If you try hard to see yourself objectively, how balanced are you?
Note that I'm talking here about your interest in gear and your own personal practice of taking pictures—you, making your own pictures in whatever way, shape or form you do it.
I've known, or known of, people smack in the middle at zero—interested in both equally—and others who are way out toward one end or the other—those who care so much about gear that they don't even take pictures at all (certain collectors, photo-scientists, some camera store owners, some repair people, etc.), and those who areway into photographing but they don't even think about gear at all any more. Longtime readers will remember this story: we got a nice portfolio at the magazine once from a woman way out in the rural parts of the Plains States, and when I asked her what kind of camera she used, she said, "I don't know...would you like me to go look?" It was a 35mm Pentax, as it turned out, but she didn't know that offhand. But she had an outstanding eye.
I have to score myself pretty well here...I'm fairly balanced. But forced to be objective, I'm probably a little more interested in gear than I am in taking pictures. Just a little. I'd score myself maybe 10 or 15 toward "Gear" on the scale. (If it's not obvious, the larger hash marks are increments of 10, the smaller ones increments of 5.)
Mike
P.S. TOP doesn't publish on Saturdays, while Yr. Hmbl. Ed. catcheth up on ye olde housework, yardwork, bills, taxes, errands, etc.
Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
John Krumm: "We need another axis pointing to obsessed and casual, something like that, so you can be both gear obsessed and photography obsessed! The internet demands precision."
Bill Akstens: "I was a 95 on the Photographing side, because I buy a new camera maybe every ten years and I'm quite happy with what I have. Then you posted about the Fujifilm GFX100RF, which looks like a really fun camera. So now I'm a 90."
Peter Williams: "Once I have the tools for the job I'm 90 on the photography side. But if I decide to try a new subject/genre, I'll be 90 on the gear side until I've sorted a lens or whatever for that use."
Jed: "I have to agree with Bill because I'm still using and loving my trusty X-T1 and 35mm ƒ/1.4 that I bought ten years ago (highly influenced by you), but today I'm going on a Fujifilm workshop and get to try out the GFX100RF and X-T5. I'm so excited that I may have slid down to 0, maybe even onto the gear scale."
Bob Johnston [no relation to Mike]: "I would put myself around the 50 mark toward Photographing. My first priority is to make pictures and print them. However, I am a retired engineer and have always had an interest in what makes gear tick. I don't buy new stuff very often though, as I can't afford to do so. The fact that photography is a fusion of art and engineering makes it a perfect hobby for me."
Paul: "At this point, I mostly read about both. When my kids were growing up, I had my inspiration. Juggling the crazy schedule, I managed to capture some great memories. Never purchased a new camera. Now that I can afford one, my inspiration is not there. Photography is fun to read about as well as scan the gear offered today. It has always been a hobby when time allows, so it's quite difficult to justify the cost of most offerings today."
Mike Shwarts: "I lean towards photography. I do think about gear a lot. However, my thoughts on gear are what photos can I get with new gear that I can't get with what I own. That new lens is enticing, but only if it helps be get the photo I want."
SteveW: "Funny thing for me is that since I've been mostly using my iPhone for photography that I'm pretty much 100 on the Photographing spectrum. (Otherwise, prior to dedicating myself to the iPhone camera I'd be somewhere in the Gear range, probably 50). If photography software counts as gear, then 90 for photographing and 10 for gear."
David Raboin: "The graph should be a triangle with 'organization' forming the third access. Or, maybe a make the diagram a square with the forth access being 'sharing.'
"Organization can encompass everything from planning your photo outings to how you manage your catalog of photos. Organization can also mean having an ongoing photo project or group of projects. Without organization, one's photography results in a nebulous heap of photo files. Without organization photography can become a source of anxiety and futility. Right now, I'm building a slide show and album for my daughters graduation. I find myself both cursing and thanking my former self as I search through my stack of hard drives. On the organization front, I did some things right and a lot of things wrong.
"Sharing is also important. An artist needs feedback. Today, it's easy to share on social media but it's important to remember that social media is a terrible platform for sharing art. On social media subtlety and quiet contemplation are drowned out. As a photographer, you must find ways to share your work on your own terms. That might mean large prints, a book, zine, or a collage print meant for the refrigerator door.
"Shopping gear and taking photos are the fun parts of photography. Organizing is a pain in the neck. Organizing is why this hobby loses to smart phones. Out of all the young people I introduce to photography, most give up because handling files across devices is clumsy and maintaining a catalog of photos is a nightmare. The sugar rush of photography is snapping the picture and posting it on social media. Nobody wants to eat their broccoli. If Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Adobe came up with a storage and tagging solution that was as convenient as a phone, they'd rule the market. Transferring files from a card to a computer is so 2003."
G Dan Mitchell: "To frame this a bit more broadly: Are you more interested in eating at a restaurant where the chef’s focus is on replacing all of the knives every year with the latest knives that are .1% sharper, or at the restaurant with the chef who focuses on the best and most imaginative cooking? Or going to a piano recital by a musician who is always careful to own the very best piano and tunes it to .001 Herz accuracy, or the one whose virtuoso playing is legendary? Photography, like most human endeavors, makes use of technologies. But what is expressed though the use of those technologies transcends the technologies themselves."
