The Wrong Camera

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." —Emerson¹ 

"I have always been of opinion that consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." —Wilde²

Despite taking socks or slugs in the mouth from both Emerson and Wilde, I've always been concerned with consistency. The reason is simple: Photography is different. In photography we build up a body of work bit by bit, because the fish do not always bite. No one has ever had a hit-rate of 100%. Instead, we photograph, and every now and then we "get one." And when you put all the hits up together, it becomes a "body of work" with, one hopes, a through-line that indicates something specific to you in terms of your own style, vision, or concerns.

It has to do with the idea of "consistent dissonance" I've written about several times over the years. Consistent dissonance can be explained as follows: if you're hanging a show of your work, or making a book mockup, everything needs to be either consistent, or consistently different. So if all of your pictures are impressionistic street snapshots in black-and-white printed full-frame, then one color square-ratio commercial-style wedding picture will stick out like a sore thumb. It doesn't belong. But if all the pictures in a show are equally different from each other as a those two types of picture, then you might get away with it: cf. some famous collections of found photographs such as Mike Mandel's Evidence.³

Simple concept. You get it.

Anyway, I go to events regularly at the Catholic Parish Hall in Penn Yan, and coming out the front door you see the back of the Catholic Church across the street past its parking lot, and I've tried several times to get a completely satisfactory picture of it. I've deleted several failures and almost-successes (almost-successes as as bad, or maybe even a little worse than, failures) already. Here's another try that I also like, in a street-documentary sort of way. So the other day I happened to be presented with this and took one iPhone snap of it:

And there it is. Its hulking geometric shapes, the sun glittering off its new slate roof, its cluttered backside-ness, its brute mass, its striking presence, all of it adding up to a peculiar quirky dignity.

Only trouble is, wrong camera.

I hasten to add that yes, you can do a perfectly fine project with an iPhone. But I don't. The work I'm try to add to is my B&W work made with my Sigma monochrome. But I didn't have it with me that day.

[To be continued....]

Mike

¹  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.—'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.'—Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."

—Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance," First Series, 1841 (Every English-speaking lifelong student should grapple with "Self-Reliance" at least once in their transit on Earth.)

² "I have always been of opinion that consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative: but have we not all seen, and most of us admired, a picture from [Whistler's] hand of exquisite English girls strolling by an opal sea in the fantastic dresses of Japan? Has not Tite Street been thrilled with the tidings that the models of Chelsea were posing to the master, in peplums, for pastels? Whatever comes from Mr. Whistler's brush is far too perfect in its loveliness to stand or fall by any intellectual dogmas on art, even by his own: for Beauty is justified of all her children, and cares nothing for explanations...." — Oscar Wilde, "The Relation of Dress to Art: A Note in Black and White on Mr. Whistler's Lecture," Pall Mall Gazette, February 28, 1885.

Both quotes come from this tart little essay in the Wikipedia Project Pages, where Wikipedia authors converse amongst themselves. "Pages of a WikiProject are the central place for editor collaboration and organization on a particular topic area. Many WikiProjects compose 'advice essays' about how to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to their specific subject area."

³A book every photographer should grapple with at least once in their lives, no matter what they think of it.

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Glenn Allenspach: "You’ve just articulated an idea that I believe to be true, and it stands in opposition to that old saw that the best camera is the one you have with you. I believe that, more often than not, the worst camera is the one you have with you, if it’s not suited for the job at hand. Especially when the best camera for the job is the one you spent all that money on and then left at home because you couldn’t be bothered to carry it along when you had that nice, convenient cell phone with a camera in your pocket."

Comments

[Stan B.]

The great thing about the GR- you ALWAYS have a camera on you capable of taking a 'proper' photo!

PS- Upon first viewing back in the day, I thought Evidence a typology by one photographer!

[Shelley M Stallings]

Mike, for me, this is one of the best images you have shared with us over the many years, I don't care what camera you used to achieve produce it. It is a fine image.

I realize I do not comment often enough on how much TOP has added to my life as a photographer. I identify with so much of what you have to say about your experiences behind the lens and earlier in the blogs history, previously in the darkroom. Thank you

[Herman Krieger]

Speaking of church photos in black and white-


All Seoul's Church, from the series, "Churches ad hoc"
https://hermankrieger.com/church.htm

[Kodachromeguy]

I think a camera with a shift lens would help because you can eliminate the converging verticals.

[I did eliminate the converging verticals, as much as I wanted to. --Mike]

[Bill Tyler]

It may be true as Emerson wrote that "To be great is to be misunderstood." But being misunderstood is no proof of greatness.

