Earlier this week I dropped in on a photography forum in which the OP (original poster) suggested that the causal correlation between buying Really Expensive Gear and producing better photographs was weak. Oh, yeah!
Here is a slightly adapted version of my contribution to that discussion:
I’ve thought quite a bit about why so many “photography enthusiasts” seem to be much more interested in acquiring photography gear than in making photographs. Reasons might include:
1. Equipment is necessary in order to make photographs, so acquiring some is not unimportant.
2. Because it is, frankly, easier to write about gear in definitive (or seemingly definitive) ways than to write competently about photographs, there is much more written about gear – and newbies should be forgiven for having a false impression that the gear one has is more important than the photographs one makes.
3. Almost all of us do find the equipment fascinating to some extent. Some grow past this, but for some it ends up being more about possessing expensive and supposedly high-end stuff than anything else. (Photography is not the only area where this occurs.)
4. Because people more often encounter photographers when they are operating cameras than when they are exhibiting photographs, they associate the gear with the activity more than they associate photographs with it.
5. Some want to look like (what they imagine) professional photographers (look like).
6. Some are told, before they have enough experience to question it, that they must have “the best” gear if they are going to make photographs. I’ve actually seen rank beginners struggling with $6000 bodies and sets of L primes or big white telephotos… for their family vacations.
7. Some love to shop.
[The OP’s] notion that the causal correlation between expensive gear and photographic skill or quality is weak is one that I would agree with.
I think that a “cure” for the counter-productive obsession with gear at the expense of photographs may be to do everything in your power to focus on photographs – not photography, not cameras, not lenses, etc. If you are not or do not become passionate about producing photographs, then you might want to consider a different hobby. :-)
G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter (follow me) | Facebook (“Like” my page) | LinkedIn | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.
In regard to Dave’s comments (#9), concur wholeheartedly.
It is easier to buy new gear than it is to work at becoming a better photographer – and that’s the crux of the issue. There is a point where buying better gear really does look like a shortcut to better photography – you get better exposures, better auto-focus, sharper more contrasty pictures, better bokeh, shallower depth of field… the list of positives can be made to be very long.
But most shortcuts are really diversions – you don’t become a better engineer by buying a better calculator (even though it may allow you to work more quickly). Gear is the thing that helps translate your ideas into reality – it isn’t the thing that creates your ideas in the first place. Many photographers ‘invest’ in their photography by investing in their gear, when they really should be investing in their vision.
Even beyond the idea of trying to fix a photographic “problem” by buying stuff – which can, in some cases, make some sense – I’m more thinking about something even more basic. For some the main attraction of an involvement with photography seems actually be the equipment. I suppose an analogy might be getting into gourmet cooking because you really like to collect knives… ;-)
Dan
Dan – Interesting points you bring up. These days new photographers (okay, maybe some older ones, too) seem to get all wrapped around the axle about getting the new gear. The thinking in today’s society seems to be that, “there’s nothing wrong with me, or my skills, or knowledge…I’m just lacking the right gear to liberate me from making poor photographs”.
Right. In today’s world whether it be photography, or some other aspect of our life, including our health, we are always looking for “instant fixes”. Can’t focus properly? Buy an auto focus camera. Still can’t focus properly? Get a more expensive auto focus lens or camera. Personal health not too good? Ask the doctor for the “magic pill”…that will take care of the problem.
In today’s materialistic society we are always convinced that the answer to our problem lies in something EXTERNAL to ourselves, like a new product, or a magic pill, that all we have to do is buy it and our woes are solved.
The sad reality for these folks is that answer to our woes isn’t in the EXTERNAL, it lies in the INTERNAL. You got a problem making photos? Instead going online and buying the newest photographic gadget, why don’t you try reading the user’s manual for change, and increase your knowledge and figure out how to really use the product? Or one has a problem with coughing or high cholesterol? Instead of going to the doctor and demanding a magic pill, how about stop smoking, and stop eating at McDonalds three times a day?
I realize there are real times when the answer can’t be found INTERNAL to ourselves and we really need to buy something, or need a magic pill…but I’m sure there are a few folks out there really need to take a clue on why they are having problems.
But then again, if everyone started thinking about how to do more, or better, with what they have now, the economy probably wouldn’t recover. Hmmm…I say “mindless consumerism” FORWARD HO!
Ben, I think we are on the same track here. (Including the interest in dinner and the usefulness of CC classes!) I also notice that, for the most part at least, serious conversations about gear usually come down to real-world issues of the trade-offs that affect actual photographs more than some of the simpler measures of supposed goodness.
Mike, that last point is an important one. Anyone who uses an “instrument” (and that’s what the camera is) has the opportunity to blame the instrument when things go wrong. Sometimes this is, indeed, appropriate. Sometimes not.
Alex, along the lines of your point here and in your post at your blog, I’m often surprised at the number of people who have ideas about image quality that just don’t quite correspond to what we see in real photographs. It is a great thing to go to galleries occasionally and look very closely and critically at photographs and to think about them in many ways: what makes them work and why? What is the role of technical perfection? What is the role of other things in the success of the images? During just the past few months I’ve seen several shows of really wonder and effective and powerful photography – and of all the things that consistently characterize this great work, “sharpness” is way, way down the list. I had a chance to see an extensive show of Henri Cartier-Bresson’s work a while back, including some of his most wonderful photographs. Among man memorable photographs there is a really astonishing (in my view) photograph in which the object filling most of the frame is a man’s out of focus back.
Dan
Great post, Dan. Couldn’t agree more.
I think that part of the issue is the people confuse image quality with great photography. Just because an image is tack sharp and is well exposed and has great tonal quality (all things that expensive gear may help you achieve) doesn’t mean it is going to move the viewer. Anyway, I wrote a post about this a while back that I’d like to share with you:
http://www.alexsuarez.com/imagequality
Cheers,
Alex
Dan,
I generally agree with you.
I think a lot of photographers don’t realize gear is a means to an end, because they are not fully aware that this end even exists. They think of photography in terms of literal recording, and they’re sometimes not truly aware that there’s potential for more to it – for art, for intentionality, for interpretation, for purpose, etc.
For those who aren’t aware of this “end”, the cure is to help them experience and appreciate the richness of art within photography.
I think another possible source of gear obsession is: If one is not happy with one’s pictures, it can be more comfortable to blame one’s gear than to blame oneself.
Cheers,
Mike
Dan, sorry about the crankiness of my above post, I haven’t had my Easter dinner yet :-)
Hopefully the people who care about their images figure this out sooner than later. As you know the community college has some good courses on photography and I would like to see more and more newbies take advantage of this. Well, I guess we need to see where all this is going next fiscal year first.
Yes, the best photographers do talk about their equipment but do deal more, I think, on how and why they took the image with the equipment they have. Does that make sense???
Now, where’s that dinner…
Ben, it will never happen in a wholesale way, but if a few folks who really want to make photographs realize that they are focusing on the wrong thing, that could be a good thing, right?
Your point about what some photographers talk about goes back to the second item in my list. And, of course, even the best photographers do talk about equipment and consider its qualities. It is just that for them the equipment is not the point, but rather a means to another end.
Dan
Dan, I don’t think your last paragraph (cure) will ever happen…its not a touchy feely thing like a piece of new (better) equipment. Newbies have questions answered by photographers who love to talk about their equipment and how such equipment delivered their superb image…see how good it looks on my $$$ cameras LCD screen. Its always about the equipment and software never about why in the hell did you take your image that way, it could be better if you did this…