I said, "Yeah, just looking for a few interesting shots while I walk around."
He responded with, "Yeah, I'm a photographer too. It's what I do." That immediately made me wonder why he was working in a second hand store if he was a professional photographer, which was what he seemed to be implying. He confirmed my suspicions by asking if I wanted to see his camera. From behind the counter he pulled out this humongous Canon EOS 1d with some equally huge white lens on it. It made my back ache just looking at it. Even with the dark sunglasses I could see the smugness on his face as he held up his howitzer while looking at the tiny point and shoot in my hand. Assured that he had established photographic superiority, he put the huge camera back behind the counter.
There were several photos on the wall that I was sure were his. They were all OK, but just OK. I asked if they were his, and he proudly proclaimed, "Yeah, that's some of my work." He paused, and I could tell he was waiting for what he thought would be the inevitable praise and compliments. I didn't give it. Sensing I needed some help to comprehend how wonderful his photos were, he began to try to enlighten me on "real photography".
"With these new digital cameras", he began, "everyone thinks they're a photographer. Folks walk around with their little point and shoots, set on program mode, and think they're taking great pictures. But that's not real photography. That's just snapshots. You have to really know about cameras do real photography." The implication seemed to be that if your camera weighed less than a Chevy Suburban, you didn't really know about cameras.
I almost took the bait of his "real photography" definition, which would have led to a pointless debate. Fortunately, another customer came in looking for old guitars, which gave me my opportunity to make my exit.
As I've stated many times before on this blog, I'm squarely in the "it's the photographer, not the equipment" camp. I've seen too many wonderful photos made with the simplest, amateur equipment, and too much crap made with pro gear to be convinced otherwise. But the debate will go on.
I made the above photo on yesterday's walk around Frog Level with my little A2000. Will it one day hang in a prestigious art gallery? I doubt it. Is it "real photography"? I think so. I kinda like it even if it isn't.
5 comments:
I couldn't agree more...though sometimes when shooting wildlife I'd like to have some more focal length. The truth of the matter is though that I'd not want to carry the weight even if I could afford it!
Like they say, the most important component of the camera is the 12 inches directly behind the viewfinder. Seems like his "equipment" might be a bit defective, ha ha.
I agree with you!!!
Me too!!!
Snob photography is a bit like the Emporer has no clothes or there is an elephant in the room. People nod their heads and rave about something because they don't want to appear ignorant or uncouth.
It is the photographer more than the camera that can make a "Real photograph"
I would love to have a better camera with all the trimings but my brain can only take so mauch, so I do with what I have and have a great time at it.
Incedentially I love this picture. Great composition and just a bit quirky.
Very wise to "not take the bait"... I'd've probably taken the bait, but then attacked with the directioon that it isn't "real photography" if it isn't done with real film in a real darkroom... I could've bemoaned all the fools who drop a few grand on some hotshot DSLR and think that makes them special.
Not that I believe any of that, but I could still make the pitch. After all, if you're going to be an elitist snob, may as well be an "old-school" elitist snob.
Post a Comment