If prime lenses can in fact spur creativity...

robonrome wrote in post #11531464
JeffreyG,

I for one really appreciate the point of threads like this and thank you for starting it. I find myself feeling much the same way as you do in having a good understanding of the technical aspects of photography, but wanting to somehow move the thing that really counts, one's creativity, onto a new and hopefully more satisfying plane.

I'm going to take a punt, that different approaches might work better for different people in generating or releasing creativity. I believe everyone is capable of some degree of creativity, but that for some this is as natural to them as breathing while others have to work at it. For the naturally creative, flexible tools and approaches that allow for almost any possibility may allow their natural creativity to flourish in different directions. For those of us (and I'd count myself in this category) who are perhaps less naturally creative, such flexible tools may lead to us heading down a photography rut, lured by the easy options such as shallow DoF etc. For the less naturally creative, hard decisive approaches such as to use a particular focal length, slower aperture (as you've suggested) or setting a specific project is perhaps the best way to drive the creative spark out into the open.

Very well said!

Luka thanks for the clarification. It really takes a significant investment to move to a higher level. I'm impressed with your choices in gear and imagery. My guess is for every image posted here there is a bit bucket that has overflowed a whole lot.

Jeffrey I think the biggest thing affecting my game isn't gear but direction. What exactly do I want to capture and present? What is the niche and signature that represents my love of imagery. That's the battle I am working these days. Most certainly I've been making headway on composition but it still takes direction and the ability to put yourself in a scene that is worth capturing. There is nothing like real eye candy for making a day shooting and you never quite know how it will turn out.

A few quotes I thought appropriate. I know I know not another quote Allen but I have always learned for them.

"The photographer’s most important and likewise most difficult task is not learning to manage his camera, or to develop, or to print. It is learning to see photographically – that is, learning to see his subject matter in terms of the capacities of his tools and processes, so that he can instantaneously translate the elements and values in a scene before him into the photograph he wants to make."
Edward Weston

"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it."
Edward Weston

"As great a picture can be made as one's mental capacity--no greater. Art cannot be taught; it must be self-inspiration, though the imagination may be fired and the ambition and work directed by the advice and example of others."
Edward Weston

"I see no reason for recording the obvious."
Edward Weston

I just thought that Mr Westons words would inspire.

denoir wrote in post #11531185
You'll have to find what motivates you but I can tell you my story and how gear radically changed my approach to photography.

I've always been semi-interested in photography but I only took it up as a serious hobby early this year. I had for years a 350D with a super zoom and no particular ambitions. Last year I got a 7D in order to shoot video with it. It was fun and the quality was superb. I bought a pile of video gear and made a bunch of short films (http://vimeo.com/luka/​videos). In January I decided that I should learn a bit about the lenses I had bought (a modest collection of mid range Canon and Sigma primes) by going out and doing some regular photography. I was amazed at the 7D's performance as a still camera and I realized that I could enjoy photography much more than cinematography. The latter is really not easy as a one man show due to the excessive amount of gear one has to carry.

So a second gear frenzy ensued. I bought L primes & zooms with the enthusiasm of an alcoholic finding a bar on a deserted island. I took a trip to South Africa and went on a safari and used that as an excuse to buy more gear, including a 5DII and the then new 70-200/II. That lens together with the 7D is an unbeatable combo. I was machine gunning away at an incredible rate. And sure, it paid off. I got some really nice wild life shots. This type:

At one point I realized though that while I was enjoying the photography itself that I did not really like my own photos and that my approach was really flawed. I was firing away in burst mode, without thinking. My image library was suffocating under piles of near-identical images. Sifting through them took forever.

This coincided with being very displeased with the soft corners of the 16-35 which had ruined a couple of landscape shots. So I bought a Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon. This was the serious turning point for me. After a time getting to know the lens, I fell in love with it. The rendering was magnificent. Much more important though was that it is a manual focus lens, so as I took time to focus I also took time to compose the image. This made a massive difference in the quality of the output. I took it one step further and started using live view for exact composition and started using a tripod. After the 21 Distagon, I got five or six more Zeiss ZE lenses and a couple of other manual focus lenses. I used a tripod, live view and became very concerned with getting a good composition.

I've done my best photography that way and it's still what I know best.

The only thing that bothered me was the size and bulk of the equipment. I got a Leica X1 to use as a P&S but was disappointed by it. Its slow AF made it practically unusable. Still looking for a more compact system I got the Leica M9 a couple of months ago. I don't know if you've ever used a rangefinder camera, but it's a primitive mechanical device that has not changed at all in the last 50 years. You don't look through the lens but through a fixed piece of glass that has framelines that approximately indicate the framing. The M9 is a full frame digital range finder but it's in essence not much different from a 1940's Leica but with a digital back. The sensor is superb, probably the best on the market but it is in terms of the rest of the electronics exceptionally primitive. No live view, horrible low-resolution screen. It's painfully slow. No real 100% preview etc

In short you are not much better off than with a classic film camera. It's all up to you. Back to basics of photography so to say. The main benefit is the superb image quality and the very compact size. Despite it's shortcomings, it's a real joy to use and my photography has changed once more due to gear. A 5DII + Zeiss glass on a tripod is excellent, but it kills off spontaneous photography. With the M9 I've rediscovered the joy of just walking around and taking pictures of interesting stuff. No tripod set up and a camera bag that weighs less than one of my larger Canon lenses.

I started taking photos like these - essentially snapshots of stuff I found visually interesting:

The down side is that I'm still not as 'fluent' with the M9 as I'm with the 5DII. I have not reached the same quality of images in terms of composition and overall look. The frame lines are very approximate and what you think you are framing and what you get can be quite different. Wide angles are very easy to focus while 50mm and above is difficult as the frame lines cover a small portion of the viewfinder.

So I'm still working on getting better at the whole rangefinder thing. My idea is that if I can learn to fully handle the M9 and get the results exactly as I want them then I'll really be able to get consistent results across the board regardless of which gear I choose to use. The 7D + Canon zooms is excellent for action & wildlife shots. The 5DII + Zeiss glass is an unbeatable combination for landscape photography. The M9 is superb for handheld casual shooting.

Anyway, I'll stop here. The main point of the story is that manual focus glass forced me to pause before taking a picture. As I paused to focus I could also take some time to compose the photo and that in turn lead to a significant improvement in my photos. So gear limitations can indeed help you to break certain patterns that are not good for your photography.

Don't count the M9 out for landscapes Luca. Did you read this review?
http://www.canonrumors​.com …ica-m9-experience-review/

I'm going to bed now, it's getting late here in the eastern US.

Allen - I'm glad I could draw you out to post some work that was outside of your comfort area. I love your eye in environmental portraits more than your commercial work, and while we have crossed swords in the past I know that in reality we probably are more in agreement than would be clear in some threads.

Denoir - beautiful work, you are an inspiration. I do indeed understand the draw of a rangefinder but I also think that getting into a Leica system is beyond my budget. More importantly, I like your work and I think I will follow some of the other people in this thread that have enouraged me to join photo sharing groups and to work on my vision.

Thanks All!

Yes

That is my response to the initial question. "If prime lenses can in fact spur creativity..."

But it may not be a one size fits all. For me, manual focus lenses opened up a world of learning at reasonable prices.

When I look back at things worth mastering, I realize I actually spent time, a lot of time, working at it. The sames hold true with this past time. The journey was as enjoyable if not more fun than the end result.

Taken with a modern USM 85 1.8 lens in lake Michigan - Olive Beach - Chicago. This was the only lens I used for about a year and I shot several times a week with it. The perfect lens for me in terms of speed, cost and performance. I sold it shortly after using older manual focus lenses.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

jetcode wrote in post #11531533
Luka thanks for the clarification. It really takes a significant investment to move to a higher level. I'm impressed with your choices in gear and imagery. My guess is for every image posted here there is a bit bucket that has overflowed a whole lot.

Thanks Joe. Well, yes and no. Ever since I switched to using manual focus glass I've become much more economical with the number of shots I take. I would average say 4-5 shots per hour during a typical photo walk. Now with the M9 this has increased somewhat as I'm on occasion forced to take multiple shots before I get the framing the way I want it. Still, my primary principle is to think a bit before shooting and minimize the number of pictures I have to sift through later.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11531870
Don't count the M9 out for landscapes Luca. Did you read this review?
http://www.canonrumors​.com …ica-m9-experience-review/

Allen, yes I've read the review. I'm primarily a landscape shooter and the only really positive things I can say about the M9 for that purpose is the size of the camera + lenses and the resolution of the sensor. Beyond that I find it in practice inferior for landscapes compared to a 5DII in almost every way. Composition with frame lines is inaccurate (they are calibrated for a distance of 1 meter). The dynamic range is lower. Use from tripod is cumbersome and focusing from a tripod is difficult. The Leica lenses are optimized for wide open performance and tend to be a bit disappointing stopped down. Optically speaking, Zeiss ZM lenses are not quite as good as Zeiss ZE lenses. The LCD will give you a completely wrong idea on the exposure and color rendering. Long exposures are a PITA as you have to wait 2x the time as it runs a mandatory noise reduction program that can't be turned off.

And so on. It will work in a pinch but it's really not the right tool for the job. If weight and size are no issue then I'd pick the 5DII over it any day.

A couple of examples of landscape photos with the M9:

Just like zooms, primes are tools. I hardly think anyone would spend 500-2000$ on a "limiting" tool, nor claim that unless taking snobbery to a whole new level. We pick tools that make our life's easier. Some people spend their money on the focal length flexibility of zooms, others choose to invest theirs on the DoF/speed flexibility of primes.

With primes you can ignore nasty cluttered backgrounds and concentrate on your subject. That doesn't make you a lazy/bad photographer any more then using the zoom ring in order to avoid moving your fat a**. And why do zoom lovers dream of the f/2.8 ones, rather then the f/4-f/5.6 ones if the faster lenses are creativity killers? This thread is a pretty bad excuse for a pi**sing contest between prime snobs and zoom snobs, while in reality it's just a matter of preference. No one pay's 2 grand to be limited and "unleash" the 3rd eye, so lets get over the hypocrisy.

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #11533318
Just like zooms, primes are tools. I hardly think anyone would spend 500-2000$ on a "limiting" tool, nor claim that unless taking snobbery to a whole new level. We pick tools that make our life's easier. Some people spend their money on the focal length flexibility of zooms, others choose to invest theirs on the DoF/speed flexibility of primes.

With primes you can ignore nasty cluttered backgrounds and concentrate on your subject. That doesn't make you a lazy/bad photographer any more then using the zoom ring in order to avoid moving your fat a**. And why do zoom lovers dream of the f/2.8 ones, rather then the f/4-f/5.6 ones if the faster lenses are creativity killers? This thread is a pretty bad excuse for a pi**sing contest between prime snobs and zoom snobs, while in reality it's just a matter of preference. No one pay's 2 grand to be limited and "unleash" the 3rd eye, so lets get over the hypocrisy.

Well said

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11529220
I'm not sure any equipment can really spur creativity unless it gets you out working more.

I tend to find more freedom when shooting with simpler equipment.

+ 1000

I actually walked away from the computer and shot some photos for a bit after reading this post, thanks...

Jeffery in my personal work I have total and complete freedom. When others pay me then a lot of what I do becomes a collaboration though a good deal of me and the way I see still remains. In fact most of my clients hire me for my vision. As I've said many times I am not limited by my choices because I fully know my equipment and its part of me and extension of my vision and matches well with it.


Well here are some other samples of how I feed the family but a quote from Weston that i agree with most of. Though unlike Edward I don't hate doing it for money. But it is the base for everything else in my life including my personal work which is the work I have total freedom in.
"When money enters in, - then, for a price, I become a liar, - and a good one I can be whether with pencil or subtle lighting or viewpoint. I hate it all, but so do I support not only my family, but my own work."
Edward Weston

And heres how I feed the family but the point in this work are the tools I choose to use gives me the freedom to fully express my vision in many different situations as you can see and still maintain who I am visually.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #11533318
Just like zooms, primes are tools. I hardly think anyone would spend 500-2000$ on a "limiting" tool, nor claim that unless taking snobbery to a whole new level. We pick tools that make our life's easier. Some people spend their money on the focal length flexibility of zooms, others choose to invest theirs on the DoF/speed flexibility of primes.

With primes you can ignore nasty cluttered backgrounds and concentrate o

Hahahaha.....you mean zoom users would get snobbery over prime users??? That's like point and shoot users with 12x or 20x zoom looking down on a person with a 1dmarkIII shooting a 500L, 1x zoom..... That's as entertaining as winning an argument over the Internet....

TooManyShots wrote in post #11534403
Hahahaha.....you mean zoom users would get snobbery over prime users??? That's like point and shoot users with 12x or 20x zoom looking down on a person with a 1dmarkIII shooting a 500L, 1x zoom..... That's as entertaining as winning an argument over the Internet....

I've seen the zoom police come out in force when anyone begins to mention that they prefer primes. It is and should never be a battle. Find what fits the way you see. If its prime so be it, if its zoom so be it. There is only whats right for the individual photographer and the proof is then in the work which is really all that matters. If you are in a rut then maybe you need to shake things up. It sounds as if Jeffery is clearly felling like he is in a rut and in some cases using a different piece of equipment if it gets you out working can get you out of a rut. Its not necessarily the gear but getting out working thats the cure.

denoir, your pictures are AMAZING!!! I actually have the Nikon equivalent of the 70-200 F2.8 and it is a great lens. However, you pictures are head and shoulders above mine...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11531130
No its true. I couldn't believe how it all came together when I pushed the shutter. I waited for the guy with the sign to turn because you couldn't read it and once he did turn I couldn't believe the luck that I had with the signs in the background also, the dead end because as we all know arguing religion and politics is, the up and down heaven and hell reference and the do not enter, its well advised not to. Oh well, sometimes the elements just all line up.

Not to forget the "Dead End" sign.