In 2010 Chase Jarvis published 'The Best Camera is the One That's With You' and, in doing so, created a concept that went far beyond its original meaning. The quote became canon, up there with 'if your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough' or 'your first 10,000 photographs are your worst'. It has been given gravitas beyond its years by being attributed to the likes of Ansel Adams. Deeper meanings have been sought to the point that some parts of the Internet are vociferous in their insistence that other parts of the Internet 'should stop repeating [it].
Well, perhaps it should. Certainly if it isn't prepared to put in a bit of work before it begins typing because, what the Internet has seemingly not done, above and beyond the odd few sections correctly identifying the author, is read the book. It's only 2,888 words, so not even that onerous, but the modest word count provides all the context and insight into a project that allowed him to disconnect from his professional creative work. His simple, omni-present, readily available iPhone provided the photographic equivalent of a gourmet chef cooking beans on toast (admittedly, that was a little paraphrased).
This context is key. He isn't stating that the iPhone is the best camera and, for all we know, he had a Phase One in his rucksack throughout the project - so it may not have even been the best camera on him. But, short of asserting that technological superiority doesn't necessarily equate to superior images, he doesn't this isn't a book that delves into the various meanings that might be drawn from its title. Instead it is a springboard to creating a body of work that takes a step back from the cutting edge of camera equipment whilst still producing legitimate art.
Now that is in the open, is it right to say that the best camera is the one that's with you? Well, it depends. Throughout the book, he makes a good case as to the legitimacy of the project with the photographs, whether or not to everyone's taste, being composed and 'invented' to a standard he saw fit to publish. Indeed, shooting within the means of the camera, with a previsualised plan of appropriate subject matter, even a 0.3 megapixel Nokia C1-01 can produce images if you happen to take one on a photo walk.
It may be more of a stretch to agree with his assertion that any camera can take images of anything without an acknowledgement that the subject may need some adjustment to suit the situation. 'Three Helicopters', taken on a Rollei 35B at 40mm, are recognisable because there is enough detail in the closest one. A story is being created along with the other two shrinking into the distance, showing the flight path over an urban environment. Much of that story is being created by the viewer and is potentially more interesting than of a close up of just one helicopter.
Imagine also if that was the only camera available when hiding behind a rock on Devil's Tower during alien first contact. Yearning for a Nikon F2 with 200mm lens isn't going prevent you from capturing ET's best side. Close Encounters aside, this perfectly demonstrates how megapixels or expensive cameras count for nothing if they are stuck in a drawer at home.
There are specific rabbit holes available for the purpose of trying to further determine what best means from an subjective point of view (rangefinders vs (D)SLRs vs mirrorless or film vs digital etc.), or objectively based on megapixel count or sensor type or dynamic range. But that isn't the point. The book's message is overwhelmingly positive in its encouragement and inclusivity, dismantling elitist notions of the correlation between art and equipment. This isn't an attack on people who have expensive equipment, but it is challenging those who think this makes you a good photographer. Once the Internet has learnt that it is about freeing people from any technical constraints that may be hindering or even preventing creativity, it should repeat it. Again and again.
Comments