Thoughts on Thursday: G.A.S. and Shooting People

Almost every photo enthusiast I've ever met has had G.A.S. Or to the laymen, Gear Acquisition Syndrome. It's really disgusting, and I'm as guilty as they come. When I first started learning about photography, I didn't care or even really know why some lenses were more expensive. I had a bare bones kit consisting of my Dad's Ricoh KR-10, and 2 zoom lenses of questionable quality. I barely used the zooms like they were meant to be, and usually shot at their extreme ends. I didn't see much of a point for the in-between focal lengths. Even today, I am far more comfortable with primes and generally shoot with my 50mm, 85mm, and my one and only zoom lens locked at 17mm.

Anyways, I've pretty much talked myself out of buying a new DSLR anytime soon. I just don't think I deserve one. Although I drool over the D700 at least twice a day. I really want a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro lens. Say what you will, but the lens is sick and sharp as all hell wide open. And apart from that, I'd like a really fast DX/cropped sensor wide-angle prime. Which of course Nikon doesn't make. In their defense, nobody really makes one, and I don't blame them. Most people that understand the benefits and desire the look of a super fast wide angle prime are probably shooting full-frame sensors and probably a Canon...ahem. But tell me a DX (cropped sensor) 10mm f/1.8 wouldn't be sweet? Actually anything at 16mm or less at an f-stop of 1.8 or larger would be awesome. Of course I probably wouldn't be able to afford one if it were built...but see, even this is kind of bullshit. While I could make an argument that certain shots I want to take are not possible with my current kit, it's still just some form of justification to buy more shit.

I always get a kick out of it when friends ask me for advice on a camera purchase - especially when they're thinking about picking up a DSLR. For one, I'm excited at the potential of having friends that would like to shoot with me. As popular as photography has become, no one really ever wants to shoot. But there's a flip side to all of this. I've learned the hard way, that no matter how strong of an argument I make against it, they will always buy a Canon Rebel, or a Nikon D40. And I realized something, when someone tells you they have "some" experience with photography, it really means they have "no" experience with photography. They won't understand why the high-end models don't have "scene" modes, or the importance of having certain controls right at your fingertips. They also don't understand why they would want/need to shoot in manual mode.

But I've come to terms with it - in fact I've straight up recommended that some people don't even buy a DSLR and stick to a point & shoot with decent manual controls like a Canon G10. Because photography is supposed to be fun. But many soon learn it's not all that fun to try and learn how to use a DSLR when they don't have an understanding of the basics - primarily proper exposure and depth of field.

What's even better is when someone asks me what lens to buy - that is quite possibly the most loaded question ever. Instead of this gear centric question, one should instead ask themselves: What do I want to photograph?

Anyways, I've quickly realized that gear has made my love for photography a little cynical. But on a positive note, understanding the technical shit behind some of the more complicated shots I've seen has allowed me to figure out a way to adapt it to my less than stellar kit of equipment. And call it a regression if you will, but I've been trying to keep my shooting as no-frills as possible. After picking up "At Work" and "American Music" by Annie Leibovitz I started to remember what I liked about photography. Her early work was done with one camera and one lens. That's all the woman had. And a lot of the photos were far from technically perfect, but it did not matter. They were beautiful, they were harsh, they had a visual impact that didn't require all this other bullshit that surrounds photography now.

I always preferred to photograph people. I mean all that other shit has its place, but when it comes down to it, I will rarely ever give a fuck about a photo of a flower, or an insect, or a mountain. I'm not saying this stuff doesn't have it's place, but it's just not my thing. I started pursuing a fashion centric type of photography. And it helped tremendously with my understanding of light, particularly how to light people for a myriad of different "looks." But I also realized that I really don't like this kind of photography. Almost as much as I hate shooting events (let me make this clear that I do like looking at good event photography, I just don't like shooting it). Anyways through the course of shooting a few of these, I learned a lot about how I saw people, and how people see themselves.

Here were a few of my big takeaways from the experience:
1. People LOVE doing the DUMBEST, UGLIEST, and downright most ANNOYING shit with their lips when they get photographed.
2. Just because a girl is attractive, doesn't mean she photographs well. And I don't necessarily mean she isn't photogenic either. I took a couple photos of a girl, who shall remain nameless, (and I never posted the photos either), and I realized she's just fucking boring, shallow, and I never want to photograph her again. But this just might be a reflection of how I feel about the person.
3. I can quickly tell when I place someone out of their element and they have no idea what to do, and the photo generally suffers because of it.
4. I will never photograph anything that involves "fashion."

On a positive note, I think I'm getting closer and closer to the type of photography I like...or I'm getting closer to answering my question: What do I want to photograph?

I know you'd like some kind of closure, but the best I can do is ... none of the above.