Ken Rockwell was right: your camera *doesn't* matter!

[Kendo]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The camera does not "make" a good picture, it captures what the artist "sees". Just because you have the best camera does not mean that every picture will come out stunning. Sure the "quality" of it will be nice, but if you don't know how to make a good picture the camera won't do it for you.

 

[Kendo]

As long as we're talking about landscapes and mostly still subjects, your camera really does matter a whole lot less than lighting, composition, timing, colour and all the other basics of good photographic art.

I totaly agree!!!:thumbup:

 

[JerryPH]

The ironic thing about crediting KR for "the camera doesn't matter" attitude is that he runs a photo gear fetish site.

*AND* gets all his personal equipment for FREE.

Very easy for someone to say equipment doesn't make a difference when they never have to pay for it.

Know what? Those that think that equipment doesn't make a difference fall into 2 camps:

- The totally cluless
- The ones that are wishing that this was true becuase they cannot afford the better equipment.

My example of the church *is* looking at it from a completely artistic manner. No P&S is able to recreate my artistic needs and visions in the same way that my dSLRs can. They are so limiting as to be a joke. Now, if your idea of being artistic is drawing a stick man vs trying to reach that elusive Modet or Piccaso, *sure* that P&S will do for you... but for anyone with true cabilities and desires to excel, they will quickly find that they cannot paint an incredible oil painting with crayons.

Unless you have both and can speak from personal experience, you will have no frame of reference. I also doubt you will find anyone here on this board with experience that will tell you that they can get better results from a P&S than they can get from a high end dSLR... unless they are very inexperienced in photography, in which case no matter what you place in their hands, it will still be mediocre.

Then we have the concept of... "if you take pics only during the day or on perfectly lit conditions or of things standing still...", all of a sudden, for me to get these incredible shots, I must LIMIT myself? That's not photography, thats a jail cell.

My equipment should let me be free to do AS I WISH in the manner that I wish... without constraint.

Hey Michael Angelo... you can paint anything... just that you are NOT allowed to paint your people using anything close to flesh tones, they must all be purple. Uhhm, no, not quite.

Hey Mr Ferrari owner, my pinto can beat you in a race... but you are NOT allowed to use more than 1st gear and never more then 500RPM or 2% throttle.

Put restrictions on anything, and anything can be achieved... but are you really achieving anything? Yes. You have achieved one thing... you've achieved to fool yourself into believing something not even close to reality.

 

[ksmattfish]

Some advice about gear from H.P. Robinson's book on landscape photography published in 1888.


"First, of the Camera. This essential tool should be light, strong, and have all the necessary movements. It must at the same time be observed that in some modern cameras there are movements which are not at all necessary, and appear to be added only for the purpose of displaying the ingenuity of the inventors. These clever machines defeat the object for which they are intended. If a camera is efficient, it cannot be too simple. With a perfect camera a photographer of even small experience knows how it works at once, and what to do. The tripod stand should be firm and rigid, as well as light and portable. This you will easily judge for yourself.

The lens is always considered the most important of all the tools the photographer employs. So it is, but I should like to say boldly that, within limits, I do not care what make of lens I use. It is as well to have the best your means will allow, but there has always been too much made of particular variations in the make of lenses. It has been the fashion to think too much of the tools and too little of the use made of them.

I have one friend who did nothing last year because he had made up his mind to buy a new lens, and could not determine whose make it should be, and he was tired of his old apparatus. His was of the order of particular and minute minds that try to whittle nothing to a point. I have another friend who takes delight in preparing for photography, and spends a small fortune in doing so, but never takes a picture."

Hilarious! It's been 120 years, and it's still the same.

 

[Jedo_03]

I have no further questions or comments, M'Lords...

Jedo

 

[JerryPH]

Hilarious! It's been 120 years, and it's still the same.

Doesn't surprise me, but yes, cracks me up!

I suppose it is fair to say that inexperience will be inexperience... no matter what generation, in photography.

 

[ksmattfish]

I suppose it is fair to say that inexperience will be inexperience... no matter what generation, in photography.

I think what old H.P. was saying is that while top quality gear is nice, the important thing is getting out and shooting with whatever gear you've got.

I'll admit that saying "the camera doesn't matter" is an oversimplification, but it's a reaction to the grossly out of proportion obsession and reverence that's been placed on the gear.

Which would help a newbie, or even experienced photographer more: a $300 semester long photography or art class, or a $3000 equipment upgrade?

If they are going from point-n-shoot to SLR there may be some noticeable improvement caused by the gear, but I still say the class (assuming a decent teacher) will have much more significant effect on the photog's image quality.

If they are already working with a DSLR the improvement caused by upgrading to a fancier DSLR will be insignificant compared to the improvement caused by attending lectures, completing projects, and participating in discussions with other photographers.

