Photographic Snobbery & Other Annoyances...

[jstraw]

No, but art snobs use "high class" words like "sfumatto" instead of "common plebs" word like "blurred" for blurred picture...

Oh, right...and then there's "bokeh."

 

[JBrunner]

Oh, right...and then there's "bokeh."

I do find bokeh to be a useful expression, as its easier than saying "The out of focus part that is behind and in front of the in focus part, the subjective transitions from in focus to out of focus, not withstanding."

 

[jstraw]

I do find bokeh to be a useful expression, as its easier than saying "The out of focus part that is behind and in front of the in focus part, the subjective transitions from in focus to out of focus, not withstanding."

Quite so. But it's an opaque term to non-photographers. In fact, I'd never heard it till about six months ago.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Quite so. But it's an opaque term to non-photographers. In fact, I'd never heard it till about six months ago.

The phrase 'quality of the out-of-focus image' is probably not a lot better to non-photographers either. A long-dead friend of mine introduced me to the concept fifteen or twenty years ago; until the word 'bokeh' was widely adopted, I didn't think many people knew or cared. In fact I'm still convinced that quite a lot don't. But like you, I'm not sure that the English phrase is one jot inferior to the single Japanese word.

Cheers,

R.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Well, then there's always the modern american-style acronym-

OOFA

(Out Of Focus Area). Sounds like Mil-speak, and is lots of fun to say, but I'd venture it would be even more annoying to a non-photog than bokeh.

 

[laverdure]

It's a very technical term. I have somewhere around here the issue of photo techniques (1998?) where the word was introduced to the english language. Their non-standard transliteration from the Japanese even stuck, which they chose because they thought it would be easier for english speakers to figure out how to pronounce properly. People got by fine without a word for bokeh, but we're better off for having it. If people feel excluded because they don't know it, they can go boil their heads.

 

[radiantdarkroom]

I don't know but I think the digital revolution has killed off any snobs I had in my town, I haven't run into any snobbery lately.

 

[jstraw]

We always just referrred to an image as having shallow depth of field. Granted, non-photographers don't know what that means either. Sometimes the only way to avoid jargon is to engage in lengthy definitions and descriptions. That this would be superior to using a single word or short phrase on the premise that someone not of the tribe might be in earshot seems silly to me.

That said, I can' seem to adopt "bokeh" into my vocabulary.

 

[Uncle Goose]

There are a few things I really find snobbish.

1. People that claim that a Hasselblad is really the best MF camera around. Utterly BS to me, I use a Bronica ETRSi and I dare to place my Photo's next to a photo taken with a Hasselblad and I will garantuee that you won't see the diffenrence.

2. People (mainly tourists in my area) that walk around with those white super dooper telelenses (500mm or more) while they can stand 3 feet from the subject they want to photograph. This has more to do with their ego than with actually taking photographs. I can understand some photographers for Wildlife or sports might have use for suchs a lens but most buy it to show off.

3. And then there is the Leica snob. I don't want to judge over every owner of suchs a camera but a lot of them have the attitude that their Leica is so good and so on. Face it, it's not better than any other similar camera. This is another ego tripping thing.

But if they think they so good with there equipment then be it that way. I know my Bronica and my old Flexaret VI can make equally good or even better photographs.

 

[jovo]

There are a few things I really find snobbish.

1. People that claim that a Hasselblad is really the best MF camera around.

Of course a Hasslebad isn't the best camera around, unless it's a yellow Hasslebad. Then it is the best camera around!


I don't know whether they're snobs or not, but the two guys I saw at different times at the AIPAD show on Saturday who were wearing photovests and carrying big-as-an-automatic-weapon digicams around their necks were really dorky lookin'. Had they been working press photogs, they would have at least had that as an excuse, but they weren't. It was almost embarrassing to see them walk past some of the exhibited photographers, who have international standing, wearing that "lookit me!!" costume. I mean there was Joyce Tennyson looking as though she had been to church on a not too special Sunday, and MAS wearing what most American men will regard as a suitable-for-anything pair of khaki pants, blue shirt and blue blazer, with Paula C dressed equally appropriately, while these two clowns looked like they'd just returned from a combat tour as embedded James Nachtwey wannabes. Oh please!

 

[Early Riser]

There are a few things I really find snobbish.

1. People that claim that a Hasselblad is really the best MF camera around. Utterly BS to me, I use a Bronica ETRSi and I dare to place my Photo's next to a photo taken with a Hasselblad and I will garantuee that you won't see the diffenrence.

2. People (mainly tourists in my area) that walk around with those white super dooper telelenses (500mm or more) while they can stand 3 feet from the subject they want to photograph. This has more to do with their ego than with actually taking photographs. I can understand some photographers for Wildlife or sports might have use for suchs a lens but most buy it to show off.

3. And then there is the Leica snob. I don't want to judge over every owner of suchs a camera but a lot of them have the attitude that their Leica is so good and so on. Face it, it's not better than any other similar camera. This is another ego tripping thing.

But if they think they so good with there equipment then be it that way. I know my Bronica and my old Flexaret VI can make equally good or even better photographs.

It's not the camera that makes a great picture it's the photographer, that said there are differences between cameras and camera systems. Some cameras have better optics or better film flatness or are better suited for certain types of work..

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't want to judge over every owner of suchs a camera but a lot of them have the attitude that their Leica is so good and so on. Face it, it's not better than any other similar camera. This is another ego tripping thing.

Ummm...

There aren't many similar cameras, even now, and for about 30 years there weren't ANY. In fact, the nearest you can buy at the moment is the battery-dependent Zeiss Ikon, and I prefer mechanical cameras. The Voigtlanders have a very short RF base and are far less reliable with fast lenses at full aperture.

Your attitude sounds dangerously like reverse snobbery. Of course a good photographer with an indifferent camera will bake better pictures than a bad photographer with a good camera, and of course there are people who buy cameras (and all kinds of other things) merely to advertise their wealth, but I'm very grateful to rich twits who buy Leicas that they can't use, because they keep Leica in business.

Almost 40 years ago, my girlfriend wanted a cheap, reliable, high-quality camera. She bought a Leica II. It cost GBP 20; there were few collectors in those days. After a few weeks she wanted it back and I had to buy my own Leica, a 1936 III for which I paid GBP 30. In about 1974 I bought my first M, an M3. In the next decade or so I bought and sold several other second-hand Ms before getting a new M4-P (still in use) in about '84. A couple of years back I got an MP.

Yes, I can use other RFs (and do, and indeed did a book about them) but precisely because I have used a wide range of RFs -- probably about half of all the interchangeable-lens models made in the last 60 years, including even Hensoldt, and many fixed-lens models -- I am firmly convinced that if you can afford them, Leicas are well worth the money. If I could afford it I'd have two MPs, but I can't.

As for Hasselblads, they're nice, and I prefer them to other 6x6 SLRs I've owned or used (again I've used a lot), but I'm not a great devotee of 6x6 or indeed rollfilm SLRs. Comparatively few Hasselblad owners get snobbish about their kit nowadays -- most people who buy them do so either because they are indeed very good cameras that will receive honest use, or because they've always wanted one. But if they do get snobbish, I always find it fun to out-snob them with an Alpa.

An awful lot is down to what you can easily afford, and what you want to afford. Because I'm a journalist, I've borrowed a surprising number of expensive cars over the years, and I can see why people buy them. I also have no interest in buying (say) a new Bristol, even if a rich aunt left me the money to buy one, because (a) it's incredibly thirsty and (b) I couldn't afford the maintenance and (c) I can think of better ways to spend the money. If I were not so financially constrained I might very well think differently.

Cheers,

R.

 

[haris]

Oh, I don't think even if I am rich as Bill Gates or rich aunt left me money, that I would buy Maybach, English or French castle, nice house with enough space/rooms is quite enough, maybe I would buy Phillipe Dufour watch, but never would buy Rollex with diamonds and emeralds, things like that. And I think it is difference between buying expencive/quality stuff and expencive/snoberry stuff. I mean, is Rollex with diamonds "better" show time than "plain" Rollex? I don't think so...

 

[DougGrosjean]

Roger Hicks wrote:
"An awful lot is down to what you can easily afford, and what you want to afford. ..<snip>... If I were not so financially constrained I might very well think differently."

Hear, hear.

If I'm busting the budget to afford something, then after I own it I'll be worried about enjoying it by using it to its (well, *my*) full potential.

Digi-tech has made many of the older "snobbish" film cameras affordable to me; no complaints. I doubt I'm a photo-snob, but that's probably not for me to decide. Shrug.

 

[Lee Shively]

Oh come on, guys. We're all snobs to a certain degree. Looks like everyone admits to engaging in at least some of what the OP (I didn't know what "OP" was either) refers to as acts of snobbery and later referred to as acts of pretension.

