There’s a lot of debate about whether high-end gear leads to better photographs. While modern cameras offer convenience and reliability, it’s worth questioning if they actually improve your artistic output or just make the process easier.
Coming to you from Scott Choucino of Tin House Studio, this thought-provoking video explores the role of equipment in photography. Choucino begins with a question: would legendary artists like Leonardo da Vinci abandon their traditional tools for modern technology? While gear undeniably makes technical precision more accessible, it doesn’t necessarily enhance the artistic value of an image. Using examples from iconic photographers like Lee Miller and William Eggleston, he examines how creativity and intention often outweigh the advantages of advanced equipment.
One point Choucino emphasizes is the misconception that higher-quality gear always leads to better results. He analyzes photos where added sharpness, dynamic range, or low-light performance would do little to improve the final image. For instance, motion blur or grain, which some might consider technical flaws, are often deliberate artistic choices. He questions whether capturing 40 frames per second is inherently better than nailing a single, well-timed shot, as seen in Miller’s perfectly exposed photo of a bombing.
Choucino also contrasts the convenience of modern gear with the limitations of older tools. While new cameras reduce the risk of missed shots, they sometimes discourage experimentation. He reflects on how limitations, such as the manual nature of early cameras, can push creativity by forcing you to think critically about composition, timing, and storytelling. In contrast, today’s fast and precise equipment might encourage a flood of uninspired, technically perfect images that lack artistic depth.
He extends the discussion to film versus digital. Choucino argues that black-and-white film often surpasses digital in aesthetic quality, even though digital offers more flexibility. For color, film’s tonal richness remains hard to replicate despite the advancements in digital sensors. He suggests that while digital is more practical, especially for fast-paced work like sports or events, it doesn’t inherently result in better images. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Choucino.
Nope, better post processing skills make better photographers. They would be nothing without it.
As the old saying goes, "I can make bad photos with any grade of gear".
But good gear and the lust for good gear satisfies us in many ways other than photographic. Bragging rights are quite satisfying, especially when your friends are "lacking". The fiscal health of our favorite gear manufacturer is not irrelevant in my mind. And pros would be soon out of business if they show up to a shoot with a 3mp Spideman camera purchased from Walmart. Customers can be such snobs.
I say we should all indulge our irrational covetedness of the next level. It good for the soul and the economy.
I'll tell you a story: "There was a group of parents at a parent-teacher conference... This was in the days where tablets and phones were just becoming a thing." They were meeting about doing certain assignments on their devices and computers in the future. One of the parents stood up and exclaimed! "My Kid has not done his work until he has Put Pen to Paper!".... Well my 'Parent' friend who was there had the witty retort... "My Kid has not done his work until He's put Chisel to Stone!"
Which puts things in perspective right? You can come to a shooting event or landscape with your old tech, that's your choice. And If you don't feel you want to edit your photos much that's also your choice. I always feel there's a bit of macho when people say ... "no editing in this photo".
Here's the rubs... Someone said one difference 'Sniper shot versus spray and pray'. Well personally I'd rather 'spray', why not? Since we have the technology, let's use it. The example given of 40 frames versus one. Well I'll take the 40. Just for insurance. As another pointed out, getting better at editing is it's own honed photography skill? It can takes years to get that right. Just when I think I learned to master it, I figure out that I can improve more. And learning new AI and lighting tools to help, which I know rubs some people the wrong way, but still you may be left behind by not learning how to use them.
So the point articles/videos like this is we are all supposed to go out and get an old camera keep it on one sniper shot, and film things the way they did 20 to 30 years ago? That the new ways are not going to improve anything... isn't it more likely that someone hasn't learned the new ways. Because they prefer the way they learned to do it before. I'm not saying they didn't have success.