The world of photography is full of long running and tiresome debates — I think some people get into photography strictly for the debates. The problem is, like most debates in life, people tend to gravitate towards the extremes and the valid points on both sides are lost in a sea of hyperbole.

One of the oldest is this old chestnut: “Which is more important, the photographer or the equipment?” The purists trot out the same tired cliche, “Give Ansel Adams a disposable camera and he’ll take better pictures than the average photographer with the best equipment available.” Which is both true and beside the point. Obviously the photographer is the most important element of the artistic side, but just because equipment isn’t the most important, doesn’t mean that it isn’t important.

An artist will understand the limitations of his tools and work within their limits to create the best result possible, so the purists are on the right track with their Ansel analogy. But a better question to ask is why didn’t Ansel shoot with a disposable camera? It’s the job of the artist to choose the appropriate tools, because your tools will define the limitations you have to work with.

The advent of digital photography has introduced new tiresome debates. One of which is: “Which is more important, the picture that you print or the quality of the picture viewed onscreen at 100%?”

The purists proudly stick out their chests and announce “The print!” They derisively label anyone who wants to view their pictures at 100% pixel detail on their monitors as pixel peepers or measurebators. People who can’t see the forest for the trees.

I have a confession to make: I’m a pixel peeper.

Continue reading →