Isabelle Lenatio Posted February 23, 2009 Share #1 Posted February 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) A poor photographer blames his tools Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2009 Posted February 23, 2009 Hi Isabelle Lenatio, Take a look here How true this is ..... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted February 23, 2009 Share #2 Posted February 23, 2009 What does a poor author blame?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted February 23, 2009 What does a poor author blame?! Twitter ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted February 24, 2009 Share #4 Posted February 24, 2009 So true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted February 24, 2009 Share #5 Posted February 24, 2009 ..but the corollary that tools do not matter is not true I think it's fair to say that one of the characteristics of a 'good' photographer is an understanding of the limitations of their tools. Consequently they are much less likely to attempt to use those tools inappropriately, as a result they have less to 'blame their tools' for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 24, 2009 Share #6 Posted February 24, 2009 All very true, but the examples mentioned in the blog (HCB Winogrand and Robert Frank) were certainly not members of the point-and-shoot brigade. They used the best tools available to them. ( Although HCB used a Leica Minizoom in the end) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andit Posted February 24, 2009 Share #7 Posted February 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) While I do believe that a talented photographer can make a decent image with anything you give him/her, I would not class the Leica Equipment that many of these people used as ordinary point-and-shoots. This article was published by someone who has a total lack of photographic history knowledge and is an extreme insult to the photographers that he mentions. Even in those days, these photographers had many more equipment choices than what we do today - why did they use Leica? It was the best that there was, especially the lenses - just look at some of the postings on this forum made with really old Leica lenses. Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 24, 2009 Share #8 Posted February 24, 2009 Well Winogrand often used a Speed-Graphic, which was the 1Ds of his day and the others Leica and Contax equipment, so yes historically it is a bit of nonsense. But the old cliché that it is not the camera but the photographer is true all the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted February 24, 2009 Share #9 Posted February 24, 2009 ...folks, the thrust of the article is the age-old manual v. dependence on automation debate. In essence, for consistently best results, know your tools and don't just blast away in "auto" mode. Yes, understand the limitations of your tools. More importantly, understand your limitations. Automation, whilst very useful (and "convenient"), will easily arrest your photographic development. Also, perspective notwithstanding, I'm not entirely sure about the merit in having a go at the author for his perceived lack of writing skills. After all, we're all perfect, non? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkstar2004 Posted February 24, 2009 Share #10 Posted February 24, 2009 While I do believe that a talented photographer can make a decent image with anything you give him/her, I would not class the Leica Equipment that many of these people used as ordinary point-and-shoots. This article was published by someone who has a total lack of photographic history knowledge and is an extreme insult to the photographers that he mentions. Even in those days, these photographers had many more equipment choices than what we do today - why did they use Leica? It was the best that there was, especially the lenses - just look at some of the postings on this forum made with really old Leica lenses. Andreas I agree with Andreas... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 24, 2009 Share #11 Posted February 24, 2009 Also, perspective notwithstanding, I'm not entirely sure about the merit in having a go at the author for his perceived lack of writing skills. After all, we're all perfect, non? Hmmm.. Not writing skills I would say. It is more a case of making an observation backed up by a blissful lack of knowledge. Not that there is much wrong with that observation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share #12 Posted February 24, 2009 Hmmm.. Not writing skills I would say. It is more a case of making an observation backed up by a blissful lack of knowledge.Not that there is much wrong with that observation. First you say "making an observation backed up by a blissful lack of knowledge." then "Not that there is much wrong with that observation" Make up your mind Jaap :-) (friendly, doing my best here!!!) I would say that the text is spot-on and further more is not an attack on the Leica M8 shooters, or any other camera users, just a reflection of the times we live in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 24, 2009 Share #13 Posted February 24, 2009 My mind is made up Isabelle - he came to the right conclusion working from incorrect historical knowledge. (I would not have misinterpreted btw) I think the main reason for the grumpiness in this thread is the implication that a camera like for instance an M3 (and many others from that period) is somehow an "inferior" picture taking machine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 24, 2009 Share #14 Posted February 24, 2009 I believe that Lewis Hamilton will be driving a Mini in the Grand Prixs next year - they're much easier to drive than those unreliable F1 cars ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share #15 Posted February 24, 2009 My mind is made up Isabelle - he came to the right conclusion working from incorrect historical knowledge. (I would not have misinterpreted btw)I think the main reason for the grumpiness in this thread is the implication that a camera like for instance an M3 (and many others from that period) is somehow an "inferior" picture taking machine. But is it not that we want more and more and more, features we have difficulties putting to use in out normal photography pattern. A 12.800 iso camera is introduced and at that point in time it's noticed as the best thing since sliced bread, everybody needs it, everybody wants it, any other spec is downright ridiculed. How many "better" images do you see? .... they might be technologically perfect but shooting for the sake of being able to shoot technological perfect images doesn't cut the cake now does it, even if you have the means, the methods and the technology.... In absolute imaging terms, very little progresses along the rate of technological progression wouldn't you agree? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted February 24, 2009 Share #16 Posted February 24, 2009 When I got started in photography there was a saying that "photography starts three inches behind the viewfinder." That has changed with today's cameras if the photographer uses the LCD for composition then it becomes about a foot. The change in distance does not change the intent of the saying. Can a poor photographer purchase the best or most expensive equipment and produce poor photographs-yes. The chances they will produce a decent photograph are increased by excellent optics and a camera they can understand enough to use. Can an excellent photographer produce excellent photographs with poor equipment. That is debatable and depends on the reputation of the photographer and what their admirers accept from them as excellent. Some photography that was called out of focus, blurred and taken at unacceptable obtuse angles, when I started, is now called "art." Some photographers today feel that if they put a huge print on the wall "they will come." Some celebrities are accepted as great photographers because they are celebrities. I'm not passing judgement on this because the rules of the road have changed but the basic principles of exposure have not. When buying real estate it's about location, location, location and when buying into a camera system it's still about optics, optics, optics. "P" means program and not professional and learning and becoming an accomplished photographer is still a process whose length depends on the individual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share #17 Posted February 24, 2009 When I got started in photography there was a saying that "photography starts three inches behind the viewfinder." That has changed with today's cameras if the photographer uses the LCD for composition then it becomes about a foot. The change in distance does not change the intent of the saying. Can a poor photographer purchase the best or most expensive equipment and produce poor photographs-yes. The chances they will produce a decent photograph are increased by excellent optics and a camera they can understand enough to use. Can an excellent photographer produce excellent photographs with poor equipment. That is debatable and depends on the reputation of the photographer and what their admirers accept from them as excellent. Some photography that was called out of focus, blurred and taken at unacceptable obtuse angles, when I started, is now called "art." Some photographers today feel that if they put a huge print on the wall "they will come." Some celebrities are accepted as great photographers because they are celebrities. I'm not passing judgement on this because the rules of the road have changed but the basic principles of exposure have not. When buying real estate it's about location, location, location and when buying into a camera system it's still about optics, optics, optics. "P" means program and not professional and learning and becoming an accomplished photographer is still a process whose length depends on the individual. It all depends how one wishes to vie an image, judge it by character or by technique. Upon browsing through M8 image base I find lots of technical perfect images, but would I hang any of them on my wall .... I don't think so. personal taste of course, but nevertheless perfection is often very very boring, and it's always been done before..... An M8 can produce perfect imagery, but do I want to see the 3421th M8 image of the Zugspitze again .... I don't think so! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted February 24, 2009 Share #18 Posted February 24, 2009 It all depends how one wishes to vie an image, judge it by character or by technique. Upon browsing through M8 image base I find lots of technical perfect images, but would I hang any of them on my wall .... I don't think so. personal taste of course, but nevertheless perfection is often very very boring, and it's always been done before..... An M8 can produce perfect imagery, but do I want to see the 3421th M8 image of the Zugspitze again .... I don't think so! Accomplishment in photography means many things Isabelle, not just being technically proficient that's where the three inch and one foot come in. What is the Zugspitze and who said anything about photography being limited to the M8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 24, 2009 Share #19 Posted February 24, 2009 ....What is the Zugspitze and who said anything about photography being limited to the M8? Zugspitze is this... so Isabelle, this could be really your 3421st ! ... (and sorry for the rough scan from print ... indeed I'm not limited to M8... an old M4 pic) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/77646-how-true-this-is/?do=findComment&comment=819633'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 24, 2009 Share #20 Posted February 24, 2009 Apart the jokes on my beloved mountains... Isabelle, you have a point, but the problem is the enormous growth of the technical capabilties to publish (and see) big amount of pics: I'd say... 40 or so years ago a photographic book was an event, only few talented photogs were in the condition to have a book published, and magazines with significant pictures were not too many... I have some copies of old German and American photo magazines of the '50s (I like old ads...) ... a great number of pics by readers/amateurs were less than special; again, in the '80s happened to me to partecipate/visit some low-level photo contests/exhibitions ... bleah ! A lot of rubbish ! (mine included, frankly). But nowadays the mean number of photos a normal amateur can see easily has probably grown of a factor 100x ... and there is no reason for the average quality has grown with technology ... I'd also postulate that technology has probably allowed a number of medium-level photogs to raise a little their quality, but the mean number of GREAT pics has probably remained stable in absolute terms: do a little of math... and the conclusion is that, nowadays, you have the mood to see a lot more of "modest" pics than time ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.