[Christopher John Feola]

He must have little genius who can’t spell a word in more than one way: Mark Twain

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Isaac Asimov relates in one of his autobiographical books (there are at least 3) that when dealing with copy-editing queries on his chemistry textbook dealing with consistency, he took to scribbling "Emerson!" as the response if he didn't think it needed changing.

As a result I have always remembered that quote.

[MikeR]

That church didn't look so nice last August, scaffolding, construction materials and debris. Across Keuka St, on the corner, is a house in need of attention, but in a way its architecture kinda sorta mirrors the back of that church. It was hard to get a good picture of it, too many poles and wires in the way.

[Omer]

Yes, it's a nice picture but your description of it marks you as a writer and teacher. A good one, at both.

[hugh crawford]

I have always been a fan of Bernd and Hilla Becher's work, and of course, I wondered how they got those photos so consistent. Then I saw a film of them making a photograph and there was about a week of work, not counting waiting for the light, or scouting and gaining access to the site. I believe that on some of the photos, there were trees that had to be cut down. Aparently there were many photos that they set up for but the light was never right and they returned on another day.

As for the camera you have being the best camera, tell that to George Lawrence, best known for his Mammoth Camera with its 8 foot glass plates and used only once.

You can find a picture of the camera, but I have never seen the photo he made using it for the Paris exposition of the "Alton Limited"

That Alton Limited photo is one that I would make a trip to see if anyone knows where a print is. Hard to miss, it is an eight feed wide contact print.

[Moose]

It seems to me that there are only a couple of reasons why a photographer might/should strive for consistency:

a. It's part of their personal esthetic.

b. External forces, economic, sectarian, critical, or some combination lead to a need for consistency.

c. OK, a possible third, being simply overwhelmed by the number of possible photos and using a rule to ameliorate that feeling and the resulting stuckness.

I see a considerable similarity between the process behind Mandel's Evidence and my own photography. In every moment, my visual field contains an endless variety. Some of them simply attract my attention, and are thus possible photos. Some fail to qualify on technical or esthetic grounds. But there are a lot left.

Thinking about this as I took a break from writing to pee, I noticed a shot:

I rather like it, more than most of the handful I've seen from Evidence.

I dutifully, and enjoyably, take a shot of The Temple of the Moon:

Then I see something spiky on the ground:

And a rocky agglomeration:

Another day, Goblin Valley:

And below, an ant struggling with a mighty load:

Is one subject in some way more important than the other? To tourists in So. Utah, perhaps the first? To my entomologist photographer friend, perhaps the second. I don't think there is any supportable master order.

Return to the car and notice the patterns on the door made by dust and fingerprints:

Different day, Nature does it's own abstract:

About to roll down the car window for a landscape shot, I notice a visitor on the glass:

Is the shooting over, while there's light and stuff to see, even though it's dinner time? How often have you pulled apart that piece of paper holding napkin and/or cutlery together, without seeing it?

All these will be in the "portfolio" of my galleries. I suspect that any photographer, even if being consistent for the public, will benefit from taking those other shots.

And finally (whew), I just enjoy viewing a mixed bag of photos.

[William Lewis]

Regarding trying to get a successful image of a location; that is the goal of a landscape photographer in general and hoping for it to not be an own goal...

I have a number of "Usual Suspects". I go back to them on a regular basis and sometimes the photos, even with different cameras and formats can look a little similar. But for me. the fun is seeing how the places change when the shortest unit of time you're dealing with is a season and some times even trees that you've photographed for years are suddenly, Alas, no longer there... :(

Sometimes people think that familiarity breeds contempt. I guess while I can see that, I'd suggest that it can be a fun change of pace to try and make the familiar into the new instead of the contemptable. If you usually shoot a normal, take a wide or even super-wide. Shoot film for a week. Etc. Go to the same places again and again despite the light or the weather. See how they look different each time. A bright sunny afternoon with a handful of cotton candy clouds is a very different image than a looming thunderstorm or 5 minutes before dawn.

I know I'm preaching to the converted here but I ran into a rant somewhere else just the other day and your post fully crystallized why _I_ find it fun at least to do things this way LOL!

[Geoff Wittig]

"Evidence" is pure nails-on-a-chalkboard for me, and not in the good cheap thrills way. Rather, it hits me like a 2x4" between the eyes as a smug, post-modern demonstration that nothing matters, meaning is a delusion, and anything can become part of the artistic canon if enough of the kool kids agree. Kind of like the art of Damien Hirst or Jeff Koons. No doubt some folks will see my perception here as the essence of ignorant Philistinism. I'm okay with that. I remain convinced that art as a meaningful activity for human beings (at least in Western culture) went off the rails after WWI with the triumph of modernism and the rejection of craft and skill in favor of irony and lip-curling disdain.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

Architectural photography, rather like landscape, demands that the photographer first decides what s/he wants to “say” about the subject. The angularity? The “hulk”iness? The somewhat symmetric asymmetry? Then choose the right light/time to say it.

