An article with the ring of truth: Simplicity by Ken Rockwell

[Jay Decker]

Regardless of whether you think Ken Rockwell is a quack or a sage, his article on Simplicity (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/simplicity.htm) is worth reading and reflective consideration. I had to read the section entitled Too Much Equipment a few times - it was difficult for me to hear on the first reading, because it had the ring of truth and I am culpable.

Does this mean that I'm going to reduce my equipment inventory? Yes, with time. More importantly, henceforth I intend to go shoot more frequently with less equipment, e.g., one camera and one lens, but more film holders.

Hi, my name is Jay and I have too much photography equipment.

Here's the full URL to Ken Rockwell's Simplicity article: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/simplicity.htm

[Heroique]

(Here we go.)

Now, now, let’s be nice this time – it’s a worthwhile, mildly provocative read. ;)

And if you have to, pretend it’s not Ken. Would that influence your reaction?

[Jay Decker]

And if you have to, pretend it’s not Ken. Would that influence your reaction?

Was I not clear? I do agree with the thesis in Ken's article.

[Heroique]

My apologies, I didn't mean you. You were very clear. I meant all future readers. :)

Many will burst into this thread w/ unrelated prejudices about Ken.

I was suggesting one lay them aside before reading this article & feeling the visceral reaction.

One might even take a few deep breaths, or wait a few minutes, before sharing over-heated replies.

[Dan Fromm]

Jay, you might want to read this: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

[benrains]

Jay, you might want to read this: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

I like this article better.

I couldn't get more than about halfway through Ken Rockwell's before I got disgusted with his extraneous and irrelevant sexist and racist commentary. He's a tool.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I read this and other than the comments that really are, as Ben pointed out, sexist and racist there is not much new or interesting. This idea has been around forever.

[Bill_1856]

Just another teckky pontificating. I don't recall ever hearing anyone say that Mr. Rockwell is much of a photographer.

[Frank Petronio]

I like Rockwell but true, he isn't a photographer.

[Jay Decker]

Dan - thanks for the link to the magic bullet chaser article by Kevin Bourque!

[Marko]

Mr. Rockwell does not seem to be much of anything, not even a semi-decent troll. Calling him a techie is a huge and unwarranted praise to him and even bigger insult to the techies.

I followed Heroique's reasonable suggestion and read the article with an open mind.

But there is simply no mistaking Ken with anybody else - it was 10 tedious minutes of a lifetime wasted with no chance to get it back. This is something I won't be baited to do again.

Simple as that. ;)

[Dirk Rösler]

Does a sports commentator also have to be a good player?

[sanking]

But there is simply no mistaking Ken with anybody else - it was 10 tedious minutes of a lifetime wasted with no chance to get it back. This is something I won't be baited to do again.

Simple as that. ;)

Gee, I did not find the article all that bad!!

However, one thing for sure is that Ken Rockwell never taught at a public university in the United Stated in the past 20 years. If he had made those comments about men thinking more deeply than women in any context in a university environment his female colleagues would have had his "huevos" marinated for afternoon tapas.

Sandy King

[Marko]

Gee, I did not find the article all that bad!!

However, one thing for sure is that Ken Rockwell never taught at a public university in the United Stated in the past 20 years. If he had made those comments about men thinking more deeply than women in any context in a university environment his female colleagues would have had his "huevos" marinated for afternoon tapas.

Sandy King

I didn't say it was bad, I just said it was a waste of time... ;)

But you do know how to make a diversion, though! The funny thing is, just today, driving home, I noticed a small wine & tapas place that I never saw before and was planning to get the family together to go over and test it out over the weekend. :)

[Bill_1856]

There have been times in the past, particularly before much of the photography world went digital, that his website was about the only place that good data about various lenses, etc was available.

[Eric Brody]

Many of us have made the same argument in this very forum. This is the same advice I and many others give to every budding photographer foolish enough to ask an opinion. One lens, one lens, until you learn the process; did I say one lens! It is interesting how many photographers, who have never made a LF image, discuss which three or four lenses they plan to acquire, before even getting the camera, as in a recent thread comparing two cameras.

Oh well. Where there is Ken Rockwell, there is controversy.

Eric

[Duane Polcou]

I don't think having lots of equipment makes your photography suffer.

I believe the lack of ability or unwillingness to place the importance of seeing creatively above all other considerations, makes your photography suffer.

[Ken Lee]

In general, Ken gives out a lot of helpful information, for free.

Now and then he likes to be entertaining, controversial - even pretentious. He also likes to contradict himself from time to time. It's all part of the game, you might say, huevos rancheros and all.

Perhaps he has learned how to provide the secret of successful talk-show hosts: infotainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infotainment).

