
You Can't Hack Photography - andrewvc
http://blog.andrewvc.com/you-cant-hack-photography
======
oldstrangers
I trained in traditional film photography for 8 years, worked in a darkroom
and developed my own film. The 'technical' details that make a photo "text-
book-correct" were some of the first things we learned. It was a given that
you knew how to properly shoot a photo (and in our case, how to properly
develop, enlarge, print, etc). This was the foundation for potentially
creating something more than just a snapshot. You only ever really noticed
these details when someone got it wrong.

With that said, after about the 2nd year, it became increasingly clear that
once you knew what you were doing, you had almost no incentive to continue
doing things "correctly." Critiques at the higher levels became increasingly
abstract. It was understood that you could shoot a "technically correct"
photo. No one needed to see that from you again, perhaps ever. You master the
basics and you're suddenly let in on a secret that the basics don't really
matter (at least in an artistic/scholastic context).

However, I can see why the engineer type would be attracted to the technical
part of photography. It is a fun and rewarding endeavor to create things
correctly, and not everyone wants to be an artist. Working in a darkroom is
extremely rewarding in a technical sense because it rewards those who do
things correctly and punishes those who don't. Ultimately, there are all kinds
of reasons to fall in love with photography, and those reasons don't need to
correspond with mine or anyone elses.

~~~
andrewvc
Hey, well I guess I you're right about different aspects being enjoyable to
different people. However, I guess I feel like some people use technique to
avoid and rationalize rather than grow and create.

~~~
D_Drake
That's his point. Some people don't want to grow and create, they want to
relate, to transmit. I have absolutely no desire to make high-contrast
lighting photos because they're "edgy," nor do I want to take "mysterious"
photos of models intended to impress the viewer with its ambiguity.

When I see something I think is interesting, I want to be able to preserve it
, for myself and for my friends. That's the difference between an artist and a
hobbyist.

------
steve8918
One thing I've noticed in the Valley is engineers with super-expensive DSLRs,
taking pictures of the most mundane things, mainly birthday parties and
pictures of wine glasses. I guess it's like any other hobby, and I guess the
belief that the best technology out there will result in the best output, and
that's what makes Silicon Valley what it is.

But there's something decidedly obnoxious to me about engineers pulling out
their 5D Mark II's and talking about the particular specs or lenses, and not
understanding the artistry behind it. You do not need a $2000 camera to take
your 2 year old daughter's birthday party photos. PERIOD.

I have a friend who is a true photographer, who just started a photo business
specializing in family photos. She has an entry-level DSLR that is about 7
years old, but her photos are amazing and even though I don't know who her
customers are, some of her pics make me jealous of them because I wish those
were my pics.

Of course there are technical aspects to taking photos, but it's more in lines
with knowing the LIMITATIONS or the boundary conditions of your camera and
lens combo, understanding the light conditions you are in, and taking photos
that match the conditions. A more expensive camera will get you a bigger sweet
spot in order for you to take more pictures in different light conditions, but
it's like tennis rackets with a bigger sweet spot, it's allows beginners to
pretend they actually know what they're doing. My friend has take amazingly
beautiful photos with a disposable film camera that you get from Walgreen's or
CVS. You can get amazing photos from point and shoots or even your iPhone, as
long as you have a sense for what pictures you can take.

But the more important aspect is developing an eye for what is truly a great
photo, and a moment that needs to be captured. Some of the world's greatest
photos were taken on cameras whose resolutions were dwarfed by the iPhone, so
technology isn't really the deciding factor.

~~~
georgieporgie
_You do not need a $2000 camera to take your 2 year old daughter's birthday
party photos. PERIOD._

You do not need a Porsche to commute to work. You do not need a steak for
dinner. You do not need air conditioning. You do not need toilet paper.

The 5D is a wonderful piece of technology. A person should feel no shame about
owning one, nor for excitedly talking about it.

~~~
steve8918
During the dotcom boom I worked at a small company that had already IPOed a
year or two previously. In the parking lot, I saw a silver Ferrari, and being
new to the Valley, I was completely amazed and intimidated.

But after a few months, I actually went to the car to look inside, and in
front seat was a baby seat, and it was littered in garbage, McDonald's
wrappers, magazine, etc. It looked like someone who really wanted an Accord (a
very nice car, I had one for 10+ years), got too big for their britches,
didn't understand his-or-her situation, and spent money on a Ferrari instead,
and had to live with the consequences. It's the same for the person who buys a
Porsche just to get stuck in 101 rush hour traffic every day, they didn't
understand their situation.

This is exactly what it is when engineers buy Mark II's to take photos of
birthday parties. Sure, people are allowed to do whatever they want, but they
look like posers, and more often than not, they don't know what they're doing.
Instead they think that throwing money at the problem and getting the best
technology will result in the best output, and will vault their level of
success instantly. Sure the Mark II will be more forgiving, as will the
assortment of lens that you can get for it, but more often than not, they'll
still take mundane photos that could have been taken with a point-and-shoot.

~~~
georgieporgie
_It looked like someone who really wanted an Accord (a very nice car, I had
one for 10+ years), got too big for their britches, didn't understand his-or-
her situation, and spent money on a Ferrari instead, and had to live with the
consequences._

It sounds like someone who is really passionate about cars, and Ferraris
specifically, and who has made the car fit his or her life.

If the person can afford a Ferrari, I'm going to go out on a limb and say
there is probably little obstacle to also owning a commuter box, if that
person were so inclined.

 _they look like posers_

That is entirely in your own head. If you go around judging people that much,
how can you possibly feel about yourself?

You're better than this. Stop searching for reasons to look down on others.

~~~
megablast
"they look like posers

That is entirely in your own head. If you go around judging people that much,
how can you possibly feel about yourself?"

Also, why should you live your life based on how someone else perceives you?
Surely the poster above you feels that this is wrong.

------
jey
False dichotomy; technique and artistic quality are orthogonal concepts. You
can have a technically perfect shot that is perfectly bland, and you can have
a shot that would've been beautiful if only you knew how to set your shutter
speed. It's certainly not like understanding the technique takes away from the
beauty, and it's true that the beauty doesn't come from having perfect
technique. Norvig's post was clearly about the technical aspects of the
challenges of shooting dancers.

~~~
andrewvc
I agree it's orthogonal, I make it clear in my post that it's an option, but
only one of of many. Some shots need technique, others are fine with a
polaroid. There's nothing more to say about it.

~~~
slewis
How do you know this is true: "Engineers who become photographers generally
spend an outsized amount of time making their images sharp, have true color,
be adequately lit, etc."

Not all engineers are robots. It doesn't take an artist to realize art has
both technical and human/emotional components.

~~~
william42
When you respond to a sentence using the words "generally", "tend to", or
"usually" with one using the words "not all" or relatives, you are effectively
conceding the point. Correlation cannot be denied with a mere counterexample.

~~~
slewis
Can correlation be assumed without sources and facts as was done in the
article?

"Not all engineers are [figurative] robots" is certainly a fact and was meant
as an upper bound on the number of engineers who believe that photography is
merely technical in nature. I'm questioning whether the lower bound is
statable as "generally engineers believe this", and claiming that I don't
believe it is.

To further clarify my opinion: the line drawn by the author is too black and
white. Its inhuman and unemotional itself to assume that another large group
of humans can't see the emotional and human side of art.

------
larrys
As someone who has done quite a bit of photography (I had a darkroom and made
money shooting during high school and college with no formal training but
managed to get photos in the local big city paper) I agree with your points.
Back in the darkroom days tech skills though were much more important
otherwise your photos ended up washed out or over and underexposed just as a
result of the wrong chemistry or fogging etc.

The technical aspects of photography are obviously important but I find to
many people concentrate on the "specs" of the camera and memorize camera
review articles.

They worry about white balance before understanding composition and a host of
other creative issues. Shutter speed, fstop and focus are important as well as
the lens you are using and when to do flash fill in. Maybe I'm missing a thing
or two but the rest you can wait to learn.

A friend of mine constantly buys new cameras. His photos really suck but he
knows those cameras inside and out because he thinks that's learning
photography.

It reminds me a little about people who obsess over creating what they think
is an all important one line piece of code instead of just getting the job
done. Sure efficiency matters but it doesn't matter in every situation.
(Imagine if every reply post to HN had to hold to the standards of a final
college paper...)

~~~
ashishgandhi
I agree about "spec" and cameras. In fact, I agree with this underlying trend.
You cannot bulletize life.

------
jevinskie
Like hell I can't hack photography! Photography is one of my favorite things
to hack! I will admit that I am not great at composing pictures but I find
that good, hard work in the darkroom is essential to make even a well composed
photo "pop". I have hacked a pinhole camera out of a big flour container and
some photo paper. This photo was exposed for probably 10 minutes - note that
the focus is the same inches from the aperture as it is 30 feet away. [1]
Getting even more technical, I did some high speed photography where the
shutter is left open in a dark room and a high speed flash (just several to
tens of microseconds in duration) is triggered to freeze the action. I used an
AVR with a microphone to wait a programed delay after hearing the report of a
pellet rifle before triggering the flash using a relay. [2] You can get some
cool results with this fairly simple setup while having a lot of fun. [3] [4]
So I repeat: am I not doing "real" photography if I take more interest in its
technical aspects?

[1]:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jevinskie/116161786/sizes/z/in/...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/jevinskie/116161786/sizes/z/in/photostream/)

[2]:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jevinskie/112758047/in/photostr...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/jevinskie/112758047/in/photostream/)

[3]:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jevinskie/115619170/sizes/z/in/...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/jevinskie/115619170/sizes/z/in/photostream/)

[4]:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jevinskie/112750343/in/photostr...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/jevinskie/112750343/in/photostream/)

------
jrockway
"You're doing art differently me from me, therefore you're wrong."

This is a silly argument. There is nothing wrong with enjoying photographic
equipment and settings without enjoying the "art" of capturing moments on
film. People with $2000 cameras taking bad pictures have a $2000 camera
because they think playing with fine machinery is fun: the output is
irrelevant to them. It's a hobby and the goal is enjoyment, so there is
absolutely nothing wrong with this.

I'm not even sure how it's worth the time to write an article like this. All I
got out of it is "I'm bad at my hobby and so is everyone else, but everyone
else is having fun without me! Don't they understand that they're bad!?"

(I hear this a lot on bicycling fora: don't play with the components on your
bike, go ride! That's great, but some of us like playing with components _and_
riding, so we're going to do both. Do I _need_ a $3000 bike for my two hours a
day I spend on it? Nope. Do I have one anyway? Yup. Why? Because I think it's
cool and it makes me enjoy life more. If that's a problem for you, don't tell
me, because I don't care.)

------
joshu
This article is horseshit. Practically the first thing I realized after
getting a real camera was that I had to develop my eye.

Also, calling Peter a "developer" is more than a little condescending.

Also, you can hack photography. Lenses are an algorithm. Go read Fergus's
paper on coded apertures or Ng's plenoptic camera stuff.

~~~
andrewvc
I didn't mean to be condescending in calling Peter a developer. The article
really isn't about Peter, it's about the legions of technical photographer
developers out there, probably why that title was on my mind.

------
readymade
What a needlessly posturing rant. Who cares if some nerds buy expensive
cameras and take pictures of babies and flowers? How is this different from
guitars, or pastel sets, or any other art form where gear is required? As long
as they're getting something out of it, mind your own damn business. It's not
like every techie with the scratch to buy a DSLR is talentless.

As in all creative endeavors, it's a lot easier to talk shit than to bring it.

------
watmough
This is hilarious.

The author disparages Norvig, from the shaky ground of apparently having
barely one decent photograph to his name.

I restrained myself earlier from posting a comment to the effect that Norvig
had demonstrated, but not strongly enumerated one key idea, that you should
restrict yourself to taking pictures of things that you care about.

Andrew says this

"When it comes to photography, engineers spend a disproportionate amount of
time following compositional rules, shooting photos with straightforward
narratives, and thinking about their photos as bullet points of technique
before, during, and after shooting. It's as if the aim is for an acceptable,
homogeous pastiche with the consistency of oatmeal."

then shows us pictures of coffee cups on the grass. Thanks for demonstrating
oatmeal.

~~~
andrewvc
"coffee cups on the grass".

Hey, could be worse, I coulda taken a photo of a lemon! [http://www.abstract-
art.com/abstraction/l2_grnfthrs_fldr/g01...](http://www.abstract-
art.com/abstraction/l2_grnfthrs_fldr/g013v_manet_lemon.html)

Who does this Manet character think he is anyway?

~~~
watmough
There's obviously nothing wrong with taking pictures of a lemon, but to
criticize Norvig for writing a great tutorial on available light photography,
illustrated with great portraits of a superb subject, then to have almost
nothing of comparable worth, seems like putting yourself on very shaky ground.

I'll make no claims on my own account, but if you're going to put yourself out
there, you should expect to be called.

Obviously, I've been hammered by collective opinion, so the YC crowd obviously
digs your Starbucks container in the park or whatever. Good luck to you!

------
ak217
I find this rant completely unconvincing. My experience compels a very
different interpretation. Learning from the pros helps, but in the past 10
years the gap between amateurs and pros has shrunk so dramatically, and
quality camera gear has become so much more affordable, that thousands of
people worldwide have hacked their way to surpass the skill of most pros. And
yes, having a 64-point tracking focus and metering system and a 16MP 3200 ISO
low-noise sensor behind a stabilized f/2.8 telephoto lens really does make up
for a big gap in skill - so much so that hacking the rest of the way is quite
a bit more conceivable than before.

~~~
wahnfrieden
Technique may be hackable, but you'd be mistaken to think that's all there is
to aesthetic works.

------
extension
Here is my trick for taking great photos:

Carry a small camera in your pocket at all times. ALL. TIMES. It has to be one
that can turn on and take a photo within two seconds tops. You also have to be
able to get it ready to snap the photo while it's still in your pocket, using
touch alone. And the shutter has to react instantly when you snap the photo.
Unfortunately, most smartphones can't do these things, but a Canon Powershot
or similar style of camera can.

Now, whenever you get a sense that something interesting is about to happen or
someone is about to do something amusing, put your hand in your pocket and get
the camera ready. And when the moment seems right, whip it out and snap the
photo _right away_. Do not let anyone know that you are about to take a photo
before you shoot, not even an instant before.

This is the only way to get fly-on-the-wall photos when you are part of the
action, which you usually are when you're with friends. Some people might get
a bit annoyed at first, but they will forgive you when they see the great
photo of them where they look relaxed and natural.

I've captured some strange and magical moments this way. It's a shame that my
camera has been displaced by my phone, which can't do it.

------
nas
That's a provocative title with a weak followup. One example of awesome
hacking in a related field:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Cinematography> <http://www.visual-
memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm>

~~~
andrewvc
Well, I'll agree that I kinda trailed off toward the end of the post. The
point I was trying to make was that you'll have to figure out all the non-tech
stuff for yourself as an individual experience.

There's no book for that, no checklist.

------
kgen
Wow, this guy is so pretentious. Engineers are a creative bunch, and Peter
Norvig's post seemed more like an overview of why your images turn out less
optimal than they could be. How the composition and what you decide to shoot
aren't even touched there and this guy thinks that's all we care about in
photography.

~~~
andrewvc
Hey, that's me!

I think you may have missed my point. Norvig's post, in and of itself is
mostly fine--though I'd say the tips on composition in there, which you must
have missed were poor--but within the context of the present day, with
boatloads of engineers who take up photography to become camera junkies, it's
problematic.

By the way, if it wasn't clear I'm an engineer as well.

~~~
readymade
The only part of the equation you have any control over is the quality of your
own work, and when you see others who value technical expertise over
compositional sensitivity, you can choose to take it as an indication of what
you intend to do and avoid, rather than something you need to be deeply
offended by.

The internet is full of amateurs who fetishize their gear, as well as many
very talented people, and there's no shortage of material for you to get
worked up over, if that's your thing. If you're truly concerned that this is
endemic in the tech crowd, and that concern comes from a place of compassion
as opposed to judgment, you can always write your own tutorial on photographic
composition -- think of how many people you'd be helping! On the other hand,
if it makes you feel better to put others down for what you perceive as their
artistic shortcomings, and offer nothing in the form of advice, one might get
the impression you're trying to compensate for your own insecurity at the
expense of others, hence the tepid response here. As an artist you stand to
lose nothing on account of the creative decisions of others.

------
arkitaip
I enjoyed Norvig's post a great deal because he broke down a fascinating and
complex topic into easy to understand pieces. By doing so he also revealed
some of the beauty inherent in photography and dancing and the mastery great
photographers display in their work.

I'm not a photographer but I imagine that many enthusiasts and pros would find
his writing very helpful in learning to become better photographers. People
got to learn the basics before they can find their own voice, they need to
know the rules before they understand how and why they can be broken.

The fact that the author doesn't seem to realize any of this makes me think
he's over-valuating the importance of being artistic, artistic discovery of
the basics and the fact that his and Norvig's views of photography
continuously complement each other nicely as they do in any context of
learning and mastery.

------
estenh
Speaking as a photojournalist-turned-engineer, I think the idea of hacking
photography is what got me into hacking software in the first place. I started
collecting old cameras and fixing/modding them, making them do different
things depending on what I liked, as opposed to what they were designed to do.
Admittedly, being a gearhead doesn't help in the slightest, but playing around
with cameras does lead to some interesting photography. Of course, all that
hinges on having a somewhat relevant subject matter.

I had it explained to me once by one of my photoj professors that the photo
consists of a message you're trying to convey about a subject. That can be
done through technical proficiency or some strange artistic effects, so long
as they all point towards the same message. Anything outside of that is just
noise. Either technique for technique's sake or artistic effects for the
effects' sake.

------
hopeless
There is a certain point here and there's certainly a huge crossover between
engineers and photographers (and also knitters, but that's another story).

You need to develop both technical skills and an artistic vision. Engineers by
their nature, tend to focus on the first and neglect the latter. There are
some great book on the artistic side, but I particularly "Vision and Voice:
Refining Your Vision in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom" by David duChemin[1]. This
is most definitely not a book about Lightroom but rather about your artistic
intent which starts when you first think of the shot and how you carry that
"vision" through to Lightroom and express with your post-processing "voice".
The discussion are priceless and it works as a book even if you don't use
Lightroom. His other books and ebooks are also very good.

[1] <http://amazon.co.uk/dp/0321670094>

------
bluekeybox
As a technically-inclined person, I picked up photography back in the early
2000s, and I went all the way in terms of trying to achieve something that
others thought was great.

I eventually did start producing decent photos, but it took inordinately more
work than getting the technical details right was. There is a technical aspect
in photography, but it's weight compared to the remaining aspects is about the
same as the weight of a fly compared to that of an elephant. The elephant
being: figuring out what smart people will like, and what matters.

PS. some of my dance photos from back in the day:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/17652593@N00/168734800/>
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/17652593@N00/169255410/>

------
endlessvoid94
If you take the long view, it's possible that photography as a technical hobby
is merely a stepping stone to gaining a better understanding of the art form,
with the eventual goal of improving the hobby both technically and
artistically. I agree that photography as a technical hobby is an "incomplete"
picture, but having an absolute rock-solid understanding and experience of the
fundamental technical foundation cannot possibly be a bad thing.

Most technical hobbyists will probably remain just that -- but it's possible
someone will surpass them and tie together the artist and the engineer into
something that will astound the world. Or whoever they show their work to,
which is possibly nobody.

It's possible this has already happened, we just don't know about it yet. And
maybe we never will.

------
adamnemecek
I'll just leave these here.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_photography>

<http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/camera-2.0/>

------
oz
This is slightly off-topic, but is perhaps the best opportunity to clarify
something I've recently started wondering about, and will no doubt be valuable
to others on HN:

I've been studying web design for the past few weeks, and naturally broached
the issue of images. Is it possible to take 'professional' (i.e., 'website-
worthy') pictures using consumer range equipment, such as the Casio Exilim and
Sony Cyber-shot? For example, pictures of dishes for a restaurant website, or
product pictures for an e-commerce site?

~~~
andrewvc
Yes, so here technique really matters. You want a photo that looks
professional. So, my article was written with a fine art perspective, but you
aren't making fine art, you're making a brochure.

This is where you need to learn about lighting. What you want, to keep it
simple, is nice, even light.

Here's some tips that will near guaranteed get you a decent photo, even if you
leave your camera in full auto:

1\. Get a tripod

2\. DO NOT use a flash

3\. Learn what 3 point lighting is

4\. Light your food mostly evenly, don't have a dramatic difference between
key and fill (maybe 1/2 stop - 1 stop at most). Soften the light as much as
possible. If you need lights, cheaply, you can probably get away with home
depot work lights bounced off walls. Be sure to adjust your camera's color
balance.

5\. Look at other food photos, copy other people's layouts as closely as
possible, don't get creative

6\. Learn how to use curves in photoshop, and try to get one point in the
photo pure black, another pure white. At the very least use auto-adjust. DO
NOT OVERDO IT with curves.

7\. Focus

All of those rules can be broken once you know what you're doing, but you
don't know anything yet. These instructions will hopefully get you a fairly
generic looking commercial food photo. If you practice, you can get 90% of
what you need with this. These photos won't be amazing, but they'll be OK.
That's a basic starting point for taking these photos.

What that doesn't cover is all the weird ways they cook food for food photos,
a lot of the time what they photograph isn't edible, and has been cooked
specially to look good on camera.

~~~
oz
This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thanks!

On the point about how they cook for cameras, I remember reading years ago
that most ice cream ads actually used mashed potatoes!

------
ivanzhao
There are photographers, and photo-equipment enthusiasts.

------
ashishgandhi
Reading articles on technique may not make you a photographer. But they can
help you figure what may be going wrong.

------
dspeyer
Since when does hacking involve following rules and buying the fanciest
equipment? Isn't it usually the opposite?

------
DanBC
One reason to learn the science behind correct technique is to allow creative
use of 'wrong' technique - weird depth of field can look nice; HDR photos are
an interesting concept (but for sure there are way too many!); tilt-shift is a
neat gimmick; etc etc.

And these creative uses of wrong settings are, surely, hacking?

------
cletus
God I'm sick of snide pseudo-artistic snobbery.

There is photography as an art and then there is photography as a hobby.
Please stop conflating the two and, what's worse, judging those who indulge in
such a hobby.

Do you "need" an expensive rig to take family, vacation, hiking, etc photos?
With certain exceptions clearly not. As such snobs like to point out, the
likes of Ansel Adams did quite well with pretty basic gear. We know. _We don't
care_.

The simple fact is that a DSLR still does things that a compact camera does
not:

\- larger sensors by the laws of physics will have shallower depths of field
making shots possible that just aren't physically possible on the small
sensors typically in compacts (let alone phones);

\- high ISO without being awash with noise;

\- generally speaking, faster continuous shooting. This is important, at least
to me, because I typically take a burst of 3-5 shots because the first will
suffer most from camera shake and it increases the chance of getting a good
shot;

\- a flash gun is vastly more versatile, particularly in being able to bounce
flash to avoid red eye (yes I know some "prosumer" cameras have a hot shoe);
and

\- an optical viewfinder, particularly in lowlight, is vastly superior to any
electronic viewfinder.

\- the metering/AF (particularly continuous AF) are significantly better.

I don't own a 5D Mark II. Personally, I can't justify the cost. But I do own a
7D+15-85 and I've previously owned a 20D and a 300D. Not because I need them
or because I have delusions about making some great artistic statement but
because I _enjoy_ them.

Fact is, I earn a good living. Buying a 7D (or even a 5D Mark II) does not
represent a massive investment. I have to wonder if the self-important pseudo-
artists who like to rant about people like me are, at least in part, jealous
of this economic freedom that we engineers enjoy.

I also have an iPhone 4S. Bear in mind I also bought the iPhone 4. I largely
bought the 4S for the better camera. As well as having reasonably decent image
quality it also addresses the burst fps issue I have with compacts and phones,
to the point where I will in the future have trouble justifying buying another
compact.

In my experience there are two kinds of artists. The minority are true
artists, who tend to live on a blurry line between genius and madness, often
so oblivious to things and people around them (since they're obsessed with
their vision) that they probably wouldn't even _notice_ what tools other
people use, let alone would complain about them.

The second are what I call "lifestyle artists". These are people who aren't
really artists but are simply attracted to the lifestyle. They socialize with
other "artists", are often "hangers on" to true artists and write blog posts
like these. They're the kids in the playground who pick on the unpopular kids
just to affirm their social status among the "popular" kids.

It's not that these people realize they're frauds (IMHO). I'm sure they truly
believe they're artists. They just don't know the difference between being a
true artist and "going through the motions".

This isn't unique to the art community either. There are a lot of pretend
engineers out there. These are the sort who will often get into wars about
Python vs Ruby or Django vs Rails or jump on the Java-bashing bandwagon like
it's some kind of street cred. None of these things matter.

Perhaps these failed artists should spend less time whining about the
financial successes of others and more time figuring out why they're failed
artists.

~~~
andrewvc
Wow, it's amazing to me that this got upvoted:

 _The second are what I call "lifestyle artists". These are people who aren't
really artists but are simply attracted to the lifestyle. They socialize with
other "artists", are often "hangers on" to true artists and write blog posts
like these. They're the kids in the playground who pick on the unpopular kids
just to affirm their social status among the "popular" kids._

Apparently you've taken a single blog post of mine about photography,
extrapolated an entire (fictional) life history from it, and then extracted an
ad hominem from that.

Do you understand how senseless and insecure that comes off as?

Just to clue you in a bit on how backwards this whole assesment is...

I'm a rubyist who thinks python is quite nice, and really enjoyed picking up
Java this year (though its verbosity does get tiresome) and Flex (though the
flash runtime is a joke, but we all know that). Also, I can afford nice
cameras, just got an X100 earlier this year, so I'm certainly not jealous of
your income. Lastly, I wasn't picking on you in school, I was one of the kids
being picked on myself and befriending the other kids in the same boat. Yes,
that was me with the other kids in Anime club who played Magic, and no, there
was no hipster irony to it at that time.

~~~
megablast
Why do you think he is talking about you here, and not just commenting on the
photography world generally?

~~~
andrewvc
Well, he divides the world of photography cleanly into two sorts of people.
And given the tone toward my piece, it definitely sounds like I'm in the group
that's in the author's good graces.

------
georgieporgie
I'm really tired of these photography rants.

Some people love photography because they like gadgets. Others enjoy coming to
understand a technically challenging subject. Others because they can capture
a flawless, sharp photo of their mountain climb summit. Others because it
allows them to capture warmly-corrupted photos of their friends in an
anachronistic way. Others because it lets them capture an overhead shot than
really emphasizes their chest. Others...

Just stop judging everyone else. Different strokes for different folks. Nobody
is correct about an entirely subjective thing. Stop and ask yourself why _you_
are getting so upset by someone else's enjoyment. It doesn't affect you.

~~~
vacri
It reminds me a lot of the music folks who abuse anyone who doesn't listen to
whole albums: "You're not listening to music right/the way the artist meant it
to be heard".

The right way to listen to music is to listen to it the way you want to. Sure,
if you're unaware that albums are a series of tracks worked together in a
sympathetic whole, you might benefit from trying it out and seeing if it
appeals to you. But if you don't like that, then there's nothing wrong with
picking and choosing what you want to hear.

