The interesting levels of Photographic Elitism

[kevbo]

Let me first say that I love photography. I get such a high when I get a good image or find what I thought was a so-so image turn out to be great. I think it's a drug for me. It also scratches that creative itch that my job doesn't.

I also (like a surfer) am on that hunt for the perfect photo (or wave). I believe that pictures are made by a photographer AND a camera - both matter in the end.

So I've bought my share of cameras over the last 5 years. Every time I got a camera, I participated in the respective community for that camera. I loved it and grew (I believe) as an amateur photographer. But I always heard these whisperings filtering down from above:

1. Obviously an SLR is so much better than a point and shoot! I got a Canon 450D. The pictures were gorgeous from my 18-55 EF-s lens. But wait, "primes are a lot better than zooms. Much sharper." Better photos? Bigger highs? I had to learn more!

2. I purchased an EF 50/1.4 before a family vacation and then took some stunning photos of my nephew. f/1.4 was a new world to me. My love for photography grew - those pictures gave me quite the "high".

2. But you know, I heard full-frame was the way to go. The DOF was nicer, the low-light capabilities were better. There was "just something more wonderful". Besides, the focal lenghts "were right" for 35mm! So 12 or 15 months ago I picked up a 5D2. I loved the color of that camera. Things seemed so vibrant. The movie mode was wonderful and I made some great videos of my girlfriend walking through a field of grain. I learned about lighting.

3. But I heard of these mythical lenses - the 135 f/2 being one of them. I picked one up and captured some absolutely gorgeous pictures of my parents. Here was the drug again - I got to capture brief fleeting moments of my family that I'll treasure for ever. It scratched my creative itch, even my geeky itch. It was wonderful.

4. But the size of that setup bothered me. People clearly don't react the same when a bazooka is pointed at them. I of course had heard of Leica and on a few evenings started looking through images at LFI. Georgeous photos. Stunning! I discovered Jeanloup Sieff. Amazing! These photos had something mine never had. Could it be the "Rangefinder" method? Could it be the mythical Leica lenses? And the camera was so small and manageable! I would cease to look like the weirdo with the mega-camera!

5. I got on a few lists, waited patiently a few months, and finally got a grey m9 a few weeks after a 50 summilux. I took this camera to a family wedding. My hopes were low - I wanted to shoot wide-open but expected my focusing skills at that aperture wouldn't be up-to-speed. Strangely, on my first outing with the camera, I got some photos that I absolutely love.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ekhall/

I loved the black and white versions of some of them. Gorgeous!

Anyhow, wishing to hear what others thought - wishing to learn more and get some critiques, I posted a few of them here to a forum. One of the replies contained this:

"There is a kind of gospel here at RFF that modern lenses are not appropriate for B&W..."

Oh for the love of God people. Even I, the camera addict, am starting to pick up on this! 🙂 I would imagine that after "old lenses", the next level is "You've got to shoot film" then "You need to shoot medium format - it's so much better".

I've never been a sheep, I do believe that I love photography for the right reasons, for what it gives me and how it makes me feel. But doesn't it get silly after a while? This non-stop ladder?
K

 

[sojournerphoto]

Just stop now🙂

(link)

Mike

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Yes, it does get silly. We are elitists, with too much money to spend. We are always chasing the holy grail. Any camera you've owned will create absolutely wonderful photos. But...

This is a forum for gear lust, buying gear, selling gear, talking about gear, debating gear. If it is primarily the images you make that you are interested in, you are in the wrong forum. There are forums where the image is the thing and folks rarely talk about cameras. That's not to say there are not excellent photographers here and terrific photos posted. It's just that photos are not the emphasis here.

 

[tlitody]

you are right but there is one school of thought that older lenses produce images which are less clinical or sterile looking and another school of thought which says the newer lens are better precisely because they are sharper with better contrast(usually the reason for being sharper).
Really depends on which school you prefer. Its subjective. All lenses are good enough for most purposes.
Personally I like to print big so I go for the clinical lenses which allow a bit bigger enlargement before the image starts to break down.

 

[djonesii]

the voyage ...

the voyage ...

I'm a gearhead. Sadly, I often work under the blind squirrel theory of shooting, and do find an acorn sometimes ....

I skipped full frame, and went straight to MFDB
I've owned 3 35mm range finders, one digital.
I've had two film SLR's
2 4x5 cameras
3 APS C dSLR
2 micro 4/3rds cameras.
1 high speed point and shoot.

Each one does a different photographic job.

I've debated many times simplifying my camera kit. At the end of the day, when I want to shoot something specific, I have the tool I want to do that job. If I'm just out for a day with the kids, I have that tool too.

Sadly all that's missing from making me a really good photographer is talent. It just can't be taught. Comparing the really good snapshots that I get with my neighbors, I do really good. Comparing the nude figure work that I do to some that I see pro's crank out, my work is tepid at best.

So, I collect tools. Rather than do it at Sears like my father, I do it here.

Just my two cents.

Dave

 

[kevbo]

Wonderful post - at least I know I'm not alone! 🙂

Just stop now🙂

(link)

Mike

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I dunno. I'm not very sophisticated. I've made a living from photography for 40 years, and never considered the characteristics of a lens when I bought it. I bought into a system (for professional use, first Nikon, then Canon when autofocus came along), bought a few lenses in the system, and went on my merry way, completely unconcerned with the "look" of particular lenses. As long as the lenses result in sharp and clear photos, I really don't care how they "draw" or about "bokeh."

But, it's all very interesting to read and discuss.

 

[thegman]

Yes, it does get silly. We are elitists, with too much money to spend. We are always chasing the holy grail. Any camera you've owned will create absolutely wonderful photos. But...

This is a forum for gear lust, buying gear, selling gear, talking about gear, debating gear. If it is primarily the images you make that you are interested in, you are in the wrong forum. There are forums where the image is the thing and folks rarely talk about cameras. That's not to say there are not excellent photographers here and terrific photos posted. It's just that photos are not the emphasis here.

Agree with every word. I'm fully aware that my hobby can be a bit silly though, same as just about any hobby really.

 

[Spyro]

Cameras are for me a hobby-within-a-hobby. Photography is the hobby, cameras are the sub-hobby. Fortunately I discovered very early that they are two completely and utterly unrelated things*.
Since then I have enjoyed both immensely 🙂

*for the kind of photography that I like doing a good pocket digicam is good enough.

 

[kevbo]

Yes, it does get silly. We are elitists, with too much money to spend. We are always chasing the holy grail. Any camera you've owned will create absolutely wonderful photos. But...

This is a forum for gear lust, buying gear, selling gear, talking about gear, debating gear. If it is primarily the images you make that you are interested in, you are in the wrong forum. There are forums where the image is the thing and folks rarely talk about cameras. That's not to say there are not excellent photographers here and terrific photos posted. It's just that photos are not the emphasis here.

Yes - this Holy Grail wanderlust is something I think I've been bitten by.

Yet I thought it was apparent my post was completely about gear - and the never-ending search for it. It seems fitting in this forum, no?

 

[Roger Hicks]

I dunno. I'm not very sophisticated. I've made a living from photography for 40 years, and never considered the characteristics of a lens when I bought it. I bought into a system (for professional use, first Nikon, then Canon when autofocus came along), bought a few lenses in the system, and went on my merry way, completely unconcerned with the "look" of particular lenses. As long as the lenses result in sharp and clear photos, I really don't care how they "draw" or about "bokeh."

But, it's all very interesting to read and discuss.

Same here, with the exceptions that I've always used Nikon and Leica (never Canon, apart from a couple of Canon 7 for fun) and that it's not all very interesting to read and discuss. The 45th discussion of whether to buy a v1, v2, v3 or v4 of this, that or the other lens is well worth avoiding. As are the cries of agony and rage from those who cannot see why anyone uses any other camera than their choice, which is PERFECT and should be made obligatory for everyone...

Cheers,

R.

 

[mfogiel]

If you like B&W photography, ultimately film is the right medium, but this is not to say that everybody needs shooting B&W only on film. The digital B&W has a somewhat compressed tonality, so it is pretty good at the contrasty, graphic type of imaging, like pushed film, with the benefit of better sharpness and absence of grain. However, some of this tonality problem can be mitigated if you throw in one of the old lenses - my preference would be for a Collapsible or Rigid/DR Summiicron 50, but you could also take a look at the first version Elmarit 90 or Summicron 90 for portraiture. I shoot film exclusively, because I only shoot B&W, but for mixed or colour only photography I would certainly be more than happy to use an M9 like yours.

 

[emraphoto]

There are some excellent, excellent photographers here. Lots of differing approaches too.

Simonsawsunlight, magnificent B+W street work with an salut to the classics
Petronio, never tire of looking at those gals. Underneath it all is the magic, relationships with whom you photograph.
Michael and his trips to Myanmar, don't forget some of the India stuff. Smashing.
Bud Green? Anyone know where he's gone. Man o man that guy took photos about the house that belonged in a book!

Lots of folks who walk the walk.

Truthfully I enjoy some of the gear chat. Take one part fascinating machines, one part razor sharp wit and toss in a few mad scientist types and shazam! RFF.

 

[Keith]

Just stop now🙂

(link)

Mike

Your link here was very interesting ... the suggested path to a D700 and a couple of decent primes can potentially cost far more than the investment of those particular items themselves. I now have this combo and I know exactly what it has cost me to get there! 😛

 

[dave lackey]

Well, having divested myself of ALL of my Nikon D-bodies, bazooka lenses, studio equipment and such, I am free!

Thinking back on it, I did enjoy the work that I did with these but somehow I feel we have lost our values that the "greatest generation" of my parents had long ago. I use an M3, a camera that dates back to the time my father came home from WWII and consumerism had not yet been elevated to the ridiculous level it is today. An M3 in those days was most likely the only camera that the "average" person (admittedly with a lot more money than my parents ever had), owned and used for years. They did not chase the equivalent of pixels, they just wanted to take photographs.

I would love to have an M9 to pair up with my M3, but it is not possible, but I don't fret about it.... I have come to appreciate the simple life:😉

"there are some to whom all our ways seem quaint, but today of all days it is brought home to me that it is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life"...
-Bilbo Baggins

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, having divested myself of ALL of my Nikon D-bodies, bazooka lenses, studio equipment and such, I am free!

Thinking back on it, I did enjoy the work that I did with these but somehow I feel we have lost our values that the "greatest generation" of my parents had long ago. I use an M3, a camera that dates back to the time my father came home from WWII and consumerism had not yet been elevated to the ridiculous level it is today. An M3 in those days was most likely the only camera that the "average" person (admittedly with a lot more money than my parents ever had), owned and used for years. They did not chase the equivalent of pixels, they just wanted to take photographs.

I would love to have an M9 to pair up with my M3, but it is not possible, but I don't fret about it.... I have come to appreciate the simple life:😉

"there are some to whom all our ways seem quaint, but today of all days it is brought home to me that it is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life"...
-Bilbo Baggins

Dear Dave,

He must have gone the long way round, given the 9-year gap between the end of WW2 and the introduction of the M3...

(Sorry: couldn't resist. I know what you mean, though.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[v_roma]

My question (and I'm only half joking) is how do you cure GAS? That article rang too true for me, even if the number of cameras and the cost was exaggerated for my particular situation. But I do wonder if the "cure" is really to get the best (but how long does the best stay the best?) or something else... I am finding that GAS gets particularly bad as I have less and less time to actually go out and take pictures. It's almost like a substitute for actual picture taking. Any wisdom to be shared out there? 🙂

Just stop now🙂

(link)

Mike

 

[unixrevolution]

This is only my second post here, so forgive me for butting in. I just couldn't help but want to reply to this thread, as I think there's more than a kernel of truth circulating.

I'm a "New" photographer. I started in Fall 2008, though I always liked taking pictures. Like my dad, I found the allure of a K1000 irresistable, and now primarily shoot a Pentax SLR setup, though Rangefinders are an area of extreme interest with me.

My question (and I'm only half joking) is how do you cure GAS? That article rang too true for me, even if the number of cameras and the cost was exaggerated for my particular situation. But I do wonder if the "cure" is really to get the best (but how long does the best stay the best?) or something else... I am finding that GAS gets particularly bad as I have less and less time to actually go out and take pictures. It's almost like a substitute for actual picture taking. Any wisdom to be shared out there? 🙂

Sooner or later, you WILL run out of money. This may not cure it, but it makes it treatable.

An M3 in those days was most likely the only camera that the "average" person (admittedly with a lot more money than my parents ever had), owned and used for years. They did not chase the equivalent of pixels, they just wanted to take photographs.

There are many, many other cameras that filled that niche in the US back then. Rangefinders,, TLRs and scale-focus cameras by Kodak, Argus, Rollei, and others were more attainable than the Leica, and many of those are still going today.

Cameras are for me a hobby-within-a-hobby. Photography is the hobby, cameras are the sub-hobby. Fortunately I discovered very early that they are two completely and utterly unrelated things*.
Since then I have enjoyed both immensely 🙂

*for the kind of photography that I like doing a good pocket digicam is good enough.

I quite agree. I tell people "I am a camera collector and photographer. They are seperate but closely related hobbies." I have my Pentax SLR setup for "serious" work, as I think SLRs are the most versatile type, and that's where my main investment in glass and accessories lies. But I enjoy the experience of using scale-focus cameras, folders, rangefinders, TLRs...the list goes on. I have about 40 cameras altogether, scrounged from wherever I could find them. I use them all.

Yes, it does get silly. We are elitists, with too much money to spend. We are always chasing the holy grail. Any camera you've owned will create absolutely wonderful photos. But...

This is a forum for gear lust, buying gear, selling gear, talking about gear, debating gear. If it is primarily the images you make that you are interested in, you are in the wrong forum. There are forums where the image is the thing and folks rarely talk about cameras. That's not to say there are not excellent photographers here and terrific photos posted. It's just that photos are not the emphasis here.

Maybe you have too much money to spend...I just spend too much money. Like others here, I love photography and making beautiful pictures, but as a long time gearhead with an interest in all technology, the way the cameras work and the different ways there are of building them fascinates me. What I love most about rangefinders is just the sheer cleverness of design.

 

[Soothsayerman]

It is a pursuit, and like any pursuit, it can be endless. You find along the way that everyone has an idea about what is acceptable and what is not in the journey. But the fact is, there are no rules or conventions other than those that people foist upon themselves and usually these same people will happily want you to share this limitation because it just makes sense to them.

Just smile and nod your head and follow your own instincts and if you take a wrong turn along they way, be thankful that you have transcended common knowledge and have acquired the wisdom of experience.

Just don't run out of money....

 

[ebino]

People are entitled to their opinion and any photographer worth his salt should be secure enough to do what he wants and not get carried away by peer pressure.

The same way that you were enticed to purchasing all that gear by what you heard or read, the same way you now feel slighted by someone's critique of your b&w pictures.

You said you're not a sheep but are you photographing for yourself or for "us"?