Camera or Photographer?

[mountainpete]

I thought this was an interesting read and perspective...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

I would love to hear what some of our professionals out there think.

Pete

[Dirty Harry]

Wow, that is a long rant to state something that is pretty obvious. Just as you don't need a rooftop tent and a freezer/fridge to explore the backcountry, you don't need a full frame sensor and pro glass to take good photos.

[mountainpete]

Wow, that is a long rant to state something that is pretty obvious. Just as you don't need a rooftop tent and a freezer/fridge to explore the backcountry, you don't need a full frame sensor and pro glass to take good photos.


Amen. I was trying to be neutral on the first post, but I have to agree - heck of a rant.

Edit: You do need a fridge for Baja. That has already been established. :p

[goodtimes]

Edit: You do need a fridge for Baja. That has already been established. :p
Actually, no. I believe the original statement was along the lines of "With a fridge and a stock tacoma TRD, you can go about anywhere in Baja". This certainly does not imply that a stock tacoma, nor a fridge is required...just that with the previously mentioned equipment, Baja is a surmountable destination.

I have been to Baja on several occasions with neither a tacoma nor a fridge, and had no problems.

[efuentes]

You can even downsize, and WALK baja, taking mental pictures while you´re at it ... :rolleyes:

[Digital Nomad]

Sorry, I couldn't read a rant that long... that writer needs to know how to get to the point.

I teach photographers Photoshop all the time and am amazed how how ****ty of shots people come up with who have the best gear... 1Ds MarkII's with great class... but the photo isn't worth printing. Then they want to work in 16-bit with ProPhoto RGB and everything else that has the potential of producing higher quality when they really need to learn how to create a good composition and to find compelling subject matter (and lean how to get the proper exposure).

Having said that... if you are a good shooter, having better glass, and great Photoshop technique can elevate your images to a higher level... but you'd still have great images if you shooting film with a camera made in the 60's.

Lately I've been posting at least one shot a day on my blog at www.WhereIsBen.com I don't claim to be the greatest photographer in the world, but I've been happy with many of the shots I've been getting lately.

[mountainpete]

Actually, no. I believe the original statement was along the lines of "With a fridge and a stock tacoma TRD, you can go about anywhere in Baja". This certainly does not imply that a stock tacoma, nor a fridge is required...just that with the previously mentioned equipment, Baja is a surmountable destination.

I have been to Baja on several occasions with neither a tacoma nor a fridge, and had no problems.

It was a joke guys... check out the quotes thread for the original.

[tdesanto]

I thought this was an interesting read and perspective...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

I would love to hear what some of our professionals out there think.

Pete

I think the answer should be pretty obvious. Mountainpete, thanks for pointing it out though as a friendly reminder that the tool can help, but it's the artist or the person behind the tool that decides what to do with it.

Also, if it isn't obvious already, I would recommend taking just about anything that Ken Rockwell says with a grain of salt...drink plenty of water too.

[haven]

I think good photography is one of those "man, moment, machine" things. You've got to know something about photography, you've got to be there at the right moment, and you've got to have functional gear.

My partner had one of those moments in the Sierra foothills north of Bishop a few years ago. The aspens were at their peak color, the light was just right, Marian was willing to walk to find the right angle (I stayed in the truck), and she had a 3 MP Sony point and shoot in her pocket. The result was a series of great photos, one if which is now part of the Griffith Park Observatory's permanent exhibit to illustrate the changing seasons.

Chip Haven

[goodtimes]

It was a joke guys... check out the quotes thread for the original.

Yes, so was my post. Maybe I shoulda included a monkey gittin jiggy? :shakin:

I started a rather long, almost rant~ish post responding to several statements Ken Rockwell made, but thought better of it. I'll give you the short version:

I do not entirely agree with him. Sure, the mind behind the camera is the absolute, most important piece of gear when it comes to good quality photographs. But to say that the gear has no impact on quality is just foolish.

Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image.
If this were true, we would all be running around with oatmeal containers turned into pin-hole cameras.

There is no substitute for "the eye", but having the "right" gear is vital. For 99% of consumers, a low end point and shoot is satisfactory. But to say you can capture the same image quality with that as you can a 5d, is crazy.

