The marketing battle between the big camera manufacturers is irrelevant. A far older and more important disagreement that has raged since the dawn of our art is as relevant today as ever. Where do you stand?
Let’s face it, they all make good cameras. Yes, some duff models come out occasionally, but at least a design flaw that causes a camera to overheat or fall apart is probably not life-threatening; it’s just a camera, not a plane or a self-driving car. Although you might feel you have a good reason not to feel safe in X brand of car or flying in Y’s planes, shooting with Z camera will be okay despite those widely reported problems. (I landed on the wrong letter. Sorry, Nikon, I didn't mean you.)
Whatever the camera you choose, you should be able to learn to take good photos. However, there is a disagreement in photography that, as time passes, swings from one extreme to the other. It’s an argument that doesn’t seem to be able to find a middle ground. However, that compromise is something I think we should seek.
I am talking about the photographic styles that stem from the battle between the science and the art of photography.
In the earliest days of photography, science played the most crucial role. Indeed, it was viewed mainly as a scientific process. The earliest pioneers, Nicéphore Niépce and William Henry Fox Talbot, were both scientists. Later, the invention of the Daguerreotype and the other early photographic processes that followed it concentrated on physics and chemistry. Consequently, the artistic merits of photography took second place. However, photography's creative potential soon became apparent, and it transformed from a simple method of recording a moment in time to something that could be manipulated to tell a story.
Pictorialism established photography as a legitimate art form and was crucial in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Challenging the notion that photography was purely mechanical, the movement promoted it as a medium capable of artistic expression. Subsequently, Pictorialism's emphasis on technique and personal vision influenced later photography-based movements.
Pictorialism is named after Henry Peach Robinson's 1869 book Pictorial Effect in Photography. It was a style promoted by a group of loosely linked camera clubs and societies that mounted international exhibitions and published portfolios and journals.
That movement took hold as a serious part of the arts when, during the 1880s, a British photographer called Peter Henry Emerson used photographs to depict beauty and personal expression in his surroundings. He was a photographer who changed his opinions. At first, he was inspired by naturalistic French painting, arguing for "naturalistic" photography. Consequently, he took photographs in sharp focus and recorded country life. Well-known where I grew up, his first album of 40 platinum prints entitled Life and Landscape on the Norfolk Broads was published in 1886. However, he soon became discontented with the work he was producing. He argued that the human eye did not render everything in sharp focus. Therefore, emphasizing all objects in a photograph with equal sharpness was wrong.
Inspired partly by Impressionism, he moved on and experimented with soft focus, endeavoring to match a photograph to what his eye saw. But, like many artists, he remained discontented with what he could achieve. Nevertheless, his approach created a big rift between him and the photographic establishment of the time.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Pictorialism was still influential, but Modernism, which became dominant with the advent of the First World War, made photography a means of precisely recording the world once again, and the Pictorial aesthetic took second place. Modernism laid the groundwork for many subsequent photographic styles and movements, including street, documentary, wildlife, and photojournalism.
Key figures in the Modernist movement included the West Coast photographers Edward Weston and Ansel Adams, who were part of the f/64 group. Meanwhile, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Robert Capa, two of the founders of Magnum Photos, also took a realist approach to photography. They concentrated on sharp focus with clear detail, and their works highlighted the inherent beauty of the subject matter itself. That is opposed to the Pictorial approach of showing the photograph's beauty; it's possible to have a beautiful picture of an unbeautiful subject.
Nevertheless, Pictorialism remained prominent and became more popular again between the wars. Alvin Langdon Coburn was known for his innovative techniques and abstract photography, and Imogen Cunningham engaged with Pictorialism with work including botanical photography and industrial landscapes. Meanwhile, Adolf de Meyer was celebrated for his elegant and stylized fashion photographs, and Gertrude Käsebier created portraits and images depicting motherhood. Also, Robert Demachy is remembered for his gum bichromate prints and influential writings on Pictorialism.
The start of the New Vision Movement of the 1950s and '60s saw an exploration of meditative abstract imagery that was seen as a means of self-discovery. Then, in the late 20th century, Post-modernism rejected the Modernist approach, concentrating on a photo's selective and constructive nature. Post-modernist photographers included Sherrie Levine, Anne Zahalka, Richard Prince, Cindy Sherman, and Robyn Stacey.
The Big Swing in the Digital Age
Thus, photography continues swinging back and forth between the precision of science and the expression of art. On one hand, some try to create as accurate a record as possible. Meanwhile, others prefer to emphasize the art and creativity of the picture.
With the advent of digital photography, the swing was very much toward the technical, a move advocated by the big camera companies and their marketing departments. For example, they sold the idea that customers should want more and more pixels. Consequently, the uneducated novice photographers bought into the myth that having more pixels is always better. Similarly, some sold the idea that the badly named “full frame” camera was the only type a serious photographer could use; another myth that has been debunked.
The Rebels Fighting the Trend
A couple of companies, namely Fujifilm and OM System (formerly Olympus), take a different course. Besides having excellent technical attributes in their cameras and lenses, they provide a far wider range of creative functions suited to the creative photographer. Fujifilm has excellent film simulations, and OM System has the widest range of all computational photography options. Moreover, their art filters give unusual results that enable photographers to express themselves in unique and original ways. Like all contemporary cameras, they are also capable of producing pin-sharp images.
Likewise, editing software gives easier access to creative effects. These can be adopted and adapted by the photographer. Using them is intuitive, and they don’t require the technical skills needed with the early, complex digital editing programs like Photoshop. I am especially thinking about ON1 Photo Raw, where novice photographers who want a gentler learning curve can quickly get to grips with developing and editing images. Similarly, DxO Photolab produces excellent technically precise results, but it also has an enormous range of film emulations and effects.
Despite being easy to grasp, both programs have the potential for in-depth, advanced image processing. That democratization of photography must be a good thing because the increased accessibility breaks away from the elitism that pervades all art.
Where Next?
Is the pendulum swinging from technically precise photographs that record an event to more expressive and artistic images? I suspect that is the case. I see many more creative photos among the technically precise shots that still dominate than I did a decade ago. There will always be a call for sharp, clean images, especially for advertising or creating catalog images. Furthermore, great satisfaction comes from pressing the shutter and knowing you have a near-perfect shot better than the last. However, there is also room for people to become more inventive and experiment with creative styles. Therefore, perhaps the biggest challenge is finding how to make those two meet in the middle and sit side by side.
Which is most important to you? Are you more driven to achieve precise results? Does every photo have to be pin-sharp in all the right places? Or are you more inclined to experiment and push the boundaries of photography? It would be great to hear your opinions in the comments.
Ah , Democratization. Removing the need for skill. Anyone can now produce great photos, paintings and audio with a few clicks. Well , yes and no.. But thats a different conversation... All I can say is I like great images. I try to make at least decent images. The camera does most of the technical stuff so I do not have to. That leaves me the leisure of developing my eye for a great photo. Consequently that in turn lets me see I have a lot of room for improvement. I am improving. I make images for me primarily. I like to share them. In this wonderful world of imagery there is a vast scope of ways to express one's self. Through the technical , through the artistic , the realistic , the surrealistic , truthful , imagined , documentary and fantasy. The word spectrum has found its place in modern culture as applied to light , politics , health conditions , prescribed medicines , even human sexuality and gender. Here too in this world of the production and admiration of images the word spectrum is very well placed. Whether you are at the very beginning of an image, the place where research and development of the image capturing devices is happening, or all the way to the other end of the spectrum , a simple admirer of photos, there is room for us all. No need to hold others in disdain just because they have their own place in the photographic world spectrum. First and foremost enjoy what you do. Don't let others chill you passion for your place in this magnificent world of photography....
