In case you missed it (and there might be one or two of you), there was a little bit of news this week about the new Nikon Df camera. Depending on your view, this news was either awfully astounding or astoundingly awful. Whether you love or hate the idea of the Df, I can’t help but feel that arguing it’s pro’s/con’s is sort of missing the entire point. “Pure photography” isn’t about a camera. If you really want to make better images, focusing on learning to improve how we see is all that really matters.
Let me just preface this article with a quick statement about our camera gear. It is critical to capture what we see, it improves all the time at an exponential rate and it’s never been a more accessible time to be a photographer or get into photography due to the high quality, affordable camera gear available. The Df might be the best camera in years, but I just don't care about that right now, and I don't think you should think too much about it either. Here's why:
“The camera doesn’t make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to see.” Ernst Haas
Diane ArbusThe title of this article (“You Don’t Take Pictures, The Good Ones Happen To You”) is another quote by Haas who really underlines the importance of being open to seeing, and not worrying so much about the tools we use to capture what we see. This article is not about the Nikon Df, but it is aimed at trying to understand what “pure photography” really means, and to try to tap into it – not through new camera gear, but in terms of how we see, and by virtue, what and how we shoot.
The marketing for the Df was genius - it was trying to get us to remember what it was like when we held our very first camera. But if we really want to get back to “pure photography” (I’m still not entirely sure what that phrase actually means), we should probably try to think back to the photo that compelled us to want to pick up a camera - any camera - in the first place, not the camera itself. Sure, some of us were probably intrigued by the technical aspects of the camera and how it operated, but if you are still shooting years later, I'll bet you my bottom dollar that you're still in if because of an ongoing love (or obsession) with image making and the images themselves.
Gesture - a single, elusive word that best describes the essence of the most compelling images, the ones that make me sit up and take notice. Gesture is generally associated with the movement of part of the body, usually our hands. If we dig a little deeper though, gesture is something we can see all around us. What is gesture, and why is seeing it and capturing it so much more powerful (and important) than getting your hands on any new camera?
Brent EyslerGesture is something I was discussing with a friend and fellow photographer, Brent Eysler. He and I both enjoy street photography, and I think the reason is we are both drawn to it is because of the possibility of happening across random serendipitous acts of gesture in the streets, and trying to capture these in a meaningful, impactful way. Gesture is interesting because it provides a window into something we rarely see for more than a split second. It's also interesting because being able to capture gesture is what most of the best photographers have in common, certainly those who photograph people.
I just finished watching “A Day With Jay Maisel” on Kelby Training and can highly recommend it to anyone looking to better understand this topic area. For those of you who don’t know of Jay, he's one of those people who, through years of daily practice, can truly see (you'll get a flavor for him in the video below). Jay started shooting back in the 50s, and continues to shoot today with the same voracious appetite he had when he started. He’s also someone who teaches others more than just the technical aspects of photography - he tries to teach people how to see.
The interesting thing about Jay is that he comes across as what people might call a ‘generalist’. One moment he is taking shots of people, the next he is shooting buildings, a landscape, pigeons flying in the sky, reflections. What ties all of these things together is how he sees light, color and, I would argue most importantly, gesture. We all pull up a viewfinder and look through it, but what does it mean to actually see what we are shooting?
Gesture is, I think, something that connects so many of Jay’s photographs together. Although gesture is usually described as a movement, typically with the hands, I think we can just as easily say it’s a look that stirs an emotion of something we see unfolding. Gesture can be movement or something relatively static, but it has to move something within us.
Irving PennGesture is really not easy to define but it’s often so evident in the work of other great photographers. Cartier Bresson’s “decisive moment” was when he felt the highest point of convergence between the geometric design in his frame lines and the gesture of his subject(s). What is in a gesture that makes it compelling? What gesture should we be looking for? These are questions open to interpretation but one thing is certain - being able to see and anticipate gesture goes a long way to making for a stronger image.
The images in this article all hopefully convey something simple and consistent – the subtle gesture of the subject in the frame, whether its in the eyes, the shape or form, or the relationship to their environment (or all of these and more), captured in a split moment, that makes us stop and take a second look. There is some form of connective tissue between the subject and the photographer, but also the viewer, that compels us to look more deeply at the image.
Brent Eysler
David Geffin
David Geffin
David Geffin
Cartier-Bresson, master of gestureIsn’t this pure photography? Isn’t this what we should be focused on, trying to capture and anticipate what we are seeing, rather than worrying about what camera we might or might not be using to capture these moments?
It doesn't really matter so much which camera we use, so long as we use something. If in any doubt, check out the article our own Douglas Sonders wrote this week highlighting the Digital Rev retrospective of their “Cheap Camera Challenge”, showing first hand the sorts of images great photographers can achieve regardless of what they might be shooting with).