Mike replies: Hey, no fair, you're being sensible! :-)
Benjamin Marks (partial comment): "Oof. I didn't know there would be a test. This is an unexpectedly deep question. I am not a collector, but I have a collection. Mainly this is because I am terrible at getting rid of things. But I am also (or perhaps this last quality makes me) a gearhead. I have more cameras than I need. But also more fountain pens, more safety razors, more watches, more kitchen knives, more pocket knives, more spatulas...you get the idea. It is less than healthy, but not quite hoarding. Rich people have money, and poor people have things...."
Mike replies: Here are the first few paragraphs from a post I wrote a year ago:
In 2021 (probably as a COVID distraction) I decided to start wearing a watch again. But I needed a watch. Just one. I bought, um, eight.
Last year, I decided I could make myself happier if I learned to enjoy all the everyday things I dislike doing. High on the list was to learn how to enjoy shaving. (I had always disliked shaving.) I looked into all kinds of shaving methods and decided to try "wet" shaving, the term of art for shaving with single old-fashioned double- and single-edged razor blades. Once I settled on that, I needed a razor. Again, just one. Instead, I bought a drawer full of supplies and...well, seven razors, eventually.
Sensing a trend?
Well, now I've bought three new computer keyboards. Please don't throw popcorn at me. I feel bad enough.
The number of offbeat keyboards I ended up buying? Seven. A fair amount of dosh went swirling down the drain. At least for "idealists," things accumulate when you're trying to find the "right" thing in any category. In my defense, I now use only one razor, a cheap antique; I alternate between two watches, one of them moderately expensive (~$400), although I could be happy owning just the expensive one (a Casio Oceanus that appears to be discontinued); and I've reverted to the current version of my longtime keyboard, which is being made again by Incase. I have one newish one that I'm using and two new ones waiting in reserve. So I did settle down with all the "things" listed above. I appear to have settled down with "main" cameras, too, since I got my converted-to-monochrome Sigma. I wish I had more time and money for photographing. I could do an epic project on the Finger Lakes.
Len Metcalf: "My father was way out on the camera end. When I opened my first gallery I asked if he had a few cameras to put in a display case. He had over fifty he’d collected over the years. Most were broken as he planned to repair them. After he passed I found another fifty or so in his workshop. There is only a handful of his prints. One of some trees he hand coloured and a few of my mother. Stunning, all of them. So a hundred cameras and three finished prints.
"Me, I try not to be at the gear end but unfortunately I enjoy studying what the latest and greatest is. I spent years studying lenses and cameras and trying different ones. When I was into large format this was an expensive operation. And so many mistakes at first.
"But I do have one favourite lens. And I use it for most of my work. Let’s say 98% of my work. I dream of my next purchase and spend time finding out about the possibilities. My archive is huge and is causing me all sorts of problems in Lightroom. 800,000 images in there now. So I am no slouch on the taking end. Fifteen exhibitions. Published four books and 25 journals. So my output is still consistently high.
"All in all I have to put myself in the middle."
Mike replies: Sounds good. But...you're not going to tell us what your favorite lens is? :-)
William: "I am so crazy I will buy a lens with just one photograph in mind. It's not that I am flush with cash, but I work as a photographer so can find ways of justifying this behaviour. I think this image/lens fixation amounts to a zero on the scale. I do rent equipment but many of the things I am after are pre-digital and also I am a repeat visit kind of photographer so if renting is possible it soon adds up. Just bought a 120mm Hasselblad Planar S in chrome to solve a particular problem for one artwork, oh dear; however it is a very delightful thing."
Mike replies: I like the way you think and can't perceive anything wrong with it. :-)
.
? I'd be interested to know what you think of it. 
, which is slowly winning me over to Mr. Max. (Mad Max? K? I daren't be too flippantly familiar, because he's out there, and he could find me....) Take this intro to one essay, for example: 
at random (and, as an aside, what do people think of that?) from time to time reminds me that it's been a long time since I really read much photography criticism for pleasure, or indeed for any other reason than self-improvement. I read out of duty, now, mostly. 
, introductions to monographs, 
maybe? Time for a poll:
is a very approachable introduction to the conventions and jargon of criticism for interested amateurs, and it's often used as a college level text on the subject. After reading it at least you'll know what academics are talking about. Michael Fried's 
is a turgid, tendentious book-length essay arguing that huge cinematically constructed photographs by Jeff Wall, Gregory Crewdson et al are the most significant art on the planet. Hookay.
by Philip Gefter is a cut-and-paste collection of old articles and new essays that tries to connect Robert Frank's The Americans to subsequent "post modern thought" and confections like Jeff Wall's; the corpse doesn't quite fit into the coffin, but some sections are interesting. Ian Jeffrey's 
turns out instead to be more like "how I personally read a photograph," wherein the author draws all sorts of unsustainable or frankly imaginary conclusions from "readings" of images famous and obscure.
(2002) is a bit dated now, but contains some very enjoyable essays on photographic craft and art. Vicki Goldberg's 
is a collection of her essays across several decades; some are really good, others not so much. Overall they lack the elegance and coherence of A.D. Coleman or the deep thought behind 
