civilized ku # 1121 ~ they're at it again, and again, and ...
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 03:53PM 
Street scene with shadow ~ Saratoga Springs, NY • click to embiggenA recent entry on TOP - this sensor vs that sensor, size matters vs size doesn't matter, this RAW converter vs that RAW converter, (and another entry, re: The Most Desirable Camera on the Planet: # 11) - is enough to make me cry.
I realize there are people in the picture making world that are in it for the gear and, more to the point, endlessly talking/writing about gear but it's enough to make me want to turn off the internet and go only to galleries and/or look at picture books.
I mean, scratch my back with a hacksaw and give it a rest. Get a camera that meets your needs and get on with making pictures already. That is to say, making pictures that are more than about resolution, sharpness, dynamic range, low noise, etc. Pictures that are interesting to look at for what they have to say about the world and our place in it, aka: life.
Of course, it's been said before but it is only other "serious" picture makers who give a crap about all the technicals and techniques.
Most non-picture makers I run into could care less about such things. I have had a number of gallery exhibitions this year and not one gallery goer I have talked with has inquired about anything but how the pictures strike their fancy, emotionally, intellectually, and visually. It such a relief from the endless gear, technique, and technical entries that seem to be bedrock of so many picture blogs/sites.
Slowly but surely my online picture viewing is becoming more and more limited, with a few exceptions, to online photo magazines. Magazines where the pictures are king and rarely a word is heard about gear and other techno stuff.
Reader Comments (8)
The number of gears sites to photography sites is about 100 to 1, or worse. I ask every fine art photographer I talk to where they go for art talk. Nowadays, after I view any gear sites, and I still do, but only a couple, I always end with a quick visit to Flickr. Perhaps not all the best pictures, but I'm sure to always see a new picture or two.
BTW I was saddened when I learned that the editor of Ag magazine had passed away. That magazine was an island to me, a deep dive into nothing but pictures and talk of pictures. Apparently, it is still alive, but I believe it was the sole vision of the recent editor. Whoever may carry it on will hopefully to it justice.
Shadow…
Nice.
I couldn't agree more. I think we are in an age, that for most of us, when camera technology is "more than good enough" as it is. I don't need "even more", and because of that "even more" is now just plain boring. What I need is to look at images, or to read ideas that inspire me.
I would not have noticed the shadow if it hadn't been mentioned in the caption! But then I'd been here for months before I realised that not all London black cabs were actually black.
The worrying thing about the last few articles on TOP is that it's normally one of the less equipment-focussed photography sites. But even the recent "random excellence" article drew more comments about the camera he was using than the photos themselves.
I know this piling on, but you are so right. A vast amount of heat and no light.
So, anyway, what camera do you use? Seriously.
Sorry, I won't chime in into that assumed gear talk bashing. What I read from Ctein's post is that the camera matters much less than the photographer. First and most important point in my eyes. That technical progress now allows digital resolutions like the howly grail of photography, 8x10 LF negatives, is not bad per se. The important photographers always chose their tool to express their vision, large or smallish. What's to complain about the fact that low prices bring more people into reach of their tool of choice? (Besides the fact that this overheated economy might ruin our planet all too soon)
And then: That fan-boyish, brand-advocatish nattering doesn't have to bother me/us. It's a permanent repetition of quarter-knowledge, most of the times not even worth noticing. Comments on TOP I read selectively. And at least most of the printed magazines take their part in the game, trying to accomodate as many advertisers as possible through fueling gear purchase fever. I canceled my subscriptions to them already a while ago.
So I do not suffer from too much gear talk as long as I am not forced to digest it. Images are important and far more interesting, as well as the creative processes behind them. To find a good source for *that* however is difficult.
I think one of the underlying problems is there are too many camera choices out there, all doing much the same thing.
People want some way to evaluate this excess of choice and pick one (or two) cameras that are going to help them do the job of making decent photos.
Second problem is people are looking in the wrong places for the answer. Instead of looking at cameras, people should be looking at photographs, then the photographer behind the camera then the camera.
There's also this curious disconnect in people's minds between what the camera is capable of and the level of skill + talent required to make a good image. I guess the problem here is that no novice has ever painted a masterpiece but more than one novice has fluked a good photo.
Mark, your blog is a fine example of what a modest level of equipment (Olympus m43 + image editor) can achieve, in the the right hands.