Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
The Camera: It’s Much More Than Just A Tool
The photographer-camera interface has a profound effect on the images seen by the viewer
By Jason Schneider
The magic of photography is that it can transform the physical and emotional act of selective observation into a visual artifact that transcends the moment of its creation and places it in the context of eternity. Miraculously, a photograph can convey the consciousness of the photographer across time and space, producing a corresponding visceral and emotional response in anyone who takes the time to fully engage with the image. And perhaps even more astounding, the entire process can be accomplished by controlling just two irreducible variables—space (what’s in the frame) and time (when do you press the shutter release).
Obviously, there are often many other factors that go into creating a photograph, and each one can be a decision point that materially affects the end result—the camera chosen, the sensor or film used, the ISO setting, the viewing angle of the lens, the shooting aperture, the shutter speed, the lighting, etc., etc. Nevertheless, what is captured on the light sensitive medium, and at what precise instant that capture occurs are the most basic and crucial elements under the photographer’s control. Indeed, they’re implicit even when an automated camera is installed at a fixed location and the frames or video clips deemed most relevant are selected afterwards.
Yes, for all these and many other reasons there’s great truth in the old saw that, “It’s not the camera, but the photographer that makes the picture.” But in a deeper sense, a photograph is a visual representation of the dialog between the photographer and the subject as mediated through the physical act of taking the picture. That’s why I totally agree with the nameless portrait photographer who first said, “The subject is everything—I’m merely the photographer.” However, the camera itself, and more specifically the camera-photographer interface, can also have a profound influence on the look and feel, and even the emotional aspect of the resulting images.
In other words, the camera is not, as many have claimed, the mere analog of the painter’s brushes or the writer’s pen or computer, which are incidental to creating, say, a grand oil painting or a The Great American Novel. The camera and its accoutrements form an integral part of the creative process of photography because photography, unlike the classic visual arts of painting and sculpture, is a technologically based artform. That’s why the type of camera a photographer uses shapes the way he or she approaches the act of taking the picture, resulting in distinct visual differences that are deeply embedded in the character and even the informational content of the ensuing photographs.
These differences are especially evident in portraits because the photographer’s working relationship with the subject is intimate, intense, and interactive, and the photographer’s goal is to create an image that reveals something about the identity and state of being of the subject. To highlight these differences I’ve chosen two pairs of portraits, each of the same subject, shot with two of my favorite cameras—a Sigma fp high-performance 24.6MP full-frame mirrorless digital camera, and my ancient analog Mamiya C220 6x6 cm twin lens reflex of 1968, which was loaded with Ilford HP-5 Plus black & white film, shot at ISO 400, developed normally, and scanned at hi-res. In both cases, the camera was fitted with its excellent normal prime lens—a Sigma 45mm f/2.8 DG DN on the Sigma; the 80mm f/2.8 Mamiya-Sekor (old style) lens set on the Mamiya TLR.
Reactions to photographs of any kind are intensely personal, and the most important and valid impressions and feelings regarding these portraits, and the entire premise of this article for that matter, are yours, not mine. However, I’ve included my own thoughts on these images in extended captions in the hope they may provide a clearer understanding of where I’m coming from. I welcome your comments and suggestions with one caveat. I know perfectly well that the camera-photographer interface is not the sole determinant of the character and content of an image, and that the correlations I’ve noted here refer to general tendencies not one-to-one correspondences.
For example, I’ve personally captured a classic New York City “street scene” that looks like it could’ve been shot with a Leica, but I actually used a tripod-mounted 8 x 10 view camera –it just happened to be set to the right distance and aperture when I swung the camera around and grabbed it. I’ve also seen many crisp, beautifully composed landscapes (including one by Ansel Adams) that were taken not with large-format view camera, but with a humble box camera. Nevertheless, I do believe that the choice of camera does affects the way the photographer makes the shot, and I sure hope you can appreciate the fascinating differences I’ve showcased here.
Thoughts on the images
Maddie, Age 11, Sigma fp with 45mm lens: Beautiful, natural, discreetly smiling expression of a “tween” coming into womanhood. It exudes joy, confidence, directness, and openness, capturing key aspects or her charming and engaging personality.
Maddie, Age 11, Mamiya C220 with 80mm lens: This more contemplative pose is far less assertive, revealing the subject’s vulnerability. It embodies the tentative, fragile quality of a pre-teen in the process of discovering and shaping her own identity, though one can also sense an underlying strength, determination, and openness to the future that presages a successful transition to womanhood. The color image is a more flattering and appealing portrait, but I think this image says more about the subject and the distinctive rendition possible with a medium format twin lens reflex film camera.
Sean, Sigma fp with 45mm lens: This is a strong and compelling portrait that conveys the sense of a person who knows who he is and stands by his convictions. However, the relatively flat, partially backlit lighting does not delineate the facial structure as well as the corresponding black & white image does. While the impression of fortitude, presence, and engagement is still evident it’s not expressed as strongly as it is in the black & white portrait.
Sean, Mamiya C220 with 80mm lens: This is a very powerful and successful portrait and the subject’s face is beautifully delineated by strongly directional widow light. The direct eye contact and calm, pleasant, determined expression convey strength of character, but also a thoughtful and sympathetic quality that is very attractive and engaging. He looks like a guy you can trust and depend on and the image also conveys a sense of self-awareness, focused intelligence, and discernment. It’s a testament to what you can do with an ancient analog TLR with close focusing ability.
The photographer-camera interface has a profound effect on the images seen by the viewer
By Jason Schneider
The magic of photography is that it can transform the physical and emotional act of selective observation into a visual artifact that transcends the moment of its creation and places it in the context of eternity. Miraculously, a photograph can convey the consciousness of the photographer across time and space, producing a corresponding visceral and emotional response in anyone who takes the time to fully engage with the image. And perhaps even more astounding, the entire process can be accomplished by controlling just two irreducible variables—space (what’s in the frame) and time (when do you press the shutter release).
Obviously, there are often many other factors that go into creating a photograph, and each one can be a decision point that materially affects the end result—the camera chosen, the sensor or film used, the ISO setting, the viewing angle of the lens, the shooting aperture, the shutter speed, the lighting, etc., etc. Nevertheless, what is captured on the light sensitive medium, and at what precise instant that capture occurs are the most basic and crucial elements under the photographer’s control. Indeed, they’re implicit even when an automated camera is installed at a fixed location and the frames or video clips deemed most relevant are selected afterwards.
Yes, for all these and many other reasons there’s great truth in the old saw that, “It’s not the camera, but the photographer that makes the picture.” But in a deeper sense, a photograph is a visual representation of the dialog between the photographer and the subject as mediated through the physical act of taking the picture. That’s why I totally agree with the nameless portrait photographer who first said, “The subject is everything—I’m merely the photographer.” However, the camera itself, and more specifically the camera-photographer interface, can also have a profound influence on the look and feel, and even the emotional aspect of the resulting images.
In other words, the camera is not, as many have claimed, the mere analog of the painter’s brushes or the writer’s pen or computer, which are incidental to creating, say, a grand oil painting or a The Great American Novel. The camera and its accoutrements form an integral part of the creative process of photography because photography, unlike the classic visual arts of painting and sculpture, is a technologically based artform. That’s why the type of camera a photographer uses shapes the way he or she approaches the act of taking the picture, resulting in distinct visual differences that are deeply embedded in the character and even the informational content of the ensuing photographs.
These differences are especially evident in portraits because the photographer’s working relationship with the subject is intimate, intense, and interactive, and the photographer’s goal is to create an image that reveals something about the identity and state of being of the subject. To highlight these differences I’ve chosen two pairs of portraits, each of the same subject, shot with two of my favorite cameras—a Sigma fp high-performance 24.6MP full-frame mirrorless digital camera, and my ancient analog Mamiya C220 6x6 cm twin lens reflex of 1968, which was loaded with Ilford HP-5 Plus black & white film, shot at ISO 400, developed normally, and scanned at hi-res. In both cases, the camera was fitted with its excellent normal prime lens—a Sigma 45mm f/2.8 DG DN on the Sigma; the 80mm f/2.8 Mamiya-Sekor (old style) lens set on the Mamiya TLR.
Reactions to photographs of any kind are intensely personal, and the most important and valid impressions and feelings regarding these portraits, and the entire premise of this article for that matter, are yours, not mine. However, I’ve included my own thoughts on these images in extended captions in the hope they may provide a clearer understanding of where I’m coming from. I welcome your comments and suggestions with one caveat. I know perfectly well that the camera-photographer interface is not the sole determinant of the character and content of an image, and that the correlations I’ve noted here refer to general tendencies not one-to-one correspondences.
For example, I’ve personally captured a classic New York City “street scene” that looks like it could’ve been shot with a Leica, but I actually used a tripod-mounted 8 x 10 view camera –it just happened to be set to the right distance and aperture when I swung the camera around and grabbed it. I’ve also seen many crisp, beautifully composed landscapes (including one by Ansel Adams) that were taken not with large-format view camera, but with a humble box camera. Nevertheless, I do believe that the choice of camera does affects the way the photographer makes the shot, and I sure hope you can appreciate the fascinating differences I’ve showcased here.
Thoughts on the images
Maddie, Age 11, Sigma fp with 45mm lens: Beautiful, natural, discreetly smiling expression of a “tween” coming into womanhood. It exudes joy, confidence, directness, and openness, capturing key aspects or her charming and engaging personality.
Maddie, Age 11, Mamiya C220 with 80mm lens: This more contemplative pose is far less assertive, revealing the subject’s vulnerability. It embodies the tentative, fragile quality of a pre-teen in the process of discovering and shaping her own identity, though one can also sense an underlying strength, determination, and openness to the future that presages a successful transition to womanhood. The color image is a more flattering and appealing portrait, but I think this image says more about the subject and the distinctive rendition possible with a medium format twin lens reflex film camera.
Sean, Sigma fp with 45mm lens: This is a strong and compelling portrait that conveys the sense of a person who knows who he is and stands by his convictions. However, the relatively flat, partially backlit lighting does not delineate the facial structure as well as the corresponding black & white image does. While the impression of fortitude, presence, and engagement is still evident it’s not expressed as strongly as it is in the black & white portrait.
Sean, Mamiya C220 with 80mm lens: This is a very powerful and successful portrait and the subject’s face is beautifully delineated by strongly directional widow light. The direct eye contact and calm, pleasant, determined expression convey strength of character, but also a thoughtful and sympathetic quality that is very attractive and engaging. He looks like a guy you can trust and depend on and the image also conveys a sense of self-awareness, focused intelligence, and discernment. It’s a testament to what you can do with an ancient analog TLR with close focusing ability.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
For film its format makes visible difference on portraits like these.
For digital, I see zero difference from my Canon cameras, lenses with the first one.
Digital cameras are more for been just tools with preference by their owners only. Anyone else doesn't care, see no difference. Would it be 8K Leica with 5K lens or 800$ Rebel with kit lens. In fact, Rebel will outperform Leica for kids non been static. And most likely Sigma (known for lethargic AF).
For digital, I see zero difference from my Canon cameras, lenses with the first one.
Digital cameras are more for been just tools with preference by their owners only. Anyone else doesn't care, see no difference. Would it be 8K Leica with 5K lens or 800$ Rebel with kit lens. In fact, Rebel will outperform Leica for kids non been static. And most likely Sigma (known for lethargic AF).
zuiko85
Mentor
Quite. And self evident. Going back to the world of silver halide (in it’s present state) hand a talented photographer either a Hasselblad or a Holga 120. Obviously the approach to a subject must be different, even if in the hands of such as Michael Kenna, who uses both to produce wonderful photographs.
quadtones
Established
Considering that the Sigma has no separate finder, presumably being used in the "arms out" position or at eye level with a loupe, I think that the Mamiya, beside being shot with film, shapes a different approach, both because of waist level finder [assuming it wasn't shot using a Porroprism] and, if at waist level, reversed image on ground glass. In all, a more considered approach, at least from my perspective.
markjwyatt
Well-known
"The magic of photography is that it can transform the physical and emotional act of selective observation into a visual artifact that transcends the moment of its creation and places it in the context of eternity."
This is the key. Simpler- "capture a moment in time". The rest of it is about the dynamic of doing that as a rational human being using a camera. It transcends the moment because likely, had you not captured the moment, no one would have noticed the immensity of that moment, rather only some key features of the moment, and once the moment passed, so did the immensity missed.
This is the key. Simpler- "capture a moment in time". The rest of it is about the dynamic of doing that as a rational human being using a camera. It transcends the moment because likely, had you not captured the moment, no one would have noticed the immensity of that moment, rather only some key features of the moment, and once the moment passed, so did the immensity missed.
Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
It's more than just the format, etc.
It's more than just the format, etc.
The film format and the capture medium (full color digital or black & white on film) certainly influence the visual character of the captured image, but the type of camera used affects the way the photographer interacts with the subject and also the way the camera renders the subject. These things have a subtle but profound effect on the visceral and emotional dimensions of the captured image and even its content, and I believe the portraits I posted reflect that. I agree that many digital cameras have similar form factors and user interfaces, and would likely yield similar results in the hands of the same photographer, but there are also many other digital cameras with distinctive "shooting personalities" that may well yield images that are discernibly different. My point is that the camera is an interactive device that's an integral part of the creative process, not just an incidental tool like an artist's paintbrush (which is not to say that artists don't select their paintbrushes with care). Finally, my Sigma fp autofocuses notably faster now that I've installed the latest "version 2" software upgrade, and the focusing precision of its contrast-based AF system (which is a lot more important in portraiture) is outstanding. Yes there are better cameras for shooting, say, high-speed sports action, but it captures the antics of my 4 very active young grandchildren (ages 2-1/2 to 11) quite well thank you.
It's more than just the format, etc.
The film format and the capture medium (full color digital or black & white on film) certainly influence the visual character of the captured image, but the type of camera used affects the way the photographer interacts with the subject and also the way the camera renders the subject. These things have a subtle but profound effect on the visceral and emotional dimensions of the captured image and even its content, and I believe the portraits I posted reflect that. I agree that many digital cameras have similar form factors and user interfaces, and would likely yield similar results in the hands of the same photographer, but there are also many other digital cameras with distinctive "shooting personalities" that may well yield images that are discernibly different. My point is that the camera is an interactive device that's an integral part of the creative process, not just an incidental tool like an artist's paintbrush (which is not to say that artists don't select their paintbrushes with care). Finally, my Sigma fp autofocuses notably faster now that I've installed the latest "version 2" software upgrade, and the focusing precision of its contrast-based AF system (which is a lot more important in portraiture) is outstanding. Yes there are better cameras for shooting, say, high-speed sports action, but it captures the antics of my 4 very active young grandchildren (ages 2-1/2 to 11) quite well thank you.
markjwyatt
Well-known
I would use some cases in point. In the 80s and 90s, I would occasionally take my Mamiya C330f out with a Metz flash to say a beach or a Spring Break event. People often presumed I was a press photographer, and that led to a certain generally positive reaction. Had I gone with a Pentax Spotmatic, they probably would have had a very different reaction. Those days no one really noticed if I walked around with a 35mm SLR. Even today if I walk around with a 35mm camera, people notice, but have weak reactions. If I take the C330f, the reaction is stronger. When they ask about it they are usually thinking something like "Hasselblad". My Fujifilm XT-2 passes as pretty ordinary; though very few people have cameras at all these days (not counting smart phones).
So long story short, part of the dynamic (especially for strangers) is what they think your purpose for photographing is.
So long story short, part of the dynamic (especially for strangers) is what they think your purpose for photographing is.
Peter Jennings
Well-known
The camera has a big influence on composition, as well. Just looking at simple old snapshots from the past, it's interesting to see how the advance of camera technology affected the look of pictures over time. It gives each of these periods their own look and feel. Slow films shot at waist level from the 30s-50s necessitated mostly static and rigidly composed compositions. Later, faster films shot at eye level gave a different perspective and photos began to show more spontaneity. SLRs gave many amateur photographers more freedom to experiment, and their pictures became more analytical and whimsical. The camera definitely plays a huge role in the image making process.
Ambro51
Collector/Photographer
Let me set the model in front of a half plate wet plate camera and shoot an Ambrotype using an 1860 petzval lens wide open. Exposure would be about four seconds. A reflector to the side kicking northlight back. She may move, blink, sway, breath in those four seconds. ••. This is a case where the camera and the image it creates alters the normal reality we may expect in that photo, “iPhone ish”.
markjwyatt
Well-known
I think the camera is a big part, but also the film available. I bought a 1932 edition of The Way to Better Pictures, and they talked about regular Kodak film (i.e., basic ortho starting around 1903) and what they were promoting- Verichrome (ortho with more green sensitivity and extended into the yellows!). Pan film was still out of reach (but existed). Then I got a copi of Kodak's How to Make Good Pictures from 1942, and regular Kodak film was still there, Verichrome was still the bread and butter, but now they had Panatomic-X and Plus-X (both which I used in the 1970s), and Super-XX. Verichrome was about ISO 25 by interpretation of the f16 rule (and probably grainier than today's Tri-X).
ADD: the 1942 book also mentioned IR film and had a page on Kodachrome plus a color plate.
RichC
Well-known
Utterly disagree with you!
Photography is not special at all in this way ... and there's no mention of what really makes photography different.
Yes, photography and technology are closely linked - arguably more than any other medium, so the impact of changes in equipment are more obviously noticeable.
But the "person-tool interface", to borrow your phrasing, that "has a profound effect on the images seen by the viewer" also applies to many, many mediums in addition to photography - it is far from being the only "technologically based artform".
Take painting. A painted picture has fundamental qualities - such as appearance, what can and can't be done, what it communicates and imparts to the viewer - that are dependent on the equipment and materials used for its creation: watercolours, trowel-applied oils and airbrushed paint, the choice of surface (e.g. smooth metal or rough-textured linen)...
So, painting is no different from photography, then: the equipment used has a profound impact.
Painting too has been impacted dramatically over time by technological change. I've already mentioned the airbrush - a 19th-century invention that, like 35mm cameras, only became truly popular in the 1960s. Also like photography, technology has made painting more accessible and more convenient. There's the obvious advance of factories and mass production, allowing artists to buy paints cheaply rather than laboriously making their own.
And chemistry. Photography and chemistry are inextricably bound - but so too are painting and chemistry. Ever wonder why so many old master paintings are dull and dowdy? Partly that's because their colours have degraded over time, partly because dull colours were all the artist had. Take the bright blue pigment ultramarine: this was exceptionally rare - more costly than gold - because it was made from lapis lazuli, a precious stone from just one place, a remote mountain range in Afghanistan. Vermilion - a vibrant red - was more common, but a killer, made from a compound of mercury, so its use tailed off. However, huge advances in chemistry in the 19th century led to synthetic pigments.
Today, ultramarine, vermilion and a host of other colours once too costly, dangerous or unstable to use are safe, cheap and permanent. Today's paintings, unlike those of the past, use bright colours that will not dim over the coming centuries.
So, painting is no different from photography, then: advances in technology have had a profound impact.
The same arguments can be made to a lesser or greater extent for other mediums. But painting is relevant because of its close relationship with photography.
So, having demolished this thread about photography being unique because of its reliance on technology and equipment, is there anything that does make it special and different from other mediums?
Yes.
