Statements of identity?

droj

droj

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,069
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
Do you express your identity (to yourself, never mind to others) by the photographic kit you own?

I read a lot of postings here that suggest this, and apologies to those who use equipment (regardless of price) purely for its utility and potential.
 
No its only those people that have identity tags hanging from their necks that have problems. They have to wear them in case they forget who they are :D
 
When you say you see posts suggesting this - do you mean brand name or level of gear ?

I'm unsure what you mean by 'expressing one's identity'.

For birds and wildlife - better kit is a huge advantage.

For landscapes - I love the fact that (in the right hands) any camera with a kit lens can put anybody to shame.

For me - I have what I can afford. It may be more than some but certainly less than others.

If you mean 'brand' I couldn't give a hoot.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting subject, isn't it? I do think that people express their identity through the things that they own, the clothes that they wear and the way they conduct themselves.

If the gear truly doesn't matter to you other than to take the picture, then you would not advertise what you have. However people do advertise what they have in signatures and on their profiles. It could be linked with the idea of social status in the same way that cars are linked to social status. The better the kit then the more successful you have been in your life. There are not many people on minimum wage jobs with a £3000 lens, for example. It's Western human nature to want to show others how successful we are, to perhaps brag a little. Demonstrate that because we are good at bringing in money that makes us good husbands, fathers, friends, etc.

It is also part of a cultural tribe thing, in the same way that people become fanatical about Apple products, for example. 'Are you Canon or Nikon' is like asking 'are you my kind of person or not'. We exclude or include people based on the choices they make and the items they select. In the same way that we exclude or include people based on clothing, age, gender, etc etc.
 
droj said:
Do you express your identity (to yourself, never mind to others) by the photographic kit you own?
Click to expand...

Of course not. They're tools to do a job.

I know for a fact that some do though. I can understand it with clothes etc, because that's a clearly defined style you're giving out, but only other photographers will know the difference between cameras, and that would mean that they're only giving off signals to other photographers. It's that male competitiveness that pervades amateur photography. Anyone serious about photography uses what's best for the job in hand... simple as that. To do otherwise would mean that you chose your photographic equipment for what it says about you rather than what it can actually do for you. That's quite sad really.
 
Last edited:
In response to the OP I have no doubt that some people do the my lens is bigger/better than yours. I don't agree that it's "western human nature" though. There are some people that have to have things they don't really need. Be that extra camera equipment or continually changing a house. Where it become a problem is when people can't pay there bills or neglect their family etc because they must have the latest bit of kit.

There is always a touch of my Team, car, holiday (insert as appropriate) is better than yours. In part that is us trying to justify why we do something, as very few of us like to admit we are wrong.
 
I use high end gear because I can afford to (just), but primarily because of the functionality / capabilities it gives me. I also use low end gear because it gives me different capbilities to the high end stuff. I have never felt the need to advertise what gear I use, if people feel the need to judge me, then I'd rather them judge me on my creative output rather than the tools I use. Your opinion may differ.

I'm with pookeyhead, they're tools for the job. Sure I'm interested in cameras and stuff, but I'm more interested in photographs.
 
This is more of a sociological question than photographic and I don't think you can generalise.
Some people have a genuine love for techie type things, similar to what others may have for art for example.

Others are into photography for the images they produce and for them equipment is a tool to do the job.

I think of more interest are the people with a chip on their shoulder due to their own feelings of 'under achievement' who feel a need to criticise people who appear to have more choices in what they do and have.
 
CharlotteM said:
If the gear truly doesn't matter to you other than to take the picture, then you would not advertise what you have. However people do advertise what they have in signatures and on their profiles.
Click to expand...
Then again, on a forum it can sometimes be helpful to other people if they know what equipment you have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
True, you can hardly say a Canon 500D is some form "bragging rights" for me it's a good camera that does what I want. As Stewart has said it does sometimes help when asking questions.
 
StewartR said:
Then again, on a forum it can sometimes be helpful to other people if they know what equipment you have.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but in very rare circumstances and I'd find it easier, personally, to mention it when it's relevant. Plus even if I listed all my lenses on my profile... you couldn't assume I took a picture with one of them because most of the time I thieve my partners lenses... (he has a need for collecting things he barely uses so I - selflessly - ensure they get the use they deserve).

