It is not the gear.

You can compare photography and it's technical side to painting.

How many colors does a painter need to create his vision on canvas? How clean does his brush need to be before making a brush stroke? What quality of paint should be used?

The technical level of painting, photography and other creative fields needs to be just good enough to be able to create an emotional response in the audience. And no more.

Many of us get trapped in the equipment race. We rationalize how newer, more advanced cameras and lenses will improve our work. To a degree, it will. But that is insignificant next to the other elements that go into creating the message.

As I've said numerous time on these forums, judging IQ from an internet published image is a shear exercise in futility...
unless you include a 1000 x 1000 pixel crop of that image.

Additionally, a print must withstand nose-length viewing distance to be acceptable...IMHO
A 5.3 MP, metal printed, 24 inch, RAW image would not meet that criteria in any way.

24 inch print is meant to be viewed from a few feet away. When that camera was new and the files were printed large and hung in a gallery and people loved them.
.

The paint brush for an artist is only what works best for what the artist is trying to say and the preference of that particular artist and really all that matters is the final piece.

And to chauncey what is A5? I always refer to actual size just like the portrait/landscape digital terms. In my opinion it should be vertical or horizontal. But the point about trying to judge 80kb jpgs on a site is not a good way to judge anything is on the mark.

Find tools that work for you but my advice, gets to what Weston was talking about in the quote I posted, jump off the gadget go round. Get a tool (camera) that works for you and stick with it for longer than the next new model cycle. You vision will thank you.

The quote by Haas is also right on the money, the tools out there today are all capable to capture what you see. The important part is you have to see.

I never saw a photographer that didn't examine a print close up before backing up.

From personal experience, I told a Professional Photographer, who took senior photos of my daughter, that his work was POS's
because they would not hold to my standards.

Yes the photog will closely examine his print. Nobody else will, they will look at the print from a distance and hate it or love it. Not because of the tech behind it.

Content over technical points always.

frugivore wrote in post #18137523
The technical level of painting, photography and other creative fields needs to be just good enough to be able to create an emotional response in the audience. And no more.

Disagree. Let's consider a photo of a live show, a closeup of a singer during a powerful performance.

The photo taken with the older camera is a little blurry due to inadequate shutter speed, some highlights are blown in the skin tones due to inferior dynamic range. Still, show it to the singer's grandma and she says it's gorgeous, thank you for showing her. She wants a big print but you know that it might not hold up to printing big, and it's certainly not up to the standards you hold for your own work.

The same photo taken with the modern camera has no unintended motion blur*, and skin skin tones are rendered cleanly and accurately to the photographer's vision. Show it to the singer's grandma, and she says it's gorgeous. She wants a big print, and you're happy to provide it.
* sometimes I intentionally leave a bit of motion blur in live-performance photos - same reason you want propeller blur on an airplane or panning blur on a racecar.

Both images provoked a similar emotional response in the viewer. The image taken with the newer camera is objectively better.

Anyway, I'm just here for the lively discussion. I acknowledge that I'm a lousy one to talk about "art" or "emotional response." I've never been emotionally moved by a photograph of a mountain, or of a lone tree standing in a field, or of a tricycle in memphis. My photos are primarily documentary in nature, and better gear often - but not always - helps me create better photos.

You're suggesting that you cannot have both.

nathancarter wrote in post #18137689
Disagree. Let's consider a photo of a live show, a closeup of a singer during a powerful performance.

The photo taken with the older camera is a little blurry due to inadequate shutter speed, some highlights are blown in the skin tones due to inferior dynamic range. Still, show it to the singer's grandma and she says it's gorgeous, thank you for showing her. She wants a big print but you know that it might not hold up to printing big, and it's certainly not up to the standards you hold for your own work.

The same photo taken with the modern camera has no unintended motion blur*, and skin skin tones are rendered cleanly and accurately to the photographer's vision. Show it to the singer's grandma, and she says it's gorgeous. She wants a big print, and you're happy to provide it.
* sometimes I intentionally leave a bit of motion blur in live-performance photos - same reason you want propeller blur on an airplane or panning blur on a racecar.

Both images provoked a similar emotional response in the viewer. The image taken with the newer camera is objectively better.

Anyway, I'm just here for the lively discussion. I acknowledge that I'm a lousy one to talk about "art" or "emotional response." I've never been emotionally moved by a photograph of a mountain, or of a lone tree standing in a field, or of a tricycle in memphis. My photos are primarily documentary in nature, and better gear often - but not always - helps me create better photos.

It seems like you are defining better in technical terms...sharper, more colorful etc... There is another way to look at better...does it move the audience. Does it invoke emotion with the viewer...does the viewer come back for a 2ND or 3rd look at the photo.

For me the challenge is to create photos which move viewers and I use gear appropriate to accomplish my vision...many times my gear ( Fuji 6x9 or Techihara 4x5 ) are old totally manual cameras. Sometimes the latest greatest tech gets in the way of photography as I see many people cone back with 2,000 images from a days outing...how many of those images were carefully visualized and composed? How many of those images could be repeated given the same conditions. Automation does not automatically mean better...especially when art is involved.

chauncey wrote in post #18137705
You're suggesting that you cannot have both.

I'm suggesting that sharpness and technical perfection is not nor should be the defining element in judging what is or isn't a strong photograph. Sometimes the two are at odds and if you take the technical side then you are usually missing what's really important.

Hogloff wrote in post #18137713
...especially when art is involved.

Photographs don't have to be art.

[edit]
I've spent a long time pondering this over the past couple of years, and I've come to the conclusion that my photos don't qualify as "art." The closest to "art" that they get, is that they're documentation of other people's art.

Certainly very few photographs are made to be art and some that are made are can be art but it is not the norm for sure. Just like everything that is sculpted or painted is art. Photographs can be art but it is usually images that move beyond the obvious or nouns and get to something that reflects what the creator felt about a certain event, moment or object.

I photograph a lot and I don't think about or care if I am creating art. I create and let those that want to judge, judge, but it doesn't alter my approach to what i do either way.

My advice is to create from your heart and worry less about labels. I think that if you create honestly it will show in your work and actually start on the road to a style to overall look. In my opinion the great compliment isn't the one that say AAHHHH thats pretty but the one that says when I looked at the image I knew without looking at the name/signature who created it.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18137723
I'm suggesting that sharpness and technical perfection is not nor should be the defining element in judging what is or isn't a strong photograph. Sometimes the two are at odds and if you take the technical side then you are usually missing what's really important.

I don't think many are suggesting otherwise.

There's a whole spectrum of photographic styles, subjects, types of photography, and so on. Some things are very "technically forgiving" and others aren't, and what is or isn't important heavily depends on the artists vision.

I was answering post #18137713 which kinda was.