Aren't you tired of that old cliche?
People always say this especially when some people are talking about a new/upcoming camera.
If all photographers in the days of very large boxy cameras have that philosophy, we won't have digital sensors, autofocus, compact bodies, low-noise film, accurate shutters, accurate light meters today, right?
It's not the camera, it's the photographer?
Why not both?
I mean, however great a photographer you are, you can't shoot a sports event with that plain ole pinhole box camera with manual focus right?
What do you think of that cliche? And however great a photographer you are, you can't make a crap glass take sharp pictures like a pro-grade one, right? The cliche accurately describes the situation.
The advanced cameras we have today aren't better because the do something wonderfully new, their popularity is because they are more convenient. Look back over history of photography and you will find that images that are excellent today were excellent when they were taken and will be excellent in the future.
Certainly, photographers are limited by their equipment, but that is true for all things and in all fields. The truth is that the technology that many seem to find so awesome is awesome because of it's convenience. There isn't anything in digital that I can't get starting with film. Do I need auto focus? Nope, and in fact use my split screen grid a lot. Do I need auto exposure? Nope, didn't have it with my old Leica. As far as the whiz bang things you can do digitally with photoshop, etc., once I scan in a print or slide, we're on equal footing.
"If all photographers in the days of very large boxy cameras have that philosophy [that it's the photographer, not the camera], we won't have digital sensors, autofocus, compact bodies, low-noise film, accurate shutters, accurate light meters today, right?"
Wrong. All of that comes as a refinement to the technology and photography has always advanced. We would have fine grained film because that is what was wanted. We've had accurate shutters for a long, long time. It's part of the way we get the exposures we want. We've had accurate light meters for decades, the same with TTL metering. Everything you mention comes about from the desire of photographers to make images. Faster films came about because photographers wanted to take pictures under lower light conditions.
Give a good photographer a camera and understanding how it all comes together, they can make great images.
Take the crap piece of glass (lens) that you mention. It will work just fine if the image I'm going to create doesn't require sharpness.
Cover a sporting event with a box camera and fixed focus (they don't have focussing)? Sure. It won't be the same coverage that I would get with my Canon and lenses, but knowing about the camera I can get some good images. I could do some great stuff on the side lines and by getting behind the goal, ditto. Knowing the characteristics of the equipment AND knowing how it's limitations can be used creatively, I will get some good pictures.
Cliche or not, any one can take a picture, but a photographer makes his,or hers. It is the person wielding the camera, not the camera itself that is important. Technology only makes somethings things possible that weren't before, or more convenient, but it doesn't create images.
It's not really a point that can be argued.
Vance I'd have to say it's something like 60/40 photographer to camera. Sure the equipment has to be up to the task at hand, but the photographer has to have the vision, and the tech skills to bring it to life. Photography, especially in the digital age is only 70 percent what happens in the camera. Dear, There is a reverse side to this. You give a highly advanced modern era camera to a photographer who is inadept and unskilled. He will not be able to take perfect photos as you think. So the man and machine both are important. Photography is not a mechanical act. You should have intellect to use the camera in the right way.
kutty I used to model and I realized how important a photographer is over a camera, sadly. Its their, sometimes my, creative thought or reflection. Just like movies directors. Rob Zombie is different than Quentin Taratino, but their equipment is the same. Its very true. After all, all a camera can really do is illustrate whats in front of the shutter, its the photographer's responsibilty to make that shutter special. cameras are a tool, nothing more nothing less,
the cliche exists because put the same camera (good or bad) in an ameteurs hands and you will get amateur results, in a pros hands they will deliver pro results.
However if you dont believe this go buy the most expensive drill you can and start doing your families dental work.
Like any skill it requires skill! funny that.
So i would say its 99% photographer 1% the tool - but thats me I get paid well to make professional images, the average ameteur proberly more camera tham photographer cause they rely on auto
It slave or master: auto or manual, no camera is smarter or more artistic than me
Cameras are tools, its how you use them, if you shot auto you are the slave, if you shot manual you are the master. other tools are lights, flashes, reflectors, et cetera
Sorry but as long as people believe its the camera my future is secure. If people start learning how to use them then I will watch out.
think its just the camera or glass good luck to you keep swimming in the automatic world of retarded photo taking : me im going to bathe in the sweet waters of "making images" and using the tools to do so
a If I show someone a photograph and all they can ask is what kind of camera I used, frankly, I am rather offended. Part of the point of the diversity of my Flickr site is to show decent images made with all sorts of cameras.
There are two edges to this sword.
First of all, _I_ took the picture. First, I took it in my mind and - hopefully - I was able to translate it to image storage (sensor or film) with the camera.
Second of all, I don't want anyone to think, "I could never make nice pictures or anything, because I don't have a thousand dollar camera." These days, anyone would be capable of making decent pictures with almost any camera sold to the general public, if they have the ability to see things correctly.
I won't go on for an hour or anything - which we all could - but you get my point.
I agree with Antoni's statement that the camera is just the tool used by the photographer to make the picture. Thank goodness technology is constantly evolving, though. |
