dreamingreal.com

I've been reading a lot written about photography by photographers lately, as I'm awaiting the Amazonian arrival of my new K20D and rediscovering my fascination with the medium. Professional Photographers are an odd bunch (I know, I was one, once) and have all kinds of interesting notions about photography and art. A common, plaintive cry I hear is "You don't ask an author what kind of typewriter he uses; why would you ask a photographer what kind of camera he uses?". Of course, this analogy fails catastrophically (approaching non-sequitur), because a typewritten manuscript has nothing to do with the final appearance of a book. Obviously a camera has some impact on the final appearance of a photograph, as does the lens, the film or sensor, and Photoshop.

It is true, as Ken Rockwell points out in his treatise "Your Camera Doesn't Matter", at full frame 8x10 or smaller, and on 1024x1024 constrained web galleries, it is nearly impossible to discern any meaningful difference between cameras (barring obvious malfunctions or defects). But does that mean your camera doesn't matter? I'm not so sure, and I don't think Mr. Rockwell means "it doesn't matter" in a categorical sense; I think he means that you can make wonderful photographs with any camera. That much is absolutely true.

Ken points out that scene in the movie Blues Brothers where Ray Charles takes a crappy old piano with a sticky action and makes it sing. I like to talk about the story (perhaps apocryphal, but in character!) about the time Minnesota Fats came into a big city pool hall and said he'd beat any man in the place at a game for $500, playing with a broom handle - and proceeded to do so. And yes, a great guitar player can make the crappiest axe in the world sound like it's playable. And it's true that a race car driver can probably outrun the police cruisers in a '72 Pinto.

So where is the problem? Well, the real problem with this discussion and presentation is that people just don't work like that. You don't get up in the morning and go off to take generic "wonderful images". Most people who really want to be photographers have a certain concept in mind. Recently, Scott Bourne made the "Shakespeare" comment - that is, when someone asked what kind of camera he used for a photograph (of an eagle!!!), he complained that you ought to ask Shakespeare what kind of quill he used to pen Romeo and Juliette. Don't get me wrong, I like Scott, and I love the images he makes, but let's get real: Nature photography, specifically bird photography, and very specifically raptor photography, is one of the most equipment intensive undertakings one can make in the photographic world, right up there with underwater photography. Scott makes no bones about the price of his equipment and his "long lenses". Long lenses - long, FAST lenses - are not cheap, my friend, and believe me, you won't be shooting those intimate head-and-shoulder portraits of Harris Hawks with a point-and-shoot. Now sure, you can rent a 400 f4 EOS lens and bolt your Rebel onto the back of it, but you still have to have the lens. You're not shooting owls and peregrine falcons with a Holga.

It can be argued that art doesn't place constraints, and that good images that include raptors could be made with a point and shoot camera, and that's absolutely true. But if you're shooting a landscape that happens to include a raptor, you're photographing a landscape. You may love the picture as art, but if you're shooting a book about Eagles, you're going to need more than just distant shots of birds soaring above valleys. And everyone loves those photographs where you can count the ridges in the feathers and see the fierce, predatory gaze of those raptor eyes - assuming you're a raptor enthusiast, you'll want those images, as well.

You want to be an architectural photographer? You're going to need a tilt/shift lens or a 4x5 camera. Will you need it for every shot? Nope. Will you need it? Absolutely.

Some photographic disciplines lend themselves to certain equipment, and sometimes that equipment is not particularly specialized. If you want to be a 'street photographer', if you're drawn by images of people in urban settings doing urban things, you can get away with almost any camera. If you want to shoot candid images in subways, you'll need something with fast glass or fast film/sensor, or both, and unobtrusive to boot. You want to shoot coral reefs and great whites, you're going to need something waterproof. If taking pictures of bugs, flowers, and paint chips is your bag, you're going to want something with a good macro lens.

If you want to shoot studio portraits, you're going to need lights, backgrounds, and a short telephoto lens. Unless you're one of those talents that can redefine a genre, in which case, you're going to need backdrops of some sort, light of some sort, and a lens of your choosing.

So yes, any camera can make wonderful photographs. Let's say I take my Pentax Optio on vacation - it takes very sharp 3.2 MP images; great for snapshots. While on vacation, I use that camera to create a wonderful image of some fog rolling in between two mountains - an absolutely gorgeous image worthy of Galen Rowell. I get home and print out the 5x7 and it's beautiful. I really, really want a good 16x24, but when I get it back, it's all fuzzy and unsharp, because my resolution was too low. Or I shoot a great picture of a bear from a pedestrian bridge, but the animal is too small in the frame, so I crop it. Looks great at 640x480... The camera isn't really appropriate for those kinds of images. It's been said that the best camera for any shot is the one you have with you, and I'll certainly agree that it's better to get a good shot you can't enlarge than to miss it altogether, but the point is that equipment does matter. You shouldn't let that stop you from taking pictures with the camera you have; and no, getting a better camera will not make you a better photographer. That's the point. Just buying better equipment won't make you a better photographer, guitar player, painter, or pianist. Buying a camera with a higher resolution will let you make larger prints of mediocre photographs if that's who you are. So certainly don't let equipment stop you from taking pictures. The best way to become a better photographer is to take more pictures, and examine them critically.

But let's remember that when Ray played the lousy piano, and when Minnesota Fats played with a broomstick, they might have played better than all the people around them, but they didn't play their best. There's a reason artists want quality tools, and equipment can matter, a lot.

I hear a lot of discussion about the reasons congress doesn't "do something about high gas prices". I find this amusing on many levels - what in the world do they think congress can do about the price of gasoline? The high prices aren't the result of some decree declaring high gasoline prices to be the law of the land. They're a result of steadily increasing demand against an oil supply that's looking more and more like it's flattening out. Speculators are starting to think we may have hit Peak Oil already.

Peak Oil is basically the idea that at some point the world will max out its ability to produce oil, while demand will continue to increase, forcing oil into an ever-increasing spiral of price inflation. Even Dick Cheney and some old school bastions of the oil industry believe it's coming, so who am I to argue? Oh, they don't usually use the term "Peak Oil", because it has political connotations and associations that link it to wild-eyed anti-status-quo evolutionaries like me, but they mean the same thing - that demand has outstripped production in a permanent sense. The result? Someone, or someones, will be slowly strangled at the power nozzle, whether it's us, China, India, or all of the above - the slow death of industry by asphixiation.

Unless, of course - FSM forbid! - somebunny in the race cheats, and invents or discovers an energy technology that can fulfill the role petroleum has played without having to actually suck it out of the ground in the Middle East. Combine that with, just maybe, people realizing there's a problem and self-limiting. Maybe a couple people trade in their Hummer Commuter Tanks for Prius, and cut our carbon emissions by 20%.

And the thing that strikes me as crazy is this: Alternative energy is patriotic in the most sincere sense of the word! Our single greatest national security risk is the fact that our economy can be held hostage by the very nations we've just pissed off by kicking through Iraq like we own the place. Face it, without the oil money, the Middle East is full of third world countries. Not that I wish that on them, I just think it's inevitable at this point, largely due to our (the US) steady policy of destabilization and the cultural leanings of those peoples.

Whatever happens, we can be sure of one thing - the petroleum party is just about over, and a bunch of shit will get shaken up. I'm just going to try and position myself to ride out the bumps without losing my seat.