Personally, I confess to using Leicas, owning long white glass, souping film, burning my prints on fiber based paper (selenium-toned) and wearing a photo vest when I don't want to carry a trendy camera bag. I print in limited editions because I'm too lazy to make more prints. And, even though I'm a no-name photographer, if someone wanted to pay several thousand dollars for any of my prints, I would happily accomodate them.

 

[copake_ham]

I was wondering - if we have photogoraphy snobs - do we also have photography reverse-snobs?

You know, the photog equivalent of the people out there who sneer at Starbucks and only drink what is called coffee from the dirty-water street cart or Dunky's?

Perhaps Holga users are photography reverse-snobs?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Oh come on, guys. We're all snobs to a certain degree.

That's probably the thing I dislike most, now you put it that way: snobs who aren't any good at it, and are easily out-snobbed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Craig]

Perhaps Holga users are photography reverse-snobs?

Only if they claim that it can take pictures as well as a Hasselblad. It wouldn't be snobbery if the camera is used and presented for what it is.

I think it’s about honesty, and an "it is what it is" philosophy, rather than my camera is better than yours because it’s more/less expensive.

 

[copake_ham]

Only if they claim that it can take pictures as well as a Hasselblad. It wouldn't be snobbery if the camera is used and presented for what it is.

I think it’s about honesty, and an "it is what it is" philosophy, rather than my camera is better than yours because it’s more/less expensive.

This seems sensible.

But it can cut both ways, I think. Thinking solely in terms of Nikon SLRs - one can presumably take photos of equal quality with a F or F6 - providing they are both in good repair and are using optically-equivalent glass (oops - just used one of THOSE words!)

Now a purist might say - one should use the F because it can do the job as well and is not "battery dependent". It is the simplest tool that will accomplish the same task equally well.

Another might say the F6 is a better choice because it incorporates fifty years of improvements that were made by Nikon over the course of the line - and who care's about whether it uses batteries.

Either proponent could be "honest" in his/her "philosophy" - or either could be a snob (of the mine is better'n yours variety either because it's "more traditional" or "more modern" etc.).

 

[DougGrosjean]

Smiling - a lot of this splitting hairs on cameras reminds me of a question of historical importance:

Everybody's heard of Paul Revere's famous ride. But how many know the name of his horse?

These cameras are just the horses...

 

[copake_ham]

Smiling - a lot of this splitting hairs on cameras reminds me of a question of historical importance:

Everybody's heard of Paul Revere's famous ride. But how many know the name of his horse?

These cameras are just the horses...

Yes, indeed.

And now for a brief "commercial break".

Don't forget the MSA (see link in signature area) and use your "horse" to shoot a horse!

 

[Shawn Rahman]

I almost sort-of wanted my OP to start a "tongue-in-cheekish" thread, but I seemed to hit some sore spots. Except for the $3,700 limited editions, ESPECIALLY those printed digitally. I still think these people need to get over themselves.

I secretly want a Leica and a Blad. But I love my Nikon & Mamiya nevertheless.

I have a Rolex Submariner (no diamonds), but my Timex kept better time. So guilty here.

Since Leica came up: How about Leica users who black out the logo and the red dot with black tape? As if their cameras aren't screaming Leica anyway?

People who burn their own negatives to preserve Limited Editions because "that's what the market wants" are idiots. Where does the art vs. shameless commerce argument begin & end?

 

[jovo]

Everybody's heard of Paul Revere's famous ride. But how many know the name of his horse?

Well, that question seems to be a biggie on Google. The answer is that
Paul Revere didn't own a horse, but borrowed on from a man named Larkin. The horse was ultimately confiscated by the British to replace one of theirs. Among the most likely names, Brown Betty is one that gets cited most often.

Luckily, I've never had a camera confiscated by the British or anyone else for that matter. I've also never named my cameras. I haven't ridden one of them either. I know a cat named "Hypo" though...does that count?

 

[laverdure]

yes, the red dot. I've gotta say, it's a good argument for me, if I were in the market for a leica, to get an older one. I don't like things that scream their branding, even if the brand is obvious anyway. For instance, I really don't like how the newer Ries tripods yell RIES from six sides... but I'd like one anyway... so, guilty there. I also would never think of wearing a tee shirt that said TOMMY, though I'm happy to wear one that doesn't say CK. Appreciating quality and wanting others to know just what you spend your money on are two different things.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

A friend of mine once christened my Hasselblad "Algernon" (he is a rampaging Anglophile). I just called it my camera.