advertisement


Photography Foo ??

miktec

miktec

retired
Someone in a recent thread (probably about hifi cables) mentioned that all hobbies come with their foo equivalents ... I struggled to think of any relating to photography.

I know some kit can be stupendously expensive but I can't really think of any gizmos that are claimed to improve your photography but actually do nothing (akin to magic stones, cable lifters, sticky labels, etc.)

Any come to mind?
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Sky replacement software?
Click to expand...

Good call .. but I'm sure purists would argue that any kind of filter that changes the content of an image dramatically (or even subtly) is the spawn of the devil. That argument has raged since the early days of photography and ain't going away any day soon :)

Whether it would class as foo though is what I'm not sure of - after all at least it does something tangible and clearly verifiable as a change to the original.
 
Bananahead said:
This just proves that some people don't understand what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

They do though ... it's just that their argument doesn't coincide with your view (or mine either for that matter :)

Basically it's a very similar debate to the hifi one - a question of 'Science' versus 'Art'.
 
miktec said:
I know some kit can be stupendously expensive but I can't really think of any gizmos that are claimed to improve your photography but actually do nothing (akin to magic stones, cable lifters, sticky labels, etc.)
Click to expand...

I can’t think of any in the music/guitar world either. A lot of guitarists are totally obsessive, a vintage guitar loses a lot of value if pots, capacitors or wiring loom have been replaced, even if the soldering has been touched, let alone if the guitar has been refinished (a battered and battle-scared vintage pre-CBS Strat in original condition is worth two or three times the value of one that has been refinished). Amps too, if dead capacitors or carbon resistors aren’t replaced like for like then the value drops like a stone. I can’t think of any actual ‘foo’ though, this is all about maintaining history and the instrument’s ‘mojo’. I bet the world of violins or oboes is exactly the same.

From a relative outsider perspective the photography industry is at least as ‘bling’ riddled at the high end as the modern audio market with all those absurdly priced limited edition Leicas etc that are little more than investments and display pieces. ‘Bling’ isn’t ‘foo’ though, it claims no advantage. I dislike it though. For me good design is form dictated by function: the most logical thought processes beautifully executed and built to last. Gold plating and snakeskin or whatever turns a Leica that met that remit perfectly into something else entirely. Rolex do the same, the classics being classics for very obvious reason, the blingy models being utterly hideous IMHO.
 
Tony L said:
From a relative outsider perspective the photography industry is at least as ‘bling’ riddled at the high end as the modern audio market with all those absurdly priced limited edition Leicas etc that are little more than investments and display pieces. ‘Bling’ isn’t ‘foo’ though, it claims no advantage.
Click to expand...

I think that gets to it - I also dislike bling and over-hyped product snobbery ... but however much maligned Leicas are as 'show pieces for the idle rich' there is no denying that, from a technical perspective, Leica bodies and lenses offer qualities that are simply not equalled in many other brands below their price point.

However, I would argue that 'bling' is the nearest thing to foo in the photography world. It offers absolutely no technical or artistic advantage whatsoever and exists solely to make money for the seller.
The only thing missing is indeed the claim that it will enhance your photography in any way - which makes it marginally more honest than the hifi equivalents.
 
miktec said:
but however much maligned Leicas are as 'show pieces for the idle rich' there is no denying that, from a technical perspective, Leica bodies and lenses offer qualities that are simply not equalled in many other brands below their price point.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I’m not knocking Leica at all. The classic film models are true classics with as much design integrity as a Nikon F, F2 or whatever, i.e. as good as it gets IMHO. If I was a serious film photographer I’d almost certainly use one or the other.
 
Bananahead said:
This just proves that some people don't understand what they are talking about.

And I have used sky replacement software.

Click to expand...

No problem with it done properly, but maybe I should have added "poorly used" - far too many real world samples with the light and shadows going in all directions!!!
 
I think the closest we get in the world of photography is actually some dubious association stuff - if a photographer you admire uses a given brand of camera, there is an attempt to imply that by using the same brand, you get some of the magic.

Rather than foo, this is I guess a stable of marketing, but it's laid on quite thick at times...
 
Tony L said:
Absolutely, I’m not knocking Leica at all. The classic film models are true classics with as much design integrity as a Nikon F, F2 or whatever, i.e. as good as it gets IMHO. If I was a serious film photographer I’d almost certainly use one or the other.
Click to expand...

Long term Leica user here. I’ve never even considered any of the special editions, but there was a time not too long ago when Leica were on the brink of going bust, so any additional revenue was welcome. What annoys me are people who buy cameras and lenses but they keep them in a cabinet and never use them.

I’ve met a lot of people though the Leica user forum and all have been users of the cameras, not just collectors.
 
miktec said:
They do though ... it's just that their argument doesn't coincide with your view (or mine either for that matter :)

Basically it's a very similar debate to the hifi one - a question of 'Science' versus 'Art'.
Click to expand...

My favourite is people using a film camera and then scanning the result to post online. Just use a digital camera.
 
There is a "lifestyle" element for some Leica users that perhaps gets it somewhere towards "foo". Nothing against the equipment as such (as it's clearly very good), but more that some people buy it because they think merely having a Leica will make their pictures better than anyone else takes, and have a Leica hanging from their neck as much as jewelry as anything else.
 
SteveG said:
There is a "lifestyle" element for some Leica users that perhaps gets it somewhere towards "foo". Nothing against the equipment as such (as it's clearly very good), but more that some people buy it because they think merely having a Leica will make their pictures better than anyone else takes, and have a Leica hanging from their neck as much as jewelry as anything else.
Click to expand...
I'm prepared to assist in saving people from themselves, Leica-wise. Just PM me with model, condition etc and I'll do the rest.
 
Bananahead said:
My favourite is people using a film camera and then scanning the result to post online. Just use a digital camera.
Click to expand...

I can't quite get my head around this, what's wrong with scanning in negatives? Especially if you want to share with people, much more convinient than mailing prints all around...

Some of my favourite photos have been on film.


Cyprus 2014 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
 
Hoopsontoast said:
I can't quite get my head around this, what's wrong with scanning in negatives? Especially if you want to share with people, much more convinient than mailing prints all around...

Some of my favourite photos have been on film.
Click to expand...

Simply, it would be easier to use a digital camera.

You may claim that you get a better result from using film but that is Photography Foo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top