[Scott Brady]

I have seen the power of the creative eye myself, both with Chris's shots and Stephanie's. They are both very creative and have a superior eye to detail and composition.

I am fair at detail and pretty good at composition and lighting but they take images to the next level because of their "view" of things.

I will also say, without question that good glass and low sensor noise is also critical to taking good pictures. The Canon L glass can make good images incredible.

[Scott Brady]

I must say that these two quotes are fundamentally flawed and discount durability and reliability of pro gear.



Don't presume the most expensive gear is the best. Having too much camera equipment is the best way to get the worst photos.

The more expensive cameras and lenses don't do much of anything significant for the huge increases in price.


Stick him and that $150 camera in the middle of the Arctic or the Sahara and see how he fairs ;)

I have always said that the photographer takes the great image, not the camera, but if you are in the business (or hobby) of taking great images, why would you use inferior equipment? It would be like taking a trip down the east coast of Baja in the middle of summer with a Chevy Barretta... The results are not going to be pretty :shakin:

[TeleScooby]

The (removed brand to make a point) camera can make good images incredible.

You hit it right there Scott. The mind and eye are what make the photo compositionally great...but shooting it with a kodak instamatic vs a 1D is what makes the image great.

It's a matter of a quality image vs image quality...if it's a quality image, the image quality matters alot less, but still matters.

[kcowyo]

While I appreciate a nonsensical rant as much as (more than?) anyone, where does luck factor into the equation?

I can't tell you how many frames I've shot of some place or object, from various angles, during different lighting scenarios, trying for that really unique shot, which didn't pan out only to see the one photo I snapped almost as an afterthought, that really turned out well.

And something should be said for perseverance or repitition too. I've noticed over the years that when I'm on a trip, my first days photos don't seem to turn out as well as the last days. Seems like I get a better feel or sense for what will turn out like I'm seeing it, after getting "warmed up" for a day or two.

[dan chain]

i would say a good majority of it is who is behind the lens. i was reading a photography magazine recently and there was an interview with a guy who has a lot of work in national geographic and for all of his super close shots of insects he actually just uses a slim point and shoot camera because an slr is just to big and bulky for alot of his type of work. kinda interesting that a 250 camera has produced images featured in national geographic.

[Scott Brady]

I don't think what he's saying is necessarily wrong.

For this crowd I think he is. Just my opinion of course.

Three days in the Sahara and he would be a "pro" gear convert...

[bigreen505]

Hopefully I won't come across as too arrogant here, so apologies in advance if I do. There is a lot being tossed around here, and a lot of it unintentionally paints a picture that is not totally true.


I thought this was an interesting read and perspective...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

I would love to hear what some of our professionals out there think.

Pete

What do I think? I think Ken Rockwell is an idiot and I can't believe I am actually responding to a thread about one of his rants. Read between the lines, much of the gear that he "tests" he has never even seen in person, let alone used for any period of time. Consider yourself warned, but life is too short to listen to his drivel.

I'm not going to read the article, but I have a pretty good idea what it says. Bottom line, the equipment does not make the photographer, but expensive gear is expensive for a reason. Admittedly, sometimes the reason is only that people will pay for it because it is rare.


I think good photography is one of those "man, moment, machine" things. You've got to know something about photography, you've got to be there at the right moment, and you've got to have functional gear.



While I appreciate a nonsensical rant as much as (more than?) anyone, where does luck factor into the equation?

I learned how true this was shooting a ski race in 2000 or 2001. When one racer went through the gate it exploded and I happened to get the shot with the racer and the pieces of the exploding slalom pole in the frame. Three photographers all in about the same place, shooting the same turn with roughly the same gear (i.e. equipment wasn't really the deciding factor), yet for whatever reason, I was the only one who got the shot. Speaking in milliseconds, we all hit the button at different times and my camera/drive happened to have the shutter open at the right time. No skill, just luck.



I have seen the power of the creative eye myself, both with Chris's shots and Stephanie's. They are both very creative and have a superior eye to detail and composition.


I am fair at detail and pretty good at composition and lighting but they take images to the next level because of their "view" of things.


Yeah, I agree with the first point, but you sir are no slouch.



The Canon L glass can make good images incredible.

Canon L glass, for the most part is good, but with a couple notable exceptions it is far from exceptional, but that is only my opinion. Each lens has a particular "fingerprint," the way it draws the image, the way it sees the world. While I will never say Canon is bad, I think a lot of other lenses draw the world much nicer.

It is also important to understand why pro-level gear is so expensive and what you gain from it over consumer level gear. First and most obvious, as Scott pointed out, is build quality and lens quality control. I'm sure several of you have heard my tornado story, but let's just say Canon L gear is pretty durable. I can elaborate if anyone cares.

Next, pro photographers often like to use selective focus, which means wide apertures. Lenses handle light like a hose handles water. The difference in the quantity of light going through a f1.4 lens and f4 lens is akin to comparing the amount of water flowing through a fire hose and a garden hose. And just like with the hose, it is much harder and more expensive to design, engineer and manufacturer than a f4 lens because there is 3x more light flowing through it. Also, pro zoom lenses tend to be constant aperture for many reasons, but again, that is much harder and more expensive to design, engineer and manufacture than a variable aperture lens.

Does that make the pro lens better? To the pro it does, but to the amateur who wants everything in focus and always shoots at f8, it is a waste of money. As a point of note, with the exception of Zeiss lenses that are optimized for smaller apertures (f8 and smaller) most pro lenses are optimized for close to wide open use. Most pro lenses are sharpest stopped down only one-half to one stop from wide open. Most consumer lenses are best around f8. When you buy a Leica 80/1.4 or 200/2, Canon 85/1.2 or 200/1.8, Nikon 80/1.4 or 200/2 for one purpose only and that is because of the way it "draws" wide open. Not because of any other quality.




I have always said that the photographer takes the great image, not the camera, but if you are in the business (or hobby) of taking great images, why would you use inferior equipment?

Inferior is relative. Granted there are some lenses that have no reason for existing beyond looking good in marketing materials, but many lenses have positive attributes beyond the obvious, whether it is light weight, low diffraction, etc. Quite often I would take a 10D with a few consumer level primes over a pro-body and L-zooms because of the lower weight of the consumer gear, and the difference in image quality stopped down to f8-f16 was pretty minimal and I could cover it with slight curves and local contrast enhancement. The difference in weight was around 15 lb. and I could move a lot faster.


I don't think what he's saying is necessarily wrong. If you compare lenses purely on optical characteristics, the pro lenses don't always stand out as clear winners. Galen Rowell often used consumer lenses primarily because they were light and small and gave fine results. When you weigh build quality, there's obviously no comparison.



While true, that may be a slightly misleading statement taken out of context. To clarify, Galen was an absolute gear fanatic, but he was fanatic about finding very lightweight equipment that was reasonably durable when not exposed to harsh conditions and performed well stopped down to f11 or f16. Low weight was generally a higher priority than high image quality, but when he had an advertising shoot, he took cases upon cases of pro-level Nikon gear. 35 mm gear defined his style, and his images would be very different shot with 4x5, and in many instances non-existent.



But just because the lens costs $1500 does not mean it's the best lens. Naturally by virtue of the fact that a design is not cost constrained you will typically end up with awesome glass, but that is not always the case. The Nikkor 20-35 f/2.8 is a pro lens that consumer level lenses like the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 will out perform optically. The 18-35 will last about 2 weeks in photojournalist use, but is a pretty good lens otherwise.

I don't think you are fully qualified to make that statement until you have used the 20-35/2.8 on a D2x. Let's just say it is truly spectacular and not in a good way. I consider myself pretty skilled in basic post processing and that was a mess far beyond my ability to clean up without spending hours on each image. Really, you have to try it. Aperture is irrelevant.

< end rant >

[\\'anderer]

"An artist is only as good as his tools; but good tools will not make an artist."


:REOutArchery02:

[Dirty Harry]

In my experience pro gear doesn't make better photos, but it allows you to take better photos. When I first got my 1DS, the photos were not as good as my point-and-shoot G5! I was very disappointed and wondered if I had made an expensive mistake. Now, however, I only use the point-and-shoot for tech photos and even then I cannot always get the effect that I want. The controls you have with pro gear allow a whole lot more creativity. I guess a 4WD analogy would be that a point-and-shoot is like a new FJ Cruiser with A-Trac and stability control that does a good job of getting you through the trail. Pro gear is like a rock buggy with cutting brakes, selectable lockers, twin sticks, and winches to the suspension front and rear. If you know what you are doing you can go a lot further, but if you don't you can end up in trouble or looking silly.

