"You sure push the LX3 to the limit", was written as a comment to a posting here. It was a nice compliment, and I'm grateful for such feedback, and pleased that my work is of value to other people.
But this got me thinking. What would it mean to push a camera (especially a small-sensor compact) to the limit? And whether I really would like to try this pushing?
One way of looking at compact cameras is as a short of handicapped "real" cameras, that is think of them in terms of DSLRs or mirrorless system cameras, which have a much bigger sensor, which provides a quite different view of the world, especially when using tele lenses with big apertures.
In professional photography, you are expected to use a big-sensor camera. In fact, it was a recent news item that the Leica X1 was approved: "The Leica X1 is the only digital compact camera approved for use by Getty Images, it has emerged."
By the way, it is interesting how this characteristic of DSLRs has become a sort of descriptive style for "professional" photographers. Viewers expect a certain look in photographs, and if someone doesn't provide that, then that someone is not worthy of the title of a photographer. Typically this means shallow depth of field, generous use of an extreme form of out-of-focus blur effects, and generous amounts of post-processing. Even though some newspapers, for example, forbid certain types of post-processing, they are quite keen on using other forms which follow the "pro" photographer aesthetics.
For me, this has become somewhat disturbing, similar to the use of special effects in movies, which are used because some people think that audiences want to have it. (And perhaps they do want.) But this "sticking to the format" means that there are no genuinely original works any more, all are more or less derivative.
And this brings me back to the topic. Originally, I wanted to have a compact camera because I'm extremely unhappy with lugging heavy photography equipment with me. I want to carry the camera in a hand or in a pocket. But now I'm finding out this may not result in a handicap of another kind - that one would need to sacrifice in image quality or similar aspect. Or course, technically you need to compromise, or otherwise everyone would be using small-sensor cameras.
But what I have found out the using a compact delivers another kind of bonus: a different kind of structure and look to the images, different from most professionally published photography. And perhaps here is something one could start to develop further, to develop a unique style which is not so common as that which is produced by DSLR-type cameras.
I have seen them. We may go.
3 hours ago
2 comments:
Helen Levitt, Ansel Adams, Diane Arbus, Sebastio Salgado, and Alfred Eisenstaedt... all would have taken great images even with a plastic lens on a cell phone. They all knew well about light and composition and pushed what they had to the limit.
... And of course there are also other factors such as talent, visibility, resources, and luck. Now if the media (a corporation) wants to make you famous so they can market and sell something then you will be famous even if you make images with a soda can with a hole in it :)
"What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is only related to objects, and not to individuals, or to life" Michel Foucault.
You sure push the LX3 to the limit :)
Art
-----------
I think there has to be a technical merit to work on that level of artistry as the photographers on your list. For example, I remember reading that Ansel Adams worked miracles in the darkroom.
But of course, there is plenty of things to explore even when not aiming for such lofty heights. A diversion, sort of, with space for exploration that never needs to end.
Post a Comment