Would you rather...

[unangelino]

<p>...have the artistic talent of your favorite, legendary photographer <em><strong>but</strong> </em> be limited, for the rest of your life, to the cameras and lenses that you currently own or would you prefer to carry on with you own level of talent (while still able to grow as a photographer, limited only by your innate capacity) and continue to acquire gear as you do now?</p>

<p>I ask this question because I'm not totally sure of my own answer. It would be good to believe that the ability to create art would be satisfying enough, but would it? Buying new gear certainly can be fun, even while distracting us from taking better photographs.</p>

 

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>I' rather have a more descriptive thread title... but since this is 'casual conversations" I guess anything goes! :)</p>

<p>But more to the point: Talent or no talent... I have no intention of buying another camera for the rest of my life.</p>

[ryan_long]

<p>That's kind of an interesting question. I mean, for some people, simply operating the camera, going over gear and studying charts gives them a sense of fulfillment, and the photo is secondary. For others, a point and shoot is enough when it does what they want and produces an image in line with their vision.</p>

<p>I feel like I kind of get stuck in both categories. It's far more satisfying to expose a 6x7 negative for me than to plink away with my D300. Whether that has to do with the gear or with just physically shooting I can't say. When I first read the question I thought that I'd be happy sticking with one camera if I could have X. I'm not sure if that makes me part of the second category or not. I think I've gotten over some of my initial acquisition syndrome, but cheap used film gear isn't helping! And, with film, there is always another emulsion, developer, scanner, whatever in addition to bodies and lenses.</p>

[podstawek]

<p>Talent is not innate, which makes the question invalid.</p>

<p>I would prefer to grow my talent faster than I fill up my hard disks, that's for sure.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I prefer to carry on as myself and never attach any artificial constraints on my life and work.</p>

<p>Do what IS FUN, brings joy (to you and others), and that which you can afford. But do your best as often as you can! The Masters are there only to inspire You.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>I don't really believe that talent is innate. I'd rather have my talent and also the time and discipline to become a better artist through practice.<br>

As long as I continue to have at least modest financial means I can afford adequate tools.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I think it's a false dichotomy, Paul. As Adam points out, "talent" is the euphamism that most people use for "hard work." So, what I'd really like to have is <em>more time</em> to concentrate on what I'd like to be doing, photographically - the better to get in the hard work that so many people seem to confuse for genetic talent. And <em>some</em> of that time can be purchased through the use of more efficient tools... which could be better image processing equipment/software, or lighting equipment that tears down and sets up more quickly, or other gear that - by virtue of being more rugged and reliabe - cuts down on the overall fiddliness of getting things done.<br /><br />These sorts of questions are really code for "I wish that equipment didn't matter as much as it sometimes seems to matter, and it feels hip to say that <em>Vision And Talent And Rebeliousness And Enigmatic Friends And A Gritty Loft</em> are more important than hardware, so I'm going with the flow and saying that it's all about the photographer... except, deep inside I know that large prints will look better if I break down and get a better lens." I don't see any reason to wrestle with this stuff. There are too many contextual noodling points for any of these aphorisms to apply to everyone, so better just to admonish everyone to be honest with themselves about what's <em>actually</em> holding them back from success in a particular genre or circumstance.<br /><br />Sports? You're not going to do pro work with consumer equipment. It's just that simple. First rate portraits? You're not going to get consistantly stellar results with hot lights from the hardware store and a shower curtain diffuser. It's not about always getting more gear, it's about having the right tool for the job, and being honest about what that actually is (the job, and the gear - both).</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Easy. I'm bored to death of yammering about equipment. If I could do everything with one camera and lens I'd be content. I'm at the point where I'd willingly give up certain types of photography to accommodate a limited selection of equipment. My photography couldn't get any worse. To some extent it's suffered from a lack of cohesion due to being distracted by equipment and trying to pursue too many different types of genres.</p>

[joemikel1]

<p>I rather prefer shoting, so one year after I bought my D300, I have shot about 25.000 pics with it, but I have read only about 5% of the instructions manual :-)</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>I am very happy with my photography and to be honest I have no real desire to emulate any other photographer.</p>

<p>Simply put I photograph for my own reasons. My current gear lets me indulge in photographing as much as I desire, life is good.</p>

<p>

<p>As a last thought, talent will only take you so far, at some point you also need good gear. I would be pretty unhappy now if I locked myself into using the gear I had 20 years ago. I am pretty sure 20 years from now I would be very unhappy if I was limited to the gear I am currently using.</p>

</p>

</p>

[unangelino]

<p>Is seems difficult to accept that some have more innate talent or capacity to learn or to acquire skills than others. Would those that adhere to this precept hold that I could be as good a photographer as Ansel Adams if I just worked <em>really</em> hard at it?</p>

<p>Perhaps <em><strong> gift</strong> </em> would have been a better word than talent. Still, the question is a valid one, just not as easy for me to answer as I would like.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Paul, it's not at all unreasonable to believe that you or anyone capable of learning and benefiting from constructive criticism could achieve a level of skill and artistry equivalent to Ansel Adams or any other accomplished photographer.</p>

<p>Unfortunately there is a tendency to elevate the heroes and heroines of photography to such heights that we forget they were capable of some very ordinary work.</p>

<p>Some of the earlier and much later work of Adams were not extraordinary. For example, <strong><a href="http://www.anseladams.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2008">Gottardo Piazzoni in his Studio</a> </strong> , could have been taken by any number of competent photographers and is notable only because it's relatively unknown and in very limited circulation. And some of his later prints from his medium format era, which I've seen at the Amon Carter Museum, lack the rich tonal range of his prime era. I suspect that as he aged perhaps he didn't perceive a full tonal range as well as during his youth. The compositions are nothing special and the contrast seems excessive. His 1940s Los Angeles series were not particularly remarkable, other than for the association with Adams. But rather than detracting from his body of work it reinforces how good his best really was.</p>

<p>A lot of hard work and tough criticism - both self-criticism and critiques from peers - goes into making an outstanding body of work. If we perceive that one photographer seems to be exceptionally talented and consistent, I suspect that it's because they didn't allow their lesser work to be seen. Most of us are less conscientious about how our mediocre photos affect perceptions of our overall abilities.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Buying new gear certainly can be fun, even while distracting us from taking better photographs.

 

In the end, I'd gladly make the trade of keeping the same mediocre gear that I have now for the rest of my life if

having great light everyday was guaranteed, than the owning the absolute finest gear and lenses in the world and

having to endure mediocre light as part of the deal.

 

In other words, shooting in great light with run of the mill gear produces far better results than owning the finest gear and

shooting in crappy light.

 

It's not about gear...

[joseph_leotta]

<blockquote>

<p>"But more to the point: Talent or no talent... I have no intention of buying another camera for the rest of my life."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't believe you- There will be so many advances in the near future, let along in 10 years, you'll change your mind. What happens when those fancy hologram cameras come out and replace digital cameras. Never say never.</p>

[stp]

<p>Wow! Canon's coming out with a hologram camera. Should I hold off my planned upgrade? Will I be able to use existing lenses? How many MP will it be? When's the expected release date? Price?</p>

[thomas semesky]

<p>For years I made some of my most memorable photographs by just using two prime lenses, the 20mm and a 85mm. So if I was limited to one of the two choices, owning the same equipment has never been an obstacle for me.</p>

[don_e]

<p>My 'go to' camera is the same model as the first camera I bought 41 years ago. A lot of my photography is well-served by a Spotmatic, a 50 1.4, and TriX. </p>

 

[jonathonswersey]

<p>Very interesting question - I'd take the talent and give up the equipment if given a choice. I have no doubt that many of the folks on this thread given a webcam could outshoot me if I had a D3. Then again, if the joy is the journey and not the destination, perhaps the sudden mastery would be underwhelming? Of course I am assuming that photography as we know it would be the same - what if today's photographers were tomorrows holographers?<br>

Maybe a challenge to the photo.net community - can we share our best camera phone pics?</p>

[acarodp]

<p>Well, there is a way out your question. If YOU are your favorite photographer, you are ok and can also buy all the gear you want. I know a number of people who think they are geniuses (I meet one of them every morning in the mirror ;-), so that should not be difficult.</p>

<p>Apart from jokes: I am here for the photos. I'm happy of my gear. Most of my favorite photographer had not such powerful tools. So I would take the talent everyday. The talent <strong>and the time</strong> . this is something people always underestimate. Place Don McCullin behind a desk doing some other work most of his time, with only weekends to shoots and evenings to postproduce/print, and you would not have the same result. It is not just gear vs talent. The time to do photography, learn photography, look at photography, and speak about it is a crucial asset. As for any other field for that matter.</p>

<p>The more time passes, the more I find buying gear more distracting than fun.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>can we share our best camera phone pics?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=845285">Some do!</a> And I have to say, with quite interesting results.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[johnw436]

<p>I have to disagree with the opinion that talent is merely hard work. Granted, raw talent grows on trees and without the hard work aspect it will never get someone past the level of mediocre. Talent plus hard work can equal greatness, especially with some good education and coaching thrown in.</p>

<p>Anyone can practice at singing and they will get better. A person who does not have a gifted vocal range, i.e. talent for singing, is not going to practice their way to being Mariah Carey. I am naturally athletic, but Tiger Woods was born to play golf. Carl Lewis might have been a decent local-level bowler but found his calling in running. None of these people are who they are without years of dedication, training, and desire- but that same level of training, dedication, and desire will not get everyone on earth to the level these people have achieved. Part of success is finding a niche for which your dedication and hard work can be applied most effectively given your talents. A man who is five feet seven inches tall will likely never be competitive as a basketball player, but might be the next World Bench Press Champion and Michael Jordan will never be the world's strongest man. </p>

<p>I think we sometimes lump photography into comparisons for which it is a poor fit. Photography is a learned skill. It is a tehcnical craft. Being a good artist might have more to do with talent. Photography is not art in and of itself, it is a discipline that some artists use to express or to create their art. </p>

<p>But what do I know? I don't call myself an artist and therefore don't get my tailfeathers ruffled when other don't appreciate my photography. I'm not misunderstood as an artist, LOL, I'm a deficient photographer! </p>

<p> </p>

[bmm]

<p>I'd definitely grab the gear. To me the whole point of a hobby is to gradually learn and persevere even if one starts with modest creative talent (like me!).</p>

<p>I'd hate to all of a sudden be awesome at photography with no effort expended as that would defeat for me all the period of practise, of perseverence, and of celebrating those millions of tiny steps forward and incremental achievements along the way.</p>

<p>So give me a super duper camera upgrade and a bag of sexy gear every time, along with a bottomless wallet to fund it, and let me go have my fun and make my mistakes and follow my own path!</p>