DP, I feel so utterly and pained by what you said!
Personally, I think light modifyers are among the 'sexiest' things around! FAAAAR sexier than any techno gizmo in fact.
I just wished I could afford more, and bring along more on shoots!
Can you imagine a 8ft Octabox fired through a diffusion panel? Or a simple set of independent flags or gobos?
And who can deny the intrinsic mystery of a grid-spot and what it can do to a picture?
One of the main problems is that very often, enthusiasts (and even some pros) are caught up with the 'latest and greatest' as opposed to the the 'whatever fufills the technical need'.
It's endemic in just about all forms of hobbies I've seen, perhaps more so where it involves technologically advanced equipment (look at Tennis racquet technology - read the stuff that goes into a modern tennis racquet and you'll be forgiven if you thought you were reading an article on rocket building science).
That's why advertising and marketing is always emotionally geared (and techno based). I guess for more technical pursuits, it's a 'EmoTech' sell. And it works! Manufacturers the world over know this all too well, and make billions of dollars based on this simple fact alone.
Some of the commercial togs I've worked with have some of the most appalling looking equipment, at least cosmetically speaking. Pieces of cardboard held by bits and blobs of blu-tac, tripods that look like they went through WWIII and cameras that are held together with masking tape (gaffer is too expensive, and therefore considered an unnecessary expense). And the never ending sheets and rolls of tracing paper held by the humble bull clips associated more with frumpy secretaries.
To be fair, there are togs who are actually interested in learning more about light, which is why in the past, clubs and societies organised studio lighting classes. It's probably since been taken over by commercial interests, but still, at least it exists.
Numerous books, internet articles and lengthly discussions exist solely talking about the most crucial ingredient of photography - LIGHT! It's qualities, how to re-create it and perhaps just as important as it's existance, how to control or modify it instead of letting it control us.
I see mastering light akin to mastering the calligraphy brush.
It takes a few seconds to pick up a calligraphy brush and swash some ink on a piece of paper.
But it takes dedication, discipline, and a long, ardous journey fuelled by passion and tempered with restraint before a calligrapher learns how to control the brush. But before the brush can be mastered (if ever), the artist must learn about the crucial ingredient (technically speaking) - the INK. Which is why the real masters source ingredients and grind and mix their own inks.
I see the ink in calligraphy as being similar to light in photography. The brush as the camera equipment and the paper as the film, or sensor.We live in a Maggie Mee society driven by instant gratification. Which is why everything is geared towards automation. That in itself is not a bad thing. Efficacy, productivity and increased output, apart from profits is the usual result. As always, there a price to pay - an over-reliance on automation, and a collective lowering of understanding the fundamentals, or a lacksidal dismissal of it's importance.
The fast-forward society also propogates another deficiency -
a lack of passion and dedication, or tolerance for hard work. Like it or not, great work in life is hardly ever a 'simply press one button' affair as much as manufacturers would have you believe.
But hey, we have sexy tech to take care of that ... right?
