To much focus on kit and not enough on 'seeing'?

Reading some of the threads on this forum you could be forgiven for thinking that many dSLR owners seem to think that expensive camera and lens = great photographs. There seems to me to be a general concern with 'shapness' as though that made the photograph. OK, if you are taking 'technical' or 'scientific' shots then of course the image that you make should be as accurate a reproduction of reality as you and your equipment can make but for making good photographs, pictures that evoke an emotional response, that you would look at for pleasure, hang on the wall , I contend that the price of the equipment used has very little to do with it. I note a large amount of concerns that people may have bought the 'wrong' camera, as if a more expensive one or one from another manufacturer would be 'better'. Likewise a large number of people who are amazed that their new dSLR is not taking making photographs that are any 'better' than their P&S.
Does this surprise anybody else or is it just me?
Taking good pictures is actually to do with 'seeing' , and has little to do with equipment or even location. A good photographer will make a good photograph virtually anywhere and with any equipment. Learning to do this is a slow process requiring lots and lots of practice, reading, looking at other photographs and trying analyse and understand what makes them so good.

Hit the nail on the head.
This is what its all about!!!

Yes we have at least one thread on this topic a week. We get it, buying gear won't make you a great photog. Doesn't mean good gear won't make good pictures better, and that's why we buy it. You could have got something much cheaper than a 30D and 400L, but you didn't because the better tools make your images better. Denying this is ridiculous and criticizing people for lusting after great gear is not only inane, it's boring and cliché.

Yes, Yes, Yes. (Says someone with a stack of equipment). It's not the equipment that makes the photo, it is the grey spongey thing just behind the camera.

So you can't be a photographer and a gear head?

To the OP. I think that it is more complicated than that.

You can have artistic photographers with less technical knowledge and technical photographers with less artistic knowledge and many other combinations. Most (but not all) gear collectors will fall into the technical area. To some photographers the camera and lens are a tool, to others they are coooool toys used to take photos with.

I'll give you a 40D with a body cap as a pinhole camera and 40D and a MP-E65. You can still see the macro shot you want to achieve but there is no way the two setups will produce the same image from a technical point of view. You will still end up with two artistic images though. I realise that this is a example not all will think applies but I wanted to pick a particular example where the equipment can make a difference. There are probably many examples that can this and the other side of the argument.

This type of discussion can quickly degenerate into a shouting match, as I've seen here before. So I'll now sit back and grab the popcorn and watch.

Gearhead AND photographer who needs his gear and his brain.

Ken Rockwell has lots to say on the topic. Well worth a read.

I totally agree with iamaelephant and Greg C. Having good equipment is crucial to creating some certain pictures. Certainly many folks have created amazing photos with much less however having better gear can let you focus on "seeing" more and relying on equipment issues and go-arounds less.

I have at times found myself too involved in looking at new gear. Then the next week I'll be too focused on my PP. Then the next week I'll be too focused on my lighting techniques. Then the next week I'll be too focused on my website. This goes on and on and sometimes I have to remind myself to just look through the viewfinder.

I don't have the best gear by any means but I still find some of my photos amazing. That's all that matters right?

Obsession with L lenses, endless discussions of merits of shooting APS-C with a certain FL vs. using FF camera with same lens, discussions of dogmatic 'shoot to the right', pixel peeping, endless 'which body is noisier'...all are indicative of the deterioration of photography as a qualitative art form and craft to photography as a quantitative pursuit, brought on by the evolution to the digital realm and the heavy reliance on computers. But then again, you are posting in the 'Gear Head Forum' after all!

Example 1:

A fine furniture maker can make excellent furniture starting with maybe a pull-saw and some scrapers.

But it sure does take a long time.

Having learned how to use simple tools, however, the fine furniture maker can be more efficient with good tools. In fact, I know very few fine furniture makers who don't revere their tools.

It's only those who don't have those skills who buy the tools, get mediocre results, and then complain that true art should not be about the tools.

