It’s Not About The Megapixels!
Time and time again I have people come up to me and say something to the effect of: “Wow, that’s a great photograph… what camera do you use? How many megapixels?” While the first part of the sentence is always nice to hear, the second part will make any photographer roll his eyes inside and just think to himself “Ah, here we go again…” I really can’t blame people for asking such a question though. Almost the whole digital camera industry keeps on pitching that magic word to the masses: megapixels. It seems to be the Holy Grail of digital photography. What will make you keep up with the Joneses. The more the better? Actually, no, not necessarily. I won’t elaborate on this last statement, however, since it’s both beyond the scope of this post and beside the point.
Consider this. Have you ever found yourself asking an oil painter: “Wow, that’s a great painting… what brush do you use? What’s your pigment/oil ratio?” Right. There might be a place for such questions, but not as a conversation starter. Reducing an artist to the tools he uses is not the right approach, trust me. I am tempted to think that this also stems from the misconception that virtually anyone can pick up an expensive camera and instantaneously become Ansel Adams. To keep the same reference point, if I give you the best of brushes, canvases and oil paints, will you instantaneously become Rembrandt?
There’s obviously much more to a piece of art than the tools used to create it. Granted, it’s extremely easy to take a photograph: you just have to press a button. But guess what? It doesn’t automatically spew out a masterpiece. An artistic predisposition certainly helps… to which you can add years of experience. Yes, years of experience are usually necessary to master ones craft, unless you’re a genius. This goes for any discipline: doctor, engineer, lawyer, you name it. You’ve got to practice to be good at it. It’s definitely important to have the right tools, but the tools alone won’t make the art. The artist will.
great post! sometimes photography gets a bit overlooked as an art. anybody can take a picture, but yeah… a photo that people would want to hang on their wall? not so much.
Thanks Pat. I actually find the ever increasing accessibility to digital cameras to be very positive for a wider recognition of photography as a form of art. Not only does it foster the emergence of more and more artists, but it also brings awareness to the fact that making a great photograph is not as easy as pressing a button. I recently went to the Armonk Outdoor Art Show (what an amazing fine art show!) and overheard a conversation between two women standing in front of a fine art photographer booth. One of them had bought a digital SLR some time ago with the intention of using it as a creative outlet, only to realize how much it takes to actually make something one is proud of. Out of that realization, she really came to deeply appreciate the work of fine art photographers.
I have to laugh about your post because yesterday a group of clients were debating which digital camera was better and the argument is mostly about the megapixels. I just left them to bicker on their own and didn’t get involved. lol
I am still trying to master the art of photography and I do understand it takes years and experience. I have tons of pictures taken in the past which I thought at that time were “masterpieces.” When I look at them today, I cringe. lol
Hope you have a great weekend!
Too bad, it would have been an opportunity to educate. Although sometimes that kind of debate can quickly turn sterile…
I feel the same way about the photographs I took in the past, minus some exceptions: the real keepers. It’s a good thing. We’re making progress! I constantly reassess myself; some days I think my work just plain sucks. It’s a cycle that I’ve seen many artists go through, essential to renew and better oneself.
Thanks for your comment and have a great weekend too!
Hi, I came looking for the scavenger hunt, but I’m glad I came upon this post instead! You’re so right about people not walking up to an artist asking “what kind of brush did you use?” I’m not sure if people are just trying to start conversation, but it’s rather ridiculous what some come out and say.
On a similar note, having the most expensive tools doesn’t make you an artist. And you don’t have to spend a fortune to produce art. Honestly, I paid less than $150 for my camera, but it has a good zoom lens and macro. And with that I camera I have produced images that brought a gallery knocking at my door. Photography is about having “the eye”. Your last paragraph says it all.
I’ll be back tomorrow to see your scavenger hunt!
All the best, Jessica
You go Jessica, that’s great to hear!
Not that it’s the main reason for shooting rolls, but I can understand the nostalgia of the film days. People were not so hung up on the technical aspect of things, and cameras didn’t become “obsolete” in a few years span. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what camera a photographer uses, it’s just a tool. It just needs to be the right tool, be it a handmade pinhole camera, a $30 Holga, a $50,000 Hasselblad… or anything in between.
I’m eager to see what everyone came up with for the scavenger hunt
I feel your pain. Makes “slightly” more sense if the conversation takes place between two art photographers – similarly I’ve discovered that BY DIVINE DECREE an equivalent conversation, about a) camera and b) editing software, must take place whenever two filmmakers meet. What I find really inspiring though are the people who have made incredible short films (usually for competitions) just on mobile phones: it’s really, really not about the megapixels.
Exactly. If you haven’t already, check out the iPhone fashion shoot by Lee Morris. I completely forgot to add it to my post.
Le problème à l’heure actuelle c’est que la définition devient tellement énorme que paradoxalement la qualité des images n’est plus forcément aussi bonne car ça ne pardonne plus avec 15 voir 18 megapixels (sans compter que sans une optique qui suit, aucun intérêt .. et là ce n’est pas à la portée de toute les bourses).
Pour avoir vu des photos réalisé par des “amateurs” au 500/550D, je dois dire que ce n’est pas le nombre de megapixels qui me fera changer mon appareil .. Avec 10 megapixels à l’heure actuelle, on peut encore faire beaucoup de choses .. Alors oui, pour recadrer, 15 c’est toujours mieux que 10.
Ce qui me fera changer d’appareil ce sera sans doute une meilleure gestion du bruit, principalement. Pour le reste, hormis le fait que mon reflex soit un reflex d’amateur aux fonctions d’amateur (et un viseur un peu petit
), je ne changerais pas tout de suite (je préfère me payer à l’occaz un grand angle ou un obectif type 16-85) .. Le seul truc, c’est que je pense réussir à l’user comme mon bridge qui au bout de 20.000 déclenchements à commencer à moyennement apprécié :p ! (je dois être rendu à près de 20.000 déclenchements sur mon reflex .. et seul un soucis de détection portrait/paysage est apparu .. chose dont je me fous éperdument pour le moment ^^)
Voila une intéressante mais aussi surprenante façon de voir les choses. Ça me rappelle quand certains journalistes de télévision, voire acteurs, regrettaient l’arrivée du HD car on pouvait dorénavant voir leurs rides et autres “défauts”. Dans ce cas, tout dépend de notre définition de “qualité de l’image”. D’un point de vue purement technique, avoir davantage de pixels mais plus petits (pour une même taille de capteur) et moins bien gérés au niveau du bruit peut s’avérer être absolument ridicule. Mais d’un point de vue marketing, ça marche, car la plupart des gens ne s’intéressent qu’au nombre de megapixels.
Ah, le recadrage… tout un programme. Triste sera le jour ou un “photographe” ne s’occupera de sa composition qu’une fois arrivé devant son ordinateur.
Personnellement, je changerai d’appareil quand le besoin sera réel, ce qui n’est pas le cas aujourd’hui. Je suis comme toi, j’ai un ou deux objectifs bien plus prioritaires sur ma liste d’achats à venir.