Your equipment does not matter

[defordphoto]

Let's have some healthy discussion on this article/opinion. I'll just post this for now and issue my opinion a little later. Let's have fun with this and no arguments please. That does not mean we have to agree, just don't get mean or nasty or I will personally delete the whole thread myself.

Here is the link: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Here are the first two paragraphs:


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 will be able to spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need. It took me decades to realize this. Here's why:

When it comes to the arts, be it music, photography, surfing or anything, there is a mountain to be overcome. What happens is that for the first 20 years or so that you study any art you just know that if you had a better instrument, camera or surfboard that you would be just as good as the pros. You waste a lot of time worrying about your equipment and trying to afford better. After that first 20 years you finally get as good as the other pros, and one day when someone comes up to you asking for advice you have an epiphany where you realize that it's never been the equipment at all.

[chris maddock]

I'd agree 98%.

The other 2% is the absolute extreme. The best photographer in the world will be very hard pushed to turn out something decent from a real coke bottle of a lens - although even that would be better than the vast majority of us could do with the same gear ;-)

KRs
Chris

[Fisher]

I agree with Ken’s point of view for the most part. Learning the finer points of your trade or hobby is by far the bigger challenge when compared to selecting the tools that you would use. The end product or picture in this case is just that, the end product. The hours of research and hours of learning it takes to understand what to look for, or how to create the exact look you want in your picture should be where the bulk of your effort lies.

The equipment that you use is always changing. So equipment or tool selection is an on going process anyway. However once you understand how to apply the techniques that you have learned over time. Equipment no matter if it is old or top of the line will reflect your knowledge of your craft.

Where I would disagree is that I believe that the quality of your equipment can at some point limit your possibilities. As your knowledge grows so does your desire to keep pushing that envelope so to speak. However, if your equipment is physically not capable of creating the picture that you want. Then it becomes a limiting factor.

[Webster]

Kem does have a point, but most of what he actually says is a crock. If I am handed a Stadavarius to play (yeah, right!) it will sound just awful. But a master violinist can achieve wonders with a Strad that cannot be duplicated with any other instrument. It's a little different in photography, though not for the master. A master photographer can create great images using any camera at all. The master understands the strengths and limitations of the instrument he is using and manipulates them to avchieve the desired results. And, most importantly, the master know better than to try to create images that are beond the capability of the camera being used. The master can achieve results with an 8x10 view camera that could not be duplicated with a point and shoot. The master will achieve results with a point and shoot that could never be captured with a view camera. The master will creat great pictures from each camera, but they will be different.

In photography, unlike music or painting, technology has given the rank novice a chance to create something as good as the very best. Not a very good chance, but a chance nonetheless. The novice, knowing almost nothing, just has to set the camera to automatic and press the shutter button at the right time. Most of what the novice knows will get in the way of catching that right moment, the best pictures will be mostly accidental, and the odds of getting a great picture will be a function of number of shots taken and pure dumb luck.

In short, I think that the better the photographer the less equipment matters, but for those of us who are not so highly accomplished it matters quite a bit.

[KennyG]

It depends what you are working towards. I have been at this game for 25 years this year and one thing has changed over that period, the demands from publishers regarding what you submit. This means you have to take the equipment into account whether you like it or not.

If your work is 'art' and its value is judged only on how it looks, then I have to agree with 95% of the statements. If you have to meet specific demands regarding technical quality, then no matter how good the work is as a piece of art, the equipment has to have a very major role in the end result.

In my line it is a mixture of skill, knowledge of the sport (being a driver helps) and the equipment to get the results a publisher will accept. Believe me, I would love to go back to my old Leica and B&W film, but I would be producing something to hang on walls or to be printed in coffee table books. Neither of these excites me enough to make me want to do it.

My aim is to continue doing something that I really enjoy and have the bonus of somebody paying me enough to allow me to do it.

[defordphoto]

Here is what I posted on the other forum. BTW: It's a non-photo forum. It just has a digital media area where we kinda chat about photography, though not near the level we do here:

I also agree partially. What he (Ken) is speaking of is the art of photography, not just taking pictures. And yes, art is very subjective. What you think is art, I think is crap, and visa-versa.

Anyone can take pictures. Very few can create art from a camera. Whether it be film or digital, in most cases it DOES depend on what type of equipment AND film you use. There are some films shot by pros you will only find in a pro shop. On the other hand, there have been award winning photographs from disposable cameras.

One thing I have noticed in the new digital world of photography is that almost everyone is ultra-obsessed by the sharpness and technical aspects of the photographs and many times the subject of the photo itself isn't even mentioned.

Many of the Pulitzer-prize-winning photos are technical disasters. Grainy, over/under exposed, wrong DOF, etc. But it's the subject that makes the art, not the technical aspects of the photos.

So, sometimes we need to shoot against the rules. Forget the rules of thirds. Forget DOF. Forget proper exposure and composition. Shoot your subject.

But, shoot your subject with feeling. Capture the moment. The true moment. Captivate your audience. That is the art of photography. Most people have no idea what that is anymore.

[Canuck]

Hi Jim,

Here's my thoughts...
I think that this is not true! Lets take this from extreme side to extreme side. Ok, you have me w/ a Canon EOS 10D w/ the Sigma 120-300 EX and another person w/ a 2MP Idunno say an Olympus D-380. Now I challenge you to get a pics even 1/10th as sharp as the moon pic posted on this forum, at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17348 with the Olympus D-380 2MP Digicam w/ 2 or 3x digital zoom! Just so you know that pic was shot large, fine, JPEG mode and the rest is night sky other than the moon and therefore what you see was cut out of the original. Ok, one step further, even if you shoot w/ the 10D in small regular and the 16-35mm f2.8L lens you will still walk away with a picture that Olympus could only dream of.

Ok, I can hear this one al the way over here, that you can't compare $4000 in kit to a $175 camera. Well, I broke the rule. I know full well that they are nowhere near each other in terms of capability, but that is figuring that the equipment doesn't matter.

I feel it makes the difference between snapshots and the ones you show your friends and wow them for days. Heck even lenses make all the world of difference. Just stick a consumer Canon lens on the 10D, then try the exact same shot with L glass and at the same focal distance. I'm sure the difference is night and day for the most part. There are some primes that can be hard to tell the difference, but I recon you know what I'm getting at.

Athough, he makes this point, "Good tools just get out of the way and make it easier to get the results you want. " This I feel is true, much like the right tool for the job idea. Let's go back to that Olympus camera and see how well it does vs the RAW pics you can take w/ a Canon L glass lens. No competition at all, unless you're talking at no larger than 5x7. What fun is there in that size for all of us that have spent beaucoup bucks/pounds for the Digital Rebel or 10D. However, I have done work for a Christmas card at that size and I still think it looks better at bigger sizes. That's just my opinion.

However, he makes a real good point about knowing how to use the camera you have to the fullest extent and how to compose pics. I can't agree with him more about that. That's how you really find out how powerful your camera is and what it can do. For example setting the 10D to RAW and see the difference between them and JPEGs. I might think of more in a while, that's all I have for now.

[cowman345]

Here's a true story:

I struggled with my crappy strobes with no lightmeter shooting a model in my basement. After an hour of turning off all lights, leaving my shutter open for 2 seconds while i manually trip the strobes, check the lcd, and adjust exposure, i was ready to actually begin the shoot which lasted about 10 minutes because my model was antsy.

Add working strobes, a light meter, and a pc synch cord:

I was up and running for a similar shoot in less than 3 minutes, taking good exposures every time. How can equipment not matter? After all, I can't produce consistent, high-quality portrait photography with a pinhole camera and a candle. Just as I can't capture a good shot of a red-shouldered hawk perched 50 feet away with a 35mm point and shoot.

Equipment DOES matter. Can you capture nice photos without all that fancy equipment? Of course, if you're skilled. But the fact of the matter is that skill is required to use equipment correctly, and in the hands of an experienced, skilled photographer, it can be indespensible, and 100% absolutely required for good shots.

-dave-

[Scottes]

A great photographer can take a great picture with any camera. But with a great camera that photographer will take an even better picture.

I feel that it's a matter of degrees. A great photographer can take a 2MP camera (or a 10D with consumer lens, or Leica B&W, whatever) and take a great picture that's better than most. But that same photographer with the same kit is not going to take a great picture that's better than all. Ansel Adams with a disposable 35mm would not be taking pictures of the quality he took with his gear. Regardless of how good that disposable picture was, it will not have the same punch or size or detail.

And what about developing? Take a great picture in JPG Fine mode, and it's great. But the ability to work in RAW allows one to make it better. "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships." - Ansel Adams. Correcting an image from a 35mm disposable's print is orders of magnitude away from direct developing yourself.

And what about the extremes? Just try to take that same disposable and take a picture of a jet at Mach 1.5. By the time the camera autofocuses the jet will be gone. Or take a picture of a tiny bird with a 50mm lens - you better have 6 Megapixels because you'll need 100 of them for the bird.

So yes, any camera will take a picture, and a great photographer will take a great picture with it, but the quality will be less than if that photographer was geared with the best.

[DaveG]

RFMSports wrote:
Let's have some healthy discussion on this article/opinion. I'll just post this for now and issue my opinion a little later. Let's have fun with this and no arguments please. That does not mean we have to agree, just don't get mean or nasty or I will personally delete the whole thread myself.

Here is the link: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Here are the first two paragraphs:


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 will be able to spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need. It took me decades to realize this. Here's why:

When it comes to the arts, be it music, photography, surfing or anything, there is a mountain to be overcome. What happens is that for the first 20 years or so that you study any art you just know that if you had a better instrument, camera or surfboard that you would be just as good as the pros. You waste a lot of time worrying about your equipment and trying to afford better. After that first 20 years you finally get as good as the other pros, and one day when someone comes up to you asking for advice you have an epiphany where you realize that it's never been the equipment at all.

Camera gear is like any other set of tools. You need good quality and the right tool for the job. That perfect tool in the wrong hands will not insure a good job, but the wrong or inferior tool in the right hands usually means that some quality has been left on the table.

[Sketcher]

A fish story.

My Brother-in-law and I fish together when time allows. He uses a hand-me-down Zebco rod/reel that his Dad must have used when he was a kid. I use one of three G. Loomis rods depending on the type of fishing we’re into. His tackle box is comprised of the same lures that were popular when his Dad fished, with one or two new jigs and maybe a Rapala. My tackle box is twice the size of his and is filled with variety and quality tackle in every divided shelf. I am quite certain the line on his reel is at least five or more years old with an almost impressive condition of spool memory. I change out my line every year and have three spools per reel of varying line tests so I can swap out lb test on the quick.

My Brother-in-law laughs heartily as he reels in fish for fish equal to my catch and more often than not betters me. He doesn’t make fun of besting me with lesser gear and I appreciate that. A couple years ago a run of Walleye took our light rigs for the ride of their lives. My Brother-in-law was afraid his rod would splinter when a very large fish took his line. You could hear it in his voice and see it in his eyes that he knew his line and rod weren’t going to last for long. Not that it would have made the difference but he couldn’t adjust drag quickly enough on his pushbutton caster. To his credit, he played that fish for about 20 seconds and even had the fish close enough for a shocking glimpse which showed the fish was larger than the fight had led on. His line snapped and as the rod straightened, the core shattered the binding along the blank and several eyes let loose. He sat down, looking at the water with a still excited but anguished look on his face.

After seeing his hit and a bunch of bait fish skipping the water I swapped out my quick release spool of 4lb mono for a ready spool of 6lb dia SpiderWire (30lb test) on my rear drag Shimano Spirex . I had only brought one rod; a Fast action 6’10” Loomis light so if I were to get a large fish on there would be no chance of muscling the beast into the net. If handled properly however, my rod should take it as you can literally loop this blank in a near circle by design. My fourth cast out, light jigging across the bottom my lure lodged on some structure; or so I had thought. I had a large fish on and one that was certainly not intent on being on anyone’s plate or wall. I played the fish for about three minutes making good use of the drag to vary tension keeping the line taut before getting it boat side and into the net – the while my Brother-in-law repeatedly warning me to let it take line, not rush the pull in case I snap my line or rod. But I was confident in my gear and I am not inexperienced in the art of fishing. The only thing that’d lose the fish at that point is a poor hook set or completely slacking the line. The fish weighed in at 11lbs. Not a Mammoth Walleye by record standards but it was a beautiful fish and would have been worthy of a mount if it hadn’t had a lamprey attached to its belly.

I enjoyed the excitement of fighting the fish without worrying whether my gear could handle the play. My Brother-in-law enjoys telling the story that his fish was much larger than mine (it was by both our accounts) and “if only he’d had better gear” he wouldn’t have to leave it to the telling of fish stories. I don’t give him a hard time for using outdated gear and not changing his line as often as I think he should; and he appreciates that.

Being that his rod broke, the next time out I let him borrow one of mine. He finally decided to venture into the land of the “In-Fisherman” and buy some current gear. He used to say “why in the world should I spend a dollar on a new rod when this one catches fish just fine!?” Now he says “I sure would have enjoyed fishing a lot more if I’d had a nicer rod all these years, and I probably wouldn’t have lost that walleye that time we were out”. It’s no G.Loomis that he bought but you should watch him prep his line and site his eyes along the superbly finished hand wound shaft which he stores in a crush proof cylinder when not in use. He mounts his new Diawa spinning reel with care and to my surprise he even has one extra spool of heavier weight line for the quick change!

I’ve always considered him to be the better fisherman, especially because he could out-fish me using crude gear. But the type of fishing that we do, the gear doesn’t make the fisherman. Bottom jigging and pad flipping takes a bit of skill to do right. Neither of us would turn down a day of fishing with poor gear to no fishing at all and I guarantee we’d have a good time and catch fish if they’re in the mood to be caught. The better gear without a doubt however, will enhance our experience and allows us opportunities which in some circumstances would not have been possible.

Whoops! This is a photography forum :). Nothing to see here people... move along.

Personally, I prefer knowing my gear is high quality and more capable than my own skill. That way I know that overcoming the issues is then only a matter of learning.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I agree with his philosophy,. mostly what I feel is that to make anything well,. art craft etc.. the most important aspect anyone can bring to there art or trade is skill. Skill is gained through practice and expirience (which are not allways the same thing)

On the other hand,. many skills and talents are greatly effected by the tools you use.

I am a woodworker (used to be by trade) and certainly know the value of well made solid precise woodworking tools over junk.

The trouble with saying that the tools do not matter... is it goes completely against one of the all important fundamental laws of the universe "The right tool for the job"

If the tool doesn't matter than showing up with a 24 ounce framing hammer to do interior finish work would be fine. When clearly it is not. Likwise,. arriving on the scene with a 600mm f/4 to take a few intimate photos of your nephews would be pretty difficult.

To my mind it is a small jump to assume that if the right tool is important to do the job well,. then deducing that also the better built tool specific to the task well be an even greater aid.

We can of course work with the tool we have.. and we can often produce.

But the trick is not merley to get the very best, if we are not the best ourselves,. the trick is to know at what level of quality the tools you use need to be to not be a hindrance to your own inherent skill

There fore our tools need to evolve with our skills, assuming our skills improve.

[msnow]

RFM--

I agree with the author of the article completely. The tools are important but only marginally. Experience and ability (both technical and artistic) are about 90% or more of it.

I'm an avid tennis player and I'm a pretty decent one (sorry for bragging). I prefer my own racket but I can pick up any one and after a few adjustments I don't even think about it anymore. People with less talent would spend all of their time blaming the equipment. I think the same is true here. It's fun to have the best stuff (and many of us in here are fortunate enough to have that) but it's the knowledge we gain from experience plus the pure inate talent that some have that makes the difference.

[defordphoto]

Ahhh...All very well said! This is exactly what I was hoping for. I also enjoyed the fish story analogy. Very nice.

Now here is a comparison to what having the right tools can do. The following link are photos I shot in 2002 at Portland International Raceway with a Canon EOS650 and a Vivitar 70-210 zoom lens. The film was then scanned using an HP film scanner:

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/CART/Portland/page_01.htm

And the following are with the 10D and the 100-400L that were shot in 2003:

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm
http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/Friday/index.htm
http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/Saturday/index.htm

We're not talking worlds of difference here. We're talking galaxies of difference. The first gallery is now an embarrassment, but I keep it there to remind me how blessed I am to have such great equipment that I can now express the artist in me.

Same shooter. Different equipment. From snapshot to art. Sometimes it takes the right equipment to wake up the artist inside.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think there is definately time when we need to upgrade gear.. but we need to grow to that point..

It was thousands of shots before I was in a position to utilize the improvement in gear that would be offered by switching to an SLR, and many many more thousands of shots with that SLR before I was "ready" for the 500mm prime I got,. the ome that like your images above spelled a galctic improvement in the images i could get when compared to be previous lens of choice.

Your images illustrate exactly what gear can do,. but I also have to assume that your skilllevel was improving as well..

There was a childrens story I remember listening to as a child,. "Hans Briker and the Silver Skates" ... it has never in my life occured to me,. until now that that story sums up the "tools Vs. Skill" correlation perfectly in a nice little story. Perhaps having it my subconscious all these years has helped me know when I am ready to make the next "leap" in improving my tools of the trade.

[Belmondo]

The ultimate irony of this (and perhpas the most appropriate comment on my photographic abilities) is that my favorite digital picture taken thus far is a 'snapshot' I took in the railroad yard in Reno, Nevada. I took it with my trusty old G2, and it is simply my favorite picture ever. The sad part is, I can't even tell you why I like it except that it seems to capture the feel of the place as I relate to it. It was one of those happy coincidences where good light, composition, and luck all came together at one time.

I've taken other railroad pictures since that are technically better, I'm sure. I've also taken pictures that would be impossible with a P&S. Those are 'improvements' that are attributable to having better equipment, I'm sure. But as to whether are not I'm a better photographer because of my equipment, I'm very sad to report, "not yet."

[defordphoto]

Art is in the heart. Not the camera.

Nothing more annoying than when a layperson says, "That camera sure takes nice pictures."

[msnow]

RFM--nice topic and interesting diversion from the normal. Thank you.

Mike

[Scottes]

Nothing more annoying than when a layperson says, "That camera sure takes nice pictures."

When my sister-in-law said that I just grinned to myself. After dinner I asked to borrow her pots & pans "because the food was delicious."

[Belmondo]

scottes wrote:When my sister-in-law said that I just grinned to myself. After dinner I asked to borrow her pots & pans "because the food was delicious."


That's a terrific line. I'm not sure when I'm going to use it, but I definitely will someday.

[hawg]

belmondo wrote:
scottes wrote:When my sister-in-law said that I just grinned to myself. After dinner I asked to borrow her pots & pans "because the food was delicious."


That's a terrific line. I'm not sure when I'm going to use it, but I definitely will someday.

Ditto. Great line.

Back to the original thread, it might help if we define what we mean by quality since the gadget freaks will say that equipment matters and the artsy types will beg to differ.

It's not about the bike......... Lance Armstrong

[defordphoto]

hawg wrote:
belmondo wrote:
scottes wrote:When my sister-in-law said that I just grinned to myself. After dinner I asked to borrow her pots & pans "because the food was delicious."


That's a terrific line. I'm not sure when I'm going to use it, but I definitely will someday.

Ditto. Great line.

Back to the original thread, it might help if we define what we mean by quality since the gadget freaks will say that equipment matters and the artsy types will beg to differ.

It's not about the bike......... Lance Armstrong

That's the discussion. Read the article and offer an opinion. And I think you're finding here that most everyone does not agree with his article in one aspect or another. He attempts to make it black and white, but it's not that way.

He is correct in some aspects, many aspects if you will, but he just simply goes over the edge a bit too far for me.

Scott: That's an awesome line!! :)

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

I THINK what is meant that the composition and idea's, visions of a true photographer are more important than the stuff they use.

Example.
I'm hobbyist photographer when I shot with my HP850 my pictures were still often publiced in the newspaper instead of the ones from our professional photographers, they were on a game (soccer) for 20-30 minutes and shot 4-10 shots while I took the whole match and shot arround 50-60.

HOWEVER.
With my HP850 I have had some really nice shots ruined due to shutterlag, now with the 10D my ratio of hit&mis have gone up like crazy with missing only little of what I used to miss.

In my opinion the equiptment does matter but the vision of a true photographer (being amateur or pro) will always be the reason why people like one photo beter than the other.

Greetings,
Frank

[UK_Terry]

I think this is a "Fun" question to ask and the replies are interesting, but i think you are trying to compare apples with oranges.

Michael Schumaker is the F1 world champion...had he been driving a Minardi instead of a Ferrari he would not be....... so Equipment Does Matter.

Jenson Button finished much lower down, had he been driving a Ferrari he still would not be world champion...so Equipment does not matter.

The Finished article in any form needs Both Skill & Good Equipment.

Me?

i am a average Photographer, whos equipment outclasses my skill....but i may someday live up to it.

If i didnt have better Equpment than my skill..then i probably would not progress.

[billhercus]

When you take that one breathtaking photograph a month/year/decade/century (fit your own timescale depending on experience, creative skill and, it has to be said, luck) is it not an irrefutable fact that you would want it of a 'base' quality that will allow the maximum manipulation/enhancement/cropping etc?

That is certainly the bottom line for me and having just bought my first quality lens (Sigma 100-300 f4 EX) and seen the difference, ..... well.... the family might have a bread/water diet for a bit.

No real debate here is there?

But of course there is ..... and long may the wonderful diversity of this forum continue!!

[Belmondo]

Give professionals mediocre equipment, and they will still get consistently good results. Give amateurs fantastic equipment, and they will get pictures that are commensurate with their abilities---no better.

On the other hand, if top notch equipment didn’t matter, professionals wouldn’t bother with it. In general, they’re too pragmatic to waste money on anything that isn’t absolutely necessary for the job at hand.

Equipment does matter, but by itself, won’t make photographers out of any of us.

[DaveG]

hawg wrote:
belmondo wrote:
scottes wrote:When my sister-in-law said that I just grinned to myself. After dinner I asked to borrow her pots & pans "because the food was delicious."


That's a terrific line. I'm not sure when I'm going to use it, but I definitely will someday.

Ditto. Great line.

Back to the original thread, it might help if we define what we mean by quality since the gadget freaks will say that equipment matters and the artsy types will beg to differ.

It's not about the bike......... Lance Armstrong

I've always thought that photography - or any art - is a combination of craft and creativity. To be merely a craftsman produces art with no spark. To be an artist without craft is a fraud. Picasso may well have wanted to splash colours on a canvas but he COULD have painted a picture of his subject that actually looked like his subject if he wanted it too. My point is that ME splashing paint around would be one big fake.

So the camera gear is placed on the craft side of things. If you have a great quality camera and you spend a lot of times learning to use it you'll have the craft to explore your artisitic side with confidence.

I have a bike here, by the way, that Lance Armstrong couldn't win a race against my kid. What Lance meant was ["Of these four different world class bike manufacturer's Tour de France bikes I could select any brand and win. So"], "It's not about the bike." But until you get to a certain quality level, it really is about the bike isn't it?

[RichardtheSane]

belmondo wrote:
Equipment does matter, but by itself, won’t make photographers out of any of us.


I think Tom, that you have just summed up the entire article very well there.
I like to think I am a fairly good photographer. I am also very comfortable in the knoweledge that the equipment I have is far superior to my skills as a photographer.

In fact I have to say this thread has really helped me, because I was worryingly close to becoming an equipment junkie. Instead of looking forward to my next trip out to do some photography I was spending more time thinking about the 'next lens'.

No more.

My christmas money will be spend on the little things that will help me use my equipment more effectivly.
A good set of filters, quality tripod head, batteries and CF, maybe an off camera flash cord, timer remote release. Stuff that has so far been eclipsed by saving for L glass and I have 'managed without'.

Nothing will make me a better photographer except practice and good guidance, so I may as well invest in equipment that makes what I know easier so I can thnk about what I don't know.
:D

[CyberDyneSystems]

belmondo wrote:
...my favorite digital picture taken thus far is a 'snapshot' I took in the railroad yard in Reno, Nevada. I took it with my trusty old G2, and it is simply my favorite picture ever....


With photography,.. there is this third factor (Skill and tools being the first two) I beleive this third factor will exist in other trades,.. but in photography the
Third Factor" CAN play a more important role in a successfull shot than either skill or your tools combined!

And that is the "Being there" factor.

I quote Belmondo's case above with the gamble that part of what made his favoriute photo ever was partly due to timing.

Now,. as we get more skilled,. we have the ability to drastically alter the "Being there" factor by knowing more about when the right time to shoot comes along. We can in fact alter to some degree the elemnet of perceived "chance" buy study and dedication thus turning the "odds" in our favor.

But this ability to improve the odds can even be effected by equipment as well... faster lenses and higher burst rates for example.. but nothing will effect the odds like knowledge, practice and skill.

[alanvee]

I certainly agree that the photog makes the picture and that he/she must learn to 'make music' with what ever instrument is at hand.

Each level of equipment (sophistication/capability) works extremely well within a certain range of possibilities. Working outside that range is feasible and great things can be done, but it would not the norm, not repeatable. And the skillful photog/artist WILL be able to expand an utilize that range, but it is still limited.

I recall seeing a shot of an execution (in France?) photographed with a Minox (16mm movie film I think). NO cameras where allowed but this clever photog managed to bring in this little mite and got 'the shot'. Still--the range of things a Minox can handle well is somewhat narrow.

The range things ANY given camera/lens/film (digital or otherwise) has limits. You don't see too many 8 x 10's at a sporting event or breaking news event (WeeGee DID a lot of great street photography with a 4x5 Graflex). You don't see too many breathtaking scenics taken with a P&S. (But they do happen).

The photographer is an explorer out in the world seeking to trap images and 'bring them back alive'; images that will evoke emotions in the ultimate viewers. One never knows what sort of situation will present itself and by having a selection of tools at hand, one widens the possible range of images that may be produced or captured. I now have a Kodak 3700, 3mp P&S (awaiting the day I can afford a bit more capability in the camera). I've been using it to practice, improve my eye and learn digital procedures. One day I came upon a groundhog, at a distance, peacefully feeding in some beautiful green grass next to an old shed. Any major movement on my part would have sent him scurrying. Getting the picture I could see in my minds eye was WAY beyond the range of capability of the 37mm lens on the Kodak. Naturally I shot anyway and the photos were as expected, useless. I was out of the range of capabilities of my equipment at hand.

So first you have to be a craftsman, an artist and know what is is you want to create. Then you need to get the tools that will aid you, reliably and repeatably, in this process. I've found it extremely frustrating to go out with my little camera as I see so many things I could do with different tools; images that require other ranges of capability my 3700 simply does not have. Good training, but frustrating non-the-less. It is precisely because we are such creative individuals, that our minds are so fast-acting; constantly presenting and discovering new images and ideas, that having the range of tools (and skills and knowledge to use them) is very important.

Yes Virginia, equipment DOES matter.

[ahmadof]

equipment does matter a great deal in this case. i agree with most everything that people are saying in support of this. But, i personally feel that everyone is missing one fact when they compare camera equipment / some computer equipment to other 'tools' such as golf clubs, fishing pole, cars, etc. These other tools have become more advanced in what they can do (functionality/ performance) whereas cameras / computers have advanced in 'knowledge'. My 10D has years worth of the 'masters' technique and expereince in its little brain. Someone figured out E-TTL and then taught it to my camera so i don't have to. if i didn't have the equipment that had learned this, i would be at a disadvantage. Someone made an analogy with F1 cars. He was absolutely correct, but i would add that there is a fine line there bacause of the technology employed. traction control, launch control, etc.. have given the 'masters' knowledge and skill to the rest of the field. That is why there is such hand wringing about what to do with that technology.

[defordphoto]

Great stuff here! Exactly what I was hoping for. I think we can all pretty much agree that if you have a camera, yes indeed you can take pictures. But, having a camera does not make you a photographer. However, a photographer can create, compose and produce an excellent photograph using just about any camera he/she is using at the time.

Ken's philosophy/opinion, however, is skewed when it comes to digital cameras, because there are some pretty funky digital cameras out there.

So, whether it be a 3 megapixel D30 or a 3 megapixel no-name point-and-shoot the photographer can still create. And on the other hand, with a 11 megapixel 1Ds a person can still shoot point-and-shoot pictures of Grandma at Christmas time.

The point he is trying to make is that an artist — and a true photographer is indeed an artist — can create his/her artwork no matter what the brush (camera), medium or subject. In the end, art will prevail.

One point I'd like to make is that we need to set aside the technical mumbo-jumbo we carry around in our camera bags and just get out and shoot what you feel. Capture the moment and the feeling of the moment, not the shutter speed or f-stop.

Let the artist inside you prevail over your work, not your equipment.

[Canuck]

RFMSports wrote:

Let the artist inside you prevail over your work, not your equipment.

Jim,
You could call this the extention of yourself, be one with the camera. Don't they call this the art of Zen and photography? That sounds like a really cool book to write!

However you slice it, dice it or whatever, the capability of the camera will effect the picture. Let's look at it this way. Try using that Oly D380 (2MP) to make pics for that billboard ad. I will be amung the ones laughing. Now if we go medium or large format, not you're talking! Equipment can play a role in what you're doing!

Why does it seem that when I post, I silence the masses? This is really odd. Do I come off as being an ass or otherwise beyond the usual silly stuff that goes on here? That isn't my intention, really! Just wondering.

[defordphoto]

Yes. Well said. You definitely have to know your equipment or it can severely hinder your capabilities and render your work useless.

It's just nearly as black and white as the author of this article seems to want to be. Actually, I just think he wants to piss people off. He seems to revel in the number of wide format people that send him (alleged) hate mail.

Canuck wrote:
Why does it seem that when I post, I silence the masses? This is really odd. Do I come off as being an ass or otherwise beyond the usual silly stuff that goes on here? That isn't my intention, really! Just wondering.

Sometimes it's just timing. if you come into a thread kinda late when the conversation is dwindling it can happen. And there's the time difference too. Many times when you post, we're sleeping over on this side of the pond.

[MarkH]

I tend to agree that the equipment is only part of the equation and some people spend too much time worrying about the equipment.

I also think that equipment does matter a lot.

Earlier this year I bought a 10D to replace my Nikon Coolpix950, I had to. The CP950 still worked OK, but it limited me too much. I couldn't set the aperture or shutter speed, the shot to shot lag was about 5 seconds and the 35-105 equiv lens wasn't suitable for a lot of my photography. Low light performance also caused problems (ISO 80 - 360 + slow lens).

I did take some good pictures with the CP950, but I missed others. There were many times that I never bothered taking the 950 with me because it couldn't get the shots I wanted.

Now I have a Canon 10D, 50 f1.8, 28-135IS, 75-300 III. I have the focal lengths I need on a very capable camera. Sure I'm keen on better lenses, but what I have is not limiting me much. Actually I limit my equipment more than it limits me.

If I had bought a Nikon D100 or a Fuji S2 then I would still be able to do what I do now. But the 3x zoom compact cameras are not the tools required to shoot motor racing or birds in flight.

I think the answer is not to obsess over your gear, just get the equipment that is capable enough to do the job you need and get on with the photography.

I am planning on getting a good 5 years of use out of my 10D before buying a new D-SLR, I don't need the financial drain of buying a new camera every year or 2. I doubt that my skill will exceed my cameras capabilities any time soon.

[defordphoto]

Well said Mark and I could not agree more. Many people come to the forums wanting a dSLR, but wondering if they are buying too much camera.

If they're wanting to shoot family snaps and pictures of the kinds then yeah, it probably is too much camera. But, if they have a serious — even semi-serious — interest in photography and want to expand their interests an artistic skills, then by all means I recommend a dSLR very highly.

A photographer should have a camera that meets or exceeds their skills. The nice thing about a dSLR is that you can grown into the camera and as your skills increase, you can purchase more accessories that meet those skills.

From shooting sports to a professional studio setup, you can make that happen with a dSLR, or you can keep it fairly simple and just make it the family-camera now that there are sub-$1,000 cameras on the market.

[Derek Smith]

For me, Ken was saying that no matter how good the equipment is, it cannot turn you into a good photographer in the artistic/contextual sense of the term. If this is what he was really driving at then I have to totally agree with his sentiments.

However, we all strive to improve, and here I believe that poor equipment can hold back our development even to the point of destroying in some individuals the will to keep on trying.

For me, the 10D has been the single greatest means of improving my trechnical skills, and through that, I have been able to concentrate more on the artistic / content / compositional aspects of the images I now capture and create.

Good equipment cannot make one into a good photographer (in whatever context that word has for you) but good equipment can help one learn faster, and with consumately greater enjoyment, to become a better photographer.

Derek

[defordphoto]

Good points Derek.

It's interesting that no one has mentioned Ken's photos. Throughout the story there are several links to some of his photos.

I find that for someone who spouts photographic philosophy like he breathes it daily, and has 20-plus years experience, would at least know not to stand in his own photograph! You can see his shadow in no less than two of those photos which I just find hilarious. Talk about breaking one of THE cardinal rules of photography.

Some are pretty decent, but I really don't find anything there that overwhelms me or that really makes me feel anything in particular.

And for another fun one from Ken, read the Seven Levels of Photographers: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

[Belmondo]

RFMSports wrote:And for another fun one from Ken, read the Seven Levels of Photographers: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

We kicked this one nearly to death a couple months ago. See: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18348#101003

[defordphoto]

belmondo wrote:
RFMSports wrote:And for another fun one from Ken, read the Seven Levels of Photographers: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

We kicked this one nearly to death a couple months ago. See: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18348#101003



That was 20 days before I became a member here. :)

[Belmondo]

RFMSports wrote:That was 20 days before I became a member here. :)

Jim:
I forgot you're a born-again newbie.
BTW, I've given your URL out to a few of my racing buddies. Is that okay?

Tom

[defordphoto]

belmondo wrote:
RFMSports wrote:That was 20 days before I became a member here. :)

Jim:
I forgot you're a born-again newbie.
BTW, I've given your URL out to a few of my racing buddies. Is that okay?

Tom

Absolutely! The URL is on my website anyway, so the more traffic the merrier.

Newbie! LOL! You have 3 months on me. :)

[Belmondo]

RFMSports wrote:Newbie! LOL! You have 3 months on me.

Whoa! A newbie in his first trimester.