You are what you shoot

T

Tuolumne

Veteran
Local time
3:45 PM
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,005
Conversation tonight in a New York pizza restaurant on the Upper West Side:

He: I see you are an amateur photographer.

Me: Why "amateur"?

He: You are using a Linux camera.

Me: "Linux" is an operating system. "Lumix" is a camera. (I was using the G1.)

He: What?

Me: Lumix. Lumix. It's a Lumix camera.

He: Well, anyway, it's an amateur camera, right?

Me: What if I told you I had a dozen Leica film cameras and a digital rangefinder at home. Would you think me a better photographer?

He: Yes, I would.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D:p:DGo know!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/T
 
Maybe he was right ?

amateur: a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.
Click to expand...

In any case, next time you meet him, my regards, and there are many people out there using Linux professionally, in fact, we couldn't live without it. A Lumix is a different question :)

Cheers,

Roland.
 
From the title, I thought this thread was going to be a variation of "you are what you eat", with the "what you shoot" being the photos you take. Image my surprise to discover that its a Lumix G1 lovefest :D Nothing wrong with that though ;)
 
In some cultures, the very best, most daring and most lyrical artists were the amateurs. Because they did not have to support themselves with their art they were not bound by the fact that they had to please a client or a patron. Look at the history of Chinese painting. Of course in China, to be an "amateur" also meant you were someone of means who could dedicate themselves to a life of leisure and a pursuit of things like poetry, painting, calligraphy. "Professional" Chinese painting was tight and controlled. It was the scholars/amateurs who developed the loose and free painting/calligraphy found in the most exquisite scrolls. Of course they did not have to worry about where the next meal was coming from.
 
There are very few cameras that the general public associate with 'professionals,' and most of them are either large or leica. Is this correct? Obviously (to us) not. Is it understandable? To an extent. The vast majority of the public tend to associate certain cameras with "pros" because the vast majority of the public only ever see "pros" shooting certain gear. The street goes both ways, though. When the "average man" sees a canon with a big white lens on it, their first thought is most likely "pro." My first thought is most likely "tourist." Even though I have seen some really fantastic images made with the G1, its form factor is very reminiscent of a lot of "prosumer" fixed lens cameras, which this guy probably mistook your G1 for. If he called it a linux, he probably wasn't really aware of what the G1 was. Also, as far as I know, the G1 isn't really marketed toward professionals, and marketing has a massive influence over people. If you had been using an olympus xa, he probably wouldn't have said a word to you because to the untrained eye, it just looks like a cheap plastic snapshot camera. If I held any sort of ire or grudge at the guy, it would be for his lack of tact, not for his mistaken outlook on what can and can't be a 'professional' camera.
 
I use a $100 Lumix DMC-LZ8 from time to time and have about $15k of camera sitting around at home.

I learned a long time ago the camera you use has nothing to do with how good your photos are.
 
There are times when it is an advantage to be considered an amateur.

Some decades ago, I was a foreign correspondent in Eastern Europe for a western news agency and I used a Rollei 35 to illustrate some of my stories. No one took the camera seriously and that was great.


When the Hi-8 format first came in, there were free-lancers around the world who gained access where the conventional big clunker TV cameras were not allowed.

There was British woman TV journalist who toured places like Albania where no western news people were permitted under communism.


I recall her describing at a conference how a border guard helped her shoot a standup. He thought it was a tourist postcard sort of thing.

The word "amateur" has unfortunately fallen into disrepute because of the way it is commonly used. If you are an amateur photographer all it means that you don't earn your living or part of your living from taking pix. I guess it's assumed that if you get paid for it, you must be good but that is not necessarily the case.
 
swoop said:
I learned a long time ago the camera you use has nothing to do with how good your photos are.
Click to expand...


True, oh so true...I often tell people..."never equate having good equipment with being a good photographer..."
Look at the results not the equipment... :D :cool: :D
 
Does this mean if you use a Holga ... your'e a barely post pubescent pimply faced teenager who accidentally stumbled across the 'Lomo' site one night when searching for the 'American Idol' home page?
 
Keith said:
Does this mean if you use a Holga ... your'e a barely post pubescent pimply faced teenager who accidentally stumbled across the 'Lomo' site one night when searching for the 'American Idol' home page?
Click to expand...

At the risk of seeming like I am getting on my personal soapbox yet again, I loathe being accused of being a 'lomographer' when I use my holgas.
 
Merkin said:
At the risk of seeming like I am getting on my personal soapbox yet again, I loathe being accused of being a 'lomographer' when I use my holgas.
Click to expand...


Which is exactly what I mean ... people generalise constantly when it comes to these sorts of things and it becomes tedious eventually!
 
Someone once asked me what kind of Holga I had.

flash.jpg
 
swoop said:
Someone once asked me what kind of Holga I had.

flash.jpg
Click to expand...

Ohhh, that's brilliant. The tape on the Leica gives it that "pawn shop look" too. My M2, though battered, is chrome... usually it is identified as something "special" although most people obviously don't know how special :D

Anyway, I am proud to be an amateur. Don't have to take cra... errr, constructive criticism from ANYONE. I cannot begin to express how liberating that is. And yes, I have been published on quite a few occasions... if that's because I'm good or that they can get my pictures for free, that's for you to decide :D

To be even more philosophical about it, I don't think photography is an art form. Anyone with a bit of knowledge and some perseverance can be a good photographer. And judging by the "accidental" great pictures I see sometimes from my friend's digital P&S cameras. maybe not even that. Don't kid yourself boys and girls, your pics aren't art because you made them with a Noctilux at f1. Look at the Sistine Chapel. THAT's art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom