Sometime It Really IS the Photographer.

Annie Liebovitz is one of my favorite photographers. She has so many masterful aspects of her craft. She knows how to create just the right lighting. She has a unique (and often copied) skill at setting up marvelous shots that can boggle the mind. Yet she also can take simply staged portraits that reveal much about the subject. It's hard to say which is more impressive: her commercial work or her portraits.

As far as I know, for pretty much most of her career, Annie has used Nikon. Currently she also uses Sony and Hasselblad. Still, for as long as I have been a fan, Nikon has been her mainstay, at least when it comes to “35 mm format” gear.

But her real “gear talent” is in using various flashes, lighting modifiers, reflectors, diffusers etc. to create lighting effects that people in the industry instantly recognize as being her style. The cameras and lenses she uses would not matter as much if she didn't understand light and her subjects and how to use all the tools at her disposal in a masterful way.

I have a friend: let's call him Gil to protect his privacy. He's been into photography about the same length of time Annie Leibovitz has been an established pro, almost 50 years. He too uses Nikon, and has stuck with it for his entire involvement in photography. He is a serious enthusiast, so he uses pro level gear, just as Annie Liebovitz does. He's even dabbled in becoming pro, but in his words “never got the right break”.

Gil has pretty much the same gear as Annie (a lot of photographers own the same gear as their favorite pros). He has about the same number of years using that gear. He has solid knowledge of how to use his cameras, as well as general concepts of lighting equipment and other “accessories” vital to photography. Yet, even if I revealed his name, you would have no idea who he is. A google search would only turn up his online gallery and Facebook page. There wouldn't be site upon site displaying his masterful work, or lauding his accomplishments as a photographer.

When it comes down to it, Gil is essentially just another G.W.C. (Guy With Camera).

Not that Gil doesn't love and enjoy photography. He does immensely. Still, he blames his failure to launch a pro photography business on “not getting the right break”, which is only partly true. I mean, he has the same gear as so many successful pros. He knows how to use it. What was it that kept him from getting his break?

It could be argued that he lacked business acumen or simply determination. However, I've seen many of his photos, and the reality is he lacked (and still lacks) real aesthetic imagination. A personal style. Even just some aspect of his photos that doesn't look like he's trying to copy one of his favorite pros.

Gil is technically a very good photographer. His knowledge and skill when it comes to using his gear on a technical level is outstanding, “professional level” in every way. The detail in his photos, the exposure, the color: all show he definitely has mastered his gear. The problem is they are highly detailed, well-exposed, wonderfully colorful photos of ordinary subjects captured in ordinary ways. Even when he tries to stretch himself, it's basically to try to copy some photo that has caught his eye.

Copying admirable photos is a great launchpad into improving both technical and aesthetic ability. That's Gil's problem: failure to launch. He is content to copy what someone else has done, in an albeit technically excellent way, and that's it. He's satisfied that he's done the same thing the pro he has copied has done.

Gil doesn't understand that his technical mastery is only part of the process of producing outstanding photos. It really can be, as the saying goes, the photographer rather than the gear.

That's not to say that good gear isn't important. In some genres, the right gear is essential. The fact is, though, that Annie's gear is a tool to realize her photographic vision, and that includes an assortment of lighting equipment that can literally fill up a delivery truck. Realizing her vision is also why she has always used an assortment of cameras and formats, as each photo, each assignment can have unique requirements in order to bring her vision to fruition.

But Annie Leibovitz years ago recommended the iPhone for people (non-professionals) asking about what kind of camera to buy. I can't confirm it, but I suspect she uses one for her personal “snapshots”. That wouldn't be unusual, since I know of a lot of pros who leave their “pro kits” behind and rely on simpler tools for their personal photos.

There are in fact a lot of professional shoots being done with iPhones or other smartphones. Here's the thing: in most cases, the lighting equipment is virtually the same, it's just the camera that is different. While some enthusiasts gush about how “pros demand” the utmost in image quality, the reality is a pro doing fashion shoots is at least as interested in taking photos that set him apart from hundreds or thousands of others doing fashion shoots. For some, using an iPhone has been the factor that sets them apart.

My point is to encourage people to not sell themselves short if they don't have premium gear. Look at photos you admire. Learn how they were made. Then find out how to produce images along the same lines with the gear you do have. Don't worry if the image quality isn't on par with photos taken with top of the line pro gear. Only be concerned that you are enjoying what you are doing, are making an effort to produce photos that are yours, rather than just copies of someone else's photos, and that in the end you can look at your photos and show them off to someone else with a smile on your face.

Full Frame Furor? Look Smart(phone).

Nikon Z7 MILC, Photo by Nikon

Nikon and Canon recently announce their “Full Frame” mirrorless interchangeable lens (MILC) cameras, along with a few lenses. Reactions are mixed, from unrealistically enthusiastic to ludicrously negative. In the Micro Four Thirds camp (of which I'm a part) there was a near panic on some of the forums. 

 A lot of Micro Four Thirds users suffer from a gear angst and feelings of image inferiority already, especially at the hands of Canon and Nikon fanboys. For these folks, their one “ace in the hole” was certain advantages mirrorless has over DSLRs. For these people, having the two leading DSLR manufacturers enter the MILC race with Full Frame offerings is a direct threat to their gear of choice (more on why later). This angst was aggravated further by the rumor that Panasonic will be announcing a Full Frame camera on September 25^th.

Interestingly, while a panic-stricken contingent of Micro Four Thirds users are squawking like “Chicken Little” about how their preferred camera format is doomed, a number of Canon and Nikon owners are just as incensed about problems they see with the Nikon Z series and Canon R series. You'd think these cameras were abject failures to read some of the comments from disappointed camera owners.

It's all really a tempest in a tea pot, and something average people wanting to take the best photos possible don't have to take seriously. The vast majority of photos being produced and shared right now are taken with smartphones, and that number is increasing. So too is the quality of smartphone photography, both in overall capability and the resultant images. (Incidentally, the growth of smartphone photographic capability has fueled the angst felt by people using dedicated cameras, and common push back is to belittle smartphones and the photos taken with them. Don't listen to those folks.)

In the midst of this, “serious” photographers, or people who want to get serious about photography, may swear they must have a Full Frame camera. They must also have the best, fastest lenses to make the most of the Full Frame sensor. It's easy to drop $10K on a basic Full Frame kit, and still find yourself wishing for more.

Yet many of these Full Frame aficionados are producing essentially the same images they could get with the better smartphones. It's true, because much of the genuine need for certain capabilities of a camera depend on subject matter and shooting conditions, then another big aspect is “end use” (how the photos are displayed and why).

With some variation, about 70% of photos people make and share are taken of subjects that can easily be handled by any recent smartphone. The flagship models can handle even more situations.. One reason for this is because something like 90% of the photos shared nowadays are shared online, and most of those on social media sites such as Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram etc. Without going too deeply into the technical aspects of sharing photos online, especially through social media, suffice it to say that you don't need a Full Frame camera when it comes to image quality.

In fact, you really don't need any dedicated camera with a sensor larger than the better smartphones offer. Internet browsers simply don't offer the resolution and color space produced by even 1” or Micro Four Thirds sensors, much less Full Frame. The majority of people view said photos on smartphones and tablets, so high resolution isn't a factor when viewing on such small screens.

For the great majority of people, Full Frame is overkill when it comes to image quality. So, why do certain people clamor about it (in both positive and negative terms) in nearly obsessive ways? Various reasons.

They claim they need the lower noise and wider dynamic range that Full Frame offers, even though neither are really a factor in how other people may enjoy their images. For pros, this may be a bigger factor than amateurs, but not nearly as much as some Full Frame enthusiasts claim.

They claim they need the higher resolution to produce the sharpest images. See what I said about about browsers and how most people view images.

They talk about shallow depth of field and “creamy bokeh”. This is a complex subject and despite the talk of certain pundits, Full Frame is not a cure all for those desiring shallow depth of field and creamy bokeh. Knowledge of photography, specifically the variables that affect depth of field and bokeh, is as much a solution to the issue as gear.

They cite how “real pros” use Full Frame cameras. OK...so how does that justify spending thousands of dollars to take photos of pets and petunias that end up online in galleries only a few people visit? 'Nuff said on that one.

These are the biggest reasons people give as to why they “need” Full Frame. Really, it comes down to that they want it, not need it, and often it has more to do with ego and bragging rights than actually producing the best possible images. In my experience, only a small percentage of Full Frame owners are able to take full advantage of the format.

In fact, I'd say that in terms of IQ, most ILC owners I have seen could get by with one of the latest smartphones. There is some real justification in situations where smartphones still fall short, such as fast action, very low light, or the need for very wide angle or longer telephoto lenses. Even the bokeh argument is becoming moot as smartphones have come out that use computational photography, and even multiple lenses, to reproduce the depth of field and bokeh effects that Full Frame offers.

Why is it some people have to justify their desire for Full Frame by citing technical advantages, and why the angst involving whether or not a Full Frame camera makes the grade? Because a lot the most vocal camera owners invest much of their sense of worth and accomplishment as photographers in the gear they own. They bought into the marketing hype that they must have a given camera to produce professional level images, and that is what they fancy themselves doing.

I've found, however, that many of these people haven't taken the time to learn how a pro actually produces those marvelous images Full Frame fanboys say they need their cameras to produce. So they subject the world to an assortment of high resolution, low noise photos of pets, flowers and their kids, as though we all are going to look as closely at the technical aspects as they do.

We don't.

Sure, they have the right to own whatever gear they want. Buying Full Frame gear helps the manufacturers' bottom line, which can go toward making lower tier, smaller format cameras more affordable. You know, the ones that most people haul out for birthday parties or soccer games when they know their smartphones aren't quite up to the task. The cameras that make up 85% or more of total ILC sales. The cameras that many owners find they are using less and less as smartphones become more capable.

What's the bottom line I'm getting to? Don't buy into the current furor about Full Frame cameras, whether positive or negative. At least don't let anyone convince you you need a Full Frame camera. They probably don't need one: they just tell themselves that because saying it's just that they want one seems less impressive to those who don't know any better.

The fact is, that if you want longer lenses, or better capabilities when it comes to capturing fast moving subjects or low light events, any ILC or MILC made within that past 5 years will be a huge advantage over a smartphone. If you find yourself wanting a Full Frame camera, however, right now is a great time, because the choices are expanding greatly. This means that not only are there more choices, but also that older Full Frame cameras are going to drop in price, and that more used models are going to start showing eBay and Craigslist.