# Great Quote from Ansel



## kdthomas (Jun 14, 2015)

I was reading the introduction to Ansel's book _The Camera_ and saw this:

"it is easy to confuse the hope for accomplishment with the desire to possess superior instruments"

Yes indeedy ... How many times have I done _that_ ...


----------



## tirediron (Jun 14, 2015)

Me?  Nevvvvvvvvvvver done that.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 14, 2015)

Yes ... lol. I purchase good stuff so I can't blame the equipment for my crappy shots.

Seriously, there is a significant difference between the purchasing mentality of a pro when compared to a hobbyist. The pro buys expensive stuff to make their lives easier ... the hobbyist buys good stuff to fondle.

(Okay, a bit extreme ... and a bit too general ... but there is also a bit of truth.)


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 14, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> Yes ... lol. I purchase good stuff so I can't blame the equipment for my crappy shots.
> 
> Seriously, there is a significant difference between the purchasing mentality of a pro when compared to a hobbyist. The pro buys expensive stuff to make their lives easier ... the hobbyist buys good stuff to fondle.
> 
> (Okay, a bit extreme ... and a bit too general ... but there is also a bit of truth.)



I buy expensive schtuff cuz it's a chick magnet.


----------



## dennybeall (Jun 14, 2015)

I try not to get caught up in this stuff so always only buy the middle of the line Hasselblad's...........


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 14, 2015)

PS- or for the chicks. (Sorta like a moth to a flame.)


----------



## Overread (Jun 14, 2015)

I always find it somewhat amusing when those who use high-end equipment state that "its not about the camera its the user" to those who own lesser gear. 

Because at the end of the day the equipment DOES matter; and one is of no lesser skill nor lesser ability nor lesser respect for admitting that equipment does play a part and does matter. Of course professionals and amateurs alike are constricted by their budgets; neither group has a wholesale magical ability to purchase whatever the heck they like; though many an amateur will say that pros can buy what they like because its their livelihood; whilst many a pro says amateurs can buy what they like because they don't have to do cost-benefit analysis on each purchase.

Of course the real meaning is that all the gear in the world still won't make you better; but even that is false. Poorer equipment limits; you can still do great stuff within those limitations but its far more constricting. Furthermore there is a point of diminishing returns; when more money only gives a much more minor increase in quality (although then we have to consider the argument that even small changes all add up to improve the final result) 




In the end the real key is to learn to accept what you do own and to not lust after superior gear to the point where such thoughts dominate your mind. Instead we have to learn to revel in what we have; to be delighted with it and to thus be ready to unlock our full potential with such equipment. And sometimes that means being very creative too.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jun 14, 2015)

@Overread I actually see the "it's not about the camera..." Argument more often from people working with entry level gear, especially in the photo FB groups. It most often goes like this- somebody makes a post asking what camera to buy after seeing photos taken with high end gear, and somebody will respond, "just get a bridge point and shoot, after all...it's the photographer, not the camera!". 

I'd be happy if I never heard that quote again in my life


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 14, 2015)




----------



## Derrel (Jun 14, 2015)

The people who say, "It's not about the camera!" are most often people who own the very best of everything....best cameras, best lenses, best support system. At a deep-down level, even they do not believe their own bullspit.

Over the decades, beginning in the 1890's, the TOP shooters in almost ALL fields have used nearly-identical, high-end gear. As the 1960's drew to a close, the camera making markets had dramatically thinned out, and there were far,far fewer good cameras than there had been in the earlier decades. Trust in this: it has always been rare that any top shooters used bargain-basement or even mid-line equipment...name a name who rose to fame in photography, and it is almost a sure bet that he or she was equipped with good gear *for the era*. Graflex, Graphic, Rolleiflex,Leica,Hasselblad, Mamiya,Nikon,Canon...the top people have ALWAYS used the good chit...

When one looks back through the many older published "Annual of Photography" books for the decades of the 1940's through the 1980's, or through the older photo magazines, it becomes imminently clear that almost all of the winning images in every era were made with just a small handful of identical equipment. "Speed Graphic,Rolleiflex, Leica M3, Nikon F," appear under thousands and thousands of photos shot by top shooters.


----------



## timor (Jun 14, 2015)

kdthomas said:


> I was reading the introduction to Ansel's book _The Camera_ and saw this:
> 
> "it is easy to confuse the hope for accomplishment with the desire to possess superior instruments"
> 
> Yes indeedy ... How many times have I done _that_ ...


He also said, that photographer should seek the best equipment. What I think he wanted to say by that is to not to curtail the creativity by worries of technicalities. I think possession of superior equipment actually stimulates creativity and want of accomplishment in great many members of TPF. And others clubs.


----------



## timor (Jun 14, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The people who say, "It's not about the camera!" are most often people who own the very best of everything....best cameras, best lenses, best support system. At a deep-down level, even they do not believe their own bullspit.
> 
> Over the decades, beginning in the 1890's, the TOP shooters in almost ALL fields have used nearly-identical, high-end gear. As the 1960's drew to a close, the camera making markets had dramatically thinned out, and there were far,far fewer good cameras than there had been in the earlier decades. Trust in this: it has always been rare that any top shooters used bargain-basement or even mid-line equipment...name a name who rose to fame in photography, and it is almost a sure bet that he or she was equipped with good gear *for the era*. Graflex, Graphic, Rolleiflex,Leica,Hasselblad, Mamiya,Nikon,Canon...the top people have ALWAYS used the good chit...
> 
> When one looks back through the many older published "Annual of Photography" books for the decades of the 1940's through the 1980's, or through the older photo magazines, it becomes imminently clear that almost all of the winning images in every era were made with just a small handful of identical equipment. "Speed Graphic,Rolleiflex, Leica M3, Nikon F," appear under thousands and thousands of photos shot by top shooters.


I think they are right by saying that. Among them, the best shooters, all having top equipment it is not anymore about the camera.


----------



## Overread (Jun 14, 2015)

I think the only truth is that there are 4 core elements to every photo. 

Camera - photographer - subject - light

That without any one of those core elements a photograph cannot be made; it cannot exist. As such each part is critically important. However when battling out which is the most important overall its a quagmire of examples that fast ends up revealing that there is no such order. That you cannot put them in some kind of holistic general order of importance. 
Each part has its place, each part has its own limitations and no part is single above the rest.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 14, 2015)

The bottom line on whether greater equipment makes for better images, (at least in my humble opinion 'MHO'), ... is:

1) It is dependant upon skill level (the higher the skill level the more significant the increase of 'better images with better equipment'), and;
2) It sorta depends on what you're shooting, (but this is more knowledging that 'There Is Always An Exception' as oppsed to the general rule, 'TIAAE').


----------



## bribrius (Jun 14, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The people who say, "It's not about the camera!" are most often people who own the very best of everything....best cameras, best lenses, best support system. At a deep-down level, even they do not believe their own bullspit.
> 
> Over the decades, beginning in the 1890's, the TOP shooters in almost ALL fields have used nearly-identical, high-end gear. As the 1960's drew to a close, the camera making markets had dramatically thinned out, and there were far,far fewer good cameras than there had been in the earlier decades. Trust in this: it has always been rare that any top shooters used bargain-basement or even mid-line equipment...name a name who rose to fame in photography, and it is almost a sure bet that he or she was equipped with good gear *for the era*. Graflex, Graphic, Rolleiflex,Leica,Hasselblad, Mamiya,Nikon,Canon...the top people have ALWAYS used the good chit...
> 
> When one looks back through the many older published "Annual of Photography" books for the decades of the 1940's through the 1980's, or through the older photo magazines, it becomes imminently clear that almost all of the winning images in every era were made with just a small handful of identical equipment. "Speed Graphic,Rolleiflex, Leica M3, Nikon F," appear under thousands and thousands of photos shot by top shooters.


bingo.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 15, 2015)

Ignorance is bliss....so they say.

*cough* Not that I know anything about that *cough*


----------



## Derrel (Jun 15, 2015)

Fred Berg said:
			
		

> Using top-end gear might might well aid the talented but cannot compensate for talent, per se. Not having access to top-notch equipment may hinder adept photographers but won't, ultimately, hold them back since they have the ability to adapt.



Let's see your birds in flight with the 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zoom...

Let's see your nightime raccoons raiding the garbage can pics shot without flash...

Let's see your major league baseball shots made with an iPhone...

Let's see your close-up insect macros made with a twin-lens reflex.

Sorry, but photos are made WITH equipment...and in many cases, with very expensive, highly-capable equipment.

I began with a manual focus-by-estimation 35mm camera with a Kodak 51mm f/4.5 lens and a shutter that had to be cocked by hand, for each shot, after knob-winding the film. Accidental double exposures were ALWAYS a possibility, since the winding and shutter cocking were two separate operations. My shutter speed choices were Bulb, 1/25 second, 1/50, 1/100, or 1/200 second. No rangefinder, no self timer, no light meter, knob wind and rewind. I had NO electronic flash synchronization, only M-flashbulb synchronization. I literally, in the real, actual world, "saw" and also mentally envisioned thousands of picture opportunities I would only be able to take until I got some good equipment, 14 years later, in my mid-20's.

Kodak Pony 1950 s Little Work Horse Film Photography Project

1950's POS camera...


----------



## sashbar (Jun 15, 2015)

I think Ansel's quote is not about poor and good gear, when you start arguing that good gear is better than bad gear, you are just banging at the wide open door. Noone will argue with that.
Ansel, as I understand it, is talking about your state of mind. How often a photographer thinks "I need a better camera to improve". For some a better camera becomes a goal in itself. Give this guy a poorer, cheap camera and he will loose all interest in photography. But why? Whatever camera they own they are thinking about the wrong things, mostly technical things like pixels or dynamic range or AF speed, and this all might seem OK.
The problem is, it is the wrong mentality. Insted of thinking about what they want to express with their photography and how they want to do it, they are getting obsessed with gear as if gear is capable to tell them what to shoot and how.
My own mantra is "Image first, gear second". As soon as you start thinking and reading about cameras and technical stuff more than you do about images and creative stuff, you are in crisis, my friend.
I think the best one can do it this situation is to impose a ban on gear for a month or a year or three years, for as long as needed. Do not buy anything, do not dream of anything, do not read anything about it. Just imagine that the only camera/lense/ editor that exist in the world is what you own atm. There will mever be anything better. Then go and shoot.
I think often it is very useful to take some old "cr*p" camera (that you liked so much 10 years ago) and shoot with it for some time to free yourself of all that technical concerns. Just think about what gear Ansel himself used.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 15, 2015)

Overread said:


> I think the only truth is that there are 4 core elements to every photo.
> 
> Camera - photographer - subject - light
> 
> ...


I would leave camera out of that statement, light is the most important


----------



## gsgary (Jun 15, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I got rid of all that fancy gear I had lots of L lenses and now I only have 28mm, 35mm and 50mm and couldn't be happier


----------



## bribrius (Jun 15, 2015)

sashbar said:


> I think Ansel's quote is not about poor and good gear, when you start arguing that good gear is better than bad gear, you are just banging at the wide open door. Noone will argue with that.
> Ansel, as I understand it, is talking about your state of mind. How often a photographer thinks "I need a better camera to improve". For some a better camera becomes a goal in itself. Give this guy a poorer, cheap camera and he will loose all interest in photography. But why? Whatever camera they own they are thinking about the wrong things, mostly technical things like pixels or dynamic range or AF speed, and this all might seem OK.
> The problem is, it is the wrong mentality. Insted of thinking about what they want to express with their photography and how they want to do it, they are getting obsessed with gear as if gear is capable to tell then what to shoot and how.
> My own mantra is "Image first, gear second". As soon as you start thinking and reading about cameras and technical stuff more than about images and creative stuff, you are in crisis, my friend.
> ...


