A rant for gear & spec collectors who have forgotten the art of photography.

<p>99% of these online "photography" discussions are about gear. </p>

<p>Maybe it is a rant, but then if it weren't for rants we wouldn't have Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital'. You make some very valid points. Possibly my most significant photographs (the first ever took at the age of 12) were shot on an Ilford Sprite camera, which took the old 127 film. I went through the 'gear-head' phase and am now, three deades later, happiest shooting with my old Mamiya TLRs.<br>

What matters is that you take photographs which have meaning for you. If someone else likes them, then that's a bonus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe it is a rant, but then if it weren't for rants we wouldn't have Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In what sense is <em>Das Kapital </em>a "rant," Chris? It's one of the most meticulously researched, systematically presented critical analyses ever written. Are you thinking, perhaps, of the <em>Communist Manifesto</em>, which does qualify as a rant? (By the way, the <em>Manifesto </em>is at least as much Engels as it is Marx. I prefer my Marx straight up and undiluted.)</p>

I have a D700 with the rubber held on with gaffer's tape, over 130,000 frames through it, the camera has probably earned

me around $2-3 a frame since I got it when they first came out. Before putting in an NPS order for a D800 on

announcement, I seriously just thought about sending it to Nikon for a tune up, new rubber and going on down the road,

like I did with a pair of F4's I had for 13 years. But in needing to do some video work and wanting more resolution in aerial

shots, the D800 seemes like a good upgrade. But if I were told I could only use the D700 while the rest of the world

marched on in upping the tech game, I would hardly care as the impact of the images are number one for both me and

my clients...no one, not a single person has ever asked what camera I used or implied they want more resolution. In fact

the only people who ask me what cameras I use are amateurs who seem super amped to see what comes out

next.....yep, these companies have got you by the privates, not me...

 

But you are right to a degree, it is kind of easy to get caught up in the choices and the digital hype show, it's often too

much for me too. So I use less digital and shoot more film, keep my life simple. In using digital for over 18 years, I have

never let my self get overwhelmed with it to the point of being distracted in being in artist.

 

My future in photography is simple, upgrade my small inventory of digital gear when I feel like it, not when the hype

machine says so.....and shoot and hand print a ton of film with cameras I can and will use for decades..

<blockquote>

<p>But you are right to a degree, it is kind of easy to get caught up in the choices and the digital hype show</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Daniel, it has nothing to do with digital. Go back five to ten years on these forums and you will see the same discussions about pre-digital technology. Check out the Leica Forum in particular, there's a lot of it there. It's what some people love to spend their time on. Leica announced a new version of a lens, and even though the last lens was God's gift to camera owners, the new one is the best ever. Check it out.<br>

<br />I guess I continue to be on the other side of the fence about the rant. If you think photography is important, as opposed to gearheading, then talk about photography. What you want to shoot, what photos you like, how you feel about your own photos - there are discussions on photo.net about photography although not in the gear forums. But just talking about what you don't want to do or what someone else had to say about it isn't going to go anywhere.</p>

<p>Mr. Drutz…</p>

<p>Gets it right.</p>

<p>“One of the nice things about photography is that it can be enjoyed on many different levels. Some people are into preserving memories of friends, family, travel, or what have you. Others are into it as a creative hobby. To some it's a living. Some like the gear for its own sake, like grown up toys. To some it's all of the above.”</p>

<p>As to much of the rest:</p>

<p>Is it petty phony self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectual elitist snobbery?</p>

<p>Is it “I can easily tell you the difference between what is right and wrong. What I like is right and what you like is wrong?”</p>

<p>Is it the watchword and fearful expression of life’s constant underachiever or the slogan of the certified lowlife (said in a grade school sing-song voice) “You’re no better than I am?”</p>

<p>Is it the blind ideology that has so successfully both paralyzed and torn apart not only the USA, but also much of the world in the last twenty to thirty years?</p>

<p>Answering my own questions, I'd guess “Some of all of the above, along with a hundred other negative traits that I don’t have the time or interest in pointing out.”</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>I have a 1948 Photographic Almanac with a similar article :-)</p>

<p>I agree that it is different for everyone and can be enjoyed by everyone. I see no problem in enjoying the collection and reviewing specs. I do it and enjoy it. I look at shots and wonder how they were achieved technically.</p>

<p><br /> However, I am now just looking to assess the balance of my spec/technical/business/brands etc research with simply practicing and shooting. For ME, it's almost been 90% spec/price hunting for the perfect 2009, then 2010, then 2011, then 2012 camera and 10% actually shooting the types of shots I want. My own fault, however I've learned a heck of a lot. So I don't mean to discourage anybody for doing their own thing in the world of photography. Just a commentary for those who may feel they've gotten caught up in the spec/business/sharpness aspects and somewhere left their passion (be it stock photography, weddings, events, advertising, documentary or simply artistic fun and expression) for shooting behind and think they might want to get it back.</p>

<p><br /> My first step is simply discussing it here and next to stop worrying about every avenue and penny scraping I can to upgrade knowing I haven't truly outgrown what I have. My only gripe with my Nikon D7000 is that the body is a little smaller (I upgraded to it from a D40 and D5000) than I recently realized I like when I held a Canon 7D. And I know the Nikon D300s, D700, D800, D2x, Canon 7D and Canon 5D Mark II would be decent fits for my hands. However it's not like my fingers are in pain. So instead of spending 95% of my time seeing how I can upgrade, I'm back to carrying my camera around with me most of everywhere I go just in case I see a shot. So far have been enjoying my D7000 all over again. Just a little re balancing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But in needing to do some video work and wanting more resolution in <strong>aerial shots</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aerial shots?! <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=321228">Daniel Bayer</a>, I would consider an airplane "gear." Plus I'm pretty sure you aren't renting a plane/helicopter for aerial shots and going up there with a cheap consumer zoom. I would much rather have a D700 great Nikor glass and an airplane than a 5D MKIII and a cheap consumer zoom. I think your point is spend your money on "gear" that matters.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Where are the articles on honing your eye, spotting the small things and recording life?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are certain things you can't teach. Technical stuff is objective. Plus I wouldn't want a magazine that was filled with Zen BS month after month. Interviews of great artists, yes. Staff writers who don't have enough photographic talent to fill a thimble, NO. Those guys can just do some resolution tests on lenses and list the features for me.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For example, I even realize that if I get a great paying wedding gig, I could use a portion of a deposit to rent necessary gear for that day. $60 to rent a backup/second body or a lens for 3 days when the client is paying $1000 for photos is worth it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6517292">Christopher Ellington</a>, I would take the advice of many posters on this forum and others. Don't make your hobby your job. If you are getting burned out producing and editing content on demand all day at work you aren't necessarily going to be jazzed to do "art" in your free time. Professional photography and publishing are very competitive low margin businesses. They are not the type of field where you can wait until you experience inspiration and then shoot what you want when you want. If I shot weddings to put food on the table I doubt I would even want to take a camera with me on a tropical island vacation. I would be sick of photography. By the way I don't know how many weddings you shoot but if you are dropping $60 to rent a back up body and you do 10 weddings you are well on your way to purchasing a T3i even without the tax write offs.</p>

<p>As I mentioned before spend money on the stuff that matters. If you can get away with a T3i and non L glass for weddings why spend your money on that? If you need better image quality then get L glass and primes. If the T3i is not up to the rigors of what you are doing upgrade. It's like any business.</p>

<p>I frankly don't know who these people are that can drop unlimited amounts of money on several L zooms and several prime lenses. I have a Bronica ETRS and I have five primes for it that I picked up for pennies on the dollar. I could probably accomplish every thing I need to with two lenses really. A normal lens and a telephoto. Even when I haul all the lenses with me out in the field for the day 2 or 3 of the lenses usually don't get used on a particular outing. Read the gear posts from reasonable people. They will say things like "this is the camera I have... this is the way I shoot... such and such lens lives on my camera 80% of the time." If there reasoning makes sense and their style is similar to yours look into that equipment. But anyone that tells you they need 5 L lenses and 4 primes as a baseline to produce "art" can probably be safely ignored.</p>

<p>Anyway I hope I didn't misunderstand your rant.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Having just sold a photo going on the cover of a book....shot with a Nikon Coolpix L110</strong>....a prosumer point and shoot, it was driven home to me that it is the photo, the moment, NOT the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6944062">John Burzynski</a>, I think the forum can safely assume the book was not put out by <em>National Geographic</em> or <em>Arizona Highways</em>. I've sold multiple photographs for multiple uses. Most of them I would not consider to be my most "artistic" or technically excellent. Churning out images that are "good enough" for a specific purpose is very different that producing work like Ansel Adams. If you put two small books in front of the average consumer one with an Ansel Adams image and one with an image from a Nikon Coolpix L110 they would NOT be able to tell the difference. Now if you put an 8x10 Ansel Adams contact print and a Nikon Coolpix L110 8x10 in front of someone who produces/appreciates photographic fine art there is no way the would confuse the two. I don't let my picture sales fool me into thinking I'm a great artist.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>IMHO it's all about the photos. The gear you use is a detail. I've had magazine cover shots taken with a 20D and the 18-55mm IS kit lens. Heck, I had a promotional poster (2x3 feet) shot that was taken with a 20D and the original non-IS kit lens! My editor uses an ancient 10D! (albeit with L glass...).</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1856724">Geoff Sobering</a>, again without seeing the full size image file of the picture in question and knowing the publication and what year it was published the only conclusion we can arrive at is it wasn't <em>National Geographic</em> or <em>Arizona Highways</em>. I mean if it was a magazine about propane and propane accessories I would keep my "accomplishment" to myself. Not saying that is the case here. Just making a general statement. You will not see me trumpeting my artistic abilities based on the commercial pictures I've sold. I know what those pictures look like and I would be laughed off this forum if I tried to pass them off as "art." Also what magazine editor is running around with a 10D?! I assume it's for his personal work. Seriously if you are in the imaging business and you can't upgrade a 10D it may be time to find another line of work. You don't have to get a 5DMKIII. There are plenty of used items in excellent condition that give tons more megapixels with great image quality.</p>

