# Confusion of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Seems Rampant



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

Lately I've seen like 298347928734 posts about how "gear doesn't make the photographer, ability does."  Which, best case scenario is a meaningless statement, worst case scenario is false.  I get that in many ways it's a response to the gear obsessed nature of many posters here on TPF, and thus I sympathize with the sentiment.  However, creating an over-sweeping falsehood only makes their side of the "argument" stronger, not weaker.

Photography is an endeavor with both technical and artistic aspects.  Photography also has a dizzying array of sub-genres that make it difficult to clearly state what may or may not be needed to attain the "higher levels" in any specific genre.

First, I don't think anybody will argue that gear alone will make anybody an average, let alone great photographer.  However, some people seem to take the statement "to do X field of photography at the highest level, you need y gear" to mean that.  That's making a logical error of confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient condition.  Saying certain gear is needed is not the same as saying certan gear will make you a great photographer.

I'm going to talk about sports photography, simply because it's the genre I am most familiar with personally, but if you change around the specifics, this would apply to almost any genre of photography, to varying degrees.  To be a great sports photographer you certainly need talent.  Nobody will ever deny that.  There is a difference between Walter Iooss Jr could produce and what I can produce that has nothing to do with gear.

However, the genre requires certain types of gear, which are almost always expensive.  Send me and a supremely talented sports photographer like Walter both to a MLB night game (when most games are played), give the other guy an 18-55 kit lens and give me a 300mm f/2.8 and I will wipe the floor with him.  No increased amount of natural ability will be able to overcome that difference in equipment.

That's not saying that gear makes the photographer.  Not at all.  It is saying that for some things certain gear is sometimes necessary.

To consistently take great photographs you need:

1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
3) the right opportunity.

All of those are necessary conditions for producing great photography.  The photographer with great ability will get the absolute most out of his gear and opportunity, sure.  But he can't get a center fielder making an over the shoulder catch at the wall if he's behind 3rd base with a camera phone.

Though the three things I outlined above are each necessary for producing great photography consistently, none of them are, on their own, sufficient, not even ability.

Finally, to repeat, I do agree that there are absolutely some silly claims made here on a repeated basis "need 35mm to be a pro", "have to shoot raw to be an artist", "can't do a proper portrait session with the kit lens" etc.  But saying gear doesn't matter, and that the photographer's talent is both a necessary and sufficient condition for producing great photography of all genres consistently is just as bad, IMHO.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2015)

fjrabon said:
			
		

> To consistently take great photographs you need:
> 
> 1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
> 2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
> 3) the right opportunity.



Yes, all good points. We have a few members who love to make obstinate arguments and select outdated, famous shooters from the past and cite them as "evidence". Of course, back in those eras, people were often fascinated by ANY images at all...back before the invention of so many new technologies, people used to pay money to see images of mundane stuff that we can see at will on today's internet.

There was a time back when ANY photograph made at night, after the sun went down, was very,very hard to make. The flashbulb was invented in 1929.

It wasn't until the late 1960's that "super-telephoto" lenses became affordable for top professionals; after that development, the _"f_o_otball play as seen from the top of the stadium press box"_ was no longer considered exciting.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 30, 2015)

I have found that giving better/great gear to a competent/pro will produce better images with greater consistency ... as opposed to giving great/better gear to a neophyte, just will still produce, pretty much, the same crap as with lesser gear.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 30, 2015)

Derrel said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Henri claims to only use a 50mm.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 30, 2015)

Less filling!  Tastes great!

and will probably have 298347928735.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2015)

Erich Salomon was the "father of" modern, candid, non-flash reportage in Europe. He made his fame based on a BRAND-NEW camera that was small, and toy-like...a camera that the politicians and their consorts barely noticed; it was so small,so mobile, and could be shot from waist-level, or placed on a table, etc. The then-new Ermanox and its blindingly fast lens set the mold for what a photojournalist's camera would be for the following...well...sixty years or more.erich salomon photography - Google Search

Henri Cartier-Bresson began his career 15 or so years after Salomon. Henri said that he used a 50mm lens for almost all of his photos, which were mostly outdoor street scenes made from about 20 to 50 feet. I would select a 50mm lens on FX for almost all similar "street" or "genre" scenes today. The 50mm lens on 35mm is a great tool for that distance range. Like Salomon before him, HCB also used an "amateur" camera that was very small, very much almost invisible compared against the 4x5 sheet film press cameras that were a common standard world-wide until the 1960's were well under way.

