What Worked

What Worked

Perhaps an odd observation, but in the spirit of reverse engineering and just for fun, I looked at the metadata of the 18 images I finally used in my new Sketches PDF, Fog in the Hills and Aits, to see if there were any important patterns in the equipment that worked. Note that these images were selected for the project "blind," — that is without looking at any of the following EXIF data beforehand. I chose the images because they worked aesthetically and were the best images I had for this project. With offhanded curiosity, I looked at the metadata only after the project was complete.

Camera

• 3 were shot with a Fuji S7000
• 7 were shot with a Sony R1
• 6 were shot with a Panasonic G1
• 2 were shot with a Panasonic G2

Lens

• The 7 Sony camera and the 3 Fuji camera images were shot using the non-interchangeable stock lens
• On the Panasonic cameras, 1 was shot with the 7-14mm Lumix G Vario
• 1 was shot with the 14-45mm Lumix G Vario
• 6 were shot with the 45-200 Lumix G Vario

ISO

• 8 were shot at ISO 100
• 7 were shot at ISO160
• 3 were shot at ISO 200

Aperture

• 3 were shot at f/3
• 2 were shot at f/4.5
• 1 was shot at f/5.6
• 8 were shot at f/6.3
• 3 were shot at f/7.1
• 1 was shot at f/8 

What conclusions did I draw from this EXIF data?

• Image content trumps equipment every time.
• There is no "best" camera, lens, or aperture.
• If the image works, the technology is an unimportant afterthought.
• In the finished project, how you got there is immaterial.

Oh, and one other thing. Without referring to the EXIF date in the digital files, there is no way I could match any of this information with any of the pictures — and I'd bet big money you couldn't either.

Brooks' books on photography and the creative process are available in print from Lulu.com, and as eBooks for Kindle or EPUB readers. As one of the membership benefits, these eBooks are available in their entirety to members of LensWork Online via download.

Comments

[Barry Styles]

Well said, sir!

[Kristian]

That is a cool post! Very good news since I don't have a D800E yet! haha!

[Braden Walters]

It's an old saw, but the best camera in the world is the one in your hand ...

[Huw Morgan]

A few weeks back, I sold some photos at an art show. A couple of months before the show, I went through a similar process to the one you described of choosing the images that would be printed and matted for display at the show. I printed out about 75 photos at a size of roughly 16x11, put them in 16x20 mattes and took them to the show. The images were chosen purely by gut feel based on the likely audience and my feelings towards images in my portfolios.

Afterwards, I did some analysis of the images that had been selected and the ones that were sold. Just like you, I found an almost random distribution across the cameras and lenses. As you noted so clearly, there is no way to tell from the picture itself anything much about the camera and lens chosen. Photos taken with a Canon 10d and a cheap 28-105 lens look fine as 16x11'ish prints and are indistinguishable from prints taken with a 5d mark II and an expensive 24-105 lens.

Why do we spend so much time obsessing over equipment? We should just get out there and take more pictures!

[Simon@uprinting]

The conclusions you derive from your analysis are very interesting and inspire thought. When coming to think of it, we all look around for the best camera and accessories out there, but ultimately the photos count not the camera. It is true that the camera has a bearing on the quality of the photos but it is only the means to an end. The most important thing is the picture, and if it is aesthetically pleasing, any camera would have served its purpose. What came out clearly and what I perfectly agree with you is that the end result matters, not the way how you got that.