Equipment Accumulation vs. Using Equipment

[David A. Goldfarb]

At what point do we stop thinking about the equipment and think only about the image? Does that time ever come for everyone, or are some of us doomed to dwell perpetually in equipment purgatory?

For me, I think there was a point when I just felt I had more than what I needed to make the kinds of photographs that I like, and too much equipment becomes a distraction and a maintenance expense. By many people's standards I'm sure I have too much stuff (around 13 cameras, many lenses), but I also know there are others with a lot more stuff. From my own perspective, everything I have has a purpose and gets used. Once in a while I pick up something new, if I think it fills a gap, but not as often as I used to. What I want more than anything these days is time to work.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not a thing. I'm divorced and better off for it. I do like girly pics but I keep my hands to myself.

So you are holding your own?? :confused:

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I had millions of dollars to spend freely I'm sure I would have many elaborate/complete systems from which to choose. Thank God I'm not a multi-millionaire because I would be one perverted photo gear fetishist and I wouldn't know which tool to play with.

When I read something like this I wish that I had been born independently wealthy rather than be so damned incredibly handsome!

Steve

 

[BrianShaw]

I can't subscribe to your idea of "make up your mind what you want to shoot and learn how to shoot that and forget about shooting anything else". That seems a bit too narrow-minded for my taste. This is photography (an art form) we are talking about, not bootcamp. We grow by learning and experimenting. It's about expression, not supression.

In general I read these types of threads but try to stay out of them. This comment hits a nail on the head for me because I think we are going through a similar thoguht process. I am very hesitant, though, to expose my "dilemna" with the community.

This "make your mind up..." philosphy has worked for me for quite a while. I, too, still shoot my F3 (probably 1981 vintage, without the HP finder) with the same lenses I bought in that same era. For MF I shot a used 20 year old Rolleicord for another twenty years and replaced it a couple of years ago with a Hasselblad. Why a Hassy -- well, I craved just a tad more "quality" and, yes, it shows in the results.

With regard to 35mm it seems like we both are noticing that auto-focus may be just what we need for shooting in fast-paced environments. I just can't do that kid of shooting with manual focus. Likewise, I wouldn't mind a built-in flash to help with fill flash applications. There are days (an increasing number of them) when my wife comes back with better pics than I do becuase she is shooting a crappy P&S that, despite shutter release delays, has autofocus and a built-in flash. No matter how OOF they may be... it beats the memory of a picture that I wish I could have taken.

The unfortuante and embarassing situation I find myself in is the thought of possibly going "D" for my next "35mm" camera.

 

[Mike1234]

So you are holding your own?? :confused:

Steve

Mmm... maybe. But it's far better than holding someone else's.

 

[Q.G.]

The point is: If you don't have what it takes in the first place, the tools don't matter.

The point is that they do matter, whether you have got what it takes or not.

 

[Mike1234]

When I read something like this I wish that I had been born independently wealthy rather than be so damned incredibly handsome!

Steve

I'm not wealthy nor handsome... so I have no need to worry about lusts which I cannot pay for nor do they seek me.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Interesting thread with some good insights. My experience:

I've been slimming down my cameras over the last few years. What I've noticed is that I haven't got better as I've got rid of stuff, but I also never got better when I bought stuff. For me progression in photography seems to happen independently of having or shedding 'stuff'.

My decision to slim down the 'stuff' was mostly because I move house so often and hate lugging things around. I still think I've got too many cameras now that I have 1 SLR+lens, 1 Rangefinder+lens, 1 fixed lens rangefinder and 1 P&S.

 

[Sirius Glass]

... but I also never got better when I bought stuff. ...

I saw a big increase in the quality of the negative and level of detail when I started using MF again. Then when I switched to a Hasselblad, the larger and sharper viewfinder, compared to 35mm, made me slow down and take longer to compose and check for unwanted interlopers.

Steve

 

[Ian David]

At what point do we stop thinking about the equipment and think only about the image? Does that time ever come for everyone, or are some of us doomed to dwell perpetually in equipment purgatory?

I reckon it is entirely personal. Some people collect dozens and dozens of cameras and love doing so. Some only have a few and are happy. Some people are in photography primarily for the equipment and only secondarily for the image. I think the main question here is whether you are happy. Your language suggests that you are not quite there...

One possible approach: If the accumulation of equipment bugs you and you want to stop worrying about it, I would recommend that you do some research, play with loads of different cameras, and think honestly about what you really want. For example, if you know you will never be happy until you have tried owning a Leica or a Blad or a Linhof or whatever, then embrace that knowledge, sell off all the stuff you never use, cut back for a while on your various discretionary expenses (sex, drugs, cable TV, school fees, etc), and cut straight to the chase. Buy your equipment dreams now if you can, and see if that helps you feel better. There is no shame in it, and it may cure you. If not, well... resale value will probably be pretty good.

Ian

 

[Q.G.]

At what point do we stop thinking about the equipment and think only about the image? Does that time ever come for everyone, or are some of us doomed to dwell perpetually in equipment purgatory?

That time comes when you stop wanting to create images.

Only then can you stop thinking about everything that is needed to
create images, like equipment.

It's not a philosophical consideration.
Just a very simple practical thing.

So if you only want to think about the image, sell al your equipment and go see exhibitions and look through photo books.

 

[dnk512]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/magazine/the-futile-pursuit-of-happiness.html

 

[lxdude]

What you are saying is that as long as tools are good enough, they do not matter.

No, I am not. At no time did I state or imply that they do not matter. I really don't see how you got that out of what you quoted. If the tool does not matter, then it is not needed.
I'm saying it's ultimately not about the tools. It's about achieving the goal. The goal might be winning a race. It might be successful self-expression. It might be pleasing a client.
The right tools are needed to achieve the goal. They must be at least adequate. In some cases (like winning the Tour de France) only the best is adequate.

Lance needs that $10,000 bike if he is to succeed.
But he also knows that it's ultimately not about the bike.

There's no way I need a $10,000 bicycle. I would be deluding myself to think so. If I were an elite bicycle racer, thinking I need that bicycle would be absolutely rational.

There is absolutely no consistency in that.
You can't make their quality a conditional, and then go on to say that, as long as it meets certain standards, it does not matter.

Not once in my post did I say it does not matter. Saying it's not about the tools does not mean they are irrelevant. I think my post defended the need for good tools, along with defending the assertion that it's not about the tools. I said good tools are important.

Your example's artwork, the outcome of Armstrong's attack of Mont Ventoux, will be quite different when crappy tools have to be used then when the best available tools are available.

That's for sure!

It is exactly the fact that they do not interfere, do not leave a negative mark on the end product that their importance shows.
It is very real, very much a part of the end product.

That's why craftsmen do treasure good tools. Because they know very well that it's about the tools too.

Which is the meaning of my last sentence. I said (by way of example) that mechanics treasure good tools.
They treasure them because they need them. They have a very real influence on the quantity and quality of their work. The right tools facilitate most and interfere least with the end result.
But it's that result that really matters, and the tools are there to serve that result.

The long and short of it is that tools do matter.

Yes, they do.
But ultimately, it's not about them.


Really, the point of my post was that a statement like "It's not about the bike" should not be taken so literally that its actual meaning is lost.

As the post I responded to ended with a smiley, maybe the poster was teasing and I took it too literally.

 

[PVia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/magazine/the-futile-pursuit-of-happiness.html

Thanks for this link!

 

[PVia]

I'm saying it's ultimately not about the tools. It's about achieving the goal. The goal might be winning a race. It might be successful self-expression. It might be pleasing a client.
The right tools are needed to achieve the goal. They must be at least adequate. In some cases (like winning the Tour de France) only the best is adequate.

Lance needs that $10,000 bike if he is to succeed.
But he also knows that it's ultimately not about the bike.

There's no way I need a $10,000 bicycle. I would be deluding myself to think so. If I were an elite bicycle racer, thinking I need that bicycle would be absolutely rational.

Elegantly and well put...

Whenever I post that quote there is a maelstrom of activity and I don't do it to stir up trouble. I just want people to think for themselves.

People always want to point to the extremes, the Tour de France and what have you. They compare new Hasselblads with broken down pieces of junk found on CraigsList. They talk about the pro sports guy who needs 16 frames a second. No, it's not about that...

It's ultimately about taking responsibility for your own creations and not blaming anything and anyone else but yourself if you fail to realize your vision.

Some of our most revered imagemakers used one camera, one or two lenses, meager darkroom facilities or materials. I'm saying find the strength in what you have or better yet, find your weakness and make it your strength.

Throwing money at photographic equipment (or musical instruments...or anything) will not make you a better photographer.

 

[Mike1234]

Everyone on the planet stinks at photography. Just send all your pricey equipment to me and feel 100 percent better. I'll take on the burden of guilt for not needing it.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Forward that 4x5 Cambo, when you get it, Mike. Please.

No, I had suffered from G. A. S. these past years. I think I am recovered. I will tell you I intend on making the one purchase I have not made that I wanted to each of these past four years. A good spot meter. Then it will be film and chems and paper. And nothing else. I have the gear I love and will use for a long long time. Minolta XG-1 and assorted and related gear.

Time to the matter at hand. Photography. Not Acquisitions. Not anymore more. Thanks, CJ.

 

[Q.G.]

No, I am not. At no time did I state or imply that they do not matter. I really don't see how you got that out of what you quoted. If the tool does not matter, then it is not needed.
I'm saying it's ultimately not about the tools. It's about achieving the goal. The goal might be winning a race. It might be successful self-expression. It might be pleasing a client. [...]

I understand what you are saying.

Still do read it as divorcing the tools from the end result, the goal.
The aim of the exercise is what comes at the end. Sure.
And not getting busy with tools, no matter what results (but noone said that would be what it is about).

But how you can say that what you have to use or do to get to your end result, how what to use and to do to achieve the goal is different from achieving the goal, escapes me.

You said:

Mechanics treasure good tools because it's not about the tools.

Note the word "not".
Now you say that we should read that as meaning what i wrote in reply: that it is, that "craftsmen do treasure good tools. Because they know very well that it's about the tools too."


It's always "about the bike" too.
Playing piano is not the same as playing trumpet. Even though you can play the same silly tune on both.

 

[eddym]

Ok, so let me see if I understand your point. What you are saying is that if I "shoot and shoot and shoot" with the present camera I have I will become familiar enough with it to nail the shot "under any circumstances"? Ok, so then if I have a Nikon F3HP with a 105mm 2.5 AIS lens I will be able to "nail the shot" everytime so long as I shoot and shoot and shoot with it; practice with it until I know it very well?

Ok Eddy, here is my dillema. I have been using my F3 with 105mm lens since 1983. That it a total of 26 years. I am not saying that the camera was made 23 years ago, I am saying that I have been using the same camera and lens for 26 years. Does that qualify me for "knowing one particular camera"? I recently shot a night football game. There is no way I could have achieved great results with just that one F3 and the one 105mm 2.5 lens. I had to use my D200 with grip and an 80-200mm 2.8 AF-D lens on a monopod in order to nail the shots.

A few weeks ago I took my kids to a park with water rides. I would have taken my F3 with 105mm 2.5 lens, but I felt that taking my "experimental" little Lumix TS-1 waterproof camera would enable me to "nail the shot" without ruining my gear. Having used an F3 for the past 26 years I can tell you first hand that they are rugged but not waterproof.

Now let's talk a bit about AF vs. manual focus. I have gotten many nice shots throughout the years with my F3 and 35mm 2.0 AIS lens. I have also gotten many out of focus shots beacause the action was too fast for me on occasions. I have been able to nail quick action shots with my F100 and 35mm 2.0 AF-D lens that I know I would never have been able to with my F3. Does this mean that the F100 suites me better than my F3? Not necessarily. There have been times when my F100 will not AF on a particular subject because of lack of contrast issues; times when only the split image prism of my F3 will work.

I can't subscribe to your idea of "make up your mind what you want to shoot and learn how to shoot that and forget about shooting anything else". That seems a bit too narrow-minded for my taste. This is photography (an art form) we are talking about, not bootcamp. We grow by learning and experimenting. It's about expression, not supression.

Nope, you don't understand my point. My point was that if you have owned and used that F3 for 26 years, you should know by now what gear you need to "nail the shot" FOR THE TYPE OF PHOTOGRAPHY THAT YOU WANT TO DO. Yes, if you plan to shoot wildlife, you will need long, fast lenses. But you don't need long, fast lenses just because they look sexy in a catalog or on a dealer's shelf, or because you see other people lugging them around.

Yes, if you've been shooting your F3 for 26 years, you should know it pretty well. But I disagree that you can't get good shots at a night football game with a 105 f2.5 lens, especially with the great fast films that we have nowadays. Thirty years ago, I used to shoot night football games with a Pentax MX and 85mm 52. And yes, I got some great shots.

I don't know what your manual focus rant is about, I never mentioned autofocus. But since you brought it up, I used to shoot dance and theater with Leica M's. Plenty of fast action, but I learned how to focus and follow the movement and predict what was going to happen next so I could catch it. Sadly, now all the dance companies want digital images instead of prints, so I have gone to a D700 with, as you suggest, an 80-200 f2.8 AF and a monopod. I had to relearn my trade, but I did so because that's what the client wanted and needed. But I sure miss my Leica's!

Sorry if you think I'm narrow-minded, but I'm just tired of hearing people say that their photography would be really great if they just had one more lens. And that's the message I got from your post. No, photography is not boot camp, but you do have to learn and practice. I don't find that "suppression."

 

[Steve Roberts]

Four points that occur to me:

1) Analogue equipment has never been so cheap and available, so where's the harm in buying yet another interesting or desirable camera/lens? Make hay while the sun shines!
2) Analogue equipment has never been so cheap, so where's the point in selling what you've already got? In years gone by my next SLR had to be part-funded by the sale of the old one, but not these days.
3) Photography IMHO isn't just about taking photographs. It also includes an appreciation of the equipment, its quirks, foibles and how it works, so why not gain experience of a wider range of kit?
4) I suggest that we should judge our results against our own goals rather than against the results of others. However good Capa and HCB were, the bottom line is IMHO whether you're happy with how your work stacks up against how you would like it to be, not how it stacks up against someone else's, which may be a totally different style with different aims.

Steve

 

[keithwms]

I suggest that we should judge our results against our own goals rather than against the results of others. However good Capa and HCB were, the bottom line is IMHO whether you're happy with how your work stacks up against how you would like it to be, not how it stacks up against someone else's, which may be a totally different style with different aims.

Amen!

(and to the other points too... but this one is especially important!)

 

[benjiboy]

So what do you do when you have a house full of the best and most expensive equipment that money can buy, and you still feel you're pictures are crap ?

 

[Mike1234]

So what do you do when you have a house full of the best and most expensive equipment that money can buy, and you still feel you're pictures are crap ?

Go to work for Uncle Sam... no one cares if you can't do the job. I work at Ft. Sam Houston, BTW.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So what do you do when you have a house full of the best and most expensive equipment that money can buy, and you still feel you're pictures are crap ?

Choose one: one camera, one lens, one film, one developer. Then start reading books on composition. Use the light meter in a consistent way. Take a course or two on composition and/or elements of art.

Steve

 

[Mike1234]

You can't be Sirius, Steve.