Multiple sensibilities

Murchu said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Para 1: Of course, a lot depends on how you define 'gear head'

Para 2: When I was an assistant it was taken for granted that one would be highly proficient with at least 35 mm SLR (usually Nikon), rollfilm SLR (usually Hasselblad) and 4x5 inch; that the skills with each did not take long to transfer (including to larger formats, for 4x5); and that quite a lot of people were highly proficient with Leicas too.

Of course, it is different today when every new digi-cam has a different set of controls, menus, etc., but many of us do in fact have decades of experience with different cameras.

Cheers,

R.
 
Murchu said:
A fantastic article, thanks for sharing 🙂
Click to expand...
Dear Damien,

My father met him in New Zealand in the 1960s at a Royal Navy cocktail party. They chatted about this and that (as you do at cocktail parties) and when my father had moved on (as you do at cocktail parties, especially when you're the host ship), the next person he was talking to said, "Do you know who you were talking to?"

--"No. Sheep farmer. Nice guy."

-- "Charles Upham, VC and bar"

That's why I took particular notice when he died.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Para 1: Of course, a lot depends on how you define 'gear head'

Para 2: When I was an assistant it was taken for granted that one would be highly proficient with at least 35 mm SLR (usually Nikon), rollfilm SLR (usually Hasselblad) and 4x5 inch; that the skills with each did not take long to transfer (including to larger formats, for 4x5); and that quite a lot of people were highly proficient with Leicas too.

Of course, it is different today when every new digi-cam has a different set of controls, menus, etc., but many of us do in fact have decades of experience with different cameras.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Excerpt 1, very much agreed. I think a lot may depend on such a definition, and imagine on many points we are in agreement.

Excerpt 2, I am still inclined to disagree. How many decisive moments would Bresson have captured if he had several different systems he shot with regularly, or how many keepers would your street photographer have, if likewise, they juggled several different systems with regularity. A lot of experience is required to achieve that level of mastery with one camera, let alone several different types of camera, and acknowledge the value of several decades of experience to gain such an intimate in-depth level of ability, which was really my point 🙂
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Damien,

My father met him in New Zealand in the 1960s at a Royal Navy cocktail party. They chatted about this and that (as you do at cocktail parties) and when my father had moved on (as you do at cocktail parties, especially when you're the host ship), the next person he was talking to said, "Do you know who you were talking to?"

--"No. Sheep farmer. Nice guy."

-- "Charles Upham, VC and bar"

That's why I took particular notice when he died.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Humility truly is the mark of a great man. I particularly liked the below paragraph in the article;

In a television interview in 1983 he said he would have been happier not to have been awarded a VC at all, as it made people expect too much of him. "I don't want to be treated differently from any other b*****d," he insisted.
 
I suspect the original question is disingenous. Most of us have come across photo freaks who it seems observe nothing in particular, and have nothing photographically to say in particular, but are unusually persistent in talking about and finding the best gear and then they often post their humdrum pictures on the interweb to prove it. Their technical reports can be useful and I can just forget the photos.
 
Murchu said:
Excerpt 1, very much agreed. I think a lot may depend on such a definition, and imagine on many points we are in agreement.

Excerpt 2, I am still inclined to disagree. How many decisive moments would Bresson have captured if he had several different systems he shot with regularly, or how many keepers would your street photographer have, if likewise, they juggled several different systems with regularity. A lot of experience is required to achieve that level of mastery with one camera, let alone several different types of camera, and acknowledge the value of several decades of experience to gain such an intimate in-depth level of ability, which was really my point 🙂
Click to expand...

Dear Damien,

We are perhaps more in agreement than it seems. I'm not suggesting several systems for street photography, several for the studio, etc. What I'm suggesting is that one might use Leica RF and/or Nikon SLR instinctively for reportage (the two were the classic photojournalist combination for 20 years or so); Hasselblad for slightly more considered portraiture; 4x5 for product shots, quite slowly...

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Damien,

We are perhaps more in agreement than it seems. I'm not suggesting several systems for street photography, several for the studio, etc. What I'm suggesting is that one might use Leica RF and/or Nikon SLR instinctively for reportage (the two were the classic photojournalist combination for 20 years or so); Hasselblad for slightly more considered portraiture; 4x5 for product shots, quite slowly...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

It would seem so alright 🙂 I definitely agree and see the benefits of specific camera types for specific types of work, and definitely the mastery of the tools for your type of work.
 
I have read the original post a couple of times and seem to be missing the point. Maybe I am a little slow but wonder how it applies to me. I am currently lusting over a Monchrom M. If I sell down some of my film gear I can get one. I can be first on the list at my local supplier, and my wife who doesn't understand film has said get one, so I think I will. Does this make me a gear head or someone who has really liked the look of the images posted on Net (especially Kristian's from Melbourne Fashion Show) and think they look close enough to film for me to consider a digital work flow? I don't know but am going to wait for what get's said at Photokina and then put my name on the list. Gearhead? I don't know but I am wearing an Omega Planet Ocean🙂
 
I for one quite enjoy these subjects and the discussions that follow.
I'd also like to add that I have owned and used many pieces of gear and beyond a doubt have proven that I can take a rotten picture with any one of them!
So in the big scheme of things,being a rotten picture taking gear head can still be a fun and harmless pastime,no?
icon7.gif

Regards,Peter
 
Dear David,

It doesn't have to apply to anyone. That's the point, really. Some ultra-purists like to pretend that you can't be a 'real' photographer if you care about gear at all: it turns you into a 'gear head' and a Bad Person. I think they're wrong. So, presumably, do you.

Cheers,

R.
 
I tend to agree Roger. The left side of my brain has been imagining what my bag will look like with M9 + MM and 3 summicrons and the right side of brain has been imagining the creative possibilities especially in low light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom