Thirty years ago..

[Roger Hicks]

...we persuaded ourselves we'd bought the best lens, and tried to produce pictures to prove it.

Now we ask others to approve our choices via the internet, and to hell with the pictures.

Or am I being too cynical?

Cheers,

R.

 

[PaulW128]

Roger;

Sad but oh so true!

Best
Paul

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Not cynical at all. I've spent over 20 years working in professional audio, and unfortunately, it's the same in those trenches too. There seems to be a sense of entitlement with younger people coming up, that things should be handed to them because of stuff they have rather than stuff they've learned.

 

[Ranchu]

Maybe not me, I use the internet to look for pictures taken by lenses I'm interested in and compare them to other pictures with other lenses. Not a whole lot different than reading a bunch of magazines thirty years ago, but more revealing of the looks of them. I learn a lot. Most of my pictures suck, so I take what I can get in that department. Some don't though.

 

[FrankS]

The problem with using the internet to compare lens results is the display/presentation medium.

 

[chris000]

Now we ask others to approve our choices via the internet, and to hell with the pictures.

I sometimes feel that there is a related trend with magazine equipment reviews where I believe that they are more often read by those seeking confirmation that they have made a 'good buy' than by those who are seeking to. The follow up complaints in the magazine's letters pages often reflect this.

 

[gb hill]

Roger you are dead on!. In another thread I posted a link that showed absolute proof that it's more the shooter than the camera for good street photography. An unknown woman on the streets of Chicago named Vivian Maier using a TLR took some of the most wonderful candids I've seen. Totally ignored! I understand the need/desire for wanting good equipment, but even more I understand skill & talent.

 

[t.s.k.]

You have to admit that digital really has changed the photographic landscape. Actually your comments could be mirrored in many other fields. Technology in general has prodded us along by changing the public mindset and culture. So many more things are accessible and no one can be an expert in all these wonderful fields. Hence, individuals become more performance driven in lieu of practical results. It's data that's easily digestible.

If you want the best bang-for-the-buck cell phone, you ask around or read reviews. You want the best mower, you do the same. Nevermind that 90% of all mowers do precisely the same thing and most cell phones have features we'll never use.

Maybe a bit cynical but I completely understand what you mean.

 

[Livesteamer]

You have touched on an important point. As some of you may know I do a lot of little kid photography for my church. We have a lot of little kids. I have over 200 photos of young kids posted in the hall around the classrooms and I have found, that this kind of photography is only about 15% art and technique and about 85% how I interact with the children. The gear is not that important. Use what you like for the job and just focus on making good photos. Joe

 

[peterm1]

I am a bit philosophical about it all and think its a bit inherent in the photography game.

In this at least nothing has changed.......camera manufacturers have to keep selling in order to keep making. So they keep trying (usually successfully) to get us to buy the latest and greatest lens/camera/doodad by convincing us that our photos will be crap without them. I do not think that has ever changed. Leica did it in the beginning of their reign (look for example at their Leica 111 and Leica 111a - tiny tiny differences (basically about shutter speed) All manufacturers do it still and we still fall for it.

Is it different with the internet? I am not sure it is. I can only speak for myself and say that I do buy the best I can afford (although there is an element fo whim as I am an amateur / dilettante not a pro) and then try to produce the best pictures that I can.

I do post the latter on the internet but for me the joy is really in the doing and the result not the owning (although I am still as much a sucker as everyone else and keep buying new "junk" whenever I have the "readies" available.)

But I do not really ask others to approve my camera choice - apart from posting here, the only other place I regularly post is Flickr and there, its all about the photos not about the kit. Perhaps others are different.

 

[charjohncarter]

Some of my images I like the most come from equipment I wouldn't even want to mention that I own on this forum. So, in my view, you are right, but if you think we are bad; talk to USA car people, or American golfers (especially the ones that can't hit the ball).

 

[DNG]

...we persuaded ourselves we'd bought the best lens, and tried to produce pictures to prove it.

Now we ask others to approve our choices via the internet, and to hell with the pictures.

Or am I being too cynical?

Cheers,

R.

I hope one day I can produce images my equipment is capable of

 

[DNG]

Roger you are dead on!. In another thread I posted a link that showed absolute proof that it's more the shooter than the camera for good street photography. An unknown woman on the streets of Chicago named Vivian Maier using a TLR took some of the most wonderful candids I've seen. Totally ignored! I understand the need/desire for wanting good equipment, but even more I understand skill & talent.

I saw that gallery... she was a wonderful street photographer!

 

[Silva Lining]

...we persuaded ourselves we'd bought the best lens, and tried to produce pictures to prove it.

Now we ask others to approve our choices via the internet, and to hell with the pictures.

Or am I being too cynical?

Cheers,

R.

I think there is a lot in this, although I'm sure 30 years ago many people took their new lens to their camera club, or to their friends, for confirmation that they bought the right one!

To some degree or another, most people like to 'belong', whether as a follower, or a leader, purchasing and displaying the 'right' trinkets is as important now as it has ever been. I'd argue that there is a degree of totemism as well as utility in items. Whether the item is a Leica, an Audi or an iPhone....

The internet just provides a different medium in which you can belong or be rejected.

 

[sig]

Somewhere out there somebody have probably defined that you are starting to get old and grumpy when you use a modern medium to say 'things was better before'

I understand what you mean, but I think you are wrong, it is only we on the rangefinder forum and equal who do this. According to many internet forums digital are inferior to film, slrs with non full frame sensors are inferior to full frame slrs, slrs are inferior to rangefinders, auto are inferior to manual and small small sensor digital point and shoots are the worst of them all. And still 90 percent of the cameras sold today are small sensored digital, non rangefinder, not slr cameras.

 

[charjohncarter]

Somewhere out there somebody have probably defined that you are starting to get old and grumpy when you use a modern medium to say 'things was better before'

I understand what you mean, but I think you are wrong, it is only we on the rangefinder forum and equal who do this. According to many internet forums digital are inferior to film, slrs with non full frame sensors are inferior to full frame slrs, slrs are inferior to rangefinders, auto are inferior to manual and small small sensor digital point and shoots are the worst of them all. And still 90 percent of the cameras sold today are small sensored digital, non rangefinder, not slr cameras.

I somewhat agree, but my problem is I don't see the impact images from the last 15 years that I enjoyed all my life (whether digital or film). I was a dentist when I worked, albeit for a short time, but everybody talked about the 'golden age of dentistry' (which was from about 1960 to 1975) and unfortunately they were right. And lots of great innovations occurred during and since that period, very valuable ones, but they have not in real values increased the overall quality of my old profession. In fact, at least in the USA, the quality has gone down.

 

[payasam]

The best pictures have not had to be taken with the "best" (whatever that may mean) lenses. Pride of ownership does not require anything other than ownership.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The points about 'validation' and 'belonging' are certainly important, but I suspect that most RF users more or less fell into RF use (curiosity, historical accident, whatever) and then decided to 'belong' afterwards. The point about interacting with the children is equally important: it's like the old wildlife photographers' saying, 'biologist first, photographer second'.

The point about really tiny improvements has always intrigued me, and III/IIIa is an excellent example. I've long suspected that they're not so much aimed at people seeking 'upgrades' as at people buying for the first time: unless the camera is reasonably 'new' (i.e. has features comparable with its latest competitors) they may go for the competitor (e.g. a Contax with a 1/1250 top speed).

But I'm convinced that obsession about gear is indeed an excellent displacement activity to avoid thinking about (or practising to become) a better photographer. Then again, 'artspeak' and 'projects' can also be displacement activities to avoid learning more about technique.

Finally, from a patient's point of view, I'd say that the improvements in dentistry in my lifetime are near-miraculous, especially in the prosthetic realm. Even in the early 60s, extraction was vastly more common than it is today, often accompanied by what we call in Cornwall 'cloam snappers' (a full set of false teeth -- 'cloam' is the clay you make sinks out of).

Thanks for all your thoughtful contributions.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jaws]

I think its true. Digital SLRs are carried like some cars are driven. Lots of people are insecure. Not caring about what other people think (unless they can make a useful contribution) helps in more areas of life than photography!

 

[gliderbee]

Not cynical, but an understandble evolution: suppose, in the "old" way, you couldn't get the right pictures produced to prove it (meaning you probably did NOT by the best lens for your way of working or taste) ?

With so many people sharing knowledge, why not ask opinions and information before buying, reducing the risk of losing money by making a bad choice ?

Of course, the prove of the pudding is in the eating, but I don't think it's a bad thing to ask others first how to make a pudding before committing the eggs (or whatever goes into a pudding .

Stefan.

Edit: maybe I misunderstood: did you mean asking confirmation AFTER buying ? I understood BEFORE buying ..

...we persuaded ourselves we'd bought the best lens, and tried to produce pictures to prove it.

Now we ask others to approve our choices via the internet, and to hell with the pictures.

Or am I being too cynical?

Cheers,

R.