Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
But let's be fair, many people are happiest with their photography when they're playing with the gear. There's a bit of a tendency for some of the folk around here to (metaphorically) strap on their explosive vests when other contributors reveal a different approach to photography.
I'll climb out on a creaky limb here and suggest that such fundamentalism, on any front, is not such a good idea. :angel:
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Its ok to be a gearhead. It's ok to be a photographer. It's even ok to be a photographer and enjoy your equipment, but often the discussions here about equipment are pretty esoteric and really have nothing to do with the practice of photography. And yes, I recognize that the forum's name IS rangefinderforum.com... not rangefinderphotography.com.
But fortunately there are man amazing and talented photographers who subscribe and post their work here.
MIkhail
-
"But let's be fair, many people are happiest with their photography when they're playing with the gear" - what is photography as a form of art has to do with it?
We can call anybody who painted the walls in garage a painter, and most of them can even be more accurate and precise than Jackson Pollock, but...
Surely, tinkering with cameras is fun, they are interesting pieces of machinery. As a mechanical engineer by profession I can understand that. Just don't call it photography, call it what it is- tinkering. Or call it whatever you want, for all I care...
kevin m
Veteran
Serious answer: Unless you're buying gear to achieve a specific goal, GAS is worse than a waste of time; it puts your head in EXACTLY the wrong place to move forward.
For personal growth, you'd be better served by losing all your possessions save a camera phone than by winning the lottery and buying your 'dream' kit.
For personal growth, you'd be better served by losing all your possessions save a camera phone than by winning the lottery and buying your 'dream' kit.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
You want inspiration? What, (besides photography) are your interests? There's an old saw about writing... "write about what you know." Photography is much the same. Photograph what you know about, the way you see it, and then the way you want it to be seen. There's enough stuff around you to last you a lifetime.
Excellent, excellent advice!
I find that inspiration does not find me, I have to find it in the things I see and do.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Will,
Or perhaps, "I put myself in situations where I may find it" -- because it's never certain.
Cheers,
R.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
For myself, I find playing with and discussing equipment as much fun as taking and sharing pictures. It's all part of that great big fun thing called life.
Of course, one can always be like the Russian in the Limeliters' "Gari, Gari"...
"Oh! How happy it is to be miserable,
Oh! How miserable it is to be happy!"
...but I've had enough of misery, thank you and would rather just have fun and allow others to have theirs.
cpc
Established
It is important to not simply look, but also take mental notes. Many famous works can leave you cold, while some "lesser" work can move you profoundly. Just watching and soaking quality visuals might be beneficial, but it is really the analytical eye that leads to fastest progress. You probably know this, but two of the filmmakers you mention as inspiration have started their careers as film critics, which only reiterates the positives of the analytical approach.
As pointed by Mikhail, investing some time in paintings can be helpful. Classics are a great source of excellent compositions and will help tremenedously in developing an educated taste for composition and honing your compositional skills. Paintings can also further your understanding of light, especially some of the Dutch masters (most notably Vermeer, even though Rembrandt gets more love). And just walking around and paying attention to light and its behavior is a good excercise in itself: watch the quality and color of shadows, bounced light, reflections, highlights, modeling of shapes and lines, suggestion of form.
As you said that you are into film, you may delve into the work of not just directors but also some of the great cinematographers. I am a naturalist by heart, so I find the imagery of Roger Deakins, Emmanuel Lubezki or Chris Doyle very appealing. The work of James Wong Howe, John Alton or Urusevsky, for example, will demonstrate some excellent use of black and white. But, really, any film you like a lot visually you can rewatch with cinematography in mind. (I find that turning the sound off can help in appreciating the image for what it is.)
Once you have a sufficient base to build upon, judging the work you see and registering anything you happen to like can get you far. Jordan Cronenweth (who shot the visual masterpiece Blade Runner for Ridley Scott) once said that he steals every good idea he stumbles upon while watching other people's movies. This applies on many levels, because (post)modern art is highly referential and quotational. This is especially true in pop-culture but also applies to high art. And the broader your inserests, the more intellectual and emotional stimuli you subject yourself to - the bigger your database of memes and, hence, of possibly interesting associations you can offer to your audience.
As pointed by Mikhail, investing some time in paintings can be helpful. Classics are a great source of excellent compositions and will help tremenedously in developing an educated taste for composition and honing your compositional skills. Paintings can also further your understanding of light, especially some of the Dutch masters (most notably Vermeer, even though Rembrandt gets more love). And just walking around and paying attention to light and its behavior is a good excercise in itself: watch the quality and color of shadows, bounced light, reflections, highlights, modeling of shapes and lines, suggestion of form.
As you said that you are into film, you may delve into the work of not just directors but also some of the great cinematographers. I am a naturalist by heart, so I find the imagery of Roger Deakins, Emmanuel Lubezki or Chris Doyle very appealing. The work of James Wong Howe, John Alton or Urusevsky, for example, will demonstrate some excellent use of black and white. But, really, any film you like a lot visually you can rewatch with cinematography in mind. (I find that turning the sound off can help in appreciating the image for what it is.)
Once you have a sufficient base to build upon, judging the work you see and registering anything you happen to like can get you far. Jordan Cronenweth (who shot the visual masterpiece Blade Runner for Ridley Scott) once said that he steals every good idea he stumbles upon while watching other people's movies. This applies on many levels, because (post)modern art is highly referential and quotational. This is especially true in pop-culture but also applies to high art. And the broader your inserests, the more intellectual and emotional stimuli you subject yourself to - the bigger your database of memes and, hence, of possibly interesting associations you can offer to your audience.