It's a common assumption that your camera will determine how you photograph. Your Leica will let you interact with your subject. The wide angle will push you closer. A medium format camera will force more attention to composition and details. A square frame will pull attention to the centre and give you more focus. As a consequence many photographers decide to use certain equipment on which to base their vision: but is this the right approach?
I think it should be exactly the opposite. The author should develop an idea and then make a decision on what equipment is more suitable to obtain the desired results. Yes, I know, this is the Utopian world where you can afford the (very expensive) cameras and lenses you want, but I'm talking principles here. Why you can't envision a square frame image in your 35mm digital camera and you think you need a Hasselblad?
In today's photography the lack of original ideas is pushing the search toward any possible shortcut and diversion, including giving the precedence to technique over idea. Nothing is more self-deceiving then this: your camera is, or should be, the extension of your mind, the instrument to realize your vision, to put into a bi-dimensional frame your idea. This is true also with post-production techniques, of course: the implementation of color and exposure transformation (still based on the chemical precesses, and why, I wonder why, we don't explore new expressions) cannot cover the emptiness of weak images.
Let's keep creating, starting with the strongest instrument we already have: our brain. And it's still free!
No comments:
Post a Comment