Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Some good points for consideration:

http://www.alesserphotographer.com/post ... -manifesto

Ugh, he lost me quickly with the selling off gear thing. I get the idea but to me that's a contrived simplicity. What's to stop someone with the absolute latest and greatest from taking a good simple photograph? It's in the head, not the gear.

I disagree. It's easy to get lost in the game of photography. Selling and making money and getting top of the line gear and on and on. It's nice to see someone go back to basics and remember why they take photographs, why they love images and creating art. Can you take an image without thinking of the gear? It's just another creative restraint.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you about the head not the gear. For many gear heads selling your gear and not buying more advanced gear is as radical an idea as giving up all your worldly goods and moving into a monastery. I think a better point is what is stopping people from taking that good simple photograph? Sometimes it's hard to breakout of habits when it's so easy to just buy new equipment.

Ok, I've now actually read the thing instead of judging on the preamble. There really is some fantastic advice in there but I think it gets fallacious too quickly. Like you say in your your response to me Metrix, "what is it that is stopping people from taking a good photograph." If one has fantastic gear and they are in a rut or aren't taking good photographs and they decide to follow this advice of gear simplicity what does that in fact do? They are forced to go back to the basics, always the holy ground of any activity, where they are forced to do what? Learn those basics, the fundamentals which make that art, or whatever, good. The selling of the gear is an extra step, that's not necessary to getting back to basics. It becomes, "I have to sell my gear to get closer to photography because only if I'm looking through the most basic tool am I closer to true photography" which is as much as a manufactured idea as only when I have a D800 will I truly get the images I want. I was up late last night looking through http://www.bythom.com (Thanks Jordan) who, for me writes in a way that integrates getting the image into talk about the gear. He talks about using the gear in the right way in order for you to get what you see. That's all it is no matter how simple or complex, a tool, and that's what people need to remember before they buy or sell.

The other part of this sort of anti-gear sentiment (I realize no one said that, my term) is that gear is fascinating. Newer cameras are fantastic technological achievements (which philistines like myself quibble over but that's part of the fun too). To enjoy these creations for the marvellous things they can do is a fun thing on its own. Hold a 1Dx while it pounds away 14fps, it's pretty neat. Or whatever other example of technological achievement, there's an art in the technology that is worth admiring too. Many of us load our objects with sentiment and value that they don't have, should we stop and become Buddhists about it? Maybe some should but not all. Edit: Should people that enjoy gear get derided for their appreciation of it? No. And the exact same appreciation can be applied to the old simple stuff. "Wow that was taken with an obscure old Russian lens?! It's amazing." Chances are good that it's actually not and there's either nostalgia being thickly applied or some other type of emotion for validating the choice in gear to get the image one feels matches that.

While I have quibbles with a couple of minor things in his list of ten the only one I pretty much completely disagree with is #8. Unless you're selling your photography as a service - wedding/commercial whatever 99% of the photographers out there do not need their own site. And the ones that try anyway do it wrong. Very very wrong. So much so that I very rarely go to a photographer's Web site.

I can appreciate only having to work with one prime lens without access to anything else

I look at the technical toys activity in photography to be somewhat of different hobby then one of advancing the brain in the art of photography. BTW like most men I like the newest shiny tech hardware gadgets. But so many times I have been out with others on a so called photography walk and as soon as the light is just getting good everyone wants to go to a pub where the usual talk is all about equipment.

I really don't think he is advocating that selling your equipment is a solution to taking better images. What we are seeing is his personal manifesto (hence a bit of radical posturing) and his path to getting back to the importance of the image.

To be completely fair, we should separate the professional photographers, who merely provide service, from artists, who merely express themselves and their vision

Potatoeye I was already making that assumption based on the statements in the manifesto also assuming the somewhat accepted definition of the phrase "Professional Photographer" as a person that makes a relevant portion of their income taking photographs for clients or on hire from an organization.

I have not had a chance to read the article (but I plan on it), but I just wanted to add, I bought a shiny new toy (Fuji X-Pro1) and I only have one lens for it right now (all I could afford). But I have to say in one day of shooting I love the simplicity of it - moving myself to zoom and get the composition I want. BUT what I really found liberating was using an actual aperture ring!!! I've never used one - I've always used the thumb wheel on my Nikon and never realized how natural it felt to shoot this way. I loved being forced to work more simply!

J.

Fair enough and I agree. Problem is there is still that note of disdain as a "photographer" will look down there nose at the "gear head." We've all seen it here many times. There certainly is a difference between the two related interests though, but as you mentioned, one can be both.



Possibly not, even though that is the example he sets. Regardless, the point I was trying to make as it's just that one more thing in the way of getting a good image.

"Why do you think you can't you take a good image?"
"Well, I have too complex of a camera, I need a simpler one. One that doesn't get in my way."

It's the same issue. Identifying what is in the way. Meditation isn't the answer, it provides you with the tools to find answers. Photographic gear is the same way.

I took a look at his site and it's problematic in several ways but one particular post irked me, he has a list of places/things we don't need photographs of anymore. Who is he to say? Other than a douche from a very high horse. He also talks about "originality" far too much. A word which has become the most cliché statement anyone creating art can make. Original thinking is outside of box thinking that pushes envelopes around and stuff. Many of the photos taken using the mandate he sets are as potentially derivative and empty as any other method, but once we add the veneer of his mandate over it... wow, I see what you did there. More mundane riding the coattails of postmodern theory. Which leads me to this question:



Uh huh... and I guess that's you who that will make that distinction? I agree that distinction exists but find more than a handful of people who agree where it is and I'll be amazed. It's certainly not the lesser photographer who should make that distinction. He appears to have a chip on his shoulder regarding what photography should and shouldn't be.

Jordan, do you not have an old e-series lens for your Nikon stuff? You should grab a 50mm just to have the experience. Cheap and easy to find. Or 35mm I guess if you want a 50ish on your D300s. Seriously. Secondly, you have switched one dial for another. I agree there is a difference but how much of that difference is magnified by nostalgia or desire for that precise experience making more of it than there really is?

And lastly, Metrix, I really don't wish to poopoo the message I assume you're trying to share here. If I have it right it's about the image and little more. I agree. I just think this guy is lesser about that message and a little more poopoo.

This is simple: what is the purpose of your photography? Do you need to be able to rely on your gear 100% or can you not worry about gear and do all sorts of experiments. At this point the distinction is very scarce as most cross the border line. But we all know in order to be a professional photographer providing services doesn't mean you need to train your eye or rediscover what matters all together

I actually do have a few lenses that have aperture rings for my Nikon. I in all honesty never really bothered to use them (maybe once for kicks) and always used the thumb dials - thought that was the better way since everything was being developed that way - G lenses for Nikon. To be honest back then when I did try the aperture ring I don't think I could appreciate it as I find I can now.

Is it making me a better photographer? No. Is it for nostalgia? No, since I never had that past experience to connect with. But I think what it has shown me (now that i'm a more experienced photographer) is that there are other ways to use my gear and take photos other than the prescribed Nikon way (or choose your brand).

Sometimes our gear is overly complex (even the x-pro1 can be). I think instead of throwing our gear away and all going to Lecia's with almost no function but manual focus lenses and a shutter button, we just need to actually use the gear we have - but simplify how we use it. That includes choosing the right gear for the job at hand, and shooting for the photo and not shooting for the gear.

I guess my built in filter just ignores some of his trash talk. His list of photographs that we have enough of could be taken with some mixed humor. I know I'm guilty and will continue to be guilty of more then a few of the items on the list.

I'm really not supporting his minimalist approach but some of his ideas have merit and could help some people that are stuck.

Ok I have finally read his manifesto. He makes some interesting points, but there is so much I do not agree with it isn't funny. I won't go into my rant about what I do and don't agree with, much has been stated already here. I just want to add that his 9th point about legality really has nothing to do with simplifying (making the link between using a compact camera over a DSLR is silly at best). This is especially true since simplifying does not mean a compact camera is for everyone (I could not capture the images I would want with a compact camera - lack of shallow DoF). Ok that is a bit of a rant. I am done

J.

Bart thinks he needs an 18-55 and a 17-80. Without it, Bart can't take good photos.

I agree with the sentiments in this manifesto for the overwhelming majority of photographers out there. Although, I don't think it work for a photographer with a particular path or expertise. Metrix uses the tools he needs to express his vision, just like a landscape shooter uses filters and tools he/she needs to express theirs. You're not going to tell someone who shoots and prints 20x30's and up to ditch their DSLR or Med/Large format cameras.

Unfortunately the majority of photographers don't really have direction and they think the gear will help them achieve what they are looking for.

Since most of the meat has been extracted from the original Topic. I thought it might be interesting to address what you brought up.

