A simple reply to one of my threads made me realize I'm not a Photographer

[Anbaric]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, lencap said:

Review several teaching tools I've had for years, but didn't digest fully.  These include several excellent training videos from Ming Thein (sadly he left his photography site to design and sell high end watches), and several books including Ansel Adams series and many others.  I find I learn better with video - see and do - rather than just reading.

Though you prefer videos, one short book I would suggest is David Hurn and Bill Jay's On Being a Photographer. It's written as a conversation between Hurn, a leading member of Magnum, and Jay, an expert writer on photography. After covering a bit of Hurn's background, which is interesting in itself, they move on to the business of taking pictures. The chapters on Selecting A Subject and Shooting The Single Picture are especially good. Gear is only discussed in the most general terms (like sticking to one camera 'for a considerable period of time'!) and this is in any case a book from late in the film era. But the lessons about choosing and shooting a subject are as relevant as ever. Like Feininger, Hurn thinks a photographer is someone who is interested in the subject they are photographing, rather than merely being interested in cameras. It's just $6 for the ebook:

https://www.lenswork.com/obp.htm

[JoshuaR]

One of the best things I ever did, photographically speaking, was pay for a portfolio review from a photographer whose work I enjoyed (Kevin Mullins, a wedding photographer and Fuji ambassador—at the time I shot Fuji X-mount). It was useful not just in itself but in an ongoing way. Here’s why:

• I selected about a hundred pictures for him to look at. The act of going through years of photographs and picking the ones I liked the most made me reflect a lot on what I valued most in my photography. I thought hard about both what I wanted to photograph and how I wanted my pictures to look.
• He gave me a lot of valuable feedback, identifying shortcomings in my pictures that I hadn’t seen before, and some missed opportunities. But he also gave me a much-needed confidence boost, by pointing out when my pictures were excellent or even unimprovable. I’m not a professional photographer—I’m a writer—but the experience permanently banished my “am I a photographer?” imposter syndrome. 
• The whole experience recalibrated, to some extent, my sense of what success in photography looks and feels like. I went through thousands of images, selected a hundred, and then Kevin and I agreed that maybe a couple of dozen of those were really really good. The lesson I learned was two-fold: first, be patient, because it takes time to amass a quantity of great stuff; second, be aware that there’s a wide range of quality in one’s output—it’s not just good and bad, but lots of ‘pretty good’ and ‘really good’ and ‘almost great’ and ‘great but not superlative’ and ‘’superlative, but only you think so,’ and so on.
• Finally, I think the experience pushed me to look—really really look—at my own pictures in a different and more thoughtful, expansive way. Not just in terms of technical competence or composition or whatever, but in terms of what a given pictured showed, what it was about. And that has proved permanently useful as I make my way forward as a hobbyist.

Tl;dr: maybe do a portfolio review!

Edited October 11, 2024 by JoshuaRothman

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, JoshuaRothman said:

One of the best things I ever did, photographically speaking, was pay for a portfolio review from a photographer whose work I enjoyed (Kevin Mullins, a wedding photographer and Fuji ambassador—at the time I shot Fuji X-mount). It was useful not just in itself but in an ongoing way. Here’s why:

• I selected about a hundred pictures for him to look at. The act of going through years of photographs and picking the ones I liked the most made me reflect a lot on what I valued most in my photography. I thought hard about both what I wanted to photograph and how I wanted my pictures to look.
• He gave me a lot of valuable feedback, identifying shortcomings in my pictures that I hadn’t seen before, and some missed opportunities. But he also gave me a much-needed confidence boost, by pointing out when my pictures were excellent or even unimprovable. I’m not a professional photographer—I’m a writer—but the experience permanently banished by “am I a photographer?” imposter syndrome. 
• The whole experience recalibrated, to some extent, my sense of what success in photography looks and feels like. I went through thousands of images, selected a hundred, and decided that maybe a couple of dozen of those were really really good. The lesson I learned was two-fold: first, be patient, because it takes time to amass a quantity of great stuff; second, be aware that there’s a wide range of quality in one’s output—it’s not just good and bad, but lots of ‘pretty good’ and ‘really good’ and ‘almost great’ and ‘great but not superlative’ and ‘’superlative, but only you think so,’ and so on.
• Finally, I think the experience pushed me to look—really really look—at my own pictures in a different and more thoughtful, expansive way. Not just in terms of technical competence or composition or whatever, but in terms of what it showed, what it was about. And that has proved permanently useful.

Tl;dr: maybe do a portfolio review!

Exactly, critique from a respected pro.  

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

This is one of my main suggestions above (except I broaden to having a ‘good eye,’ not just photographic). And I agree that this is mostly innate. But I disagree about methods to grow and improve, including actively looking at all kinds of visual art, taking some drawing or painting courses, etc.  As for photo-specific growth, I agree about continual practice, but I also think workshops or tutoring from respected individuals can potentially provide valuable critique, and lessons learned, that one might not discern alone.  This can lead to more directed and purposeful practice. Printing can also be a useful way to document, evaluate and develop that growth. 

Jeff

I think that where I place a different emphasis (rather than disagree with you) is on the value of self-critique and analysis rather than getting it from a third party, whether by portfolio reviews, workshops, books or videos. Those are all interesting and have their place (especially where skill/craft/technique are in question), and they may suggest new areas of photographic exploration, but there is nothing like arriving at your own understanding for getting the visual essentials hard-wired in your brain and eye.

[Jeff S]

29 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I think that where I place a different emphasis (rather than disagree with you) is on the value of self-critique and analysis rather than getting it from a third party, whether by portfolio reviews, workshops, books or videos. Those are all interesting and have their place (especially where skill/craft/technique are in question), and they may suggest new areas of photographic exploration, but there is nothing like arriving at your own understanding for getting the visual essentials hard-wired in your brain and eye.

If one starts with a ‘good eye,’ I agree.  But if not, I don’t think self-reflection and practice is likely to be sufficient without feedback. It might never click or evolve, but I think some personal outside guidance and instruction (not books or videos) in photography, drawing or painting, might help. Purposeful practice, with goals in mind, then self-analysis…. rinse and repeat.  I do agree, however, that the likelihood of success is far greater when dealing with technique and craft (even through books or videos); much less so with visual skills and decision making …knowing when, where and to what degree to apply those techniques for optimizing results. Mostly innate IMO.

Jeff

[lencap]

Anbaric - thanks, I bought the book.  

Just when I think the thread has run its course, you continue to amaze me with new ideas and perspectives.  Thank you.

I agree that letting go of focusing on gear has been a challenge for me, and when I think of what keeps driving me there it seems that I’m moderately addicted to camera reviews on the net.  Not a day goes by that I don’t find something interesting to read/watch.  I’ll strive to resist my addiction, but it will take some effort.  I noticed in a google search that there were over 300 new website comments in a single day about the Q3 43.  It’s hard to ignore, at least for me.  This site also is hard to ignore -lots of helpful people, good information, and a broad range of opinions.  Still, I get the point and need to have more discipline.

I’ve decided to shoot solely with my SL2-S and 50mm SL ASPH f/2.0 lens for at least a month, no exceptions.  The challenge may come if I get a call that my name came up from the wait list and I can have a Q3 43 if I want it.  George Lucas seemed to address that fully in the above video.

One of my camera instructors commented on my photos years ago.  He had an interesting thought: “The world has millions of photos of mountains, flowers and wildlife.  What makes yours different?”  His point was echoed in many of the above posts: “Are you trying to capture the way a thing looks, or how it makes you feel?  If it’s the look what technical skills do you need to capture the image?  If it’s the way it makes you feel your composition shouldn’t be literal, but emotional.  How can you express that?”  I took that to mean shoot f8 or so with wide depth of field, good light and an interesting angle for capturing the look; full open aperture, lots of bokeh, rule of thirds or spiral for placement for the later.  So I took more photos and had him look again.  “Better, but common.  Did you ever get low to the ground, or shoot your subject from above?  Did you ever deliberately create blur in your image to emphasize what you thought was important?  Did you ever experiment with where the horizon line is in your image, or shooting at an angle.”  
 

It took him two minutes to take a few shots with my gear to show me what he meant.  I then realized what a photographer sees that I didn’t.  I then tried to be an “emotional” shooter.  This post made me remember that interaction well over a decade ago.  Seems like a good place to revisit.  And now that I think about it, it was about a year after I forgot about the photographer’s comments that I began my deep dive into putting the gear first.  That also seems like a way to let go of the gear - replace it with emotional shooting with asingke camera/lens for a month and see where it takes me.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/7/2024 at 8:12 PM, lencap said:

Greetings!

A few posts ago someone replied to a thread of mine with this comment:  "You seriously have to make up your mind.  There are many threads of yours which camera/lens to choose."   (Thank you Olaf).

I've been thinking about this since reading it, and the conclusions I've come to aren't what I expected.  As he notes I've had many systems over the last decade or more including Fujifilm X, Nikon Z/D5600, along with several Leicas on M, Q and SL platforms.  Each was bought, I thought, to accomplish my picture taking "style".  At times that emphasized lightweight portability, image quality above all else, flexibility or a mix of these to some degree.  The reality of how I used these camera systems after buying them was quite different.

I realized that I am more in love with the gear than the photography.  I've taken several classes/trainings/video workshops over the years, but basically I really don't shoot very much.  The majority of my picture taking is done with an iPhone 14 Pro, which I purchased to be with me all the time as a handy tool, not a primary camera platform.  I also found that in my full Photoshop, Apple Photos libraries the iPhone pictures outnumber the total of all the other images I've taken by a large amount.  

I've can't help but notice that the iPhone pictures are all heavily influenced by essentially AI control of the camera/image.  This trend seems to be creeping into the Leica world as well with software "adjustments" to captured images (apparently improving the MTF results), along with intelligent algorithms employed when processing images.  I'm not necessarily against this trend, but wonder about paying for a "perfect" lens, only to find out that it may not be optically perfect, but relies upon AI to create the "perfect" result.  Given the cost of these products I guess a "hybrid" production process employing high optical quality, but enhancing it as needed to keep costs reasonable is a very valid business decision.  But if AI can do that increasingly effectively in the future, where does that lead us?

I'm on a "wait list" for the new Q3 43, reasoning that since my preferred focal length is 50mm, an integrated lightweight camera body, that still allows me to manually focus with real distance markers and adds macro capability, image stabilization, cropping and far more will be nirvana.  But how much of that nearly perfect MTF chart of the APO lens is inherent to the glass lens, and how much is AI correcting various aberrations?  

The Leica Q3 default "Zoom" choices automatically crop the image as needed to fill the frame the way I want the image to look - essentially similar to the different zoom modes standard on the iPhone.  The iPhone adds the ability to select 3 different lenses (Apple's automated version of the "Tri-Elmar"?), another variation of the Q macro option.  Pixel binning is a common practice as well, as it now is on the M11/Q3 variations that provide variable MB image capture.

The phone also integrates well with all types of devices/platforms/media content making sharing images effortless.  And adding third party apps is simple and effectively opens the camera controls to more serious photography options.  The result is that I've prioritized convenience over image creation, but when I look at the iPhone final results they aren't that much different from shooting with some of my images shot on nearly $10K worth of gear.  That was quite shocking.

My point isn't that everyone should own an iPhone, but sadly the conclusion to me was that I spend far more time reading and posting about cameras and photography than I do actually participating in photography.  I can't remember the last time I actually printed an image and held it tangibly in my hand.  And I think that's why I find myself always looking for the "latest and greatest" (I'm on a wait list for the Q3 43).  I'm chasing the technical side of photography not the artistic side.  And that choice seems to be a never ending merry-go-round of GAS.

So, as I sit here with a Leica SL2-S 50mm Summicron Bundle, an almost unused Nikon D5600 with kit lens, and the iPhone, I wonder where I "went off the rails"?  How did the simple joy I felt of taking black/white film images on whatever gear was available morph into a fixation of "the gear", convincing myself that "pride of ownership" was more important than actually creating photographs?

I'm wondering now what is the next step?  Do I resign myself to a phone as my primary photo tool?  Do I buy a cheap used film camera and shoot black and white film for a while to get my "mojo" back?  Do I buy the new Q3 43, convincing myself that all will be well if I have a fixed focal length integrated camera with an APO lens (even if it seems that the patent is owned by Panasonic)?  Do I go back to the M body, even with cataracts and declining vision, with little ability to have confidence that I can actually capture focus and frame the image correctly?  (Truth be told the M platform gave me the most engaging feeling of them all).

I didn't expect such a "philosophical" reaction in response to a simple reply to one of my posts, but that's where I am now, and it's a bit uncomfortable. 

Once again a gear-oriented post. Not that there is anything wrong with that, gear is the tool that we use to produce whatever we perceive to be a photograph. Use the wrong tool and we will not succeed. In your post I miss reflection on the photographs you want to take, be it documenting memories through snapshots or any of the many artistic forms of photography. The gear to use or adapt to your needs follows automatically. 
However, the last paragraphs of your post show that you are on the right path. Albeit that you still make your decisions gear first. Deciding to take a one camera one lens approach is a great way to refine your visions, but you still need to decide what results you will be looking for in order to pick that lens and camera.

[huwm]

I live with 2 artists who take photos with their phones that I frequently feel are better than mine taken with my expensive 'gear'

They are capturing a specific something usually for future use/memento etc and instinctively move up down forward back etc whilst I'm too busy taking a 'photo'

I actually enjoy using the gear though and as I've written before photography for me is 'mindfulness' practise and extremely beneficial to me irrespective of the results.

However when I consciously listen to my 'inner or actual' wife/daughter (or some other guru presumably)  I actually take the occasionally good photo , bonus.

It is a conscious process though as unlike them I don't naturally 'see' in an 'artistic way, I do rinse/repeat and maybe one day it will become natural but I'm happy enough tbh

Don't fret so much 

[Barrie Lynn Bryant]

On 10/10/2024 at 5:38 PM, Archiver said:

I've yet to find a smartphone that gives me that sense...

I got that sense when I tried a SL2S a couple of times. Cameras are tools, and some tools are more enjoyable to use than others.

Firstly, I have something to offer Lencap before I write about what I quoted Archiver said. I have been following this thread since joining this forum this week. What interested me in photography to begin with is I liked looking at photographs. I still look at photographs all of the time. Every day I turn on my laptop, there's a new photograph to look at. I've looked at several of the forum pages showing the members' images here, and I've looked at several member's images on their websites.  But I started more than 50 years ago looking at Life and National Geographic. Right? Something compelled me to ask my dad for an SLR. I did not get one, because someone thought it was too complicated for a kid who did not already know what an f-stop was, or didn't know anything about shutter speed and stuff. You know what I mean? They bought me a Kodak Instamatic and at some point a Polaroid that jetted the print out the front. I took photos with these cameras despite them not being what I wanted because I wanted to take photographs so that I could look at them. I still have my first self-portrait I took with that Polaroid when I was 12 years old. That was 47 years ago and it's still very meaningful to me today. I have attached it to this post.

Maybe it will help you to look at the history of photography. Begin looking at photographs and learning about the photographers who made them. Find someone's images that you wish you had taken or those that you might want to emulate. Find a few who can be mentors from a distance. I don't know if this will help you decide to start taking more photos. Getting out with one camera and one prime lens will help. Be like Nike and Just Do It. Walk around town. Take photos. Go to events and take photos. Think about taking them or take them in a way that the photographers that interest you might. And, you don't have to, either. Just enjoy the gear.

I see your point, Archiver. And to your point, when my flip phone broke in half during the summer of 2023, I decided to move into the 21st century and buy an iPhone ProMax 14. WHOA! It was like I had struck gold! I soon discovered a way to use the pano feature that works in a way no other camera tool does. I can make a 270-degree pano with it, and that'll print 14 or 15 x 58 inches on my 17-inch Epson P900 printer. That helps to maximize the use of my printer, and it also maximizes certain matting and framing supplies I get from my distributor. I got lucky with the discovery. But luck favored me because I was impressed with the iPhone which delivered me a photo I took that impressed me as well.

Last month, I spent my honeymoon on the Oregon Coast. I spotted a traveler with a Leica Q3 at a turnout and talked briefly with him about it. He went to his car and brought out an SL3 that he handed to me and said, "Here. Look through it and shoot it!" He had an M adapter with a 75mm lens attached. It was a cool experience. I was in the market to move up to mirrorless. When I got home the next week, I found a mint SL2 on ebay, made an offer, and BINGO! Offer accepted. I then won a Vario-Elmarit 24-90 on ebay and BINGO! Now I have my mirrorless upgrade. I've been a Nikon shooter for 37 years. I'll still shoot the Nikons, but now I've got a mirrorless Leica. I've been tempted for a long time. I bought an M3 during the summer of 2023 because of who owned it previously. I never thought I'd want to do a film project again, either. It was the name written with inkpen on the inside of the leather case that caught my attention. I'm glad it was a Leica case and camera, too! I'm ready to start two big projects with these new cameras. And I'll also have my iPhone to shoot those 270-degree panos! 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[hansvons]

On 10/12/2024 at 2:40 AM, lencap said:

I agree that letting go of focusing on gear has been a challenge for me, and when I think of what keeps driving me there it seems that I’m moderately addicted to camera reviews on the net.  Not a day goes by that I don’t find something interesting to read/watch.  I’ll strive to resist my addiction, but it will take some effort.  I noticed in a google search that there were over 300 new website comments in a single day about the Q3 43.  It’s hard to ignore, at least for me.

Why would you act against your interests? Why not accept that gear makes you happy? However a packed shelf doesn’t make happy. Hoarding stuff chokes creativity and makes you feel guilty. Instead of looking out for creative input and the urge to become a "photographer" a new approach towards gear might be the cure. 

So, why not sell everything and buy the Q3 43? I‘m sure this will be both a satisfying toy and a brilliant camera capable of nearly everything except birds in flight.

And when the time comes and GAS kicks in again, you will play by the new rule: only one camera.

For reference, I shoot all my stuff that I print with a pair of film Ms and two 35mm Leica M lenses. I also own an SL2-S that 90% of the time works as a digitizing device and sometime sees use on assignments with a 50mm and a 35mm M Summicron. That’s it. No more gear  needed for my work.

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2024 by hansvons

[Stuart Richardson]

On 10/8/2024 at 10:06 PM, Anbaric said:

Feininger had a lot of perceptive things to say about photography. From The Complete Photographer:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

With respect to Feininger, I find it frustrating that this is so often talked about as a binary. It is not a binary, it is a spectrum. In my experience as a teacher, it is often used as a way to explain away and devalue learning techniques that can be used to help further one's art. I have taught in both technically biased and artistically biased schools, and ultimately it is doing the students a disservice to pretend that technique is not important, or that technical mastery is required. The best photographers are rarely stuck at one end of the spectrum. In my experience, the best photographers are ones who have a clarity of vision about what they want to portray and a deep interest in the medium itself. They often have longstanding and deep relationships with their gear and are extremely picky about it, even if they are not able to tell you exactly why or the deep technical aspects. I was very lucky to have done an MFA at a very good photography school and got the chance to visit the studios of extremely accomplished photographers, the back rooms of museums and publishers etc. You know what, as a whole, they were not? Gear agnostic. Alec Soth talked about the pros and cons of the GFX and Phase One versus 8x10, what kind of paper he used for shows vs sales, Mark Steinmetz talked about 6x7 and printing, Alessandra Sanguinetti and Jim Goldberg also were talking about the GFX (we visited at a time when Fuji USA had send GFX's to Magnum members, so lots had opinions when we visited). No one was gear obsessed, but all had opinions and found it an important consideration. In my experience the only thing more tiresome than the person who only talks about gear and takes colossally boring photos is the person who claims that gear is not important at all and also takes colossally boring photos. Do you know why? Because at least the first person can teach you something. The second one is just wholly useless.

[Stuart Richardson]

I would also say, though I know it is more work, go to a library instead of using the internet. The photography section of a decent library is going to be so much more instructive than Ming Thein or Thorsten Overgaard. I am not trying to particularly blast them, I just mean that the internet is full of the flashiest, most eye grabbing content, whether in pictures themselves or in "educators". One of the best photography teachers I ever had was at ICP and to be honest, I don't rate her work particularly highly. But she knew how to inspire and inform her students to a degree which was truly uncanny. In a library you will be taken back to an era when people who knew what the hell they were talking about and learned over decades were put in a position to teach, rather than the guy with the weirdest face to attract the youtube algorithm, high end production values and the best relations with the gear companies to get samples before public release in exchange for generally favorable content. You will also see work by photographers that were esteemed by the worlds best museums and magazine editors, rather than how many clicks they generated. Even if it is not an everyday thing, it is worth a look. Libraries are amazing and it is amazing that we still have them, even they are under threat in some places, so they are definitely worth visiting.

[lencap]

When I started this thread I didn't foresee how deeply it would make me consider my photography hobby over the last 60 years.  As the thread progressed, with many helpful comments and differing perspectives from many members, I became almost overwhelmed trying to digest everything.  It started as a journey about photography, expanded into "gear" and now has shifted again into almost a philosophical realm - a journey that I didn't foresee or expect, but which has been rewarding in unexpected ways.  

As I considered the roller coaster feeling of shifting gears so many times, a memory of reading Shakespeare years ago came to mind: "To thy own self be true", an exhortation by Polonius to follow your nature, as was suggested in a recent post on this thread.  And I think that's about where I am now.  I've had three major "hobbies" over my lifetime: photography, audiophile, and cars.  More recently I've delved into horology as well.  Each of these hobbies has some similarities - a fondness for "specs/measurements" of various metrics; a continuing quest to reach "perfection" by searching for the newest/greatest product, and an appreciation for "intangibles" - the haptics of the items, how they make me feel when I use them, along with the enjoyment of owning them.  My left brain and right brain (logic versus intuition) struggle to resolve the conflicts each viewpoint creates.  There are many levels and nuances of these themes, but they also share another common outcome: The realization that the entire quest is doomed to frustration since the "holy grail" remains ever elusive in each of these hobbies.

Maybe it's time to shift focus (pun intended) once again into a new perspective.  I like gear of all kinds in all my hobbies, and for better or worse ignoring that basic fact means that I likely won't reverse 60 years of looking at things from a certain perspective dramatically at this stage of my life, creating frustration.  So, instead of twisting myself into a pretzel to justify my gear decisions, just accept that the "decision de jour" about which gear is "best" for me will likely change over time.  Accepting that seems to remove the emotional baggage of justifying why I own the gear I do to the most important person in the decision making process - me!  If I decide the SL platform is the way to go, so be it.  If I change my mind, again, so be it.  If along the way I "waste" money, or divert into gear choices that take time and don't ultimately satisfy my expectations, why fret over it?  I enjoy "playing" with my cameras - using them for the joy of using them.  Yes, the images are the way to see what I've accomplished, but they only tell part of the story.  If my picture isn't technically well created, but I enjoyed the process of creating it, I'm satisfied.  If my goal was to produce masterpieces of photography my goal would be different, but it's a hobby - a source of enjoyment, and I'd somewhat forgotten that.  

And from Polonius perspective, why not also accept that others will make choices that are different from mine, and those choices are equally valid for them.  Apparently Leica realizes this full well - as the Q, M, SL, S, and compact bodies target different niches within a larger photography universe in both digital and film formats.  I truly appreciate hearing about your perspectives, applying it to my choices, and changing my opinion to consider the new ideas.  There is a richness gained from that process, but also a recognition that my choices are biased by my perspective and experience, and that's fine too.  

Thanks for all the help and comments.  I've enjoyed the journey of this thread, and look forward to more insights along the way.

Edited October 14, 2024 by lencap

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, lencap said:

I've had three major "hobbies" over my lifetime: photography, audiophile, and cars.  

More specifically, camera gear, audio equipment and cars. Different than pictures, music and driving as the core motivation and enjoyment.  Seems you recognize this, which can be liberating. (In your first post you wrote “I realized that I’m more in love with gear than the photography.”).

Nothing wrong with that. Just recognize the trade-offs, particularly if you don’t attempt to adjust your direction. In terms of photography, it likely means that you might continue to be frustrated determining why your photos are less successful than your nephew’s.  I’m guessing that it has little to do with the gear.

Jeff

[lencap]

Jeff -

I'm "at peace" with my photography approach, at least for now, realizing the difference between gear and artistic photography.  Truth be told I'm also a "gear geek" with my other hobbies.  Audiophiles can obsess over specs and the equivalent of "film or digital" in the form of vinyl records or digital music.  I've engaged both sides of that divide as well, enjoying the "nostalgia" of records, but discarded my extensive vinyl collection, turntables and stylus choices for the simplicity and flexibility of digital music.  Still I miss the enjoyment of the physical nature and limitations of records as a medium itself.  My car journey has also been an uncomfortable and shifting (pun intended) balance between "American Muscle" versus "European" cars, each tilted a bit toward the things the various manufacturers emphasized.  I enjoy the "old school" manual transmissions, filled with the tactile feedback of a perfect downshift, but also appreciate the incredible precision from the most modern dual clutch transmissions.  And I've even moved into the EV world, another change that I couldn't have predicted just a few years ago.  And as I learn more about watches I see similar markers as well - the "God Tier" brands with a high entry price and long wait lists, and the more common brands that essentially fulfill the basic function of telling time, but without the frills.  

The more I compare my hobbies the more I see similarities.  Choices abound, people have opinions, the forums reflect the angst of making the "wrong decision" based upon the viewpoint of the poster.  Yet, to me, the bigger picture is that we have many alternatives to choose from, a wonderful outcome for all.

Edited October 14, 2024 by lencap

[Jeff S]

19 minutes ago, lencap said:

 The more I compare my hobbies the more I see similarities.  Choices abound, people have opinions, the forums reflect the angst of making the "wrong decision" based upon the viewpoint of the poster.  Yet, to me, the bigger picture is that we have many alternatives to choose from, a wonderful outcome for all.

We’re in violent agreement, if you read my last post.  No right or wrong, I noted, and liberating that you understand and are comfortable with your approach. I also pointed out the trade-off when dealing, for instance, with your observations about your pictures vs your nephew’s. 
 

Jeff

[Anbaric]

14 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

With respect to Feininger, I find it frustrating that this is so often talked about as a binary. It is not a binary, it is a spectrum.

Well. Feininger says 'at the other end of the spectrum' right there in the quote. But I don't in any case think his target is photographers with technical knowledge. He is, after all, introducing a book that is intended to impart a great deal of this knowledge to the reader, often in considerable detail, including how to select appropriate equipment. Rather, he is talking about people who will never get beyond a fascination with the gear and may not want to, where owning and operating and upgrading it is the entire point of the exercise and the image is a mere by-product, a bit like an audiophile who has spent thousands of dollars on speaker cable but has no real interest in inusic. This is a very common mindset, especially on gear forums. He is contrasting this sort of photographer with one who does everything (including acquiring technical knowledge, where necessary) in the service of the image. It's a question of intent.

[david strachan]

He's one of my real favs, Feininger.

Other populist Leica photographers  I can leave behind...probably because they have become pile on popular  with but just populisation.

 

[lencap]

Both Stuart and Anbaric’s comments apply to me in various ways.   That’s why my initial post started with - I’m not a photographer.  I admire those who are, but I’m a hobbyist, content to tinker for the joy it brings me.  My best photos have people as a subject, mostly shot candidly in available light.  My intent is to capture emotion, an intangible something that speaks to who the subject is, with less emphasis on technical excellence.  My gear choices over the years changed to better align with my intent, aging eyes, and improved technology.  Frankly my Nikon D5600 with kit lens is really all I need in most situations, but the haptics and quality of Leica gear adds something special to the mix - it makes me want to use it.  The Leica SL issue is size/weight.  So if I need autofocus to offset aging eyesight I turn to the newest and greatest Leica gear, like the Q3 43, and rationalize the decision.  It isn’t really GAS as much as the realization that aging requires adjustments and compromises, and so far Father Time is undefeated.  No gear can change that, but like Don Quixote I keep tilting at the windmill.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[hansvons]

21 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

With respect to Feininger, I find it frustrating that this is so often talked about as a binary. It is not a binary, it is a spectrum. In my experience as a teacher, it is often used as a way to explain away and devalue learning techniques that can be used to help further one's art. I have taught in both technically biased and artistically biased schools, and ultimately it is doing the students a disservice to pretend that technique is not important, or that technical mastery is required. The best photographers are rarely stuck at one end of the spectrum. In my experience, the best photographers are ones who have a clarity of vision about what they want to portray and a deep interest in the medium itself. They often have longstanding and deep relationships with their gear and are extremely picky about it, even if they are not able to tell you exactly why or the deep technical aspects. I was very lucky to have done an MFA at a very good photography school and got the chance to visit the studios of extremely accomplished photographers, the back rooms of museums and publishers etc. You know what, as a whole, they were not? Gear agnostic. Alec Soth talked about the pros and cons of the GFX and Phase One versus 8x10, what kind of paper he used for shows vs sales, Mark Steinmetz talked about 6x7 and printing, Alessandra Sanguinetti and Jim Goldberg also were talking about the GFX (we visited at a time when Fuji USA had send GFX's to Magnum members, so lots had opinions when we visited). No one was gear obsessed, but all had opinions and found it an important consideration. In my experience the only thing more tiresome than the person who only talks about gear and takes colossally boring photos is the person who claims that gear is not important at all and also takes colossally boring photos. Do you know why? Because at least the first person can teach you something. The second one is just wholly useless.

Excellent post.