What Do You Do When You've Solved the Technical Problems & Challenges?

Did the OP ever return to this thread? Or did he just drop this stinkbomb and walk away.

Oh dear, I don't think it was meant as a stinkbomb, but it has rather gone off up a typical APUG cul-de-sac and of course I've contributed to that too ... perhaps I'd better walk away too

...

Jaf-Photo said:

There are many accomplished artists who never made a penny off their art. But they engage in it with dedication and skill. That was my definition, not whether they make a living.

It's a tangent perhaps, but it does relate to the question of acquiring mastery of the chosen equipment, which is related to the OP.

I'm not an elitist but I see a clear difference between a dedicated photographer and the camera users who spew millions of random and pointless pictures all over the internet.

Click to expand...

It is very possible to be a novice or an expert photographer.

It is very possible to be a bad or a good photographer.

It is very possible to be a slacker or a dedicated photographer.

It is very possible to be a landscape or a portrait photographer.

You can use whatever qualifier you want in front of the word photographer to describe the proficiency or attitude of a photographer but to reserve use of the word photographer for only serious photographers is IMO silly and elitist.

If one makes photos, one is a photographer.

Well, I don't agree. And I don't know why any discussion always has to end up in the denigration of other users.

And you're supposed to pay for this? No way.

I'm off for a while, as I have better things to do.

Jaf-Photo said:

Well, I don't agree. And I don't know why any discussion always has to end up in the denigration of other users.

And you're supposed to pay for this? No way.

I'm off for a while, as I have better things to do.

Click to expand...

We are each allowed our opinions.

My intent is not to denigrate you, my intent is simply to disagree with your words, there is a big difference.

omaha said:

I just want to make pretty pictures.

Click to expand...

That was going to be my website URL, imakeprettypictures.com​, but I chickened out.

Jaf-Photo said:

if we could just take the time to talk it over properly.

But I don't agree wih the oft repeated mantra that the equipment doesn't matter. Clearly, it does matter to most photographers and always have done.

There may be some people who think that the equipment is all that matters, and they will prove themselves wrong.

But people who buy good gear most often do it because they know exactly what they are after and how to best use it.

Click to expand...

ah, if we could take the time to talk it over properly, this could be the most interesting thread on APUG

I have some good gear acquired when I was considering going into stock photography in the '80s, and I appreciate the quality that system lenses bring. I had some nice Takumar family lenses and some nice Zuiko lenses. I tried to go cheap once or twice and suffered because it was all my money (as a kid) and the camera broke. That's one extreme illustration where the quality of the equipment literally matters to me. I don't recommend buying a camera that is susceptible to failure due to low build quality. This is different from the deliberately low quality Holga-type cameras which are perfectly reliable because they are so simple.

Next on my recommendation for where gear matters is for a camera that is easy to use. This is where I appreciate the system cameras such as Pentax Spotmatic F, Leica M and OM (I didn't get into Nikon/Canon/Rolleiflex/Hasselblad so skipping them only for lack of personal exposure to them). These cameras automated some key functionality. (The improvement I mean comes from obvious feature advantages over cameras that had non-auto return mirrors, pre-set apertures, unreliable meters). This kind of good gear means you can take better pictures because there are fewer chances that you will make setting mistakes (like forgetting to return the aperture to pre-set - yes it was a Helios and I shot it wide open pretty often because of that feature).

But I also have taken a step back in my demand for quality in optics. Wish I'd kept the Helios for example because the look which I flatly rejected in the '70s is a look I am seeing more of... in photographs that I like. I understand the movement for simpler cameras, box cameras with one shutter speed and pinholes. While I still prefer cameras with fairly accurate shutter speeds from 1 second to 1/250th, I am able to make photographs with cameras that have fewer choices.

Michael R 1974 said:

I think the real problem with these kinds of threads is they all veer off the original topic and default through several trap doors (what is art, what is photography, digital vs darkroom, etc.).

Click to expand...

And they do this so fast I can't think fast enough to catch up.

This is still my favorite thread...

And Jaf-Photo, yours is my favorite post...

Jaf-Photo said:

Thanks, however I was enquiring about the defeatist rejectionist cult

I do use a mix of modern and vintage lenses. I find that the vintage ones are generally better. The exceptions are possibly macro lenses and wide angle lenses, which seem to have improved and become cheaper to make.

So I suspect I may be defeatist rejectionist cult material

Click to expand...

I still have my manifesto on scraps of paper and a clipboard trying to piece together some meaning. For now, since I can't offer clear guidance in manifesto form... take the APUG Gallery posting rules - and run with it.

I keep re-reading Group f/64's manifesto (Wikipedia link) because every time I read it and think of what it would take to conform to their guidelines, I realize that Digital Photography would be included because it meets the clearness and definition requirements.

"Our Group" should take a step back, and honor history, so would include processes and movements from inception of photography to inception of uhhh Digital. Because they were part of the history, we'll include Pictorialism. Without denigrating Digital, (I think that's an important line and a reason I respect the Group f/64's manifesto because they include a respectful line referencing Pictorialism...)

So Nikanon,

Your definition of photography conforms closely to Group f/64's - and so if you strongly define photography in those terms, I respect and value your opinion because it is a straightforward definition. I have no intention to break your personal definition, but I am interested in including more of the historical "spectrum of photography", while holding back the uhhh Digital. Note that Hybrid and Digital processes are to be discussed at DPUG and if I'm overruled to restrict this "defeatist rejectionist cult" to APUG definition - then let's form a Group suited for DPUG. Honestly I think DPUG would be a place to re-affirm Group f/64 in its original ideal carrying forward.

And momus,

Just so I address your original question... When you have gotten the technical under control, start building a pile of prints! I regret not making a mountain the first time I had it figured out, because my vintage prints are not numerous and yes some of the vintage prints are technically inferior. In a couple years making prints that are technically consistent with what you are now able to achieve... will produce a body of work that you can show...

i'm still trying to figure out why using a simple camera
with very little controls would be equated with being a rejectionist or defeatist ...
im not suggesting rejecting photography, even if i suggest using the photographic process
as a building block to something else ... its still a photographic image at its core.

99% of photography is composition.
it has nothing to do with rejecting anything or defeating anything, ...

i guess it is the difference between a 16th century baroque chair
( or 19th century louis sullivan for you pre-modernists ) and something by mies van der rohe.
its still a chair, still made with modern machine age technology but it is distilled down to
the important elements ... the composition...

different strokes for different folks as they say ...

ROL said:

That was going to be my website URL, imakeprettypictures.com​, but I chickened out.

Click to expand...

Go for it. As long as you think they are pretty, who's to doubt you?

I'm getting there. Slowly. Ever so slowly. Had something of a milestone this week: Got two prints out of the darkroom and for the first time, I thought they were "frame worthy". They are far from good, but they are getting into the ball park of good enough.

Of course, my problem is that the more I look at them, I keep thinking "hmmm....maybe I should print them again doing this or that differently". That's what the frame is for. Once its in a frame, its done. Over. Not going back. Make it better on the next one if I can, but that one is in the can.

Ruminating on this thread, as contentious as it has gotten at times, it occurs to me that part of what I like about film is really that I like film cameras. I just love the gestalt of an all manual, all mechanical camera. It makes me feel good using it. It makes me want to take pictures.

You must feel the Force around you

frank said:

So, now what?


Time for you to go, grasshopper.

Click to expand...

First learn stand, then learn fly