What Type of Photographer Are You?

You can tell a lot about a photographer from the lenses he or she uses. Here are a few of my own personal observations based on the types of non-pro photographers I'm most familiar with. Yes, I'm stereotyping, but that's the whole point. That said, please don't interpret these observations as moral judgements. There are no “right” or “wrong” choices in this list, at least not in the absolute sense; just indicators of a certain frame of mind. So with this brief prelude, here’s the list:

The Purist—The Purist’s motto is “Less is more.” He therefore carries only one lens and it’s almost always a fixed focal length. The advantage of this approach, as he sees it, is that he becomes intimately familiar with the way a particular lens “draws” a scene, its angle of view, its strengths and its weaknesses. Purists can see a scene and know exactly how it will photograph with their lens of choice. Anything they should happen to see that can’t be shot with The One Lens simply isn’t worth shooting.

The Prime Fetishist—The Prime Fetishist’s motto is “It’s all about the lens.” A Fetishist is easy to mistake for a Purist because they both shoot only with primes. The difference is that the Prime Fetishist owns many primes; the more obscure, exotic, and hard to find the better. Unpronounceable names (such as Goerz Dagor or Apo-Apocalypse) earn bonus points. Any given scene can best be interpreted by only one particular lens, which must then be mounted to a camera with an equally obscure adapter. The Fetishist’s main challenge is finding a subject worthy of his lenses.

The Lugger—The Lugger’s motto is “Be prepared.” With that in mind, he (and it’s always a he) carries enough glass during his photo excursions to cover every focal length from super-wide angle to telephoto, with macro capability thrown in for good measure. Zooms are his optics of choice because they are so “practical and versatile.” A standard accessory includes a bottle of Motrin to dull the pain radiating from their back and shoulders. Luggers favor cameras with good low-light performance because by the time they have everything sorted out and are ready to shoot, the sun has begun to set.

The Artist—The Artist’s motto is “It’s just a lens.” They therefore take pride in using what other photographers would politely refer to as “junk.” Equipment that’s twenty years old, dented, scratched and worn offers evidence of continuous use for Artist Purposes, even if it was bought at a yard sale the week before. As for the results, where you see flaws the Artist sees “style and character.”

The Kit-Zoomer—Kit-Zoomers don’t really have a motto. They just use the lens that came with the camera and make the best of it. They zoom until the image in the viewfinder looks pretty good and then they click the shutter. If zooming doesn’t do the trick they move closer or further away, if they can. Kit-Zoomers take an equally casual attitude toward lens aperture, which is probably just as well: Kit-zooms are so slow there are only four full stops to choose from anyway. This freedom from the boring details of photographic technique frees Kit-Zoomers to produce photographs that, much to their surprise and delight, are acceptably sharp and well-exposed.

So the question for today is, did I leave anyone out? More importantly, which one of these types are you?

Comments

[Andrew Fildes]

It used to be said that amateurs argue about cameras, enthusiasts about lenses and pro photogs about tripods, lighting, film, etc because they had the first two well worked out to their own satisfaction. Nothing seems to have changed.

[Heather]

There's another category of fetishist out there: The Zoom Fetishist. Basically it's the same as the prime fetishist, but attached to his or her camera is a high quality zoom. I am one of these most of the time (not that I don't appreciate a quality prime). Usually, if I'm taking only one lens on an outing, it's the Canon L 24-105/4 IS on my 40D.

When I go on vacation, I tend to be a lugger, as I don't want to miss anything. :)

[Earl]

I believe one can progress from type to type. At one point I was a definite lugger but I'm moving more toward being a purist. But, who knows, perhaps at that point I'll bounce back and become a lugger again. I've never been one to fit categories anyway. :-)

[alex-virt]

Borrowed an old, all metal Mamiya 645 with 80/1.9 yesterday. Even with one lens it's rather heavy, so for the next few weeks I am both Purist and Lugger :)

[Lesley]

Great post! And a great shot at the top of the post.
I have been a purist and a lugger (and a female lugger at that). Now I'm more likely to be XVIIarcano's illuminated version of the travel shutterbug.
What's next?

[Lou Doench]

I was a kit-zoomer for a long time. Actually, the zoom I used on my D1x almost exclusively was the AF 28-105m Macro, which is hardly a kit zoom, but that's pretty much how I used it. Now I own a Pentax 40mm LTD lens, and I'm becoming a bit of a fetishist.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Clearly I'm a lugger! I was out Sunday with a friend, and my two bags included lenses from 8mm to 400mm, a 1.4x extender, two flashes, a computer, a macro lens, and a body that's superb in low light. (The bag with the computer and 120-400mm zoom, convenient and versatile, never actually left the trunk of the car. But I shot from 12mm to 200 x 1.4 (on a full-frame body), so I don't feel TOO bad about taking that much stuff. And I didn't know precisely how the shoot was going to go, my friend was doing commercial assignments and I was doing "making of" plus mixing in a bit when I wouldn't be in the way plus targets of opportunity.)

No ibuprofen in the bag, though, nor did I need it. But I'm fairly young, only 55.

[Gordon Lewis]

David,

In practice, I distinguish between "luggers-by-choice" and "luggers-by-profession." On a paid location shoot, a pro photographer can't afford not to have on hand every piece of equipment he or she needs. If the budget is big enough, the pro can also afford to pay an assistant to do the actual lugging. It's different for amateurs: We don't get paid, we almost always have to carry everything ourselves, and we seldom need half the crap we're carrying.

Personally, I only carry the bare minimum I need. I'd rather miss the occasional shot or two than feel weighted down with equipment.

[Christopher Lane]

Hi Gordon,

Even more importantly, which type are you?

Looking forward to that print.

Chris

[Gordon Lewis]

"which type are you?"

I was wondering when someone would ask. I would describe myself as a modified Purist, also known as a Minimalist. I try to use the least amount of equipment I can and I try to keep it as light and portable as possible without getting into pocket camera territory (only because I don't care for the viewfinders).

I'm normally seen with only one camera and one lens, which is either a wide or normal prime with a maximum aperture no slower than f/2.8. When I'm in the mood or when necessary, I'll also carry a small telephoto zoom or a portable flash unit, but that's about it. If the total weight in my bag is anything over five pounds (2kg) then someone has to pay me to carry it--not because I can't, but because I don't see the point. I know from experience that 90 percent of my best personal (non-pro) work is done with the equipment I've just described, regardless of brand or whether it's film or digital.

As for the other ten percent, well, my philosophy is that I miss photo opportunities every minute I don't have a camera in my hands, so why lose sleep over lost opportunities when I DO have a camera? (This is a rhetorical question, BTW. If you have any good reasons why I should lose sleep, I politely request that you keep them to yourselves.)

P.S. I'm shipping the prints today. Thanks again for your purchase.

[Semilog]

Aha! The Pragmatic Purist.

[David H]

I used to be a lugger until I finally realized that the only thing I got out of it was sore and extra tired. Probably missed more opportunities from hauling all that weight up and down mountains.

I guess I would be a sorta purist now, but I only carry one or two lenses which I know I will use. If I should ever (haven't yet) missed some great chance because I was not carrying my fisheye and 400mm or whatever, I'll probably live with the disappointment. It'll be a lot easier to live with that than all the missed chances I would have because I got too tired to go where, or do what I wanted.

[Dissertation Abstract]

Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!

[Herman Stehouwer]

Like many before me I cannot be simply rammed into one of these categories.

I am more like a purist than anything else.
However I don't have only one prime, I have three.

(and one telezoom, but that is for concerts)

[Sam Townsend]

Hm. Not sure if I fit in any category. Most of the time, I walk around with just my da* 16-50/f2.8 on the camera. It's way better than any kit lens, if not as pure as a prime. Maybe need a new category, 'the utilitarian'. I usually only go out with one lens, but it changes, but my goal is to have the most useful lens for what I'm shooting on that particular day. Somedays that's the 50-135, or the 300/f4, or a fast prime (35/f2, 50/1.5 etc). I don't like lugging lots of lenses around with me, but I like having them available if I need them.

[Paul Ferguson]

You forgot the other type of "Purist", of which my wife is a full-fledged member. She carries only an iPhone, and has been taking more photos recently than I have, despite my bagful of bodies and lenses...

[Steve Smith]

I'm all of them except the last one. But not all at the same time.

[Justin Watt]

I'm a purist who will probably one day grow up to become a prime fetishist, all the while striving to be an artist.

[J Hayes]

I used to be a prime fetishist - bought a M2 with Summilux 35 and Elmarit 90 in the early 60s and found they did everything I wanted. When I went SLR in the 70s, it was 28 mm and a tele zoom. When Tamron introduced the 28-200 in the early 90s, I was hooked.
(I also used a Minox 35 that I carried around the world many times in my briefcase.)
With the advent of digital cameras and digital lens design, the superzooms are even more useful, especially since you can DXO the images to remove most of the imperfections of the camera/lens combination. And the slowness is compensated by the ability of cameras to pump up the sensitivity, way beyond what we used to push Tri-X and Ektacrome to.
So what am I? I'm a techie superzoomer - trained as a physicist/astronomer - who upgrades every year or two to get the latest stuff, relies on software to help remove imperfections in the image but abhors the Photoshop jockies who over-process everything.
And you know what, all this new stuff produces photographs just about as good as I got with the Leica almost 50 years ago!