i can't honestly tell you completely why i am offended by some of these statements...one thing is that i was disappointed that some of the statements were coming from you. i have always found you to be level headed and balanced in your viewpoints and this shocked me a bit...i have reached a point where i am completely happy with my gear...it does what i like and i like what it does. i am close to liking what i shoot...i have allowed myself to open up and try some new things and while still an amateur i can live with that title.
i still find you a key member of rff no matter how often you post.
Well, thanks Joe. I've never seen you as anything but a good guy and a forum friend.
My comments on the gear as a tool have been published here since the first weeks I got on here. I'm surprised that you're surprised by them? I don't think they would be uncommon on a pro forum such as Light Stalkers was. But, I think as the personality of this form changes they may stick out more.
I'll try once more at the concept.. you have surely seen the "one camera, one lens for a year" challenges on here and other places? This is an attempt at making equipment disappear in the making of an image. HCB likely pulled this off better than most; though he used lenses other than a 50 at times. The idea is that your camera/lens is known so well that it's almost unimportant in the thought process of making an image. Like driving a car you've known for years. You get in and go to your destination, without thinking about the car. YOU JUST DRIVE. I personally don't like buying new cameras, though I sometimes do. I don't like it because I have to learn them backwards and forwards and it's a PITA when I just want to make a picture. I often keep using my old gear until I'm completely comfortable with the new stuff. This can take months, especially with digital hardware. So, I end up packing both new and old gear, because I'm sure how the old gear will perform and the new stuff may surprise me. I don't like most surprises, I want consistency.. SO, I DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT! I need/want to concentrate on the image at hand, not the equipment I'm using to make it.
I made a post to CW about Jim Marshall yesterday. I knew Marshall. Jim used M Leicas. He didn't switch between models. When the M6 came out his 4's were retired or sold. He even had an M6 license plate on his ford SHO. He didn't use artificial lighting much if at all, but he could call off the concert stage lighting in various venues from memory. In short, none of his gear got in his way of making pictures. He used Leicas , but the whole Leica promotion on his web site was a money deal with Leica. I think they have his old M2's in their museum. When he put his camera to his eye, do you think he didn't know where the speed and aperture were set? Or if he had to think about in which direction to move them to change the settings .. without removing his eye from the finder? Jim would tell you that he liked his cameras, but they were just a tool that enabled the archiving of what He saw and how He saw it. Simple as that.
As for titles, i.e. Amateur or Pro, they are complete BS in image making. Again, The Image is Paramount, regardless of who made it. I made a comment recently about a Banker I knew who had more time for personal photography than I have. To be polite, and only to apply this to those who understand it, Pro Photography is in some form: prostitution. The Amateur is more true to the pure task of making photos. Amateur is used as in "love of" , and most photo artists fall into this group. I think it was Avedon or someone similar who defined pro photography as prostitution with an analogy to sex: fist, I did it with myself, then I did it with another, now I do it for money!
pkr
