Apple David Alan Harvey about gear: iPhone and leica quality are the same

. just an example of the 'democratization' of picture taking vs state of photography, imo.

A few observations:

1. With the rise of literacy, writers have been faced with the democratization problem for years. Anybody who can writer their name could potentially be a writer of books, articles, etc. The thing is, some folks are better than others at writing; some naturally so; others really work at it. I think the same holds true for photography.

2. In my view, photography is about the eye and the heart, trying to take pictures of things that move you as a photographer.

3. Content is king. Great content can carry a technically lousy photograph.

4. When I took photography in college (shortly after the Civil War), a few of my classmates quickly discovered that anything -- and I mean ANYTHING -- blown up sufficiently large will become interesting and impressive.

5. Good tools -- in the hands of someone who knows how to use them -- make it easier to produce good results. But if you don't know how to use them, most of the advantage of good tools is lost, IMHO.

Cheers, Jock
 
generally i dont have a problem with 'democratization' in the sense that more have access to more. my point was very simple, but perhaps expressed poorly: taking pictures is not photography. creating 'better' equipment (or 'democratization') has as little effect on this statement as handing out better crayons creates limitless da vincis.

my comment was directed specifically at the statement that this guy, whoever he is, 'would rather kill to get content right than give two s***ts about image quality'. to me, the understanding and execution that goes into combining those two elements is the essence of photography vs 'picture taking'. yvmv!
 
2. In my view, photography is about the eye and the heart, trying to take pictures of things that move you as a photographer.

3. Content is king. Great content can carry a technically lousy photograph.


5. Good tools -- in the hands of someone who knows how to use them -- make it easier to produce good results. But if you don't know how to use them, most of the advantage of good tools is lost, IMHO.
I agree with points 2 and 3 completely. But per point 5, I think the point made by the photographer in the video is that today's tool make it pretty damn easy to get good results even if you DON'T know all that much about how to use the tools. Which means more people with a good eye and heart can capture great content well enough, whereas in the past it was a lot more difficult to get even a competent image out of a lot of cameras. I've run into a lot of damn fine photographers who had AMAZING eyes for composition and a wonderful sense of photographs as images, not just as pictures OF something. But who hadn't ever really been into it enough to master the technical details and with old gear really couldn't get much out of it. The new gear, down to and including cell phone cams, makes it really pretty easy for people like that to be able to start making great images right away. If they later get more into it and learn the techniques to improve their execution, so much the better. But rather than being frustrated by the gear to the point of never really getting to a point of technical competence, now they can start using their hearts and eyes to make great images and possibly move on to make great images that are technically better. I'd rather be those folks with great eyes and meager tech skills than some of the folks with amazing technical skills but no eye or heart. Like the guitarist who can rip your heart out with three notes vs the guy who can play a million notes per second but never goes anywhere with it...

So to me that's a great thing about the democratization of photography. I see writing as a little different - there are really no technical hurdles, it's ALL about content and learning how to make the words work for you. Photography has involved varying degrees of technical hurdles and they're getting smaller and smaller these days. Which I think is a good thing. No, not all of what's produced by "the masses" will be good, but not all of what was produced by the technically adept was good 40 years ago either. But more people can now be competent at it, which means more of the good ones will find their way to it...

-Ray
 
I agree with points 2 and 3 completely. But per point 5, I think the point made by the photographer in the video is that today's tool make it pretty damn easy to get good results even if you DON'T know all that much about how to use the tools. Which means more people with a good eye and heart can capture great content well enough, whereas in the past it was a lot more difficult to get even a competent image out of a lot of cameras. I've run into a lot of damn fine photographers who had AMAZING eyes for composition and a wonderful sense of photographs as images, not just as pictures OF something. But who hadn't ever really been into it enough to master the technical details and with old gear really couldn't get much out of it. The new gear, down to and including cell phone cams, makes it really pretty easy for people like that to be able to start making great images right away. If they later get more into it and learn the techniques to improve their execution, so much the better. But rather than being frustrated by the gear to the point of never really getting to a point of technical competence, now they can start using their hearts and eyes to make great images and possibly move on to make great images that are technically better. I'd rather be those folks with great eyes and meager tech skills than some of the folks with amazing technical skills but no eye or heart. Like the guitarist who can rip your heart out with three notes vs the guy who can play a million notes per second but never goes anywhere with it...