i do this quite frequently.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 15, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I think the only truth is that there are 4 core elements to every photo.
> ...


the bigger the sensor and dynamic range, shadow recovery, faster lens. The less important light becomes. Not to mention post processing. Originally, the photographer was the key element in this. As gear improved, the importance of the photographer has diminished to a small extent. It is easier shooting with a better camera and lens and post processing software, obviously. Artistically, you can't replace the creative mind. But in the majority of generic shots people shoot, it is primarily gear.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 15, 2015)

bribrius said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...


And this is why we see so much crap on here nobody is bothered about doing it properly


----------



## bribrius (Jun 15, 2015)

gsgary said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Here ya go.
Someone here locally proposed a photo competition a couple months ago. Mostly just for fun. I suggested to level the playing field for all entering they all have to use the same camera and gave a amazon link to 12 dollar point and shoots.  (affordable to most anyone). The person proposing the competition didn't end up following through with it, probably realizing they couldnt use their full frame.. One who was going to do it refused suddenly as they didn't want to shoot with the camera and put their dslr away. And quite a few others just didn't respond at all after that, so i assume they had similar thinking..  Around here though, there are people from the point and shoot club all the way to pros that were equally involved. So in my aspect, since it was for fun. It seemed the best way to level the field is give them all a 12 dollar camera (about the cheapest i could find in a search). Soon after another jumped on board suggesting limiting post processing. So anyway the competition never took place and wasn't brought up again. why do you think that is?


----------



## bribrius (Jun 15, 2015)

There are people that basically dropped out, stopped posting photos or showing photos in our local (sorta) photography club here. just in that they couldn't afford the gear to keep up with the higher image quality and photos of others. Part of the reason i made the suggestion above, for more involvement and to give everyone a equal chance. Encourage even those with less disposable income to still stay involved.  Unfortunately, the thought apparently made some people rather afraid as it took the gear out of the equation and reduced it down to creativity and skill. If the competition had gone on, as originally proposed, it would have just alienated more people that didnt have high level gear. And  for those that did have the better gear it would have just unduly gave them more credit than they deserved and further encouraged it.

For those that changed their mind on the competition after the suggestion. well imagine a 19 year old novice coming up with a better photo than a professional photographer or a photographer thought to be exceptionally good. once the gear is pulled from the equation. You see of course why the competition never took place.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 15, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So what I take from this, is that Derrel was into "My Little Pony" wayyyyyyyy before it was fashionable.  Way to set a trend dude!


----------



## sashbar (Jun 15, 2015)

bribrius said:


> the bigger the sensor and dynamic range, shadow recovery, faster lens. The less important light becomes. Not to mention post processing. Originally, the photographer was the key element in this. As gear improved, the importance of the photographer has diminished to a small extent. It is easier shooting with a better camera and lens and post processing software, obviously. Artistically, you can't replace the creative mind. But in the majority of generic shots people shoot, it is primarily gear.



The fitst sentense is so wrong, I worry about ypu 
Light is a creative concept, not a technical one. 
You can shoot in Auto mode with a modern camera and it will give you consistently good exposures. But if you shoot with no consideration to the light, it will be a well exposed cr*p anyway.


----------



## limr (Jun 15, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> The bottom line on whether greater equipment makes for better images, (at least in my humble opinion 'MHO'), ... is:
> 
> 1) It is dependant upon skill level (the higher the skill level the more significant the increase of 'better images with better equipment'), and;
> 2) *It sorta depends on what you're shooting*, (but this is more knowledging that 'There Is Always An Exception' as oppsed to the general rule, 'TIAAE').



This is exactly is the point I was going to make, which also dovetails on the exchange Derrel and Fred just had, as well as this:


sashbar said:


> The problem is, it is the wrong mentality. Insted of thinking about what they want to express with their photography and how they want to do it, they are getting obsessed with gear as if gear is capable to tell them what to shoot and how.
> My own mantra is "*Image first, gear second*".



What is "better" or "the best" gear anyway? It's the gear that allows you to do what you want to do. The stuff I have can in no way be considered top gear, but it suits my purposes and allows me to make the pictures I want to make. When I see a new camera that is interesting to me, I think "What can this camera let me do that I can't already do with my current gear?" If the answer is "nothing" then it goes back on the shelf (yes, literally. I look at a lot of "antique" shops. And by that, I mean junk shops  )

The cameras I have are crap at bird photography, for example. But I don't _do_ bird photography - not in the way that TPF's most common birders do. If I got a camera and lenses that were great for that purpose, would it help my photography? Nope. Because I still wouldn't be shooting birds, and it might actually hinder my ability to shoot what I _do_ want to shoot.

"Better" gear is always going to be a relative term. I do recognize that it's not necessarily _my _fault that I'm not getting certain looks out of my K1000. I can still get great images from it, but sometimes I want to do something different that I know the K1000 just can't handle, so I pick up a pinhole camera or a TLR or a different SLR whose lenses have a different quality than my Pentax lenses.

So my take on the quote is: Don't be obsessed with gear for its own sake. But _do _pay attention to what gear will give you the best image for the kind of image you want to create.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 15, 2015)

bribrius said:


> There are people that basically dropped out, stopped posting photos or showing photos in our local (sorta) photography club here. just in that they couldn't afford the gear to keep up with the higher image quality and photos of others. Part of the reason i made the suggestion above, for more involvement and to give everyone a equal chance. Encourage even those with less disposable income to still stay involved.  Unfortunately, the thought apparently made some people rather afraid as it took the gear out of the equation and reduced it down to creativity and skill. If the competition had gone on, as originally proposed, it would have just alienated more people that didnt have high level gear. And  for those that did have the better gear it would have just unduly gave them more credit than they deserved and further encouraged it.
> 
> For those that changed their mind on the competition after the suggestion. well imagine a 19 year old novice coming up with a better photo than a professional photographer or a photographer thought to be exceptionally good. once the gear is pulled from the equation. You see of course why the competition never took place.



That is very strange because cameras became more affordable and the difference in image quality between an expensive and a cheap camera is very small, and in many applications there is almost no difference. Cheap lenses have become better either.
The only explanation is that all those dropped photogs were in fact no more than gear lovers who wanted to keep up with others in geer aquisition, not in photography. Those guys who fell embarrassed to be seen with a "beginners" camera. 
We had a guy here who was, as a stret shooter, in a completely different league from all of us, and many images he posted were pieces of art both creatively and technically. And he was shooting with an old Nikon D40. He never talked about gear btw.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 15, 2015)

Derrel said:


> .......
> 
> I began with a manual focus-by-estimation 35mm camera with a Kodak 51mm f/4.5 lens and a shutter that had to be cocked by hand, for each shot, after knob-winding the film. Accidental double exposures were ALWAYS a possibility, since the winding and shutter cocking were two separate operations. My shutter speed choices were Bulb, 1/25 second, 1/50, 1/100, or 1/200 second. No rangefinder, no self timer, no light meter, knob wind and rewind. I had NO electronic flash synchronization, only M-flashbulb synchronization. I literally, in the real, actual world, "saw" and also mentally envisioned thousands of picture opportunities I would only be able to take until I got some good equipment, 14 years later,......



Take a Kodak 3A for a spin sometime.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jun 17, 2015)

Light is a great leveller.  It can make equipment irrelevant.  (Says he with a medium format digital camera and many lenses).  You can buy great equipment, you can only take advantage of great light.  When you have the light, the best camera is always the one you have with you.


----------

