We are all animists

[bribrius]

Probably should consider too, that most people that dont concern themselves with gear it is probably because they already have pretty nice gear, or at least nice enough to achieve the results they want. It is also beneficial discussion as most of us dont have the funds to purchase every camera made, or every lens made. So the discussion and corresponding images can give us a idea of what a lens or camera can provide without actually renting or purchasing one.

There is also a strong bias in general. You can shoot a mediocre shot with good glass and still get a favorable response just on color or clarity, sharpness. You can shoot a better composed shot on worse glass with a worse camera but because of the image get a less favorable response. Gear matters, in a lot of ways. Both in improving image quality, degrading image quality purposely for a certain look, and in general the effects aesthetically. knowing the gear of what shot a photo may also help explain the end result of the photo and why the photographer shot it in that manner. It also helps judge a photographer skill level in order to give pertinent advice. someone shoots a semi crappy photo on high end glass with a pricey full frame i get a pretty clear picture (even if theirs isn't) of where they are at in their photography. Someone turns out a great photo on a entry level dslr or a cheap bridge camera i can get a pretty good idea of where they are in their photography. Both understandings and understanding the knowledge of the photographer in question can be a good determinant in how you address their photo and what you may reply with.

 

[pixmedic]

I agree to an extent. I don't think photography should be about equipment. However, I get just as annoyed at people who are always complaining about those who are gearheads. Like, does everyone have to be chasing that Ansel Adams pipe dream? Some people just like gadgets and the photography is secondary to begin with. I don't think those people should be faulted.

This is like the old joke where the guy complains that his wife is always asking for money. $500 a couple of weeks ago, $300 last week, and $350 today.
His friend says 'what does she spend all that money on?'
'Hell if I know, I never give her any.'

I complain every so often because there is the constant tendency to take the easy road and talk about tangible issues.

As fjrabon said 'people don't do it because it's difficult and there aren't clearly right answers.'
There is a constant battle against doing things the easy way.
And learning about 'stuff' and lenses and megapixels, etc. is easy.

But the easy way means that we talk about things that are easy to understand and we don't try to hard to explain the things that are difficult.
So when we say 'crop this' or 'fix this', what we should be doing is explaining why it is important for the composition or the impact to do these things.
When the discussion gets in megapixels and the old hands pull out their encyclopedic knowledge of 'stuff', I go away.
Because not many of these old hands are producing anything that is interesting with all their knowledge.

So newbies who want to make pictures, see all the discussions about 'stuff' and they think that once they know about 'stuff' they'll be good photographers.
So newbies get to think that if they buy the right stuff and learn the right tricks, that's enough.
But it isn't and this site is producing more and more of the same old boring pictures and the people who should know better aren't.

Do you consider yourself amongst the group who should know better, but are producing the same old boring pictures?

 

[The_Traveler]

Lately all of my photos have been of previous travel because I have been house bound.
But in general, no. I try to get past my previous work.

Do you think of yourself that way?

 

[pixmedic]

Lately all of my photos have been of previous travel because I have been house bound.
But in general, no. I try to get past my previous work.

Do you think of yourself that way?

That I should know better?
Not really. I don't think I have a broad enough spectrum of experience to claim great photographic knowledge. I simply give critique as I feel I'm able to, and post what I shoot.

As far as "the same old boring pictures" go, that is not an insult in my eyes. In fact, to me, and concerning my work, it is a compliment. It tells me that I have reached a level of consistency with my work that is noticeable. Like I said, "boring" is subjective. What you call "same old boring shots", some might call "consistent work"

 

[sashbar]

Probably should consider too, that most people that dont concern themselves with gear it is probably because they already have pretty nice gear, or at least nice enough to achieve the results they want. It is also beneficial discussion as most of us dont have the funds to purchase every camera made, or every lens made. So the discussion and corresponding images can give us a idea of what a lens or camera can provide without actually renting or purchasing one.

There is also a strong bias in general. You can shoot a mediocre shot with good glass and still get a favorable response just on color or clarity, sharpness. You can shoot a better composed shot on worse glass with a worse camera but because of the image get a less favorable response. Gear matters, in a lot of ways. Both in improving image quality, degrading image quality purposely for a certain look, and in general the effects aesthetically. knowing the gear of what shot a photo may also help explain the end result of the photo and why the photographer shot it in that manner. It also helps judge a photographer skill level in order to give pertinent advice. someone shoots a semi crappy photo on high end glass with a pricey full frame i get a pretty clear picture (even if theirs isn't) of where they are at in their photography. Someone turns out a great photo on a entry level dslr or a cheap bridge camera i can get a pretty good idea of where they are in their photography. Both understandings and understanding the knowledge of the photographer in question can be a good determinant in how you address their photo and what you may reply with.

I agree with the first sentence. Money aside, "Nice enough to achieve results they want" is how any photog should select their gear, be it an amateur of a top pro. The problem we have here is that so many inexperienced (and some experienced) photogs have a very vague idea of what results do they want, thus they buy cameras and lenses they do not really need. And here we come to the concept of Image Quality.

The technical image quality and artistic/photographic/visual or shall I say REAL image quality are not necessarily the same thing. When photogs add noise or flatten the image or desaturate it or whatever they do to get away from technically perfect shot and achieve certain look, they do not degrade image quality, they improve it by achieving a stronger visual impact. Technically the IQ is indeed degraded, but should you worry about it? Of course not, unless you are a Lab engineer. Yet lots of camera fan boys are obsessed with exactly that.

I am not against GAS or buying top gear just "because I can" or because "I just feel more confident with the top camera". But it does not help to become a better photographer. A new camera can help you change your shooting style, open new opportunities and inspire you in a completely new way. But gear obsession is counterproductive, it is just the wrong state of mind. Gear obsession ( if you want symptoms, constantly checking with DxO stats and tables is one of them) just does not allow you to open up those little reserves of creativity that actually many photographers have. I think that most of them underestimate the danger.

As an analogy - imagine a F1 pilot who drives his car constantly checking the diagnostics of the engine instead of concentrating on the road and other cars. He will not drive far. Same with photographers.

I daresay there is a consistent correlation between how much and how enthusiastically some TPF members discuss their gear and the level of their photography. The more gear talk the lower is their images quality. And I am talking about what I call the REAL image quality here. The best guys here do not talk about gear at all. There are actually few exceptions but not many.

Again, I am not here to defend poor cheap gear, if your image has failed it is either you have failed ( which is most probably) or your gear failed (which can also happen) to perform up to the standard. But the key thing here is to be able to see and understand how your camera and your shooting affect visual impact, not technical IQ.

I hope it was clear.

 

[DanOstergren]

I think some photographers obsess over gadgetry, some obsess over the settings, some with the subject, some obsess over the light, and some obsess over all of the above. I don't think it's really fair to say that one shouldn't be more interested in one aspect than another when humans naturally have different interests and obsessions.

 

[The_Traveler]

I think some photographers obsess over gadgetry, some obsess over the settings, some with the subject, some obsess over the light, and some obsess over all of the above. I don't think it's really fair to say that one shouldn't be more interested in one aspect than another when humans naturally have different interests and obsessions.

While this above might seem reasonable on its face, what would be our reaction to a chef who cared more about his/her pots than about the quality of the food or a painter who cared more about the tightness of the canvas than the painted result?

Is photography somehow a special case?

 

[pixmedic]

I think some photographers obsess over gadgetry, some obsess over the settings, some with the subject, some obsess over the light, and some obsess over all of the above. I don't think it's really fair to say that one shouldn't be more interested in one aspect than another when humans naturally have different interests and obsessions.

While this above might seem reasonable on its face, what would be our reaction to a chef who cared more about his/her pots than about the quality of the food or a painter who cared more about the tightness of the canvas than the painted result?

Is photography somehow a special case?

I dont think photography is a special case at all. I think this is possible in all hobbies and jobs.
my reaction to any other hobby/job is the same as with photography. its always the same question. do I like the result?
can a chef that obsesses over pots and pans not make a good meal?
can a painter that obsesses over paints and brushes not paint a good picture?
can a photographer that obsesses over cameras and lenses not take a good picture?

I think people learn and grow in different ways, and people learn to enjoy their hobbies in different ways.
I think there are many roads that all lead to the same destination. Who am I to say that one road is superior to the other?

I have always had a somewhat narrow view of photography and its processes.
my thinking is clinical, sterile even, and it carries over from one job to another.
I like it though. It suites me, and my style. It is what our clients like and want when they hire us.

However, I think in some ways, it has hindered my appreciation for the way other people shoot and the results they produce, and to some extent, perhaps even biased me against less traditional results. I am trying to change though. I am trying to look at other peoples styles and processes and not automatically apply my "clinical thinking cap".
I am trying to put aside my own notions of how things should be shot and accept that maybe someone can take a different road than me and still wind up at the same place. Its hard though, and sometimes it feels like I am going against my very nature, but I am trying. Hopefully it will give me a better understanding and appreciation of the many different ways people produce pictures, and maybe, just maybe, someone that doesn't usually like stuffy formal pictures can one day look at my work and think "hey, those really arent terrible after all".

 

[bribrius]

I think some photographers obsess over gadgetry, some obsess over the settings, some with the subject, some obsess over the light, and some obsess over all of the above. I don't think it's really fair to say that one shouldn't be more interested in one aspect than another when humans naturally have different interests and obsessions.

While this above might seem reasonable on its face, what would be our reaction to a chef who cared more about his/her pots than about the quality of the food or a painter who cared more about the tightness of the canvas than the painted result?

Is photography somehow a special case?

Go down the hardware store and pick yourself up a 4 inch house painting brush and try it on a canvas. let me know how it works out for you. And you did just buy a sony a7r right? ahh. hummmm.

 

[bribrius]

Reminds me of a article i read a while back where the photographer was saying how unimportant gear was while he was shooting with a 8 thousand dollar leica.

 

[AlanKlein]

My wife must be an animist. Every time I try to shoot her she turns her head away and tells me "enough already."

 

[DanOstergren]

I think some photographers obsess over gadgetry, some obsess over the settings, some with the subject, some obsess over the light, and some obsess over all of the above. I don't think it's really fair to say that one shouldn't be more interested in one aspect than another when humans naturally have different interests and obsessions.

While this above might seem reasonable on its face, what would be our reaction to a chef who cared more about his/her pots than about the quality of the food or a painter who cared more about the tightness of the canvas than the painted result?

Is photography somehow a special case?

I'm not a cook or a painter, however I would care about the quality of ingredients or paint if I were, which to me is equivalent to quality of light. Just because I hypothetically use quality paint or ingredients doesn't mean I would be able to cook a good meal or paint something good though.

 

[sashbar]

Reminds me of a article i read a while back where the photographer was saying how unimportant gear was while he was shooting with a 8 thousand dollar leica.

Noone says here gear is not important. Noone here advocates a 4 inch house painting brush here. You are barking at a wrong tree. We talk about priorities. About guys who think, care and talk about gear more than about photographs.

 

[The_Traveler]

As long as one is always mindful that his/ her photographic equipment can perform the way that is wanted, then it becomes otherwise unimportant.
Like air, equipment is important but as long as there is enough and of good enough quality then it is not necessary to think of it any more and to go on with what is important.