Does quality beget snobbery?

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Excomulgation? Sounds like a word a snob would use. 😀

Sounds like something that happens you have a bad cold.

 

[John Robertson]

Excomulgation? Sounds like a word a snob would use. 😀

Well!! such efflorescent etymology is well beyond me! 🙄

 

[BrianShaw]

As for the "commandments" abovequoted, I stopped to read them by the fifth, as I see them no more than a joke, and a bad one.

You are a patient man, Ruben... I stopped reading at #1.

 

[John Robertson]

Oh would that God the gift he gie* us,
To see ourselves, as others see us!
(Robert Burns 1759-1796)😛
*give

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

Oh would that God the gift he gie* us,
To see ourselves, as others see us!
(Robert Burns 1759-1796)😛
*give

Yes, that would be fine. So many of us would not have to wander in the delusion of their own greatness, searching in vain for their identity . :angel:

Fitzi

 

[jaapv]

Actually, snobs are very pleasant people. They are so secure in their superiority that they are not confrontational, and they are the most egalitarian people in the world, allowing anybody, regardless of race, creed or social status, to be inferior.....

 

[John Robertson]

In terms of camera snobs its those who regard the camera as the end rather than the means that irritate me. If you buy the best then you owe it to yourself to improve your photography to match the camera. Buying high quality gear should the start of a photographic odyssey - not the end of one.

Could not agree more Toby, sadly it has the opposite effect on a lot of people!😡

 

[morgan]

It's interesting how close photo gear discussions match that with guitar/instrument discussions in terms of snobbery and perception of people who use quality gear, does better gear help, etc. The issues seem very similar. I know a lot more about guitars than I do camera gear (I've been playing for over 20 years, in bands the entire time, toured, etc), and there's a statement that keeps recurring in the guitar world that I wonder if it applies to the camera world. In the guitar world, you simply don't see professional musicians using off-brand, lower end guitars . That's a blanket statement and I'm sure there are some somewhere, but you get the idea. Is this true in photography?

For me, gear is a tool, and you still need the creativity to use it. And while I decry the guy who shows off his leica (or 1959 Les paul) and can't use it, I also get sick of the people who criticize others for simply having good gear. In the guitar world, it seems that people knock those who own good stuff, but only till they can afford it, or somehow acquire one. Enough rambling, but since I've been on this forum, the parallels between cameras and guitars is striking, and I wonder if we can extrapolate out these issues to other gear-related activities (fishing, cars, whatever)...

 

[Oldprof]

It's interesting how close photo gear discussions match that with guitar/instrument discussions in terms of snobbery and perception of people who use quality gear, does better gear help, etc. The issues seem very similar ... In the guitar world, you simply don't see professional musicians using off-brand, lower end guitars . That's a blanket statement and I'm sure there are some somewhere, but you get the idea. Is this true in photography?

... the parallels between cameras and guitars is striking, and I wonder if we can extrapolate out these issues to other gear-related activities (fishing, cars, whatever)...

Yes, I think these "gear-quality" or "product-quality" debates extend to many other hobbies and activities ... cars, audio equipment, golf clubs ... almost anything you can think of where there are competing brands in the marketplace.

As with professional musicians, you don't see many professional photographers using "off-brand, lower end" equipment. In the 1930s and 1940s those professional photographers who used 35mm rangefinders (probably a minority of professionals at the time as larger formats were preferred) went for Contaxes and Leicas. In the 1950s Leica became the dominant brand with the introduction of the M series. But by the end of the 1950s and into the 1960s many pros began using the Nikon F SLR. Nikon became the dominant brand for professionals using SLRs for many years. Still, some pros used Canons, some used Olympuses, and a few used Minoltas and Pentaxes (brands more commonly associated with amateur photographers).

The essential debate among many photographers has been whether you need an expensive, elite brand like Leica or Nikon to get top quality results. Some feel you do, and some feel you don't. I fall into the latter camp - I think a quite a few 35mm cameras and lenses are capable of fine work.

 

[canonetc]

I was an RF film snob for quite a while, critcising those who "went digital" since I used to view digital as a "lazy" way to photograph and as "selling-out" to the bougoius digital corporate tyrants of artistic second-hand quality. Realizing I was thinking out my arse, I got a digital and admitted I was just another dude who liked photography in any format. I feel much better than everyone now. Er, I mean, I feel better now. About myself. About photography. About digital. Oh, you know what I mean..... 🙂

Chris
canonetc