I suppose one of my posts earlier added to all the 'controversy' over Micheal's rebuttal.....and I suppose even though he felt he had said all there was to say on the subject, he is compelled to prop up his point of view by some 'essay' by some guy....
Anyway, he say's " It might be a combination that costs forty dollars or forty-thousand but whatever it is, it can play an important role in the creation and look of a given photographers' work."
This gets closer to the heart of the matter...the whole point , and what always WAS the point....and all the 'controversy'...IS the classic argument "It's the photographer and not the Camera",yet a lot of you cant seem to grasp what that question,aphorism, whatever, is actually asking/saying.
What it IS asking/saying is..."Does a technical (or material..ie..more 'expensive) improvement correlate to an aesthetic /artistic improvement". The answer it infers is NO...and I also believe it is NO..at least as far as ART is concerned(as opposed to commercial work...sometimes called 'craft').
This DOES get argued to death..it's a shame there are not many interesting new points of view..or discussions about aesthetics,creative-process....sigh...
That's all I was hoping to achieve by : http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=23992

That, and I thought Micheal's rebuttal was rude...even now ,I hope he isn't insulting me. I don't have sub-optimal reading skills, and it wasn't either of those two points why I disagreed with him.

I understood what the Rockwell article was about. The spirit of it, yes is so obvious it has escaped many. Yes the photographer is what counts, maybe its corny..but it is true.

Maybe Ken should have mentioned that, again, this is very simple..that you have limitations with certain cameras, yes quality of output varies etc etc. If that happened, this entire debate would not even be here.

I think MR took it as the camera is of no importance at all. And if you want, you could read it like that, but it didnt hit me like that I have to say.

So my now modified keep people happy version is

"the camera is of far less importance, than the photographer"

and I would struggle to find anything to attack that line with. Maybe KR took it as a given that people would know a holga isnt ideal for shooting a wedding indoors, or a pinhole is not your ist choice to do the olympic games with.

The issue, aside from the slightly iffy tone from MR on the newer editorial..I found the MR response too strong..and over emphasising the importance of gear, when he could have just added to the KR article, and if you like "corrected it" for nitpickers out there.

I disagree... as Michael says in the lead in to the new article "Rather, I was simply using his ill-named essay as a jumping off point for my own thoughts on the subject."

I don't think that anyone, anywhere, said that the photographer plays no role in the picture. We all know that being in the right place with the right light at the right time has something to do with it too, but we don't go around saying that photography is like real estate it's all about location location location.

Somehow it is acceptable to argue that it's all about skill and not about tools. I think that we can all agree that without skill you're snookered. But the old saw is still repeated as gospel. Camera ergonomics and characteristics are so closely scrutinized because we don't want them getting in the way and instead we want to make sure that they work with our perceptions. If the camera hinders my ability to take the picture the way that I see it, or if it is just not up to the job, then it is important. As the Brit's so wonderfully say "Horses for courses."

I can't believe the amount of traffic that this has generated. Is the photographer important? Of course. Is the gear important? YES!!!

Michael's article wasn't entitled "The photographer doesn't matter", it was entitled "Your camera does matter"
Ken's article was entitled "Your camera doesn't matter"

One of these titles is correct. It's Micheal's. (If you disagree, I'd be happy to trade you a point and shoot camera for your DSLR kit since apparently it doesn't matter.) If Ken's essay had been entitled "The photographer mattered" then most of this traffic wouldn't have been generated (and the world may possibly have been a better place).

I'm going to try really hard to never think about any of this stuff again.

And who was the ist person to put an image up, taken with a "sellotaped camera", I was. And in this case, the camera was not a major factor in getting the shot that I wanted, no need to again state the obvious limitations of certain cameras, which mattered zero in that case

I think that said something a bit more than the super debate we get ourselves into on this one. I disagree, in respect that..and I will repeat it again..what is more important? Gear or person? It is of course the person, that is more important than the camera.

On that basis, and on that alone. Rockwell is in the right camp (albeit failing to mention a few obvious points), and Michael is..sadly in the techo gear camp, placing too much importance on the camera IMHO. Also, I will again point out the article which the owner of this site put up himself, saying he won the battle of being a good photographer using cheap stuff..that kinda kills the argument from my point of view.

Isn't it the goal of Ken to generate web traffic ? Would Ann Coulter be a best selling author without her outrageous statements ?

Of course it is! The thing with Ken is, some people really take him too seriously, honestly I do not. Not to say he does not say some worthy things (and some iffy ones too), but its designed to provoke a response. He even says this himself...

The only shock was, this site owner fell for it! But then are we looking at this right? Both sites got a likely notable increase in web hits, and likely some benefit from that.

I really do not agree with everything on ken's site, but then I dont buy everything put up here either, you use your own judgement on things. If rockwell played to the crowd on this, then Michael provided it in the ist place! Silence is golden sometimes..

What "fell for it"??? What nonsense....He speaks his mind...he says what he says...period. Why is it important to question one's 'intention' as it applies to expressing an opinion. This is a skewed view of communication...as if one's ideas and opinions are molded ,formed with only the view of getting more 'web hits'. Ken Rockwell states his opinion,so does MR, so do you and I...period.

I am afraid I do not agree, no nonsense about it, you have few allies here, dont attack the one who is backing you up!

The style of KR is blunt and designed to draw attention, it is meant to be like that. How many people would visit a low key..ho hum, nicely said article website. There is way to present things, and KR decides to do that in a no nonsense way.

I assume his goal is to make some income from his site, he has no problems being upfront about it. If you copied Ken's site, but used a very mild form and choice of wording, you would get a lot less traffic.

The obvious refutation to this is that Luminous Landscape gets more web traffic than Ken's site, most likely because much of what Rockwell writes is nonsense. Sensational nonsense, but still nonsense written more for sensation's sake than actually useful photography information. Michael's stuff is less sensational, but contains a higher ratio of useful information.

It is meant to be like that? No one can know KR's 'intentions' but himself. The truth is though..he just speaks his mind. I don't think it is as convoluted as that he, A> thinks of a subject and writes an article...and then B> thinks of a more agressive wording and rewrites his article. I mean...he doesn't have an editor he answers to, he's solo. Maybe you're reading into his style of writing too much...

Each to their own so to speak, on any site the message can get lost in the noise for sure, but what is nonsense to one person makes perfect sense to someone else. How much is written by style or design is also up to interpretation. Each site has its pros and cons. If a site is of no value to you, then why bother visiting, and even more why would one care what someone else reads or thinks about something anyway....

If you try to correlate 'more expensive' to 'aesthetic improvement' then you fall into the classic logic trap of trying to relate the objective to the subjective.

You seem to be taking the position that the gear does not affect the aesthetic value of a piece of work. How can this be? I would say that gear need not affect the aesthetic value, but equally well, it might. It's up to the artist to decide this. Saying the camera does not matter is as pointless as saying only the camera matters.

Gregory Crewdson is by all measures an artist, and secondarily a photographer. He uses a camera operator and DOP plus production and lighting crew to produce works that sell in the high art market for very large amounts.

Crewdson uses equipment of the absolute highest quality (and cost) to produce exquisite works of art. Tell him there is no correlation between equipment and art. For him the technical quality of his works contributes greatly to his creative vision.

Well..lol..that's what Im saying..you CAN'T relate them. The answer to the question is obvious....though to most it seems obviously the wrong one because I don't think they read the question the same as I do...or you do (apparently, though you seem to think i'm advocating something i'm not)

I am saying the Field acts upon the Form and only then does the Form affect the Field. You brought up a good example of a photog (gregory).If he now 'improved' his art with a technically better lens say, it would not necessarily translate to a better image. Thats all i'm saying....it could be expensive gear, it could be cheap gtear..Im not refuting expensive equipment. Saying the camera does not matter is (to me) the better position to take...I dont think Gregory had to wait for a crew and high end equipment to express his vision...it is just an outgrowth of the particular creative path he takes.

I think the wrong premise people have is that a more expensive camera will produce better IQ. I would submit that a better camera, regardless of cost, will provide better IQ. Sometimes a lessor costing camera provides better IQ, and I think we all know more then a few instances of this.

But I speak of IQ here....And as to composition, what a better camera cannot do is make one compose better. Usually. And as to composition, every single 35mm camera made, every single DSLR ever made, regardless of make, of model, will never prevent one from composing a picture, so long as he has a lens with the required FOV, and aperture setting. But lenses aside, any and all cameras will not prevent one from composing their best work.

But, if one wants that composition to have the highest IQ, then well, the camera does in fact matter.

A resulting composition is the result of a conspiracy between the photographer and his kit. If the kit does not support the photographer's vision, then the resulting composition will suffer. Therefore, kit matters, and often it matters a great deal.

It's not becoming of a photographer to get "macho" on us with statements like "a great photographer can take any camera and produce a masterpiece". I don't believe this and never will.

Taking the position that 'the camera does not matter' is simply too limited. It leaves you nowhere to go, whereas saying the 'camera does matter' is by no means the opposite and makes no comment on how much it matters: it matters to a certain degree depending only on the photographer using it.

I think people are failing to realise that there are three positions to take, not two.

1. The camera never matters.
2. The camera does matter to an unspecified degree.
3. The camera is the only thing that matters.

I'm sure most people would agree that 1 and 3 are too extreme and by my measure, wrong.

Can we agree that the camera can matter to both technical and aesthetic quality?

No, we can never agree on both points. The only certain thing is that the camera matters with regard to technical quality.

Artistic qualities, almost by definition, transcend the tools used for their creation. If this were not the case, we could always judge artistic merit by its modernity.

The Empire State building would be a greater work of art than Angkor Wat, a Bartok piano concerto would be a greater work of art than a Mozart piano concerto, and Blue Poles would be a greater work of art than any cave painting at Lascaux or Altamira.

Sorry! On this point, Ken Rockwell is right.

Sorry but newer does not always equal better technical quality - Stradivarius anyone? The aesthetic qualities of a performance by a top concert violinist depend to some extent on the quality of the violin. The violin might not affect the quality of the written music but it certainly does that of the performance - equally an 'art'.

Since we do agree that the camera matters with regard to technical quality, I'm not sure why you insist that technical quality can have no relevance to aesthetic qualities.

Again Crewdson is a good example of technical quality being critical to (his) art. He could not do what he chooses to do with anything other than a large plate camera. I'm sure he could do lots of other good things with any camera, but the point is he chooses to use a particular piece of gear for a particular creative effect.

How then is the aesthetic quality of Crewdson's work not influenced by the equipment?

You can't really be that stupid. The technical side of photography is an integral foundation for artistic expression. Try capturing the majesty of an eagle in flight with an 8x10 view camera. If the artistic vision always transcends technical capabilities, then this should be easily doable. But the reality is that no matter how skilled the photographer, using that particular tool for that particular task is pretty much guaranteed to result in an unrecognizable blur. The technical aspects of the tool simply do not support the creative vision, regardless of the skill of the user. Every camera has strengths and limitations, and large part of effectively expressing your artistic intention is choosing an appropriate tool for the task.



You're engaging in a strawman argument here. Nobody is arguing that modernity always equates to superiority, either technical or artistic.

If this is the question, then the answer cannot be "NO." The answer has to be "SOMETIMES." It has to be sometimes, because it's easy to imagine where a technical "improvement" - a choice of camera more or less expensive - will result in an aesthetic/artistic improvement. Example: The choice of a Holga photographer, looking for that style, using a Holga produces an improvement aesthetically and artistically over a Nikon D3 being used in attempt to reproduce that same Holga style.

As noted by another, you're setting up a straw man argument. I'm somewhat sleep deprived, so I'll indulge in knocking some things down.

But some of Bartok's work is better than some of Mozart's. I agree that when you compare their best pieces, Mozart is superior, but it's not universally true.

Some times improvements in technology allow for a better expression of the artistic vision (which goes to the point that tools are important). Instead of comparing Angkor Wat with the Empire State Building, I'll compare it to the Taj Mahal, which in my mind vastly exceeds Angkor Wat in beauty and its ability to inspire awe. Refinements in tools and techniques allowed for an expression of an artistic vision that wasn't possible in the time of the construction of Angkor Wat.

"Artistic qualities, almost by definition, transcend the tools used for their creation."

Quite the opposite. Artistic creation, and the tools available, are intricately entwined, in a symbiotic relationship. Painting in part depended on the nature of the paints available, and modern art often uses new materials to explore the artists vision. For a long while representational art was highly valued, but then photography allowed anyone to create an image of a person, or a landscape, thus devaluing the representational form of painting. Is it a coincidence that as photography developed, so art became more abstract, in an attempt to find a different and distinct language?

Personally I do not like most music from Mozart, Bach and so on. I think it is because they wrote for instruments with limited sustain, and I find the music repetitive and tedious. Music from the mid 19th century onwards appeals to me, and I suspect it is in part due improvements in the instruments available, which allowed artists to expand their range.

You're right. I can't be that stupid and I'm not that stupid. You hit the nail on the head .

But surely you can't be so stupid as to believe that any intelligent artist would not attempt to choose the best tool and the right tool for the job, the tool that is currently available in whatever era, century or decade he/she happens to be living.

Just as you would not attempt to get a detailed shot of the moon delineating all the major craters, using a Holga camera, but would use the longest telephoto lens you have, a potter would not attempt to to mould his clay using either a Holga camera or a telephoto lens.

In other words, the nature of the subject matter determines the choice of tools that are used. The artistic merit of the result depends only on the talent of the artist.

That explains why you are in the "it does matter" camp. I would think that anyone who believes that the sophistication and modernity of the equipment and tools they use have a bearing on the artistic merit of the result, would naturally tend to believe, as sure as night follows day, that modern works of art are generally better than ancient works of art, that a Rodin sculpture is better than Michelangelo's David, for example and that the cave paintings as Lascaux and Altamira are all basically crap.

Thanks Nick for providing an excellent example in support of my argument. In some ways the craft of violin making could be considered analogous to the craft of photography. Both require tools and technical expertise. However, Stradivarious violins did not get their fine reputation because Stradivarious was using more sophisticated tools than other violin makers of the day, and especially not because he was using more sophisticated tools than modern violin makers use, but because he had a fine ear, just as a good photographer has a fine eye.

In other words, he applied 'art' to his violin making. A Stradivarius violin is a work of art; a creation resulting from the techniques he used rather than the tools he used. As far as I know, scientists are still trying to find out precisely what his techique was.



Because technical quality and artistic merit are two different things. Anyone, without any sense of artistic appreciation whatsoever (if such a person really exists) could take a photo of high technical quality simply by using the most expensive camera available and following a few simple rules to obtain accurate focus, correct exposure and a sharp image.

Exactly, because the tools DO matter. Otherwise there would be no reason to make a choice.

How about we settle for a draw?

Those who feel that their artistic vision is not limited by cheaper gear keep working with a Holga, and those who are interested in trying to tap into more advanced gear do so.

My view is that we are all somewhere on a learning curve that does inevitably take us towards a broader understanding or things.

- Those who feel that gear doesn't matter might reach a point further up where they feel limited by their current options,
- Those who feel that gear does matter might reach a point where their vision and style can do away with most of the equipment related aspects of photography.

What matters in the end is that life is made of cycles and that there is no universal truth. The key then is to understand that extreme statements do often not come accross well...

Cheers,
Bernard

Jonathan,
It's true that the catchy title of Ken's article is, "Your Camera Doesn't Matter", but you should know that you cannot judge a book by its cover.

In order to find out in what way, in what respect, with regard to what issues, your camera does not matter, it is necessary to read the article.

Having read Ken's article, it should be quite clear to anyone who has at least a modest grasp of English Comprehension that Ken is referring to the artistic result, not the choice of possible subject material.

It should be obvious to all and sundry that the range of subjects one can tackle with a Holga camera will be considerably smaller than the range of subjects that are possible with a modern DSLR and zoom lens, especially if the zoom lens has a good macro facility which can open up a whole world of close-up photography not possible with a Holga.

There's a difference amongst the following statements,

(1) Your camera does not matter with regard to the possible choice of subject material.

(2) Your camera does not matter with regard to the technical quality of the image produced.

(3) Your camera does not matter with regard to the artisit merit of the final result.

Put as simply as I can, the title of Ken's article is "Your camera doesn't matter" and the content of the article is, "with regard to the artistic merit of the final result".

Talk about straw men! Your argument is the quintessential straw man. The biggest straw man ever.

Bullshit. "The camera doesn't matter" is not merely the title, but is a mantra repeated ad nauseum throughout. Furthermore, the article is silent on the subject of when the camera might matter, and fails utterly to mention any situation where gear choice might negatively affect the final image either technically or artistically. 8x10 for shooting birds in flight, anyone?



DUH! Which is exactly the problem with Rockwell's article. You just admitted the camera does matter to some extent. Rockwell never did so anywhere in his article, and made many strong, absolutist statements to the contrary. The actual words Rockwell wrote are logically indefensible.



And yours is bullshit based on wishful thinking and a hyperactive imagination, and bears no resemblance to Rockwell's actual words.

LOL, come on Ray, you make it sound like there was some hocus-pocus involved!

Q: Did Stradivarius use tools to make his violin?

A: Yes

Q: Could he have done it with any old tools?

A: No.

QED



Sure, but can you say it was entirely the technique? I don't think so, and if not then the tools do matter to a certain degree.

Nick,
The concept I'm trying to get across here is that Stradivarius violins would not be any better, in terms of their sublime tonal qualities, if you were able to time travel and hand him a complete set of modern violin-making tools.

Why not? Because those exceptional tonal qualities, in so far as they are exceptional, were not a product of the sophistication of the tools used. They are a result of the choice of ingredients in the wood preservative used, and that choice of wood preservative is also not a product of the tools used, although the point is taken that one needs some sort of tool to stir the ingredients just as one needs some sort of camera to take a picture.

The choice of ingredients that Stradivarius used for his wood preservative could be considered as analogous to the compositional elements of a photograph with enduring artistic merit.

I do understand where you are coming from.

However, those violins are a product of many things, but can you be sure that old Straddy would not have been interested in tool developments? It's very likely that he chose the best available tools at the time, but I suspect that modern chisels would, at the very least, hold a better edge and that might well be useful to him. I'm not saying it's certain, but you have to entertain the possibility.

"They are a result of the choice of ingredients in the wood preservative used..."

In what way is anything involved in creating a work, that is not the pure ability of the craftsman, not a tool? The preservative is part of the process and no doubt a careful choice was made in picking it.

All these things, both material and mental, form parts of the creative process and you cannot isolate any one component and say it is irrelevant to the finished result.

"...and that choice of wood preservative is also not a product of the tools used..."

Here, you are right. The choice is not a product of a tool. But it is a choice from what's available. Given a new choice, it may affect the end result therefore the thing you are choosing can be said to affect the aesthetic value of the outcome.

"The choice of ingredients that Stradivarius used for his wood preservative could be considered as analogous to the compositional elements of a photograph with enduring artistic merit."

No, I can't agree. The choice of ingredients is analogous to the choice of film, lens, camera etc - hardware all. The sound of the violin is analogous to the composition of a photo.

Back atcha...

It's irrelevant to the discussion whether Stradavarius would be using current tools. Perhaps he would. The question is, "Can modern tools make anyone the equal of Stradavarius?"

You misrepresent what I wrote, but misinterpretation and putting words into other peoples mouths seems to be your forte. You also make absurd statements to try and ridicule my views. And you also seem to think in a very black and white manner. Life is not that simplistic.

I did not say that modern means better. I did say that modern means different, due to a wider range of tools, and that it can mean a wider range of expression. Hence the sophistication of modern art is far superior to that of cave art. Is is better from an aesthetic point of view? Well that is a subjective judgement best left to the observer. My view is that they are different, and that modern art is better than cave art. BU cave art has intrinsic value for various reasons, mainly cultural and historical rather than aesthetic. In the case of music, I happen not to like pre-1800 music as the style is not to my taste, so yes in that case I do think the art improved due to improved tools. I gave that example to illustrate how changes in the tools can change the nature of the art.

If you think that the tools never have a bearing on the artistic merit of a work, then you are misguided. Tools can have a bearing, though it all depends on the tools, the nature of the work and so on. A wider range of tools, and better tools can allow an artist to better express her vision. Do you really think Michelangelo could have sculpted David with a feather duster? Of course once the tool reaches a certain level further improvements are somewhat superfluous.

Life is not as simplistic as you and Ken would have us believe.

