I've been a fan of Martin Parr's work for a while and have been lucky enough to see an exhibition of his work (and pick up a signed copy of one of his photobooks). I find his work refreshing and revealing but whether you're a fan or not, I think his minimalistic approach gets to the heart of what photography actually is and is something we can all learn from. This recent short interview summarises some of it pretty well. There are a few points that most keen amateurs/camera clubbers would find very confusing and possibly even offensive. "I have digital so why would I shoot film?" "All you need is a decent camera." (there's no need to collect/chase "gear".) "I mostly use 'P' mode." And on the subject of images themselves, this talk is interesting. He's advising a small group of photography students about how most of their images will be "generic" - having been done countless times before by other people - and the importance of finding their own voice, and how they must "take loads of rubbish" in order to find the good. He even makes them promise to "take more crap". Fascinating. I like Martin Parr.
Heresy I say, Heresy Hand in your techie photographer card, now! I watch the videos when I have time late, but can appreciate his sentiment in the 4 statements. I was in professional photographic retail for 17 years, and the people that kept the turnover up were the hobbyists and amateurs buting 'Must have Pro kit'. A lot of the pros worked with a lot less and a lot older kit which did what they needed. In the USA they talk about 'GAS' - Gear Acquisition Syndrome, it's so true. Are you wanting to take photos or buy lovely gear?? My Dad was a professional photographer in the '60s and '70s and when I got interested, his advice was to get a basic camera (we could share lenses and accessories...) and take LOTS of photos and keep on doing it. Martin Parr's work isn't my cup of tea, I'm not a people photographer; but he talks a lot of sense. My old friend who runs a professional photo lab (since the 80s) and was a neighbour at the camera shop says that film is irrelevant in the main. I have seen 12ft wide prints from his Nikon D800 with Zeiss lenses - that's Medium Format territory. All he does is inkjets prints on wide roll printers, which are stunning if you feed them the right data. He gave up film processing and wet printing a long time ago. No one remembers how crap fast film used to be, the 1600 film for football matches was grainy and all over the place for example. A decent camera with a good sensor is incredible in what it can do in low light - so's your phone in the grand scheme of things for that matter. I can take images that I couldn't dare to try years go on film. Fill flash is simple, as are long exposures at night. I love camera (and computer) kit but I'm not a camera snob. It doesn't matter what it's taken on, it's the result on screen, in print or on your wall that matters... And some of that's a matter of taste Go out take pictures and have fun!
I used to teach photography, and I used to teach whole sessions on creativity and finding your photographic "voice" - only to be ignored by "that one guy" who believed that you need the biggest and best kit to take good photos, or the one that watched loads of YT videos and couldn't understand why they couldn't take perfect photos straight away and every time. There's one time that sticks in the mind - a beginner's course where one guy left the 2nd or 3rd lesson, went out and spent a few grand on Canon kit including a white telephoto lens (despite my warnings not to). He only lasted a couple of lessons more, because he was so frustrated that he wasn't taking good photos - it was nothing to do with the fact that he didn't know how to use his camera or what makes a good photo, it was obvious (to him, anyway) that the problem was with the camera... I'd echo Arboreal's comment: and add one of my own:
Must admit that I've fallen into the gear trap too in the past. You should see the tat that I've accumulated of the years. Did any of it make me a better photographer? Of course not, but my pockets were a lot lighter by the time I came to realise that "new kit a better photographer does not make". I blame the manufacturers for selling the lie, and of course my own gullibility.
So true, I was saved from sinking all my spare cash into cameras by my boss who disapproved of wasting money on cameras... He did however, let the senior staff members have full access to the Nikon demo stock so long as we had insurance In the pre digital days we also had Canon demo stock with dem loverly 'white' lenses. But, when I moved jobs, I was left with a very basic kit and no access to the big boys' toys 90% of what's important is behind the camera, but there are things you need to achieve certain things and to make other things so much easier. Having an intervalometer on board makes time lapses so much easier for example. As you said, if you're not getting the results you want there is a temptation to blame the kit and buy something new and 'better'. I do need a couple of sharper lenses, my current Nikon is more sensitive to the glass than its predecessor...
Sharpness obsession! They've gotcha. Seriously though, I get how Canon L (white barrel/red-ring) lenses are important in some instances but the majority of people I see using or "needing" them just take the usual, exceptionally generic snaps. Completely uncreative but very sharp. Baffling.
Yes, bland sharp images.... L lenses are lovely though, not that Nikon don't have some good class too (at a price...) I am not convinced by my mainstream zoom lens, it's better than the kit lens but my DSLR seems 'fussy' on glass. I do photography with a friend, and can see that his prime lenses do work better for certain situations. I would rather get the best image file in camera if I can, and not have to do too much work on it afterwards.
Well, knock me down with a feather! Last night, after one or two glasses of wine , I sent Martin a short email along the lines of, "Love your work. Of all my pictures, most of which are generic crap, the one which continues to get the strongest reaction from people who see it is one inspired by you and I'd like to show it to you. Thanks." and I included a link to the picture. This morning there was a reply in my inbox from the man himself. Bloody hell, I wasn't expecting that!
Wow, that really is something! Nice to know that world class, nay Magnum photographers aren't unapproachable and would take the time to get in touch to support a fan. I know that a friend who is a lecturer in photography approached another well known photographer (can't remember, thankfully) at a gathering to say how much he liked his work, and got a brush off and a sarky comment, which is totally uncalled for. Big respect for Martin Parr
Yes, I wasn't expecting a reply so was totally gobsmacked as you can imagine. That's one email that I won't be deleting! I might even print it out and frame it. Sadly, experiences like your friend's are all too common. Kudos to Martin Parr for not being a c-unit despite his fame & wealth.
