Why are so many photographers just a bunch of gearfag manchi

>>2999875
get off forums and preoccupy yourself then you fucking crybaby

I wish all anyone cared about was angle of view and brightness.

>Wow what did you use to shoot this?
>Just a 40° lens, it's a little noisy since I didn't want to spend extra on f1.4 but you can still clearly see the image I captured. =)

>>2999875
nigga i aint clicking that hsit

>>2999896
don't it's just an example of a gearfag who cares more about gear and gimmicks that anything else.

>>2999875
I see what you mean, OP. But honestly who cares? I haven't bought a new lens or anything in about 2 years and I don't remember the last time I read or watched a gear related piece online. I do value my equipment as a great tool though and I'd be lying if I said I don't care about gear at all. Even the other people I meet who claim to care the most about the art/craft bits and not gear get peppy about a particular camera, film, whatever it is. We might as well face that your camera does matter, to some degree, especially if you're a photographer. Photography is often one of the most technologically driven creative paths out there after all - when's the last time you saw the latest paint brush or drawing paper exhibited at CES?

>>2999907
but I want to hang with likeminded people. I don't want to just be in a gearfag club or something. where do I find these people?

>>2999911
They're spread out, more often than not. You could of course visit art galleries where they exhibit photography for example, if you really want to meet those types. In my experience though most male photographers are obsessed with gear, while the females care more about "art" even if it's just B&W photos of themselves naked or their dogs and cats. I think the male brain has an affinity for technology and gadgets, on average more than the female brain does.

>>2999911
>but I want to hang with likeminded people.

to talk about what. im pretty sure that youre a turbopleb, and that /p/ is more than enough for you. id say /p/ is too good for you, in fact.

>>2999916
>im pretty sure that youre a turbopleb, and that /p/ is more than enough for you. id say /p/ is too good for you, in fact.
just making shit up and going autistic is not really an argument or anything worth discussing. what a useless post.

>>2999919
if you had anything of worth to contribute to the board, youd be posting it, instead of bawwing like a bitch. as i said, the board is too good for you.

>>2999911
>but I want to hang with likeminded people. I don't want to just be in a gearfag club or something. where do I find these people?
Outside, taking photos.
If you're taking pictures of landscapes or architecture, you will never, ever, ever be able to avoid them.

>>2999875
The gear is more interesting than the photos.

See also: /g/ where everyone has massively powerful computers but doesn't do jack shit with it

Protip:

The people you're looking for don't spend their time talking about photography online. They are out in the real world shooting and enjoying life.

Similar to how those living the crappiest lives and struggling the most are the most active on Facebook talking about 'motivation' and 'bettering themselves'. The ones actually doing shit are too busy to post about it online.

What information do you want anyway? If you want to talk about art, go to galleries. Lots of pretentious people, but lots of really awesome people as well.

DSLR is awesome tho

File: Skärmavbild 2017-01-09 kl. 16.43.06.png (435KB, 1292x678px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1292x678px

Because we're all a specific age group who are not talented enough to be lifted by only our photographic prowess. So we get to gearfagging because it gives us the ability to materialize our passion until we are good enough.

what was >>3000000
?

>>2999875
because in order to be a skilled photographer you need to have some technical skill and gear knowledge, and the amount of artistic skill required to not look like a complete idiot is relatively low. this is not true of other arts. if you think it's bad now, it was MUCH worse in the early film days. the amount of care required to competently expose a large format picture barred entry to all but the most autistic and derangedly dedicated.

I like that photography has this combination of technology and art, but I do hate gearfags (excluding the noobs who recently entered photography and are bound to go thru that phase).

>>3000049

I pity you, because you're apparently a petty, hateful, unhappy person.

>>2999875
>Uh all you gamers are such gearfags, i can play just as good games on my spectrum.
>uh all you chefs are such gearfags, i need to chop these lettuce, pass me the butter knife
>uh all you artists are such gearfags, what's wrong with sidewalk chalk
>uh all djs are such gearfags, i just press play in a new tab on YouTube before the last song ends
>uh all you military personnel are such gearfags, i kill men with my thumbs

Are you sure you're not just poor and jealous?
Or are you just so poor you see no reason in the conversation as no one actually buys anything but kit lenses and nifty fifties if they're super serious.

If you want to talk about "the art" start threads about it instead of bitchy povvo cunt threads.

Also, this board is designed for discussion of your own art, the rules clearly state not to post any photos that aren't your own.

>>2999931
>implying I can't post mutliple things at the same time
fuck off autismo. ironic coming from an autistic shitposter.

>>2999875
> just a bunch of gearfag manchildren
Interest in gear and even a playful attitude always were good attributes for a photographer.

One because gear IS extremely important, and the other because it helps dealing with people and boredom.

> Where does one go for [...] other people who are interested in the art instead of the fucking gimmicks and gear?
You go look for some idiot "artists" in a corner of the internet that no one cares about, rather than photographers.

They'll probably even circle jerk with you about gear not mattering at all and so on. Even if it's not true in either photo- or videography.

>>3000154
>t. triggered gearfag
lmao

>>3000162
this one as well: >>3000085

Lol who cares, why don't you just do your thing instead of crying how others into the same hobby are doing it wrong. Don't you have better stuff to do?

>>3000055
>I pity you, because you're apparently a petty, hateful, unhappy person.
When that's mean, anon.

>>3000154
>One because gear IS extremely important, and the other because it helps dealing with people and boredom.

Gearfags who buy gear for the sake of buying gear aren't buying gear for good photography, they (including you) are buying toys to hold while going through some motions. This means you can't possibly have good taste in gear, or know what's good for good photography since good photography was never your goal.

At the same time, gearfags are also the most vocal about gear online on forums and blogs and youtube videos. Arguing about specs that don't matter, whining and begging for features that are impractical gimmicks for casuals at best and at worst get in the way. This hurts people who actually like photography and want nice equipment for it, because companies see your gearfaggotry and mistakenly take it as "Well, this must be what our buyers want," since it's the most visible online.

You're why we can't have nice things.

>>3000324
I'd be fine if they never made another Ricoh or Pentax product ever again. I could live in a world without Leica.

>>3000324
I agree with this pretty much.
The last thing I bought a few years ago was a Nikon FE3 with two lenses for the lenses, both manual focus for the glass, since I did not have either lens, and it was dirt cheap at an estate sale.
I am still shooting with a D300, that has tons of stupid features that I do not use. I for one wish they would do something like make a Plain Jane camera with only base line features. I do not need video, NR, 20 freaking shooting banks, ect. My camera is beat, and it is still ticking.
Every hobby has gear fags in it. I also am into astronomy, and the gear faggotry is strong in it as well. I have had to help guys that cannot even get their mount properly alighned with Polaris for their $8K telescopes to track. I have a home built scope that I ground my own optics, and it looks like junk, but I at least know where things are at in the sky.
So my advice is to just ignore all of the /p/haggots. and worry about what you are doing.

>>3000398
Stay mad, gear queer.

>>3000412
> I for one wish they would do something like make a Plain Jane camera with only base line features. I do not need video, NR, 20 freaking shooting banks, ect.

This is never going to happen because it costs the companies almost nothing to include these features and sell to the masses, vs making a "pure photography" camera for a niche market.

If you don't want to upgrade your camera you don't have to. Nobody is forcing you after all.

>>3000154
>One because gear IS extremely important

Except in a vast majority of instances, it isn't.

>>3000162
>>3000163

Lol, itt: triggered poor people.

The thing is, tomorrow I'll wake up and forget all about this exchange, you'll wake up and still be poor.

>>3000593
Why do the vast majority of fine art photographers use the best gear then?

And your comment devolves even further absurdity when you try to apply it to commercial photographers. Yes bokeh is important to events togs, yes sunstars are important to architecture togs, yes gear is 100% vital if you want complete creative control over your shots.

I use 4 different 50mm lenses depending on the situation, how triggered are you now?

>>3000647
>Yes bokeh is important to events togs
LOL no it's not. Those people are retarded and have no idea what they are doing. Ur a faggit.

I think the only thing you need to remember is that the camera doesn't matter, like Daido said. If you find yourself thinking "I want to take photos of x, but I can't because I need a new lens/better body/dildo in my ass" you've lost. You don't need anything but a camera. Maybe someone gets a sharper photo with his Såny A8mkIV and 600m lens but you can still take a photo of the same subject with your potato.

Gearfagging is not good or bad, if it pisses you off it's either a defense mechanism or you're too sensitive.

>>3000722
>ur camera doesn't matter

Over-used bullshit fallacy, and not even accurate.

What most people mean to say, and should say instead, is that your camera won't take pictures for you, and/or owning a nicer camera won't make your pictures better. This is very much true.

On the other hand, I DO need certain equipment to take certain shots. If I wanted to do drone shots of my local area where there's no tall buildings to access, I'd need a camera drone. If I want to execute a particular image and need a wide angle then I need a wide angle.

I don't know why photographers are so reluctant to admit that certain shots require certain tools. There's nothing wrong with needing or even just wanting better gear. Even if you 'lust' for gear, so what? Who. Fucking. Cares. If you're reluctant to spend more money on gear or are unable to do so, that's fine, just don't parade around acting like you're doing something virtuous by not taking advantage of what's available.

>>3000840
this guy gets it

>>3000840
/thread

>>2999889
nigga what are you going on about?

youtube channels in particular aren't that exciting when they just talk about photos. there's no urgency or excitement to critiquing photography.

what would you want them to talk about then? social drama between photographers? is there anything else that you can even imagine discussing?

there are places to discuss photography itself, but it's good that there are sites that specifically focus on gear discussion and reviews. just stop browsing those places, OP. stop acting like you're being forced to do anything, like you're some helpless victim. you choose to surround yourself with this shit.

>>2999875
Looking for art in videos of people who shill Leica was your first mistake.
There are a lot of large format photographers who make videos of their shoots and they're all well made and actually touch on actual important subjects of photography. Look up Craig Sheaks or Mike Thomas and thank me later

>>3000840
I generally agree with you, but I think the "problem" with many gearfags is that they magically expect their pictures to be better just because they bought a FF DSLR and some L lenses, then get frustrated when their pictures are still shit and vent their frustration to inappropriate channels

If you are looking for a youtuber that is into the art side of photography and doesnt care about gear go check out tony northrup

It's the gearfag who's got time to make videos about photo gear. Founding your opinion on photography in this will lead you to believe that photographers are "just a bunch of gearfag manchildren".

Selection bias because of platform.

NEXT!

>>3001201
There's a clear distinction though between a bad/inexperienced tog expecting expensive gear to make good photos and an experienced/professional that decides the slightly smoother bokeh of one 50mm over another is worth an extra $500 to them.

Gear isn't only critically important as a tool, it's also a massive set of creative options. You could take 2 sable paintbrushes and call them equals, you could take 2 1" fan brushes and call them equal, but unless they have the same hair AND shape, they are anything but equal and will have massive differences in how they lay paint. Heck, the inexperienced person would call them equal as they're both brushes.

>>3001217
Expensive gear does in fact make good photos. Of course you need the slightest bit of knowledge about light and some composition basics but after that its pretty much buy expensive gear and rack up shot after shot of good photos. I dont know why people are so butthurt about it. I think its probably because they are losing work due to photography being an extremely low skill thing that anyone can do with expensive gear nowadays.

>>3000398
>I'd be fine if they never made another Ricoh or Pentax product ever again

What did they ever do to you

>>3000647
>Why do the vast majority of fine art photographers use the best gear then?

So it won't be an issue. If you have a great dependable piece of gear that you can use properly that's one less thing you have to worry about when creating your art

>>3001237
Oh, so gear is important.

Lots of mixed messages in here, but it seems to boil down to, of you're a newbie, gear doesn't matter. For everyone else it's critical.

>>3001242
I would say for a newbie gear does matter. A newbie will only get put off by shite auto focus and shite noise handling etc

File: 1412186398616.jpg (211KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 800x600px

>>3001223
>Expensive gear does in fact make good photos
Technically good, yes. And I would say there is a *minimum* threshold for camera sensor/film quality that's technically acceptable. It's usually met by higher end compacts and entry level ILC's with crop sensors. Cell phones, while great for sharing, are not acceptable as serious cameras for printing, IMO. Same goes for action cam screen grabs.

>Of course you need the slightest bit of knowledge about light and some composition basics
If you want to take perfectly passable calendar shots, sure. You can absolutely take cookie cutter photos that look good and would probably even sell well.

>but after that its pretty much buy expensive gear and rack up shot after shot of good photos.
For the sake of argument let's suppose you're right, photography is not that difficult at al. It's not that difficult to take a photo which doesn't suck ass (yet somehow I know people who can't even do this much, but anyways). This means that the challenges are whatever you put on yourself. Challenge yourself to find only the best light and composition and don't settle on photos that are "almost there" but don't quite reach your high standards. Give yourself assignments or projects, to think out of the box in general. Take advantage of the fact that unlike painting or drawing, you can create more images in less time. Extort the medium this way by making cohesive bodies of work rather than just trying to get one or two "great shots" every once in a while. etc. etc.

>I think its probably because they are losing work due to photography being an extremely low skill thing that anyone can do with
Nobody who's good at doing portraits, weddings etc. whatever is "losing work" to amateurs. For all I hear that photography is incredibly easy, I see a lot of people continue to suck ass at it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:09:25 18:33:25
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	600

File: 1429660421921.jpg (52KB, 393x393px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 393x393px

>>3001242
I don't know why so many people care what others shoot. If you're a newbie and you got a 5D IV and 3 L lenses with an $800 Gitzo tripod, $400 in filters and $1200 in lights, good for you. If you're a newbie and got a Rebel with the two lens kit and bundled in bag and SD card, and tack don a $30 tripod, good for you. If you ever want to upgrade or change equipment, good for you. I don't know why it fucking matters. It's your money, your time, your life.

When I say your camera doesn't matter I mean that quite literally. It's a fucking tool. People insist you don't need a very expensive camera to take quality pictures, but it's not like owning a good camera makes your pictures WORSE either. Likewise spending less money doesn't mean your photos get better, just like shooting on film doesn't make you better etc. get it? I think some folks swing the other way and try to act like you need to "level up" and "unlock" better gear by earning it with your "skills", but guess what? Photography's not a fucking RPG. If you have the money to spend on a nicer camera and you want to spend it, you don't need anyone's approval but your own.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	393
Image Height	393
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:05:13 16:29:21
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	393
Image Height	393

the type of gear you use and the aesthetic they provide (film, digital, instant etc) are to be used as an additional dimension of the image. this is why imo its stupid to shrink yourself into one type of gear only. it's boring. it's like an band who does the same album over and over without innovating.

>>3001298
>I don't know why so many people care what others shoot.
it's called society, dude.

>>2999875
because all the artists are ded or in jail.

I ask why is today so many of these guys anyway. Where ever i look there is a guy with a camera shooting something. This is getting out of control man...

>>2999875

I never mention my gear or format nor do I care what others use outside of passing curiosity. I also can't get more than 4 likes on Instagram soooo...

>>3004930
>in jail
why?

>>3004977
They took all our artists and put them in jail

Gearfaggotry is the absolute pinnacle of artistry you fucking mong.

>>3005050
>LOOK MA! I'M PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED AGAIN