Minimalism and the art of photography | Hacker News Reader

Minimalism and the art of photography

johnpweiss.com

57 pointsvitabenes37 comments

I like the Kierkegaard quote from the article: "The more a person limits himself, the more resourceful he becomes."

Constraints are powerful and have a way of getting the human mind to focus on what really matters. I think this applies just as much to programming. A small well chosen set of languages, libraries, and tools allows you to focus on building things instead of toying around and gluing shiny new frameworks together.

That's how I am with my programming projects. I always see all these new technologies come about (React/Vue/etc.), and yet... I can get so much done with just PHP/jQuery/CSS and a standard DB like MySQL or Mongo.

It applies well to engineering in general. If I have no constraints, I'm as good as useless most of the time. Give me a few constraints and I'll revel at what I can achieve with limited resources.

"The absence of limitations is the enemy of art."

I do this when I get stuck in a rut when making music. Imposing limitations encourages the unexpected.

Well, I am not hiking uphill through poison ivy to take a legible photo of a pretty bird, and also bird will see me coming and run away. Speaking of running away, kids are not going to stick around for me to find a vantage point where all of them fit in the frame, with wide angle I at least get some kind of photo and can try to minimize distortions in post.

So I carry 3 lenses

- 50mm equivalent (35mm for my Canon crop sensor) f1.2 fast prime for when I am in control of composition or need to shoot in low light

- 18-135mm zoom for when I can't predict the circumstances of my photos / count on having time to move myself or subject around or change lenses

- 70-200mm telephoto for hikes and sports

I do like 50mm prime photos of compositions that fit into that frame while retaining sufficient detail best. But minimalizm is a luxury that requires subordinating all other priorities of self and others to one's preferred practice. Real life calls for compromise. On family vacations I just carry an Olympus TG6, which is nothing to get excited about as a camera, but it fits in my pocket, has 4x optical zoom and can be taken on a swim or thrown on the sand at the beach. I don't think I would end up taking much photos with a fragile interchangeable lens camera and a prime lens.

Minimalism is also an exercise and lowering the kinds of outcomes you want as well. You see a bird at the top of a mountain you'd like to photograph? You simply don't.

So if I see a memorable family moment I want to photograph in close quarters, I simply don't? This seems like too much commitment to minimalism or photography as art as a single priority. Sometimes there are things worth capturing even if I can't capture them perfectly or have to carry a backpack with a couple of extra lenses.

> So if I see a memorable family moment I want to photograph in close quarters, I simply don't? This seems like too much commitment

Humanity did that until around 2010 so I would say you'd be fine.

Say what? Pentax ES cameras where made in the 70s and had a good selection of wideangle and telephoto lenses. These were not even new, automatic shutter speed control was.

It helps me to separate photography into two areas 1) Art 2) Documentation. If I feel like "creating something" I might challenge myself to work within certain confines. If I need to "document something", I bring the proper tools for the job.

If I didn't do this, then I wouldn't have had the joy of successfully executing pinhole photography (i.e. Art). While also capturing whales jumping out of the ocean a few feet in front of me in a small boat in the Pacific (i.e. Documentation)

This is what I love about my Fujifilm X100F camera—something any x100 model provides. It's a more approachable alternative to the Leica Q, with a fixed 35mm-equivalent lens. Forces you to be more purposeful in framing, while also keeping you from overthinking things since there's only one lens.

The only problem is, once you embrace limitations, you realize your phone is also limited and the incentive to cary the camera drops. That is, until you open your phone and camera photos side by side on a big screen, for all the HDR you lose, the camera inevitably takes a photo with much more feeling, something that feels like it'll last.

You’re really doing yourself a disservice if you’re not trying some of the other film simulation modes on those fuji cameras. They look fantastic.

Hi, I’m the guy who wrote the article. I had no idea it would spark such a conversation. A few points: apologies to the salty commenters who think I’m a snob or judging others. There is a paragraph in my piece acknowledging that “Yes, there are professional, commercial photographers who require more gear. But even many of them prefer simplifying their kit for personal projects.” I mentioned Peter McKinnon, who bought a Leica Q2 for this reason. The point of my article was to advocate for simplicity, and how limitations force us to be creative. Yes, I could use my iPhone (the quality keeps improving) but My Fuji/lens combo has superior depth of field and will accommodate better prints. I mentioned the Leica Q2 monochrome because it’s a compact full frame with amazing image quality, and because it’s monochrome, I’d be fully committed to black and white images. I like working with limitations and creating aesthetically unified work. On my travels I saw quite a few people juggling lenses, lugging backpacks. It seemed to slow them down, but if it works for them, great. I should have framed it better so as not to offend. I’m also a plain air landscape painter, and I saw the same thing. Artists with too much gear and weight. It took them forever to finally paint. I think less is often more, and that limitations can drive creativity. That was the thrust of my essay. In the end, happy shooting, whatever your approach may be.

I have a Fuji X-E3, and recently got the 35/1.4 lens. I now feel bad for my other lenses which are collecting dust, especially the zooms.

I also have an X-E3, which I recently took on an international trip. Its compact, but but a key feature is its low value which means its not especially precious. Its one of the best featured cameras where I wouldn't be upset if it was damaged or stolen; I could just buy another one. I adapt lots of lenses, even Leica M mount, but I like the Fujinon XC35mm f/2 which has the same optics as the WR version. I would like to see an X-E5 with the same control layout, but with IBIS.

The "Fujicron" lenses (28, 35, 50mm F2) are something special. They are the perfect form-factor, relatively cheap, fast to focus, and sharp.

Nice article.

Success in photography comes from figuring out what sort of story you want to tell, and (obviously) getting out there and getting that story on film (or digital :)

Equipment's just the tool, and sometimes simplifying there lets the mind concentrate more on the important stuff.

But sometimes you can almost by accident achieve results impossible with phone camera. Recently I've started using camera with 50mm lens with f/1.2 aperture and my first "real" photo (dog of my parents) was already such a huge success for me, that I've got it framed and gave it to parents for christmas. Without that camera it would be just another photo of many, but small depth of field added nice dreamy effect, plus dog was too close so framing was not ideal. All of this "defects" added to a great photo.

That 35mm f/2 is a fantastic lens. Gorgeous bokeh, great color, very sharp, high contrast.

With a 1.5 crop factor the f/2 becomes f/3.5 bokeh- and depth of field-wise.

https://youtu.be/f5zN6NVx-hY

You can still get some very nice shallow DOF at 50mm(ish) f3.5 FF equivalent

I shoot 35 at f/1.4 at full frame and am totally spoiled by that look. Being able to be close and intimate, to show the full body, and to isolate from the background mimics my myopic vision and just feels spot on.

Will be exploring Fujifilm but am afraid I’ll never get a similar look at that crop. F-stop remains the same light wise but the field of view is narrower and forces stepping away from the subject which reduces the blur.

I think I’ll live with it but it’s a difference that matters to me. Not enough to carry a full frame body though.

If you're willing to give up autofocus, this Voigtlander 23 mm f/1.2 might get you close: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1705212-REG/voigtland...

I shoot with an X-Pro3 as well, and the 35mm f/2 is one of my favorite lenses.

I sold mine when I started investing in wider prime lenses - I now mostly use a 23mm f/1.4 and a 56mm f/1.2 - but I should buy it back. It's really the perfect lens for street photography, and has a certain character that I can't really objectively describe. All I can say is that I can tell immediately when a photo is taken with it, compared to one taken with a similar focal length but using the same camera/sensor.

"During my exploration in Europe, I saw plenty of travelers and photographers lugging huge camera bags stuffed with multiple prime and zoom lenses. These folks would set down their bags and fiddle with their cameras, changing lenses, etc.

While they were juggling, I was shooting.

Less is more."

There's nothing wrong with a minimalist approach, but the above comparison is bullshit.

I've been photographing and traveling for 2 decades. If in recent years you still find people with a bag full of lenses, overwhelmingly this is to cover a giant focal range. Thus, when they switch a lens, this is to cover a dramatically different focal length. A wide angle for a landscape, a telezoom for a distant bird. Maybe even macro.

The point being, they're able to make shots that you're simply unable to make at all with your fixed 50mm lens no matter your creativity. Which is a choice, but it most certainly is not "more".

The minimalism claimed here is snobbery instead. You go against gear heads yet crave a Leica. The ultimate snob camera system. You claim speed is important ("I kept shooting") and then admire a camera that is slow by design. You claim weight is important, yet don't use your smartphone. It's one contradiction after the other.

To make the stereotype complete, I'll fill in the blanks. You're principally against auto-focus as it ruins the art. You make prints from your own photos and frame them with a white border 5 inches thick, to magnify the "minimalism".

Guests will think your intentionally blurry grainy B&W photo of unclear subject or meaning is from Ikea, luckily an explanation will follow about the laborious process to achieve this minimalism, whilst in the background the teenage son types into his AI prompt:

"Beautiful landscape with trees but actually sharp and not noisy, not in style of dad, without borders, full rich color, more is more"

I shot with only an rx1 (full frame, fixed 35mm prime) for years.

Now I carry around a huge sony mirrorless with a big heavy 24-70 g master zoom.

One camera, one lens is fine - until you want to actually exert compositional control. You can't beat 70mm+ for portraits. You can get 75% there with one camera, one lens, but sometimes you gotta dive deeper.

(Also his setup is bigger/heavier/lower quality than the rx1/rx1r, even within the "one camera one lens" masochist arena.)

To be clear, I pass no judgement on any setup. At all. Use a smartphone. A single lens. A bag full of them. You do you.

I specifically objected to the weird comparison the author makes, the sense of superiority, the self-contradicting arguments.

There definitely is a tendency for hobby photographers to amass gear to the point where it gets in the way of taking photos (and then ditch most of it when they get older and wiser).

That said, yeah - the article is half good advice, half snobbery. There is some merit to learning the technique using a stable toolkit, but you don't need to spend $6,000 on a "status symbol" camera and you certainly don't need to only shoot black-and-white.

