So I was just thinking of photography, and cameras. How does the quality of the camera impact the quality of the photography?
I use a fairly good amateur camera, by that I mean a DSLR which was within my budget, and suits my printing and publishing needs - that is, printing up to 8x10 and blogging on-line. I don't think this precludes me selling prints, so long as I use the right quality printer, papers and ink (or toner, or whatever they use in dye sublimation printing).
I know there are smaller, cheaper cameras which can yield the same resolution, and in most lighting conditions probably match colour quality. But my question is, are photos from a DSLR necessarily better than those from say an box brownie, or instamatic? I'm thinking aesthetically, not technically.
I know from personal experience that the better camera allows more opportunity, a selection of lenses, or a good zoom lens, allows more framing opportunity. Iris control allows depth of field to be changed, be this by selecting a mode button, or by dialing aperture in directly. However, I still believed that you can take good pictures with your dumb old camera, as long as you know its capabilities, and you had an eye for balance and composition.
But more recently another idea came to mind. I have this vague notion that once I was holding an SLR for the first time I felt obliged to try new things. Sure, some didn't work as well, others were academic exercises and repetitions of text book examples, but still I felt I had to go the extra mile. I was no longer a snap happy tourist, but a photographer.
I also think that a "real" camera legitimizes things. With a pocket camera I believe people look at you a little weird if you are crouched low to shoot a building, or stand on a bench to photograph the sidewalk. With an SLR you can do all sorts of strange things and people look at you, then try to find your subject, then get on with life. I was in San Juan Bautista a few years ago, second to last outing with a film camera, and I was stood on a bench, trying to frame the hotels roofline with a tree and the eaves of the barn. There was a school field trip there, and a couple of kids kinda couldn't work out what this grown up was doing, but one of them said "oh, he's a photographer", and everything became kosher.
Of course all these things happend outside the UK, or before 9/11 where the press would have us believe all photographers are at best terrorists and at worst paedophiles.
I do have a friend who is a street photographer. I agree with him, its sometimes hard to take candid shots when you have a big clunky piece of kit. For that you want something more shoot from the him, wide angle, fixed focal length, so you can get the "moment".
So yes I now believe that the camera does make a difference, but more on a social level than a technical level.
(photos will be added to this post).
Posts
