[potatolicious]

And this is part of the problem - it was never about detail, or more generally technical perfection. But yet that's where the conversation starts and stops. The conversation around cameras focuses on noise level, dynamic range, or lens sharpness - none of which are particularly critical traits for producing great photography.

The Tank Man[1] photograph would not pass muster even by low-end cell phone standards today, but it's as powerful now as when it was shot.

Nor Cartier-Bresson's famous "leaping man"[2] - more dynamic range, more sharpness, less noise, less grain, would not have made the image any better.

Even moving into modern times, Bruce Gilden didn't need perfect sharpness or dynamic range to document the yakuza from the inside[3]. Not only did he not fuss over focus points and phase-detect vs. contrast-detect autofocus, he didn't even have autofocus!

Like Weegee said: "f/8 and be there". It's about the picture, not the gear. You only care about the gear insofar as it enables you - and nearly all cameras (including cell phone cameras) are well past the point of enabling.

And this is the problem with the "argues about gear on the internet" demographic - they don't produce. They spend a lot of money and time acquiring, testing, and verifying the technical perfection of their gear, and too little time actually photographing. The best you get out of this group are is technically-perfect banality.

[1] http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/030.jpg

[2] http://www.dienes-and-dienes.com/Assets/CBManLeaping.jpg

[3] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--vyBAjPjz6U/TkgF6Qla38I/AAAAAAAAJA...

[vinkelhake]

All other things equal, better equipment will allow you to get better shots. You are aware that the iconic Tank Man photograph was shot from half a mile away. It would have been impossible to shoot with today's camera phones.

I know that when I shoot my banal pictures of banal life, I prefer pictures where the focus isn't accidentally on the background or where the subject hasn't half-exited the frame because of a delay between pressing the button and the shot going off.

Most of us are not in the habit of documenting the Yakuza or happening to be present in world-changing events. We just want to take pictures that look good, even if the subject is banal.

Edit (since I'm not allowed to comment on the post):

> This is the part we disagree. Better knowledge will allow you to get better shots

We're not in disagreement. "All other things equal" means just that - all other things being equal - including knowledge. Of course a bad picture with perfect focus is still a bad picture. Likewise, a good picture can become even better if it's technically accomplished. Tank Man is an iconic photograph solely because of the subject matter. Ansel Adams didn't settle for a dinky rangefinder when heading out into Yosemite. He carried large heavy equipment because it would allow him to capture the detail and sharpness he wanted.

[potatolicious]

> "All other things equal, better equipment will allow you to get better shots."

This is the part we disagree. Better knowledge will allow you to get better shots - we've gone past the point long ago where improving technical capability made dramatic improvements to how well people can photograph.

Ultimately what makes or breaks a photograph isn't sharpness, or even focus in particular, it's exposure and composition. That shite picture isn't made any less shite because the focus is bang-on. Likewise, a well-composed image survives a great deal of mis-focus, blur, or other technical faults.

If an image is shit because the focus was off, I'd hate to say it, but it wouldn't have been an excellent image even if the focus was on.

Short of extremely equipment-demanding niches (like macro, or sports) the problem is practically always with the photographer, not their equipment. The photographer is the most common bottleneck in creating great images - of any subject, banal or world-changing. Spend money on education, not more gear - and more importantly, spend time.

Technological advancements will give us much-appreciated conveniences, it won't make you a good shooter when you weren't before.

Side note: this is why I'm a fan of things like iPhonenography classes, as much as people like to mock it. Ultimately putting a camera into everyone's pockets has been great for photography and expression, and elevating the quality of this stuff (whether intended as art or just personal enjoyment) involves education, not gear.

[tripzilch]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but a bunch of common counterexamples immediately spring to mind. Very often, sorting through a huge amount of low quality phone camera pics from a party or something, I encounter a "happy accident" that would have made a great photo if only: it had been properly in focus, not blown out by light, less noisy (especially when you'd normally crop the pic, phone camera grain is way uglier than film grain), or any of those things that'd a medium-quality camera suffers way less from.

Am I wrong? Is the blurry picture possibly just as great (even if you can't recognize my friends' face?), or would it have turned out to be a shitty picture after all, obscured by the lack of focus?

[vertex-four]

Would you have got the details right and taken that particular photo at all if you were paying more attention to each shot? I don't think this has much to do with the camera - if the picture's blurry, you were likely taking it in a hurry, and you would've taken it in a hurry if you had a real camera.

[PavlovsCat]

> And this is part of the problem - it was never about detail, or more generally technical perfection.

While I agree with you for the most part, and never argue about gear (other than having been a fan of Bibble before they were bought).. there is one thing I really miss from your example photos, and from smartphone photography, and that is something being out of focus. Now, I'm not a great photographer, I just take snapshots and then edit them badly, but for example this I like: http://a.sandboxx.org/johann/376/

I wouldn't be surprised if that will one day be possible with very compact lenses, or with multiple ones plus software or whatever, but for the time being, at least for some shots, you need focal length period. Candid and news photography is a lot different from, say, wedding and product photography. And if an algorithm allows better handheld photos, it also makes tripod photos even better, so sometimes there isn't even a gap being closed, it all just gets shifted.

> nearly all cameras (including cell phone cameras) are well past the point of enabling.

During that same vacation, while sitting at the beach in the morning, I noticed a fish jumping out of the water. Using my 1337 video game target leading skills, I moved the viewfinder across the ocean surface where I expected the fish to be, and was able to take two photos of it, one with two ladies having a chat while doing their morning swim. Again, not a great photo, but for me as the person who sat there, it's a nice memory, something that will always make me smile http://a.sandboxx.org/johann/241/ And it's still totally a snapshot, I just sat at the beach, watching sea gulls, smoking cigarettes. Candid ocean photography, if you will ^^ Of course I got lucky, I wouldn't have had time to change lenses; but still, cell phones cameras are not "well past" being able to reach everywhere.

I'm really happy for anyone who makes photos, and I think you are right that dismissing them on technical grounds is silly. A good photo does not need to justify how or why it was done, and when it comes to once-in-a-lifetime moments, even a drawing from memory is better than nothing. But just like you can make a useful website with just HTML and no CSS, and a very pretty and functional one without Javascript, doesn't mean these tools don't have their uses, right? What's more, sometimes a website that works fine without them, would work even better with them, and not everybody who cares about progress and performance is not getting anything done - those things are orthogonal. It can't just be easily generalized.