If you’ve watched tv in the past year, you might have seen this outstandingly creative Canon commercial hyping its line of Rebel entry-level SLRs:

You may notice the commercial features only one small-print notice: “Weather proof covers used,” it tells us during the rainy scene.  This, of course, is helpful, as there are those who would use the Rebel without a cover in the rain and then complain that the camera got wet!  And stopped working!  This is an outrage!  But while the attention to litigious detail is important, the commercial is missing an important disclaimer: “Product not used to create commercial.”

Yes, that’s right: a camera commercial composed almost entirely of photographs features exactly zero photographs taken with the advertised camera.  Instead, the photographs were taken with one of Canon’s high-end professional cameras (which costs four times what the Rebel costs) and a raft of equally high-end lenses (all of which cost considerably more than the cheap lens shown with the Rebel).  So, while I suppose this comment from a Canon marketing director is technically accurate…

“The idea made perfect sense because Canon’s all about photography, and the best way of showing what our products can do is to shoot with them.”

…it’s also a little misleading.  It does show what Canon products can do…when they’re high-end Canon products in the hands of professionals shooting under controlled conditions.  It does show what Canon products can do…but it doesn’t show what most consumers will actually do with that particular Canon product.  And that’s why it’s the one commercial I both love and hate: it’s a wonderful (and, as I said, creative) concept that’s beautifully executed, but it’s not connected to the reality of that camera in the hands of the typical consumer.

Why does this matter?  Well, for most of you, it doesn’t really matter.  But for working photographers, this matters quite a bit.  The manufacturers are trying to sell more cameras, and they’re doing that by selling the idea — through not just the aforementioned Canon commercial, but also that series of obnoxious Nikon commercials featuring Ashton Kutcher — that you, too, can easily take all those AMAZING pictures if you buy their cameras.  This effort has two results:

1. More cameras sold, and
2. More consumers who, paradoxically, expect better photographs but settle for worse

The second result may sound confusing, but it’s dishearteningly simple.  Since cameras are so capable and, at the lower end, so affordable, expectations are higher now, especially for affordable digital SLRs that look like “real” cameras next to tiny point-and-shoot cameras (largely because they are real cameras).  But the problem is that these expectations stem from advertisements that sell the technical capabilities of the cameras without seriously acknowledging the necessary human component of genuinely worthwhile images.  Simply put, these advertisements sell the extraordinarily backwards idea that photography is more about the camera than it is about the person behind the camera.  It’s an absurd notion — is music more about the guitar? — but there’s enough gear reverence out there to make photographers laugh at this shirt:

(For more laughs, read What the Duck.)

This brings us back to the main question: why does the dishonesty of the Canon advertisement mattter?  Because as cameras become more capable and more automated, the manufacturers are selling photography not just as accessible, but also as easy.  And while the former is true — photography is among the most accessible of art forms — the latter does a disservice to professionals who have worked hard to develop their skills.  The act of taking a picture is simple and easy, but the art of photography is no easier than any other; no camera will itself make beautiful photographs, because beautiful photographs are created not simply by the right tools, but by talented people using the right tools.

—–

I’ve published this effort to assert the creative hierarchy because as a professional photographer, I’ve seen too many people forgo reasonably-priced photographers in favor of cheap or free family or friends who overestimate their abilities because they bought an SLR.  For those who offer this art as a professional service, it’s frustrating and infuriating to see it popularly devalued by weekenders and hobbyists who have no interest in charging sustainable prices and who produce images that aren’t worth sustainable prices.  If you’re looking for quality photographs, please: hire a professional.  It’s worth every penny.