why is gear talk more popular than photo talk?

[agoglanian]

I'm SO excited this thread is here. Sure it's fun to talk about cameras and lenses, but it's so much more fun to talk about PHOTOGRAPHY. Granted I realize that I don't participate in enough discussion online, but I absolutely love the in-person discussions I get to have with friends or even strangers about photography. I love getting to talk about the latest book I've come across or what I've been finding interesting about different people's work. Even those I find on Instagram. There's so much potential for educational and enlightening dialog beyond "What camera are you using?".

Let's open the floodgates and get this ball rolling!

 

[kbg32]

Gear is a lot easier to talk about and doesn't lead to hurt egos or unarguable philosophies. It's the same as discussing politics, which is never a pleasant discourse. Especially today.

 

[x-ray]

I've attempted to draw folks into various photographic topics with limited success. Usually it comes down to a handful of members that participate. Sadly the internet propagates the notion that more and more expensive equipment makes you a better photographer. It's not about the images you produce, it's about the equipment you own and how cool you look with it. Anyone can talk but not everyone can make excellent photographs.

 

[farlymac]

I for one would like to see more activity in the Critique/Salon section. No one says a thing about the photos anymore, unless they are complimenting a friend of theirs. I'd much appreciate someone asking me what I was trying to achieve in the taking of a particular photo, because I feel that something like that will make me better at planning a shot if I know it will be questioned. It would also give me valuable feedback to let me know if I met my goal.

If I want platitudes, I'll check my Flickr account.

PF

 

[raid]

I for one would like to see more activity in the Critique/Salon section. No one says a thing about the photos anymore, unless they are complimenting a friend of theirs. I'd much appreciate someone asking me what I was trying to achieve in the taking of a particular photo, because I feel that something like that will make me better at planning a shot if I know it will be questioned. It would also give me valuable feedback to let me know if I met my goal.

If I want platitudes, I'll check my Flickr account.

PF

Maybe start a new photo heavy thread with title "Only for Thick Skinned RFF Members" so that no over sensitive members get their feelings hurt from the discussions about the images? 😀

 

[raid]

I've attempted to draw folks into various photographic topics with limited success. Usually it comes down to a handful of members that participate. Sadly the internet propagates the notion that more and more expensive equipment makes you a better photographer. It's not about the images you produce, it's about the equipment you own and how cool you look with it. Anyone can talk but not everyone can make excellent photographs.

I know you mean well. :angel:

 

[Deklari]

I've attempted to draw folks into various photographic topics with limited success. Usually it comes down to a handful of members that participate. Sadly the internet propagates the notion that more and more expensive equipment makes you a better photographer. It's not about the images you produce, it's about the equipment you own and how cool you look with it. Anyone can talk but not everyone can make excellent photographs.

I have often read LF forum. For my opinion, they have more successful discussion about photography. For example, when I start using x-ray film for large format.. or wet plate, ..really great and helpful discussion there. My be because folks with LF camera always looks cool and no one can really recognize your camera or lens 😀?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Wanna talk? Speak by your images to the others.
Here is the shortcut to cut it short. 🙂

 

[x-ray]

I might help to discourage gear discussions by not mentioning camera or lens. A limited discussion on film and developer perhaps but keep the focus (no pun intended) on the image. It took me some time to get past being obcessed by technical quality in an image and finally realizing it's all about content at least in my images. Technical expertise comes with time and practice but content is a different animal alltogether.

 

[aizan]

I'm with you on the spirit of this initiative and would like to add a suggestion to your list: Recruit one or two mentors for whom analysis and discussion of photographs is an interest and skill.

I'm now reading Robert Adams' book Art Can Help. He has facing page spreads, each with a single, small photograph coupled with a short essay about it. It's along the lines of Looking at Photographs. Many of Adams' choices are photographs I would not have given much thought, but his intelligent analysis deepens my appreciation of them.

I suggest that this approach be mentored because most of us are not very good at discussing pictures. Facilitation would focus the discussion and keep it constructive.

John

I'd bet that some of the more seasoned photographers here are able to talk about photos in depth. They could write a tutorial on how they approach looking at photographs, and then anyone who wants to practice can start a thread where they analyze a photograph. Others can chime in with what they see. In addition, we could discuss books like the one by Adams or Szarkowski and pick apart how they looked at photos.

It'd take initiative, and you'd have to know what you want out of it, but if people are invested in improving their interpretive skills so that they can edit their own photos better, this idea is totally doable!

 

[aizan]

Because gear talk is related to buying and that's addictive. Spending i money is a quick way to feeling good.

Photo talk is related to investing in photography skills and that's a lot less enticing for short term satisfaction. Acquiring skills to produce good results takes a lot longer than browsing the internet and purchasing gear.

That's a good point and sort of funny because street photography is addictive in the same way. All you have to do is go for a walk. Sometimes you strike out, sometimes you hit the jackpot. Then the hard part becomes editing and developing a personal style.

Looking for the ways that working on your photography is addictive can be a good motivator.

 

[aizan]

Discussing photography invariably involves criticism, which is frowned upon. When you are only allowed to post praise, you get a half a dozen attaboy posts and the thread dies, with no one learning anything. The upside is no one is offended. On the other hand, you are allowed to freely praise or criticize camera gear, explain why you do and don't like it, and post comments on how you would like to see deficiencies addressed. Whether or not you agree with members' opinions, you generally learn something about the camera gear in question.

How to offer constructive criticism and how to take criticism are key skills to develop. It's so easy for crit sessions to devolve into flame wars on the internet! This is easily one of the major obstacles to promoting photo talk. How are we going to deal with this problem?

 

[Archiver]

Gear is concrete and easier to quantify. And I think that the same kind of 'item specific mentality' can be found in watch forums, car forums and tech forums. It's easier to talk about specifications and test charts than the more intangible qualities of good photography.

There's a fair bit of photography discussion here, and it's possible that the gear talk supports it. Deliberately obtaining a particular photographic look means having a certain level of technical knowledge or skill, and someone else wanting to reproduce often wants to know the tools used in its creation. Hence the 'what did you shoot that with' questions.

 

[aizan]

Gear talk is more or less objective, though sometimes much less.

But what about the #1 most popular gear topic of all time: What camera/lens should I buy? Highly subjective!

Art criticism, to anyone who has spent significant, thoughtful time reading art criticism, is a fool's errand.

Absolutely, it's a complete fool's errand! The role of art criticism is to pick a needle out of a haystack, something you think is especially interesting, and suggest some ways that your readers might come to grips with it. It's always one step behind the artists and the art.

I guess what I am positing here is that we can learn some things about gear, or its use, which is objective, and might or might not help us be better photographers, but talking about photos, beyond a certain minimal level (left lens cap on, that's not a good photo) is pretty useless at achieving the same goal. And this is coming from someone who is in the middle of re-reading "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print"., but that kind of photo talk is already present on this forum anyway.

You've lost me at this point, because the way we'd be talking about photos (in a general sense, not specifically art criticism) is essentially practical. It's as practical as talking shop, only directed at the subject matter and aesthetics of a photo rather than its technicalities.

 

[Wenge]

Quack Quack
Go Oregon Ducks 2018!

 

[aizan]

No one typically takes the time to come up with a reasonable negative critique and posts this although the author of the image could learn something. Most likely though the author of the image will stop posting any images, depending on the thickness of the skin. The internet has become awash with "likes", the more the better. Only the quantity of positive comments counts. Substantiated, honest critique is not only not welcome it can have a serious negative backlash if the author belongs to any minority. This is just the way it seems to me. I have no idea how to change it even "only" here on RFF.

Wanting "negative" comments is a good starting point for anyone looking to improve their photography. Everybody needs to agree to keep comments directed at the photos rather than the person, of course. That's one of the rules of doing crit sessions, and it would involve some heavy moderation to make sure people are respectful.

 

[benlees]

People come from a vastly different perspectives on what is a (good) photograph or what photography even is. Based on past threads about "art" photography discussions about photos might be better left in the grave without a map to the cemetery.

Rangefinders, on the other hand, are very pleasant to discuss. Whether you like a rickety Vivitar ES or the M10, this is the place. Fun!

 

[splitimageview]

This is a rangefinder forum, is it not?

It's gear centric.

If you want to look at photographs, there are many other places for that.

 

[aizan]

I might help to discourage gear discussions by not mentioning camera or lens. A limited discussion on film and developer perhaps but keep the focus (no pun intended) on the image. It took me some time to get past being obcessed by technical quality in an image and finally realizing it's all about content at least in my images. Technical expertise comes with time and practice but content is a different animal alltogether.

Giving technical details is one of those art world no-no's that actually irks me. 😀 Would it embarrass the artists to reveal that they are mere mortals like the rest of us? And if they're using modest equipment, wouldn't it be nice to remind people that you don't need the latest and greatest?

Not getting distracted by gear talk would be hard, though, so we'd have to do something to stay on topic. Maybe don't mention anything technical until the end of the conversation.

 

[Steve M.]

It's like everything else in life.....you can spend your time talking about things, or you can spend your time doing them. The people who talk about it don't do it, and the people that do it don't talk about it. There's only X amount of time and energy. It's finite and limited, so using it up on one end takes away from the other end.

Imagine going into work tomorrow and telling your boss that instead of working you were gonna just talk about it. That should work well :]