why the aura that surrounds the one camera/lens idea?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have all kinds of other stuff that I mess with, but the love of my life was once my
Hexar AF and now it's the Fuji X100. Simple, small,
intimate, wonderful setups for taking pictures of things.
All the other stuff I have is ultimately expendable because it's
too big, too heavy, too complicated, too many decisions cluttering up my mind.
 
airfrogusmc said:
What I'm saying is ya never know until you try something and I said earlier that this was where I was at this point in time. Its not foolish, a doctrine or stupid if it works. I would argue that adopting an approach can help one discover a style because with some it can help develop a personal way of seeing.
Click to expand...
Again, read what I said, not what you want me to have said. Focus on the words HARD WORK and DOCTRINAIRE DECISION.

Cheers,

R.
 
For me?

Removal of analysis-paralysis. I can walk into a place and see the thousands of possible potential photographs. All great. All requiring different equipment to capture. Should I then go through the lenses and capture each subject with the appropriate lens? Or should I reduce my scope to a singular lens and have a laser-sharp focus on what I can achieve with the equipment I've got on hand?

By removing options, this allows me to curate my photography before the photos are taken; in addition, this allows me to live in the moment. Set up, snap, move on.
 
airfrogusmc said:
I was reading this
"I'm just saying it's a bad idea (and stupid, and woolly thinking) to adopt ANY approach,"
Click to expand...
Very good. Now read to the end of the sentence. To save you the trouble of winding back to it, here it is. The bold type may help.

I'm just saying it's a bad idea (and stupid, and woolly thinking) to adopt ANY approach, be it one lens/one camera, LF, MF, camera phone, unless you accept that no matter what you choose, it's still going to be hard work

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Very good. Now read to the end of the sentence. To save you the trouble of winding back to it, here it is. The bold type may help.

I'm just saying it's a bad idea (and stupid, and woolly thinking) to adopt ANY approach, be it one lens/one camera, LF, MF, camera phone, unless you accept that no matter what you choose, it's still going to be hard work

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Becoming really good at anything requires a lot of hard work and those that really master whatever it is always make it look easy because whatever they do has become second nature. A couple of great quotes to this very subject:
"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston

"For us the camera is a tool, the extension of our eye, not a pretty little mechanical toy. It is sufficient that we should feel at ease with the camera best adapted for our purpose. Adjustments of the camera – such as setting the aperture and the speed – should become reflexes, like changing gear in a car. The real problem is one of intelligence and sensitivity." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
 
Here are my thoughts...

First let me state that there is no one right approach to photography just as there is not one right approach to painting. Some photographers need multiple lenses to achieve their goal and can master all the skills necessary to be effective with all those lenses. Others need a single lens.

Now here are my thoughts on the aura of a single lens.

1. I think we can all agree that each piece of unique equipment in our kit requires a certain amount of effort to master. I would even argue that over time our mastery will increase. Therefore by concentrating on one lens we can probably lessen the absolute period it takes to master it.

2. Art, all art, is as much about exploiting the limitations of our chosen medium and turning them into advantages. Why else is B&W still so popular long after practical color film and digital color was available? So too with a single lens. When used effectively a single lens can help provide part of that signature look that many photographers are looking for.

3. Yes you might loose some pictures because you don't have the right lens with you to take them. By the same token, you are going to loose some images because you are changing lenses or because you currently are using a different lens. Most photographs won't wait.

--
Bill
 
airfrogusmc said:
Like I said earlier I don't miss photographs I see different photographs that are appropriate for that F/L.
Click to expand...

That's the problem, you are letting the equipment run you, when you should be running it. Its nice that you can solve the problem of making a photo with any lens, but sad that you cannot see the photograph as something from within you rather than something you create by solving a problem imposed by your gear.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
That's the problem, you are letting the equipment run you, when you should be running it. Its nice that you can solve the problem of making a photo with any lens, but sad that you cannot see the photograph as something from within you rather than something you create by solving a problem imposed by your gear.
Click to expand...

But isn't dealing with the limitations of our gear part of photography? Even the most extensive kit is not going to work for every image the mind can conceive of. If you have multiple cameras and multiple lenses and you see something you have to shoot, you have to make a judgement, do I take the shot with the camera as it is, or do I risk missing the shot while I change lenses (or cameras)? Either way the next step involves solving the problem of how to make the shot.

Again, I want to stress, I don't think either approach is necessarily right or wrong. But I don't think limiting oneself to one lens is essentially any different than restricting oneself to one film (or to one type of film). Regardless of the choices you make, some of the shots you see are going to get missed because of those choices, but it will allow you to capture other shots.

--
Bill
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
That's the problem, you are letting the equipment run you, when you should be running it. Its nice that you can solve the problem of making a photo with any lens, but sad that you cannot see the photograph as something from within you rather than something you create by solving a problem imposed by your gear.
Click to expand...

Please....its about the work and for me the best way for me to get there at this point is not worrying about the equipment. I have learned to see and use the equipment I have to its fullest. I see the photo and its about having the equipment I feel so comfortable that in the fraction of a second when I see the photo because I truly see at that F/L and because I am so used to using the same equipment all the time there is just making the image of what I saw. The gear just gets out of the way so I can truly capture what I see because I don't have to even hesitate for a fraction of a second.

The funny part about all this is go over to the digital forums and you get exactly the same reaction when you mention that folks should at least give film a try. They come out of the wood work to attack that thought. LoL...

Just funny how people get when you know who you are and what gear you need to capture your vision. They come out of the woodwork to try and prove how wrong you are yet you have the work to back it all up.

And by the way I rarely see anything as creative here or anywhere as the work of Ralph Gibson and he rarely uses anything but a normal F/L lens because as he says it the way I see. I see a bit wider thats why I choose a 35mm on FF.

And again I would never have the arrogance to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong if they are getting the results they disred from what they were using amd have the work to back it up.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Please....its about the work and for me the best way for me to get there at this point is not worrying about the equipment. I have learned to see and use the equipment I have to its fullest. I see the photo and its about having the equipment I feel so comfortable that in the fraction of a second when I see the photo because I truly see at that F/L and because I am so used to using the same equipment all the time there is just making the image of what I saw. The gear just gets out of the way so I can truly capture what I see because I don't have to even hesitate for a fraction of a second.

The funny part about all this is go over to the digital forums and you get exactly the same reaction when you mention that folks should at least give film a try. They come out of the wood work to attack that thought. LoL...

Just funny how people get when you know who you are and what gear you need to capture your vision. They come out of the woodwork to try and prove how wrong you are yet you have the work to back it all up.

And by the way I rarely see anything as creative here or anywhere as the work of Ralph Gibson and he rarely uses anything but a normal F/L lens because as he says it the way I see. I see a bit wider thats why I choose a 35mm on FF.

And again I would never have the arrogance to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong if they are getting the results they disred from what they were using amd have the work to back it up.
Click to expand...

I actually use a standard lens 90% of the time because for the work I do it is usually the right lens, but I still think its dumb to limit yourself. The other 10%of my photos could not have been made with the standard lens, at least not the way I visualized them before I even pulled the camera from the bag. Very, very few of my images were 'split second' images where the 'decisive moment' mattered. Very few of anyones are unless they're sports photographers or war photographers. I wonder how many of yours really are?
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I actually use a standard lens 90% of the time because for the work I do it is usually the right lens, but I still think its dumb to limit yourself. The other 10%of my photos could not have been made with the standard lens, at least not the way I visualized them before I even pulled the camera from the bag. Very, very few of my images were 'split second' images where the 'decisive moment' mattered. Very few of anyones are unless they're sports photographers or war photographers. I wonder how many of yours really are?
Click to expand...

Whats dumb is people telling others whats right or wrong for them. Lately the moment when the visual elements come together is what my personal work is all about and I don't shoot either sports or war.

One thing that you haven't thought about is the way I see is what drove me to this decision to use the equipment that I now use for my personal work. So my vision is what is driving my equipment choices.
 
Good thread ... argumentative but civilised and I'm enjoying it. Here's hoping it doesn't get too butchered by unnecessary moderation.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I actually use a standard lens 90% of the time because for the work I do it is usually the right lens, but I still think its dumb to limit yourself. The other 10%of my photos could not have been made with the standard lens, at least not the way I visualized them before I even pulled the camera from the bag. Very, very few of my images were 'split second' images where the 'decisive moment' mattered. Very few of anyones are unless they're sports photographers or war photographers. I wonder how many of yours really are?
Click to expand...
Dear Chris,

Same here, except that it's probably closer to 99%, at least when I step outside the front door. It's the rigid refusal to consider anything else that puzzles me.

Cheers,

R.
 
Keith said:
Good thread ... argumentative but civilised and I'm enjoying it. Here's hoping it doesn't get too butchered by unnecessary moderation.
Click to expand...

here i come...

it's starting to get personal and way off track when looking at my original question...
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Chris,

Same here, except that it's probably closer to 99%, at least when I step outside the front door. It's the rigid refusal to consider anything else that puzzles me.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone care what I do? I couldn't care less what anyone else shoots with. Many have found this way of shooting right for them. If its not right for you so be it but I found it to be just the opposite of rigid and limiting but I was also told I was limiting my self from folks just like I see here when I bought a camera that only shoots B&W. I've also seen the same type individuals in digital forums attack film lovers with the same type arguments. Find what works for you and quit worrying about others and how they get it done. The only thing that matters is the work. The rest is just BS.
 
It's get'n pretty close when folks are called dumb for choosing something someone else doesn't agree with. I do again find it funny in a laugh out loud kinda way because who should care what anyone chooses to shoot with as long as what they work with is right for them and the way the see and the way they work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom