Skip to main content

Do new cameras make a difference?

Recently I've read about more and more photographers turning from digital to film cameras. Many of them never took photographs seriously before the digital age and now that they've discovered the joys of capturing an image, well it's natural that they want to find ways of improving their photography.

I've written before about the fascination photographers have with the technology involved in making an image. Judging by the latest trend of photographers turning to film, and praising it, I think that the ever present marketing spin has lodged firmly in their minds.

What's the spin you may ask? Well the heart of it is that using a different camera or medium like film or digital is going to improve your photography. Of course that's nonsense. I see many photographers not quite getting the results they want with their digital SLRs. So what do they do? Switch to film. If you are such a photographer my advice is stick to the minimum equipment you can. Travel light. Pick the right lens for the job and stick with it.

Switching cameras or from film to digital or the other way round is purely a question of workflow. Yes the fine aesthetics of the results are different. Each medium has it's own quality but you have to be a really exceptionally talented and visionary photographer to extract the benefits and play to the strenghts of the different media.

Concentrate on improving your images. Not on equipment. Time and again it's been shown that if you put a disposable camera with a crap lens in the hands of a talented photographer she'll get an interesting result, the product of a creative vision. So equipment really doesn't make one a better photographer.

There is a rider on what I've said above. Using new equipment can stimulate a photographer's creative vision. Any new technology can inspire. I remember when I first used a super wide lens. Mind you it took awhile of trying things before I got my first really good photograph. But yes, it can stimulate creativity.

To sumarise: the main thing is to concentrate on improving your images. All the best photographers know their equipment inside out. That's the answer. Not switching from digital to film. You'll probably switch back again in two months and upgrade to a more expensive digital camera, still chasing that elusive improvement in your photography.

As always, your comments are welcome.

Paul Indigo

Comments

Anonymous said…
Couldn't agree more, Paul. There was a TV show on a few months back and they gave Joe Cornish a camera phone (or phone camera, whichever you prefer). Best images I've ever seen out of a camera phone!

Jules
(EPZ)
Anonymous said…
Absolutely true. Unfortunatelly, many people think that the poor quality of their work are result of not as good equipment. It's easier to say that ratehr camera than you is bad. All lame excuses to justify lack of care and/or creativity.

Very nice text Paul. Very well put.

All the best, Stefania

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

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

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