Thoughts on Galen Rowell's Words

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 Admittedly somewhat out of date, he makes an interesting point--good for use on this forum when people want to know what's better, Canon or Nikon.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

Not just a bit out of date, but the sentiment is completely obsolete on a Digial Photography Fourm.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?

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

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

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

(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.

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.

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

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.

and catch the smile of the morning light...

Sure!

J.
-

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.

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.

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---