man & nature # 155 ~ they're missing the point
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 09:57AM 
Stairway, trees, and The Olympic Arena - Lake Placid, NY • click to embiggenA recently coined photo "true-ism" is making its way around photography blogs / sites as ... well ... some sort of photo wisdom / truth. It goes like this:
ITEM # 1 - Cameras don't take pictures, true; but then, people don't take pictures either. People with cameras take pictures.
Duh. Absolutely brilliant. The powers of observation, logic, and rational deduction involved in coming to this momentous insight stagger the thinking mind. Pure, unadulterated genius at work.
Other geniuses have picked up on this stunning insight and added their own $0.0000000000000002:
ITEM # 2 - Good artists get the best out of their tools. When given better tools, they produce even better work ... [I]’ve heard a lot of pundits say It’s the photographer, not the camera, but I know that’s just baloney. I know that when I’m working with defective or limited tools, I can’t produce my best. Maybe that’s why I’m so fussy about my gear ....
re: ITEM # 1 - People with cameras take pictures. If I were climb up onto the roof of my house in my little town with 4 gigantic amplified horn-stlye speakers and start singing the theme song from the Beverly Hillbillies TV show, there would undoubtedly be a significant number of people within the sound of my voice with cameras who take pictures. Ok. Sure. Of course people use cameras and not, say, toasters, to take pictures. And, in the event that I actually sang from the roof of house, they might actually be taking pictures of me.
But, here's my question - so what? What the hell does that prove re: making good pictures?
Any photo half-wit can buy a camera and take pictures. And, most likely, a whole host of photo half-wits will take pictures that will have meaning / are good for them. For the rest of us, not so much. And, guess what? The camera they use simply doesn't matter. Given any camera the results will essentially be the same ... that is to say, pictures that have little meaning or value to anyone beyond the picture maker's friends and family cellphone network.
Caveat: Once again, let me be perfectly clear - good for them in their picture making endeavors. I'm 100% sincere in saying that I am happy that they are able to take pictures that help give their lives meaning and value. Got it?
However, using that notion to state that the "camera matters" is ludicrous. The primary manner in which the camera matters for most people is as a lifestyle accessory - my camera has 12,000,000,000mp, my camera has 3,000-1 zoom lens, my camera is big and black, my camera has soooo much DR that I can picture black turds coming out of a back-lit black rat's ass on a field of pure-driven snow, my camera takes such sharp pictures that I use them to shave my legs .... etc., etc., ad nauseum.
re: ITEM # 2: I’ve heard a lot of pundits say It’s the photographer, not the camera, but I know that’s just baloney - If there is anyone out there within the sound of my blog who has been pining for a s**t-for-brains baloney sandwich piled a foot high with slices of baloney, your dreams have been answered with that pile of steaming hooey.
Simply put, that statement is utterly and completely contra-indicted by the entire history of the medium of photography. Great photographers have made great pictures for over a century and a half with all kinds of "inferior" tools. That baloney-filled idea could have only been made by someone who follows that statement with, in fact, the one that actually followed it:
Maybe that’s why I’m so fussy about my gear ...
Hey, photo half-wit, listen up - fuss about your gear all you want. If it is not the right gear for the desired result, all you're going to accomplish is to make "state-of-the-mechanical-art" pictures of a fuzzy concept (to paraphrase Saint Ansel) because, since its inception, the history of the medium has demonstrated that it's the people using the camera that really matter.
A camera, including the "best tool" cameras, are totally inanimate machines. Without human intervention, nothing happens. They just sit there like a dumb-ass lump of coal. It takes a human brain-powered operator to get anything out of them and it doesn't take a genius to recognize that the better the brain-power employed in their use, the better the results will be.
Fussy gearheads can try to mask their lack of creativity, inventiveness, insight, sensitivity, curiosity, thoughtfulness and the like behind the glossy veneer of so-called technical superiority from now until hell freezes over (in gear speak, that would next week - when the next "best tools" are introduced), but the rest us see through your brain like we see through the water that runs down our drain, so to speak.
At its most elementary level, when it comes to making good pictures, the adage - garbage in, garbage out - is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And the best cameras in the universal can not change that fact. Not one single bit.
If your best tool isn't your brain, your heart, and your soul, you're just tooling around in a medium that has so much more to offer.
Caveat # 2: If being fussy about your gear is what floats your photo boat, may you joyfully bob forever on the jolly seas of that ocean. Seriously and sincerely. Enjoy yourself to the fullest. I really mean it.
But, please, give the rest of us, especially those just setting out from the dock, a break from the "it takes good gear to take good pictures" drumbeat. Unless, of course, your mission in life is to sell gear because, in that instance, I guess that you just gotta do what you just gotta do to make a buck.
Reader Comments (12)
Humans are known to adapt to circumstances. That's why yesterday great sport, portrait and event photography was made using a Speed Graphic, a Rolleiflex or any other one lens camera.
Today, some pretty good images can also be taken with a cell phone provided the user
knows what he's doing.
Today a user can read the camera manual and thinks he knows everything there is to know about photography. Yes, camera users are not necessarely photographers.
Sounds like you only need one camera, then?
Mark, you sound quite bitter! Before I go on, I have to say that I like most of your pictures very much; that matters, because I have to say that I don't think much of your attitude. Your outlook seems pernickety and narrow to an astonishing degree. I can't for the life of me see why such store should be set by reproducing everything 'honestly' and 'for its own sake'. I agree that there is many a scene that shouldn't be tampered with too much, but that hardly sums up photography as a whole. I tamper with my photographs joyfully, in an attempt to reproduce what I remember I saw, not necessarily what was there. How it felt, rather than the actual range of tones that existed when I pressed the button.
The phrase 'people with cameras take photographs' doesn't deserve your scorn, and I think you are being disingenuous; all it means is that a) cameras don't take photographs but also b) the photographs that people take can be influenced by what they take it with. For instance, I have a Canon 5D but most of my personal work these days is done using a Panasonic point-and-shoot. The pictures I'm taking now show a totally different perspective to the pictures I took with the Canon. I don't have to struggle for depth of field; I can get really low angles on things easily (I'm 61, and getting down on the ground with the Canon often results in not bothering because it hurts a bit). The pictures I take with the small camera have a vibrancy and a life that I find it hard to attain with the larger camera. But I suspect that you'd look down on my imparting vibrancy and life if it wasn't already in the original scene?
I'm an old pro, since around 1968, and I like my pictures graphic. I like unusual compositions, and I really like to see adventurous viewpoints and perspectives. I burn most of my shadows to black if there's nothing in them that I'm interested in. My idea of heaven is a 24mm lens and a bunch of lobster pots.
I understand that you believe in the truth of the scene, and in reproducing what's there as honestly as you can, but there are a whole lot of photographers for whom that is not the holy grail and their point of view is every bit as valuable. And mostly, on their sites, they don't make the word 'Art' with a capital 'A', and in bold. I mean, please ...
Dude, chill a bit. Have a beer or five :-)
IMO, a lot of the world's population (which includes many photographers, er... camera users) believe that using better (and expensive) gear automatically enables one to make better pictures. There's nothing you can say that will convince them otherwise. I believed the same thing myself many years ago, until I bought that expensive camera and tried it for myself. Now I know otherwise, but it took a long time and some experience to reach that conclusion.
I cringe every time someone remarks, after looking at a print of mine, "you must have a really expensive/great/awesome/pro camera!" Frustrating as it is, I do understand their remark.
Say we get what you want and people started paying attention to the gear in their heads, rather than the gear in their hands. We would then end up discussing which brain enhancing chemicals promote "better" picture making. e.g. Taking Ritalin helps me compose by the rule of thirds! People will always want to buy their way into better quality, rather than just being better at what they do.
The wife: you're awesome! I want to see a guest post.
First off I read both Mikes blog and yours for varying reasons. Your first response to Mikes blog post is well within your opinion to comment on how you feel on the subject. Your 2nd is you being an tool.
Who are you talking to here?
ITEM # 1 - Cameras don't take pictures, true; but then, people don't take pictures either. People with cameras take pictures.
Reminds me of that saying: Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. (Or something to that effect). So when guns are outlawed only outlaws'll have guns.
Gee. why not stick to the one button we're supposed to be skilled at. And stop with the keyboard stuff. Years of photo magazines have been going over this same stuff, ad nauseum. If there is a language in the image, why not communicate there. and leave letters alone for a bit. There is no future in the heralded artist's statement or the pretenses of trying to convince yourself the word will transcend the work of the one finger button
You are spot on. I do not see how anyone can deny this. SO let's talk about making pictures, eh? Or maybe allow guest posts to have a few people explain why they make pictures and what they are trying to say?
Your so clever. Unbearable. Relax. Take pictures.
over-worrying about gear is a handy excuse to not photograph
people are still under the impression that it's all about the camera gear
no doubt that what paul is describing is a real difference depending on his camera choice. i think the original comments (that were quoted to start all of this) sounded a bit whiny and pretentious
the word choice of "fussy" is what makes me think that. i can't imagine a situation like paul described with his p&s being considered "fussy"
just my 2 cents...