[einstrigger]

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

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?

I think you can be both. I love gadgets and all the gear associated with photography, but I know that it still boils down to building up my photography skills. It's not wrong to enjoy new tech or more gear, especially if it brings you joy. When I see a photo that I like, I want to know how it was EXACTLY captured. In that way I can attempt to replicate it and learn from it.

I think the issue is when people get bogged down in the details and don't actually apply the craft (photography). But you know, I don't mind scouring the marketplace finding cameras with less than 500 actuations from gearheads looking for the latest and greatest

[Wheatfield]

I think you can be both.

This is where most of this sort of discussion devolves into moronity, complete with stupid graphs mistakenly called science.
Photography is, and always will be, science applied to the production of a visual product (be it art or otherwise really doesn't matter).
Not understanding the science behind the picture will eventually hobble a photographer. The opposite is less likely.

[brofkand]

I think this thread is starting to stray away from my original question.

I have absolutely no problem with people asking me what film I used, what shutter speed, aperture, etc. to create an image.

What I have a problem with is people saying "What camera did you use?" The question has absolutely no bearing on the image and is in my opinion insulting. No sooner will I say "A Pentax K-7" the person viewing the photograph will walk away sneering, thinking to himself "Well, I have a Nikon D3x. It was much more expensive than his...what did he say...Pentax? The idiot for not buying my camera! I'll go out and make an image exactly like his...but better tomorrow! With the lights off!"

Heaven forbid I tell someone I shot it with an old cheap TLR with expired film, or sometimes even worse...a point and shoot.

My point is it makes absolutely no difference what camera I used, so why even ask it?

[yeatzee]

I think this thread is starting to stray away from my original question.

I have absolutely no problem with people asking me what film I used, what shutter speed, aperture, etc. to create an image.

What I have a problem with is people saying "What camera did you use?" The question has absolutely no bearing on the image and is in my opinion insulting. No sooner will I say "A Pentax K-7" the person viewing the photograph will walk away sneering, thinking to himself "Well, I have a Nikon D3x. It was much more expensive than his...what did he say...Pentax? The idiot for not buying my camera! I'll go out and make an image exactly like his...but better tomorrow! With the lights off!"

Heaven forbid I tell someone I shot it with an old cheap TLR with expired film, or sometimes even worse...a point and shoot.

My point is it makes absolutely no difference what camera I used, so why even ask it?

I think your looking at it the wrong way. In reality, if someone asks about what camera etc. it should be taken as a compliment because therefore the image must be pretty good to them.

edit: and it does matter what camera was used in many circumstances. For example, getting the F/1.2 shots I do is almost always a result of liveview focusing. So if someone sees an F/1.2 shot they like and ask what camera, I explain I used the K-7 because it has liveview and the k200d does not. If someone has the K200d/K10d/K100d/etc., its something to think about if they are contemplating a F/1.2 lens.
Just a quickie I thought up

[dgaies]

I think this thread is starting to stray away from my original question.

I have absolutely no problem with people asking me what film I used, what shutter speed, aperture, etc. to create an image.

What I have a problem with is people saying "What camera did you use?" The question has absolutely no bearing on the image and is in my opinion insulting. No sooner will I say "A Pentax K-7" the person viewing the photograph will walk away sneering, thinking to himself "Well, I have a Nikon D3x. It was much more expensive than his...what did he say...Pentax? The idiot for not buying my camera! I'll go out and make an image exactly like his...but better tomorrow! With the lights off!"

Heaven forbid I tell someone I shot it with an old cheap TLR with expired film, or sometimes even worse...a point and shoot.

My point is it makes absolutely no difference what camera I used, so why even ask it?

In a sense, asking what kind of film you used isn't much different from asking what camera (sensor) you used.

[Rupert]

I am a gear-head and thought maybe I can explain why. Its because I am not an artist, not creative and will never call myself a photographer. I tell people that I hunt...with a camera. I am a thing person, not a people person. Electronics, tools of the trade, and software are way more interesting to me than the perfect soft lighting for a portrait. My gear is an excuse to walk the marsh and carry heavy stuff that looks official. I enjoy the gear. Thats where my interest lies. I never bother to wonder what the artists think about my hobby.
I am a gear-head.

Thank You Guy! You are the "guy" that made my day! Now I don't have to make excuses or feel out of touch when I put on my Safari Gear, strap my Elephant gun across my back, lace up my snakeproof boots, put on my best Jungle Hat, and step out on my deck to shoot Squirrels!
Best Regards!

Wow! Look at that Big Ugly man with that camera! How silly!

[TaoMaas]

I think your looking at it the wrong way. In reality, if someone asks about what camera etc. it should be taken as a compliment because therefore the image must be pretty good to them.

I agree. I really couldn't care less what camera was used to take a lame picture. It's only the good ones I ask about. On a somewhat serious side...the question of "what camera was used?" is what led me to using Pentax in the first place. When I was first starting out in photography, I made a habit of checking out what gear was used to make pictures that I liked. (I did this through checking the photo credits in the back of photography books and/or talking to photographers whose work I admired.) Most of the time, the pictures I preferred were taken with a Leica, Nikon, or Pentax. It was the warmth of the colors that attracted me. (This was WAY before the days of Fujichrome, digital photography, or the rise of independent lens makers so lens differences were a lot more apparent.) As a struggling college student, I couldn't afford a Leica or a Nikon, so I went with Pentax. And even then, I was putting Pentax lenses on a Yashica SLR. LOL

[TaoMaas]

I have absolutely no problem with people asking me what film I used, what shutter speed, aperture, etc. to create an image.

What I have a problem with is people saying "What camera did you use?" The question has absolutely no bearing on the image and is in my opinion insulting. No sooner will I say "A Pentax K-7" the person viewing the photograph will walk away sneering, thinking to himself "Well, I have a Nikon D3x. It was much more expensive than his...what did he say...Pentax? The idiot for not buying my camera! I'll go out and make an image exactly like his...but better tomorrow! With the lights off!"

Heaven forbid I tell someone I shot it with an old cheap TLR with expired film, or sometimes even worse...a point and shoot.

My point is it makes absolutely no difference what camera I used, so why even ask it?

FYI...this is making a mountain out of a molehill, IMHO. If someone asks about your gear, you should be grateful that they cared enough to ask. The time to be concerned is when nobody gives a rat's behind about your work.

[mel]

I love the gear side. And I love the art side. But if I have to explain the art side, I've failed in getting my point across.

[RioRico]

I love the gear side. And I love the art side. But if I have to explain the art side, I've failed in getting my point across.

[I speak now of the Anglophone sphere in which I've mostly lived.]

We are trained to talk about gear, about stuff. From infancy, we are immersed in the material world. We learn to talk about the details of the stuff we wear and play with and break and fix. We learn about the structure of the stuff we use. We are trained to glory in stuff, because we can be sold stuff. It's the buying and selling of stuff, that powers our society. Use more stuff! Break more stuff! Buy more stuff!

We are not trained to talk about aesthetics. We learn to express our likes and dislikes regarding the stuff that's around us (and those likes and dislikes are powerfully shaped by our exposure to stuff). But we generally don't learn analysis and critical thinking, how to think about contexts and meanings and implications. We can't be sold contexts and meanings and implications; we can only be sold stuff.

I blame advertising agencies.

[brecklundin]

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.

well expressed...and I feel very true...thanks for it!!

[brecklundin]

[I speak now of the Anglophone sphere in which I've mostly lived.]

We are trained to talk about gear, about stuff. From infancy, we are immersed in the material world. We learn to talk about the details of the stuff we wear and play with and break and fix. We learn about the structure of the stuff we use. We are trained to glory in stuff, because we can be sold stuff. It's the buying and selling of stuff, that powers our society. Use more stuff! Break more stuff! Buy more stuff!

We are not trained to talk about aesthetics. We learn to express our likes and dislikes regarding the stuff that's around us (and those likes and dislikes are powerfully shaped by our exposure to stuff). But we generally don't learn analysis and critical thinking, how to think about contexts and meanings and implications. We can't be sold contexts and meanings and implications; we can only be sold stuff.

I blame advertising agencies.

yes....we are not taught enough philosophy and too much black and white cold repetition to learn. So people get bogged down in the details before they think about why any of it matters. Of course I want the people designing and building my bridges and buildings to pay attention to such things even if it means changing the aesthetics.