Cameras, paintings and original art

Do cameras help or hinder original art?

I'm considering leaving my camera at home and just being present

maybe having a handy sketchbook with me at times

I have often wondered if amateur artists are too reliant on photographs. Some subjects I see in exhibitions, such as sunrises 

 

are better as photos than paintings or drawings.

I've certainly benefitted from comparing a photo with an oil painting sketch I've done directly from life, only checking with a photo afterwards.

but it makes me wonder what's special about a painting: how does it convey emotion unconsciously?

A couple of months ago I bought an entry level DSLR camera but I've found that it's too large to fit in my pocket as the compact 'point and shoot' camera used to. 

I have to carry a camera bag and so it's harder to take quick pictures like this:

Then a short time ago, I misplaced my compact camera, 
so in an effort to apply mindfulness,I'ver decided to leave a camera behind. This will be a big change for me in 2016. I can't capture the colourful landscapes that I took photos of in 2015. 

On the other hand I'm not constantly experiencing life through a lens. A camera distances me from the raw experience; I'm constantly moving around to find the best angle. Maybe I can store the subjective experience better by being alert, storing as much as I can of what I can see, feel and hear.

If I draw in a sketch book I won't be able to capture whole landscapes in beautiful colours; I'll have to concentrate on more distinct subjects like buildings, trees and interiors, but is people that interest me most. 

 As you can see, sketching people in my local coffee shop is causing a drift in my drawings towards cartoon-like characterisation, which may be closer to what I need in order to create models for animation.

I will still use photographs. I'll talk about how useful photographs can be in a future blog.