Photography's uniqueness is that it is part reality. A painting has no direct connection with reality - it's entirely an impression of the world crafted through a person's imagination. In contrast, a photograph is created directly by reality - it's a record of a particular space at a particular time. Fox Talbot, one of the inventors of photography, knew this immediately, writing in the world's first photobook in 1844: "(Photographs) differ in all respects, and as widely as possible, in their origin, from plates of the ordinary kind, which owe their existence to the united skill of the Artist and the Engraver. They are impressed by Nature's hand." The title of his book is also telling: The Pencil of Nature - implying nature as the ultimate source of his pictures, not him.
Another Victorian called a photograph a "mirror with a memory". A century later, this view still prevailed, with the writer Susan Sontag likening a photograph to "a footprint or a death mask".
Despite the ease with which digital photos can be manipulated today, and the increasing role of AI and computational photography, we still believe in the fundamental truth a camera creates. Our passports still carry our mugshots, as they first did a century ago. And when we show someone a photo, saying, "This is my cat", we mean exactly that - the photo and Tiddles are interchangeable because they are the same thing; if we show someone a painting of our cat, they react differently - because the painting can only ever be an impression and cannot convey "truth" as a photograph does.
gavinlg
Mentor
I agree 100% with the original post.
I used to be one of the people that proclaimed the camera merely a tool that only serves to bring the vision of the photographer into being. At some point I realised this is a dry and unnatural viewpoint to have and started developing a more 'naturalistic' philosophy toward it. Process and results are inextricably linked, and different cameras have very different modus and 'personality' in use and result. I've found this especially using film cameras, and slightly less so with digital cameras.
I like in particular Nobuyoshi Araki's ideas on the topic -
I used to be one of the people that proclaimed the camera merely a tool that only serves to bring the vision of the photographer into being. At some point I realised this is a dry and unnatural viewpoint to have and started developing a more 'naturalistic' philosophy toward it. Process and results are inextricably linked, and different cameras have very different modus and 'personality' in use and result. I've found this especially using film cameras, and slightly less so with digital cameras.
I like in particular Nobuyoshi Araki's ideas on the topic -
KenR
Well-known
Selection
Selection
As Jason alluded to his first two pictures, the selection that we the photographer makes or that the client makes can have a profound effect on the photo. We have all seen Karsh’s famous portrait of Winston Churchill looking resolute and strong. The story is that the subject refused to take his cigar out of his mouth, so the photographer walked over, plucked it out and Click! took the photo with a peeved Churchill glaring at the camera. The next photo shows a subdued Churchill smiling at the camera - quite boring and quite forgettable.
Selection
As Jason alluded to his first two pictures, the selection that we the photographer makes or that the client makes can have a profound effect on the photo. We have all seen Karsh’s famous portrait of Winston Churchill looking resolute and strong. The story is that the subject refused to take his cigar out of his mouth, so the photographer walked over, plucked it out and Click! took the photo with a peeved Churchill glaring at the camera. The next photo shows a subdued Churchill smiling at the camera - quite boring and quite forgettable.
Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
Art & Technology
Art & Technology
Any artist's tools, materials, and methods certainly effect the final result. That's why I noted that artists choose their brushes with care, and the same applies to their paints, canvases, etc. However the camera and the way it shapes the photographer's approach to the subject, and affects the physical and emotional aspects of the captured image is different, and unique to the medium. All art, from a simple pen and ink drawing on paper, to Van Gogh's Starry Night, to Rodin's The Thinker, to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, rely on technology in the largest sense, but that does not make them technologically based art forms in the same way photography is. Artist's choices, whether technical or esthetic, certainly have a profound influence on the artwork, but the camera is not analogous to painter's brush, the sculptor's chisel, or the writer's pen--the camera and its operating characteristics have a different relationship to the end product.
Art & Technology
Any artist's tools, materials, and methods certainly effect the final result. That's why I noted that artists choose their brushes with care, and the same applies to their paints, canvases, etc. However the camera and the way it shapes the photographer's approach to the subject, and affects the physical and emotional aspects of the captured image is different, and unique to the medium. All art, from a simple pen and ink drawing on paper, to Van Gogh's Starry Night, to Rodin's The Thinker, to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, rely on technology in the largest sense, but that does not make them technologically based art forms in the same way photography is. Artist's choices, whether technical or esthetic, certainly have a profound influence on the artwork, but the camera is not analogous to painter's brush, the sculptor's chisel, or the writer's pen--the camera and its operating characteristics have a different relationship to the end product.
markjwyatt
Well-known
A chisel does not form a 3D representation of the shape of a face or bust. A paintbrush does not form an image, nor does the canvas. A lens forms an image and film or sensor capture that image. A painter that uses a camera obscura (also known as many if not most renaissance painters) may be hybrid between the the two, but still closer to the painter than the photographer.
Archiver
Mentor
Personal experience is my guide in this situation, as it is the strongest evidence I have. The camera and lens will often influence the way a photo is taken, the way the photographer interacts with subjects, and how the subjects react to the photographer. And of course, there are the characteristics of lens, sensor, film, ISO/ASA, colour balance etc which influence how a camera shapes the image.
Subjects will react differently to a smarphone, compact camera, rangefinder, SLR/DSLR, medium format camera or whatever. The look of an image will be very much shaped by the size and type of sensor, the lens, and even the capabilities of the camera. For example, a camera with great high ISO performance will give a different outcome compared with something that is only really usable at base ISO, especially with situations like sports.
For some reason, I take some of my best images with my M9 and 35 and 50mm lenses. They have a certain character that I can't really articulate, which comes from the sensor and lenses, and the sense of relaxation that the subjects often have. Not so easy to get this with my 5D Mark II with 35L.
Subjects will react differently to a smarphone, compact camera, rangefinder, SLR/DSLR, medium format camera or whatever. The look of an image will be very much shaped by the size and type of sensor, the lens, and even the capabilities of the camera. For example, a camera with great high ISO performance will give a different outcome compared with something that is only really usable at base ISO, especially with situations like sports.
For some reason, I take some of my best images with my M9 and 35 and 50mm lenses. They have a certain character that I can't really articulate, which comes from the sensor and lenses, and the sense of relaxation that the subjects often have. Not so easy to get this with my 5D Mark II with 35L.
Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
Cameras Obscura, etc.
Cameras Obscura, etc.
The vast majority of photographs are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional space captured in a moment of time. The fact that the camera is typically a handheld device operated by the photographer is why the camera-photographer interface is a crucial and can affect both the technical and emotional aspects of the resulting photograph. The fact that a chisel does not, in and of itself, form a 3-dimensional image or that paint and canvas alone do not capture the image simply proves that the artist is always the crucial element and that is true for photography as well. Painters loved the camera obscura because it facilitated the challenging job of representing 3-dimensional space on a flat surface, but, before 1826 it was never intended to capture the subject and it was never used in the same way as a camera.
Cameras Obscura, etc.
The vast majority of photographs are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional space captured in a moment of time. The fact that the camera is typically a handheld device operated by the photographer is why the camera-photographer interface is a crucial and can affect both the technical and emotional aspects of the resulting photograph. The fact that a chisel does not, in and of itself, form a 3-dimensional image or that paint and canvas alone do not capture the image simply proves that the artist is always the crucial element and that is true for photography as well. Painters loved the camera obscura because it facilitated the challenging job of representing 3-dimensional space on a flat surface, but, before 1826 it was never intended to capture the subject and it was never used in the same way as a camera.
aizan
Mentor
The phenomenology of cameras is something I only talk about at 4am after several beers.
Michael Markey
Mentor
Now that`s funny and true ....
Michael Markey
Mentor
Nobuyoshi is correct and anyone who has used different cameras can testify.
You do have to open yourself up to the possibility is all I would say.
If you're robotic and mechanical about the process the camera type will seem irrelevant ....