# Rockwell knocks one out of the park (no kidding)!



## TW (Oct 16, 2012)

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/photography-most-disrespected-art-form.htm


I don't think I could have said it better myself. I know this is a GEAR site, but it always pays to keep things in perspective. Well said, KW.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2012)

TW said:


> http://kenrockwell.com/tech/photography-most-disrespected-art-form.htm
> 
> 
> I don't think I could have said it better myself. I know this is a GEAR site, but it always pays to keep things in perspective. Well said, KW.



Ken, You've earned some of my respect back. ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 17, 2012)

I am still getting tired though, of the "it doesn't matter what camera you have" crap. Yes it does. If it didn't you wouldn't see arguments about the lack of features on the 6D, you wouldn't see the D800 threads, and you certainly wouldn't be buying a 1DX. Why don't we all go buy 20D's, a nifty fifty, have dinner together with candlelight and wine, and then go for an evening walk holding hands? Afterall, we have all we need!!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 17, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I am still getting tired though, of the "it doesn't matter what camera you have" crap. Yes it does. If it didn't you wouldn't see arguments about the lack of features on the 6D, you wouldn't see the D800 threads, and you certainly wouldn't be buying a 1DX. Why don't we all go buy 20D's, a nifty fifty, have dinner together with candlelight and wine, and then go for an evening walk holding hands? Afterall, we have all we need!!


Given a choice, I'd take a 20D with a good lens versus a 5D MK III and a 35-80mm lens. 

A body does make a difference, but not as much as the glass. The bonus being that for those with a lot of glass, a upgrade to the body gives a boost to all of their glass with relatively little cost. However, a cell phone camera more and more seems to be used to capture the really newsworthy images and not DSLR's. Thats simply because they are with so many people all the time. Just having a camera with you can be better than the best camera at home safely locked in your vault.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 17, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I am still getting tired though, of the "it doesn't matter what camera you have" crap. Yes it does. If it didn't you wouldn't see arguments about the lack of features on the 6D, you wouldn't see the D800 threads, and you certainly wouldn't be buying a 1DX. Why don't we all go buy 20D's, a nifty fifty, have dinner together with candlelight and wine, and then go for an evening walk holding hands? Afterall, we have all we need!!



But, Its true. Your camera doesn't matter. ;D


----------



## kennephoto (Oct 17, 2012)

Isn't there a difference between art and hobby too? I doubt everyone that holds a camera aims to be considered an artist. Art is sure an odd thing to define these days. I guess I'm just a bit confused by what mr Rockwell was venting about, can't you create better art if you know how to use your tools and having better equipment? Would we have the Mona Lisa if you had only a cave wall and finger paint? Pretty sure you need talent and tools to create art. Maybe photography gets a bad rap because its easy and very accessible to take a photo with today's technology I'm sure there's plenty of people painting things that people may not classify as art but I bet those kindergartener's parents would love their painting! Sure you designed and built a magnificent building but I bet I could take a cool photo of it that would outlast the lifespan of the building. I'd say enjoy what you do and create, I'm sure there's someone that will enjoy what you made and if you want expensive tools to create what you want more power too ya! I love cameras and photography and I hope I have many different cameras, lens, photographs that will be with me till I die!


----------



## sanj (Oct 17, 2012)

kennephoto said:


> Isn't there a difference between art and hobby too? I doubt everyone that holds a camera aims to be considered an artist. Art is sure an odd thing to define these days. I guess I'm just a bit confused by what mr Rockwell was venting about, can't you create better art if you know how to use your tools and having better equipment? Would we have the Mona Lisa if you had only a cave wall and finger paint? Pretty sure you need talent and tools to create art. Maybe photography gets a bad rap because its easy and very accessible to take a photo with today's technology I'm sure there's plenty of people painting things that people may not classify as art but I bet those kindergartener's parents would love their painting! Sure you designed and built a magnificent building but I bet I could take a cool photo of it that would outlast the lifespan of the building. I'd say enjoy what you do and create, I'm sure there's someone that will enjoy what you made and if you want expensive tools to create what you want more power too ya! I love cameras and photography and I hope I have many different cameras, lens, photographs that will be with me till I die!



There is lots of truth to what you are saying.


----------



## dirtcastle (Oct 17, 2012)

One of the cool things about photography is that it involves a balance of art and science. 

It is perfectly OK to enjoy the technical side of photography and not worry about the artistic merits of your photos. A lot of people assume that we should all try to be better at the artistic side of photography. But that's a bunch of crap. Photography can be whatever you want it to be.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 17, 2012)

kennephoto said:


> Isn't there a difference between art and hobby too? ...



And an even bigger difference between art and profession!


----------



## notapro (Oct 17, 2012)

Rockwell’s article and the forum comments allude directly or indirectly to the question, “What is photography?” Is it a hobby? Is it is a tool used in work (e.g., photojournalism, medicine, law enforcement, etc.)? Is it purely a means of diversion? Certainly, these are things photography can be. For some persons, photographing an object is merely utilitarian (e.g., photographing one’s possessions for insurance purposes). Accounting exhaustively for photography’s “reason for being” or “use” could be difficult, as the reasons for “doing” photography are myriad.

But Rockwell speaks of photography as art, and it is in that sense that he holds “the camera doesn’t matter “. Kennephoto, in an earlier reply, raises the issues of context and status, namely, whether children’s paintings in Kindergarten are art, as well as whether any given person with a camera considers herself or himself an artist. Context and status are crucial to Rockwell’s article. If one is an artist, then one’s purpose is to create an artwork and to have it displayed or appreciated in an appropriate context (e.g., a gallery, museum, exhibition, or other like setting). An appropriate context could also include an art class on photography where students and instructors critique the artist’s work according to norms proper and relevant.

Consequently, for photography qua photography, vision–to use Rockwell’s word–is paramount for an artwork or set of artworks (i.e., one’s photographs), and one’s vision (purpose, intent) guides one’s choices in tools, media, and other resources in realizing his or her art. A camera or other equipment may “matter” to a photographer-as-artist to the extent that the equipment allows a photographer to represent, emote, or otherwise communicate his or her vision. It seems reasonable to affirm, then, that, *by themselves*, “cameras don’t matter” for photography qua photography.

This is the sense I gather from Rockwell’s piece in connection with “the camera doesn’t matter” issue, and I think it is one that makes for interesting and reflective forum comments. Rockwell is making reference to photography as art–or at least to moments when photography is done as art–and not to photography in an exclusively extra-artistic context.


----------



## pwp (Oct 17, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I am still getting tired though, of the "it doesn't matter what camera you have" crap. Yes it does. If it didn't you wouldn't see arguments about the lack of features on the 6D, you wouldn't see the D800 threads, and you certainly wouldn't be buying a 1DX. Why don't we all go buy 20D's, a nifty fifty, have dinner together with candlelight and wine, and then go for an evening walk holding hands? After all, we have all we need!!



Maybe, but perhaps over-simplified. Certainly for most commercial work it's important to have high quality body & glass, not to mention the perception issue. I don't think a client would be that thrilled to see you turn up to a job with an S95 or a 20D with a nifty fifty. And sure...why not travel first class?

But there is the dimension to the argument that goes like this. I'd prefer to see an absolute knock-out image that just nails the moment and delivers pure magic ahead of an uninspiring, yet technically perfect image. Look to some of the extraordinary images shot on iPhones or Lomo or Holga, and 20D for that matter. This is also a simplification, but you get the drift. 

I've said it before....content is king.

-PW


----------



## dirtcastle (Oct 17, 2012)

pwp said:


> I've said it before....content is king.



I would say context is king, because the perception of content is influenced by context. And context is all about purpose. And this is why we will never come to a consensus on this issue, because we are all responding to Ken's article with different purposes, influenced by our personal contexts.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 17, 2012)

An odd analogy but here's mine:

Cameras are a lot like computers.
You can use them for a multitude of purposes, some of which can be artistic.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 17, 2012)

"Content is King". E.g., Once I participated in a impromptu photo contest with just a fresh 500D and an 18-55mm. Almost everybody is using a 7D, 5D2 and other highly rated cameras but still I emerged as a 3rd placer. Even better, 2nd place went to somebody using just an IPHONE. I'm still a fresh photographer at that time having my camera with me for only 3 months.

What I'm trying to say is in this digital age of ours, the technology gap in-between cameras especially DSLRs are not so pronounced unless you print big pictures or you pixel-peep. I would not even go to those intentional underexposing/overexposing done just to demonstrate the superiority of one sensor to another. As any other art, photography is subjective but the content is the real substance that constitutes the beauty of this art. It's all about your tool but how you use your tool.


----------



## koolman (Oct 17, 2012)

It seems like photography means different things to different people.

To some, it is an expression of serious art, like painting or sculpting.

However for many of us, it is a much more casual. We walk around and snap interesting pictures. As we get more experience we get better results.

What Rockwell and many others of this following mean by "your camera doesn't matter" translates to "you can express your imagination and creativity with any camera".

It also emulates the reality of today's camera's - where even the entry level of p&s can produce very nice results.

I was in a photo store the other day watching a woman choose photos for development on a photo kiosk. The pictures struck me as very well done. Nice, colors, light, composition, and overall IQ.

I couldn't help but ask what she shot them with.

She showed me a p&s nikon from about 3 years ago!!


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 17, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I am still getting tired though, of the "it doesn't matter what camera you have" crap. Yes it does. If it didn't you wouldn't see arguments about the lack of features on the 6D, you wouldn't see the D800 threads, and you certainly wouldn't be buying a 1DX. Why don't we all go buy 20D's, a nifty fifty, have dinner together with candlelight and wine, and then go for an evening walk holding hands? Afterall, we have all we need!!





kennephoto said:


> Isn't there a difference between art and hobby too? I doubt everyone that holds a camera aims to be considered an artist. Art is sure an odd thing to define these days. I guess I'm just a bit confused by what mr Rockwell was venting about, can't you create better art if you know how to use your tools and having better equipment? Would we have the Mona Lisa if you had only a cave wall and finger paint? Pretty sure you need talent and tools to create art. Maybe photography gets a bad rap because its easy and very accessible to take a photo with today's technology I'm sure there's plenty of people painting things that people may not classify as art but I bet those kindergartener's parents would love their painting! Sure you designed and built a magnificent building but I bet I could take a cool photo of it that would outlast the lifespan of the building. I'd say enjoy what you do and create, I'm sure there's someone that will enjoy what you made and if you want expensive tools to create what you want more power too ya! I love cameras and photography and I hope I have many different cameras, lens, photographs that will be with me till I die!



You're both right, and so is Ken.
Gear helps, but it's not the be-all and end-all that some people make it out to be. Artistic vision helps too. I think Ken's biggest problem is with the people who don't have any 'artistic vision', and yet claim they do.
(my biggest problem is with people who take photos of boring everyday objects with their phones, run it through some standard filter, put a fake Polaroid border around it, post it to BookFace, and think they're artists. Holgas are cheap, and you can get expired film from ebay for $2 a roll, if you want pics to look like that. They don't make you an artist either though [/rant] )

Personally, i've never called myself an Artist. Hell, I hesitate to call myself a 'photographer'.
If anything, i'm a guy who gets paid waaay too much for the amount of work he does, which gives me the money, time, and boredom to sit and buy more and more lenses (and recently, film bodies) off ebay.

Problem is, I do have atistic visions sometimes. For example, the weekly (monthly?) assignments at TDP. This (and most) times, I read the assignment and instantly have a vision in my head of what I want to submit. When I get the time (not as often as I want), I do make a lot of concerted efforts to get that shot. But it never turns out like the vision in my head.
(Maybe I'd make a better painter? Possibly, but I hated Art at high school as much as the art teacher hated me, I never progressed beyond stick-figures.)
But the one thing I never do is blame the gear, there's not one shot where I'd gone, "oh, if only it were sharper" (except focussing errors, but mostly that's my fault), or "damn this 11 bits of DR, not enough!". If I get the shot but I had to do it at iso6400 on my 7D, so be it. To me the noise doesn't ruin the good shot (yes, i'd like it if there were less noise, but I'm happy just having captured the vision)

Thing is, there's never a set reason why they don't turn out like I want. eg this week's TDP assignment got foiled twice because the sun set faster than I'd thought and I missed the light, and on the 3rd try I got there too early, only to be chased by cows.
I've had another great vision of a building I drive past on the way home from work, got there one day when the light was perfect, had the right lens and cpl and all, but the view was blocked by a damned tree.
And a lot of the time I turn a corner and think "wow, that would make a really good photo", and I don't have my camera with me (or last week I saw a great shot out of the car window, by the time i'd nearly crashed trying to park and ran back, the light was gone).


And then there's the flipside, which is when I create what (I think, at least) is a really good shot, and I've done it all wrong. Take this photo for instance.
Crappy APS-C camera? check.
Non-macro lens? check.
No artistic vision and just running outside to snap the insect that just landed on the wall? check.
Using crappy on-board flash instead of side-mounted speedlight with soft-box or ring-flash? check.
Being so close that the lens shields the flash and I get backlight off the wall instead? check.

Still, for all of that wrong gear, wrong skill, and no artistic vision, it's one of my favourite photos. (and more ironically, once I looked at the LCD and thought it looked good, I spent another half an hour photographing that very patient dragonfly in the same manner, trying to improve. Got inside, processed, looked at them all. Guess which was the best? The very first one, of course.)


----------



## IronChef (Oct 17, 2012)

> We all know you just don't read online chat rooms to select the best brands of canvas, oils and brushes, and once obtained, just sit down and fiddle with them for a while and great paintings pop out. You have to know what you want to paint.
> 
> You don't research clay and tools, buy them and have sculptures spring forth.



If clay and tools costs thousands of dollars, people will search for the best brands. Silly analogy.


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 17, 2012)

Technical wise photography is perhaps the easiest art. It basically just needs ur eyes to work and u gotta be able to press a button on ur camera. Imho most other arts involve some kind of motor skills and/or body control that u dont just have as an average person.

yeaaaah and is there somebody here who never heard "person X shoots great photos cuz the have a great camera" ??...............................

most people know from school singing or any kind of drawing/sculpting isnt so easy


----------



## kennephoto (Oct 17, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> Technical wise photography is perhaps the easiest art. It basically just needs ur eyes to work and u gotta be able to press a button on ur camera. Imho most other arts involve some kind of motor skills and/or body control that u dont just have as an average person.
> 
> yeaaaah and is there somebody here who never heard "person X shoots great photos cuz the have a great camera" ??...............................
> 
> most people know from school singing or any kind of drawing/sculpting isnt so easy



I'd agree with this, I dont think I would use easiest art however I think its simply almost everyone has a camera these days, especially by comparison to how many people may have an easle, paint and a canvas around. If you have a phone you have a camera, cars have cameras, roads have cameras but I would say not every photographt is art.


----------



## kennephoto (Oct 17, 2012)

Just thought of something else pretty sure theres lots of paintings and sculptures that are used for landscapes or offices that are made from molds or prints. I dont consider my bird bath art its pretty generic looking as are many photos. So if photography is the red headed step child of the art world then I guess that makes me a red headed step child too


----------



## Patrick (Oct 17, 2012)

Here's my 2c worth...

Good gear plus creative vision = good/great images
Good gear plus limited creativity = limited images/snapshots
Limited gear plus creative vision = limited/good/great images.
and, for completeness...
Limited gear plus limited creative vision = snapshots

You can buy your way out of snapshots but you cannot buy your way to great images because great images require creativity and luck.


----------



## rocketdesigner (Oct 17, 2012)

When technology is involved in any creation, the quality of the required tool(s) do matter.

Thats not to say lesser tools cannot produce a quality product. You might be able to build a decent birdhouse with a hammer that has a broken handle and a saw with half its teeth missing ... but using a new hammer and saw probably would have resulted in a better birdhouse.


----------



## motorhead (Oct 17, 2012)

If the equipment made one iota of a difference then we would all be producing masterpieces daily. Clearly we are not, as the real artists show us constantly.

So I don't believe the amazing equipment we have these days makes any difference. The vision (or lack of it) is in us, not the kit we use.


----------



## sanj (Oct 17, 2012)

Patrick said:


> Here's my 2c worth...
> 
> Good gear plus creative vision = good/great images
> Good gear plus limited creativity = limited images/snapshots
> ...


Agree!


----------



## TW (Oct 17, 2012)

rocketdesigner said:


> When technology is involved in any creation, the quality of the required tool(s) do matter.
> 
> Thats not to say lesser tools cannot produce a quality product. You might be able to build a decent birdhouse with a hammer that has a broken handle and a saw with half its teeth missing ... but using a new hammer and saw probably would have resulted in a better birdhouse.



But perhaps what Ken is saying is that a man with a gold-plated, diamond-encrusted, solid platinum hammer and saw, but no idea what he is doing is not likely to outperform or even equal or come close to a thoughtful, experienced man with a plan using standard toolkit, eh?


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 18, 2012)

TW said:


> rocketdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > When technology is involved in any creation, the quality of the required tool(s) do matter.
> ...



+1. When enough is enough.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 18, 2012)

All I'm saying is that Ken makes a blanket statement that the camera and/or gear, doesn't matter. He puts no stipulations on the comment. I've agreed with all the posts on here, but still not my point. I guess I should rephrase that, for me it does matter. I am getting shots today I couldn't 2 years ago, and the ONLY reason is my camera.

I agree with the content and artistic arguments don't get me wrong, but that wasn't really my problem with Ken's comment. Again, I do like Ken and his website too, I just don't agree entirely with that blanket statement he says. The only reason I am getting some night sports shots that I am today is not because of anything at all other than my camera.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 18, 2012)

It doesn't matter what camera you have. I have taken and produced much better work from my Elan 7 and my darkroom skills than I ever have with my 7D and L lenses.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 18, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> It doesn't matter what camera you have. I have taken and produced much better work from my Elan 7 and my darkroom skills than I ever have with my 7D and L lenses.



Then take your Elan 7 out and shoot 1/2000s, ISO 25,600, f/2.8 on a 300 f/2.8L, get a rapid fire shot of an interception and print out 8 x 10's. The camera will suddenly and mysteriously matter. By the way, there is a camera today that will do that easily. A CAMERA.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter what camera you have. I have taken and produced much better work from my Elan 7 and my darkroom skills than I ever have with my 7D and L lenses.
> ...



Oh yeah, I could do that on my 4x5 camera because i'm awesome. (if I still had my 4x5 gear.) ;D

http://gizmodo.com/5932550/the-single-most-awesome-photographer-at-the-olympics


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter what camera you have. I have taken and produced much better work from my Elan 7 and my darkroom skills than I ever have with my 7D and L lenses.
> ...



Sorry this is about art not an assignment some smartass gives me. Your response is whacked on so many levels.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 18, 2012)

I've said this in the past - you can get great results out of any camera, _as long as you stay within the camera's limitations_. The more advanced the camera, the fewer limitations it will tend to have, which could expand creative freedom. For flowers, buildings, etc. that stay still, one can do that (quite amazingly, I may add) with an iPhone. But for anything that is moving, particularly in low-light? Much, much tougher. Again, the photographer works within the limits of whatever he/she has. 

I think it just comes down to whatever you like to shoot. As a hobbyist, I'm not looking to create masterpieces or professional work- having said that, I still want to use the best tools I can afford so I can have as much freedom as possible with the highest IQ I can get. Hardly think that makes me any sort of "artist" or whatever you call it. I bet I'm not alone in this thinking, either.

P.S. Some of my favorite shots didn't come out of my DSLR, but from my P&S, iPhone, even old film camera I threw out a long time ago. You just kinda have to be at the right place at the right time sometimes


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 18, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > crasher8 said:
> ...



It's not a smartass comment. I'm sick of people saying the camera doesn't matter, when in certain cases, it certainly does. Depending on the situation, the camera matters. It is so stupid to say otherwise and I don't understand it.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 19, 2012)

pwp said:


> I've said it before....content is king.
> -PW



Yes, the proof are the many visually appealing videos on youtube shot with zero Dof and zero content.


----------