[caleb courteau]

Over the years I've taken most of my best photos with my dedicated digital camera, despite having taken an order of magnitude more photos with my iPhone. This has little to do with the iPhone's capability as a camera, which does a fine job given what it is.

Carrying a dedicated camera takes some real effort, both physically and mentally. It's the mental effort required to use it that is key to good photography, for me. When I have it strapped around my neck I CARE about capturing a good image. My mind is attuned to the task. As a result I produce better images.

I view my iPhone's camera as a journaling tool and memory aid. I perform my own vehical and house maintenance, and will typically take a few snapshots of the work I've done so that I can reference it later. What weight of oil did I use? When did I fix that gutter? When did I go on that river trip?

In a purely practical sense, my iPhone justifies its existance in my life more than my Olympus, but it'll never engender the same love. Such is the fate of most appliances. They're most appreciated when they're NOT working.

[David B.]

This is a perfectly good photograph of the Catholic Parish Hall in Penn Yan. Maybe you don’t understand what a ‘perfectly good photograph’ is ..we all have our own ideas, and who am I to push my ideas onto others??

It’s just that this photo - a squat, bright composition: apparently brick, slate, blue sky, white clouds - has a wonderful solidity to it. It’s like a dog plonking itself down in front of you, saying “Here am I’.

It’s like one of those photos in ‘Evidence’: it is what it is, and the diagonal wire across it helps bind it to humans; it’s here in a context of human-constructed matter.

Why would it need to be turned into an abstract black-and-white construct? What makes you think that this is, unworthily, a product of the wrong camera? ..Or were you writing keyboard-in-cheek?

I’d happily hang this on my wall, along with Matt Stuart’s picture of a leaf on a pavement, as being the very apotheosis of photography ..it says ‘This Was Here!’

Why you think black-and-white is preferable to colour is beyond me: black-and-white was all that chemists could muster till colour chemistry emerged. Would you prefer all recorded music to be manufactured on Edison cylinders, or on Berliner’s flat shellac 78s, rather than on present hi-def stereo vinyl or digital media?

Would you prefer all of Sally Mann’s photos to be delivered only in black-and-white? And Joel Meyerowitz’s? Or Gordon Parks’ ‘Great Food Markets of the World’? How about Jay Maisel’s photos ..what would they offer if they were only in black-and-white? Should all cars have only leaf springs, shoe brakes, and cross-ply tyres (tires)?

Your colour photo - and who cares which camera you used? - is ..in my opinion, anyway.. Great!

For me, if it were in black-and-white, it’d be a plain, unremarkable ‘documentary’ shot, devoid of ‘personality’ or purpose.

But you say “And there it is. Its hulking geometric shapes, the sun glittering off its new slate roof, its cluttered backside-ness, its brute mass, its striking presence, all of it adding up to a peculiar quirky dignity”. Exactly. Precisely!

[SteveW]

Love your photo.

I'm an iPhone guy now. Since it's always in my pocket, I get pics I would not get otherwise. And the image quality is in my "good enough" range.

I'm an old dawg happy snapper, and that's pretty much how I've always shot photos, so I guess the iPhone suits me.

[robert e]

You need more than one Sigma monochrome kit, obviously.

Sincerely,
The GAS Fairy

[Jeff Hartge]

What does the other side of the church look like?

[Bear.]

I disagree. Sometimes, even the most accomplished photographer with access to all the necessary equipment is unable to create an image matching the photographer's mental vision of it regardless of changes in angle, light, or equipment simply because the intended two dimensional image is not capable of production from three dimensional reality. In those cases, in my experience, there are two options: (1) change the mental image to match what is capable of being created, or (2) give up.

[David]

Reading the comment about converging verticals I was thinking about photographers who had ladders - sometimes on top of their vehicles - and about what architects of previous eras did when designing buildings like this one. In their drawings, did they 'stand' at street level and draw from that perspective? I doubt it. When we are king, we shall dictate that all nice buildings have a little mound opposite from which the nicest view can be obtained.

[Lensgraphy]

Mike, this resonates so strongly! It's easy to get caught up in the gear acquisition syndrome and believe that the latest and greatest camera will magically improve our photography. But you're absolutely right – the "wrong" camera is often the one gathering dust while we yearn for something else. The best camera is truly the one you use and that allows you to see and capture the world in your own way. Thanks for the timely reminder to focus on the vision, not just the tool.