Absolutely gear heads exist. I also agree with the idea that purposeful constraint can be fun. I have a 40 year old manual focus lens myself, just to fool around. Chose your own style and gear, do what you want.

The only thing I object to is to declare a sense of superiority by dunking on somebody with a different approach. Even more so when the "rational" arguments are completely opposite to one's own behavior.

I'm well aware that my response comes across as salty, but the well runs deep. I've been involved in online photo communities since they existed (and also run one myself). This guy ticks all the boxes of a particular stereotype I've come across since the very beginning: a gatekeeper-like imposter artist.

They'll take their "minimalist" camera, go on a walk, and randomly come across a bare tree with a raven sitting on it. They'll take the shot, go home and then try to backdate a deeper meaning. As if there was some grand idea behind it all along. An artistic vision executed. Something cliche like "when winter sets in" or "life has no ups without lows". Next they sign it with "Leo Leica - photography", which suggests a business, but there isn't any.

They'll have "award-winning" on their profile but fail to mention it was the daily random award from freephotocontexts.wordpress.com.

It's all pretense, fakery, copycats.

That's enough salt for today. I can write books full of bullshitting photographers.

> While they were juggling, I was shooting. Less is more.

Why not just bring a phone then? Why a dedicated camera?

Because it wasn't minimalism he was after.

Great article. Pedantic point, but the 35mm lens on his APSC body is equivalent to 50mm on a full frame, not APSC as the article says.

I fail to see how owning a $6000 Leica 'limits' anyone, aside from your bank account. Part of me is happy that the photography industry has been disrupted by the quality cameras in cellphones these days.

>I fail to see how owning a $6000 Leica 'limits' anyone

Any single camera/lens is a constraint. The price kept him from choosing the Leica. With the Leica, you're forced into a different set of constraints. It's a monochrome camera, with no ability to do color. In the same situation, I'd be tempted to shoot everything and then mix down to monochrome afterwards.

Some people deliberately shoot on the "Diana" camera, which is horrible.[1] They feel the limitations of the camera force them to be creative.

The author went with a Fuji which does color, but likely keeps it set in monochrome mode.

>Part of me is happy that the photography industry has been disrupted by the quality cameras in cellphones these days.

DSLRs are far, far better sensor/lens systems than you'll ever pack into a phone. It is sad that the economies of scale are no longer going to be available to help push the DSLR form factor any more. That is the extent of the disruption. DSLRs will always be better in the technical and optical sense than a cell phone camera... with one exception

the golden rule of the best camera

The best camera is the one you actually have with you

I had a X-Pro3 before. But I don't like the screen after using for 6 months. Because sometimes I take photos vertically.

I use XT4 now. It's awesome.

Using prime (not zoom lenses) tend to aid in 'mental' composition that preceeds the physical composition.

A person who had trained themselves taking (and reviewing) 100s or 1000s of pictures of one particular camera, and one or 2 particular lenses of fixed focal length (prime lenses) -- would have developed a mental model of how a given picture will look, before they take it.

It is that 'pre-physical' mental modeling maturity, that allows experienced photographers to transition to artists (same is for film development and analog printing processes, as well) and stay minimalist at that (as far as gear).

Camera makers are aware of this I think.

This is why cameras with non-detachable, single focal length (prime) lenses are very popular, at any time.

Before it was Yashica Electro 45 [1], now it is Richo GRIII [2] (as examples).

It is also notable that camera makes who make popular SLRs/mirroless cameras such as Nikons, look for current/modern trends of what a 'favorite focal lenght of a lens' is.

For example Nikon recently announced that they will be making 26mm pancake lenth for their Z mirrorless line.

26mm is an 'unusual' focal length, the standard wide-angle is 28mm. And these lenses are usually not pancakes (pancake means very slim / thin lenses that are barely sticking out of the camera body).

But this 26mm focal length is the length (equivalent) of an iphone camera. That's clearly why they are picking this unusual focal length -- and making a optically high quality lens that will fit their full-frame Z range of cameras.

The full frame camera sensor (or even APS-C sized or m4/3 sized sensors) allow to take pictures in low light situations with out flash, while still autofocusing reasonably fast -- much better than with a phone camera.

I would also not be surprised if Nikon would also develop a new Z camera body that will be just big (small) enough to just host these small lenses and that will have perfect integration with phone and pocketable.

So that the camera can utilize this lens, creating much better low-light opportunities without a flash (allowing the photography be more discrete, and take advantage of natural shadows in composition).

They will have to solve battery dimension issues (full frame mirrorless requires more power than a smaller sensor.)

Nikon, I suspect, will also probably enable the post processing to utilize new or (even app-store like) filters to add various effects.

Point I wanted to make is that fixed focal length, single lens, single camera -- enables 'trends', mental-model training and probably other interesting features in the whole word of photography that I do not have words for.

Camera makers certainly know this.

So minimalism in that sense is great, but requires a lot of training and practice :-)

[1] http://www.yashica-guy.com/document/chrono.html [2] https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/gr-3/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com