The Needmores

[MacDaddy]

Head on over to Mike Johnston's site: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/ and read the article titled "The Needmores" for some humor, observation and comment on the new Leica M8.

 

[jaapv]

And sensible posts following it up as well. Thank you for pointing me to one of the more sane voices on the internet...

 

[Ash]

Jaap - your sig is distracting, I demand you put your gear back there 😀

but yes the article sounds like the voice of reason, and I can't wait to see the new flagship, but I can't afford it, so I'm not one to start whining about its features or lackings.

 

[rxmd]

Slightly offtopic note: I hate how font sizes change when the mouse hovers over a link. I'm browsing with Opera on Win32 at 1024x768. The URL in the first post gets wrapped into the second line after the http:// part, so all the URL text is in the second line. When I hover my mouse over there, the font shrinks, the wrapping changes, and the entire URL hops into the first line. When I try to chase it with my mouse, the font grows again and I can play "chase-the-linewrap" with my mouse. AAARGH! :bang:

Who in the world considers this good web design??

 

[rxmd]

On a different note: The article is good. And yes, I agree the next big thing would be a digital Rolleiflex 🙂

(Not a scale 1:3 version with Minox written on it, though.)

 

[Ash]

bottom left of this page - change what style the forum is. else, enlarge the page font so the link is on one line

 

[Al Patterson]

The link in unclickable!!

The link in unclickable!!

Slightly offtopic note: I hate how font sizes change when the mouse hovers over a link. I'm browsing with Opera on Win32 at 1024x768. The URL in the first post gets wrapped into the second line after the http:// part, so all the URL text is in the second line. When I hover my mouse over there, the font shrinks, the wrapping changes, and the entire URL hops into the first line. When I try to chase it with my mouse, the font grows again and I can play "chase-the-linewrap" with my mouse. AAARGH! :bang:

Who in the world considers this good web design??

That needs to be fixed. This is the worst site in the world to attempt to click links on. (And I'm not mucking about with setting, this is a coding issue. )

 

[peter_n]

Slightly offtopic note: I hate how font sizes change when the mouse hovers over a link. I'm browsing with Opera on Win32 at 1024x768. The URL in the first post gets wrapped into the second line after the http:// part, so all the URL text is in the second line. When I hover my mouse over there, the font shrinks, the wrapping changes, and the entire URL hops into the first line. When I try to chase it with my mouse, the font grows again and I can play "chase-the-linewrap" with my mouse. AAARGH! :bang:

Who in the world considers this good web design??

I have asked Jorge to change this on more than one occasion, including emails. Send him an email the text of your post, I think he needs to hear it from more than just one or two people.

I also think you need to articulate clearly in the email that changing the font size on mouse rollover of a link is causing you difficulty.

 

[rxmd]

Hi Ash,

bottom left of this page - change what style the forum is

Links change size with all of them. I don't want to have to change the skin for a website every time someone randomly posts a link with just the right linewrapping for links to become completely unclickable. This is a bad workaround at best.

 

[rxmd]

I've sent Jorge an email.

 

[MacDaddy]

Rollie HAS a digital, I think!

Rollie HAS a digital, I think!

Quote: (On a different note: The article is good. And yes, I agree the next big thing would be a digital Rolleiflex 🙂

Hmmm! I thought Rollie already did that; at least, there's one been for sale for around $13000 USD on B & H for many months now! ???

 

[jlw]

Cute blogspew, although it's obvious that he's stacking the deck by attaching a comic name to photographers who think they "Needmore" from their equipment, while lionizing those who are brave enough to confront the

...terror in having to say "I've got all the equipment I need already" and going mano a mano with the work.

Well, that's an appealing notion. After all, which would I rather be: a whiny "Needmore," or a brave, tough, bare-knuckled confronter of my own artistic deficiencies?

But... It's easy to see that photographers do have a certain tendency to hope that some different piece of equipment would make their photography better. And yes, sometimes that hope is unrealistic.

But other times it's not. If the only camera you own is a Minox, and your artistic aspiration is to make large prints of landscapes and architecture containing a wealth of rich detail, it's quite likely that a different camera would significantly improve your photography.

The classical conception of art includes the idea that the artist is under a moral obligation to try to do his best, and in a technologically-based art form that implies picking the technology that makes it possible to do your best work. If you can't afford that technology, okay -- but you're still obligated to do the best work you can with the technology you can afford. In this perspective, the real sin is not in wanting more/better equipment, but in using your real-world equipment limitations as an excuse not to do the best you can with what you have.

I spend a lot of time around dancers, who have been dealing with this dichotomy since time immemorial and have largely gotten comfortable with it. It's just a given that you're constantly working to improve your body -- but that at the same time you have to dance today with the body you've got right now.

I think many photographers could benefit by internalizing the same philosophy: Yes, I'm going to dance with the body I've got, and yes, I'm going to look for ways to make it better. Of course, it's more fun to choose up sides and lampoon photographers who choose differently...

 

[rxmd]

(On a different note: The article is good. And yes, I agree the next big thing would be a digital Rolleiflex 🙂

Hmmm! I thought Rollie already did that; at least, there's one been for sale for around $13000 USD on B & H for many months now! ???

Oh, I meant digital a Rolleiflex TLR. Of course you can hook up a digital back to Rollei 6008 or SL66 systems.

Philipp

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Slightly offtopic note: I hate how font sizes change when the mouse hovers over a link. I'm browsing with Opera on Win32 at 1024x768.
<snip>
Who in the world considers this good web design??

Nobody. It's comformity driven by the deafening sound of the "who cares?" screamed out often from west of the Atlantic.

Which, btw, tend also to be the people Mike Johnston complains about. I like Mike 😀

 

[FrankS]

Cute blogspew, although it's obvious that he's stacking the deck by attaching a comic name to photographers who think they "Needmore" from their equipment, while lionizing those who are brave enough to confront the



Well, that's an appealing notion. After all, which would I rather be: a whiny "Needmore," or a brave, tough, bare-knuckled confronter of my own artistic deficiencies?

But... It's easy to see that photographers do have a certain tendency to hope that some different piece of equipment would make their photography better. And yes, sometimes that hope is unrealistic.

But other times it's not. If the only camera you own is a Minox, and your artistic aspiration is to make large prints of landscapes and architecture containing a wealth of rich detail, it's quite likely that a different camera would significantly improve your photography.

The classical conception of art includes the idea that the artist is under a moral obligation to try to do his best, and in a technologically-based art form that implies picking the technology that makes it possible to do your best work. If you can't afford that technology, okay -- but you're still obligated to do the best work you can with the technology you can afford. In this perspective, the real sin is not in wanting more/better equipment, but in using your real-world equipment limitations as an excuse not to do the best you can with what you have.
I spend a lot of time around dancers, who have been dealing with this dichotomy since time immemorial and have largely gotten comfortable with it. It's just a given that you're constantly working to improve your body -- but that at the same time you have to dance today with the body you've got right now.

I think many photographers could benefit by internalizing the same philosophy: Yes, I'm going to dance with the body I've got, and yes, I'm going to look for ways to make it better. Of course, it's more fun to choose up sides and lampoon photographers who choose differently...[/QUOTE]

I think this is an excellent analysis of the photographer/gear issue!