Do photographers care too much about technicalities?

Cafe Society
1

I enjoy taking photographs. I get great satisfaction when I take a good photograph. I do care about the tools I use to take a photograph.

But, I often wonder if people obsess too much over what their equipment can do for them. I think that the aesthetics of the photo can be sacrificed to technicalities. Reading photography forums and blogs, I am sometimes a little saddened that the photographer’s main interest seems to be focussed, for example, on the degree of chromatic aberration rather than just standing back and thinking, ‘that photo hits the spot’ or ‘no, I messed that one up’. Obviously, if the photo is out of focus, or under- or over-exposed, it’s not going to work. Beyond that level, isn’t it all ever diminishing concerns over minutiae?

I look at equipment review sites, and both the reviewer and the comments try to differentiate between the results from various lenses to an absolutely anal degree. I look, and I look, and perhaps by squinting and using a magnifying glass I might find a minute difference. But, surely, that isn’t what it’s about. Beyond a fairly basic level of competence, you get to a never ending spiral of technical assessments. I’ve been looking at a forum where several cameras are being compared, and I for one can’t see a difference between the photos from them.

But it’s a game: once you start playing, it’s hard to stop. Deciding which camera or lens to buy is quite an investment, and if the only difference is minute, you’re going to have to make your purchasing decision based on that tiny difference. Fair enough. But is your target audience – or are you - going to appreciate, or even see, that difference?

What I can see is that many of the photos may be technically competent, but, my god, they’re so ordinary. Pin sharp focus, maybe, and amazing noise control, but they’re boring. I’d rather see a photo where the depth of field is incorrect, or where it’s a bit fuzzy, but think ‘that’s beautiful’.

I admit that I’ve played the game. I started with a point and shoot compact, liked what I was doing, and thought ‘if I get a better camera, I’ll be a better photographer.’ What I soon learnt was that all my upgrade to a DSLR enabled me to do was to take photos in situations that I couldn’t with my point and shoot. It gave me flexibility. My artistic skills didn’t change one jot. And it’s artistic skills that make you stand out, not how big a lens you’ve got.

Isn’t it?

2

Depends on which crowd you’re trying to impress. For some folks, the size of your Camera Penis™ may be dependent entirely on having one of those white Canon UltraSonic sports lenses or that big red “I Mortgaged My House For This” Leica brand. (Anybody got an extra M6 lying around they want me to take off their hands…?:D)

For others, it’s more how well you followed the “rules” of photography, ie the Rule of Thirds.

And sometimes, folks are thrilled that you got a picture of their kid doing something precious/their room mate doing something stupid/some hot chick in a low-cut top. Some folks just aren’t looking for the same things as others.

Me, it depends. I realized long ago that the overal quality of a photo isn’t dependent on the quality of lens for most folks. Fact is, most folks just aren’t going to push their equipment to its limits. My mom has to be shown how to connect her digital camera to her computer to get the pictures off of it. Hand her a point-and-shoot 35mm though, and she’ll make the pictures dance for you, without thinking about it beyond “It’d make a great picture if I got my two sons walking to the schoolbus.” or “It’d make a great picture if I got my oldest son walking to the taxi on his way to Basic Training” or (well, my mom has a theme that works quite well. Ansel Adams made his name taking pictures of hills:).)

Basically, it’s all about what you get into. I’ve pretty much spent as much money as I’m willing to on my cameras. I’ve got a Canon Rebel XTi, a Pentax Spotmatic (old school wind-up SLR camera, very nice), and a Pentax point-and-shoot digital of some sort (not a bad camera, but I really shouldn’t have bought it.) At this point, mostly, I just need to find the time and motivation to find things to take pictures of again, which I haven’t done enough of lately. It’s almost been more fun for me to acquire cameras I like than it has been to use them. Both of my SLR cameras have a range of lenses for them, the Pentax one mostly older Pentax screwmount lenses that I got with the camera for $200 total, the Canon I’ve got a $100 18-50mm Sigma zoom lens which works quite nice, and a 75-300 USM canon lens that should have cost far more than I got it for) and flashes for both.

Really, I don’t need to spend any more money on camera equipment, possibly ever.:cool:

But am I gonna put down the money for one of them overpriced German cameras if I can afford it one day? Youbetcha.:smack:

3

Although I have had not training in photography, do not use mirror reflex cameras (yet) and shoot on automatic… I still get a lot of positive reactions on my photography. To me it is more about the artistic feeling of a photograph, the composition and the emotions it evokes than all technicalities together.

4

A picture of me appeared in a national publication, not because of any particular accomplshment of mine, but because I was standing in front of truck headlights at dusk and the image looked kind cool.

Just sayin’.

5

Since my OP, I’ve been thinking a bit more about this, and I realise that another thing I try to avoid in my photography is to photograph the obvious. By that I mean that anyone with even the most basic artistic skills can take a photo of, say, a sunset, and everyone will go ‘isn’t that beautiful’. Because sunsets just *are *beautiful. For me, that’s a cop out. I want my results to be good (if they are) because I’ve *worked *on it. But then I’m just a masochist.

6

Some people are fascinated by technical excellence. It’s not a bad thing. Obsessions push progress. But, yeah, the picture of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square is more interesting than an exquisitely sharp, perfectly lit photo of a sailor’s cap.

If I’m shopping for camera equipment, and two lenses are pretty much equal except that one can resolve 10% more lines per inch, then I’ll go with the sharper lens if I can afford it. There could well be a time when I want to enlarge a small portion of a picture and I’ll be happy to have the extra resolution.

Numeric obsessions can overwhelm practicality in a lot of fields: speaker accuracy, muzzle velocity, breast size. I don’t think it’s a huge problem, and can be beneficial (except in the instance of breast size.)

7

I’m not really at all in the photo game (have an OM-1, and am hoping to get a compact digital at some point in the future), but I can say that of course there are many people who focus too much on their equipment.

I am a keyboard player, and let me tell you that musicians can easily spend much more time comparing and debating equipment than they do focusing on their playing. I believe this is because it takes no special skill to be a gear head; it’s an equal-oportunity hobby where the amateur who’s read a lot or has a lot of money can discuss at an equal level with the pro.

8

I’m Johnny, and I’m an equipment fiend.

It all started with a Minolta 440E. I took it everywhere, and snapped loads of pics. Then I decided to move up in the world and bought a Canon AE-1 Program, which I took to Europe with me. I made some good pics with that one. Only it occurred to me that I should get something without the computer, so I picked up an Olympus OM-1. Nice and small, and rugged. But I had Nikon envy. And the Pentax K-1000 is so basic I had to have one. Say, how about an Argus C4? Oh, and since I was getting back into SCUBA I wanted a Nikonos. I have a IV and a V. ANd a box Brownie. And a Nikon EM. And I still have the Minolta 440E.

Let’s not get me started on the 16mm motion picture cameras…

9

I agree that it isn’t really what equipment you have but how you use it. Knowledge of the technicalities is good, but whether you produce good photos or not depends on whether you can apply what you know to getting the results you want.

While I can appreciate the beauty of a good lens (eg. Carl Zeiss on a Hasselblad—wonderfully smooth bokeh and lovely tones), a good picture is ultimately the result of both technical mastery and an artistic ‘eye’ or vision or whatever you want to call it. I think it’s not as important to have the best equipment as knowing how to get the best out of what you have.

10

It is knowing how to get the effect you want with your equipment. A great camera won’t take a picture by itself. Within the constraints of my budget, I’ve always had the attitude that I want the limitation to be my skills/vision not the equipment.

When looking at photos in an exhibit or show, my first thought is if it is a location shot. That is anyone with a decent camera who happened to be there could have taken it. The “rules” aren’t absolute but I do look at a picture that violates them with a more critical eye - did they violate that rule on purpose for effect or would it have been better if the rule were followed.

11

I’m sure there are hoards of artistic photographers out there, but I tend to meet the techy ones, more interested in the camera than the subject.

Kind of like how, have you ever noticed, most people who really love movies don’t give a shit about HDTV (or Blu-Ray DVD), and vice versa?