Charles Clark wrote:
"The camera does most of the technical stuff so I do not have to. That leaves me the leisure of developing my eye for a great photo."
I am so glad that you wrote that, Charles!
There is a misguided belief that having cameras that "do everything for us" make us lazy and hinder our growth as photographers. Yet, the opposite is true.
There isn't anything creative about getting the technical things right.
THE CREATIVE PART ....... comes in having a vision of what we want the image to look like, and in knowing what to do to get it to look that way. This is mostly about our position in relation to the subject, which includes both our distance from the subject and the angle between our camera and the subject. It also involves what framing we choose, a.k.a. composition. The creative part of photography also includes knowing what depth of field we want and how to achieve it, as we blur some things to varying degrees and make other parts of the scene sharp. It also involves knowing what degree of motion blur we want, in order to suggest movement and speed.
THE TECHNICAL PART ..... includes getting an exposure that captures the detail that we want in both the bright parts of the scene and the dark parts of the scene. The technical part also includes getting the things that we want to be sharp in absolute perfect focus.
These technical things are not creative; they are mundane binary things. But they are a challenge to get right, and thus they take our precious time and our precious creative efforts away from us, as we must abandon the higher things for a second or three in order to adjust exposure, confirm focus, etc. Hence, we are wasting our hands and our brains and our eyes on the parts of image-making that are not creative.
Having a camera that just does these things for us actually frees us up so that we can put more of ourselves into the part that matters - the creative, artistic, visionary part of image-making.
When I drive 1,200 miles and spend hours hiking into the wildlife habitat searching for deer, and then spend countless hours and days allowing the deer to get used to me so they won't run off, and then figure out what position to get into to take advantage of the best foreground, and/or the best background, and then spend a long long time lying on the ground for the best angle, and wait and wait for the deer to do some behavior that will make for an interesting photo ...... and then someone calls me "lazy" because I "just want the camera to do everything for me" ..... that shows that the person giving that judgement is utterly clueless about what photography actually is. It is NOT about adjusting settings so that the exposure and focus are correct. It is about seeing an image in your mind's eye and then doing everything you possibly can in order to get ones self in position to capture that image.
I like your post.. Thanks for it
You may or may not admire the way Ivor beats his micro four-thirds drum any chance he gets. You would think he was sponsored by Olympus! :-
“Consequently, the uneducated novice photographers bought into the myth that having more pixels is always better. Similarly, some sold the idea that the badly named “full frame” camera was the only type a serious photographer could use; another myth that has been debunked.”
He is obviously implying that his favoured sensor size is somehow superior. Why the need to do this?
Uneducated! Why Ivor has to keep mocking those who make different choices and use different formats from his own is so telling. This constant need for him to justify his own choice by constantly putting down those who make different choices says more about his own photographic insecurities . This ‘mine is better than yours schoolyard’ routine reeks of nothing more than pointless point scoring. Full frame is just a name; get over it. Calling it a ‘bad name’ to justify your own prejudice, why? What would you prefer to call it?
Still promoting the OM system, Ivor says:-
“Moreover, their art filters give unusual results that enable photographers to express themselves in unique and original ways.”
Who needs an in-camera narrow selection of baked-in film simulations when it’s easy to apply a greater number if required in post?
Applying lipstick on a pig still leaves you with no more than a pig with lipstick. The world of post-processing negates any in-camera filter that could be argued are mainly aimed at amateurs and those who find any kind of post-processing beyond them. But if that kind of in camera fluff rocks your micro four thirds boat then go for it!
When is he going to learn that camera choice is not a competition? The manufacturers may well be in competition, but real photographers who care about photography don’t care one hoot what camera is used to create an image as all they care about is the image itself. When printed, the badge on the camera becomes totally irrelevant! As someone who sees hundreds of images every week by different photographers, I like others in my position seldom care or talk about the hardware used. The thinking, skill, and creativity behind the creation of the image is what really matters and not the size of the sensor used. This constant need to extol one system or other is a tedious waste of time and does nothing for photography.
"He is obviously implying that his favoured sensor size is somehow superior. Why the need to do this? Uneducated! Why Ivor has to keep mocking those who make different choices and use different formats from his own is so telling."
As far as I can tell, Ivor simply mentioned in passing the curious historical fact that the tiny negative size used by Oskar Barnack 100 years ago is still thought of as the ultimate in quality by many photographers, despite technological advancement in digital sensors (enabling excellent quality photos in M43) as well as the existence of medium format and even larger sensors and film (such as those available from Fujifilm).
The irony comes in when you (presumably a "full-frame" user) mock Ivor and call him uneducated...for making different choices and using a different format from your own.
I am very tired of the slights given agains the hugely successful camera makers, and the continual plugs for the littler camera makers. None of that is important and I try to just skip over that stuff when reading Ivor's articles.
BUT ...... besides that meaningless banter, Ivor has other things to say and to explain and discuss that are very worthwhile. He writes some of the most meaningful articles here on Fstoppers.
But he shouldn't be using his role here to plug the brand that he works for - that is a conflict of interest and frankly, I just don't care. Having a bunch of stuff that I don't care about woven into articles about things I do care about just makes for more difficult reading.
I almost didn't even click on this article because the title included the names of camera manufacturers. I mean it sat here for a bit with me ignoring it because of the title. But I must've been bored a few days ago because I eventually did click on it, and I am glad I did because there is a really important discussion here that has NOTHING to do with camera gear or brands.
“Are you more driven to achieve precise results? Does every photo have to be pin-sharp in all the right places? Or are you more inclined to experiment and push the boundaries of photography?”
Once more, Ivor, like many who write for fstoppers, treats photography as though it were some homogeneous, narrow one-size-fits-all activity. Photography is a vast behemoth that almost defies generalisations. While the common factor is the use of a camera, that’s about as far as one can go as regards glib generalisations.
Asking such a meaningless question betrays a complete lack of understanding of what photography can be.
Pushing the boundaries in photography has nothing to do with how sharp or precise your images are. The sharpness or lack of it is dictated by the aesthetic requirements of the image as defined by the vision of the photographer and is not a measure of how far any boundaries have been pushed.
Pushing the boundaries is all down to the photographer and their own creativity. If you think for one moment that having a camera with built-in rinky-dinky filters is going to help you push any photographic boundaries, then perhaps your notion of where the current boundaries sit may require redefining.
I think you read into the article things he was not saying or suggesting.
I think you are right S Brown.
Eric, thank you for your warmhearted comments.
ha ha ha.
Eric,
I agree with what you say, but the tone of your comment is quite disrespectful and condescending. Ivor actually made several points in the article that are exactly the same points that you are making here. So I am not sure why you seem to be attacking the article when some of it is in agreement with you. I "liked" your comment because I agree with it, but your tone rubs me the wrong way. And yes, I completely "get" that you don't care if I or anyone else "likes" your comments or not. But I liked it anyway ..... lol
If the definition that “Photography is a science & art” needs to be upheld, both technological & aesthetic developments need to be taken into consideration simultaneously. One without the other will degrade that definition and practice. That said, currently & unfortunately, the technological development is given more importance than the artistic nature of photography. Then the argument arises to determine the quantity or the percentage of art and technology in photography-
Who decides that percentage..? As of now it seems that the marketing forces, photography competitions and the competitors are not doing enough to balance the craft & artistic nature of photography.
Good points, thanks.
Thank you Ivor, for another fine article. My feeling is that a good photograph transcends time and technology. A good picture from a hundred years or more ago is still a good picture today. In some cases, fine details are the main attraction which keep me returning to look at the image. That's often true of the landscape genre. But how can you help but not respond to a great portrait that evokes story-telling emotions, independent from technical qualities, possibly aided by soft-focus and other Pictorialist attributes for emulating a painting. I don't see one side as inherently better than the other.
