Wallace Koopmans Artlog

Digital photography has a subset where some people seem to spend as much or more time worrying about their gear as actually taking pictures. It’s as if the acquisition of some new camera or lens will solve all their problems. Or time is spent arguing over some minor improvement that apparently renders everything previous obsolete, maybe they should delete all the pictures they took with such inferior equipment. A part of this obsession is focused (pun alert) on the resolution and pixel level sharpness of images apparently with no regard to how it would look printed and viewed. I recently spent some time looking at what are considered important photographs in a Sotheby’s auction catalogue and a large amount of them are anything but sharp or blur free. Part of the drive towards image sharpness may be the use of large prints in contemporary art. Photographers such as Jeff Wall, Andreas Gursky, and Gregory Crewdson create giant prints which are impressive to see in person, why wouldn’t you want to achieve that sort of image. The thing is you aren’t likely to no matter what camera you use. There are reasons images like these are impressive and it isn’t an accident, real work went into creating them including planning and a concept which doesn’t come with the latest model of camera.

I’m not immune from falling into this trap I’ve wasted more than my fair share of time evaluating camera gear instead of creating or enjoying the work of others.  I’m not railing against new cameras, I want the latest greatest too (also the oldest and worst), but having it shouldn’t be necessary to create art. In this photo by Ruth Orkin “American girl in Italy” what’s more important how detailed the image is viewed close up or the content?

My advice for anyone that finds themselves thinking that maybe they need a new camera or lens is to spend an equal amount of time looking at great photographs from other people and you may soon find out they didn’t even use equipment that matches what you already have.