Value of Pride of Ownership?

Mack said:
This is a troubled and troubling statement and terribly contradictory.
Click to expand...

If somebody says "a feline is a quadruped, and an agile one at that", they're not saying that all quadrupeds are agile, nor that that they are all felines. Nor that they hate dogs, or that they think other quadrupeds are clumsy dog-haters.

Sheez, peep'l
 
Hector Negron said:
You have to face the fact that 99% of the people who devote an enormous amount of time posting on forums are gear fetishists, and almost exclusively male.

They project their egos and aspirations to the gear they buy and use, they debate endlessly minor points of technical matters, and just like Japanese girls who hang cute animals and charms on their cell phones, they personalize their cameras like totems with accessories, paint jobs, straps, etc etc.

Of course, they must pretend that they are interested in shooting pictures, but this is clearly not the reality, even though they may not realize it themselves. Decorated, "legendary" gear is an end to itself. Hoarding mental facts about gear is the same, like the guys who know every baseball statistic and can recite what happened in every game in the last 100 years. Men like to do it. It's wired into your brains.

Why not embrace the fact that you just like owning esoteric cameras because it reinforces who you want to be? Once in a while you'll get lucky and perhaps take an interesting photo, but drop the pretense and admit you're all little boys with toys. You don't have to be photographers. The ownership of certain cameras lets you maintain the mental construct of who you want to be, not who you really are. The maintenance of a sense of self is hard to do. You need props. You needs objects which reinforce what you think you are and want to be. You'd never leave your house in a polyester leisure suit. You'd never be seen in public with a crummy camera, because you want to feel above the herd. You don't want to be one of them, one of those dopes with a Canon XT DSLR and plastic lens, you want to be special. You want something that makes you superior.

In reality, any name brand modern camera will take perfectly adequate, sharp, well-exposed photos.

OK, some will be more expensive, a bit sharper, what have you, but it doesn't matter. You either have the creative eye or you don't.

If the 50 or 60 year old man wants a Porsche, let him have it to drive to the supermarket. If he wants a Leica and it makes him feel superior, let him have it. If he wants to talk about bokeh or straps all day long, why not.

The man who cannot examine himself and perceive the truth is to be pitied. Deep down, you all know what you are and you aren't, but admitting what you are to yourself is what can put you on anti-depressants.
Click to expand...

you missed the part about "blanket statements" and "everyone is different" heh?
 
Hector Negron said:
Why not embrace the fact that you just like owning esoteric cameras because it reinforces who you want to be? Once in a while you'll get lucky and perhaps take an interesting photo, but drop the pretense and admit you're all little boys with toys.
Click to expand...

And now the Granovskian sock puppets come out.

Well, I always knew it: my photos suck. And I'm still a little boy. With a whole bunch of Kabalistic and Templarian camera obscuras :rolleyes:
 
I own esoteric cameras because it embraces who I want to be. Mom likes my photographs. I can die happy.
 
It used to be said (may well be that it's still said) that "Scandinavian girls are easy". This became somewhat of a mantra until someone pointed out the logic that, by and large, Scandinavian girls are gorgeous. Ergo, when one (being single) meets one, one tries somewhat harder to impress her. In trying harder, one's success rate goes up, and therefore the myth is reinforced.

It may well be the same with gear (well, not quite the same). One might hear that to take wonderful photographs you need a particular camera (lets say, for the sake of argument, a Leica). So you eventually get one and you try harder because you feel that, with a Leica, you should be better than you were with your Pentax or Canon or whatever (plus you are a little bit more experienced). So, again, the myth is perpetuated as you let the world know about it.

In my own case I believe that using equipment that I feel a strong passion for (not a referred passion created by advertizing/myths) is one factor in getting photographs that I am happier with. There are some pieces of equipment that I couldn't give a toss for, and would have no interest in even using let alone actually applying myself to. There are other pieces, not necessarily expensive such as my $40 Voigtlander 6X6 folder, that mean much to me and which tend to make me try harder.

Call it consumerism, call it what you want. I feel I write better if I use a fountain pen than a ballpoint.
 
Pride of ownership, or familiarity, or affection, or just plain liking the camera, must surely always be important, whether it's to a photographer or a collector. The original choice of 'pride of ownership' may have been unfortunate, because some people took it to mean 'expensive kit', but actually, I suspect that Phil, above, has put his finger on it:

There are some pieces of equipment that I couldn't give a toss for, and would have no interest in even using let alone actually applying myself to. There are other pieces, not necessarily expensive such as my $40 Voigtlander 6X6 folder, that mean much to me and which tend to make me try harder.

In this sense, 'pride of ownership' is a sort of satisfaction in having chosen a camera that you enjoy using; being wise enough to recognize its advantages and limitations; and taking pride in getting the best possible results from it. Anyone who finds anything wrong with that sort of pride presumably never washes, never learned to read, and sees no reason for doing either.

I genuinely find it impossible to believe that anyone truly believes that equipment doesn't matter at all. If collectors really thought that, they might as well collect matchbox labels or beer cans. If photographers really thought that, they'd just use a picture-phone or a box camera or a disposable or the cheapest digital on the market.

There are, I know, some people who deliberately choose cameras that some of us wouldn't touch with a barge-pole -- I suspect I might give up photography rather than use a Holga -- but even then, I'd say they have a certain kind of pride in the camera and in their ability to use it. And why not? Just because I see no pleasure in it, there is no reason to assume that someone else doesn't.

So, I'll repeat the same sentiment as before: kit matters. It's not the be-all and end-all, except perhaps to a 'pure' collector; but again as I said before, every professional I've ever met has his/her favourite camera(s), and will tell you that they're their favourites because they give the best pictures. And the same is true of the vast majority of 'serious amateurs'.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Pity this thread went bad. Probably the ill-chosen word 'pride' irritated some. There were enough good contributions that this oughn't to have happened. Trolls are so much less frequent here than on photo.net, partly as this is so inclusive—nice to see the discussion of the OM system so often here. Good that some have kept to task and not taken any baits. I enjoy my Pelikan M800 and write much better with it; I drive better in my Citroen C5 - it actually increases my civility on the road. I love using the Leica to take pictures. if I have any pride in owning these things, which I don't think I do, it would not have anything to do with the advantages of using them.
 
I don't know. While I prefer certain cameras as tools, I've never felt any emotion toward them...pride or otherwise. And that includes Leicas. I found what works for me and use it. I'm fascinated when people talk about the esthetics of a particular camera and have never understood that. A Leica M6 doesn't seem to me any more esthetically pleasing than a Canon 5D. Either is just a camera. I tend to go for versatility over esthetics.

Perhaps I would be a better photographer if I had been "proud" to own a particular camera or lens, but that has never been the case.
 
I am extremely fond of a few of my cameras. Two of which were gifts. One from my wife and a system that has come to be due to the grace and good will of a couple of rf blokes. I feel compelled to work very hard at producing great, moving images with these cameras and I am very proud to own them.

So in my singular case YES there is a pride in ownership and YES I believe it contributes to me being a "better" photographer.
 
If there is a "value of pride" connected to equipment You have, in my opinion this value has nothing to do with photography.
If someone's proud, happy or excited with camera/lens he's got, probably he's gonna pay too much attention to the equipment.
Most people can focus on their task best when they are not distracted tools they use. I think that all that stuff about affecting mood or positive energy are just excuses to justify spending money on new items.
Of course that's how i see it - maybe there are people that obtain magical powers when holding that special equipment. But most likely that's just a someone's wish or just an impression.
Of course i understand collectors, people who consider some cameras very special, or even esoteric. I understand that - i like old items better than new disposable plastic junk as well.
I just think that it has nothing to do with photography - You don't become better photographer, or you dont take better pictures because you are proud of buying something.
You buy equipment if you want to use it, or need it, and I really fail to see how being proud of it will help anyone, or has any value. Am i missing something?
 
Dear Pawel,

Can't agree. I'm happiest with familiar gear -- I've been using M-series Leicas for 35 years, and a 35 Summilux for almost 30. Being happy with the gear, and familiar with it, means I pay a lot less attention to it, and can concentrate on taking pictures.

I also need to be happy with it because it's so expensive. I'd hate to be unhappy with anything that cost that much!

As for 'You could do the same with a Voigtländer or a ZI', the answer is simple. I can't do quite as well because I have to think more about the equipment.

Cheers,

R.
 
My two-cents' worth...

I am a mediocre photographer, at best. I believe my efforts have shown improvement over the last four -five years, with lots or reading, advice from good photogs, and practice (shooting LOTS of film ,then studying the results).

I was motivated to start taking pics again by a friendship with a collector/photog friend, and my own burgeoning GAS.

I've always been inclined to "use what I collect", be it cameras, cars, tools, talking-machines, etc.

My first "Recent" shooter was an Exakta Varex kit... it was my "daily shooter" for a botu two years, until getting my first screw-mount Leica. Since then, I've almost exclusively shot LTM, trying to master that system.

I don't know about "value of pride of ownership"; I think I am more "pleased" than "proud" to own my various old cameras, which include several 1890's brass-bound LF dinosaurs that I still shoot on occasion.

In my own case "pride" comes into play when I've produced a really good picture, especially when it's been done with antique gear. The simpler the camera, the greater my sense of satisfaction in achieving a good photo.

Am still working at fussy little details such as "composition", and "lighting", and "exposure", but those are all "operator issues", not equipment issues.

I enjoy the surprised / approving glances from other folks who recognize the screw-mount Leica ( or Contax IIIa, Exakta, Super-Ikonta, etc) around my neck... and "that somebody still shoots film".

I think certain gear makes me motivated to go out and shoot, whether it's a new toy, or an old favorite.

After working with my 1934 Leica III as my "daily kit" for the last two years, I'm "comfortable" with it, still trying to make it "Second-nature"... am wondering what my next "kit" will include ?

For me, ownership = joy, achievment = pride (then joy).

Regards,

Luddite Frank
 
back alley said:
if i have no talent how will that change if shooting a leica, a canon or a zeiss ikon?
Click to expand...

Hardly anyone has absolutely no talent, and usually, talent can be parlayed upwards through practice, so anything which makes you practise more should make you a better photographer.

Anyone who buys (say) a Leica without at least the hope and intention of shooting more is surely making a grievous mistake, unless they are already shooting as much as they possibly can. Then, the only reason for buying a Leica would have to be the hope that it will do things your existing camera doesn't, or at least, do them better, more easily or more reliably.

This means thinking hard about why you want a new camera, and what you think it can do for you. If you don't actualy know (or at least, think you know) how your current camera is limiting you, and how the new camera will make things easier, you're wasting your money. Just buying a new camera in the general hope that it will make you a better photographer, without giving any thought to how, is definitely not a good idea.

Of course the 'you' here is the general 'you', not you personally. As (I assume) was the 'I' in your post. Clearly (if you will forgive the convoluted double negative, which is intended as a negation of a negation, not a reinforcement of a negation) you personally do not have no talent.

Cheers,

R.
 
phil.wright said:
It used to be said (may well be that it's still said) that "Scandinavian girls are easy".
Click to expand...
Gabriel M.A. said:
Well, there's something in the water in Minne-so-tah, because that couldn't be farther from da truth here, dontchakno? :angel:
Click to expand...
Quite right, they are not. I'd like to see some real life experiences to confirm the claim that they are.

Back to topic. I find that it has nothing to do with pride of ownership. But rather a familiarity with one's chosen equipment, the latter will give better pictures since one can rid oneself of a number unecessary cognitive decisions, leaving brain capacity for important stuff like composition, exposure et al.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom