[kytra]

I'm one of those folks who really takes an interest in the gear, or at least the lenses. (The bodies are only somewhat interesting to me, perhaps because I see them as much more transitory than lenses.)

The subtle differences in the way lenses render is fascinating to me, and seeking out and acquiring often inexpensive gems, tying them out, comparing them - well, that's all part of the hobby.

To say it doesn't matter is, to some degree, saying that the way a large percentage of people enjoy the hobby is inferior to the way you enjoy it.

Consider Car Guys - you don't hear Car & Driver editors and writers saying "The destination, and the drive there, is the goal - the vehicle doesn't matter." Of course the vehicle matters to them. The gear - when you're talking cars - is 90% of the hobby. Actual driving is maybe 10%.

With photography, it's probably closer to 50-50, but the idea is the same - the gear is part of the hobby.





One place I like to go where the Art/Gear ratio is pretty high is The Online Photographer (T.O.P,) where the Art is celebrated and talked about by folks who can write as well as they shoot - a very enjoyable site. (But - even TOP is not void of gear talk - Mike Johnston is a real lens nut, and has vast knowledge of glass. )



.
.

Well put!

[tuco]

Well said, brofkand. It is easier to discuss technical things online than creative things that's for sure. And you're so right. When your picture is hanging on a wall for public display, it's the image they see. They don't see how convenient your small, hi-tech camera was to use for you or what special image editing plug-ins that made your job so quick and easy. It's the subject, mood and composition of the picture that matters most at the end of the day. Like special effects in a movie, well done technical features in a still are successful when they are not noticed.

[raz-0]

This is something that has been bothering me for a while. It doesn't matter which forum I read, which review I look at, or which photo I study, there's always a reply from someone that asks to the effect of:

"What camera did you use? Do you use Lightroom, Photoshop, or Pentax Camera Utility?"

I have to bite my tongue every time.

I look at the work of Sally Mann, whose work is smattered in scratches, dust, and "imperfections," taken with an old camera and lens, on hand-coated glass plates.

And yet nearly every image I see that she has created moves me. It inspires me to take my K-7, or one of my film cameras, out to create something beautiful.

My point is who gives a flip if the image on the cover of Magazine X was shot with a Speed Graphic, a Pentax K-m, a Hasselblad H3D, or a roll of expired Technical Pan in a Holga?

It doesn't matter what shoes Michael Jordan used, or the paint Picasso used, or the ink Vonnegut used. These people had talent, and if Picasso painted Guernica in Crayola crayon would it be any less moving?

They're all tools. That 16-50 2.8 won't make you a better photographer. Maybe you'll be able to make a photograph you otherwise wouldn't be able to make, but if you were a poor photographer before you bought the lens you'll be a poor photographer after the lens comes in from B&H. Especially if the SDM dies after a year.

I honestly don't understand the mentality. Where does the thinking that if you buy this new lens, or this new camera, or this new miscellaneous widget, you'll instantly be Moholy-Nagy come from?

A good photographer can make a stunning photograph using a Kodak Disc camera, and a sorry photographer can't make a good photograph with a Hasselblad. It's as simple as that.

I think you may just be cranky easily annoyed, and misrepresenting questions.

Some people just like gadgets. They ask because they want to know what is new they can get, this is what they enjoy. Why be bothered by them. Granted, when they start trying to argue the intrinsic superiority of something for no real reason they can be irksome, but who cares.

Some people like learning. They see a look, and want to know how to reproduce it. Do you really think Sally Mann's pictures have nothing to do with her gear? The lady in this day and age still does stuff on glass plate. There's a reason for it. She also brings an eye for lighting and composition to it, but there's a REASON she does some things the hard way. Some folks would like to know why, especially to separate artistic influences from technical ones when forming their own vision.

Most great art was made using techniques that were not unique to the creator, and the creator did not reinvent the wheel from first principles. There's a lot of value to knowing why and how. In photography, due to it's nature, that also means with what.

[Mike Cash]

There are a few of us who are neither gear heads nor possessed of artistic ambitions; we just enjoy taking pictures.

It is wonderful that we can all enjoy a common activity using, in large part, gear which is either identical or at least fundamentally similar. But one should never assume that everybody is engaging in it for the same reasons or (most especially) with the same aspirations.

[mikemike]

I think the best way to improve your photography is to question everything about a photograph. Where is the light coming from? Why did the photographer frame the image in this way? Why did they used extended (or reduced) depth of field? Why is the image blurry? What does it all mean? etc.

I think people might be phrasing their questions that way to get at what steps were taken to create a blur, frozen action, etc. without coming off as a total newb.

For example if you saw a picture of fireworks that was a lot nicer than any you had ever taken, knowing what kind of gear and settings were used might be relavent the next time you go out to shoot fireworks.

[magkelly]

I don't think that the right gear is the answer to everything, but in my mind there is a difference between mediocre gear and decent gear and I'd rather have the latter than the former. I've worked with a pretty okay upscale point and shoot camera for a long time now. But my film SLR pics are definitely better than what I was taking with my Fuji S7000.

I didn't suddenly become a better photographer overnight so I do have to assume that finally getting some decent lenses did make a difference in what I was doing. I actually miss the convenience of digital a lot, but I hardly pick up my Fuji now because I know that I'm apparently capable of doing more with my SLR's than I can with that camera.

Gear matters, at least I think it does for me, but I'm not that obsessed by it that I'll blow my entire budget on one lens just because that's supposedly the ultimate lens when something a bit less pricey might do me fine.

(Which is why I currently don't have all the Takumars I crave. I want them, sure, desperately, lol, but right now I do have other things that I need to save for more, like my first DSLR, so for now at least they're not a priority...)

Mostly you won't find me asking which camera. I might ask which lens simply because SLR lenses are new to me and I'm still trying to learn how to use them, and which ones are best for the job, but I don't really think that which camera took the picture is all that important really so long as the camera someone has can do the job they want it to.

The way I see it bad gear doesn't help, but buying all the best tech gear in the world won't give you the skills to use it if you're lousy at photography period.

[creampuff]

Photography combines creativity and technical competency coming together. While I can fully understand the aesthetics of creating great images, it doesn't take away the fact that it will always be a right and left brain activity.
Just depends if you're more inclined to one or the other.

[Wheatfield]

I think the best way to improve your photography is to question everything about a photograph. Where is the light coming from? Why did the photographer frame the image in this way? Why did they used extended (or reduced) depth of field? Why is the image blurry? What does it all mean? etc.

It may be part of my training in fine art photography, or something else, but I was never trained to ask "What camera did the photographer use?" or "Why did they use Lens X and not Lens Y?"

It makes no difference if they used a *istDS or a 645D. I suppose that's my point of this post.

Some people just like nice stuff, the consequence being that they are always looking for nicer stuff. While it may be a pursuit that isn't understandable to many people, anyone who collects anything can probably understand.
Why did they use lens X rather than Y is as valid a question as the ones you mentioned as valid. The picture is the lens, to a great extent.
Note that I am a self avowed lens junkie.

[Clicker]

It's a ***** envy thing i believe, you'll never find women getting into it...at least not the women i hang around LOL
There is one forum i use a 1mp phone cam just to piss them off ...yes, i should know better but sometimes you have to get people of their Napoleon complex.

[yeatzee]

im 16 and already turning into a gear head

What can I say, I like me a good lens

[Jasvox]

"Gear Heads" are found almost everywhere you look, no matter what the hobby, profession, obsession, etc. It's a natural thing for some people to become immersed into a interest and the tools which surround that interest. Take for example the sport of golf. Golf seems to be one of those sports where the amateur to avid golfer have an infinite number of accessories, gadgets, models of clubs, heads, grips, balls ad nauseum, aimed to make you a better golfer, lower your score, be better, quicker and make you feel you cant live without the products. Ever watch a golf round on television and see the sheer number of advertisements for all this stuff? Ever walked into a golf shop and just seen the accessories and gimmicks on sale there? It's mid boggling at times. Does it make you a better golfer to have the latest club head by Callaway, the most advanced (and most expensive) ball by Titelist, and dressed in golf-specific "under armor" to help you stay at your best? Look at the number of sponsors on any player's clothing when they are on the links...what are they there for? (Golf gear-heads)

Another example is how "musicians" are targeted for the must-have instruments in order to achieve a perceived certain level of legitimacy and respect. Example...When Stevie Ray Vaughn died back about 20 years ago, I remember Fender guitars released a SRV signature guitar which supposedly was as close to his guitar as possible...aimed at blues guitarists who wanted that sound and style. Also, you could have that SRV sound unless you had a super rare, super expensive Dumble amplifier to give the guitar sound. Same can be applied to any musician who has found a distinctive sound and become famous. Copy his/her gear and you have his/her sound, right? Hardly. The sound and feel and distinction comes from the player, not the gear. I have seen/heard too many examples of this to prove my point, but believe me here, the gear doesn't matter other than an image thing.