However, artistic creativity more recently seems to have run amok with computer aided software, and no longer even resembles traditional fine photography. When painters can create a canvas without a paintbrush, or photographers can create all sorts of artificial images without having a real interaction with the subject; that's where I get off the creative bandwagon. So much of what we call artistic creativity is rooted in one-touch filters and computer generated stuff that no longer feels genuine or sincere. Sky-replacement with the touch of a button has become so ubiquitous that we now question the reality of any picture that looks exceptionally dramatic. Photography (within the category of art) that's so easy to produce feels cheap to me.
I've touched on HDR and ICM and many of the other creative photography styles, only to get bored with them. The longer I work at photography, the more I've circled back toward simple, technically well-executed black and white images... the same thing that was a good photograph to Adams in the 1940s. I don't claim to be a world-class photographer, but anything that could be confused for sloppy work is not my thing. Good composition, light, exposure, sharpness, and detail are most important to me. Even if it's been done a million times before. New isn't always better. Making a fine photographic print is a lot of work, which I can appreciate without any additional artistic or creative merits.
Thank you for the kind comment, Ed. That photo is outstanding.
FUJI ha ha ha ha...... Yeah I've just thrown a grenade into the room sorry but I love my Fuji gear. I've shot with Nikon and yep I love Nikon gear too and I really don't think there's a bad camera but there is something about the Fuji sauce. The colour science we call it which is a very fancy name for just nice colours but yeah I'm a massive Fujifilm fan and don't believe all the crap about the auto focus. It is absolute rubbish. You can get great photos out of a Fuji camera no problems at all. GFX 100s II GF 50s II XT5. As I say to a lot of photographers they really isn't a bad camera system these days. Just find one that you like to look of. It feels good in your hands. If the camera feels good in your hands you will then use it.
Yes, they are good cameras.
I use Fuji because I actually just like the photos that come out of it. It's no more complex than that and then the actual camera feels good in my hands. It's no more complex than that and if those two things align I figure out all the other stuff that goes around it where is a lot of people gone by cameras on the specs I don't look at the specs much even though I own a crop sensor and medium format. I was quite happy with my crop sensor camera but I wanted better low light so I went GFX. It was a simple advancement in the camera system I was using.
Is it important for artists what kind of brushes and colors they use? Absolutely.
The same applies to photographers: aspects such as their style, the conditions and environment they work in, and the scale of the image all significantly influence their workflow. This, in turn, affects which cameras and lenses will serve them best. Like a palette with a bunch of brushes.
Yes!
Thanks for the comment
I understand that the title of the article is there to attract readers, but please stop bashing Canon, it’s getting a bit old. But onto the nice part of the article.
I guess both styles can exist side by side. In paintings I really like Dali, Hopper and Willink but also like Monet (really dislike Van Gogh). In photos in landscapes I mostly like pin sharp shots with little to no noise, I like the softness coming from nature (fog and sof light) recorded in fine detail. On the other side I also like more abstract shots, with parts in soft focus. I didn’t know you had to choose.
I recently bought a new computer and my very old version of ON1 effects doesn’t comply with the newer OS so can’t use it no more. So I just rely on capture one and photoshop, no more “presets” and I think my photos have improved. Never use presets or styles in capture one , I like to start fresh with every session, might copy settings from one image to another but only in the same session. I find it more creative.
I don't know how you could possibly read the article as bashing Canon. What he said was "Let’s face it, they all make good cameras." Canon was not mentioned in the article beyond the headline.
Read between the lines and earlier articles.
I like Ivor’s articles about photography and he
Is probably a very nice guy. His love for OM systems is also very clear, and so is his dislike of Canon.
Actually, Ruud, I don't dislike Canon. There are some aspects of Canon I dislike, and I could say something I dislike about most brands.
Ivor Rackham actually wrote:
"Actually, Ruud, I don't dislike Canon. "
Someone, please screenshot this before Ivor takes it back! LOLOLOL
I still use older cameras because I can't afford the latest gear but that does not stop me from enjoying my photography. I have no loyalty to any particular brand either, I have used nearly every brand over the years and my meagre collection now consists of a Nikon P7000, Sony HX60, Lumix FZ330 my main camera now and recently I bought a Samsung NX10 and NX30 which I am really enjoying using, so just give me any camera and I can produce a photo with my same style and composition and composition is the key.
Proving your point despite me being just some random guy on the internet:
I can't tell which of your shots were made on which camera using whatever post/pre processing. Yet all - except the last one - FEEL like being made by the same person. They all have a dark-ish, almost depressing mood, inherent to them. Despite being of different "brightness" and subject.
The article is not about either favoring or bashing one brand or another. If you think Ivor is bashing Canon or promoting Olympus, you're missing the point. The point of the article raises the question of the style of photography which appeals to you. The title of the article even states that. The camera body is merely a tool or means to that end. My Nikon has no particular creative functions that I'm aware of, which is fine because of the description I gave of my work in an earlier post. On the other hand, a few of my photography friends have new Fuji cameras, one of whom was describing its "film simulation recipes;" in particular something called "Eggleston's Red." Does that imply I'm bashing one brand and promoting another? Of course not; I'm merely using them to explain a difference in camera features and how they relate to one's chosen style of photography.
The article here by Ivor is essentially asking if that type of technology that's now being integrated into cameras and post-processing technology is of value to you. I used the examples of sky-replacement software and ICM which is an acronym for "intentional camera movement," or pictures with an impressionist style. If you had lived in 1860, would you have denounced the paintings of Claude Monet and other upstart impressionists? Are you likely to enhance your images creatively in that direction, or more likely to stick to what Ansel Adams described as "straight photography?" For anyone getting hung up on brands, you could have just skipped to the very last paragraph or two. The debate involving artistic style and merit is what makes the evolution of art history so interesting.
"The article is not about either favoring or bashing one brand or another. If you think Ivor is bashing Canon or promoting Olympus, you're missing the point. The point of the article raises the question of the style of photography which appeals to you."
I agree completely with your statement. Unfortunately, some folks take umbrage when anyone suggests that so-called full frame cameras are not the 'best'. There is no such thing as a best camera sensor size. Likewise, more megapixels are not always better. There are multitudes of cameras and lenses because different features, functions and specifications are more or less important to different photographers based on their purposes and preferences. It's wonderful that we have so many choices. Viva la difference!
Thank you for your comments.
Is Ivor trying to start a war? Course that is how you start a war!
Pitching technology up against creativity in the photographic community.
My personal take on that debate, is that the lag of technology has always inhibited the creativity in photography. Former photographers have always been chained by the tech of their era, being it lag of sharp lenses, color film, film grain, lens coating, film advanced, shutter speed, autofocus speed, megapixels and so much more.
Those former photographers would marvel at the possibilities modern photographic equipment brings to the table, for the creative mind.
Today it is not the equipment that stop photographers from carving a piece of history for themself, but rather the daunting task of finding a niche among all the other photographers, whom all have the same ease of opportunities as yourself.
Hi Hans, I do conclude "perhaps the biggest challenge is finding how to make those two meet in the middle and sit side by side." So it's not about a war. I thought it would be historically interesting.
It was historically interesting. Did like the article. My war statement was ment to be a bit ironic, if it wasn't so true.
This article starts by referring to a time when photography was relatively rare compared to today's standards. The argument technical or artistic was seen by relatively few. Today we're very fortunate (?) to have the ability to image every facet of our lives. I can post a picture of my breakfast, my cat staring out the window, a baby wrapped in an American flag, whatever... I can also show the horror of disaster or a beautiful landscape. There are many stories to tell, many things to share and whatever imaging tool you have is perfectly fine if it meets YOUR objective with the image. It could be a big maker flagship camera or an old cell phone with a dirty lens. I like a variety of image types and use my fancy camera when I want the pin sharp wildlife shot. I use my cell phone when it's just a snapshot and I want to send a quickie, a picture is worth a thousand words. There's a place in today's definition of photography for just about anything. Technical or artistic? It's about how you want to present the image and what you want your intended audience to see. Now, all you have to be able to do is see the difference yourself!
I don't know what to think of this article. I can see both sides yet prefer to use techniques like "soft focus", "motion blur" or "pin-sharp focus" in conjunction with each other to achieve a gradient that gently guides the viewer's eye towards my main subject which is usually only pin-sharp of the spots I want to highlight.
According to this article, people like me - who feel comfortable around picking the middle-ground of artistic expression and technical precision - kinda don't exist...
That's hurtful in a weird way that personally feels like only a fellow photographer could hit.
I've added some examples where I used either approach and/or the middle-ground to achieve my personal vision of the image I wanted to create.
As far as I'm concerned post-processing is a tool to alleviate weaknesses of the specific hardware in context with the desired output. Kinda like sandpaper is just a tool to refine a well-done piece of artistic woodworking. Tonal differences and colour theory seems more important to me than screwing around with purely mathematical approaches to changing an image's appearance does.
TLDR: While the article criticises gross generalisation in photography it also grossly generalises photography.
I don't agree with your conclusions, but thanks for your comment anyway. I didn't say that the middle ground doesn't exist, but "perhaps the biggest challenge is finding how to make those two meet in the middle and sit side by side." If you believe that is what you are aiming for, then fabulous!
Sometimes I want to create art and sometimes I want to record something scientifically, so personally it is important that I have a tool that can do both (as long as I am able to!!). But I can understand what you have said about sentiment in a given time period or movement. Right now we are fortunate to live in a time where all options are available, thankfully. There are so many diverse and excellent cameras and lenses to choose from. I love the thought of having the added features you mentioned. My camera does not have those so I have to use third-party software to supplement things.
Thanks for that great comment.
qk64w
I am a bit confused by that, but thanks anyway.
There's a lot of "full frame" snobs out there. This is a good article. I can easily afford any format or lens made by the majot firms but I chose APSC for the reach it provides. 400mm becomes 640mm and is far easier to carry around. With 32 mp available it's equivalent to over 80 mp in FF. We all make choices and should never question other's choices because they have their reasons for them.
A canon EOS RP is more affordable than an OM systems Om-1 mk2. It has way less bells and whistles, isn’t as sturdy. Nothing to be a snob about. It will do better in low light, but the tele lenses will be much bigger and heavier. Every system has it’s pros and cons. It’s also personal choice, if I could afford it , I would buy a Hasselblad X2D or a Fujifilm gfx.
Where there are FF snobs there are m43 users with Napoleon complex I guess.
Yeah, I own a GFX camera in fact I own two of them but I get just as much enjoyment out of shooting with my XT5 - APC .... There really isn't a bad camera these days and it's finding the camera that feels good in your hands. I really don't think you can go wrong in the modern tech that's available now. Even camera is 10 to 15 years ago. I still really fantastic.
In the end they are all just tools, use the one you’re comfortable with and get the most joy out of. A digger is great for digging big holes, but not that great if you’re planting small plants. And if the result is a nice useable hole, who cares what and who dug it.
Hi Lawrence, I absolutely agree with your comment. As I said above, they all make great cameras. I was going to make a longer comment, but I'll save it for an article.
From your concluding paragraph, Ivor: "Is the pendulum swinging from technically precise photographs that record an event to more expressive and artistic images?" I understand where you're coming from. As you've described in your article, the debate has existed since nearly the invention of photography. Nothing changes much over time... we still argue over what constitutes a better photograph. Several people here seem to think though that our craft as a photographer is not clearly divided into just one camp or the other. I agree.
