Where is the Soul?
I’ve just been having a look at Michael Reichman’s web site the Luminous Landscape. It’s a great resource for folks who want to know more about certain pieces of equipment, and he’s just posted an article about how ‘the cameras does matter’.
I’ve made the point on several occasions that ‘the camera does not matter’. Of course, it’s an oversimplification, but the point I have been making for some time is that photography is about capturing the essence of something, having a good eye and knowing how best to use the situation to create a fine image. Obviously you need to have something that’s capable of recording a good image. But…
A camera:
- cannot recognize a good composition from a bad one
- cannot recognize good light from bad light
- cannot tell a story from a certain point of view
There has to be someone in the driving seat, making the decisions. This is what is discussed when people like Ken Rockwell talk about ‘the camera does not matter’.
I think the main point is that there are a lot of people out there who could keep on spending $$$ on cameras with the hope that it’s going to make them a better photographer when it wont. All that will happen is that the resolution of their current ’style’ will go up a few notches. But will the actual images be any better? Will they have soul?
I doubt that most people could tell what equipment was used to create any of the images on my own site. Sure some would have a good idea if the image was:
- digital (lack of grain)
- film (grain)
- medium format (tonality)
- large format (smoother tonality)
But that’s just the technical aspect of photography. Photography is about the ‘art’ or ’soul’. The technical side is valid, but only as a means to an end. Having a super duper mega expensive camera is not going to make you a better photographer. I know that in my work, my style has not changed when I’ve changed to different camera’s.
Michael Reichman states that Ansel Adams was a gear head. Ansel’s images had SOUL – he was an artist with a strong sense of vision/style. His cameras were just tools. Likewise, Steve McCurry’s work has SOUL, and he just shoots with a basic prime lens on a nikon 35mm film camera.
Now, if you were going to ask for advice on what to use for your work, what would you do? Speak to someone who creates inspiring images, or speak to someone who knows lots about gear? I’d rather speak to someone who creates inspiring images. They have a knack of seeing that is special.
I completely agree with you. I’m a big fan of sites like KR and DPReview forums, but after a while I just woke up and realized that a majority of those people are just gear heads wanting to ‘floss’ their knowledge about gear/equipment and not photography. I get sick and tired of people calling other people trolls, fanboys, etc. Although, there are some useful tidbits within those bickering threads, recently I have found myself more attracted to websites like yours. Websites that inspire and keep me striving to learn/shoot/grow as a photographer. For this I thank you.
You said images are images. Yes this is true, but your images are amazing. Honestly amazing. Your photos have the SOUL you speak of just as much as McCurry’s and his portraits. Thank you for having a website and sharing your photography. Unexpected treasure!!
~thomas
Comment by notegra — 17 March, 2008 @ 12:46 am
Bruce, this is the reason I once wrote to you. I really enjoy your photos and it didn’t matter what equipment you used but “how” you created the image; what were your thoughts, what did you have in mind when the photo was created. Yes, somethimes it helps to know what lens you used or whether or not you used filters, etc, but I’m also interested in how you created the final image after the shoot. To me the camera is the tool used in capturing the image but it’s whats behind the camera that sees, feels and reacts to the moment and uses his/hers tools in capturing that moment that may never come by our way again. Really enjoy your photos and I’m glad you started this blog. Thanks.
Comment by gc — 19 March, 2008 @ 12:07 am
Well put.
Comment by ebaetscher — 19 March, 2008 @ 3:39 am
Although I agree with your overall point (the aesthetic values of an image are the work of the photographer, not the camera), I would contend that “The Camera Does Matter”, but only from one standpoint; Does it allow you to actually see what you are trying to capture? If you cannot see through the viewfinder (using some digital cameras is like trying to look through a brick, especially in bright daylight) then the photographer has no way of validating your 3 criteria above for a good image.
When this discussion was originally started (long before the days of the digital camera), the ability to actually see what you were trying to capture was pretty much a given. Today, LCD and electronic viewfinders create a barrier between the photographer and the image that can at times, be fairly to totally opaque.
I have found your work to be amazingly inspiring, and I return to your site periodically both to see what is new and to learn more from what I have seen before. Your use of composition, light and color are exceptional. Thanks so much for sharing.
Comment by PeterMcD — 12 September, 2008 @ 1:31 am
Hi Peter,
Of course the camera matters. I may seem contradictory here, but my article is really dealing with the over-emphasis on equipment that I feel pervades most discussions and internet web sites. Photography is about capturing the spirit of something and immersing ourselves in a creative pursuit. I was really trying to say that, but it’s often taken too literally by many – particularly the ones who have invested a lot of money in equipment that they probably don’t need and probably hinders their creativity.
Thanks for your input :-)
Comment by Bruce Percy — 12 September, 2008 @ 7:12 am