Thoreau and Photography

[johnastovall]

The case for craftsmanship and simplicity

[jeffkohn]

I got bored and stopped reading about halfway though, but his argument seems pretty weak to me. Do I use every feature on my D300? No, but there are quite a few features I find indispensable, that I would sorely miss if I had to start shooting with a "digital M3" or similar that was stripped of all but the most basic of features. And other D300 users probably feel similarly about their favorite features, which could be different from my mine. The extra features don't hurt anything; if you don't want to use them, then you don't have to. I'm not saying you should pay extra for features you don't need; but to go to the other extreme and say we should strip out all features that aren't universal in their appeal is just dumb.

[alamoshutterbug]

Is it any less of a minimalist approach if I choose to use my feature laden camera in a minimalist style, that is, shooting manual? Jeff pointed this out too.

Is having to change film to change ISO any more minimalist than turning a dial? I betcha I can do it faster and simpler than you can with a film camera. If you're using a meter you still have turn a dial!

And if you don't have internal metering you have external metering. So are two contraptions to lug around simpler or more minimal than one? Skip the meter and guess, bracket? Not simpler unless you really know what your doing.

Is the digital manipulation process really any more complicated than the myriad of developing protocols, types, brands, treatments, equipment, etc.? The writer claims digital processing is just raising or lowering values in pixels. This is not that different than raising and lowering values of light transmitted through silver crystal grains physically.

The big problem I see with minimalism is that one still has to arbitrarily draw a line somewhere. So my opinion on what is basic may be different from somebody else. This writer seems to draw the line at aperture, shutter speed, and focus distance. Well, why is he right? Who needs focus distance control? There are a whole lot of pinhole photographers that would say it's not AS necessary as one would think. Who needs a shutter?

Doesn't the M3 have a timer? Is that really necessary?

[johnastovall]

I'm starting to think contact printing 8x10 glass plates may be the future.

Puts point is placing process over technology.

[Afragola]

That simplistic approach of film, camera, wet darkroom and such allowed me to work on five continents, buy three Porsches, a couple of Mercedes, an Audi or two, ditto for BMWs, five Corvettes, a host of the other detritus of life, and live and work in 58 countries and all 50 states... Vive simplicity!

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by Afragola

That simplistic approach of film, camera, wet darkroom and such allowed me to work on five continents, buy three Porsches, a couple of Mercedes, an Audi or two, ditto for BMWs, five Corvettes, a host of the other detritus of life, and live and work in 58 countries and all 50 states... Vive simplicity!

Just think how successful you might have been had you had a fancy whistle or two ?

I am an ardent KISS advocate. If some technology makes it simpler, I'm OK with it.

[Bruce M. Morris]

Is the issue really process over Technology or does it all boil down to learning to use what you have? Whether you have a Nikon, a Canon, a Leica or a Hasselblad; whether it is digital or film, to get the best images out of it, you have to know and learn how it works. Then images that we tend to remember, that impact us the most tend to be simpler in their elements, but they have that impact because the photographers learned how to use the equipment and the processes that were available and used what was appropriate for what they wanted to achieve. Margaret Bourke-White would probably have used a digital camera if it had been available. I bet the images would have been just as dramatic.