Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Toys are nice, but contentment is rewarding

20110909-_dsc2925-2

Megapixels this and aperture that and all those video and in camera features, addons and toys. It is interesting watching other photographers drool over toys. Don't get me wrong, toys are awesome. Toys are geek, shiek and not for the meek. But at some point, photography has to be more about the art than the tech. 

When I first got into digital photography, without an ounce of training, I was completely about the next toy, gadget or gizmo. I drooled over other photographer's tripods, not because my tripod didn't work, but rather because it was new, cool and exciting. Lenses, filters, megapixels, remotes, shutter speeds, digital horizon lines... oh my. All of that used to make my lens telescopic; used to. 

What I learned while I was learning photography, was that I spent so much time focused on what's new that I didn't figure out how to fully utilize what I had and my photography wasn't any better for having all of those toys accumulating in my growing collection of bags. 

I had every filter imaginable, but still shot with kit lenses. I had toys I bought for foul weather shooting that turned out to be more time consuming to use and took up way too much room in my bag while my friends, with much nicer cameras than mine were using plastic grocery bag. I had bags of toys that I had no idea how to apply to my photography.

So I gave up my toy quest, for the most part, and focused on how to use what I had. This doesn't mean that I don't look for toys anymore, but rather I look for toys that I need to take me to next level, or to accomplish a goal I have.

Not long after I bought my first DSLR, an Olympus E-510, my quest began on what would be next... possibly an Olympus E-3 or a move into Medium Format and that was not long after my E-510 purchase; I mean a few days later. But as that dream came crashing down to reality, thanks in part to my wife's stipulation that I couldn't by any more toys for a long time (years), I learned to use what I had. I learned my equipment's purposes and limitations. I learned how to get the shot I wanted with what I had. I learned and I learned a lot. 

As I learned and applied this knowledge, my photography made a sudden and swift shifts into the realm of interesting. It wasn't but a year later that I wanted to upgrade my camera, but for the right reasons now rather than for the simple quest of it. I was on the road to creative understanding and growth.

I spent a year pondering the shift between Canon and Nikon. Not because they were any better than the another or even better than my Olympus, but because of the one measurement I had on performance that would justify an upgrade; High ISO Noise Performance. Before I made my choice, I had a long discussion with my good friend Nathan and he argued for Nikon as my choice. His arguement wasn't because he shoots Nikon or that he had a bias for Nikon, even though he does in both cases, but rather because he and two other photogrpahers in my close knit group of photographers shoot Nikons and we could share lenses, flashes and other toys. Now this made complete sense to me. 

Then I visited my local photography shop, Focal Point. Mike, the owner of Focal Point, knew that I was waffling between Nikon and Canon, and was hoping, I think, to convince to move towards the Canon 7D, which has great High ISO Performance. So he was a little taken aback when I asked about the Nikon D7000. 

After some debate about my reasoning behind changing my mind... Mike broke out the Nikon D200. It was easily $500 cheaper than the D7000 and he made this arguement; "Pros were using this camera as their primary body for years. It was good enough for the pros a few years ago, and nothing about it has changed. Mike's arguement was take the money saved on buying this great performing camera and invest in some quality glass. I did just that.

I tell this story to accetuate my point... Had I walked into his store a few years before with the same agenda, I would not have left with the D200. I would have walked out with the D7000 and one lens of less quality. You might be asking what type of quality lens could I get with only $500? I got a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($500) in addition to the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 ($100) and the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 ($500). I got the tools I needed to accomplish what I wanted. I didn't get get toys because my photography isn't about toys.

I have been asked why the 50mm f/1.8 and not the f/1.4. The answer is easy. As a portrait lens, I shoot at f/5.6 primarily. So what benefit do I get from spending an additional $300 for the f/1.4 when I wouldn't use those extra stops of light or shallower depth of field in my portrait work.

When your photography is about the toys, then your explaination of your photos shifts from the photograph itself, exposure, composition, subject, emotion and light, to what you used to get it. "I used my 85mm f/1.4 with a Hoya ND10 filter stacked on a B+W Multicoated Circular Polarizer sitting on my Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripod using my Nikon Wireless RF/IR trigger." All I hear when people do this is "Dollars, dollars, more dollars and chaching for my camera bling." That is far less interesting to me than the work itself.

I have applied this to software as well. I used Photoshop 7 clear up to two years ago. I then got my fingers on a copy of CS2. CS2 was awesome, but it was around this time that I was learning the toys principal and I didn't upgrade to CS3 or CS4. It wasn't until this last year that I finally upgraded to CS5 and I only did it because the tools in the software matched what my needs were. I saved a ton of money, and according to others a lot of stress from bug related issues, avoiding CS3 and CS4 and focused on maximizing my skills on what I had and for that I have a stronger workflow, a stronger skillset and a stronger will to avoid the commercialization of art production.

So are you still focused on toys or is your focus shifting to gettting the most out of what you have? Let me know in the comments.

 

 

 

 

Toys are nice, but contentment is rewarding

20110909-_dsc2925-2

Megapixels this and aperture that and all those video and in camera features, addons and toys. It is interesting watching other photographers drool over toys. Don't get me wrong, toys are awesome. Toys are geek, shiek and not for the meek. But at some point, photography has to be more about the art than the tech. 

When I first got into digital photography, without an ounce of training, I was completely about the next toy, gadget or gizmo. I drooled over other photographer's tripods, not because my tripod didn't work, but rather because it was new, cool and exciting. Lenses, filters, megapixels, remotes, shutter speeds, digital horizon lines... oh my. All of that used to make my lens telescopic; used to. 

What I learned while I was learning photography, was that I spent so much time focused on what's new that I didn't figure out how to fully utilize what I had and my photography wasn't any better for having all of those toys accumulating in my growing collection of bags. 

I had every filter imaginable, but still shot with kit lenses. I had toys I bought for foul weather shooting that turned out to be more time consuming to use and took up way too much room in my bag while my friends, with much nicer cameras than mine were using plastic grocery bag. I had bags of toys that I had no idea how to apply to my photography.

So I gave up my toy quest, for the most part, and focused on how to use what I had. This doesn't mean that I don't look for toys anymore, but rather I look for toys that I need to take me to next level, or to accomplish a goal I have.

Not long after I bought my first DSLR, an Olympus E-510, my quest began on what would be next... possibly an Olympus E-3 or a move into Medium Format and that was not long after my E-510 purchase; I mean a few days later. But as that dream came crashing down to reality, thanks in part to my wife's stipulation that I couldn't by any more toys for a long time (years), I learned to use what I had. I learned my equipment's purposes and limitations. I learned how to get the shot I wanted with what I had. I learned and I learned a lot. 

As I learned and applied this knowledge, my photography made a sudden and swift shifts into the realm of interesting. It wasn't but a year later that I wanted to upgrade my camera, but for the right reasons now rather than for the simple quest of it. I was on the road to creative understanding and growth.

I spent a year pondering the shift between Canon and Nikon. Not because they were any better than the another or even better than my Olympus, but because of the one measurement I had on performance that would justify an upgrade; High ISO Noise Performance. Before I made my choice, I had a long discussion with my good friend Nathan and he argued for Nikon as my choice. His arguement wasn't because he shoots Nikon or that he had a bias for Nikon, even though he does in both cases, but rather because he and two other photogrpahers in my close knit group of photographers shoot Nikons and we could share lenses, flashes and other toys. Now this made complete sense to me. 

Then I visited my local photography shop, Focal Point. Mike, the owner of Focal Point, knew that I was waffling between Nikon and Canon, and was hoping, I think, to convince to move towards the Canon 7D, which has great High ISO Performance. So he was a little taken aback when I asked about the Nikon D7000. 

After some debate about my reasoning behind changing my mind... Mike broke out the Nikon D200. It was easily $500 cheaper than the D7000 and he made this arguement; "Pros were using this camera as their primary body for years. It was good enough for the pros a few years ago, and nothing about it has changed. Mike's arguement was take the money saved on buying this great performing camera and invest in some quality glass. I did just that.

I tell this story to accetuate my point... Had I walked into his store a few years before with the same agenda, I would not have left with the D200. I would have walked out with the D7000 and one lens of less quality. You might be asking what type of quality lens could I get with only $500? I got a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($500) in addition to the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 ($100) and the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 ($500). I got the tools I needed to accomplish what I wanted. I didn't get get toys because my photography isn't about toys.

I have been asked why the 50mm f/1.8 and not the f/1.4. The answer is easy. As a portrait lens, I shoot at f/5.6 primarily. So what benefit do I get from spending an additional $300 for the f/1.4 when I wouldn't use those extra stops of light or shallower depth of field in my portrait work.

When your photography is about the toys, then your explaination of your photos shifts from the photograph itself, exposure, composition, subject, emotion and light, to what you used to get it. "I used my 85mm f/1.4 with a Hoya ND10 filter stacked on a B+W Multicoated Circular Polarizer sitting on my Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripod using my Nikon Wireless RF/IR trigger." All I hear when people do this is "Dollars, dollars, more dollars and chaching for my camera bling." That is far less interesting to me than the work itself.

I have applied this to software as well. I used Photoshop 7 clear up to two years ago. I then got my fingers on a copy of CS2. CS2 was awesome, but it was around this time that I was learning the toys principal and I didn't upgrade to CS3 or CS4. It wasn't until this last year that I finally upgraded to CS5 and I only did it because the tools in the software matched what my needs were. I saved a ton of money, and according to others a lot of stress from bug related issues, avoiding CS3 and CS4 and focused on maximizing my skills on what I had and for that I have a stronger workflow, a stronger skillset and a stronger will to avoid the commercialization of art production.

So are you still focused on toys or is your focus shifting to gettting the most out of what you have? Let me know in the comments.