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

[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?

[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.

[Marko]

Your day job in politics?

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.