Gear freak or artist?
 

Hope this turns into a lively debate!
How much emphasis do we put on gear and is it worth it? Are you a technojunkie and think its all about gear, or is the end result what its about?
I ask this because for me there is definately split camps on this, and wonder if perhaps with todays technology, the mechanics of picture making and the art and emotion are being swept away on a tide of technology.
Discussion these days tends to be less on artistic content and more on technique and gear. When I exhibit, I am always asked what camera, film, (yes I still use that magic stuff!) is it digital, what printer etc...........this list goes on, but hardly ever, what moves you or inspires you! Yet surely these are the things that make a good photograph? Looking through books we see great images by great artists, images that move some of us, yet more and more these days, it seems that these issues concern us less and that "HDR" and pixels should be the main question?
If we dont have this basic understanding of what makes a good image and preoccupy ourselves with technology, are we in danger of loosing the very basics of image making? The pace of technology and equipment mean that we never get to full realize the potential of equipment to the point of being truely at "one" with it, so how can we fully develop into artists if after a year, Nikon or Adobe or Canon change their minds on how something is done?
Enjoy:eek:

I'm in both camps. My gear can't compose for me, nor properly choose my exposure, and so I have to have some degree of skill and knowledge that I can apply. What my gear can do is improve the subtleties of the final product, such as better contrast, lower noise, sharper images etc. And, in the case of some of my kit I could also get better opportunities with upgrades - whilst my 75-300 has helped me get some images I'm really happy with, it's not up to the task of shooting a lot of subject matter (slow focus, small aperture, soft at 300mm, shows CA wide open in sunny conditions etc).

So both skill and gear matter to me, and in an ideal World the I would be the only limiting factor in my photography.

Interesting...

We live in an era where digital cameras are not viewed so much as photographic imaging tools but consumer electronics. Because of digital a lot of people have either taken up photography or (myself included) found that it opens a whole new world of learning.

As long as camera manufacturers continue to develop new technology at a fast pace, headlines will continue to be about "the latest, fastest, cleanest, poshest..."

Digital technology allows for more people to try it out (there must be more "newbies" out there than pretty much ever before) and, given the huge and complicated array of "beginner" cameras on the market, it's no suprise that a lot of talk revolves around "what should I buy", "how do I..." and "what does this mean".

For what it's worth, I've found that I've stopped asking so much about kit as I've learned more about how to use it. I'm not an artistic person by nature and I still find the technical aspects fascinatiing but I think that once you understand your equipment you progress to learning about the art.

[QUOTE=digitalvirgin;12985]
Are you a technojunkie and think its all about gear, or is the end result what its about?
[/QUOTE]

Blimey you're treading on thin ice here! Soon after the forum was launched I referred to those that you have labelled freaks and technojunkies as equipment anoraks. There was a wailing and gnashing of teeth and a short sharp email from the admins requesting that I moderate my language and desist from being extremely rude in the future!:eek:

Gear is surely a means to an end, and I know this will upset some people, it can help you to take pictures but it can never make you a photographer, I should know!

I'm with ap4a, I think both can be equally important.

Although it's obviously all about what you do with your kit, not what it actually is, that's important in the end, from a technological point of view it can be really interesting to see the new developments that are being made every day in camera equipment and how we can use these to help our creativity.

That said, it's easy to get too involved with the technical details and forget to just get out there with what you have and shoot what you see. I'm obviously in the fortunate position at the moment to be able to test out various bits of kit, and I do think about the equipment people have used in shots I see (in a, what will I need to recreate that kind of shot way) when I see them, but my first thought is usually for the inspiration or how they actually took the shot, not what they took it with.

Also, I've taken some great shots with both compacts and D-SLRs so I do like the Chase Jarvis adage that the best camera is the one you have with you ;)

Amy

Thanks peeps for the input, makes good reading and I hope I havent offended with my terminology! (or spelling!!!)
Do you think it would be fair of me to suggest that the "art" of photography is not discussed as much as it should be and that because of this pace of change it is getting overlooked in terms of its importance in image making?
From the responses I have read, it would suggest to me that equipment still "rules" as there hasnt been much talk of what inspires us to go and take great pictures, how we can get these creative juices flowing.
I raise this subject because when I studied photography, we would learn our technique and equipment, but then the priority would move to the aesthetic and creativity of our artform. Discussion would be about context and content, contrast in terms of its content not tonal range and how changing the values of tone imparts mood and feeling. These important subjects are getting overlooked these days I feel and would maybe lay the blame on the rapid pace of technology overshadowing this issue. Images to me seem to merging into products of technology and I am finding it hard to see a character coming out in images that reflects that persons "style".
Is this because if digital technology? or is it because technology is not giving chance for these styles to develop?

I remember going to a family wedding without my camera once. Bad mistake leaving it at home. I got so frustrated at not having it I used the throw-away cameras that the Bride and Groom had left on the tables. Strangely enough I got one or two really good shots with these little cardboard boxes and plastic lenses. Not certain that I would trade my dslr for them, but it was fun to do.

Just as a paint brush is just a paint brush and its the peson wielding it that has the most infuence on the finished product, then it is with photography.

I doubt most people could tell what camera or lens took what image from just looking at it without being told, but they know if they like it just by looking!

So does knowing the equipment used suddenly devalue or improve our opinion of the image or is it just we feel some form of self validation for our choice of equipment if it turns out to be the same make as we use ;)

I think if you are happy with and like how your equipment handles then this does have a effect on your images as it lets you concentrate on the image taking itself. :)

[QUOTE=Oly Paul;13219] I doubt most people could tell what camera or lens took what image from just looking at it without being told, but they know if they like it just by looking!

So does knowing the equipment used suddenly devalue our opinion of the image or is it just we feel some form of self validation for our choice of equipment if it turns out to be the same make as we use ;)[/QUOTE]

Spot on Paul!

Conversly, if your equipment does not match with that of the photographer does it make one feel better to say, 'if I had that camera I could do that!'.:eek:

I do find that there appears to be more of an emphasis on the technical result these days than aesthetics - poorly composed and lit shots are applauded for being detailed and sharp. Not that they're bad shots, as such, just that I'd prefer to see more emphasis put on thinking about the resultant image. Endless birds against bland backgrounds (great in a bird identification book) and HDR'd landscapes devoid of interesting shadows.

But to answer the question: a bit of both but probably not enough of either! My first dSLR was a Sigma SD10 with no 'bells and whistles' but all the essentials (and RAW only) - which taught me the value of the Foveon but, more importantly, how to use what you had to get the most out of a shot. Still use Sigmas for many macros and landscapes (you can't beat the quality of colour and light!) but a 7D for reliability and rattling off the commissioned work (and still will only shoot RAW)