DSLR Photography Forum

Full Version: It's all about the photograph?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Picked up a bargain the other day from Borders bookstore - National Geographic Digital Photography Field Guide, at 75% off. Anyway, in one of their introductory paragraphs, they say:

Quote:I will share a secret with you: the photograph - not the technology - is always the most important thing. Technology changes; good photography does not.
I think that's true to some degree, but at some point you need to jump into the technology. For me, the hardest is the tail end - post processing. It's easy to capture the image, harder to transform the image into what you imagine in your mind's eye.

What do you guys think?
As far as the quotation is concerned, they're right, because ultimately only the end result matters, and it will be judged without knowledge of how it was made. A photograph works or it doesn't, and while personal preference and fashions always play a part in that determination, the fundamentals of what makes a good photograph hasn't changed much in 100 years even though the tools and fashions have.

But the tools can't be separated from the process at the time the images are created, and different tools create different types of images. Steven Shore took several road trips across America in the 1970's, shooting the first with a 35mm camera and the later ones with 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras. He even tried to take some of the same photos in both small and large formats, but the difference in how the cameras worked created a very different experience. In his first trip, he was intentionally using his 35mm to create snapshots chronicling even the mundane aspects of his travels, which succeeded as a body of work even though the individual results weren't Great Photographs. For his large-format work, the same style of photo was practically impossible -- he talks about the difficulties of photographing his pancake breakfast in an interview posted here. (The majority of his work from his later trips were ultra-detailed cityscapes that made perfect use of his large-format cameras. The pancakes were just photographed as an exercise in continuity.)

But thirty years have passed since then, with all of the changes in technology and how photographers work. At the end of the interview, Shore says: "For all that I said about my love of the 8×10, basically what I’m using for the past 3 years or so is a Canon Powershot." Personally, I never would have considered iPhoto and a P&S to be useful tools for an artistic photographer with an eye to precise compositions, but they suit what he's doing now.

I've recently been making 12x18" (super B) prints of my favourite images, and it's pushing the limits of what I can do. So I suppose either my expectations or equipment needs to chage -- and expectations are cheaper.
I have the 'Landscapes' NatGeo Field Guide bought at a used book store for $3, and while it's aimed at a less experienced photographer than most of us I will say that there was a lot of positive reinforcement of concepts I thought I already knew completely, and it's well written and the admittedly small photos are reproduced very well.
I recommend these books for almost anyone, especially since they can now be found at bargain prices.

As for your quote, I agree completely but there's the exceptions that punch holes in it.
My own camera is both obsolete and amazing, and I could not make all of the the photos I do in such a wide range of styles without it.
I would have to own more than one camera and a lot of expensive lenses.
I believe that had I started with any other camera, I wouldn't have been able to succeed with as many difficult styles as easily. Or I would have had to spend lots of money I didn't have, which is the same thing.
This particular piece of hardware shapes almost everything I do, as did becoming proficient with Photoshop before becoming a photographer, because I didn't have an emotional investment in what I edited.

I think that technology isn't as important as the photographer's inner eye for what makes a good picture. Skilled Photoshoppers can make some impressive things happen with weak image files, and good camera users can do the same using all-automatic point and shoots.
A lot of this is from their level of experience, like waiting for the light to be perfect or just making it that way.

I think being reasonably skilled in all areas is the best way.
But capturing a great image with the camera will always make the end result much stronger--the eternal question is: Do you have enough time on-location to make this happen?
Often, we are forced to shoot with limited time and must rely on whatever other tools we have to make the best of less-than-optimal conditions. This is when skilled processing comes into play.
Or taking notes and returning to shoot again at a better time of day, which is something I do often but isn't always an option when you're on an expensive trip away from home.

Bottom line: Gathering more camera skills and equipment and processing techniques is a good thing, and none of them can truly make up for a lack of another.
A great photographer would try to have balance in all areas of the process.
In this case I take photograph as anything, from a landscape, to a macro of a bug, going through street photography, architecture and wild life or studio photography. I agree with matthew when he saids "But the tools can't be separated from the process at the time the images are created, and different tools create different types of images."

I tend to desagree with people that say that is the eye and not the camera that makes the picture. Yes, in some point it is the eye that creates the artistic vision of the situation, but it is the camera and the propper camera that makes it possible. And referring to Keith comment with the correct use of it too. My experience about *this idea probably comes from reading comments of people that say this and they have themselves pro gear... Why do they say this? Why they bought all this pro gear in the first place if they think this way?...

About post processing... there are some many arguments. Some say there are not bad pictures but bad post processing, and others say a good post processing starts with a good picture. Somehow I have been in both situation where I have rescued disastrous pictures and make them shine and I have also make good post processing from good pictures. Have to say that the first ones give me more satisfaction.

Make your picture look as you imagined has been also difficult to me, because it has nothing to do with the photograph itself but your skills with an editing program. And I belive here as well, that too much depends on your editing program to get just right what you want. Let's say I took a picture of a house, well exposed and all, and I want to make it look like a vampire's castle... well, If I succeed, the picture I took has not much to do with the success of my image, but my post processing skills and the program(s) I have/use to do this job.

Here at home we have a situation, and it has been more dramatic (to me) now that G has a p&s camera. We go to a location, and while G goes around freely with his camera (pocket size) taking a landscape and then a macro and then the portrait of a child, I am carring a heavy bag with a tripod and stuck with one lens and limiting my photography to landscapes for example. When he has taken already lots of pictures, I just found my possition to set my tripod and I am still digging in my back for the right filter and fiddling with the holders to get my landscape right. When we come back, of course he will have much more interesting photographs. And here you can't say to yourself "don't worry, it was not a good location", because you see the your mate got great pictures in the same location you also were.

So why am I still stuck with my camera? Because there is no p&s able to give me the image quality my camera gives ..... yet....

Thanks Jules for the topic, it has been very interesting to read all comments posted so far... Smile

*Editted for tipping error
It was...
My experience about his idea probably

It should be
My experience about this idea probably