Why limit oneself?

quote time -

"It is hard to endure absolute freedom... A state of affairs in which all choices are open... militates against artistic creativity...; a line between coherence and incoherence cannot be drawn."-- H.H. STUCKENSCHMIDT
 
Well, you might limit yourself to what you enjoy and what you are good at. Ideally, there will be some overlap.

You might limit yourself to what you are paid to do.

You might be limited by finances, or your location.

Lots of reasons.

What someone calls a self-imposed limitation, others will call focus.
 
I consider photography as one medium, there are many and varied ways of exploring that medium but I don't think of, for example, large format as one medium and 35mm as a different medium.
That said, I do set boundaries for myself as a way of focusing my time and energy in pursuit of this hobby of mine. I have (and will again) crossed those self imposed, arbitrary boundaries as I feel the need/desire to.
Rob

dave lackey said:
Seriously, why would a photographer choose to limit himself/herself to just one medium of work?😕
Click to expand...
 
rbiemer said:
I consider photography as one medium, there are many and varied ways of exploring that medium but I don't think of, for example, large format as one medium and 35mm as a different medium.
That said, I do set boundaries for myself as a way of focusing my time and energy in pursuit of this hobby of mine. I have (and will again) crossed those self imposed, arbitrary boundaries as I feel the need/desire to.
Rob
Click to expand...


Ahhh....but film and digital are two different mediums. So, why not explore/use both for different tasks?
 
For me, it's very simple:

Step One: Decide what sort of picture I want to take.

Step Two: Decide which combination of camera, lens and medium (film, digi, colour, mono), among those available to me, is most likely to give me the results I want.

Step Three: Take picture(s).

If the picture is (or pictures are) successful, great. If not, proceed to:

Step Four: Ask myself why not. Would I have got better pics with a different camera or lens? Usually the answer is 'no', because I'm the weak link here. If it's 'yes', then I know more for next time.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Limits are important. If a photographer elects to constrain his work to, for example, one lens then unless he is an idiot we can expect him to be especially attentive due to his choice so that we have a consistent view of the work. We can have some confidence of communication. Call it a Frame from which the photographer chooses to work. Constraint puts attention to the matter.

To contrast the above, consider a picture maker who subscribes to the Photoshop Filter of the Month Club and goes about to reflexively posit just anything that is a new fashion of technology of the moment rather than something that photography does best - to represent a moment in a way that we can believe existed in real life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
New bar opens in next village. Camera: M9. For general interiors: 18/4 Zeiss @ f/8. For people: 50/1.5 C-Sonnar @ f/1.5. Tripod for general interiors: hand held for people.

Interior of centuries-old church, no illumination except window-light. Camera: 5x7 inch Linhof Technika. Lenses: 210/5.6 Apo Grandagon (to allow rise) and 110/5.6 Super-Symmar (no movement, ultra-wide coverage). Tallest tripod available (2 metre Linhof) and stepladder.

Anyone can set any limits they like: photographing only subjects that begin with Q, shooting only between 0200 and 0600, using only hand-coated plates printed by moonlight. It doesn't prove anything.

Nor does the so-called 10,000 hour rule. In my view, that's macho drivel: "I'm so tough I can devote 10,000 hours to becoming a less worse photographer". Most of the best 'natural' photographers I know -- the ones who get good pictures immediately, or almost immediately, regardless of what camera they use -- are women. But there are plenty, of either sex, who will be better photographers after 500 hours than others will be after 50,000 hours. At worst, after 10,000 hours you're a bad photographer with 10,000 hours experience of being a bad photographer.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Limiting oneself to certain things reduces options. For example, bringing one camera instead of four on a trip. It frees me from too much expectation, and allows me to practice a particular format or a particular technique better. It is temporary.

Focusing on certain disciplines reduces distractions. For example, I focus on black and white, from exposure to prints. It allows me to study with more depth than breadth. It is more long-term.
 
dave lackey said:
Ahhh....but film and digital are two different mediums. So, why not explore/use both for different tasks?
Click to expand...
In the same sense that oils and watercolors are both painting media, OK.
So, my answer is: I do, in fact, do that. My choice has been to concentrate on 35mm film photography. With the occasional foray into other media.

Frankly, the choice I have made is primarily because I don't like the digital cameras I can afford.

Almost certainly, any of my photographs that you--or anyone here--has seen are digital by the time you've seen them so it's not that I am anti digital media, I just don't enjoy the tools as well as I enjoy the tools I use for film.
Rob
 
rbiemer said:
In the same sense that oils and watercolors are both painting media, OK.
So, my answer is: I do, in fact, do that. My choice has been to concentrate on 35mm film photography. With the occasional foray into other media.

Frankly, the choice I have made is primarily because I don't like the digital cameras I can afford.

Almost certainly, any of my photographs that you--or anyone here--has seen are digital by the time you've seen them so it's not that I am anti digital media, I just don't enjoy the tools as well as I enjoy the tools I use for film.
Rob
Click to expand...


Ha, ha...love it! I reckon that roughly 90% of all the images I have made in the last ten years have been digital. All Nikon SLR's. Since re-discovering film photography with my Nikon S3 2000 and now the M3, I cannot say that I enjoy using the digital SLR's. Nor can I say that I get the same results that I would with, say the M3, TriX and a Summarit lens.

In fact, I tire of Photoshop so easily anymore. I am worn out from all of the computer design I have done over the years and except for email, forums and research, I try to stay away from a computer as much as possible.

THAT is why I have taken up fly fishing!😛

But, I do not limit myself to just film or to just digital. If I had to use a P&S, I would, however, quit photography altogether. Talk about limits!😉
 
Things change over time as well.

I'm into square format right now. Who knows, a year down the line I might be raving about Polaroid (actually, I already am). People are dedicated to the things that make them feel good at that point in time. Occasionally people try new things and decided if they like it or not.

Hey, I like Ice Cream a lot... but I won't make a diet out of it. I don't think limits exist in photography as such. Rather, I think it is the gear that one has on them at the time that creates limits. Thus if I buy a leica m6 as my sole camera, I am inadvertently limiting myself to a rangefinder shooting style and film photography. But I am well aware that with a SLR in my hands, I can make a picture too and of the same quality.

Just like how I tired digital, didn't like it. Now I shoot film exclusively. But when I go to a job and someone hands me a DSLR and asks if I could please take photos with it, I will happily do that. I won't say "sorry, I don't use digital cameras.".
 
The limits, or no limits, are usually in the minds only...

And generally, not precisely in free minds... Most artists create, feel joy, amplitude and freedom, where other people imagine limits... Like Cervantes writing El Quijote in prison almost without any peace of mind or media to write in, and after losing one hand in the war... Where others see limits, art sees liberation...

Some people can fear limits, and then even pretend other people fear the same ways... It's human nature, but it's far from the nature of art...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
The limits, or no limits, are usually in the minds only...

And generally, not precisely in free minds... Most artists create, feel joy, amplitude and freedom, where other people imagine limits... Like Cervantes writing El Quijote in prison almost without any peace of mind or media to write in, and after losing one hand in the war... Where others see limits, art sees liberation...

Some people can fear limits, and then even pretend other people fear the same ways... It's human nature, but it's far from the nature of art...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

i have no idea what this means...
 
This is what I mean, Joe:

John Lennon, and his songs, were not limited because he sang rock'n'roll instead of singing opera and jazz too.

Apart, he didn't consider himself into a limit because of that. When he wanted to sing another composer's classic rock'n'roll song, it was not a limit. When he wanted to compose in that same style, it was not a limit. When he decided to explore other things, those things were never a limit to his talent.

When Botero expands volume both in painting or sculpture, it's not a limit to his expression. When Giacometti uses long figures, it's not a limit either. When Salgado uses B&W and avoids color it's not a limit. Nothing's a limit. At least to art. Some people can imagine doing some things or avoiding them, are limits... But that doesn't mean they are... Well, they are for such person, because that person is limited by his/her own mind...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
This is what I mean, Joe:

John Lennon, and his songs, were not limited because he sang rock'n'roll instead of singing opera and jazz too.

Apart, he didn't consider himself into a limit because of that. When he wanted to sing another composer's classic rock'n'roll song, it was not a limit. When he wanted to compose in that same style, it was not a limit. When he decided to explore other things, those things were never a limit to his talent.

When Botero expands volume both in painting or sculpture, it's not a limit to his expression. When Giacometti uses long figures, it's not a limit either. When Salgado uses B&W and avoids color it's not a limit. Nothing's a limit. At least to art. Some people can imagine doing some things or avoiding them, are limits... But that doesn't mean they are... Well, they are for such person, because that person is limited by his/her own mind...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

juan,
i understand and understood what your words mean...but they are like a lecture by a professor...what i am interested in is...what is your point?
why say what you say? i need a point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom