back alley
IMAGES
this is a quote from roger hicks, the man who makes his living reviewing gear.
now we know what he really thinks of his readers.
thanks for the insight roger.
joe
now we know what he really thinks of his readers.
thanks for the insight roger.
joe
bmattock
Veteran
I have to defend Roger on this - I don't think he said what you think he said. Read it again, I had to. It's a bit awkward, but I get his point. He's not referring to his readers as empty heads.
ferider
Veteran
Joe, Roger was defending pride of ownership:
In other words: empty headed is not who has pride in his/her gear and uses it. FWIW, that's how I read it anyways.
In other words: empty headed is not who has pride in his/her gear and uses it. FWIW, that's how I read it anyways.
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
No, they are not empty heads. How would the rest of us, that do not have as much interest in gear, get answers about gear. You have to have them around; a societal necessity.
"In other words, the vast majority of those who don't believe in pride of ownership, or pleasure of use, or just long and happy familiarity, AREN'T actually photographers. They're gear-heads, and empty-heads at that." -Roger Hicks.
Joe- I also re-read Roger's post. I do not think he meant it as a stand-alone statement. In context, I agree with what he said. He talks about his favorite cameras, and that the equipment used to make the images DOES matter. You have to be comfortable with using it to get results that you want.
And I also agree- someone that collects gear and never uses it, owns it just for the sake of owning it, that is sad. I've been stopped by a couple of people seeing me using Vintage gear, that let me know they also own a Leica M3 or a Contax. "Well where is it?", I'll ask- seeing the Digi-Cam. "Oh no, it's too nice to use"...
I have some Mint cameras. They get used carefully, but I do use them. Maybe they would not go down the Giant Slide or the Disney Rollercoasters, or to the beach. But my other Vintage equipment certainly does. If my Vintage Butt can go down the Giant Slide on a sheet of Canvas, so can my Canon P.
Joe- I also re-read Roger's post. I do not think he meant it as a stand-alone statement. In context, I agree with what he said. He talks about his favorite cameras, and that the equipment used to make the images DOES matter. You have to be comfortable with using it to get results that you want.
And I also agree- someone that collects gear and never uses it, owns it just for the sake of owning it, that is sad. I've been stopped by a couple of people seeing me using Vintage gear, that let me know they also own a Leica M3 or a Contax. "Well where is it?", I'll ask- seeing the Digi-Cam. "Oh no, it's too nice to use"...
I have some Mint cameras. They get used carefully, but I do use them. Maybe they would not go down the Giant Slide or the Disney Rollercoasters, or to the beach. But my other Vintage equipment certainly does. If my Vintage Butt can go down the Giant Slide on a sheet of Canvas, so can my Canon P.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Gear is important.
Before and after you become a photographer, and that's another story.
Some gear-heads are empty, of course.
Gear is important to all of us.
Cheers,
Juan
Before and after you become a photographer, and that's another story.
Some gear-heads are empty, of course.
Gear is important to all of us.
Cheers,
Juan
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I have to agree with ferider, joe, and by extension with Roger Hicks.
I can't help but wonder if there is something hitting a little too close to home here?
William
I can't help but wonder if there is something hitting a little too close to home here?
William
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Come on, Joe, that's not fair. The whole post can be re-stated as follows:
Those who say that gear doesn't matter are usually not the photographers, because photographers almost always have favourite gear: gear which helps them get the best pictures.
The point of reviews is to help people choose the camera(s) that will suit them best, and those are the people I'm writing for. Gear heads who never take pictures? They're going to buy cameras anyway, and probably not the ones I recommend.
Also, most of my living is from encouraging people to think about photography, or indeed, about life, the universe and everything, not from reviewing gear. Increasingly, I only review gear I think I'd like to use myself: I will not be falsely enthusiastic about kit I don't like, though I may say, "It only did this and this for me, but you may find that it does that and that for you." I'll also say, "I'd buy one of these if I didn't already have a _____", a good example being the 35/1.2 Nokton and my old pre-aspheric Summilux. In many ways, the Nokton is a better lens; but I prefer the smaller, lighter and fractionally slower Summilux because I've got it and don't need/want to spend more more.
Edit: Note also that the last two words of the post to which you have taken exception, italicized for emphasis, are gear matters. Why did you choose to ignore that bit?
Cheers,
R.
Those who say that gear doesn't matter are usually not the photographers, because photographers almost always have favourite gear: gear which helps them get the best pictures.
The point of reviews is to help people choose the camera(s) that will suit them best, and those are the people I'm writing for. Gear heads who never take pictures? They're going to buy cameras anyway, and probably not the ones I recommend.
Also, most of my living is from encouraging people to think about photography, or indeed, about life, the universe and everything, not from reviewing gear. Increasingly, I only review gear I think I'd like to use myself: I will not be falsely enthusiastic about kit I don't like, though I may say, "It only did this and this for me, but you may find that it does that and that for you." I'll also say, "I'd buy one of these if I didn't already have a _____", a good example being the 35/1.2 Nokton and my old pre-aspheric Summilux. In many ways, the Nokton is a better lens; but I prefer the smaller, lighter and fractionally slower Summilux because I've got it and don't need/want to spend more more.
Edit: Note also that the last two words of the post to which you have taken exception, italicized for emphasis, are gear matters. Why did you choose to ignore that bit?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
The universe of photography is made up of a continuum of people ranging from those who only collect cameras and never use them, to those for whom the final image is all that is important. Most of us are between these extremes. We get pleasure and satisfaction from the gear, the process, and the results. The photography universe is big enough for all of of us.
(And it is not a sin to be wherever one is on this continuum. That idea is just silly, IMO.)
(And it is not a sin to be wherever one is on this continuum. That idea is just silly, IMO.)
Last edited:
I prefer to quote William Gibson on this one:
The otaku, the passionate obsessive, the information age's embodiment of the connoisseur, more concerned with the accumulation of data than of objects, seems a natural crossover figure in today's interface of British and Japanese cultures. I see it in the eyes of the Portobello dealers, and in the eyes of the Japanese collectors: a perfectly calm train-spotter frenzy, murderous and sublime. Understanding otaku -hood, I think, is one of the keys to understanding the culture of the web. There is something profoundly post-national about it, extra-geographic. We are all curators, in the post-modern world, whether we want to be or not.[8] ”
The otaku, the passionate obsessive, the information age's embodiment of the connoisseur, more concerned with the accumulation of data than of objects, seems a natural crossover figure in today's interface of British and Japanese cultures. I see it in the eyes of the Portobello dealers, and in the eyes of the Japanese collectors: a perfectly calm train-spotter frenzy, murderous and sublime. Understanding otaku -hood, I think, is one of the keys to understanding the culture of the web. There is something profoundly post-national about it, extra-geographic. We are all curators, in the post-modern world, whether we want to be or not.[8] ”
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Not only Roger Hicks is right, but he also touched a deep point.
Bad or unexperienced photographers (all of us sometime ago) try desperately to find out recommended gear by more experienced photographers. That is normal. Others, look for gear and don't even shoot, so they'll be empty forever.
The bravest point I see in Roger's writing, is stating that gear is important, and it's importance comes from a real relation between the photographer and his practical knowledge of what a certain camera or lens can give to his expression.
And he's not treating his readers as empty people in any way. He is encouraging them to find their appropriate gear for their photography.
Cheers,
Juan
Bad or unexperienced photographers (all of us sometime ago) try desperately to find out recommended gear by more experienced photographers. That is normal. Others, look for gear and don't even shoot, so they'll be empty forever.
The bravest point I see in Roger's writing, is stating that gear is important, and it's importance comes from a real relation between the photographer and his practical knowledge of what a certain camera or lens can give to his expression.
And he's not treating his readers as empty people in any way. He is encouraging them to find their appropriate gear for their photography.
Cheers,
Juan
bmattock
Veteran
Well said. Cheers.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Otaku is somebody with obsessive interests, not necessarily cameras. In Japan, amateur photography is usually referred to as "camera-hobby" and a pro photographer is a "camera-man".
I realize that, but I'm not doing a literal translation of "otaku". I'm using it more in the sense of the international appropriation of the word. Gibson says that in the future, the only commodity that can be brokered will be information. For the otaku, depth of information is value. I don't have the exact quote from "Idoru" in front of me.
In any case, I prefer "Anpanman" to "camera-man".
.
In any case, I prefer "Anpanman" to "camera-man".
.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Hector,
The frightening thing is that the brokers are often the only ones who make any real money out of it, i.e. the publishers and web providers. Those who generate and organize the information, or make it palatable, are ever more marginalized - because they are often competing with otaku for the attention of otaku.
Cheers,
R.
Well, you make your living as a paid information provider. So do I.
As you found out with your website, the web lowers the value of information to near zero.
Every post you make on online forums reduces the value of your future income as a paid provider of either opinions or technical knowledge.
Digging your own grave and crowing over it, I'd say.
Fortunately, on the subjects on which I get paid, I keep entirely mum online.
As you found out with your website, the web lowers the value of information to near zero.
Every post you make on online forums reduces the value of your future income as a paid provider of either opinions or technical knowledge.
Digging your own grave and crowing over it, I'd say.
Fortunately, on the subjects on which I get paid, I keep entirely mum online.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The danger is not to Roger, Hector. He simply tells the truth. The danger is that when all information is free (as it wants to be, by the way), those who provided it when they got paid for it will be too busy earning a living at Walmart to share their expertise.
ferider
Veteran
Me too.
But then, for some, popularity is more lucrative than information.
Consider Paris Hilton, for instance.
Not if they're quick to adapt.
Evolution and civilization advances because of superior knowledge of one group over another.
Information may "want" to be free. Food wants to be free too. Consider those who neither sow nor reap. But it's not.
Someone will always hold it ransom.
* Paris Hilton, in her own way, is as adept at her profession of "media presence" as others are of their more conventional occupations. She's a product of her century.
Evolution and civilization advances because of superior knowledge of one group over another.
Information may "want" to be free. Food wants to be free too. Consider those who neither sow nor reap. But it's not.
Someone will always hold it ransom.
* Paris Hilton, in her own way, is as adept at her profession of "media presence" as others are of their more conventional occupations. She's a product of her century.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Apart from the fact that you're misrepresenting the quote by a fair here, I think even in your mangled form there is a grain of truth to it if you take the sting out of the wording.
If you see photography as some kind of intellectual exercise, camera gear is the single most unintellectual way to go on about it. It's a perfectly legitimate hobby, but as with any hobby it's much easier to take serious if you have a clear idea what you do and what you don't do. Raising wiener dogs is a perfectly legitimate hobby, as long as one doesn't think of oneself as if one were going to the South Pole on an expedition with a bunch of huskies.
Getting a clear idea about the extent and limits of my gear interest and getting rid of random Internet-inspired collecting habits was one of the best things that ever happened to me photography-wise. The difference between a photographer and a camera gearhead is the same as between a novelist and a collector of typewriters. There may be the occasional person who is both, but they're still distinct groups and there's still a fair gap between them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.