Confusion of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Seems Rampant

[fjrabon]

Lately I've seen like 298347928734 posts about how "gear doesn't make the photographer, ability does." Which, best case scenario is a meaningless statement, worst case scenario is false. I get that in many ways it's a response to the gear obsessed nature of many posters here on TPF, and thus I sympathize with the sentiment. However, creating an over-sweeping falsehood only makes their side of the "argument" stronger, not weaker.

Photography is an endeavor with both technical and artistic aspects. Photography also has a dizzying array of sub-genres that make it difficult to clearly state what may or may not be needed to attain the "higher levels" in any specific genre.

First, I don't think anybody will argue that gear alone will make anybody an average, let alone great photographer. However, some people seem to take the statement "to do X field of photography at the highest level, you need y gear" to mean that. That's making a logical error of confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. Saying certain gear is needed is not the same as saying certan gear will make you a great photographer.

I'm going to talk about sports photography, simply because it's the genre I am most familiar with personally, but if you change around the specifics, this would apply to almost any genre of photography, to varying degrees. To be a great sports photographer you certainly need talent. Nobody will ever deny that. There is a difference between Walter Iooss Jr could produce and what I can produce that has nothing to do with gear.

However, the genre requires certain types of gear, which are almost always expensive. Send me and a supremely talented sports photographer like Walter both to a MLB night game (when most games are played), give the other guy an 18-55 kit lens and give me a 300mm f/2.8 and I will wipe the floor with him. No increased amount of natural ability will be able to overcome that difference in equipment.

That's not saying that gear makes the photographer. Not at all. It is saying that for some things certain gear is sometimes necessary.

To consistently take great photographs you need:

1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
3) the right opportunity.

All of those are necessary conditions for producing great photography. The photographer with great ability will get the absolute most out of his gear and opportunity, sure. But he can't get a center fielder making an over the shoulder catch at the wall if he's behind 3rd base with a camera phone.

Though the three things I outlined above are each necessary for producing great photography consistently, none of them are, on their own, sufficient, not even ability.

Finally, to repeat, I do agree that there are absolutely some silly claims made here on a repeated basis "need 35mm to be a pro", "have to shoot raw to be an artist", "can't do a proper portrait session with the kit lens" etc. But saying gear doesn't matter, and that the photographer's talent is both a necessary and sufficient condition for producing great photography of all genres consistently is just as bad, IMHO.

 

[Derrel]

To consistently take great photographs you need:

1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
3) the right opportunity.

Yes, all good points. We have a few members who love to make obstinate arguments and select outdated, famous shooters from the past and cite them as "evidence". Of course, back in those eras, people were often fascinated by ANY images at all...back before the invention of so many new technologies, people used to pay money to see images of mundane stuff that we can see at will on today's internet.

There was a time back when ANY photograph made at night, after the sun went down, was very,very hard to make. The flashbulb was invented in 1929.

It wasn't until the late 1960's that "super-telephoto" lenses became affordable for top professionals; after that development, the "football play as seen from the top of the stadium press box" was no longer considered exciting.

 

[Gary A.]

I have found that giving better/great gear to a competent/pro will produce better images with greater consistency ... as opposed to giving great/better gear to a neophyte, just will still produce, pretty much, the same crap as with lesser gear.

 

[Gary A.]

To consistently take great photographs you need:

1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
3) the right opportunity.

Yes, all good points. We have a few members who love to make obstinate arguments and select outdated, famous shooters from the past and cite them as "evidence". Of course, back in those eras, people were often fascinated by ANY images at all...back before the invention of so many new technologies, people used to pay money to see images of mundane stuff that we can see at will on today's internet.

There was a time back when ANY photograph made at night, after the sun went down, was very,very hard to make. The flashbulb was invented in 1929.

It wasn't until the late 1960's that "super-telephoto" lenses became affordable for top professionals; after that development, the "football play as seen from the top of the stadium press box" was no longer considered exciting.

Henri claims to only use a 50mm.

 

[snowbear]

Less filling! Tastes great!

and will probably have 298347928735.

 

[Derrel]

Erich Salomon was the "father of" modern, candid, non-flash reportage in Europe. He made his fame based on a BRAND-NEW camera that was small, and toy-like...a camera that the politicians and their consorts barely noticed; it was so small,so mobile, and could be shot from waist-level, or placed on a table, etc. The then-new Ermanox and its blindingly fast lens set the mold for what a photojournalist's camera would be for the following...well...sixty years or more.erich salomon photography - Google Search

Henri Cartier-Bresson began his career 15 or so years after Salomon. Henri said that he used a 50mm lens for almost all of his photos, which were mostly outdoor street scenes made from about 20 to 50 feet. I would select a 50mm lens on FX for almost all similar "street" or "genre" scenes today. The 50mm lens on 35mm is a great tool for that distance range. Like Salomon before him, HCB also used an "amateur" camera that was very small, very much almost invisible compared against the 4x5 sheet film press cameras that were a common standard world-wide until the 1960's were well under way.

A HUGE part of HCB's fame was based on opportunity...the ability to travel all over the world at a time when the average person never even left his home state, or even his home county, made ANY photos made "overseas" automatically "exotic". A key to HCB's fame was his collection of photos made on the run. He made his fame before the USA's interstate highway system was even begun. His 'decisive moment' fame is largely post-career re-invention of what he called photographs made on the run. Traveling around. Bumming around like a vagabond. something hardly anybody except the very wealthy few were capable of doing. He had a fabulous, very expensive camera, the best miniature camera of the entire era, and a camera that in 1940, sold in the USA for about $400 with a 50mm lens; around the price of a decent automobile.

it's weird...I had a 1940 Bass Camera catalog when I was a kid...I was shocked to see that a pre-war Contax was around $428 to $489, depending on the normal lens it was fitted with, as Contax leveraged its "Zeiss" name over that of Leica! At that time, an Argus C3 with its 50mm f/3.5 Cintar was I think it was $8.95. As I recall, the value of gold in 1940 was a little over $50 per ounce, so HCB's Leica and 50mm was equivalent to the value of eight ounces of gold.

I think today's Leica is also valued in the range of the price of eight ounces of gold. It's always the guys who can afford the best of everything who love to tell others that there's no need for anything but chit gear..and yet, they disdain the chit gear for their own use, and go for things that only a few people can ever hope to afford. Funny how that works, isn't it?

 

[rexbobcat]

Gear doesn't really matter in the aspect of being able to take great images.

However, the breadth of the images that you can take is limited by your gear.

 

[The_Traveler]

To consistently take great photographs you need:

1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
3) the right opportunity.

#2 is probably most correct when picking a specific genre and conditions and criteria that almost dictate specific equipment; arena or open field sports is probably a good case for this argument.
Other areas of photography probably aren't as useful for making the same case because "2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand" isn't as definite and the criteria may not be as clear cut.
If I handed a fair to good photographer a reasonable POS camera and said get some pictures that tell me about, for example, poverty in suburban areas, then the photographer can work within the limits of whatever he/she has for equipment.

edited: it looks like rexbobcat and I violently agree.

 

[Overread]

I dream of a time when artists and technoheads can live together in peace and harmony.



Though really this argument always baffles me. We all know the answer; the only ones who tend to take part in these threads are established users of the site - most of us know the answer. It just generally boils down to arguments over what specific gear you need for a specific situation (which is never-ending because there is no such thing as a single perfect setup); next to "Well builders use cheap hammers so that's like a cheap camera right" comparisons (which never work).

 

[snowbear]

I dream of a time when artists and technoheads can live together in peace and harmony.



Though really this argument always baffles me. We all know the answer; the only ones who tend to take part in these threads are established users of the site - most of us know the answer. It just generally boils down to arguments over what specific gear you need for a specific situation (which is never-ending because there is no such thing as a single perfect setup); next to "Well builders use cheap hammers so that's like a cheap camera right" comparisons (which never work).

I think (some) people just have to argue (or debate) about everything.

 

[Derrel]

I dream of a time when artists and technoheads can live together in peace and harmony.

Though really this argument always baffles me. We all know the answer; the only ones who tend to take part in these threads are established users of the site - most of us know the answer. It just generally boils down to arguments over what specific gear you need for a specific situation (which is never-ending because there is no such thing as a single perfect setup); next to "Well builders use cheap hammers so that's like a cheap camera right" comparisons (which never work).

As you probably are aware, this post was spawned by another thread today, in which a beginning professional lamented her very,very minimal kit, and how she feels that impacts on her rates and what she can charge. We got the usual suspects stating how basically anything can be shot with a 35mm lens on one camera. Yet more bad/meaningless/off-point advice that willfully ignores the realities of the modern era, and functioned basically as trolling/baiting replies...confusing the actual issue and giving the OP no help.

Yeah...in the 1930's and 1940's one guy made a career of shooting street scenes with a camera that cost TWICE what most people's cars cost..and the news bureau he established with a few other guys became a big success in the pre-Television era...yeah...some guy in the UK shot a bunch of newspaper photos using a Leica and a 35mm lens...yeah, we get it...all that is needed is talent. And luck. And being right there where news is happening. When one photo per roll will be printed, and run in the paper. Yeah. Absolutely NOTHING to do with professional photography for hire in the modern era, but some, little bit about how things were done in the 1930's to 1960's in print journalism. You remember print journalism...that almost dead dinosaur that 10 percent of homes now buy, occasionally...

 

[fjrabon]

To consistently take great photographs you need:

1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
3) the right opportunity.

#2 is probably most correct when picking a specific genre and conditions and criteria that almost dictate specific equipment; arena or open field sports is probably a good case for this argument.
Other areas of photography probably aren't as useful for making the same case because "2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand" isn't as definite and the criteria may not be as clear cut.
If I handed a fair to good photographer a reasonable POS camera and said get some pictures that tell me about, for example, poverty in suburban areas, then the photographer can work within the limits of whatever he/she has for equipment.

edited: it looks like rexbobcat and I violently agree.

Sure, photojournalism/street is probably the least demanding genre of photography gear wise. Though I do love the irony of the fact that the most acclaimed street photographer in history used a camera that, inflation adjusted, makes a D810 with a 50mm f/1.2 look cheap.

 

[Gary A.]

Recently I shot Street with an 8mm fish and a 200mm. Back in the film only days I used to shoot Street with a medium format ... and I shot an American football game with a 28mm mounted on a non-motorized Nikon F ... (it was a bet).

I think photography should be like Diving, you get more points based on the amount of difficulty.

 

[limr]

Gear doesn't really matter in the aspect of being able to take great images.

However, the breadth of the images that you can take is limited by your gear.

So true and so succinct, I love it!

This is why I "need" so many cameras

I don't know why, but this thread instantly reminded me of a Dave Barry column called "How to make a board" that dates back to 1983. (And yes, I did originally read it in 1983. In the Reader's Digest, to be exact. And I thought it was funny enough to cut out and keep on my wall for about a year or so. I was a weird 12-year-old.)
Dave Barry s Columns

 

[Gary A.]

I dream of a time when artists and technoheads can live together in peace and harmony.



Though really this argument always baffles me. We all know the answer; the only ones who tend to take part in these threads are established users of the site - most of us know the answer. It just generally boils down to arguments over what specific gear you need for a specific situation (which is never-ending because there is no such thing as a single perfect setup); next to "Well builders use cheap hammers so that's like a cheap camera right" comparisons (which never work).

I think (some) people just have to argue (or debate) about everything.

I don't think this is necessarily true.