There are hundreds if not thousands of posts discussing why creative vision is the most important aspect of photography. Why, then, are we so obsessed with gear?
Basic Assumptions
First, we have to agree that good photographers produce good images regardless of the gear they use. Sure, gear can make creating certain images easier, but good photographers find a way to make their current gear work. Similarly, all things being equal, what you're shooting with shouldn't determine your overall style.
Second, when it comes to clicks and views, surely, we can agree that gear articles, more often than not, dominate articles about creative vision.
Why is this? If vision is so important, why do electronics reign?
Nurturing Creativity Versus Gear Acquisition
Forbes suggests that vision takes hard work and dedication. One of our editors here at Fstoppers, Robert Baggs, also wrote about this recently. For Baggs, gear can have an effect on your creativity, but the effort and commitment to nurture creativity will likely be more valuable in the long run.
I think the answer is clear: gear is much easier to acquire than personal vision is to develop. We're all under pressure, we're all stressed; it's no secret that retail therapy is a thing. The easy road is well-trodden. In terms of truly building creative vision, as Forbes puts it, there isn't much competition. After all, you're competing only with yourself.
Nurturing Creativity
Forbes maintains that it's hard to create a truly unique personal vision when we're 200-plus years into the art of photography. The cliché that there is nothing new seems to ring true here. Forbes suggests then that we look for inspiration instead of looking to emulate. Baggs also suggests that seeking out inspiration is a way to trigger that creative spark — standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.
I've said it before and Forbes says it well, you should be looking for creativity in a variety of places. Look at art, watch some films, go for a walk, pick up a book of poetry, and let the words draw you a picture of inspiration.
If Shakespeare inspired Sir John Everett Millais' Ophelia, which in turn has inspired dozens of photographers to try their hand at this trope, certainly, there's inspiration out there in innumerable forms.
Forbes also points out that looking at your own work is a great way to inspire creativity. Be critical of your old work. Think about what you could have done better, and then, make it happen. Constantly take the time to evolve.
Creativity is hard. As Baggs and Forbes suggest, it demands a lot of investment. Not a capital investment, that's the easy part; rather, it's an investment requiring dedication to yourself and your own creative spirit.
Lead image from Silvioldcoelho, Wikimedia, Creative Commons license.
He has good youtube channel.
If ever you come to new york I would very much like to meet you such an artist the world can learn from you Reyphotos123@gmail.com
Creativity vs. gear acquisition -- Let's start with the advent of the DSLR. My D810 certainly allows me to be more creative than my D100--better noise handling, much higher ISO, better tracking and focusing, more pixels. I do mostly nature photography, from dragon flies up to whales, birds in flight, sometimes distant, so I need a variety of lenses. While I may not be creative in a shot I take, the ability to zoom in on images without losing quality does allow some 'creativity' my end work. While I may not be able to see a bird grab a small fish from a whale's mouth, I know that it happens and I can zoom in on my photographs on my computer and occasionally find that happening. Not something I could do with my original DSLR and equipment. So, there are other sides to this discussion.
I agree. But, the gear shouldn't govern your vision, should it? Some of my favourite wildlife photos were taken with a 20d or 7d. A far cry from what I use now.
Maybe not but I can take pictures now that I could not take with my D100.
Would it be much different if you had the Canon or Sony equivalent?
Your owl / mouse conflict is great.
Look at it this way: Michelangelo didn't use any new techniques or subject matter for the Sistine Chapel. Fresco painting had been around for a couple thousand years, and Biblical Stories by then had been done to death already. And yet, he made something very special and unique. You can find the exact same stories done with the exact same painting technology by many other artists, but you probably won't remember them. Not having new subjects or new technology is hardly an excuse not to create something new.
Great example.