[Michael Slade]

Harry, I'm going to add you and Ben to my links on my blog.

Nice pages both of you. Interesting that there are a lot of pro shooters in this forum.

FWIW I'll take a POS cell-phone camera that I have in my pocket over a Canon Mark 17xz4 sitting at home any day.

IOW it is the brain inside the head of the photographer that is your most important asset. Anything else is just technology that helps you execute your vision.

I'll shuddup now...

[bigreen505]

Harry, I'm going to add you and Ben to my links on my blog.

Ben's books and seminars are worth checking out. His teachings have been helping me since PS 5.

[Desertdude]

FWIW I'll take a POS cell-phone camera that I have in my pocket over a Canon Mark 17xz4 sitting at home any day.

Nice shot of the Brute (http://www.tawayama.com/05portfolio/locationwebportfolio/pages/aevbrute.htm)

Cell-phone camera shot? ;)



::

[Michael Slade]

Nice shot of the Brute (http://www.tawayama.com/05portfolio/locationwebportfolio/pages/aevbrute.htm)

Cell-phone camera shot? ;)
::

Nope, that's pen and ink on a masonite backing board covered with gouache.

:)

AEV actually liked it too. ARB paid me for that shoot in Oregon. Was a fun job.

[Desertdude]

Nope, that's pen and ink on a masonite backing board covered with gouache.:)



:D :D :D

[goodtimes]

In my experience pro gear doesn't make better photos, but it allows you to take better photos.

That is a great way to put it! :)

[Dirty Harry]

Harry, I'm going to add you and Ben to my links on my blog.

Thanks for the compliments! Other photographers are usually the hardest people to please so I certainly appreciate it.

And to echo what has already been said, your photos are great! I particularly liked the long exposure at the airport entrace with the tail lights.

[Michael Slade]

Thanks for the compliments! Other photographers are usually the hardest people to please so I certainly appreciate it.

'Tis true.

I like the idea of the 'off-road-adventure-vehicle-modification-do-crazy-stuff-in-the-wilderness-photographers' knowing who each other are.

In the 'commercial realm' of photography we're actually not that common.

In the 'having-fun-making-sweet-pics-out-in-the-sticks-where-others-normally-don't-think-of-going' realm of photography we tend to blend right in with everyone else out there making images.

It's all good.

[sinuhexavier]

Coming in a little late, but I firmly believe it's the eye behind the camera. Here are some links to guys shooting stuff on sub $50 cameras...



http://flickr.com/photos/eyetwist/sets/1193062/

http://flickr.com/photos/lomokev/sets/72394/


Terry has shot entire shoots with disposable cameras...
http://terryrichardson.com/Start.html

Brantley shoots with nothing but vintage cameras and old expired film...
http://rootedphoto.com/flash_home.htm

[bigreen505]

Not to take the thread in a different direction, but I think in many cases the level of equipment defines the picture. Three examples that come to mind are the Holga, Mark Tucker's (?) plunger cam, and William Corey's 8x20. Yes it is all about the vision, I know, but those three cameras each force a style.

I expect most people are familiar with the Holga, an odd plastic Russian 120 with a fixed aperture and shutter speed of f8 and 1/100. The Plungercam was a Hasselblad with a toilet plunger glued between the lens and mount -- basically the original Lens Baby. William Corey's camera is a mostly home kluged 8" x 20" large format camera shooting through an old copy lens permanently set at f128 and he usually uses a shutter speed of around 30 min. Corey doesn't have any people in his photos because he simply closes the shutter, waits for the people to leave, and opens it again. He uses scotch tape to connect two sheets of 8x10 film and only takes one exposure of a particular scene -- often after spending weeks studying and sketching the scene.

When I first met Corey I was still shooting primarily sports and I found my 8 fps camera unacceptably slow. I'm still shooting 35 mm format as much as I drool over the 4x5 chromes that many of my colleagues shoot, but I think my Leica DMR is about as slow as I can stomach at the moment.

Thoughts?

[goodtimes]

Not to take the thread in a different direction, but I think in many cases the level of equipment defines the picture.