Everywhere you look on the internet, you can find specialized forums for all sorts of interests, from camera/photography to customized bicycles to anything techy/gadgety (gazillions here) all the way down to groups online who dedicate themselves to the vacuum tubes found from certain analog devices found from gear in the 1960's and 70's....did I mention the mind boggling part?

Gear heads are everywhere and yes, you can use the old cliche about gear-heads collect, but pros could make art from lenses made out of coke bottles...old argument and really is opinion of each person and points of view. It takes all kinds I reckon. I enjoy reading the uber-techy postings on here from time to time where someone has dissected this, that or the other to find how or why something works better or not, just like I enjoy reading posts from those who clearly have superior talent as photographers and never mention gear other than credit what they used to get the shot. In my opinion, you can have all the gear available at your fingertips, but that does not guarantee anything. The intangibles, in any sport/hobby/interest/profession, are what matter most...how you put yourself in the position to succeed, how you compose, how you "feel" about the particular lighting of a subject, and BEING THERE.

Jason

[hcarvalhoalves]

Let me contribute with some science.



The "Disappointed with Pentax K-whatever", "I'm moving to whatever", "Why Pentax doesn't make whatever" posts authors are there on the middle, around gearfaggotry. The ones that got past this are out there shooting pics.

[yeatzee]

Let me contribute with some science.



The "Disappointed with Pentax K-whatever", "I'm moving to whatever", "Why Pentax doesn't make whatever" posts authors are there on the middle, around gearfaggotry. The ones that got past this are out there shooting pics.

Interesting. I fall into the mid-right section I'd say....

I like lots of gear, and knowing how to use it properly (gear head).
I also take pictures almost every day (unless school stops me) and practice my technique/improve on it every chance I get (mainly with macro's).
Some of my images I happen to think are quite decent comparatively as do apparently a lot of other people.....

Am I an exception? I mean whats wrong with being a gear head really? Can't you be both a gear head and a photographer/artist?

Oh, and that "HDR hole" part is fricken hilarious
--------------------------

edit: I do see your guyses point though about the snob gear heads. I used to play an epiphone Les Paul Guitar, which I fitted with gibson burstbuckers to get good sound in a cheap package. I was CONSTANTLY mocked for it, but the playing spoke for itself. In the same token, images speak for themselves. I do get a bit confused when I see crap pictures taken with lenses like the FA 31mm, but thats coming from my perspective of buy what I can (thank you pentax for your availability of GREAT cheap primes!!!!!) and upgrade as my skill/budget increases.

[newarts]

Be thankful the techies exist else you'd be squeegeeing an emulsion onto a glass plate for your next 90sec exposure in daylight with your head in a bag, you ungrateful wretch.

I often ask what equipment was used, & what PP, if any, was used to get a handle on the possible and to understand paths to follow for development purposes.

When a vocabulary is developed that allows precise description of the artistic aspects of photos I'll be using it too.

If you are seeking only compliments on your work with no questions about how you did it, go to your mother.

Dave

[brofkand]

Be thankful the techies exist else you'd be squeegeeing an emulsion onto a glass plate for your next 90sec exposure in daylight with your head in a bag, you ungrateful wretch.

I often ask what equipment was used, & what PP, if any, was used to get a handle on the possible and to understand paths to follow for development purposes.

When a vocabulary is developed that allows precise description of the artistic aspects of photos I'll be using it too.

If you are seeking only compliments on your work with no questions about how you did it, go to your mother.

Dave

I guess I feel like the how is not nearly as important as the why when it comes to critiquing work.

The fact that I used a 50mm 1.2 or push-processed the roll of Tri-X to ISO 1600 isn't as important as the reason I made the exposure. The fact that at that precise moment, a lightning bolt struck a tree or a cat jumped out of a boxcar carrying a kitten, or whatever.

If you don't understand the WHY behind a photograph, the camera I used or the PP software I used is about as useful as a lens with a broken focusing ring. You can still use it, but you're limited in what you can do.

Perhaps you disagree?