Something to learn from (kind of a long read) but worth it

[melis]

From Ken Rockwell............weather you love him or hate him its something to learn from and I thought I'd share. This reiterates exactly what I was talking about in my last post on the camera selection thread about great photography vs great equipment. All the money/equipment in the world won't make you a better photographer.

I just might keep my current camera and work on being better and better Will see.....


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

[Red92vr4]

I agree with most of what he said there, except for the $5,000 camera setup versus the $150 one. Obviously, if you set all settings to neutral, and automatic on any camera, the pictures will be flat looking. Who buys a DSLR and doesn't edit the pictures to some extent? It's like buying a good film camera, and nevr learning to develop your own images. It doesn't make sense.
I didn't buy SLR's just because they can take a good picture, I bought them because I can swap lenses, use speedlights and studio lights, have very good high ISO performance, etc. Also, if you look at his large print tests, you can see a huge difference between the two, as it looked like he posted a large crop of an out of focus area from both cameras.
While I do get what you are saying Melis, I don't think KR showed it very well.

[chargerx3]

totally agree. ive taken some of my bst pics on a old crappy point and shoot

[boardFreak5]

it depends on what you mean by best pictures. If you take the same picture with a dslr vs. a point and shoot. You will have a much better picture with the dslr almost every time.

[Kenneth Ellis]

"Obviously, if you set all settings to neutral, and automatic on any camera, the pictures will be flat looking."

I've seen lots of people all over the internet, this forum included, playing with all the settings on the camera to the fullest extent and still making flat, boring photos.

That's not to say I think of myself any better than that. I don't take photos as a method of artwork. I take photos as visual record sans emotion. I have to stumble across feeling when I find it, but more often than not that is not the intent for me opening the shutter.

However, working in other media and being (moderately, at best) skilled at it, I heartily agree with the lesson being taught.

There's an old axiom that no artist should be limited by his tools, and a tool that instills a limitation is a bad tool, be it brush, pen, pencil, ink, whatever. That's backwards. An artist that is limited by his tool set is a bad artist. A $150 point and shoot has just as many good shots in it as a D Mark III, the same that a 10-cent #2 pencil you buy at Staples has the same number of good sketches in it that a $2 Derwent black label F pencil has. Different methods are necessary to put them to paper, and a measure of extra vigilance and effort might be needed on the lower end models to get there, but the same ability to make art is trapped inside.

If the artist isn't able to find it, that's not the fault of the camera or pencil.

[Red92vr4]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Ellis

"Obviously, if you set all settings to neutral, and automatic on any camera, the pictures will be flat looking."

I've seen lots of people all over the internet, this forum included, playing with all the settings on the camera to the fullest extent and still making flat, boring photos.

That's not to say I think of myself any better than that. I don't take photos as a method of artwork. I take photos as visual record sans emotion. I have to stumble across feeling when I find it, but more often than not that is not the intent for me opening the shutter.

However, working in other media and being (moderately, at best) skilled at it, I heartily agree with the lesson being taught.

There's an old axiom that no artist should be limited by his tools, and a tool that instills a limitation is a bad tool, be it brush, pen, pencil, ink, whatever. That's backwards. An artist that is limited by his tool set is a bad artist. A $150 point and shoot has just as many good shots in it as a D Mark III, the same that a 10-cent #2 pencil you buy at Staples has the same number of good sketches in it that a $2 Derwent black label F pencil has. Different methods are necessary to put them to paper, and a measure of extra vigilance and effort might be needed on the lower end models to get there, but the same ability to make art is trapped inside.

If the artist isn't able to find it, that's not the fault of the camera or pencil.

Right. I get that, but what I should have said was neutral is neutral. I think that better sums up what I meant. While I do understand what you mean about the artist vs. gear, find me a decent image taken on a point and shoot at ISO 6400+. Also, a pencil to camera comparison really doesn't make sense. A pencil only holds graphite, lead, charcoal, etc, while a camera has to control focus, shutter speed, flash settings, color, writing an image to a memory card, etc. What you are referring to in your last sentence is composition. I will agree with that point.

[Kenneth Ellis]

"A pencil only holds graphite, lead, charcoal, etc, while a camera has to control focus, shutter speed, flash settings, color, writing an image to a memory card, etc. What you are referring to in your last sentence is composition."

You're stuck on the technical level instead of the artistic, which is the aim of the article, and this conversation. Instead of seeing the forest, you see a bunch of individual trees.

What the pencil "holds" is no less than what the camera "holds". A pencil carries every aspect that a camera does in the matter of presentation of an image. It's usage covers the gamut of light, color, depth of field, and it's very usage is the recording of the scene. What it does NOT do, and what camera does NOT do, is CREATE the image that is artistically strong.

I know that when I take a picture that actually conveys feeling, or when I sketch one, that it was MY talent that found the art, not the engineer of the camera's internals or the chemist that came up with the right graphite to carrier mix. It was me. If you want to think it's the camera, that's your prerogative.

[chargerx3]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Ellis

"A pencil only holds graphite, lead, charcoal, etc, while a camera has to control focus, shutter speed, flash settings, color, writing an image to a memory card, etc. What you are referring to in your last sentence is composition."

You're stuck on the technical level instead of the artistic, which is the aim of the article, and this conversation. Instead of seeing the forest, you see a bunch of individual trees.

What the pencil "holds" is no less than what the camera "holds". A pencil carries every aspect that a camera does in the matter of presentation of an image. It's usage covers the gamut of light, color, depth of field, and it's very usage is the recording of the scene. What it does NOT do, and what camera does NOT do, is CREATE the image that is artistically strong.

I know that when I take a picture that actually conveys feeling, or when I sketch one, that it was MY talent that found the art, not the engineer of the camera's internals or the chemist that came up with the right graphite to carrier mix. It was me. If you want to think it's the camera, that's your prerogative.

Well put.

[Polygon]

Very good article.

I must say that I'm not that good but I think I've gotten to the point where my current point and shoot is holding me back. The CCD is very sensitive to lighting. It over exposes very easily and under low light it becomes grainy.

I'd love to get a DSLR since I can afford the body. Lenses are a different story.

[Red92vr4]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Ellis

"A pencil only holds graphite, lead, charcoal, etc, while a camera has to control focus, shutter speed, flash settings, color, writing an image to a memory card, etc. What you are referring to in your last sentence is composition."

You're stuck on the technical level instead of the artistic, which is the aim of the article, and this conversation. Instead of seeing the forest, you see a bunch of individual trees.

What the pencil "holds" is no less than what the camera "holds". A pencil carries every aspect that a camera does in the matter of presentation of an image. It's usage covers the gamut of light, color, depth of field, and it's very usage is the recording of the scene. What it does NOT do, and what camera does NOT do, is CREATE the image that is artistically strong.

I know that when I take a picture that actually conveys feeling, or when I sketch one, that it was MY talent that found the art, not the engineer of the camera's internals or the chemist that came up with the right graphite to carrier mix. It was me. If you want to think it's the camera, that's your prerogative.

Still missed my point, but I really don't feel like arguing this anymore.

EDIT: Let me clarify this. So, as an artist, you can imagine what you want to see in an image, or in your case, on paper. Depending on what camera I'm using, it may not actually be possible to get the shot I'm looking for because the equipment just can't do it. As far as pencils go, I wasn't really aware that one pencil was all that much better than any other.