Elitism - why?

[cw318is]

I think elitism is rife in pretty much anything these days, be it Canon vs Nikon, Luis Vitton vs Prada, Impreza vs Evo, just the 21st century I guess. Others are just more extreme about it then others, personally I join in whilst its funny but don't give it full buy in, afterall one day no doubt someone with a Hasselblad walks past and everyone looks "inferior"

What sets everything apart isn't the kit we use, its the shots we take. Personally the photo which is my all time favourite was actually taken on a Motorola camera phone.

That said, I do kindof get the snobbery element of it. I was walking around the zoo the other day with my new lens and the fact that everyone else with a dslr spotted it just made me feel a bit happier, probably because I was still not sure I'd done the right thing by buying it so its probably a bit of reassurance.

 

[littlemonster]

I've always taken it as a bit of fun really - the whole Nikon vs Canon, well we all know that all jokes asides there's fores and againsts for both unless you can afford anything, in which case it doesn't make a damned bit of difference.

Film vs Digital - well most film users seem to have digital too, and again there's a few fores and againsts, never heard anyone be seriously elite over it.

 

[POAH]

because its true - some cameras are better than others, some lenses are better than others etc etc

 

[Pieface]

because its true - some cameras are better than others, some lenses are better than others etc etc

But someone could still get a better picture out of a kit lens than a top of the range lens. Having better equipment doesn't make you a better photographer.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

The Nikon v Canon thing might be a lot of things but it hasn't ever been elitist, its simply a brand war.
Elitism seems to crop up in attitudes between Pro and Am photographers, Film v Digital shooters and Art v art type "discussions".
It's all about misinformation, ignorance and occasionally arrogance.

Completely agree Emphasis on misinformation though personally as most experiences I've had seem to be based on a confused or misinformed perspective.

In my experience, Canon v Nikon has never been about elitism, it's just a bit of fun.

True but there are differences between the brands and this is the catalyst for the animosity IMO as there seems to be a difficulty accepting any differences for some. Truth is that there are differences and they can't be of benefit to everyone.
Personal preference, ergonomics, features and functionality are all interpreted and utilised in varying ways.

Not that it has any effect on me, but I noticed a few years ago that in Finland, Canon was perceived as being the choice of the almighty pro, Nikon - the total opposite, but over the last year or two, this has begun to die away.

Is it important? Certainly not but it was evidently notable none the less.

Film v digital can be a more elitist thing but - again, in my experience - that always seems to come from the film buffs denigrating the digital users rather than the other way around so is probably people trying to reassure themselves that their choice not to use digital equipment is a justified one. Which it is, just not for the reasons that most anti-digital film buffs quote.

I have the same experiences unfortunately, most digital only users I know or have come into contact with have the same positive regard for any format, if they are a photographer by trade then they simply appreciate that due to the demands of their industry, digital is the current format for their field.

If you work for Reuters or a similar high profile agency, shooting sports at major events such as the Olympics for example, film is not a sensible option.
There's really nothing elitist about this, it's just as technology advances, the industrial demands adapt accordingly and so do it's mechanics.

Sad to say it but most, if not all of the film only users that I have had the displeasure of conversing with in the flesh so far, seem to be extreme fundamentalists/purists with the most disparaging and acidulous manner, eager to exercise intense hatred for anyone who 'chooses' to shoot digital or have learned photography with any current technology. :shrug:

I found myself dominated in a film only users meeting at a camera club once, don't ask me how I got there, I felt like the little fat kid who finds himself stuck in the annual meeting of the Grand High Witch in Roald Dahl's - 'The Witches'.

"What do you do BOY?!!"

"I'm definitely not a photographer! Now lemme outta here!"....

I totally understand and respect the sentiment, the beauty remaining faithful to, using and practising with older technologies but is it really necessary/authentic to be such a miserable, spiteful arse while doing so? :shrug:

 

[AliB]

But someone could still get a better picture out of a kit lens than a top of the range lens. Having better equipment doesn't make you a better photographer.

Utter tosh! You think I LIKE spending that kind of money?

Try shooting with a kit lens in low light and see where that gets you.

It might not improve your vision as a photographer but top of the range kit gets the job done.

 

[Pieface]

Utter tosh! You think I LIKE spending that kind of money?

Try shooting with a kit lens in low light and see where that gets you.

It might not improve your vision as a photographer but top of the range kit gets the job done.

Where did I start stating about different types of photography? I just stated that someone could get a picture of a kit lens, not where, when and how. I was stating that the Photographer makes the image, not the equipment.

 

[photon]

the very first question she asked.........."what camera do you have" - 20 years ago you wouldn't ask that question and even if you did - you certainly wouldn't form an opinion on that individuals ability based on their answer........

Wanna bet? In the era of the Canon A-1 and AE-1 Program (about 30 years ago), those of my contemporaries that I respected as photographers and in other ways used the Pentax K1000, and warned against cameras with an auto setting, just as they probably refused to use pocket calculators; only paid lip-service to equal rights; and begrudgingly accepted that their gear was made by the Japanese, but only because they have more nimble fingers.

The Pentax ME-Super won awards but I remember comparing specs and hankering after the Ricoh KR-10 cos it had a slowest shutter speed of 16 seconds against the four seconds of the Pentax. Most of us thought it was worth paying more for a black prism housing and top plate

The die-hards from the previous generation looked down on users of cameras with meters. Later it could be the use of plastics, AF, DX coding, pre-flash etc. And just as with the inverse snobbery of the K1000 users, we'd say we weren't interested in flash photography or medium format or digital or colour even, until there was a need or price reduction that ushered in our own personal new era. Meanwhile, some Johnny-come-lately with more money than sense could leap-frog us with at least a core setup but couldn't buy whatever valuable experience is picked up over the years, but can certainly get acceptable results with minimal effort because that's what most cameras are designed to provide.

 

[POAH]

But someone could still get a better picture out of a kit lens than a top of the range lens. Having better equipment doesn't make you a better photographer.

I'm clearly not saying that though - I'm saying certain kit is better than others.

 

[Auwyn]

I think Ian was probably just feeling a little sensitive when he started this thread up.

 

[joxby]

because its true - some cameras are better than others, some lenses are better than others etc etc

I'm clearly not saying that though - I'm saying certain kit is better than others.

But that is not what elitism is about.
Its about how you conduct yourself as a person and a professional.

 

[AliB]

Where did I start stating about different types of photography? I just stated that someone could get a picture of a kit lens, not where, when and how. I was stating that the Photographer makes the image, not the equipment.

So go on and try it then. There are plenty of situations where it IS the equipment that makes the difference to being able to shoot in the first place.

If you are shooting sports and you don't have a lens with a decent aperture to get a high enough shutter speed your shots are going to be blurred and worthless. Sports photographers spend £6K on a lens for a reason. Similarly in low light where I spend a lot of my time an f4 lens is no good to me unless I need a doorstop. Wildlife is yet another good example, shooting a barn owl hunting on a cold winter evening is nigh on impossible with the kit lens hence the wildlife shooter will lug a huge heavy 600mm optic around.

A kit lens might be OK for SOME applications but certainly not ALL applications so such a sweeping statement is about as watertight as your average seive.

 

[joxby]

This has nothing to do with elitism.

I will always take a better picture with my crappy 50 than a 4 year old with 24-70 f/2.8, because I can and a 4 year old can't, so kit is irrelevant if you have no idea what to do with it, that is Piefaces point...not that pro glass is no better than consumer glass.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

So go on and try it then. There are plenty of situations where it IS the equipment that makes the difference to being able to shoot in the first place.

If you are shooting sports and you don't have a lens with a decent aperture to get a high enough shutter speed your shots are going to be blurred and worthless. Sports photographers spend £6K on a lens for a reason. Similarly in low light where I spend a lot of my time an f4 lens is no good to me unless I need a doorstop. Wildlife is yet another good example, shooting a barn owl hunting on a cold winter evening is nigh on impossible with the kit lens hence the wildlife shooter will lug a huge heavy 600mm optic around.

A kit lens might be OK for SOME applications but certainly not ALL applications so such a sweeping statement is about as watertight as your average seive.

Excellently illustrated Ali although however clearly this point is communicated, it simply won't register or be accepted by everyone.

To the experienced the proverb 'A pro can churn out a pulitzer with anything' although potentially inspirational = is total garbage.

Human element combined with technology - makes photographs.

A compromise in either will decrease quality of output.

Whether the decrease is significant is totally dependant on circumstance, user and intent.

 

[POAH]

But that is not what elitism is about.
Its about how you conduct yourself as a person and a professional.

but it is having somthing better makes you better remember

 

[AliB]

This has nothing to do with elitism.

I will always take a better picture with my crappy 50 than a 4 year old with 24-70 f/2.8, because I can and a 4 year old can't, so kit is irrelevant if you have no idea what to do with it, that is Piefaces point...not that pro glass is no better than consumer glass.

That's not what he said though Joxby

All things being equal (ability wise) then the kit can and does make a difference. Blanket statements that it's the photographer not the kit is just plain wrong. If I'm shooting a wedding alongside Jeff Ascough (we can all dream right?) and you give him a f5.6 lens and I have an f2.8 (or he can only go to ISO800 while I can go to 6400 and above) it does not matter that he is a much better photographer than me, I will get A shot while he will get nothing.

 

[joxby]

but it is having somthing better makes you better remember

Only if you actually think and say it does it become elitism, just owning pro equipment does not make you elitist.
By "better" we ofcourse mean "better person" obviously, I mean nobody would post in a thread about elitism and then start talking lens specs would they..some lenses are better than others, that is a fact nobody is arguing....supposedly..:shrug:

 

[Daysleeper40]

But someone could still get a better picture out of a kit lens than a top of the range lens. Having better equipment doesn't make you a better photographer.

Utter tosh! You think I LIKE spending that kind of money?

Try shooting with a kit lens in low light and see where that gets you.

It might not improve your vision as a photographer but top of the range kit gets the job done.

So go on and try it then. There are plenty of situations where it IS the equipment that makes the difference to being able to shoot in the first place.

If you are shooting sports and you don't have a lens with a decent aperture to get a high enough shutter speed your shots are going to be blurred and worthless. Sports photographers spend £6K on a lens for a reason. Similarly in low light where I spend a lot of my time an f4 lens is no good to me unless I need a doorstop. Wildlife is yet another good example, shooting a barn owl hunting on a cold winter evening is nigh on impossible with the kit lens hence the wildlife shooter will lug a huge heavy 600mm optic around.

A kit lens might be OK for SOME applications but certainly not ALL applications so such a sweeping statement is about as watertight as your average seive.

I don't think there is any need to be so disparaging Ali - especially when you seem to be agreeing that someone could take a better picture with a kit lens than a high end lens... which is exactly what pieface said in the first place.

As for why elitism exists - I guess it is second nature for some to have a superior attitude. Maybe it makes them feel better about themselves. Maybe they need to feel better about themselves by putting others down. A lot of people simply can't see why others might have a different opinion or preference - it's just not the way they think. It's likely to have all sorts of reasons behind it.

I personally couldn't give two hoots what kit someone else is using - I just try to do the best I can with what I have :shrug:

 

[inaneredstripe]

everyone Knows Canon are best.
snigger.

we chose Canon initialy because we liked the first DSLR we bought for functions and price.
As we have built up the kit, it makes sense to stay with one brand
if we had bought our firsat Nikon Dslr , we would have been all Nikon now
Elitism gets on my t**ts too.
Film is more demanding than Digital, if anything
We have some L lenses, but also have some cheapish Sigma stuff too
so what.
if they do the job, i dont care.
Idrive a ten year old Suzuki swift, because i aint loaded, and anyway, soooner spend money on my bikes
Cars are a means of transport

lifes too short.
who bloody cares?

 

[strumstrum]

I once won 8 pool games on the trot using a broom handle, this was down to my talent not the kit I was using, I got the job done; on the flipside if I had have had a pool cue I would have got the job done easier and would have been equipped for all eventualities.

same applies here IMO, I can get great shots with a kit lens, but give me the same lens 2.8 stylee and ill also get those shots plus have an easier time in low light. :shrug:

 

[DSLR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckSm10LZauA&feature=related

 

[srichards]

Elitism is on all fora. Those less well off may justify their choices in certain ways and those better off can lord theirs over the less well off. I look down on him and I look up to him. It was true in the fifties and it is just as true now.

Hifi forums are even worse for it

I think it is quite funny when those with really expensive cameras still take carp pictures. Same as it is always entertaining on track days when someone with a cheap banger can be overtaking some faster and more expensive cars because they're a much better driver. Better tools can only go so far to disguise poor ability.

