XtremeCamera

I seem to get into trouble whenever I talk about being serious about photography. Usually, it’s the folks that shoot with inexpensive cameras that take offense of the word ‘serious’. It seems as though for the point-n-shoot photographers out there ‘serious’ means complex dSLR’s, expensive software, and a Mac. They couldn’t be more wrong.

That Interpretation of the word is disappointing to me because in my view the most serious photographers I know are the ones that attempt to create awesome photographs with tools that are less than ‘cutting edge’ stuff, and some of the worst photographers are those that buy expensive equipment thinking that with an expensive camera the photographs simply have to be better. How wrong is that?

Give a creative person with a passion for photography an inexpensive, point-n-shoot and that person will find a way to use it well beyond what others may think is even possible. I see someone attempting to create a great photograph with a point-n-shoot as a very serious photographer indeed.

So, maybe what the problem might be is the way people define the word ‘serious’.

My Mac’s built-in dictionary describes the word thusly;

1 (of a person) solemn or thoughtful in character or manner : her face grew serious.

• (of a subject, state, or activity) demanding careful consideration or application : marriage is a serious matter.

• (of thought or discussion) careful or profound : we give serious consideration to safety recommendations.

• (of music, literature, or other art forms) requiring deep reflection and inviting a considered response : he bridges the gap between serious and popular music.

2 acting or speaking sincerely and in earnest, rather than in a joking or halfhearted manner : suddenly he wasn’t teasing any more—he was deadly serious | actors who are serious about their work.

3 significant or worrying because of possible danger or risk; not slight or negligible : she escaped serious injury | Haydn was Mozart’s only serious rival.

4 [ attrib. ] informal substantial in terms of size, number, or quality : he suddenly had serious money to spend | a serious chocolate cheesecake.

No where in the above definition can I detect anything about ‘serious’ being better, or more deserving, or worthy of more respect, or anything else that places someone who is considered more serious above someone that is somehow less serious.

Last year, when XtremeCamera went into its first full-blown beta mode we contacted our friends in the Mac community (most of us here at XC HQ come from the Mac community) and invited people that were ‘serious’ about photography to come join the beta team and help us debug the site. Boy did we strike a nerve!

We heard from nearly 300 people via email that we were discriminating against hobbyists, against people who were just starting to learn about photography, and those that didn’t own an expensive dSLR. We even had several people tell us that they would never use XtremeCamera because of our inclusion of the word ‘serious’ in our press release.

Needless to say we were astonished over reaction. (I still am.) Its downright ridiculous to believe that serious means anything other than what it means. Some at HQ wanted us to issue a clarification immediately. They thought we had damaged our reputation before we even launched (but that distinction was given to the original team of coders that produced inferior code, but that’s another story).

We never did issue that clarification. We didn’t then and we certainly don’t feel its warranted now. In fact, the upcoming advertising campaign includes the word ‘serious’ in the text. And it should. And here’s why;

A ‘serious’ photographer is anyone that creates a photograph with care. Someone that cares about composition, exposure, depth of field, and even the ISO is someone that is serious about the photograph, even if the equipment they are using at the moment doesn’t allow for total control of all those settings. People who feel a passion for photography as an art form are serious about photography. How can they not be?

Regardless of whether or not the equipment used can calibrate an ISO or adjust an aperture up or down or even set the shutter speed, the end-user cares about such things and how they (the settings) will contribute to the end result. When someone is using a camera, any camera, and looks through the viewfinder, and adjusts the composition, thinks about the scene in a photographic manner, that person is being serious about the photograph he or she is about to create, and photography in general.

Someone that I believe is not serious about photography is someone that grabs a point-n-shoot, or a cell phone camera, or even a dSLR, and simply ‘points’ and ‘shoots’ without any regard for the composition, exposure, etc.

For instance, someone that has little or no interest in photography yet owns an inexpensive digital camera and brings it along to a beach party or a backyard BBQ to grab a few snapshots for the photo album is not serious about photography.

If someone uses a camera as I describe above is not a prime candidate for being a member of a photo community anymore than someone that has gone fishing with a friend or relative a few times in their lives, feels no passion for it, and they wouldn’t care if they ever went fishing again, and yet is targeted by a fishing website as prime candidate for its site.

So where’s the disconnect?

Why is the word ‘serious’ so powerful in this situation? Does it have something to do with ‘equipment envy’? For some, probably. Do some photographers that create photographs with point-n-shoots somehow believe that they can’t be good photographers? I hope not, but some probably do. More likely some with point-n-shoots believe that those who own dSLR’s will think they (the point-n-shooters) aren’t serious about photography or that they aren’t any good lest they own a dSLR? Why does it matter? Simply put, it doesn’t.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for those suffering from equipment envy to seek out a photo community where those that earn a living from photography, those that own tens of thousands of dollars of photography gear, are forbidden to join. If equipment envy is your problem I doubt very much that you will find XtremeCamera an enjoyable place to be. Here we hope to have a healthy mix of amateurs and pros, people that shoot with inexpensive equipment and those that spend a lot on their equipment. Good photographers do not require state-of-art equipment to get good results.

Those that may feel that dSLR owners are looking down on them because they use a point-n-shoot need to look inside themselves and find out why they feel that way. Have they been singled out by a dSLR owner for creating inferior photographs due to the camera they shot it with? If that were the case perhaps they would do well to consider the source of the criticism and charge it off to ignorance on the part of the smug dSLR owner rather than something they themselves have done.

On XtremeCamera I’ve seen some incredible photographs taken with point-n-shoot cameras. That alone should prove that it doesn’t matter what equipment you have but rather how you use that equipment.

And here’s something else to think about; why would a photo community seek out people that have no serious interest in photography? What’s the point? What can they possibly get out of joining a community in which they have no interest? What can they possibly contribute to the site if they have no interest?

Certainly, the more complex the camera the more you can manipulate a scene, (and the more you have to know in order to get the most out of it) but if you don’t have an eye for composition, if you don’t care if the photo you created is 2 full stops over exposed, it doesn’t matter what equipment you use, chances are the photographs aren’t going to be very good. In the end it’s not about the equipment, it’s about your desire to create.

Before I end this blog post I’d also like to address those that felt I was being critical against Windows users in my last post. I read with interest the forum posts concerning my choice of words and I have to honest; I don’t see it.

I reread my piece and nowhere do I see anything that indicates that I believe those that use Windows are lesser people. Nowhere do I see anything I’ve written as being bias “against” PC users, but I admit that I am certainly biased “toward” Macs. But my choice, or my evangelism, ‘for’ Macs is not any different than a photographer’s choice for Nikon or Canon or Olympus.

Ask a Nikon user why they use a Nikon and not a Canon and you are sure to hear negatives about Canon when compared against Nikon. And of course this goes for Canon or Olympus users as well. Does that mean that someone that uses a Canon has the right to feel slighted by the Nikon user? Isn’t it true that people choose a brand or a model because of certain things that appeal to them? Doesn’t smart shoppers compare different brands and for whatever reason choose one over the other based on positives AND negatives?

I didn’t say that ALL creative’s use Macs, although I did say they ‘tended’ to. And that is exactly true. The majority of creative’s choose to work on Macs when given the opportunity, and with good reason.

Steven McBride
A serious photographer
A Mac user