Open Mike: If You Don't Need It, Don't Bother With It

Got this email when I was sick:

We all wish you a speedy return to health and mental clarity.
Do not be discouraged.
We depend on TOP as an oasis of sanity.
Well, except for this B&W sensor thing.

—Luke

Made me laugh.

But there's a serious point behind it, and I think it's an important one.

Artists—and let's not get hung up on that word; people who create things—do what they need to do to do what they want to do. You master what you need to master.

You do need to master your craft. But only the parts that pertain to you. There's no unspoken requirement that you should master everything. One of the most dispiriting things about the age of digital imaging is that people have thrown themselves so wholeheartedly into mastering things like the the minutiae of camera technology. What does that matter? It doesn't, except where it does.Why in the world would it matter to people, for example, to memorize the whole product line of the brand of camera they use?

It has always seemed odd to me that ordinary hobbyists take such an interest in the business problems of the manufacturers. If you specialize in that because you write about it, or because you're an analyst, fine—but what does it have to do with creating work? Do you have what you need? Then why do you care about some corporation's balance sheet? Why do you want to second-guess their marketing strategies? That has nothing to do with creating work. It still seems odd to me that people get so interested in that.

But when you have a need for something in order to create what you want to create, that's when you go all in. You master what you have to. Whatever it is. So it's quite possible in the history of photography to point out numerous artists/photographers/creators who were obsessive about mastering the techniques they needed...and who didn't know much at all about other things. I knew a guy decades ago who claimed he didn't know how to use a 35mm camera. Why would he say that? Because he shot 8x10. He could tell you all about 8x10.

Humble bragging
Along these lines I think of Peter G., a studio advertising pro for whom I assisted for half a year in the 1980s. He told a story about how friends would come up to him at social gatherings and ask him to show them how to use their flash that they couldn't figure out. He would tell them he had absolutely no idea—he never shot with hot-shoe flash, didn't own one, and didn't know how they worked. His friends would stare at him incredulously and say, "you don't even know how to use a flash? I thought you were a pro!"

Of course Peter did know how to use "flash"—back at the studio he had $150,000 worth of lighting equipment, including $90,000 worth of electronic "strobes," as they were universally if incorrectly called at the time—pack-and-head units, the ancestors of something like this, many times more powerful and much more versatile than any on-camera flash. Anything having to do with studio lighting he had unto redundancy. He had something like 60 C-stands, short ones, tall ones, big ones, small ones. Of all that equipment, he was an absolute master. He prided himself on being able to light anything with strobes. In fact, he didn't even like to photograph without strobes—he did almost everything with them. He mistrusted natural light. But he really wasn't kidding. He had no idea how to use on-camera flash units. I can't recall if he owned one or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if he really didn't, because he was cheap with a buck. He said they were too complicated—that pack-and-head units were much easier to use.

That's the way it is for most people who are serious. You do what you need to do to do what you want to do. So, yeah, you do a deep dive on that. But all the rest of it? Learn it when you need it. Otherwise, it's optional.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Migrant Mother, by Sarah Meister. "Each volume in the One on One series is a sustained meditation on a single work from the collection of MoMA." Forty-two pages with many illustrations. An engaging guided tour of the history and lore of "American photography's Mona Lisa."

This book link is a portal to Amazon. You're very kind use our links, as they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Luke: "I'm just glad you thought it was funny."

Thomas Mc Cann: "Years ago there was a pop music guitarist, who I won't name. He was a wizard on the guitar, an absolute virtuoso. His problem was he was so interested in displaying his virtuosity the music he played was dire. I think people who are overly interested in the technicalities lose sight of their aims."

Albert Smith: "I think differently. Photography is an art, but it relies on science, unless you don't care about 'wrong' things because of well, 'art.' I learned the theory of the science behind what the technology is doing, in a very general way not specific to the actual tool. It is this understanding that lets you know when the technology is violating the thing that you are trusting it to do. If I know the guide number of any flash, I can use it on any camera. I also would know when it won't work, like using flash in a football stadium from the upper seats. There was a time when ƒ/8 was ƒ/8 and 1/250th was 1/250th and guess what? That time is still now. Understand the science and you can be effective with any serviceable photographic gear. Fail to learn the math and formulas and you will be in trouble when the functions are not corresponding to the parameters because you won't know that is happening. This thought process has allowed many photographers to concurrently use a Leica M and a Nikon F plus a Rolleiflex. They all do exactly the same thing when you understand ƒ/8 is ƒ/8 and...."

Rick: "Work is hard, discussing gear is easy. Most people like easy."

darlene: "Re: 'you don't even know how to use a flash? I thought you were a pro!' A few times, I experienced a similar situation with point-and-shoot cameras when I shot high-end weddings in the '90s. If someone asked me to take a candid photo of their group with their camera while sitting at the dining tables, I struggled a little bit if the camera had more than one button on the top as I did not know which one was the shutter button. The only point-and-shoot camera I had during that time (my 'mommy camera') was a Nikon 35Ti, and the top of that camera had analog dials and an easy-to-distinguish shutter button. Some of us pros missed a lot of the pocket camera movement."

Mike replies: That's funny. I ran into the same problem teaching high school. Once, a parent gave me an earful for not knowing every button on his kid's ancient Zenit! "You call yourself a teacher?" etc. I wanted to tell him to buy his daughter a decent camera made sometime during her lifetime, but I held my tongue.

Comments

[Artistwithlight]

it takes at least 10 years to get decent (not even good) with digital photography, im sure people think they are good less than 10 years in, but its too much to learn and the cameras change fast. Nobody needs that.

[Dan Khong]

Come to think of it, I am shooting quite a lot of 120 format lately. The less bullets that you carry, the more careful you are with each shot.

So the guy with the 8x10 may well be taking better shots than the 120 guy, who then take better shots than the 35mm guy, who then take better shots than the digital "Rambo" shooting style guy with free bullets.

Just saying.

[PaulW]

This article is a metaphor for life. For six plus decades I've lived in this world and I still don't how most of it works. :)

[John Krumm]

Solid advice. Many of us are into photography partly what little bit of "community" we can squeeze out of the online experience, or at least that's what happens. This site is the best for that in my opinion. It would be interesting to go into an alternate reality where digital cameras existed but the internet didn't. TOP would have to just be The Photographer, a magazine (affectionately known as TP). Printer sales would be higher, and camera clubs would be well attended, I bet. The internet gives us the impression that we can become sorta pretty good at a lot of stuff, and I suppose we can, but should we? It also sucks up a lot of time we could spend making photographs and projects. I think of Sam Abel, his 28 and his 90 and his patience.

[Stephen Schar]

A good way to think about this is a "philosophy" I finally learned after working as a scientist and Six Sigma Master Black Belt during my entire professional career.

In the real world, what matters most, most of the time, is what is practically significant, NOT what is only "statistically siginificant."

This is not to say that what is statistically siginificant is never important because, occasionally, it is.

But...80-85% of the time, it's what is practically significant that matters.

Focus on the practically significant, and generally you don't have to sweat what is only statistically significant.

Wish I had learned this 40 years ago.

[Matthew]

"Cameras" and "Photos" are two different hobbies. Sometimes they overlap, and other times they don't. (Both are okay.)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I've been doing another editing pass through photos of Mark Bode painting the new mural at Dreamhaven books, editing hundreds down to fewer hundreds or even dozens for the new gallery. I don't like this phase much, it burns me out fast. But...my brain isn't fast enough to see what's happening now and what's going to happen over the next few minutes and figure out which one photo to take. The only way to get the great ones in an active environment is to shoot aggressively and edit later.

There are various ways of shooting stupidly that you can probably learn to avoid, that helps. Some. Not enough.

So completely and utterly different from studio still-life. Or even working with good models.

[Speed]

It's been said about cameras and software -- each has hundreds of settings and controls but nobody uses more than five of them. The problem is that everybody uses a different five.

(Insert joke about camera instruction manuals and quick reference guides ... )

[Frank Grygier]

It seems that the tribalism of brand loyalty that has welled up over the age of digital photography contributes to the need to know everything about the tribe's brand and the need to defend it at all costs.

[Robert Johnston]

I couldn't agree more Mike, that is assuming that everyone who takes photographs is interested in the final product and how to get better at improving it. I suspect that many camera users are not really interested in that. They are interested in the technology and/or think that it is their passport to better photography (how powerful marketing is). If those people didn't exist there would be far fewer cameras and lenses produced and the cost would go up for us 'serious' photographers.

[Dogman]

One of my favorite quotes, "You don't need all that crap to take good pictures."

I'm quoting me.

But only when it comes to people going ga-ga over the newest Mega Monster II camera with 8.6% more resolution than the previous Mega Monster I. Some people actually do need all that crap. But not many. Really.

[Kodachromeguy]

Many "photographers," especially ones on the big D site and other forums, get all twisted up in the minutiae of brands, marketing, megapixels, ISO cheating, etc., because they aren't photographers. They are gageteers or dilettantes. But they buy stuff and support R&D, so we should be thankful.

[Daniel]

This is a lot like asking how to throw a football. You get very different answers and depth of information when asking your High School player, Patrick Mahomes, and Mahomes' Quarterback Coach.

[GKFroehlich]

Good advice, but a couple of observations:
1 - If your passions or interests or hobbies or professional obligations are wide-ranging, then you must dive both deeply and widely in order to excel.
2 - In response to all the frequent bitching about how complicated cameras have become, and all the pining for simple cameras with only 3-4 things to control (ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and maybe focus), your advice is exactly what I tell those people. Learn the parts you need, ignore the rest! It’s not a difficult concept.

Particularly with respect to my second observation, I found it…uh, interesting?…that you would be offering this advice, given all the posts about cameras having too many features.

As they say, I’m just sayin’…

[Barry Reid]

Thing is, that old pro was right; Studio lights are much easier to use and get correct exposure with than on camera TTL flash. It was an absolute revelation for me the first time I played with a couple of heads and a flash meter and suddenly I was controlling the light not an inscrutable microprocessor.

[RayC]

You're link to a modern studio flash system brought back memories of the flash units used at the first commercial studio I worked at in Chicago. While more modern Speedotron and Norman were in common use, this studio had been around awhile and had a big investment in Ascor flash units like the one pictured here (scroll to the middle of the page) https://cornicello.com/itfigures/ascor where each steel box yielded (I think) 800 watt/seconds and disconnecting and rewiring banks was a delicate task.

My other favorite flash story was when I was shooting a dad and his less than year old daughter for a class assignment when the capacitors in the flash started to sequentially explode, Dad and I were ducking for cover but the daughter just giggled through it all.