I suppose if one were posting extremely technical questions about a subject like architectural photography it might help your respondees kto know which variations of TSE you have or something, but I see the information as being a bit limited in more general photographic questions.
 
munch said:
True, you can hardly say a Canon 500D is some form "bragging rights" for me it's a good camera that does what I want. As Stewart has said it does sometimes help when asking questions.
Click to expand...

That - its especially valuable to people giving crit (not a rare circumstance at all) to know what camera it was with, what other options you had for lens selection etc.
 
I would expect for pros that the best tool for the job as suggested would take precedence.

But for us amateurs its different and if it really was best tool for the job, none of us would be shooting 35mm film as I can't think of many situations where it is best tool for the job. So what does that say about film users...eccentric maybe....glutton for punishment certainly.

But I love my old Leica M2; the way it looks and feels, the smoothness of the wind on, the subtle click of the shutter, the classic look from the Elmar lens, the heritage and the fact that it doesn't have a stupid red dot to mark it as a status symbol.

I love my Hasselblad medium format too for many different reasons. But if it was just about results, both struggle to compete with my digital camera so something else is at work in me choosing said kit.
 
I only started advertising my gear in my signature when I noticed a load of other people doing it - I thought it was the done thing! What does that say about me? Am I a sheep to a flock? Do I lack identity?

This is all getting way too Freudian for my liking :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
I'm not sure what you might be including under the label "identity" but I'd certainly include personal preferences as something that is a part of who and what I am. To that extent, certainly the equipment I use expresses my identity, because I use it because I prefer it to the alternatives. That preference includes things like the quality of image, the suitableness for the job in hand, and the way I prefer to work.

If I concentrate only on the latter - my preferred way of working - I'd photograph everything on large format film. That says something about me, I suppose - that I'd like to project an image of being careful and methodical. In practice, I can (and have) used a digital camera (excuse me while I go and wash my mouth out :)) when it was the best tool for the job.

I presume that preferring medium and large format film to digital may suggest a certain degree of eccentricity, or an attempt to stand out from the crowd as self consciously different. Reactionary? Possibly.

But ultimately, I use what I want to use for a particular job.
 
StephenM said:
I'm not sure what you might be including under the label "identity" ...
Click to expand...
I could have been clearer - I was thinking about self-image. It was provoked by noting that various people made a point of stating that they used a certain what to me is a high-end camera (eg a Nikon d800) followed by an examination of their flickr postings or whatever that revealed a series of badly-exposed, ill-judged snapshots that might as well've been taken by a ten-year-old with a point and shoot. So I felt bound to enquire what was going on. And fairly obviously, it seemed more to do with an expression / indulgence of income level than anything much to do with photography.
 
droj said:
I could have been clearer - I was thinking about self-image. It was provoked by noting that various people made a point of stating that they used a certain what to me is a high-end camera (eg a Nikon d800) followed by an examination of their flickr postings or whatever that revealed a series of badly-exposed, ill-judged snapshots that might as well've been taken by a ten-year-old with a point and shoot. So I felt bound to enquire what was going on. And fairly obviously, it seemed more to do with an expression / indulgence of income level than anything much to do with photography.
Click to expand...


Surely the better and more expensive the equipment is, the better the photographs they take will be :p

Ok before I get flamed on that one I'll explain. This is something that doesn't just apply to photography, however I do believe there is an element within photography that believe this to be true. Those that go and and buy the best they can afford. They do the research and see the pros using high end cameras and believe if they had the same equipment, they could take similar photos. This ego is then patted by their friends and Facebook, who know very little about the technical side and also don't want to offend their friend. This then escalates to I'm getting married and you have a big camera, will you be my photographer. Ego massaged ever further, which leads to some of the threads we see that start out, "I have been asked by a friend....... What settings/lens should I use?"
 
This is true, but you also get he/she has a (D)SLR (regardless of make or model) they must be good, or in some security peoples eyes either be professional (and need a permit) or a pervert and need arresting.
 
droj said:
I could have been clearer - I was thinking about self-image.
....
And fairly obviously, it seemed more to do with an expression / indulgence of income level than anything much to do with photography.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

There was a Christmas quiz in Popular Photography back in the mid 1960s where one of the questions asked what was the difference between a painter and a photographer: the answer being that two painters could get together without talking about brushes.

Photographic equipment is so complicated today (and there is so much more to learn - all technical, of course, and about how to work your (digital) camera) that it's hardly surprising if so many people become diverted from making images (or even taking family photos :)) to becoming obsessed by the equipment used. After the amount of time and effort they had to put in to learn how to turn it on, charge batteries, select modes (which? When?) and so on, it's probably to be expected that this will become the major part of photography to them.

And isn't this then also a part of self image - that they see themselves as technically aware and therefore specifying their equipment reflects who and what they are?
 
You only need to watch a few YouTube video's to see how important it is to some to have the "pro" look. I mean how many people that use a battery grip do so because they need it? :) (I know some do and no offence intended)

For myself I do like to buy quality (if I a can afford it). This doesn't mean I have to buy the best or flashiest, just that I want it to last.
 
I first used a grip on my 350d, this was mainly for handling as the body felt small in my hands, I also found it helped to balance heavier lenses. So when I upgraded to a 60d I also bought a grip. Which again I used for the same reasons. Needless to say, when I upgraded to a 5d3 I wanted a grip. Fortunately Canon were giving these away. The grip is now still in its box, because I find the weight is fine without and if anything a little heavy when attached to 70-200 f/2.8. My point is that some folk use grips out of habit, it does look silly when attached to a 50 f1.8 or pancake lens though :)
 
personally i have equipment that suits what i do, brand unimportant really but i am used to canon lenses so tend to stick with canon although i do own nikon stuff as well
 
I'm not really interested in cameras and gear. I'm much more interested in pictures and scenes and subjects.

I should qualify that: I know how to use* my 6D, and I knew how to use my 550D before that, (and my PowerShot S3 before that), but the camera itself is by far the least interesting part of photography for me. Well, that and post-processing. I like taking pictures, and I like looking at pictures (including some of the ones I've taken), but the whole malarkey inbetween is a chore.

I chose Canon a long time ago because I liked the menu system, and just kinda stayed with it. I have no particular religion on the subject of Canonoids vs Nikonerds.

I use a BR strap rather than the supplied one because (a) it's lots more comfortable (b) it's much quicker to put on and take off (c) it doesn't have "HAY GUYZ WANNA STEEL MAH CAMRA?"/"BEHOLD MY MIGHTY CANON CAMERA, PEONS" (delete as appropriate) written on it in massive letters.

I'd rather my pictures were the statement of identity as a photographer, not my kit.

*Where "how to use" stands for "knows what the buttons and knobs do"
 
If I find a camera that lets me work faster or takes photographs that come closer to the ideals I have in my mind (and, of course, if I can afford it) then I'll drop what gear I have and get that. How old the stuff is or what manufacturer it's from are entirely secondary to how it helps me achieve my goals.

I don't give a monkey's what kit I use as long as it lets me make the images that I have in my head. If that means using a quarter century old lens on a spanking new body, fine. If that means covering my expensive camera in gaffer tape to pass unnoticed, or shooting with a lighting rig that I've cobbled together out of cardboard and old bedsheets, that's good, too because when people are looking at your book, they are looking at your book, bit your toolkit.

All that said - I'm talking about what I do when I'm shooting personal work. If someone's paying me money to rock up, look smart and deliver a service, I think it's probably a good idea to leave the weird gear at home and look like I know what I'm doing. If you've got the 'right' kind of camera hanging off your shoulder, this helps establish in people's minds that you're the 'right' kind of photographer (for whatever value of 'right' your client has in mind...)

Which is actually a pain in the arse sometimes.
 
I wouldn't say its used to express my personality but it does reflect my personality.
I'm odd in that I live with one foot in the world of modern technology but my heart lies in more vintage periods of our history, I'm "with it" but old fashioned at the same time.
I'm spontaneous and don't like planning things but at the same time I'm a control freak, creative and care free in the extreme but a perfectionist as well.
I'm a practical person who has no concept of why certain brands should be worn or displayed, I'm more interested if the item will do the job I want it to, I'm not brand loyal and don't understand things like bragging rights or the need to shout about the latest bit of kit I've managed to get.
I'm quiet and reserved yet at the same time can play the clown and make people laugh.
So all in all I'm a bag of contradictions really.

What do I shoot?

Nikon FM
Nikon 501
Fuji X-pro1

Most desired camera's?

Nikon DF
Leica M mono
 
droj said:
Do you express your identity (to yourself, never mind to others) by the photographic kit you own?

I read a lot of postings here that suggest this, and apologies to those who use equipment (regardless of price) purely for its utility and potential.
Click to expand...

I never try to analyse things like that. I have what I have because I like it. That reason will do me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top