Whatever you’re thoughts are on this (and I’d love to hear them in the comments), I guarantee that spending more time focused on learning how to anticipate and see gesture will improve your images immeasurably more than any new camera ever will.
... unless of course you want as much optical and digital resolution out of the image, eg. for large prints, in which case the "any camera works" goes out the window. If "any camera" was enough, then we would all be satisfied with cell phone cameras, but we aren't, because the "any camera works" is a cheap truth (as in, YES the content is the same - but the output isn't).
I think you're forgetting how many amazing billboard size digital images were created even 15 years ago with cameras that would be laughed at by today's standards. Lou Manna famously used crop sensored Olympus bodies in the 90's. Didn't affect his creativity or bottom line one bit.
I didn't say anything about creativity. I said something about the tool. Some photographers these days think that they can paint in color with a regular pencil.
Tobias - right tool for the right job. If you need crazy resolution get the Hassie of Phase out and go big.
Most of us generally don't need those most of the time. I've also seen shots taken with phones that blow the socks off of many other images created with big and expensive gear. Right tools, right job.
We're always told, "Doesn't depend a thing on the camera, photography is all about you, the photographer!"
Well, it makes photography so much more pleasant and inspiring to work with a pleasant, inspiring tool.
So yes, a camera can improve images, but as you say, even more so does learning how to anticipate and see.
agree - the tool certainly needs to fit, be comfortable and dependable - because it not, it's a hinderance. I just think we need to get something that ticks those boxes...and then put it to use.
Even if it's a hinderance, you can take that into your advantage: it forces you to search and find the ways to overcome that hinderance, making you learn for that concrete hinderance, and that knowledge could be used in a future instance. Even limits are linked to necessity, and necessity is linkd to freedom. Creativity generally comes from bringing a solution to a problem.
Very good points Omar, nice.
Thank you Dave, finally, someone is getting to the heart of the matter, I am SICK and TIRED of people approaching me asking what camera I am using. It's just a tool. It's your eyes (and shall we call it heart?) that matter.
thanks Werner, glad you enjoyed the piece
Love this article and agree with everything you say, except for the part about Nikon's marketing being genius.... they're marketing for the Df was all about making you covet an object and trying to convince you that it's the object that will make you a better photographer, which is of course exactly what you--and what I--would argue against.
The notion that a modern DSLR can't give you a "pure" photography experience is totally ridiculous. They can be shot in single shot, manual exposure, manual focus modes to your heart's content. If "pure" means simple, you could spend far less money on an old manual FM2 or K1000 or OM or whatever flavor of camera suits your fancy.
In sum, I am totally in sync with what you're saying, I just think Nikon's marketing was confused and really having a hard time coming to grips with how, and to whom, to try to market this new camera.
thanks, and agree - by "genius" i meant they capably spotted a demographic that they could successfully market to (go read Lee Morris's post this week about his view on the Df, he nails their marketing approach). Whether the marketing campaign is ultimately genius i.e. successful remains to be seen, but they spotted the gap (and for business, that's really critical).
Well said, but I will argue that if Nikon hadn't priced this body at such an elite level (I have 2 d800's and this is now at same price point), I think we wouldn't be having this conversation and it would be a fantastic travel body for nikon owners. I was looking forward to a featherweight body --as a tool, that's all, but a more mobile tool than the d800's. This is "smug pricing". Nikon was supposedly making a version for photographers to take on the road. At ~$2600, I'll just lug around my heavyweights a while longer.
The price point is my main problem with the df. Who exactly are they trying to sell this to? Professionals with DSLRs looking for another body? People looking to get their first DSLR? People looking to jump to a full frame body? People that like to blow cash on camera gear?
The pricing on this is what is going to kill sales on this product.
It's a D4 with a $2000 discount...
No it's not. If you need the D4 for its speed and frame rate to shoot sequences, the df won't cut it. Not even close.
I meant from an IQ standpoint.
Why then can't we all be photographers then in search of decisive moments? Why am I titled an 'amateur' while another person is titled a 'professional'? What does it mean when the amateur takes better photos than the professional? What do we conclude when we put the two portfolios up against one another and the professional work is the lesser after numerous people conclude that? My point? Bresson wasn't out to get paid but he is one of the greatest photographers of all time. He ended up getting paid but it never interfered with his first goal: finding the decisive moments. Same for Haas. However a photographer gets to the bottom line: film, smartphone, point-and-shoot, DSLR, M43 should NEVER matter. The labels force us into corners and stifle the art proper. If I keep thinking my photos are amateur then what's my aspiration for more art when there are Scott Kelby's or Bryan Peterson's or Joe McNally's or the staff of fstoppers? I think too much emphasis is being put of gear these days and not enough on the art itself. Get any camera you want, master that camera, and then let those moments start happening. Forget about brand and features for a moment, forget about labeling yourself, and forget about how you will be judged. I came into photography later in my life and I have never been happier. I think all the technology is great and it is all going to offer different things. Be a student to the photography first free of brands/features, and I think the moments will start to come to you the more you learn about the art itself ;)
Amen brother :) By the way, the tag "amateur" or "professional" does not always correlate with quality of output. Just because you aren't making your living from being a full time paid photographer, never assume your images are any less strong or "good" than someone who is making money in the industry.
That was some strong wording and after I hit enter I thought about exactly what you said...lol. I went ahead and let it stand and a moniker for the art which is what truly matters. If Ansel were alive right now he would laugh about all this stuff and probably get his box camera back out for some fun. I have three cameras that are three brands: a Nikon N80, a Sony A33, and a Canon 7D. I love all three of these cameras because I love photography. I don't think about brands/features because they are all SLR/DSLR. As an amateur I go into it as a student every time and I always come out learning something new. If I ever make more than a few bucks here and there on my photography I will never forget where I started and how I learned something like the exposure triangle because I put photography first. I love everything about photography and the art first and that passion hopefully translates into a decisive moment here or there ;)
Sorry but "it's you, not the photographer" bit is so cliche. If it were 100% true, you'd see Joe Mcnally shooting SI covers using his old D100 and a couple of flash lights? Why would he need a D4, a crew, and the best lighting money can buy? It's the photographer and not the camera, isn't it? As far as photographers go, there aren't many better than Joe so why would he use the best camera that's available to him? Oh that's right, it turns out the camera plays a big part in this too.
the exact same pic shot with a d100 or a d4 - ofc the d4 pic looks better. still you have to think of the pic beforehand, capture the moment. if you cant do that a d4 wont give you the pics your looking for. if you can do that, a d100 can. a high end, super expensive cam wont trigger the shutter in the right moment for you. hell, ive seen great photos coming from a phone! and horrible ones from a pro body....
I hate to be one of the Fstoppers haters, but....
Please, everyone, shut up about the DF already. There is nothing new to say. I am sick of seeing the headlines everywhere. Let people who like it, get it. And let the rest of us get on with our lives.
Geez, fstoppers. Not a single article about the plagiarism issues this summer, but 14,000 articles about the DF. "Blog for Creative Professionals" my ass.
You can hate, i don't mind :)
This article though was not about the Df, i simply referenced that's going on with how we are sold stuff as the case in point I was making - it's about how we see and how cultivating that ability is more important than any camera you might use.
still better than Petapixel where each day they feature a hipster who took pictures with potato/toast/pinhole camera/Polaroid/wax/earwax/hotwax/some other medium that produces horrible looking pictures but makes them call themselves and artist. The rest of the stories they have is the stuff they rip off from fstoppers and reddit.
"a hipster who took pictures with potato/toast/pinhole camera/Polaroid/wax/earwax/hotwax/some other medium that produces horrible looking pictures but makes them call themselves and artist."
HAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA +10!!!
Well said, Jim. I always wonder how much free time people have to invest in gaging with on going, boring discussions that leave you even more frazzled after reading them. Go out and shoot already! If it's with a Df, good. If not, also good. Just go out and shoot.
i do most days, but thanks for your concern :)
Many years ago, at the request of a friend, I attended several meetings of the Experimental Aircraft Association. I became fascinated with the different motives of the members of this club. Some did not care about flying; only about the craft and technology of building an airplane. Others were only interested in flying, but did not have the resources to buy a commercially built airplane.
This roughly parallels what I am reading in this thread. Some photographers are more interested in the technology- the megapixels, the latest innovations. Others hold the axiom that the best camera is the one in your hand.
I have wondered about the romance of driving a 50 year old car when the new cars are much more competent, reliable and safer. But this is what puts the Df in context. Let the romantics, posers, amateurs, and pros go with whatever gets them out there making the best image they can (or want).
Did enjoy it and jut fondly remember that one time I only had an XY-brand point and shoot with me and captured a cowboy. People who see it comment on it and ask me if the picture is from an ad for a certain brand of cigarettes I am not going to mention here … The shot was pure luck.
I guess the ads worked so well mostly because they got the feeling right.
What goes on the mind of the photographer: "will i get a good picture this time?", "how can i get my inspiration back?". Everybody can relate to this matters. I am constantly dealing with those issues. They also targeted well the style, leaving clues and space to rumor and gossip, which also hyped the launch a lot.
So, yes, everybody knows that a camera cannot grant you freedom to work, free spirit to create. But it helps (a little). A good, well-made product, inspires us to do work as good as the tool we use.
I'd like to come in saying that the camera, indeed, does matter. In short, it is through the camera that our vision gets into the realm of the real in a distorted way, not pure. There is no pure photography as such, since the rays of light passing trough an optical material in consonance with a mechanical device (diaphragm and shutter) are what create, along with the sensitive surface, the image.
Is it the same to place our eyes to see through the optical viewfinder than through an electronic one? Is it the same to frame a scene using the LCD? What about a pinhole? There are drastical changes in this aspect.
Vision may be all the same with the naked eyes, but the camera, not a tool, but a device, teaches us to see through it, thus educating our vision.
How important is it to get the right exposure? What about lighting rates? We must see the way the camera "sees" for our vision to get done for a technical image - technical not meaning the best of the best, the perfect grab, the perfect rip, but an image that dependes on technology.
Have you ever tried a high or low key photo? You know it's about lighting rates (low or high contrast relating to the parts, not the whole), but you have to take into account the dynamic range of your camera so it fits those lighting rates the best. In knowing that, you can take a photo using a pinhole or a medium format camera - despite the time required for each to expose.
You may have a master vision, but if you don't know how to operate a camera, you're lost. Vice versa, if you know how to operate a camera - a technician -, but your lack of vision is patent, your photos will say nothing.
The relation between man and machine, between vision and technical image, has always been dialectical.
As Dave Geffin said: "Right tools, right job."
i think you just blew my mind Omar :)
You just posted an interesting discussion.
The "gesture" concept kinda goes out the window if you're not shooting a scene with people in it. I get what you're saying, but it's not at the core of what makes a good image. It may part of one, depending on the shot, but it's not the most critical one.
One of the biggest problems with cameras today is their constant evolution. When I started shooting, all cameras of any one format were essentially the same. You can count on all the controls being where you expect them to be, and the cameras themselves were more or less shaped the same way. This gave you the luxury (by today's standards) of making the camera become second nature with you. You essentially knew where all the controls always were, even if you jumped from a Nikon F to a Canon F1. I regularly shot with a Nikon FTN, Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta ST-101, and Richoh TLS, and even the slightly different Olympus OM-1, and never batted an eye.
Not today. Cameras are a moving target. You can't comfortably jump from a Canon to a Nikon to a Pentax, etc. Even within brands, control layouts and firmware are all different. New model? New firmware. New settings. New features. Some models are similar, some not. This kind of technology musical chairs can distract from you settling in to a camera and camera SYSTEM so it becomes second nature and you can concentrate on seeing the image at hand and hopefully capturing it.
Additionally, in the old days of film, if you had, say, a Nikon F2AS and an FM, as long as you had the same lenses, you could take an image of the same image quality. You can't do that with a Nikon D5100 and a D800. Or a Canon 60D and a Mk III. It could be argued that even the lesser of these cameras allows you to get superb images, and you would be correct, but why should you be a second rate citizen to total image quality just because you don't have the top of the line model?
The underlying point of this admittedly long rant is that once you had the luxury of learning a camera, it became invisible to you. You were then no longer concerned about your gear and your mind could concentrate entirely on the world around you. People like Jay Meisel, Diane Arbus, Cartier-Bresson, et al all had this luxury. Modern photographers are like gerbils in a technological treadmill, constantly chasing the next big thing, because they are forced to. Typically once your clients know there is a new camera that does X, they are going to want that X, and you have to upgrade to X. They're going to want their images, say, shot at 20 megs, 24 megs, 36 megs, and beyond. You as a photographer may want a new camera because you can autofocus and shoot by firefly light with you new AF system. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
I shot with a Nikon FTN and F2SB for almost 30 years. In the last 7 years I've been through 4 cameras already. This is not only financially draining, it's creatively distracting.
The Df would be a great camera for hobbyists and reluctant luddites like myself who prefer manual controls. Shame is, it is just too danged expensive. The cheap-o D3200 works just fine, thank you very much.
And the Df doesn't even have a sunset setting! (ducks for cover...)
Wow. So many people missed the point of this.
This article really hit home for me. I was deeply offended by all of the artists and photog's talking about how a camera that looks retro was going to make photography "fun" and "pure" again. I have never, ever thought taking pictures was not fun, even when I was starting out with a piece of crap point and shoot...
The most hilarious part of this is the definition of pure is "not mixed" - which would make the DF as far away from the word pure as you could possibly get.
DF aside - if people are not having fun taking pictures, and constantly being inspired by the world around them, they should not be taking pictures in the first place. A camera is not going to change that for you, the only thing a camera changes is picture quality...I am still in love with every single picture I ever took, no matter the camera, no matter how absolutely terrible it is because it brings me back. There is a moment/memory attached to each photo.
Great article! :)