Does choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?

[mollyc]

Don't mention it. Although it IS as a result of misunderstanding, at least be honest about it! 🤣 I hope you find the affirmation you and others so crave.

I don't think there were as many misunderstandings in the most recent thread as you believe there were. But to @r.harris1's point, we have had similar discussions around here for years.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/photographers-with-pro-gear-how-are-we-liking-the-latest-iphone-camera-updates.2343582/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/using-iphone-ipad-for-photography.2353149/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/next-camera-d850-d4-or-something-else.2305048/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-photography-fun.2342753/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/when-will-mirrorless-take-over-dslr-and-time-to-sell-mirror-dslr-equipment.2215690/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/pure-photography-or-art.2334247/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/do-you-use-more-than-1-camera.2316321/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/what-makes-a-great-picture.2308358/

The future of digital cameras

Everywhere I go I see people taking photos with phones. Sometimes I see people using SLR’s but most of the time it’s phones. What does this spell out for the future of regular cameras? Will the P&S cameras go away in 5-10 years? Will you not be able to buy a pro camera at Best Buy but only...

forums.macrumors.com

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/for-the-love-of-art.2302295/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/sending-up-an-idea-balloon-anyone-interested-in-an-image-thread-for-serious-photographers-photography-only.2298838/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/what-is-your-lens-choice-for-a-beginner-and-what-is-the-one-lens-you-cannot-do-without-focal-length-s-aperture.2287990/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/does-everyone-need-a-dslr.2287317/

Is digital photography a lie?!

With the various techniques and post processing we all get involved in these days I have been asked by a few of my friends if I’m lying to them when I ask for their opinions on some of my shots. Some of my friends are off the opinion that a digitally enhanced / edited picture is essentially a...

forums.macrumors.com

This is just a selection of our conversations over the past year and a half. We talk a lot about stuff. We also share photos a lot. Would be great to see some of yours.

 

[Clix Pix]

I agree that some people have natural talent or an eye for a good photo from the first time they pick up a camera. Others (me included!) don’t.

However I think by reading about composition etc you can learn to become a better photographer and to see the image a lot easier than you can learn the other examples you mention. I’ve watched F1 all my life. I know where the apex is. But hitting it in a car at 120 mph is another thing. I will never have the hand and eye coordination and bottle to do that.

I agree that the technical stuff, the various techniques can be learned; I don't believe creativity can be. As someone mentioned above, there is a certain amount of curiosity, experimentation and, as I commented in one of my posts, the saying goes, "thinking outside the box" and this is innate, it is not learned. Actually, at time it can be hidden, though, for years, even to the person who has it, and sometimes it is only when trying something like photography that an individual discovers something -- a gift, a talent -- he or she didn't realize they have.

Some people produce images which are reasonably pleasing to the eye and technically perfect, following all the "rules" of composition (rule-of-thirds and so on), while others produce images which at first glance make the viewer wonder what the heck THAT is supposed to be, or images which while interesting, are not "correctly" composed or are underexposed or overexposed or have too much noise or some other flaw. Some fortunate individuals are blessed with both creativity and the ability to do everything with technical perfection.

And, yes, in today's world of photography it has become necessary for the individual interested in shooting pictures to not only master (or at least get a reasonable understanding of) the technical aspects of the camera/computer one is holding in his/her hands in order to get it set up so that the desired kinds of images come out of it, but also needs a good "eye," a sense of good composition and what makes an interesting subject or intriguing and unique approach to that subject, AND on top of all that, also must be able to deal with culling, reviewing and editing the images in the computer afterward. Some people prefer the shooting phase, while for others it is the editing process they enjoy the most.

The days are long gone when a professional or serious amateur photographer would spend time in a shooting session and then on the way home stop in at the lab and drop off their rolls of film. Then the next day or so they'd return to the lab, review the printed-out contact sheets, make some selections and mark up where they wanted those images cropped or otherwise adjusted and the lab would then print the chosen images. (Note that I'm not talking about Joe Blow dropping off his one or two rolls of film at the drugstore and picking up his 3x5 or 4x6 prints later, that is a different scenario.).

Most of us now do it all, and some photographers even do their own printing or arrange with a pro lab to print some of their images for gallery display or hanging on the walls at home or in the office. When you think about it, that's a lot of different skill sets!

 

[kenoh]

Agreed. If you don’t know what could be an interesting composition for an image, no amount of 10k plus lenses, megapixels or Lightroom editing will make the shot any better… anyone over at dpreview will be able to confirm that.

I agree, a beginner should not be spending 10k on their first camera until they decide what they want to take pictures of and until they have the capability to use whatever features a resulting camera has or not.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have the pros who the pros look up to. These guys are typically using equipment that 10k would be a deposit for. Before anyone starts jumping in, my brother in law shoots fashion spreads for the likes of L’Oreal and Hugo Boss. The kind of images that you see on the side of a building (printed at 3-4ppi). He is taken all over the world to shoot images and he has two sets of kit - his iPhone for personal work and Hasselblads for paid work. Those Hasselblads are amazing for image quality but would be useless to a paparazzi or a F1 photographer because they are slow and very very precise for image quality in their field of use. Equally, a Canon 1DX mk3, Nikon D6, D5, Z9 are not the right tool for the job as he is not trying to nail focus on a car hitting an apex of a bend at 120mph nor is he trying to capture an Eagle snatching a fish from a lake.

In the middle of the spectrum where you have competent amateurs through to the competent moderately successful pros is where the grey zone comes in. So yes, again I agree that giving a 10k camera to a newbie is futile but that same camera in the hands of someone moderately capable is going to be beneficial assuming that the capabilities of the camera benefit the user. While a more feature rich camera and lens combo (moving away from price) makes capturing a particular image easier or at least more likely assuming the chosen camera has features that are best for the shooting style, then yes, generally speaking an more feature laden camera becomes more useful across a wider spread of situations.

However, There are valid scenarios where a particular type of camera is better suited to the shooter in helping them get to the image they want to take - bearing in mind, getting the image as close to straight out of camera as possible is the desire.

For someone happy to photoshop the life out of their images, then no, clinical is best for optimum manipulation potential. On the other hand, If someone likes deep dark shadows and limited dynamic range, then a camera that is “handicapped” in that way would probably be better for them.

The other aspect is usability of course. You want to use a camera that you like using. No point having a camera that you hardly use because you dont like using it. As an amateur, I need a camera that encourages me to go out and take pictures. Pictures the way I like to look at them. Horses for Courses. If you choose to enter competitions or join a camera club then they usually like to see the raw file accompanying a final image so they can see how much it has been altered in post processing. The drive being to demonstrate the skill of the photographer from output from using the camera.

Does a particular tool matter yes and no. If your needs are generic or you don’t know how to realise your vision in your head then no but if you like a particular look or feel, do you enjoy using a particular brands models for button placement etc or a particular type of equipment makes it easier then yes, it does matter. If it is going to sit in the house and not get used, then no.

Pros don’t buy their own cameras typically in the way that we don’t by a laptop or PC for our work - they are tools provided by our employers for us to carry out our contractual duties. Freelance photographers typically go for good enough to get the job done but the rate at which technology changes, then yeah they use older kit until it breaks because they know that equipment back to front like a soldier can strip their rifle in seconds. They use what they know.

 

[Yoms]

Does choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?

YES if I reply strictly to the question. If your creative expression is to isolate subject from background with bokeh, you will encounter serious issues without a wide aperture lens. That is, again, to answer the question strictly.

Should the question be formulated slightly differently, the answer may be less conclusive.

 

[BasculeTapinade]

At the other end of the spectrum, you have the pros who the pros look up to. These guys are typically using equipment that 10k would be a deposit for. Before anyone starts jumping in, my brother in law shoots fashion spreads for the likes of L’Oreal and Hugo Boss. The kind of images that you see on the side of a building (printed at 3-4ppi). He is taken all over the world to shoot images and he has two sets of kit - his iPhone for personal work and Hasselblads for paid work. Those Hasselblads are amazing for image quality but would be useless to a paparazzi or a F1 photographer because they are slow and very very precise for image quality in their field of use. Equally, a Canon 1DX mk3, Nikon D6, D5, Z9 are not the right tool for the job as he is not trying to nail focus on a car hitting an apex of a bend at 120mph nor is he trying to capture an Eagle snatching a fish from a lake.

Those Nikon and Canon cameras can, however, produce similar images to what a Hasselblad camera can, given the equivalent lenses etc. Obvs the format is different, and you'll undoubtedly get technically better results from the MF camera, but there's really nothing you can do on a Hassy that you can't on a Canon or Nikon. The advantage of MF is obviously overall image quality (in most circumstances), so preferred over 35mm, but you can still shoot anything you might on a Hassy, with other brands. I have seen people using MF cameras such as the Pentax 67, Mamiya and Rolleiflex TLRs, and Mamiya 6 and 7s for photojournalism, in 'lively' political demos etc, so it can be done. Not my cup of tea though!

35mm cameras have been and are used in fields such as fashion photography; some photographers prefer the speed and flexibility of 35mm over MF. Of course, some use Large format. The bottom line is that the gear don't matter; it's the outcome. Now; if your client is wanting ultra-sharp large images for billboards etc, then M and L format is probably the better way to go. But if they want good images of sportswear 'in action' as it were, then the fast AF systems of 35mm cameras may be a better choice. So it's up to the individual to choose whatever gear they work best with. As someone who cut their teeth shooting such lively demos, with violent police and action all around, I honed my craft around working quickly, and the fully manual cameras I used (AF?? If only!) just meant I had to think quicker, to anticipate, to look harder for images. So for me, the 'slowness' of MF is unappealing. I'm really not a 'take your time in the studio' type photographer, meticulously setting up shots etc. But I admire and respect many who are. It's all relevant, it's all good.

 

[kenoh]

Does choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?

YES if I reply strictly to question. If your creative expression is to isolate subject from background using bohea, you will encounter serious issues without a wide aperture lens. That is, again, to answer the question strictly.

Should the question be formulated slightly differently, the answer may be less conclusive.

Agreed if you are looking to create an image that dictates the need or at least a benefit of a particular characteristic of a piece of equipment e.g. subject separation, low light, high frames per second etc. Then yes.

If we are talking general pictures of the world around us that does not bring forth the benefits as above them no, less conclusive.

All assuming the photographer has the aptitude and capability to want/use that capability.

 

[kenoh]

Those Nikon and Canon cameras can, however, produce images that a Hasselblad camera, given the equivalent lenses etc. Obvs the format is different, and you'll undoubtedly get technically better results from the MF camera, but there's really nothing you can do on a Hassy that you can't on a Canon or Nikon. The advantage of MF is obviously overall image quality (in most circumstances), so preferred over 35mm, but you can still shoot anything you might on a Hassy, with other brands. I have seen people using MF cameras such as the Pentax 67, Mamiya and Rolleiflex TLRs, and Mamiya 6 and 7s for photojournalism, in 'lively' political demos etc, so it can be done. Not my cup of tea though!

35mm cameras have been and are used in fields such as fashion photography; some photographers prefer the speed and flexibility of 35mm over MF. Of course, some use Large format. The bottom line is that the gear don't matter; it's the outcome. Now; if your client is wanting ultra-sharp large images for billboards etc, then M and L format is probably the better way to go. But if they want good images of sportswear 'in action' as it were, then the fast AF systems of 35mm cameras may be a better choice. So it's up to the individual to choose whatever gear they work best with. As someone who cut their teeth shooting such lively demos, with violent police and action all around, I honed my craft around working quickly, and the fully manual cameras I used (AF?? If only!) just meant I had to think quicker, to anticipate, to look harder for images. So for me, the 'slowness' of MF is unappealing. I'm really not a 'take your time in the studio' type photographer, meticulously setting up shots etc. But I admire and respect many who are. It's all relevant, it's all good.

Don’t get me wrong, it “can” be done, but the job is done easier with a tool aimed at that particular use. I have used my rangefinder with manual focus lens to capture wake boarders in action and managed it but had I known I was going to take those pictures beforehand I would have taken my Sony with phase detect tracking autofocus.

When it comes to high fashion though, they demand large sensors as they want maximum ability to crop without losing detail whilst printing big - a specific need that is made easier by the Hasselblads (H6D btw not X1D).

Totally with you, it is about getting to the image you want more easily and more consistently.

 

[MacNut]

Being creative and owning gear have to work together. You can have the best gear and not be creative at all. You can have cheap gear and be very creative.

 

[Clix Pix]

Or you can have cheap gear and not be creative at all!

 

[MacNut]

Or you can have cheap gear and not be creative at all!

People think you need gear to be creative. You need ability to be creative.

 

[apostolosdt]

Unless a thread like this one distinguishes between film and digital, then between black & white and color, and finally between 35mm and medium format (at least), a discussion may lead to heated posts but it cannot be taken too seriously by those of us who also happen to be photographers for many years and cameras.

Not to mention that, in a forum about top computer gear, people will tend to favor computer-like cameras... and lenses, like those Nikon Z lenses that require firmware now and then. Compare them to a Noctilux or a Distagon.

And, yes, the type of camera/lens does matter, not as some piece of equipment, but as a tool.

 

[4389842]

This is fine; most wildlife photography is more aobut simply recording nature, rather than producing 'art'.

Wildlife is actually an interesting one… without investing in some gear to give you the reach, even with all the creativity in the world, you won’t get far. Unless you want the bear to eat you…

But then again, you don’t need an expensive 600mm full frame behemoth, an Rx10 Mk IV can already get you quite far

 

[Clix Pix]

Wildlife photography -- that is, shots actually taken of wild animals and birds in their natural environment as opposed to shots of captive animals in a zoo or animal park of some sort -- may indeed "simply record Nature," but it also can be approached in a creative way as well. That is, the photographer can choose to shoot a bunch of images of a bird simply standing on a branch or the photographer can watch that bird for a while and wait for the creature to do something different or interesting. On another site, a photography-based one in which there are quite a few wildlife photographers, most of them indeed do strive to create technically stunning results but also interesting ones as well. Shots showing a BIF with a stream of you-know-what floating out behind/beneath him pretty much always generate a laugh from viewers.

4389842 -- good point, mentioning the RX10 IV -- it can do remarkably well for a camera which has a tiny 1" sensor. The Zeiss lens on that camera is quite astonishing really, and in good lighting, under the right circumstances one can get excellent results. I've had the RX10 IV for several years now and it is still a favorite, still gets used quite a bit. Even when capturing images under not-such-ideal conditions, with today's modern editing software and tools there are ways around that.

Since I have both the RX10 IV and two of Sony's FF long zooms it is apparent to me that time after time the larger, heavier lenses mounted on one of Sony's FF or APS-C camera bodies are still going to bring home images of higher quality simply due to the difference in sensor size and other functionality within the cameras themselves. At the time I was making the switch to Sony, I purchased three lenses that day and although I had the additional resources to buy more, at that point I wanted to see how things went first with the new gear and then I would decide upon additional lenses, etc. I kept the RX10 IV, figuring that this camera would nicely fill in the gaps in the meantime, especially on the longer end of things. Huh, that idea lasted just over a month! One day I was back at the store buying the 200-600mm zoom....

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Humans are creative but we’re rarely rational. -> I was working in the marketing department of a camera company, the top of the line, 7000€ camera was rarely bought by professional photographers, rather by (rich) amateurs that wanted what the pros were using.

And I (metaphorically) thank those people daily. If the only people who bought "pro" gear were actual pros, the highest end gear from companies like Canon, Sony, Nikon, Leica, etc. would be even more expensive, since they'd have to spread the costs of all that R&D and production into far fewer items sold. So every time I see a wealthy dentist or doctor or trust fund baby who bought the very latest and best only because it was the very latest and best, I just remember that they far outnumber the people who buy that gear to earn a living, and they're helping to subsidize the costs for all of us.

Most importantly, if their purchase brings them joy, who am I to complain?

 

[Jumpthesnark]

I am someone who never puts the strap which comes with a new camera body on it

Agreed 100 percent. I pay companies so I can own their gear. I'm not going to pay them to do their advertising for them as well.

I may know a photographer or two who uses the branded camera strap, but they are by far in the minority. The rest of us have found third-party straps that we have found are better suited to how we work, which tend to be much more visually subtle as well.

 

[sk8andmetal]

interesting thread,

I would consider several layers to my answer:

1_ Gears: of course people would not know if you took a cliché with this or that gear , use photoshop or not however, there are some limitations not use adequate gear , eg: attempting to take macro photography without macro gear.

2_ Techniques : here again viewer do not know techniques used (brush, but also thinking more widely about high key). those behavior and skills can be learned and applied as such by the photograph.

3_ Creativity : here the most tricky, part of the creativity is on the combination of 1 &2 but mainly also on something inner to the photograph and how he apply this and its very specific view, therefore trying to make a short answer, yes choice of photographic gear does matter to creative expression

 

[fb3993]

Those of you who have been following the drama over in the innocent sounding “I want to move from a D750” thread have seen the discussion get fairly heated, with it unraveling even to the level of a political discussion forum, typically the lowest form of intellectual debate there is, in my opinion. “I know you are, but what am I?”, that sort of thing.

The rough topic is “ Does one’s choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?”. That quickly became a discussion on cost vs value and cost vs outcome. It also became a discussion on marketing and mythology. Some interesting philosophical topics. I wanted to attempt to move that discussion out of the poor thread that started it to its own area. This may or may not work.

My own stance (yours will be different):

• There’s no “scientifically objective better” camera, approach or choice of photographic gear. There’s a choice between broader or more narrow feature sets and capabilities. Cost doesn’t always directly correlate to those features and capabilities. Does it matter?
• The choice of camera won’t matter to the viewer of the image, in general. They’ll most of the time not know whether it’s an iPhone, Sony A1 or Nikon Z9.
• The choice of tool does matter to the creator / photographer. It’s said that a good photographer can make a great image with any camera, but it’s equally true that they often find the choice of tool they use very important. They don’t use “any camera”, they use the cameras that they feel work the way they want to in order to achieve their vision. That’s where the discussion can devolve into marketing and mythology. Leica is a great example, but all companies use marketing and mythology very well, of course. As humans, we’re subject to it and interact with it.
• Humans are creative but we’re rarely rational.
• There are tools to help anyone express their creative vision at any price point. This is a good thing.
• Lenses have “character”. Some are clinical, some have known flaws that define that character. Some are designed to be shot wide open, others are defined to be sharp across a range of apertures. Some are designed to sharp edge-to-edge, others for center sharpness. Some correct for color focusing (aberrations and such), some deliberately don’t.
• Choice of body is personal and up to the individual to decide based on ergonomics and features. There’s no one “best body” to use for creative expression. It’s up to the individual’s needs and budget. Some pack tons of features with amazing AF, video and other things. Others have very few features and are entirely manual. Some have are larger, some smaller. Some let your receive phone calls .

It would be awesome to keep any discussion here civil and it’s purposely a broad topic so can “wander”. I will do my best to keep my own interactions as “adult” as I can - I’m not always good at that .

So does your choice of photographic gear matter to your creative expression?

To kick things off, here’s a short article by someone you may not know - he’s a reviewer that runs a paid website but has made this article free to link to. His name is Sean Reid.

https://www.reidreviews.com/examples/yes.html

• There’s no “scientifically objective better” camera, approach or choice of photographic gear. There’s a choice between broader or more narrow feature sets and capabilities. Cost doesn’t always directly correlate to those features and capabilities. Does it matter? -> There are scientifically objectively better cameras in certain aspects, meaning that you can measure e.g. dynamic range or autofocus performance and accuracy; and you often get a different 'best' camera in each category. Does it matter? No, unless you're at the top of your photographic field and need the absolutely best to stay there.
• The choice of camera won’t matter to the viewer of the image, in general. They’ll most of the time not know whether it’s an iPhone, Sony A1 or Nikon Z9.-> What I think matters is the end medium. Instagram? No one cares (and notices) whether you've used a phone or medium format camera. However, for larger prints and displays larger formats still print better compared to phones, despite all the processing advancements in phones.
• The choice of tool does matter to the creator / photographer. It’s said that a good photographer can make a great image with any camera, but it’s equally true that they often find the choice of tool they use very important. They don’t use “any camera”, they use the cameras that they feel work the way they want to in order to achieve their vision. That’s where the discussion can devolve into marketing and mythology. Leica is a great example, but all companies use marketing and mythology very well, of course. As humans, we’re subject to it and interact with it. -> most cameras made in the last 10 years can take great pictures. What I find most limiting is actually the controls that you find in entry-level cameras/phones vs professional cameras. I think the choice should mostly be on ergonomics and ecosystem rather than performance, as the difference in this are negligible to most. I think you should look at how you handle the camera (do I find it intuitive? Does it do what I want to do? Do I have to jump through 4 menus to do something I do 287 times each shoot? etc) and whether it has the lenses and accessories you need and you think you will need in the future.
• Humans are creative but we’re rarely rational. -> I was working in the marketing department of a camera company, the top of the line, 7000€ camera was rarely bought by professional photographers, rather by (rich) amateurs that wanted what the pros were using.
• There are tools to help anyone express their creative vision at any price point. This is a good thing. -> Find what you like and ignore what YouTube says.
• Lenses have “character”. Some are clinical, some have known flaws that define that character. Some are designed to be shot wide open, others are defined to be sharp across a range of apertures. Some are designed to sharp edge-to-edge, others for center sharpness. Some correct for color focusing (aberrations and such), some deliberately don’t. -> Damn you and your explanation for my next lens purchase.
• Choice of body is personal and up to the individual to decide based on ergonomics and features. There’s no one “best body” to use for creative expression. It’s up to the individual’s needs and budget. Some pack tons of features with amazing AF, video and other things. Others have very few features and are entirely manual. Some have are larger, some -> Yes, see answer n. 3.

And I (metaphorically) thank those people daily. If the only people who bought "pro" gear were actual pros, the highest end gear from companies like Canon, Sony, Nikon, Leica, etc. would be even more expensive, since they'd have to spread the costs of all that R&D and production into far fewer items sold. So every time I see a wealthy dentist or doctor or trust fund baby who bought the very latest and best only because it was the very latest and best, I just remember that they far outnumber the people who buy that gear to earn a living, and they're helping to subsidize the costs for all of us.

Most importantly, if their purchase brings them joy, who am I to complain?

Fully agree with your statement and I’m also not complaining. Just providing evidence that humans are rarely rational.

 

[catfish743]

Unless a thread like this one distinguishes between film and digital, then between black & white and color, and finally between 35mm and medium format (at least), a discussion may lead to heated posts but it cannot be taken too seriously by those of us who also happen to be photographers for many years and cameras.

Not to mention that, in a forum about top computer gear, people will tend to favor computer-like cameras... and lenses, like those Nikon Z lenses that require firmware now and then. Compare them to a Noctilux or a Distagon.

And, yes, the type of camera/lens does matter, not as some piece of equipment, but as a tool.

I've only recently begun to realize how lucky I have had it to have been able to experiment so freely in digital. Oddly enough my parents did have one or two decent cameras, but i never remember them being used as a kid and those little yellow disposables came to be what i knew. Well, polaroids before that, god flapping those things was fun.

You're right to mention the group discussing it as well: a lot of frequent or infrequent MR forum users are still a small subset of a larger population.

I'm also wondering if depending on where you started (or rather, where you wish you'd started?) in your photographic journey correlates to how you answer the question. I think my (original, unreasonable, absolute) position of yes as a teen was highly influenced by the tech zeitgeist. I don't know if there's a ton or correlation, and that that equals causation in this instance, but I'm curious.

I was also going to include my (tongue-in-cheek) comment that some people may view painting as photography, but I wasn't sure if anyone was ready for that discussion, haha.

 

[Analog Kid]

The point is not wether tech can boost creativity, the point is that no amount of tech can turn an uninspired person into a star photographer.

No, the point is whether the choice of photographic gear matters to creative expression. The point is explicitly not "can some choice in gear turn an uninspired person into a star photographer". This isn't a deus ex machina argument.

I would argue though that certain gear or tech choices can serve to inspire people and turn uninspired people into inspired ones. I know plenty of people who came to photography through an interest in machine learning, for example-- they began taking images to conduct research from and over time began taking an interest in capturing better images and learning about how changes in framing or lighting affect the human perception of an image. Next thing you know they're taking photos for the sake of taking photos. Wouldn't have happened with film cameras and chemical dark rooms-- just as a chemist might find themselves unexpectedly inspired by analog film but have no interest in a digital image.

Much like putting Joe Sixpack into the fastest F1 car will not make them win the race.

This is a horrible analogy. There is a single objective metric by which one wins a race. There is no such metric for creative expression.

The question isn't whether one piece of gear makes you go faster, it's whether a difference in gear will lead to different creative choices. There might be an overtone of whether or not those choices are "better", but I don't think that's necessarily even the point. "Better" is a personal opinion, and one that every viewer (even the same viewer at different times) might have different opinions of. And even a failed photographic experiment inspired by a piece of gear can lead to learning that affects creative expression in the future.

You need talent and even if such talent can be fostered to some extent, much of it will need to be innate.

I used to think that talent was something you were born with, then I learned how hard talented people work to hone their craft. There are some things that I am very good at, and I can't really answer the question whether I'm good at it because I spend so much time doing it or whether I spend so much time doing it because I feel rewarded by being good at it. There are some things I'm definitely not good at and I can't answer whether that's because of a lack of innate skill or if it's because I find the time I spend on those things frustrating and therefore don’t spend enough on it.

In the end, I think there are differences among people that lead some people to achieve certain things with less effort, but is the only utility for new gear only for those endowed with unusually high concentrations of midi-chlorians? No.

While in this day and age, it might not go down well with people that not everyone can do absolutely anything (how unfair!) there is a reason not everyone is a star tennis player, photographer, painter or even a rocket scientist…

There’s that word “star” again. That’s a strawman and not part of the debate here. Nobody has begun to claim that one piece of equipment will turn a turd into a star.

I think the fact that some people become tennis players, some become photographers and some become rocket scientists has less to do with innate ability and more with the need to specialize to succeed. Certain aptitudes may nudge someone in a given direction, but it takes a lot of work to reach the top of any field and that makes it nearly impossible to reach the top of more than one— it’s a mistake to conflate that with being born to do a certain thing.

If you don’t know what could be an interesting composition for an image, no amount of 10k plus lenses, megapixels or Lightroom editing will make the shot any better… anyone over at dpreview will be able to confirm that.

DPreview’s forums read like a pack of hungry photographers baring their teeth to scare off competition for whatever scraps of work are out there. Those debates aren’t about creativity— if they were they’d be much more open and welcoming because creatives like new ideas and views wherever they come from. Those debates are the photographic equivalent of whether someone is “pro” enough to own a Mac Studio— “creativity” is the word they give to the threads of self respect they cling to as they try to justify their lot in life by first ridiculing the newbs then fighting amongst themselves about whether it’s more prestigious to be a landscape, portrait, fashion, sports or wedding photographer.

