Skip to main content

Photographer's technological obsessions

I'll probably sound like a voice from the wilderness with this one. Yesterday I read a detailed review about the new Canon EOS 5D, full frame digital SLR. It sounds great and slots in nicely just below the top professional Canon digital SLRs. Hooray!

Now here's the thought that once again struck me. Why are so many photographers continually chasing after the best and latest equipment? Do people really fall for the myth that they will make better images with more advanced equipment? Are the pictures that Ansel Adams, Cartier Bresson, Brassai, Matthew Brady, Francis Frith, or any of the other greats any less interesting, emotive, powerful or less brilliant because they used the technology available during their time? What's the difference between a beautiful image made on a glass plate, a 35mm piece of film or the latest CMOS chip?

Yet so many photographers spend so much time, effort and money pursuing technology. As far as I can see all that technology does is increase convenience and speed up the process from taking the picture to seeing the printed image. Both aspects have got nothing to do with making better images. That lies in the 'heart' and vision of the photographer.

A good image taken a hundred years ago on primitive equipment, by today's standards, remains a good image. I can understand that for a sports photographer a camera that shoots 5fps is going to give them the edge on someone using an 8x10 view camera. And still there are some wonderful sports portraits taken using large format (but perhaps not at the height of the action). So for different tasks new technology can be helpful.

Ultimately what really counts is the photographers ability to see, visualise the result and then capture the image.

I also find it quite amusing that so many photographers spend a fortune on the latest cameras and lenses capable of achieving the sharpest images and then they spend hours in photoshop blurring, manipulating colours and otherwise messing around with images until they look like they were taken with a toy camera and film that was 15 years out of date. Of course the people that usually resort to such drastic measures are the photographers who're trying desperately to get something out of an image which is truly awful in the first place.

So the moral of the story. Stop worrying about having the latest cameras and lenses. Start concentrating on producing superb and meaningful images, whether you're using a disposable camera with film or a Hasselblad H1 with the latest digital back.

I'd love to hear your opinion. Click on my name below to email me or the link below to leave a comment.

Paul Indigo

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Approach to taking a portrait

Portrait of Amitabh Bachchan. Click on the image to see larger version. Every portrait is different but there are also elements which are the same, whether you’re shooting the famous or the locally famous. Fame is of course all relative. It depends on profession, accomplishments or media celebrity status. Whoever the ‘famous’ individual is there are millions of people in the world who will never have heard them. For example I photographed the legendary Indian Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan, who amongst his many accolades was awarded the Legion d'Honneur, the highest civilian award of France. But I’m positive that many people in North America will not have heard of him – although he has more fans than Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson and Robert De Niro put together. I find that however well known a person is cracking through egos and insecurities is really important when it comes to getting authentic strong portraits. However I hasten to add that when it came to photographing Amitabh th
1 comment
Read more

The portrait photographer's motivation

Easy access to the Internet and digital photography has resulted in an ever growing number of photographers uploading their images for comments and ratings from peers. Online communities evolve and these mini-societies each have their pecking order, internal groups and communal preferences. Photographers learn from each other. On sites that have a rating system there is often pressure to conform to certain styles, techniques and even subject matter. Although I participate in numerous sites (it's great fun), I recognise the danger of becoming a herd animal and losing the edge of individual creativity. There will always be the creatives that lead the way and the imitators that can only try to follow in their footsteps. This lead me to think about classifying photographers according their inner motivation. So as a bit of fun here are a few different types: The innovator Driven to always find something new, different and creative. Wants to be leading edge. Motivated by creative satisfa
6 comments
Read more

Is professional photography still a viable career?

I am not against amateurs and semi-professionals selling their photography. It's a great way to earn some extra cash. However I am concerned about the level of high quality published work and the standards that clients and the public accept these days. It seems that just about everyone is a photographer. The line between amateur enthusiast and professional is fuzzy to say the least. Photography enthusiasts are selling their images through stock libraries and microstock websites, directly to magazines or through their own and third party sites. They're accepting commissions to shoot weddings, being hired to shoot for magazines and selling fine art prints from their websites. They're teaching photography on the weekend and guiding photographic holidays and safaris. Photography became accessible to the masses with the first non-expert cameras and the famous Kodak slogan"You press the button, we do the rest." The digital camera age has taken the whole thing to a ne
14 comments
Read more