Does choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?

[mollyc]

The choice of camera won’t matter to the viewer of the image, in general. They’ll most of the time not know whether it’s an iPhone, Sony A1 or Nikon Z9.

The only thing I will say as a counterpoint to this is that film does have a different look. Not always, I've shot at least one roll that truly looks like it was done on digital. But for people looking for that true "film" look...well, it's hard to replicate on digital. Even using fairly decent film presets, it's hard to nail the shadow fall off and grain from film. And this is no way a comment that film is "better" than digital; personally I think they both still have their place and I like using both mediums. But I do think that choosing one over the other makes a substantial difference in the outcome, often for "unquantifiable" or "unscientific" reasons.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

As someone who enjoys golf but doesn’t get to play it as much as he used to, I find that there are a fair number of parallels to photography. One, the best gear is always marketed as a way to play better. It is certainly the best gear, but it won’t make a bad golfer good. If anything, that extra distance is just going to get you more distance in the wrong direction! The best golfers in the world have the best equipment, but they would still play way better than me if I swapped their clubs for mine. I would certainly benefit from the best gear, but it wouldn’t revolutionize my play. I believe the quote goes something like “golf is played 95% between the ears.” Photography is probably quite similar.

Other parallels are that you have to easily forget your bad shots if you hope to get good ones. You need to learn from your mistakes and adapt, and you need to at least somewhat understand physics. Creativity and imagination can get you out of a jam, and some determination is required to not get frustrated and just quit on a bad day.

 

[r.harris1]

The only thing I will say as a counterpoint to this is that film does have a different look. Not always, I've shot at least one roll that truly looks like it was done on digital. But for people looking for that true "film" look...well, it's hard to replicate on digital. Even using fairly decent film presets, it's hard to nail the shadow fall off and grain from film. And this is no way a comment that film is "better" than digital; personally I think they both still have their place and I like using both mediums. But I do think that choosing one over the other makes a substantial difference in the outcome, often for "unquantifiable" or "unscientific" reasons.

You’re totally right. One of the things I find I’ve come to believe and like MacProFCP said so well, find the tool, and in this case, the medium that tells the story well. One of the things I’ve enjoyed about your film work (and OldMacs4Me’s recent stuff) and which is sloooowwly motivating me to get out my FM2n is it‘s a unique and expressive medium.

 

[jwolf6589]

I am someone who never puts the strap which comes with a new camera body on it; I much prefer not broadcasting to the world that I am carrying and using an expensive camera! I realize that Sony would be happy if I DID use the provided strap, but sorry, folks! I don't intend to be a walking billboard! However, I do not put gaffers tape or whatever over the names on the camera bodies themselves, or try to cover the name or logo with black magic marker or paint. One probably would need to be standing quite close to even read it, anyway, unlike the strap, which has the name in large letters that can be seen easily at a distance.

In some situations, people in the know will recognize a brand by certain distinctive characteristics, such as Canon's long white zoom lenses and Sony's grayish-white long zooms. The reasoning behind using the light color has something to do with heat buildup on the lens when shooting out in the sun on a hot day, but also, yes, it does provide instant brand recognition, too.

I prefer broadcasting to everyone that I am using a Canon camera for photography. I love Canon and in my view they are the best.

 

[jwolf6589]

As someone who enjoys golf but doesn’t get to play it as much as he used to, I find that there are a fair number of parallels to photography. One, the best gear is always marketed as a way to play better. It is certainly the best gear, but it won’t make a bad golfer good. If anything, that extra distance is just going to get you more distance in the wrong direction! The best golfers in the world have the best equipment, but they would still play way better than me if I swapped their clubs for mine. I would certainly benefit from the best gear, but it wouldn’t revolutionize my play. I believe the quote goes something like “golf is played 95% between the ears.” Photography is probably quite similar.

Other parallels are that you have to easily forget your bad shots if you hope to get good ones. You need to learn from your mistakes and adapt, and you need to at least somewhat understand physics. Creativity and imagination can get you out of a jam, and some determination is required to not get frustrated and just quit on a bad day.

True. Not everyone needs a pro camera. I can capture good shots with a point and shoot camera.

 

[jwolf6589]

This is an excellent topic.
Although I have been shooting video professionally since the mid 2000s, there are people out there doing great work with nothing more than an iPhone.

My personal belief is that the person is far more important than the gear, however, there is a reason why I own 4 different types of cameras: each one tells the story better for its own environment.

A GoPro is great for outdoor, first person work.

The FX9 is amazing at cinematic work, especially with a shallow depth of field lens.

My z280s are great “run and gun” cameras, and nothing I’ve seen produces a better overall image for the size and cost.

The A7s3 is my go to for gimbal work or for use as a low budget cinema camera.

Each of these tells a different story. While most viewers cannot tell the difference between one camera or another, they certainly can feel the difference.

While my response is for the video world, the same holds true in photography work. Find the camera that tells your story best, be it an iPhone, a DSLR or a mirrorless Hasselblad.

My Canon Powershot SX740HS tells the story best for me. It can capture very good shots without editing.

 

[tis100]

The answer can be yes, maybe or no, depending on the perspective.

From a technical perspective, the answer is yes.

If the work demands high speed, low weight, or other measurable qualities then the tool must meet or exceed the requirements.

From a transformational perspective, the answer is maybe.

If the knowledge and tools you have are incongruent, then the right tool can make everything click. But, if you don't have the requisite knowledge, then it doesn't matter what tools you are given.

And finally, from a conceptual perspective, the answer is no.

At this level, you should be asking questions like: who am I, what do I need and how is photography relevant to me. No tool but yourself can answer these.

---

I find, too often, creative expression is framed as experiential diversity (i.e., I take lots of different art classes) and/or technical proficiency (i.e., I can play Rachmaninoff really well), rather than a metacognitive process (i.e., I'm learning what it means to observe).

The result of creative expression is a validation or refutation of ones mental model against reality.

If your mental model happens to be correct you may get a product (e.g., photograph, painting, etc) from the process, but it isn't the goal.

Creative expression can be thought of as a generalization of the scientific method.

 

[Analog Kid]

This seems relevant to the discussion:

The Hottest Gen Z Gadget Is a 20-Year-Old Digital Camera (Published 2023)

Young people are opting for point-and-shoots and blurry photos.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Analog Kid]

And finally, from a conceptual perspective, the answer is no.

I'm not sure that's an absolute. New technology opens the mind to new concepts. The experience of using a particular tool leads you to think about how to use it. The tactile interaction with a piece of equipment affects your thinking beyond what sitting in an ivory tower would.

Creativity isn’t a purely intellectual exercise. If you assert that creativity is a generalization of the scientific method then it’s experimental and experiential by definition.

 

[4389842]

No.

END OF THREAD

Agreed. If you don’t know what could be an interesting composition for an image, no amount of 10k plus lenses, megapixels or Lightroom editing will make the shot any better… anyone over at dpreview will be able to confirm that.

 

[4389842]

I'm not sure that's an absolute. New technology opens the mind to new concepts. The experience of using a particular tool leads you to think about how to use it. The tactile interaction with a piece of equipment affects your thinking beyond what sitting in an ivory tower would.

Creativity isn’t a purely intellectual exercise. If you assert that creativity is a generalization of the scientific method then it’s experimental and experiential by definition.

The point is not wether tech can boost creativity, the point is that no amount of tech can turn an uninspired person into a star photographer.

Much like putting Joe Sixpack into the fastest F1 car will not make them win the race.

You need talent and even if such talent can be fostered to some extent, much of it will need to be innate.

While in this day and age, it might not go down well with people that not everyone can do absolutely anything (how unfair!) there is a reason not everyone is a star tennis player, photographer, painter or even a rocket scientist…

 

[4389842]

I personally have a lot of "paint brushes" in my photographic toolbox. Some cheap, some expensive, all capable and all of which force me to think a little differently when I approach an image. It may not matter to the viewer of the image - they won't typically know what the camera was or the lens - but it matters to me, the creator.

There is a reason that many photography classes will force you to use a single tool, say a cheap prime. When forced with a limitation, true creativity can shine through to find an interesting shot, in spite of limitations… like with so many things, the tech and myriad choices can get in the way and in the end are not likely to make you better when you are not already talented to some extent.

 

[Apple fanboy]

The point is not wether tech can boost creativity, the point is that no amount of tech can turn an uninspired person into a star photographer.

Much like putting Joe Sixpack into the fastest F1 car will not make them win the race.

You need talent and even if such talent can be fostered to some extent, much of it will need to be innate.

While in this day and age, it might not go down well with people that not everyone can do absolutely anything (how unfair!) there is a reason not everyone is a star tennis player, photographer, painter or even a rocket scientist…

I agree that some people have natural talent or an eye for a good photo from the first time they pick up a camera. Others (me included!) don’t.

However I think by reading about composition etc you can learn to become a better photographer and to see the image a lot easier than you can learn the other examples you mention. I’ve watched F1 all my life. I know where the apex is. But hitting it in a car at 120 mph is another thing. I will never have the hand and eye coordination and bottle to do that.

 

[Danfango]

Yes it does. The actual gear matters only as far as capability that increases opportunity though.

For example if you buy a zoom lens then you can take more photos that you wouldn’t have been able to if you didn’t have it.

Same applies to most arts. They require tangible things. And the only reason you need them is to leverage the properties of the tangible things. Brushes and paints as well.

Some things can damage opportunities as well. That’s where it gets interesting.

 

[fb3993]

Those of you who have been following the drama over in the innocent sounding “I want to move from a D750” thread have seen the discussion get fairly heated, with it unraveling even to the level of a political discussion forum, typically the lowest form of intellectual debate there is, in my opinion. “I know you are, but what am I?”, that sort of thing.

The rough topic is “ Does one’s choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?”. That quickly became a discussion on cost vs value and cost vs outcome. It also became a discussion on marketing and mythology. Some interesting philosophical topics. I wanted to attempt to move that discussion out of the poor thread that started it to its own area. This may or may not work.

My own stance (yours will be different):

• There’s no “scientifically objective better” camera, approach or choice of photographic gear. There’s a choice between broader or more narrow feature sets and capabilities. Cost doesn’t always directly correlate to those features and capabilities. Does it matter?
• The choice of camera won’t matter to the viewer of the image, in general. They’ll most of the time not know whether it’s an iPhone, Sony A1 or Nikon Z9.
• The choice of tool does matter to the creator / photographer. It’s said that a good photographer can make a great image with any camera, but it’s equally true that they often find the choice of tool they use very important. They don’t use “any camera”, they use the cameras that they feel work the way they want to in order to achieve their vision. That’s where the discussion can devolve into marketing and mythology. Leica is a great example, but all companies use marketing and mythology very well, of course. As humans, we’re subject to it and interact with it.
• Humans are creative but we’re rarely rational.
• There are tools to help anyone express their creative vision at any price point. This is a good thing.
• Lenses have “character”. Some are clinical, some have known flaws that define that character. Some are designed to be shot wide open, others are defined to be sharp across a range of apertures. Some are designed to sharp edge-to-edge, others for center sharpness. Some correct for color focusing (aberrations and such), some deliberately don’t.
• Choice of body is personal and up to the individual to decide based on ergonomics and features. There’s no one “best body” to use for creative expression. It’s up to the individual’s needs and budget. Some pack tons of features with amazing AF, video and other things. Others have very few features and are entirely manual. Some have are larger, some smaller. Some let your receive phone calls .

It would be awesome to keep any discussion here civil and it’s purposely a broad topic so can “wander”. I will do my best to keep my own interactions as “adult” as I can - I’m not always good at that .

So does your choice of photographic gear matter to your creative expression?

To kick things off, here’s a short article by someone you may not know - he’s a reviewer that runs a paid website but has made this article free to link to. His name is Sean Reid.

https://www.reidreviews.com/examples/yes.html

• There’s no “scientifically objective better” camera, approach or choice of photographic gear. There’s a choice between broader or more narrow feature sets and capabilities. Cost doesn’t always directly correlate to those features and capabilities. Does it matter? -> There are scientifically objectively better cameras in certain aspects, meaning that you can measure e.g. dynamic range or autofocus performance and accuracy; and you often get a different 'best' camera in each category. Does it matter? No, unless you're at the top of your photographic field and need the absolutely best to stay there.
• The choice of camera won’t matter to the viewer of the image, in general. They’ll most of the time not know whether it’s an iPhone, Sony A1 or Nikon Z9.-> What I think matters is the end medium. Instagram? No one cares (and notices) whether you've used a phone or medium format camera. However, for larger prints and displays larger formats still print better compared to phones, despite all the processing advancements in phones.
• The choice of tool does matter to the creator / photographer. It’s said that a good photographer can make a great image with any camera, but it’s equally true that they often find the choice of tool they use very important. They don’t use “any camera”, they use the cameras that they feel work the way they want to in order to achieve their vision. That’s where the discussion can devolve into marketing and mythology. Leica is a great example, but all companies use marketing and mythology very well, of course. As humans, we’re subject to it and interact with it. -> most cameras made in the last 10 years can take great pictures. What I find most limiting is actually the controls that you find in entry-level cameras/phones vs professional cameras (and photograhper's skills). I think the choice should mostly be on ergonomics and ecosystem rather than performance, as the difference in this are negligible to most. I think you should look at how you handle the camera (do I find it intuitive? Does it do what I want to do? Do I have to jump through 4 menus to do something I do 287 times each shoot? etc) and whether it has the lenses and accessories you need and you think you will need in the future.
• Humans are creative but we’re rarely rational. -> I was working in the marketing department of a camera company, the top of the line, 7000€ camera was rarely bought by professional photographers, rather by (rich) amateurs that wanted what the pros were using.
• There are tools to help anyone express their creative vision at any price point. This is a good thing. -> Find what you like and ignore what YouTube says.
• Lenses have “character”. Some are clinical, some have known flaws that define that character. Some are designed to be shot wide open, others are defined to be sharp across a range of apertures. Some are designed to sharp edge-to-edge, others for center sharpness. Some correct for color focusing (aberrations and such), some deliberately don’t. -> Damn you and your explanation for my next lens purchase.
• Choice of body is personal and up to the individual to decide based on ergonomics and features. There’s no one “best body” to use for creative expression. It’s up to the individual’s needs and budget. Some pack tons of features with amazing AF, video and other things. Others have very few features and are entirely manual. Some have are larger, some -> Yes, see answer n. 3.

 

[JoeDezibel]

No matter what form of photography someone pursues, the tools must be the right ones.
I am a product photographer myself and when buying a camera or lens I pay attention to completely different things than a sports photographer.
Of course, money also plays a big role. As a professional, you need completely different tools than someone who only snaps as a hobby on vacation.
On the whole, it's like buying a computer. You buy what you need.

 

[Unami]

Sure it does. You can't do 600mm shots with a 20mm lens. A decent 12 bit RAW gives me a lot if options to express myself creatively that an 8bit jpeg does not, etc... There's also some difference in usage and how it influences the results. On my Sony FX6 I usually make different videos than on my A7IV - although it has a similar chip and uses the same lenses, it got a different weight and form factor, more buttons and different occasions/settings when I use it.

I often had the experience that upgrading my gear gave me more options and led to better results I couldn't have produced before.

But that's only, when your limited by your gear. Otoh, when it's about similar gear... when I upgraded from my panasonic GH4 to the A7IV I once again noticed that better equipment doesn't make me a better photographer. Sure, the lenses are beter, the sensor is bigger, there's more dynamic range, possibly less DOF and it's more light sensitive. But at the end of the day, for 50% of my photos, now I'm just carrying around heavier gear.

 

[r.harris1]

I really appreciate the thoughtful comments so far and the many different points of view, so thank you! This is a subject that comes up not infrequently in the Digital Photography Forum on MR (and elsewhere obviously) and often derails specific threads . We all have our points of view and, for me anyway, those POV can change as I take on new thoughts and ways of thinking. For me, in my day job (not photography), I can only survive by listening to different points of view and taking those comments on board. Not to say that debates aren't "robust", feathers aren't ruffled and so forth .

Anyway, thank you for giving me (and hopefully others) things to think about over the coming days and weeks. I'm looking forward to more thoughts and discussion.

 

[Boidem]

Agreed. If you don’t know what could be an interesting composition for an image, no amount of 10k plus lenses, megapixels or Lightroom editing will make the shot any better… anyone over at dpreview will be able to confirm that.

Amen. I think many people don't actually understand the concept of 'creativity'. It's got notihng to do with needing specialist equipment etc, it's about raw inherent individual talent. A creative person can always find ways to express themselves; stuff like cameras, paintbrushes etc are simply a means to an end.

I see an awful lot of people without such inherent talent, buying an awful lot of expensive gear, as though that somehow makes them a 'good photographer'. Owning such, and knowing how to operate it, doesn't make you good. Your individual creativity does that. I see millions of mediocre images, every one the same as the next, in all genres of photography. This is fine; most wildlife photography is more aobut simply recording nature, rather than producing 'art'. Most photgraphy is in fact about simple recording of fact, or dispassionate representation of events, rather than actual creativity. The myriad images you will see every single day, advertising clothing and other products etc, are simply factual representations, not art. In such instances, the photographer doesn't need to be anything more than a technician. Most professional photographers I know are little more than this; something they acknowledge themselves. Many do completely unrelated other stuff, as their 'artistic' outlet.

Not everyone sees the world with a 35mm or 50mm (or fill in the blank mm)

Actually, we do. The Human eye has a central angle of view equivalent to a 43mm lens, give or take. Hence a 40-50mm is considered a 'standard' lens. The angle of view, however, is much greater. The compression or exaggeration of perspective is down to physics within optical elements. Nobody 'sees' like a 800mm telephoto, or a 8mm fisheye. We exploit these optical effects for artistic purposes, or simply to get closer to a subject, or get more in the frame etc. Many early 35mm photographers favoured the 35 and 50mm lenses on rangefinder cams, cos those where generally the only lenses available with good optical quality, and with fast apertures (essential when film speeds topped out at 400ISO max). Wider and longer lenses became more popular as optical design and manufacturing improved.

The mark of a good photographer is someone who can tell their story as simply as possible. It's all about communication. Gear 'doesn't matter' in this sense, because a good photographer can tell a story using whatever equipment; a wildlife or sports photographer may enjoy using long teles, but give a good one a cam with a wideangle lens, and they'll still be able to tell their story well using just that. Likewise a good landscape photographer with a long tele, a portraitist with a kit zoom with a small maximum aperture, etc. Like many people, I learned photography using a very basic SLR with a 50mm lens. I became adept at telling whatever story, with just that one lens. I learned to overcome the limitations of the equipment I had. Sure, it's often much better to have equipment appropriate for the task, but it's not the be all and end all.

The point is not wether tech can boost creativity, the point is that no amount of tech can turn an uninspired person into a star photographer.

Word.

 

[mollyc]

Actually, we do. The Human eye has a central angle of view equivalent to a 43mm lens, give or take. Hence a 40-50mm is considered a 'standard' lens. The angle of view, however, is much greater. The compression or exaggeration of perspective is down to physics within optical elements. Nobody 'sees' like a 800mm telephoto, or a 8mm fisheye. We exploit these optical effects for artistic purposes, or simply to get closer to a subject, or get more in the frame etc. Many early 35mm photographers favoured the 35 and 50mm lenses on rangefinder cams, cos those where generally the only lenses available with good optical quality, and with fast apertures (essential when film speeds topped out at 400ISO max). Wider and longer lenses became more popular as optical design and manufacturing improved.

My point was that not every prefers a standard 35mm or 50 mm (hence the addition of "fill in the blank mm" in my original message). For me personally, 50mm is my least liked focal length (which is funny since I have more lenses that cover 50mm more than anything else somehow). But if someone offered me an assortment of lenses and told me to choose one, I'd pick whichever had the shortest focus distance, because I prefer to shoot close to my subjects (which truthfully is why I have a lot of 50mm type lenses--they focus closely for the most part without being a macro lens). But on a pure focal length basis, 85mm is typically my favorite.

Please don't take every word written here, on a thread about creativity, for the exact literal definition. There are subtle nuances to be drawn out in our messages if you read with an open mind.

 

[Boidem]

Please don't take every word written here, on a thread about creativity, for the exact literal definition

Lol! I'm simply explaining something in order that others might actually understand. This entire thread is the result of a misunderstanding, so surely it's better that there's as much information as possible? When it comes to photography, understanding human vision in relation to optical science, is actually pretty important. Because it can help to improve technique and enhance creativity.

There are subtle nuances to be drawn out in our messages if you read with an open mind.

You didn't seem to understand such nuance when ascertaining that I 'intensely' disliked the world 'Leica'... 🤣

 

[r.harris1]

Lol! I'm simply explaining something in order that others might actually understand. This entire thread is the result of a misunderstanding, so surely it's better that there's as much information as possible? When it comes to photography, understanding human vision in relation to optical science, is actually pretty important. Because it can help to improve technique and enhance creativity.


You didn't seem to understand such nuance when ascertaining that I 'intensely' disliked the world 'Leica'... 🤣

This thread isn't the result of any perceived misunderstanding. It's been a long time coming, certainly before your time. Thanks for participating.

 

[Boidem]

This thread isn't the result of any perceived misunderstanding. It's been a long time coming, certainly before your time. Thanks for participating.

Don't mention it. Although it IS as a result of misunderstanding, at least be honest about it! 🤣 I hope you find the affirmation you and others so crave.

 

[r.harris1]

Don't mention it. Although it IS as a result of misunderstanding, at least be honest about it! 🤣 I hope you find the affirmation you and others so crave.

Look, I apologize to you for my part in lowering the level of debate in the other thread and I apologize if I’ve offended you. It was unintentional on my part.

I won’t dwell on this topic any more other than to say that this thread - honestly - is the result of two things: the previous thread going way off the rails - forum moderation here on MR likes threads to stay on topic - and discussions in other threads over the past few years on similar topics (which have similarly taken those threads way off topic). While I wasn’t aware that I personally misunderstood anything in the other thread, it’s entirely possible. The world is full of misunderstandings. I did disagree with statements made, sure. And finally, while I can’t speak for others, I’m certainly comfortable enough to not seek anyone’s affirmation for any decision I’ve made or point of view I have.

This is where I will leave this.

 

[mollyc]

Don't mention it. Although it IS as a result of misunderstanding, at least be honest about it! 🤣 I hope you find the affirmation you and others so crave.

I don't think there were as many misunderstandings in the most recent thread as you believe there were. But to @r.harris1's point, we have had similar discussions around here for years.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/photographers-with-pro-gear-how-are-we-liking-the-latest-iphone-camera-updates.2343582/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/using-iphone-ipad-for-photography.2353149/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/next-camera-d850-d4-or-something-else.2305048/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-photography-fun.2342753/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/when-will-mirrorless-take-over-dslr-and-time-to-sell-mirror-dslr-equipment.2215690/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/pure-photography-or-art.2334247/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/do-you-use-more-than-1-camera.2316321/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/what-makes-a-great-picture.2308358/

The future of digital cameras

Everywhere I go I see people taking photos with phones. Sometimes I see people using SLR’s but most of the time it’s phones. What does this spell out for the future of regular cameras? Will the P&S cameras go away in 5-10 years? Will you not be able to buy a pro camera at Best Buy but only...

forums.macrumors.com

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/for-the-love-of-art.2302295/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/sending-up-an-idea-balloon-anyone-interested-in-an-image-thread-for-serious-photographers-photography-only.2298838/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/what-is-your-lens-choice-for-a-beginner-and-what-is-the-one-lens-you-cannot-do-without-focal-length-s-aperture.2287990/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/does-everyone-need-a-dslr.2287317/

Is digital photography a lie?!

With the various techniques and post processing we all get involved in these days I have been asked by a few of my friends if I’m lying to them when I ask for their opinions on some of my shots. Some of my friends are off the opinion that a digitally enhanced / edited picture is essentially a...

forums.macrumors.com

This is just a selection of our conversations over the past year and a half. We talk a lot about stuff. We also share photos a lot. Would be great to see some of yours.