Anyone Interested in Anything but Hardware???

[art waldschmidt]

Amir,

 

Your post was like a breath of fresh air! But I think if you reflect

upon the photographic goals of the majority you will discover that

addiction to artistc exploration and expression is not their primary

motivation. Do not be deterred by the inane or denigrating. You have

made a valid observation and highlighted an important point.

 

Any form/medium of artistic expression can be understood as possessing two components: vision, and technique. If one has an

abundance of vision but a deficiency of technique/craft, then the

art will suffer and the intention will be difficult to manifest.

If, on the other hand, one has great mastery of technique, but nothing to say .... the effort will be shallow, derivative, and hollow.

 

In a small way, I tried to touch on a part of your cocern, in my

response to: DO I REALLY NEED MULTI-COATED OPTICS? by Pete Gregar.

 

All the best!,

 

Art Waldschmidt

[roger_urban3]

Amir, good question! Maybe we'll soon see some artistic categories added....

 

Those of us who lack artistic talent or training seek to emulate the pro's and others who have become successfull, and thus think that the equipment the pro's use contains the secret to their success. We think that using the same type of equipment will give us an edge against the competition and allow us to more effortlessly create/capture beautiful photographs, at least more than we could with lower grade equipment (lenses of inferior MTF curves, etc).

 

Most of us have seen some very technical and perfectly executed photographs captured on top of the line equipment that did absolutely nothing for us and were completely boring or trite. Top grade equipment does not an artist make.

 

Someone earlier mentioned the importance of vision and technique, and rightly balanced will sell more photographs than not.

 

I hope to see more artistic vision threads as a result, because as a group I think most of us find it easier to deal with the technique part but too little attention goes to the art side.

[jeff_drew4]

". . . everyone talks about it, but nobody does anything. . . " or something to that effect. I guess it's easier to discuss the merits of something we have seen and done, like films, gear and sex. Discussing images is fine too. This forum has been a great help and source of enjoyment for me - especially with all the varied topics.

I have to agree with Ellis V. on the picture of the girl. Peter Hughes'images have invoked opinions in the past, and he's always been a plus in our group, IMHO. Likewise, with our technology as it is, we can certainly link to other sites to see images and then comment. this MF forum is especially useful with it's depth of experienced users. Thanks!

[nolan woodbury]

Reading about, or listening to someone talk about the actual process of photography is like listening to somebody telling me about their vacation; it bores me to tears. Unless they are speaking about something I have no knowledge of. Reading what different people use or do to *achieve* their photographic goals is another matter entirely! To me Amir, not enough is written about light, for I have found that basic element the most difficult to capture, or grasp. I don't complain about it though, because I feel if I stay with it I'll figure it out myself, and probably better remember what I learned. I like what Garry Edwards said: Vision, competence, and tools. Somebody should put that on a t-shirt and sell it.

[mark_hubbard]

I'm only interested in hardware. Photography itself makes for poor conversation.

 

Mark Hubbard

 

(to put in a happy face or just let them wonder?)

[andrew booth]

The MFD is for discussion of Medium Format Cameras - and is therefore hardware oriented. The MFD's 'Sister Forums' on photo.net provide the opportunity to discuss other aspects of photography, and to post pictures. You are allowed to stray from this forum if you want!

 

Seriously - I think the advantage of the MFD is its concentration of information and narrow subject area. I'm not convinced that there would be an advantage in expanding this given the other forums available.

[Spearhead]

I have quite a few monographs by photographers whose work interests me. Many of them have text by the photographer about the photography, or text by another photographer about the photography, or by a writer, or a critic. I can't think of a single book in which the equipment is discussed unless it's unusual (like a pinhole) or technique is discussed unless it's unusual.

 

(I'm not talking about instructional books here.)

[murray_twelves2]

Hi Amir -

 

I love to see a great image, and to be moved and inspired by it.

 

On the other hand, I often find intellectual analyses of something born of feeling and personal esthetic to be tiring and even irritating. Intellectualizing such a process, as often as not, sucks the spirit right out of it and renders it something sterile.

 

A feeling response, however, can even enhance the effect of the image in question.

 

I often find myself more interested in the photographer's philosophy of photography. Sometimes I like to see an image and know what the photographer was trying to achieve with it. I've found myself, at times, reading about a photographer whose aims inspired me, even if his/her actual photos didn't!

 

Along these lines, the discussions about square vs rectangular composition in this forum have interested me more than most others. (Then again, I'm a sucker for a good TLR thread!)

 

Another consideration is the "zen" that exists between a photographer and his/her chosen tools. This "magic" can make any camera the "right" camera. I prefer a minimalist approach (fewer and simpler tools), in which the tools are more transparent within the image-making process.

 

Needless to say, I'm not a professional and I don't require professional tools!

[struan_gray]

Ah Jeff, but it's the very lack of such technical information in their

books that keeps forums like this one going. Some of the

threads I find most interesting are those which attempt to figure

out how a particular look was achieved.

 

Amir's question is teetering on the brink of a false dichotomy. It's

the tired old cliche that if you are interested in one thing you can't

be interested in another. This might be true of two year olds, but

adults can usually manage to think about more than one topic

per day.

 

Amir's question is also teetering on the brink of petulance. This

is a free forum (modulo moderation), so if you want to talk about

art, talk about art. As the armless goddess of victory says: Just

do it.

 

I actually think there is more than enough discussion of art in the

abstract here, and I have a growing set of art bookmarks which

is regularly fed by such comments. If anything is lacking, it is the

discussion of process: I would like to hear more about what

people do with their equipment, how they handle and use it, and

how they go about finding, setting up or grabbing their shots.

[wayne_campbell]

Duh....what's an image?

[cd thacker]

Discussion about equipment is key, seems to me. There is so much of it to know about, and so many different levels of experience here, we can only benefit by discussing equipment. In addition to which, equipment puts everyone on roughly the same playing field, discussion-wise. If Nietzsche were taking part in this forum, I can see his enjoying and benefiting from a good equipment discussion; I <I>can't</I> see that anyone here would have much to teach him about art, or that he would even be understood, particularly.

[tom_bowling1664874721]

But Nietzsche wouldn't tune in for the Hassleblad shopping channel, anch sometimes we get pretty close to that.

[cd thacker]

I see your point.<P><I>That which does not kill me, makes me buy Rollei.</I>