It Isn’t About The Gear?

There seems to be this cycle of topical blog posts that are put out by some of the heavy-hitter photo pundits out there.  These topics usually result in galvanized readers who further stoke the flame by leaving their own comments, all of which translates into a spike in traffic to that particular site.  I often joke with my friends that a surefire way to boost traffic to one’s site for a day or two is to post a thread about why HDR is or isn’t photography.

But the topic that most often interests me is the one where you are being told that photography isn’t about the gear.  Most interestingly enough, I notice who it is that preaches this.  Usually, the authors who are offering this sage advice really don’t have an issue with getting the gear for themselves or they already own it.

I will agree with one unequivocal and indisputable truth: no amount of gear can be a substitute for raw talent and vision.  Just because you have the newest camera with the sharpest lens will not give you a guarantee that all of your shots will be memorable or provocative or even marginally good.  But, I can guarantee you that it will help.  I recently had a positively fantastic conversation about this topic with one of my closest friends, Chris Halford.  He mentioned that the gear you invest in will not automatically yield better shots but it will certainly help remove a lot of the obstacles.

Take this example as a way for me to illustrate my point:

You are standing in a breathtakingly gorgeous expanse of nature.  The elements are perfect, the light is just right, and you want to share this moment with everyone that you know.  About a foot in front of you, there is a fantastic boulder that would make for an ideal foreground element.  You have a vision of exactly how you want to frame the shot and how you’d like to separate your foreground from your background.  But you don’t have a camera.  And it isn’t about the gear?

Granted, that is a bit hyperbolic but I plead you to follow along.

So, now you have a camera.  It’s a basic point-n-shoot.  So you take the camera, hold it at that awkward arms-length position, and press the shutter button.  You now have a picture of the scene.  But, because of the limitations with the camera’s focal length and the total lack of aperture and shutter speed control, you are left with a ‘marginally ok’ shot.  It’s not anywhere near what you had envisioned.  Still not about the gear?

Ok, you know that you need more control over the image.  You now have a basic dSLR with a kit lens.  It affords you some versatility with camera control but the shot that you took is really noisy and the focal length of that kit lens is actually not true to spec because you have a cropped sensor, so you’re still not getting quite as wide as you’d like.  Plus, the lens doesn’t have an aperture that is large enough to get you just the right separation that you had envisioned .  You also notice all sorts of soft edges and chromatic aberration throughout the contrasty parts of the image.  But everyone says that it isn’t about the gear, right?

Fine, you decide that in order to really capture the shot exactly how you had envisioned it, you get yourself a beefy full frame camera that provides a nice, clean, noise-free image.  The high-end glass that you also bought is ultra-wide and has a large aperture, allowing you to create the exact amount of separation to make that boulder pop right off of the screen.  So, what was that you were saying about the gear?

Notice one constant theme throughout this example.  The photographer had a vision of how the image should be crafted.  Technically, you could have achieved a photo of the scene with any functional camera.  No one would dispute that.  But, to be fair, having the optimal gear with you will contribute to you realizing your particular vision much easier.  It is for this exact reason that Canon has three different types of 50mm prime lenses ranging from $100 to $1500.  It’s why there is ‘L’ series and Tilt Shift glass.  It’s also why there are $17,000 medium format digital-back cameras.  Sometimes, you simply cannot achieve your vision in a shot with ‘just anything’.

And it’s not a criticism of the photographer at all.  A lot of this gear is very, very expensive and can be difficult to justify as an expense.  What I take umbrage with is when photographers who seemingly have all the gear in the world tell you that it really isn’t necessary.  That is a bit of slanted truth, a good dose of doublespeak.   I see it simply as this: To be a [great] photographer, you must have vision.  This is non-negotiable.  To realize that vision, you must have gear.  As you use your gear, and eventually start to plateau with its capabilities (and limitations), you will reach an impasse.  You will hit a point where your vision can no longer necessarily be realized with the gear that you have.  This is when you will decide whether it is worthwhile for you to invest in better gear.

I’ll end this Ed. Op. post with my own personal experience.  I’ve been shooting for a long time now.  I am not an academically trained photographer – I’ve learned to use my experiences and failures to shape my vision.  I started with a very basic film-based point & shoot, moved to a basic digital point & shoot, and onto the entry level Canon Digital Rebel (300D) w/a kit lens.  I used that kit to the point where I had the camera serviced twice for exceeding the max rating of actuations.  One day, I realized that it was time to invest in some better glass, a more capable camera body, and a tripod.  The direct result?  I was able to foster my vision and allow it to grow.  Later on, I realized that I loved shooting architecture.  Non-stop.  But, the glass that I had wasn’t giving me what I wanted in terms of clean, straight lines.  So, I invested in what is now my most expensive piece of gear, the Canon 17mm Tilt Shift lens.  In doing so, that single lens blasted open the doors for my own creativity.  It allowed me to take my sandbox of fun and expand it 10-fold.  I was ready for the gear and for what it could help me achieve.

And the more that I thought about it, the more I understood that the gear is really a lot of what it’s about.

Cheers,

Brian

Spread the word:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Tumblr
  • CoolPhotoBlogs

show hide 33 comments

Peter James ZielinskiJuly 1, 2010 - 12:02 PM

Couldn’t agree more.

When I shoot a curtain call for a Broadway show…my rebel just didn’t cut it. I needed more frames per second and I needed better low light sensitivity.

If the best camera is the one you have with you…why does Chase Jarvis take so many medium formats with digital backs and 5DmkII’s with him for that SanDisk campaign?

Why does Joey L tell you it’s not about gear yet brings his medium format to Africa?

Why does Kelby tell ya it’s not the gear but has is giant 400mm at the 50 yard line?

They know.

You can’t beat skill, imagination and vision.

But you can sure as hell enhance it with some L glass.

Amen brother.

maura kate mooreJuly 1, 2010 - 12:10 PM

exceptional post, brian. i fully plan on exploiting it to get hubby to fund my much-needed new purchases ;)

James BrandonJuly 1, 2010 - 12:10 PM

Another great post Brian. Ironic timing too, I just posted a review of my 1Ds Mark III over at my blog. I explained to the readers that you don’t have to have this camera body to shoot HDR with Canon gear and gave a link to your review of the Promote Control as an example. Again, great post, keep it up brotha.

Brian MJuly 1, 2010 - 12:15 PM

HA! Thanks, Maura. Brad’s good for it, right? Right?! :)

Brian MJuly 1, 2010 - 12:17 PM

Thanks, my man. I just started seeing this recurring pattern of those who seemingly ‘have it all’ keep writing about how you don’t need all of this gear. It almost made me feel bad for owning the gear that I have. And that is simply not right.

Brian MJuly 1, 2010 - 12:17 PM

Couldn’t say it much better if I tried. Rock the truth, PJZ.

Chris WardJuly 1, 2010 - 12:25 PM

I think that the “It’s not about the gear.” is really, “Gear is no substitute for skill and vision.”

You mention that there is a consistent theme in your example, and that is that the photographer had a very specific vision for the image. And I think that is perfect. The thing is, many new photographers buy gear way before they have a vision of how they would use it. Just having that gear won’t translate into a better image.

I do agree with your point that sometimes you just need better gear to get the shot you want. And Peter, Kelby says over and over in his books that Photography is expensive and sometimes you need gear.

There are tons of photographers that do manage great photographs with tough gear constraints. They do that with a clear vision of what they want and what their gear can do.

David duChemin, one of the vision camps big champions doesn’t want you to chuck all your gear, but quit the pixel peeping, baiting, and gear drooling online and just get out and shoot. A picture taken with a point and shoot is still a picture taken.

Mike OlbinskiJuly 1, 2010 - 12:31 PM

Well, everyone else has said this was a great post, so I’m going to be the one person to disagree.

Okay, nah, I agree, I just want to be different :)

But I like this…because I hear so much that it’s not about the gear, anyone can take good photos, etc. Well, to an extent, that’s right. People with iPhones are taking pics, processing them and they look pretty artsy and nice. But can they be scaled up to a 20×30 print and sold in a museum? I doubt it.

I have the Canon 50mm 1.4. I do a lot of portrait photoshoots and if I only had my 18-55 kit lens to use, the quality of my work would suffer and people may not want to keep using me because the results aren’t the vision either of us had. I just can’t get the bokeh, the sharpness and creativity with that kit lens.

So it does matter. But your vision is of the upmost importance. My friend bought the Canon 1Ti (or whatever it is) at the same time I got the XSi. The results are that he has zero vision but a very nice camera. His photos look good because the camera takes good photos, but they don’t have style or vision.

Good post Brian…kind of gives me some perspective today.

Mike OlbinskiJuly 1, 2010 - 12:32 PM

Although, sometimes suddenly being able to do things with a real camera leads to you learning what your vision might be. I see your point, but it can be reversed.

I had a point and shoot and did some stuff with it, got a DSLR and did some stuff, but not until my 50mm 1.4 arrived did I realize what I could do with portrait shooting…my vision has grown from what I can do with that lens.

Peter James ZielinskiJuly 1, 2010 - 12:34 PM

I’ve been following Kelby for about 6 years now and to be fair, yes, he does mention that. But more often than not, his overall message has been you don’t “NEED” this gear…rather than making a clearer statement.

…like Brian just did.

I think Brian’s take is healthier for fledgling photogs to read.

Brian MJuly 1, 2010 - 12:36 PM

Agreed, Chris. I’ve mentioned the same principal that you pose above many times when discussing HDR. I see it all too often that new(er) photographers put the cart before horse and just process every single thing in HDR without really learning the core concepts and elements of photography (composition, framing, visual narration).

My missive wasn’t so much to make anyone feel like they are inadequate shooters because they use a kit lens. Not in the slightest. Rather, it was more to take a contrary viewpoint to a rash of posts that I’ve seen lately (and prefer not to link directly to) that dismisses the benefits and qualities of more expensive gear under the guise of it not being necessary, and often does so in a definitive tone.

And, yes, a picture taken with a point and shoot is still a picture taken. But, when you reach that impasse and begin to get frustrated with the limitations of your gear, it is possible that you may get disenchanted altogether with shooting and stop. So, if procuring new gear helps you realize your vision and helps you get out and shoot more, then I feel it is certainly worth it.

Definitely appreciate your thoughts, though. I sincerely do.

Donald E GiannattiJuly 1, 2010 - 12:57 PM

I am one who states “It isn’t about the gear” and will continue to state that opinion. I do not believe the point Brian is making is one that refutes that.

Brian is saying, to get a specific look, or to be able to see the vision you want to convey, then there are specific tools that should/must be used. There are ‘correct’ tools to be able to make the shot one sees in one’s head.

However, that is far different than stating it is about the gear. Or that gear will save the photographer.

When I say that, I mean that gear will not make a photographer better. A crappy photographer with a Rebel will be making crappy photos with a 5D MKII.

Would you dispute that?

Brian chose a hypothetical, so I shall as well.

A photographer is standing on a beach when 2 supermodels walk towards him. They see he has a camera – a Rebel for instance – and ask him to take their picture. He is not familiar with shooting backlight on beach so pulls his camera up and fires a few frames. They are alright cause he is on “P” for professional. But the models are posed wrong, he shoots from too high a position and he uses his 18MM kit lens right up close… cause he doesn’t SEE the image, he is looking at the girls.

Tell me how having a 5D and an L lens would help make this a better shot?

Sharper, maybe. Cleaner tones, sure. Bigger file, yep.

Better?

Same scenario – and this time it is a real photographer with his Canon S90 P&S. His experience with the problems of shooting on a beach, the backlight, the correct lens and angle choices… the ability to pose and direct the two supermodels and his ‘vision’ that is tied to the ‘restrictions’ of the camera he has at hand are simply dealt with.

Gear? Or competent vision.

To turn Brian’s argument around, it would then state that great photographers can only make great images with great gear.

I am sure no one would be aboard with that.

Now, before you start to flame me with anonymous emails, I will also say that I agree with much of what Brian has said… even more strenuously than he may.

I am constantly amazed by photographers who buy gear without any vision, or knowledge, or self-awareness of what they even want to shoot.

Having the right gear, the best gear, to do what you want is paramount. Deciding you want to do architecture and product shots means you need a tilt-shift. You may not need a 70-200, but you sure as hell need a tilt-shift.

Portrait shooters need the lenses and gear they need to do the shots they want to do. And if you are into travel and advertising… well, there are simply some basic stuff that will have to be dealt with.

But therein lies the rub. What do we say when we see people shooting amazing images without a truckload of gear? Photographers like Kate Orne, Nick Onken, Andrew Hetherington, Richard Rinaldi, David Eustace and a whole lot more who shoot with minimal gear (when comparing to a lot of shooters)?

And Joey L taking a Hasselblad to Africa is because he can. Do you think his images would be less wonderful if he shot it on a 5D? His vision trumped the gear… that is what he is saying.

Get the vision, make great images, and the gear will come.

Brian’s post notes that he was developing the vision as he grew as a photographer… he saw what he wanted, then did what it took to create what he wanted. He got the “RIGHT GEAR” for the work he grew into doing.

That is not being a gear-centric photographer at all. That is being a talented photographer who KNOWS what he wants to do, and gets the correct gear to do it.

My point is that I could give Brian a P&S S90 and he could go out and make a great image with it. Would it be a trademark style Brian shot? Maybe not, but it would still be a great image – one that would not betray his vision because of the gear. Rather it would display his talent regardless of the gear.

So I will continue to state that it isn’t about the gear, because I really do not think it is. That doesn’t mean you can shoot the work that your vision calls for with any old stuff – no, for that you need the right stuff. But a great photograph is not limited to gear, and bad photographs are not mitigated by it either.

Evan BainesJuly 1, 2010 - 1:00 PM

One thing I find interesting is how the form factor of the gear you use impacts your vision. For instance: photojournalism really took off as a medium when the quality of film emulsions and technology allowed the more portable 35mm format to produce adequate image quality for most applications. Large format view cameras may offer the best image quality, but sacrifice spontaneity due to its meticulous process. Similarly, choosing to bring along lots of lighting equipment will inevitably make for a much more deliberate and less spontaneous approach vs. shooting with natural light, simply by nature of the gear carried.

The shape of the format we use affects our compositions, and even the cost-per-shot (compare digital and film here) affects the manner in which we tend to shoot.

What I find most interesting in many ways is not so much the capabilities that certain gear gives us, but the manner in which the gear influences our creative process. Sometimes choosing gear with specific limitations can actually foster creativity (IE Holga, bringing limited lens selections on shoots), and sometimes having lots of options will open new doors.

Peter James ZielinskiJuly 1, 2010 - 1:10 PM

Semantics.

Yes, yes yes yes fine. You need vision and with a clear vision you can do just about anything.

But it can’t hurt to have the right tools for the right job.

Yes, you can take a great photo with a rebel. Do the majority of the pros who make money off their photos use a rebel? No. Because they know they can get better quality and thus offer a better final product with it. They can ENHANCE their vision. I don’t disagree Joey L would rock the same photos with a 5DmkII but he uses Medium Format because he knows in the end he’ll have and even BETTER photo. It will intensify his vision.

I could buy some 2×4′s, some sheets of plastic, and some duct tape and put up a half way ecent way to stay out of the rain. But some bricks, cement, and central air wouldn’t F’n hurt.

Adam KJuly 1, 2010 - 1:14 PM

I have always used this analogy with photography and baseball. That if you loved baseball and had never played a day in your life, buying the most expensive bat in the world isn’t going to make you Prince Fielder (I’m from wisconsin) or Albert Pujols, or Manny Ramirez, whoever you wanna place in the scenario.

However, if you try to attain said goal with a wiffle bat, you’re not going to get very far. I’d liken that to shooting a wedding with a p&s. Albeit it’s possible, but probably not the best choice you’ll ever make.

This was a great post, thanks so much for sharing!

Rich BeaubienJuly 1, 2010 - 1:24 PM

I’m amazed at how quickly this filled up and now feel my meager, slowly written, contribution has already been trumped. Here it is anyway…

Part of one’s vision is understanding the where, what, and when of gear. In my world, vision and gear are inextricably bound. Being able to clearly understand the different between “a wanna” and “a need” can take some time to learn.

In the business of photography it is really about appropriate tools to get the job done. Kelby probably has no need to use a 500mm regularly but when he had the opportunity to shoot on the sidelines how could he pass it up? He probably rented. Unlike his buddy next to him, the NFL sports shooter who owns 2-3 long telephotos. And that guy may not have seen a wide angle in years.

I have access to some awesome gear but as you know when hoofing it around the streets and meeting up with other photogs I use a seriously pared down kit. I love the freedom of the constraint, if you get my drift. And that’s the direction of my vision.

Wonderful thoughts Brian and it looks like you’ve gained quite the following.

Scott Wyden KivowitzJuly 1, 2010 - 1:33 PM

I don’t think it could have been said any better. While skill and talent does make a good photographer, the right equipment is needed to use those skills for the right end result good. If a person is trying to get into HDR photography they can’t use a 4MP point & shoot camera without RAW functionality. But it is the best place to start if they can’t afford a DSLR. I always recommend people to start at the bottom and only purchase more gear if they feel they need it.

Very well written Brian!

Scott

Brad MJuly 1, 2010 - 1:42 PM

Brad will need a second job apparently. :)

Great post, I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.

JustinJuly 1, 2010 - 1:43 PM

Words of wisdom Brian. Really well thought out and articulated.

Yusuf GunawanJuly 1, 2010 - 2:07 PM

Can’t agree more. Everything goes back to the photographer’s talent and skills.
Equipment is there to help you to achieve what you want.

Great post Brian. Thanks

BJuly 1, 2010 - 3:10 PM

People say “it’s not about the gear” when they’re talking about their own great photos.

They say “it’s all about the gear” when they’re talking about other people’s great photos.

DaveJuly 1, 2010 - 3:39 PM

Nice post Brian, very well written and all the points covered. I must fess up and say I also made that ‘Vision is paramount’ point on twitter the other day, but I’m coming from the doesn’t have bags of cash to spend end of things which is where I am.
Don’t think I can really add anything to what has already been said in your post or in the comments, everyone has made good and valid points. I do see a lot of people going on about what gear they have and don’t really comment on the picture, as if their gear is some kind of status symbol among toggers.
As for me, I’ll take take your approach and build on what I have as and when I need it, or as things stand at the moment, when I can afford it.
Peace! :-)

Ray MedinaJuly 1, 2010 - 7:04 PM

WOW… I totally agree, everybody needs the right tool for the right job. Whether is a new glass or new body. It’s just a tool! Thanks Brian!

AnthonyJuly 1, 2010 - 8:19 PM

Wow Brian… excellent post. You outline everything pretty much spot on and I think Chris stated it best: “Gear is no substitute for vision”. If you have the vision AND money there is no point in have inferior gear… but a noob with a 1D is just silly.

DougJuly 1, 2010 - 8:46 PM

I definitely see both sides to this, and both Don and Brian are right. It’s about having the right tool to execute the job. But it’s also so much more than that.

Let’s take weddings, which I’ll shoot about 25 of this year. The D3s I rented for this weekend will let me make images in a dark church that a D3000 won’t. Faster focusing lenses and a battery pack for my flash will ensure I have 5 photos of the bride walking down the aisle instead of 1 or 2. Having 2 bodies will let me shoot faster without changing lenses.

That said, could I shoot a wedding with a D200 and a 50 1.4? Sure, but it would be an entirely different execution and result.

I guess my point is the best gear gets out of your way and lets you make the photos you want to make. So in that vein, Don is right, great gear is no substitute for crappy vision. But great gear can sure make for a cleaner, less stressful execution of a solid vision.

PhilJuly 1, 2010 - 10:48 PM

If the gear didn’t have something to do with it – we all wouldn’t want new toys all the time! Here’s to enjoying photography and all the challenges & fun it affords us, and to the never-ending opportunity to spend money on more cool stuff we want to tinker with.

MicheleJuly 2, 2010 - 7:26 AM

No matter what gear you have, you still need the vision!

http://www.redbubble.com/people/rubyred/t-shirts/4191894-2-still-need-the-vision

daifukuJuly 2, 2010 - 9:01 AM

Great post Brian.

It seems apparent that those who already have the gear are the ones that are more likely to preach this advice. Funny how you caught onto that :)

Tough call… the right gear will definitely execute the vision one had in mind versus a basic point-and-shoot. So maybe, instead of people saying “it’s not about the gear” they should say “adjust your vision to the focal limitations of your camera in-hand” ;)

Not much else to say.. You’ve summed it all up. Keep it up.

Dave WilsonJuly 2, 2010 - 11:28 AM

I typically agree with the “It’s not the gear” assertion with one major caveat. A good photographer will get good pictures regardless of the camera but he or she will understand the limitations of the gear and know the kinds of images that it is possible to make with that equipment. Give that same photographer equipment which removes the limitations and their creative potential expands – there are many more ways that they can create new, great images.

Personally, I’ve loved moving from consumer digital cameras to a professional body with high quality glass. I am definitely able to do things with the new gear that would have been impossible before. The downside now, of course, is that I only have myself to blame for the bad shots :-)

MarshallJuly 3, 2010 - 12:51 PM

This reminded me of a post Michael Reichmann made in 2008 called “Your Camera Does Matter” wherein he basically tried to put a beat-down on all the people who stated *too simply* that the equipment doesn’t matter. (At the time, I think Reichmann was responding to a popular Rockwell post.)

To me, it says something that Reichmann and you, along with Don in his more recent post on his site, *go further* than “it’s not about the equipment”. It just isn’t that darn simple, and it never has been. If you had to rank the factors in importance, all of the smarter posts put vision first, where it should be. And all of the smarter posts note that the equipment matters, which it does.

In an attention economy that has turned into an attention deficit economy, we strive for impact. Pictures have to connect with people in two seconds and if your site doesn’t say something in eight seconds I’ll go find one that does.

And I think that’s why some people read anything like “the equipment matters” to imply that you can’t take a good picture with anything less than a D3x, H3D, or 1DMarkwhatever. The original writer probably didn’t mean that folks.

And I think that’s why some people read anything like “it’s not about the equipment” to fit their particular worldview. (And sometimes just to fit their budgets.)

Photography is art and photography is craft. Craft without vision doesn’t mean anything. Vision without craft fails to express itself as well. And isn’t that part of the joy, the pain, the frustration, and the elation of photography?

Ranger 9July 5, 2010 - 12:20 AM

Seeking the middle way here…

Back in the film era, David Vestal wrote: “Equipment may make pictures possible or impossible, but it seldom makes them better or worse.”

I’m not sure that’s completely true anymore (my low-light pictures would be better if I could afford a Nikon D3s) but I wonder if it still doesn’t offer some insight on this situation.

I admit that the question “Is it the about the gear?” doesn’t inhabit a yes-or-no decision space. Imagine a graph with two axes: the vertical axis runs from “Worse picture” to “better picture”, and the horizontal axis runs from “Worse gear” to “Better gear.”

Now plot a dot for every picture you’ve ever taken, or wish you’d taken, on this axis. Probably you’ll find that a few dots cluster to the upper right side of the graph — great photo opportunities that need the very best gear to exploit fully. And there may be some dots on the upper left side — photo opportunities that are so great AND so easy to get that you can bring home a fabulous shot with a phone cam.

Likewise, there will be some dots all along the bottom: situations that just wouldn’t have yielded a good picture no matter what gear you used.

But the vast majority of the dots are going to be in the nebulous region of the middle: ones where maybe just the right lens or accessory might have made the difference, but then again so might have been better preparation or better luck or just a bit more time spent walking around or chatting with the subject.

When you’re operating in this gray area, it’s tempting to think that better results are about the gear… but it’s hard to be sure.

Peter James ZielinskiJuly 5, 2010 - 3:29 PM

I found this interesting and pretty on topic.

These guys make a video to prove (quite well) that it’s not the camera that makes good images…it’s the vision. They use an iPhone drive the point home.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2010/07/its-lighting-stupid.html

Yep. Just an iPhone.

…..but also over 10 thousand dollars worth of lighting equipment, paid professional assistants, professional models, professional hair & makeup, and for good measure…a big time, pro retouching artist.

So yes, the gear doesn’t matter.

Until it does.

They drive both sides of the argument home pretty heavily if you ask me.

The tangled web we weaveJuly 5, 2010 - 4:52 PM

[...] This posting has it’s roots in a wonderful article published by my friend Brian Matiash It Isn’t About The Gear? [...]

Your email is never published or shared. Required fields are marked *

*

*

There was an error submitting your comment. Please try again.

U s a g e
T w i t t e r
F B   F a n b o x
D i s c o u n t s