the joy of choice

[dave lackey]

I find choice a hindrance ... Thinking about the gun, the bullet, and never the target. I am an admitted gear junkie who on occassion takes a photo. I struggle every day with it, thinking that I can get to two active cameras -one film and one digital. I may be close.

Yes, it really depends on your definition of choice. Choice is freedom, yet, unrestrained choice is mental slavery.

Consider the freedom of children on a playground adjacent to a busy street(s). Erecting a fence is limiting, right? But, is the fence limiting or expanding freedom? Cannot children expand their freedom to play right up to the edge of the fence without a lot of adult supervision? Whereas the absence of the fence creates yet more restrictions imposed by required adult supervisors to keep the children safe from wandering into the street.... I think it is obvious.

Again, for me, at least, keeping choices simple and using simple interfaces between my brain and creativity is freedom at it's fullest.🙂

 

[Vincent.G]

i probably should not even start this thread as it might end up in the digital vs film section...after a fight...but here goes and let's see if there is a hope of it staying on topic...

went out shooting this morning and just got back...long day for me and my back/hip but very satisfying...and i haven't even looked at any images yet!

i took all my gear and used the trunk of my car as a base.
first kit to hit the street was the sony rx100 along with the leica m4-p and 50/2.5 cv lens.
i love the m4-p, the feel of it in my hand and at the end of my strap. the smooth advance and the snick when i plunge the shutter release down.
i caught myself checking for an image on the non-existant lcd...had to laugh at myself...the sony is wonderful in a miniature sort of way...toylike in my hands yet i know it is a precise image maker.

later on i switched out the sony for an rd1 with a 25/4 lens on it. the lecia stayed at my side all day.
i did switch lenses though with the new to me canon 50/1.4 (so small) coming off the leica and on to the rd1 and the 25 going to the m4-p.

considering the 'fringe festival' is on in edmonton i didn't find a whole lot that interested me and i doubt that i took more than a dozen shots...

so, wherein lies the joy of choice?
i have been trying to limit myself to certain gear, trying to keep it simple in the hope of improving my image making by knowing my gear as well as possible. what i am finding out is that limiting oneself in gear can cause a limiting of the artistic spirit as well. i love the rx100 and have made some nice images with it...same with the rd1 and i hope the m4-p as well. and if i should get an xp1 or an m9 (not) i would hope that it would help stir me to create as well as the talent i have permits.

so film or digital, metal or plastic, old or new...it is not really the gear as much as the soul that matters...

Joe, you are a decisive man. That's why you have joy in choosing.

 

[back alley]

Joe, you are a decisive man. That's why you have joy in choosing.

i like that!

.

 

[c.poulton]

Joe, I'm not sure if this is on topic or not, but I find that sometimes using new gear or gear that you haven't used for some time quite 'liberating'. It kind of frees you up creatively and the closest analogy that I can think of is play - like playing with a new toy.

I like choice and I'm always packing far too much in my camera bag, however it's nice when you have the option to use different focal lengths, formats, and cameras - makes things interesting again.

That's not to say being limited to one body, one lens is bad - I do this too. Sometimes it's a Leica 35mm day, other times it's a Spotmatic 55mm day, depends on how I'm feeling (or what I want to carry)....

 

[back alley]

while i like to carry 2 bodies with different focal length lenses attached...i quite often carry just one body/lens.

 

[FrankS]

I'm not trying to change anyone else's mind about this, just explaining how it works best for me.

To stay with the carpenter analogy, it would not be unreasonable for a carpenter to bring a selection of different hammers, screwdrivers, chisels, planes, and saws to a single job in order to match the most appropriate tool to the job.

For those "togs" out there who feel freed from the tyranny of choice by taking only one camera and one lens to a photo situation, good for you if that works best for you. But then why have any more gear than that? I don't think there are too many here, even those who proselytize one camera, one lens, who actually own just one camera and one lens. Isn't that inconsistent?

 

[back alley]

soon i will be heading out with my m4-p and the canon 50 attached. in my pocket will also be the sony rx100...pretty simple set-up...my chocie for today.

 

[NeeZee]

Well, it depends.

Of course there is nothing wrong with choice per se. If you just want to go out taking photos without a certain idea or even project in mind it can be great to experiment with different focal length, colour/b&w, digital/film and so on. The results could mark a starting point of something you want to get into further.

On the other hand, at least for me, there has to be the point where I just have to decide what I want to do and which medium/camera/lens I choose if I want to create something that would qualify as "meaningful" regarding my own standards.
I mean, just look at a good photo book, a work of photographic art. It's very unlikely that you'll see a great mix of focal length, media bw/colour etc. It's - among other things - about consistency. It's the same when I look at flickr streams: If I have the impression that someone has developed their own consistent photographic vision I'm more likely to spend time browsing the stream than in one of these typical mixes of formats, media, films and themes.

Or in short: The desire for a consistent photographic "style" and the dedication to a certain project or idea will at some time automatically lead to a restriction in the gear used, at least temporarily.

 

[back alley]

i have been shooting the whyte ave area of edmonton for many many years...b&w, colour, longer lenses and shorter lenses...film and digital...
this is a long term project and to do it justice i have used a variety of gear...only restrictions have been budgetary...what i can afford.
sometimes though i take one lens on one body...that works too.

 

[burancap]

I don't think there are too many here, even those who proselytize one camera, one lens, who actually own just one camera and one lens. Isn't that inconsistent?

My goal is that, at least one of each plus a sentimental keeper or two. The goal is impossible, but when I get close as I feel I have now... The impending departure of lots of unused gear will be the liberation that I am looking for...

 

[back alley]

for many, less is more...paring down to a simpler kit is the goal.
i tried this philosophy and despite my wanting it to work for me...it didn't.
having more choice and i'm not talking about a gluttony of gear, just more choice than i had before, seems more approriate to how i really see the world.

 

[KM-25]

while i like to carry 2 bodies with different focal length lenses attached...i quite often carry just one body/lens.

That's pretty much where I am at with RF gear. With the Blad I am usually carrying a 60, 100 and two backs, my favorite street setup for that, large format sees 5 lenses and 6 film holders.

So my go to camera is either the M3/50 or X100 for the one lens one camera walkabout. It took me awhile to get to what I would call my personal RF nirvana though. Last night I had a long-ish magazine piece to shoot. I put the D800 with the Blad in a backup bag that never left the trunk. I worked happily with my small "Oskar's One Day Bag" loaded with the M3/50mm 1.5 Zeiss, Xpan/45mm, both with Tri-X paired with a X100 set at 400 and in black and white jpeg. As the night wore on and the light got lower, I put away the Xpan, then the M3 and got as high as ISO 6,400 with the X100, it was really practical and a lot of fun.

So I guess what I am saying at least on behalf of what my goals are as an image maker is that I have a ton of choices I can make. But quite often the one I make is to bring one camera with one lens on it and it just works.

 

[FrankS]

Liberation (or not) is totally in the mind, regardless of the external situation.

The concept of being limited by choice just does not compute for me. But I can accept that others may feel this way. That is their problem, not mine. Do what works best for you.

 

[paulfish4570]

amen, frank, amen ...

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

But it forces you to think outside the square, apply a focal length that you assumed was less than ideal and sometimes the result can be surprising though not necessarily what you were expecting.

Eventually, one gets to the point where you don't want accidents and surprises, you want the image you visualize in your mind. I don't want my equipment forcing me to do anything, ever. I'm the artist, and I decide what the image will look like. I control my equipment, it DOES NOT control me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Liberation (or not) is totally in the mind, regardless of the external situation.

The concept of being limited by choice just does not compute for me. But I can accept that others may feel this way. That is their problem, not mine. Do what works best for you.

Beautifully put, Frank.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gumby]

... having more choice and i'm not talking about a gluttony of gear, just more choice than i had before, seems more approriate to how i really see the world.

Funny you should phrase it that way. Choice is not bad; in fact, it is good. Overthinking those choices is a waste of time. For most photographic gear choices it really doesn't matter what the eventual conclusion is because the consequences just aren't that severe. Missing a shot is a severe consequence, especially when that is a result of overthinking situations. Seems to me that "overthinking" should replace "gluttony" as one of the Seven Deadly sins. After all, what's really wrong with eating until you puke... or having a few cameras you don't really need/use?

 

[Dave Jenkins]

For an alternate view, a pair of quotes by Picasso and Orson Welles:

“Forcing yourself to use restricted means is the sort of restraint that liberates invention. It obliges you to make a kind of progress that you can’t even imagine in advance.”
-- Picasso

“The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.”
-- Orson Welles

 

[dave lackey]

For an alternate view, a pair of quotes by Picasso and Orson Welles:

“Forcing yourself to use restricted means is the sort of restraint that liberates invention. It obliges you to make a kind of progress that you can’t even imagine in advance.”
-- Picasso

“The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.”
-- Orson Welles

Well done, Dave.🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

The whole question of voluntary limitations is also addressed in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps voluntary.html

Yes, voluntary limitation is usually a good thing. But you can also be too constrained, whether by budget or doctrinaire preconception.

Cheers,

R.