Finding Balance Part 2

In this article I wanted to follow up with my previous post about finding balance. I talked about my admiration for the author CJ Chilvers who stressed the importance of simplicity in photography. There are so many things that CJ got right and I would highly recommend that you take a look at his book, “a lesser photographer”. I bought the book (it’s only $5), it’s well worth it and I’m enjoying it.

Having written that, I do want to make some observations on his book, videos and general philosophy. I don’t think he’s completely right nor do I agree with some of his premises. I’ve always held the belief that there are certain components that make a good photograph. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many other photographers, it’s often all about composition, light, and subject matter. Those factors and also being able to capture a decisive moment in time can make the difference between a boring photograph and something that really resonates with you.

CJ’s premise is that “technique has never mattered” and that “equipment doesn’t matter”. I have to respectfully disagree. In certain cases, the ability to even get the shot requires a certain level of competent equipment. What I would agree with is that too many people spend way too much money on photo gear. They chase the shiny objects and believe it’s the only thing they’ll need in order to make great photographs. That’s not true either.

In a video he gives a quick speech and shows several photos that he considers to be the best in the world. You’ve probably seen all these photos before. The Wright brothers taking off, the Tiananmen Square standoff, Lyndon B. Johnson swearing-in, an Earth-rise seen from the moon, a migrant mother, the Hindenburg explosion and President Nixon with Elvis just to name a few. His premise is that the things that make the photos great have nothing to do with technique or equipment.

My opinion is: none of these photos would’ve been possible had the photographer been using a substandard, cheap point and shoot camera. Photographers who have access to take pictures of presidents or of the Earth from the moon are probably going to have equipment that is capable enough to do the job and even considered sophisticated for their time period. CJ mentions that Ansel Adam’s masterpieces were made with a simple wooden box, and he’s correct. But realize that the camera Ansel chose was not only one of the most capable cameras during that time but it was also the intentionally selected tool of that artist to create the images he had envisioned. And Ansel was really good at it. Which leads me to my next point, which is that technique really does matter.

I think technique matters, and I think it matters a lot. Maybe it matters more than anything else in photography. Good technique includes the knowledge and intimacy that the photographer has with their camera in order to capture the shots they envision. If you don’t know your camera well enough you’re going to miss the shot, again and again. Good technique includes having the eye, whether practiced or intuitive, to put subjects into the frame in a compelling way. Knowing how light affects your images is important. Knowing how to compose your subject, whether in camera or in post editing, can mean the difference between the bland photo and a stunning image. Some people intuitively grasp the techniques that make good photographs compelling. Others take a little more time to learn these techniques through a series of information, repetition and practice. I strongly believe that anyone, and I mean anyone, can learn these techniques and take steps to become a better photographer. Just like in playing a musical instrument or a sport, intentionally applying yourself can mean the difference between mediocrity and pretty amazing.

CJ Chilvers seems to be saying that the only thing that really matters is the subject. Looking at the photos he used as examples, it’s clear that all of them had compelling subjects. However, none of those photos would have been so dynamic if they were overly dark, overly blurry, or if key subjects were out of the frame.

Maybe one of the most famous and recognizable images is Steve McCurry’s photo of the Afghan girl. Would he have been able to capture that compelling shot if he didn’t have the right equipment or use the right techniques to get that stunning image? I don’t think so.

I truly love the concepts of simplicity and minimalism. I strive to practice it in many areas of my life (emphasis on practice here). As a photographer for many years, I’m absolutely convinced and thoroughly believe that you can make great pictures with some of the most minimal and lightweight photo equipment. I also believe just as strongly, that equipment has to be capable enough to perform the task that is needed for that situation. And much more importantly, that the photographer has to be capable and armed with enough knowledge, skills and experience to get the shot. There are few things that are as disappointing as having an opportunity present itself to you, an opportunity for a great photo, only to have it lost because of inappropriate equipment or the lack of technique to get that shot.

I don’t think people should be so quick to spend money on shiny objects, chasing for the newest gear. I think if anything they should be investing in their learning so that regardless of what they have in their hands they can make amazing images. As a general rule, spend more on your learning than you do on your gear. The money you spend on the newest gadget fades all too quickly. Gear ages and depreciates faster than you think it does. What was once top of the line is quickly outdated. But learning, training and practice, what you gain here can not only last a lifetime, but can actually improve over time. Read books, find websites, learn from an experienced photographer, take classes, invest in yourself! But those are my opinions. Everyone will have to find that balance of what works for them. The most important thing is that you love what you’re doing, creating something you enjoy and can share with others.