The Four Hobbies, and Apparent Expertise

[rdeloe]

I stumbled across this blog post about the "Four Hobbies and Apparent Expertise" this morning while browsing around the Internet.

In the diagram that maps out the four quadrants, replace "Reddit" with "GetDPI" (or any other photography enthusiast web site).

This point from the article resonated with me because I see this phenomenon all the time in our community here on GetDPI:

Say you want to pick up 3D printing, for example. You may go to a community and ask how to get started. This’ll send you down one of four paths: you could be encouraged to buy a printer you can start using right away, or could be encouraged to build your own from an online design, could be pulled into discussing the best filament, or the finer points of CoreXY vs bed slingers. If you want to make some stuff, three of these paths are likely to turn you off the hobby. Similarly, if you love to tinker, three won’t meet that need. And so on.

 

[JoelsFeralPhotography]

Good way to depict lots of hobbies. When I was mountain biking, I always found it funny that when you met other riders on the trail, they first looked at the bike you were riding, then looked at you. I find myself doing the same, but learned long ago, the kit does not make the man/woman.

 

[rdeloe]

Good way to depict lots of hobbies. When I was mountain biking, I always found it funny that when you met other riders on the trail, they first looked at the bike you were riding, then looked at you. I find myself doing the same, but learned long ago, the kit does not make the man/woman.

I think you're right that the broad pattern exists across many equipment-focused activities and hobbies. I found that blog via a post about audiophiles.

What I like about this framing is that it recognizes that some people are in it for the appreciation of the equipment, and that's OK.

I also appreciate the attempt to break down why we shouldn't confuse the kinds of expertise that people have (and why people whose expertise is limited to the quadrant they are in should have the humility to recognize that).

 

[JoelsFeralPhotography]

Yes, rereading it does make me think about my journey in many hobbies. Early on, it was the gear and the idea of “if I had that I would…” and thinking it limited my involvement. And now, I do like talking about photography, but I enjoy doing the photography more. Planning, going out, and editing, it is my happy place. I still like gear, but talking about it isn’t that exciting anymore.
When I first found this forum, I was intimidated by my lack of some of the technical aspects, but that is how I learn. Improving my skills is my goal.

 

[rdeloe]

Yes, rereading it does make me think about my journey in many hobbies. Early on, it was the gear and the idea of “if I had that I would…” and thinking it limited my involvement. And now, I do like talking about photography, but I enjoy doing the photography more. Planning, going out, and editing, it is my happy place. I still like gear, but talking about it isn’t that exciting anymore.
When I first found this forum, I was intimidated by my lack of some of the technical aspects, but that is how I learn. Improving my skills is my goal.

The gear journey can be exciting. I like learning new things, and I enjoy the mechanical side of photography with technical cameras. Building my own equipment has been a parallel source of enjoyment.

But eventually you can reach a point where you have the equipment, knowledge and skill you need to make the photographs you want. The returns from gaining even more knowledge, or from buying new gear, approach zero.

This is a tricky moment for people who want to believe (and tell others) that they are all about making photographs, when in reality they are all about the gear. This is probably unfair to audiophiles, but it's been said that the hardest of the hard core audiophiles "use music to listen to their equipment". I see that in photography too.

What do you do when you realize that no gear you can acquire will make you better able to accomplish the photographic goals you have? This is either a moment of liberation (you are free to focus more clearly on what you want to create through photography) or it's a moment of crisis (you have to confront the fact that you you actually use photographs to play with your equipment).

It sounds to me like you chose liberation.

 

[sbjornda]

This is either a moment of liberation (you are free to focus more clearly on what you want to create through photography) or it's a moment of crisis (you have to confront the fact that you you actually use photographs to play with your equipment).

That seems a little "judgy" to me. I've known lots of "car guys" that enjoy tinkering and don't feel the need to show anyone else their pride and joy. Are they in need of liberation? Or are they already free?

Regards,
Sterling

 

[rdeloe]

I don't think that's a good comparison. People who love tinkering with cars are not trying to create something with their cars. The car is the creation. What they do with the finished car is personal. Many photographers only make pictures for themselves.

That aside, there was no judgement. In fact, the point of the original post is that tinkering and collecting are hobbies too.

Thinking about this a bit more, there's also "liberation" in realizing that it really is about the gear rather than making photographs. Life is short. If owning nice cameras makes a person happy, that's a good thing.

So two kinds of liberation, which for some people can occur together. I like making photographs and I like building equipment. There's no conflict.

If there is a point here, it is that knowing what you are doing is useful and can bring more clarity and focus.

 

[Godfrey]

I guess if I was a psychology-hobbyist interested in the flow of topics and ideas and personality types, and all that, this article would seem fascinating: an analytic way of understanding how people develop ideas and thoughts in the context of their hobby endeavors.

But I'm not. I like making photographs. I talk about gear to the extent that I find gear interesting and fascinating, which is sometime a lot and sometime very little. I talk about the photographs I view in the limited way that my limited background as a student of art and psychology permit, and in the ways that I know another photographer's ambition and struggle permits. I talk about my photographs, and ask questions, in the limited ways that I deal with what I see as issues, problems, and expressions that I hit or missed, in my perception.

Seeing someone came up with a 'clean' four box representation of all that is something I find marginally interesting, somewhat amusing, and definitely not photography. So my interest in it wanes quickly and I go on to thinking about photography, what I have done, what I'm trying to do, what others have done to pique my interests, and what I might do next...

G

Half Full - Santa Clara 2025
Polaroid SLR670x by MiNT
Polaroid 600 B&W​

 

[rdeloe]

I guess if I was a psychology-hobbyist interested in the flow of topics and ideas and personality types, and all that, this article would seem fascinating: an analytic way of understanding how people develop ideas and thoughts in the context of their hobby endeavors.

But I'm not. I like making photographs. I talk about gear to the extent that I find gear interesting and fascinating, which is sometime a lot and sometime very little. I talk about the photographs I view in the limited way that my limited background as a student of art and psychology permit, and in the ways that I know another photographer's ambition and struggle permits. I talk about my photographs, and ask questions, in the limited ways that I deal with what I see as issues, problems, and expressions that I hit or missed, in my perception.

Seeing someone came up with a 'clean' four box representation of all that is something I find marginally interesting, somewhat amusing, and definitely not photography. So my interest in it wanes quickly and I go on to thinking about photography, what I have done, what I'm trying to do, what others have done to pique my interests, and what I might do next...

G

Half Full - Santa Clara 2025
Polaroid SLR670x by MiNT
Polaroid 600 B&W​

That's the beauty of a forum like this. We can engage with the material we find interesting. There's no need to engage with topics we don't find interesting.

For example, I am completely uninterested in the posts about the future of the IQ5 250, the financial situation of Phase One, and whether or not Hasselblad is a viable business based on sales figures. Other people are deeply interested in that topic, so they participate enthusiastically. Because I am not, I don't feel any need to tell them the topics they find interesting are is uninteresting to me.

It's wonderful to have lots of conversations going that allow us to pick and choose the ones we find interesting.

 

[ThdeDude]

I stumbled across this blog post about the "Four Hobbies and Apparent Expertise" this morning while browsing around the Internet.

In the diagram that maps out the four quadrants, replace "Reddit" with "GetDPI" (or any other photography enthusiast web site).

This point from the article resonated with me because I see this phenomenon all the time in our community here on GetDPI:

[Disclaimer - have not yet read any responses]

I differentiated camera users into three groups:

- causal snapshooter,

- experienced trade photographer or keen amateur, and

- serious professional & visual artist.

I wrote in an upcoming publication that these three archetypal/stereotypical photographers can be seen as the three corner of a metaphorical triangle, with the real-life photographer somewhere within the metaphorical triangle.

 

[gurtch]

Very interesting. At 89 years old I maybe had a different start. My father who died an accidental death at age 29 (I was three) was an electrical engineer, but also a very highly regarded Amateur Photographer. I have "Salon Catalogues" showing his work. Later on, I found his old Camera Club that he belonged to (The Miniature Camera Club of Philadelphia), and joined it and got involved in exhibiting and Club Competitions. Out of high school, I had a tuition & fees scholarship to the Tyler School of Fine Art at Temple University, Philadelphia. (I did not finish). I ended up getting two engineering degrees from Drexel University in Philadelphia. So, to satisfy my desire to excel at Camera Club Print Competitions, and the PSA Salons (Both of which required the exhibitor to actually make the print themselves), I had to attempt to master the art (composition), the capture (cameras and lenses) and the production (darkroom chemistry, enlargers etc). So yes, I am guilty of having state of the art digital cameras (medium format and FF 35mm). I also am guilty of having an extensive collection of 35mm film cameras. And yes, I am guilty and do make all of my own prints via a 24" roll paper Epson Printer and 17" Epson Printer. I print, mount, and mat my own work. In 1959 I was making 16"x20" Kodak "Type C' prints in my home darkroom. When we were young marrieds, my wife allowed me to have a part time job at a local camera shop. They allowed me to buy equipment at Dealer Replacement Cost., When we were living in a $75 per month apartment, I had a Pentax 35mm SLR, Hasselblad 500C, and Leica M2, all with multiple lenses.
If you are interested in the story about my Dad and his negatives which were lost for 72 years and safely found and returned to me , please go to my web site and look for the page "ALEXANDER GURTCHEFF". It shows my Dad's unbelievable images.
Thanks for reading this missive.
Dave Gurtcheff
www.modernpictorials.com

 

[miriquidi]

This forum is quite manifold in terms of great samples of art and also a lot of tool-talk.
For my part I see a free flowing transition between "Doing Photography" and "Doing tools". At least, if you have some ambition in improving.

Compared to let's say 1950s there is a lot of good work you can view via galleries or the internet. So you compare your work automatically against that best few percent of work. The yardstick is not the small-town-photo-club or uncle Sams album anymore. Naturally nowadays at least in the beginning your own work will be a bit lackluster compared to the level you see elsewhere.
In order to improve*, you can go the slow way and "inventing" everything yourself by try and error (and maybe come to completely ingenious solutions). But it's also an valuable approach in reading and discussion things with others. And from time to time you need other tools to enable pictures in the way, you like them. Whether you craft tools in your kitchen or buy them is a question of taste and budget.

I would argue, that staying only in the top left quadrant of the graph is also limiting in the long run. You have to use (to a certain degree) all four quadrants of the graph, if you have ambition* in excelling.

* Is improving desirable? Some people fish at there lake all life long the same style and are happy; without feeling a need to get more "productive" or catch bigger fish.

 

[miriquidi]

If you are interested in the story about my Dad and his negatives which were lost for 72 years and safely found and returned to me , please go to my web site and look for the page "ALEXANDER GURTCHEFF". It shows my Dad's unbelievable images.

There are a lot of really good images in that gallery.
One question. What means "redone by"? It isn't a recapture of the scene 70 years later, it's the scan and so on, is it?

 

[ThdeDude]

[Disclaimer - have not yet read any responses]

I differentiated camera users into three groups:

- causal snapshooter,

- experienced trade photographer or keen amateur, and

- serious professional & visual artist.

I wrote in an upcoming publication that these three archetypal/stereotypical photographers can be seen as the three corner of a metaphorical triangle, with the real-life photographer somewhere within the metaphorical triangle.

Since I got surprisingly few "likes", I feel I should expand this a bit, add some context, and see what everyone thinks. (And please feel free to fire away, I am questioning everything myself whenever I get an opportunity.)

I am working on a photobook/textbook with a chapter on photography containing suggestions and hints of how one could improve one's photographs (really speaking to myself how to improve my photography!). Before sounding too presumptuous, it's largely a regurgitation what has been published or done by others, only few bits and pieces I might claim to be original (or forgot that I got it from somewhere else!).

I largely used my categorization of photographers to give the reader a feel how this publication may be of use to him, where he may be in the metaphorical triangle, and where he may want to move to. (The terms "snapshooter" and "amateur" are not intended in any way to be derogatory. Ansel Adam's best known photograph, Moonrise, Hernandez, was somewhat a snapshot; the negative is at least half a stop underexposed, and the moon is not perfectly centered.)

Consequently, I wrote:

It’s hoped that the discussion here will assist the causal snapshooter to become more cognizant of technical and artistic considerations; the experienced trade photographer or keen amateur, already somewhat versed in the technical aspects, to become more aware of the artistic aspects of photography; and, hopefully, even the serious professional & visual artist will find something new not yet considered.

 

[rdeloe]

This forum is quite manifold in terms of great samples of art and also a lot of tool-talk.
For my part I see a free flowing transition between "Doing Photography" and "Doing tools". At least, if you have some ambition in improving.

Compared to let's say 1950s there is a lot of good work you can view via galleries or the internet. So you compare your work automatically against that best few percent of work. The yardstick is not the small-town-photo-club or uncle Sams album anymore. Naturally nowadays at least in the beginning your own work will be a bit lackluster compared to the level you see elsewhere.
In order to improve*, you can go the slow way and "inventing" everything yourself by try and error (and maybe come to completely ingenious solutions). But it's also an valuable approach in reading and discussion things with others. And from time to time you need other tools to enable pictures in the way, you like them. Whether you craft tools in your kitchen or buy them is a question of taste and budget.

I would argue, that staying only in the top left quadrant of the graph is also limiting in the long run. You have to use (to a certain degree) all four quadrants of the graph, if you have ambition* in excelling.

* Is improving desirable? Some people fish at there lake all life long the same style and are happy; without feeling a need to get more "productive" or catch bigger fish.

Your footnote asks a very important question (or a very unimportant question, depending on how one answers it!) If photography is a fun hobby that gets you out of the house, connects you with a few friends, and gives you pleasure, then there's no need to "improve" or "excel". As long as making photographs is fun, it's all good. Lots of people get enormous pleasure from riding a very nice bicycle through the country side, alone or with friends, and are not even slightly interested in competing.

It's a different story if it's not for fun, or not just for fun. Can you make a living today as a commercial photographer if you don't upgrade your skills as client preferences and expectations change? I think that would be very difficult. Things are less clear cut for people who are serious about making art, whether professionally or as an amateur. There are countless artists who don't spend any time looking for "new" and "better" equipment once they have found the tools and techniques that fit them well. And then there are other artists who are constantly exploring new tools, techniques and approaches.

 

[rdeloe]

Since I got surprisingly few "likes", I feel I should expand this a bit, and see what everyone thinks. (And please feel free to fire away, I am questioning everything myself whenever I get an opportunity.)

I am working on a photobook/textbook with a chapter on photography containing suggestions and hints of how one could improve one's photographs (really speaking to myself how to improve my photography!). Before sounding too presumptuous, it's largely a regurgitation what has been published or done by others, only few bits and pieces I might claim to be original (or forgot where I got it from!).

I largely used my categorization of photographers to give the reader a feel how this publication may be of use to him, where he may be in the metaphorical triangle, and where he may want to move to. (The terms "snapshooter" and "amateur" are not intended in any way to be derogatory. Ansel Adam's best known photograph, Moonrise, Hernandez, was somewhat a snapshot; the negative is at least half a stop underexposed, and the moon is not perfectly centered.)

Consequently, I wrote:

It’s hoped that the discussion here will assist the causal snapshooter to become more cognizant of technical and artistic considerations; the experienced trade photographer or keen amateur, already somewhat versed in the technical aspects, to become more aware of the artistic aspects of photography; and, hopefully, even the serious professional & visual artist will find something new not yet considered.

I like thinking things through like this, so I appreciate what you're trying to do.

In that spirit, I think your categorization has a blind spot. It makes sense to me as a 2nd level categorization. The first level is the distinction between what I call "artists who happen to use cameras" and "photographers". To understand where I'm coming from, spend some time reading a book like Charlotte Cotton's book, The Photograph as Contemporary Art. Contrast that survey with David Campany's On Photographs. Cotton's book includes a lot of artists who use photographic images, which they may or may not have made themselves. Campany's book is about photographers. They do overlap, e.g., both books showcase Gabriel Orozco's Breath on Piano image, and both books include Andreas Gursky -- so like any simplistic categorization*, there are plenty of exceptions that undermine the argument. Nonetheless, I do think that contemporary art photography as practised in many (most?) MFA programs does not overlap much with the kind of photography that is practised by people who spend time on gear-focused camera forums.

Where I'm going with this is I think that your categorization (and your chapter) is relevant to "photographers", but not to "artists who happen to use cameras". I say this because in my experience, the latter group simply doesn't care much about Nyquist limits and other technical minutiae. I receive regular announcements from our MFA program about shows of the work of students who used photography. It's quite clear that those students just don't care about 99% of what gets discussed on forums like this; these things are not relevant to their artistic practices.

* As the classic joke goes, "There are two kinds of people in this world: people who divide people into two kinds of people, and people who don't."

 

[gurtch]

There are a lot of really good images in that gallery.
One question. What means "redone by"? It isn't a recapture of the scene 70 years later, it's the scan and so on, is it?

I scanned the original negative with a high end dedicated film scanner, approximated darkroom "dodging" and "burning in" via Photoshop, then made digital B&W prints (16"x20" and 20"x24")
Thanks for the intewrest.
Dave

 

[Godfrey]

There is such a thing as wanting to improve on your photography even just for its own sake, as an art form and endeavor you enjoy.

G

 

[ThdeDude]

I like thinking things through like this, so I appreciate what you're trying to do.

In that spirit, I think your categorization has a blind spot. It makes sense to me as a 2nd level categorization. The first level is the distinction between what I call "artists who happen to use cameras" and "photographers"....

Yes, I agree with you here. Artist vs non-artist, whether photography or any other visual medium. Probably, the clearest difference is between a fine artist/painter vs. house painter/decorator. Very little overlap here.

For photography I would say, trade photographer vs visual artist. Ansel Adams very pointy wrote, "we can have craft without art, but not art without craft" (Polaroid Land Photography). Say, for a wedding you want the former, someone who knows their trade (craft) and delivery what is expected, wedding photographs, and not a "visual artist" who might deliver "art"! while you just want some plain vanilla wedding photographs.

I used the metaphorical triangle here because the casual snapshooter (as defined here) is simply only interested in a visual recordation of the object without technical or artistical consideration.

I should add that a real-life person, could be all three in the same day. I assume that nowadays we all take snapshots of things without any technical or artisitical consideration, as mere mental note of something we want to record.

 

[rdeloe]

There is such a thing as wanting to improve on your photography even just for its own sake, as an art form and endeavor you enjoy.

G

Indeed. My wife has spent countless hours perfecting her pastry tart making skills. I've eaten tarts from people acknowledged to be among the best in the world, and she is at their level. Her client list includes me, our daughter, and her partner. All of her work and effort is only for love of of learning and accomplishment.

Pleasure from learning, pleasure from improving, pleasure from accomplishment -- these can all flow from pursuit of any art or craft.