As a photographer, there are two fallacies I’d like to touch on briefly:

1. The idea that if images are modified after capture, they somehow have less artistic merit;
2. A good photographer doesn’t need a good camera.

Artistic Value

There’s a purist school of thought that says modifying an image is somehow a dishonest way of showing it or it can never be as artistic as an “untouched” image.

I look at it this way, photography is about recording a two dimensional “snapshot” or a thin sliver of time.

Whether you like it or not, your snapshot is only going to be an “interpretation” of a particular viewpoint in a particular space, in a particular orientation, over a particular time period, beginning at a particular time.

In the same way that no person can lay authoritative claim to “The Truth”, there is no such thing as a “True” interpretation of a particular viewpoint in a particular space, in a particular orientation, over a particular time period, beginning at a particular time.

In the same way a witness at the scene of a crime might recount their version of events to an investigating officer, a photographer can only recount their experience of a particular viewpoint in a particular space, in a particular orientation, over a particular time period, beginning at a particular time.

In other words… it is all interpretive!

Art has always been about interpreting and conveying some kind of experience.

It is my opinion that, in photography, image interpretation uses the camera as only one component of the process.

A great deal of freedom of expression is given to us in the form of post-processing tools. Using them to ANY degree is neither here nor there in terms of “honest” art or artistic value.

Science and Engineering

There is something to be said for accuracy of an interpretation which is relevant if you are an engineer or a scientist. In the application of science and engineering, the camera can be thought of as a parameterised measuring instrument. But the value of accuracy in interpreting a particular viewpoint in a particular space, in a particular orientation, over a particular time period, beginning at a particular time, is very subjective in its relevance to an artist.

The interesting thing is that any artist needs to have certain skills for implementing their art. A painter needs to have good knowledge and experience with paints and canvases in order to exercise any amount of control over their art. Great artists master their tools in the lead up to producing compelling interpretations of experience (art).

It is true that a great artist can do more with less resources at their disposal. But it is not true that the amount of resources at their disposal is irrelevant.

When it comes to photography, camera hardware and, these days, computer software, are important resources. The better the resources, the more the photographer’s skills can be unleashed. To that extent, I would argue that the tools DO matter.

The two issues in this article can be related thusly: the more accurate an interpretation you have to begin with, the more raw materials you have for artistic interpretation.

Good resources mean having a great lens and a great camera with which you can do more to capture a data-rich scene. Having good software means greater interpretive latitude.

Of course these resources mean nothing if you have neither the skills or the imagination to use them well. But it’s fair to say that a good artist needs to have good tools in order to more closely approach their artistic potential.

So the idea that a good photographer doesn’t need a good camera is therefore a fallacy.

That’s  my two cents’ worth on a subject particularly relevant to me at the moment. I hope it provides some food for thought next time the topic is discussed.

Popularity: 1%

Related posts:

1. Technique or Instinct? There’s a lot of talk about what makes a good photographer. Some say an eye for art. Others argue having impeccable technique is more important. Some say the difference is in the equipment used. Let’s analyse the implications. I believe following the line of thought is important no matter the...
2. For Art’s Sake Photography now is more accessible than parking in the city. Far more numerous are the reasons  people choose to create images with a camera. Photographs are captured for personal motives, obviously, but also for commercial, archival, forensic, and a great many other purposes. Such diversity might seem to suggest that...
3. The Wide View Have you ever bought a lens, tried it, then had next to no further use for it? This seems to happen quite a lot with wide angle lenses. No doubt, wide angle lenses are acquired with enthusiastic levels of expectation. But, as often happens, inverse levels of disappointment force them...