The search for "accuracy"... fed up

[Jorgen Udvang]

It's 3 in the morning and I can't sleep, so here's a rant, a rant for the OP, for myself and for anybody else who can be bothered to spend time reading my sleepless ramblings:

Henri Cartier-Bresson is supposed to have said "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" or something along those lines. As much as I admire his photographic work, I've never agreed with that claim. I like sharpness. But sharpness is just an element that can be used, or not used, as part of a photograph. It's not in my view the objective of photography. The same thing goes for accuracy.

Is accuracy the target? In that case, we don't need photographers, but something along the lines of a technically perfected version of Google's street view photography. Would I have admired David Burnett's photos more if they were more accurate, taken with the latest, greatest in MFDB technology instead of that old Speed Graphic that he keeps schlepping around?.

Of course not.

There's a reason why Instagram is the new photographic "thing". Photography has become so accurate that any halfway skilled camera owner can make photos that look technically good or even great. So people "create" with Instagram or Art Filters or other cool software. Still, we are on this more or less pointless search for something even cleaner, better, more detailed, more colourful... and more accurate.

But where's the creativity in all that? By all means, it's no problem making creative photos with an "accurate" camera, but good photographers have created art with Instamatics and Brownies as well. For paid work and stock photography, the D800 or any other super-duper-top-of-the-line-DSLR is probably the perfect machinery, and in a few years, there will be something even more perfect for that. That's why we need those machines; to make a living.

Great art, on the other hand, rarely had much to do with accuracy. Not even Rembrandt painted reality. He painted his perception of reality. So why look for accuracy? Look for the tool that fits your work flow and that renders photos according to your perception of reality. That may be an Instamatic, an iPhone or the Hasselblad Ferrari Edition, but I suspect you've already found that in your Mamiya.

End of rant. Now: The Bed :lecture:

 

[Shelby Lewis]

I simply meant that I was fed up with trying to find a tool the accurately produced (without jumping through hoops) what I saw in my mind... which is totally different than the accuracy you speak of.

For me, the color characteristics of the files from my D800 are tough to deal with and look very little like the scene I captured, even with a custom WB and all that jazz...

So, I'm speaking of a camera that matches and renders more closely my view of the world... not the "scientifically accurate" camera.

Sorry if unclear.

 

[richard.L]

I've two additional thoughts; I'll post only one.

To become a strong chess player, you must "play" (be around) strong players.
To increase any physical skill (body memory) you must be around those who have such skills.

This isn't that place.


The other is about "the hare"... un-posted.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Trying to make some friends, eh...

I've two additional thoughts; I'll post only one.

To become a strong chess player, you must "play" (be around) strong players.
To increase any physical skill (body memory) you must be around those who have such skills.

This isn't that place.


The other is about "the hare"... un-posted.

 

[wentbackward]

I've been very distressed with MFD for a year now. A whole raft of failures of gear, some dodgy dealers ripped me off, all combined with a system which I just did not like and cost me a fortune. In the end I had to go and shoot what I previously enjoyed, to find myself. Mamiya 7II, Mamiya C330 and a 4x5 Toyo. Now I'm using an RZ ProIID and a Linhof techno, all I can say is that I feel like I can breath again. I also have roll film holders as backup, which I couldn't do with the DF and my confidence has been shot to bits.

Recently, at my daughters 5th birthday, I had left the DSLR battery on charge at home. I had to shoot the whole thing on MF and I only had an 50 f4.5 (was intending to get a group shot with it)! I was chasing kids around indoors, with a slow lens and an RZ. I expected it to be a disaster. It wasn't, I did not think about the camera. I have vivid memories of wresting with and regretting the DF in similar situations, but I can't even recall using the RZ at the recent party, I just know it was what I used that day.

I can tell you I was actually miserable, felt really down and just wanted to go back to when I enjoyed photography. When I came back from a short hike after switching to a Techno, I felt alive again, energized and good. I knew I needed the flexibility of a view camera and my first outing I was shooting a mountain, then a bench on path and then chasing butterflies. Suddenly I was free again, liberated and in a zone where I feel comfortable

I'm not recommending either platform (you had the RZ anyway), but am saying that you need to find that system that fades away when you're using it, so its you the photographer, out there making images. The clues must be there in your past, they take some soul-searching.

Paul

 

[Shashin]

It is important for me that cameras click..

 

[Bill_Green]

In summation ... (IMO), undefined or hazy purpose can often be at the root of dissatisfaction and frustration. If we jump around in purpose without thought and philosophical pondering, if we do not focus our efforts, we will jump from one tool to the next without ever mastering one that was well chosen for the purpose we creatively defined before doing anything else.

Your thoughts?

-Marc

I agree with every word. The problem comes in when you have more than one purpose, but can only afford to buy into one camera system (or lighting system). Further, some things are at odds even within a singular purpose. Take for example landscape photography. Landscape photographers all want the best possibly quality, but some of us also want to be able to travel light and fast. Light and fast, and high quality landscapes are at odds. Wide angle landscapes or wildlife? Chasing the light or wait for the light? It gets complex fast when you can only afford a single system. You can shoot great landscapes with a DSLR or an 8x10, but the process is totally different. You can shoot fashion or portraits with anything from APS-C to 20x24 Polaroid, but while the end product may be similar, the process couldn't be more different.

One thing that I love about this forum is the mix of amateurs (people who take pictures for the love of the process as much as the end result) and professionals (people who make pictures for a paycheck). Professionals ultimately only care about two things -- that the gear can deliver the expected results and the check clears. Amateurs take pictures for the love of the entire process including how the camera feels in their hands. Some professionals have a little amateur in them, some look at cameras like a carpenter looks at a hammer. Neither path is more right than the other.

I'm one of those people who needs to be inspired by my gear and I can't and don't take equal pictures with non-equal equipment. Maybe that makes me less of a photographer, I'm OK with that. This is neither something that I strive for nor something that I am proud of. It is merely a fact that I have learned about myself over time. I'm in the process of evaluating a new camera system because I am looking to get better pictures through new gear. Is that naive? Perhaps so, perhaps not. Time will tell.

Do I rely on gear to get me out of a creative funk? Uh, well, maybe. I know I do with music. Different guitars have different voices, different feels, speak differently to me and evoke different things from me. I would love to get a new guitar, but I know that my current instrument is incredibly versatile and capable of handling nearly anything that I want to do. Going back to Marc's comment about purpose, I don't really have a purpose musically, so I chose an instrument that can handle almost anything I throw at it. If I decided to focus on fingerstyle or bluegrass, I would pick a more specialized instrument.

Cameras are, IMO, much more specialized tools because of how they effect the process and the emotional aspect of photography. This is why those of us who cannot buy the latest and greatest, or hop from system to system as projects change, agonize so deeply over what to buy. On a professional level, there is always the pull and tug between what we are shooting now and where we want to go next, which may require very different gear.

 

[MaxKißler]

About two months ago, I went on vacation to Denmark with my girlfriend. I only brought my RZ67 Pro II, a 65mm, a 250mm, lightmeter, filters and a bunch of film along. It was just a real great time.
At the time, this system was completely new to me and I had not shot one roll of film with it before. The interesting thing is: Normally, you can hand me any camera and after two minutes I've understood how it works completely and am already changing custom functions (if there are some of course). But this time, I really had some difficulties to get along with that camera. I shot about 140 images and wasted 20 because one lens had the mirror up collar accidentially raised every now and then without me noticing it.

The point is, since this vacation I never want to part with it and I dare to say, as Marc put it: I've mastered that damned thing! MUP collar? Double check!


The only downside to this system is: With digital there are no real wide angles available. Or let me put it differently, for these fine lenses there is no large enough sensor available...

 

[MaxKißler]

I guess what I tried to say is that one can easily get emotional when it comes to gear. And the question is: Is this "unprofessional"? Will this affect my photography in a negative or maybe even positive manner?

I guess this is up to you and me to find out for ourselves.

 

[Oren Grad]

I've been a bit bummed that a tool (again, for some of us) CAN and DOES make a big difference.

Is it THE difference? I'm not so sure...

I just can't, and I mean CAN'T, subscribe 100% to the idea that it's only "the photographer, not the gear"... there are subtleties to the relationship between the artist and his tools that can't be discounted regardless of whether we're talking trumpet, photography, painting, woodworking, and so forth I do believe it's mostly the photographer. But gear matters. This is an artistically uninspiring time of my life. I go through these times, including periods in my "regular" life where things are pretty damned gray... and reaching for a tool that offers some synergy with my artistic mind is a good way to break through the clouds. I don't feel that synergy right now... thus, this post wondering whether others get fed up with great gear not working well for them.

I've used lots of different cameras over the years. Some have been a delight to hold in the hand - or manipulate on the tripod - and make pictures with - the proverbial comfortable old shoes. Others aren't quite so wonderful but still don't get in the way too badly, and are eminently usable. But there are others still, that I simply don't get along with. This includes some legendary brands/models - they work fine for others, just not for me.

Yes, different tools for different purposes. But even ruling out gross mismatches of means and ends, there are still some cameras that just rub me every which wrong way.

The specifics don't matter, as they'll likely be different for you. But you're not crazy for having an internal alarm ringing to tell you that something isn't quite right.

 

[darr]

When I am 'one' with the camera, it is my eye that sees and then a mechanical process follows to capture what it is that I see with the camera. For me, it is the simplest of cameras that work best. I 'look' with a purpose in mind.

I have lived a long visual arts career beginning with graphic design and ending with professional photography. I am so happy the professional stuff is over so I can finally be an amateur again.

 

[Shashin]

The thing I hate is labeling cameras--that is a landscape camera, that is a documentary camera, etc. Some of my favorite documentary cameras have been panoramic cameras. If the camera inspires, pick it up and then simply figure out how you are going to use it. Large format for bird photography? Why not? Eliot Porter did it.

Like Darr, I like to keep things simple. You shoot something long enough and it becomes second nature. You start seeing like the camera and situations just fall into place. I hate the zoom because you cannot anticipate how it is going to work--there is more to an image than just the focal length.

There is no such thing as the wrong lens, just the wrong solution.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I simply meant that I was fed up with trying to find a tool the accurately produced (without jumping through hoops) what I saw in my mind... which is totally different than the accuracy you speak of.

I don't think they are that different and I do think that they relate to each other, even if we want to think otherwise. I think we tend to get blinded by the technical accuracy, the technical superiority of new gear, and far too often we let that technical wizardry influence on our creative objectives.

Spending time on a forum like this is a double edged sword: On one side, there's a lot of inspiration and ideas to be picked up and exchanged due to the large amount of skilled, talented and successful photographers here. On the other side, there's the constant drive to pick up the latest, greatest gear that is supposed to add that extra, final touch to our photos. Which of course will be replaced by another piece of gear that will add another extra, final touch next week or next month.

Humans are easily confused and mislead. Only the strongest of us have the confidence to create and follow our own path. Sometimes, we search for advice and wisdom when we should have released ourselves and followed our instincts and our own creative ideas. It isn't certain that it's possible to make a living that way, and different thinkers aren't often treated well in the world anno 2012. So we lean on each other and on technical excellence, hoping that it will bring us forward, hoping that it will help us reach our own goals, finding solutions that match our creative ideas. Most of the time, it will, slowly, to a certain degree.

But that personal, creative accuracy, we can only find within ourselves, by following our own path, by failing and failing and failing again, and maybe, once in a while in the future some time, succeeding in creating that creative harmony that we have been searching for.

It's with the inside of the brain we make photographs, not with some electromechanical device that we carry around. That device is there only to enable us to attach our vision to a piece of film, be it optical or electronic.

 

[Geoff]

Wonderful ideas offered above. Something in these might get you out of the funk. They come and happily, they go.

One part of the discussion hasn't been touched yet - the use of ground glass. This small step - where images are projected first, before the shot is taken, is a key part of the process. For me, it is essential, as it allows discourse between what has just arrived on the screen by my intuition and consideration of the intentions . In large format, and now in tech cameras, this might be a long discussion - over many minutes. In my youth, I admired the patience of LF photographers who would ponder their shot for an hour, waiting until it met the image they had in their minds eye.

Being impatient, I like those discussions to be shorter, more intense, moments of play between differing ideas and views. The tools that serve this are MF with a WLF. With that setup, the interplay between what seemed interesting and then what to make of it is constant, but the easy movement of the camera allows some flexibility. The interplay takes place quickly and intuitively, hopefully producing results of interest later, when there is time to study and think. MFDB extends this into areas of no-cost risk, where one would normally not venture, but still with the hope of finding something not known beforehand.

DSLR cameras (for me) are useful tools but don't engage this process. "Shoot and chimp" is but an offshoot of this, but somehow "gee, did I get it now?" isn't quite the same.

The ground glass gives us the ability to reflect and to consider what we might be making. It allows us to adjust in this intermediate moment when the photograph exists only in the mind and fleetingly projected on a piece of glass. It is not yet taken, but offered as a proposal. And there, a negotiation between instinct and appraisal takes place - the photographer choosing how far in either direction this shot will go.

This intense concentration is not always easy to muster. Sometimes it flows, sometimes not. Often its not the shots we thought was good, but rather one that slipped in as a "maybe". But like a good race, writing, or drawing, the quiet days before the shoot matter as well, the peaceful time when one is not shooting.

And funks? Well, they make us rethink and re-appraise, to find new purpose and move on from old answers. Not much fun, but they too have a reason.

 

[richard.L]

...

For me, the color characteristics of the files from my D800 are tough to deal with and look very little like the scene I captured, even with a custom WB and all that jazz...

So, I'm speaking of a camera that matches and renders more closely my view of the world..
Sorry if unclear.

With that clarification; you want a COLOR you like.

You will get (those/that) answers here.
Everyone has a favorite color, and camera-ware that provides them.

Anyway that you arrive at #66CD00 or #D44B54 seems so easily done, as to be almost obvious. In this case, I understand the answers you've been getting.

And at that, I can offer nothing more. Best of luck.

 

[gogopix]

Originally Posted by Shelby Lewis
... I just want to open up a file and smile at the overall quality of it, regardless of subject...

I do that with nearly every DMR file. I wish it were bigger, but otherwise at lower ISOs the quality leaves nothing to be desired.

and over the years I found that to be the best test! I would expand a bit...Rather than analyzing files, are you happy with the process from raising the camera to the subject to viewing or printing?

I started with Kodak folding cameras and was satisfied, got a Nikon fg on my honeymoon and found nikkor lenses were sharp and satisfying... got my wife a used Leica... and we both smiled; this was photography, not just picture taking.
Ive since gone through Contax MF and 6 backs, and that was just great. Then I bought the R9/DMR and some fantastic lenses, and the smile returned, that produced images that just had a different something (some C645 pix too, dont get me wrong)

Along the way, I got my wife a Digilux 2, and again there was a 'tickle' factor in the richness of images and flexibility of use. Then I got an M8, M8.2 (for a day LOL) the an M9, and that was justwent from smiles to sheer enjoyment (though not the spectacular images of the MF)

Along the way I've tried Sigma 14, Kodak SLRc, Pentax, Hassey, Alpa,

Sold the M9 and started renting the S2 as the 'system of choice' Great system, but the smile faded for ergonomic reasons.

Back to the M9-P...and the smiles are back (as well as a higher percentages of keepers.

You say you look back on thge Leaf fondly...there's a message there. [I see you statement about "my view of the world" and that just seems SO right as the major criterion for whether the system is doing what you want.]

A large part for me (and SO) with now M9, DMR and Digilux (and Alpa for the big stuff) is that they just work all around for us...whether I try to emulate Doug with DMR (unsuccessfully )or do 15,000x5,000 panos with the M9 I just LIKE the experience all around...and the images (as judged by others) shows it.

I think what Doug eloquantly said, and I am struggling to express is that this is a part emotional as well as technical thing, gear in photography. I am also a serious amateur,not a prefessional photographer... What I am is a degreed philosophy major (whatever tha's worth) so I find these kinds of issues compelling from a personal point of view.

So as the trite aphorism says, "it is the jouney that is as important as the goal" so enjoy you exploration, and I wish you lucK

regards
Victor

 

[fotografz]

I agree with every word. The problem comes in when you have more than one purpose, but can only afford to buy into one camera system (or lighting system). Further, some things are at odds even within a singular purpose. Take for example landscape photography. Landscape photographers all want the best possibly quality, but some of us also want to be able to travel light and fast. Light and fast, and high quality landscapes are at odds. Wide angle landscapes or wildlife? Chasing the light or wait for the light? It gets complex fast when you can only afford a single system. You can shoot great landscapes with a DSLR or an 8x10, but the process is totally different. You can shoot fashion or portraits with anything from APS-C to 20x24 Polaroid, but while the end product may be similar, the process couldn't be more different.

One thing that I love about this forum is the mix of amateurs (people who take pictures for the love of the process as much as the end result) and professionals (people who make pictures for a paycheck). Professionals ultimately only care about two things -- that the gear can deliver the expected results and the check clears. Amateurs take pictures for the love of the entire process including how the camera feels in their hands. Some professionals have a little amateur in them, some look at cameras like a carpenter looks at a hammer. Neither path is more right than the other.

I'm one of those people who needs to be inspired by my gear and I can't and don't take equal pictures with non-equal equipment. Maybe that makes me less of a photographer, I'm OK with that. This is neither something that I strive for nor something that I am proud of. It is merely a fact that I have learned about myself over time. I'm in the process of evaluating a new camera system because I am looking to get better pictures through new gear. Is that naive? Perhaps so, perhaps not. Time will tell.

Do I rely on gear to get me out of a creative funk? Uh, well, maybe. I know I do with music. Different guitars have different voices, different feels, speak differently to me and evoke different things from me. I would love to get a new guitar, but I know that my current instrument is incredibly versatile and capable of handling nearly anything that I want to do. Going back to Marc's comment about purpose, I don't really have a purpose musically, so I chose an instrument that can handle almost anything I throw at it. If I decided to focus on fingerstyle or bluegrass, I would pick a more specialized instrument.

Cameras are, IMO, much more specialized tools because of how they effect the process and the emotional aspect of photography. This is why those of us who cannot buy the latest and greatest, or hop from system to system as projects change, agonize so deeply over what to buy. On a professional level, there is always the pull and tug between what we are shooting now and where we want to go next, which may require very different gear.

Sorry, I wanted to respond to this Bill but was working ... LOL!

"More than one purpose but can only afford one system". This is the fall-out from the so called "Golden Age" of photographic equipment in the digital age. In past most heavily involved photography enthusiasts often had multiple systems ... at least a 35mm something and a Medium Format something ... with some also into large format. They all used film and the characteristics were determined by choice of film. Horses for courses. You may have worked your way up to a Hasselblad V and then kept it for decades ... (where mastery was often achieved BTW). The most we worried about was what the next film would bring to the party for $5.

However, if you scan the history of achievements in photographic art, each photographer of note was generally associated with a format. What camera did HCB use? Ansel Adams? Diane Arbus? Etc., etc., etc..

