Unleashing my Potential as a Photo / Artist

daveleo

daveleo

what?
Local time
7:06 AM
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
3,692
With Photokina and the pre-excitement rumors, pre-announcements and idiot internet rages, I am sick (at the moment) of the BS verbiage and silliness people are spewing out.

So my question is . . . is the equipment that you own right now limiting your (what is the phrase ?) "achievement level" . . . your "photographic potential" ?

Despite the fact that I want different stuff than I now have, the stuff I have is not limiting in any way the images that I want to make.

Is your stuff holding you back?
 
Teuthida said:
No. No one's is.
Click to expand...
Well, hardly anyone's. But there is a 'quality threshold' below which the equipment will not be as good as the photographer. It's amazingly low, though, even for mediocre photographers. Above the 'quality threshold' (any decent film SLR since the 1960s, for example, even for good photographers) the photographer's talent will matter more than the camera, unless s/he REALLY doesn't like the camera s/he is trying to use.

Cheers,

R.
 
What Roger said.

EDIT: Though, to be honest, even though I know this, I'm still tempted to think otherwise from time to time.
 
v_roma said:
What Roger said.

EDIT: Though, to be honest, even though I know this, I'm still tempted to think otherwise from time to time.
Click to expand...

Who isn't? The real question is how realistic you are about temptation and how much money you have. The drawback is that if you keep on buying what you "can afford", there's no money left when it comes to buying what you really want.

Cheers,

R.
 
You got me Paul! I attempted to be funny with your post that I treated as serious. After retreading, I realized that you were even funnier.
 
My stuff certainly is not holding me back. I have a Leica M3, Fotoman 69, and soon a GF670. I can't imagine *needing* more than that. Wanting more is a different issue.

I agree completely with Roger, very few people are held back by their gear, but some are. I mean, if you want to do Ansel Adams style landscapes, a 110 film camera, or digital compact from 1998 is likely holding you back. But 99% of us are buying cameras because we want them, not because we need them, and I like that way, photography as a need/job would not suit me I don't think.
 
Caveat. Certain equipment necessitates certain proceses. For example, color MF film might require you do use a lab (for financial reasons) for dev and scanning. Their work might be below the quality you'd want to convey your intention, assuming it is a technically demanding presentation.
 
Equipment is not holding me back, and would opine that equipment is not holding anyone back. If one is determined to realise your creative vision, equipment, or lack thereof will not be the preventing factor, imo.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Well, hardly anyone's. But there is a 'quality threshold' below which the equipment will not be as good as the photographer. It's amazingly low, though, even for mediocre photographers. Above the 'quality threshold' (any decent film SLR since the 1960s, for example, even for good photographers) the photographer's talent will matter more than the camera, unless s/he REALLY doesn't like the camera s/he is trying to use.
Cheers,
R.
Click to expand...

I could not possibly say it any better than Roger did, so I will just quote him.
 
Some things are possible, or easier, with some equipment more so than other equipment. An easy example is using an SLR for macro instead of a rangefinder. Another is making photos in low light that require a moderate to high shutter speed. The newer digital cameras with good high ISO characteristics would be the tool to use. However, most photos are made with pretty common setting for shutter speed, ISO and aperture. If there is a decent lens out front, then there are no technical shortcomings. Most of my photos could be made with cameras from early in the last century or earlier. The art is left up to us, and we hold ourselves back.
 
daveleo said:
Is your stuff holding you back?
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. I'd do much more work if I had my own studio instead of having to ask other photographers to use theirs. I could also do with a set of KinoFlos and maybe an Arri HMI. Or at least a decent kit of studio strobes. I rent all of these things on occasion but they're really expensive so I try to keep it at a minimum. I'm rather short on money right now so it's all available light for me at the moment.
So yes, the lack of equipment is holding me back at times. There's a whole lot of things that I want to do, know how to do, but can't because I can't afford it. What has never held me back, though, is how sharp or soft the lenses I use are. That's really the least of my problems.
 
daveleo said:
With Photokina and the pre-excitement rumors, pre-announcements and idiot internet rages, I am sick (at the moment) of the BS verbiage and silliness people are spewing out.

So my question is . . . is the equipment that you own right now limiting your (what is the phrase ?) "achievement level" . . . your "photographic potential" ?

Despite the fact that I want different stuff than I now have, the stuff I have is not limiting in any way the images that I want to make.

Is your stuff holding you back?
Click to expand...

No, I'm holding me back. :eek:
 
Robert Frank had a 35mm rangefinder, a 35 mm lens, and some Tri-X. go look at LONDON/WALES and tell me anyone needs anything more than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom