Does choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?

[OldMacs4Me]

Tools can be a two edged sword.
This first link is to a series of 4x5 photos I took in the Jones Pass area west of Denver. The first eight were taken on Labor Day, September of 1977. My entire reason for owning and shooting 4x5 was to print at 16x20 or even larger. I have gone as big as 30x40. The lighting and the views were fantastic and the creative juices were flowing. The time it takes to set up the camera and the cost of film and processing, usually forces one to carefully consider the subject and lighting. That was the case on that day. I believe at least half of those images are worth the time and effort to make a large print.

Jones Pass images here:

JonesPass

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Click on the full screen icon to get slide view and use the keyboard or screen arrows to advance.
Note the last 3 snow images were taken a year and a bit later with much better glass. esc to exit.

A week later I drove a bit further south to Marshall Pass. The lighting and scenery were for the most part so-so. And I was obviously much less inspired. But I had the gear with me and was determined to use it. Honestly I would have been better off leaving the Linhof in the car and snapping most of these with the Nikormat. Especially the 'I was here' images.

Marshall Pass images here:

MarshallPass

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

NOTE: if you get a cookie notice you can decline and still see the images

 

[r.harris1]

Or...

Or one can make sketches. John Ruskin wrote the following back in 1838:

"Essay on the Relative Dignity of the Studies of Painting and Music, and the Advantages to be Derived From Their Pursuit", via "Art and the Mind’s Eye: How Drawing Trains You to See the World More Clearly and to Live with a Deeper Sense of Presence"

Ruskin was amazing at "seeing". I was looking at some of his drawings of natural landscapes and animals recently which are stunning. In particular, his animal portraits in this case showed the individual personality of the animal. It wasn't just generic. Absolutely fantastic.

 

[kenoh]

Or...

Or one can make sketches. John Ruskin wrote the following back in 1838:

"Essay on the Relative Dignity of the Studies of Painting and Music, and the Advantages to be Derived From Their Pursuit", via "Art and the Mind’s Eye: How Drawing Trains You to See the World More Clearly and to Live with a Deeper Sense of Presence"

Instagram click bait adverts have a lot to answer for in my defence.

I agree there are more basic options but I am too easily influenced on Instagram and order too many useless bits of plastic - guilty as charged.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I wonder what gear does a painter use to capture an image of a meteor shower, and then put it on canvas?
Isn't the use of the gear a learned skill?

One can have the fanciest gear there is and still be unable to take a better photo than another photographer who's using an "inferior" (?) camera. Nowadays we can afford to buy the newest and more expensive gear, but does this make anybody a better photographer? Regardless of the gear used in the past, present and future, only the most skillful individuals have the greater chance to take the best photos given the right time, place, and conditions. However, an unskilled person can take the best photo given the right time, place, and conditions, regardless of the gear at hand at that moment. Only photos that tell a story or instill the viewer's emotions are the best in that viewer's eyes.

The rest are just copies, which by the way are posted on the internet by the millions. The gear only makes it easier for the person at an individual level, and some individuals are more skillful than others.

 

[Abstract]

I haven’t followed any thread other than this one, but to strictly answer the question of, “Does choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?”: Of course it does!!!
It’s going to affect what sort of shots I take, and how I approach things.

Recently, I went to Hong Kong to attend my cousin’s wedding. I was there as a guest, but brought my Ricoh GR-III with me. She had 2-3 wedding photographers and 1-2 videographers. Sometimes she had 3 photographers and 1 videographer, and sometimes it was 2 and 2.

I had my Ricoh GR-III and my iPhone 13 Mini. The Ricoh shoots at 28mm, the other at 26mm and 13mm. 😂 I guarantee that overall, when my cousin gets her photos back from her photographers, I will have taken better shots than the paid photographers, or at least ones that my cousin prefers. Portraits? No, the hired pros will definitely deliver that much better.

Look, it was a lot of luck, but I knew what I had, and I wasn’t looking to take every kind of shot, and it’s because I knew I had a 28mm.

If I had more equipment, or I had prime lens with a different focal length (a GR-IIIx has a 40mm lens 😂), I would have approached things entirely differently, and may even have been LESS successful in some ways. That answers the question: Yes, it affects creative expression.

And that leads me to another truth: More lenses (focal lengths) may not lead to better outcomes. More options is great in a studio, but if you’re walking around, simplifying means less variables to consider, which may be a good thing.

 

[MrCheeto]

I agree that having limited equipment will not allow you to flex every one of your capabilities but when I'm stuck to only one lens or one format I get creative. My tools don't prevent me from making something valuable and worthwhile.

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

Does it matter? Yes, it will have an effect. Is it the deciding factor in the level of skill reflected in the final product? NO.

Ask Richard Fleischer.

Take Tora!Tora!Tora! vs. Mr. Majestyk. TTT was a mega-budget event while Majestyk was... an acrylic-paint blood-splattered popcorn movie. I barely got through TTT but I feel like revisiting Majestyk at some point. TTT certainly had every type of set, effects, rig and apparatus available to production while Mr. Majestyk was almost entirely on-location and used natural or unconventional lighting.

While Tora!Tora!Tora! told a more epic story and was shot with anamorphic lenses, it's too didactic and clinical and allows no creative expression. The Bronson movie doesn't have too much of a story to tell but the dynamic directing was too compelling to turn away from. It was shot with spherical lenses and a lot of free-hand camera work. (Do I have to get into the quality of the night-scenes?)

I believe that if somebody watches the first half-hour of Mr. Majestyk then they will have seen everything a class on cinematic directing can teach. I haven't seen too many Fleischer-directed films but, from the examples of his masterful talent, I doubt the man would have had any trouble creating an artful masterpiece with a pin-hole camera and 16mm film.

On the other hand, you have the vast majority (say around 100%) of Hollywood movies today which are all budget and no talent. They have every tool an artist can be afforded yet demonstrate the scarcest competence.

 

[Clix Pix]

I have had the impression that this discussion was mainly intended to focus on still photography and equipment, rather than video shooting and professional cinematography, etc. There's a lot of differences between the two!

 

[MrCheeto]

There are and that's fair. What matters universally is who is behind the camera more-so than which camera (equipment, medium etc.) is being used.

Reminds me when I started shooting. I was at the gun range and having friendly conversation with somebody else on the firing-line. I complained that I think the worn-out rental gun I was using was not sighted in properly because my groups were consistent but not on-target. The guy asked if he could try and he put a single round right in the target. Turned out it was me and not the equipment. I felt a lot of pride when I "paid it forward" years later when I overheard somebody at the range complaining to his partner that he thinks the gun he just bought is not sighted in. Turns out that the equipment was not the limiting factor.

I know there are better sensors out there, better lenses, better media but I have my favorites and, despite their flaws, they help me realize my vision. I find it more fun and engaging to shoot with the same lenses on my digital camera as I do with my 35mm cameras though I wouldn't recommend my lenses to somebody else if they wanted results that are technically good rather than just creative and interesting.

 

[chengengaun]

Instagram click bait adverts have a lot to answer for in my defence.

I agree there are more basic options but I am too easily influenced on Instagram and order too many useless bits of plastic - guilty as charged.

The options you mentioned are hardly extravagant or impractical - I was not even aware that they exist, so that you for introducing them!

I guess we all suffer from GAS to some extent; in my case, I have to remind myself that I am far outpaced by the capabilities of my gear and I should use what I have to their maximum capabilities before thinking of anything else. (Or perhaps the kinds of photos one make are not really pushing any technical boundaries; then it is probably a blessing in disguise since one does not need expensive/unusual gear to realise her artistic vision.)

Spoiler: GAS

Gear Acquisition Syndrome

 

[kenoh]

The options you mentioned are hardly extravagant or impractical - I was not even aware that they exist, so that you for introducing them!

I guess we all suffer from GAS to some extent; in my case, I have to remind myself that I am far outpaced by the capabilities of my gear and I should use what I have to their maximum capabilities before thinking of anything else. (Or perhaps the kinds of photos one make are not really pushing any technical boundaries; then it is probably a blessing in disguise since one does not need expensive/unusual gear to realise her artistic vision.)

Spoiler: GAS

Gear Acquisition Syndrome

Oh yes, I suffer from chronic GAS. No denials there.

No, just posting the images I realised they were all over engineered ways to solve a simple challenge. Lol….

 

[kenoh]

I have had the impression that this discussion was mainly intended to focus on still photography and equipment, rather than video shooting and professional cinematography, etc. There's a lot of differences between the two!

I have no clue about video! I struggle to get 1 decent frame per second never mind 30-60 or 120!

I think for video, given a capable recording engine (body) then it is very much about the lenses and filters. I did look at the cost of cine lenses - ones that don’t breathe - and I am glad I am only into stills photography….. Seeing pimped out cameras with Small Rigs oooft, glad I dont have to carry that around for my hobby.

Respect to those who do though!

 

[r.harris1]

I have had the impression that this discussion was mainly intended to focus on still photography and equipment, rather than video shooting and professional cinematography, etc. There's a lot of differences between the two!

I definitely started it from the perspective of a still photographer, but anyone can have their say . Video storytelling is an amazing art and there are ways, to me, that the two genres can inform each other. Personal opinion, of course.

 

[MrCheeto]

the two genres can inform each other.

Not always for the best. Lawrence Kasdan seems like the kind of person that started out in a photography correspondence course and decided to simply use the same principles in his films. I think films like his give a fine example of what not to do in every case and it's kind of nauseating. This, again, is an example of somebody not limited by their equipment.

 

[r.harris1]

There was a rather heated discussion in another thread recently about "lens character" and whether such a thing is merely marketing hype or whether lenses have design characteristics that inform their look. Thom Hogan has an interesting recent article called "Do Lenses Have Character?" - https://bythom.com/newsviews/do-lenses-have-character.html - that does a good job of going through design decisions that a manufacturer has to make, including decisions around what to optimize around cost, central MTF, corner MTF, field curvature, linear distortion, spectral pass-through (color) and so on. And so yes, lenses will certainly paint on the sensor in a particular way given those decisions and optimizations and so can be said to have "character".

One point he made that I hadn't really thought of is that there are decisions today that manufacturers can turn over to software to correct like chromatic aberration, distortion, and so forth (hence "lens profiles" in various raw converters). Now, many manufacturers supply corrections in their raw files that the converters can apply directly, where the raw converter vendors don't have to create profiles themselves. The upshot is that lens manufacturers can concentrate on other optimizations. Modern lenses are often described as clinical and we as users will often do things like add vignettes, soften sharpness and otherwise add "character" back to the image. It's a funny old world.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

The options you mentioned are hardly extravagant or impractical - I was not even aware that they exist, so that you for introducing them!

I guess we all suffer from GAS to some extent; in my case, I have to remind myself that I am far outpaced by the capabilities of my gear and I should use what I have to their maximum capabilities before thinking of anything else. (Or perhaps the kinds of photos one make are not really pushing any technical boundaries; then it is probably a blessing in disguise since one does not need expensive/unusual gear to realise her artistic vision.)

Spoiler: GAS

Gear Acquisition Syndrome

Very true. All of us are affected by GAS. Otherwise we would not talk about gear, brand, and model choices. The truth is that the ones who are the most proficient with the gear at hand are the exception.

 

[tizeye]

One point he made that I hadn't really thought of is that there are decisions today that manufacturers can turn over to software to correct like chromatic aberration, distortion, and so forth (hence "lens profiles" in various raw converters). Now, many manufacturers supply corrections in their raw files that the converters can apply directly, where the raw converter vendors don't have to create profiles themselves. The upshot is that lens manufacturers can concentrate on other optimizations. Modern lenses are often described as clinical and we as users will often do things like add vignettes, soften sharpness and otherwise add "character" back to the image. It's a funny old world.

And it opened up a can of worms. The key word is RAW, so jpg shooters need not apply and it is never discussed in the RAW vs jpg 'friendly discussions'. Likewise, within the RAW world the correction profile is camera and lens dependent that was used to create the profile in the first place. Not only Brand X using Brand Y lens that was profiled for Brand Y camera, there are also profile differences withing the Brand, such as Brand Y Model A and Brand Y Model B using the same native lens as the sensors are different, either by original design, such as 24MP vs 42MP, or generation progression within the same model. Adobe RAW really pointed it out to me when I switched to Sony using Nikon adapted lens. Surprise, no profile exists! I don't know if it still exists, but Adobe use to have a program on their website (technical support/training area) that would analyze test target series of photos and custom develop your own profile.

 

[r.harris1]

And it opened up a can of worms. The key word is RAW, so jpg shooters need not apply and it is never discussed in the RAW vs jpg 'friendly discussions'. Likewise, within the RAW world the correction profile is camera and lens dependent that was used to create the profile in the first place. Not only Brand X using Brand Y lens that was profiled for Brand Y camera, there are also profile differences withing the Brand, such as Brand Y Model A and Brand Y Model B using the same native lens as the sensors are different, either by original design, such as 24MP vs 42MP, or generation progression within the same model. Adobe RAW really pointed it out to me when I switched to Sony using Nikon adapted lens. Surprise, no profile exists! I don't know if it still exists, but Adobe use to have a program on their website (technical support/training area) that would analyze test target series of photos and custom develop your own profile.

It did indeed open up a can of worms. I use third-party lenses all the time, personally. Even with profiles developed by the raw converter vendors (Capture One, ACR/Lr, DxO, etc) the challenge is that there is no "one way" to build them. I know Capture One more than the others since its what I use, but their approach was to get a lens on a test bench and run through a whole series of tests to build one of theirs. Other companies like Adobe do it more algorithmically by collecting image samples from the public or from vendors. At the end of the day, there's going to be at least small differences, sometimes larger. But even given this, it was always nice to have the lens profiles. It seems like there's less incentive for the raw converter vendors to create profiles but maybe that turns around.

I'd thought that Adobe was trying to deprecate that analyzing capability but it has been a while since I looked.

 

[MrCheeto]

Seems like a lot of work to placate control freaks. Who made it a sin for artistic tools to not express their natural selves?

Why choose one paint medium over another? Why choose only one rather than mixing? Why match, cross, or book-match grain in wood marquetry? Why choose one film developer over another? Why choose one mallet, mouth piece, reed, string or pick over any other? In the end, can't we just fling crap at the wall and spend the rest of our time just having computers clone, morph, mask and feather it into a piece of art?

I find the skill of an artist lies equally in how they embrace and manipulate the novel aspects of their tools not limited to just grain and optical "defects".

Today, thanks to the convenience of every imaginable digital crutch and safe-guard, anybody can unbox an iPhone and become a fertografer. The images may have excellent IQ but what is it worth if anybody with a similar iPhone could create the exact same level of interesting image? Would you pay to see a magician perform the same "rubber pencil" trick you did in elementary school? Would you enjoy a meal equally whether it was shipped frozen and tossed into a microwave vs. made of only fresh locally-sourced ingredients that took time, attention and expertise to prepare?

Take the first ten-seconds of For all we Know by Carpenters. The sound of valves popping with every single note of the oboe is possibly the part I most look forward to in this song. Today, artists do everything possible to convince us that sound and images are generated from some other dimension where there is no environmental effects or factors outside of their control and apply so many effects to the piece that it's as much "leather" as bonded leather. Songs like those by Carpenters remind the listener that there is a person behind the instrument and that they exist in the same world as you. Seems the norm today is to hide that fact however possible.

As harris said, clinical is the game. Strip everything of character, paint it solid white and for god's sake don't let the lighting deviate from 8140K or you can't appreciate it the way the artist intended.