Not a question for camera enthusiasts, but for those into it for art

[NedL]

Usually that epiphany comes when I'm driving home without a camera

I know what you mean about uncluttered mind... maybe it is a way of becoming fully immersed in the place we are at that moment. It's a strange thing in a way, I know when I want to take a picture but there's no "reasoning" or thinking, it's almost instinct. Sometimes I don't know why, and I stand there trying to figure out what it is that has caught my attention!

I do keep a list of photographs I want to make or themes I'm working on... I'm not even sure how to describe it. If I wrote the entries here, it wouldn't make any sense to read. They are examples or words that remind me of moods in a photograph. For example, once I made a photo with a blue filter, and printed it on MGWT and it gives me a sort of wistful feeling I can't even try to put into words... so on my list is "blue filter/MGWT" to remind me that I want to try to make more like that one. I guess that's what I mean about "planned' photos...

 

[Jim Jones]

Some of Eugene Atget's photographs were obviously captured by inferior equipment. They might be even more valued if they were not thus limited. There are subjects I would photograph if my equipment was up to the task. On the other hand, some gear acquired in the past few years has opened new opportunities. Equipment does matter.

 

[RobC]

I wonder why so many people, especially "Fine Art photographers", want larger formats if the equipment is so unimportant. They should all be out with point and shoot cameras since its apparently more about their intellect than the camera.

 

[eddie]

... its apprently more about their intellect than the camera.

I've never had a camera tell me what to shoot. It is more about vision/intellect than equipment.

 

[MattKing]

For some reason, this thread makes me think of a story I once read. The source of the story was someone who was walking along a beach somewhere and came upon an individual using a stick to draw designs in the sand at the edge of the sea. The drawings were magical, and the person wielding the stick was taking great delight in his creations, as well as the fact that each creation was short lived, as within minutes it was obliterated by the rising tide.

The artist was Pablo Picasso. And he was creating for his own enjoyment. And I believe his creations were art. And the stick was important to him.

 

[eddie]

Great story, Matt. I'm glad Picasso didn't insist he couldn't do it until he had a carbon fiber stick...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I wonder why so many people, especially "Fine Art photographers", want larger formats if the equipment is so unimportant. They should all be out with point and shoot cameras since its apparently more about their intellect than the camera.

No camera will tell you what to do or whisper in your ear an idea. The camera will do what you instruct it to do, it is a stupid device that obeys your every command. You as the photographer have all the ideas, all the knowledge, all the wherewithal, and the creative drive to make the photographs you want to make, irrespective of what your equipment is. If you could only afford to use a Holga or an old box camera, would you be incapable of creating something wonderful with it?

 

[RobC]

No camera will tell you what to do or whisper in your ear an idea. The camera will do what you instruct it to do, it is a stupid device that obeys your every command. You as the photographer have all the ideas, all the knowledge, all the wherewithal, and the creative drive to make the photographs you want to make, irrespective of what your equipment is. If you could only afford to use a Holga or an old box camera, would you be incapable of creating something wonderful with it?

Since you don't seem to understand how important your camera is to you, I suggest you go out and try and take a photograph without one. It might then dawn on you that its a lot more important than you give it credit for. If that dents your "artists" ego, too bad.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Since you don't seem to understand how important your camera is to you, I suggest you go out and try and take a photograph without one. It might then dawn on you that its a lot more important than you give it credit for. If that dents your "artists" ego, too bad.

How many times have I said it is not a matter of having a camera or not having one? We assume you are having a camera, because you are a photographer. Hello? Is anybody home?

 

[RobC]

I have long thought that the camera was the very least important part of the whole system of darkroom photography.
Does anybody agree with me? I'm not looking for sympathy, but it's rather a case of curiosity on my part.

Most important are these abilities/qualities of the photographer, in no particular order:
- The intellect
- Sense of design and composition
- Understanding light
- Emotional involvement
- Hard work and dedication to projects
- The ability to speak their voice and crystallize what they wish to express

After that comes printing skill and presentation, which helps carry forward the ideas the photographer had.
Then comes the skill of performing the other steps in the darkroom, into which I bunch film exposure, film processing, and spotting prints.
Finally, the choice of film and camera I find comes in a distant last place.

And, of course, if we want our art to be seen by others, we need to be good at business, but that's commerce and shouldn't be a part of the creative side. I believe that if one listens to the market first and then creates, it doesn't come from within. Art needs to be an expression of something that is borne out of passion or a desire to create and tell. It's not calculated to be profitable. If it is profitable, it's a lucky thing that somebody else liked the work enough to invest in it.

Seems you don't want to hear from anyone that disagrees with you. I rekon you must be having a crisis of confidence then.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

To be fair, I do believe that Thomas' premise that a meaningful photograph is 95% intellectual and only 5% hardware is absolutely correct. However, as framed the original question did not ask about the relative proportions of those two contributing factors, but rather about their relative levels of importance to the process of realizing that photograph.

Those are two completely different concepts.

Both factors must be present and applied in order to realize the meaningful photograph. Remove either or both and the meaningful photograph cannot happen. So their relative levels of contributing importance to the process are essentially equal.

However, in successfully applying both factors in pursuit of a meaningful photograph one will quickly find that 95% of the effort required will revolve around the careful application of intellect to the task of creation, while only 5% of the effort required will relate to the actual hardware that performs the mechanical implementation of those resulting intellectual decisions.

In other words, the hardware factor requires only 1/20 of one's total attention to assure its successful critical path contribution, whereas the intellectual factor requires 19/20 of one's attention to be successful.

And this is as it should be.

Ken

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Seems you don't want to hear from anyone that disagrees with you. I rekon you must be having a crisis of confidence then.

No crisis of confidence here, I just want to straighten out what appears to me to be a huge misunderstanding on your part, which you keep repeating.
You keep saying: 'Try to make a photograph without a camera' and you claim I said '...the camera is not important'.

Never did I say you don't need a camera. Again, for the fifth time I think, of course you must have a camera. It would not be a question for photographers if they didn't have a camera. It would be pretty stupid to try to make a photograph without a camera, and it would negate this entire conversation. Of course we have a camera.

I also never said the camera is not important. I just said that it is the least important piece of the inputs. That is a HUGE difference. Of course the camera is important. It's just that the other ingredients are, the way I see it, a hundred times more important still.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5foLoTcDXdE

Thanks for sharing. That was very interesting to watch!

I also watched this one: https://youtu.be/xzjtb3PS-CI which was an interview by Martin Parr.

I'm very thankful to have seen these videos.

 

[blockend]

I completely get what you're saying Thomas. How is it when you look at someone's photograph you can say "that's a Martin Parr", a Koudelka, a Tony Ray-Jones, a Cartier-Bresson, whoever. From all the possible subject matter the world contains, how come these people consistently find photographs that fit their unmistakable oeuvre, and the viewer knows immediately who took the shot and can enter their world? The camera is the least important aspect clearly, or everyone toting a Rolleiflex or a Nikon or a Leica would be coming up with similar stuff?

The answer is they have the creative vision and the persistence to fulfil their photographic ambition. The first three used different cameras over their careers and their photographs still look exactly like their own. Cameras schameras!

 

[removed account4]

Since you don't seem to understand how important your camera is to you, I suggest you go out and try and take a photograph without one. It might then dawn on you that its a lot more important than you give it credit for. If that dents your "artists" ego, too bad.

i take photographs without cameras all the time

 

[Ian Grant]

I also never said the camera is not important. I just said that it is the least important piece of the inputs. That is a HUGE difference. Of course the camera is important. It's just that the other ingredients are, the way I see it, a hundred times more important still.

Unfortunately it's quite the opposite it's a very important part of the input because choice of format and type of camera has a profound effect on the final outcome, and the way you/we work.

Having made your choice of camera though it's then the least important factor because it's it's just the tool and the medium of capture. Once that's accepted then the points in your first post become relevant.

Ian

 

[RobC]

I bet he blames the camera when it doesn't go right

 

[darkosaric]

we are all practically saying the same thing with little variation

 

[ME Super]

What camera you use is important, but isn't the end-all of photography. I've made some nice photographs with a simple box camera or Instamatic. But they would not be my choice of camera for taking a photograph of the Lower Falls of the Yellowstone from Artist's Point (yeah, I've actually done that). In that situation I'd reach for my 35mm SLR and a long lens. So the gear is important, but the photographer's vision is more so. Someone once said the most important things in photography happen within 2 feet of the back of the camera.

 

[rbultman]

The camera will do what you instruct it to do, it is a stupid device that obeys your every command...

...up to the limits of that camera.

The camera itself has limits. If some idea you wish to convey requires camera movements, your point and shoot limits you.

Could that famous photo of the car with the slanted wheels have been done with a pinhole camera? No. It required a camera with that particular type of shutter. That was even likely a case where the particular camera influenced the "vision".

Once the camera meets some minimum requirement in order to express something, it is then only about the idea. It is not one or the other, but both. The camera is simply the ante, the table stakes.

It is possible to make art with any camera but it is not possible to execute just any idea with just any camera.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

I bet he blames the camera when it doesn't go right

nope, it usually goes well

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I bet he blames the camera when it doesn't go right

Sigh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Of course there will be exceptions.

All of us as persons have limitations too, the film has limitations, the lenses do, and I'm sure tripods do in some way too.
What I'm talking about is that if we let the camera dictate our creativity, then we are in trouble.

Imagine an excited and talented photographer who has saved their pennies and bought a simple 35mm camera, and they see a stunning piece of architecture they really connect with. Should they stop because they don't have a view camera with movements, or should they try to transcend the limitations of their equipment and attempt to make their masterpiece?

...up to the limits of that camera.

The camera itself has limits. If some idea you wish to convey requires camera movements, your point and shoot limits you.

Could that famous photo of the car with the slanted wheels have been done with a pinhole camera? No. It required a camera with that particular type of shutter. That was even likely a case where the particular camera influenced the "vision".

Once the camera meets some minimum requirement in order to express something, it is then only about the idea. It is not one or the other, but both. The camera is simply the ante, the table stakes.

It is possible to make art with any camera but it is not possible to execute just any idea with just any camera.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Carnie]

From Thomas--all of us as persons have limitations too, the film has limitations, the lenses do, and I'm sure tripods do in some way too.
What I'm talking about is that if we let the camera dictate our creativity, then we are in trouble.


Can't agree with you more my friend,

I think the absolute most important thing in my personal work is am I able to tell some sort of Story, Is the work consistent with this Story, and
do I believe in Story, over a long period of time and work I believe any one of us can tell a good story with photography.

When I use the word Story, it could mean series, concept, idea, message....and so on

 

[removed account4]

Not a question for camera enthusiasts, but for those into it for art

thomas

your title is misleading.
it seems to me that nearly every person believes they into it for the art
and everyone is a camera enthusiast ...
if someone wasn't enthusiastic about cameras, they wouldn't be here, would they ?

seems like schism is at it again,
left brain, right brain, tangible, intangible, process, something else exactitude, random/chance
and now it is the camera holds a vitally important role and no it doesn't ...