back alley
IMAGES
where does art or creativity fit into this discussion? or does it?
logical arguments can be so rigid.
logical arguments can be so rigid.
bmattock
Mentor
To me, art is the final result. I could not possibly care less when I look at a photograph, how many lenses the photographer owns. If I like the photograph, then I like the photograph.
If a photographer feels they could become better if they specialized in a single lens or a small range of lenses, more power to them. As you say, logical arguments in this sense are invalid - what a person wants is what they want. Less or more, if that's what they feel is correct for them, then it is what it is.
I only apply my logic test to statements that are illogical on their face.
It is not logical to assume that having fewer lenses will make a person a better photographer. There's nothing to point to that tends to prove that assertion. If one wishes to do it anyway, bravo for them. It still is not a logical conclusion.
It is not logical for a person who wishes to constrain themselves to feel that they can only do so by removing all temptation. That's not logic, that's mental weakness.
So when a person says "I think my work would improve if I just used a 28mm lens and Tri-X for a year," I may think they're nuts, but it's their life, good luck and have fun.
if they say, "And therefore I am selling all my kit, because if I keep it I will use it," I think they are incapable of controlling themselves, not virtuous.
And when others chime in and say "Yeah, we all should get rid of our kit, it would make us all better photographers," I think...well never mind, I'm a terrorist if I say it.
MCTuomey
Mentor
I don't know whether you read well, but you presume quite a lot. I never said there was a causal link, nor did I mention a desire for one to be there. Same for any assumption between gear volume and photographic skill. Thanks for the psychologizing, that's helpful
especially coming from such a muscular logician as yourself as opposed to the weak sissies you mention.What I did express was admiration for those photographers who display skill at their trade and who, often in my admittedly limited experience, appear to use relatively few yet well-chosen tools to obtain results. Not one, not many, but simply a well-chosen number. All the skillful craftsmen I know display a similar reliance on a select number of tools they seem to know very well.
Maybe that's the source of the idea to get familiar with one or two lenses versus ten, Bill. No one mentioned a hair shirt - that's your comparison and judgment. Ditto for sissyism and weak-mindedness: another couple of instances of your keyboard machismo comparisons.
back alley
IMAGES
..It is not logical for a person who wishes to constrain themselves to feel that they can only do so by removing all temptation. That's not logic, that's mental weakness...
could it be something else?
could it be something else?
MCTuomey
Mentor
agreed, joe. logic is a tool after all and, in the hands of our own Bill Mattock, one mostly rigid, inflexible, and more oriented to blunt trauma than sensitive use. but then, we have so many weak-minded sissies around that Bill hasn't yet cleared from the shining path ...
MCTuomey
Mentor
By extension of his argument, Bill would account for the decision often made by recovering alcoholics to remove all alcohol from reach, privately and socially, as "mental weakness." It's not weakness, it's a way to deal with a difficult to overcome propensity. Much less significantly, but no less effectively, photo gear enthusiasts can seek to curb their enthusiasm with a similar regimen. O but for a world filled with folks as decisive and powerful as Bill ...
gns
Well-known
"It is not logical to assume that having fewer lenses will make a person a better photographer. There's nothing to point to that tends to prove that assertion. If one wishes to do it anyway, bravo for them. It still is not a logical conclusion".
Well, there is the work of the great photographers. When I look at just about any great body of work, I do not see evidence of the photographer using a wide variety of equipment or processes. For the most part, they have chosen a pretty limited approach.
Cheers,
Gary
Well, there is the work of the great photographers. When I look at just about any great body of work, I do not see evidence of the photographer using a wide variety of equipment or processes. For the most part, they have chosen a pretty limited approach.
Cheers,
Gary
bmattock
Mentor
When I was quitting smoking, I had a pack of cigarettes in my backpack. The first time I tried to quit, I failed, and I attribute that to weakness on my part. The second time I tried, I succeeded. I finally threw away the cigarettes, but only because I no longer wanted them, not because having them around forced me to smoke them.
I own guns - and some people argue that having guns means that sooner or later, one will be forced to use them. While having guns increases the chances that you'll use one (because not having one is a statistical zero chance), it is an assumption of weak-mindedness that having one around forces a person to use it.
I somehow manage to choose only the lens I wish to use from a rather large collection of rather cheap lenses I've picked up over the years. The notion that I am somehow less productive, less creative, or that I am therefore unable to restrict myself to only a few lenses is ludicrous. On what basis can one make such an assumption?
If one cannot do so oneself, I can only call that weakness. Could it be something else? I suppose so. What would it be, then? Cosmic rays? The whimsical interference of the Gods of Photography?
BillP
Rangefinder General
...personal expression?
...freedom of choice?
...arrogance-avoiding, naysayer-negating, dogma-dodging, curmudgeon-cheating individuality?
Regards,
Bill (the open-minded one)
Gumby
Mentor
What is wrong with "different strokes for different folks"?
bmattock
Mentor
Again, poor logic. If they use (or seem to use) a limited selection of lenses, does that mean they only OWN a small selection of lenses? Does that mean that their selection of lenses is what made their photographs great? You assume a causal link where there is no evidence that one exists.
My statements - which I must apparently repeat - have been that if one wishes to limit oneself to one or a few lenses, great for you, have at it. There is no logical basis to assume that having fewer lenses produces better work, but if you think so, that's your business. I have further said that reducing one's inventory in the belief that one cannot use fewer lenses unless one has fewer lenses is not just illogical, but rather stupid.
If I apply your logic, I can also note that most of the great photographers are men. Therefore, men are better photographers than women.
Is that true? Of course not. But based on the SAME evidence that you are using to decide that a 'few' lenses produce better photographs, it must be.
bmattock
Mentor
If you're saying that being unable to choose only one lens is a form of illness, then yes, I suppose you'd be right. Alcoholics have a disease. Do people who are unable to choose a single lens from amongst many have a disease, an illness? Are they unable to control themselves through some deficit that could be cured by therapy or drugs or meditation? A twelve-step program for GAS, perhaps?
True that.
bmattock
Mentor
No, I'm a terrorist. Ask anybody.
Gumby
Mentor
back alley
IMAGES
entitled or not, we all seem to have them.
i ask questions here as bill seems so sure about what he says and i react to the harshness of the presentation.
my mother was firm, my father hit me and while i learned things from both i much preferred my mothers approach.
joe
FrankS
Registered User
You're quick Bill. I deleted my post. Best to walk away when it starts to get personal.
Gid
Well-known
Can you apply logic to what seems to me to be illogical? If the choice of gear or approach to how one uses it were logical, then, wouldn't we all use the same gear for any given situation? Notwithstanding, of course, that we could all have access to that gear (affordability and availability being equal). I don't think that human beings are inherently logical which is, possibly, why logical arguments don't cut it with a lot of people.
Gumby
Mentor
It is called "bullying" joe. Even bully's have a good point some times... but the behavior of bullying tends not to be considered socially acceptable..
Last edited:
bmattock
Mentor
I have never understood why the things I say are seen as 'harsh' but I hear it a lot, so I accept that they must be harsh. I'm not sure that makes my opinions wrong. I keep thinking it must be my lack of use of smileys. I say the same things in person that I post online, and I don't get this reaction.
bmattock
Mentor
I will accept the fact that a lot of people lack logic in any of their decision-making. Why they would then put those illogical statements forward as being advantageous to themselves or anyone else is beyond me. Such deficits in thinking are generally repairable, but what stuns me more than ignorance is the people who know they are ignorant and intentionally and proudly insist on remaining in that state. If I were more logical, I would realize that one cannot make a silk purse of a sow's ear and retreat. This is clearly my own failure.