Tools create photographic democracy

In the world of amateur photography, images range in quality from well-exposed landscapes and well-timed action images to the worst snapshots, complete with redeye and motion blur. We have all taken our share of each, and thanks to online sharing services like Flickr and Facebook's photo sharing, it is easier than ever for others to view and critique our work.

Eventually we wonder how much of this variation comes from the equipment that each person uses and how much can be attributed directly to skill.

At this point, most Tech students have probably owned at least one camera, and many of those have since upgraded to digital cameras at least once over. Some of us prefer the convenience of digital, while a few stick to the nostalgia of film. No one can name a true victor in the interminable war between film and digital, but at this point the relative convenience of digital makes it the choice of the majority. Thus, the digital camera purchasing decision typically comes down to a trade off between cost and quality, with the cheapest point-and-shoots hovering around $100 and the better consumer cameras running upwards of $1000.

When I admire the work of professional photographers, I cannot help but wonder how much of their product's quality is simply the result of their photography equipment. Many of these photographers own expensive digital cameras whose costs rival Tech's annual in-state tuition.

Pro photo equipment is often capable of very high resolution, greater sensitivity in low light, and capturing many images within a short period of time, which improves the photographer's ability to catch action at the right moment.

When you look at the photos of a professionally-photographed wedding, you are often seeing the result of these camera improvements, as well as the benefits of custom lighting and expensive lenses.

So are professional photographers cheating? Are they only getting better results because they can afford more expensive cameras? Consider the opposite situation. Can a rich CEO replace his point-and-shoot with a collection of pro cameras and lenses and see a vast improvement? Likely not.

On the other hand, could a pro photographer travel to Hawaii with a point-and-shoot and achieve the results he normally achieves? Again, probably not.

Good photo equipment simply makes it easier to translate a clear photographic concept into reality; it does not help the user create those concepts. Much like an Atlanta Symphony violinist produces the best quality on a great violin, a good camera can only raise the glass ceiling of a photographer's potential; it does not turn the second-year violin student into a virtuoso.

The beginner photographer should choose a camera like the budding rock musician chooses a guitar. One's money is wasted on a camera that offers too much power for one's skill, even more so because digital cameras are always rapidly improving in quality and value. Once a person has improved such that he is bounded by the camera rather than skill, that is the best time to upgrade.

Okay, so we have clarified that the photographer makes the camera work, but the camera cannot make the photo. What about post processing? This issue is a bit more controversial.

From Google's Picasa to Adobe Photoshop, software has made it easier than ever to turn a weak photo into a piece of art. With so many built-in enhancement filters and easy adjustments, an absolute beginner can open a photo and automatically make it pop. Software has yet to reach the point where it can improve more subjective attributes like composition, and it can hardly tell you what to photograph in the first place. However, Picasa can easily turn a poorly exposed, out-of-focus, redeyed image into a decent photo.

Through these products we have given beginners the tools to repair certain mistakes that were previously only solvable through practice and acquired skill. Is this cheating yet? I am sure there are those out there who would love to keep these skills under lock and key, to be accessed only by those who have paid their dues. These are the same people who scoff at digital images, instead choosing to shoot black-and-white film processed in their own darkroom.

There is certainly something to be said for the happiness of controlling your photography's entire workflow, but it does not necessarily make you a better photographer. Do we offer more respect to writers who insist on using a typewriter rather than a computer?

It seems only fitting that we should give everyone access to every tool available, so that everyone can enjoy the thrill of seeing their work achieve all that it can.

While we would all like to know that other people appreciate our work, everyone takes photos for their own enjoyment, and it is good to see that improvements in camera technology and image-processing software have allowed more people to experience the joys of photography.