Yes, I can. And that's what science is all about and that's what extensive scientific research has discovered about the Stradivarius violins, that the distinctive quality of the sound they produce is not due to the selection the timber used, not due to the shape of the violin, not due to the tools used in making the violin, but is due to the chemical ingredients in the wood preservative.

The violin itself is obviously a product of tool use, but those distinctive tonal qualities of the Stradivarius is a product of the grey matter between the ears.

However, if you wish to argue that what we have between the two ears is also a tool, then I'll concede the argument. The tool matters if the human brain is considered to be a tool.

Okay?

But bear in mind that we are straying from Ken Rockwell's point. He was not making the point that tools in general do not matter (including the human brain), but that (specifically) the camera does not matter with regard to (specifically) artistic value.

Good! So you agree that art produced with a more sophisticated tool is superior, (with photography, read sharper, better dynamic range, lower noise etc) but not necessarily better from an esthetic point of view.

That's what Ken Rockwell also thinks, I believe. So do I. We can now all go home .

I wouldn't count on that, if I were you.

Bernard,
The above are basically motherhood statements. Good sense, pacifying in intent, but ultimately ignored.

Kill me.

With a new gun or an old rope? Or does it make any difference as long as it gets the job done?

Crushed under the weight of my own liver.

You have serious problems with reading comprehension. Yet again you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I did not say that "art produced with a more sophisticated tool is superior". And you also reinterpret what Ken says according to your prejudices.

From the look of things you and I agree.

The problem is that the opinion you ascribe to Ken is not one that he expressed. Unless you can get quotes from him, without you inserting words to change the meaning. I and others HAVE quoted from Ken to justify our points. You haven't because you can't. You have to surmise what he might have been thinking when he wrote his article. But following your approach you could change the meaning in any way you wanted.

Then there's electricity, log chippers, cliffs, moving vehicles, concrete shoes, blunt objects, poison, hungry carnivores, chain saws, power tools, knives, fire, trash compactors, drowning, flesh-eating bacteria, starvation, dehydration, disembowelment, decapitation, falling pianos, meteor strikes, explosions, asphyxiation, exotic infectious diseases...there's a plethora of possibilities.

Sorry! You are wrong. I have no problem at all, whether it's reading philosophy, a recent novel or my electricity bill. My English Comprehension is fine, than you.

Now there's a good one. Provided it was a big one. It would be nice to go out with a few billion of my fellow humans. But then I'm a people person.

There's your problem, Jonathan: You see, as far as Ray is concerned, "Your words [i.e., KR's words] don't matter!" He applies this principle quite consistently to KR's essay and thus keeps coming up with what he imagines KR must have meant rather than what KR actually said.

Somewhere else in one of these threads Ray wrote (and I paraphrase, as it isn't worth looking for the actual quote --- because, after all, "your actual words don't matter") something to the effect that "Only a complete imbecile believes that 'the camera never matters at all'", and since Ray is making the assumption that KR is not a "complete imbecile", Ray concludes that what KR means by "Your camera does not matter" is that "Your camera sometimes matters."

So it all goes back to Humpty-Dumpty reasoning again.

I must admit that I haven't seen any evidence to support the assumption that I am claiming that Ray is making.

Which is a TECHNICAL issue, not an artistic one, analogous to a particular composition of glass in a lens that reduces chromatic aberrations, the formulation of a film stock or the color filter array in a digital sensor which results in a more pleasing color response. You've disproved not only your own statements, but those of Rockwell as well. Quit now before you make yourself look any more foolish.

The problem here, Eric, is that I am constrained in expressing what I really think and feel because I'm a guest on someone elses forum.

I don't want to irritate Michael too much. He has the power to ban me.

An assumption with precious little evidence to support it. And it appears Ray is doing his best to tar himself with Rockwell's feathers (to mix metaphors a bit). You can send a kid to college, but you can't make him think (logically).

All you need to do is back up your assertions about what you claim Rockwell meant with things he actually said instead of reinterpreted paraphrases, and quit trying to defend your position with arguments that disprove your point. Or failing that, admit your error. You'd look a lot less foolish and a lot more reasonable.

When the dust settled, all that would be left alive would be the roaches, the scorpions, and this thread. lol