I have to disgree. The artistic merit of a photograph does not change depending on the device used.

Someone who uses a pinhole camera can probably produce a picture vastly superior (atristicly) to what someone who has not studied can produce with even the most expensive camera.

Yes, an SLR generally takes a "better" picture than a point-and-shoot, technically. It probably has better optics (but not cared for correctly, they may not be), and it may have a better (sharper) viewfiender and focusing system. In the digital world, it probably has a bigger sensor and less noise and high MP (but not always).

But that technical data is meaningless unless you're taking pictures ot test targets to determine the sensitivity/quality of a camera and lens.

Knowing how to take the picture, what exposure/apeture/etc and how to use your camera means much more.

Ansel Adams' View Cameras were vastly inferior technically to my D200. Does that make my images better?

Being able to zoom or focus quickly doesn't alone make a better picture. Focusing or zooming quickly on the wrong thing doesn't help much, does it? Yes, it's great to have such features when you know what you are doing, and they do make a difference, especially when photographing sports or animals, but if you don't know what you're doing, all of the fast focus and zoom will not help you *intentionally* get the right picture (everybody gets lucky sometimes..)

jon

I can't remember the artist's name, but it might have been Chet Atkins. He's rehearsing a part on a beautiful vintage Les Paul in a Memphis studio. One of the record company suits says, "boy, that guitar sounds great." Player abruptly stops playing and lifts his hands off the instrument. After a few seconds he asks, "How's it sound now?"

I have a friend who draws well. I think he's a good artist. Why? Because given the exact same pencil and paper, I simply can't do the same things he can.

Until we all have access to the same tools, I think there will always be false accreditation to the technology rather than the artist.

However, if Eric and I entered a photography contest, and I was given a top of the line camera and he was only allowed to use an elementary-school-science-project pinhole camera, I'd bet I win at least 7 times out of 10... :)

Adman

You're welcome. There are a couple of more gems from WTD that I'll reference when appropriate :)

re: Photographic eye. Here's the anecdote that explains the reality of the artistic eye. Eric and I were on the same boat, photographing the same sites. His equipment was marginally better, but not enough to make a difference. At that time, I'm sure I had been diving longer, had more dives, had more dives with a camera, and been shooting a 35mm camera for a lot longer. Yet, comparing shots of the same subjects, there was a clear distinction in terms of visual impact and appeal. Brains work diffently.

An apt analogy is music. My grandfather finally got around to teaching me how to tune a piano. He did it with two tools and two tuning forks (but only used one). He quickly lost me. He had perfect pitch. I could not hear the way he heard. Having "learned" to play 5 different instruments, I still couldn't do what he could do.

i think it's partly because the skill of photography is a nearly-invisible thing (ironic, perhaps). what distinguishes a great photographer from a total amateur is timing, framing, knowing exactly which tools to use and how. none of these things is immmediately apparent when someone takes a photo. it looks purely technical: futzing with gear, pressing a button. the talent required is much less obvious than, say, playing a virtuoso violin concerto.

photography seems to suffer from that same problem as audio engineering: the average layperson has a much more immediate appreciation of technical quality than of aesthetic/artistic merit. a CD has a rich, full sound to it: "wow, you must've recorded that in a really nice studio." no credit to the engineer who selected and placed the microphones, nor to the mixer who massaged the separate tracks into a coherent whole. the notion is that they "simply" capture what's there in reality, with top-of-the-line gear, and if Joe Schmoe had that gear he could do it too.

which is a long way of saying: i'm with Adman's last comment. :)

"There is a minimum quality of gear you might need in order to get a certain kind of photo."

That's all I'm saying.

For most lay-people, a better camera DIRECTLY equals better pictures, since our skill at actual photography is 0. Therefore, from our point of view, "You must have a great camera" makes perfect logical sense to us. And honestly, I appreciate you helping me understand that it's not very nice comment.

Good analogy with Photoshop.

Adman

UW photographers definitely rely heavily on their gear for success, and you're right that it is a mistake to forget that. And sure, it helps to have a better camera. There is a minimum quality of gear you might need in order to get a certain kind of photo.

My best whale breach shot ever was taken with a 3 fps camera -- about the speed entry-level SLRs (today) offer. The photo pro next to me had an 8.5 fps camera, and he missed the shot. And while you wouldn't try to shoot a breaching whale with a point and shoot, experience, opportunity and luck have more to do with a good photo's origins than does the camera itself -- assuming satisfaction of that minimum bar of gear quality.

Here's an analogy that incorporates computers and photography: in most cases, a faster computer doesn't make you better at using Photoshop. But for some image-editing applications, you might actually need that faster machine.

I'll bite.

In my mind, digital photography is the marriage of both technology and artistic ability.

When someone says to a photographer "you must have a really nice camera", the inference is that they are attributing the quality of the picture solely to the technology and not giving credit to the photographer as a person. I get that. If I were a photographer, I suppose I could take it as an insult if I chose to.

Photographers, on the other hand, seem to take it as read that everyone has the same technology that they do. They wax on about the importance of the "photographic eye" and conveniently forget that the person making the comment probably has a $199 Radio Shack digital camera (or why even get a camera? I mean, phones have cameras in them, don't they?)

To me, the person making the comment and the photographer who forgets how important his tools are are both guilty of the same thing.

I just visited my dad and saw his new hot-shit camera. I was amazed at how quickly I was able to zoom, focus, and shoot. If we were trying to take pictures of whales breeching, he'd get MUCH better (subjective, of course) pictures than I would. I'd only get a lot of splashes. :)

Agree? Disagree? Comments?

Adman