Examples of photographers’ paranoia - FOLK
This is not as you may have thought, a terror induced by Morris Dancers nor being locked in a room with The Spinners. In this lexicon of photography paranoia, FOLK is an acronym for
Fear Of Lesser Kit
This of course, for the most part, an irrational fear.
As another oft used acronym proclaims, FEAR - False Expectations Appearing Real. FOLK is a falsehood that has affected most photographers, at the very least in their early days. The most perfidious aspect of it is of course that it is perpetuated by virtually the entire photographic industry. While mentioning the photographic industry, let us consider which parts of that industry are most likely to be familiar with the majority of amateur photographers:
The equipment manufacturers
Photographic magazines
Influencers
All of these not only perpetuate the lie but their very survival is dependent upon perpetuating the lie. Which lie?
Buying a better camera / lens will improve your photographs
The makers of camera equipment have to convince the public that this is true or they go out of business. The magazines, with a few highly noteworthy exceptions such as our very own OnLandscape, also depend upon the perpetuation of that myth. They need the advertising revenue based on the lie.
There are some caveats of course. There are niche aspects of photography that do indeed demand a minimum level of kit. If for instance you want to make images such as the ones you see in the press of Test Cricket or International Athletics, some specialised ( and expensive) kit may well be required. If you desire a breathtakingly shallow depth of field, that is hard to achieve without fast and expensive lenses. A case can easily be made for an understanding of where the bottlenecks lie in the process. I’ve had many workshop clients for instance trying to make high quality long exposure images with an outstanding camera on an appalling tripod. As with cables in HiFi, the dull stuff is often the most critical. However if we scan the forums and Facebook groups, the aspirants generally frame their upgrade wishes in much less specific terms, usually looking for ‘sharper’ or ‘clearer’ pictures or bigger prints. Even more worryingly, they so often simply seek something ‘better’. When replying to such questions, I tend to be a very disappointing ‘party pooper’ by suggesting that they first define exactly what their current equipment cannot do and equally exactly what they demand in return of their desired investment. In the majority of cases, the gap between their desired and real world outcomes lies with technique rather than kit.
There is one, interesting counter argument which, if followed with brutal honesty and analysis, creates a defence of the investment in kit. It may be summarised as the
Elimination of Excuses
If the photographer compares their work with that of those whose work they admire, they may set about seeking to create a level playing field. If we analyse every aspect of the kit they use and duplicate it, then most variables can be removed. Once each variable (excuse) has been removed we are forced to conclude that the reason we might not produce equivalent results is due to our own skills and effort. Bear in mind that many (if not the majority) of our most admired images were not taken on today’s most up to date or expensive kit. They may have used the class leaders of 10 years ago. Replicating that may not be expensive at all. I would argue that this is a useful point to reach as by the back door it arrives at a truth - photography is about photographers, not cameras.