<p>My understanding is Christopher is talking about inspiring art not commercial imagery.</p>

<p>Thanks for your response James. For me it's about simply shooting. I have a beautiful piece of equipment that is proven to do nice things. Yet I've spent 95% of my time looking into other equipment, making comparisons on specifics specs and not shooting.</p>

<p>I don't view spec searching and collecting as anything negative, I enjoy it. The part that I've viewed as negative for me is that I've spent more time in awe of specs, more expensive gear, great shots from that expensive gear and great shots from inexpensive gear that I haven't been seriously clicking the shutter with my own gear. Almost treating the camera I upgraded to last year as if it all of a sudden isn't good enough this year when I haven't even begun to touch the surface of producing imagery that I am most satisfied with. Or getting to a point where I've grown out of what my current gear does. When I am following photographers on Flickr or Facebook—shooting inspiring/beautiful images with their Nikon D80, D40s or point and shoots, I know there's something I'm lacking. And I think that simply is just shooting with what I have. All it has done is remind me that those inspiring shots are still a result of the photographer. The tech geek in me is still curious of the camera and lens used.<br>

So I am just in a transitioning stage in balancing out my shooting/producing a nice image (which I love) and spec research (which I love). Figured I start by sharing where I'm at just in case anyone else might relate or even give advice. So I am grateful to everyone's comments. Gives me many things to think about and do.</p>

<p>People collect stamps and bottlecaps, so collecting cameras is hardly odd. Also, for everyone quoting camera specs and whatnot there are at least 1,000 people obsessing about sports statistics. Some audiophiles spend $7K, as much as a professional camera body, for audio <em>cables</em>. </p>

<p>Cameras can be fun toys for hobbiests and tools people use to make a living. he world of photography is very large and has room for many approaches and many ways to enjoy it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mr. Smith...?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Aerial shots?! <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=321228" rel="nofollow">Daniel Bayer</a>, I would consider an airplane "gear." Plus I'm pretty sure you aren't renting a plane/helicopter for aerial shots and going up there with a cheap consumer zoom. I would much rather have a D700 great Nikor glass and an airplane than a 5D MKIII and a cheap consumer zoom. I think your point is spend your money on "gear" that matters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What on earth are you on about friend? I don't even own a cheap consumer zoom, let alone use it on aerial shoots...bizarre. For aerial work, I use one of four cameras, often mounted to a Kenyon KS-6 gyro, A D700, D3, 501 C/M or XPan. Lenses are the fabulous Zeiss 60mm 3.5 CF or 100mm 3.5 CF, Nikon 14-24, 35 1.4G, 50 1.4G and 70-200 VR-II, etc, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would take the advice of many posters on this forum and others. Don't make your hobby your job. If you are getting burned out producing and editing content on demand all day at work you aren't necessarily going to be jazzed to do "art" in your free time. Professional photography and publishing are very competitive low margin businesses. They are not the type of field where you can wait until you experience inspiration and then shoot what you want when you want. If I shot weddings to put food on the table I doubt I would even want to take a camera with me on a tropical island vacation. I would be sick of photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whew! Makes me so glad I never got into weddings, because the work I do in photography to put food on the table makes me want to shoot more, always have a camera with me, which I always do. Great advice though...for the "Other Guys"...</p>

<p> </p>

<p >@ Jeff:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Photography is about photographs. For some reason, I missed the portfolio. I don't get the rant when there are far better things to do.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP's genuine expression of this kind of personal evolution is a pretty dang good thing to do.</p>

 

