It is not the gear.

Fair enough.

Threads like this always make me laugh though, most folks approach topics like this carrying far too narrow a viewpoint on the world.

Everyone can continue to pick out specific scenarios, attempt to apply their own particular photographic needs to others, base "fact" off of their anecdotal evidence, but the fact of the matter is there's a huge range. There are well loved photographers who were technical masters and those who weren't. The capabilities of today's cameras don't mean using the right materials and methods couldn't allow someone in the past to produce images of incredible technical quality.

Composition and lighting are vitally important, being in the right place at the right time can make or break the shot. Having the right piece of hardware to accomplish your task can make it easier, or in some cases be the difference between impossible or possible. End of the day, they're all pieces of the puzzle and each photographer has to balance what's important to them.

Are some people too focused on gear? Sure, but don't discount the importance of having the right tool for the job, or wanting better tools, because of that.

Composition it terms of one personal vision though not confined to silly rules.
I've posted this before but it is relevant here now.
A few words by some of the greats and a little video by one of the greats.
https://vimeo.com/1166​92462 It's short and really worth a watch.

And some words by some of the greats.

"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston

"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams

"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals

"There are no shortcuts, no rules." - Paul Strand

"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt

"I came from the outside, the rules of photography didn't interest me... "-William Klein

" ...... a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. " Garry Winogrand

and maybe my favorite which gets directly to this thread
" ......so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston


Having the right hardware for ones vision which many don't know what that is because they don't stay with equipment long enough to be able to figure it out.

One more that sure holds true today because it really is a common concept
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

To many are obsessed with sharpness and have little regard for personal vision or what is right for the feel the photographer is trying to convey.
I also wanted to say I have the lenses that I photograph with for as much as the the way they render and how that look fits with the way I see and work. They are sharp but most glass today is plenty sharp.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18133416
.

Right. But even now, the very latest, state-of-the-art still photo gear will often times be the limiting factor that keeps me from taking the kind of images I want to take. There are some conditions that exist in real life that technology may never be able to overcome. So, to some extent, the gear will always be limiting what we are able to photograph, or how well we will be able to photograph it.

.

^
Gear FACILITATES photos...lower noise gear makes for less noisy -- so-called 'grain' (wrongly) -- images. But ultimately the photographer makes the image.

Many moon ago, a discussion on POTN started in which an amateur lamented about going to a photography club meeting, and all the SLR owner photos were far superior to his own P&S images, so he wondered about the need to buy a dSLR to improve his photography. I challenged him to identify, from a group of about a half dozen images, which ones I shot with my own Canon G2 vs. my 20D...he could not! Thereby proving that simply which camera was used did not 'make the photo'...but the 20D could take photos in conditions which taxed severely the G2. (OK, maybe it was G2 vs. 30D or 40D, but it matters not...the point is the same)

Without a doubt, using a 20D vs. an 80D to shoot in the same very low light conditions, I would be 'held back' by the 20D when I needed ISO higher than 1600. And if I wanted a 40x60" blowup on a wall, I would be 'held back' by the 20D resolution. So advancing technology does facilitate photos not possible with older gear. But if you simply wanted an 8x12" print of a photo shot in Sunny 16 conditions, the 20D and the 80D would not be all that visibly different! After all, the 20D has 2336 vertical pixels and the 80D has 4000 vertical pixels, so the resolution improvement in a single axis is not even 2X, and you will not really appreciate 292 vs. 500 ppi in the 8" print, as your eyes are not good enough to tell the difference!!!

A Stradavarius in a 6 year old's hands would sound horrid, but in Maxim Vengerov's hands it would sing. Give him a $1000 intermediate violin and it would not sound as sweet as the Stradavarius. But ultimately it is the artist, not the equipment.

Colorblinded wrote in post #18137755
Fair enough.

Threads like this always make me laugh though, most folks approach topics like this carrying far too narrow a viewpoint on the world.

Everyone can continue to pick out specific scenarios, attempt to apply their own particular photographic needs to others, base "fact" off of their anecdotal evidence, but the fact of the matter is there's a huge range. There are well loved photographers who were technical masters and those who weren't. The capabilities of today's cameras don't mean using the right materials and methods couldn't allow someone in the past to produce images of incredible technical quality.

Composition and lighting are vitally important, being in the right place at the right time can make or break the shot. Having the right piece of hardware to accomplish your task can make it easier, or in some cases be the difference between impossible or possible. End of the day, they're all pieces of the puzzle and each photographer has to balance what's important to them.

Are some people too focused on gear? Sure, but don't discount the importance of having the right tool for the job, or wanting better tools, because of that.

Right, and most folks aren’t discounting what can be done with the most modern of gear; that’s not the “range” typically dismissed in these threads, whether objectively or subjectively. We get it; a pinhole isn’t going to catch the proverbial bullet piercing the apple.

Consequently, depending on personal needs and style of the individual, “older” gear can be just as effective; again, not for everyone by any means, but certainly for more than zero. That is, all it takes is one anecdotal opinion favoring older gear to prove its current relevancy.

Moreover, this defense does not, within itself, negate the value that some folks might find in needing or benefitting from the latest technology at hand.

It’s when the majority assumes an absolutist position that things become risible, as is when someone suggests that improvement in art is somehow codependent on improvements in technology.

Of course being at the right place and time can be crucial—luck can never be overestimated; but as with anything, including the gear used, all of that falters if the aesthetic components (composition, lighting, etc.) do not come into play (unless the subject matter alone carries the photo, i.e., the Second Coming, aliens, and such).

Plus, you’ve got to know that you are actually ‘at the right time and place,’ and no, this isn’t always obvious…that’s where developing vision comes in.

The fact of the matter is that there is a sizable chunk of capitalistic concern within the photographic world that assiduously promotes the new far more so than the old.

And for newcomers, the weight placed on the latest and greatest is potentially disproportionate to its true value should the newcomer’s styles and needs require no more than a point-and-shoot, entry level DSLR, of the camera on their phone.

Digital’s pixel-peep phenomenon has fueled hyper-compulsive concern over sharpness and noise to unprecedented levels (as such concern is not new), placing inflated importance on technology. This combined with digital's rapid progression, as opposed to a camera body that was on the market for ten or more years, has added to this obsessive focus.

In light of this, there’s nothing wrong with a reminder that great photography 100 years ago taken with 100-year-old photographic technology is still great photography.

chauncey wrote in post #18137648
I never saw a photographer that didn't examine a print close up before backing up . . .

And for some of us that habit extends to paintings. Maybe we do take a look at the whole work but those details seems to act like a magnet.

For me, though, imperfect details do not detract from the overall impact of a photo or painting but rather enhance it. A photo artist who used a crude old digital to produce a masterwork that at three-inch view is sadly pixilated only rises in my estimation.

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.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

If you're equipment dampens the message that your trying to convey, then surely you need better equipment.

Here's another analogy. Let's say your best friend was on an expedition to the Amazon rainforest. He calls you from a small village to tell you all about it. Unfortunately, the phone lines are so bad, you can only make out every second word. Frustrated, you hang up. He may have had the story of a lifetime, but the technology didn't allow the message to be conveyed.

Another friend just returned from a trip to an all-inclusive resort. He calls you from his house just down the street and proceeds to bore you with tales of how he lay by the poolside drinking tequilas the whole time. The line was crystal clear, but the message did not invoke much of an emotional response.

So what we need to do as photographers is to have an interesting message to tell, with enough technology that it will sufficiently communicate that message. For me, any DSLR released in the past 10 years can do that.