Multiple sensibilities

R

Roger Hicks

Veteran
Local time
9:59 AM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
Location
Aquitaine
View My Gallery
Why do so many people insist on a false dichotomy between "photographers" and "gear heads"? Is it because self-proclaimed "photographers" are so insecure about their own abilities that they feel the need to insult others in order to bolster their own (very shaky and highly disputable) sense of superiority?

There is no necessary correlation between taking pictures and liking gear. I've known quite a few very good photographers who have very strong ideas about what equipment they like to use, and who use a wide range of different cameras. I've also met plenty who know very little about equipment, not least because they are/were happy with what they use: they see/saw no occasion to change. But I've met very few who genuinely don't care whether they're using a Lyubitel or a Leica. If we have to, most of us can live with either, but we have a clear preference for one or the other.

No-one thinks any the less of a photographer who wears an Omega watch, carries a Barlow pocket knife or writes with a Rotring pen. Why then should anyone get bent out of shape by a photographer who cares which camera s/he uses?

If someone takes rotten pictures with a succession of expensive cameras, all it means is that they're a rotten photographer. But anyone who thinks there is a necessary inverse correlation between photographic ability and good equipment is a rotten logician.

Cheers,

R.
 
Well, as the saying goes, more has been created by using mediocre tools well, than excellent tools in a mediocre fashion, and imagine the crux of the matter has to do with the unspoken conclusion that someone who has so many cameras/ is constantly changing their camera kit can not know their equipment as well as someone who does not change their kit so often.
 
Murchu said:
Well, as the saying goes, more has been created by using mediocre tools well, than excellent tools in a mediocre fashion, and imagine the crux of the matter has to do with the unspoken conclusion that someone who has so many cameras/ is constantly changing their camera kit can not know their equipment as well as someone who does not change their kit so often.
Click to expand...

Seemed to hit the post button in place of the preview button, so would add to the above, a similar analogy might be between fast drivers and safety when it comes to driving for example. Sure, fast drivers can be safe drivers, but just because they are, does not mean they are the safest possible drivers they could be, because of their penchant for speed. Thus it is with photographers, sure it is possible to be a gearhead and a good photographer, but that is not to say the same person might not be a better photographer, if not constantly dealing with the distraction of learning about new pieces of gear all the time.

EDIT: I may have tackled just a strand of your argument; namely that of those who lust after gear, an image which your use of the word 'gearhead' triggered. If all you are arguing about, is whether people begrudge others because their camera is an expensive one, then I should probably add, the most important thing in my mind is that a photographer has the tools they feel they need to do their work, and have no issue with someone if they decide that is a Leica M9, or some equally expensive camera.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Why do so many people insist on a false dichotomy between "photographers" and "gear heads"?
Click to expand...

Do they? A dichotomy is a rhetorical figure. I don't think you're making a claim that photographers don't exist or that gearheads don't exist. I think in practice everybody is more or less aware that reality is more of a continuum where everybody can look for a place for themselves.

We all know the proverbial people who have lots of 50mm lenses and use them to take pictures of cats, if at all; they simply represent one position on that continuum, probably somewhere near one end of it.
 
Murchu said:
Well, as the saying goes, more has been created by using mediocre tools well, than excellent tools in a mediocre fashion, and imagine the crux of the matter has to do with the unspoken conclusion that someone who has so many cameras/ is constantly changing their camera kit can not know their equipment as well as someone who does not change their kit so often.
Click to expand...
Dear Damien,

Then again, I'd argue that a gear-head need not constantly change his/her kit. Rather s/he can choose the best tool for a given job.

Cheers,

R.
 
rxmd said:
Do they? A dichotomy is a rhetorical figure. I don't think you're making a claim that photographers don't exist or that gearheads don't exist. I think in practice everybody is more or less aware that reality is more of a continuum where everybody can look for a place for themselves.

We all know the proverbial people who have lots of 50mm lenses and use them to take pictures of cats, if at all; they simply represent one position on that continuum, probably somewhere near one end of it.
Click to expand...

It's the 'or less' I'm talking about, and the division is logical rather than rhetorical: division of a class into two mutually exclusive sub-classes.

Cheers,

R.
 
This only exists on the internet IMO and only because some individuals just seem to know what's best for others ... and unfortunately can't keep this wisdom to themselves! 😀

Cyberspace creates a great platform for lay preachers! 🙄
 
rxmd said:
Do they? A dichotomy is a rhetorical figure. I don't think you're making a claim that photographers don't exist or that gearheads don't exist. I think in practice everybody is more or less aware that reality is more of a continuum where everybody can look for a place for themselves.

We all know the proverbial people who have lots of 50mm lenses and use them to take pictures of cats, if at all; they simply represent one position on that continuum, probably somewhere near one end of it.
Click to expand...

... a bell shaped distribution curve I would imagine, like most things, with photographers only at one end and gear-head only at the other
 
It does Keith.

There are many facets to this issue. I agree with Roger that some photographers experience some kind of divine revelation with regard to gear and then preach to others about 'how they don't get it' (which makes Roger's point both in regards of the condescending aspect, but also the hypocrisy); however, it cuts both ways. There are plenty of cat photographers with every bit of kit under the sun lecturing others (some of whom are doing very well, either commercially or otherwise with their photorgaphy) about the 'must have' qualities of their APO-USM whatever it is lens and denigrating the capabilities of other pieces of equipment. Sometimes those gear orientated individuals insist to others that certain things 'matter.'

I consider myself one of the ones about whom Roger speaks. I am primarily about 'the photograph' and cameras are tools, but you won;t hear me say that equipment does not matter. It does to everyone, but that is not to say we cannot make do, or adjust if need be.
 
All photographers care what camera they use. The thing with the gearheads is they constantly buy and sell equipment because they think there is a "magic bullet" that will make their pictures 'not suck'. The stone cold fact is that the only cure for pictures that suck is plain hard work. Practice. Take lots of photos and over time, you'll get better. If you have any talent.
 
All photographers care what camera they use. The thing with the gearheads is they constantly buy and sell equipment because they think there is a "magic bullet" that will make their pictures 'not suck'.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is really true. Not all photographers care what camera they use. I know plenty who just use what they have, even just their phone if it is handy. Many are good photographers too. Also, there are a lot of us, who are photographers, who do care, who are gear heads, who know there is no magic bullet. We just think some cameras are cool so we buy and collect them if we can.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
All photographers care what camera they use. The thing with the gearheads is they constantly buy and sell equipment because they think there is a "magic bullet" that will make their pictures 'not suck'. The stone cold fact is that the only cure for pictures that suck is plain hard work. Practice. Take lots of photos and over time, you'll get better. If you have any talent.
Click to expand...

Quite true, but there is whole other category of gearheads (for want of a better word - terrible name by the way) that you ommitted. They are the photographers who buy and then trade gear, especially Leica lenses, not in search of the magic bullet, but because they enjoy, no LOVE experimenting/handling and viewing the character/IQ of each lens, especially Leica lenses.

Chris - I don't know if you have done much travel in Asia, but what is true for the US doesn't necessarily speak for the rest of the world. When I was in Japan/Hong Kong/Singapore in the early part of this century, I met countless photographers who by habit did this ritual. I got to know a lot of them and by their own admission, they weren't looking for this magic bullet, no, instead they LOVED old and new Leica/Contax/Nikon lenses. They loved the history behind pre and post war glass and how it affected the look of each photo.

You could almost say that it was kind of a religion in a way.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Damien,

Then again, I'd argue that a gear-head need not constantly change his/her kit. Rather s/he can choose the best tool for a given job.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

+1

The idea that a camera is such a complex piece of equipment that people can't be highly proficient in the use of multiple types and formats is rather silly to say the least.
 
The overriding assumption seems to be that we all have the same or similar motives ...we don`t.

I`ve been taking snaps for enjoyment since 1962.
I can`t think much is going to change in the way I do that by now regardless of what I use.

I am remain therefore largely unaffected by the debate between photographers and gear heads apart from admiring the talent of the former and being interested in the experiences of the latter.
Oh and perplexed as to why some get so excited about this.
 
What a lot of "true photographers" can't seem to grabs is a lot of us gear heads just like using multiple cameras simply because we like using different toys and not because we're looking for some magic bullet that will some how make us "true photographers" 🙂
 
Roger Hicks said:
Why do so many people insist on a false dichotomy between "photographers" and "gear heads"? Is it because self-proclaimed "photographers" are so insecure about their own abilities that they feel the need to insult others in order to bolster their own (very shaky and highly disputable) sense of superiority?

There is no necessary correlation between taking pictures and liking gear. I've known quite a few very good photographers who have very strong ideas about what equipment they like to use, and who use a wide range of different cameras. I've also met plenty who know very little about equipment, not least because they are/were happy with what they use: they see/saw no occasion to change. But I've met very few who genuinely don't care whether they're using a Lyubitel or a Leica. If we have to, most of us can live with either, but we have a clear preference for one or the other.

No-one thinks any the less of a photographer who wears an Omega watch, carries a Barlow pocket knife or writes with a Rotring pen. Why then should anyone get bent out of shape by a photographer who cares which camera s/he uses?

If someone takes rotten pictures with a succession of expensive cameras, all it means is that they're a rotten photographer. But anyone who thinks there is a necessary inverse correlation between photographic ability and good equipment is a rotten logician.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Its not a question of superiority as such, its more a question of distinction... Its like in an army you have foot infantry and then you have elite special forces...

Personally, I like honest gear-heads who make no pretension of being a photographer. they like cameras and lenses and that is fine. In fact they're the best people to buy used gear from because they keep the gear in good and clean shape.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Damien,

Then again, I'd argue that a gear-head need not constantly change his/her kit. Rather s/he can choose the best tool for a given job.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Theoretically, perhaps. In reality, I think someone who cannot control their purchasing habits, can hardly be assumed to have a high level of discipline to use it optimally, imo. Bear in mind, I am referring to people whose purchasing is regulated solely by want, as opposed to need. Individuals who just happen to have a wide variety of kit, but where each piece serves a need of their shooting, are quite distinct from gearheads, imo.

Mcary said:
+1

The idea that a camera is such a complex piece of equipment that people can't be highly proficient in the use of multiple types and formats is rather silly to say the least.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would disagree with that. Proficient, yes. Highly proficient, I think no, or rather, likely not. It is simply impossible to garner that level of knowledge, and more important, trained muscle memory with such a wide variety of kit. Of course anyone can operate the basics of a camera, but how many can become a ninja effectively, with each of their cameras and lenses. To argue otherwise, unless a user had decades of experience, is silly, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom