22 Nov 2009

A lot of what we do, and how we think about things depend on our systems of belief.

Photography is no different. If you've ever observed the goings on in photography forums, or been involved in discussions between photographers you'll notice that photographers are quite tribal. Discussions over technical aspects, let alone "which camera is better" can quickly become heated, passionate and quite irrational.

This article is about some of the main beliefs that photographers have and what they mean:

• What camera is best
• Digital or film?
• Raw -vs- Jpg
• To Photoshop or not to Photoshop
• Its the Photographer, not the camera

See the full blog post for more photos and the discussion!

Photo: Camiguin Island, Philippines Christian cross over sunken cemetery. Olympus E510 + 11-22mm f2.8 lens.

1. What camera do you use?

   One of the eternal debates in photography is based around what camera brand you use. A common belief is that their system is the best. Many await new advances in technology from their chosen brand eagerly, and are bitter when they have to wait too long for the next great leap forward.

   At the moment the biggest tribes here seem to be:

   • Canon
   • Nikon
   • Olympus
   • Leica
   • Medium format - eg. Hassleblad
   • "Atheists" - those who use several systems of switch freely between brands
   There are obviously other manufactures, such as Panasonic, Sony and Samsung but at the moment they don't seem to attract the tribal type following that some others do, probably because they're not traditional camera makers like the others.

2. What's better? Film or Digital

   This is one of the enduring debates, though one that seems to be slowly disappearing.

   Many still believe that film is the more pure form of the art of photography and that digital is somehow not "real". On the other hand you have the digital users who point out that taking, developing and printing from film involved just as much image manipulation as Photoshop, just in a different form.

3. Raw -vs- Jpg

   Another big split amongst photographers is between raw shooters and those who shoot in jpg.

   The arguments here often focus on what results in better IQ (Image Quality), or whether needing to shoot in raw (that is to take a camera's digital output and "develop" it later in raw conversion software) means that you're not as good a photographer because you need a computer to fix the mistakes you made when shooting, and that you should be able to get everything right in-camera.

   My observations suggest its often former film shooters that prefer jpg, and the newer generation of photographers who go for raw - at least at first. I could be wrong of course!

4. To Photoshop or not to Photoshop

   Some people believe and almost worship Photoshop. Others hate it. A big majority are somewhere in between.

   Some people can't get enough of HDR (High Dynamic Range photography), pop-art filters or intentional film-grain and see all of the above as an expression of fine art.

   Others subscribe to the religion of the "pure" photo - and look at these techniques as somehow cheating. If you can't get an effect through the camera's settings, its maybe digital art, but not photography.

   I'd venture to say that more non-photographers are wowed by the effects capable in Photoshop such as pop-art, sepia, black-and-white filters and HDR. The photography purists are more likely to be somewhere on the other side of the fence.

5. Its the Photographer, not the camera

   This is one of the areas I'd say most photographers can agree on.

   The biggest difference between a "photo" and a "snapshot" is the person taking it, not the camera. The real challenge is some times convincing the "un-educated" masses who seem to think that modern cameras are capable of taking photos by themselves ("wow, you must have a great camera!")

What am I?

While I'd like to say I'm above taking sides in all these debates, that just wouldn't be true. I try to look at the issues philosophically sometimes, but when it comes down to it this is how I view photography:

1. Olympus I'm in the Olympus tribe and can't see this changing any time soon. I like small cameras and am a believer of the importance of optical quality over sensor based IQ.
2. Digital I like film, and am old enough to remember a time before photoshop and digital photography. Film sparked my interest in Photography but the costs associated with it also stopped it from taking over my life. Digital changed that - it makes photography more accessible and allows many amateurs to compete, and become professionals.
3. Raw I like the options that raw gives and use it as the beginning of my digital workflow, even if what follows is aimed at getting the cleanest image possible for the pixel-peepers, rather than changing the way the overall image looks. I would probably switch if Olympus offered in-camera chromatic aberration correction.
4. Not to Photoshop I can appreciate people who can use Photoshop well, but at the moment I view Photoshop as a necessary evil due to earning most of my income through microstock. This means sometimes having to clone out trademarks, and needing to use selective noise-reduction in separate layers. Given a choice I'd leave in the noise, leave in the trademarks and give photoshop the flick. The exception here is in creating panoramas which I love... but mostly do in Hugin anyhow.
5. Its definitely the Photographer, not the camera!

What religion are you?

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts. Does any of this matter? What is important to you?

Note: comments are enabled for this article but they won't appear immediately because I review comments to stop the site from being filled with advertising and get-rich-quick-spam. A spam filter is on its way as soon as I can get it to work properly!