Glad my camera is only a second hand sony. I can blame my equipment when my pics suck

 

[SimonM]

Recently I was asked by a friend if I would be interested in shooting his wedding. A friend of his (who t has now come to my attention holds a MA in togging) approached me and queried what kit I use, when told his response was "well that just won't cut it and I'll be telling ***** that you don't have a proper camera" When I asked what a "proper camera" was I was told "Hasselblad"

 

[seriousrikk]

Recently I was asked by a friend if I would be interested in shooting his wedding. A friend of his (who t has now come to my attention holds a MA in togging) approached me and queried what kit I use, when told his response was "well that just won't cut it and I'll be telling ***** that you don't have a proper camera" When I asked what a "proper camera" was I was told "Hasselblad"

He's not elitist, he's just a nob.

 

[SimonM]

He's not elitist, he's just a nob.

That was my exact words to my mate the groom!
I can understand that you want the best, however a severe case of get real is needed. I got a serious lecture off this guy about equipment and that if I am lucky to get the wedding, then he will be offering his advice and critique during the day.
I told my mate to ask this clown to do the photography as I couldn't be bothered with this guy's attitude

 

[Tracer]

He was probably trying to frighten you off so that he could get the job. Now you should hang around and give him lots of advice and critique... :razz:

 

[MartynK]

Elitism, snobbery, sour grapes and envy have always been around, no matter what people discuss, and I suppose they always will be. It doesn't matter much, there are enough well balanced people around to chat with.

 

[andephotographic]

^That.

Plus, elitism, snobbery, sour grapes and envy are all pretty immature.
If someone conducts themselves in an immature way around other togs then do you think they conduct themselves in the most grown up and professional manner around potential clients?

 

[ding76uk]

Elitism exists both ways. People who need something are berated because some think their kit lens can do the same job and they have wasted money because they are using high end kit and are not the next Bailey.

Elitism is equal to Jealousy in most cases. Sometimes more expensive kit is essential, sometimes it is not. Kit won't give you a better eye, but it will get you the shot when other kit leaves you no chance of being able to do so.

 

[Daryl]

It's what ever does the job....

I can never understand why any one would buy a Pentax though......

Thinking about it. Nope, still can see the point in a Pentax.....

 

[birdy961]

Elitism, snobbery, sour grapes and envy have always been around, no matter what people discuss, and I suppose they always will be. It doesn't matter much, there are enough well balanced people around to chat with.

Yep

Its human nature, ignore the eliteists, they are unimportant

 

[cuthbert]

i remember the vicious playground fights over sonic and mario way back in the 1990s. brand rivalries go back as far as brands existed. i think they actually keep both companies on their toes and keep them innovating.

as far as the nikon vs canon battle goes, the photographer himself makes much more of a difference than anything. i think today, whatever brand you buy into, you will get an absolutely fantastic camera with a great range of lenses and accessories. it's what works for you and fits in your budget is the most important.

 

[artyman]

I look down on him because he is...................

www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0DUsGSMwZY

 

[JohnN]

... or have Canon or Nikon written on their strap, have a serious problem and really aren't worth wasting time on...

Thats not really fair - its the free strap that comes with the camera, many (myself) included don't feel the need to splash out extra cash on something we already have.

That said I do tend to wear it with the writing facing in

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Only if you actually think and say it does it become elitism, just owning pro equipment does not make you elitist.

Very true but owning high spec gear and then trying to illustrate it's purposes or why it's better/more capable/reliable etc is often mistaken for or can generate accusations of elitism. It's happened many times on TP and other forums.

I once won 8 pool games on the trot using a broom handle, this was down to my talent not the kit I was using, I got the job done; on the flipside if I had have had a pool cue I would have got the job done easier and would have been equipped for all eventualities.

same applies here IMO, I can get great shots with a kit lens, but give me the same lens 2.8 stylee and ill also get those shots plus have an easier time in low light. :shrug:

Whilst winning several games of pool with a broom stick is very impressive and also fun, (there's probably a very interesting DVD tutorial in there somewhere ) but the analogy doesn't quite cover the entire 'picture' in this instance.

A pool cue and a broom handle have too many things in common, they're long, thin and solid wood for starters.

If you were to directly compare the use of say a 400mm f/2.8 prime and then a 18-200mm F/5.6-6.3, that broom handle can become a rolling pin in most eventualities.

A kit lens offers a world of potential initially but most tend to move on and develop with different spec gear. Kit lenses are basic, entry level introductions largely constructed with cheaper materials and are often sold on to ease the funding on the next, more experienced, higher spec choice of purchase. The more pertinent issue is that anyone who cares deeply about their output, or about what they are selling to their customers, about how they earn their living etc, takes a certain level of consideration for the quality they are offering and as a result they look for the tools that fit their requirements and deliver them.

This roughly explains why the search for reliable/quality tools is considerably important to those that use their tools to maintain feeding mouths, paying bills, sleeping soundly at night and also take a little pride in and enjoying their jobs.

There are also many circumstances however, that dictate which tools are required.

(Of course a higher level of skill has more potential than the standard of equipment, the two elements work in harmony, it's just that the skill element doesn't get confused or mistaken for elitism as often.)

The big 'but' is when were enter a more specific environment, let's again take sports for example:

Amongst the industry standard lenses used for major sports events, there will often be fast telephoto primes = very, very expensive pieces of glass to which there is no substitute. Moving into closer proximity at major sporting events will result in ones arrest or at least ones abrupt ejection from the venue and the loss of ones job.

Pro Sports and Pro Wildlife photography are IMO, the most expensive base fields to equip oneself for.

No matter if you look at second hand, older versions or MF alternatives, it's still a huge investment. You can buy a good car for the price of a good 400mm.

This acceptance and also attempting to inform some folk about it, is often considered or mistaken for elitism or snobbery.

These accusations, in my experience seem to stem from jealousy or a feeling of inadequacy when there really shouldn't be any of these feelings at all.

The am vs pro debate is a very good example of this, working photographers often perceived as disparaging, mean, ill tempered party poopers that are out to extinguish whoever fancies turning a hobby into a business with thier tales of massive expenditure, industry standards and the repercussions of making large mistakes in the initial infancy etc.
Or why was the 5.6 lens used inside a dark church during a paid wedding shoot when there was a 50mm 1.8 in your camera bag? etc...

Most of the time, there are circumstances that exists outside of our own, with totally different mechanics and methods of resolution. It's all about putting it all into context and considering them sensibly.
Convincing oneself that it's elitism or snobbery just seems to be wilful ignorance and it's not helping anyone.

 

[MartynK]

Very true but owning high spec gear and then trying to illustrate it's purposes or why it's better/more capable/reliable etc is often mistaken for or can generate accusations of elitism. It's happened many times on TP and other forums.

True enough, and it's not confined to cameras and lenses. Some posts can come across as rather patronising, but I also get the impression that there are a few people out there who are just waiting for an opportunity to pick a squabble for their own reasons.

Leica threads seem to attract this sort of thing. FWIW, I'd like a Leica, probably an M3. I'm not particularly well off, and I can't afford one right now, but I might buy one at some stage. They're really not any more expensive than a decent mid-range DSLR, and a lot of us seem to manage that. I don't need a Leica, and I don't expect it to make me a better photographer or reveal some magic qualities, but I do enjoy using things that are well made/engineered and they have a sense of history that appeals to me. I just like them and that's a sufficiently good reason to buy one if I can.

 

[trencheel303]

Thats not really fair - its the free strap that comes with the camera, many (myself) included don't feel the need to splash out extra cash on something we already have.

That said I do tend to wear it with the writing facing in

I don't think he meant it literally, just in the sense of "I'm better because I have a *ZYZ*", and the strap is usually the most prominent.

 

[Auwyn]

... or have Canon or Nikon written on their strap, have a serious problem and really aren't worth wasting time on...

Thats not really fair - its the free strap that comes with the camera, many (myself) included don't feel the need to splash out extra cash on something we already have.

That said I do tend to wear it with the writing facing in

See the part that you edited out there? The bit where you abbreviated the original quote and inserted an elipses in the place of some pretty key words? That completely changed what Simmotino said.

What they said was anyone who sees themselves as superior due to having canon or nikon on their strap has a serious problem...not anyone who has canon or nikon on their strap has a serious problem. Your edit completely changed what they said.

Creative editing. Dont do it.

 

[FoG]

I can see both side to this ... and after trying four times to word this correctly without getting abused by all and sundry will say ... to Elitism is only forgivable when you consistatly get the picture need from skill based knowledge not photoshop

 

[MARK AMIES]

I think it is simply a case of boys and their toys. You don't see much of this behaviour coming from the female photographers.

I guess it could be traced right back to childhood. " Ha! you've got a crap bike, I've got a Chopper!!".

( and yes you can do a double entendre with that!)