“Its like asking Hemingway what typewriter he used”
Posted by Colin | Filed under Uncategorized
I’ve seen this analogy used by numerous photographers when someone has the audacity to ask them what camera they use. Of course the photographer is implying that its not the tool that brings us these amazing pictures, its the artist. Taking this even further I recently read a blog where the photographer actually says that he get the same results whether using his G9 or his 1DSmk3. Here is a quote:
The one thing I do know is that if I shoot with a 4×5, a medium format film camera, a point-n-shoot digital or film camera, or a high end DSLR that my photos still end up all looking the same. I have not yet found a camera that improves my photography!!
I have one simple question, then:
-
Why use anything other than your point-n-shoot?
If a better camera does not improve your shots then why invest the money time and effort in lugging around anything that is bigger than pocket-sized? Doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.
Of course these people continue to use their DSLR’s, and their medium format cameras and their nice lenses. Obviously they do in fact get something out of a better camera that a mere point-n-shoot does not offer.
Where am I going with this?
Well, I guess its just that I think that the Hemingway analogy is seriously flawed. It does not hold up. I am not, however, saying that its all about the camera. I agree that a huge proportion of a final image is solely due to the photographer themselves, however the ability to translate the vision of the photographer to pixels/film is directly related to the technology used. Some technology just cannot satisfy some requirements and failing to recognize this is naive, disingenuous and misleading. Its also, I think, self-back-patting gone a bit too far.
But what do YOU think?
May 9th, 2009 at 6:36 am
Great point. I find that every camera has a unique set of characteristics that either help or hinder the photographer depending on his/her objectives. For example, if my goal is to capture a soccer goalie making the big save I’m not gonna bring a 4×5 camera. I’ll bring a Canon EOS 1D Mark II N or something of that variety. Whereas if my goal is to create something surreal and artistic I might bring out a Holga. I’ll select the right tool for the job.
I once heard an analogy that is a bit more applicable…
‘For a photographer, cameras and lenses are like paint, brushes and canvas to a painter. Would anyone have asked Picasso to paint his masterpieces with only one type of brush or paint?”
Tools matter, artistic vision matters more.
May 9th, 2009 at 10:11 am
You’re right, that is a much better analogy.
I’ve had people say things like “I’d take the same pictures as you if I had that camera”. It’s very tempting to bust out the ‘The Hemingway’ to prove a point. It can be effective even though its flawed.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I’ve encountered both trains of thought in the world and Jesse’s point is certainly closer to the truth than Hemingway. Many folks nowadays have point and shoots as their frame of reference and don’t even consider the concepts of intentional lighting, depth of field or other factors a photographer lives and beathes. While most people of these folks would encounter a learning curve and be forced to eat their words should they actually try, most of todays high end cameras can in fact be used for their basic purpose with little skill. On a picture for picture basis, sometimes anyone can take an amazing shot. Its creativity, repeatability and the knowledge to create on demand in adverse conditions that seperate the ‘photographer’ from the ‘prosumer’. There is never a substitute for knowledge, but knowledge isn’t always one of the thousand words a picture says.
While it still gives me a ping when folks look at my work and say ‘oh wow, nice camera’ it remains that I personally partake of this for my own enjoyment rather than for the appropriately attributed adulation, so I grin and bear that aspect of it, comfortable in the fact I - at the very least - have good taste in technology, heh.
Kelly.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
whomever the photographer that said he gets the same shot on either a point and shoot and a higher end camera was, is a jackass. and a liar. and possibly mentally retarded.
obviously better gear helps make better photos but all the great gear in the world can’t help a wonkhead make anything at all. having said that, i’ve personally never upgraded a camera, or lens to better quality and NOT had it improve my work.
the math is simple from my perspective. The higher the quality, the greater the options. just the difference in tonal range from a decent slr over a point and shoot would justify using the slr, not to mention the myriad of other advantages.
me thnks the guy who said that likely is correct, his shit all looks like it came from a cheap point and shoot no matter what camera you give him
June 10th, 2009 at 8:24 am
HAHA - love the last sentence. Probably quite true, Ruzz.