Is it not possible for a traditional image which emphasizes detail, contrast, exposure, etc., to be considered "expressive" and "creative," or must we push straight photography into the realm of abstraction, ICM, surreal forms of HDR, or painterly filters to be considered creative? Are we becoming dependent upon the next update from software developers to define creativity? Maybe fine photography asks more of us than simply recording an event with precise detail and exposure, but to what lengths are we going before declaring a particular image as a creative work of art? Don't let technology warp your sense of creativity.
More importantly is the ultimate question: What do we consider expressive photography?
From the book: “The Making of 40 Photographs” by Ansel Adams (1983):
“Such questions remind me that many viewers expect a photograph to be the literal simulation of reality; of course, many others are capable of response to an image without concern for the physical realities of the subject. Either the photograph speaks to a viewer or it does not. I cannot demand that anyone receive from the image just what was in my visualization at the time of exposure. I believe that if I am able to to express what I saw and felt, the image will contain qualities that may provide a basis for imaginative response by the viewer.”
Keep in mind that Adams was speaking about straight photography, not pictorialist or some stylized technique intended to mimic a fine art painting. And the comment was made long before computer graphics opened a wide door into artistic capabilities. The point is that one must not necessarily seek out the latest technology or special digital effects in order to be both creative and expressive. Ansel Adams was a great artist with immense creative talent. There is no doubt in my mind that straight photography offers great opportunity for creative, expressive images to be made.
The picture below was "recorded" on a bleak December day in Utah near Castle Valley. It could be considered simply a literal capture of the landscape with no particular additional creative elements. It merely records what I saw. But the photo awakens my imagination. It feels like a scene from "The Lord of the Rings" with Gandalf and company hunting for a path through the mountain, with magical clouds stirred by the Dark Lord to stoke fear and engulf them in his evil presence. As Ansel said, I can’t command that you will respond in the manner I intended, but I feel like I have made an expressive photograph based on intention, and that is my greatest objective when making a picture. The story becomes complete by the choice of paper upon which to make the print: a 300 gsm fine-art class of soft white textured paper… a further testament to creativity and expression.
Fabulous information, Ed. Thank you. That photo is spectacular.
I realize my comments can get a little wordy, but I hope the message is not lost: creativity can be "expressed" using simple old-fashioned camera gear, outdated software, and technique rooted in basic skills of detail, sharpness and exposure. Expressive photography is so much more than the result of a new camera or software feature. It's purely a result of what comes from the mind.
Ivor Rackham asked,
"Where do you stand?
Are you more driven to achieve precise results? Does every photo have to be pin-sharp in all the right places? Or are you more inclined to experiment and push the boundaries of photography?"
I do not see this as a binary - a one or the other - decision.
Personally, I want to create images that interpret the scene in a unique way. But doing so should not require that I sacrifice technical precision inasmuch as the way the detail is rendered.
I will rush out and hike two miles before the sun comes up if the conditions are moody - frost and fog and fresh snow get me stimulated with the possibilities of unique image-making possibilities. And I look for a play of light - anomalies with the way the ambient light interacts with the topography, the clouds, and the vegetation. I want to take images that convey the mood and the feel of these special conditions.
BUT ....... I want the pictorial style images I create to have as much perfectly resolved detail as possible. And I detest noise grain because it is an artificial artifact created by technology, not part of the actual scene I experienced ...... I want the recording device and medium to get out of the way and just do their job, without imposing themselves onto the image that is recorded.
I also like to create somewhat abstract images, often with camera movement during the exposure, or with subject movement and slow shutter speeds, such as birds in flight or running deer at speeds under 1/50th of a second. But I want all parts of the frame to be rendered in just a certain way. The technical elements of such images matter just as much as the ethereal elements.
Both things matter, and they matter equally.
Thanks, Tom, that was what I hoped some would conclude, as I suggested in the penultimate paragraph.