So to me that's a great thing about the democratization of photography. I see writing as a little different - there are really no technical hurdles, it's ALL about content and learning how to make the words work for you. Photography has involved varying degrees of technical hurdles and they're getting smaller and smaller these days. Which I think is a good thing. No, not all of what's produced by "the masses" will be good, but not all of what was produced by the technically adept was good 40 years ago either. But more people can now be competent at it, which means more of the good ones will find their way to it...

-Ray

I agree entirely.

Back when I shot film, I had more technical command of the equipment, but I wasn't so hot a photographer. Today, I have less understanding of the equipment -- digital cameras are dauntingly complex and just yesterday my G12 astonished me with something I didn't know it could do -- but I feel I am a better photographer.

And your observation about guitarists is absolutely spot on!

Cheers, Jock
 
Just a bit of cheerleading for your local custom printer. When I was working in custom labs, I had to print for a number of photographers who had great eyes, whose ability to see and take advantage of the "decisive moment" was well developed, but who couldn't make a correct exposure to save their souls. Printing 16x20 or 20x24 inch prints for them was both an inspiration and a trial by fire. I would pull out every trick in the book to make a print that -- often -- was going to be hung in a show. At the end of a day printing those, you really knew you'd earned you keep.

Since so many mistakes were covered in the old days by photographers exclaiming, "the lab did it", I wanted to point out that sometimes the lab could save the day, turning a technically incompetent negative into a good print and allowing a well seen image, against all odds, to be seen.
 
Nice vid. Thx for sharing. For me, the discussion about the technology/cameras was the least interesting aspect of it. But that's easy for David Alan Harvey to say, since he has the other aspects of photography (story, composition, color, etc...) in such great abundance and the type of work that he does is not hinged upon absolute image quality.

If you're not familiar with Harvey, he's got a website - burn magazine - that features a lot of young and up and coming photogs. Good stuff. A couple of years ago I went to a Burn event at Harvey's Brooklyn studio and was treated to a Bruce Davidson slide show of some of his most memorable photos loaded into a Kodak slide carousel and narrated by the man himself. Something I won't soon forget.

5025788863_e4e8472c64_b.jpg

Bruce Davidson talks about one of his most famous photos while David Alan Harvey eats popcorn by john m flores, on Flickr
 
Nice vid. Thx for sharing. For me, the discussion about the technology/cameras was the least interesting aspect of it. But that's easy for David Alan Harvey to say, since he has the other aspects of photography (story, composition, color, etc...) in such great abundance and the type of work that he does is not hinged upon absolute image quality.

If you're not familiar with Harvey, he's got a website - burn magazine - that features a lot of young and up and coming photogs. Good stuff. A couple of years ago I went to a Burn event at Harvey's Brooklyn studio and was treated to a Bruce Davidson slide show of some of his most memorable photos loaded into a Kodak slide carousel and narrated by the man himself. Something I won't soon forget.

5025788863_e4e8472c64_b.jpg

Bruce Davidson talks about one of his most famous photos while David Alan Harvey eats popcorn by john m flores, on Flickr

Now that John, is something that excites me more than the latest micro full cropped frame camera. That should've been an amazing experience.
 
I think David Alan Harvey couldn't give two shits about the quality of the image itself and would rather kill himself getting the content right.

Most people (including me) have fancy cameras capable of rendering great stories, but have nothing much to say.

Well said. I've never articulated it that well, but that's the case for most of us. I'm firmly in that camp in two ways. 1. What makes the photo good or bad is the 99 percent the content over the technical. 2. I have more image quality than content for the vast majority of my shots. Technical quality is fine and good but a crap image content wise is still a crap image whether it came from a Phase medium format or a Vivitar digital you bought at the drugstore.

It seems like a lot of folks don't get the art or subjective part of photography. When they look at an image the first thing they do is grade it on technical terms. Highlights kept or blown, shadow detail, sharpness and so on, if it passes muster on the technical side and only if it does can it then be evaluated for artistic value. I feel sorry for folks like this. They are missing out on what I see photography being about, but I guess maybe to them, it's merely testing digital instruments to see which performs and to what extent. By the way, the "highlights kept or blown, shadow detail, sharpness and so on" I mentioned, I've violated all of those at one time to create a photo I liked.
 
, I think the point made by the photographer in the video is that today's tool make it pretty damn easy to get good results even if you DON'T know all that much about how to use the tools. Which means more people with a good eye and heart can capture great content well enough, whereas in the past it was a lot more difficult to get even a competent image out of a lot of cameras. I've run into a lot of damn fine photographers who had AMAZING eyes for composition and a wonderful sense of photographs as images, not just as pictures OF something. But who hadn't ever really been into it enough to master the technical details and with old gear really couldn't get much out of it. The new gear, down to and including cell phone cams, makes it really pretty easy for people like that to be able to start making great images right away. If they later get more into it and learn the techniques to improve their execution, so much the better. But rather than being frustrated by the gear to the point of never really getting to a point of technical competence, now they can start using their hearts and eyes to make great images and possibly move on to make great images that are technically better. I'd rather be those folks with great eyes and meager tech skills than some of the folks with amazing technical skills but no eye or heart. Like the guitarist who can rip your heart out with three notes vs the guy who can play a million notes per second but never goes anywhere with it...

So to me that's a great thing about the democratization of photography. I see writing as a little different - there are really no technical hurdles, it's ALL about content and learning how to make the words work for you. Photography has involved varying degrees of technical hurdles and they're getting smaller and smaller these days. Which I think is a good thing. No, not all of what's produced by "the masses" will be good, but not all of what was produced by the technically adept was good 40 years ago either. But more people can now be competent at it, which means more of the good ones will find their way to it...

-Ray

This is a big point. Lots of folks with no knowledge of exposure, DoF, etc.can point an automatic camera and get good shots because they have a natural artistic sense which translates to the "good eye" of photography. With phone cams being so common, these people get a chance to practice and digital gives the user instant feedback. I'm not saying that most people are natural photographers but rather that more of the ones that really are will find out.
 
So, is there a quality of the image vs image quality conundrum bobbling to the top of the water bucket here? The former involving composition and the latter being the technical aspects of the camera and lens combo?

That's about it, but I don't think it's a conundrum for me though, in that I see a distinction and always have.

@drd1135
What you mention about the phones gave me a thought. A simpler camera is probably the best place to start for learning the Quality of the Image aspects. Frame and push the button, what could be simpler vs. a big camera with dials and lenses that zoom or can be swapped out. Which one should I use now for this image? Why? Those questions should all come later, probably months later.

I think when learning a new skill the less external noise there is the better. A camera phone solves that nicely. They typically don't zoom, so one less complication to deal with. Just like the kids start music with a recorder, maybe we should all start with a very simplistic camera. Once we have a good handle on composition then start increasing the capability and complexity that comes with it.

I realize that you can just shoot a dslr on auto, but I'm not convinced it would yield the same progress as a compact fixed lens, non zoom camera. The tendency would be to go exploring the buttons and switches or lenses to the neglect of learning the image.

It would be interesting if we could conduct the following experiment repeatedly with a bunch of folks. Take a bunch of people that expressed an interest in photography, break them into two groups. Give one a compact consumer camera with the zoom rocker super glued to the wide end and the mode dial superglued to Auto. Give the other the Nikon D800e with the trinity of zooms that the forums rave about. Allow them to shoot nothing but their given camera for six months and then check back in with an eye on Quality of the image. My bets are on the compact camera users because their efforts were concentrated rather than bifurcated amongst options and so they made more forward progress.
 
I think the key to unravelling David Alan Harvey's statement, about iPhone vs. Leica 'image quality', lies in his preceding comment - "..technically there's nothing magic here it's about finding the light". Any comparison flows from that premise. And a damned good premise if you ask me!
 
My bets are on the compact camera users because their efforts were concentrated rather than bifurcated amongst options and so they made more forward progress.
Ya know, that's what I'm doing now. Granted that this Canon S120 that I just acquired has quite a few more manual controls than most of the point and shoot models have, it forces me to concentrate on composition. After years with the D3, D700, D300, and the myriad of high-end lenses; and then the GF1, GH2, and GX1 and that format's better lenses, I feel rather serene with not so much hardware at my disposal; almost like the soldier whom had pistols, rifles, grenades, shotguns, machine guns at his reach but now has only a single sharp blade. Almost cathartic how much more that one sharp edge can do.

No, while quality of the image and image quality need not be diametrically opposed, one should understand that the former can stand without the latter; that the latter is the goal of the engineer while the former is the grail of the artist. Yet what the engineer gets from the artist is inspiration and what the artist pines for from the engineer is a sharper edge.

Did I obfuscate that?1:D
 
Back
Top