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=321228">Daniel Bayer</a>, I said this...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm pretty sure you aren't renting a plane/helicopter for aerial shots and going up there with a cheap consumer zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you said this...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What on earth are you on about friend? I don't even own a cheap consumer zoom, let alone use it on aerial shoots...bizarre.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure how your post contradicts anything I said. Would you care to give the forum some clarification?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Makes me so glad I never got into weddings, because the work I do in photography to put food on the table makes me want to shoot more, always have a camera with me, which I always do. Great advice though...for the "Other Guys"...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One part of being an adult is to realize that your own individual experience is not necessarily representative of everyone else's. I've learned a lot from this forum over the years. And one thing I appreciate from a lot of the professionals is their candor. Too often amateurs figure they enjoy taking some decent snapshots and think it would be "cake" to get paid for pursuing their hobby. Unfortunately for most professional photographers they do not live the life of a National Geographic photographer or an aerial photographer who loves his work. The exception does not disprove the rule. I don't know what the OP's working environment is like. I just wanted to let him know that if it was a bit mechanical and mundane that it wasn't necessarily a problem with him or his equipment. Sometimes... often, it is merely the nature of the beast. Sorry if I offended you about your work or your gyroscopes. I'm sure they are nice.</p>

<p>Owning the latest hi-tech camera makes you a hi-tech camera owner not a photographer, any more than owning a Steinway piano makes you a pianist, it's how you play the instrument and what meaning the results have, if any.</p>

<p>Most "photographers"own equipment that is much better than their ability I.M.O., because photography isn't a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it, and some of the Worlds greatest photographs have been taken with cameras that most hobbyist these days would scoff at, the idea if I only had a better camera I could take wonderful pictures that camera manufacturers and their advertising agency s like to promote is false.</p>

 

I think growth in your photography is about finding your vision of the world that you can express through whatever

equipment/process is best suited to execute that particular vision. I do think that many photographers are artists, others

are more historians. Are you recording what is in front of the camera, or using that subject in front ot the camera as a

point of departure for executing a more complicated (or simple) vision? Maybe a pinhole in a box is all you need. Maybe

$100K worth of equipment isn't enough. The equipment should only serve yoru vision, not the other way around. My own

vision revolves around two distinct points of view: One is the fractal patterns in nature and the other (totally unrelated) is

the 18th and 19th century classic landscape painters typified by the Hudson River School. Executing my vision is more

about handling ones and zeros after the image capture than it is about the camera/lense, etc. Having said that, the newer

equipment does expand horizons for executing those visions -- I do have a D7000 and will get a D800e. I also run a very

highend digital processing capability with fullhouse Macs and tens of TB of memlory.

<p>The idea that photography is "Art", is a very recent concept that photographers agents, auction houses, and galleries have promoted to sell their work, the vast majority of the "Great Photographers"in their day if you would have told them they were "Artists" would have laughed in your face,I.M.O. photography is a craft that can approach art on very rare occasions.<br>

Nowadays everybody and brother who take photographs refer to themselves and other people as "Artists", but "self advertisement is no recommendation" and most of them are deceiving themselves as well as other people</p>

 

<p>Thanks for all of the responses guys. I just received my camera battery grip today for the D7000 and it has a much better feel for my hands. While I appreciate the width of the D300s, Canon 7D/5D Mark II, I'll be focusing on making it work with and without the grip depending on the situation. I've already been back into simply shooting and creating the shots I like.</p>

<p>I did get a perspective from some of your posts that not everyone views photography as art. While I do, I don't expect everyone to and for some it's simply a hobby or a technical thing that many enjoy to collect and compare. As a graphic designer, I focus on the shot as well as what I can do afterwards with it to take it to where my vision is. I appreciate all aspect of photography though from the art to the technical.</p>

<p>This topic was really a rant for those who might relate to me as being an artist, but somewhere forgetting to shoot and create with what I have. Instead I began worrying so much about having the latest and greatest and had a bit of revelation to work towards the latest and greatest, but in the meantime make what I have the best it can be until I get there. It was not meant to be any commentary on those who see photography differently. I am grateful for all views and responses in this.</p>

<p>Christopher, in my experience photo- technical excellence isn't a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it, and more can be achieved by thinking more about your pictures and what meaning they have, and not worrying if the equipment you have is good enough for your "talent" or "vision" but more to the point the reverse, is your ability such that your equipment is holding you back ?, bearing in mind that the photographers who are considered to be great these days became that way with equipment most newbies would nowadays scoff at, the reason they became legends was not because of their equipment, but their talent.</p>

<p>So you came back and told us about an equipment purchase. Not a new direction, or a better way to implement a vision, but an equipment purchase. As I said before, the rant was about gear, not photography and it's showing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I.M.O. photography is a craft that can approach art on very rare occasions.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Agreed. Photography is a craft and a medium just like painting, sculpture, etc. All can be used to create art but they can also have other uses. </p>

Jeff. As I said in my last post, ive been back o simply shooting and that's all I've been doing. And enjoying it.

<p>I quit trying to consciously produce "Art" years ago, I now just try to produce good photographs and feel a lot better for it.</p>