There seems to be a portion of the population that wants to or needs to deride people for their choices of equipment. The division is a lot finer then digital modernest versus film Luddite or Gear-Heads versus keep it simple. Brand loyalty Pepsi versus Coke. SLR versus rangefinders. It seems a large portion of the population hates Leica (mostly those that have never owned them) It goes on to things like what is or is not street photography, HDR is Garish ... and on and on. Not really much to do with actually taking photographs.

End of Rant!

Indeed, it happens a lot. I think the vast majority of behaviour like this is due to our inclination, as a species in the Western world, to defend the choices we make, both consciously and subconsciously as "the best." Behaviouralists have found this to be true, I could probably dig up a few articles to back it up if anyone was curious about the science behind it. Apparently our mind will do all sorts of fancy tricks for us to validate our choices, not completely unrelated to what addicts go through in validating the decisions they make. By choosing X but saying Y does something better would mean admitting I didn't choose "the best", I chose "wrong." Regardless, whether or not that binary distinction exists, admitting wrongness is not a strength we have as a species. Therefore when Leica cameras are too expensive for me they become overpriced and not worth it. HDR is tacky because I don't do it and B&W is the only way to shoot because that's how the photographers I like shoot and how I shoot. Is it possible to get past all that? Sure, but that means a fairly passive acceptance of just about everything and does not stroke our egos while "proving" we're doing the "right things."

Beyond this, I'm not sure an image exists in its own vacuum. Art, or anything attempting to be, is subject to the context in which it is viewed, and I think, created.

I think you can be both passionate about equipment and about the image without worrying about what others think. I stopped curating a website because seeing all those other photographs and styles became to much of a confining influence on my own work. Its also difficult to be impartial if you just don't like someones photograph even when all other things considered its a "good" photograph.

erm, in the wise words of a meme that's been floating around:

porque no los dos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuEIsqeRR1o

Why not both. I can see both sides of the argument, and I'm actually not convinced there is a too much of a conflict.

And I'm not advocating a 'live and let live' kind of cop out. photography has been, and will always be, wedded to technology of some sort, from the first wet plates, to the 1Dx whatever. Without technology, there is no photography.

We can, and should appreciate the technological innovations that allow us to make different photos, but excessive fascination with technology is not really productive. Similar, excessive ideological fixation with minimalism as the one true means of attaining artistry is also not productive.

erm, sorry gotta go, maybe I'll add more later, but this discussion is fascinating to me.

This guy should have at least brushed up his logic 101 for dummies book before aspiring to be Karl Marx of photography - or maybe he required the help of Engles who I guess was too busy taking photos to write such pretentious crap.

"Creativity is always enhanced by a constraint."

So is some body parts.


Btw, I'm a follower of Ken Rockwell's seven stages of photography... I'm on stage three-and-half... Yes!

3.5 on the Rockwell scale that is impressive! It must mean you make a lot of money doing photography by taking snapshots like your mum

Oh dear. Spitfire must be really angry.

Listen Removed if you know your mother (I doubt it), go and say some nasty things to her for passing down all those goofy genes to you.

It's clear that you didn't even read the Ken Rockwell scale or you would know there is no intended insult to you or your Mom. If you quote a humorous article and apply it to yourself I would have thought you would have the intelligence to understand the reference to that same article.

Don't be scared you Removed content, I'm not gonna throw eggs at you or anything on the street.

oh deer!

Agreed. Someone forget to read the terms of service and play nice. Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, _____________.

wpf1s9 has been banned for two weeks for what should be self evident here. This was not the first issue i have had with his posting. The next one will be permanent.

I'd like to see this thread continue, as I agree with mike, this is an interesting area of discussion. Bad jokes and the inclusion of Ken Rockwell aside.

I removed the swearing. No need for that in this community.

I have not read the original article, and don't intend to, but I suspect that if I did, a lot of the rhetoric is designed to sell page views, be controversial, and all that.

There is a point that the gear heads who pretend to be photographers should get back to basics, and learn more artistry, but it's equally true that the 'artists' should learn about technological innovations which may help them realize their artistic vision, or in some cases, develop a different artistic expression through the affordances of different media and technological processes.

Pushing for one over the other, as with many things in life, is never the answer; sorry to sound Buddhist about it, but I can't see a better answer than that. We need both. Male/Female, Black/White, Hot/Cold, and in this case, Art/Technology.