 |
| Selfie. Chinatown, NYC; 2006. (click to enlarge) |
Over the weekend I was looking at some of the photography books I have collected over the years. Two of my favorite photographers are W. Eugene Smith and Henri Cartier-Bresson. I love how both men have captured essence of ordinary life in a split second. Just at the peak of action, just when all the elements of a composition precisely come together, they quickly composed and pushed the shutter button. They have created bodies of work of some of the most culturally important photographs in existence.
Jump to today. We are regularly advised by internet gurus and 'influencers' that if we aren’t using full frame (35mm sized) sensor cameras we are missing out. We are settling for less. We can’t possibly creating our best work with cameras that have smaller sensors. The sensors in APS-C or micro4/3 cameras aren't good enough to be serious. There is too much digital noise at higher ISOs. There isn't enough dynamic range. Yada, yada, yada. We seem to be pushed to use full frame at every turn.
Let's now step back in time once again. When Cartier-Bresson and Smith were photographing, the de facto accepted photojournalism cameras were 4X5” or the newer, less accepted, medium format cameras. Thirty-five millimeter cameras were called “miniature” cameras. They were considered a novelty. Not for serious work. Any respectable journalist or documentary photographer would be using a large format or, if pushing the norms at the time, a medium format one. No professional photographer would use a 35mm camera. The negatives are too small for any kind of quality.
Now, I want you to imagine Smith, Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Robert Frank, David Douglas Duncan, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Ernst Haas and other important photographers trying to create their work with anything other than a 35mm camera. Most of their now widely recognized and historically significant photographs would never have been created. Think of all of the famous photographs you have seen associated with these men that would have been missed if they bowed to conventional wisdom and used a large format camera. Think of the historically and culturally significant stories that would never have been told. The quickness and portability of the 35mm camera was essential to how they worked. No, they chose the right tool for the job.
Now think about the breadth and depth of stunning adventure landscape photos made by Galen Rowell. None of his outstanding work would have been created if he succumbed to pressure to use a “real” landscape camera that is large or medium format. Think how we would have been robbed of the work of Saul Leiter or Fred Herzog or Ernst Haas if they could not have used 35mm Kodachrome and other color transparency film in the 1950s and 60s.
The point I’m ultimately trying to make is technical perfection is okay if you are only a technician. However, if you are a photographer and enjoy making meaningful photographs, “content is king.” It is what is within those four sides of your frame that makes a photograph meaningful, not how tack sharp it is or how finely resolved grains of sand may be.
If you, per chance, are not familiar with the work of the photographers I’ve mentioned here, you should seek out their photographs and look closely at them. I've been to many museum exhibits of Cartier-Bresson's work. Many of his photographs are not only not sharply focused by today's standards but not sharply focused by any standards. That didn't matter. It is what is within the frame that matters. It is the essence of what the photographer is showing you that is important. Not technical perfection. Yes, technical competence is nice, but not necessary to make meaningful photographs.
Look at Smith’s stories of Minimata, The Country Doctor, The Midwife, Dr. Albert Schweitzer or his work on Pittsburgh. Amazing how he got to the essence of humanity with his small camera. Then look at the adventure landscape color work of Galen Rowell and imagine him hanging from a cliff face with his camera in one hand, photographing another climber. How about the street photography of Leiter, Herzog or Haas? I find their urban color street photography mesmerizing. There are many other photographers also.
What they all have in common is that they chose a tool that was small, nimble, and quick. They chose the tool that would allow them to do what they needed to do photographically. They chose cameras contrary to what was considered professionally acceptable. In the end, their work speaks for itself. They chose well.
There are two lessons here. First, don’t let anyone tell you you can’t create a significant body of work with cameras other than full frame. If you’ve read what I have written in the past, you might remember that I have recommended photographing for yourself, for your own pleasure, for your sense of accomplishment rather than for trying to please anyone else. If you do, you will know what kind of camera you will need to make the photographs you want to make. It doesn’t have to be any particular brand or sensor size. It just has to work for you.
Second, don't get hung up on technical perfection. Technical perfection isn't necessary to create a good body of work. If your last photograph of your 100 year old great-grandmother is a bit out of focus, are you going to delete it? Heck no! If you have digital noise in your photo of a volcano erupting at night will it go into the bin? I would hope not. Remember, it is what is within the frame that is important, not the frame itself.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2023 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
Interesting read and great reminder. I have a signed copy of Minamata from way back in the
ReplyDeletelast century. I went looking for it in the bookcase after reading your article. I think it is interesting that all the photographers mentioned primarily worked with lenses of modest focal lengths. HCB was famous for using a 35mm. Smith used 35, 50mm along with a Rolleiflex and Graphic during the Life Magazine years. Rowell used a 20mm, 24mm, and 75-150 zoom, still very moderate for today's lens selections.
Perhaps the relatively simple tools used enforced the need to concentrate on the composition of the subjects in front of them. Content rather than mechanics.