That’s why this topic got broken out for separate discussion here— because every other discussion devolves into this same debate.

 

[Clix Pix]

Agreed 100 percent. I pay companies so I can own their gear. I'm not going to pay them to do their advertising for them as well.

I may know a photographer or two who uses the branded camera strap, but they are by far in the minority. The rest of us have found third-party straps that we have found are better suited to how we work, which tend to be much more visually subtle as well.

Yep, perfectly happy here with basic black, no vivid colors or artsy designs to draw attention to the gear.... Something functional and easy to put on-and-off both the camera(s) and myself fits the bill very nicely.

 

[Dan From Canada]

Only with photography do I see these arguments/discussions.
Does anyone quibble about what kind of brushes, papers, etc, that painters use?
Not like photographers.

 

[Analog Kid]

I agree, a beginner should not be spending 10k on their first camera until they decide what they want to take pictures of and until they have the capability to use whatever features a resulting camera has or not.

I agree with that in principle, but I‘ve seen people buy or receive gear that far exceeds their abilities and they practice like hell to feel worthy of it. It may not make them great, but it certainly makes them better.

 

[Analog Kid]

I was also going to include my (tongue-in-cheek) comment that some people may view painting as photography, but I wasn't sure if anyone was ready for that discussion, haha.

Or whether they view Photoshop as painting...

 

[tis100]

I'm not sure that's an absolute. New technology opens the mind to new concepts. The experience of using a particular tool leads you to think about how to use it. The tactile interaction with a piece of equipment affects your thinking beyond what sitting in an ivory tower would.

What you are describing is what I called the transformational perspective.

If the knowledge and tools you have are incongruent, then the right tool can make everything click. But, if you don't have the requisite knowledge, then it doesn't matter what tools you are given.

How does a new ultra fast autofocus system affect you if are studying composition of still subjects in a studio? Probably very little. However, if you are a sports photographer the extra speed could unlock a new workflow.

Transformative technology is only transformative if you have context.


The conceptual perspective, on the other hand, is concerned with value judgement. For example: this picture I just took is boring; maybe if I climb up that hill I can get a more interesting perspective.

No tool is going to tell you that your picture is boring or climbing up the hill can give you a more interesting perspective. That has to come from you.

Creativity isn’t a purely intellectual exercise. If you assert that creativity is a generalization of the scientific method then it’s experimental and experiential by definition.

I understand where you're coming from. I once shared those misconceptions of science and creativity because of poor pedagogy in school.

My language classes focused on narrative and persuasive writing, while my science classes focused on calculations and testing.

Through narrative and persuasive writing, I was encouraged to impose myself on the world. That is, make my story or push my beliefs.

And in science class I was given a "hypothesis" and through the act of "experiment", I had to gather data to show that it was true. But what I was actually doing was verifying a known relation. We never examined the difference between hypothesis and conjecture or negative experimental results, because the purpose of my science classes was to teach principles, not the scientific method. So in this way, science became the study of following steps to get positive results.

But this is not the reality of science and creativity.

The purpose of science isn't to support a hypothesis through experiment like a persuasive essay is to supporting a position. You aren't trying different techniques, experimentally or otherwise, to get a positive result.

The purpose of science is to prove your knowledge (i.e., how do you know what you know).

That's why PhD programs have what's called a thesis defense, where you must defend your knowledge to a doctoral panel.

The same concept applies to art. The intention should not be to make a beautiful film, but to make a film to understand what beauty is. Whether the film is beautiful or not is dependent on how well you came to understand beauty. The film is your defense of that knowledge.

So when I assert that creativity is a generalization of the scientific method it's because I view both as epistemological exercises, not experimental or experiential exercises, as you put it.

Creativity comes out of you, it's not something of happenstance.

 

[_timo_redux_]

I agree with that in principle, but I‘ve seen people buy or receive gear that far exceeds their abilities and they practice like hell to feel worthy of it. It may not make them great, but it certainly makes them better.

I feel so seen.