Now, we are a pack of schizoid maniacs that want to be HCB, Ansel Adams and Diane Arbus all at the same time. Jacks of all trades and masters of none. What is really odd is proudly proclaiming our lack of focus.

For some, that multiple process is all that matters, but then don't whine when the personal photographic art gets stalled or goes nowhere. Perhaps it is better to admit that we are fondlers and like all kinds of cool gear, and stop trying so desperately to be an accomplished photographer?

Yet, there are some who avoid this pitfall even on this forum ... take Doug for example ... we ALL know his purpose, what he uses, and what wonders he accomplishes. He looks at change suspiciously and with great reluctance rather than always looking for what is next. The proof of that is what he still uses.

This is not to say that any one accomplished shooter won't move around in their choice of format or gear, or explore alternatives ... just not all at the same time, and always with a well defined purpose in mind.

"Looking to gear for inspiration" IMO, this is a trap and an endlessly repetitious trip to nowhere. The movie "Ground Hog Day" sums it up perfectly. I know it well, been in that movie myself (it takes one to know one : -)

Inspiration should fuel choices. I was inspired by the humanity of the early Leica shooters ... as a young man I wanted to be sensitive to the extraordinary in everyday life like that, only do my own take on it. I recall my first Leica M camera like it was yesterday. To this day, 35 years later, I know exactly why I pick up a M and what I'm creatively after. Whenever I lose that focus, the work immediately goes to Hell in a hand-basket.

While photo enthusiasts are indeed free to do as they wish with no income constraints, this can also lead to being an undulating mass of unfocused emotions ... I can do anything, often ends up being a curse when it comes to purpose. It is the "tail wagging the dog" syndrome.

Cameras are indeed specialized tools to some degree ... for a reason. It allows us to match the tool to the purpose more finely. Without some definition of purpose, we end up with a Santa bag full of gear ... or lamenting that we can't have it all ... or jumping on some do-it-all compromise, and proclaim that "good enough is good enough" ... until the next chapter of Ground Hog day presents itself.

BTW, professional photographers DO love fine gear ... but tend to be more focused on intent and purpose. IF they indulge a bit in alternative stuff, they rent it because the intent is some defined result, not owning the stuff.

-Marc

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Interesting thoughts from everyone.

I find cameras to be less specialized than my musical gear... in a nuanced sense... and, in a way, I think it's much easier nowadays to take a new camera system and get good results fairly quickly. With my trumpets, for example, the smallest change (leadpipe bore size, mouthpiece, bell material, even the weight of the caps over/under the valves) make a measurable and noticeable change to even the untrained ear. Not so much with photography given the post-processing variable. And these aren't just changes in aural nuance (on my trumpet), but in the ability to play certain literature. The same can be applied to camera systems... changes in lenses, whether a system has movements or not, different sensors... to certain degree.

But, like cameras, when you put a good horn up to your face and blow there's either magic or not. I don't equate this to how much time I put in on that particular horn... I chalk this up to a certain synergy between the physical/psychological makeup of the player and whether that matches the horn. You just know that the horn is going to do what you ask of it. My current Bb trumpet is this one, by Adams:

It's not the typical Bb trumpet, but we just "get along"... and I tried many, many trumpets before moving to this one. The previous horn I'd had for almost 20 years and I was "making it work", but a single afternoon with this horn made me realize that I'd wasted a lot of effort over the years on my previous horn by trying to make it do what it didn't want. I will agree, however, that at a less accomplished point in my life I might not have noticed the difference as quickly, but the synergy was still important and confidence inspiring.

I was also a designer for almost 10 years of my life... and the same held true for lead holders, t-squares, CADD computer software, you name it. If the tool didn't work well in the hand or on the screen, I pitched it if I could and tried another... eventually settling on a chosen toolbox.

What am I getting at? That I don't always buy into the "stick with something and make it work" ideology. Once you hit a certain technical level, synergy and "feel" become an important part of the equation... and with digital photography, I think the "feel" of the files is part of that (along with the ergonomics of the camera system)... so I don't buy into the "he's stuck with a particular camera system for x years, so he must be better" vibe that I often get here. I see sticking with a particular camera as a sign of synergy... some get to it quickly, others go through an intensive period of trying various machines out until settling on a given platform.

What is also at the heart of this is, indeed, intention. And intention is where cross purposes have made my life (and many others, lol) difficult. I agree whole-heartedly with Bill Green in that some of us do have both "money making" work and artistic work that don't pull from the same tool box, yet not enough cash to support those multiple toolboxes. I'm in that boat... I shoot weddings to support my family and no MF kit is going to pull that off in my market without me having to charge a rate that would put me out of business. Yet, I'm also a doctoral student in music and have designs on following a more artistic bent with my photographic work. Which do I choose? Well, I'm leaning towards the art, but the family comes first. Some would say "well, make a decision damnit!"

It's not that easy when you find value and meaning in all these varying and disparate artforms/crafts.

IMHO, as a musician first, the journey IS just as important... but my particular intention is to create photographs that I love, enjoy the process of taking those photographs (the most difficult part for me presently, thus the consternation), and to grow as an artist (also struggling)... and as a pretty experienced photographer, switching has been part of what has made some of these things more crystalline.

It's also been part of the trouble.

So... I default to finding value in the journey, learning from mistakes (and then leaving them in the past), and moving forward with greater purpose.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

What am I getting at? That I don't always buy into the "stick with something and make it work" ideology. Once you hit a certain technical level, synergy and "feel" become an important part of the equation... and with digital photography, I think the "feel" of the files is part of that (along with the ergonomics of the camera system)... so I don't buy into the "he's stuck with a particular camera system for x years, so he must be better" vibe that I often get here. I see sticking with a particular camera as a sign of synergy... some get to it quickly, others go through an intensive period of trying various machines out until settling on a given platform.


Totally agree, like I said I can shoot anything on the market and get winning images. It ain't the freaking camera . I can spend 5 minutes with it and I'll be fine. Bottom line you have enough experience with cameras they are all basically the same process. Sure getting used to something takes some time no doubt. I'm sorry this feeling your having has zilch to do with a physical object per say it's more something that you can get a result from and you feel good. Key here it's you and your emotions. I shot every system on the planet some I like some I hate and some I feel I blend better with and can work it the way I want. As a Pro its whatever works as a hobbyist it's what I may enjoy more shooting more. I think it's gets very confusing on being parcel to a brand and not exploring other things. Dare I say kool laid drinkers. All these systems are just to damn good now than even 2 years ago. If you can't get a great image it's you folks sorry. We simply can't blame the cam , not now the all produce. If anything it's a comfort level that lets you enjoy shooting something. If you hate it mentally you will get **** for images, if you like it just like a driver in golf you'll hit it better. That's simply a feeling nothing more. The talent is there just maybe not like something. I get that what I don't get is this mastering stuff, your a long time photographer you can master or get by with anything at least you better or your check will go to the next guy, that's part of being a Pro as your job is to solve problems and you need to work it out or your broke. As you said the D800 makes you money so does mine, to me that's the end of the story. I want to feel good I may shoot a M9 but that won't make me money. Decide if your a Pro or you want to be a hobbyist. Just grab the damn hammer and get to work. But you need to get the funk to go away, frankly whatever it frwaking takes do it. Been here done that and for some it maybe just buying something new to get the spark back, for me it seems to work for awhile . Don't like it than sell it and try something else. It does you no good to buy a system and force yourself to like it. This stuff is disposable, there is no value here. As a Pro the only value is you get paid . PERIOD

The journey here is your life being a photographer and there ain't much better as a profession for the soul. Gear has nothing to do with that, it never will.

 

[fotografz]

Interesting thoughts from everyone.

I find cameras to be less specialized than my musical gear... in a nuanced sense... and, in a way, I think it's much easier nowadays to take a new camera system and get good results fairly quickly. With my trumpets, for example, the smallest change (leadpipe bore size, mouthpiece, bell material, even the weight of the caps over/under the valves) make a measurable and noticeable change to even the untrained ear. Not so much with photography given the post-processing variable. And these aren't just changes in aural nuance (on my trumpet), but in the ability to play certain literature. The same can be applied to camera systems... changes in lenses, whether a system has movements or not, different sensors... to certain degree.

But, like cameras, when you put a good horn up to your face and blow there's either magic or not. I don't equate this to how much time I put in on that particular horn... I chalk this up to a certain synergy between the physical/psychological makeup of the player and whether that matches the horn. You just know that the horn is going to do what you ask of it. My current Bb trumpet is this one, by Adams:

It's not the typical Bb trumpet, but we just "get along"... and I tried many, many trumpets before moving to this one. The previous horn I'd had for almost 20 years and I was "making it work", but a single afternoon with this horn made me realize that I'd wasted a lot of effort over the years on my previous horn by trying to make it do what it didn't want. I will agree, however, that at a less accomplished point in my life I might not have noticed the difference as quickly, but the synergy was still important and confidence inspiring.

I was also a designer for almost 10 years of my life... and the same held true for lead holders, t-squares, CADD computer software, you name it. If the tool didn't work well in the hand or on the screen, I pitched it if I could and tried another... eventually settling on a chosen toolbox.

What am I getting at? That I don't always buy into the "stick with something and make it work" ideology. Once you hit a certain technical level, synergy and "feel" become an important part of the equation... and with digital photography, I think the "feel" of the files is part of that (along with the ergonomics of the camera system)... so I don't buy into the "he's stuck with a particular camera system for x years, so he must be better" vibe that I often get here. I see sticking with a particular camera as a sign of synergy... some get to it quickly, others go through an intensive period of trying various machines out until settling on a given platform.

What is also at the heart of this is, indeed, intention. And intention is where cross purposes have made my life (and many others, lol) difficult. I agree whole-heartedly with Bill Green in that some of us do have both "money making" work and artistic work that don't pull from the same tool box, yet not enough cash to support those multiple toolboxes. I'm in that boat... I shoot weddings to support my family and no MF kit is going to pull that off in my market without me having to charge a rate that would put me out of business. Yet, I'm also a doctoral student in music and have designs on following a more artistic bent with my photographic work. Which do I choose? Well, I'm leaning towards the art, but the family comes first. Some would say "well, make a decision damnit!"

It's not that easy when you find value and meaning in all these varying and disparate artforms/crafts.

IMHO, as a musician first, the journey IS just as important... but my particular intention is to create photographs that I love, enjoy the process of taking those photographs (the most difficult part for me presently, thus the consternation), and to grow as an artist (also struggling)... and as a pretty experienced photographer, switching has been part of what has made some of these things more crystalline.

It's also been part of the trouble.

So... I default to finding value in the journey, learning from mistakes (and then leaving them in the past), and moving forward with greater purpose.

Ah yes, BUT ... you can't get off that easy

You found an artistic voice you liked with the RZ, yet left it very fast ... so, it isn't what you say, it is what you do.

You couldn't focus the RZ well enough, well either could I. So I made it work to get to the images I preferred. That is what I was speaking to regarding sticking with something ... and yes, mastery will come faster for some, compared to others.

As far as shooting weddings for money, well both you and I know you most certainly do not need a D800 to do that. There are thousands of darned good wedding photographers, even famous ones, using far less and going for the images that sell because it is a business to feed their families. Their wedding photography art is in their eye, not the camera.

Not that struggle is ever eliminated, however, my point is that the struggle should be much more about what, not how.

-Marc