Thoughts on Galen Rowell's Words

[jcsorensen]

Just finished Galen Rowell's book "Inner Game of Outdoor Photography" and was impressed with a few thoughts near the end of the book.

With regards to what camera brand you use, Galen wrote, "whenever anyone asked what camera I used, I should blithely reply: 'Asking a photographer what model of camera he uses is like asking a writer what model of tyewriter he uses.'" Admittedly somewhat out of date, he makes an interesting point--good for use on this forum when people want to know what's better, Canon or Nikon.

Speaking on film vs digital, Mr Rowell relates Bill Atkinson's thought on the matter--"When I asked Bill about this confusion of medium and message, he shrugged and said that searching for grain in a digital print to validate it as photography is like listening for tape hiss in a CD to validate it as music. The noise is apart from the artistic signal, and to listen for it is not to hear the music."

Just a couple of thoughts I found interesting. The book makes for a great read. Look forward to reading others he has published. Too bad he was taken so young, but at least modern technology makes it possible for us to enjoy his work for eons to come in the form of books and his web site at www.mountainlight.com

[Radtech1]

With regards to what camera brand you use, Galen wrote, "whenever anyone asked what camera I used, I should blithely reply: 'Asking a photographer what model of camera he uses is like asking a writer what model of tyewriter he uses.'" Admittedly somewhat out of date, he makes an interesting point--good for use on this forum when people want to know what's better, Canon or Nikon.

Not just a bit out of date, but the sentiment is completely obsolete on a Digial Photography Fourm. When that was said, the reference was to film cameras. In a film system, the "camera" is just that, the box that holds the image receptor (The film.) I absolutely guarantee you that he did not extend this offhand demeanor to the question of "what type of film do you use?" because the film IS the image receptor. So the type, the speed, and the brand of the film was of a huge intrinsic importance to the photographer.

Now in the case of digital, the camera itself becomes the image receptor. CCD, CMOS, MPixels, and yes, even brand (Canon or Nikon) plays a role in the the response, the quality, the tonal range, and the final results of the photograph. So his comments, while pithy, have been rendered meaningless in the face of progress.

Rad

[Steven M. Anthony]

With regards to what camera brand you use, Galen wrote, "whenever anyone asked what camera I used, I should blithely reply: 'Asking a photographer what model of camera he uses is like asking a writer what model of tyewriter he uses.'" Admittedly somewhat out of date, he makes an interesting point--good for use on this forum when people want to know what's better, Canon or Nikon.

Not just a bit out of date, but the sentiment is completely obsolete on a Digial Photography Fourm. When that was said, the reference was to film cameras. In a film system, the "camera" is just that, the box that holds the image receptor (The film.) I absolutely guarantee you that he did not extend this offhand demeanor to the question of "what type of film do you use?" because the film IS the image receptor. So the type, the speed, and the brand of the film was of a huge intrinsic importance to the photographer.

Now in the case of digital, the camera itself becomes the image receptor. CCD, CMOS, MPixels, and yes, even brand (Canon or Nikon) plays a role in the the response, the quality, the tonal range, and the final results of the photograph. So his comments, while pithy, have been rendered meaningless in the face of progress.

Rad

Are you suggesting that a given photographer would take better or worse photos depending on the brand of digican he/she used? Do you really think that a D70 is any better or worse than a 10D as a tool to express one's vision?

[jcsorensen]

I think what he was trying to say is the skill is in the Photographer, not the equipment.

[robertwgross]

Galen Rowell's big claim to fame was from his physical ability to get to places (with a camera) where no normal photographer could go.

He would strap on a small SLR, run up into the mountains five miles before dawn, snap the dawn shot, then run five miles back into town for breakfast.

Let's see a show of hands. How many of us do this?

---Bob Gross---

[timmyquest]

Galen Rowell's big claim to fame was from his physical ability to get to places (with a camera) where no normal photographer could go.

He would strap on a small SLR, run up into the mountains five miles before dawn, snap the dawn shot, then run five miles back into town for breakfast.

Let's see a show of hands. How many of us do this?

---Bob Gross---

I'd like to do it :oops:

It's a funny thing though, at 4 am photography really doesnt matter to me anymore :?

[thomascanty]

He would strap on a small SLR, run up into the mountains five miles before dawn, snap the dawn shot, then run five miles back into town for breakfast.

Let's see a show of hands. How many of us do this?

(Hand raised) Me! Well, I don't use a SLR when I go on treks like that. I carry my Olympus C-8080WZ instead, because it's much lighter and smaller.

[Radtech1]

Are you suggesting that a given photographer would take better or worse photos depending on the brand of digican he/she used?

ABSOLUTELY YES!

For example, I am really looking hard at the new 1Ds Mk II as my next step up. With 16.7 megapixels of resolving power I would have cropping options that I do not now have with my 10d. I would be able to produce better photographs then I now do because I would have a greater array of choices in how to crop and still maintain printable resolution. With greater choices, would come a greater likelihood of producing the finished product that I saw in my mind's eye when I took the picture.

I wonder how many people currently own a Dreb, 10d, 1d, or 20d that just sits on the counter gathering dust while there is still out shooting with a D30? Maybe the D30 as a backup...but not thier primary shooter.


I think what he was trying to say is the skill is in the Photographer, not the equipment.

Not really. When I was saying is that the finished photograph is the product of the photographer skill filtered through the equipment's capabilities.

And then held true with film, but in that case the "equipment" was the film itself, and much less so the box (camera) that it was housed in. And just as different films gave different results, likewise do the image receptors incurrent digital cameras. Because the box and the image receptor are now, with digital, the same thing, the type, the size, the sensitivity, and even the brand makes the box much more important than it was with film.

Rad

[Steven M. Anthony]

okay, rad--but I had meant with equivalent systems: i.e., = # MP, just different brand sensor. A 6mp nikon is just as good as a 6 mp canon--one might offer a feature set you prefer, but it doesn't mean the other wouldn't work to produce great photos.

[DeeplyDigital]

... run up into the mountains five miles before dawn ...

and catch the smile of the morning light...

Sure!

J.
-

[Jon]

Galen Rowell's big claim to fame was from his physical ability to get to places (with a camera) where no normal photographer could go.

He would strap on a small SLR, run up into the mountains five miles before dawn, snap the dawn shot, then run five miles back into town for breakfast.

Let's see a show of hands. How many of us do this?

---Bob Gross---

I'd like to do it :oops:

It's a funny thing though, at 4 am photography really doesnt matter to me anymore :?

I agree - I'm awestruck by his work - how he sees light. That he's willing to go the extra mile (or 10) to get that dawn light, or put the rainbow right over the Dalai Lama's palace, is more a sign of his dedication to his art than anything else. His physical condition may have enabled this, but his photographs are his legacy. You might as well say Ansel Adams' claim to fame was his willingness to haul around that station wagon full of view camera and film/plates and spend hours in the darkroom developing the film before spending still more hours on the print. I know I lack their dedication, but that doesn't mean I can't admire their work.

[robertwgross]

Another good Galen Rowell book is Many People Come Looking, Looking.

---Bob Gross---

[Jon]

Another good Galen Rowell book is Many People Come Looking, Looking.

---Bob Gross---

I've got 6 or 7 of his, and I don't think he's really got a bad one. Maybe, if pressed, I'd say that his AAA's North America the Beautiful isn't up with Vision or Inner Game, but it's still not bad, especially compared to a lot of what's out there.

[robertwgross]

Way back in 1978, I attended a slide show at a college campus. It was a mountaineering expedition (to K2) story shot by some guy I had never heard of... Galen somebody.

It was years before he became famous.

---Bob Gross---

[BikerFox]

Let's see a show of hands. How many of us do this?

---Bob Gross---

* Raises hand *

Seriously... it would be tough, but I could do it.

http://www.bikerfox.com

[Persian-Rice]

Radtech, then argue this.

Go in a head to head challenge with someone like Nachtwey on the front line or against Klinko & Indrani in the studio. Let them use the lowest end equipment there is while you you use top of the line stuff.

I put my money that 10/10 times they will produce a more appealing image. Although equipment is the medium used to produce an image, even in digital, the variations are so little that the difference in the outcome is almost insignificant. At the end of it all, whether you use a MK II or some $50 digicam, you get the same result. The art as in composition and even the of exposure aspects (aperture,shutter speed & iso) is all variable and dependent on the photographer.

Art is what you can create, that is why there are many guys and gals out there who have been shooting for 20 years, have a BA in photography and still can't create an image worth talking about. It doesn't mean it is not possible to become a good artist, because an eye can be developed if the correct means are taken to develop it.

My bloodline has been blessed with many artist, 3 of my aunts are artists, my uncle was a nationally renowned painter and professor of art who studied in Paris. His son is a good photographer. My cousin is an animator who just accepted a job with pixar in will be moving tot he USA. My mother is a brilliant sketcher. Any time I take part in anything artistic I excel while many cant even draw a caricature as much as they practice. And i cant do many thing other people find so easy.

I can post a jpg of a picture taken with a powershot a70 or a 1dMkII with an L lens and if I dont tell you which is which you cant tell the differnce.

[CoachP8]

Goggle-up Rick Ridgeway and follow Galen's line from Ridgeway's incredible mountain adventures.

I still have my trusty Rollei B35 and 100's of slides from the Sierras circa 1971 to 1984. Without doubt my best landscape was taken with my little camera sitting on a rock with a cable release and uv/rose filter. A single polemonium, an 8" high boquet of lavendar flowers in the rocky foreground, and the Smithsonium hut atop Mt. Whitney 2 miles to the South are crystal clear and deep shadows show detail. Luck, well not back then.

In those days, every shot had to count. I had the tech spec from Kodak on every film used. A little tome "Photosensitometry" was my bible. What a time consuming bore all that. Now, I shoot and shoot some more. What a joy.

If Galen was around today, he would surely have long ago gone digital. It's not just the photographers eye or technical expertise but the ability and desire to be exactly where his vision takes him.

And, Galen had all of that.

[jcsorensen]

He did go digital, at least as digital as he could at the time. He frequently had slides scanned on drum scanners and then had huge prints made from the scanned images. Toward the end of his book he talks about these huge prints he would have made from these scanned images and he believed they were better than he could get from optical enlargements. I'm sure if he was around today he'd have digital cameras ranging from Elphs to Mark IIs and everything in between.

[aam1234]

Sorry, but who is Galen Rowell.

[robertwgross]

Sorry, but who is Galen Rowell.

Galen Rowell grew up around Oakland, California. As a young man, he progressed from rock climbing to photographing rock climbing, and then he expanded his photographic skills toward everything outdoor. Later on, he was the expedition photographer as well as high-angle climber on various mountains. He wrote outdoor photography columns for some photo magazines and authored a number of books. Finally, he had moved his studio and operation to Bishop, California (the east side of the Sierra Nevada Range), which was the area he loved so much for photography. Sadly, he and his wife Barbara were killed in a plane crash near Bishop about two years ago.

---Bob Gross---

[CoachP8]

Galen, above all, loved this planet we call earth. We photographers are always grabbing little pieces of it. If we use just 10% of our efforts to conserve its awesome beauty for future generations, we walk in Galen's footsteps...

[Sam North]

Art is what you can create, that is why there are many guys and gals out there who have been shooting for 20 years, have a BA in photography and still can't create an image worth talking about.

I have to say, you frequently talk sense.

:)

[Persian-Rice]

Art is what you can create, that is why there are many guys and gals out there who have been shooting for 20 years, have a BA in photography and still can't create an image worth talking about.

I have to say, you frequently talk sense.

:)

Well if it was all the equipment, we would all be legends..........
:D

[Radtech1]

Art is what you can create, that is why there are many guys and gals out there who have been shooting for 20 years, have a BA in photography and still can't create an image worth talking about.

I have to say, you frequently talk sense.

:)

Well if it was all the equipment, we would all be legends..........
:D

Oh this is nonsense! You mentioned Nachtwey and Klinko and Indrani suggested that they "use the lowest end equipment there is" etc, etc, etc and they would still produce superior images. But that is just plain silly. They don't and wouldn't use the lowest equipment there is.

Every artist, be it photo, paint, performance, whatever, always - repeat always - uses the best equipment they can get their hands on for the art they produce. Period. The selection of the tool is half of the creation of art, and the mastery of the selected tool is the other half.

And in the discussion at hand - the merits and demerits of a particular brand/type camera and how that discussion has changed in the age of digital - I still contend that equipment matters. And my point was that it matters more now than it did in the age of film. (Although, at that time, the selection of film WAS a tool selection!)

And just to prove that equipment matters, I go down to the corner JuniorMart, and I see 3-packs of disposable cameras for 15 bucks. 20 buck for the ones with flash. Even in the presence of these perfectly serviceable cameras, there are some people who insist on owning "2x EOS 10D+BG, 2x EOS Elan7N+BG, 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200 4L(Broken), 2x 50mm 1.8, Tamron 28-75 Xr Di(on order)"!

You said, "Radtech, then argue this." I don't have to. You made my point for me. Equipment Matters.

Rad

[Moppie]

I think your both arguing past each other, and are doing it in such away that you are both infact right, with our being contradictory.



A great artist does not need the best equipment to make a great work of art.
If your only camera is a disposable from the corner store then the great artist would only use it with in its limit.
They would take photos that don't need a shallow DOF, and preciese focus, and they would choose lighting that matchs what the disposable is capable of capturing.
They do not need the best equipment to make an artistic photo.

However, the disposable camera greatly limits thier creative ablity, and there are some potentialy great artistic photo opertunitys that they would have to pass on.
And this is where having the best equipment becomes important.
So of course the great artist chooses the best equipment they can find, because it removes creative restrictions.
The better the equipment, the fewer the restrictions, and the greater the scope for creativity.

[Persian-Rice]

Radtech.

The only reason I have what I do and am buying better is because I am not an amateur. Expectations of image quality are very high in the marketplace.

But that is what the difference between a good camera and a cheap camera is. Image quality.

Yes a camera does make a difference, but tell me this. Nachtwey uses a 1DMKII for his digital work, as does ooh............Belmondo or CDS.
Want me to show you the difference between their works? BTW no offense guys.

Moppie said it best, a camera "removes creative restriction". However it's in the hands of the photographer to exploit them. It removes creative restrictions by make it easier to photograph, doing the metering for you etc etc, it automates things. Unfortunately, It will never compose and expose. Ooh, I rhymed :D

Cheers.

[Steven M. Anthony]

And the DIFFERENCE between alternative brands of equivalent technology is NOT what is going to be the difference between a great photo and an average photo. Once you learn the camera, a 10D is going to give you the same kind of photo you would get from a Nikon D70. As PR and others above have said--neither the 10D or the D70 are going to compose the shot for you, and THAT'S what separates the good shots from the great shots.

But aside from the rational reasons given for buying "better" equipment, one shouldn't forget that our purchase decisions are influenced first by emotional desires. I know I like the excitement of getting new and better stuff (when I can afford it).

[aam1234]

Do you know what, it's kind of refreshing to hear/read something other than the conventional wisdom. It makes you look at things from a different perspective. One will learn something out of it.

Go get them Rad.

[Jon]

Oh this is nonsense! You mentioned Nachtwey and Klinko and Indrani suggested that they "use the lowest end equipment there is" etc, etc, etc and they would still produce superior images. But that is just plain silly. They don't and wouldn't use the lowest equipment there is.

Every artist, be it photo, paint, performance, whatever, always - repeat always - uses the best equipment they can get their hands on for the art they produce. Period. The selection of the tool is half of the creation of art, and the mastery of the selected tool is the other half.

And in the discussion at hand - the merits and demerits of a particular brand/type camera and how that discussion has changed in the age of digital - I still contend that equipment matters. And my point was that it matters more now than it did in the age of film. (Although, at that time, the selection of film WAS a tool selection!)

And just to prove that equipment matters, I go down to the corner JuniorMart, and I see 3-packs of disposable cameras for 15 bucks. 20 buck for the ones with flash. Even in the presence of these perfectly serviceable cameras, there are some people who insist on owning "2x EOS 10D+BG, 2x EOS Elan7N+BG, 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200 4L(Broken), 2x 50mm 1.8, Tamron 28-75 Xr Di(on order)"!

You said, "Radtech, then argue this." I don't have to. You made my point for me. Equipment Matters.

Rad

Not every artist uses "the best" "always" in the sense you're using it. Back in the '70s many serious fine art photographers were experimenting with the "Diana" ($3-5 plastic-lensed) roll-film cameras There's a similar trend in vogue now. Others work with pinhole cameras. Painters have been known to use all sorts of things to transfer paint to canvas. I'm not sure what bearing "equipment" has on dance, except for the set and lighting designers. There are certainly plenty of minimalist theatre and dance directors out there (and plalywrights; read the stage directions for Our Town, but I'm sure it was a really good step-ladder!).

The tool is incidental to a fine artist; in photography especially! Using a 1Ds Mk II with the 100-400 L or a DR with a Quantaray zoom won't significantly change the artistic merit of someone's work; just how well it will stand enlarging. In some cases, the artist may actually want a slight degradation they'd get from a cheaper lens (reduced contrast, softness from the CA, the list goes on). The commercial artist or professional recording photographer (getting paid to do product shots, weddings, portraits, or news coverage) has different concerns than the fine artist (and I'm not claiming that a person can't do/be both), and is more likely to be concerned with equipment capabilities.

Back to Galen Rowell - he primarily used Nikons, but he also used early Rebels with the "normal zoom". He chose his gear for how he worked, not because he "had to have" the absolute top-of-the-line gear. Small, light, and reliable was critical for a lot of his work. His earliest successful work was taken with an Instamatic 126. You'd be hard pressed (except for the form factor) to distinguish it from some of his later work. He often dispensed with a tripod, using a couple of ski/trekking poles as his camera support for long exposures. His equipment choices, like those of most of us here, were driven by functionality in the desired environment. That it happens also to be top of the line in many cases is a consequence as much of what's available as anything.

Equipment matters, but not in the sense you're arguing. Sure Persian-Rice has "2x EOS 10D+BG, 2x EOS Elan7N+BG, 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200 4L(Broken), 2x 50mm 1.8, Tamron 28-75 Xr Di(on order)", not a 24-shot disposable. Not too many disposables will let you pull in a distant subject like 200 mm worth of lens. And those that do, won't get down to a 17 mm wide in coverage, let alone be able to handle the low-light situations of a 50 f/1.8. So how many throw-aways would it take to match that, and at what cost over time given a normal consumption of 6-8 (36 exp.) rolls per session? For a pro, or a photography student, that's reasonable. He's got to meet his instructors' expectations as well as handle his clients' demands. A three-pack of disposables won't cut it because it doesn't have the capabilities he needs, and because it isn't cost-effective. Not because it isn't L.

Equipment lists are in sigs here less because we're bragging about what we have than to help others evaluate our responses. And to help them respond to our queries. If I know what you have, it'll help me get an idea about where you might be going.

[Radtech1]

Not every artist uses "the best" "always" in the sense you're using it. Back in the '70s many serious fine art photographers were experimenting with the "Diana" ($3-5 plastic-lensed) roll-film cameras There's a similar trend in vogue now. Others work with pinhole cameras.

And then:

In some cases, the artist may actually want a slight degradation they'd get from a cheaper lens (reduced contrast, softness from the CA, the list goes on).

My point exactly! I said "For the art they produce" and in the case of the Diana (personally not aware of this one) to the 126 (had one myself) to the pinhole (did that in High School) and in each case the artists selected that equipment as the best piece of equipment to fulfill the artistic intent.

I still contend that the choce of the equipment is half of the creative process, the mastery of that equipment is the other half. And to get back to the ORIGNIAL point, when film was "in the box" the choice of film was integral to the creative process. Now with digital, the choice of the box itself has replaced the choice of the film. But still, artists will always choose the best they can get to fulfill the artistic vision.

They would NEVER choose the 126 if the subject is going to be the lone eagle soaring high above the canyon floor.

Rad

[Jon]

You also said . . .

They don't and wouldn't use the lowest equipment there is.

The point being that the equipment being used is not the primary, or even a major, factor in an artist's work. It's chosen to facilitate the work, but the success or failure of the work isn't reliant on the equipment of choice. There are other ways to get there.

[Steven M. Anthony]

No, Rad-artists generally choose the equipment that will best fulfill their artistic intent They don't necessarily select the "best piece of equipment to fulfill the artistic intent."

It's a subtle difference--but an important one. YOUR phrasing (in quotes)places the importance on the equipment quality--but as Jon points out, that is rarely the primary issue for fine artists; for them, fulfillment of artistic intent is the primary issue.

[Moppie]

No, Rad-artists........



Nice creation and use of a new word!

And you've used well to illistrate an important point that is being missed.

The differncent interpratations of "best"

There is "best" for the job.
And technicaly "best"

In terms of being able to capture an image a new 20D will do it better than an A80, it will provide higher resolution, greater dynamic range, less barrel distiontion with the right lens, sharper focus, shallow depth of field etc etc.
The 20D is technicaly the "best" camera.

But artisticaly the best camera is what will provide the artisit with the results they want.
The 20D might not be the "best" camera for the Job.


The two deffinitions or ideas of "best" do not come into conflict as they represent differnt ideals in the photographic world.



Heres an analogy, not because I don't think people don't understand, but because it just came to me and I want to share it.

Iv spent hours useing thousands of dollars worth of the best tools a mechanic can buy to fix cars in a friends workshop. Working on expensive exotic cars I made it good practice to always use the technicaly best tool I could find. The highest quality socket in the most expensive socket wrench. But there were times when I had to put down the $20 socket and $150 socket wrench, go out to my car and get a spanner worth about 10c. Technicaly it was an inferior tool, poorly cast with low tolerances, yet because it was cheaper it was thinner and bent at an odd angle, and allowed me to reach a nut and bolt that was otherwise unreachable.
That spanner became the worst quality tool I could buy, but the best tool for the job, and the expensive wrench and socket became the best quality tool, but the worst tool for the job.


A digital camera can be exactly the same as that socket and wrench or spanner. Both the best and the worst.



I propose we have "Rad-artisits" added to the dictionary

[Sam North]

"Great meal. What pots did you use?"
Petteri Sulonen

:D

[Steven M. Anthony]

Moppie: Rad's initial use of the word "best" indicates the notion of quality, not appropriateness.

But what it really comes down to is that technical specs are just that--technical specs. 8MP vs. 6MP, for example. Which is better? Which is better quality? 8 is MORE than 6, but is it technically BETTER? The 20D might be more advanced than even the 10D. But does that technical advancement make it better? No. It just makes it different. It's only better if the user finds it better.

I own a Nissan Altima. It does 0 - 60 MPH faster than a Porsche Boxter. Does that make the Altima better? If so, why does a Porsche Boxter cost more? Sure, the Altima seats 5 and holds lots of bags in the trunk. And if you are a guy with a wife and 2 kids that likes to take long driving trips, the Altima IS a better car. If you are a single guy looking to turn heads, I'd recommend the Porsche...

To talk about the technical aspects of a camera without including the intent behind using the camera--like rad did in his initial post--is missing the MAIN aspect of why a camera is chosen.

[aam1234]

"love your photos, how many mp's does your camera have"
my sister

[Moppie]

Moppie: Rad's initial use of the word "best" indicates the notion of quality, not appropriateness.



Thats exactly my point, there are two schools of thought in this thread, both argueing the importance of the equipment, believeing there is conflict in beliefs when there is in fact only a misunderstanding of deffinitions.
(the fact that some people changed thier deffinition during the course of the debate only helps to illistrate my point that there is a misunderstanding.)


There is best for the job, my spanner, your Altima, Galen Rowell's Instamatic 126.

And there is technicaly best, the expensive socket with fine tollerances, the Porsche boxter built with levels of handling, response and driver feed back no altima will ever provide, the 20D with low noise levels at high ISO, fast auto focus, servo AI tracking, a whole range of flash syncing ablities that most people don't even understand, huge dynamic range etc etc etc.


And then there are apprently two convergant schools of photographic thought.
The artisitic and the technical.
The artistic is more concerned with composition and the aesthetic appeal of the photograpgh.
The technical are more concerned with the image quality, how low the noise levels are, how vivid the colours are, is there any distortion etc.

One school of thought takes photos to hang on gallery walls, the other takes photos to put in magazines and adverts.

And of course the majority of people fit somewhere between the two ideals. They will change from one end of the spectrum to the other depending on how they feel they should judge or view the work in front of them, and the results they want from thier own photos.

[robertwgross]

"love your photos, how many mp's does your camera have"
my sister

I got the same question from a stranger about two hours ago.

I think it is the only question that they feel qualified to ask.

---Bob Gross---

[Radtech1]

To talk about the technical aspects of a camera without including the intent behind using the camera--like rad did in his initial post--is missing the MAIN aspect of why a camera is chosen.

OK, since it was MY initial post that you seem to be taking issue with, lets take a moment to revist that inial post:

With regards to what camera brand you use, Galen wrote, "whenever anyone asked what camera I used, I should blithely reply: 'Asking a photographer what model of camera he uses is like asking a writer what model of tyewriter he uses.'" Admittedly somewhat out of date, he makes an interesting point--good for use on this forum when people want to know what's better, Canon or Nikon.

Not just a bit out of date, but the sentiment is completely obsolete on a Digial Photography Fourm. When that was said, the reference was to film cameras. In a film system, the "camera" is just that, the box that holds the image receptor (The film.) I absolutely guarantee you that he did not extend this offhand demeanor to the question of "what type of film do you use?" because the film IS the image receptor. So the type, the speed, and the brand of the film was of a huge intrinsic importance to the photographer.

Now in the case of digital, the camera itself becomes the image receptor. CCD, CMOS, MPixels, and yes, even brand (Canon or Nikon) plays a role in the the response, the quality, the tonal range, and the final results of the photograph. So his comments, while pithy, have been rendered meaningless in the face of progress.

Rad

To paraphrase, in an attempt to be concise in my meaning, I hope that the above said something like:

Galens comments were that the "camera" was incidental to the final photograph - which was true pre digital. I contend, however, that he WOULD NOT have declared the FILM as incidental. Instead, because the film actually held the image, it was integral to the photograph. At that time, the photographer would select the film based on considerations like response, quality and tonal range. Today the digital imagereceptor has replaced cellulose film. Because the type (CCD v CMOS), size (Mpx) and even brand of camera can result in huge variations in response, quality and tonal range, then the type, size and brand has a HUGE effect the final output. This renders Galens comments on "camera type" obsolete.

Put yet another way, photographers (artist especially) now choose the camera using decision parameters that are analogous to how they used to choose film. These decisions are driven by a desire to have a final output as close to the artistic intent as possible. They will always choose the best (both in appropriateness and quality) that they can get.

I don't see how I can be more plain. (And, incidentally, correct! :wink: )

Rad

[Moppie]

I don't see how I can be more plain. (And, incidentally, correct! :wink: )

Rad


After re-reading your first post, and the first intial replies I completely agree.

The argument makes perfect sense, prehaps a quote could be found giving Galen's opinion on what film he used?

[Steven M. Anthony]

Rad: Where your argument breaks down is when you consider post-processing. There are PS actions that will mimic various film types--so you can shoot with any camera and end up with a shot that looks like it was taken on Velvia (or whatever).

If you shoot in RAW format, regardless of what sensor you have behind the lens, you are going to start post-processing at about the same spot. True, each brand's sensor will provide slightly different RAW output. But when you consider that the sensor's job is to count photons and produce a charge in proportion to that count, the variation can't be that big (when comparing equivalent levels of the same technology).

I understand you BELIEVE your pov is right on this issue. But when I consider the FACTS related to the issue I end up with a different pov.

Moppie: It's not just a misunderstanding of the definition of the word better. I think Rad and I both understand EACH definition of the word BETTER. We have chosen the definition of the word better that fits our point of view on the issue. Rad's pov is that more advanced technology will always be chosen by artists over less advanced technology. My (and others') pov is that artists select the technology that helps them get their vision expressed the most. The misunderstanding at play here is the one expressed by Rad in his pov.

[Persian-Rice]

You guys should try something one of my photography proffs made us do for the first two weeks of one of my courses. We were forced to only bring and use "the cheapest available" disposable camera while thousands worth of high grade stuff sat in the closet.

I swear I took some of my best shots with the disposables. His point was for us to focus on the photography aspect of photography. As I have mentioned in the past, he uses a $35,000 leaf/hasselbald camera. Even though his equipment puts ours to shame, he still always insists on photographer not the camera.

I will quote my old sig, "There are photographers and then there are gadget freaks who think they are photographers". Some people try to express art, the rest try to take a snapshots with a 10 lb camera so they can call themselves a photographer. heh

[Radtech1]

Rad: Where your argument breaks down is when you consider post-processing. There are PS actions that will mimic various film types--so you can shoot with any camera and end up with a shot that looks like it was taken on Velvia (or whatever).

Sure, I will concede that. Photoshop et al will allow you to mimic different films. So as far as tonal range goes, that job is handled more by post-processing and less by the image-receptor. That leave response (in film, speed or asa) and quality (resolving power - in film, limited by the size of the silver halide crystals). The digital analogies I propose would be noise (as in inverse function of ISO) and pixel count.

Before you say "Bicubic Interpolation" and "Noise Ninja", keep in mind that those workarounds do their job AT A COST to the image.

Noise Ninja not withstanding, there is no software that can improve the signal to noise ratio of a particular chipset. You can attempt to correct for it, sometimes with very acceptable results - but you cannot improve it. Show me the software than can, and I will be sending them a check today!

Same with quality. Yes, there are interpolaters that can stretch an image larger than native, but at the cost of local resolution. You cannot squeeze out of a digital image more than it's intrinsic resolution. Again, show me the software that can pull my old 1.6 mpx Kodak images out to the 6.2 mpx of my 10D keeping it as sharp and clear as if I had shot it with my 10D, and I will be pulling out my checkbook again.

So while PS etc can take over some of the functions that used to be handled by different types of film, it is not an end all and be all. It is limited by what the hardware gives it.

...the variation can't be that big (when comparing equivalent levels of the same technology).

"Equal levels of the same technology"....hmmm

Did you just say "A = A"?

The problem is that there is a lot more than just "A" out there. If there were no alternatives then there would be no need for magazines (http://www.phototechmag.com) or websites (http://www.dpreview.com) to post sample images in equipment reviews. Yet they do. So there is plenty of criteria for the discerning photographer to take into account when making a choice. It is not all equal.

Rad's pov is that more advanced technology will always be chosen by artists over less advanced technology...The misunderstanding at play here is the one expressed by Rad in his pov.

That is NOT what I said.

I said "the finished photograph is the product of the photographer skill filtered through the equipment's capabilities." and "Every artist...always uses the best equipment they can get their hands on for the art they produce." (New bold and italics), further "The choce of the equipment is half of the creative process, the mastery of that equipment is the other half."

I have repeatedly included photographers skill, appropriateness to the "vision" and mastery of whatever equipment is chosen. To listen to you and Persian, one would think that my argument is that a high end camera will walk out of my house, take award winning photos all by itself, and then download them when done! That is NOT what I am saying and never has been. There must be an eye on this end of the viewfinder.

But I STILL say that equipment matters! Any given photographer will produce more consistently better finished photographs when unencumbered from the limitations of equipment they find substandard for them or their vision.

Rad

[Persian-Rice]

But I STILL say that equipment matters! Any given photographer will produce more consistently better finished photographs when unencumbered from the limitations of equipment they find substandard for them or their vision.

I finally agree, but my whole argument is that if the photographer setup a tripod, composed and took a shot with a 10D and a 1D MKII, he would get the same masterpeice or peice of crap that the other camera took. As I have said before, the camera matters alot, but all I am saying that its not what makes or breaks the image.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Rad: In addition to what you quoted yourself as saying, you also said:

"But still, artists will always choose the best they can get to fulfill the artistic vision.

They would NEVER choose the 126 if the subject is going to be the lone eagle soaring high above the canyon floor."

This is simply not necessarily true. WHAT EQUIPMENT AN ARTIST CHOOSES WILL DEPEND ON THEIR ARTISTIC VISION. So if an artist felt that their vision would be best communicated by photographing a "lone eagle soaring above the canyon floor" with a 126, he or she would do so.

Your premise that a great image is 'half the equipment and half the mastery of that equipment' is simply not true.

I'm not sure why you go on and on about image size and resolution, as "great images" are not restriced to a particular size.

I agree that all equipment is not equal. My point is that the image a great photographer can get out of, say a 10D, will be the same as they can get out of a D70. That's why you see great images being make by all brands of cameras--BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT.

You end by saying "But I STILL say that equipment matters! Any given photographer will produce more consistently better finished photographs when unencumbered from the limitations of equipment they find substandard for them or their vision."

So do you agree, then, that a more advanced piece of equipment can be considered "substandard" by a photographer and lead to unfilfilled vision? Because all your examples on these pages point your POV in the opposite direction...

[Radtech1]

First, let me say that I enjoy a spirited discussion. (I enjoy them better when everyone says, "My God! You are so right!" but that doesn't always happen!) So I will answer your questions, and then give you an opportunity to close out the subject, if you wish.

Rad: In addition to what you quoted yourself as saying, you also said:

"But still, artists will always choose the best they can get to fulfill the artistic vision. They would NEVER choose the 126 if the subject is going to be the lone eagle soaring high above the canyon floor."

This is simply not necessarily true. WHAT EQUIPMENT AN ARTIST CHOOSES WILL DEPEND ON THEIR ARTISTIC VISION. So if an artist felt that their vision would be best communicated by photographing a "lone eagle soaring above the canyon floor" with a 126, he or she would do so.

I will conceded this point (using a 126 for a "lone eagle, etc, etc") on technical grounds. I suppose there could be SOME artist SOMEwhere who would do this. I cut my teeth on a 126, however, and am quite aware of their limitations, so in a Real World application, I do not BELIEVE that the 126 would ever be chosen for that subject. The result would be a nonspecific smudge of nearly microscopic dimensions. An unlikely, but technically possible, artistic vision.

Your premise that a great image is 'half the equipment and half the mastery of that equipment' is simply not true.

Actually, if you scroll back up, I said "The choice of the equipment is half of the creative process, the mastery of that equipment is the other half." Note "The choice..." - the artists ability to apply his knowledge of his art to the correct selection for the best tool for the job. Take the artist painting the Mona Lisa. Had he reached over and grabbed the brush I use for painting the exterior wall of my house, you would have him shrugging his shoulders saying "Oh well, a brush is a brush!" I have him putting that brush back, and choosing a finer one.

And on my point of equipment quality, I will bet my bottom dollar that not only will he select a more appropriate brush, he will try to use the highest caliber, with the most delicate point, and the least hairs falling out. This is what I meant when I said "They will always choose the best (both in appropriateness and quality) that they can get."

You may say that there are artists using wall brushes right now. Well of course there are! And in that case, the selection of the wall brush is the best choice. Could you imagine such an artist having only a 1/32 round red sable to work with!

I'm not sure why you go on and on about image size and resolution, as "great images" are not restriced to a particular size.

You are right, "great images" are not restricted to a particular size. However, take Persians example of a one photographer tripoding two different cameras, would the results really be the same? I say "No, not necessarily." Imagine the artist in question tripoding the 1Ds MkII and my 10D. Then during post-processing he discovers that "the" photograph is only the right upper quadrant of the actual image he took. I mean, I think we can both agree that photographers have cropped their shot for about 15 decades, so cropping is nothing new and takes away nothing from the artists skill. The 1Ds MkII, by virtue of its vastly superior resolving power, will allow that crop and my 10D wont.

So do you agree, then, that a more advanced piece of equipment can be considered "substandard" by a photographer and lead to unfilfilled vision?

Of course. Particularly if that vision is to work within the constrains of a less advanced piece of equipment. I thought that that came across when I had said, "in the case of the Diana (personally not aware of this one) to the 126 (had one myself) to the pinhole (did that in High School), in each case the artists selected that equipment as the best piece of equipment to fulfill the artistic intent."

Because all your examples on these pages point your POV in the opposite direction...

If that is the case, I need to hone my writing skills. Here are the points I thought that I was making:

1) There are differences in equipment. This was less so at the time of film. These difference becomes magnified with technical progress.

2) There are two types of "Best": Appropriate and advanced (highest quality).

3) Artist will choose the highest quality single piece of equipment out of a pool of those pieces which are appropriate. For example, he might select the 126 for artistic reasons, leaving the 1Ds MK II on the shelf. (Less advanced chosen over more.) However, if the situation calls for a digital image, he would most likely take the 1Ds MK II, and now leave last years 10D on the shelf. (Choosing highest quality out of the pool of those which fall under the umbrella of "appropriate".)

I concede the last word to you.

Rad

[Steven M. Anthony]

Rad: Your re-stated points are much more coherent, so I'll just jump to them.

RE: 1) There are differences in equipment. This was less so at the time of film. These difference becomes magnified with technical progress.

I would agree with you here except you seem to be forgetting film is equipment. I also think you overestimate the difference in technology between brands. While a 16MP sensor will give you more options than a 6MP sensor, Canon's 6MP sensor will give you essentially the same results as a Nikon 6 MP sensor (in RAW format).


RE: 2) There are two types of "Best": Appropriate and advanced (highest quality).

Yes!



RE: 3) Artist will choose the highest quality single piece of equipment out of a pool of those pieces which are appropriate. For example, he might select the 126 for artistic reasons, leaving the 1Ds MK II on the shelf. (Less advanced chosen over more.) However, if the situation calls for a digital image, he would most likely take the 1Ds MK II, and now leave last years 10D on the shelf. (Choosing highest quality out of the pool of those which fall under the umbrella of "appropriate".)

I get your point here--but it is still overstated, as many considerations would come into play for any given use. For example, if I was going on a camping trip up to the MN boundry waters, I might choose to take my Sony 707 instead of my 10D knowing I will be in damp conditions for a long period of time--even though the 10D would give me better quality images (larger pixel count and sharper). While I wouldn't waste my time bringing my PDA camera (1.3 MP), the 707 would be good enough given the risks to the equipment. There is also the issue of ease of use and weight which point toward bringing the 707. These equipment considerations are independent from issues of artistic intent: my artistic intent would likely be better served with the 10D (and my assortment of lenses) than the 707. But the incremental increase in fulfillment of artistic intent is outweighed by these other factors.

[Thornfield]

I think it all boils down to this.
All the great artists would be out taking/making great works of art while us lesser mortals are in this forum arguing a point that realy doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.