Is the camera important? Sure, and camera gear is loads of fun! But it's not as important as people usually make of it. Spending time studying and practicing photography will give a much greater quality return for the investment than spending money on new/better gear. I spent a decade obsessed with the gear, as you could tell if you saw my obscene heap of cameras, and my advice to newbies is that gear worship is a hang-up if you are mostly interested in creating photographs as art, and the sooner you can get over it the sooner you can concentrate on the important stuff. Or at least the concern over bodies and lenses is way overdone; if you are going to be obsessed with gear be obsessed with lighting gear.

Then again I know many photogs who's only interest in photography is the gear and process. They make boring photos that demonstrate technical excellence or historical processes, but they are having fun, and that's what's important to them.

 

[Village Idiot]

Ken Rockwell is a joke. That's all I wanted to say.

 

[epp_b]

OK, like I said, I was just making for a provocative title. Perhaps my emotional connection with the place has something to do with it, but I still think they're genuinely good pictures.

I lawlzore'd at the clock comment, too

 

[Battou]

I was totally blown away!

I took these pictures? Really?? Before I ever actually got into photography or knew anything at all about cameras? With some point and shoot I'd never used before?

As long as we're talking about landscapes and mostly still subjects, your camera really does matter a whole lot less than lighting, composition, timing, colour and all the other basics of good photographic art.

And now I really hate myself because I'll never go there again (they sold it). What an absolutely fantastic place to take photos that was...and I was never into photography back then

Two things:

One: You know what it is...It's kind of ironic, it's a very similar thing that happened to my GF. She got luckey and captured a lightning bolt some years ago. She did not realize it at the time but it was the memory of that very photo that brought about her desire to get into photography. She remembered that photo reasently and shared that story with me. It is very possible that these photos could very well be the foundation of your interest in photography.

Two: Well....If you really wanted to, you could go out to the cottage and talk to the current owners. Tell them that your grandparents where the previous owners and you had photographed the aria for the sale of the location and wished to do some personal shooting of the surrounding aria. Granted you prolly won't have access to the cottage it self but the landscapes are there for the taking and I assume that if you ask nicely they would let you roam freely around the property.

 

[Patrick]

Bull Pucky, He's right (KR) in sence that art is art. What did ol Ansel use?
The only real advantage between my Canon sure shot and my Nikons is my ability to choose a lens needed for the subject, larger uncompressed files for editing and the ability to use better lighting. My Canon as manual settings along with A, S priority modes not to mention a custom white balance. All for 150 bucks.

An Artist can make art with anything be it pencil or oil. I've even seen some outstanding exhibits with steel.

As for the Church bet. Make that a church that doesn't allow electronic flashes and your on. Just let me have a tripod and my reflectors.

I'm willing to bet if the author of this tread hadn't mentioned the story about the P&S most would have ahhhh, wow'd the crap out of them.
Luck? I doubt it. Looks like he had a clue to what he was doing or at least had a good eye he didn't know he had.

Lets get real. If it's all about the equipment then tech the best shots should be with the one with the most disposable income right?


Nice shots BTW.

 

[mrodgers]

The technical quality of the shot from a better camera will be of better quality. But the scene and artistic quality relies on the photographer.

My coworker with his $1500 worth of dSLR and accessories could never make the shots that I have recently made with my Fuji S5700 superzoom POS. He shoots in full auto mode and it would be impossible for him to get a shot of my daughter blowing out her birthday candles with the natural light of the lit candles. It would be impossible when his flash automatically goes off.

The statement by KR, "your camera doesn't matter" simply refers to the artistic quality of the shot. In this sense, it is an entirely true statement. Comparing my coworker's photos and my photos are proof. I don't necessarily have the greatest technical quality (sharpness, noise, etc.) but I can control the exposure, using flash or not, or DOF to an extent where as my coworker can't control any of that. It is what it is when he shoots in fully automatic. No lights on his Christmas tree shots because of the flash. No night shots for him because the camera will flash. No DOF or noise control because it is all automatic.

 

[Battou]

Lets get real. If it's all about the equipment then tech the best shots should be with the one with the most disposable income right?

Well that rules out the artists...cuz we're all broke, it's like a requirement in the art world or something.

 

[KD5NRH]

To paraphrase people in several other types of endeavors, when you need a camera now, the $100 P&S in your hand beats the Hasselblad you left at home.

 

[cochiece]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

That's a great quote! But back on topic, depending on what type of photography you want can dictate what features you must have on a camera. From personal experience I need/want a camera that can take auto-bracketed raw images so a point and shoot is useless to me.

Don't get me wrong, I have a point and shoot for spontaneous images, e.g. if I'm out with friends and can't be lugging my D300 around while ordering my next Guinness, but I think it's a combination of the photographer and the camera that produces wonderful image.