This is good. Relating the links between the tool, the process, and what we do with it is heart of the matter.
My personal take on it can be summed up with a simple observation ... when I pick up any photographic tool my first thought is "I wonder what can be done with this." That question is mitigated by previous work that shows what can be done ... so the question goes a step further ... "What can I do with this?"
This leads to thinking about "purpose." As Peter has alluded to, sometimes "the process is the purpose." Just doing it is the reason to do it. I think most of us can agree on that aspect to some degree or another, and it defines our "personal journey."
However, if just the process was the overriding driver, one would not need much to achieve that goal. Like an artist with a small sketch pad and pencil. No "David" or "Mona Lisa" would ever have come to light then.
So, the question is ... what role does the end result play? Of course that is quite personal. It can vary so widely that it's almost impossible to define. But without end purpose, does the journey have any meaning? How do you gauge the tool and your use of it?
My favorite quote on this subject came from Picasso ... "A painting kept in the closet, might as well be kept in the head."
Now what does all that have to do with the subject at hand?
Some of us have a built in purpose in one way or another. People like Guy, and to a lesser degree me, have an end result we know going in. I took up the unlikely role of "Wedding Photographer" for just that reason ... it gave my photographic journey some structure and purpose rather than "inventing" one. Now if I allowed the practicality of the end result to dictate the tools and my use of it, a couple of Digital Rebels and zooms would suffice ... which is exactly what many Wedding shooters limit themselves to. If you have talent and vision the clients will be quite happy with results from this. The question then becomes "will you be happy?" If you "settle" for that, then maybe. If you think there is "more lurking there," then maybe not. I reside firmly in the camp of "I know there's more" and I want to find it. It's what drives me.
Also, much has been laid at the doorstep of "practicality." "MF is so expensive," "My pocketbook defines my limits," My clients don't need it," and so on. So a whole sector of photographic experience becomes off-limits for exploration. Like "David" being carved out of Sandstone because it's more practical than Marble.
Again, to draw from my art experience ... I know painters struggling in anonymity who make sacrifices to work with certain tools (I was one of them.) Anyone who paints knows that certain rare earth pigments can cost as much as a Canon L lens. Yet the color is like no other. Practically speaking there are lesser substitutes that would suffice, but these painters still shun them refusing to "settle."
Frankly, I personally think "practicality" and it's evil twin "impatience" has led to, or is leading to, the "dumbing down of beauty."
My personal take on it can be summed up with a simple observation ... when I pick up any photographic tool my first thought is "I wonder what can be done with this." That question is mitigated by previous work that shows what can be done ... so the question goes a step further ... "What can I do with this?"
This leads to thinking about "purpose." As Peter has alluded to, sometimes "the process is the purpose." Just doing it is the reason to do it. I think most of us can agree on that aspect to some degree or another, and it defines our "personal journey."
However, if just the process was the overriding driver, one would not need much to achieve that goal. Like an artist with a small sketch pad and pencil. No "David" or "Mona Lisa" would ever have come to light then.
So, the question is ... what role does the end result play? Of course that is quite personal. It can vary so widely that it's almost impossible to define. But without end purpose, does the journey have any meaning? How do you gauge the tool and your use of it?
My favorite quote on this subject came from Picasso ... "A painting kept in the closet, might as well be kept in the head."
Now what does all that have to do with the subject at hand?
Some of us have a built in purpose in one way or another. People like Guy, and to a lesser degree me, have an end result we know going in. I took up the unlikely role of "Wedding Photographer" for just that reason ... it gave my photographic journey some structure and purpose rather than "inventing" one. Now if I allowed the practicality of the end result to dictate the tools and my use of it, a couple of Digital Rebels and zooms would suffice ... which is exactly what many Wedding shooters limit themselves to. If you have talent and vision the clients will be quite happy with results from this. The question then becomes "will you be happy?" If you "settle" for that, then maybe. If you think there is "more lurking there," then maybe not. I reside firmly in the camp of "I know there's more" and I want to find it. It's what drives me.
Also, much has been laid at the doorstep of "practicality." "MF is so expensive," "My pocketbook defines my limits," My clients don't need it," and so on. So a whole sector of photographic experience becomes off-limits for exploration. Like "David" being carved out of Sandstone because it's more practical than Marble.
Again, to draw from my art experience ... I know painters struggling in anonymity who make sacrifices to work with certain tools (I was one of them.) Anyone who paints knows that certain rare earth pigments can cost as much as a Canon L lens. Yet the color is like no other. Practically speaking there are lesser substitutes that would suffice, but these painters still shun them refusing to "settle."
Frankly, I personally think "practicality" and it's evil twin "impatience" has led to, or is leading to, the "dumbing down of beauty."
