A question for the group

[Asylum Steve]

Andy,

I realize your words were being paraphrased, and my response wasn't directed at you per se.

I completely agree with you that SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT is not usually an important part of the equation...

[Fey]

Just for the record, in speaking of the end result, I was referring to the tools used to get there (Sony F717, a throwaway, a polaroid, or a Canon 20D) - that's what doesn't matter. By no means was I speaking of the thought process or seriously working at a craft - knowing light and shadow - exposure - planning your shot. These things HAVE to matter in order to get a truly beautiful photograph. It's the equipment that doesn't matter to the viewer in the end.

Does that make sense?

I am a bit confused :-)

It seems to me there are two different issues here.

When I said "only the end result matters" I meant that a print must stand by itself. When someone looks at a photograph he does not and should not care about what was needed (in terms of equipment, and skills, and luck, etc.) to make this photograph. The image must be judged on its own merits and not on the basis of what a photographer did to make it or who the photographer is.

The second issue seems to be "what is important in making a picture". Andy Armstrong says, as far as I understand him, that equipment is not all that important, while skill is. Generally speaking, this is of course true. There are obvious exceptions where specific equipment is needed to be able to make any decent shots, but I don't think there is any controversy about skill being much much more important than equipment.

It looks like the difference between Andy Armstrong and me is that he says that a viewer looking at an image does not care about the technology used, but he does care about the skill of the photographer. I would say that no, the viewer does not care about the skill -- all he cares about is the end result (and clearly, on rare occasions you can get outstanding results through blind luck and no skill).

Fey

[another view]

I guess I generally agree with Fey's comment above - wasn't sure where this was going before this post... The image has to stand on it's own (or group of images) and it really doesn't matter what was used or what the photographer had for breakfast - but skill is involved here in choosing the right equipment for the job; as is it needed in determining exposure, etc.

But I see two issues here as well and they're not about this - one way of shooting is to get it "close enough" and save it in Photoshop, the other is to get the shot as close as possible at time of capture. Having to rely on post processing to make decent shots will create problems at some point, IMO. Digital has less tolerence for inaccurate exposure than slide film - at least for optimal results. All the Photoshop work in the world won't bring back blown highlights!

[Asylum Steve]

Fey, I understand your points, and I'm with you when you say this can be a confusing subject...

"When I said "only the end result matters" I meant that a print must stand by itself. When someone looks at a photograph he does not and should not care about what was needed (in terms of equipment, and skills, and luck, etc.) to make this photograph. The image must be judged on its own merits and not on the basis of what a photographer did to make it or who the photographer is..."

Again, I respect your opinion, but it is this exactly that I strongly disagree with. You say "someone" as if we can easily define that someone, but obviously we can't. Someone could be anyone...

I MYSELF am "someone" and an art viewer, and to me, the final image is NOT always the most important thing. And I know there are many other people like me who agree with this. So, I think your statement, while valid for the most part, is still a generalization that isn't always true.

The process that an artist goes through to create an image is sometimes paramount to the experience, both for the creator as well as the viewer. This is just common sense. The STORY behind the image, be it what, how, when, who, or where adds imeasureably to the viewer connection and experience for many types of photography.

If you are in any kind of academic environment regarding photography or art, you learn pretty quickly that even when a piece does not "work" (ie stand on its own), you can still gain much from the experience by discussing what an artist was trying to do. It is possible to have a serious appreciation for an image even if it wasn't totally successful.

The history of photography is filled with technically "flawed" images that are considered quite significant simply because of the circumstances behind them. What they have is meaning or content that goes well beyond form...

In the world of art a lot of times people don't "get" a piece until they learn about the it and/or the artist and/or the circumstances of the work and THEN make an effort to understand why something is dynamic or emotional or political or whatever.

A brilliant work is not always obvious to the casual viewer. Photography is no different...

[Fey]

For many of us, the journey (substitute process if you'd like) is as important as the final product. You should check out some threads in the Photography as Art forum...

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The end result is all that matters for the viewer. What matters for the photographer is an entirely different question. Photographers may and do find important all kind of things, from internal aesthetics to money, from seeing the image appear in the developer tray to seeing letters L-e-i-c-a on their camera, from exorcising private demons to fame and fortune...

Fey

[Fey]

I MYSELF am "someone" and an art viewer, and to me, the final image is NOT always the most important thing. And I know there are many other people like me who agree with this. So, I think your statement, while valid for the most part, is still a generalization that isn't always true.

Granted. I should have been more explicit about it being just my own point of view. I am not trying to say my approach is the only right one...

The process that an artist goes through to create an image is sometimes paramount to the experience, both for the creator as well as the viewer. This is just common sense. The STORY behind the image, be it what, how, when, who, or where adds imeasureably to the viewer connection and experience for many types of photography.

That's probably more of an Art Forum debate... I think we are talking about the meaning of an image and the ways an image can acquire a meaning. I tend to take the position that meaning must be "embedded" in an image (but see below about understanding) -- for you, it seems, much of meaning can come from outside of the image itself -- from it's "story".

I don't really object to your approach, I agree that the "story" can be (but not necessarily is) important. However, I guess I am wary of substituting a story for the image itself when external meaning is all there is and without a story to prop it up the image collapses. In such cases I would argue that the story itself is the main "work of art" and the image is just a supporting illustration to that story.

Also, the world of art is full of works that a lot people don't "get" until they learn about the piece and/or the artist and/or the circumstances of the work and then make an effort to understand why something is dynamic or emotional or political or whatever. A brilliant work is not always obvious to the casual viewer.

That's a bit of a different issue -- now we are talking about understanding of a certain piece of art. Obviously, some excellent images can be very very simple to understand, and others, no less excellent, images can demand long and deep thinking (not to mention years of education) to unravel their meaning.

However I want to draw a difference between knowing the story of this particular image, and knowing enough context (cultural, political, historical, etc.) to understand images of this kind in general. The second case has much more to do with the viewer and his capability to understand the image, rather than with the image itself...

Fey