12

I’ve been taking pictures for more than 35 years, with everything from a pinhole camera to an Argus C3 to a Nikon DSLR. I’m aware of the technicalities, but I’m really a point-and-shoot guy. I don’t take photos for public consumption, other than to share them with friends and co-workers. They think I’m a good photographer, which is somewhat of an ego boost, but that’s not why I take pictures. My goal is to try to capture an image that takes me back to the place and time that I took it. Even an underexposed, out-of-focus picture can do that.

Errol Morris has some interesting thoughts on photography in his NYT blog, Zoom.

13

It’s been my experience that it’s male hobbiest photographers that get all anal about chromic aberations and vinetting and bokeh. They like taking pictures but they also like proving that their choice of equipment is the absolute best and the rest of you suckers can just sit back and drool.

Of course, not all male hobbiest photographers are like that, but the ones that are like that are mostly men.

The professionals I’ve run across don’t worry so much about it. For them it is whether the photo performs as an artistic composition. It has to be about that because that’s their bread and butter. They don’t get paid based on their equipment but whether or not they can get the shot that appeals to the customer.

I do find the anal nitpickers handy when it comes time to buy new equiment, though. Their reviews are helpful when I’m trying to decide on a new body or lens.

14

I agree that too many photographers are transfixed by the minutia of their equipment, and that as we’ve moved from film to digital, this only seems to have gotten worse. Especially now that the type of people who obsess over having the latest electronic gadget have joined the ranks.

That said, my “own line in the sand” is between SLR and non-SLR. I feel you have to have an SLR to move beyond taking “snapshots”. Now, ArtRock above is a great example of someone who knows how to compose pictures. But I can’t help but feel that even already good pictures like this one would benefit from some depth of field control.

15

I fully agree, Galena, and thanks for your remarks. I look forward on taking over my wife’s SLR end of the year when she upgrades hers (now she is a p[rofessional - I am just a hobbyist…).

16

Yeah, and try wading through the online equipment reviews! I recently bought an advanced point and shoot (Canon Powershot G10, for those interested) and you have no idea how many times I changed my mind based on over-researching techie arguments. I went from a Panasonic superzoom to entry level Nikon DSLRs, to entry level Pentax DSLRs to the Fuji superzoom to the Canon Powershot-basically a point and shoot. Why?

  1. The only thing I really read Pioneer Woman for is the photography blog and she has a guest poster who shoots great shots with a Powershot G5.

  2. I didn’t want to invest heavily in expensive lenses and the lens kits you get with most entry level DSLRs aren’t that great.

  3. The powershot allows me manual control over stuff like the shutter speed, ISO, zoom & aperture. I think I need to learn that stuff first (which I am).

  4. Nostalgia and loyalty. I grew up using a film SLR Canon. It was either the AV-1 or the AE-1 Program. My dad bought it on Canal Street in New York City when he came to the US to the first time in 1980. It kicked it in 2003. The Powershot has some retro styling to it and that kind of tugged on my heart strings. I’ll admit that this is kind of what drives me to drool over those Leicas-even though I doubt I’ll ever have the artistic talent to justify buying a Leica.

At the end of the day I decided that I wanted a somewhat advanced point and shoot of decent quality such that I could practice my artistic eye for a few years. Down the road I plan to invest in a really nice Canon DSLR, but for now, this will do.

17

Also, I have no idea whether or not this is a well composed shot or not but I loves it.

18

Getting a better camera won’t make you a better photographer. It might help you get a shot you wouldn’t have been able to get with a lesser camera, and it may also get you a higher quality shot (which is important when you’re dealing with magazine and corporate clients). But it won’t make you a better photographer.

All I ask for my cameras to do is not get in my way when I’m taking pictures. The most important elements in a photo for me are the moment/emotion, lighting, composition. The best camera in the world is not going to help you with that. However, I think a great photo should contain most of the above, along with technical excellence. A technically imperfect photo with a great moment is better than a technically perfect photo with no content, but the goal, for me, is to have all of it in a photo.

Of course, you can use “technical imperfection” to create various effects/moods in your photos. I’m not including purposeful artistic uses of technical imperfection in the statement above.

19

It depends on the photographer. I knew a really brilliant photographer who got a well deserved MFA in photography using a Xerox machine.

20

Hah, yeah, witness the cult popularity of Holga cameras. Plastic bodies, plastic lenses, light leaks galore and absolutely unique photo results.