fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

Does Gear Matter When We Have Photoshop?

by 22 Comments

does-gear-matter

We have been big supported on the vision over gear approach for a long time now (1, 2), but photographer Robert Cornelius is taking this approach to the next level, basically claiming that regardless of gear used, your Photoshop skills is will  have far greater impact on the final piece that any of the gear used.

While Robert explains that he has access to all the gear in the world, he does not really care what he uses to take a picture. It is merely his raw material for a photoshop edit.

I’ve spent many years seated behind a monitor pushing pixels around and I’m convinced that there is nothing I cannot achieve if given adequate time to work it out. So, does gear really matter when you have Photoshop? No, I don’t believe it does.

Being an employee of this company [Simone Associates Inc.] allows me some pretty substantial perks. I can take advantage of privileges like free reign to use absolutely any piece of gear that my eagerly creative heart desires. I get to utilize cameras, lights, lenses and all kinds of fun photography toys that I couldn’t dream of affording myself for years, if ever.

Here is Robert’s main point though, If you have a good eye, and an artistic vision, you are far better than having a ton of expensive gear.

If you possess an artful eye, the passion to create, and my partner in crime (…Photoshop), you could shoot a picture in your garage with a point and shoot that could turn out to sell for thousands. If you use your art to tell a story and share a piece of yourself with the world, there is no reason that you have to break the bank gathering gear.

In the end, you are an artist and the tools you use to create your art are totally up to you. Heck, you don’t even have to use Photoshop. There are other editing software out there that will allow you to bend and twist images to your liking. (But come on, none of them have anything on my main squeeze Photoshop.) Really this is just my public love letter to the program that has landed me my dream job, taught me not to care about who has what piece of equipment, and helped me to form a portfolio of images that would not and could not exist no matter how many cameras I bought. My point is that IT IS NOT the gear that makes the artist. It’s the art you create…..and Photoshop.

Robert throws in a quick edit to support his point:

You can real the fuller argument over at his article on InMyBag and see portfolio (which supports his point entirely) here.

Related posts:

So Over The “Overly-Retouched” Argument Don’t fall victim to “What ifs” Before & After – A post processing comparison with Peter Stewart This photographer needed 17 square meters of mirror to create this image

  • hell yea it does. I always find having a good photographed image always makes photoshopping easier. Starting with a good image always feels good as well

  • and when you shoot concerts – you know it does make a difference 🙂

  • stewart norton

    I mostly agree with this, I think the word photographer is not always the right way to describe what someone does, I consider myself a image maker and that the actual photography is only part of the process with Photoshop&Lightroom being as important. I would doubt there is a digital shooter around who uses their work unedited. My only doubt about the issue about gear mattering is if you are working commercially, if a company wants a billboard size bit of work you are not going to be able to use your compact camera to deliver the goods.

  • You dont need Photoshop… especially when shooting concerts 😀

  • MindGrenadius

    I completely agree with the sentiment of this article, but it’s kinda hilarious that it’s a “does gear matter?” post when the guy they are referencing shoots with a Hasselblad H2/PhaseOne digital back, and owns a 5D MKIII and a few other bodies along with several $K worth of lighting equipment!

    But those images he creates are amazing. So amazing…

  • Fuck the gear, you guys need to hire an editor.

  • The quality of material is really going downhill here. This is just asinine.

  • Of course it matters. The two are entirely different types of tools for photography. I’m not a fan of pitting the two against each other, Cameras Vs Photoshop, when they’re both about achieving the same goal: the final picture

    You either kick ass at taking good photos right out of camera, or you are well versed in Photoshop, and can manipulate pixels all day long to create a completely fictional image, or both.

    It’s sort of like asking “Does Day matter when we have Night?”

  • It really depends what the end result you are going for it. Gear is important, but knowing photoshop is as well.

  • wow, absolutely stunning what this guy makes, I wonder how many hours and layers where involved

  • Paganator

    He does beautiful work, but his surreal style is essentially digital illustrations made starting with photos. It’s a style that depends much more on Photoshop than a more realistic one.

  • Patrick

    …the real question here is, are you a photographer or a digital artist?

  • I recently took on a job of editing wedding photos where the original photographers had separated and never dealt with this, their last wedding shoot. These were friend of mine and I already took it upon myself to be a unofficial second shooter and they loved my photos. When I got into editing I could see where the mom had tried some stylizes edits of her own and I realized she was interested in an odd airbrushed perfection, a soft glowing representation of the wedding. I went that direction with quite a few photos and she loved them. I think it depends on the person, there are many women that would like a photograph of them turned into this kind of art. To be the person in this piece would be pretty awesome.

  • “Does gear matter?” is a much different question from “do you need gear for what you’re shooting?”

    Gear almost always “matters”. It will effect your process, method, and the time and ease with which you get the shot. Specialty or expensive gear is almost never necessary, if you are willing to compromise.

    You can take a nearly identical macro photo as a 105mm macro lens with a reversed 50mm lens and a $40 reversing ring… but you lose autofocus and have to constantly adjust the aperture ring. You can make a light tent for products with a white sheet and some PVC for under $10, but it takes you longer to set up and tear down compared to a “real” product tent. You can take the same quality of photos with a fixed lens as you can with a zoom, but one is (often) faster and one is (usually) more flexible with your position so that you don’t have to move around as much.

    It is rare that a photo is impossible without specialized gear. However, such gear often makes a shot easier to achieve, with either less time, less effort, or both. So does gear matter at all? Yes. Some people prefer to avoid spending unnecessary time in post production, preferring to get things right before the shutter is released than fixing it after. (When it’s about “fixing” rather than creating.) Does gear always matter? No, if you can be flexible or if your workflow is primarily suited for post-production, such as much of Cornelius’ work. It gear irrelevant to the final image? Absolutely not; it depends on your priorities, how you like to shoot, and where you prefer to spend your time: in the studio or in the digital darkroom.

  • Ezra is right – depends what you’re shooting. And more importantly, good gear produces better images – making your options as to what you can do with it (with or without PS) much more plentiful!

  • BuckCash

    For those who feel some need to make a distinction between “real photography” and the stuff that starts in a camera and then goes through digital editing as “not really photography” anymore, I have a simple question:

    Before Photoshop, when people were doing the very same things in darkrooms and retouching shops, was it not “real photography” then either?

    • You cannot do what he does in a darkroom.

      • BuckCash

        Look up Jerry Uelsmann, Misha Gordin and the myriad of information on manipulating composites using multiple exposures in camera and in the darkroom using masks and so on.

        You might be surprised at what can, and HAS been done, and IS being done using those means.

        So, my question stands.

  • You know, I think it just depends on what you’re trying to achieve. Movies use special effects; does it make them ‘not’ movies, since they didn’t film it exactly like this in the first place?

    I’ll just say the same thing one of my teachers says: when you’re a photographer, you have to ‘be lazy’. In other words, use the method that will take less time.

  • Tiago

    In my opinion, the amazing images produced this way can’t be called photographs (but that doesn’t depreciates them!). Photography “means” writing/drawing with light, and I would consider this images to include a small part of that and another part of simple painting. Not painting with pens or pencils, but with whatever tools you have on your image processing software.

    Some people compare this kind of programs, like Photoshop, to old days darkrooms or retouching shops. I think there is a huge difference on the possibilities that both offer, making them almost incomparable. I know very little about film processing, but I think that image editing software goes way beyond darkrooms, it gathers it’s possibilities and a ton of different tools.

    Personally I wouldn’t refer to the examples given as “photographs”, but simply as “images”. And what great images they are!

    Does gear matter? I guess it does if you want to take a photograph and keep it as “untouched” as possible.
    If you don’t mind “re-building” the hole image on your computer, then it doesn’t make that much of a difference.

    (I’m sorry for any English error, not a native speaker here.)

Recent Posts