A HUGE part of HCB's fame was based on opportunity...the ability to travel all over the world at a time when the average person never even left his home state, or even his home county, made ANY photos made "overseas" automatically "exotic". A key to HCB's fame was his collection of photos made on the run. He made his fame before the USA's interstate highway system was even begun. His 'decisive moment' fame is largely post-career re-invention of what he called photographs *made on the run. *Traveling around. Bumming around like a vagabond. something hardly anybody except the very wealthy few were capable of doing. He had a fabulous, very expensive camera, the best miniature camera of the entire era, and a camera that in 1940, sold in the USA for about $400 with a 50mm lens; around the price of a decent automobile.

it's weird...I had a 1940 Bass Camera catalog when I was a kid...I was shocked to see that a pre-war Contax was around $428 to $489, depending on the normal lens it was fitted with, as Contax leveraged its "Zeiss" name over that of Leica! At that time, an Argus C3 with its 50mm f/3.5 Cintar was I think it was $8.95. As I recall, the value of gold in 1940 was a little over $50 per ounce, so HCB's Leica and 50mm was equivalent to the value of eight ounces of gold.

I think today's Leica is also valued in the range of the price of eight ounces of gold. It's always the guys who can afford the best of everything who love to tell others that there's no need for anything but chit gear..and yet, they disdain the chit gear for their own use, and go for things that only a few people can ever hope to afford. Funny how that works, isn't it?


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 30, 2015)

Gear doesn't really matter in the aspect of being able to take great images.

However, the breadth of the images that you can take is limited by your gear.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 30, 2015)

> To consistently take great photographs you need:
> 
> 1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
> 2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
> 3) the right opportunity.




#2 is probably most correct when picking a specific genre and conditions and criteria that almost dictate specific equipment; arena or open field sports is probably a good case for this argument.
Other areas of photography probably aren't as useful for making the same case because  "2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand" isn't as definite and the criteria may not be as clear cut.
If I handed a fair to good photographer a reasonable POS camera and said get some pictures that tell me about, for example, poverty in suburban areas, then the photographer can work within the limits of whatever he/she has for equipment.

edited: it looks like rexbobcat and I violently agree.


----------



## Overread (Mar 30, 2015)

I dream of a time when artists and technoheads can live together in peace and harmony.



Though really this argument always baffles me. We all know the answer; the only ones who tend to take part in these threads are established users of the site - most of us know the answer. It just generally boils down to arguments over what specific gear you need for a specific situation (which is never-ending because there is no such thing as a single perfect setup); next to "Well builders use cheap hammers so that's like a cheap camera right" comparisons (which never work).


----------



## snowbear (Mar 30, 2015)

Overread said:


> I dream of a time when artists and technoheads can live together in peace and harmony.
> 
> 
> 
> Though really this argument always baffles me. We all know the answer; the only ones who tend to take part in these threads are established users of the site - most of us know the answer. It just generally boils down to arguments over what specific gear you need for a specific situation (which is never-ending because there is no such thing as a single perfect setup); next to "Well builders use cheap hammers so that's like a cheap camera right" comparisons (which never work).



I think (some) people just have to argue (or debate) about everything.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2015)

Overread said:


> I dream of a time when artists and technoheads can live together in peace and harmony.
> 
> Though really this argument always baffles me. We all know the answer; the only ones who tend to take part in these threads are established users of the site - most of us know the answer. It just generally boils down to arguments over what specific gear you need for a specific situation (which is never-ending because there is no such thing as a single perfect setup); next to "Well builders use cheap hammers so that's like a cheap camera right" comparisons (which never work).



As you probably are aware, this post was spawned by another thread today, in which a beginning professional lamented her very,very minimal kit, and how she feels that impacts on her rates and what she can charge. We got the usual suspects stating how basically anything can be shot with a 35mm lens on one camera. Yet more bad/meaningless/off-point advice that willfully ignores the realities of the modern era, and functioned basically as *trolling/baiting replies*...confusing the actual issue and giving the OP no help.

Yeah...in the 1930's and 1940's one guy made a career of shooting street scenes with a camera that cost TWICE what most people's cars cost..and the news bureau he established with a few other guys became a big success in the pre-Television era...yeah...some guy in the UK shot a bunch of newspaper photos using a Leica and a 35mm lens...yeah, we get it...all that is needed is talent. And luck. And being right there where news is happening. When one photo per roll will be printed, and run  in the paper. Yeah. Absolutely NOTHING to do with *professional photography for hire in the modern era*, but some, little bit about how things were done in the 1930's to 1960's in print journalism. You remember print journalism...that almost dead dinosaur that 10 percent of homes now buy, occasionally...


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 30, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> > To consistently take great photographs you need:
> >
> > 1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
> > 2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
> ...


Sure, photojournalism/street is probably the least demanding genre of photography gear wise. Though I do love the irony of the fact that the most acclaimed street photographer in history used a camera that, inflation adjusted, makes a D810 with a 50mm f/1.2 look cheap.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 30, 2015)

Recently I shot Street with an 8mm fish and a 200mm. Back in the film only days I used to shoot Street with a medium format ... and I shot an American football game with a 28mm mounted on a non-motorized Nikon F ... (it was a bet).

I think photography should be like Diving, you get more points based on the amount of difficulty.


----------



## limr (Mar 30, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> Gear doesn't really matter in the aspect of being able to take great images.
> 
> However, the breadth of the images that you can take is limited by your gear.



So true and so succinct, I love it!

This is why I "need" so many cameras 

I don't know why, but this thread instantly reminded me of a Dave Barry column called "How to make a board" that dates back to 1983. (And yes, I did originally read it in 1983. In the Reader's Digest, to be exact. And I thought it was funny enough to cut out and keep on my wall for about a year or so. I was a weird 12-year-old.)
Dave Barry s Columns


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 30, 2015)

snowbear said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > I dream of a time when artists and technoheads can live together in peace and harmony.
> ...


I don't think this is necessarily true.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 30, 2015)




----------



## snowbear (Mar 30, 2015)

But we beat it so well.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 30, 2015)

Indeed.Glad I am not a pro,its way to much pressure and way to expensive because then I have to take a mortgage to get a Canon 1DX and I would end up hating photography.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Mar 30, 2015)

I joined a few birding and wildlife groups on Facebook after recently getting more into photographing wildlife (mostly a landscape guy). I see the "it's not the gear, it's the photographer!" argument brought up so often in those groups. Usually it's in the threads, "you all take such great photos, what are you using for gear?", where people are seeing photos taken with 5 and 600mm f4s and everyone wants to comment like their bridge point and shoot is capable of producing the same images. 

Now I'm not a total gear elitist, and I find those types of people annoying, but the "it's the photographer...." Argument only goes so far.


----------



## BrickHouse (Mar 30, 2015)

Your gear is fine until it isn't.
I have a certain way I like to shoot and certain things I like to shoot. My d3200 with my 85mm f/1.8g was perfectly fine until I moved to Japan where there is no light and my house is built like a dungeon. Now, suddenly, I need the ability to shoot with higher ISO and suddenly the benefits of FF emerge if I want to continue shooting in the manner I like.


----------



## bratkinson (Mar 30, 2015)

The 'hard truth' of photography is that the exposure triangle MUST be 'satisfied' to get the shots one wants to get.  In some shots, 'satisfying' the exposure triangle can only be accomplished with higher-end gear.  However, getting a satisfactory exposure is more about ones knowledge of the exposure triangle, DOF, shutter speed limitations, lighting, etc, and having the skill to make the appropriate choices in the time available.

I've always been fascinated by no-flash, nighttime photography.  I quickly learned that the 'fast film' of the day...Kodachrome 64 and later Ektachrome 100 and later still, 200, was the limiting factor to my nighttime photography.  Knowing the limitations (and having a light meter in my pocket), I managed to work within those constraints and restricted my night work to non-moving subjects where I could use shutter speeds measured in seconds, or even minutes, with the camera fully stabilized.

Fortunately, in the intervening 40 years or so, the ISO speeds achievable by todays cameras allows far more flexibility in low light work.  I recently pushed my gear to its very limits shooting handheld at ISO 25600, 1/160th to stop subject motion blur, and at f4, because that was wide open with the lens I had mounted.  Would those shots have been possible with entry level gear?  No.  So, score one for "it's the gear".  But for those not trying to get a near impossible photograph in a dark room, my level of gear is not necessary.  Similarly, I don't have a fast 400mm prime lens as I don't do bird photography.  Nor does 'frames per second' matter to me as I don't shoot sports.      

So, in the end, I have to agree with fjrabon about what's needed to consistently take great photographs:

"1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
3) the right opportunity."

Although I would rather use the term: "knowledge and skill to use it" than "ability" in #1 above.  Regardless of the word(s) chosen, it's a combination of experience and learning.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 30, 2015)

@ bratkinson,

Why not post some of those high ISO pictures?


----------



## runnah (Mar 30, 2015)

limr said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Gear doesn't really matter in the aspect of being able to take great images.
> ...



90% of my sense of humor came from Dave Barry's columns!!!


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 30, 2015)

IMHO, the amount of time we all spent debating non-sense on this forum could be used for taking awesome photographs.  If you think you can be a pro sport photographer using un-fit gear based on some online self proclaimed expert, go for it.  In the end, you and your clients want beautiful pictures regardless of what you use and how you use it.  The proof is in your work and let it shows.  Worry less about what other say/do and focus more on what you say/do.  That's just my own personal opinion.


----------



## limr (Mar 30, 2015)

runnah said:


> 90% of my sense of humor came from Dave Barry's columns!!!



I got to see him a couple of years ago. He grew up in this area and came back when a local movie theater was doing a film festival. Can't remember the theme of the festival, but one move they showed was "This is Spinal Tap," and Dave Barry asked to do a Q&A after the movie. He had nothing to do with the movie itself, but it was one of his favorites and the movie theater is in his home town, so he wanted to be involved. Everyone got an autographed copy of his last book. Between him and Spinal Tap, it was a very fun night.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 30, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> IMHO, the amount of time we all spent debating non-sense on this forum could be used for taking awesome photographs.  If you think you can be a pro sport photographer using un-fit gear based on some online self proclaimed expert, go for it.  In the end, you and your clients want beautiful pictures regardless of what you use and how you use it.  The proof is in your work and let it shows.  Worry less about what other say/do and focus more on what you say/do.  That's just my own personal opinion.







Nikon F w/ Nikkor 28mm, Tri-X (bad scan)


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2015)

One of my favorite football shots of all time is a sideline wide-angle view, showing ALL 22 players in ONE single frame!!! Garry Winogrand shot it.

10aa33acf2bcf380f4b69dc82fc9eeba.jpg


----------



## bribrius (Mar 30, 2015)

Derrel said:


> One of my favorite football shots of all time is a sideline wide-angle view, showing ALL 22 players in ONE single frame!!! Garry Winogrand shot it.
> 
> 10aa33acf2bcf380f4b69dc82fc9eeba.jpg


umm. that sucks. tilted, someones shoulder in it. Refs azz.  looks like a snap shot. LMAO


----------



## Derrel (Mar 31, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > One of my favorite football shots of all time is a sideline wide-angle view, showing ALL 22 players in ONE single frame!!! Garry Winogrand shot it.
> ...



But dude, it was shot by a famous Leica shooter...a man so famous that after his death, one of his Leicas later sold for over $200,000 at auction (not kidding...seriously, it did!)


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 31, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, the amount of time we all spent debating non-sense on this forum could be used for taking awesome photographs.  If you think you can be a pro sport photographer using un-fit gear based on some online self proclaimed expert, go for it.  In the end, you and your clients want beautiful pictures regardless of what you use and how you use it.  The proof is in your work and let it shows.  Worry less about what other say/do and focus more on what you say/do.  That's just my own personal opinion.
> ...


This is a good example of why most sports photographers shoot with at least two bodies at all times.

My 2-3 favorite images I ever shot in sports were with a wide angle, even wider than that, 17mm. But if you're a sports photographer you're not paid to get 1-2 great shots per game, which is what will happen if you go in with only a wide angle and a "your skill and anticipation is what matters" approach.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 31, 2015)

Derrel said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


I found this, wow what a awesome blog.Man what a read.
10 Things Garry Winogrand Can Teach You About Street Photography


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 31, 2015)

For the individual photographer willing to put in the effort, the talent/gear controversy really doesn't apply.

Huh?  What did you say?  Effort?  What effort?

Carefully and dispassionately critiquing one's own work.  That effort.

See, it goes like this.  When you critique a print the 'negatives' [Sorry!] fall into two categories: those which are due to equipment [lens too 'soft', insufficient exposure latitude, etc.] and those which are not [badly cropped/composed, tilted horizon, poor manual focus, etc.]

The results of the critique then determine whether the photographer should consider changing gear, try to improve his/her ability along specific lines -- or perhaps both.

One way or another, the gear/talent question is resolved.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 31, 2015)

DarkShadow said:


> I found this, wow what a awesome blog.Man what a read.
> 10 Things Garry Winogrand Can Teach You About Street Photography



Man, Eric Kim's blog post so totally crazed.

It's like writing 'things to learn from Vincent Van Gogh' and including 1) lose an ear 2), start working when you are 29,  3) suffer from epilepsy and 4) arrange to be committed to an asylum.
Much of the ways that Winogrand worked can be attributed to his time, the availability of equipment, the public's attitude and awareness of photography and his own particular likes/dislikes/quirks - and don't necessarily apply to anyone else.
A good many of his pictures are so incredibly context specific that their 'point' only is apparent if there is an explanatory text.

Yes, he was terrific at seeing things but his attitude towards the image trapped in the camera was fairly _laissez-fair_, otherwise he would have looked at the thousands of shots that were unseen.

He is a model for two things as far as I'm concerned: shoot a lot and have a point in mind that the images are making.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 31, 2015)




----------



## syaudi (Mar 31, 2015)

imo it's the photographer, not the gear...until the photographer's new potential outgrows the bounds of the gear, and the gear becomes a limitation rather than a tool.


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 31, 2015)

Winogrand was actually kind of a terrible shooter. Yes, he made some pretty good images, but so would you or anyone else if you shot more than 5 million frames.

Toward the end it was pretty much 100% junk. Even a devoted crew of curators couldn't find much worth printing in the mass of undeveloped stuff. It seems like the more he shot the fewer keepers he made, until it was worse the random.

Eric Kim is an Internet Famous Street Photographer, about which group of people I think the less said the better.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 31, 2015)

Yes the picture where crazy some badly tilted and so forth.On top of that all the shooting and so many unprocessed.Sounded like he just took pictures just to take pictures and had no organization  of his work. Seems like he just had chit all over the place.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 31, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> DarkShadow said:
> 
> 
> > I found this, wow what a awesome blog.Man what a read.
> ...



What?

Again I disagree with you Lew. Kim's/Winogrand's 10 key points are ... to the point and most Street Shooters can learn, reflect and/or appreciate each one.

1) Shoot A Lot;
2) Don’t Hesitate and Follow Your Gut;
3) Smile When Shooting on the Streets;
4) Don’t Shoot from the Hip;
5) Don’t Crop;
6) Emotionally Detach Yourself from Your Photographs;
7) Look at Great Photographs;
8) Focus on Form and Content;
9) Become Inspired by Things Outside of Photography; and
10) Love Life.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 1, 2015)

I don't think I want to get caught up in a yet another pointless discussion.

I'm bored with these kinds of threads where people talk abstractly and at length about what they've done in the past and yet seem not to be doing, or at least not showing, anything they have done recently.

If I want history lessons or vague abstractions I'll get it from trustworthy sources.


----------

