Why limit oneself?

What are you asking about? Do you mean why only black and white or only color, or only film or only digital, or do you mean why not painting and sculpture too?
 
no serious artist limits himself at all.
Only we amateurs think that limiting ourselves by any means might improve us.
It actually might work for us, indeed. But that's because we are amateurs and our little spare time and effort and talent (if any) that we use for the hobby is indeed more efficient if undivided.
 
Pherdinand said:
no serious artist limits himself at all.
Only we amateurs think that limiting ourselves by any means might improve us.
It actually might work for us, indeed. But that's because we are amateurs and our little spare time and effort and talent (if any) that we use for the hobby is indeed more efficient if undivided.
Click to expand...

I am not sure this is true for photography. Many great, great names were not painters or accomplished in another field. Even HCB is known for less than top notch drawings.

For art in general I am not sure it is entirely true either, but this is not my area and I am also not going not wanting to ask 'is photography art either!'

Many photographers spent decade or a lifetime photographing within a reasonably limited spectrum of what photography can be. Even the branching out of Salgado with genesis is really a very slight deviation. Its not like he is producing collodion negs from a 20x12 camera or semi-abstract underwater and still life work like Ryuijie after his traditional FA landscape work.

I would say limitation is often the product of deepening exploration of the type that often yields original or remarkable work. You cannot expect to produce great work if you only skate the surface, altho a fresh look might entail exactly that. I know I was totally fixated with FA landscapes 5 years ago and have not shot a single one in 5 years... but I am shooting docu work heavily. I intend to shoot the landscapes again and maybe I will go back with some new perspectives... in fact I know I will. Were I to change every few weeks or months from one thing to another I dont think I would have gotten below the surface of anything. That said, I am sure it is possible to flit from one discipline to another, but suspect that in order to do each discipline to the highest standard you would likely need to have spent time totally immersed in each area first to develop the depth.

My own path has been:

Lots of everything
More of fewer things
Lots of one thing
Lots of another thing
Back thinking about new things again
 
Last edited:
Perhaps he's speaking of shooting landscape opposed to street photography or perhaps all the above. I only limit myself to film cameras because it's comfortable to me! I guess you could say I'm an electronic klutz! Digital has too many buttons & features you have to go through! KISS is what I try & remind myself!
 
I don't see picking a thin discipline and sticking with it as limiting oneself. I'd rather pick one and slug at the 10,000-Hours rule and get great at it then spread myself all around and be mediocre at a bunch of different ones.
 
Ah...good perspectives so far! All of them are relevant to the question. This discussion could go as far as why a photographer would only do digital work these days at the exclusion of film and the equipment available, such as medium and large format.

In other words, in the narrow question of film vs. digital, I shoot mostly digital because that is what I need to grab snaps of the grandchildren, etc. The D2X and D2H were always the go-to gear for sports action. But, rangefinder photography is different and I have yet to be able to obtain the results I want with digital (excluding Leica M8's and M9 because I have not tried them yet) for the type of images where the Leica rangefinders excel. The film results are always different.

Hopefully, I will be able to move into large format soon as it opens up yet another area of interest.

The OP question is not limited to just film vs digital and I appreciate the discussion so far...:). It is just too limiting for me to just shoot digital for everything, and now I find 35mm may be a bit limiting as well. Although, the M3 is never going to out-dated for me!
 
Well, there's perhaps the over-worn "write what you know" axiom among writers. Photographically speaking, I like the idea of "pursuing what interests you, and expand from there as desired."

As far as "limits" (technical or creative) are concerned, it's tricky: from painters to writers musicians, the apparent lack of limits can itself become a issue, leaving one potentially unmoored. (Yes, it depends on the individual.)

For a few of my colleagues, getting hold of a digital camera was the beginning of a bee-you-tee-ful friendship, on a whole bunch of levels, and it shows in their work. Me? I've done that too from time to time, but I'm far more comfortable and happy, with taking a roll of film, putting it in the camera, shooting said roll, rewinding it, removing it from the camera, developing it and then doing the digital jiggery-pokery stuff, which I've done for years. Process counts for me, but it's different for others, 'tis all.

Anyway: think about what you want to do, and don't worry too much about where that lies on the limits/no-limits continuum. :)


- Barrett
 
I only take photographs of things within my experience. I have found that a practical limit as I find it difficult to photograph things outside that.

Besides, you have not proven your assumption that limits are the barrier. It was elegantly pointed out in by the character in The legand of 1900 that with only 88 keys a musician can produce and infinite number of tunes, however, presented with an infinite number of keys, nothing can be done. Technical limits are not the problem.
 
Isn't photography all about limits? Limit the angle - thus photos have edges, limit the dimensionality - they are flat, limit the colors - b&w anyone? The limits define the medium. This is true for any artistic medium: there are certain limits that, if exceeded, the medium is fundamentally changed, and it becomes a different medium.

So in answer (and thank you for expanding your question) one limits oneself in order to define the medium that one works within, and do work in that medium. An artist need not work only within a single medium, thus multi-media artists exist in great numbers.
 
Chris101 said:
Isn't photography all about limits? Limit the angle - thus photos have edges, limit the dimensionality - they are flat, limit the colors - b&w anyone? The limits define the medium. This is true for any artistic medium: there are certain limits that, if exceeded, the medium is fundamentally changed, and it becomes a different medium.
Click to expand...

The basic act of photographing is one of limitations. You point the camera, using the frame to limit what is included and what is excluded. You are using the frame to edit the world in front of you. Edit, limit, same thing.
 
I guess it was Orson Welles who said the absence of limits is the worst art enemy...

I don't think any artist can be limited by his/her picking of any media...

When I pick a media I'm not limited: I can pick whatever I want... I have strong reasons to pick what I use... And I have tried nearly everything from wet emulsion to digital... By the way, films are sooooooo different! Soooooo much fun!

Cheers,

Juan
 
the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits ... I can't remember who said that, so I'll credit Ben Franklin
 
In fact, one cannot do everything. Therefore the act of doing anything at all is bound by limitations. The art is in striking a balance, doing neither too many things nor doing too few things.
If one aims at doing a particular thing in an interesting way, that takes time away from doing other things.
If one aims at doing very many things at once, one might end up on a 3 day trip across a country that requires many weeks to actually see, in a bus, sweaty, irritated, with a huge bag full of dslrs and zoom lenses, trying to shoot portraits, nature, street and macro all at once, and accomplishing exactly nothing worth looking at. ;)
 
With just a few exceptions I shoot all Landscape, in Black and white, on Film.

I don't regard that as limited, I regard it as 'focused' on what I enjoy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom