Photography - photos, or technicality?

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was just reading this article from Ken Rockwell:

Hobbyists vs. Photography

 

As I was reading it, I was thinking about two things. First, it came to me that the types of "technical discussions" he refers to are much of what makes up this website. Later, I thought about how my buying an M8 was different from when I bought my first M2.

 

When I got the M2, there were no discussion forums - there was no internet, and all that happened was I stopped using my Nikon SP and instead used the M2. I didn't know about any "trick functions", and until I read the great story about M-series Leica cameras on Camera Quest, I had never heard of a few that were mentioned. I don't remember ever getting stuck on anything - it was all just "basic photography".

 

Just as with my other digital cameras, when I got the M8 I didn't really know where to start. I assumed there were lots of variables that needed to be set, and after reading and re-reading the manual, I found most of them. Coming here and reading up on things was very helpful as I got some of my questions answered. In retrospect, almost every one of my questions was about the computery part of the M8, not the "camera part".

 

 

After reading Ken's article, I'm beginning to think I should quit reading about all the technical stuff, and do exactly as he suggests. The problem is I'm certainly not an "Ansel Adams", and while I can sometimes create images I like, I'm never satisfied.

 

On the other hand, there are things I want to buy, such as a scanner, and what I've read here in this forum has been invaluable. This forum is like a huge issue of Consumer Reports, and after reading it for a while, I start to get a feel for what things I may actually buy in the near future.

 

Ken's right about one thing - I wish my "experience" in having an M8 was more like what it had been with the M2. I didn't really think all that much about the M2 - I just put film in it and continued with what I had already been doing, as well as I knew how, just as I had been doing with my Contax II, IIa, and Nikon SP cameras. It wasn't any kind of "status symbol", just a nice camera that was very quiet and built well.

[h00ligan]

Once again he may have a good point, but just about everything I've read from his site shows him as a neophyte... i'm curious - how old is he? also a bit funny that he boasts about being online for so long - then bashes everything tech related.

[Jeff S]

Ken admits on his own site to being intentionally provocative and/or humorous.

 

In this case, however, there isn't much new. Even on this site, there is often debate about a quality image versus image quality, and about the gear instead of the photograph. This is, remember, the M8 forum, not the photography forum. So, it's designed primarily for the gear, although folks will invariably chime in (including me) to remind us it's about the photograph.

 

I use the gear forums for technical discussions, particularly coming to digital last year after decades with film. I spent many more years studying and appreciating the art of photography, but I don't come here for that. On occasion, however, I do browse the photo forums, but there's just too much banal material IMO to search out the very interesting work.

 

Getting back to Ken's article. I find it ironic that he uses Ansel Adams as his example of a photographer rather than a hobbyist, especially since he equates hobbyist, at least in part, as someone focused on the mechanical and technical stuff. Ansel was the quintessential example of both photographer and technician/gear enthusiast. He relished in the technical aspects, and in fact helped advance many of them himself as a teacher. And, he would no doubt be actively engaged in the digital technical realm, as his own writings attest.

 

Having said this, one provocative thought from Ken is the notion that women are better photographers than men. I think that would be an interesting discussion...on another forum.

 

Jeff

[stunsworth]

Getting back to Ken's article. I find it ironic that he uses Ansel Adams as his example of a photographer rather than a hobbyist, especially since he equates hobbyist, at least in part, as someone focused on the mechanical and technical stuff. Ansel was the quintessential example of both photographer and technician/gear enthusiast. He relished in the technical aspects, and in fact helped advance many of them himself as a teacher

 

I doubt that he could have chosen a worse example. Adams as you say was pretty obsessive about the technical side of things.

[Nicoleica]

Ken admits on his own site to being intentionally provocative and/or humorous.

..........

Having said this, one provocative thought from Ken is the notion that women are better photographers than men........

 

Jeff

 

Well, at least he got ONE thing right. :D:D

[Jeff S]

I was hoping you would chime in, Nicole. We could use more of the superior sort here.

 

Jeff

[Big T]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, at least he got ONE thing right. :D

 

Does being in touch with my feminine side make me a better "male" photographer...

[adan]

Mary Ellen Mark, Jill Freedman, Annie Leibowitz, Susan Meiselas, Bernice Abbott, Eve Arnold, Martine Franck, Inge Morath, Dorothea Lange, Margaret Bourke-White, Imogen Cunningham............

 

Uh, hello? This is news to people? I've probably been influenced by more photographs by women than by men over my career. Certainly my book collection of powerful documentary work runs well over 50% in favor of women photographers.

 

As to Ken Rockwell's essay - actually, one of the better things I've read on there (although one might point out that his site is itself rather heavily devoted to gizmo-ism).

 

It does not hurt to become technically skillful, or acquire and exchange technical knowledge in one's preferred passtime. but never forget that technical perfection is just icing on the cake - if the underlying photograph is garbage, technical perfection won't change the fact that it is garbage.

[Jeff S]

Mary Ellen Mark, Jill Freedman, Annie Leibowitz, Susan Meiselas, Bernice Abbott, Eve Arnold, Martine Franck, Inge Morath, Dorothea Lange, Margaret Bourke-White, Imogen Cunningham............

 

This is copied from a Sept. '09 post I made on the forum, in response to a request for "inspirational b&w photographers." Over several weeks, I got tired of the male dominated list....

 

"I knew this was a male dominated forum, but this is ridiculous...

 

Marjorie Content

Margaret Bourke-White

Berenice Abbott

Germaine Krull

Laura Gilpin

Doris Ulmann

Julia Margaret Cameron

Gertrude Kasebier

Immogen Cunningham

Lisette Model

Tina Modotti

Consuelo Kanaga

Lee Miller

Eudora Welty

Alma Lavenson

Marion Post Wolcott

Mary Ellen Mark

Sally Mann

....and on and on......"

 

Both my book and photo collections reflect this as well, Andy.

 

Jeff

[Gentleman Villain]

I've seen about as many good hobbyist photographers as I've seen good garage bands.

[wstotler]

Great thread and good question.

 

Basho Rule #3 is posted below, which I think gets at the Rockwell "Your Camera Doesn't Matter" philosophy--and at the gear-driven emphasis of the Web/camera marketing. Directly speaks to your question.

 

"3. No Points Will Be Awarded for Technical Fluency

-- On the whole, bokeh, grain, focus, lighting, etc., doesn't matter. It's the execution on a defendable, core idea that matters. (Then, those other things will matter.)"

 

Forensics: Project Basho Critique on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with really grooving on the technology (body, lens, digital techniques, etc.) at the same time.

 

Thanks,

Will