the photographic community with the bulk of photographers being average and a select few being outliers in both the exceptionally talented and the exceptionally untalented direction. Think of it as a histogram where the X-axis is skill/desire/motivation/general interest in ever bothering to take a picture and the Y-axis the number of individuals at each level. It also stands to reason that a bell curve would describe the skill level of this group with respect to the use of photographic equipment. The exceptionally talented outliers in one category may not necessarily be the same individuals in the other.
Not everyone, even very talented artists, will pick up any camera and have the ability to quickly use it to make meaningful artwork. More importantly, no matter how talented the artist the camera may have limitations that dramatically reduce how the artist can or will use it. In other words, the ability to adapt and create exists only within the confines of technological ability to capture an image or reproduce it.
The camera places limits on the process of image capture and reproduction (printing, viewing, editing, etc.). Capture and reproduction both limit the usefulness of the artist’s ability to adapt. An expert photographer will adapt to more situations and with more skill. The ability of those limitations to affect the output of the photographer diminishes as the photographer’s skill in both the use of the camera and in artistic expression increase. Does the existence of this small population of skilled photographers imply the camera itself, therefore, fades into the background?
If it requires great skill in the use of cameras in general and great artistic skill to produce an exceptional photograph from any camera one randomly picks up then it takes a very small and experienced group of people to minimize the interference of the camera’s limitations on the artistic process. If it requires that much artistic and technical skill to adapt one’s process to the camera they use, then the camera must play a pivotal role in not only how one captures images but also what one chooses to capture in those images.
Why would someone classify an absolute necessity as unimportant? Exaggeration of this type tries to people away from focusing solely on equipment and concentrate instead on improving their composition skills. Unfortunately, the exaggeration also treats inexperienced artists, hobbyists, and the most casual snapshooter as equivalent and with a tone of condescension. Trivializing aspects of the technology used to enable the art form confuses a complex issue rather than giving it due attention. Someone can get a great shot with any camera simply by chance, but when great talent and great technical knowledge overlap the greater the chances of the results being exceptional.
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 (focus speed, image quality in low light, lens sharpness, frame rates, or the size and resolution of the imaging sensor or practical considerations like size, weight, balance, ergonomics, menu system, control layout, the system with all of its lenses and accessories, and all of the random features).
Capturing a moment requires all of these variables. Having the camera with you at any given time may simply be a function of whether or not you feel like carrying it out of the house that day. Using the camera in a situation may require very fast response time, an easy menu to navigate, a good viewfinder, a zoom lens, or a flash. As with any piece of technology the barriers to using it must not overwhelm or frustrate a user and, in fact, would benefit from being simple, quick, and intuitive to use.
Anyone who uses a computer, phone, digital music player, or even a home appliance knows that the smallest things make all the difference. Clicking through complex menus can make finding your music on a digital music player frustrating, and even then if the battery dies too quickly you might not even bother using it. Because digital cameras behave more like handheld computers with each new generation, software plays a larger and larger part in the perception and use of the hardware….just look to how many people keeping howling about cameras not having smartphone computational features.
How can this ever increasing complexity and range of choices not overwhelm new or even experienced photographers? Someone coming into the digital photography world for the first time might make poor decisions in choosing a camera due to lack of research just as easily as they could make poor decisions by trying to advance too quickly, attempting to find the best camera with the most features assuming that only the camera limits creative output rather than talent or experience. The temptation to shoot raw image files and then process in advanced photo editing software may also place the new photographer into the deep end of the photographic pool much earlier than necessary, offering even more options and complexities to learn.
So, to avoid all of this complexity and sometimes overwhelming interplay of technology, skill, and psychology we get articles about “the camera doesn’t matter”: the lazy man’s method for reducing a complex subject down to one variable. 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. Such a discussion makes for great internet blogging and gives the appearance of great philosophical high-mindedness, but it also puts an amateur, enthusiast, or professional photographer in a box that excuses them from knowing about their equipment. That will only hurt the uninitiated, those new to photography, since they don’t know any better.
This strikes me as akin to saying “put your camera in fully automatic mode because your vision is all that matters, not the camera’s settings. You should be able to get a great shot without knowing how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO affects your final image.” Standing in the shallow end of photographic knowledge, whether in terms of artistic vision or technological savvy, gives one a false sense of comfort by ignoring the fact that the deep end exists. Differences matter, even little ones, as any artist knows. And if small differences can make a differences in how someone shoots or whether someone decides to shoot at all then it logically follows that the camera matters.
