The Power of Less

Hawkeye,

There are situations where you cannot get up close and personal. Sporting events are in this categories. If the player is in action, and you want to catch the expression on their face, a 35mm or 40mm lens will not do the trick.

If you want to go out with a single camera/lens combination, then use it for the images that it is best suited for. Use it to see images that is is best suited for. Forcing it to operate in a situation that it is less than optimal for, means the images will suffer.

I have a lot of equipment. I select the combination best suited for the situation. It "sees" the way I want my images to turn out. I would not force a camera/lens combination into something that it is not suited for. I would not be happy with the images.

I've been using 35mm cameras for 40 years. I often select a camera/lens combination for a "theme" to go out, shoot, and relax.
 
Last edited:
i believe there is 'navel gazing' here on rff as this is one of the few places (on the net or off) where like minded individuals meet and want to discuss this sort of thing.

i see no harm in this, except that which comes from the negative nannies that love to piss on other's parades.

as for gear, simple or not, i fall into the group where angst takes over when i reach 'my' saturation level of euipment. this is one of the reasons that i change gear because if i want to play with something new i need to 'make room' for it, more in my head than a shelf.

and my history shows that i produce more with less.
 
Kids will make you work with less too!

Kids will make you work with less too!

The other reason I've had to slow down and do with less with photography is having young kids. They don't leave you with much free time!
 
To Steve (the OP):

Using Frank's scale:

1) Collecting for the satisfaction of owning a collection displayed on a shelf.
2) Gear-headedness is the satisfaction of manipulating and taking pictures with various different cameras and lenses. Emphasis is on the process of photography.
3) The artistic drive which is satisfied by the final image without regard for the process or tools. This is the essence/spirit of creativity in all arts.

I am in between no.2 and 3. Almost being trapped by no.1 but realized that it's not for me 🙂

I enjoy the process that I go through in creating a single image or a set of images. From choosing which gears, walking or driving around trying to scout some scenery, or clicking the shutter, the anticipation, developing and printing myself, then sharing and discussing about it with like minded people. It's all very enjoyable for me.

So whatever set of gears that allow me to do this, is a fair game and I do not feel guilty or bashful admitting it.

Having said that, I adopt the one-camera-one-lens approach when it comes to Rangefinders, simply because it fits with my mental image of what an RF system should look like. No philosophical treatise needed 🙂

For SLR systems, I adopted one-camera-three-lenses, for MF, something other, for LF... bla bla bla... you get my point.

In the end, equipment matters only when it does. I try not to rationalize too much.
 
On the other end of the camera, the "less is more" principle can be applied as well.

If the photographer chooses to capture the images that they can capture well, the photographer can be free of the distracting things needed for other images.
 
I prefer a fixed focal length, P&S camera, set to a fixed focus distance.
This is my 'normal' MO when out for a walk. This restriction is self imposed but it fits my way of doing photography. If I wanted to take a close-up picture of something across the street, I can't change focal lengths, so I either walk closer to the subject or i don't photograph it. If I'm carrying my ricoh grv1 (28mm) I don't think to myself, I wish i had a focal length that would be more appropriate for portraiture.
I know the FOV my lens can cover and I'll try to make an interesting composition using it.
For a hobbyist out for a stroll this is fine.
For a professional photographer with a variety of photographic projects, not so much. 😛
 
Steve Williams said:
I think there are strong feelings against asking those big why questions about work and process and it often does get labeled navel gazing.
Click to expand...
Let me help you out here:
  • I am introspective; you are a navel gazer.
  • I am self critical; you are narcissistic.
🙄🙂
For me, that gazing has been helpful once I was able to accept that most of the time I was flying along on intuition and luck with little idea of why I was making the choices I make.
Click to expand...
First, I appreciate your posts and project. I, too, am interested in how reason informs intuition or even knowledge (which starts to get us close to "philosophy," which is, at least in name, close to the heading of this forum.)

Since I got my new 28 Elmarit a few weeks ago, it hasn't been off the camera. I'm learning a lot from the lens itself and from not changing lenses. "Less" in this matter requires greater discipline. Could be that I'm as interested in learning from my gear as being the master of it.
 
I just got a Rolleiflex V working, bought for $15 at an "Antique Shop". Had to remove the glass an Flood Clean it. We're talking Flood of Biblical Proportion to get it working.

I can stare at my Navel and Photograph it at the same time!
 
Brian

I am talking about the exercise of going out to shoot with one lens and one camera. When I have an assignment I haul out the who minicart of gear. But we are talking about a different situation. It is working with restrictions to improve your vision as a photographer.

Okay?

Hawkeye
 
Hahahahaha! I think it is more like they would love to "be with" the hot girls and forget all about photography and Leica cameras for a moment... not take photos! (Ok, maybe that's just me... but I'm afraid even to take photos of bums, so I shoot abstracts.)

🙂

>>Most of these Leica toting "photographers" would dearly love to take photos of hot girls or interesting people in the street, but are deathly afraid of approaching them.
 
Hawkeye- if photographing sporting events with a CL and 40 Summicron makes you happy, everyone is Okay with it. I would never do that. I take out my CL with 40 Summicron on daytrips when I can get close in to the subject, or want a fast-wide. I would not use it at a sporting event because it would not deliver the image that I like.

I'm reminded of the time I took my Hi-Matic 9 to "Transpo 72", an airshow at Dulles Airport in 1972. Fine for the Pilots on the ground standing in front of their airplanes. But not suitable for the P-51's, B-25, F4's, and ME-109's doing a fly-by. I got some of them with my Super-8 camera. I bought an SLR and a 400mm lens when I was 15 for the next airshow.

And after 40 years, I am very content with my own skills as a photographer. I can photograph what I like, in a way that I want.
 
Last edited:
You pose an interesting question. I think gear is accumulated for three different reasons.

1. Collections. As someone on here once said, no one asks a stamp collector why he needs more stamps.
2. The belief that we are one piece of gear away from taking perfect pictures or one piece of gear away from eliminating gaps in our equipment portfolio.
3. Sometimes different cameras are required for different purposes. Sometimes this is true, but sometimes there can be a lot of overlap.

I've been thinking about this because I've been contemplating selling my Canonet. It provides no more convience than my Bessa (I still have to carry it around my neck), but the potential quality isn't as high. To expand on this:

If convience is evaluated on size, meter, AE availability, batteries req'd, film loading easy, lens availability, and focus style.... and quality is evaluated on build quality, longetivity, viewfinder, available lens speed, and available lens quality, we may see results like this (size of circle is price):

3422031824_61f6b111ce_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
My wife simply asks me, "Do you Like it, and do you use it?" "If you like it, keep it". "If you use it, Keep it". "If you don't like it, and don't use it, sell it."

I'll add one. "Do you like the pictures that you take with it?"

I'm contemplating just giving away my Konica S2. Young person at a local camera shop talking about getting into film. And I've used the Hi-Matic 9 for much longer.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone would disagree with that comment. The issue is, how does limiting ourselves affect our work? Personally I work well with such limitations imposed. It makes me work harder and think more about what I'm doing.

A lot of people think more about what lenses they are going to use than about the subject.

www.urbanpaths.net
 
I'd go further and say that limits not only affect our work but are at the core of it. I'll admit to a little ruductio ad absurdum here, but the same argument could be made against anyone who would use prime lenses instead of a zoom, still photography instead of video, RF instead of AF, BW instead of color, two bodies instead of three, and the list goes on.

Sure, the logical error can go in the other direction as well. In pushing the limits of how little gear is comfortable, I've missed , for example, (on surprisingly few occasions) not having a300mm
zoom on a D body.

Lastly, working with less is not just a "learning experience," or some sort of zen-like lifestyle; often as not I gain more good pictures than I would have lost if I were changing lenses, cameras, or wearing out my wrist zooming.
 
I often balloon as I experiment/change/grow and shrink back to the core of necessity which makes up in speed, familiarity and intuitive vision what it lack in options.

Although I have 21, 28, 35, 50, 90 for 35mm RF, I shoot 90% on 35 and 28 and could work happily with a 35 and nothing else. When you need the others you need them, however, keeping my default as simple as possible has opened more doors than it has closed.
 
I have a pet theory that, photography being primarily subtractive -- that is, out of the visual clutter of the real world we whittle away at it to reduce the clutter to a minimalist composition -- our relationship to our tools best works when also approached in this manner. The exception being a working approach that is additive, such as still-life, where we start with a blank backdrop and add subjects to it; under these circumstances we find our choice of equipment -- gels, lights, etc -- to also be more complex.

~Joe
 
I would add that limiting yourself to one lens only can help your photography up to a point, but if you have more than one lens available and shoot enough you will figure out pretty quickly what you gravitate towards.

I think the key to the one lens is the intuitiveness if nurtures. Nothing kills spontaneous photography colder than fumbling with lenses and making decisions. The 'imperfections' associated with using a 35 instead of a 28 for a unique image tends to be more than made up by the fact you actually got it or the expressions were right... or the interaction of elements more perfect etc.... I change lenses, bodies, formats etc when i have time. Thats great. Limiting yourself to one lens and on body is not going to help when you can see events slowly beyond your physical reach and a short tele is what you need, yet only have a 28.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom