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

I think we all generally agree more than we think, and both schools of thought are actually correct. I'm a classically trained pianist, so I'll make a musical comparison if I may. A musician looking to perform the great piano concertos of Beethoven couldn't physically play them on a small 61-key synthesizer with no pedals. The equipment is important in that it must be capable of delivering what the operator needs.

There is, however, a range of equipment that will suffice. That music would sound best on a freshly tuned and regulated Steinway D, but I could still express my musical ideas on an old upright. In that sense, I'm only being limited by my technique and creative intellect. Likewise, a Steinway won't give a beginner a good sense of musical phrasing and better technique. Shortly before she passed, I played music that brought my grandmother to tears on a nursing home's poorly maintained spinet piano.

Really excellent analog equipment is so inexpensive that I have a difficult time believing a large number of us don't have a tool capable of what we creatively ask. If you have a message and a capable tool that creative spark will ignite. If it doesn't then perhaps you should search from within, because it probably isn't an equipment problem. Heck, I've fallen victim to it. I was having a difficult time photographing people, and it took me a very long time to come to terms with the fact that I was terrified of what people thought of me. I kept thinking if I just had a longer lens or a camera with autofocus I could make better images.

While the Pulitzer Prize for photography is about journalism, not art, it proves that some significant photographs do not require sophisticated equipment. In 1954 Virginia Schau recorded a dramatic rescue with a Kodak Brownie. She sold the photo for $10, but also received that year's Pulitzer Prize. I consider it technically better than the famous 1944 winner by a seasoned professional.

Yes, I think the subject has been well exhausted and we are currently splitting hairs. I learned a few things along the way, and I hope some other people will too, now or in the future.

The topic is one I've wanted to explore for some time, and I think my philosophy largely remains, but I think I may be much better at understanding other artists' point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thomas Bertilsson said:

What I'm talking about is that if we let the camera dictate our creativity, then we are in trouble.

Click to expand...

The camera can never dictate one's creativity. It can only, in the worst of cases, fail to posses the properties and behaviors necessary to give appropriate form to that creativity. And should that ever become the case, then one does not change the message. One changes the medium used to express it. To another more appropriate camera. Or lens. Or film.

Or, if a more appropriate camera setup cannot be located, or maybe does not even exist, then perhaps it's time to pick up pencils and drawing paper. The idea, the message, the creativity, will not have changed. It remains intact. Only the selection of the correct tool required to express it will have changed. And such selection is an inherent part of the creative process, as the functionality of the tool selected directly contributes to the form of the final work.

Thus has it always been regarding the efficacy of tools. When building out my darkroom, if I needed to set a wood screw to complete my processing sink I didn't reach for a hammer. Even though a hammer is capable of setting that screw, there were other more appropriate tools available to realize my creative vision of a custom sink.

And to close the circle, if I had reached for a hammer to set the screws, my sink would still have taken form. But that form would have been significantly different in terms of quality and appropriateness from my original creative vision. It would not have been the sink as I had originally envisioned it. Even if it did still hold water.



Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

The camera can never dictate one's creativity. It can only, in the worst of cases, fail to posses the properties and behaviors necessary to give appropriate form to that creativity. And should that ever become the case, then one does not change the message. One changes the medium used to express it. To another more appropriate camera. Or lens. Or film.

Or, if a more appropriate camera setup cannot be located, or maybe does not even exist, then perhaps it's time to pick up pencils and drawing paper. The idea, the message, the creativity, will not have changed. It remains intact. Only the selection of the correct tool required to express it will have changed. And such selection is an inherent part of the creative process, as the functionality of the tool selected directly contributes to the form of the final work.

Thus has it always been regarding the efficacy of tools. When building out my darkroom, if I needed to set a wood screw to complete my processing sink I didn't reach for a hammer. Even though a hammer is capable of setting that screw, there were other more appropriate tools available to realize my creative vision of a custom sink.

And to close the circle, if I had reached for a hammer to set the screws, my sink would still have taken form. But that form would have been significantly different in terms of quality and appropriateness from my original creative vision. It would not have been the sink as I had originally envisioned it. Even if it did still hold water.