I really don't think it is one of the other (camera or photographer). I think the truely great photos we see are the result of a uncommon mix of the right vision, the right gear to capture that vision, and the technical knowledge of how to use that gear to get the result you envision.

Your vision might be best demonstrated with the use of a pinhole camera made from a oatmeal canister and a piece of tin foil....or it might be best demonstrated with the ungodly Hasselblad 39 mp beast that costs more than most peoples cars....but I think they (vision and gear) gotta match for the magic to happen. In many cases, I think having gear better suited for the situation would indeed provide better results. It could be a simple matter of having a longer (or shorter) focal length, a different filter, a lens that was sealed properly to keep that bull dust out (because that caused focusing problems for the rest of the trip, making you miss shots you would have otherwise gotton), etc.

So, yea. I agree to a point...the right gear is certainly can be major factor in the final result.

[Dirty Harry]

I expect most people are familiar with the Holga, an odd plastic Russian 120 with a fixed aperture and shutter speed of f8 and 1/100. The Plungercam was a Hasselblad with a toilet plunger glued between the lens and mount -- basically the original Lens Baby. William Corey's camera is a mostly home kluged 8" x 20" large format camera shooting through an old copy lens permanently set at f128 and he usually uses a shutter speed of around 30 min. Corey doesn't have any people in his photos because he simply closes the shutter, waits for the people to leave, and opens it again. He uses scotch tape to connect two sheets of 8x10 film and only takes one exposure of a particular scene -- often after spending weeks studying and sketching the scene.

I think what this does, particularly in Corey's case, is contrast people that are always in a hurry. I have always heard that you should set up your shots with a tripod, if for nothing else, to force you to slow down. Too many photographers (myself included) just snap photos without giving enough thought to composition, lighting, etc. Can't really do that with a half an hour exposure! I envy his patience and feel guilty that I do not spend more time hiking to the perfect spot or waiting for dusk to get the best light to create stunning images.

[bajasurf]

Here is a site with photos taken with a camera phone and a spotting scope:www.phonescoping.com. However these photos were taken in 2004 and of course the phones have improved considerably since. In fact, digiscoping(using a digital camera and spotting scope) has become a favorite among wildlife photographers especially birders.

[Michael Slade]

Harry...my advice is that you ought to get a tripod and use it. For the very reason that you have heard about. It is true that when you use a tripod you are forced to make a lot of decisions that you wouldn't make when hand-holding.

The compositional decisions you are forced to make when using a tripod will benefit you later when you are shooting hand-held. Try it, you'll like the results I promise.

Here's a shot I did last summer with my 12x20 view camera. Yes, that's 12 inches tall by 20 inches wide. Not for the backpacking crowd (although there are a couple who do pack them).

I like to carry it in my 4wd camera case (that's what I have always called my vehicles).

It's from the top of the Teton Dam in Rexburg, Idaho. This is the dam that failed on June 5th, 1976.

This shot is looking upriver at dusk.

http://www.tawayama.com/blog/tetondam12x20copyshot.jpg

The lens is from 1880's Germany, and doesn't *quite* cover the 12x20 format, so there is some vignetting in the corners.

[Dirty Harry]

Harry...my advice is that you ought to get a tripod and use it. For the very reason that you have heard about. It is true that when you use a tripod you are forced to make a lot of decisions that you wouldn't make when hand-holding.

I have one that I leave in my 4Runner and use for landscape and nature photographs, but the bulk of my shots are taken on the trail when I just don't have the time to set up a tripod.

I did mess around with sequences and stitching together photos using the tripod at Twisted Customs shop a few weeks ago. I definitely see the value of the tripod for stuff like this.

http://thedoubleduke.com/pics/misc/jumper.gif

[bajasurf]

If you visit KenRockwell.com and once at his home page click on "what's new" and then scroll down to 27,July2007 and click on "Wilson Tsoi". This really is a case for the "photographer and not the camera" See what this photographer can do with an $200 point and shoot Canon A620. Amazing!!!

[Christian P.]

so here's a question for all the pros out there..

:)

let's say you have a budget of about $1500 for a digital camera and want something a bit more professional for an upcoming trip to South Africa (I currently have a Canon A95 with almost no zoom), which equipment would you suggest?

thanks

Christian