SEAN MARC LEE ([info]aspectratio) wrote,
@ 2008-11-14 13:52:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
http://www.flickr.com/groups/technique/discuss/12082/

it's the stuff like this. cameras. technology. people always talk about the newest digital thing. the newest red camera (though i am excited in ways too). how many megapixels so and so have. or how they want a lomo or a holga to get that "cool saturated look." or only shooting on polaroids.

why don't people ever wonder how to take a better photo? how to make a better film? why don't people ever question their motives? why don't people ever stop to think about the thought why they shoot something? why aren't people challenging a vision... a singular vision of how they see the world? instead of asking how i can get that look, why not wonder how that person lives to see the world the way they see it?

we're all obsessed with the "look" and style of what we do... we forget about the thought and the deepness creating often involves. "I want it to look like this film... or like so and so's pictures. I want it to be noir, or jump cutting, or hand held."

why can't we ask a question like, "i wonder what makes so and so take photos like that? i wonder why that film works the way it does?" Why does the setup from one scene to another make it so much more effective?

why is it always the question of "WHAT CAMERA ARE YOU USING."

If i ever meet my heroes, i'm not going to ask what fucking camera they are using. i'm going to ask what drives them. what inspires them. what motivates them. i'm gonna ask them what's the first thing they think about when they wake up in the morning. what's the feeling they get when they click that shutter, direct that scene.

is art is the study of human condition, then why are we so obsessed with the technology that helps create it?

my rant for today. (i am guilty of this too). I just took a long debate with myself whether i needed to buy a mamiya rz67 pro ii medium format 6x7 film camera. will it make me a better photographer? no. but that's a question i always ask myself.

PS. nice "bokeh" does not make a good photo.

(Post a new comment)


[info]wlychee_meechu
2008-11-14 10:02 pm UTC (link)
haha. sorry i asked.;)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-14 10:08 pm UTC (link)
haha! nonono. i don't mean that is annoying from anyone on here! :) i still ask it too!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]wlychee_meechu
2008-11-17 09:37 am UTC (link)
well nevertheless, you inspired me to just keep taking photos. film's not dead after all.:)
cheers!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nenuphar
2008-11-15 03:02 am UTC (link)
yeah, my acquaintances are ALWAYS telling me i need to "upgrade" because the newewst nikon dslr is out. they're the ones who bought their first dslr a year ago and upgraded 2-3 times already +_+

(Reply to this) (Thread)
i agree with this post!
[info]benlbr
2008-11-15 08:42 pm UTC (link)
i have this acquaintance who ragged on me about my camera too, to spend a few extra hundred bucks to get the upgrade. and although artistic interpretation is subjective, his photos from his $5k camera were really nothing to be hoot'n and holler'n about...

besides, camera's dont' make pictures.

photographers do.

...but I'll concede I'm only average at best :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: i agree with this post!
[info]aspectratio
2008-11-16 07:40 pm UTC (link)
yeah. it's like people who see a tiny point and shoot i have and think i'm "inadequate" hahaha. little do they know.

i call it big lense small penis syndrome.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: i agree with this post!
[info]benlbr
2008-11-16 07:48 pm UTC (link)
i concur, regarding the overcompensation factor.

and also...your point and shoot probably costs more than all the fancy lenses they have in their bag :)

weren't you shooting with an M8 a few months ago? lol

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: i agree with this post!
[info]aspectratio
2008-11-17 12:22 am UTC (link)
haha! i had a borrowed m6 from a friend. his dad collects and gave him his "extra" m6. to this day, my friend still has not put a roll of film through it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: i agree with this post!
[info]lilredbite
2008-11-17 03:31 am UTC (link)
God damn, I loved those shots! :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: i agree with this post!
[info]aspectratio
2008-11-17 07:02 am UTC (link)
heh. there weren't that many!

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=m6&w=29521199%40N00

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]spitlove
2008-11-15 03:05 am UTC (link)
I suppose that is the reason that I have utterly no connections or friends within the photography community here in Singapore. All the forums or what everyone wants to talk to me about when discussing photography is GEAR GEAR GEAR, and the QUALITY of the image. No one is talking content. Especially now when everyone can churn out a decent photograph, it is so important to ask why this photograph was taken. Sigh. I remember once I was introduced to meet up with the chief photographer of a fashion mag here, and he looked through my portfolio, and the only thing he said was -- you don't use any strobes, we can't take you. Once again, sigh.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-16 07:43 pm UTC (link)
haha! my friend calls it GWCS - Guys With Camera (cock) Syndrome. everyone with a digital SLR these days thinks of themselves as a photographer. i know this is pompous thing for me to say, and i'm not trying to say i am better or we're all better...

you don't use any strobes? geez. wow. that's disgusting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]fusis
2008-11-15 03:17 am UTC (link)
yeah, that's why i can't bring myself to get a digital camera. with a film camera, i never have to worry about the technology... i never have to think, when's the better one coming out? i mean, sure a better lens, but i think that's different. a different lens is like a paint brush.

in general, photography is weird because of this as an art. i constantly have to remind myself that i want to approach it like a fine art and commit to a new series, find a way to repeat my experiments that achieve something intellectual as well as aesthetic, but it's really hard when it becomes a way of seeing everything.

i wonder if painters feel this way about groups of painters... the group of painters that are obsessed with new forms of paint, new canvas technology... uhhh. right. yeah photography is weird.

Edited at 2008-11-15 03:18 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]talaco
2008-11-15 08:14 am UTC (link)
the thing about painting is that not a lot has changed when it comes to materials. the greatest technological break-through in painting was the collapsible metal tube. hardly anyone today uses lead white anymore to prime their canvases and colors today are manufactured unlike back in the day when painters had to grind their own paint and make their own colors (which took a while). even though there are a wider spectrum of colors being made today, the palettes of old masters are still being taught today.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-17 12:22 am UTC (link)
this is so true, but then again, photography classes are still teaching ansel adams and the zone systems...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-16 07:48 pm UTC (link)
so true. with digital it's all about the next upgrade. so and so megapixels aren't enough. there's too much noise... etc etc etc. film? easy. change the film stock. want more "megapixel?" shoot medium format. want more? shoot large! easy!

it started as a technological breakthrough and you use to have to really know your chemicals and equipment just to produce one picture. i think it's great that it's democratized and accessible to anyone. not everyone is going to be or wants to be a "photographer" in the sense of the great ones.

i can't imagine painters obsessing over such things. i did meet someone at work who was a traditional sketch artist show me how he perfected action and brushes in photoshop to draw on a screen that really looked liked a traditional pencil sketch as well as methods to get the paper/pencil grain. other than that, i didn't think he was an "artist" in that he really challenged anything else.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2008-11-15 03:34 am UTC (link)
Wow, you're right. I often wonder why it is that when I'm by myself and think about the photos I see those around me taking... I'm unmoved, unimpressed. They're all similar angles, similar colors, similar subjects - and when I ask about it... I get some recycled answer. Imitating depth, imitating inspiration... does not mean one possess it.

You're very right. Very, very right.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-17 12:23 am UTC (link)
it's very hard. i imitate too. everyone starts off that way. but it's the key is to break upon that and put your own personality into it. it's an amalgamation of everything you absorb.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]portrhombus
2008-11-15 03:49 am UTC (link)
a lot of people never seem to realize that if you spend the time to learn just one camera inside and out, that the possibilites become endless. maybe its because a lot of basic photo classes emphasize learning different equipment and emulating photographers that inspire you, so that so many people end up thinking too much about how to make a photo look like such and such and not thinking enough about how to make an image out of what is in front of them with the camera that is in their hands.
i personally have only ever really used one camera, only last year did i get all extravagant and buy a zoom lens.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-17 12:24 am UTC (link)
right. the best camera you can own is the one currently in your hand. making do with what you have... which is why i still don't fancy zoom lenses all that much...

my zoom lens is my feet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bleuprint
2008-11-15 07:50 am UTC (link)
i agree with everything you said.

also,
the rz67 is awesome but it's built like a tank, which makes it hard for me to travel with. (for me anyway, since i have puny little arms)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-17 12:25 am UTC (link)
heavy isn't it? i remember carrying 4 cameras in japan and my back nearly broke.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]winged_destiny
2008-11-15 08:27 am UTC (link)
my thoughts exactly! I also dislike those people that you just described. I think the difference of 'a person with a camera' and a 'photographer' is their sense of art direction when taking photos. Mimicry only barely touches the surface of the potentials of photography. Sadly there are a lot of boring copies out there.

(Reply to this)


[info]otherjoseph
2008-11-15 05:03 pm UTC (link)
But I like bokeh!

Usually I just wonder how other photographers can see the world so differently. You and I could both be at the same spot and take different pictures, and that's what fascinates me; I end up wondering what you see that I don't.

Still, you can't fault the few people who genuinely want to know how to take better shots by asking "what's your camera?" even though the right wrong question generally is "how do you photoshop that?" Eh.

You're talking film aspects though. Cinema gets trickier, personally. More dimensions, etc etc.

And now I don't know what I'm talking about.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-17 12:26 am UTC (link)
haha. i like bokeh too. it's just funny looking at the bokeh communities on flickr and the sole reason some of those photos are "good" is because it has nice "bokeh."

it's all about viewpoint!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]wackass
2008-11-17 12:57 am UTC (link)
is it okay if i quote this entry? this is the exact reason why i haven't bought a DSLR... i feel like so many people (esp. those my age) are all just jumping on the bandwagon and buying a fancy DSLR just cause they can. and half of them just use auto mode, which seems like such a waste to me -_-

i've been using the same Nikon FG-20 for the past 4 years and just trying out different types of film, even the cheap 99 cent ones. and after all this time, i'm still getting to know this camera completely inside and out but i really really love it. just this past summer did i start using the flash unit that came with it because i am a natural lighting nazi when it comes to pictures. i do have a small digicam for tons of happy snaps cause i'm a poor college student, haha.

in terms of cinema, i'm also taking a Lighting for the Moving Picture class, it's taking me a while to transition into photographing motion and concentrating on lighting continuity and all that jazz. it's funny though, cause the film major here (ucsb) focuses on film theory and why why why why why... whereas in one of the sole production classes they offer, we learn that thery can be bs cause sometimes they are forcing a reason behind why a scene was shot a certain way when it was just the most practical way to do it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-17 07:09 am UTC (link)
i've really nothing against digital SLRs, whatever gets the job done. i originally hesitated buying one but i needed it to do work. and i've done some things i've been proud of with it because of it's capabilities in low light. (iso 3200 on a canon is amazing). it takes time to finesse your look on digital because there are so many possibilities. in a way film is lazy too because it just looks good. all the "character" is there. digital you have to add it because it lacks the personality film has.

as far as cinema... theory vs practicality is so true.

ie "why did you shoot it this way?" answer: because it was the cheapest and we had no money! haha.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]i_aim_to_please
2008-11-17 05:51 am UTC (link)
i'm SO right there with you.


i love editing,
but i'm not going to sit around and polish turds.



i'm trying to get into commercial photography, so i'm trying to work on having my own distinctive "look," and i've probably spent a little bit too much time on that, but seeing as how i'm poor as crap and i only have two lenses to my name, i think i've done a pretty spectacular job of working with what i've got over the years.


the world is full of people that want to be photographers.

i think it's a phase. =)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-17 07:10 am UTC (link)
i've only got two lenses. 24mm and 50mm. all i need. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]i_aim_to_please
2008-11-17 07:27 am UTC (link)
i've got a kit lens. i haven't even bought more than one yet. i'm working on it, though, to be honest. i get a 40% discount and i'm going to start doing wedding photographer.

i pretty much leave my 50mm on my camera, though. =)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bianca_siu
2008-11-17 03:46 pm UTC (link)
red cam isn't that great. but then again, i'm kind of anti digital. okay, here's a fairer statement. red cam is a great improvement on past digital cameras, but it still has many technical problems and isn't as beautiful as film.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]aspectratio
2008-11-17 10:55 pm UTC (link)
true. i wouldn't say i am anti-digital, it's just most people don't know how to really work with it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
It's Easier
[info]sumosays
2008-11-19 07:02 pm UTC (link)
I know this comment is late, but I thought it was an interesting question. I think what it comes down to is that most people talk about gear because it's neutral, safe, and easier to talk about. You can be an objective "expert" on gear. I'm not defending it in any way, just thinking about what makes this kind of thing much more common in the realm of public discussion. When you talk about the things that move you, it's like you're telling someone who you are. I think a lot of people aren't as readily willing to talk about those things even if they think them too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: It's Easier
[info]aspectratio
2008-11-20 01:39 am UTC (link)
it's true. it is quite a personal thing and the one thing i did dislike in school was having to "explain" my work. i always hated critique.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…