Ken

Click to expand...

But you could have used nails instead of screws without much alteration to your vision. Your sink would have functioned as a sink in exactly the same way. The only difference perhaps is if you ever wished to take it apart. But that has really nothing to do with it's function as a sink.

And this thread is not about what is your favorite tool to use, it's been about whether the tool is the only tool to use or could you use another tool to complete your vision, which the hammer and nail easily would have done.

But with your "quality and appropriateness" argument changed the dynamic of the OP comments. So now you have made the tool the number one variable even though the other tool is just as perfect for your vision, which it to make a sink. Like my vision is only appropriate with an 8x10 and not a 4x5.

So what you are essentially saying is the tool is the priority for your vision, which is the sink, but you are hung up on the tool. (Screws)

If I was giving a talented young photographer advice, I'd say find a camera that works for you and stick with it. It's one less thing to think about. If you're shooting film, choose black and white or colour, and preferably a single film. Cutting down the variables cuts out the distractions. The difference in image presence between a Leica and a Canon and a Nikon or even a Zenit, is negligible (ditto Hassleblad, Mamiya, Fuji/ Horseman, Sinar, MPP), the film, processing, printing and above all skill and vision of the photographer is infinitely more evident to the viewer than how many lines per inch the lens resolves. Cameras can be fun in themselves, but they can also become a fetish item, drawing the user away from what photography is all about, which is stamping their view of the world into a photograph.

blansky said:

But you could have used nails instead of screws without much alteration to your vision. Your sink would have functioned as a sink in exactly the same way.

Click to expand...

Ken Nadvornick said:

It would not have been the sink as I had originally envisioned it. Even if it did still hold water.

Click to expand...

"Without much alteration??"

See above...

The point being that I agree with Thomas that one should never allow the camera to dictate creativity. Even to the point of dumping cameras altogether and picking up pencil and paper, if that is the better choice to give form to that creativity. One should always change to a more appropriate tool before changing one's message (or sink) to match only the tool immediately at hand.

My creative vision for my sink was based upon wood screws, not nails. I believe that to be a better long-term choice for a sink. I would never alter that vision to nails simply because all I had was a hammer. I would go out and purchase the more appropriate tool—a screwdriver.

Changing my creative vision to accommodate nails, which were in fact implicitly disregarded by the act of explicitly choosing screws, simply because I own a hammer and not a screwdriver, is the type of "creative" decision a professional sink craftsman might make in order to enhance that sink's ROI and the sink-building bottom line.

Ken

blansky said:

Like my vision is only appropriate with an 8x10 and not a 4x5.

Click to expand...

BTW, I can't believe you said this. I know you know better.

Photographic history is replete with examples of photographers whose iconic visions were intimately tied to their respective choices of camera formats. Because those formats they explicitly chose possessed properties and behaviors that were crucially different from other formats, and thus better matches to their respective visions.

The same is true even in our little world here on APUG.

:confused:

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

BTW, I can't believe you said this. I know you know better.

Photographic history is replete with examples of photographers whose iconic visions were intimately tied to their respective choices of camera formats. Because those formats they explicitly chose possessed properties and behaviors that were crucially different from other formats, and thus better matches to their respective visions.

The same is true even in our little world here on APUG.

:confused:

Ken

Click to expand...

Which all makes you believe that the tool is more important to the vision. And by saying the tool is the vision, or the main ingredient in the vision just means that the tool is the decisive factor. Because your vision is completely tied to your tool.

Your vision is not to build a sink, or take a certain picture, it's to build a sink with screws, or take a certain picture with a certain camera. Your vision has a locked in caveat.

Which is the opposite of the OP's argument. Which is fine. His vision he wants to communicate, and the tool doesn't have to factor too much in that. You're saying the only or most comfortable way for you to communicate is that you need a specific tool.

So I guess the question is, if you are so tied to a specific tool, would you, if you couldn't use it, try to communicate at all, or would you be able to accept a different tool.

I'm just clarifying.

But that doesn't clarify because it's an incorrect summation.

The tool is simply the mechanism by which one's vision is rendered form in the real world. And without some external form that vision cannot be communicated to others in that real world.

I realize it's an unfortunate and inconvenient truth for some that tools are necessary to enable such communication, art being only one subset of the larger set of general forms of communication. However, were that truth not so, there could be no communication at all. Only ideas trapped inside peoples heads screaming to get out.

Think about that for a moment...

The tool is not more important than the vision. But the vision cannot be rendered to form without the tool. And without some sort of form there can be no communication of the vision to the outside world. Now if one's definition of art is to only think internally, this is not an obstacle. But if that definition includes sharing one's thoughts, then the use of a tool is non-negotiable, no matter how good it may look in an Artist's Statement to ritually denigrate them.*

Ken

* And no, one can't negotiate around that requirement by verbally describing one's internal creative thoughts to another, because the abstractions of the spoken and written word are themselves the tools which render external form to one's internal creative vision. Those are the tools that poets and writers use...

Ken Nadvornick said:

But that doesn't clarify because it's an incorrect summation.

The tool is simply the mechanism by which one's vision is rendered form in the real world. And without some external form that vision cannot be communicated to others in that real world.

I realize it's an unfortunate and inconvenient truth for some that tools are necessary to enable such communication, art being only one subset of the larger set of general forms of communication. However, were that truth not so, there could be no communication at all. Only ideas trapped inside peoples heads screaming to get out.

Think about that for a moment...

The tool is not more important than the vision. But the vision cannot be rendered to form without the tool. And without some sort of form there can be no communication of the vision to the outside world. Now if one's definition of art is to only think internally, this is not an obstacle. But if that definition includes sharing one's thoughts, then the use of a tool is non-negotiable, no matter how good it may look in an Artist's Statement to ritually denigrate them.*

Ken

* And no, one can't negotiate around that requirement by verbally describing one's internal creative thoughts to another, because the abstractions of the spoken and written word are themselves the tools which render external form to one's internal creative vision. Those are the tools that poets and writers use...

Click to expand...

Well two things....

One, you're still tied to the specific tool being necessary to the final print. Which perhaps in a few cases it's true. But in most cases not. Take for instance if someone said. I only contact print 8x10, and their vision is tied to the tool. But it's also tied to the particular "thing" that is a contact print. But with that example you're describing a lot of the aesthetics of the thing you hold in your hand, and not really at all about the actual subject of the image. You don't have burning need to photograph that person which could be done with any tool, you have a desire to only photograph that person as a specific style of print. So to you the subject is not the main thing, instead the subject on a certain piece of paper is.

The OP said, I don't care about which camera, I want to communicate the subject. I want to get it out there. And your argument is, only if I can shoot it with a specific camera. Or my vision is ruined.

And Secondly, why are you arguing about equipment that I've not seen evidence that you use. Do you shoot anything that is so different that it couldn't be shot on 35mm. Do you shoot large format and contract print, or use swings and tilts, or alt process. Or are you just arguing hypothetically.

To make a representational photograph one needs a camera - we're not talking photograms or similar optical/chemical images - and the variety or format may have an influence on the type of photography it enables (street photography with a Deardorff is for heroes only), but the idea that only a Contax II or a Nikon F endows the image with sufficient magic dust to enable the scene to be recorded is pure hype.

A photographer may invest a camera with the idea that only it provides the necessary world view (a rangefinder permits a view beyond the frame for example), and convince himself that his Leica is lucky, but these are charms that work on the user, they are not indigenous to the camera alone or everyone would make great photographs and a glance at a Leica forum will quickly disabuse the viewer of the notion. What we can say is a particular camera might make the photographer more enthusiastic to photograph, and a combination of its weight, texture, branding, ergonomics fits his sense of himself, but that is not a universal facet and what fits one person won't fit all.

In the 1960s there used to be a TV astrologer who ended her slot with the phrase "think lucky, and you'll be lucky". That also applies to cameras.

Stephen Gill photographs of a street market taken on a 50p camera bought at the market:

https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/...wNzYw--?p=Stephen+Gill+Hackney+Wick&fr=mcafee

(also includes images taken on a Rolleiflex)

blansky said:

Well two things....