Next example:

I play tuba. I'm fortunate to know many world-class tuba players. When they run into a instrument that makes it fractionally easier for them to attain that sound they have in their heads, they buy it. It's a tool of their trade and they don't give it a second thought, even if the cost of it does cause considerable short-term pain.

It's the amateurs who talk about how top pros can make anything sound good (true) and that it's about the player and not the instrument.

Finally:

The top photographers buy high-end equipment (or the highest-end they can afford) and don't give it a second thought. It's a tool of the trade, and good tools make the trade easier, leaving them more brain cells to devote to their subject. All the top pros I know are happy to talk about their equipment, and many approach their equipment with the same child-like glee as any of us. Look at how Ansel Adams talked about his Hasselblad in the bio made of him by FilmAmerica in 1980--there was obvious pride of possession. Even so, I don't know any of the top photographers who confuse the relative importance of 1. having good equipment, and 2. knowing what to do with it. Some may advocate teaching their students to make effective photos with a Holga, but that is an exercise for trainees. Few of them would do that themselves, unless they wanted the Holga effect for a particular photo.

It's the amateurs like many of us who get muddled results from our high-end cameras, and then blame the cameras for not delivering the goods. We become anti-high-end-camera snobs. I hardly ever see that trait among the real top pros.

Yes, artistic vision is important. But nearly every true artist I've met in my life has maintained extreme respect for and appreciation of quality tools. But they never lose the perspective that they are just tools.

I've made many bad and a few good photos from cameras ranging from ex-Soviet and far-eastern junque to West Germany's and Japan's finest. I have high reverence for the stuff that delivers the goods, and have been known to sit and look at it at length trying to get into the head of the guy who designed and made it to such high standards. One thing, though: I remove the price tag before making that observation. Sometimes it's the inexpensive stuff that delivers the goods.

There's a limit to what you can write in words about "seeing". What's the Steve Martin quote? Talking about music is like dancing about architecture. But there's no end to the availability of words to describe kit. Thus, any forum where the mode of communication is language will necessarily focus on kit. There is nothing wrong with this.

Rick "who doesn't see as well as he wishes" Denney

Thank for that nugget OP...

All I can say is...heeeeeeere we go again.

I'm a hundred miles from home and I walk into the arenas each weekend with the best equipment I can afford.

I don't have to worry over the gear, just concentrate on getting the money shots.

It is dirty, dusty, and sometimes a bit dangerous. The only thing tougher would be a Wedding.

Equipment does make a difference in my game.

I think Rick "who doesn't see as well as he wishes" Denney hit the nail in this coffin! Well said. WELL SAID!

Wilt wrote in post #5784366
Obsession with L lenses, endless discussions of merits of shooting APS-C with a certain FL vs. using FF camera with same lens, discussions of dogmatic 'shoot to the right', pixel peeping, endless 'which body is noisier'...all are indicative of the deterioration of photography as a qualitative art form and craft to photography as a quantitative pursuit, brought on by the evolution to the digital realm and the heavy reliance on computers....

Don't look at the past through rose-colored glasses. There were as many gear-head discussions and arguments in the old days as now, but without the Internet to make them widespread and public. I've seen real arguments over such religious topics as Tri-X vs. HP-5, roll film vs. sheet film, large format vs. small format, thick emulsions vs. thin emulsions, primes vs. zooms, dilution of stop bath, transparencies vs. color negatives, color vs. black and white, Manfrotto vs. Gitzo, Nikon vs. Canon, Leica vs. Zeiss, and on and on and on. People pored over photos of test charts as much in the old days as they do now.

Rick "who, as a Canon F-1 user, remembers the disdain of Nikon owners of decades past" Denney

ChrisSearle wrote in post #5780914
There seems to me to be a general concern with 'shapness' as though that made the photograph.

I may be wrong, but I think a large number of comments on sharpness are due to something being sharp in the image, but not the stuff that should be. Others relate to obvious flaws, such as camera movement or just plain out of focus. In all my years of photography, I had only one person tell me I needed a better lens and that wasn't on this site.