![]() |
Wagon, Scotts Bluff National Monument, Nebraska, USA (click to enlarge) Olympus E-M1, Panasonic 14-140mm lens @ 102mm; 1/1250th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200 |
Another point in my writings with him was my inclination toward perfectionism, including in my photographic endeavors. Personally, and for the most part under many circumstances, I believe perfectionism is a drawback or negative instead of a positive. (However, It should go without saying, that in some circumstances, perfectionism is a must! Ex. Brain surgery!) One can efficiently get to about 96% perfect, but attaining that last 4% can be extraordinarily time and resource intensive. So, one has to make a decision as to whether or not it is in one's best interest to get to 100% in whatever the task may be.
On the other hand, I believe that simplification can bring great enjoyment and fulfillment. Perfectionism has been hindering me from simplification in many aspects of my life and I have been working hard to let things go, as much as I can anyway. My propensity toward perfectionism, many times, has caused stress and lessened my photographic enjoyment and happiness.
I've tried to simplify my life, repeatedly failing, but still on that quest. One aspect I need to continue to work on, as well, is simplification of my photography. I need to give up pixel peeping, perfectionism and worrying about what gear can allow me to do this and what gear has that feature which will allow me to do something else. I just to enjoy making images. That is part of simplification journey. And, it is not an easy journey, by any means, given all of the choices we are given in today's world. Additionally, too many choices, even in camera and lens selection, also causes stress and dissatisfaction.
Photographic simplification, for me, would be fewer choices in cameras, lenses, features, etc., as well as more acceptance with images that are less than perfect. As I said, I'm working on it. Not easy. Hence, I still own three redundant camera systems. Fail.
Back to our Internet conversation. We were discussing the issue with Fuji's RAW files and Lightroom's inability to fully extract the best out of those RAW files when converting them. My friend indicated to me that he didn't think he would want to have to adopt a different or more complicated editing procedure if he were to use Fuji cameras with the X-Trans II sensor to get around Lightroom's deficiencies.
In the film days, I built an 8' X 12' darkroom in part of my garage. I not only loved finding and taking photographs, I loved developing, printing, mounting, matting and framing my work, i.e., the entire process brought much satisfaction to me. I very much enjoy the editing process in the digital darkroom and I never find myself in a hurry when performing it. It is all part of the entire process to have my finished image match my mind's eye when I first discovered the scene. The image out of the camera almost never reflects what I imagined a scene to be when before pushed the shutter button, i.e., visualization. The only part of the process that is cumbersome to me is learning new software. So, changing workflow, while not ideal, really doesn't present a big obstacle for me. But again, the simpler the better.
(Note—I studied organizational behavior and development in graduate school and learned that one of the major job satisfiers was seeing a job all the way through from beginning to end. That struck a personal chord in possibly why I enjoyed the entire photographic process, from finding an intriguing scene to hanging a finished print on the wall! But I digress.)
In the end, we all have to figure out for ourselves what makes us photographically happy, what obstacles are in our way to that happiness, then develop a plan to remove those obstacles. In my case, I get frustrated over too many choices and always trying to chase that elusive perfect image. I've charted my path to more happiness. What do you have to do to find and chart yours?
Why don't you try giving up chasing the newest, best, latest cameras and lenses and just enjoy going out with what you have and taking photographs. Start by taking one camera and one lens and see how that enhances your creativity and pleasure. You might be surprised.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2016 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
It went like that for me, Dennis:
ReplyDelete- since we got our first digital camera, each and every one was an Olympus (with one Panasonic 'Travel Zoom' thrown in between. But my wife didn't like its colors, so I got her the first E-PL1 instead).
- on my birthday of last year I've got an OM-D E-M10. I've had an E-PL5 (same sensor) already, and the only thing I missed with that camera was when I had to take off the VF-2 electronic viewfinder to make place for strobe remotes. Since that day, that E-M10 is what I consider "my camera", and the E-PL5 is more or less redundant (but in my backpack, with one prime lens mounted, just in case).
I know. For a full body portrait of an adult, a so-called "full frame" (or even bigger) camera would give me more possibilities to isolate my main subject against the background with a shallower depth of field. But I rarely miss that, and I love everything else this small but quite capable camera offers me, like for instance IBIS (not getting younger, so I'm glad I have it).
Mostly I have the 25mm/1.4 mounted, except when taking a head/shoulder portrait where I *want to* mush the background a bit, then it's the 45mm/1.8. Occasionally I also take the 14mm/2.5. That one camera and these three lenses are what I consider my "kit". And I'm happy with it. Sure, it could be moisture resistant, but I don't walk around in the rain that often. And most of my photos are of the kid and the cat anyway, so... (if you still want to have a look, I'm on Flickr, and I also write a blog). But I also digress...
I think easier is always better. Love my OM-2 with just the fifty on it, wouldn't it be for the hassle (and the cost) of film, and the sub-optimal results from the few labs which are left here. Regarding picture quality, that small OM-D beats the older film camera in every way, so that is what I use.
This year, we'll fly to Malaysia to my wife's family, and the OM-D with the three mentioned lenses will be all I'll take.
A good article of yours. It's fun to read your blog, so thanks for sharing your thoughts.