One, you're still tied to the specific tool being necessary to the final print. Which perhaps in a few cases it's true. But in most cases not.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm tied to tools being necessary to render that final print because I realized early on that I can't simply transfer my vision onto the printing paper by staring at it and concentrating really, really hard.

Remember, the print (or scan, or inkjet, or magazine, or newspaper) is just an abstract form of the original vision. It's purpose is to give external form to the originator's internal vision in such a way that when you as a secondary viewer look at it, you may at some level understand what he was thinking when he rendered it. In other words, he successfully speaks to you, one level removed, through that abstraction.

This is no different than Hemingway speaking to you, one level removed, through the abstraction of ink-on-paper glyphs which in aggregate form comprise his masterwork The Old Man and the Sea. (Actually, probably more than one level removed, as he presumably wrote the original on a ribbon typewriter, and most of us read it as a published book.)

blansky said:

The OP said, I don't care about which camera, I want to communicate the subject. I want to get it out there. And your argument is, only if I can shoot it with a specific camera. Or my vision is ruined.

Click to expand...

One has to use tools to communicate. There's no way around that, short of Spock performing the Vulcan mind-meld. Your choice of camera(s) simply determines, to a greater or lesser degree, the resulting external form of that communication. And if a camera won't do the communication justice, then sketch it on drawing paper, or compose it as a musical score, or scratch it into the sand between the waves and tell your audience to read really fast.

But one way or another you're gonna' have to use a tool of some sort. And they don't all possess the same strengths and weaknesses regarding the transmission and reception your creative message to those in that audience. So choose wisely.

blansky said:

And Secondly, why are you arguing about equipment that I've not seen evidence that you use. Do you shoot anything that is so different that it couldn't be shot on 35mm. Do you shoot large format and contract print, or use swings and tilts, or alt process. Or are you just arguing hypothetically.

Click to expand...

Actually I do make negatives* using a number of different formats, including 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. But I can't draw. Or compose music. The 8x10 is contact prints only, as I have no enlarger capable of handling that format. My most recent major camera-related purchase was a mid-80s still-sealed new-in-box Majestic head for the 8x10. The camera is a fully restored Calumet C1. It's adorably ugly.

My most recent use was the 4x5 with a Polaroid 545 back to help out (at their request) the folks at New55. I did some field testing from what I was told was the very first batch off the line. They were still at the point of experimenting with chemistry and the mechanical performance aspects of the envelope. I (along with some others) provided some early feedback in those specific areas, as well as general impressions regarding the use of the product.

(You should consider trying some. It's still a work in progress, but loads of fun nevertheless: New55 P/N Instant Film.)

And I didn't think we were arguing. The OP asked for a discussion. I thought that's what we were having. Besides, this is post 117 and no one has yet mentioned global warming or Hitler, so it must be a discussion?

Ken

* One "makes" or "exposes" negatives. One "shoots" tin cans...

A great photographer with a lousy camera will make better art than a lousy photographer with a great camera.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Besides, this is post 117 and no one has yet mentioned global warming or Hitler, so it must be a discussion?

Ken

* One "makes" or "exposes" negatives. One "shoots" tin cans...

Click to expand...

Oh yeah....

A man with a vision....

I know what you're saying, Michael, and I agree. But in terms of the OP, the truth in the statement places equipment farther down (in importance) to other items, such as vision, creativity, and dedication. I think that's all that Thomas was saying in his original post.

Michael R 1974 said:

True (as it is in all the arts), however I've never liked that tried and true dichotomy because it ignores other scenarios such as the possibility a great photographer achieves a result he's more pleased with using a great camera than with a lousy camera, or the possibility a great photographer gets the same great result using a great camera instead of a lousy camera, but with less technical pain.

Click to expand...

Yes, the system is unfortunately comprised of more than just those two oft-quoted variables.



Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

Yes, the system is unfortunately comprised of more than just those two oft-quoted variables.

Click to expand...

In terms of where this discussion began, it's not. Thomas asked where the equipment (specifically the camera) stood in the hierarchy of the creation of art. The variables are only the photographer and the camera.

Michael R 1974 said:

Well I can only agree with that part. Many of us would agree without vision, creativity, dedication, skill and talent, the best or worst equipment won't amount to much from the perspective of the final product. But each of us evaluates the end results based on different criteria. Some of us seek only to communicate something, and depending on what that is, the type of camera, film etc. may or may not matter when it comes to achieving the desired result and aesthetic. For others, there are additional considerations in evaluating the end result and so the camera type or format choice might matter.

Click to expand...

This may be a chicken and egg argument...
For many things I'd agree with you. The choice of equipment may be inherently important to certain work, though I still maintain the artist's vision is paramount.
(While responding, I noticed you edited your post, after having written something about the medium being the message. That struck a chord, as the things I've been doing lately are almost entirely, intentionally, medium driven.)

eddie said:

In terms of where this discussion began, it's not. Thomas asked where the equipment (specifically the camera) stood in the hierarchy of the creation of art. The variables are only the photographer and the camera.

Click to expand...

But in terms of the platitude you quoted, it is. Factor in the aforementioned pain-of-success as part of the overall judgment of success, a not unreasonable variable to consider, and now we at at three. Incurred expense might be a fourth. Attempt to perform a full abstraction of the entire soup-to-nuts process, and one would likely encounter hundreds, if not thousands, of additional variables. That's the true nature of reality.

It's a platitude because it intentionally simplifies down to the least complex and most obvious argument in order to appeal to the widest audience one is try to win over by quoting it.

And in terms of the original thread premise, I still don't see how two factors, each of which is critically essential to an outcome, can be characterized as more or less important than the other. They are both essential. They are both critical. Nothing happens without both being present and applied. Acknowledging this fact denigrates neither. In practice we all utilize both. It's not an either/or situation.

Where's the beef? Who's ox is being gored by the basic reality inherent in this?

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

And in terms of the original thread premise, I still don't see how two factors, each of which is critically essential to an outcome, can be characterized as more or less important than the other. They are both essential. They are both critical. Nothing happens without both being present and applied.

Click to expand...

I know what you're trying to say. I just don't think they're equally critical. For me, one is more important than the other.

suggesting the gear is as important as everthing else is like suggesting that the shoes one wears
or belt used to hold up one's trousers has as much importance.

if that is the case --- then photographers should use a variety of gear so they don't have this problem.
if someone is taped down ( richard butler would sing ) to his 8x10, or hassy maybe he ( or she )
should use a zone focus folder for a while, and if someone is so " i can't make a photograph without my leica" maybe
they should use a junk box camera or a press4x5.
people can learn more about themselves from being put in adverse situations than anything else ...
not saying using folders or box cameras are adverse
but to some, it may be "beneath" them...

eddie said:

I know what you're trying to say. I just don't think they're equally critical. For me, one is more important than the other.

Click to expand...

Perhaps then you just have a personal preference for one factor over the other? This I could logically accept. It would make perfect sense, as everyone's preferences are different, and no one can question a preference.

Let's say a photograph you created failed miserably. Happens to all of us. Would it really matter whether it failed due to a lack of intellectual execution? Or failed due to a lack of hardware execution? Either way you walk away empty-handed. And with some remedial action required on the next attempt.

Would there be any redeeming qualities or reasons to prefer failure by one factor instead of by the other?

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

Let's say a photograph you created failed miserably. Happens to all of us. Would it really matter whether it failed due to a lack of intellectual execution? Or failed due to a lack of hardware execution? Either way you walk away empty-handed. And with some remedial action required on the next attempt.

Would there be any redeeming qualities or reasons to prefer failure by one factor instead of by the other?

Ken

Click to expand...

Of course, many of my photographs are failures, maybe most if determined by how many I choose to print. I always prefer failure due to equipment issues over creative issues. An equipment issue can be easily remedied. Failures in vision issues are far harder to overcome. This is why I think gear is secondary to creative vision.

[As an aside, I'm not sure there really are "failures", in the sense that much can be learned from them. I spend more time examining my rejects than on my "winners". Not really relevant to this discussion, except that my failures are almost always due to creative shortcomings, rather than equipment shortcomings.]