To some degree, I agree with the sentiments expressed in that statement. In my too long career working in camera shops, I had many occasions to express a similar sentiment to various customers. I had too many customers that wanted " a camera that takes good pictures". I even went so far to ask one customer if he would go to a hardware store and ask for a hammer that hammers nails straight. Personally, I'm in the market for a guitar that plays beautiful music. Obviously the camera is only as good as the person behind it.
However, in my renascent interest in photography, I have seen that opinion expressed ad nauseum on so many websites and blogs that it has become more than a little trite. Therefore, in this entry, I will play the devil's advocate and present an opposing viewpoint.
On the most basic level, it is true that one does not need the very best of equipment and supplies to achieve creative satisfaction or even artistic excellence. I can remember sitting on the patio of a local pub with a dear friend who was lamenting that she wanted to do some artistic work but could not afford art supplies. An idea popped into my head and I went to the bar and came back with a couple of books of matches. ( Smoking was still allowed in the bars in those days.) " There you go. Art supplies." I lit a match and let it burn briefly before blowing it out. " Charcoal." I flipped open the matchbook to reveal the clean white cardboard inside. " Your canvas." To my delight and amazement she proceeded to make a miniature charcoal sketch right there at the table.
To that extent, I can readily agree that the camera is merely the means by which a photograph is taken just as art supplies are merely the means by which a work of art is created and presented.
However there is much to be said for the employment of high quality equipment and supplies. If nothing else they can go a long way to promoting the enjoyment of any artistic endeavour. Despite the novelty of the moment, my friend did not go on to pursue an artistic career based on matchbook sketches.
In my teen years, I expressed an interest in playing the guitar and was presented one Christmas with an inexpensive instrument to get me started. Within a year the cheap neck on the guitar had bowed so badly that, unless one had hands like Schwarzenegger, it was virtually unplayable. It wasn't until years later that I purchased an instrument of decent quality that I could actually play long enough to make some musical progress.
This overall philosophy of quality first can be carried to many facets of life. I make my living as an industrial mechanic. I could do the job with cheap tools but find it is easier and far more enjoyable to work with well made precision ones. Furthermore, tools that are well made and precisely machined are less prone to breakage providing me an extra margin of safety in a field where accidents can be deadly. I enjoy playing music and find that it is far more enjoyable with quality instruments that stay in tune and produce a more pleasing tone. I'm interested in photography and I enjoy having cameras with the potential to accomodate my creative aspirations. Why is it that our society encourages us to preserve our inner child, but makes enjoyment of our toys socially unacceptable?
At its most rudimentary, photographic expression can be achieved by exposing a glass plate of photosensitive chemistry to rays of light focused by a pinhole in a shoebox that has been made light tight and immobile. The glass plate is then processed in a series of chemicals to develop, stop and fix the latent image.before it undergoes a thorough water wash to remove all residual traces of chemistry.The processing of said plate is done in complete darkness and thus a negative image is produced. The plate is then sandwhiched and exposed to photosensitive paper to make a contact print or is projected on to the photo paper with the use of light focused through a lens to make an enlargement. The photosensitive paper is then processed through a similar series of chemical baths under a red or "safe" light until a positive image is achieved. Once again a running water bath is employed to remove all traces of residual chemistry before the photograph is hung to dry or dried through electro mechanical means. I learned all this through practice and experience. Although I probably appear too smug here, I not only know how to take a picture, I know how to make a photograph. Big deal. It's a lost art. That and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee.
The reason for the above diatribe is to make the point that with modern digital technology, the microprocessor and digital pathways inside the camera do indeed go a long way toward the creation of the image. The alternative is to follow the above procedure in greater or lesser degrees.
Finally, in further refutation of the opening statement, It is not the eye that sees the picture, it is the mind. Ansel Adams called it previsualization. It is the ability to see the finished work in the mind before the actual act of creation. In my opinion, it applies to almost all successful human endeavour, artistic or otherwise. To that end, the eye is just another link in the process chain. I remember a television program where Ansel Adams was being interviewed. The host of the program asked him how many shots he took before he got the image he wanted. Adams looked at the interviewer as if he were from outer space before replying in a perplexed tone, "One." When Ansel Adams made a photograph, he already knew what he wanted and what he was going to get before he released the shutter.
I suppose that the final upshot of all of this is that photographers have always had good natured rivalries about the equipment and techniques they use. Ultimately, what counts are the photographs that are made as well as the fun, learning and sense of wonder that goes into making them. However, I can honestly state from experience that a digital Canon T3i is infinitely preferable to a shoebox with a pinhole.
...more later
