Your Camera Does Matter-a Rebuttal

[bajasurf]

The website: www.luminous-landscape.com has an article that is worthy of reading especially for the Ken Rockwell doubters. Once at the website scroll down until you see "Your Camera Does Matter - a Rebuttal"

 

[haven]

camera is not the most important part

Just another datapoint to support the "it's the photographer, not the camera" point of view:

My partner had a photo selected to be part of the permanent exhibit on the changing seasons at the Griffith Park Observatory in LA. The photo was captured with a 3 megapixel Sony point-and-shoot.

Chip Haven

 

[Lost Canadian]

I love Michael Reichmann. That first line in his final thoughts is hilarious.

 

[Michael Slade]

While I will admit that I do agree with the article, I must vehemently disagree with his last statement.

"One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any camera. Horse****."

I disagree completely. He goes on to qualify what a 'good' photograph is, which of course proves his argument. But, without having to satisfy the most rigorous of technical standards, excellent photographs are made with the most basic of cameras every day. Come to any of my basic photography classes final portfolio review and you'd have to agree.

Now, I can show you a gallery where I have images from my most basic classes all the way up to my most advanced studio lighting students. What a 'good' photograph is entirely subjective...what works in the lighting class won't cut it for the baisic class...and vice-versa.

Click here to download a small sample to see what I'm talking about.

Give me a Holga and a roll of film and I can make great photographs. Give someone w/out any training, who can't see, think or feel $30,000 worth of gear and you'll get crap. It is NOT the camera...it is the heart and soul of the photographer. The camera just *helps*... a lot.

 

[tdesanto]

In truth, it's easier to get a bad photograph with a ton of high quality gear than it is to get a good photograph with a bad camera.

This really is a chicken and egg argument. You really can't have one without the other. You need training and good gear (not necessarily the most expensive or anything, but not the cheapest either) to make consistently high quality images.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I think his point is pretty simple and I agree. He clearly states that one can make great photos with all sorts of cameras, but depending on your objective the gear you choose will matter. You're not going to get sharp, landscape pictures using a Holga. It's just not possible no matter how good of a photographer you are, and if that's the goal then this is where that "hoariest of the hoary cliches" line come into play.

I think he attempts to clarify his final statements with his preceding thoughts.

Come on folks. Don't they teach analytical thinking in schools any more? Enough cliched rejoinders that serve no ones interests other than to inflate the egos of some, and confuse and embarrass others. When a person asks these type of questions let's be generous instead of snarky. Let's ask them the type of photography that are doing, or plan on doing, and then if we have anything worthwhile to contribute, do so. But to spout holier-than-thou cliches one more time is simply the sign of either a lazy or an angry mind.