Less gear choice = Better results

Less isn't more, but until your vision is developed and intuitive less is better.

This has been a subject of psychological and learning research for at least a century, and is more and more permeating the pop consciousness with books like the paradox of choice. It's been known to artists for thousands of years--once you can "see" then more choices are liberating, but until then they get in the way of developing your sight.

Thinking about the film format or focal length as you're shooting is only an effective, expansive tool in your toolbox if you already have a strong grasp of all the fundamentals of composition, and know what you're trying to accomplish through using and abusing them. The format considerations are a hindrance if you're using them to try to figure out how to mask the fact that you don't have any particular knowledge or intention with regards to the fundamental composition.

Them is simply the facts of human learning. "Crawling before you can walk" is one of those adages that exists for a good reason. Note the corollary here, though. If you're not interested so much in "vision" or "art" or any of that stuff... if you just enjoy making pictures and aren't concerned with a body of work or etc, then you don't need to worry about it. I'm sure this applies to some guys like Bill M who always express a "more is more" sentiment in these threads, along with certain amounts of scorn. 😉 Take your dozens of cameras and rock them all day long, and good for you--you'll probably find more reward in it than a lot of people do in trying to be artists.

It depends on your aims. And for either "side" to pretend that their aims are the only ones that exist is, well, fill in the blank.
 
Agreed Brian.

The only thing I don't understand is why the "more is more" crowd, who already have strong grasp of all the fundamentals of composition, and know what they're trying to accomplish through using and abusing them is looking down with scorn and sarcascm on us students, who are trying to develop intuition and "sight". Since usually, experience and knowledge develops together with modesty and patience and the desire for positive influence; but not here, apparently.

🙂
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
Agreed Brian.

The only thing I don't understand is why the "more is more" crowd, who already have strong grasp of all the fundamentals of composition, and know what they're trying to accomplish through using and abusing them is looking down with scorn and sarcascm on us students, who are trying to develop intuition and "sight". Since usually, experience and knowledge develops together with modesty and patience and the desire for positive influence; but not here, apparently.

🙂
Click to expand...

At least here on RFF it seems a lot of them are what the Brits call "happy snappers" (a term too useful to not have an American equivalent, btw) and camera aficionados, and get irritated for god knows what reason at the mere existence of other people who, *gasp*, have a different approach and direction for their photography. I'm one of the happy snappers, probably--I'm certainly no artist and don't have any vision that I'm aware of. But I respect people who are going that route and realize their needs and development are different than mine.
 
ferider said:
Since usually, experience and knowledge develops together with modesty and patience and the desire for positive influence; but not here, apparently.

🙂
Click to expand...

Never worked for me -- I'm hopelessly impatient, though not such a monster of arrogance as some -- but I'd probably have learned quicker if I had been more patient.

My only view of 'more is more' is that it's a serious mistake to carry everything with you (if you have more than a minimal selection of gear) because you'll spend too much time worrying about kit and not enough time taking pictures.

Conversely, my view of 'less is more' is that while there's a big advantage in having tried a lot of kit, then cut down to what you're comfortable with, artificially limiting yourself by refusing access to extra gear is foolish. In other words, there's absolutely no merit in 'one camera, one lens' if you're constantly thinking about what else you want/need/would rather be using. You're back to worrying about kit again.

There's also the point that 'one camera, one lens' is a lot easier when it's the right camera and lens -- for me, for example, M2 + 35 instead of M3 + 50 -- and besides, I'm much happier with 'two cameras, two lenses' around my neck plus two or three lenses in my pocket. On top of all that I can borrow Frances's lenses, and she uses different focal lengths from me. My choices: 15, [21], 35, [50], 75, [135]. Hers: 18, [28], 50, 90. Square brackets indicate rarer choices for particular applications, and don't include the Thambar and 65 Elmar.

Cheers,

R.
 
ferider said:
Agreed Brian.

The only thing I don't understand is why the "more is more" crowd, who already have strong grasp of all the fundamentals of composition, and know what they're trying to accomplish through using and abusing them is looking down with scorn and sarcascm on us students, who are trying to develop intuition and "sight". Since usually, experience and knowledge develops together with modesty and patience and the desire for positive influence; but not here, apparently.