[sun of sand]

how does wine and tapas make its way into a thread
I dont know what it is about the likey of wine that makes someone think they're

If it was grape juice and tapas you'd never hear about the fkn joint

Beer and tapas and someone would have already posted a review on the place

[Mark Barendt]

Thanks Jay,

Happy Holidays

[Marko]

Perhaps he has learned how to provide the secret of successful talk-show hosts: infotainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infotainment).

Ken, you are exactly right.

Infotainment! Precisely the reason why I do not watch TV either. It's not so much what he says, it's how he goes about it.

[Steven Barall]

Horses for courses. Everyone has a different process, a different way of doing things. I personally think that having only one or two lenses forces you to have discipline which is a good thing but if you like having many lenses and that's what defines photography in your world well that's fine too.

Rockwell can indeed make the same photo with his i-phone as with an 8x10 camera but it's not because the guy can make the world's greatest i-phone photo, it's that he can make the world's worst 8x10 photo. He talks a lot about his point and shoot cameras, and disposable cameras and cheap discounted low end SLRs but when it comes right down to it, he just a Leica snob. We all know people like him, we all have dentists and accountants.

[Frank Petronio]

To his credit, he never claims to be a good photographer.

[r.e.]

Kevin Bourque's Confessions of a Magic Bullet Chaser is more entertaining, as are the late John Cook's posts on this forum, such as this gem of wit and common sense in a thread about Zone VI light meters:



In my highly opinionated opinion, some folks attempt to use the zone system to photograph scenes which are impossibly (read: poorly) lit. They go to excruciating lengths to spot-meter every square inch of the scene, making copious notes for later super-heroic development antics.

I was taught still photography in 1960's Hollywood, by old-timers who were heavily influenced by the lighting and metering techniques of cinematography. A universal right of passage was the acquisition of the ubiquitous Spectra 500 incident meter.

If you work outdoors at the same altitude and latitude, in the same weather conditions and time of day, you can make absolutely breathtaking photographs with a simple incident meter like the Sekonic L-398M Studio Deluxe II, currently available from B&H for $161. And after a few hundred sheets of film you won’t even need that.

If, on the other hand, you insist on making photographs of a white bride standing out in full July sun at high noon in Arizona, while simultaneously carrying shadow detail in a black cat hiding under a nearby parked automobile, you probably will benefit from a whole suitcase full of expensive equipment.

My short answer to your question is that you might not actually require a Zone VI spotmeter.

[Kevin M Bourque]

Wow, I feel kinda almost FAMOUS. Thanks, guys ;-)

[Eric Rose]

Actually IMHO his article is right on(Rockwell's). Most of the best artists in the photographic medium I have meet don't have a clue about all the technical geegaws that seem to fascinate the less talented.

[Jim Ewins]

Pontificating is what we do here. And oh so pc. If it works for him thats good - at least for him.

[mandoman7]

A fairly reliable approach is to note the equipment that's used to take the photos you admire. ;)

I used to get pretty wound up in the Ansel manuals until I realized that most of the photos I admired were not created that way, but with more intuitive methods. Another realization made was that a lot of technical advice comes from those who were not engaged in the actual process of taking and selling photos. More money can be made talking about photography than doing it, apparently. Suggestions about what you need from those sources should be taken with that in mind.

A look at the classifieds in this forum seem to speak to this, with repeated listings of really fine outfits that were used only once or twice. The owners spent more time considering the merits of various pieces of equipment than what kind of images they might be making. Shopping vs Doing.

[Deane Johnson]

For a group of people who are supposedly dedicated to communicating with expressive photography, there is certainly a lot of verbal pontificating on this forum.

[nray]

Thanks for the article....I think he made some great points in it.

[tgtaylor]

I thought both articles were spot on. Thanks for the post!

[Noeyedear]

Hats off to Ken. His site gets the most free publicity of any photographic site on the Web. All he has to do is right an article and every other site/forum runs a thread with a link to his site. People Que up to demonstrate their superior thinking and knowledge.
The more outlandish or controversial he writes the bigger his audience.
I have to admire his marketing, I know I could of done it as well if not better, but alas I think he has cornered the market.

Kevin.

[Dirk Rösler]

Nothing beats endlessly arguing over subjective points of view on the web. Film vs. Digital even works still today, in many disguises. It's a publicity goldmine.

[QT Luong]

Didn't photographers such as Joel Meyerowitz and Richard Misrach use a single lens on their 8x10s ? Who else ?

[Tim Meisburger]

I don't know why so many people hate Ken, especially people on this forum. His audience are hobbyists (like me), not the super duper professionals who seem so happy to disparage him. After shooting rangefinders and SLRs for many years, I switched to digital and was bored to tears, and essentially gave up photography. I had a passing interest in LF, but living overseas had no easy access to equipment or people knowledgeable about LF. Reading Ken's site convinced me I could pick up LF on my own, and I did, and for that encouragement I and probable y many others, are thankful.

Those who think Ken is advocating a single lens do not understand his point, which admittedly he makes in an oblique way. His point is simple, its not the equipment that makes the photo, it is the photographer. And he is right. And he is doing his best to show those hobbyists that read the magazines and think the latest thing will make them a better photographer that it won't, that only thinking and practice will do that. And he is right.

Ken is an apostle of film, and those who denigrate and scoff at his efforts to convert the masses from their lofty art towers will have only themselves to blame if film does disappear, IMHO.

[Blueberrydesk]

Hi, my name is Paul. I'm a man, and I can think about more than one thing at once.

[Chris Strobel]

I like Rockwell but true, he isn't a photographer.

If Rockwell isn't a photographer based on the style and quality of his work as seen online, than neither are 90% of the folks on this forum myself included. :D

[Jim collum]

I don't know why so many people hate Ken, especially people on this forum. His audience are hobbyists (like me), not the super duper professionals who seem so happy to disparage him. After shooting rangefinders and SLRs for many years, I switched to digital and was bored to tears, and essentially gave up photography. I had a passing interest in LF, but living overseas had no easy access to equipment or people knowledgeable about LF. Reading Ken's site convinced me I could pick up LF on my own, and I did, and for that encouragement I and probable y many others, are thankful.

Those who think Ken is advocating a single lens do not understand his point, which admittedly he makes in an oblique way. His point is simple, its not the equipment that makes the photo, it is the photographer. And he is right. And he is doing his best to show those hobbyists that read the magazines and think the latest thing will make them a better photographer that it won't, that only thinking and practice will do that. And he is right.

Ken is an apostle of film, and those who denigrate and scoff at his efforts to convert the masses from their lofty art towers will have only themselves to blame if film does disappear, IMHO.

Sorry.. Ken is an apostle of Ken. His site is made up of mostly gear reviews (usually gear he has never seen.. let alone used). His goal isn't to educate.. it's to cause controversy to have people click thru his site. He is *very* good at what he does. The click thru's are his source of income.

The issue a lot of people (myself included) have with him, is that he relies on those who don't know any better to follow his advise. People who have experience can see this and get upset for the mis-information he tends to spread. There's very little originality in his content.. most of it is rehashing of old flame-bait.. that's been rehashed many many times before in other venues.

The problem i have with his 'simplicity is god' article.. is that it's just as bad as the other extreme. With this article, he'll have numerous novice photographers running around with a simple camera with a single lens. There's no problem with this, if this is what suits your style... but it's still focusing on the gear. The camera and lenses are just tools... no more, no less. having one or a dozen doesn't really make that much of a difference. If a woodworker can work their vision with a single handmade chisel, and that suits their style of creation.. then that's what works for them. If they use a dozen as well as a few made by Craftsman... ok

Ken rarely practices what he preaches... it changes depending on what he thinks will cause controversy.

[Marko]

Ken is an apostle of film, and those who denigrate and scoff at his efforts to convert the masses from their lofty art towers will have only themselves to blame if film does disappear, IMHO.

What Jim said.

If Ken Rockwell is all that keeps film from disappearing, then film certainly deserves to disappear. Very richly so.

[tom north]

What ya mean?
There's nothing worst than arriving on a shoot only to find you dont have enough stuff! An essential part of photography is good photo gadgets! You guys are forgettin about critical stuff like "Supercool Creativity Boosting Photographic Gadgets and Devices, 5 Handy Gadgets for Photographers, Wireless Gadgets for Photographers, The Coolest Gadgets for Photographers" and "All Gadgets All the Time". Simplicity is for simplistics who think to much about taking pictures and not enough about the aesthetic of attitude, behavior, comportment, appearance and style influenced by and a product of the Zeitgeist, well-being internal peace, serenity harmony and balance, narcissistic self-absorption, and expressing a desire to escape the mental straitjacket of creativity. You guys need to go out and buy something for your camera.

[Kirk Gittings]

Didn't photographers such as Joel Meyerowitz and Richard Misrach use a single lens on their 8x10s ? Who else ?

And didn't both Picker, Adams and Minor White advocate using one camera and one lens in the beginning as a learning tool to focus your efforts on seeing rather than equipment acquisition? I know Picker did for sure.

Having been around awhile, this KR advice seems like old news. I was told the same thing when I started at university almost 40 years ago based on the practices of masters. Its too bad that the the originators of this idea don't get credit for it.

Having said that.....such advice certainly seemed more meaningful when it was coming from sources who actually knew how to see and print. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would take the advice of someone like KR who is so obviously devoid of talent. What have his ideas taught him?

As a fledgling old fart, I am still utterly amazed by how much notoriety and authority talentless hacks can achieve in the age of the web. Seriously, if you weren't there, "in the old days" it actually seemed like you needed some talent, experience and success before anyone would listen to you. I must be getting old.

[Marko]

As a fledgling old fart, I am still utterly amazed by how much notoriety and authority talentless hacks can achieve in the age of the web. Seriously "in the old days" it actually seemed like you needed some talent, experience and success before anyone would listen to you. I must be getting old.

Don't blame the Web, Kirk. It's the "popular culture" that promotes ignorance and shallowness, because those are the traits of ideal consumers. The Web is just one of delivery vehicles for all that drivel to those who really want to consume it.

It was always easy to get "anyone" to listen to you. Getting somebody to listen still requires talent and experience.

[Jim collum]

And didn't both Picker, Adams and Minor White advocate using one camera and one lens in the beginning as a learning tool to focus your efforts on seeing rather than equipment acquisition? I know Picker did for sure.

Having been around awhile, this KR advice seems like old news. I was told the same thing when I started at university almost 40 years ago based on the practices of masters. Its too bad that the the originators of this idea don't get credit for it.

Having said that.....such advice certainly seemed more meaningful when it was coming from sources who actually knew how to see and print. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would take the advice of someone like KR who is so obviously devoid of talent. What have his ideas taught him?

As a fledgling old fart, I am still utterly amazed by how much notoriety and authority talentless hacks can achieve in the age of the web. Seriously, if you weren't there, "in the old days" it actually seemed like you needed some talent, experience and success before anyone would listen to you. I must be getting old.


+1 from another old fart

[Dirk Rösler]

Don't blame the Web, Kirk. It's the "popular culture" that promotes ignorance and shallowness, because those are the traits of ideal consumers. The Web is just one of delivery vehicles for all that drivel to those who really want to consume it.

Amen to that. The web has been taken over by the masses, and most of the interesting things are being submerged in a sea of mediocrity. I for one won't bother fishing for the gems, life's too short. I think even debating over whether someone's opinion, like KR, is valid or "worth it" is wasted time and I don't understand why so many people are so keen pointing out what should not be said or done by someone else. Just get on with your own things and if it is working for KR then that's great I think. Many people would love the attention that he is getting, so there is a fair amount of jealousy as well. Better than a celebrity rumors website or some other brain-dead stuff, at least it promotes the art and craft of photography and does so in an engaging manner. Even if it is pop music, so what.

[Tim Meisburger]

Just because advice is old (at least to some), doesn't make it wrong, and doesn't mean it doesn't need repeating from time to time. The advice to "keep it simple" is as old as time, and still makes sense.

When I was younger a friend advised I buy a manual camera like a k1000 to learn to shoot. Not because it was the easiest to use, but because it allowed (required) manual setting of aperture and shutter speed, which would facilitate learning of the affects of different exposure settings. I bought an OM1 and never looked back (I still have it and it is still my wife's favorite camera). Ken's right when he says it makes sense to know the camera you are using inside out, and concentrate on the picture. With the OM I usually carried a fast 50 and a very sweet 24mm and I knew both and the camera very well and seldom missed a shot. Now my wife has a D40, and although I use it for family snapshots, I just set it on auto as it has so many modes I cannot figure it out. What I wish is that they would make a digital camera with an internal visible light meter like the OM1 and simple aperture and shutter speed controls. Sigh... I guess I'm too old to learn new tricks...

[Dirk Rösler]

A final thought for the new year: Web 2.0 has put the web firmly in the hand of the mainstream. Probably 99% of people on it are now consumers (ironically despite the fact that they may produce the most content). You can place yourself in the consumer corner and join the chat around the village well who has said this and said oh so silly thing somewhere yesterday. Or you can put yourself into the other team and see the web as a place of work. Like Ken already does, you use a place of work to your advantage, to take a benefit out of it. You don't make it a personal place where you get tangled up in emotional discussions, opinion wars or whatever. As a photographer or writer you should use it to present yourself and your work to your (probably consumer) audience. You should use forums such as this to seek and share knowledge, as efficiently and cooperatively as possible. Everything else, it has to be said, is an accumulation of time being subtracted from the time that is the rest of your life. The golden days of the web are over. The people who were first on it will understand this and may want to increase their activities offline instead. Real photographers... actually take photos. ;)

Happy new year!

[lenicolas]

"We think far more deeply than women, which is why we can invent computers, automobiles, calculus, nuclear weapons and spaceships that fly us to the moon[...]"
Ken Rockwell.

if my girlfriend ever reads that, she'll forbid me to ever surf the web again ;)

About the gear : I'm a one camera one lens guy.
I found myself settling for slightly diferent lenses for each format, so i don't make the same pictures all the time...

[Robert Hughes]

Amen to that. The web has been taken over by the masses, and most of the interesting things are being submerged in a sea of mediocrity.

That's right. Back in my day, we used the Arpanet to design computers, automobiles, calculus, nuclear weapons and space ships - and we didn't use ASCII - we keyed in our data from Morse Code bug keyers. With our teeth. Great fun, if you're a real, single tasking man!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must change into my smoking jacket to enjoy a cigar and brandy on the veranda with Marina and Tia. Jeeves will see you out ...

[archer]

Perhaps Mr. Rockwell never heard of Hipatia of Alexandria or Marie Sklodawska better known as Marie Curie. Such infuriating statements of sexist nonsense are reason enough to doubt his credentials for sensible thought, whether you agree with the stated premise, which I do, or not.
Denise Libby

[Stephen Willard]

I can respect the simplistic approach to photography, but I think the equipment acquired should be driven by your artistic vision and the subject matter you choose to photograph. To minimize your equipment to a single lens driven by a philosophy of simplicity rather then real-world need can drastically reduce your yields and restrict you creative potential.

A lens to me is like a paint brush to painter. No painter I know of paints with a single brush. Each focal length has its own particular characteristic that allows you to paint light on to film in different ways and expands your creative abilities. Each format you employ such as myself using 5x7 and 4x10 allows me to exploit and optimize the composition in relation to my subject matter.

I specialize in grand scenic landscape photography, and I photograph from the very near to the very far vistas that can be hundreds of miles away. I haul in two formats plus 13 focal length lens ranging from 75mm to 1200mm into the backcountry using two llamas. There is no redundancy in my tools, and I use them all. I have assembled a lean suite of tools to do my job. Having a good selection of brushes and formats to choose from has had a huge impact on my yields in the field. It is very rare that I have to abandon a composition due to lack of format or lens.

For some one who specializes in portrait photography, only one or two lenses are needed and a single format will be sufficient. Again it is dependent on your subject matter and vision.

Perhaps the right answer lies not with being simple and minimal, but rather being lean, efficient, and optimal with respect to your subject matter and vision.

[Vaughn]

I think that Stephen might be more of the exception than the rule. And as he is far from being a beginner, he can take better advantage of a multiple tool kit. But most beginners will benefit from sticking to one camera and one prime lens for a few years -- and perhaps some more advanced photographers would benefit from simplifying their kit for awhile, especially if things seem to be getting a bit stale for them.

As Stephen suggests, which tools (in this case, lenses and formats) one wants to have along is best left to the individual -- and the proof will be in seeing the results. In the 20+ years I slowly moved up in format (120, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10), with one lens per format, I never found myself lacking in yield nor creative potential. With one lenses and one format, one will never run out of images to take -- they will differ from the set of images one might take having multiple formats and lenses, but not in quality.

After ten years or so of 8x10 use, I now carry 4 to 5 lenses and an adapter to also take 4x10 images. These tools give me different creative options, not more and not better options. And they strengthen up my legs and lungs...LOL!

Vaughn

[lenicolas]

To minimize your equipment to a single lens driven by a philosophy of simplicity rather then real-world need can drastically reduce your yields and restrict you creative potential.


I have to disagree with the above.
Any dictionary will tell you that creativity is the power to invent or create.
Therefore some (including me) will argue that restrictions and obstacles actually encourage creativity more...

This though is as old as art :)

[Lachlan 717]

Surely the proof is in the eating of the pudding, not in its creation.

I have had wonderful meals of complexity, and wonderful meals of simplicity. Who really cares about how the meal has been made? Surely it's in the tasting.

These stupid, pointless arguments of who's soapbox is right are all rendered moot as soon as one photograph from an Equipment Junky and one from the Minimalist camp are deemed to be fine art.

So, why do we spend time arguing when the light outside/ in the studio beckons?

Perhaps the old sledge of "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach should be changed just to Those who can, do?

[Mark Barendt]

Surely the proof is in the eating of the pudding, not in its creation.

If that were true I'd probably shoot digital. That isn't happening.

The cook gets to see/taste/smell/touch/listen to the ingredients in the dish all along the way. The consumer never gets to taste the raw ingredients.

Choosing a lens, for me, means choosing how big I want the print, how close I will be to my anchor subject, and how much context I want. It's about my photographic vision.

Smaller print = use longer lens. Bigger print = use shorter lens.

Birds = longer lens. People and landscape = shorter lens.

Just the subject = long lens. The subject and it's world = shorter lens.

I shoot normal lenses most of the time, >95%.

Similarly, choosing a camera and media is about choosing how I want to shoot and process and what I spend my time doing.

I don't want to fiddle with a 1/3 of a stop at the camera and I like using an enlarger so I shoot negatives. So slides don't fit my style.

Photographically, for me the print is important, but mostly I'm "the cook".

[Marko]

Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

-- Henri Cartier-Bresson


Looks like digital would've been a natural fit for HCB.

The proof might still be in eating the pudding, after all. ;)

[Lachlan 717]

If that were true I'd probably shoot digital. That isn't happening.

Mark,

I'm not really sure why you not wanting to shoot digital makes my statement erroneous. I just take it that you don't like eating the dish called Digital that's on the menu.


The cook gets to see/taste/smell/touch/listen to the ingredients in the dish all along the way. The consumer never gets to taste the raw ingredients.

And the viewer of the finished image doesn't get to see/taste/smell/touch/listen to the raw (i.e. unexposed) film, developer, stop bath, fixer, scanner etc. Nor, generally, do I think that they care too much. Just as I believe that the average person doesn't really care what goes into their meal. Or from which side of the hill a particular wine came from (wine wankers generally drink alone...).

And I say this as most people are after emotional fulfilment when it comes to "entertainment", whether that is epicurean, photographic, musical or magic.

In fact, magic is probably a good endeavour to consider here. Whilst most people like to speculate about how a magician actually does a trick, I would suggest that very few actually try to find out. The pleasure, for me anyway, comes from not knowing and accepting that.


It's about my photographic vision.

Couldn't agree more. But I do have an issue when others' vision is criticised due to what equipment they do/don't have in their kit, and when their technically correct images are criticised when the viewed simply doesn't like the shot. (Mark, these last comments are not directed at you!!)

[Mark Barendt]

Looks like digital would've been a natural fit for HCB.

The proof might still be in eating the pudding, after all. ;)

Your day job in politics? :rolleyes:

[Mark Barendt]

I'm not really sure why you not wanting to shoot digital makes my statement erroneous.

I was referring only to my preferences.

I should have written this instead
"If that were true for me I'd probably shoot digital. That isn't happening."

My apologies for any mis-understanding. :o

[Marko]

Your day job in politics? :rolleyes:

Your point being...?

[Mark Barendt]

Your point being...?

You just put a pretty good spin on what HCB was actually trying to say.

Basically HCB was an artist, not a photographer, the camera was just a fast way to draw, I'm paraphrasing his words.

Cameras were nothing more than tools to create a drawing. He had very little, if any, interest in the craft of photography in and of itself.

In the quote you brought up he was essentially saying that once he took the picture he was done drawing, he had no interest in how the picture was processed or printed.

I doubt that he would care one way or the other about using film or digital except for the simplicity film offers; no batteries, no menus, and no hassles seems to fit his style.

I believe that even if he had shot digitally, at the end of the day he would simply have pulled out the card and handed it to somebody else to process instead of even downloading it.

[Mark Sawyer]

I shoot normal lenses most of the time, >95%.


Speaking as one who uses abnormal lenses most of the time...

I get the feeling that Rockwell is the sort who sees no difference between lenses other than focal length. Follow his advice, and you'll never do anything with a Petzval, a Verito, a Cooke Portrait lens, a cheap magnifying glass, cobbled together home-builts...
Nope, just get yourself a multi-coated plasmat, it's the only lens you'll ever need...

If he had a cooking show, I'm sure he'd advise us, "just use salt on everything, it's the only seasoning you'll ever need." :(

[Marko]

You just put a pretty good spin on what HCB was actually trying to say.

If I thought I was actually stating my understanding of what he was saying with that quote, how exactly does that still qualify as spin?

And how does the following does not?


Basically HCB was an artist, not a photographer, the camera was just a fast way to draw, I'm paraphrasing his words.

Cameras were nothing more than tools to create a drawing. He had very little, if any, interest in the craft of photography in and of itself.

If anything, HCB was as photojournalist, a stereotype of a documentary photographer perpetually in the hunt of The Moment.

To say that he was only interested in drawing and then quote this as a reason for his disinterest in the darkroom work is one huge non-sequitur. It is precisely the darkroom part of the photographic process, the craft of photography, as you call it, that is the closest to the art of drawing. Or cooking, to use your previous metaphor.

HCB, on the other hand, represented the view that the act of capture is what defines photography, the rest was just a matter of presentation. The Hunter as opposed to The Cook. I happen to agree with his view to a large degree, although not quite to the extreme. You declared yourself to be The Cook in the previous post, hence my comment.


In the quote you brought up he was essentially saying that once he took the picture he was done drawing, he had no interest in how the picture was processed or printed.

I doubt that he would care one way or the other about using film or digital except for the simplicity film offers; no batteries, no menus, and no hassles seems to fit his style.

I doubt that too, and I also happen to think that the medium used for capturing the photograph is largely irrelevant. That was the very point of my quip. That, however, does not make him any less of a photographer. It has absolutely nothing to do with drawing, however. Talk about spin!


I believe that even if he had shot digitally, at the end of the day he would simply have pulled out the card and handed it to somebody else to process instead of even downloading it.

Just like some other famous photographers did and still do, that's nothing new. What could be simpler than that? ;)

[patrickjames]

I haven't been here in a while but I have always liked this forum for its relative purity and good discussions. Then I come here today and see a Ken Rockwell thread....

Quick scan of his hilarity reveals he should take his own advice, and I quote-

"Brother Ray Charles was blind, and enough music came off his keyboards to win him twelve Grammy awards. Someone else might know a lot more than brother Ray did about the inner workings of keyboards, but those people don't bag any Grammy awards."

I don't think you will be bagging any awards either Mr. Rockwell. And don't even get me started on your sexist b.s. On second thought, you may bag an award for being a tool.

[Mark Barendt]

If I thought I was actually stating my understanding of what he was saying with that quote, how exactly does that still qualify as spin?

And how does the following does not?

Marko, it's obvious now that we aren't going to agree and that we see things differently and this isn't worth arguing about. My apologies for any offense.

My apologies also to the OP for this distraction.

[Marko]

Mark,

The difference between the two approaches to photography is certainly worth a meaningful discussion, but if one of us is not willing or is simply unable to do it any other way than by using roll-eyes and snide remarks, then you are right, it is indeed not worth arguing.

It's too bad, but it certainly keeps things simple.

[Deane Johnson]

On a non-photographic forum I recently saw a post where the person was asking which lenses he should take to Disneyland to photograph his kids. Other posters chimed in with suggestions for different multiple combinations of lenses, all too heavy and cumbersome to manage while walking around, of course.

When reading it, I could only think of this thread. I think years ago, I carried a single Nikon F2 with a Nikon 43-86 zoom with kids to Disneyland, and that was all the camera I wanted to think about.

So many photographers today are sucked into equipment, believing that somehow this will make them great photographers.

[Mark Barendt]

The difference between the two approaches to photography is certainly worth a meaningful discussion...

Fair enough Marko.

So given the topic at hand, simplicity (vs. complexity), I'd like to here why you think a complex kit is better or worse than a simple kit.

[Marko]

Fair enough Marko.

So given the topic at hand, simplicity (vs. complexity), I'd like to here why you think a complex kit is better or worse than a simple kit.

So given the apparent complexity of the thread about simplicity, I'd like to hear how did you come to that particular conclusion? I don't think I said anything about any equipment being better or worse than the other, in this thread or any other.

The point I bring up fairly often, on the other hand, in one form or the other is basically the simplicity of the approach to photography. The simplest and most direct route that leads one to the final result (insofar as any image is truly final) with as little fuss as possible is, IMO, always the best.

In other words, simplicity of the process, not necessarily of equipment, is equally valid angle in this context. Whether it is Karsh, HCB or all those individual smuggled digital p&s images that depicted Iraq war better than any pro, simplicity of equipment appears to follow the simplicity of the approach just like form follows function in good design.

Equipment is a heap of inanimate objects, it just is, it doesn't determine anything. It is always the photographer that matters. Or not, depending on his/her results. Ken Rockwell, to close the circle, has nothing to show for all his fixation with Leicas. The simplest cameras in existence despite their also being the most expensive and allegedly the most sophisticated. And a simple mind that can't accomplish much of anything with those cameras except to prattle about them. ;)

[rdenney]

Kirk has it right. Worshipping the single-camera-single-lens approach is as much gear worship as owning 100 lenses.

Taking a Nikon F2 with a 43-86mm lens to Disneyland is keeping it simple? I doubt many others in those days would have looked at that camera and said, "what a simple approach being taken here." If you want simple, take a Kodak Instamatic. One lens, one aperture, one shutter speed, one focus setting. That's what I took on my first major amusement park visit (Hemisfair '68).

I once posted advice on a DSLR forum that folks buying their first serious camera should avoid buying any new lenses for the first year, or for the first 1000 good, unique photographs, whichever came later. I argued that doing so would force them to understand what the kit lens could and could not do, so that when they decided to buy additional lenses, they would be able to clearly articulate why. Even though I now own more lenses than I have ever tried to count, I still spent my first several years as a serious photographer hobbyist with a fixed-lens rangefinder. It made good pictures, too.

A great artist can make good art with one color of paint. Artists are taught to draw first--effectively one color, and then restricted to outline rather than shape and tone. They are taught to represent three-dimensional modeling with one color. Some find their language of expression in that one color, but most artists who use color still have many tubes of paint and mix them to create an infinitude of color. All who start with one color learn the discipline to focus on the expression rather than the tools.

There is nothing wrong with owning lots of equipment. The important thing is that the equipment does not own us.

I find that most of Mr. Click-Through's articles have a ring of truth. They sound like one curmudgeonly outburst with a bunch of justification. The articles are often entertaining--like lots of curmudgeonly outbursts--even when I disagree. But I disagree often enough, and for good enough reasons, to know that one should not equate his curmudgeonly outbursts with authoritative expression. That I might agree with the outburst at first glance doesn't make it authoritative.

But you have to love the irony: "Real photographers use only a pinhole camera made from a Quaker Oats box" (my paraphrase) followed at the bottom of the page by "I buy all my stuff from the dealers below and you should go there and spend lots of money to help me out".

Rick "take what you need and leave the rest" Denney

[Mark Barendt]

So given the apparent complexity of the thread about simplicity, I'd like to hear how did you come to that particular conclusion? I don't think I said anything about any equipment being better or worse than the other, in this thread or any other.

Forgive me, you didn't define "which two approaches" so I made an assumption and went back to the original post and the article that rang true for Jay.


The point I bring up fairly often, on the other hand, in one form or the other is basically the simplicity of the approach to photography. The simplest and most direct route that leads one to the final result (insofar as any image is truly final) with as little fuss as possible is, IMO, always the best.

In other words, simplicity of the process, not necessarily of equipment, is equally valid angle in this context. Whether it is Karsh, HCB or all those individual smuggled digital p&s images that depicted Iraq war better than any pro, simplicity of equipment appears to follow the simplicity of the approach just like form follows function in good design.

Sure, I would even suggest that a 4-light studio set is at many times easier to use than a 1-light kit.


Equipment is a heap of inanimate objects, it just is, it doesn't determine anything. It is always the photographer that matters.

Agreed.

When I'm the photographer I find that having "the end" defined is the best way to keep my kit-of the-day, my thoughts, and my shooting, simple.

One of the things I'm looking for in most of my shots is a normal to slightly wide perspective for the viewer of the print, I'm looking to get both my subject and it's context in most shots. The 90mm lens on my RB fit's this role nicely. My Holga fits this role too. A 35mm or 50mm on my Nikons. A 150 on my 4x5.

What I find is that when I pick up my Nikon bag with everything from macro to 200 in it, I lose sight of "the end". I can slide that zoom and switch lenses with the best-of-em but that rarely produces a better "end".

Same problem when I take 3 different kits. I went to a large format workshop back in November, one of my mistakes was taking along my Nikons and Holga during the day. Sure I got some fun shots but I should not have given myself that option. I would have taken similar shots with the 4x5, learned more, and had more fun without the option of a small camera.


Or not, depending on his/her results. Ken Rockwell, to close the circle, has nothing to show for all his fixation with Leicas. The simplest cameras in existence despite their also being the most expensive and allegedly the most sophisticated. And a simple mind that can't accomplish much of anything with those cameras except to prattle about them. ;)

I'm a bit confused, you just said this;


if one of us is not willing or is simply unable to do it any other way than by using roll-eyes and snide remarks, then you are right, it is indeed not worth arguing.

Then here you leap into a diatribe, with a wink, beating up on Ken and Leicas.

Are we here to discuss various approaches to photography or talk trash?

[Marko]

Forgive me, you didn't define "which two approaches" so I made an assumption and went back to the original post and the article that rang true for Jay.

Didn't I refer to The Hunter and The Cook clearly enough in the previous post? If that is not clear enough for you, I really don't know how to make it clearer and still keep it at the educated adults level...


When I'm the photographer I find that having "the end" defined is the best way to keep my kit-of the-day, my thoughts, and my shooting, simple.

One of the things I'm looking for in most of my shots is a normal to slightly wide perspective for the viewer of the print, I'm looking to get both my subject and it's context in most shots. The 90mm lens on my RB fit's this role nicely. My Holga fits this role too. A 35mm or 50mm on my Nikons. A 150 on my 4x5.

What I find is that when I pick up my Nikon bag with everything from macro to 200 in it, I lose sight of "the end". I can slide that zoom and switch lenses with the best-of-em but that rarely produces a better "end".

Yeah, you seem to have quite a collection there... But what I am saying is that if you pick any one camera and any one lens and try to make the best out of it in a given situation, you might come out with quite surprising pictures. That would be the exact opposite way of thinking and it obviously works for the people I mentioned and for many others.


Same problem when I take 3 different kits. I went to a large format workshop back in November, one of my mistakes was taking along my Nikons and Holga during the day. Sure I got some fun shots but I should not have given myself that option. I would have taken similar shots with the 4x5, learned more, and had more fun without the option of a small camera.

Just the example of what I mentioned above.


I'm a bit confused, you just said this;

[...]

Then here you leap into a diatribe, with a wink, beating up on Ken and Leicas.

Yeah, there is the bit of confusion...

Leicas? Where did I trash Leicas? I said they were the simplest yet the more expensive and at the same time allegedly the most sophisticated cameras around. How is this trashing, pray tell??

A wink is a wink - a sign that one may not be quite serious. There is the thing called humor, and there is the sarcasm. That particular wink denotes a bit of both, you know.


Are we here to discuss various approaches to photography or talk trash?

I don't know, you tell me. You started with the politics and spin thing and you keep being snarky beyond sarcastic. If you really want to discuss various approaches to photography, you are welcome to begin. If not, it might really not be worth all the bother.

[Mark Barendt]

I'm done.

[Marko]

If you really want to discuss various approaches to photography, you are welcome to begin. If not, it might really not be worth all the bother.


I'm done.

No surprises there...