Those are exactly the type of people that make me dislike photographers, Tel.
And I joke about that, but I really do dislike what I refer to as "photography enthusiasts", which I mean as a pejorative. People who would fight over whether Canon or Nikon is better are the obvious example. Whatever you enjoy using that works with your use case is the best, always has been, but especially so nowadays when modern digital cameras are all so darned good!
It's less hardware focused here, but even this place isn't perfect. I honestly dislike the attitudes of many of the people here, though I try not to call them out too often. I'm here to learn things, and appreciate knowledge. I tend more to praise what I like, or talk about techniques, unless I'm in a grouchy mood like today.
My point is that enthusiasts have made me not bother with photography clubs and the like. I went to one many years ago and disliked most of the folks in the room, and haven't gone back. I just don't see the hobby like they do.
Actually, here's my prime example. As a very young man in the 90s I wrote for a magazine and also did my own photography for those articles as well as freelance work. Small time stuff, I was not making my living as a photographer, but I DID get photos published quite regularly.
Worked with a guy around 2000 who let me know he was a photographer and had once worked in a camera store, so one day I showed him a magazine with my photo on the cover and one of my favorites in the accompanying article. He looked at the photos, asked what camera I used, and when I told him (it was a 4004s or an EM, which was a junker I always had in my flight bag) he started off on how I wasn't a professional because I'd used that camera.
I wasn't a professional, he says. As he looks at a photograph I sold, that was published in a magazine, back in 1991 when you actually had to print those things on dead trees. He insisted on this even when someone else pointed out that the photo was good. All because of the gear I used at that moment.
These are photography enthusiasts. I'll also note that in the 4 years I knew that guy, never once did he ever show me a photograph he'd taken. It was all about snobbery, the "right" camera, the "right" lens, or whatever.
I love my cameras, but they're tools. I like taking pictures, and I like the process, but it never seems to matter what camera I had when I look at the negatives and scans. My favorite photos all still seem to look like me. I can even tell you what my mood was or what I was trying to achieve at the time by the composition of the photo. And if anyone ever says "It's so SHARP!" as their first response to seeing a photo I failed, because I am not taking pictures to prove I can focus well and hold still.
The brand of bedsheet folks are exactly the sort who inhabited the photography club a couple decades ago. They'd probably chat with old Frank, the Nikon snob, endlessly slagging on about how terrible the off brand is when you can't get proper 300 or better thread count egyptian cotton
I'm reminded of a lighting workshop a friend and I did years ago for some TV people. We lit a particular scene with my friend's favorite device: a white bed sheet stretched over a frame and mounted on a couple of c-stands. After the demonstration, a couple of the attendees (both male) came up to us and asked what brand of sheets we'd used. I still believe they were serious.
Sorry for the weird double-quote.
Many non-photographers, and some photographers, see a photograph and go straight to the subject..."That's a cute puppy!" ...instead of approaching the photograph as an image of a (cute) puppy. One of the many hazards of photography.
As photographer working with the light on the landscape, I have to accept that many people will treat a show of my images more as a travelogue.
Exzactly my point!!I've always liked travelogues. They take me away. The artsy landscapes are not representative of what it's really like for most visitors. So a straight shot of an area is often better as it allows people to realistically put themselves in the picture.
A decade and a half later I get occasional work from this same publication.
It is possible to refute the OP in every point of his extended post. And it is possible to do so in a cogent, considered, and consistent way. But producing such a dissertation may not change any minds. So I'll just mention one point.
I associate with people who make pictures. Some of them are photographers. They may or may not be artists but they act as if they are. A central concern in their output is the medium used to make the work.
The medium is not just fussiness or affectation. It is the component that carries information to the astute viewer about the artist’s relationship to their work. And the work's relationship to things in the real world.
Thinking about the medium employed, how it's employed, and its implications and connotations, enriches the art experience for the well informed spectator.
The alternative to caring about how and why pictures are made, to be content with no more than identifying subject matter seems to be a drab and malnourished experience. Taken too far it could hazard a descent into simplemindedness.
If it was good, it was good. You got them what they needed, and there's really not much more to it. Funny you didn't even know how to get the card out, though!
A friend is a racecar photographer. He gets really snippy about the technical details these days, but nobody else cares. What he does REALLY well is get pictures of the cars where the sponsor logos just pop. His ability to pan and follow a car to blur backgrounds is magical, too. He was selling plenty of photos with a crappy camera his first couple of years, and doesn't sell any more with his modern kit, because he has a great eye and gets the teams what they really want. The new stuff just makes it easier for him.
During the lockdowns I got a look at my walkin' around photos from when I traveled all the time for work. One of my favorites was with a D70. Actually, several now that I think of it. Gently stated, that is remarkably modest gear compared to what I have now. But I like composition, and light. And sometimes expression if people are in the photo. Technique is all about getting those things into the images.
The most fun I had during the same lockdown period, which was when I went back to film BTW, was buying books on composition and going around trying to identify and make those compositions. One month it was all rule of thirds, another it was steelyards, etc. Good composition makes a better photo. And the best camera is the one you have with you when you see something you want to photograph.
This philosophy would all carry more weight if I was a better photographer, of course. But I also really have fun trying new things so it's probably best that I don't know everything yet.
Until that point the only camera I ever used was a disposable.
I had a blast during the lockdown. I documented everything. I have enough stuff for a few books at least.
...To dismiss a work because of the medium that it's in is beyond dumb.
I'll be honest, I don't even listen to most people when they say something about a photo I took.
I have a few who will be critical in specific ways and I can trust them to be true and honest. They're the ones I show if I want feedback, and they're treasures to have as friends. That's true of here and in RealLifetm. Good feedback gives you insight.
Others I just gauge their responses. If they react emotionally in the way I hoped, then I might be on the right track.
People who ask about the gear... I don't bother with the photos. I just tell them about my camera, or (more often) hear their story about their camera, and then move on.
If someone asks me about my gear they'd better settle in.
Poor girl at a coffee shop I go to. I gave her my work record to take on an adventure, was showing her how to load it, and another customer came in and saw. Asked her about it, told me he was a pro, spotted my other camera, and started telling me about his gear and what he used in the film days...
Girl is standing by the register, waiting to take the guy's order and finish playing with the camera, but he kept "just a sec..." ing her as he had to finish this story or that about the F3 (which I had on me) and how he used it and when he went to an F5 and everything. She was trying so hard to be polite, eyes darting back and forth betwen us, not sure what was going on, but dammit that guy had to tell me EVERYTHING.
In his defense, I did note out of the corner of her eye she quietly snapped an instagram photo of the work record to send to a buddy. She's the same, just has fewer years of being excited about the gear to express.
I recently watched a documentary about a painter, who had 20 some years experience under his belt, and he was going to attempt to reproduce the Mona Lisa using the same materials and methods as Da Vinci. Only he had given himself a 6-week deadline. Needless to say, the end result was a disaster. He had approximated the painting techniques and materials, but the painting was painful to look at. Of course, it took Da Vinci years to paint Mona Lisa and he never gave it to the gentleman who had commissioned it--but he also had talent, was a superb draftsman and had a deep understanding of technique, three things this other painter lacked.
Even good intentions aren’t enough in the painting world but unintended consequences might be OK:
“Botched Restoration of Jesus Fresco Miraculously Saves Spanish Town”
Botched Restoration of Jesus Fresco Miraculously Saves Spanish Town | Artnet News
A botched restoration of 'Ecce Homo', a fesco of Jesus, has bolstered a small Spanish town's economy.news.artnet.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?