We are all animists

[The_Traveler]

In my trip to Laos, we ended up several times in Akha villages. The Akha are animists; they believe that all objects have a soul and that ghosts and spirits are real. This belief sort of merges with fetishism, the belief that objects have power that can have an affect over people and circumstances.


Perhaps because of this belief they don't like photographs very much and, except for specific circumstances, will avoid being photographed. At the edge of the Akha village is a spirit gate and we were warned not to touch it and even not to approach it.

Throughout the village were this tall bamboo poles with whippy tops. We were told that those tops were tipped in honey to feed the spirits and ghosts as they flew around, to curry favor. The Akha believe in the power of medicine, not because it fights a 'disease' but becuase it is a fetish against the evil caused by spirits.

This man asked me for medicine (through the guide) and I gave him two large Empirin and, in return for this gift, he allowed me to take his picture.
He also offered me a drink of Lao-Lao, but having had an experience with that drink, I thanked him but told him I could not.

I got to thinking about this today and, after a while, really couldn't distinguish too much difference between their belief in ghosts and spirits and the more Western monotheistic belief in one man in the sky.
And surely we share some degree of this fetishism. We value, and even give some emotional power to representations of our beliefs, religious symbols, flags, etc.
And photographers share in this.
Who does not get a charge and a psychic boost over a new lens?
How many people humble-brag ad nauseum about the quality of their high end camera bodies or lenses? On another site, I knew someone who captioned every photo something to the effect of 'taken with a Leica M8' as if that somehow improved the photo.
Making fetishes out of equipment or methods should not be what photography is about.

The downside of worshiping equipment is that people new to photography somehow get the idea that equipment is more important than it is.
And so we are leading people to care about cameras much more than about photography.

 

[fjrabon]

I think a lot of it comes from the fact that talking about cameras is easy. Talking and thinking about actual photography is hard. Most here stop their education of principles of photography roughly at the rule of thirds, achieving sharp images and ***maybe*** they study a little bit on contrast.

Because there aren't easy answers when it comes to actual photography, people avoid discussing it. It's easy to figure out which sensor has the greatest dynamic range. It's difficult to say why a certain image is striking and another is a dud.

 

[The_Traveler]

Boy, ain't that the truth.
I wish this site have fewer people who know the definition of everything but the meaning of nothing.

I would like to see more pictures that actually are not boring.

 

[fjrabon]

Boy, ain't that the truth.
I wish this site have fewer people who know the definition of everything but the meaning of nothing.

I would like to see more pictures that actually are not boring.

Heck I don't even mind images that are boring if we can actually discuss them. Especially with something more than very boilerplate critique. But most images just sink to the bottom, with nothing, and whatever discussion there is goes something like "I'd crop in tighter, check out rule of thirds"

 

[Designer]

Just FYI: One DIL has something like a spiritual reverence for photographs. She doesn't allow any photographs of people she knows to be discarded. When I take a bunch of snaps, and whereas I would like to cull the bad ones, she insists on having copies of ALL of them.

 

[pixmedic]

Boy, ain't that the truth.
I wish this site have fewer people who know the definition of everything but the meaning of nothing.

I would like to see more pictures that actually are not boring.

Heck I don't even mind images that are boring if we can actually discuss them. Especially with something more than very boilerplate critique. But most images just sink to the bottom, with nothing, and whatever discussion there is goes something like "I'd crop in tighter, check out rule of thirds"

boring is relative. and totally subjective.
whats boring anyway? another bird shot? another landscape shot? another portrait with a backdrop? another seemingly random shot of some far away place? Certainly what one person finds boring could be extremely interesting or relevant to another person.

its easier to discuss technical critique, because its easier to develop a basic or intermediate understanding of the technical aspects of photography and then form an opinion of a photos technical needs.
discussing artistic critique here is difficult for several reasons.
1: a lack of people with a formal or even intimate understanding of artistic history and form.
2: an abundance of people that preclude any artistic critique because the shot was done perfectly to their "artistic vision" and everyone who disagrees just doesn't "get it". how do you facilitate further discussion when they tell you that the shot is "exactly as they envisioned it"?


discussing art is much like discussing faith.
I don't pretend to understand either, but find them equally fascinating.

 

[Designer]

its easier to discuss technical critique,..

Certainly some members are better than I at discussing the technical aspects of a photograph, therefore I yield to their expertise.

If and when I see something that I think I can talk about in an intelligent way, I will offer what I can.

 

[sashbar]

One does not need an intimate or formal understanding of artistic history and form to discuss a photograph. All that is needed is a little bit of vision and some imagination.
Actually you are all welcome to discuss my another lame/failed attempt at the Webbesque composition, that got exactly zero response.
Any group of more than 3 is hard to shoot... Photography Forum

 

[fjrabon]

Boy, ain't that the truth.
I wish this site have fewer people who know the definition of everything but the meaning of nothing.

I would like to see more pictures that actually are not boring.

Heck I don't even mind images that are boring if we can actually discuss them. Especially with something more than very boilerplate critique. But most images just sink to the bottom, with nothing, and whatever discussion there is goes something like "I'd crop in tighter, check out rule of thirds"

boring is relative. and totally subjective.
whats boring anyway? another bird shot? another landscape shot? another portrait with a backdrop? another seemingly random shot of some far away place? Certainly what one person finds boring could be extremely interesting or relevant to another person.

its easier to discuss technical critique, because its easier to develop a basic or intermediate understanding of the technical aspects of photography and then form an opinion of a photos technical needs.
discussing artistic critique here is difficult for several reasons.
1: a lack of people with a formal or even intimate understanding of artistic history and form.
2: an abundance of people that preclude any artistic critique because the shot was done perfectly to their "artistic vision" and everyone who disagrees just doesn't "get it". how do you facilitate further discussion when they tell you that the shot is "exactly as they envisioned it"?


discussing art is much like discussing faith.
I don't pretend to understand either, but find them equally fascinating.

You're essentially saying what I said, that people don't do it because it's difficult and there aren't clearly right answers.

 

[pixmedic]

Boy, ain't that the truth.
I wish this site have fewer people who know the definition of everything but the meaning of nothing.

I would like to see more pictures that actually are not boring.

Heck I don't even mind images that are boring if we can actually discuss them. Especially with something more than very boilerplate critique. But most images just sink to the bottom, with nothing, and whatever discussion there is goes something like "I'd crop in tighter, check out rule of thirds"

boring is relative. and totally subjective.
whats boring anyway? another bird shot? another landscape shot? another portrait with a backdrop? another seemingly random shot of some far away place? Certainly what one person finds boring could be extremely interesting or relevant to another person.

its easier to discuss technical critique, because its easier to develop a basic or intermediate understanding of the technical aspects of photography and then form an opinion of a photos technical needs.
discussing artistic critique here is difficult for several reasons.
1: a lack of people with a formal or even intimate understanding of artistic history and form.
2: an abundance of people that preclude any artistic critique because the shot was done perfectly to their "artistic vision" and everyone who disagrees just doesn't "get it". how do you facilitate further discussion when they tell you that the shot is "exactly as they envisioned it"?


discussing art is much like discussing faith.
I don't pretend to understand either, but find them equally fascinating.

You're essentially saying what I said, that people don't do it because it's difficult and there aren't clearly right answers.

basically, yes.

 

[rexbobcat]

hng, new lenses and cameras

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.

Nobody says "Ugh, why do you like building computers? You don't even play video games or program." For some people the high from working with progressively newer, more complex tools is good enough to justify their place as a hobbyist.

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here I guess, but I kind of think that people who tout "IT'S NOT ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT" without giving any context to what they mean also give beginners this false idea that getting an entry-level DSLR w/ kit lens will allow them to get those Sports Illustrated money shots of little Jimmy playing HS football.

These things can't be explained in soundbites, as much as most people would like them to be (thanks Twitter and your 120 char. limit). They're complex subjects that require more in-depth explanations, especially to those who have very little knowledge in the first place.

 

[fjrabon]

hng, new lenses and cameras

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.

Nobody says "Ugh, why do you like building computers? You don't even play video games or program." For some people the high from working with progressively newer, more complex tools is good enough to justify their place as a hobbyist.

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here I guess, but I kind of think that people who tout "IT'S NOT ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT" without giving any context to what they mean also give beginners this false idea that getting an entry-level DSLR w/ kit lens will allow them to get those Sports Illustrated money shots of little Jimmy playing HS football.

These things can't be explained in soundbites, as much as most people would like them to be (thanks Twitter and your 120 char. limit). They're complex subjects that require more in-depth explanations, especially to those who have very little knowledge in the first place.

I don't think there is necessarily a problem with talking about gear, I just think the discrepancy is because gear has clear answers, definite things that people can authoritatively say. Which causes more subjective discussions to not happen, because people here I think have a fear of being wrong.

 

[The_Traveler]

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.

 

[rexbobcat]

hng, new lenses and cameras

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.

Nobody says "Ugh, why do you like building computers? You don't even play video games or program." For some people the high from working with progressively newer, more complex tools is good enough to justify their place as a hobbyist.

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here I guess, but I kind of think that people who tout "IT'S NOT ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT" without giving any context to what they mean also give beginners this false idea that getting an entry-level DSLR w/ kit lens will allow them to get those Sports Illustrated money shots of little Jimmy playing HS football.

These things can't be explained in soundbites, as much as most people would like them to be (thanks Twitter and your 120 char. limit). They're complex subjects that require more in-depth explanations, especially to those who have very little knowledge in the first place.

I don't think there is necessarily a problem with talking about gear, I just think the discrepancy is because gear has clear answers, definite things that people can authoritatively say. Which causes more subjective discussions to not happen, because people here I think have a fear of being wrong.

I think it's partly that, but it's also a "Here we go again" attitude. There are very few topics that haven't come up at least twice on this forum, so when there is a discussion it's not so much about the dissemination of new knowledge as it is about convincing others that your stance is worthy of consideration, even if your opinion is just a rehashing of things already stated in the past.

Nobody wants to go around in circles.

Gear is fun to talk about because you get to give both concrete information as well as subjective opinions without having it degrade into bridge-burning or just slow deaths because people run out of things to add.

People have to know how to and want to cultivate abstract, sometimes controversial discussion in order for it to thrive here.

 

[bribrius]

Gear talk is less personal. Discusses the tools of the trade. Some of us (me included) are not gear heads so this information is important to us. If i want to shoot something a certain way, or have a certain direction in a certain area, having the proper gear for it helps. Far as the photography costs, gear is not cheap. Talking gear can save ones a lot of money to ensure they are purchasing what they need at a fair price. In discussing more savings options, much of the gear talk i pay attention too is older or used lenses. So it helps my photography a great deal in saving actual dollars. Discussion on the artistic side is less fact based, more subjective, will often have varying opinions with little concrete data. so while worth while to engage in isn't quite as concrete as the money going in or out of my pocket to get the photographic results i want.

some are more results oriented, some more process oriented. Gear talk applies to both. The artistic process and tools used, as well as the final image and tools used. Shooting with a certain camera or lens, does make a difference. The lens you use and camera has a dramatic effect on your photo. Can and will effect your composition. For instance when a crop is suggested, i wonder why it was shot with a crop needed. I wonder what lens they were using. How far away they were. If perhaps a different lens would yield them better results for their type of photography. If someone shoots a bird photo, looks a little fuzzy, colors off, rather than critiquing the photos for its faults perhaps the best thing we could do is suggest a lens, within their budget that would do a better job. Or suggest how to use that lens more effectively if they dont have the funds for another. Gear is a necessary requirement in what we do. Photography is a mechanical or digital process. There is no way around that. while back someone posted a photo asking how they could make it look more a earlier period bw looking piece. I think i answered to shoot it on a older camera. like using the right paint brush for the right brush stroke. It all makes a difference.

When people post lens, camera, settings occasionally. it is a huge help in critiquing a photo. As part of the detriments in the photo could be reflective of the equipment or how it was used. Responding to a photo with something like "it has to much noise" or blanket comments not camera specific does little good for the photographer in learning how to shoot with what they have or what other gear might work better for them.