Evolving into a Leica photographer

[cd thacker]

Asher, I thought your list clever and funny (and painful to some extent), but Larry's answer was right on.<P>

 

 

<I>Painters, dancers, singers all have to go through the basic steps of learning about the materials, media, perspective, etc. etc. etc., and practice, practice, practice, and still try to achieve some vision of their own, and resist the incredible pressure from other artists alive and dead, the corrupt nature of galleries and the speculative art market.</I><P>

 

It's no different for people who shoot professionally than for amateurs. Except that pros are of course under a great deal more pressure; and far more likely, because of it, to succumb to corruption of their efforts and enjoyment. (Maybe that's why a certain HCB said, famously, "I am still an amateur, but I am no longer a dilettante.") Of interest to me is just how much practice and consistent effort - dedication, in a word - is required in order to rise to the level of your own talent (hence, the key piece, above, about not being a dilettante) and stay there (or go beyond). <P>

 

If you want to be, say, a landscape photographer, you have to drag yourself into the landscape . . . pretty much every day. And you're never too old for it. Or too old to burn with passion. (I know a guy who is in his nineties and still doing it, turning out superlative work after having returned to photography in his late seventies.) <P>

 

This is something I've been thinking about quite a bit lately. Because when you're a kid, it all comes so easily. Different story when you get older. (Which maybe takes us back to Larry's observation on schooling and what comes after.)<P>

 

Anyway, thanks for the laugh, and the thoughts. Now where is that damn camera?

[manu_vermeiren]

move on and don't look back

[henk]

Hmmm.. i guess im not evolving into a Leica photographer then..... ;)P

[ticean_bennett]

I'm covering my ears and singing a song. I must hold on to my hope. What else is there?

[dlegaspi]

holy pwet. i'm at #5! i'm afraid i'm stuck at #5 forever...

[osman_gagavuz]

I found something from myself in every type you described. You are a very keen observer and describer, "cute" in other worlds. Congratulations. I am confronted myself after reading this article. I call this "wit".

[mike_lachance]

Stage 5.75 is NO FUN... After 22+ years of photography I am deep within stage 5 and only beginning to emerge into the light-and-breathing-room of stage 6.

 

A have to agree, i ENVY the idiots of stage one. Some of my simplest and most 'pleasant" pictures were from stage 1. A few even shot on an instamatic 126 cartridge with the tiniest little optic imaginable.

 

Nowadays the 'Blad with an 80mm is putting me to work. Its a real eye opener and nothing i see is quite right.

[al_kaplan1]

A solid Stage Seven! At least you guys like my mad ramblings. Thanks!

[jeffreyo]

I have read it over and over and I am none of these.

I Run a Photo lab and camera store so I get to see all the equipment and I get to see what folks shoot from it. I have seen some amazing photos taken with OTUC and I have seen crap from 4 grand rigs. One thing that seams to jump out at me is that what I find to be an impresive photo is often more bassed on subject selection and compositon than on equipment. Ill admit that if you took that hawaii sunset with a OTUC and with a Top notch SLR and Lense that the SLR and Lense photo Could and should look better. It however dosent always. If I had to place my self in one of these catagorys then I Guess it would be 8 .. what is a photo but the capture of light.