🙂
Click to expand...

well put, roland. i think it's down to some folks' need to demean others (and thus elevate themselves perhaps). on the other hand, and i'm thankful it's a much larger group, there are those who display artful patience, tact, and bonhomie in the sharing of experience and wisdom, photographic and otherwise.

brian: thanks for taking the time to articulate the reasoning that grounds the "less is more" assertion.
 
Last edited:
This threads been taken much further out of context than I would have liked, but oh well - it's interesting reading. I'm going to rephrase my view on this - I've never advocated limiting gear, I advocate HAVING gear, but limiting the amount that you have on you, based on what you would expect to be photographing. I would never do the one camera/one lens thing, I need to change up perspectives pretty often to keep fresh.
I make 100% of my income from photography work, which classifies me as a Pro, and I like not having excess gear with me when I'm working on personal stuff.

If I wasn't pro, I'd probably own just a single body with 28 and 50mm lenses. I love simplicity and could cover everything with that.
I don't believe it's limiting to simplify.
 
Discussion on RFF is generally high quality, but what I don't like is sometimes folks take unnecessary personal jabs at others simply for having a different opinion. We could do without that and raise the standards even higher.
 
fdigital said:
This threads been taken much further out of context than I would have liked, but oh well - it's interesting reading. I'm going to rephrase my view on this - I've never advocated limiting gear, I advocate HAVING gear, but limiting the amount that you have on you, based on what you would expect to be photographing.
Click to expand...

That is perfectly logical. I have certainly made the mistake of dragging everything I thought I might need with me. It was a mistake. Not because it reduced my abilities (or lack of same), but that it was simply physically exhausting and it ruined what should have been the enjoyment of the trip for me.

However, circumstances differ. If I were shooting a portrait in studio, there is absolutely no reason for me not to have available everything which I even suspect I might need. A combat photographer would make a different choice. A wedding photographer without backup equipment would be foolish indeed. A person who simply enjoys taking photographs with a variety of photographic equipment because they love photographic equipment would take whatever fit their whim of the moment.

So I see no rules, no general concepts, no philosophy that fits real-world circumstances. For those who believe that they actually perform better if they intentionally limit themselves in terms of equipment, I wish them well and would not stand in their way. I disagree that they have stumbled upon some universal truth, and I won't be joining them in their newfound asceticism, but I certainly agree that they, like myself, should do as they wish.
 
FrankS said:
Discussion on RFF is generally high quality, but what I don't like is sometimes folks take unnecessary personal jabs at others simply for having a different opinion. We could do without that and raise the standards even higher.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course... if only they would stop jabbing and get right to the point... a left hook. 😛
 
bmattock said:
So I see no rules, no general concepts, no philosophy that fits real-world circumstances. For those who believe that they actually perform better if they intentionally limit themselves in terms of equipment, I wish them well and would not stand in their way. I disagree that they have stumbled upon some universal truth, and I won't be joining them in their newfound asceticism, but I certainly agree that they, like myself, should do as they wish.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you reconcile the lip-service to "everyone should do as they wish" with "there are no general concepts, no philosophy that fits real-world circumstances". You are in fact prescribing an absolute there, and it's one that's incorrect.

It's just a fact that there are "general concepts" that not only fit but dictate the process, if your process is intended primarily to be a learning process. If it's not that's great, but if it is... it's just weird to deny that human brains are wired in certain ways and certain strategies--like minimizing the variables at any given stage of learning--are better than others.

Some people make an ascetic argument about one camera/one lens connecting them to a higher plane or whatever, which might be bogus or might not. But addressing that, when the OP was obviously not talking about that, is a non sequitur.
 
So... anyone wants to go shoot 5x7 with me 😛 😀

What a fun thread to read when you are between jobs ... 🙄
 
5x7??? I'd like to play. That fits my "enough is enough" rule. Which is the alternative to the "less is more" or "more is more" or "more is less" rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom